Medieval People Knew the Bible

 This post goes alongside my previous from some weeks prior to now. In fact, in many it expounds upon it.  You can read it here.
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/were-medieval-people-ignorant.html?showComment=1559098007035#c8571142453869200045

I am about to write a post that may cause some controversy. But for me that won't be the first time, so why stop now!
 Many of my closest friends come to different conclusions on things than I do. We often debate, yet still get along. I think that's how things should be after all.
 Theologians don't often agree, so when some of them resort to which seminary they have been too to boost their ego and ''win'' the argument by putting the other person down, it is irrelevant. Many of the most educated people in the world disagree with each other.  I met an atheist once that claimed he knew so much more than me because he had went to a seminary. College diplomas do not give the satisfaction of one knowing they are right or not, nor does believing something because the majority does. What is perhaps most disturbing about ''who has the most college or seminary education is right'' argument, is that many Seminaries now deny the Virgin Birth and other core Christian doctrines. The fact that one has went to college or seminary makes a person no more right for his belief than he that hasn't. I often find it ironic that many pastors in almost all denominations resort to this argument about seminary education when they have no other substance to argue from.  Truly, many today would not be satisfied with a simple fisherman that preach the gospel. The Wisdom of this World { 1 Corinthians 1}, now matters more to many in the church than the humility of the Apostles.
 We may debate truth, but the facts of history cannot be denied. The Egyptian Pyramids are real buildings of stone built thousands of years ago, Julies Caesar was a real man, the Roman Empire lasted for centuries, and, the bloodiest battle in American History, happened at Gettysburg Pennsylvania .
 What I am getting at is that people who subscribe to a certain theological belief, often resort to changing the facts of history to fit their system. That's why you will find entire theological books give different opinions not only on whether John Calvin or Thomas Aquinas was more Biblically right, but the authors will go further by demonizing one or the other. This is all to fit one's agenda more of course. To do so successfully, facts of history will be denied or twisted to do this. Last, when one questions such people, no matter how polite you are, they will usually resort to putting you down in some way or the other by making you not look credible, so that the attention is off them. This is of course a bullying tactic, and by this point, it has strayed away from good substance of a true debate.
 Whether we like it or not, history is history, and there are obvious things about it that cannot be denied. Issues of dating certain battles or events in general, maybe complicated, but for the most part, we know of many key events and characters as once existing. Some of the details historians may debate, and why certain things happened in history, are left to interpretation. But again, the facts are not.
 Jesus Christ was a real man, whether or not you believe he was the Son of God, as I do. The Bible did not fall out of Heaven, but was put together for centuries. Councils as early as the fourth century taught there were seventy- three books of Scripture for instance. We can agree or disagree with a council based on our free will, but we cannot deny the fact that the Council of Trent for instance, was not the first council to teach that Maccabees was canonical.
 We can agree or disagree with Martin Luther. However, we are doing ourselves an injustice by denying facts of history. For example, if we held him responsible for some of the atrocities committed by his followers, we would be unfair.
 I think it's also important for people to remember that history be understood by the context of the times. When reading Homer for instance, the better you understand Greek Culture, the more you will understand his writings. People wrongly judge the past by the present, often giving way to illogic; of judging past events by our standards or culture.
 I am no theologian, but as a history student, I know what I am talking about. My debates are almost always based on substance, not emotion, or personal attacks. I have studied history for years, so that the study comes natural for me, and sometimes I read it without subjecting it to the title of ''history.''

