The Catholic Church’s Past Attitude Toward the Bible

THE book A Guide to Catholic Reading makes the following interesting statement: “Most lay Catholics of the older generation will agree that reading the Bible without proper supervision was frowned on by most Catholic priests and nuns. Happily the situation has changed radically and today Catholics are urged, exhorted, and entreated on every side to read the Book of Books.”

Undeniably, the Catholic Church’s attitude toward the Bible has “changed radically” over the past few decades. More popular Catholic translations of the Bible in modern tongues have appeared during the past 30 years than during the preceding centuries. But what is 30 years in the history of a church that claims to date from the time of the apostles? What has been the Catholic Church’s record over the centuries? Has it shown love for the Bible, by making it available to Catholics and encouraging them to read it? Or has it shown hatred for Bible lovers?

Before and After Charlemagne

In all fairness, it must be stated that the Church of Rome first favored the translation of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular. It must not be forgotten that the common language among the early Christians was Greek. This continued to be the case for several centuries after the apostasy set in with the death of the apostles. Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that at the First Ecumenical Council, held in Nicaea in 325 C.E., the sessions were held, not in Latin, but in Greek, and the famous Nicene Creed, said to be the “unshakable basis” of the Catholic faith, was drawn up in Greek.

Rivalry between Rome and Byzantium (Constantinople), as to which would be the religious capital of the Church, developed during the fourth century C.E., and language entered into that rivalry. The eastern part of the Church, under the Patriarch of Constantinople, used Greek in its liturgy, and it possessed the entire Bible in Greek (the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures). However, the common language spoken in the west was not Greek, but Latin. Various “Old Latin” versions of the Scriptures existed, but none of these predominated as the standard translation. So toward the end of the fourth century Damasus, bishop of Rome, commissioned a scholar named Jerome to produce such a standard version of the Bible in Latin.

Jerome did not use classical Latin, but Vulgar Latin​—the language of the common people. Eventually, his translation came to be known as the Vulgate (editio vulgata, common or popular edition). It became the standard Bible of the Catholic Church for over a thousand years, remaining such long after Latin became a dead language. But the important fact is that the Latin Vulgate was originally a common-language Bible.

With the breakup of the Roman Empire and of the secular school system that prevailed in Roman times, the upper clergy of the Catholic Church had the virtual monopoly in the field of education. They woefully neglected this opportunity, and this resulted in the widespread ignorance that became characteristic of the Dark Ages.

Toward the end of the eighth century Emperor Charlemagne deplored the crass ignorance of the people and of the lower clergy of his realm. He has been called the “creator of medieval education.” He summoned to his court such scholars as English theologian Alcuin, who revised the corrupted text of Jerome’s Vulgate. Charlemagne ordered the creation of scriptoria, or writing rooms, in monasteries, for the copying of manuscripts. His efforts to promote education benefited mainly the clergy and the nobility, for these manuscripts were in Latin, which, by then, was being replaced by vernacular languages among the common people of Europe.

Crumbs for the Common People

True, under the influence of Charlemagne, the Council of Tours, France, held in 813, decreed that homilies, or sermons, for the common people should be translated into the local language. But no such decree was issued for translating the Bible itself for the people. By way of excuse, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

“Books only existed in manuscript form and, being costly, were beyond the means of most people. Besides, had it been possible for the multitude to come into the possession of books, they could not have read them, since in those rude times, education was the privilege of few. In fact, hardly anyone could read, outside the ranks of the clergy and the monks.” But whose fault was it that the masses remained illiterate? And why did the Roman Catholic Church wait for King Charlemagne to promote education, even among the lower clergy?

Instead of favoring education among the masses and translations of the Bible in the local languages, the Catholic Church encouraged the production of ‘books of the ignorant’: picture Bibles (such as the Biblia pauperum, or Bible of the poor), Bible histories, miracle plays, statues and carvings, church wall paintings and stained-glass windows on Bible themes. Such were the crumbs that the Catholic clergy let drop from the rich spiritual table of Bible knowledge, which they kept for themselves and for a few privileged kings and nobles.

Unforeseen Consequences

Charlemagne’s education campaign had unforeseen consequences for the Roman Catholic Church. After Charlemagne’s death​—as education spread among the lower clergy and the nobility, and as manuscripts of the Bible circulated in Latin—​priests, monks, kings, queens, medieval lords and noble ladies began asking questions about Catholic doctrine as compared with the Bible. They also clamored for the Bible in the vernacular, and at that time the Roman Church allowed portions of the Scriptures to be translated for the clergy and the nobility.

Some of those who read the Bible​—even some of the clergy—​became pre-Reformation dissenters. To name a few, Berenger of Tours (died 1088), Peter of Bruys (died 1140) and Henry of Lausanne or of Cluny (died in prison after 1148) were all French priests who placed the Bible above Catholic dogma and suffered for it.

