Catholic Word of the Day: CHAINED BIBLES, 06-27-14

CCDictionary ^ | 06-27-14 | Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary

[Salvation]

Featured Term (selected at random:

CHAINED BIBLES

 

 

An institution of the medieval Church to protect copies of the Bible from thievery. Before the advent of printing, the rarity of books made them available only to the wealthy. they were often locked away in chests. The Church, wishing to make the Bible available to all the faithful and still to ensure it against loss, chained it to a desk or lectern near a window. There even poor students had its use and it was in popular demand. Bias and ignorance have interpreted this chaining as proof that the Church withheld the Bible from the laity.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

[BipolarBob]

Thank you for that. It appears our Catholic superiors were somewhat like Democratic leaders of today. They have to take some things away from us for our own good.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"But historically that could be expected for a church that claims to be founded on a man who denied his Lord thrice."

What a remarkably thud-headed thing to say.

Peter, repentant, was forgiven thrice, with the thrice-repeated commands, "Feed my lambs, Feed my lambs, and feed my sheep." He got the job --- Chief Shepherd---- which Christ the Good Shepherd explained again less metaphorically, "Confirm (strengthen) the brethren." So if you want to accuse Catholics of being in the Church under the guidance of the man whom Christ Himself appointed: Yes. Yes. Gladly, yes. Guilty as charged.

[Mrs. Don-o]

“Can’t think”? A rather extravagant interpretation. Rather it’s a matter of thinking with the Church. It saves us from being PCUSA.

[BipolarBob]

Just threw it in for the “lack of history” remark. Just adding a little more history for you. Jesus claimed he was the “cornerstone” whom the builders rejected. Whom do you think the builders were in this statement?

[HarleyD]

Catholics may read scripture but are not allowed to interpret scripture. Everything, as we’re told by our Catholic friends, is based upon tradition as decided by the Church. So I really don’t see how my statement is an “extravagant interpretation”. Catholics are told exactly what the scriptures state as interpreted by some group of old men somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican. Good Catholics simply nod and say, “Oh, alright. If you say so.” The Church might just as well give their followers a scripture-based coloring book and crayons-perhaps multiple blue ones for Mary.

As far as it saves Catholics from being a PCUSA church, I wouldn’t be too quick on this claim.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Everything, as we’re told by our Catholic friends, is based upon tradition as decided by the Church."

HarleyD, that word "everything" is a word I'd grab out of your Catholic friends' mouths. I can see where you're coming from, and that would really suck if it were true, but that's not the case: at least, not the way you've stated it.

I just did a 2,000 word essay for my parish newsletter on a particular Scriptural topic. I looked up and cross-referenced related Scriptures, I looked up commentaries (and not just Catholic commentaries, either); I discussed the meaning of a couple of key Greek and Hebrew words from Strong's Concordance. There were a few places where I could reinforce my exegesis by referring to a passage from St. Irenaeus, St. Alphonsus Ligouri and Pope Pius XII, and reinforce it I did.

One of my fellow RCIA teachers, who read it pre-publication, wanted to dispute a couple of points, and we went back and forth over it via e-mail. He wasn't convinced of every single point, but he thought if our friend Kendra gave it the thumbs-up it would be OK to publish; and I tend to respect him because he's 86 and very sharp and well-read, and Kendra because she's a person of good learning and good sense.

This is how the Catholic Biblical conversation has been going for pert'near 21 centuries.

Like anybody who thinks like a Catholic, I hew toward a "Hermeneutic of Continuity." In other words, I don't assume that all the learned Christians of the past were dolts. Neither am I aiming for invention, novelty, or even creativity: Catholics go more for reiteration. I aim to be "in Christ," to "have in me the mind of Christ." What I shouldn't, and wouldn't do, is to go flat against what was believed by all the Fathers who were in consensus until about 15 minutes ago; and certainly not against what has been dogmatically defined.

There are how many verses in Scripture? --- roughly 32,000 or so? -- and very few of them are dogmatically defined. If I had to guess --- this is foolish, but I'll have a whack at it --- I'd say less than 5% would be nailed down in some dogmatic way. Eh. (Waggles hand.) Order of magnitude, OK? This is why yours is an “extravagant interpretation”.

"Catholics are told exactly what the scriptures state as interpreted by some group of old men somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican."

Laughable. It's like you've never even flipped through a Catholic theological journal.... and the ones here are all in English. Like "Homiletic and Pastoral Review." Or "Communio". Or "Concilium." Or "Catholic Biblical Quarterly." Or "Dunwoodie Review". Or have you? It's like you've never sat in on a normal, common-ordinary Catholic Bible Study group. Or have you? If you have, then you must have had your ear-buds in your ear, listening to Guns N' Roses.

