Historically speaking, the Church of Rome has displayed unreasonably hostile opposition against the personal ownership of Bible translations. For centuries, the average laymen were forbidden by the hierarchical structured Church government to interpret Scripture independently of its intense supervision and restriction. There were times when circulated Bibles would even be burned. The Roman Catholic Church demanded unquestioning loyalty of adherents. Even in modern times, devout followers are indoctrinated from childhood to submit to the allegedly infallible, God-ordained Papacy. Dissuasion of personal Bible study has lessened somewhat within the past few decades, most probably around the timing of the Second Vatican Council. Thus, Roman Catholics have been instructed to defend "Mother Church" at all costs, even at the expense of contradicting plain scriptural teaching.
While the apologists of Roman Catholicism may contend that their Church's prohibiting the reading of Scripture was never meant to serve as a permanent establishment, the decrees issued by councils such as Toulouse and Tarragon were essentially unconditional prohibitions on Bible reading. During that time, the only way that a person could actually read the Bible was if they had obtained special permission from the local bishop. In fact, most members of the laity could not even read Latin! Men such as Tyndale and Wycliffe were killed simply because they wanted to translate the Bible into the common language. Pope Innocent III (1161-1216) likened teaching the Bible to casting pearls before swine. Pope Leo XII (1760-1829) expressed condemnation of Bible societies in his encyclical titled Ubi primum. All of this could be elaborated in much more detail. In short, harsh penalties were employed on those who challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church:
“In the West, the clergy had begun to assert an exclusive interpretive, indeed custodial, right to the Bible as early as the ninth century; and from about 1080 there had been frequent instances of the Pope, councils and bishops forbidding not only vernacular translations but any reading at all, by laymen, of the Bible taken as a whole. In some ways this was the most scandalous aspect of the medieval Latin Church. From the Waldensians onwards, attempts to scrutinize the Bible became proof presumptive of heresy - a man or woman might burn for it alone - and, conversely, the heterodox were increasingly convinced that the Bible was incompatible with papal and clerical claims.” (Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, 273)
“From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief... The Inquisition ...contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church." (Johann Joseph Ignaz Von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council, p. 192-193)
“In the West, the clergy had begun to assert an exclusive interpretive, indeed custodial, right to the Bible as early as the ninth century; and from about 1080 there had been frequent instances of the Pope, councils and bishops forbidding not only vernacular translations but any reading at all, by laymen, of the Bible taken as a whole. In some ways this was the most scandalous aspect of the medieval Latin Church. From the Waldensians onwards, attempts to scrutinize the Bible became proof presumptive of heresy - a man or woman might burn for it alone - and, conversely, the heterodox were increasingly convinced that the Bible was incompatible with papal and clerical claims.” (Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, 273)
“From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief... The Inquisition ...contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church." (Johann Joseph Ignaz Von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council, p. 192-193)
If these bans on Bible reading by Rome were only supposed to be temporary, then surely, successive popes would not have repeatedly issued them. Quotes on the prohibition of personal Bible reading from sources do not seem to indicate anything about being "temporary." If the motives of the Papacy were really to preserve scriptural purity, then it would most certainly would have published and circulated doctrinally safe translations, rather than forbade them. How come Jesus Christ and the apostles never took the scrolls from the Scribes and Pharisees who obviously promulgated doctrinal error? Why would any genuine Christian argue against translating the gift of God's Word for other people? Whatever happened to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44)? Why has Rome stopped persecuting so-called heretics today? Obviously, the Roman Catholic Church would have to admit that its conduct has been anything but holy. It would not pass the examination of knowing people by their fruits (Matthew 7:20). In other words, Rome is a bad tree which simply refuses to accept reproof. It is an arrogant church. It is a center for moral and political corruption. Consider these words on Pope Pius IX in regards to him defining the novel concept of papal infallibility:
“One of the chief issues dividing Catholics on the eve of the council was that of a possible definition of papal infallibility." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV, p. 561)
If it were not for the invention of the Gutenberg Printing Press in 1436, then, chances are, neither the Protestant Reformation, nor Bible translations, would have taken place. And if the Church of Rome truly was confident in possessing the truth, then it would not raise opposition to people examining its claims in light of scriptural instruction. If any of this were false, then can anybody account for the widespread biblical illiteracy amongst Roman Catholic circles? If any of this were false, then why is it that Roman Catholic apologists adamantly debate us? If Scripture is understandable, then why would we need an infallible interpreter in the first place? The Scriptures declare:
"Brothers and sisters, I have used Apollos and myself as examples so you could learn through us the meaning of the saying, “Follow only what is written in the Scriptures.” Then you will not be more proud of one person than another." (1 Corinthians 4:6)
Whenever one departs from the self-sufficiency of Scripture, whatever the written revelation affirms, denies, or says in general becomes irrelevant. Hence, that is the explanation for the development of all the unbiblical doctrinal developments which happened within the Church of Rome throughout history.
It is a proven fact that the Roman Catholic Church cares nothing about the Bible.
Whenever one departs from the self-sufficiency of Scripture, whatever the written revelation affirms, denies, or says in general becomes irrelevant. Hence, that is the explanation for the development of all the unbiblical doctrinal developments which happened within the Church of Rome throughout history.
It is a proven fact that the Roman Catholic Church cares nothing about the Bible.