Moreover, as the common people heard sermons in their native tongues and saw Bible themes illustrated in picture Bibles (written in Latin) and in various works of religious art, their appetite was whetted for Bible knowledge. “Unauthorized” translations of parts of the Bible began to circulate, and dissenting groups such as the Waldenses began preaching Bible truths in France, Italy, Spain and other European countries. This was something for which Rome had not bargained. Thus, from the 12th and 13th centuries onward, the attitude of the Catholic Church toward the Bible changed radically. For Rome, it became a dangerous book, as the following historical facts will show.

A Record of Opposition to Bible Education

1179 Pope Alexander III forbade the Waldenses to preach, which preaching they were doing with a common-language translation of parts of the Bible.

1184 At the Synod of Verona, Italy, Pope Lucius III, supported by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, decreed the excommunication and handing over to civil authorities for punishment (usually burning) of all Bible-loving “heretics” who persisted in preaching or even thinking contrary to Catholic dogma.

1199 Pope Innocent III condemned the translation into French of the Psalms, the Gospels and Paul’s letters, and forbade meetings held in the bishopric of Metz, France, for the “reprehensible purpose” of studying the Scriptures. Any copies of these vernacular translations that could be found were burned by Cistercian monks.

1211 By order of Pope Innocent III, Bishop Bertram of Metz organized a crusade against all people reading the Bible in the vernacular, and any such Bibles found were duly burned.

1215 The Fourth Lateran Council was held, and the first three canons were directed against heretics who dared “take it upon themselves to preach.” The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique recognizes that this measure was aimed mainly at the Waldenses, who were preaching with common-language Bibles.

1229 Canon 14 of the Council of Toulouse, France, states: “We forbid the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament, except the Psalter, and such portions of them as are contained in the Breviary, or the Hours of the Blessed Virgin; and we most strictly forbid even these works in the vulgar tongue.”

1246 Canon 36 of the Council of Béziers, France, stipulates: “You will see to it that all just and legal means are used to prevent the laity from possessing theological books, even in Latin, and the clergy from possessing them in the vulgar tongue.”

1559 “[Pope] Paul IV put a whole series of Latin Bibles among the Biblia prohibita (prohibited books); he added that no Bible in the vernacular may be printed nor kept without the permission of the Holy Office. This amounted to prohibiting the reading of the Bible in any common language.”​—Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Volume 15, column 2738.

1564 The fourth rule of the Index (of prohibited books) published by Pope Pius IV stated: “Experience has shown that if reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue is permitted indiscriminately, due to the rashness of men, more harm than good arises therefrom.”

1590 Pope Sixtus V stipulated that no one could read the Bible in a common language without “special permission from the Apostolic See.”

1664 Pope Alexander VII put all vernacular Bibles on the Index of prohibited books.

1836 Pope Gregory XVI issued a warning to all Catholics that the fourth rule of the Index published in 1564 by Pius IV was still valid.

1897 In his Apostolic Constitution Officiorum Pope Leo XIII issued the following restrictions on the use of common-language Bibles: “All native-language versions, even those published by Catholics, are absolutely prohibited unless they have been approved by the Apostolic See or edited under the supervision of bishops, with explanatory notes taken from the Church Fathers and learned Catholic writers. . . . All versions of the Holy Books made by any non-Catholic writer whatsoever and in any common language are prohibited, especially those published by Bible societies, which have been condemned by the Pontiff of Rome on several occasions.”

1955 Summing up the reasons for the Catholic Church’s opposition to Bible education, French Catholic author Daniel-Rops wrote, with due “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” from ecclesiastical authorities: “By giving back to the Book [the Bible] its supremacy and its renown, Luther and the other ‘reformers’ committed the inexpiable error of separating it from the Tradition that had safeguarded its text and had contributed so much to its understanding. Once it became the only source of faith and of spiritual life for man, the Bible afforded the means for doing without the Church . . . The Catholic Church . . . reacted through the protective measures taken by the Council of Trent [1545-1563], which, among other things, forbade the faithful from reading versions of the Holy Scriptures in common languages unless they had been approved by the Church and contained commentaries in line with Catholic Tradition. . . . It became commonplace to hear people repeat that ‘a Catholic should not read the Bible.’”​—Qu’est-ce que la Bible? (What Is the Bible?)

