Was Bible Possession banned by the Catholic Church

[Wrangler]

Without the Catholic Church, you don't have a Bible.

That's true from a certain POV. The Roman Catholic Church in its current form did not exist until 1054.

The Bible is NOT a work product of the RCC; it is a compilation of the Jewish Holy Texts and Apostolic writings. Sadly, the RCC, which I grew up with, has become corrupt. Exhibit A is their claim of equal authority to writings of those who walked with Christ, heard him speak and gave eye witness testimony of their Acts.

The RCC has done good but their corrupting hubris is the root cause of Christian denomination, allowing the Adversary to supplant Christianity with secular humanism in Western Civilization. Pope John Paul II was correct when he said it has adopted a culture of death. Corruption and death. Predictable as night following day.

 

[Wrangler]

I think you have missed @Augustin56's point -- which was that if a theological tenet needs to be found in Scripture in order to be considered true

No, I flat out reject @Augustin56's Strawman; No one ever claimed Sola Scriptura was in Scripture. Sola Scriptura is less a theological tenet and more of a political tenet, rejecting the corruption of the RCC. This is the proper context and orientation to understand Sola Scriptura.

Getting back to the OP, odd that the Catholic Church takes credit for the Bible's existence while also banning its possession and reading.

 

[RedFan]

Were American Catholics "illiterate" until 1961?

Well, you could make the case that if all a Catholic has access to is a Latin Bible... but that wont work.

why?

Because the ENGLISH version "Douay Rheims" bible, was completed in the early 1600's.

So, do you have any other way to try to hide the fact that the cult of mary is a cult?

You dont have the tools, and the more you try to defend deception, the worse it becomes.

I was raised Roman Catholic. In America. I was illiterate until 1961 (I was born in 1954, and had picked up reading by age seven). But I never really read the Bible in any disciplined way, although we had one in the house, until much later. What I knew of the Bible was largely from attending Mass and from whatever snippets might have emerged from twelve years of Catholic school education. Bible study simply wasn't emphasized.

But nor was it discouraged. If your thesis is that the RCC discouraged Bible study, you'd better show me some evidence, because that wasn't my experience.

 

[Augustin56]

Were American Catholics "illiterate" until 1961?

Well, you could make the case that if all a Catholic has access to is a Latin Bible... but that wont work.

why?

Because the ENGLISH version "Douay Rheims" bible, was completed in the early 1600's.

So, do you have any other way to try to hide the fact that the cult of mary is a cult?

You dont have the tools, and the more you try to defend deception, the worse it becomes.

The vast majority of humanity was illiterate until the latest 100 years, give or take. You're caught in a meme of reading and self-interpreting the Scriptures, which St. Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20-21. At every Catholic Mass, however, the Scriptures are read and explained to the congregation. Faith comes by "hearing" the Word of God. (Romans 10:17) Catholics have never been deprived of the Word of God.

 

[Behold]

I was raised Roman Catholic. In America. I was illiterate until 1961 (I was born in 1954, and had picked up reading by age seven). But I never really read the Bible in any disciplined way, although we had one in the house, until much later. What I knew of the Bible was largely from attending Mass and from whatever snippets might have emerged from twelve years of Catholic school education. Bible study simply wasn't emphasized.

But nor was it discouraged. If your thesis is that the RCC discouraged Bible study, you'd better show me some evidence, because that wasn't my experience.

Here is the thing.
I dont need to research this issue.

you do..

Let me give you a place to start...

The CC actually discourage the populace from reading the Bible on their own, a policy that intensified throughout the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of prohibition of translation of the Bible into native language.

The catholic church started allowing the bible to be read in English, in the 1960’s. Before that, the mass was in Latin.

 

[RedFan]

Here is the thing.
I dont need to research this issue.

you do..

Let me give you a place to start...

The CC actually discourage the populace from reading the Bible on their own, a policy that intensified throughout the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of prohibition of translation of the Bible into native language.

The catholic church started allowing the bible to be read in English, in the 1960’s. Before that, the mass was in Latin.

In my business it is the proponent of a proposition who bears the burden of proof on it. You are the one making the claim that Bibles were banned. You'll have to show me your research.

