Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)

Some Christians believe that Catholics are not encouraged to read the Bible. In fact, the opposite is true...and why wouldn't it be, after all, the Bible is a Catholic book. What do I mean by that?

The Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote the Bible. The Catholic Church assembled the Canon (List) of books in the Bible, and the Catholic Church has safeguarded the Bible for 2,000 years. The Church treasures Sacred Scripture because it is the Word of God. The Church loves Holy Writ, so much so that she orders her prayer and worship around it.

First, let me dispel the idea that Catholics are not encouraged to read the Bible. On the contrary, we are exhorted to spend time in God's Word often. St Jerome, a famous Bible scholar (A.D. 342-420) and Catholic monk, wrote, "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." He translated the Bible into Latin, the common tongue of the day, and his translation (Latin Vulgate) was the translation for 1,000 years. Far from withholding the Holy Book from the people, the Catholic Church ensured that the Bible would be available to anyone who wanted it by preserving the definitive translation of it.

Listen to what the Second Vatican Council says about Sacred Scripture: "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God's word and of Christ's body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles" (Dei Verbum, #21).

Ah...I hear someone murmur from the back row...what about the Council of Trent? Didn't that council forbid Catholics to read the Bible? No, exactly the opposite. The Council Fathers wrote, "...the synod, following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testament, seeing that one God is the author of both..." (April 8, 1546). What the Council forbade was the reading of unapproved translations of Sacred Scripture since they could not vouch for the authenticity of any version not reviewed by Biblical scholars guided by the Magesterium of the Church. To do otherwise would have given the "seal of approval" to potentially heretical books masquerading as the Bible and in the theological and political turmoil of 16th century Europe, there were plenty of "Bibles" out there that didn't measure up. (If you have ever taken a gander at the New World Translation, the "Bible" of Jehovah's Witnesses, you would understand how egregious doctrinal errors can be spread through a faulty translation.)

The Second Vatican Council, echoing the constant teaching of the Church, decreed the necessity for the Bible to be accessible to the faithful and ecumenical if possible: "Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful...But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them" (DV #22).

Today, with the myriad of translations, the surest way to know that your Bible is trustworthy is to look for the imprimatur ("let it be printed") by a bishop on the inside cover.

Jesus Christ established the Church on Pentecost, under the leadership of the Apostles and the guidance of the Spirit. The Apostles and their followers are the ones who began to write the letters and books that would become the New Testament. Jesus didn't flip an armload of scrolls to His followers and tell them to "figure it out for yourself, you've got the Spirit"; He gave the Apostles the authority to teach and guide in His Name. Most of the books of the New Testament were written in the first 100 years after the Resurrection, by men who either met Christ in Person on earth, or by men who knew the Apostles. In other words, Catholics wrote the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

How did the Church assemble Sacred Scripture into the Bible we know today? The Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) decreed the definitive list, but the canon of Scripture they promulgated was merely formalizing the decrees of earlier synods of bishops on the same subject. The Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the three of Carthage (A.D. 393, 397, and 419), where St Augustine likely played a leading role, drew up the canon of Scripture that Trent later ratified. Frankly, it wasn't until the 16th century that a decree from Rome on the Canon was even necessary, since almost everyone used the Latin Vulgate anyway.

To appreciate how much the Church treasures Sacred Scripture, one need only spend a day in prayer with her. The hours of the day are marked with Lauds, Vespers, and Compline, where Psalms and Canticles are sung and passages from the Bible prayed over. Other times of the day are marked with the Angelus or Regina Caeli, prayers that recount the joy of the Gospel's Incarnation and Resurrection narratives. Most importantly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass immerses us in Scripture as we participate in the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. Most of the prayers and all of the four readings come from the Bible, a journey through salvation history at each celebration.

Finally, one last, and perhaps the most important, comment about the Bible. While it is true that the Church is immersed in Scripture, it is also true that Revelation is not confined to the 72 books of the Bible. The Bible itself records that Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book (Jn 20:30).

Because the Bible is the Church's book, it is not intended to be read apart from the Liturgy and Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Why aren't you walking around in sackcloth and celebrating the Lord's day in a clay hut, if the trappings of Rome offends you? God demanded opulence in designing the Ark of the Covenant, didn't He?

Isn't it amazing the way Catholics and other liturgical chr*stians invoke the Ark, the Holy Temple, the Offerings, the rituals, and the Holy Days of the Torah in order to justify their completely different counterparts? Meanwhile the notion that these commandments for all time refer to the Jewish ones and not their so-called chr*stian "fulfillments" is rejected out of hand because of the Notzerim's assumptions and are held to be "blasphemous" and "unnecessary" to boot! After all, J*sus put an end to them . . . but he didn't put an end to their "replacements!"

My full statement was: “He started with 12 and then more via the commission and it grew from there.” I believe that cover Stephen and others that followed.

They were privileged because from the beginning of time God had chosen them to fulfill His plan. Nobody was picked just because of status, education, or wealth.

Interpretations may differ but if the message does not reconcile with the Bible you are more than likely wrong, that is also one reason God wants His people to read the Bible and through faith interpret His Word and not depend on what interpretation is handed down to them.

By that you may and will have differences and why you have Catholics, Lutheran, Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, and others. As long as you follow the Word it really does not matter what denomination you are as long as you believe, believe His Word is perfect, and follow. I merely oppose the idea of the Catholic Church claiming to be the “original church” to raise their status, to have written the Bible, and forward the idea they are above other Christian sects and somehow are more holy than others and others are heretics. That is not true on all counts.

"Okay, I'll play along. Who DID have the right to say what the proper translation was?"

Anyone who had the liguistic ability to do so. The Roman Catholic Church was, and is, just one church among many. Even during his lifetime Jesus's deciples had differences of opinion. The Catholic Church itself has added extra-Biblical barnicles like the immaculate conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, and The Rosary, over the years. Most Catholics I know think these teachings have been part of church dogma since the beginning and come from the Bible.

The funniest thing for me to watch as a back-sliding Baptist, is Catholics criticizing Mormons because they believe Jesus appeared in America after he ascended. Catholics have no problem believing that Mary did the same thing.

I believe each church has a right to their own intrpretation of the Bible. It is immoral, however, to kill someone for disagreeing.

2. Athanasius compiled the canonical list of books included in the New Testament - his time predates the split between Orthodox and Catholic, so claiming him as Catholic is not entirely correct. This is dissembling.

"Thus it is that sinners, and all those who are aliens from the Catholic Church, heretics, and schismatics, since they are excluded from glorifying (God) with the saints, cannot properly even continue observers of the feast."
Athanasius - Festal Letters VII, 335 A.D.

"For the faith which the Council confessed in writings is the faith of the Catholic Church."
Athanasius - Letter on the Council of Nicaea, 27, 350 A.D.

"Well then, what is there in common between the heresy of Arius and the opinion of Dionysius: or why is Dionysius to be called like Arius, when they differ widely? For the one is a teacher of the Catholic Church, while the other has been the inventor of a new heresy."
Athanasius - Letters on the Opinion of Dionysius, 6, 350 A.D.

But since, not having understood the faith of the Catholic Church, they have fallen into impiety, and consequently, maimed in their intelligence, think that even straight things are crooked and call light darkness, while they think that darkness is light, it is necessary to quote also from the other letters of Dionysius, and state why they were written, to the greater condemnation of the heretic, For it was from them that we ourselves have learned to think and write as we are doing about the man."
Athanasius - Letter on the Opinion of Dionysius, 6, 350 A.D.

"But let the impiety of Sabellius and of Paul of Samosata also be anathematised by all, and the madness of Valentinian and Basilides, and the folly of the Munichaens. For if this be done, all evil suspicion will be removed on all hands, and the faith of the Catholic Church alone be exhibited in purity."
Athanasius - Tomas ad Antiochenos, 3

"How then can they be Christians, who for Christians are Ario-maniac? Or how are they of the Catholic Church, who have shaken off the Apostolical faith, and become authors of fresh evils?"
Athanasius - Discourse Against the Arians, I-4, 356 A.D.

Ouch:
"Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian."
Athansius - Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D.

Who's dissembling again?

if the message does not reconcile with the Bible you are more than likely wrong, that is also one reason God wants His people to read the Bible and through faith interpret His Word and not depend on what interpretation is handed down to them.

That's worked out well, some 20,000 sects later. Do you really think that God, Who is perfect, would demand a system of interpretation that results in this? Or would God, Who is perfect, provide a Rock of authority that would protect His children from what looks like the aftermath of a forty-car pileup? The argument that through faith alone we would interpret His word evidences an impotent Holy Spirit, given the lack of unity among those who decide for themselves based only on "Faith". I know you don't believe the Holy Spirit is impotent, therefore only one interpretation can be correct, do you agree? So if there can only be ONE Truth if it comes from the Holy Spirit. Which one is it?

So in search for this perfect authority/translation I am to put my faith in a lineage of Popes, chosen by fallible men, that throughout history some haven proven to be the most unChristian, ruthless, adultering, perverted, backsliders themselves? Thank you no.

Who is your Rock? The Pope. I’ll take my lead from the Words of Christ as given to us by His disciples who were with Him.

How do you find an impotent Holy Spirit? I haven’t found that true. I do take issue with praying to anyone but God through His Son and not to persons the “church” has canonized because of their works and evidence of faith here on earth not knowing what was in their hearts and also because God said not to.

Re: 116
Why aren't you walking around in sackcloth and celebrating the Lord's day in a clay hut, if the trappings of Rome offends you? God demanded opulence in designing the Ark of the Covenant, didn't He?

Psalm 51
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

I'll stick with simplicity and sincerity in Worship, thank you.

