Posted on 07/26/2013 3:22:28 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
The Gift – The Testimony of Former Roman Catholic Priest Charles Chiniquy
I was born and baptized a Roman Catholic in 1809, and I was ordained priest in the year 1833, in Canada. I am now in my seventy-fourth year, and it is nearly fifty years since I received the dignity of the priesthood in the Church of Rome.
For twenty-five years I was a priest of that Church, and I tell you frankly that I loved the Church of Rome, and she loved me. I would have shed every drop of my blood for my Church and would have given a thousand times my life to extend her power and dignity over the continent of America, and over the whole world. My great ambition was to convert the Protestants, and bring them into my Church, because I was told, and I preached, that outside the Church of Rome there was no salvation, and I was sorry to think that those multitudes of Protestants were to be lost.
A few years after I was born we lived in a place where there were no schools. My mother became my first teacher, and the first book in which she taught me to read was the Bible. When I was eight or nine years old I read the Divine Book with an incredible pleasure, and my heart was much taken up with the beauty of the Word of God. My mother selected the chapters she wished me to read, and the attention I gave to it was such that, many times, I refused to go and play with the little boys outside in order to enjoy the pleasure of reading the Holy Book. Some of the chapters I loved more than others, and these I learned by heart.
But after my mother died, the Bible disappeared from the house, probably through the priest who had tried to obtain possession of it before. Now this Bible is the root of everything in this story. That is the light which was put into my soul when young, and, thanks be to God, that light has never been extinguished. It has remained there: it is to that dear Bible, by the mercy of God, that I owe today the unspeakable joy which I feel at being among the redeemed, among those who have received the light, and are drinking at the pure fountain of truth.
But perhaps you are inclined to say, “Do not the Roman Catholic priests allow their people to read the Bible?” Yes, I thank God that it is so. It is a fact that today, almost all over the world, the Church of Rome grants permission to read the Bible, and you will find the Bible in the homes of some Roman Catholics.
But when we have confessed this we must tell the whole truth. When the priest puts the Bible in the hands of his people, or when a priest receives the Bible from his church, there is a condition. The condition is that though the priest or people may read the Bible, they must never, under any circumstances, interpret a single word according to their conscience, their intelligence, or in their own mind. When I was ordained a priest I swore that I would interpret the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers.
Friends, go to Roman Catholics today, and ask them if they have permission to read the Bible. They will tell you, “Yes, I can read it.” But ask, “Have you permission to interpret it?” They will tell you, “No.” The priest says positively to the people, and the Church says positively to the priest, that they cannot interpret a single word of the Bible according to their own intelligence and their own conscience, and that it is a grievous sin to take upon themselves the interpretation of a single word. The priest says in effect to the people, “If you try to interpret the Bible with your own intelligence you are lost. It is a most dangerous book. You may read it, but it is better not to read it, because you cannot understand it.”
What is the result of such teaching? The result is, that though both the priests and the people have the Bible in their hands, they do not read it. Would you read a book if you were persuaded that you cannot understand a single word by yourself? Would you be such fools as to waste your time reading a book which you were persuaded you could not understand a single line of? Then, my friends, this is the truth about the Church of Rome. They have a great number of Bibles. You will find Bibles on the tables of the priests and of Catholic laymen, but among ten thousand priests there are not two who read the Bible from the beginning to the end and pay any attention to it. They read a few pages here and there; that is all.
In the Church of Rome the Bible is a sealed book, but it was not so with me. I found it precious to my heart when I was a little boy, and when I became a priest of Rome I read it to make me a strong man, and to make me able to argue for the Church.
My great object was to confound the Protestant ministers of America. I got a copy of the “Holy Fathers,” and I studied it day and night with the Holy Scriptures, in order to prepare myself for the great battle I wanted to fight against the Protestants. I made this study in order to strengthen my faith in the Roman Catholic Church.