By the way, I remember the Latin Mass very well. Epistles and gospels were nevertheless always read in English.

 

[Peterlag]

I believe the Popes are children of the devil just as the Pharisees were...

Deuteronomy 13:13
the children of Belial,

Judges19:22
certain sons of Belial,

1 Samuel 2:12; 10:27; 30:22
Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial;

But the children of Belial said,

Then answered all the wicked men and men of Belial,

2 Samuel 20:1
And there happened to be there a man of Belial,

1 Kings 21:10
sons of Belial,

2 Chronicles 13:7
the children of Belial,

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil,

Acts 3:10
thou child of the devil,

1 John 3:12
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one,

Some of the religious leaders of Jesus’ time had committed the unforgivable sin and taken the devil as their god. Jesus identified these people as children of the devil and knowing that fact helps explain so much about them. It explains why they murdered innocent people, why they lied and bribed people, and why they could not rejoice even when something wonderful had occurred like the healing of a man who was born blind. It also explains why they perverted the Word of God and made it hard to obey it. People can be horrible sinners without taking the devil as their god and committing the unforgivable sin. Nevertheless, the Bible has a lot to say about people who have become children of the devil so we know how they are and that they always pervert the ways of God.

“people will be forgiven for every sin and defaming word, but the defaming of the Spirit will not be forgiven.” These words of Jesus Christ are very direct: “every” sin and defaming word can be forgiven except one, a sin he referred to as “defaming” or to “speak against” the Holy Spirit. The definition of “defaming” includes slander, speaking against God, or verbal abuse, and it's clear from comparing the above two verses that Christ is defining defaming as “speaking against” something. Jesus said there is one form of defaming against God that will never be forgiven, and he was referring to a specific defaming, not just speaking against God in general. Many people have at some time been angry at God due to the horrific circumstances of this fallen world, and many have spoken very harshly about God and/or to Him. In fact, it is safe to say that most people have even cursed at God, and yet when they ask for forgiveness, He forgives them. The same is true of other kinds of sin. Many people sin horribly against God but are later forgiven. But there is a defaming that will not be forgiven.

What we learn from the scope of Scripture is that the defaming that cannot be forgiven is a person saying, and truly meaning in the depths of their heart, that satan is the true god. The Bible reveals that the devil can have “children” that is, people who have a unique relationship with him that makes them different from other sinners whose sins can be forgiven. People who are children of the devil have sinned in such a way that they are no longer redeemable, that is, they cannot be forgiven, and it's not possible for them to be saved. The world is full of sinful people, and some of those sinners do very horrible things. Nevertheless, in the spiritual world, there is a difference between people who sin and can be forgiven and people who cannot be forgiven because in their heart of hearts they have taken the devil as their god and have become his “children” and are true enemies of righteousness.

Some people so strongly lust for what they want that in their heart they make satan, or one of his many fronts or idols, their “true” god and provider, and thus become his “children.” These self-centered people turn to satan in order to quickly gain their desires, and in so doing turn away from the true God. The Bible does not describe exactly what a person does to become a child of the devil, but it gives us some important information. Because Christ categorized it as a form of blasphemy, we know it is something that is said, either audibly or by speaking to oneself, but it cannot simply be saying, “I hate God” or “I love the devil,” or something such as that. It has to be fully believed in the heart as well as in the mind. From what we see in Scripture, it occurs when someone completely turns away from God, and confesses and believes in their heart that satan, or one of his many forms—such as money, power, fame, or love—is the true “god” by being their sustainer, provider, or the “lord” of their life.

In the context of the unforgivable sin, it is important that Christians understand “God” in its more basic meaning of sustainer, provider, something that is worshiped or idealized, and something considered of supreme value. To blaspheme God does not mean one has to believe that the devil is actually the Christian God and Father. Nor does it mean a person has to know that the devil is a fallen angel who opposes the true creator God. To commit the unforgivable sin a person only has to truly take the devil or one of his fronts as his own true god and provider. For example, it is unlikely that the Pharisees who were children of the devil had taken “the devil” per se as their god, but rather that they so highly valued their prestige, power, and position that they had in their hearts and in doing so made that their god as they turned to the devil via one of his fronts.

