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.

Since you all are always jumping in on Catholic discussions, I thought I would chime in one the topic.

The essence of what Mr. Addison writes is correct. Christ founded a Church and the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, canonized the scriptures. Unfortunately, most of the Protestant responses to the article lacked any intellectual substance and no research at all. I will use JND Kelly and Henry Chadwick, both Church History Scholars who are both non Catholic (they are both Anglicans) to demonstrate the formation of the Biblical Canon was related to the authority of the Church and formed by the Catholic Church. First, JND Kelly, in his book “Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 53-54” provides solid evidence that the Dueterocanonicals were recognized as the Canonical Old Testament in the early Church. Kelly writes:
“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.
Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary”
Henry Chadwick, the Anglican Church History Scholar and Professor at Oxford and Cambridge, writes in his book The Early Church (Revised Edition, 1993, pp. 38-44) about the formation of the canon. Chadwick points out how the Gnostic Marcion’s attack on the Old Testament and acceptance of only Luke’s Gospel and certain Pauline epistles forced the Church to form the biblical canon. Chadwick points out the Marcion was excommunicated by the Church of Rome in 144. Warren Carroll, (the Catholic Historian) in his work “The Founding of Christendom Vol. 1 p. 460 writes “Marcion went away angry and rebellious. In July 144 he established his own church, the first to be set up in defiance of the Pope. There would be many more.”
To defend the orthodox Catholic faith, Chadwick points out that the Ministry and the Bible were the two weapons used to defeat the Gnostics such as Marcion. In response to the question where could the 2nd century Church find reliable evidence of what the Apostles taught, Chadwick points out that Ignatius of Antioch used the authority of the local Bishop, without whom the life giving sacraments could not be administered. He also notes that a more permanent justification of ministerial authority came from the Church of Rome. Chadwick cites 1 Clement and Irenaueus to make his point about apostolic succession being the important source to defeat the Gnostic sects. Chadwick writes (p. 42)
“Against any heretical claim to possess secret traditions of what Jesus had told the apostles in the forty days after the resurrection, there was a clear argument that the apostles Peter and Paul could not have failed to impart such doctrines to those whom they had set over the Churches, and that by the line of accredited teachers in those Churches of apostolic foundation no such heretical notions had been transmitted. The succession argument carried the implication that the teaching given by the contemporary bishop of say, Rome or Antioch was in all respects identical with that of the apostles. This was important, for two reasons. In the first place, the faithful were thereby in some sense assured that revelation was not only knowable by a retrospective historical knowledge derived from either the apostles occasional writings or anecdotal gossip, but had in the bishops contemporary authority, able and authorized to speak God’s word in the present. In the second place, it enabled defenders of orthodoxy, especially Irenaeus of Lyons, to oppose the proliferating Gnostic sects, none of which agreed with one another and all of which were continually modifying their views, the concept of the monolithic church, universally extended in space and with unbroken continuity in time, unanimous in its possession of an immutable revelation”
The authority of the Church would thus become important in formulating the Canon. Again, Chadwick writes (p. 42)
“ The second weapon of the orthodox defense was the gradual formation of the New Testament canon. In the first century, the Christian Bible had simply been the Old Testament (read in the Septuagint version). Authority resided in this scripture and in oral traditions, as in apparent in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians.”
Chadwick notes that oral tradition was viewed as an authority that had not yet been merged into a written document (i.e. the Scripture). However, he notes that the Maricion and other Gnostic controversies provided an impetus for the Church to recognize which written documents contained authentic apostolic tradition. Thus, Justin Martyr, who died circa 155 AD provided an orthodox Church father who attested to MT, MK, and LK. These gospels seemed to be recognized much earlier than John, which was met with resistance. It wasn’t until Irena us (185 AD) that John became recognized . Chadwick points out that “strict application of apostolic authority” by the Church of Rome led to the exclusion of the book of Hebrews., which would not be admitted until the 4th century. Chadwick cites the Muratorian fragment, written in 200 AD as the first canonical list of the early Church, which was published by the Church of Rome. The Muratorian fragment lists 23 of the 27 books in the NT (1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, James are not listed). In addition, he lists the Revelation of John, but states it should not be read in Church.
Over the next 200 years, the formation of the Canon would continue. In his history of the Church Eusebius, written between 300 and 325 AD, he gives us a clear picture of the state of the Biblical canon. He points out that Peter’s first epistle, in which Mark is mentioned, was composed in Rome itself and Peter indicates this himself referring to Rome figuratively as Babylon. Thus, Eusebius indicates that 1 Peter is agreed upon while 2 Peter is not canonical, but it is studies with other scriptures. The fourteen of Paul are obvious and certain, but he notes that Hebrews is disputed saying that it was rejected by the Church at Rome as not being Paul. Eusebius goes on to point out that the 4 gospels should be put in first place, followed by the Acts of the Apostles then the epistles of Paul, 1 John and then 1 Peter. After those, if it is desirable, then perhaps Revelations can be put in.
However, he then goes on to show that there are several disputed books. He lists James, Jude, and once again 2 Peter. He also points out that 2 John and 3 John are disputed. Finally, he goes back and points out that Revelations (the Apocalypse of John) are rejected by some, while others include it as canonical. In summary, Eusebius’s account gives us a clear picture that the New Testament canon was not completely formed by 325 AD.
Of course, over the next 75 years the process was completed.. St. Athanasius’ 39th Easter letter lists the 27 New Testament books and 40 of the 46 Old Testament books that would be in the Catholic Canon (Baruch was included, the other 6 deuterocanonical books are admitted there use as devotional reading. The Council in Rome in 382 led by Pope Damasus, along with St. Jerome, listed the 46 books of the OT and 27 NT that are in the Catholic Bible today. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397 AD, respectively are consistent with Rome in 382. The Council of Trent, (1534 to 1565), in response to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc, reaffirmed the Catholic Canon of the 4th century.. Thus, it is accurate to state that the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, protected and defended the orthodox Catholic faith and canonized the scriptures that were in conformity with apostolic tradition.

Have a blessed Advent and Merry Christmas

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.