Knowing you need to read the Bible and actually doing it are often two very different things. We are, as Catholics, a biblical people, after all. The Bible is the Word of God. Mass is grounded in scripture. Many of our prayers have biblical roots.
So what's the problem? Why do Catholics seem to have a reputation for not spending any time with the Bible, for not knowing it, and maybe for not even caring?
Maybe it's that Bible is so integrated into so much of our Catholic lives that picking up the Bible might seem, at times, to be almost superfluous.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
In the introduction to A Year with the Bible, well-known author and apologist Patrick Madrid points out, "Right now, as you turn the page and begin reading this book, you are taking, as Saint Jerome says, another step toward heaven."
If you have not yet made any Year of Faith commitments, this might be a great next step.
Patrick has made this easy for us. There's a page for each day of the year, with a one or two sentence introduction, a scripture verse or passage, and then the invitation to enter God's presence with reflection questions and a closing prayer.
You may invest five minutes--or ten--in each day. And yet the passages and meditations have been carefully selected and paired to have a staying power that can only be Spirit-inspired.
Not only is this a useful compilation--Scripture in bite-sized chunks for your entire year is handy, you have to admit--but it's beautiful, too. It's bound and embossed, with a bookmark ribbon and heavy paper. It will stand up for the entire year and many more besides, to be a companion to you and guide you closer to God through his Word.
You can find A Year With the Bible by following this link to EWTN's Religious Catalogue
Comments
Post a Comment
Even the Year of Faith indulgences are about reading through the CCC and/or the Vatican II documents, not reading through the Holy Scriptures.
My family and I have been living in Ireland and my husband and I have been astonished hearing stories of how the bible study was viewed in their homes growing up.
It seems that protestant bible studies and protestnnt bibles were held with such contempt that it was assumed that Catholics were against all study of the bible. They remember their grandparents throwing out a bible, which they try to charitably think it was a protestant version.
They really were given a poor version of the faith, filled with fear and a sense that the Church was against Scripture reading.
A Mitchell ,
It’s sad but one has to consider the history of persecution Irish Catholics endured.It might explain the reaction.
I bought a really elegant-looking Bible with black leather-like cover, gold-edged pages, a very nice font and (the first time I’ve seen this in a Catholic Bible) the words of Jesus in red. It’s a very beautiful volume, one that really looks (to me) like a Bible ought. It’s the St. Benedict Press New American Bible Revised Edition. I really enjoy reading it and have received compliments on its beauty.
Bible Basics for Catholics by John Bergsma gives a beautiful big-picture summary of the overarching themes that tie the Bible together. It helped me be less intimidated by the Old Testament. I’m now reading Word of The Lord by Steven Smith and it teaches how to approach the Bible through the lens of the Church.
One thing that strikes me is that even with the 3-year cycle of readings, there are many parts of the Bible we would never hear if that’s all we used. So I am interested in exploring the other parts of our Lord’s words to us.
One neat idea a friend told me once is that he reads a chapter of Proverbs every day, corresponding to the day of the month. There are 31 chapters in Proverbs so it is easy and works great!
I personally love the Psalms and often will turn to one or another and use it as a prayer. They become like old friends after a while. Our kids love to read Genesis with me. Other folks I know really like Job. There is something in the Bible for everyone.
this is something I decided to do 8 years ago. I knew I wanted to know more about the Bible but reading it was difficult for me to understand. Through searching, I found Dr. Scott Hahn and his wonderful CD’s, most he recorded while he was teaching his classes at Stubenville Ohio. I have learned so much more listening to him than I ever would have in reading on my own and it all makes so much more sense!
I have an hour commute to and from work, so I get 2 hours a day in Bible study. When I get home, I read the Passages he talked about during his talk.
Now, I absolutely love learning all about the Bible! Every time I listen even to the ones I have already listened to over and over, I still learn something new!
I highly recommend listening to Scott or some of the others who also have wonderful educational CD’s (www.saintjoe.com has a lot!)!!
For many the Bible, like the Sunday homilies, are about things that are hard to relate to. Also, we know that ten people will have ten different views of what it says. However, I found that the program “Our Fathers Plan” by Jeff Cavins and Scott Hahn put it in a very interesting way that gives context and meaning to the books of the Bible. They identify the 14 books of the Bible that take you on the journey of Salvation History - the story from the beginning to the time of Christ and how the other 59 books fit in. You can get the DVD set through EWTN (www.ewtn.com)store.
You not only should read the Word of God in the Bible but you have to study it in combination with the traditions and the catechism, to understand the Catholic faith. You have to, live accordingly. May God bless EWTN & NCR
How about getting rid of Sunday in pew missalettes (sp?) ? Which is bible baby food. We need to make a bible
color coded with all the lectionary readings for all masses. Reduce the need for in pew sunday helps and get them reading the Sunday readings right out of the bible, that would help put them in touch with the bible.
I wish some publishing company would work with the bishops committee on the liturgy can create the Catholics Sunday Bible (Bible and all sunday readings) in one. Then it would be up to pastors to stop buying the missalettes and encourage them to bring their bibles to mass…. We have marketed and chopped up the bible into little bits for Sunday services that Catholics in general no longer need the bible…. we have converted God’s word into a market place- Bring the bible back to mass and get rid of all the other stuff. Just a thought!
Last year bought my husband the book “How to Read the Bible” by Abbe Roger Poelman. It appears to have first been published in 1953, so certainly Catholics of that era were encouraged to do so. Whether or not they actually did is another matter. I think part of the problem may be in “interpretation.” Protestants, I gather, can simply open the Bible and let it (Holy Spirit?) “speak” to them. And out of that has come all sorts of problems, most especially with divisions in the Protestant sects—where this pastor will say that XYZ verse means this, and another will say it means that. But the Bible comes to us from the Catholic Church and really, Holy Mother Church is the one who ought to be helping us along to make the proper interpretation. The Bible likely takes many, many years of study to really get, so I imagine people who can interpret it well are in short supply, especially these days.
The personality and intellectual type that would read the Bible cover to cover and remember pivotal passages as Aquinas did… is rarely present in Catholicism. That’s why you’ll come across Popes urging Catholics to read the Bible for the past 150 years to no avail. The type person is gone from Catholicism. Aquinas was the last famous Catholic who exhibited an encyclopedic memorization of Scripture. His equals before him were Jerome and Augustine. After Aquinas some saints like St. John of the Cross know a lot of scripture but not nearly as much as Aquinas. The vast reading and memorization of Jerome, Aquinas and Augustine of the Bible later passes into some Protestant sects instead of continuing within Catholicism. You can find fundamentalist truck drivers from say “Holiness” church who have read and memorized hundreds of verses just as Aquinas did. The mystery is why did the Aquinas/ Jerome/ Augustine Bible habit stop within Catholicism and reappear in some…not all…Protestant sects. Read Aquinas’ Summa Theologica end to end and you’ll see him on average quote pivotal passages of scripture perhaps 5 times a page for several thousand pages of five volumes in some editions. If Aquinas suddenly returned to earth, he would enjoy more, a week of conversing with a Billy Graham type than he would conversing with a Catholic with a Masters in Theology but who had not yet read even 20% of the Bible…nor memorized much of that. Why did the Bible habit exist in Aquinas but later pass into Protestant sects instead of remaining in Catholicism? We all know the switch involved the Reformation and the emphasis on the Council of Trent as corrective of lone Bible reading. But how did the flight from scripture become so thorough?
I’m 61 and I’ve been reading the Bible ever since I could read. If I didn’t understand a verse, I just skipped it and went on. I credit reading the Bible for my interest in history and archaeology too. I have Scott Hahn’s New Testament study Bible and the audio of the New Testament that Raymond Arroyo produced. Sure the Bible can be hard to understand, but that’s what God gave us brains and curiosity for. Read it - it’s fascinating!
I began the Bible seriously in 1972. I read the original New American Bible (NAB), the New English Bible (NEB), the KJV and the (first) Jerusalem Bible mostly. I found the NAB a bit bland and somewhat similar to Today’s English Version (Good News Bible) - the same Greek text). I really liked the NEB even though it eschewed leaving out cliches as they ought to be. With the first “de-sexism” of the NAB coupled with the second “de-sexism” of it, I find the newest NAB to be a chore and wonder how any reader could endure more than 5 minutes of it. Most of the time now I hear the KJV but prefer to read the NEB of the 60s for its clarity. The Psalms I enjnoy out loud are by Cranmer.
A statement and a question:
In the “olden” days ( 1940’s) we were actually discouraged, while attending the catholic school,to read the bible: because it was too difficult to understand and that a priest should interpret the contents.
And why are there different versions of the bible?
The reason Catholics have the reputation for not reading the Bible is because the early English translations of the Bible were done by persons condemned by the Church as heretics and the Church thought their translations would be skewed to support their heresies in the way that Luther fixed Romans 3 by adding alone to Paul’s word faith. At the Council of Trent 1/4 of the participants thought vernacular translations should be condemned, 1/4 thought they should be required, and the other 1/2 thought the local churches should be allowed to do what they thought best on the subject of translations. The English Church translated it in the late 1500s, but some other countries didn’t.
\\Even the Year of Faith indulgences are about reading through the CCC and/or the Vatican II documents, not reading through the Holy Scriptures.\\
That’s because there are already indulgences attached to reading the Bible—for at least the last 10 decades, in fact. Doesn’t it bother you to pop off about things of which you know nothing, ThomasL?
@Dixibehr: I was about to comment the same thing, but thanks for getting there first!
Decisions on which ancient scrolls to include in the Catholic Bible were based, circa 400 A.D., on which scrolls were regularly read from in the liturgies of the various churches. That did not mean that every particle of a given scroll was edifying. Some passages in the historical books describe massacres or evil perpetrated by evil leaders.
Some books (Esther, Tobit, e.g.) may be novels, used to teach lessons but not entirely fact-based. Job may well be a novel, written as a reflection on why bad things sometimes happen to good people.
In the Psalms, we can find reflections or prayers to relate to a variety of emotions or situations in our lives.
We need also to be aware that some series of commentaries reflect protestant theology, and may not be reliable on some bible passages. Barclay was a Presbyterian minister. Barclay’s commentaries have problems with New Testament passages relating to the Holy Eucharist, as in John’s Gospel, Chapter 6.
If you want to read the Bible cover to cover, set an objective of one book at a time; I’d suggest starting with the Gospel of Mark. For Mark, everything is in a hurry. Mark sees urgency in the message of Jesus.
In contrast, John’s Gospel has much reflection and many misunderstandings. To John, thinking back over decades after the Resurrection, and being aware of some of the other Gospels, the need is to write about areas that he thinks may not have been sufficiently discussed in the other accounts of the life of Jesus.
To incorporate these scriptures in your thinking, you need to do some writing or journaling during reading of each book. What was it about? What did you learn? Why did the Christian community of the early centuries include this book in their liturgies.
TeaPot562
@Dixibehr
Not especially. I count on such kindhearted correction if I step an inch out of line.
Why do so many Catholics fail to read the Bible?
They have no context of preparatory knowledge into which to place that reading.
First, just the layout of the Bible is foreign to them. Walk up to a Protestant 9-year-old from my hometown and say, “Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel…what?” and they’ll say, “Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah!” Do the same trick with a Catholic and they’ll look at you blankly.
Second, they don’t have a standard book-order they can rely upon, because the position of the Deuterocanon isn’t consistent. The rare Catholic who could correctly answer the previously-mentioned question would actually say something like, “It’s actually Isaiah, Jeremiah, BARUCH, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel…assuming that one groups Jeremiah’s secretary’s work together with Jeremiahs, instead of putting it after Malachi, or in an appendix somewhere.”
