Are "Catholics" really Catholic, or mostly Scriptural illiterates?

[Palladio]

Until the Reformation over 90% of the Church was illiterate.

But folks could still read them the Bible, no? Yes, priests read from the Bible at Mass.

As for other people reading for the illiterate, no. Why?

Because Bibles were hand printed; they were more precious than gold. Most folks could never afford them. That’s why they were chained to pulpits by Catholic and Reformer alike to prevent theft.

Also most folks worked from dawn to dusk. They didn’t have time to sit still for a Bible reading and ponder the words at length.

How did folks learn about the Christian faith? Mass, Sacred Art, Sacred Music, Sacred theatre. Well, I can hear the objections already that the Mass was said in Latin and not the vernacular.

Latin was the lingua franca for all those centuries. Although the common folk did not know Latin well enough to write theological papers on the Bible, they knew it well enough to follow the Mass and to get the general drift of what was happening.

How did they have this level of proficiency in Latin? Buying and selling at the market place when foreign merchants came in.

Folks claiming that they are Catholic should really know the history of their own Church and what their own Church actually teaches.

We need to be explicit: literacy was slight, everywhere in Europe: in the native language and in Latin.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

We need to be explicit: literacy was slight, everywhere in Europe: in the native language and in Latin.

I specified that illiteracy was about 90%. Getting by in Latin in the market place was not about literacy; it was about oral learning and memorization. Memorization often took the form of rhymes and motifs in explanatory tales, street theatre, and songs.

 

[Palladio]

I specified that illiteracy was about 90%. Getting by in Latin in the market place was not about literacy; it was about oral learning and memorization. Memorization often took the form of rhymes and motifs in explanatory tales, street theatre, and songs.

You are addressing something else.

Literacy is the ability to read, from the Latin word for letters. It existed but slightly in the laity both in regard to Latin and in regard to the native tongue, whether English, French, or Italian.

Put another way, illiteracy of this sort was the norm, not the exception. One big reason: no necessity seen for public education.

Ninety percent seems too low to me, by five to seven percent. But this cannot admit of much if any precision.

The implication of illiteracy as the norm is, as I’ve already tried to say, the question of sharing the gospel as if an invitation to read would not have arisen for most of the history of the RCC.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Palladio:

You are addressing something else.

No I am addressing literacy.

Palladio:

Literacy is the ability to read, from the Latin word for letters.

Yes it is.

Palladio:

It existed but slightly in the laity both in regard to Latin and in regard to the native tongue, whether English, French, or Italian.

That is what I said. I said 90% were illiterate. That means 10% were literate.

Palladio:

Put another way, illiteracy of this sort was the norm, not the exception.

Yes. That is what I said.

Palladio:

Ninety percent seems too low to me, by five to seven percent. But this cannot admit of much if any precision.

Your figure seems plausible.

Palladio:

The implication of illiteracy as the norm is, as I’ve already tried to say, the question of sharing the gospel as if an invitation to read would not have arisen for most of the history of the RCC.

And I supported your point by giving details as to that history.

 

[Palladio]

No I am addressing literacy.

Yes it is.

That is what I said. I said 90% were illiterate. That means 10% were literate.

Yes. That is what I said.

Your figure seems plausible.

And I supported your point by giving details as to that history.

I don’t think I deserve such attention!

But “getting by in Latin” is not literacy, as we can both I am sure agree.

God bless.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Palladio:

I don’t think I deserve such attention!

This, I believe, is a discussion. When folks bring up points, then other folks can expand on or oppose those points. I agree with your points on literacy. I expanded on those points.

But “getting by in Latin” is not literacy, as we can both I am sure agree.

Absolutely.

 

[Palladio]

This, I believe, is a discussion. When folks bring up points, then other folks can expand on or oppose those points. I agree with your points on literacy. I expanded on those points.



Absolutely.

I simply meant that as we were already in agreement but for one point which I’d corrected I was flattered to be quoted and commented on line by line.

Now we are completely so!

God bless.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I simply meant that as we were already in agreement but for one point which I’d corrected I was flattered to be quoted and commented on line by line.
Now we are completely so! God bless.

Yay!

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Excuse me Ani Ibi, please refer me to where you see me name calling in this thread. We can disagree about the other thread from yesterday. I did not intend to name call, so if you point it out in this thread, I can either see where you may have gotten that impression, or be able to clarity. Thank you for your consideration.

Michael

As nothing from this thread was pointed out, I’ll take that as acknowledgement that I did not name call, contrary to the insinuation.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I guess another tangent to go off on in this question is, “Were Catholics during most of the history of the church really Catholic or Scripturally illeterate?”

The answer is, they were, by and large, COMPLETELY ILLITERATE, yet still quite Catholic. However, then, as now, they were not scripturally illiterate because they couldn’t read…they knew the “golden rule” and the story of the Good Samaratin…this is one reason why the proponents of Sola Scriptura are so far off the mark…as Christianity spread, it was spread by word of mouth, most people were illiterate. Even after the bible came into existence, they were still hearing by word of mouth…so, just because it’s not common (though becoming more so) for Catholics to run around spouting Chapter and Verse doesn’t mean they don’t know the heart of the Christ message.

Yes, that would be a tangent. A high rate of illiteracy in the past is hardly an excuse for many Catholics today to be relatively Scriptural illiterates, especially compared to many of our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ.

The fact that this is an issue worth addressing is apparent from Scott Hahn’s St Paul Center’s mission statement:
salvationhistory.com/mission/mission.cfm
“Our goal is to be a teacher of teachers. We want to raise up a new generation of priests who are fluent in the Bible and lay people who are biblically literate. For us, this means more than helping people to know their way around the Bible. It means equipping them to enter into the heart of the living Word of God and to be transformed and renewed by this encounter.”