 It is hardly ever denied the the Catholic Church has played a significant role in the History of Western Civilization.   The Catholic Church institutionalized establishment of hospitals or universities, it has given both education, as well help to the masses for 2000 years. This does not erase greedy red dressed cardinals or popes from their actions, but nor does the latter erase the former.
 Let us be open to the facts of history, as we evaluate our thoughts. But I do pray, that our decisions for the future, and beliefs of the past, not be one from pride, but rather humility.
People often make unfair generalizations about people based on sex, faith, or color of skin. Perhaps this is never more true than when it comes to religion. Catholics and Protestants have a number of occasions where both saw each other as the Whore of Babylon from the Book of Revelation. While much of the division between these Christians has dwindled down, there are still many cases of ignorance or biasness on both sides of the aisle. As the split between Protestants and Catholics goes all the ways back to Medieval Times, it is one I intend to write more about in the future.
 Lest some accuse me of bias; I can give well account of sources, information, and scholars that I have read over the years from both sides.
 As I have said elsewhere, historians tend to be less biased than theologians are. The latter is out to convince people of his church, rather than to be faithful to the facts of history. Protestant Church Historian Alister Mcgrath,  is an example of one who acknowledges the fact that most Christians did once see the Pope as the head of the church, despite the fact that many Protestants deny this.
 On a final note, before you continue, hear me on one more thing; I expose fallacies of history that people often believe to be true. In another post I gave evidence that many Medieval Christians did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, despite the fact that it is seen as a Dogma by Rome now. Later, I will write a post on controversies on Infallibility of the Pope and important facts showing that many Medieval Christians did not see the pope as infallible outside the context of a general council, despite the fact the fact that Vatican I upheld that he was so. In fact, many historians, both Protestant and Catholic, have illustrated from their works their belief that the pope was not seen as infallible until later in history. Again, I am not writing this post to demonstrate who is theologically right or wrong, but to expose false conceptions people have of Medieval Times. As to Papal Infallibility, that shall be a topic for another time.  I say this last note, so that no Catholics or Protestants can accuse me of believing things out of bias. On the contrary, I think for myself. I am convinced that most Christians just accept what their particular church believes so that they can fit in a box. Others do it, out of fear. Still others do it because they are too lazy to their own research. None of these things can be said of me. 

''Once the Coin the plate rings, the soul from Purgatory Springs.'' Although indulgences had been practiced by the Christian Church since at least the 5th century, much abuse went on with it primarily in the 15th and 16th centuries. This abuse would give rise to Luther's 95 Thesis at the doors of Wittenburg. It also would inspire the Council of Trent. 

In this Protestant Woodcut, it contrasts indulgences being sold in the right picture with a bishop presiding over the scene, with that of the abuse of the Hebrew Temple that Christ drove out on the left. 

From time to time you may hear historically false accusations that peasants or even priests, didn't know the Holy Scriptures. For many that make these accusations and claims, this is a huge glorification of the Protestant Reformation, which in their view, suddenly taught man the Scriptures.
 Now, as many of you are aware, this blog is no ''Apologetic related material''. I am not a Catholic Apologist out to convert Protestants, nor am to show them their alleged errors. In fact my views can often contrast with many Catholics and Protestants alike. In my view, I certainly have much in common to C. S. Lewis on many fields of interest and beliefs.
 So, let me again reinstate what my blog is not. This is not a blog for doctrine as I see it, or as Catholics see it.
 In fact I out call out false biases on the parts of both Catholics and Protestants. As I have said elsewhere, I try to see things more as a historian or an English teacher, than that as a theologian. As I intend to be an English teacher in the future, that is all the more true as well.
 Let me start off by saying that I am quite fair in pointing out unfair biases on the parts of Catholics of Protestants.  Some people really just  twist the facts of history to fit their agenda. This is certainly true of both sides. I won't be guilty of this.
 My post here is not intended to either glorify or demean the Protestant Reformation but rather to illustrate that many Protestants have over exaggerated the Medieval Church by making it look all corrupt with it's greedy bishops and it's Peasant members as deceived illiterates. It is interesting to also note, that in recent years many historians went against these fallacies commonly believed by Protestants about the Medieval Church.
 Although it is true; that Protestants will hardly search in vain to find crooked bishops of the past; they will also find; if they open their yes, monks that built the first clocks and contributed greatly to agriculture, and Francis of Assisi and his followers living on absolutely nothing for the service of Christ, some quite saintly popes that suffered for defending their flocks from heresy or infidels.
 It is interesting to note that during the Protestant Reformation, the Protestants portrayed the pope as Antichrist in their artwork, and the Catholics portrayed Luther, as a fat glutton. 

        This Protestant Woodcut above contrasts the humble life of the Apostles washing each other's feet, with that of the pope and cardinals, which it portrays as indulgent church leaders. Woodcuts were common during the Reformation Era.

  Woodcuts from the Catholic perspective, often portrayed a devil influencing Luther's thought.