Third, they don’t have regular practice flipping to the right part of the Bible, a.k.a. “sword drills.” In Mass they hear merely, “A reading from the Gospel according to Matthew.” They ought to hear, “Please pull turn in your Bibles to today’s reading from Matthew 24, verses 6-10. If you don’t have your Bible with you, please feel free to use the pew Bible; you’ll find Matthew 24 on page 646. Follow along with me as I read….” (For those of you who don’t know, what I described was standard Protestant practice from the 1700’s up until the “seeker-sensitive” churches started putting everything on a projection screen. And, no, it didn’t usually take people more than 10 seconds to find Matthew 24, because they started practicing this as 8-year-olds in Sunday School.)
Fourth, homilies are typically too short to provide meaningful Bible instruction. Sorry, but 10 minutes is not long enough for anyone other than a tobacco auctioneer to explain who Matthew was, relate the context of the passage, show how this passage relates to the Old Testament reading, debunk popular misconceptions about this passage, give an example of a real-world modern-life question or problem that this passage is relevant to, and exhort the parishoners to a decision of will in which they put the teaching into practice when such questions or problems arise.
Fifth, Catholics of every age ought to normally be in study-groups meeting either on Sunday mornings immediately before or after Mass, or on some night of the week, in which they deepen their friendships with one another, share prayer requests, and spend 30 minutes or so discussing some scriptural, doctrinal, moral, evangelistic, or apologetical topic, in which the instructor frequently references Scripture and, when citing the reference, asks someone in the group to please find the relevant passage and read it aloud to the class.
That’s how you produce scriptural literacy in a people. Protestants used to do it, although they’ve now given much of it up in favor of entertainment. Still, for a few hundred years they got a lot of mileage out of appropriating a Catholic book.
Since they’re increasingly dropping said book, and since it’s our book to start with, maybe it’s time we picked it back up, ourselves?
I have heard it said by one Baptist convert apologist that the negligence of Catholics toward the Bible is a “disgrace”. Well not having grown up Catholic, what he miss-understands is that the Catholic approach is Thematic, not Legalistic, like the Protestant approach. I grew up in a strong Catholic home, and by the time I was in high school, I pretty much knew all the relevant stories in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. I would venture to guess that most kids at that age knew these things as well. What we misread as poor Catachisis, is really children being led out of the Eden of their homes by the serpent of peer pressure which says that being “Holy” is for nerds. Having faith and living it out is looked at the same as Santa Claus. Death, judgement, heaven and hell are scoffed at as tools to control you, just like being good so you get toys for Christmas. Bible readers are looked at as naive nerds as well, and that stigma (along with many other irrational teen-aged conclusions about life) sticks around in our heads for years.
“Why don’t Catholics read the Bible?” For me (I hate to say it), because Protestants DO read it. The fact that Protestants hold the Bible as the only authoritative truth (rejecting Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium) somehow puts me off memorizing and reciting chapter and verse for the sake of evangelizing. Quoting the Bible word-for-word is about the least effective, most off-putting method of persuasion I can think of.
When I hear “where is that in the Bible?” my immediate response is “who cares?” Why does it have to be in the Bible? Who says so? Certainly the Bible itself doesn’t say so. The Church has been given Biblical(!) authority to bring truths into the Faith that are not explicitly stated in the Bible. Heck, if not for Apostolic Tradition, the Bible would never have been compiled in the first place. All the Protestant emphasis on their “private reading” (don’t dare mention the word “interpretation”—especially authoritative interpretation) is, for some reason, a turn-off for me.
That said, I do love to reading the Bible—but in a Catholic way—balanced by Sacred Tradition, authoritative interpretation, and read as an organic whole. I love the Protestant passion for the Bible, but when they use it to attack the Catholic Church, as the sole weapon to reject the truths of the Church, I feel a strange separation from it and a strong refusal to elevate the Bible the way they do. I guess it’s a rebellious streak that I need to get over!
Good point Mark. It’s like the parent who is hyper-strict as a reaction to the spouse he/she perceives as too lenient.
May I also point out that rattling off large numbers of assorted Bible verses is NOT the same thing as giving the Word of God?
If you doubt me, consider that Satan and the Pharisees quoted scripture to Jesus all the time, but they were hardly speaking the Word of God.
http://www.chnetwork.org/readguide04.pdf
Here is link to a one year Bible and Catechism reading plan. It claims it that 30 minutes a day is all it takes, but it appears more like 45-60 minutes a day for a deeper comprehension. This would be challenging for people working and raising a family and would probably require more than a year for many people.
I could not agree more on the importance of studying the bible.But i find your line of logic a bit wrong.You wrote :( We are, as Catholics, a biblical people, after all. The Bible is the Word of God. Mass is grounded in scripture).Mass was celebrated by early christians before or at the time the new testament was written to partake of the SACRAMENT of Eucharist.We are Christians from Baptism in Christ (a SACRAMENT).My point is that my faith should be a living faith and to promote the Bible the way you do has the appearance of protestantism.Benedict XVI wrote a good book titled :The spirit of the liturgy ,a very learned exposition on the aims in the changes done by Vatican II
Kathleen:
“Persecution of Irish Catholics!?!” Are you serious?
.
Remember the Magdalene Laundries?
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=spigot-yhp-ch&va=magdalene+laundries
The continuing sexual abuse?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/world/europe/14church.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The Irish-Catholic Charities baby selling?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWdtdGCv9gk
If Irish Catholics were “persecuted” before the 20th Century, they gave it back in spades!
The Bible is usually the ONLY book Christians ever read. Kudos to those who are more broad minded!
Patrick Madrid also has a “150 Bible Verses Every Catholic Should Know”, which is truly excellent. However, as a convert from Protestantism, I thought 150 verses meant that, like John 3.16 is a verse. His idea of “a verse” is really more like “a paragraph”. 150 Bible Paragraphs Every Catholic Should Know isn’t at all catchy as a title. For purposes of apologetics, this is a thoughtful resource.
Say, as for those indulgences attached to reading the Bible; would anybody have a link for that? Or a suggestion as to where and with what search words a person might find more information about them?
I am catholic and I read the bible. Thanks, Dan, you must be part-genius.
Why read the Bible when you have an infallible magisterium which tells you what to believe, how to believe it, what to do, and how to do it? And which tells you if you don’t do it their way, you’ll end up in hell?
A parish I know offered several Bible studies - they attracted between 9-10 for each study. We found out later that some people were spreading the word that the Divine Mercy devotion would not be used before the study, and that the person leading the study did not feel any particular enthusiasm for the Tridentine Latin liturgy.
Bible study will never find a footing in such a church.
While Bible studies, various approved devotions, and the Extraordinary Form are good things in themselves, they are also three separate exercises. There is no reason for persons who find spiritual nourishment in one to also be attracted to the other two.
\\They ought to hear, “Please pull turn in your
Bibles to today’s reading from Matthew 24, verses 6-10. If you don’t have
your Bible with you, please feel free to use the pew Bible; you’ll find
Matthew 24 on page 646. Follow along with me as I read….”\\
Wrong.
ACTIVE, attentive, intelligent LISTENING to the Word proclaimed in the assembly IS THE liturgical act on the part of the faithful, corresponding to what the Readers and Gospeller do.
Remember, the Church has been here longer than printed personal Bibles.
People should prepare for the liturgical proclamation of God’s word by reading over the scripture pericopes at home.
Nuala,
Agenda distorts perspective. History, too.
OT Re Irish Church’s abuse of the faithful in the twentieth century should really be the the complicit abuse by the Irish government with the Catholic Church. The government was setting up, funding and monitoring the charitable institutions where this abuse occurred. The abuse is still continuing. There are still children abused , neglected and dying in Ireland through the social welfare mistakes and foster care programs. If the Church is responsible for not reporting the serial abusers hiding in their rectorys then what about the police that would not prosecute any child abuse claims. Wake up. The average sentence for a convicted rapist NOW is two years. The Irish government has created the best environment for child molesters as it doesn’t prosecute, convict or extradite.
Patrick’s book A Year With. . .is only adding to the problem. The ad does not even give the viewer an adequate description of this book or the opportunity to look inside to see if the “meditation (commentary) and prayer” take up more space than the bible text. Why wouldn’t a year with the bible mean taking up the bible and reading it for yourself without somebody else’s response to it? Certainly the Church’s concern about “private interpretation” is warrented since that has, after all, led for the past five hundred to a severe splintering of the community of The Church into literally hundreds if not thousands of little churches who do not talk to each other; hardly a holy outcome. However, ignoring the problem or serving out inneffective remedies and leaving the individual to come, often by accident to an appreciation of the Bible, is not going to help. People have to be taught, even from an early age, to come to the table of scripture to be fed with the Word of God, just as they come to the table for communion with the risen Christ. Once a person has really tasted the Word of God from the source in Holy Scripture their understanding of Eucharist will be so much deeper and the motivation will be there to keep coming back to it, just to keep on knowing God better. How to effectively encourage Catholics to do that is the question, since whatever the Church is doing right now is not working, making people listen to somebody else drone on about how good that food is. People HAVE TO experience the Bible themselves. Like children people have to be given the opportunity to taste for themselves before they will make that food their own.
Frankly I can’t imagine being a member of Christ’s Body yet being ignorant of the very Word He quoted we are to live by. I came in to the Church this year and am very happy about it. The RCIA class I attended was confusing insofar that the deacon teaching it stated that there were mistakes in the Bible. Thankfully I had a lifelong relationship with the Bible and a several decade relationship with the Author so it didn’t affect me. I am thankful to see an interest in the study of the Bible.
Posted by Dixibehr
May I also point out that rattling off large numbers of assorted Bible verses is NOT the same thing as giving the Word of God?
If you doubt me, consider that Satan and the Pharisees quoted scripture to Jesus all the time, but they were hardly speaking the Word of God.
Think of this as something akin to language acquisition: vocabulary and grammar are needed. Too much of one can almost be an impediment. Memorizing Bible verses, or at least being able to recognize passages is important. Having a theological framework for how those verses relate to each other and the faith is also important.
Just because Satan can quote scripture doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. My understanding is that the beginning of the Gospel of John, those verses were referring to Jesus. Isn’t memorization of scripture one more way to have God in our hearts and lives?
\\ Isn’t memorization of scripture one more way to have God
in our hearts and lives?\\
Did it do the Pharisees any good?
The written word and the Word Incarnate are two different things. In fact, Jesus said that devotion to the Scriptures can get in the way of seeing Him.
\\The RCIA class I attended was confusing
insofar that the deacon teaching it stated that there were mistakes in the
Bible. \\
I would like to know what the deacon meant by this. It does not go against the faith to say that the Bible is not history, and even less is it science, as we understand those disciplines today. That was not the intention of the Biblical authors, or even God’s intention in inspiring them, to be writing as such.
Furthermore, the Bible is something that exists WITHIN the Church, not separate or superior to her. It can only be properly understood within the context of the spiritual life of the Church.
Perhaps Catholics remain hesitant to read the Bible interpretively due to the following instructions from the Vatican:
VATICAN CITY (CNS)Apr. 24, 2009—The interpretation of sacred Scripture cannot be subjective, but must be interpreted within the church community, said Pope Benedict XVI. “Only within the ecclesial context can sacred Scripture be understood as the authentic word of God that acts as guide, norm and rule for the life of the church and the spiritual growth of the faithful,” he said. “This entails rejecting every interpretation that is subjective or simply limited to a mere analysis (and therefore) incapable of being open to the overall meaning that has guided the tradition of the entire people of God over the course of centuries,” he said in an address to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission April 23. The commission of biblical scholars is an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and its president is U.S. Cardinal William J. Levada, prefect of the congregation. During their meeting April 20-24, commission members concentrated on the theme “Inspiration and Truth in the Bible.” Again on April 20. 2012 . Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed “While the text of the Bible is fixed, the same Holy Spirit that inspired its writing continues to inspire its proclamation and interpretation in the church,-
Roman Catholic communities may therefore correctly assume that effective immediately they will be required to observe the following revised regulations regarding all Sacred Scripture: (kindly read the following at your own risk)
a) only members of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith are able to recognize the authentic word of God.
b) all other Catholics should immediately refrain from reading the Bible as they are likely to interpret the text subjectively.
c) all readings of the Bible by Catholics conducted at home, church, schools and any other Catholic venues must be avoided since listeners do not possess or have access to the Holy Spirit and could easily be misled.
d) all Catholics failing to observe these conditions will be denied full communion and may be subject to excommunication. Failing that members may be burned at the stake.
e) Catholics may return their Bibles at their nearest parish or recognized Catholic bookstore. All requests for refunds must be filed directly with the Vatican office in Rome.
