“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, p. 273)
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 doctrinal 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.
If it were not for the invention of the Gutenberg Printing Press in 1436, then, most likely, neither the Protestant Reformation, nor further Bible translations, would have taken place. 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 an objective standard. If any of this were false, then can anybody account for the widespread biblical illiteracy amongst Roman Catholic circles? If Scripture is understandable, then why would we need an infallible interpreter in the first place? The Apostle Paul once uttered the following words:
"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)