 Of course despite my interest in Woodcuts, I am not trying to switch topic. They are beautiful in and all, but that maybe a subject on it's own for another post.
 Okay, now to continue.
There are multiple examples of the fact that even the illiterate Medieval Christians were not ignorant of the Scriptures. In fact, many of them certainly knew some of it. Emperor Charlemagne, of the Holy Roman Empire, promoted literacy, and pushed for the addition of the Filioque of the creed, despite the fact that he himself, was illiterate. Many Medieval Christians may have been illiterate, but they were not stupid. Those things they were ignorant in, they made up for in knowledge of subjects that modern man is ignorant of.
 Throughout the Middle Ages Monks studied the Scriptures intensely. Those that mock at the isolation of the monks from towns and culture, should let loose of their pride and give thanks to God that these Monks so seriously preserved the Holy Scriptures in their beautiful illuminated manuscripts. Even besides the preservation of the Word of God, some people have lost sight that it was largely both Greek and Roman Monks that brought the gospel to all of then pagan Europe during the early Middle Ages.
 Several Medieval Councils required that sermons on Sunday teach doctrine. Along with this, some charge that many did not know Latin, despite the fact that many did know some of it. They will complain  of the Bible or liturgy of the church being in Latin, as it was in most cases throughout the Middle Ages. But in fourteenth century England, for instance, more knew Latin than English.
Friars preached to the Masses, whether in the churches, or in the streets. Yes long before the Methodist, Wesley or Whitefield, there were Catholic saints that open air preached.
 A synod at Canterbury in 1281 commanded priests to teach those at their parishes the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the sacraments. Even several Protestant Reformers acknowledged the fact that they learned the ten commandments growing up as Catholics. Priests in the Anglo-Saxon Churches preached in English. 
More commentaries were written on the Bible in the Middle Ages than any other era. I just thought I'd mention that as well. That is important, primarily to show the seriousness and devotion Medieval Christians had towards the Bible.
 Another interesting fact is that many of the Greek Christians in the early Middle Ages were quite learned, despite the fact that many in the West were not, and were just suddenly becoming Christians during the early Middle Ages from recent evangelism. Even then, the Roman Church was essentially always well taught and knowledgeable of theology and scriptures.
 In the High Middle Ages, Pope Innocent III quotes the Scriptures extensively through his writings. If one is to deny the knowledge of Scriptures by his Holiness, they should at least have read his works. If they do read his works however,  I would argue that they would come to acknowledge Innocent's knowledge of the Scriptures. Innocent much like Saint Augustine of Hippo, had an amazing knowledge of the Word of God. He certainly knew for instance, the Scriptures used in support of the papacy. Yet Pope Innocent, knew much more from the Scriptures than the authority Catholics have always believed Christ gave Peter. Of Innocent's knowledge of the Scriptures, and of his personal theology, I will leave that however, for another post.
 Also, it should be noted that there were no printing presses until the 15th century. Up until then, most priests did not have a complete Bible. Medieval Bibles were commonly in illuminated manuscripts, and thus not in print form as we often think of Bibles. It was not easy just to go and buy a Bible like we can easily today. Modern man has underrated and unappreciated his reach of the Bible. I mention this because it is one thing for Protestants to claim the Catholic Hierarchy of the late Middle Ages withheld the bible from the common man for about a century or so, it is another as some Protestants do, who take it much further. Some Protestants wrongly think the Catholic Church withheld the Bible for a thousand years or longer from the Peasants. What many of them fail to understand, is that it was not easy until the printing press to distribute books. So falls this great fallacy about the Catholic Church withholding the Bible for a thousand years. On a lesser note, parts of the Bible had been translated into English centuries before Wycliffe by Anglo-Saxons. But again, some of the Protestants that make these claims do not simply argue that the common man should have been given a Bible, but they add exaggerations to the facts of history to fit their propaganda.
 Many Catholics and Protestants alike fall to guilty of unfair generalizations of each other, as well as phony facts of the past to fit each's own agenda. It is a pity more people of today in this modern world,  don't dwell on the ten commandments as Christians once did. Of course, humility is where a lot of it begins!  I pray to Almighty God for humility and strength for all Christians.



 Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation: on thee do I wait all day.
 -Psalm 25: 5


 Further Sources


https://catholicbridge.com/catholic/did-the-catholic-church-forbid-bible-reading.php

 Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages by R. W. Southern.
 Pope Innocent III and the Greek Church { 1198-1216} by Richard James Clearly
 Introduction to the Roman Catechism, Tan Publishing
 The Complete Illustrated Guide to Catholicism by Ronald Creighton-Jobe
 Reformation: A Picture Story of Martin Luther by Dietrach Steinwede
 How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods
 Origins of Papal Infallability 1150-1350: A study of the concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages by Brian Tierney
 The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300-1870
 Papal Primacy: From it's Origins to the Present by Klaus Scatz