Pope says Scripture must be interpreted within church community
VATICAN CITY 24/4/09 (CNS)—The interpretation of sacred Scripture cannot be subjective, but must be interpreted within the church community, said Pope Benedict XVI. “Only within the ecclesial context can sacred Scripture be understood as the authentic word of God that acts as guide, norm and rule for the life of the church and the spiritual growth of the faithful,” he said. “This entails rejecting every interpretation that is subjective or simply limited to a mere analysis (and therefore) incapable of being open to the overall meaning that has guided the tradition of the entire people of God over the course of centuries,” he said in an address to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission April 23. The commission of biblical scholars is an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and its president is U.S. Cardinal William J. Levada, prefect of the congregation. During their meeting April 20-24, commission members concentrated on the theme “Inspiration and Truth in the Bible.” Again on April 20. 2012 . Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed “While the text of the Bible is fixed, the same Holy Spirit that inspired its writing continues to inspire its proclamation and interpretation in the church,-
Roman Catholic communities may therefore correctly assume that effective immediately they will be required to observe the following revised regulations regarding all Sacred Scripture: (kindly read the following at your own risk or lack of humor)
a) only members of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith are able to recognize the authentic word of God.
b) all other Catholics should immediately refrain from reading the Bible as they are likely to interpret the text subjectively.
c) all readings of the Bible by Catholics conducted at home, church, schools and any other Catholic venues must be avoided since listeners do not possess or have access to the Holy Spirit and could easily be misled.
d) all Catholics failing to observe these conditions will be denied full communion and may be subject to excommunication. Failing that members may be burned at the stake.
e) Catholics may return their Bibles at their nearest parish or recognized Catholic bookstore. All requests for refunds must be filed directly with the Vatican office in Rome.
Kathleen—are you telling me that the Catholic Church doesn’t have an agenda?
.
Do you ever wonder what life would be like if you’d had enough oxygen at birth?
Trebert—
You’re probably correct—Catholics tend to do what they are told, and not ask what is morally right.
Nuala ,
We all see things through different filters & those color our perspective.Maybe our manners, too.
God bless.
It’s all about the heart. How can we really know the heart of God unless we read or hear what God actually inspired the biblical writers to write about him—in both the Old and the New Testament. The person who remarked “did it do the pharisees any good?” is right on as far as it goes. What she/he misses is that in that very dialogue with the Pharisees Jesus told them that everything they had read pointed to Him. Now wouldn’t you think it is important for us to go back into the Old Testament to find out what those pharisees had missed? Jesus was teaching that our deep study of scripture should prepare us to recognize him when he appears in our life. The Pharisees didn’t recognize him but they should have. It’s all about the heart. Something was wrong with theirs to have missed this in Holy Scripture. Of course Holy Scripture can be used as some sort of idol, sort of like the person who sees only the finger pointing at the moon instead of seeing the moon it points to. But please think again before believing Jesus was saying one should not study Holy Scripture. He was implying that while they had studied it they had not properly understood it. Otherwise they would have recognized who he was. Making Holy Scripture our own is all about our heart seeking to know The Lord better; the same Lord we receive in communion. I would like to see the Catholic Church focus in on raising up GOOD bible teachers so everyone can claim their birthright of knowing Holy Scripture. For that we must pray to The Lord of the Harvest.
Kathleen—I agree that we all have our filters, but the trouble I have with Catholics is that they insist that my “filter” is wrong, and their “filter” is the only one that sifts out the “Truth.” Pilate was right—everybody has different “truths.”
It’s OK by me if you want to believe the Catholic version of “truth,” but you have no right to evangelize others. Life would be boring if everybody were Catholic.
Kathleen—how do you know the Catholic vision is the “truth?” Or is it just your opinion that it should be your truth?
I am Catholic and have always read the bible from the time I was very young. I find the characterization of Catholics not reading the bible and being lesser Christians insulting and a convenient caricature to draw people into protestant churches.
Dan Crawford,
Thankyou. It definitely is all about the heart.
Darlene
@Tony: I congratulate you, however, it’s true that most Catholics could not find the Book of Judges, Malachi or Ruth without a table of contents.
Nuala,
It’s fair for you to have a personal opinion regarding evangelization, but in a free country we can hold opposing views.
Comment boxes are not the best means to get answers to Catholic teaching.Why don’t you ask a theologian here or at Catholic Answers?
God bless.
@Kathleen: Jesus spoke in John 17:17 “Thy word is truth.” Regardless of whether a person is Catholic or Protestant, if you truly follow Christ you know there is but ONE standard—God’s word, the Bible. Church doctrine, the Catechism, Papal edicts, et al must all line up *after* God’s word. On this standard one can discern when hearing truth versus error. If you in the pew do not know what God has said, you have no benchmark by which to judge what is correct. I have heard differing views by both Catholic priests and nuns when teaching which nuance “official” church teaching with that of their own opinion. That’s where people often are misled—especially Catholics in whom they generally place total trust in what is said from the pulpit. If you fail to study God’s word you can become swayed in all sorts of direction regarding truth. As for telling Nuala to “ask a theologian” —well, I would definitely want to know what the theologian thinks and to hear his/her testimony before accepting their response as being correct. Someone having a “title”—even a church title does not mean we automatically give them a free pass.
Casting Crowns,
I suggested asking a theologian thru this site or possibly Catholic Answers-both orthodox sources of Catholic info as far as I know.Perhaps you can offer additional sites?
Thanks!
Kathleen—it’s a free country and you can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own facts.
Thanks Nuala,
I heard that said on the presidential debates, too.I think Mitt Romney used that line.Or was it visa versa?
Kathleen—it’s been said by a lot of people, but you don’t seem to pay attention.
I’m pretty sure Mitt Romney didn’t say it. He has his own facts. Look what happened—he was totally shocked when he lost the election.
Nuala,
Thanks. It was kind of shocking & went against previous voting trends during similar economic conditions.You just never can tell.
Some of my earliest memories, was sitting in my Mom’s lap, as she read the Illustrated Bible History by Dr. I Shuster. Those early readings set the path for a lifetime of Bible reading & meditation. We not only did the same for our children, but also the grandchildren. Every once in a while I get a call from my grandson, with a ?, such as what does God look like?
While formal Bible classes are good, it is still the parents who are the first & most influential. St. Mary’s Press puts out some very good publications for helping children grow with the Bible:
http://www.smp.org/
While many can quote scripture passages, what is so often lost in the context of the message. In addition, it is always good to supplement the Bible, with the writings of the early Church Fathers to aid in it’s study.
i.e. in the quote of a camel passing through the needle’s eye, the Hebrew word for camel & cable is the same. So what did Christ refer to, a rope or the camel? Not that it’s necessary for salvation, to understand the context, but one has to be careful on going it alone.
P.S.
last sentence should be “Not that this individual passage is necessary for salvation, to helps to understand how the individual passage relates to the rest of the message. One does have to be careful on going it alone”.
Kathleen—you just made my point:
“... if you truly follow Christ you know there is but ONE standard—God’s word, the Bible.”
How can you know that the ONE standard is the appropriate standard? Just because it is written in the Bible? I find the story of Jesus Christ a bittersweet myth—I still don’t get why a completely “sinless” man had to die horribly, or why a “good” Father would produce a Son specifically for that fate. I don’t understand why all that “saved” anybody.
I don’t understand why your religion is better than any other, or better than none at all (as Matt B told me above).
Romney had his standards—and they were not facts. It’s no wonder he and everyone who supported him were shocked by Obama’s win. That’s an example of “having your own facts.” He might have won if he accepted reality instead of his own standards.
Sorry you were upset by the results, but what can you expect when you filter information so that it fits a standard that has no connection with statistical facts?
My earlier replies are still being checked as spam. but I’ll try to put another comment through.
.
.
Kathleen, Mitt Romney had his own “facts” and that is why he was devastated to learn he lost the election. His party said straight out that they wouldn’t pay attention to “fact-checkers” and so they got what they deserved.
.
It also tells that while hope is necessary, it should be tempered by doubt to make you stronger. Most Romney supporters were devastated because they couldn’t conceive the idea that Romney could possibly “not win” the election.
.
The “voting trends during similar economic conditions”—or I should say voting trends in general, are only snapshots and cannot predict the future. As you wrote, you never can tell, anything is possible.
.
This is why I can’t understand the Catholic belief that “truth” is unchanging. “Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens” (David Byrne)
.
I think that’s dull—but that’s my opinion. Can you tell me how it’s something to look forward to?
Protestants make a fetish out of reading the Bible because that’s all they have. Their religion is nothing but this book.
The vast majority of Christians in the Apostolic Churches of Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy could not, prior to very recently, read.
Most Christians in history could not read. And even if they could, prior to the printing press, the texts were not available. So I fail to see how reading the Bible is so crucial for everyone.
Nuala ,
Maybe the simplest answer is that Heaven’s the only thing we can look forward to after this life.It’s either that or nothing- literally.Unless you want to contemplate Hell.I don’t & I doubt you believe in that anyway.
Have you read Dante?
Nuala, if you don’t believe Christianity, why do you waste your time reading and commenting on a Christian site? What exactly are you trying to accomplish?
Kathleen
Yes, I read and love Dante!
Have you read any Hindu epics—the Mahabharata and Ramayana are also fascinating to read and have a beautiful concept of the universe and gods.
.
But they are fiction as well-though there are many believers. There’s no reason to believe in heaven or hell as reality, or any human existence beyond death. The best I can hope for is to die with dignity—as Hitchens did.
.
Dixibehr:
One reason I stop by here to comment is that Catholics tend to impose their religion on secular society. Regardless of what you believe, contraception is a legal right. It is sometimes medically necessary to abort a fetus with a heartbeat to save the mother’s life.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
.
The above story is worth tracking as Haveen Halappanavar is taking it to the European courts and it should result in a decision on when abortion is medically necessary. It should also question whether religion should interfere with medical care.
.
You’re making the mistake of thinking I totally reject Christianity, when it is a very interesting and sometimes beautiful religion. As with all religions, however, it has its ugly side. Savita Halappanavar is very likely a victim of medical decisions based on the Catholic religion rather than the secular values of medical ethics.
.
Why can’t anyone give me a strait answer instead of telling me to get lost?
@EssEm: [“Protestants make a fetish out of reading the Bible because that’s all they have. Their religion is nothing but this book.”] EssEm, there is your problem right there—your viewpoint. And if you remove this book from Catholicism you also have no basis of faith in Christ. It’s not just a *book,* it is the word of God.
@EssEm: [“So I fail to see how reading the Bible is so crucial for everyone.”] Since Jesus (the author) knew and read the Scriptures Himself, I am sure He would be interested in your surprising comment.
Nuala,
Thank you for your comments.
No, I’ve only read just a little of Indian writings but have seen some Hindu festivals in films & documentaries.
I don’t know if you are writing from Ireland or the States, but we have two governors here in the Southern US who are of (East)Indian ancestry.
I understand you disagree, but I think hope & love are good reasons to believe in an eternal life beyond death.Either way, I guess we’ll all find out eventually.
Have you seen any of the “Catholicism” series by Fr. Robert Barron?
Have a good weekend & God bless.
Nuala:
1. Your comments about birth control and contraception relate to the subject of Bible reading just how? And why should YOU impose YOUR religious views on an unborn child, subjecting her to death? It’s only your religion that says it’s ok.
2. I’m not a Roman Catholic.
Kathleen
Thanks—I do have hope and love, and I like to think I give as much as I can to others. I also have my own ideas on what would be “heaven” for me—probably not the same as yours. I know it is wishful thinking and has no basis in reality.
.
Dixibehr
You asked my why I visit a Christian site, not anything about the subject above. This site doesn’t have a “miscellaneous” blog, and I join in whenever I find a comment that I want I want respond to. How else am I to introduce myself and ask questions of practicing Catholics?
.
Also, the anonymous names are important, because people like you tend to get angry with me.
.
I keep telling people here that I’m an atheist—that means I don’t have religious beliefs. It doesn’t make sense to me that two lives were lost instead of just one. Catholic religion was also imposed on Savita and Haveen Halappanavar and it killed her.
.
Why are you on a Catholic site if you’re not Catholic?
Kathleen—
I highly recommend that you watch “Sita Sings the Blues” on the Creative Commons website. It’s a free movie and gives a nice blend of the Ramayana with a modern story parallel. The songs are great too!
.
Dixibehr
It will be interesting how the European courts decide on the Savita Halappanavar case, and how the Supreme Court will decide on DOMA and Proposition 8. Power to the People!!!
http://morallowground.com/2012/12/04/las-vegas-police-dina-and-markiece-palmer-beat-7-year-old-son-roderick-arrington-to-death-for-not-reading-bible/
\\It will be interesting how the European courts decide on the Savita
Halappanavar case, and how the Supreme Court will decide on DOMA and
Proposition 8. Power to the People!!!\\
Nuala, there is doubtless more to the sad case of Savita Halappanavar than you or i know about—or for that matter, the secular media, which have been having a field day with this. Some of that information has been linked to newadvent.org—among other things, the poor woman was in the hospital for 3 days with a raging fever and NOTHING was done for her, not even antibiotics or IV infusions, which are standard practices for miscarrying.
As I recall, Proposition 8 was decided by “the People” of California. Too bad you don’t agree with what “the People” actually decided.
I’ve noticed that throughout history, those who chant “power to the people” the loudest, or sing the most eloquently about the plight of “humanity” care very little about actual human beings.
One more thing, Nuala. If there is any institution of the U. S. Government LESS attuned to “the people,” is the U. S. Supreme Court. Or are you a U. S. Citizen?
How do you mean about SCOTUS not being “attuned” to the people? They are going to determine if forbidding same sex marriage is a violation of civil rights. It will be a final decision—no more doubts.
You didn’t answer—why are you posting on a Catholic site if you’re not Roman Catholic? What are you trying to accomplish?
Nuala, what will you do if SCOTUS decides against same-sex marriage? Will you still scream “power to the people”? (I’m the first to admit that DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates both the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment thereof.)
And are you so ignorant that you think that “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” are the same? Probably. Most atheists I know are bigots and ignorant about what Christian churches really teach and now they exist anyway.
The reporter in the Savita Halappanavar case has indicated that maybe perhaps the husband didn’t ask for termination when they first arrived at hospital. There are reasons to believe that there were other problems besides the miscarriage going on, and those other things weren’t being dealt with appropriately.
My suspicion is that the unfortunate came across a hospital and some staff members who were pro-abortion, and willing to mistreat a patient to prove their point about the law. Hopefully all will be made clear in good time.
Remember that those posting here all their own motivations. Those interested in learning more about the faith might be better served finding authoritative sources. I do not have any formal training in theology.
I am Catholic, and I do try to read the Bible several times during the day. While I make coffee before reading the Bible in the morning, I don’t turn on the radio, television or computer before that. At bed time the Bible and my prayers are the last thing I do before turning out the lights. Remembering who created this world, loved me enough to give me eternal salvation and desires only that I become more holy and join Him in Heaven is good thing to do at both ends of the day.
My, my, are you getting upset?!? Did I offend you in some way?
.
Yes, if SCOTUS does decide that it same sex marriage does not have to be recognized legally, I will still scream “power to the people!” They will be making their decision based on the Constitution, not the Bible or the Catholic faith. They will also have to explain their decision, whatever they rule. It will be a secular decision, not a religious one.
.
And yes, I was ignorant until now that there is a difference between “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic.” If you’re willing, please tell me the differences.
.
And, yes—it is possible to be an atheist bigot who is ignorant about what Christian churches are about. Ayn Rand is a classic example.
.
There are also Catholic bigots who are ignorant about atheism and why we don’t agree with everything Christian churches teach.
.
I wrote that I visit this site from time to time to learn from practicing Catholics—not just the “official” teachings. I’m open to learning, and that’s why I ask questions.
.
I wrote earlier that I’m visiting this site from time to time to get answers from practicing Catholics. You’re making assumptions about me because I’m an atheist, but you seem to be so ignorant as to think all atheists are the same.
I know we don’t know everything about Savita Halappanavar’s death, but it is known that they did not abort the pregnancy while the fetal heart was still beating, and that relevant medical records are missing from her files.
.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/savita-halappanavars-abortion-requests-missing-from-medical-file-16241442.html
.
She contracted the septicemia that killed her before the fetal heart stopped. Whether she would have contracted the antibiotic-resistant infection if the abortion had been performed when she and her husband requested will be a major issue.
.
In any case, abortion laws in Ireland will have to be clarified, and medical ethics rather than Catholic doctrine will be the standard for healthcare.
Nuala,
What are your thoughts or feelings around whether Catholics read or know the Bible well enough?
Personally, I don’t care how often anyone reads the Bible—I just wish they’d read other books as well and do some critical thinking instead of taking it a face value, and stop forcing its precepts on medical care and other secular matters.
Catholics base their position on abortion on three things.
1. Scientific observation of a fetus tells us it is alive.
2. Logic tells us of it in a woman, it is human.
3. The Bible tells us we may not kill humans. Criminal courts prosecute ( enforce a moral code) on killing in our country every day. I you bought into the above assumptions, would you not feel obliged to protect the fetus?
1. Science has developed technology that can keep the heart beating and the lungs breathing long after the brain stops functioning. Whether it is the moral thing to do is a different question. A fetus does not have a fully functional brain at 17 weeks. In circumstances like the one Savita Halappanavar’s miscarriage, it’s brain would never develop beyond the most primitive state once out of the womb. So, is “life” a heartbeat” or is it a working brain?
.
2. False—logic does not necessarily mean that because a pulsing, organized group of cells exists in a woman means it is human. Such things are miscarried (spontaneously aborted) all the time. See above.
.
3. The Bible may tell you not to kill humans, but we do it all the time! Catholics have a notorious history of killing humans-non-Catholics and women in particular. There are Catholics in the military ready to kill humans on command. Hitler was a Roman Catholic alter Boy and wrote of wanting to be a Catholic priest. He and his men in charge of killing six million Jews were Catholic religious fanatics until death.
.
So, you see, I haven’t bought into the assumptions you listed.
Countering my points avoids the question? I asked the question I asked was IF you bought into the assumptions would that not make you want to defend the fetus? It also avoids the point that Catholics do not make decisions based purely on old dogmatic rules of the Bible.
OK, then, If I were stupid enough to take what you wrote at absolute value,I would feel obligated to save the fetus—to a certain point. If the fetus was going to die in any case, I would do what I can to save the mother first—even if it means taking the fetus out of her uterus before its heart stopped.
.
I would not try to save a decapitated body if its heart was beating.
.
But what is your point? I obviously don’t take you premises, so “what if?” is moot. All you are asking is that if I read the Bible and took it at face value, I’d have YOUR values. But, I read other books and practice critical thinking when comparing ideas.
.
Judging from you question, thinking seems to be a difficult effort for you.
My point, which you have yet to disprove, is simply that Catholic use more than the Bible to make moral decisions. You jumped onto this website and attacked people with the assertion that Catholics only use the Bible to make moral decisions and then try to force that judgement on others. When I proved you wrong you’re only recourse was to insult me.
You did not prove me wrong—I haven’t read any statement by a Catholic that didn’t refer to the Bible or the Catholic Church.
.
You asked a question as to whether I would have your values if I “bought” your premises—which are based on the Bible. You have no other “authority” for saving a doomed fetus than the Bible and the Pope.
.
I’m insulting you because you don’t seem to have the capacity for critical thinking. Disprove that.
Premise 1 was based on scientific observation. Premise 2 was based on logic. Premise 3 can be based on the Bible OR current western law. Each premise can be argued on its own merits. But all three are non-Biblical. So prove that Catholics use just the Bible or take your spineless pseudonym and shallow, juvenile arguments to a web sight where people DO use the Bible alone to justify their assertions.
1. Scientific observation of a fetus tells us it is alive.
.
I wrote above that the definition of “being alive” is ambiguous. Is it the heartbeat or the brain function that determines being alive? Amoebas don’t have a heartbeat, but they are considered alive.
.
2. Logic tells us of it in a woman, it is human.
.
Also answered—while the first premise is a material observation, the second one is theological. A group of organized cells in a woman can be a cancer—which is capable of making the woman’s body produce blood vessels to keep it growing. Is a cancer alive, and should its life be more valuable than its host?
.
There are lots of organized cells in a woman—most are also in men, but the instance we are discussing is the union between an exclusively female cell (egg) and male cell(sperm) which has the probability of developing into another, separate living being. When does this particular blastocystis hominis become “alive,” let alone “human?”
,
If it fails to implant in the uterus, it will never be more than a few cells. If it is spontaneously aborted at 17 weeks, it will be a more organized and differentiated set of cells with a heartbeat, but is it “alive” if it cannot breath outside the womb?
.
I usually get into these arguments about abortion with men. If you can imagine being a woman, would you be willing to sacrifice yourself for a non-viable fetus?
.
The Church says one thing, and science says the opposite. It’s up to humans to decide—humans who live in a material existence though they prefer to think they live in a “perfect” existence governed by an invented “God” to explain things they can’t figure out by themselves.
.
3. The Bible tells us we may not kill humans. Criminal courts prosecute ( enforce a moral code) on killing in our country every day.
.
Also answered—whatever the Bible “tells us,” people act as they will anyway. You can say that current western law prosecutes killing humans because it is immoral, but what if the Bible didn’t say anything about killing at all? What about self-defense and war? Nothing is absolute—that is the point.
.
The Bible has an “out” in that you can “confess” and “go and sin no more,” but repeat offenders have the option of confessing and absolution until they do it again. Even “Natural Family Planning” is a form of contraception approved by the Church when “contraception” in itself is a “sin.”
.
But all three are non-Biblical.
.
Did you read your 3rd premise?
.
Each premise can be argued on its own merits.
.
True, but the premises are not relative to each other.
.
Socrates lives on the Earth.
The Earth revolves around the sun,
Therefore Socrates is the Earth.—is not a reasonable conclusion.
.
I wrote that I wished people would apply more critical thinking, not just read other books and choose to believe one philosophy on its face value. So, I still think it seems you find critical thinking an enormous effort.
I gave answers before, but they are being checked. I’ll try a short version just in case.
.
1. Scientific observation of a fetus tells us it is alive.
2. Logic tells us of it in a woman, it is human.
3. The Bible tells us we may not kill humans. Criminal courts prosecute ( enforce a moral code) on killing in our country every day. I you bought into the above assumptions, would you not feel obliged to protect the fetus?
.
1. Scientific is ambiguous about life—is it a heartbeat or a functioning brain?
2. A group of organized, differential, pulsing cells can be a cancer. Is a cancer human?
3. The Biblical precept of not killing humans and the secular laws against the same are coincidental. Society cannot function if everyone has a feud with everyone else. There are exceptions, such as war, self-defense, justifiable homicide, etc. That’s why we have legal trials.
.
Premise 3 is not “non-biblical.” Res ipsa loquitur.
,
Given your premises, I still have no evidence that you practice critical thinking and there is evidence that you do use the Bible to justify your assertions. Disprove that.
\\1. Scientific is ambiguous about life—is it a heartbeat or a functioning
brain?\\
Where did you get the idea that science was ambiguous? When I took biology nearly have a century ago, I was taught there were ten life functions that all living beings must carry on. Besides, neither plants nor even monocellular organisms have heartbeats or brains, but nobody would deny they were alive.
You have no problem killing one-celled creatures or plants. Do you eat meat? Why is it OK to kill a cow or a pig? If you’re so Pro-Life, aren’t all of Gods creatures deserving of life?
Nuala, what makes you so intolerant? As it is written in Hezekiah 15:17, “Hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned.”
If you really believed what you were saying, you would be a member of Stop The Assimilation and Reduction of Vegetable Elements, commonly known as STARVE.
YOU are calling ME intolerant? Puleeze
.
Obviously, you don’t get my sarcasm. I’m the one arguing that an abortion should be done to save the mother’s life, even if the fetus’ heart is still beating.
.
Why should I be tolerant?
As someone who was reared as a Catholic and worshipped as one for most of my life, I can tell you why Catholics don’t read the Bible: It’s not encouraged. Sure, the Vatican comes out with documents and encyclicals about the necessity of reading Scripture but until individual bishops and pastors take that to heart and actually start implementing Bible studies in their respective dioceses and parishes, nothing will change. I’m talking about studying the Bible, not the Lectionary. There’s a big difference.
Besides, Catholics have been taught for centuries that the sacraments are the fundamental means God uses to dispense grace. Given such teaching, why should they bother reading Scripture? Of course, Word and Sacrament do not contradict each other. Nevertheless, most Christians basically do the minimum daily requirement, spiritually speaking. So do their “shepherds,” which brings me to another point.
Most bishops and priests don’t really want the faithful to read the Bible because that would just create more headaches for them and problems they have to confront. The “shepherds” prefer a quiet, submissive flock to an active, enlightened one. That’s true outside of Catholicism, as well
As an atheist who reads the Bible I’d like to point out my reasons for doing so. It’s not because I’m trying to convince myself.
.
I come from a quasi-Catholic upbringing and some of my family are still Christians. They read the Bible to exactly the same extent that an ex-drug addict or a person who’s family are drug addicts would read up on literature about drugs.
.
Some people just walk away and get over it while others, like me, develop a deep fascination about why people believe the things they do. It’s a phenomenon that interests me greatly and I read the Bible with a critical eye to at least do justice to the subject.
.
Faithful Christians don’t want to hear any counter-points to their belief and so won’t read any literature criticizing Christianity. Now I feel that before I criticize any beliefs I feel obliged to at least try to understand them first.
““Faithful Christians don’t want to hear any counter-points to their belief
and so won’t read any literature criticizing Christianity.”“
OTOH, You, Nuala, are perfectly wiling to listen respectfully to statements by Christians that disagree with you, and to reply in a gentle spirit. And this is typical of atheists in general, as well.
As a Protestant, I know we take sola scriptura seriously.
Doesn’t the Roman Catholic view of ultimate authority [authorities] necessarily help contribute to a diminution of Holy Writ?
I note the first response, above, from ThomasL and two from Trebert on Dec 3rd.
\\Doesn’t the Roman Catholic view of ultimate authority [authorities]
necessarily help contribute to a diminution of Holy Writ?\\
Alas, Hughuenot, “sola scriptura” is itself taught nowhere in the Bible, or even implied. Remember that, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Pharisees used “sola scriptura” to miss Jesus.
If you still thing sola scriptura works, some Protestants use “sola scriptura” to require infant baptism, and some apply the same principle to forbid it.
I could go on with other things: having bishops and deacons, drinking alcohol, having women in the ministry, anointing the sick—but you get the idea. “Sola sciptura”—which has been the cry of every heretic from Arius onwards—doesn’t work in practice, or all Protestants who claim it would be in agreement.
OTOH, You, Nuala, are perfectly wiling to listen respectfully to statements by Christians that disagree with you, and to reply in a gentle spirit. And this is typical of atheists in general, as well.
.
I get your sarcasm.
.
I listen, then I counter with opposing arguments for you to answer. You think that is rude, because you can’t anwer them, and you are annoyed that they are critical questions.
.
You can insult me as an atheist, but you can’t reasonable argue against my comments.
Hughuenot
.
Using “sola scriptura” involves having to interpret the Bible on your own. Catholics need a Pope because they don’t like interpreting things on their own, because they are afraid of having the “wrong” interpretation about anything. They have to believe the “truth” as interpreted by the Pope/Church is the only truth if it kills them.
Unfortunately, the Pope is out of touch with the secular world, and most people don’t agree with his interpretation of anything.
.
1. Auto-didacticism can be hard work, so why not leave the thinking to scholars, cardinals, popes, et. al.? Isn’t one’s catechetical training prior to confirmation sufficient book (or, Book) study?
2. Given the schisms among Protestants, sola scriptura is a dangerous endeavor. Hence, we’d better not trust ourselves to get it right. Again, leave it to the experts to tell us what to think, how to worship, be saved, etc.
Hughuenot, your points are well taken, especially given the responses you cite. The vast majority of Catholics I run into on the Internet are far more likely to cite encyclicals or the CCC instead of Scripture.
Dixibehr, regarding “sola scriptura” not being taught in the Bible, I suggest you read 2 Timothy 3: 14-17. St. Paul described all Scripture as divinely inspired—and, since the NT, had yet to be canonized, he’s talking about the OT, which Catholics seem to disregard.
Besides, the Pharisees didn’t use “sola scriptura” to condemn Jesus. In fact, Jesus criticized them bitterly for adding their own “traditions” to Jewish teaching (Matthew 23). More importantly, the Pharisees violated the Mosaic Law they were charged to uphold in the way they tried Jesus!
The Pharisees cared only about their own power, influence and prestige. Sounds like far too many Christian leaders, today.
Scholars, cardinals, popes, et. al. can lie, cheat, and take advantage of people who don’t think for themselves. Why take the word of someone who claims to be an expert—without evidence that s/he really is an expert in what s/he claims? If you don’t think for yourself, you will be a tool for someone else.
.
The Pope knows a helluva lot about the Catholic religion, but he hasn’t got any idea of much else. I certainly don’t want him to be my physician, yet he claims that abortion is never necessary.
.
http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/fire-in-my-bones/15488-warning-beware-of-christian-con-artists
.
Why have a brain if you don’t use it?
\\They have to believe the “truth” as interpreted by the Pope/Church
is the only truth if it kills them.\\
Athiests, however, NEVER believe that theirs is the only truth, do they, Nuala? This, btw, is not really what Catholics believe about the Pope, but truth doesn’t matter in discussions like this, I’ve noticed.
\\Unfortunately, the Pope is out of touch with the secular world, and most
people don’t agree with his interpretation of anything.\\
Most people in the US at one time did not agree with racial integration. Did that make it right? In any case, the Bible also says, “Be not conformed to the world.”
**Dixibehr, regarding “sola scriptura” not being taught in the Bible, I suggest you read 2 Timothy 3: 14-17. St. Paul described all Scripture as divinely inspired—and, since the NT, had yet to be canonized, he’s talking about the OT, which Catholics seem to disregard.**
This, too, is a parody of what Catholics believe, Joseph. Besides, 2 Tim3:14 ff does NOT mean “sola scriptura,” but only what Scripture can be used for. In any case, there was not general agreement about what would be included in the OT, as the LXX, its oldest translation, included the Apocrypha.
\\=Scholars, cardinals, popes, et. al. can lie, cheat, and take
advantage of people who don’t think for themselves. Why take the word of
someone who claims to be an expert—without evidence that s/he really is an
expert in what s/he claims? If you don’t think for yourself, you will be a
tool for someone else\\
Well, Nuala, I hope nobody takes your remarks about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular as expert statements, because you sure don’t know what you’re talking about concerning either..
.
\\The Pope knows a helluva lot about the Catholic religion, but he hasn’t got
any idea of much else. I certainly don’t want him to be my physician,
yet he claims that abortion is never necessary.\\
You, on the other hand, seem to be claiming to know everything deeply about all things. ALL of our knowledge is limited, even yours.
A couple thoughts on these last posts:
It is true that Catholics could learn from their Protestant brothers and sisters a lesson on reverence for the bible but this is a generalization to some degree. Like myself there are many Catholics who do read scripture daily, attend bible studies and cherish God’s word. You wouldn’t want to judge a group (the Church) by its worst members but by its best (Wheat vs. Weeds Mt 13:24…).
If the Jewish faith is the rule for how we decide what books belong in the bible then you’re relying on the people who didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah as your authority (i.e. Jewish council of Jamnia formed after the New Covenant in Christ). The books of the bible were determined by Christians in the fourth century (Regional councils of Rome 382, confirmed by Hippo 393, Carthage 397)
Your tone suggests that you’re using this forum to vent anger. Seek truth instead Jn 18:37
Mary,
I’m asking you what I’ve asked other people here—How do you know the Bible is the Truth (Word of God, etc.)?
Truth of any kind is what corresponds with the facts, what is real, which often requires work uncovering the evidence for or against.
I’ve had time (years) to do this and while I consider myself still a novice, have seen enough evidence to verify to me it’s (scripture’s) truth; truth that Jesus existed in history as written about, truth of the Jewish history of the Old Testament, etc. We see some of this evidence in Jewish and Roman (non-Christian) historical documentation and also as evidenced to us in the cultures and traditions of the people of this world.
Unless you read the bible and study it’s historicity, and in context, you won’t be able to understand whether scripture contains truth and error; your just making an emotional plea on incomplete information.
@Mary: [“Unless you read the bible and study it’s historicity, and in context, you won’t be able to understand whether scripture contains truth and error”]. I understand your sincerity, however, reading the Bible requires the proper context for doing so. It’s one thing to read it for information or intellectual academia. It’s yet another to read it as God’s holy word for wisdom, understanding and to ask the Lord to make purposeful application to your life. The number of people sleepwalking in church both Catholic and Protestant are many. They are only exercising practice and ritual by which they have been trained. Jesus said in John 17:17—“Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.” If one has not been convicted by the power of the Holy Spirit, you will never have a passion for Christ. The word of God is truth. It’s the way to live and it’s the way to die.
\\The number of people sleepwalking in church both
Catholic and Protestant are many. \\
I’ve been to one church or another all my life, and I’ve never seen sleepwalking or other parasomnias there. Those few who have fallen asleep are slumped over in their seats, snoring gently but otherwise perfectly still.
Casting Crowns do you realize your reading my response out of context, in suggesting that I’m reading the bible incorrectly/out of context.
I was responding to the question of how do we know that the bible is true? from someone likely looking for hard evidence. Of course as a Christians I “believe” in the word of God ...and furthermore listen to the H. S. and have a personal relationship with Jesus (in fact so personal I consume Him physically almost every day as he tells me I need to JN 6); love my savior w/ all my heart.
However, how do you, assuming your Protestant, reconcile knowing the truth of what the bible teaches just by the Holy Spirit when different Non-Catholic churches teach contradictory truth but all rely on the same H. S. (Jn 16:13)
@Mary, I was not suggesting ever you were reading anything incorrectly. My apologies to you (if you got that impression). I was only pointing out we have many people who read the Bible from an intellectual objective who are not Spirit driven. Even atheists read the Scriptures with the sole intent to find error. As for any church which teaches contradictory truth, (and there are many) they are apostate. The Spirit they are relying upon (or being influenced by) likely has a small “s” rather than a large “S.” Satan seeks whomever he can lead astray. This is why many old mainline Protestant churches now sanction gay marriage and even are led by homosexual and lesbian ministers.
