Catholics, is the rumor true that the Catholic Church forbid the Catholics to read the Bible?

Question

by the way, when did that rumor start, and from where?

Lonnie P is one of the examples of people spreading that rumor. that's how I got to hear that kind of rumor. that's why I am now asking. thank you for your answers.

Answer 1

Where in the world did you hear that? I've never head of that ridiculous notion...

Answer 2

Not exactly.

Catholics were forbidden to interpret the bible on their own, in a vacuum, with no scholarly training. This is because the Bible is a complex work, and once it got translated into different languages -- translations are NEVER word-for-word accurate; it's impossible -- people had a tendency to go willy-nilly and start interpreting Scripture to suit their own personal follies. This is still happening today as evidenced by the thousands of Christian denominations in the world today. It's the Tower of Babel all over again.

The other thing is, the Bible was written by hand until the modern printing press was invented in the 15th century. It took many years to write out a bible because every page had to be double- and triple-checked for error and if there was even one mistake, the page was burned and the scribe had to start anew. So all the Bibles were highly valuable and were limited to being owned by the Church. That way, everybody could go to church and somebody would read from the Bible so they all could hear it and learn from it, and then the trained priest would provide some help in understanding it (in the homily).

Even after the printing press was invented, paper was stinking expensive, so Bibles still were cost-prohibitive for ordinary folk. Cheap, affordable paper that made cheap, affordable Bibles didn't come around until the late 19th century. Which, btw, is why most of the world was illiterate for the longest time. There was nothing to read so there was no need to learn how to read. The only way you knew the Bible was by going to church and listening to it.

Sometimes I hear people say that Catholics were not allowed to read the Bible until Vatican II. Not true. In fact, I have my grandmother's family Bible. It is from 1845, and it is printed in German. Her family had this Bible in their own language long before Vatican II and it was purchased as a wedding gift for the first couple who owned it because that was an established tradition.

I personally think the rumors about Catholics not reading the Bible -- sometimes to the extent that people think we don't even have Scripture reading at Church, when we actually have more than many Protestants! -- I think that rumor was started by a U.S. evangelical who was purposely lying to try to discredit Catholicism. I have no idea who it was, though. It is very easy to disprove, but even people here at Y!A think it's true.

Answer 3

The Church has never forbidden the reading of the Bible, such speculation are at best ignorant and at worst an outright prevarification. The facts are that the bible was not redily available before the printing press and it was very expensive for people to own. One was luck if their parish had one and if it did , it was usually chained or guarded so that it could not be stolen but available to everyone.

Latin for most of the Church history is the language of the Church. Al of the Catholic laity understood Latin and one could go anywhere in the world and understand the Mass. Today being in the vernacular that is not possible. There are those, myself included, that desire a return to the Latin Mass. Personally, I usually use the Tridentine Mass which is in Latin. Those in my congregation who do not understand Latin have a English and Tagalog translation to follow. Most understand Latin.

The only bible reading that was ever banned by the Church are those scholarly translations that perverted the Gospel. The Church actually published some of the first vernacular translations. Someone has already mentioned the Douay Rheims. translation of the Bible.

Someone mentioned that Filipino Catholics are unknowledgeable of the Scriptures. Actually, some are, but biblical scholarship in the Philippines surpasses the scholarship in most of the world. I am constantly challenged by members of my congregation. Most of whom are reverts to Catholicism from Protestant and other heretical sects such as Iglesia ni Cristo and Ang Dating Daan (Church of Christ International).

The fact is that when the Church has acted in this matter it has acted in the defense of Scripture and the truth it contains against heresy.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 4

I don't know the origin of this nonsense but it's been around for a long time
and never made any sense as the inventor of the printing press,Gutenburg was a Catholic and the first thing printed WAS The Bible which made it available to people.
During the Liturgy, according to the day it is,certain Scriptures are read publicly and anyone holding a Missal could read along as well...
This rumor never made any sense and probably is just directly connected to the mythology/prejudice that Catholics know absolutely nothing about the Bible when the reality is that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ- not man ,and when noncatholics do a prayerful and proper reading of the Bible,they see the Truth is expressed 100% in that religion.

Answer 5

It was a consequence of history. The Church never forbade the reading of scripture, it just wasn't always accommodating to the general public.

After the Western Roman Empire collapsed, people became isolated. The literature remained in Latin, but the people were developing new languages, French, Spanish and such. They were speaking, not reading or writing, so books were not only rare but incomprehensible to them.

But the Church had not collapsed. The Church was what was left of civilization. Its scholars understood the Bible and remembered all the doctrinal wars fought over it in the 3rd and 4th centuries. The stained glass windows of the medieval cathedrals kept the common people familiar with the people of the Bible and the sermons and morality plays taught them what was important.

With the Renaissance came the rise of the middle class and the invention of the printing press. Suddenly books were available as never before, and more people were learning to read, in their own languages. Many people wanted to be able to read the Bible on their own schedule rather than the Church's. And some began to look on the Church's paternality as intellectual oppression.

In the late 14th Century, John Wycliff translated the Latin Vulgate Bible into English and began to preach from it, despite not being a clergyman. For his theological irresponsibility he was condemned. In 16th Century, Erasmus secured a few worn out Greek Bibles, made a fair copy from them, and translated his own Latin Bible, which he made available to others who translated it into German and English, completely outside of Rome's control. This was one of the founding eventsof the Protestant Reformation.

The Church condemned these amateur and unauthorized translations, but eventually realized that people would always read scripture in the vernacular if they had a chance. It finally produced an official English Bible (from the Vulgate), the Douay-Rheims, in 1609, two years before the King James version.

