“Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament”
From the web site Catholic Planet:
this site is anti catholic
http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/banned.htm
there is a question in here in which they quote:
The Council of Toulouse made this order:
“We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament”
1. Has this order been superseded? Was the Council wrong? Why is it prohibited for Catholics from owning Bibles?
The Council of Toulouse was not an Ecumenical Council, and its order to prohibit possession of the Bible was under the temporal authority, which even Ecumenical Councils do not exercise infallibly. And their order only applied to the local area under the authority of that local Council. The reason was that certain translations of the Bible were being used to promote a particular heresy (Albigensian heresy). The order was temporary, local, and in my opinion erroneous.
But in any case, the order is often misrepresented by Protestants.
“Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
The order applies mainly to translations of the Latin Vulgate. At that time, many of the laity knew Latin, so they could possess the Vulgate for use in the aforementioned devotions. But even so, I think the Council erred in this order. Toulouse should have only condemned certain versions of the Bible, distorted by translation and by the notes (glosses) in order to promote heresy.
Pope Innocent III did not ban the Bible. He sent letters dealing with the same heresies that Toulouse dealt with. He opposed certain translations used to promote those heresies. See this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_t...he_Middle_Ages
and the section called ‘Innocent III and vernacular translations’
Also, he did not say that people are incapable of understanding the Bible.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cum_ex...cto_%281199%29
He objected to certain groups of heretics, who “celebrate their assemblies in secret, usurp for themselves the duty of preaching, mock the simplicity of the priests and reject their community.”
In another letter, Innocent wrote: “You should also seek the truth carefully: who was the author of this translation, what was their intention, what is the faith of those using it, what is the cause of teaching it, if they venerate the apostolic see and the Catholic Church” showing his concern for certain translations (those used to promote heresy).
These letters were a local and temporary exercise of the temporal authority of the Pope. The contents did not apply to the universal Church on earth, nor were these letters to the Bishop of Metz added to Canon Law (as is claimed).
This letter
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ea_est_in_fovendis
also makes it clear that only certain translations were a matter of concern.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Sorry, but real life superceeds your lying catholic websites!
My maternal grandfather was an Italian immigrant from Pioppo that was excommunicated specifically for having a Bible in his posession.
It turned out to be a wonderful blessing, as it resulted in his finding a real church that preached and lived by the word of God, rather than the satanic traditions of the catholic church.
The cascading effect was that his entire family (three brothers, Mother, wife, inlaws, and all 47 of their children) finding Yeshua.
Excommunication fron the RCC means eternal life for most.
DUH!
No PRO-catholic site would mention it.
I have personally corrected elsie on this twice. Protestants will never allow the facts to get in the way of their opinion.