But, blessed be God! every time I read the Bible there was a mysterious voice(1) saying to me, “Do you not see that in the Church of Rome you do not follow the teachings of the Word of God, but only the traditions of men?” In the silent hours of the night, when I heard that voice, I wept and cried, but it was repeated with the strength of thunder. I wanted to live and die in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and I prayed to God to silence the voice, but I heard it yet still louder. When I was reading His Word He was trying(2) to break my fetters, but I would not have any fetters broken. He came to me with His saving light, but I would not have it.
I have no bad feeling against Roman Catholic priests. Some of you may think I have. You are mistaken. Sometimes I weep for them because I know that the poor men – just as I did – are fighting against the Lord, and that they are miserable as I was miserable then. If I relate to you one of the struggles of which I speak, you will understand what it is to be a Roman Catholic priest, and you will pray for them.
(Rest at Link)
Why not name those denominations that are as Bible avoiding as the Catholic denomination, maybe members of those other denominations will want to discuss it with you.
Especially if you post a thread about that denomination and the Bible, just as this thread is about the Catholic denomination and the Bible.
Because I don't feel a need to start a thread about fellow Christians. Especially if it's likely that some will take it as criticism where none is intended. I'm not bothered if they don't have Bibles in their pews. I'm not bothered if they listen to the Word instead of reading along. Nor am I bothered if you or anyone else don't believe me about the absence of Bibles in nonCatholic churches. At least in my area. God knows I speak the truth and that's really all I care about.
maybe members of those other denominations will want to discuss it with you.
I have family members and acquaintances in some of those churches. And I attend one such service myself every week. I can have plenty of RL conversation partners any time I want. Without the bigotry that erupts on FR :)
as Bible avoiding as the Catholic denomination
Start a thread so that other denominations can be mocked with similar claptrap? No thanks! The churches I'm thinking of all proclaim Sacred Scripture from the pulpit. They're not "Bible avoiding" unless they're Scripture avoidant, which none of them are. Please save the word games for low-info commenters gullible enough to fall for them. They only heighten my disinterest in anything further you have to say.
I'm off this thread now. Peace be with you.
Catholics? Bible avoiding?
Where did you get that idea?
We read the Bible every day at Mass.
Read the thread so that you can understand the context, this was about having and using Bibles at services.
If the Catholics don't have a Bible in their hand, how are they reading it?
It's funny though how this thread is about a former Roman Catholic priest who left Catholicism for "Protestantism" and he was immediately attacked by FRoman Catholics as the spawn of Satan - something that any mention of former Catholics finding faith in Jesus Christ gets regularly voiced here. For example, I've linked to articles from William Webster, also a former Catholic, and some here refuse to even read the article because Webster left Catholicism. Yet, I don't recall any non-Catholic Christian disparaging guys like Hahn or Madrid or Staples because they left "Protestantism" (and I use that term in quotes because it is a basically meaningless euphemism for anyone who is a non-Catholic Christian). I haven't refused to read things these guys wrote when others post from them. I don't automatically spurn them. I will read their words, but I have yet to find their arguments persuasive enough to make me want to return to Roman Catholicism. I won't, I already know the truth.
You can quibble about what the term "Bible" means all you want, but the Apostles and Jesus used the books from the Old Testament to teach the truth of Jesus Christ. It was called "Scripture" just as Peter called Paul's writing "Scripture". The canon of the Old Testament was closed by the time Jesus came to earth, and they knew what was and wasn't sacred Scripture. They didn't need to wait for some church leadership to explain or identify it to them.
Everything you wrote boils down to this: “Vlad you were right. They didn’t have the Bible, but they had one testament so somehow you’re wrong.”
“The canon of the Old Testament was closed by the time Jesus came to earth, and they knew what was and wasn’t sacred Scripture.”
Jews might disagree.
“They didn’t need to wait for some church leadership to explain or identify it to them.”
Actually they did in a sense. Some would say the Jews defined their canon in regard to what Christians valued (i.e. they opposed it).
The point was that Chiniquy didn’t leave Catholicism because he had some conversion; he was thrown out for being a disobedient horndog, and then LIED about it. But no, that one fact doesn’t disprove Protestant doctrine, just as the sins of a pope doesn’t disprove Catholic doctrine. It only makes the attempt to use his testimony as evidence against Catholicism a a pathetic joke.
