How to Read the Bible – A Three Step Plan (written for Catholics - valid for all)

taylormarshall.com ^ | September 30, 2013 | Dr. Taylor Marshall

[NYer]

How do you read the Bible? Today is the feast day of Saint Jerome, who once quipped, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”

“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” – Saint Jerome

It’s a running joke that if you want to find a Bible verse, you ought to ask a Protestant and not a Catholic. Protestants read the Bible. Catholics not so much.

This raises the question:

Why Don’t More Catholics Read the Bible?

I think the answer lies in the fact that we Catholics go to Mass. The Holy Mass has at least two Bible readings every time. If you pray the Breviary or Liturgy of Hours, multiply that several times.

Joe Catholic says to himself, “Why should I study the Bible? I go to Mass. I hear it there. Check and check.”

There is something beautiful in this. For Catholics, Bible reading is liturgical. Hence, Bible reading remains chiefly a community experience.

Three Step Plan to Kick It Up a Notch

It’s good to listen to the readings from the Bible at Holy Mass. However, we also need a personal (even private) encounter with God in the pages of Sacred Scripture. All of the saints breathed Sacred Scripture. Scripture served as the grammar for their souls. They couldn’t communicate without it.

Here are some basic spiritual needs that you have every single day of your life:

1. Praise – Voicing your delight in God and His provision for your life. Gratitude destroys discouragement.
2. Wisdom – You need practical advice to navigate the complexities of life.
3. Challenge – You need to be lifted higher. You need to grow in your faith. You need to be inspired. You must be an intentional Christian.

So when you wake up tomorrow, do the following:

1. Read a Psalm. Start with Psalm 1. Make it your anthem of praise for that day.
2. Read at least one Proverb. Proverbs are the wisdom morsels of your day. There are 31 chapters. Why not read one chapter every day during the month. Oct 1 is Provers 1. October 31 is Proverbs 31. You get the idea.
3. Read a chapter of the one of the Gospels. This is your challenge. Your Savior challenges you in the four Gospels. He calls you to be not merely a nominal Catholic but a disciple. You cannot seriously read the Gospels and stay lukewarm. Christ speaks in a way that cannot be ignored.

“But I’m so busy. I don’t have the time!”

What? You’re too busy. Sorry, you just got served a yellow card:

That’s a yellow card. You’ve been warned…

Doing these three readings will take you only 3-5 minutes. That’s the time of a commercial break. It will change your life for good. I promise. It takes 21 days to make a habit, so give it 21 days and see if you aren’t hooked. Put the Bible on your night stand and read it in the mornings. Start fresh.

“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” – Saint Jerome, Doctor of the Church

[Elsie]

...they merit the title of churches...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBEn3a4TIUw

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Christ’s church HAS NEVER BEEN a body of invisible people. “

It has ALWAYS been a body of visible and invisible people.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“RCs typically promote and defend their church as an idol, that being what they preach, vainly using Jesus to validate it”

+1

It is strange that when a Roman speaks, he talks about his church, how old it is, who the saints are, about its popes and magnificent buildings. If Christ is mentioned in the conversation, it is either a specious claim that Christ created the Roman church or that Christ is present in the eucharist at the priest’s beck and call.

When you hear a Christian speak, they talk about their Lord, His glory, His body, His church, His bride, His Word, His coming Kingdom and reign.

One uses Christ to validate and justify an institution. The second honors Christ and seeks Him.

The first complains the loudest when everyone doesn’t acknowledge their institution.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

It has ALWAYS been a body of visible and invisible people.

Jesus said, "If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."

Jesus could have said, "If he will not listen to Me," but He didn't. He directed his followers to "the church," to settle disagreements.

Several logical conclusions necessarily follow.

- There is ONE Church, since Christ refers to "the church."
- The Church teaches with the same authority as Jesus, since Jesus could have directed people to Him, to settle disagreements.
- This Church is VISIBLE, since it is impossible to "take" disagreements to an invisible church.

If we correlate these logically necessary conclusions with other passages in Scripture, we must conclude that this Church is Christ's Church, the Church which "the gates of hell" would not prevail against.

If Christ instituted a visible Church, against which the gates of hell would not prevail, then Christ's visible Church must exist today, and must trace Its origin to Christ.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." --Cardinal Newman.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Several logical conclusions necessarily follow.

- There is ONE Church, since Christ refers to “the church.”
- The Church teaches with the same authority as Jesus, since Jesus could have directed people to Him, to settle disagreements.
- This Church is VISIBLE, since it is impossible to “take” disagreements to an invisible church.

...............

Your conclusions are faulty, FRiend.

That every gathering - and Paul was writing to a LOCAL gathering - has leadership that the members are to respect and obey is true.
You will have difficulty proving that the local gathering was the one universal gathering. It was a local expression of the universal Body of Christ.
PART of the gathering is visible.

Your logical fallacy is substituting part for the whole.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” —Cardinal Newman.

God has no grandchildren. Only children.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Yes, Christ's Body is both visible and invisible. If it were entirely invisible, Christ's command to "take it to the church," would be void, as explained previously.

But that doesn't negate the argument in any way. From Christ's declaration that "if he won't listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector," the following conclusions necessarily follow:

- There is ONE Church, since Christ refers to “the church.”
- The Church teaches with the same authority as Jesus, since Jesus could have directed people to Him, to settle disagreements.
- This Church is VISIBLE, since it is impossible to “take” disagreements to an invisible church.
- This Church must be united in doctrine, otherwise it could not settle disputes among Christians.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

But that doesn’t negate the argument in any way. From Christ’s declaration that “if he won’t listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector,” the following conclusions necessarily follow:

- There is ONE Church, since Christ refers to “the church.”
- The Church teaches with the same authority as Jesus, since Jesus could have directed people to Him, to settle disagreements.
- This Church is VISIBLE, since it is impossible to “take” disagreements to an invisible church.
- This Church must be united in doctrine, otherwise it could not settle disputes among Christians.