The unforgivable sin can be committed by believing and saying in your heart that satan or one of the forms he hides behind and supports is the true sustainer, provider, or object of supreme value in one’s life. No doubt that was what satan was asking Jesus to do when he offered him all the power of the world if Jesus would worship him. The devil was not asking Jesus to think that God did not exist or that satan somehow was, in fact, God, but rather that satan would be Jesus’ true sustainer and provider, the true god of his life. The devil wanted Jesus to become a child of his, which would have been the ultimate coup, but to do so Jesus would have had to “worship” the devil, not just in form, but in the depths of his heart.

In the Bible, the children of the devil are enemies of God and they reflect the devil’s nature. They are envious, murderers, liars, and show no genuine godly concern for humankind. Throughout history, many people have sensed that, in contrast to the majority of sinners who are simply caught up in their sin, some people are truly evil to the core and are somehow connected to evil spiritual forces, and many of those people are indeed “children” of the devil, just as Christ said. They lead people away from God and are into idolatry or false systems of worship. They rape, murder, and instigate wars. They defame God and the things of God and they lie, resent godly leadership, work to weaken it, and they sow division. They do the works of the devil and try to pervert the ways of God, and they work to make it hard for people to obey God. Children of the devil will never repent, so believers should follow Christ’s guidance and leave them alone. In contrast, if a person wants to repent and follow Jesus, they are not a child of the devil.

Note: devil written here in lower case on purpose.

 

[Cassandra]

For Sola Scriptura to be true, it would have to be IN the Bible. It is not, however. It is a man-made doctrine.

Let's do this. For the Scripture only to be true,it would have to be in the Bible.
Oh boy.
Quid in Biblia est?
Scriptura est.

For man made doctrine examples, see Council of Trent.

 

[amadeus]

That is because it was in '1961".... that the "cult of Mary" begin allowing their members to read the bible, vs, only going to their priest with their questions.

And even now, the "cult of Mary" does not encourage bible reading, as they would prefer that you only read "Church Fathers".. and that certainly isn't related to Martin Luther. (n their mind/perspective).

It seems that with Vatican II [1962-1965] changes were instituted in the Catholic Church which included the beginning of the complete Bible reading now practiced during the time people are attending mass. I never personally saw this. I only realized that changes had occurred when I encountered a knowledgeable Catholic on another forum about 20 years ago who described some of the changes.

I was effectively a backslid Catholic from 1961 until 1976 when God drew me to Him through a non-Catholic group of people. From that time, I began to read the Bible and have grown with and toward God, but He is not finished with me yet.

 

[Cassandra]

I was raised Roman Catholic. In America. I was illiterate until 1961 (I was born in 1954, and had picked up reading by age seven). But I never really read the Bible in any disciplined way, although we had one in the house, until much later. What I knew of the Bible was largely from attending Mass and from whatever snippets might have emerged from twelve years of Catholic school education. Bible study simply wasn't emphasized.

But nor was it discouraged. If your thesis is that the RCC discouraged Bible study, you'd better show me some evidence, because that wasn't my experience.

Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

By Msgr. Daniel Kutys Average Catholics asked today how often they read the Bible likely would say that they do not read the Bible regularly. However, if a...

www.usccb.org

IOnce the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture. dentifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew."

 

[RedFan]

Let's do this. For the Scripture only to be true,it would have to be in the Bible.
Oh boy.
Quid in Biblia est?
Scriptura est.

Sed opinio tantum valet, quod in Bibliis invenitur, ut fons doctrinae, in Bibliis non invenitur.

 

[Behold]

In my business it is the proponent of a proposition who bears the burden of proof on it.

Its made.

Do some research.

 

[Cassandra]

Sed opinio tantum valet, quod in Bibliis invenitur, ut fons doctrinae, in Bibliis non invenitur.

"because what is found in the Bible, as the source of doctrine, is not found in the Bible." It's all anyone had before you guys showed up and added some stuff.

 

[RedFan]

Its made.

Do some research.

As they approach the speed of light, yard sticks shrink and clocks slow down.

Do some research.

 

[Behold]

As they approach the speed of light, yard sticks shrink and clocks slow down.

