You said that the Catholic Church REFUSED to issue German translations. Meaning that the only translations were in Latin.
I showed you in posts #51 and #54 that it was available in both high and low German:
There is ample evidence for the general use of the entire vernacular German Bible in the fifteenth century.[2] In 1466, before Martin Luther was even born, Johannes Mentelin printed the Mentel Bible, a High German vernacular Bible, at Strasbourg. This edition was based on a no-longer-existing fourteenth-century manuscript translation of the Vulgate from the area of Nuremberg.
Until 1518, it was reprinted at least 13 times. In 1478-1479, two Low German Bible editions were published in Cologne, one in the Low Rhenish dialect and another in the Low Saxon dialect.
In 1494, another Low German Bible was published in the dialect of Lübeck, and in 1522, the last pre-Lutheran Bible, the Low Saxon Halberstadt Bible was published.
In total, there were at least eighteen complete German Bible editions, ninety editions in the vernacular of the Gospels and the readings of the Sundays and Holy Days, and some fourteen German Psalters by the time Luther first published his own New Testament translation. If you have an on-line account for the Encyclopedia Britannica you can also verify this information.
You did not take exception to of find fault with my source. Instead you tried to duck out of admitting your error of there being no German translations available: You are incorrect. Luther was not the first, but it was undoubtedly the best and most accessible. IIRC, the High German vernacular version you cite was an edition produced for the rich. And the translation made by Luther exploded among the commoners, with over 100,000 printed and sold by the 1570s.
First you contend that the Catholic Church Refused to translate the Bible into German, then you change your story to it being not accessible due to it being in the "high" German. I showed you that it was available in both High and low German. Rather than admit your error you go off on a tangent about Trent.
Sorry that will not fly. The Catholic Church was the FIRST to translate the Bible into the vernacular and it was accessible.
I wrote: “Luther did some amazingly good stuff, but he was far from perfect - as I’m sure you will agree. And it doesn’t do much good to HAVE the Bible, if you refuse to translate it into the vernacular for the good of the common people.”
You changed that to “the Catholic Church REFUSED to issue German translations. Meaning that the only translations were in Latin.”
Actually, my comment addressed the Middle Age problem of the Catholic Church not actively attempting to get vernacular translations into the hands of commoners - which it could have done at any time. Wycliffe was successful in England. The Catholic Church did NOT issue translations, and was less than thrilled with those done. AS the Reformation took steam, opposition by the Catholic Church became stronger:
“The friars, who argued against the lawfulness and expediency of translations of the Vulgate, relied chiefly on the grounds that a general, lay reading of the Bible would be an infringement on the teaching office of the clergy, and would be contrary to the divine economy of different orders in the Church. They claimed too that the mysteriousness of holy scripture rendered it unprofitable for the simple, that familiarity with it would lead to irreverence, that the linguistic difficulties of translation were too great, that particular biblical verses should be understood as forbidding translations, and that the precedents of St. Jerome’s (and perhaps, Bede’s) translations were not valid. The Lollards, on the other hand, defended the use of translations mainly from historical precedent: from the giving of the divine law in the Old and New Testaments, the precedent of St. Jerome’s translation, and non-English biblical translations. They argued that all men needed to know the life of Christ by personal knowledge of the gospels, that the ignorance of many parish priests would be lessened by the use of translations, and they answered the charges that Bible reading would lead the simple into heresy, that the linguistic difficulty was too great, ‘that holy scripture is false,’ ‘that the letter slayeth,’ etc.
Friar Butler gave it as his ‘principal’ argument against translations, that God had appointed different orders in His Church, and that it was the function of the clergy to instruct the laity verbally in what was necessary to salvation, including as much of the scriptures as was needed for that end.”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/wyclif5.html
“With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and
such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary. “We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue” (Harduin, Concilia, xii, 178; Mansi, Concilia, xxiii, 194). The Synod of Tarragona (1234) ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned. James I renewed thin decision of the Tarragona synod in 1276. The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). The order of James I was renewed by later kings and confirmed by Paul II (1464-71). Ferdinand and Isabella (1474-1516) prohibited the translation of the Bible into the vernacular or the possession of such translations (F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen i, Bonn, 1883, 44).