(I'm not intuiting your musical tastes, I'm just trying to imagine what would have blotted out the sense of what you were reading or hearing, so you could come up with a howler like "Catholics are told exactly what the scriptures state as interpreted by some group of old men somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican." Thud.)

There are things that are nailed down solid. The Nicene Creed: ain't gonna change. Trying to copulate with some guy's anus: veddy, veddy bad. The directly intended, targeted killing of an innocent human being, by a bomb, abortion or a baseball bat: always murder. Ain't gonna change.

The Virgin Mary always dresses in blue.

`

`

Haha, just funnin' with ya.

But do you see what I mean about your statements? If I were you, I would check things out personally, just to see if it is so. Otherwise, and as wise as you may be, you just sound like the guy who grabbed the elephant's tail and announced that an elephant is very like a rope.

[BipolarBob]

The directly intended, targeted killing of an innocent human being, by a bomb, abortion or a baseball bat: always murder. Ain't gonna change.

Does that include burning prots heretics at the stake?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yes.

[HarleyD]

Thank you for your delightful post. As you may be aware, I have read a number of Catholic writings and am very familiar with various Catholic websites. I didn't received my Calvinistic leaning from John Calvin but from Augustine. And when one honestly examine the writings of the Church throughout history, one finds that it wasn't a continuation but a departure from scriptural founding truths.

It isn't surprising that websites like the on-line Catholic encyclopedia New Advent states things like (to paraphrase) the early church fathers didn't understand of what they were teaching, were bigoted, how doctrines such as atonement or justification were changed for the better, some teachings are a mystery, or other such things. One only needs to look up the doctrine of the atonement, justification or other such foundational doctrine to see that this is so.

One can look at, and compare, Church writings and teachings to see how Church doctrine has changed. A comparison of the Council of Orange and the Council of Trent are 180 degrees different. Then there is the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 and other such works that are worth the read. (Catholics who participate in the Holy War will receive special indulgences). The dogmas of the Catholic Church states that one HAS to be a member to be saved or that marriage is forever. Yet the Church makes allowances for those outside to be saved and annulments. And if one is really interested they can simply read the early writings of the church fathers. Though not inspired writings, they are insightful when compared to what is taught today. While there is some emphasis on the Eucharist, there is very little in common with the teachings of the Church today.

The bottom line on all of this is that, at the end of the day, the Church has pronounce how Catholics are to believe and that is what Catholics are to believe. And these beliefs are slowly changed and are modified through the years. All the while Catholics tells us they don't. Even the Orthodox scoff at these claims. But this behavior, of course, is enough to baffle us Protestants. This behavior isn't any different than some cult telling there members what shoes to put on or tie they will wear. Catholics may read a bit of scripture and discuss the Greek, but then they end up saying, "What does the Church say about this?" or "How does this fit in with Church teachings?" There is never the question, "Is this correct or accurate?" They drink the Kool-Aid of the Church, never questioning it's teachings. Do you believe that Christ died as a penalty for your sins or do you believe, as the now Church teaches, that the atonement is simply an "act of love" (see Atonement). That is a fundament question. The early church fathers taught the former but the Church today teaches the latter.

Protestants may read a bit of scripture and discuss the Greek. Heck, one or two of us may even read a commentary or some historical information. But at the end we believe that it is our personal responsibility before God to understand and to show ourselves approved in our limitations. At the end of the day, we all have to give an accounting of ourselves.

[annalex]

In any event, the choice of the language had nothing to do with the chaining of the books; their cost was the only factor.

[BipolarBob]

I don't think anyone is arguing the cost or scarcity of the article. The chaining of the Bible probably was prudent. The greater danger would probably be from passing priests than the common folk. The commoners knew death would be the result of stealing such a prize.
But it is good subterfuge from the more salient points regarding the distribution of the Word.

[annalex]

Right. Back to the language issue: Latin had advantages over the vernacular for the state of the literacy of the times, when to be educated meant to know Latin. The common folk, on the other hand, would not be able to read in their native language either, especially the sophisticated material of the Bible. There was no way to cut out the oral instruction done by the clergy from the process of apprehending the Holy Scripture by commoners.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is the kind of thing that makes me go, "Ai, ai, ai."

"Do you believe that Christ died as a penalty for your sins or do you believe, as the now Church teaches, that the atonement is simply an "act of love" (see Atonement). That is a fundament question. The early church fathers taught the former but the Church today teaches the latter."