..............................

Paul was REFERRING to ONE LOCAL CHURCH in his letter.
This is not reason to reach your conclusion of just one church.

Point 1 above. There is just one GATHERING, since that is what CHRIST says. He does not say “church”, which is an unfortunate later German word.
Point 2 above. No, the church has authority. It is not equal to the God of the Universe who has authority over all things for all time.
Point 3 above. The local church is always visible.
Point 4 above. The context of Paul’s letter has nothing to do with doctrine at all. It has to do with local disputes.

[smvoice]

Could you give me the exact Scripture that you’re using here? (Re: Christ’s declaration that “if he won’t listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector”)? It might be helpful in understanding.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Point 1 above. There is just one GATHERING, since that is what CHRIST says. He does not say “church”, which is an unfortunate later German word.

I got the following definition on-line:

1. an assembly, especially the popular assembly of ancient Athens.
2. a congregation; church.

What difference does this make to the argument?

Point 2 above. No, the church has authority. It is not equal to the God of the Universe who has authority over all things for all time.

This is a straw man. The argument is not that the Church is God, but that the Church's Teaching is as authoritative as Christ's. This statement does not mean that the Church possesses the entire Mind of Christ. Christ is the Head of His Church. Nevertheless, dogmatic teachings of the Church must be as authoritative as the teaching of Christ. Otherwise, Christ would not have pointed to the Church as a source of authoritative teaching.

Then why didn't Christ direct Christians to Him, rather than His Church, if His Church has less teaching authority?

The local church is always visible.

But for the local church to have teaching authority, its teaching must be in agreement with Christ's Church.

If local churches, differing in teaching, are full members of Christ's Church, then Christ's command becomes nonsensical or void, because Christ is explicitly commanding Christians to go to His church to settle disputes. Churches with contradictory doctrines cannot settle disputes. Therefore, the premise renders Christ's command void --an impossibility.

Point 4 above. The context of Paul’s letter has nothing to do with doctrine at all. It has to do with local disputes.

These are the words of Christ, not Paul. (Mat 18:17)

Regardless, it's nonsensical to believe that Christ gave His Church the authority to settle "local (disciplinary?) disputes," but not doctrinal disputes. Doctrine is what distinguishes one church from another. Catholic doctrine is unified. Protestant doctrine is not.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Could you give me the exact Scripture that you’re using here?

Matthew 18:17

[smvoice]

Oh, OK. That answers the question I had. That was part of the Kingdom, Messianic Church. Regarding Christ, Israel, and the setting up of His Kingdom on earth. Where Israel would be a nation of priests to all nations (Gentiles). We are not that church today. We are the Church the Body of Christ, a living organism, spiritually bound together in the heavenlies. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Spiritual. Not earthly, not Israel.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“got the following definition on-line:”

Try Greek.

The churches authority is not equal to God’s

Paul told the local gathering how to resolve disputes.

Catholic doctrine is unified, but incorrect on many issues. As such it can never be authoritative.

Your attempt to reason your way from one statement to one authoritative church - and put it in Rome - was incomplete.

[Jvette]

LOL, considering what you post, it must take hours for just one!

[Jvette]

I didn’t think you were being snarky.

There are non Traditional “Christians” who don’t believe in even the simple truths we can all agree on. I don’t think that applies here, so that is why I don’t think it is a good choice.

Sorry, it was an honest answer to what I thought was an honest post.

[Jvette]

And when it comes to faith, you readily admit that?

The Church has made mistakes in things not pertaining to faith and morals. When it has, it has corrected them.

[daniel1212]

No matter how many times you have seen this evidenced, you must be a bigot for saying it!

[smvoice]

This should serve as a spiritual wake-up call, for RCs to examine the faith, whether they be in it or not.

It's a good time to put it to the test, Rome "faithfuls". We won't look, we'll pretend we're not hoping and praying that truth will win out.

[daniel1212]

LOL, considering what you post, it must take hours for just one!

It foten doess (thoguh sometimes i copy of some my previos workl. . And this is bas9cally much what it loosk lkie if i try to ttype with two hands and do not use the the corredt feastire in Fireftox., Not bcz i can't spell but becausue my fingers are too stiff. My fingers do not do whgat i woukld loike them to do, an d do not move indepedantly very well. Thus i gave up trying to toiuch type. Even signgn m,y name is gettin g wo4ese . But we alll ghave croeses to bear and i need to find God's grafe more to handlt it withouit getting fruststre d, and be thankjful instread.

Trandslation:

It often does, (though sometimes i copy of some my previous work. And this is basically what it looks like if i f i try to type with two hands and do not use the the correct feature in Firefox., Not bcz i can't spell but because my fingers are too stiff. My fingers do not do what i would like them to do, an d do not move independently very well. Thus i gave up trying to touch type. Even signing my name is getting worse But we all have crosses to bear and i need to find God's grace more to handle it without getting frustrated, and be thankful instead .

End of translation. If you could read it as it was then you must be good as Scrabble!

[smvoice]

Daniel, you are a treasure to us. I did not know you had such difficulties. Which now makes you AMAZING to us! Keep up the GREAT work for the Lord. He is with you, guiding you with His grace and mercy for the work He would have you to do for Him.

So thankful to be In Christ,

smvoice