3 degrees north. Not encouraging is the same as discouraging. What are we talking about? Until Pius XIII the Bible was read only during mass. Catholic parents did not read the Bible to their children. The laity were not considered adequately trained to understand scripture.
Today the Bible is discussed openly at Catholic Bible study groups.
Francis, for his part, seems to be drawing inspiration from another source. His position on Hell is certainly a questionable Bible interpretation. Wailing and teeth gnashing seem to be something other than ceasing to exist.
Not encouraging is the same as discouraging.
Not at all.
His position on Hell is certainly a questionable Bible interpretation.
There, we agree. Although his "position on Hell" will probably be different tomorrow.
Hey, I'm the most anti-Catholic poster on this forum and even I recognize this as stereotypical nonsense.
The laity were not considered adequately trained to understand scripture.
That is true. Thus, Catholic bibles have always contained commentaries.
Today the Bible is discussed openly at Catholic Bible study groups.
Today the Bible is denied, torn to shreds, de-mythologized, and reduced to parables and mythology in Catholic bible study groups. I guarantee it. They got this attitude from liberal Protestants.
And even then that wasn't much.
Pre-Vatican II readings on Sundays and Major Feasts covered only 16.5% of the NT.
Gospels: 22.4%
Acts: 3.5%
Pauline Letters: 18.1%
Deutero Paulines: 15.2%
Hebrews: 5.6%
Catholic Epistles: 13.2%
Book of Revelation: 0%
NT w/o Gospels: 11%.
Even less of the OT was read...amounting to 1%.
If this is over the three year cycle of readings, it is very little Scripture that is heard by the masses.
http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm