Andrew Boyd
Professor of Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue September 26

What were the clergy and popes' reactions to the Gutenberg Bible and the
printing press?

There is a rather significant letter of 12 March 1455 from Enea Silvio
Piccolomini, the future Pope Pius II, to Cardinal Juan de Carvajal, for
whom he worked.

It is the only source from which we know how many bibles were printed
(180). It also praises Gutenberg as a marvelous man, and that the print
is “exceedingly clean and correct in their script, and without error,
such as Your Eminence could read effortlessly without glasses.”

Previously, bibles were expensive. An entire community of Christians
might have to chip in together to afford one, and it would be kept at
the church for all to access, usually, because vast majority were not
literate, by having a literate person read to them, and sometimes the
books were even chained to the lectern so it wouldn’t be stolen and
sold, they were that valuable and rare. Nobles might own one.

Now, not only were they going to be cheaply available, they were easier
to read. the clergy were enthusiastic, as was the pope. The first
printing sold out almost immediately. In relatively short order, printed
bibles were in the hands of Catholics everywhere. It was a great thing.

--------------

David Ecale
September 28

There was a documentary on Gutenberg some few years ago on TV. The best
take-out of the show was a quip that the commentator listed. It went
something like this:
Gutenberg: Dear Abbot, ow many bibles would you like?

Abbot: We’ll take six.

——

The Bible became the Church’s version of a “Book of the Month Club best
seller!” Every parish wanted one of its own.

What the Church missed was that the printing press would become a
significant piece of fuel that fired the Reformation. For Martin Luther,
John Calvin, and their lot would have had no significant way to spread
their translations without it.

It took the Church some time to get into the game with the Douay Bible.
But, the religious wars had already begun and the Douay was a second
fiddle to the flood of other translations.

Don Stursma
September 27
Wasn’t there concern that if ordinary people could get their hands on
the Bible, they might read it and begin to question church doctrine? Or
did that come later.

Andrew Boyd
September 27
That wasn’t really an issue, but it’s a popular anti-Catholic trope. The
only problem that came up was people peddling bad translations or
mistranslations to support heretical views. But, for example, in
Tyndale’s time, the market was so flooded with translations, that
everyone who wanted one already had one.

Don Stursma
September 27
Please be aware there was no Catholic Church bashing intent in my question.

Yes, didn’t think so! :)

Peter Green
Thu
It wasn't as simple as either side portrays it. But the major issue
historically raised by Protestants was not so much that access to
scriptures was banned, as that availability of vernacular translations
was very limited.

After the Albergensian Crusade there was considerable unease about lay
access to the Bible, which is why devotional books “…of hours" etc grew
in popularity. These contained extracts from the gospels and 22 of the
Psalms for devotional purposes, together with a variety of prayers and
meditations. But reading the epistles wasn't encouraged.

Particularly in the Netherlands and to an extent in England, vernacular
versions were also produced.

However more of the Bible was read in masses, as we find in allusions
and references in Chaucer and elsewhere. There was also a healthy
tradition of biblical plays which made many stories of the Old and New
testaments known. But while fairly large sections of the gospels were
translated into Old English before 1100, and there was a tradition of
vernacular preaching in that period, Latin became dominant in Church,
making lay people more dependant on the plays for information.

Considering that literacy was fairly low and hand written books were
extremely expensive, in effect, lay people had very limited direct
access to the Bible until printing became established.

And, while Protestants actively promoted Bible reading from the 1520s,
and promoted the printing of Bibles, naturally Catholics were uneasy
about it until after the authorised Douay version was published.

Effectively, the Catholic Church was caught on the hop and had nothing
to offer as an alternative to Protestant translations; and there was a
mindset that the Vulgate was the only reliable version, so that, while
Protestant translations were generally good for their time, they were
from Greek and Hebrew) Aramaic, which posed a problem alongside the
political one in recommending then for general use.

The other issue was that different dioceses had different policies, with
some being fairly open to lay access to at least parts of the
scriptures, and some quite restrictive.

This was the situation until the late 19th century when some of the last
episcopal declarations against Bible reading were issued.

From memory, the really big boost to Bible reading among Catholics was
publication of the Jerusalem Bible in 1966, which, in conjunction with
Vatican II, clarified the church's position and made it uniform.

You could probably say that lay access to scriptures was overall more
limited among Catholics than among Protestants after the Reformation,
but the restrictions, though with an historical basis, were neither
consistent in any particular place nor uniform over time.

Don Stursma
Yeah history is messy. Believe the wide availability of copies

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 10:17:48 -0700, a425couple wrote:

> because vast majority were not
> literate, by having a literate person read to them,

The Latin would not help