How Protestantism Undermines Respect for the Bible

THE centuries-old opposition of the Catholic Church to Bible reading by the common people in any vernacular language has caused many sincere Catholics to believe that the Bible is a “Protestant Book.” And, of course, Protestants themselves consider their religion to be 100-percent Bible-based. One authority states: “It is no mistake to say that its [Protestantism’s] very basis is still the Bible, which contains the Word of God, or that it is the book of the Church, the home and the individual, the book the Protestant goes to for practical counsel on his moral life, his social life and his thinking on man, his nature, his destiny and his relationship to God.”a

A learned article on the history of Protestantism carries a subtitle “The Role of the Bible,” and states: “The common factor in Protestantism has been the acceptance of the supremacy of the Bible over the churches; the belief that ecclesiastical ministries or hierarchies were to be tested against the Bible as the word of God; the doctrine that all things necessary to salvation were to be found in Holy Scripture.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica, 1979.

Thus, the average Protestant generally feels closer to the Bible than the average Catholic, who knows he is expected to give as much credence to Church tradition as to the Holy Scriptures. But is it true that the Bible is the “very basis” of Protestantism’s doctrines, and does the average Protestant (whether of the clergy or of the laity) still go to the Bible “for practical counsel on his moral life”?

Attachment to the Bible Overrated

The facts show that from the very earliest days of the Reformation, Protestantism’s strict adherence to the Bible has been greatly overrated. Although Luther’s name is indelibly connected with his translation of the Bible, in his theology he placed “individual insight” above what is written clearly in the Bible. In his efforts to prove “justification by grace through faith,” Luther upgraded such Bible books as Romans and Galatians, and downgraded canonical books such as Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, thus creating what has been called “a canon within the canon.”

Similarly, John Calvin paid lip service to the Bible, yet in his major work Institutes of the Christian Religion he expounded such unbiblical doctrines as the Trinity (Book I), man born with no free will (Book II), absolute predestination (Book III) and infant baptism (Book IV). He also shared responsibility for the arrest and subsequent death by burning of Michael Servetus, another reformer but one who did not share Calvin’s view on the Trinity. Was this recognizing “the supremacy of the Bible,” such as its giving counsel against retaliation at Romans 12:17-21? Hardly!

Moreover, the reformers and the Protestant churches they fathered continued to accept the creeds issued by past ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church, such as the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, which set forth unbiblical doctrines like the Trinity and hellfire. Protestantism has produced its own crop of creeds, among others the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, the Reformed Churches’ Second Helvetic Confession and the Anglican and Episcopalian Thirty-nine Articles, all of which set forth required belief in such unscriptural doctrines as the Trinity. More recently, the Protestant World Council of Churches published as a “basis” for membership the necessity to confess Jesus “as God.” Thus, from its very inception up until the present day, Protestantism’s doctrinal attachment to the Bible has been greatly overrated.​—See John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Acts 3:23 and Psalm 146:4, where the Bible clearly shows that, not Jesus, but his Father is the “only true God” and that the soul does not survive when a human dies.

Protestantism and Higher Criticism

The very nature of Protestantism, born of rebellion against tradition and the authority of the pope of Rome, made it more vulnerable than the conservative Catholic Church to rationalism and to the negative aspects of Biblical criticism. It will doubtless be helpful to explain here what is meant by Biblical criticism. It is divided into two branches: Lower criticism is the scholarly investigation of Bible manuscripts, their origin, preservation and relative value in relationship to the originals, which are no longer available. This is sometimes called textual criticism. Higher criticism is the study of the authorship, date of writing and historical accuracy of the Bible, in the light of archaeology and history.

Lower criticism has done much to further Bible scholarship, pruning out interpolations and producing reliable master texts that provide the basis for better translations of the Bible. On the other hand, higher criticism has opened the gates to a flood of pseudo-scholarly works whose effect has been to undermine people’s confidence in the Bible.

Commenting on Protestantism’s vulnerability to rationalism and destructive higher criticism, the Encyclopædia Britannica (1979) writes:

“The question of biblical criticism was first posed in the German universities; i.e., whether a man might be a Christian and even a good Christian though he held some parts of the Bible to be not true. This became the great question for Protestantism, if not for all Christendom, in the 19th century. . . . German Protestantism showed at length an elasticity, or open-mindedness, in the face of new knowledge, which was as influential in the development of the Christian churches as the original insights of the Reformation. Owing in part to this German example, the Protestant churches of the main tradition​—Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Congregational, Methodist, and many Baptist communities—​adjusted themselves relatively easily (from the intellectual point of view) to the advances of science, to the idea of evolution, and to progress in anthropology or comparative religion.”

By classifying certain portions of the Bible as myths, many members of the Protestant clergy have cast doubt on the entire Bible. In fact, in its introduction, under the title “The Bible: Its Significance and Authority,” the Protestant 12-volume Interpreter’s Bible goes as far as to state: “It follows from this brief inquiry that it would not be in the least contrary to Scripture itself but rather in harmony with it, nor would it be contrary to anything essential in the Christian faith, if we ceased altogether to speak of the Scriptures as the Word of God.”