The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264). In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: “Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.” Regulations for booksellers follow, and then: “Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without special license from their superiors.” Sixtus V substituted in 1590 twenty-two new rules for the ten of Pius IV. Clement VIII abolished in 1596 the rules of Sixtus, but added a “remark” to the fourth rule given above, which particularly restores the enactment of Paul IV. The right of the bishops, which the fourth rule implies, is abolished by the “remark,” and the bishop may grant a dispensation only when especially authorized by the pope and the Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 333). Benedict XIV enlarged, in 1757, the fourth rule thus: “If such Bible-versions in the vernacular are approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations derived from the holy fathers of the Church or from learned and Catholic men, they are permitted.” This modification of the fourth rule was abolished by Gregory XVI in pursuance of an admonition of the index-congregation, Jan. 7, 1836, “which calls attention to the fact that according to the decree of 1757 only such versions in the vernacular are to be permitted as have been approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations,” but insistence is placed on all those particulars enjoined by the fourth rule of the index and afterward by Clement VIII (Reusch, ut sup., ii, 852).
3. Rules and Practice in Different Countries.
In England the reading of the Bible was made by Henry VIII (1530) to depend upon the permission of the superiors. Tyndale’s version, printed before 1535, was prohibited. In 1534 the Canterbury convocation passed a resolution asking the king to have the Bible translated and to permit its reading. A folio copy of Coverdale’s translation was put into every church for the benefit of the faithful, and fastened with a chain. In Spain the Inquisitor-General de Valdes published in 1551 the index of Louvain of 1550, which prohibits “Bibles (New and Old Testaments) in the Spanish or other vernacular” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 133). This prohibition was abolished in 1778. The Lisbon index of 1824 in Portugal prohibited quoting in the vernacular in any book passages from the Bible. In Italy the members of the order of the Jesuits were in 1596 permitted to use a Catholic Italian translation of the Gospel-lessons. In France the Sorbonne declared, Aug. 26,1525, that a French translation of the Bible or of single books must be regarded as dangerous under conditions then present; extant versions were better suppressed than tolerated. In the following year, 1526, it prohibited the translation of the entire Bible, but permitted the translation of single books with proper annotations. The indexes of the Sorbonne, which by royal edict were binding, after 1544 contained the statement: “How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed (of whom there are many in our times) may be seen from the Waldensians, Albigenses, and Poor Men of Lyons, who have thereby lapsed into error and have led many into the same condition. Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 151). The rise of Jansenism in the seventeenth century, and especially the appearance, under its encouragement, of Quesnel’s New Testament with moral reflections under each verse (Le Nouveau Testament en franois avec des reflexions moroles sur chaque vers, Paris, 1699), which was expressly intended to popularize the reading of the Bible, caused the renewal, with increased stringency, of the rules already quoted. The Jesuits prevailed upon Clement XI to publish the famous bull Unigenitus, Sept. 8, 1713, in which he condemned seven propositions in Quesnel’s work which advocated the reading of the Bible by the laity (cf. H. J. D. Denzinger, Enchiridion, Wrzburg, 1854, 287). In the Netherlands, Neercassel, bishop of Emmerich, published in 1677 (in Latin) and 1680 (in French) a treatise in which he dealt with the fourth rule of the Tridentine index as obsolete, and urged the diligent reading of the Bible. In Belgium in 1570 the unlicensed sale of the Bible in the vernacular was strictly prohibited; but the use of the Antwerp Bible continued. In Poland the Bible was translated and often published. In Germany papal decrees could not very well be carried out and the reading of the Bible was not only not prohibited, but was approved and praised. Billuart about 1750, as quoted by Van Ess, states, “In France, Germany, and Holland the Bible is read by all without distinction.” In the nineteenth century the clergy took great interest in the work of Bible Societies. Thus Leander van Ess acted as agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society for Catholic Germany, and the society published the New Testament of Van Ess, which was placed on the Index in 1821. The princes-bishop of Breslau, Sedlnitzki, who afterward joined the Evangelical Church, was also interested in circulating the Bible. As the Bible Societies generally circulated the translations of heretics, the popes Leo XII (May 5, 1824); Pius VIII (May 25, 1829); Gregory XVI (Aug. 15, 1840; May 8, 1844); Pius IX (Nov. 9, 1846; Dec. 8, 1849) issued encyclicals against the Bible Societies. In the syllabus of 1864 “socialism, communism, secret societies, . . . and Bible Societies” are placed in the same category. As to the effect of the papal decrees there is a difference of opinion within the Catholic Church. In theory the admonition of Gregory XVI no doubt exists, but practise often ignores it.”
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm
” Instead you tried to duck out of admitting your error of there being no German translations available”
Please do not be dishonest about what I wrote. I never said there were “no German translations available”. But their costs and scarcity did NOT spread the Bible thru Germany - while Luther did!
And as noted above, with citations, the Catholic Church formally opposed the spread of vernacular translations.
Nor is the problem with Trent insignificant. For an infallible council to infallibly make an incomplete list of the canon, requiring the invention of a new word to replace Apocrypha, is not insignificant.