How to Read the Bible – A Three Step Plan (written for Catholics

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:

Praise – Voicing your delight in God and His provision for your life. Gratitude destroys discouragement.
Wisdom – You need practical advice to navigate the complexities of life.
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:

Read a Psalm. Start with Psalm 1. Make it your anthem of praise for that day.
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.
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

This gets awfully wearisome going over and over again thread after thread after thread with the disagreement over the "real presence" of Christ in the "Eucharist", doesn't it? This doctrine is really like the nucleus of Roman Catholicism and, which to them anyway, sets them apart from all other Christian worship traditions. Their insistence that ONLY their priests have the divine right and authority to "confect" the eucharistic "miracle" and, since only they do it the right way and no one can be saved who doesn't eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, then everyone MUST become Roman Catholic if they want to be saved.

It seems like no amount of Scripture refutation, teachings of early church leaders, LOGIC, reason, or anything else can sway those who have been totally convinced of this core doctrine. They say they have "authenticated" miracles, we are told, of REAL human heart tissue inexplicably appearing where a communion host was previously left. But, no one wonders, if this is the true reality, then why doesn't it happen ALL the time? Why depend upon exceptions to prove the rule? If everyone was being honest on this topic, they would admit that it is ALL by faith anyway. Catholics believe that the bread and wine, though materially not changed in the slightest, are in essence changed - it's a spiritual change that cannot be detected by any human means. That being the case then, what is all that wrong in the way other Christians view the ordinance of the "Lord's Supper"? It is GENUINELY all symbolic since the material never changes - the bread doesn't become REAL flesh, the wine doesn't turn into REAL blood.

What really matters is what we DO with Jesus. How do we receive his sacrifice for our sins? Believing IS eating and drinking. We eat and drink Christ through faith and that is how we are redeemed. It is how we are born again into the family of God. Observing the remembrance of Him in the communion service is how we are always reminded of what HE did for us. Taking the elements is not how we have eternal life - only through faith are we saved by grace. All this bickering, I believe, is futile and causes discord. What God desires is that we live peacefully in one accord with each other in love. That is what matters to Him.

Wow, I just got a chance now to read some of these posts on this thread, and I have to tell you that the folks at the web site of this reference you are using here are wildly misinterpreting "St. Clement of Alexandria" just like they misinterpret "John 6".

Who exactly do you think "The Word" is, anyway? (The answer: He is Jesus, who was made flesh, just like the Bible says, and just like Catholics say when partaking of the Word in the Holy Eucharist.)

Read these links (for starters) to get a much clearer understanding of what St. Clement of Alexandria actually was saying and believed about the Holy Eucharist:

Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist
Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Christ in the Flesh - Early Christians Testify on the Eucharist
St. Clement of Alexandria (150-216 A.D.)

(I have to get up early tomorrow morning, so I'll have to check back maybe late tomorrow to see if you read these clarifying sources, and what you think of his clear expressions.)

Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist (c. 200 - c. 300 A.D.)
A few weeks ago, I posted brief snippets of the writings of the earliest Church Fathers, from the time of the Apostles until 200 A.D., showing what they believed on the Eucharist. Long story short, these men believed that the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ, that this happened at the words of consecration, and that after this point, it ceased to be bread and wine. Today, I’m (finally) including the writings of those writing from c. 200-300 A.D.

I. St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 A.D.)

Last time, I addressed Tertullian, who bridged the second and third century (c. 160 - c. 220). St. Clement is a contemporary of his (c. 150-215), so in both cases, we’re right on the cusp between the 100s and the 200s. St. Clement’s Paedagogus (meaning The Tutor or The Instructor) is from about 189-200 A.D., and his series of books called the Stromata (Miscellanies) were probably written shortly and after Paedagogus. Origen is one of his students, and succeeds him as Bishop of Alexandria. In his writings, which I’ve mentioned before, he shows a very Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.