Do you see any resemblance between the churches in Acts, and the Epistles vs. the spin-off from the Roman Empire?

You are splitting hairs—making a distinction without a difference.

The objective fact is that there are readings from Sacred Scripture at every Mass—whether it’s a Sunday Mass or a daily Mass. The Mass clearly consists of 2 parts: the reading from Scripture (OT, Psalms, NT, and Gospel for Sunday Mass and OT/epistles and Gospel for daily Mass). The second part of the Mass is the offering of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Mass is first the Word of God and then, Word made flesh and dwelling among us.

BTW, there are more people attending daily Mass as a regular practice in their lives than one would imagine.

There are 5 Catholic parishes in my deanery (a geographic section of a diocese). Every day,if you were to attend daily Mass at each of those parishes, you would find up to 100+ people who attend daily Mass. They are of all age groups, too. The Masses are offered at times in both the early morning and early evening that people can go to Mass before going to work or on the way home from work.

At the main Church in the downtown area,(my city is a large city) up to 150+ people come to church for daily Mass at noon, taking the time from their lunch hour.

Whether the word falls on rocky soil or good soil is the affair of God and the individual. But the Sacred Scripture is offered and the Eucharist is given for those who will “take and eat”.

Re: 119

Even the Ku Klux Klan? They believe in Christ, too. You consider them part of the body you belong to?

You shortened HIS name.

It is: Lord Jesus Christ

Anyone can claim to 'believe in' Jesus. Is HE their Lord? Do they walk in fear and reverence at His Word? Do you really think the KKK did so? Or did they instead follow some man conceived institution and philosophies (e.g., darwinianism, racial supremacy, etc ... things that no one will ever find in HIS Word).
No, the KKK did not believe in Jesus as LORD.

No one else wanted to claim it [the name of 'Catholic'] I suppose. Maybe the Holy Spirit made them do it?

I thought you maybe an earlier reference to some Smyrnian fellow who made reference to 'Catholic'. Wasn't Smyrna in Turkey?
Perhaps the camp followers of the Roman Empire - which considered itself 'universal' at one time - when seeing their material empire crumble - found it a seamless thing to shift over and claim a 'universal spiritual empire'. Didn't even have to change their fine robes and palaces...

Anyone who had the liguistic ability to do so.

And that was who?

The Roman Catholic Church was, and is, just one church among many.

Only for the last 500 years. The other 1500 years were relatively quiet outside of the odd-heresy that would erupt.

Even during his lifetime Jesus's deciples had differences of opinion.

Especially as evidenced in John 6. I don't recall Jesus ceding His authority over their disagreement or taking a vote on the Bread of Life discourse.

The Catholic Church itself has added extra-Biblical barnicles like the immaculate conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, and The Rosary, over the years. Most Catholics I know think these teachings have been part of church dogma since the beginning and come from the Bible.

You characterize them as barnicles because you do not understand them, nor the interpretive authority of the Church. Most of these "extra-biblical barnicles" weren't defined until dissenters showed up for the mere fact that no one questioned them. The Church didn't have to define the Holy Trinity until heresy created the chaos that made it necessary. The Catholic Church believed and taught on the Trinity and Incarnation long before they were promulgated as dogma. Also, the Rosary is a devotion, not a dogma.

Many Catholics don't understand their own faith, I will grant you that. But there are myriad reasons for that.

Mormons because they believe Jesus appeared in America after he ascended. Catholics have no problem believing that Mary did the same thing.

Mormons are required to believe that. Catholics are not required to believe a single word spoken from Fatima, Lourdes, etc., since those fall under private revelation. Those revelations do not add to nor subtract from public revelation, which ended with the death of John the Evangelist. I don't know if Jesus did or didn't appear in America after He ascended. I do know that if He did, He had nothing new to say.

I believe each church has a right to their own intrpretation of the Bible.

Except the Catholic Church, apparently.

It is immoral, however, to kill someone for disagreeing.

"Disagreeing" is a bit of an understatement, with regard to the Inquisition.

I don’t think the majority of Protestants would agree that the heresies I listed are indeed outside of acceptable belief for a Christian. If you believe in the Triune God you sure as heck are not Arians. If you do not believe in the duality of good and evil you are not a Gnostic. If you believe that Jesus is God you are not a Nestorian. If you do not believe that Jesus is either only fully God or only fully human you are not a Chalcedonian ( the last I am a bit fuzzzy on so forgive any error)

OF course I may err and you may reject the divinity of Christ. You may view Satan as a demigod or as a god. You may believe that Jesus is not one person with two natures, divine and human. If you do you are indeed a heretic by Catholic, Orthodox and the majority of Protestant definitions. Or you could just be a member of the Episcopal Clergy. Who can tell these days?

And if you read Christian history you will find out that in many places the Arian heretics were in the majority. Praise be to God for the untiring defense of the faith given by St. Anathasius(sp).

Please pardon if this is a double post.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.