For a Catholic, Scripture is not so much a book to be studied as a book to worship with. (Ps. 119.7)
Which means Scripture being reduced to a supporting role, that of a servant which is often compelled to support RC doctrine (as Ps. 119 is here), the veracity of which does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
And as often said, the fact is that it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
And which contrary to what Ps. 119 is about, that of the written word of God being supreme and personally studied.
Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. (Psalms 119:18)
Did you know that a survey was done to check the amount of Scripture used in the Catholic Mass? The Catholic service was almost 30% Scripture.
Which includes much redundancy. We had such a claim made before here, i forget what the % was, but investigation revealed it also included such things as "Amen."
When the same writer checked his local Bible-based Evangelical church he was surprised to find the total amount of Scripture read took just 3% of the service.
Notice the spurious nature of this anecdotal assertion. The first calculates the amount of Scripture used in the typical 45-50 minute Catholic Mass, which could include songs and redundant responses as "Amen," while the second uses the % of the total amount of Scripture actually read during the typical 3 hour evangelical service.
While I think much more should typically be read, could be the type service in which little is actually read, though it should be, but much is explained, as Stephen did in Acts 7. In a service i just went to the pastor read part of Ex. 3 and then gave an broad explanatory overview from the call of Abraham to the call of Moses.
Again, i think more actual reading of the text, going back to it for each main point, should be done, but during the typical 45 minute evangelical sermon the people can get far far more comprehensive Bible teaching than during the typical 10-12 minute Catholic sermonette and 50 minute redundant Mass.
The whole structure fits together so the communion service if focused on Christ in the gospels. Catholics follow a three year cycle of Scripture reading so a Catholic who goes to church faithfully will--over the three years--hear almost all of the Bible read.
Per usual, this is a bare assertion, but in addition to refutations by other RCs i provided, I did own rough calculations, which maybe Alex or others want to investigate, by adding the verses of 4 weeks worth of all readings from Sun. thru Sat. (7) during Jan. 2015, from here, (http://www.catholic.org/bible/daily_reading/?select_date=2015-01-31), which came out to 657 (I think if anything i over counted), which was then divided by 4 to get the average for one week, that being 164 (rounded of to the nearest figure of 657)
That was next multiplied by 52 (weeks in a year) for a total of 8,528 verses the a daily mass-going RC can hear per year. And multiplied by 3 (year cycle) this would be 25,584.
Next, from here (http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/OT-Statistics-NAB.htm) i found 27,570 total OT verses in the RC NAB OT Bible, a version of which is used in Mass, and then i added the 7,957 verses in the NT in the KJV, which should be the same in the NAB (or so close as to be inconsequential in this regard), for a total of 35,527 verses.
Meaning, if accurate, a (exceedingly rare) RC who hears Mass 364 times a year can hear 25,584 verses, which is a little over 2/3rds (which would be 23,684, rounded).
My base figure of an average of 164 verses is likely a bit high, and also note that at least when i was a lector then verses in brackets, which did not need to be read, abounded. And again, what ever Scripture they hear elsewhere in mass is largely redundant.
Yet even if my figures are basically correct, missing almost a third of the Bible does not constitute hearing "almost all the Bible" as Longenecker asserts, while his statement that this refers to "a Catholic who goes to church faithfully" is rather misleading, as i think few people think he means a RC who goes to mass 364 times a year! .
And the estimated figure for those who do is so low as to make it a hypothetical figure. For the percentage of all Catholics who claim (another study showed people significantly "cook" their figure on this) they attend Mass at least once a week has is 20 to 24% (http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2012/05/microscoping-view-of-us-catholic.html; http://www.pewforum.org/2013/03/13/strong-catholic-identity-at-a-four-decade-low-in-us/) while the number of those who claim to attend more than once a week is just 9%, (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060418/weekly-attendance-highest-among-Evangelical-churches.htm), and daily mass would be even more lower.