Such statements kill the influence of the Bible in the lives of people even more effectively than a papal bull prohibiting Bible reading.

Fundamentalists​—Not True Friends of the Bible

One branch of Protestantism has, however, resisted the assault of higher criticism. It is called Fundamentalism. This has been defined as ‘a militantly conservative movement originating around the beginning of the 20th century in opposition to modernist tendencies and emphasizing as fundamental to Christianity the literal interpretation and absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures.’

Fundamentalists are right in claiming that the Bible is inspired by God, and their fight against destructive higher criticism and such pseudoscientific theories as evolution is commendable. But are they really enhancing the Bible in the minds of reasonable people when they claim that everything written in the Bible is to be taken literally? Are they furthering the interests of the Bible when they say that the earth was created in six twenty-four-hour days, whereas the Bible itself uses the word “day” to designate periods of time of varying lengths?​—Compare Genesis chapter 1 with Genesis 2:4 and Ge 5:1; also 2 Peter 3:8.

Moreover, are fundamentalists true friends of the Bible when, while claiming to stick strictly to the Scriptures, they teach such unbiblical doctrines as the Trinity (compare Deuteronomy 6:4; John 14:28), the immortality of the soul (Ezekiel 18:4) and hellfire (Jeremiah 7:31; Romans 6:23)? By their literalistic interpretations of the Bible and their teaching such God-dishonoring doctrines, Protestant fundamentalists undermine the power of the Bible in the minds of many people.

Protestantism and Worldliness

Jesus stated to his disciples: “If you belonged to the world, then the world would love you as its own. But I chose you from this world, and you do not belong to it; that is why the world hates you.” (John 15:19, Today’s English Version) Yet it is a patent fact that the major Protestant churches take an active part in the political systems of this world, some of them even being “state religions.” One reference work states: “It is possible to speak of Protestantism’s contribution to modern nationalism. . . . All but the radicals tended to make much of loyalty to the existing state, and Protestants often provided an ideological base for each new state as it rose to self-consciousness​—as was the case in Prussia or in the United States.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.

At the beginning of this article, a Protestant writer was quoted as saying that the Bible is “the book the Protestant goes to for practical counsel on his moral life.” Can this still be said to be true when clergyman after clergyman from the main Protestant churches make statements condoning premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality and abortion? An article in the French daily Le Monde entitled “Many Churches Open the Homosexuality File” and based on a report published in Geneva, Switzerland, by the World Council of Churches, revealed that several large Protestant churches even tolerate homosexual ministers. Yet the Bible states: “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”​—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, New International Version.

Thus, while Protestantism has not built up a record of hatred for the Bible and for those who read it in the common languages, such as the Catholic Church built up for itself over the centuries, nevertheless, by its belief in unbiblical doctrines, its acceptance of higher criticism and pseudoscientific theories, its worldliness and acceptance of permissive morals, Protestantism bears heavy responsibility for undermining the influence of the Bible in the lives of millions of people.

Yet, in spite of Catholicism’s centuries-long opposition to Bible reading by the common people and Protestantism’s more subtle but nevertheless devastating undermining of God’s Word, the Bible is still a book to which people are rarely indifferent.

Religious leaders of the Catholic and some Orthodox Churches have also strongly opposed distribution of the Bible, endeavoring to suppress the reading of it in the common languages. Why? Because people who have read the Word of God have been set free from God-dishonoring traditions and dogmas that are nowhere to be found in the Bible and that are contrary to its teachings.

Do Not Misjudge the Bible

Do not make the mistake of judging the Bible according to those who quote it. Speaking to the faithless religious leaders of his day, Jesus stated: “You have made God’s word null and void by means of your tradition. Hypocrites! It was you Isaiah meant when he so rightly prophesied: This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. The worship they offer me is worthless; the doctrines they teach are only human regulations.”​—Matthew 15:6-9, Jerusalem Bible.

Today the ecclesiastics of Christendom still pay lip service to the Bible, such as the Catholic Church’s newfound enthusiasm for fresh Bible translations and its relatively recent authorization granted to Catholics to read the Bible. But the Church still teaches doctrines based on traditions that make “God’s word null and void.”

Protestants still like to claim that the Bible is the “very basis” of their religion, but they also believe many doctrines that are not found in the Bible. Moreover, a great number of their ministers consider large portions of the Bible to be mythical, and millions of Protestants​—including some clergymen—​have thrown overboard the high moral standards of the Bible.

Similarly, it is impossible to judge the Bible by the way Catholics and Protestants have acted over the centuries. They have both, at times, used inquisitorial methods against each other, and they have shed each other’s blood in religious wars. The violence in Ireland today shows that such religions are not really Bible-based.​—Compare Isaiah 2:4.