Follow up note, esp. to non-Catholics bloggers, on the main topic of this article:
Yes, Catholics need to read the bible more but don’t judge this church by what you believe you see from the outside as external practices and lack of love for scripture or Jesus. You don’t see the Wheat we inside the Church see, just the Weeds (Mt 13:24…).
This Church is Christ’s Church, not founded by men but, authoritatively started by God himself (Mt 16:18) and therefore the Church that has the fullness of truth; The pillar of fire and pillar of truth http://www.catholic.com/la/non-christians.
As an example of having Christ’s authority, this Church also decided what books belong in the bible for all mankind. The book that you rightly love so much is a product of Roman Catholic decisions (through the papacy and councils guided by the HS). Look it up, seek truth!
Dixibehr:
Well, Nuala, I hope nobody takes your remarks about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular as expert statements, because you sure don’t know what you’re talking about concerning either.
.
You, on the other hand, seem to be claiming to know everything deeply about all things. ALL of our knowledge is limited, even yours.
.
Hey, I told you I was here to learn from practicing Catholics, not the “official rules.” You haven’t told me anything different as to why my assertions are wrong. I’m waiting.
.
You’re good at telling me I’m wrong, and ignorant, but you still have to tell me why I’m wrong and enlighten me, at least refer to sources on the web or in books (other than the Bible—I get that all the time). All you really tell me is that I annoy you.
The “truth about something is not always “the” One Truth. A red ball is red and also a ball. Which is more important is up to the observer, but it is truth that it is red and it is truth that it is a ball.
.
God has too many meanings for different people/groups of people. So does the Bible. Who is anybody to tell you which interpretation is the “ONLY TRUTH?”
What is more important is not up to the “observer” but up to God? Can we know truth or Did God leave us to guess at it?
Sure we can know truth. He gave us the Catholic Church to lead us to all truth, read what St. Paul says about it: 1 Tim 3:15 “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
Sure we can know truth. He gave us the Catholic Church to lead us to all truth, read what St. Paul says about it: 1 Tim 3:15 “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
.
So, St. Paul, probably the most important early missionary of the Catholic Church, has written that the “church of the living God” (i.e. the Catholic Church) is the “pillar and foundation of the truth.”
.
And you take his word for it? It’s scary to think that people like you are allowed to vote.
Mary, speaking for myself, I did not state—nor would I ever state—that Catholics categorically love Jesus less than non-Catholic Christians. I’m not in a position to make such a statement.
Regarding generalizations and appearances, remember that exceptions to a generalization don’t invalidate the generalization. The exception proves the rule, as it were. As far as the “wheat vs. tares” is concerned, the fact that the Vatican fails to rebuke wayward bishops (for one example, Cdl. Wuerl regarding Canon 915) reflects the Catholic leadership’s lack of concern for honoring God’s name. That’s not solely a Catholic problem, of course. But one’s actions reveal what one values, whether that “one” is an individual or an institution. The behavior of the vast majority of bishops not only is a scandal to the faithful but an offense to a holy, righteous God.
Dixibehr, if you think I’m parodying what Catholics believe, I suggest you do some research on the Church’s abolitionist position on capital punishment, which is a very recent revision away from centuries of teaching based on Scripture and its own Tradition! Besides, the fact that “sola scriptura” doesn’t “appear” in the Bible does not justify the Catholic practice of enhancing its theology though traditions that Scripture either is silent about, does not address or explicitly contradicts (mandatory clerical celibacy as opposed to optional clerical celibacy).
Besides, Dixibehr, Catholics have used (or, perhaps better said, misused) your attitude regarding “sola scriptura” to ignore Scripture entirely! On this very thread, people wrote about experiences in which RCIA instructors said the Bible contained “mistakes.” Did those instructors ever go into detail about those “mistakes” and what specifically they concerned? Did they teach that, despite such “mistakes,” Scripture is a fundamentally reliable source of information about God because the God Who inspired it is fundamentally reliable? Or did they just ignore the question altogether and just get on with their agendas?
I’m asking the people who wrote about their experiences in RCIA, not necessarily you, Dixibehr. But my suspicion is that the last question I posed probably describes what happened.
\\Besides, Dixibehr, Catholics have used (or, perhaps better said, misused)
your attitude regarding “sola scriptura” to ignore Scripture entirely!\\
In my experience, most Protestant have pet proof texts to use against Catholics and Orthodox. But seldom do they know what the next verse after their proof texts say.
\\On this very thread, people wrote about experiences in which RCIA instructors
said the Bible contained “mistakes.” Did those instructors ever go into
detail about those “mistakes” and what specifically they concerned? Did they
teach that, despite such “mistakes,” \\
Since I was not present when these remarks about “mistakes in the Bible” were made, I don’t know exactly what was said, or by whom, or the expertise of the speaker. I’ve never heard any Catholic instructor say such things, but they are said in Protestant seminaries all the time.
About such “mistakes,” please see what I said on 3 December. I have nothing to add on this issue.
Again, using example of weeds you see from outside the church (which all churches have)to explain/generalize theres not wheat inside. Believing falsley that the church that gave the world the bible dosen’t use it (spend some time checking out the Catechism of the Catholic Church - and all our biblical teachings http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/)
Look at the good/true examples inside the church, scripture and historical data to make points; points that justify true belief.
Also, ask yourself are you venting or seeking? Here is a wesite that explains it all, spend some time learning from Catholics what the church is. http://www.catholic.com/
@Dixibehr: Your comments to Joseph D’Hippolito are interesting, but Sola Scriptura is only “one” of five solas. Upon reflection of the “five” you will see the “fullness” (as Catholics like to point to)—of the faith. And they are all consistent with faith instruction contained in the letters of St. Paul highlighted by Romans 1-7. As for RCIA instructors teaching there are errors in the Bible, all I can tell you is I was on our parish RCIA team for a few years when a new Pastoral Associate took over—(a nun). As the new RCIA leader, she announced to the new candidates that “Everyone is going to Heaven.” Of course this is totally contrary to what Jesus said—and specifically regarding Christ’s message regarding the wheat and tares. She also informed the RCIA people that they did not have to believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Thank you very much! This was a nun (who is still on the RCIA job 15 years later with full support of the Pastor whom he celebrates every Easter vigil. Upon hearing her “invented” theology back then, I felt I could no longer support false teaching and exited the RCIA team. And btw, she was the only person every allowed to meet with the candidates personally —no doubt for indoctrination. The RCIA “team” was limited to making coffee and bringing snacks. The “team” was pretty much reduced to being potted plants for her edification once a week.
Also, ask yourself are you venting or seeking? Here is a wesite that explains it all, spend some time learning from Catholics what the church is. http://www.catholic.com/
.
Mary, All you are asking us to do is see the “good” things about the church and disregard the evil it has done. Would you disregard the rape of a student by a teacher and just see the teacher for his/her ability to teach a math class?
.
Priests have molested children, and bishops have covered it up and moved them to new parishes for “fresh meat.” The Pope has lied about condoms and birth control. The church is only being “attacked” now because some of its victims are brave enough to “vent” their anger in the courts.
.
What about the adage: “...by their fruits you shall know them?”
A Mitchell, your point about Ireland is completely true. I am a young Irish Catholic, and it’s only in the last few years that I’ve actually seen the damage that this kind of attitude has caused among my parents’ generation and now my own. The Irish Church is in serious need of prayers, because along with the lack of reading the Bible came a horrendous lack of proper catechesis. This has resulted in generations of lukewarm Catholics whose faith is being severely tested at the moment, and they don’t have the skills to search for the answers to their questions. How can people be expected to live their faith if they do not know their faith? The so-called land of Saints and Scholars is in need of both these days. Prayers much appreciated.
Yes, by their fruit you will know them, heres is a link to evangelical church sex scandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_involving_evangelical_Christians), yet I’m not proclaiming the Protestant churches are evil because of this, or using an example of one religion teacher/team at a Protestant church to make a blanket claim for that faith. Again, there are bad people everwhere.
Since you bloggers are just venting and not engaging in critical thought, or true seeking/investigation this is my last blog on this thread. I pray that God gives you the grace to see the beauty of the bride of Christ.
PS.Most dont realize there are more scandals among non-catholic churches and public intitutions than in the Catholic church, read the book “Priest and Pedofiles by Atkin, a Presbyterian and the John J Criminal College Report on reported priest abuses.
I am actually reading “A Year With The Church Fathers” I have been reading that, but I only read it in a State of Grace, so that way the fullness of the words speaks to me.
Oh, Mary—
I’ve heard that bit about other institutions having more scandals than the Catholic Church, but does that excuse them? As humans, no—but as members of the clergy, it seems so. The Pope has ordered that any clergy accused of abuse be turned over to church authorities—-not the law.
.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/
.
Reading the CCC and the Vatican II documents IS reading the bible!!! Soooooooo many quotations, we need to read scripture in light of the Majesterium! or we may fall into error. What about the disagreement between Fr. Barron, and Ralf Martin, “will many be saved?” Barron even after mentioning that “Origin’s concept of Universal Salvation was declared false by the “Majesterium” and that Agustine and Aquanis both were of the opinion that few are saved, sided towards Origin? WHERE WAS the LOGIC in that.
I also disagree that you don’t think our catholic lives are not integrated with the Bible, YES THEY ARE!!! Daily Mass!!! Scripture, CCC - Scripture, Divine Office - Scripture, Rosary - SCRIPTURE!!!!
Sorry about getting back on topic!
Mr Morris,
It wouldn’t matter if these docs (CCC, Vat. 2) & services (Mass, D.O., etc.) contained nothing from the Bible. The Book is unnecessary in Rome: “Both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” (Dei Verbum).
{P.S. I believe it’s Origen, not Origin.}
Amazing how many catholics think that peter is saying that private interpretation is not allowed when he is saying nothing of the sort.
He is saying that SCRIPTURE comes from the Holy Spirit not from man’s private interpretation - nothing to do with not reading scripture.
@Mr. Morris [“Reading the CCC and the Vatican II documents IS reading the bible!!!] Your comment is one of the most ridiculous in the history of NCR posts. No doubt we all should close our Bible and the Mass should eliminate the the OT, NT and Gospel readings. The Lector and Priest at your church should only read from “approved” Vatican documents the Catechism. Sorry, but the “authentic” word of God trumps whatever you are smoking.
“Reading the CCC and the Vatican II documents IS reading the bible!!!”
—————
## Reading a few disjointed verses is not reading the Bible, any more than eating a plum pudding is eating a plum. Plums are part of the pudding, but most of it is not plum. Verses are part of the the Council’s texts, & appear in the CCC, but they are no substitute for reading the Biblical books as coherent, intelligently-composed, litterary works. One might as well call a half a dozen lines from a political speech scattered here and there through the editorial in which they are quoted the speech itself. Christian people treat the Biblical texts as though they were “fortune cookies”, as nothing but unmeaning jibber-jabber. No wonder people don’t bother reading the Bible, and have no respect for it - why should they, when its own professed admirers treat it with such disdain ? If Catholics want others to respect the Bible, they have to set an example of doing so themselves. Otherwise people will notice the yawning gap between their words and their conduct, and will conclude, with perfect justice, that Catholics do not believe what they claim to.
BTW, “Bible” is a proper noun - like “Vatican” & “CCC”; why do they get upper-case letters while a book of far greater value, which has God for its Author, has to make do with being called the bible ? the vatican ii documents & the ccc are worth zilch in comparison.
intelligently-composed, litterary works = intelligently-composed, literary works
:facepalm:
The question is: “Why don’t Catholics Read the Bible?” I think most Catholics believe they do not NEED to read the Bible. Most Catholics already know “the stories”, and most place more weight on extra-biblical information, an unlimited resource, as that extra information grows daily. So the Bible, for Catholics, is simply old news. Why waste time on old news? It’s not like the Bible is “God’s Holy Word” to Catholics. It’s just ‘another book’ to Catholics. That’s my answer to this question.