The premise of Longenecker's argument that RCs know Scripture centers on the "faithful" hearing almost all of the Bible in Mass over the years, but this means hardly any even hear about 2/3rds of the Bible.
And which thus negates his overall claim that Catholics ignorance of the Bible is only an appearance, because for "Catholics the Bible is almost always used in the context of worship," and which the 3 year "hear almost all of the Bible read" claim is part of.
In addition, historically RCs heard much less Scripture in Mass.
“At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts.” (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951. (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm)
We know from the records of the early church that Scripture was used primarily for worship, and only secondarily for study. Of course, like Evangelicals, Catholics also use the Scripture to determine doctrine and moral principles--its just that the Catholic lay person or pastor doesn't do so on his own.
But it is the personal study and one of its purposes that Rome is contrary to. For the Holy Spirit commends the Bereans who "were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
Yet RCs are discouraged from objectively searching the Scripture in order to ascertain the veracity of what is preached, For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth, and risk the RC seeing the specious nature of so many RC Traditions.
And even apart from that, the highest figure for personal Bible reading: was 75%, by those going to a Pentecostal/Foursquare church who reported they had read the Bible during the past week (besides at church), while the lowest was among Catholics at 23% (http://www.science20.com/print/972444). The typical Catholic person was 38% less likely than the average American to read the Bible; 67% less likely to attend a Sunday school class; 20% less likely to share their faith in Christ with someone who had different beliefs, donated about 17% less money to churches, and were 36% less likely to have an "active faith," defined as reading the Bible, praying and attending a church service during the prior week. Catholics were also significantly less likely to believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. 44% of Catholics claimed to be "absolutely committed" to their faith, compared to 54% of the entire adult population. However, Catholics were 16% more likely to attend a church service and 8% more likely to have prayed to God during the prior week than the average American. Barna Reaearch, 2007, “Catholics Have Become Mainstream America” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/100
Therefore, it is the bishops—living, praying and working in a direct line from the apostles-- who use the Bible to determine Christian doctrine and moral principles.
Which very claim made to RCs testifies to their ignorance of Scripture, and the misconstruance of it due to the false premise of "direct line" assured veracity, and the problem of this premise, which fosters perpetuation of errors .
For besides elder and bishop, presbuteros and episkopos, denoting the same office, (Titus 1:5-7) and besides such never being given the distinctive title (“hiereus” = priest) as the Jewish sacerdotal clergy, the Holy Spirit in Scripture nowhere shows successors to the foundational apostles, with the only one being for Judas in order to maintain the foundational number (cf. Rv. 21:14) - that being 12, and only 12, contra Rome, and which was by the non-political OT method of casting lots, (Acts 1:15ff) which Rome has never used.
And it is clear that the NT church did not look to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes(which in Rome is where the bishops derive their authority) reigning in Rome as their supreme exalted head, which is not in Scripture. No wonder personal study in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching is censured.
And historically even RC researchers provide evidence against this propaganda.
That Catholic doctrine and moral teaching is biblically-based is easy to see. Try reading any official Catholic teaching documents and you will find they are--and always have been--permeated and upheld with Scripture.
More cultic deception, as cults can claim likewise. For the means by which Longenecker "sees" doctrine and moral teaching as biblically-based is by how Rome can invoke texts to support her, but which the faithful RC is not to objectively examine in the light of Scripture as the Bereans did. Thus what the RC "sees" is not necessarily that RC doctrine and moral teaching as biblically-based but also how Rome can claim it is, though she compels texts to do so.
Some extreme Protestants like to say that the Catholic church not only forbade people to read the Bible, but they deliberately kept the Bible in Latin, chained it up in churches and even went so far as to burn popular translations of the Bible. Its true Bibles were chained in churches.
And it is also true they forbade and burned some popular translations of the Bible, and largely kept it out of the common tongue or much restricted access to it.
Trent states,
Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor,...
Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp)
The most stringent censorship decree after the Reformation was the Papal bull “Inter Solicitudines,” issued by Pope Leo X, December 1516, which Leo X ordered censorship to be applied to all translations from Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Chaldaic into Latin, and from Latin into the vernacular. [While its focus is on singing, its injunction against singing "anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions," as "the language proper to the Roman Church is Latin," would likely also apply to reading of Scripture.] (Hirsch, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450-1550 [1967] 90).
In addition to the printed books being seized and publicly burnt, payment of a hundred ducats to the fabric of the basilica of the prince of the apostles in Rome, without hope of relief, and suspension for a whole year from the possibility of engaging in the printing, There Is To be imposed upon anyone presuming to act otherwise the sentence of excommunication. Finally, if the offender's contumacy Increases, he is to be punished with all the sanctions of the law, by His bishop or by our vicar, in such a way that others will have no incentive to try to follow His example. (Papal Bull, Inter Sollicitudines; December 1516) [Wiki Translation].
Even the preface to the Douay Bible stated,
Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all, or could be easily understood by every one that readeth or heareth them in a known language; or that they were not often through man's malice or infirmity, pernicious and much hurtful to many; or that we generally and absolutely deemed it more convenient in itself, and more agreeable to God's Word and honour or edification of the faithful, to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...
In our own country, notwithstanding the Latin tongue was ever (to use Venerable Bede's words) common to all the provinces of the same for meditation or study of Scriptures, and no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude,
yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church,.. Which causeth the Holy Church not to forbid utterly any Catholic translation, though she allow not the publishing or reading of any absolutely and without exception or limitation...
The Catholic Church finally agreed on which writings should go into the Bible at the Council of Rome in 382 AD during the time of Pope Damasus. Damasus encouraged St Jerome to translate the Scriptures into Latin since Latin was the common language of all educated people.
Misleading, as there was no infallible/indisputable complete canon til 1546, even the Catholic Encyclopedia states. See here .
Moreover, the claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), and is generally regarded as spurious based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. This would not be the first time RCs made use of forgeries . In addition, the Council of Rome found opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
And translating the Scriptures into Latin was not that of putting it into the hands of the common people. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests.
Some Reformers published Bibles with bits missing, faulty translation work and subversive notes.
In the mid-1400s the Bible started to be translated into European languages.
Which did not promote literacy among the laity.
The Vulgate copies themselves were not uniform, not its translation without fault, while "subversive notes" is in the eyes of heretical autocratic Rome.
The authorities tried to regulate which Bibles were acceptable in order to control erroneous teaching.
Meaning, in addition to restrictions on laity even having access to RC Bibles in the common tongue, so that only the more brainwashed devotees might read it, it prevented them form seeing her errors exposed.
Throughout the years the Catholic Church encouraged Bible reading, but kept control of the interpretation of the Bible as part of her inspired authority to teach the truth and preserve the unity of the church.
Wrong, by the Middle Age she effectively discouraged Bible reading by the common people overall, and worked to prevent souls from seeing the spurious nature of her claim to inspired authority to teach the truth and preserve the unity of the church.
her inspired authority...
Misleading, as even when claiming to speak infallibly, Rome does not claim he is inspired as the writers of Scripture were, nor that even the reasoning behind his decrees are protected as being infallible.
Pope Leo XIII published a letter in 1893 encouraging Bible study.
Finally. A bit late. but if you can't beat them, join them. If it were not for the Reformation - and the printing press, we expect this would not have been the case. But just don't take too much literally became the recourse.
Pius XII in 1943 also encouraged the faithful to study and love the Bible.
Wow. 1943. What a testimony to historical consistent support literacy of the laity in Scripture via free access to the assured wholly inspired word of God.
The second Vatican Council in the 1960s encouraged all the clergy and people to study the Bible faithfully.
Ditto, and yet many RCs reject V2 as wholly authoritative.