Indluding what he authored.
Neither can I figure out how they could do it, since it’s actually always been a matter of canon law that you need the bible present for the liturgy.
However, the actual text of the mass, although (unlike most Protestant sects) is derived nearly entirely from the mass, with obvious exceptions (such as the Littany of the Saints). It is this text which appears in the missalettes, complete with the bible passages selected for each day’s readings.
Huh?
This is a contradiction since Catholics already have faith in Jesus Christ. What they do not have faith in is the novelties of Protestant doctrines. The two should not be confused.
The point was that Chiniquy didn’t leave Catholicism because he had some conversion; he was thrown out for being a disobedient horndog, and then LIED about it.
You falsely alleged that the bible is not used in a Catholic mass. That is patently absurd. The very first thing anyone sees in a Catholic mass is the bible processed to the front of the Church, as if it were the ark of the covenant (because it is precisely what an ark contains). And nearly every line of every prayer or reading from the Catholic mass comes from the bible.
A missal or missalette, not a bible, doesn’t anyone read the thread or the posts, it would save us having to keep repeating things over and over and over, BIBLES.
From Catholic Answers.
Why are Bibles not supplied for Mass?
Full Question
Why are Bibles not supplied for Mass? In fact, at my parish, no printed copies of the readings are supplied. Why?
Answer
Catholic parishes usually supply missalettes, which contain both the prayers for the Mass and the Scripture readings of the day. Bibles are not supplied for Mass because they are not usually used at Mass. Some parishes prefer that congregants listen only to the lector rather than silently reading along with the lector, and they encourage this by not providing missalettes. Still, providing a missalette makes available one more means by which the assembly can participate in the liturgy of the word specifically and in the Mass generally.
So, Chiniquy gets chucked from the Catholic Church for alleged sinful behavior and then turns "Protestant" and lies about the Catholic Church because he was angry for being kicked out? Is that the story? Sorry, but the "pathetic joke" seems to be on those who buy this line of thought.
What is left to make one wonder about is all the various and sundry disobedient, horndoggery, simony, murder and skulduggery that Popes were guilty of not to mention the past AND current homosexual and pedophile behavior of priests, bishops and cardinals along with the lies and coverups that barely warrant a cross look much less getting thrown out. Answer me this, if guys like Pope Alexander VI got to keep his position and power WHILE he never gave any hint of repentance for his sins, why was Father Chiniquy cast out at all? I mean, it's not like what he was accused of doing was UNHEARD of within the halls of the very Vatican!
But, you DO make one valid point. The sins of spiritual leaders within a faith do not invalidate or disprove the truth of that faith. Truth is truth no matter who counts him/herself within its arms. That's why fair minded people CAN read what someone says and figure out if what they say is true REGARDLESS of the reputation of the sayer. If even Balaam's donkey could speak truth, a horndog former Catholic can as well. No one has seemed so far to identify what Chiniquy said about the Catholic Church, while he was there, is a "lie". Too much time was spent here on denigrating the man with the hope, I presume, of casting doubt on everything he had to say. But a lot of what he DID say was true and that, I believe, was why the attacks began so fiercely from the start. As I noted in an earlier post, this is not unlike the reaction that the mere mention of other former Catholic's writings elicit and not worth anyone's time to read. There is a double standard on this forum that needs to be exposed and those who seem to have no qualms about acting that way should learn that their duplicity does not go unnoticed.
If you go back to the first post where Ansel12 spoke about this, he said it was in his earlier years experience that Bibles were not commonly found in Catholic churches. I also remember that Bibles were not found in any of the Catholic churches I attended back when I was Catholic (50's-60's). I believe Ansel12 also used this timeframe. He never said that Bibles STILL are missing in Catholic churches nor that Bible passages were ever missing from the Mass itself. In their hurry to pounce and attack him, some Catholics ignored the content and context of his point even after he explained it multiple times. Let's just put the record straight on this.
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.