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

[terycarl]

Sure there was. The Jews who wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Are you saying that the Jews are Catholic

of course...the ones who became followers of Christ are CHRISTIANS...Catholics that is...Catholics wrote the bible...new testament, brought forth the Old testament from the Jews...look in your Bible, both books are there, they are there because of the Catholic Church ...PERIOD.

[terycarl]

You want anyone else to believe it, provide support for your claim.

I can only assume that you believe that Jesus Christ was God....

I am an unbeliever......

prove it

[terycarl]

that He did, by using the Catholic church to do so...there was no one else around... “ I hear you. God was so very, very, very lucky that the Church stepped in to make it happen, or He would have been up a creek!!!

Nope, He needed a courier, someone to spread the word, so He founded a Church and ordered her to do so....the Catholic Church.....Smart, wasn't He??

[terycarl]

that He did, by using the Catholic church to do so...there was no one else around... “ I hear you. God was so very, very, very lucky that the Church stepped in to make it happen, or He would have been up a creek!!!

Nope, He needed a courier, someone to spread the word, so He founded a Church and ordered her to do so....the Catholic Church.....Smart, wasn't He??

[terycarl]

How about you show one instance where your religion didn't err in relationship to the bible

you ask me to prove that something didn't happen???no one can prove a negative

[daniel1212]

So, when I see RCC, I know that it is being used in a way that is meant as an insult.

Oh, you do, do you? Mind reading much? It didn't occur to you that just perhaps it's easier and quicker to type RCC than R-o-m-a-n C-a-t-h-o-l-i-c C-h-u-r-c-h-? Catholics. Church of the Perpetually Offended.

Indeed, that is why i use RCs and Prots, as the more typing i can save the better, esp w/ my stiff fingers which make many typos.

[daniel1212]

I guarantee you if you take away Hispanics (of which all are not Catholic to start with), the majority of Christians in the military are Catholic.

Again, the known evidence refutes you, and doubling down on your unsubstantiated assertion will not make it true, though too many RCs seem to think they can decree true like as their church presumes it can do, and dismiss any evidence that refutes them.

Do you have one good thing to say about Catholics? It borders on the ridiculous. I post something positive about my faith, and it is immediately attacked.

You made an unsubstantiated assertion that was contrary to what is known, and simply repeated it, while we are faced with an incessant promotions of RC news and views, and claims of elitism, and then complaints when this is challenged. If RCs are going to promote RC supremacy, then stop complaining about being challenged.

[daniel1212]

self interpretation of the Bible in Dangerous and highly inefficient. Actually the manner of comprehensive conservative evangelical commentaries (Henry, JFB, Barnes, Clarke, Gill, K+D, etc.) is something unseen in Catholicism, while you own approved commentary teaches a liberal view on the historicity of Scripture.

Meanwhile, the height of individual interpretation in self supremacy is in Roman Catholicism, in which one man can autocratically decree something is Truth, while who can depose him without his consent?

[boatbums]

****”He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Those who do not believe, are condemned ALREADY because they do not believe. It can’t be much clearer.***** BECAUSE HE HATH NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.....how does one believe or not believe in something when they know nothing of it?

The key to that verse (John 3:18) is "already condemned". Those that do not believe are ALREADY condemned because of sin. It isn't the unbelief that condemns us but that we stand condemned coming into the world due to our sin nature which is at enmity with God. Grace and faith is how we are saved from that by the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin. I understand the point you are trying to make about those who we think never hear the gospel and never directly reject it and whether or not they are held accountable for what to us seems to be not their fault. In John 3:19, Jesus continues:

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

We ALL are born into sin and on our way to eternal separation from God. But He steps in and shines the light of truth to the souls that seek Him and, as I said earlier, we cannot limit God in how He reveals Himself to the one who searches for Him with all their heart. Just look at Abraham.

[daniel1212]

Any offense to Protestant is because it represents a diverse class, and likewise not distinguishing Latin rite Catholics from Byzantine rite when dealing with things particular them the former, which we usually are (the pope's powers, purgatory, Rome's claim to be the OTC, etc.), is not right either.

There is nothing wrong with using RCC, except that it may infer she is a real church, which Rome rejects most Prots as being, and i am sure those in the SBS do not mind that use either.

[daniel1212]

There is no such thing as the RCC. It exists only in the minds of anti Catholics.

Tell that to this man:

By heart we believe and by mouth confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside which we believe that no one is saved.” Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 18 December 1208

QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE, 4 July 1570... establishing the Traditional Roman Rite of Mass in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church , Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us;...

Gregory VII asserted, “That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.” http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.html

Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559: : (xii) finally, all Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and goods of this kind shall be confiscated, made public and shall remain so, and shall be made the rightful property of those who shall first occupy them if these shall be sincere in faith, in the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us and to Our successors the Roman Pontiffs canonically entering office.

On using “Rome”: The Dei Filius (http://www.disf.org/en/documentation/11-vaticancouncili.asp) sanctions the title, “Roman Church,” "the holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" which was adopted unanimously on 24 April 1870 by the First Vatican Council on the Catholic faith.