Since then, it has been a matter of culture. Protestants naturally reject all pre-interpretation of the scriptures. Even theologically unsophisticated readers are often encouraged to form their own opinions. For Catholics, the Church has already done the heavy lifting. Its magisterial wisdom is available to help get the believer through any difficult reading. And whose to say which system is better?

In the early 20th Century, a new Catholic translation of the Vulgate, the Knox Bible, was produced, but it seemed superfluous to many Catholics. Then in 1943, Pius XII wrote "Divino Aflante Spiritu", finally allowing Catholic scholars to use the same analytical tools for Biblical interpretation that Protestants had for nearly a century. This led to a new translation, NOT from the Vulgate. During the process, the liturgical reforms of Vatican II greatly expanded the number of Old Testament readings in the Catholic liturgical calendar, introducing Catholics to a lot more Bible. When the New American Bible (not to be confused with the NASB) was published, it (and the Jerusalem Bible) initiated a new promotion of Biblical reading and study among Catholics. Conservatives still worried that the footnotes wouldn't be enough to protect orthodoxy, but brave rank-and-file Catholics finally began to explore this mysterous book on their own and in small groups.

Again, the Church didn't discourage reading scripture, but it didn't exactly encourage it either. Protestant suspicion of the Catholic magisterium probably did much to promote the rumor and Catholic ignorance of scripture did little to dispell it. There was even a language problem. In the Douay, all the names were Latinized, so Noah was Noe, Hosea was Osee and Habakkuk-- well, never mind. It was hard to recognize the players until people started using the same names.

Catholics still don't know their Bible as well as their Protestant bretheren, but the initial embarrassment has been wearing off and they are slowly catching up.

Answer 6

In the middle ages many people were illiterate.

Also, the printing press was not yet invented so Bibles were hand-copied.

Lay-people were allowed to read Bibles.

This myth came about after the printing-press was invented.

Although their were Bibles in print other people started changing the text.

The Church did not forbid people from reading the
"true Bible" but they did forbid people from reading mistranslated text of bibles.

This of course was to prevent the faithful from being misled by false doctrine.

Their is even a mistranslation called the "murderers Bible.

You know the verse "spare the rod and nurture the child"

That Bible recorded God as saying "spare the rod and murder the child".

Protestants who were prejudiced against the Church took these incidences and conveniently omitted some parts of history to bring scandal to the Church.

Answer 7

The Catholic Chutch NEVER discouraged independent reading of the Bible. Having said that, the Church has always warned people NEVER to trust one's own interpretation of the BIble.

Back in the Middle Ages, literacy was a hard thing to come by. Only a minority could read, and this minority often read the Scriptures to those who could not read them.

Nothing inherently wrong with this EXEPT for the fact that the reader often imparted his/her own interpretation of Scriptures as "gospel" itself.

While most readers were good honest people, this does not guarantee that their Biblical interpretation is going to be good and honest.

Therefore, the Church actively began to stress the fact that It, not the individual, is responsible for interpreting the Bible.

Nowadays, many people with anti-Catholic chips on their shoulders. want you to believe the Church actively discouraged independent reading of the Bible, when all it readlly discouraged was independent interpretation.

Answer 8

It was keep secretely by the church leaders not to show the originality of the Bibles during the period thousand years ago. Catholic origin was from Jerusalem and not in Rome, Italy. It was the Romanian Emperors when accepted catholicism that spread like quantum and was brought to Europe and the rest of the world. During the Romanian emperors that time who manipulated what majority of phrases in the Bibles today. The Vatican Council. They selected among the authors of the Bibles according to their dictations as that's how todays Bible lost its originality including Old and new Testaments were majoirty human phrases that caused numerous errors. Never the true and original gospel from author like Barnabas was considered. Now Bibles today depended on what the writters in mind such as John, Luke, Mark, Timothy and even Martin Luther and then the Catholic leaders have to revise according to their wish to accomodate todays' way of life through generations...

Answer 9

That was during the time that the gospel left this earth. Most people don't know of these things. The woman took the man child into the wilderness for 1260 days. Then the reformation started with King James having the scriptures written for all to know' Then about 1830 the restoration came with pure Gospel of Jesus Christ came back.

Answer 10

It's true that that's a false rumor. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Second Vatican Council actually took special care to emphasize that the laity should read Holy Scriptures.

Where did the rumor start? Who knows, but it wasn't out of love.

Answer 11

It's true. All the comments regards the middle ages are right on. The church tried to keep the lay people from reading the bible. Possessing one was a crime.

Most of the current catholics don't know that history, as is apparent on this thread. I went to Catholic school, and was raised Catholic.

The Church is afraid of the scriptures, and as a couple of others said, it was only for the priests to read. The church was adamant about keeping the scriptures out of the common languages used by it's people. Thus why they stuck by the mass in Latin all these years.

Vatican II in just 1965 eased some of the restrictions, but the church was no friend of the bible.

I agree with Lonnie P also.

EDIT: For all those very silly, and (typically) not well informed Catholics on this thread here's a quote from Pope Gregory VII c1079 when Vratislaus, who later became king of Bohemia, asked permission to translate the bible into the language of his people: “It is clear to those who reflect often upon it, that not without reason has it pleased Almighty God that holy scripture should be a secret in certain places, lest, if it were plainly apparent to all men, perchance it would be little esteemed and be subject to disrespect; or it might be falsely understood by those of mediocre learning, and lead to error"

Oh... the Pope said "no!" He wanted the scriptures kept in the then already dead language of Latin, so that the average Joe couldn't read it, and find out what a crock, the Catholic church was teaching them.

EDIT 2: Wow, I can't believe how unknowledgeable the catholics are around here about their own church's history. (And we won't even talk about the church's 'special' relation with that German dude) But to have some outside authority on what I'm (and others) are alluding to, I put an outside reference for you. This in hope your eyes might be opened to the huge failings of the church I was born into.