Do you really want to find out what you need to know? @RedFan .

Then research this...


Ambrose, who lived in Rome before going to Milan as its bishop, venerated Mary as an example of Christian life and is credited with starting a ""Marian cult of virginity in the 4th century"".
Marian veneration was theologically sanctioned with the adoption of the title Theotokos at the Council of Ephesus in 431


And research this..

The Bible never refers to Mary’s “Immaculate Conception”—the doctrine that she was born without sin. Nor does it teach the “Assumption”


And research this.....

The connection between The Goddess Diana as recorded in the NT... and the "cult of mary" that was produced originally in about
4-5AD, (Ephesus)..... is the same one.

 

[RedFan]

Do you really want to find out what you need to know?

Then research this...


Ambrose, who lived in Rome before going to Milan as its bishop, venerated Mary as an example of Christian life and is credited with starting a ""Marian cult of virginity in the 4th century"".
Marian veneration was theologically sanctioned with the adoption of the title Theotokos at the Council of Ephesus in 431


And research this..

The Bible never refers to Mary’s “Immaculate Conception”—the doctrine that she was born without sin. Nor does it teach the “Assumption”


And research this.....

The connection between The Goddess Diana as recorded in the NT... and the "cult of mary" that was produced originally in about 4-5Ad, (Ephesus)..... is the same one.

I agree with all of that. I'm not Roman Catholic, and I don't subscribe to the Immaculate Conception. WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE RCC BANNING BIBLES? Stay on topic please!

 

[Behold]

I agree with all of that. I'm not Roman Catholic, and I don't subscribe to the Immaculate Conception. WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE RCC BANNING BIBLES? Stay on topic please!

Why ask me a question about "banning bibles'.
I never said the cult of mary banned bibles.

I said that in 1961, they gave the official "go ahead"..

Before this, Catholics understood = to go to the priest for any answers to any questions.

Has this changed that much, in 62.5 yrs?

Well, ...

If you go to any Forum, that says "christian" or "catholic" in the Title, and you talk to a Catholic.

You are going to get some Mary pointed at you.
And what else?

"water baptism"..

and....

"Church Father".....quotes.

As that is their REAL faith...tho their Priests will read from a book, during Mass... sure.

Catholics believe that the 2nd main issue with Protestantism, is ...

2.) all of yall read a bible and can't agree......

So, the CC truly does not want you studying a bible......They want you to come to THEIR Theology... same as any other cult.

 

[RedFan]

Why ask me a question about "banning bibles'.
I never said the cult of mary banned bibles.

The CC actually discourage the populace from reading the Bible on their own, a policy that intensified throughout the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of prohibition of translation of the Bible into native language.

The OP topic is about banning bibles. Can we stay on it, please?

 

[amadeus]

The CC actually discourage the populace from reading the Bible on their own, a policy that intensified throughout the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of prohibition of translation of the Bible into native language.

In the Catholic Church I attended the Franciscan nuns did discourage personal Bible study during our catechism sessions. They did not forbid it. Whether they reflected the official policy of the Catholic Church at the time, I do not know. I am sure that after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 things began to change but locally, I saw no changes.

The catholic church started allowing the bible to be read in English, in the 1960’s. Before that, the mass was in Latin.

All the time I attended Catholic masses regularly from 1949 through June of 1961 it was all in Latin except when the priest stood to face the people for his Bible reading and sermon. Those were in English. Those short readings were the only Bible readings I ever heard. I remember sitting in a chair on the platform as an altar boy wishing they would read more of the Bible. They never did while I was there.

 

[RedFan]

"because what is found in the Bible, as the source of doctrine, is not found in the Bible." It's all anyone had before you guys showed up and added some stuff.

And what about the interstitial period between Pentecost and the publication of the various books of the NT in the latter half of the first century C.E, when oral teaching and oral tradition from the apostles and those they instructed was "all anyone had?" Did all of that oral teaching and tradition just grind to a halt once the NT was compiled?

Why should the writing of the NT have ended that apostolic authority? I see no reason it should. Whether to challenge the RCC as the repository of that authority today is a separate matter – but I am curious to understand your thinking regarding the replacement of apostolic authority with the NT canon. It makes no sense to me.