Man cannot live (have eternal life) by bread alone but by EVERY word (in the Bible OT and NT) that proceedeth from the mouth of God - Jesus
Constant scripture reading is essential - if Jesus needed the sword of the spirit to defeat satan how much more do we as fallen humans need scriptural
weapons.
Satan is delighted when hundreds of millions of Christians dont read the Bible
I’m sure that the shooting of schoolchildren in Connecticut is because Christians don’t read the Bible.
Who knows how many atrocities might have been stopped by christians bible studying and praying constantly.
The posters here are missing a crucial point. All the reformers held that the Bible was to be interpreted within the church. So Sola Scriptura was reading the Bible with the mind of the church. Interpret your your Bible came later on. Its led to everybody from Westboro Baptist church to the nut down the street interpreting the Bible.
The ultimate standard of faith becomes only the individual Christian and what he or she thinks the Bible is saying.
You won’t find it strange to quote the fathers on the Bible, in the company of informed Protestants.
The Catholic rule of faith is scripture and tradition. Scripture itself is received tradition. Received by the church and preserved by it. Hence scripture comes from the church, the church does not come from the Bible.
Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association:
“Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!”
To say that the Holy Spirit will provide the correct understanding falls flat on it’s face when you look at the doctrinal differences that have arose from this very type of Scriptural interpretation.
Thousands of denominations, each thinking that THEY are the one’s who ‘got it right’ and that they were the one’s who the Holy Spirit spoke too.
@savvy: It’s also a false premise for the Catholic church to promote the idea the Holy Spirit only works through a select few men in the Vatican. Were that true, we should all close our Bibles, put them away and listen to Rome only.
The problem is not sola scripture - if someone misinterprets scripture they will misinterpret church teachings. In my experience catholics dont read the bible apart from the trickle of scripture on a sunday and neither do they read the church teachings on scripture - obviously with some exceptions. The books of the bible were circulated for 300 years among christians who knew the inspired ones - it is nonsense to say the NT gospels and letters sat on a shelf for 300 years until constantine appeared. After the sunday service it is sort of over until the next week - if you were into the bible you were a bible nut - incredible in the light of bible teaching which commands constant study of the WORD.
Thanks for the salient comments, “savvy.”
Dec 20, 2012 11:39 PM:...All the reformers held that the Bible was to be interpreted within the church. So Sola Scriptura was reading the Bible with the mind of the church. Interpret your your Bible came later on…
>All true enough. Yet the splintered Roman communion and equally at-odds Eastern churches have schisms of their own (usually well hidden from public view). And these are based in part on the plethora of varied interpretations of “fathers,” patriarchs, cardinals, and popes. Dissent is usually ultimately silenced by church councils. One thinks of the arguments by pious western churchmen against the then-hotly debated theory (now dogma) of papal infallibility.
Dec 20, 2012 @ 11:47PM:The Catholic rule of faith is scripture and tradition. Scripture itself is received tradition. Received by the church and preserved by it…
>Not merely received, but RULED by your “Church” (hereafter, R2C). The R2C dogmatically determines the canon, and all authentic understandings thereof. She does NOT merely receive and preserve it (that’s a Protestant notion!) - the R2C owns the Bible and all valid interpretations (in her own estimation).
And today, Dec 21, 2012 12:09 AM:To say that the Holy Spirit will provide the correct understanding falls flat on it’s face when you look at the doctrinal differences that have arose from this very type of Scriptural interpretation…
>See I John 2:27 ~ But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
>And John 16:13f ~ Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
>Again, your church has crushed and silenced those who have opposed innovations that through repetition and popular sentiment have become standard operating procedure (i.e. dogma). This is not unlike the Muslim doctrine of Koranic “inspiration”: All variant copies were conveniently destroyed. In like manner, The R2C simply squashes any voices within her ranks that dare question her authority & decisions. Again, terribly convenient for enforcing outward uniformity.
charles allan,
Everybody interprets scripture through the lens of their own church tradition. I never claimed they sat on a self until Constantine appeared, just that it was the church that which recognized inspired scripture long before Constantine is my point.
If the bible is the word of God, the eucharist is the word of God made flesh. While early Christians read the bible, their liturgies like Catholic and Orthodox were centered around the Eucharist, which is Christ in our midst.
Even then to be fair, the reformers held that the Bible should be interpreted with the mind of church. The idea that each individual decides for themselves is a recent concept.
I dont think taking the Eucharist means that Bible study is covered and does not need to be undertaken.
Scripture reading is commanded all the way through the bible - the WORD it is called - maybe this is where the confusion comes in.
How many people in heaven will be able to say to peter paul etc “I got here and unlike you two and the rest of the disciples I hardly read the Bible ” ?
If we do not have the sword of the spirit Satan will attack - this actually was my problem so I am speaking from experience.
@savvy: [“Everybody interprets scripture through the lens of their own church tradition.”] Yours is a Catholic perspective since that is what you are. How about allowing God’s word to stand on its own? Perhaps you find that too frightening.
charless allen,
I agree that it’s a BOTH/And. But, the disciples themselves did not read a bound book called the Bible, with an NIV sticker on the cover. Jesus did not write a book, he established a church. The church was given the grace to recognize scripture. You are moving in reverse.
The divine office is the prayer of the entire church. It prays with scripture, morning, noon, evening, and night. This has traditionally been the practise of religious orders, but is gaining in popularity among lay Catholics.
http://divineoffice.org/
I feel you are moving in reverse . All the disciples were Jews and would know the OT by heart like Jesus did. Jesus preached the gospel for three years and it would be written down immediately (see what luke said to Theophilus). pauls and peters letters would have been read out in church and immediately copied and circulated - this would have happened for 300 years before the council ie 10 generations.
The Holy Spirit inspired all the NT and OT teachings and in these teachings
were instructions on how to found the church - so the written teachings came first and taught the rules of church life
You might want to read the early church fathers to figure out which one came first. Your statements are not historical.
Yes I have and they seemed to be sola scripture - with their teachings which were edifying but based on scripture.
Charles,
I would have to disagree. They held to BOTH scripture and tradition.
But Paul the apostle said do not go beyond what is written.
Charles,
the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians “through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.
Re: Posted by savvy on Friday, Dec 21, 2012 12:09 AM (EDT):
“To say that the Holy Spirit will provide the correct understanding falls flat on it’s face when you look at the doctrinal differences that have arose from this very type of Scriptural interpretation. Thousands of denominations, each thinking that THEY are the one’s who ‘got it right’ and that they were the one’s who the Holy Spirit spoke too.”
**************************************
To Savvy - Last week, on Catholic radio, I heard a few words about the Immaculate Conception (of Mary) and how that feast came to be, through tradition. St. Joseph Radio reported that St. Thomas Aquinas REJECTED the idea that Mary was born without sin, but others insisted upon it, and the general public (Catholic) are the ones that insisted it become dogma.
So was Thomas Aquinas being led by the Holy Spirit, or the others that disagreed with him? This is why I prefer to just study God’s Holy Word, compiled in a canon that we call “The Holy Bible”. I read the Roman Catholic Bible, with the 7 extra books in it. But I do NOT accept that even those (historical) books can be taken out of context, and one verse be made into an infallible doctrine (ie. Purgatory, from Maccabees.) Common sense has to be used. I lament the fact that the writings of St. Paul - all 13 New Testament letters, including those Pastoral Letters to Timothy & to Titus) are, for all practical purposes, disregarded by Rome.
Average Catholics have NO IDEA of what Paul taught. What’s worse is that they don’t care (at least the ones I know). All that is important is:
1- Peter was the first pope and they are in a church that descends from Peter.
2- They have the Eucharist every Sunday
3- They can pick the “tradition” of their choice, like Thomas Aquinas is heeded, when convenient. If not, they go to Origen, etc. Whatever fits their beliefs that come from “tradition”. Catholics NEVER read the Bible. I don’t understand the word: “anymore”.
Terah James,
Please do not bear false witness.
In sections 131-133 of the Catechism we find this:
Hence “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.”...Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology…The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful…to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
The Catholic Mass is totally Bible-centered
The Processional March of each Mass is lead by a person holding the Cross and then a person holding the Bible up high in the air. What many Evangelicals don’t know is that each Catholic Mass has four Bible readings in it, and the Liturgy is pulled right out of Scripture (Mat 26:26-28, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:17). This layout of the Mass has continued for over a thousand years. If I follow Church advice and go to Mass everyday, I make a beautiful journey through the Bible. Perhaps by going to daily Mass we do not learn the chapter and verse numbers but it is still a wonderful exposure to Scripture. It is kind of like this. When I was a kid I did not know all the street numbers in my neighbourhood like the postman, but I knew where everybody was because I was exposed to them every day. I got to know them. By going to Mass we get a fantastic exposure to God’s Word.
Of course we have to study privately and/or in groups also and the Church instructs us to do that.
Aquinas are others certainly debated the Immaculate Conception. Aquinas did not disagree with the concept, this disagreement was since what point inside or outside the womb.
The is why we have a Magisterium, to solve disputes when they arise, so no one unbalanced view wins.
Savvy - it’s not bearing false witness to point out reality. The title of this article is, “Why don’t Catholics read the Bible anymore?” There would be no need for this to be broached, if it were not TRUE.
My point is the average Catholic never did read the Bible. It is TRADITION that takes precedence over everything, for average Catholics.
While Bible verses are read on Sundays, priests preach 7 minutes on things like why we should be better people, or frankly, parishes around here are told stories, and even jokes, for about 2 minutes. It’s hardly teaching, preaching God’s word. Even the USCCB issued a document about priests PREACHING more at their fall meetings. If all was ideal, there would be no need for them to address it.
The Bible needs to be taught as God’s holy and inerrant word that we need to heed and to obey. I side with St. Thomas Aquinas, in that for him, as far as I can see, the Bible was also MOST important, having more value than people’s opinions.
Terah James,
Catholics are called to grow in faith, and not remain average, nothing is stopping Catholics from reading the Bible. The church in Canada, that I go to has regular Bible studies and very informed clergy and lay people.
I understand that it’s not the same in every parish, this is why people should stop complaining, and start a Bible study if they want one. Stop waiting for someone else to do things.
As they say, if you post it, they will come.
Casting Crowns,
I do not find anything frightening. What makes you think I do not do this? I am tired of others making this accusation. The thing is there would not be so many denominations if God’s word was self-explanatory.
@savvy: [” if God’s word was self-explanatory.”] What do you find unclear about the gospel?
I think this 30,000 denominations thing is wildly exaggerated - It is mainly churches in different areas which believe in the fundamentals and follow the bible. Before the Roman Church there were thousands of churches.
However many heretic churches have followed a human’s leaders teachings such as Joseph Smith and Russell instead of checking them out to bible truths.
The Bible truths for salvation are easily understood but they must be continually studied or our sinful nature will start to gain control . It is only some of the prophecy events which need lengthy study.
Charles Allen,
What exactly do you mean before the Roman church there were thousands of churches? There were five centres of Christianity, which included Rome.
Following the fundamentals of the Bible? What would these be?
Why do the Lutherans support infant baptism, but the baptists do not?
Why do some churches see born again, as water baptism and some claim it’s saying the sinners pray?
Why do Oneness Pentecostals not baptize in the name of the trinity, and other Pentecostals do?
Why do baptists have the Sabbath on Sunday, but Seventh Day Adventists, claim it should only be on Saturday?
Why do Lutherans and some Anglicans, hold that Mary was ever virgin, but other groups argue she had other children?
Well there were the seven churches of asia that Jesus gave his report card to - smyrna ,pergamos, ephesus,thyatira ,sardis ,philadelphia,laodicea,
since Jesus assessed the progress of each one differently they obviously had different leaderships and traditions - so there was not one man in charge.
