Replies

Catholics are not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. It’s not a denomination.

A mere assertion of propaganda. Your church simply cannot be the NT church of Scripture, or the one true church, since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

First of all, this wasn’t “noted” at all by the U.S. Catholic bishops because it was never said by them as a body or even individually. You are citing an article written by ONE PRIEST who used to work for an office in the USCCB. Don’t confuse one with the other.

Well, there is more, and it is incontrovertible that the medieval RCC did not favor or foster Biblical literacy by allowing souls in general to read the Scriptures, and hindered it. As Trent stated,

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, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp)

Thus as the preface to the Douay–Rheims Bible states

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...to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...

In our own country...[was] 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.. . - Preface to the Douai-Rheims New Testament Translation of 1582; (http://www.bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html)

“When English Roman Catholics created their first English biblical translation in exile at Douai and Reims, it was not for ordinary folk to read, but [primarily] for priests to use as a polemical weapon. (Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History, 2003, p. 406; p. 585.)

It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. 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 (De Lazaro concio, iii, MPG, xlviii, 992; Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, lvii, 30, NPNF, 2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament (Hom. ix in Col., MPG, lxii, 361, NPNF, xiii, 301). The women also, who were always at home, were diligently to read the Bible (Hom. xxxv on Gen. xii, MPG, liii, 323). Jerome recommended the reading and studying of Scripture on the part of the women (Epist., cxxviii, 3, MPL, xxii, 1098, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 259; Epist., lxxix, 9, MPG, xxii, 730-731, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 167). The translations of the Bible, Augustine considered a blessed means of propagating the Word of God among the nations (De doctr. christ., ii, 5, NPNF, 1st ser., ii, 536); Gregory I recommended the reading of the Bible without placing any limitations on it (Hom. iii in Ezek., MPL, lxxvi, 968). — New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia

“There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us.” (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, The Catholic Publication Society, 1887, page 509)
Through most of the fourth century, the controversy with the Arians had turned upon Scripture, and appeals to past authority were few. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 6, page 2)
Our present convenient compendiums -- the Missal, Breviary, and so on were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 9, page 296)
This attitude and access changed by the early Middle Ages, and while accusations of censure of Bible reading by Rome are sometimes exaggerated, yet for too much of her history it is evidenced that the church of Rome did not place a priority upon personal Biblical literacy among the laity, but actually hindered it. However, like as sites such as Politifact do, the typical RC apologetic resorts to refuting an extreme claim, that Rome unconditionally discouraged or forbade all private Bible reading.
Catholics wrote the New Testament scriptures.
Which you can only wish was the reality. Instead, of Catholics wrote the New Testament then they were very negligent, for how hard would it to include just one command to the churches to obey Peter as their supreme infallible elevated head in Rome, and with provision being made for a successor for his chair, or one prayer to created beings in Heaven, and conspicuously looking to Mary elevated in adulation, or one description of a priest offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food, or one clear mention of souls suffering in purgatory awaiting perfect to enter Heaven, etc.
While instead Peter is the street-level leader among brethren with a general pastoral role, and listed 2nd among 3 listed as pillars, but who never commands the other apostles, nor whose sentence settles the matter in Acts 15, and with no manifest provision being made for a successor. And the Lord's supper is nowhere described in Acts thru Rev. as a ceremony with a priest offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food, and is only actually described in one epistle, in which the body of Christ that needs recognizing is the church. Nor is there even one prayer to created beings in Heaven amid the over 200 in Scripture, and holy blessed Mary is not even mentioned after Acts 1 (despite what Caths read into Rv. 12), while believer will be forever with the Lord at death or His return, which ever comes first. (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)