Spin spin spin! Watch them go!
Posted on 12/19/2014 6:27:23 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Average Catholics asked today how often they read the Bible likely would say that they do not read the Bible regularly. However, if asked how often they read Scripture, the answer would be different. Practicing Catholics know they read and hear Scripture at every Mass. Many also recognize that basic prayers Catholics say, such as the Our Father and the Hail Mary, are scriptural. But for most Catholics, the Scripture they hear and read is not from the Bible. It is from a worship aid in the pew.
Scripture always has played an important role in the prayer life of the Catholic Church and its members. For the ordinary Catholic in earlier centuries, exposure to Scripture was passive. They heard it read aloud or prayed aloud but did not read it themselves. One simple reason: Centuries ago the average person could not read or afford a book. Popular reading and ownership of books began to flourish only after the invention of the printing press.
Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.
Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.
Scripture awareness grew after the Second Vatican Council. Mass was celebrated in the vernacular and so the Scripture readings at Mass were read entirely in English. Adult faith formation programs began to develop, and the most common program run at a parish focused on Scripture study. The Charismatic movement and the rise of prayer groups exposed Catholics to Scripture even more. All of this contributed to Catholics becoming more familiar with the Bible and more interested in reading the Scriptures and praying with them.
In a round-about way, aspects of U.S. culture also have encouraged Catholics to become more familiar with the Scriptures. References to John 3:16 appear in the stands at sporting events. Catholics who hear of and see other Christians quote or cite Scripture verses wonder why they cannot. Such experiences lead Catholics to seek familiarity with the Bible.
Such attitudinal changes bode well for Catholics, especially when reading and praying with the Word of God leads to lessons learned, hearts inspired and lives profoundly moved for good.
I believe most reputable seminaries Protestant or Catholic do teach Biblical studies using Greek and Hebrew text.
I agree that studying the Scriptures is a good thing but we should not fall into the trap of thinking that being a Scripture scholar is the hallmark of a good Christian. Through the centuries, and even today, there are many illiterate people who are better Christians than either you or I. True Christianity did not start with the availability of inexpensive printed Bibles in the 16th century.
“One example would be the whole bit about Catholics being discouraged from reading the Bible during the Reformation.”
Commoners were actively discouraged from reading the Bible as a matter of Catholic Church policy.
“The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264).
In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus:
“Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing.
But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.”
Regulations for booksellers follow, and then: “Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without special license from their superiors.”
Sixtus V substituted in 1590 twenty-two new rules for the ten of Pius IV. Clement VIII abolished in 1596 the rules of Sixtus, but added a “remark” to the fourth rule given above, which particularly restores the enactment of Paul IV. The right of the bishops, which the fourth rule implies, is abolished by the “remark,” and the bishop may grant a dispensation only when especially authorized by the pope and the Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 333).
Benedict XIV enlarged, in 1757, the fourth rule thus: “If such Bible-versions in the vernacular are approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations derived from the holy fathers of the Church or from learned and Catholic men, they are permitted.”
This modification of the fourth rule was abolished by Gregory XVI in pursuance of an admonition of the index-congregation, Jan. 7, 1836, “which calls attention to the fact that according to the decree of 1757 only such versions in the vernacular are to be permitted as have been approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations,” but insistence is placed on all those particulars enjoined by the fourth rule of the index and afterward by Clement VIII (Reusch, ut sup., ii, 852).”
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm
Please note these restrictions were in place for centuries during which Protestants had very good access to scripture, along with very good translations.
“What they were discouraged from doing was reading certain translations.”
Actually, I have a reprint of the original New Testament translation by Tyndale. It contained no notes and was (and is) a very good translation. It was published with strong opposition from the Catholic Church in the early 1500s.
“Catholics are still not supposed to interpret Scripture for themselves unless the plain meaning is obvious. That has always been the case.”
90% of scripture has an obvious plain meaning. It only becomes difficult when one tries to reconcile the plain meaning with Catholic theology.
Wait.....are you making your own personal interpretation??? LOL!
And the protestants don’t even know that on Christmas, we can listen to 12 different selections from the Bible if we attend all the Masses!
I bet that more than they get in a month. LOL!
My sister is in the choir at her Catholic church, and I bet she hasn’t opened a Bible in 20 years. My mother is a regular Mass attendee, was in the choir until she got too old, and probably hasn’t read the Bible in 20 years, either.
“This was, indeed, the normal way that most Christians accessed the Scriptures for the 1500 years before the printing press made inexpensive Bibles available to everyone. Prior to that the idea the every Christian should privately study the Bible was absurd since it was impossible.”