These are not mutually exclusive terms. Of course I believe that Christ died as a penalty for my sins which is to say, it was an act of love. The supreme act of love.

Why would you think this is a contradiction? So Scripture says, so the Body of Christ believes and teaches, and so I teach.

I can't go through an entire catalog, but a shrewd guess on my part is that the aggravation (and there's lots of it) comes from several causes:

• Not distinguishing between different levels of authority, so that some Saint's or Pope's erroneous theological opinion suddenly inflates, blotting out the horizon, and people start screaming, "What a horrible dogma!"

• There's insufficient reading of context, so that you miss that stuff in para 3-4 and para 18 very much broaden, limit or modify the scope of what was said in para 12 (this is just a markerboard sketch)

• there's insufficient distinction made between differing emphases, focuses (OK, foci), rhetorical style, genre and tone on the one hand, and the core kerygma on the other

• there's insufficient distinction made between the true development of doctrine and the demonstration of corrupt practice, so that when major historic actors do majorly corrupt things, this is taken as an expression of doctrine instead of what it is, a sin.

It's past 10:00 PM and I'm going to be outtahere from early morning until early afternoon tomorrow. I may be able to continue this train of thought, or the train may leave the station without me!

I hope you may have a peaceful night, and I leave you with a tagline which I, too, might take to heart.

[BipolarBob]

The common folk, on the other hand, would not be able to read in their native language either,
Depends on what century one is talking about. Also Mrs. Don-o disputed this with a post saying Charlemagne issued orders to teach literacy to "qualified" students. In any case The Catholic Church went to extreme measures to insure they were sole depositors of the Word of God. It was most profitable. God overruled them though. It cost innocent lives but Truth prevailed.

[annalex]

Middle Ages are understood to be 5 Century AD to 15. At no point in Medieval time did native language literacy exceeded Latin literacy in Western Europe. Even in 17 C. Newton wrote Principia Mathematica in Latin and you can be sure it was not because the Church put pressure on him.

What Mrs. Don-o disputes you should take up with her.

Christ did not found a single Protestant community, but He did found One True Catholic Church and she is a rule of Christian faith then and today. We teach the Word of God today in thousands of languages not because the so-called Reformation made us, but because it is the right thing to do in the changed world. The world may change again, and we shall change our practice accordingly, long after the last Protestant sits through the last Protestant sermon.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, geez. OF COURSE all of the Carolingian-era schools taught in Latin. It was impossible for them to do otherwise. In 800 AD most Western European languages had no written vernacular literature.

Ya can look it up. The Italian poet Dante was the first European writer to argue for the promotion of literature in the vernacular in his De vulgari eloquentia (around 1300). Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, written in Middle English, wasn't published until the late 1300's.

So, bob, vernacular literature didn't even begin to be published until about 500 years (half a millennium) after Charlemagne. In fact both Dante and Chaucer's works contributed significantly toward the creation of English and Italian as orthographic, transliterated national languages. Before that, there were just dialects with no written form, some of them so local they varied significantly from hilltop to hilltop.

A little historic perspective helps.

[Tax-chick]

A little historic perspective helps.

At all time, in all situations.

[BipolarBob]

Christ did not found a single Protestant community

He didn't found a single Catholic Church or community either. Jesus was a Jew and His disciples were Jews. They followed Jewish Law as it was intended. They didn't finger rosary beads. They didn't worship ADORE Mary and call her Queen of Heaven. They didn't wear crucifixes. They didn't "Hail Mary" or call on anyone to do so. They didn't require priests to be unmarried and celibate. No stained glass cathedrals for them. NO POPE!! No selling of indulgences. No persecution of Christians who believed different from them. Really more differences in His Church and yours than commonalities.

[annalex]

Yes, many outward signs of the Church changed, same as we have seen with the treatment of books and choice of languages. To an outsider the Rosary and celibate priesthood might be all he knows about the Holy Church, but as a Catholic I can tell you that the same Church Christ promised to build in Matthew 16:18, that spoke in the multitude of tongues in Acts 2:11 is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church I am proud to belong today, alleluia, amen.

Ask me about my faith and I will tell you, and come, worship with us.

[BipolarBob]

I can tell you that the same Church Christ promised to build in Matthew 16:18, that spoke in the multitude of tongues in Acts 2:11 is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church

Yes you can tell me that ad nauseum. That doesn't make it true. You and Mrs. Don-o are quite expert at blocking out or ignoring the most important parts of others postings. Quite an art form. But go right back to the rah-rah "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church" rant. If you can't prove it or answer it then just ignore it.