For those who believe that these are also a timeline of the churches as well as a type of church then the catholic church is thought of as thyatira which runs up until the end of days - worth a google for the many studies since catholics appear to be weak in revelations. The short but incredibly meaningful assessment by Jesus of these churches is very descriptive - see if you can spot your own catholic church in thyatira - going to the root meaning of the words.
St Thomas went to india and there are seven churches he planted there - the roman church did not come to this area until about 500 ad and kind of took over.
I would think that full immersion is what the bible says - I have read the didache on this and know that it allows infant sprinkling.
Except ye be born again of water and the spirit ye will not see the kingdom of God - I would say the bible teaches full immersion and being baptised with the Holy Spirit preferably at the same time but I note that two were baptised with the Holy Spirit later by the laying on of hands.
Believing and repenting with the sinners prayer would be the start of the journey but must be followed by baptism by water and the spirit. I understand this is what most churches do.
Oneness’s are obviously not following scripture but a leader.
Following scripture instead of E G White means Sunday IS THE LORDS DAY.
From reading scripture I would think that Mary had other children.
The lutherians and anglicans kept a lot of catholic beliefs.
Well there were the seven churches of asia that Jesus gave his report card to - smyrna ,pergamos, ephesus,thyatira ,sardis ,philadelphia,laodicea,
since Jesus assessed the progress of each one differently they obviously had different leaderships and traditions - so there was not one man in charge.
For those who believe that these are also a timeline of the churches as well as a type of church then the catholic church is thought of as thyatira which runs up until the end of days - worth a google for the many studies since catholics appear to be weak in revelations. The short but incredibly meaningful assessment by Jesus of these churches is very descriptive - see if you can spot your own catholic church in thyatira - going to the root meaning of the words.
St Thomas went to india and there are seven churches he planted there - the roman church did not come to this area until about 500 ad and kind of took over.
I would think that full immersion is what the bible says - I have read the didache on this and know that it allows infant sprinkling.
Except ye be born again of water and the spirit ye will not see the kingdom of God - I would say the bible teaches full immersion and being baptised with the Holy Spirit preferably at the same time but I note that two were baptised with the Holy Spirit later by the laying on of hands.
Believing and repenting with the sinners prayer would be the start of the journey but must be followed by baptism by water and the spirit. I understand this is what most churches do.
Oneness’s are obviously not following scripture but a leader.
Following scripture instead of E G White means Sunday IS THE LORDS DAY.
From reading scripture I would think that Mary had other children.
The lutherians and anglicans kept a lot of catholic beliefs.
Savvy, this is what it boils down to:
Precisely what St. Paul wrote to the churches in his letters, that we are to keep the faith, intact, as it was handed down by the apostles. It is called “The Deposit of Faith”, and the safe deposit box “The Gospel” contains, is closed. There are essentials, and there are non-essentials. Getting the essentials understood is of utmost importance. We cannot be ignorant of the essentials.
Bottom line, it is the Apostles Creed/Nicene Creed, that is important. Jesus said to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If any church does *not* recognize Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as Deity, they deny the entire Gospel. They are not the “Body of Christ”.
But ANYONE that recognizes Jesus the Christ (the promised Messiah) as THEIR risen Lord, has been “sealed” by the Holy Spirit, and as a result, that person has access to the Father, and enjoys the PROMISE of eternal life in Heaven, upon our natural death, or upon Jesus coming again.
We are either “in Christ” or we are “in the world”. We cannot be both. When we are “in Christ”, we are “The Church”, aka: “The Bride of Christ”. We are the living “saints” that Paul wrote to in his letters. “To the saints that live in .....”, Paul wrote.
We are to worship as a community and participate in the Lord’s Supper, remembering His death (and resurrection, ascension) until He comes again. It’s simple.
Alleluia! He is risen. He is risen, indeed! The Word made Flesh, who dwelt among us, and His own (Israel) did not recognize Him. We, who have the Bible, the holy word of God, have NO EXCUSES now. How can a Christian NOT have a hunger, a need, a thirst, to read God’s holy word?
Yet, I have gone to a Wednesday night Bible study class for the last 8 years, and only 25 people out of a parish with 500 families, ever come. They are not even interested in talking about the Bible or about the important doctrines in Paul’s letters.
Do you know what I think is most feared? Learning that what they were taught in 3rd grade may not be entirely accurate. Losing the notoriety of being known as the ‘one true faith’ that was handed down by St. Peter, by Jesus Himself, & it could never make a mistake about anything. The smallest jot and tittle that comes from Rome is reliable.
With that kind of thinking, no wonder the list of what we are to believe keeps growing and growing, and no one EVER admits to having erred. This is our story, & we’re sticking to it. The Holy Spirit backs us up! Dangerous thinking.
In 2013, read the Bible? Start with Paul’s letters. We have no excuse.
Get the EWTN Truth and Life Dramatized Audio Bible. It’s wonderful.
Savvy - for example there were the 7 churches in revelation and they had their own leadership or Jesus would not have spoken to them separately.
Well there were the seven churches of asia that Jesus gave his report card to - smyrna ,pergamos, ephesus,thyatira ,sardis ,philadelphia,laodicea,
since Jesus assessed the progress of each one differently they obviously had different leaderships and traditions - so there was not one man in charge.
For those who believe that these are also a timeline of the churches as well as a type of church then the catholic church is thought of as thyatira which runs up until the end of days - worth a google for the many studies since catholics appear to be weak in revelations. The short but incredibly meaningful assessment by Jesus of these churches is very descriptive - see if you can spot your own catholic church in thyatira - going to the root meaning of the words.
St Thomas went to india and there are seven churches he planted there - the roman church did not come to this area until about 500 ad and kind of took over.
I would think that full immersion is what the bible says - I have read the didache on this and know that it allows infant sprinkling.
Except ye be born again of water and the spirit ye will not see the kingdom of God - I would say the bible teaches full immersion and being baptised with the Holy Spirit preferably at the same time but I note that two were baptised with the Holy Spirit later by the laying on of hands.
Believing and repenting with the sinners prayer would be the start of the journey but must be followed by baptism by water and the spirit. I understand this is what most churches do.
Oneness’s are obviously not following scripture but a leader.
Following scripture instead of E G White means Sunday IS THE LORDS DAY.
From reading scripture I would think that Mary had other children.
The lutherians and anglicans kept a lot of catholic beliefs.
Well there were the seven churches of asia that Jesus gave his report card to - smyrna ,pergamos, ephesus,thyatira ,sardis ,philadelphia,laodicea,
since Jesus assessed the progress of each one differently they obviously had different leaderships and traditions - so there was not one man in charge.
For those who believe that these are also a timeline of the churches as well as a type of church then the catholic church is thought of as thyatira which runs up until the end of days - worth a google for the many studies since catholics appear to be weak in revelations. The short but incredibly meaningful assessment by Jesus of these churches is very descriptive - see if you can spot your own catholic church in thyatira - going to the root meaning of the words.
St Thomas went to india and there are seven churches he planted there - the roman church did not come to this area until about 500 ad and kind of took over.
I would think that full immersion is what the bible says - I have read the didache on this and know that it allows infant sprinkling.
Except ye be born again of water and the spirit ye will not see the kingdom of God - I would say the bible teaches full immersion and being baptised with the Holy Spirit preferably at the same time but I note that two were baptised with the Holy Spirit later by the laying on of hands.
Believing and repenting with the sinners prayer would be the start of the journey but must be followed by baptism by water and the spirit. I understand this is what most churches do.
Oneness’s are obviously not following scripture but a leader.
Following scripture instead of E G White means Sunday IS THE LORDS DAY.
From reading scripture I would think that Mary had other children.
The lutherians and anglicans kept a lot of catholic beliefs.
Charles Allen - that’s interesting that you mentioned the individual churches from the book of Revelation. I never thought of it like that before - that there was not ONE church, but seven, and each had its own characteristics. Perhaps the idea of an “invisible” church is accurate, and all of us are to be found in one of the seven described.
I have a hunger for the word of God, and a desire to please Jesus (as a Brother) and God (as a Father),& do not want to grieve or quench the Holy Spirit. So I pray I’m a part of the church of Philadelphia - I think those in the Middle East, that face real persecution, are the ones like (Sardis?). I can’t remember each name. But Laodicia = bad news! Neither warm nor hot, but lukewarm.
Terah - if you study the timeline approach there are plenty of commentaries
on the internet. Thyatira - continual sacrifice - thought to be early catholic - they were to expel Jezebel ; Sardis - the dead church apart from a few ; philadelphian -brotherly love - thought to be the 18th 19th century churches wesley -spurgeon - whitefield etc who were involved in the great commission.
Laodecian - end of the age lukewarm, rich - is this some of us nowadays ?
St. John had some kind of metropolitical/archepiscopal oversight of the 7 Churches of Asia Minor. Otherwise, Christ would not have directed him with specific messages for them.
Furthermore, these 7 Churches were all flourishing ORTHODOX churches until a population exchange by the League of Nations forced all the Orthodox out of Anatolia, including Asia Minor, and all the Turks out of Greece. This happened around 1920. Oddly enough, the Orthodox who were forced to emigrate to Greece had been using Turkish as their main liturgical language.
I don’t think John had any oversight on the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation anymore than any of the Old Testament prophets or even John the Baptist had over the people for whom they shared God’s messages. It’s important not to place our own conclusions on why God, the Father and Jesus, does things.
Secondly, I see a discrepancy between what Dixibehr wrote (that the 7 churches were flourishing as late as the 1920’s) and what Charles Allan wrote, in that there is ONE church, and the characteristics of it have progressed over the years from Day One, to now. Who has more proof to speak with the most authority? On this issue, I don’t know what to think, so I’ll follow the lead, imitating “The Berean’s”.
\\ Who has more proof to speak
with the most authority?\\
I do, since I’m an Orthodox Clergyman (this is my screen name) and know more about what happens to members of the ancient Eastern Churches than Charles Allan does. Who is he?
And your thinking that John had no oversight of the seven churches of Asia Minor—which are still the names of Orthodox Bishoptrics in the Ecumenical Patriarchate—means nothing, Terah James. Who are you?
Terah - there are plenty of commentaries of which most agree that each church mentioned is a type of church and also a timeline of the 2000 years as prophecied by Jesus. The one thing I noticed was that the periods of the timeline are difficult to determine - so like you I am a berean.
If Charles Allan and Terah were really Bereans, they would be Orthodox, because Berea is still the seat of an Orthodox bishop.
I just watched the Howard Pitman video - Placebo, about the laodecian age- our church age - a wake up call for any christian - he was on his death bed
with a burst artery when he got this revelation
Just who is Harold Pittman, and what makes him the ultimate authority of Biblical exegesis?
I don’t trust special revelations about the Bible made to just one person.
You are better to watch the video - I too am wary of extra revelation - for me it must line up with scripture and put the fear of God into one. Since the devils best kept secret is that he does not exist it would be no advantage for him to be exposed.
I like your web site and blog posts a lot, they are very inspiring and informative. Thank you for providing such quality post.
Just wanted to say that reading the Bible is so very important for me. Finding time to spend in the Word of God is probable the best use of my time. I also like the Audio Bible and listen to that when I am driving. Found that to be a great time saver.
Problem is that people really don’t seem to have enough time to read or listen to the Bible as much as they would like to in today’s hectic pace.
However, I try to put time aside everyday to read my Bible, If I don’t then I just feel that my day is not complete and I’m not fulfilled. Some people are dedicated to working out, playing golf, and many other things they do all the time.
For me it’s reading my Bible and I would advise the same for everyone. It’s a source of joy and inspiration as well as comfort and encouragement.
God Bless you in your ministry
David Morgan
http://scourby.com
Something tells me that when Protestants—especially Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Charismatics—ask this question, they really mean, “Why don’t Catholics read the Bible the way we do?”
Catholics do read the bible. It’s Christians who don’t read eat.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.