Odd, isn’t it, that the Jews of 30 AD were able to learn their scriptures 1500 years before the printing press made them available:
“When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.”
Indeed, before 1000 BC we find:
“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” - Dt 6
Spin spin spin! Watch them go!
“And the protestants don’t even know that on Christmas, we can listen to 12 different selections from the Bible if we attend all the Masses! / I bet that more than they get in a month. LOL!”
Surely you jest. If not, then you might want to visit a Baptist church sometime and find out how many selections will be read every week, including Christmas - and in ONE service!
Of the Monsignor’s ignorance as evidenced in his article? Yes and without apology because the facts contradict what he wrote.
I haven’t been to a Baptist church, but have attended an Alliance Church (one OT readings and poor preaching) and a Lutheran Church — again I think it was just one reading.
Most Protestant denominations are over style, not substance.
Among those who accept Sola Scriptura, the main divisions would be:
Infant Baptism vs Believer’s Baptism
Calvin vs Arminius (or should I say Augustine vs other Catholic theologians)
In 40 years as a Protestant, often using military chapels with varying denominations providing the pastor...that is about it.
If Sola Scriptura is the norm, then who needs Calvin or Arminius?
Again the prohibitions were against reading wrong translations of the Bible or of reading approved translations without the guidance of the Church. Private interpretation of passages where the plain meaning is not evident is still not allowed.
We forget because we are very fortunate to have excellent translations of the Bible available to us that this has not always been the case. In the past vulgar translations were not always done at the hand of Biblical scholars and they did contain errors.
It is the duty of the Church to protect the faithful from error. That was the reason for prohibiting the reading of Scripture translations that had not been reviewed to make sure they were correctly translated into the vulgar text.
Back when we were kids, my friend's mom would take a bunch of the old Missalettes and keep them in the station wagon. When they went on a trip she would have the kids sing from them. It cut down on fighting and whining. (14 kids)
What about whether “signs” are still valid? I believe that is one of the main differences between Pentecostal Christians and other Reformed Christians. Oh and I mean Pentecostals who believe in the Trinity.
How do you know? Just because people carry the Bible around does not mean they read it. I have several Bibles, but I know most people have never seen me carry them around. I don’t have to. Jesus knows, and He’s the only person I care about impressing.
Our pastor likes to print out the scriptures that will be used for the sermon. That way folks can read them without needing to flip back and forth. I prefer to flip back and forth because I like to read the verses in context. Most baptist preachers I’ve met agree with me and encourage folks to follow along and read the context around the sermon passage.
For the main passage, we stand to listen while it is read before the sermon. The pastor explains to any visitors that this is to show our respect for the Word of God, and to ask God to keep us from misunderstanding.
We’re a small church. During the evening service, anyone can raise their hand and ask questions about any specific passage mid-sermon. That works when you only have 15-20 people there...it is basically a big home Bible study conducted in the church building.
“Again the prohibitions were against reading wrong translations of the Bible or of reading approved translations without the guidance of the Church.”
No. The actual prohibitions went much further than that.
“In the past vulgar translations were not always done at the hand of Biblical scholars and they did contain errors.”
Also incorrect. Wycliffe’s translation was approved by the Catholic Church for reading on a case-by-case basis, being a very faithful rendering of the Vulgate. Tyndale’s translation in 1525 was excellent - no more perfect than any translation can be, but as accurate as any modern translation you can pick up. For example, from John 3:
“Nicodemus said unto him: how can a man be born, when he is old? can he enter into his mother’s body and be born again?
Iesus answered: verily, verily I say unto thee: except that a man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh. And that which is born of the spirit, is spirit.
Marvel not that I said to thee, ye must be born a new. The wind bloweth where he listeth, and thou hearest his sound: but canst not tell whence he cometh and whither he goeth. So is every man that is born of the spirit.
And Nicodemus answered and said unto him: how can these things be? Iesus answered and said unto him: Art thou a master in Israhell, and knowest not these things? Verily verily, I say unto thee, we speak that we know, and testify that we have seen: And ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things and ye have not believe: How should ye believe if I shall tell you of heavenly things?
And no man ascendeth up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, that is to say, the son of man which is in heaven.
And as Moses lift up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lift up, that none which believeth in him perish: but have eternal life.
God so loved the world, that he gave his only son for the intent, that none that believe in him, should perish: But should have everlasting life. For God sent not his son into the world, to condemn the world: But that the world through him, might be saved. He that believeth on him shall not be condemned. But he that believeth not, is condemned all ready, because he believeth not in the name of the only son of God.
And this is the condemnation: Light is come into the world, and the men have loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil. For every man that evil doeth, hateth the light: neither cometh to light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds might be known, how that they are wrought in God.”
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.