A question about how the Bible was read a while back

[ProVobis]

So how does one determine if this Old English is heresy-free?

Fæder ure,
ðu ðe eart on heofenum,
si ðin nama gehalgod;
to-becume ðin rice;
geweorþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofenum.
Urne ge dæghwamlican hlaf syle us to-deag,
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgifaþ urum gyltendum,
ane ne gelæde ðu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfle.
Amen.

 

[MikeDunphy]

So how does one determine if this Old English is heresy-free?

Learn Old English or get an accurate translation?

Fæder ure,
Father our,

ðu ðe eart on heofenum,
You who are in Heaven,

si ðin nama gehalgod;
be Your name hallowed;

to-becume ðin rice;
come Your kingdom;

geweorþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofenum.
become Your will on earth as in Heaven.

Urne ge dæghwamlican hlaf syle us to-deag,
Our daily loaf give us today,

and forgyf us ure gyltas
and forgive us our guilts

swa swa we forgifaþ urum gyltendum,
as we forgive the fellow guilty,

ane ne gelæde ðu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfle.
and do not lead You us into temptation, but release us of evil.

Amen.

 

[bitmousy]

Catholics not being allowed to read the bible is one of those half-truths that go way back. And it’s a half-truth that is still repeated to this day by more extreme Protestant groups. There are two things here:

1. 
   *]“The Bible” to many people means the Authorized Version, or King James Bible. It is certainly true that we were not allowed to read heretical versions, such as “The Protestant Bible”. But that is not to say we didn’t read the bible. Judging by the number of nineteenth century Douay-Rheims bibles you can find on eBay and ABE, there was definitely a market for Catholic bibles; and some of those volumes actually oozed devotion (and a fair amount of bigotry as well). Even before Vatican II, we already had the Douay, the Knox translation, the Westminster Version of the New Testament, Father Spencer’s New Testament, Kleist and Lilly’s New Testament, the Confraternity text of 1941 and parts of the Old Testament. Spoilt for choice!
   *]Our not being “allowed” to read is that old line about the Church interfering in our private lives. The Church does put clear boundaries on what we can and cannot infer from the Scriptures, but only for good reasons. If it didn’t, the Church would descend into chaos with different groups of faithful obstinately sticking to their own private interpretations. That is the way of heresy, so the Church has always had to “interfere” to keep some degree of consensus even among the faithful. But a whole run of popes have recommended that we read the Scriptures; long before Vatican II even.
   
   As my sometimes parish priest said to the new bishop, referring to my having quite a few bibles. “Of course, I never read that book – its full of every sort of heresy!” Father John, like Chesterton, has a sense of humour.
   
   I look at it another way: why would we want to read the bible if we have such marvellous devotional literature as “The Lives of the Saints” – Fr. Alban Butler deserves a much wider readership in my opinion. He is probably up there with Thomas a Kempis, even though Challoner leap-frogged him along the way.
   
   There is a long interview somewhere on the internet, of the renegade bish Williamson, where he does a happy camper impression of feminist dungarees. He also says “Let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay.” I looked that one up, and it’s not from the Douay! Somehow I don’t think he was quoting the Westminster Version either. No, being a cradle Anglican, he is obviously bringing up some of that spoonfed King James.
   
   Me, I just look at the pictures.
   
   David.

 

[tester]

I look at it another way: **why would we want to read the bible if we have such marvellous devotional literature **as “The Lives of the Saints” – Fr. Alban Butler **deserves a much wider readership **in my opinion. He is probably up there with Thomas a Kempis, even though Challoner leap-frogged him along the way.
.

Anyone else have a problem with that statement?

 

[OraLabora]

Anyone else have a problem with that statement?

Yes but… it doesn’t in any way represent Catholic teaching.

For example, I pray the Liturgy of the Hours daily; the monastic version to be precise. In fact the laity are encouraged to do so.

As a result I’ll bet dollars to donuts I read more of the Bible daily than any Protestant and for that matter than any Catholic who doesn’t pray the Hours.

For example, in the monastic version the entire psalter (last time I checked it was in the Bible) weekly. In addition we get:

A long scripture reading at Vigils
A long patristic reading at Vigils that often quotes freely from Scripture, or on feasts of Saints, a hagiographic reading about the saint being celebrated
Responsories that are almost always scripture or psalmic verses
Short scripture readings from both the OT and NT at each of Lauds, Prime (for those that still pray it), Tierce, Sext, None, Vespers and Compline.

 

[manualman]

When you consider how long it would take to HAND copy the bible AND recognize how few people were literate in the pre-printing press days, it doesn’t take much math to recognize that a complete hand written bible would have cost about $15,000+ in equivalent cost to produce if you paid someone prevailing wages to make you one.

How freely are you going to pass around a $15,000, highly fragile item? They were saved for public reading and for the use of authorized students. Not to restrict the content, but to preserve the valuable asset.

I would not be surprised if there were also SOME limited periods in the midst of rampant heresy when bishops used a ‘shotgun’ suppression tactic to try to stamp out improper interpretations of Scripture. Nobody ever claimed that the disciplinary decisions of the bishops or popes were infallible. Now if you had a statement that said that the CONTENTS of the Scripture were inherently harmful to the faithful and must never be read, that would be quite some ammo. Good luck searching!