[NKP_Vet]

According to your lamebrain graft there are no Catholics in the US military. Show me on the graft were the word Catholic is mentioned.

[boatbums]

You mean the Bible that the Catholic Church compiled and Catholics determined what would be divinely inspired and not be considered divinely inspired and the Word of God.

Aren't you the one who claimed to have a masters degree in theology? How is it you can seriously say that the Catholic Church "determined what would be divinely-inspired" Scripture or not??? Am I to understand that you think your church had the power to thumbs up or thumbs down what Almighty God delivered to the believers? That your church could tell the Holy Spirit what they would keep and what they would chuck? Is that how you imagine we got the Old Testament Scriptures as well? Not just presumptuous, but blasphemous as well. Here are some links that explain how we really got the sacred Scriptures:

The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament

On the Formation of the New Testament Canon

The Pre-Reformation History of the Bible

[NKP_Vet]

Well at least I have you saying Catholics are Christians, that’s a start.

And you certainly know I meant largest Christian denomination.

[BlueDragon]

It is used derogatorily here, as in RCC, by those who wish to demean it.

We've all seen this complaint before. For many -- the issue has been put to rest, in that it is not pointed at as some sort of "attack" just for using the name "Roman Catholic" which the [ahem] Roman Catholic church, from officials on down through membership, does at times use to describe "itself"> As another pointed out, abbreviating to "RCC" is simply abbreviation.

I can't speak for all others, but when I use the letters, or include [Roman] at times in brackets, I am specifying what church I am talking about -- not to be confused with Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc., including Anglicans, many of who do refer to themselves as 'Catholic'. I have attended mass at a nearby "high Anglican" church, whose ceremonial proceeding are more "Catholic" than what is found in many modern Roman Catholic settings. We hear on these pages frequently enough -- from those RC'ers who decry the Novus Ordo Church".

Even the Lutherans declare they believe in the catholic church. Should I be including them when speaking of something a bit differentiated from them and others too?

I'm sorry, but that price you are seeming to require, is far too high. I will not so easily surrender the English language. It is my own native tongue.

I cannot keep from yourself choosing to take offense --- but if it makes you happy to be unhappy -- then be unhappy? whatever.

The reasons behind using the terminology was all pointed out (and explained) in a book that I can readily enough think of from nearly two hundred years ago (1825). I have posted page image discussing this issue, from that book before. Would you like to see it again?

I am not Anglo-Catholic, nor self identify as other capital "C" catholic of much any sort, but I do respect the argument of the old Anglo Catholics more than I respect the efforts (even the seeming demand) to control all language, thus by subtlety of language usage and implied connotative meanings, lead others to commit some sort ecclesiastical suicide -- by surrendering the word "Catholic" unreservedly to those who can otherwise legitimately be referred to using the identifier Roman Catholic.

I use the phrase "feelthy papist" when I'm trying to inject a bit of humor into the situation, such as making a nod toward the extremes of "anti- Roman Catholicism" that fails to differentiate between tenets of faith, and persons themselves, and all the errors (on either side of the equation) those types of attitudes have lead to in past times.

As far as not calling some "Protestant" that as much as anything derives from having some respect for a range of rather minor differences between what may be seen as those faithful to older "mainline" Protestant theology, and say some Baptist and Southern Baptist who tend towards an Arminian view, while also putting some distance between the modern, liberal Episcopalians and Presbyterians who's theology today is more like some Universal Universalist, than any sort of Lutheran or Calvinistic expression.

[NKP_Vet]

“Aren’t you the one who claimed to have a masters degree in theology? How is it you can seriously say that the Catholic Church “determined what would be divinely-inspired” Scripture or not??? Am I to understand that you think your church had the power to thumbs up or thumbs down what Almighty God delivered to the believers?”

I am saying when the Bible was compiled the only Christians were Catholic. Therefore, Catholics COMPILED THE BIBLE.

The reformation was still hundreds of years away. The Bible
is a Catholic document. Without the Catholic Church there would be no gospels. The Catholic Church came before the gospels.

[daniel1212]

e Jews, of course provided the old testament, which the Catholics included in the modern Bible. ...do you seriously think that the Jewish community would have kept you up to date on a person who they do not recognize

That is irrelevant to the point of the argument that since the RCC gave us the Bible then it is the infallible interpreter of it that is to be submitted to. Which logic invalidates the church, which did not begin as under the Catholic model, but in dissent from those who likewise presumed more of the themselves than what is written, but where reproved by the Lord using it. .

And more arguments by RC assertions continue to prove zero.

Time now to sleep

[terycarl]

That takes away +80% of those you counted as catholic when you claimed 1 billion catholics...

WOW, with the same ratios describing all the other churches, there would be 7 Lutherans and 3 1/2 methodists and 2/3 of a pentecostal.

[NKP_Vet]

“The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament”

Glad you posted the above link. Every Church father mentioned in the development of the Bible was Catholic.

[NKP_Vet]

“Here, it is a full time job correcting the grandiose claims you and others are making”.

Well the truth is the truth. And the truth is if Martin Luther had not lived and there had been no break up of God’s Church, you my friend would be a Catholic.