Toulouse Council of 1229

[KingsGambit]

A friend of mine posted this item that has been floating around Facebook:

33622884_1747437048678120_1565481155229122560_n.jpg

Anybody have any information on whether this is true, or the background information?

[rogue06]

It pertained to reading vernacular translations of the Bible, not the Bible per se.

[KingsGambit]

It pertained to reading vernacular translations of the Bible, not the Bible per se.

Wouldn't this still be an effective ban on reading the Bible for those who did not speak Latin?

[rogue06]

Wouldn't this still be an effective ban on reading the Bible for those who did not speak Latin?

Mostly for those who didn't read Latin.

But then back then most of those in Europe who were literate tended to have at least a working understanding of Latin. In fact, in a book on the Middle Ages I just finished reading the author, Morris Bishop, said that not only could most literate people read Latin, their mastery of it far exceeded ours.

[Cow Poke]

This is not about Tollhouse Cookies?

[rogue06]

This is not about Tollhouse Cookies?

When I glanced at the title I first thought this was something about Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec

[One Bad Pig]

Mostly for those who didn't read Latin.

But then back then most of those in Europe who were literate tended to have at least a working understanding of Latin. In fact, in a book on the Middle Ages I just finished reading the author, Morris Bishop, said that not only could most literate people read Latin, their mastery of it far exceeded ours.

More or less. This was more a case of bias against the vernacular (and the fact that the Pope had not authorized any translation into the vernacular) than against the laity reading the scriptures per se.

Keeping everything in Latin was a pretty effective barrier against the laity in general, however.

In England (granted a few centuries difference), the vernacular translation chained in churches was so popular that people were reading it aloud during services.

[KingsGambit]

One Catholic apologetics board I came across suggested an analogy of modern day Protestant ministers who would tell their flock not to read the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation.

[rogue06]

More or less. This was more a case of bias against the vernacular (and the fact that the Pope had not authorized any translation into the vernacular) than against the laity reading the scriptures per se.

Exactly, literacy was not exactly high back then. And unauthorized translations were viewed with suspicion -- partly because groups like Waldensians, Paterines, and Cathars/Albigensians (all active around this time) were very vocal advocates for vernacular translations. This wariness if not outright distrust can still be seen in comments from various popes of the 19th century like Pius VII, Leo XII and Gregory XVI.

For instance, from Pius VII's 1829 papal encyclical "Traditi Humilitati":

5.

Still, as I noted, anyone who was literate at the time almost certainly knew Latin if not for reading Roman works but also as a lingua franca of at least the the majority of Europe.

[Rushing Jaws]

[One Bad Pig]

1. The 1582 Reims NT was banned in Elizabethan England

As was every other non-authorized translation (an authorized translation into the vernacular was first published in 1539 (the 'Great Bible'). Your point?

2. It is quite normal to find editions of Orthodox or Catholic Bibles printed by Protestant publishers, that leave out the OT books that Protestantism (but not those other two Christianities) regards as non-canonical.

Is it? One would think that, almost by definition, a Catholic Bible would include all the books Catholics regard as canonical. I am not aware of any Orthodox Bible which fits your criteria.

Every heresy quotes it - as St Vincent of Lerins noted, 1500 years ago - and the result of this is to undermine its authority.

What the critics of the Catholic policy towards its availability seem never to have considered, is that the ready availability of it has led to these evils.

IMO, the action of the Council of Toulouse was fully justified, and needs absolutely no apology, given the seriousness of the danger from Catharism in the South of France.

The danger seems rather more to have been TO the Cathars, not against them - given their eventual bloody suppression by the Inquisition. One could argue that depriving the laity of the means of understanding scripture is the cause of all the divergent interpretations you so fear; if Catholic teaching had been grounded in scripture, the laity would've had a convenient guide for interpreting it.

As for reading the Bible in Latin, that is not at all difficult. The Latin of the Vulgate is much simpler than that of Cicero, and is no more challenging than French or Spanish. Ignorance of Latin is a great impoverishment

If one has the opportunity to learn Latin, yes. For much of the world's population, that's only a very recent phenomenon.