First, here’s what Clement says on the Eucharist in Book IV, Chapter 25 of the Stromata:
This is in reality righteousness, not to desire other things, but to be entirely the consecrated temple of the Lord. Righteousness is peace of life and a well-conditioned state, to which the Lord dismissed her when He said, “Depart into peace.” [Mark 5:34] For Salem is, by interpretation, peace; of which our Saviour is enrolled King, as Moses says, Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who gave bread and wine, furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist. And Melchizedek is interpreted righteous king; and the name is a synonym for righteousness and peace.
If you’re not familiar, a “type” is a prophetic prefigurement of something greater. The Passover lamb is a type of the Lamb of God. Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20), is a type of Christ, the Eternal High Priest, and the true King of Peace (the Book of Hebrews draws the same connections in Hebrews 5:5-10, Heb. 6:20, and all of Hebrews 7). Likewise, the consecrated bread and wine offered by Melchizedek are a type of the Eucharist, as the Mass says. That’s easy to gloss over, but pay close attention. What Melchizedek offered was a sacrifice, and he prefigures Christ, while the sacrifice prefigures the Eucharist. So we can see from his parallel that as Melchizedek offered bread and wine as sacrifice, Christ offers the Eucharist as Sacrifice.

Even clearer is Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos, in which Clement says:
And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.
Starkly Catholic. We drink the Blood of Jesus. Immediately after this, lest there be any argument that Clement thought this was really just wine, Clement writes at great length against wine, saying, “I therefore admire those who have adopted an austere life, and who are fond of water, the medicine of temperance, and flee as far as possible from wine, shunning it as they would the danger of fire.” He then lists off the dangers of wine, saying it’s inappropriate for those undertaking “the divine studies,” and it leads to drunkenness, lust, mistakes and irritations.

It’s clear from the sheer contrast between the Eucharist, which he praises (and calls “the Blood of Jesus” and promises will lead us to eternal life if taken faithfully), and wine, which he calls us to flee from completely, that Clement doesn’t think that the Eucharist is wine. You can’t abstain from wine and still receive the Eucharist, unless the Eucharist isn’t wine. And it isn’t as though these are writings separated by time and place, that he had a change of heart. This is a single chapter, and he connects the two thoughts with a “therefore.” He doesn’t view this as a contradiction.

Finally, we also see Clement condemning as heretical those “employ bread and water in the oblation, not according to the canon of the Church. For there are those who celebrate the Eucharist with mere water.” So here’s what we know. Clement viewed wine as bad, and encouraged Christians to flee from it completely. But he also condemned as heretics those who attempted to consecrate water without wine at the Eucharist. Rather, wine must be used in the Eucharist, because (a) the Church requires it, and (b) it becomes the Blood of Christ (i.e., no longer wine, and no longer something to flee from). Finally, note that Clement calls the Eucharist an Oblation, that is, a Sacrifice to God. This tells us all that we need to safely say that Clement held to the Catholic view of the Eucharist, and that he obviously didn’t hold to any of the Protestant views.

Ever hear of Lanciano -- Eucharistic miracle with real flesh? Ever hear of any of these Eucharistic Miracles that involve Real blood? Please read a couple of these FR threads.

Like I said:

They say they have "authenticated" miracles, we are told, of REAL human heart tissue inexplicably appearing where a communion host was previously left. But, no one wonders, if this is the true reality, then why doesn't it happen ALL the time? Why depend upon exceptions to prove the rule? If everyone was being honest on this topic, they would admit that it is ALL by faith anyway. Catholics believe that the bread and wine, though materially not changed in the slightest, are in essence changed - it's a spiritual change that cannot be detected by any human means. That being the case then, what is all that wrong in the way other Christians view the ordinance of the "Lord's Supper"? It is GENUINELY all symbolic since the material never changes - the bread doesn't become REAL flesh, the wine doesn't turn into REAL blood.

These so-called miracles should be an everyday, everywhere occurrence - if indeed this transubstantiation is the "literal" changing of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. It should be a given, but it's not, it's an exception - heralded and celebrated, worshiped and sold as sites for pilgrimages to see a "miracle". Why don't people ask why this isn't always the case? The point is we ALL celebrate the Lord's Supper as a Remembrance of Him and as a reminder of God's grace that redeems us through faith. Catholics have faith that the elements of which they are partaking infuse their souls with sanctifying grace. While others such as myself have faith going into the Communion service that, by partaking with fellow worshipers, I am reminded and assured of the grace of God and what He did for me by making propitiation for my sins by the sacrifice of the cross. God's grace imputes the righteousness of Christ to my soul when I first received Him. My faith is encouraged and strengthened as I remember with fellow believers the wondrous grace of God. Catholics have nothing over any of us.

Thank you for putting a face with your name.

I'm a 66 year old, thanks. I don't throw tantrums like I heard from some whiny baby! That is definitely not a depiction of me...

Galatians 3: ... 10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith. 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. ...

... 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

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.