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Until the Reformation over 90% of the Church was illiterate.

Surely we’re not condoning the extent of Scriptural illiteracy in the present based on the illiteracy rate of Catholics centuries ago?

But folks could still read them the Bible, no? Yes, priests read from the Bible at Mass.

Many Catholics to day have a Bible readily available. More to the questions is how often do they open the Bible to learn more about God and their faith? If some know the names of the starting roster of their favoite college or professional team, do they also as readily recognize and talk about the names of the books in the New Testament?

As for other people reading for the illiterate, no. Why?

Because Bibles were hand printed; they were more precious than gold. Most folks could never afford them. That’s why they were chained to pulpits by Catholic and Reformer alike to prevent theft.

Yet the apostles, fishermen, had a good working knowledge of Scripture and would refer to Scripture on occasion.

Also most folks worked from dawn to dusk. They didn’t have time to sit still for a Bible reading and ponder the words at length.

The OP is addressing this current generation, many of whom have adequate leisure time to ponder what they will. The question is more toward how are they prioritizing the time, what words are they pondering? Michael Vick’s, or Scripture, as our Catholic Catechism encourages.

How did folks learn about the Christian faith? Mass, Sacred Art, Sacred Music, Sacred theatre. Well, I can hear the objections already that the Mass was said in Latin and not the vernacular.

For as often as the average Catholic hears Scripture at Sunday Mass, one would hope they can refer to Scriptures as readily as they can quote lines from their most recent favorite movie As far as reading the Scriptures in a language not understood by many of those attending a Mass, that is another topic.

Latin was the lingua franca for all those centuries. Although the common folk did not know Latin well enough to write theological papers on the Bible, they knew it well enough to follow the Mass and to get the general drift of what was happening.

How did they have this level of proficiency in Latin? Buying and selling at the market place when foreign merchants came in.

Folks claiming that they are Catholic should really know the history of their own Church and what their own Church actually teaches.
That is the point of my OP, with of course the caveat that their actions and words would similarly reflect that knowledge.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Yes, that would be a tangent. A high rate of illiteracy in the past is hardly an excuse for many Catholics today to be relatively Scriptural illiterates, especially compared to many of our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ.

I quite agree that Catholics need to read the bible more often, the Church also encourages it highly. My only opposition to your question is that, given the history of the Church, one can NOT define someone’s “Catholicism” or Christianity by how much they have memorized bible verses or even by how often the do personal reading of the bible.

Yes, many of our Baptist brethern are quite good at throwing around bible verses…but then they misinterpret the meaning so often. On the other hand, I’d say Catholics don’t really lag THAT FAR behind our main stream protestant brethern in the number of hours spent studying scripture OUTSIDE of Church. Inside Church, we generally get MORE scripture than they do…but we follow along in a missalette instead of a personal bible.

 

[epostle]

Practicing Catholics know the bible more than we are given credit for. We may not be able to spout off chapter and verse numbers the way Protestants do, but we have a grasp of the Gospel message by assimilation, not by indoctrination. The bible itself says faith comes by HEARING the Word of God, not by reading. (1 Thess. 2:13) We are constantly challenged by the Church to live the Gospel with our lives, which is more important than reading the gospel with our eyes.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

In my experience the great majority of Catholics are scripturally illiterate. When asked the question “What is the gospel message?” they either get it totally wrong or confuse the “gospel message” with one of the Gospels like the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of John.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Practicing Catholics know the bible more than we are given credit for. We may not be able to spout off chapter and verse numbers the way Protestants do, but we have a grasp of the Gospel message by assimilation, not by indoctrination. The bible itself says faith comes by HEARING the Word of God, not by reading. (1 Thess. 2:13) We are constantly challenged by the Church to live the Gospel with our lives, which is more important than reading the gospel with our eyes.

Paul’s Gospel is not something that can really be “lived out”. Its a message that needs to be communicated so the lost can believe it and then live their lives according to “the house rules of the grace of God” that Christ gave to Paul for the Body of Christ to obey (Eph 3:2).

When I look for guidance in the Bible about how to live my life most effectively I look first to the isntruction in Paul’s epistles and then to the rest of the New Testament epistles and the Gospels and then Proverbs and Psalms. Reading a chapter of Proverbs each day is helpful (31 chapters for 31 days). Reading aloud at least one of Paul’s epistles each day and dwelling on that instruction is very helpful.

 

[guanophore]

No I am not extrapolating. Each person can consider the question in their own experience.

Yet you make it clear that, in your experience, Catholics appear to be scripturally illiterate, and do not share the gospel or the name of Jesus often enough.

"If a Catholic rarely mentions Jesus Christ as their savior so that others may know the only true God and reflect the gospel by their words and daily life, and rarely, if at all, mentions Scripture in sharing or defending their faith, then are they really living their faith? Are they really Catholic?

Are you not judging the Catholicity of others, at the same time you are complaining that you are being judged? Most Catholics were brought up to believe in sharing the gospel through acts of mercy, in the Franciscan tradition “share the gospel always, and if necessary, use words”. The corporate and individual acts are the demonstration of the gospel. how is this sharing of the gospel “less” than the evangelical method of getting people “saved” by praying with them to receive Jesus?

And do they have a any right question whether someone else is Catholic?

The difference between Cathlicism and other denominations is that we have objective standards. One is Catholic if one espouses the teachings of the Church. The determination of whether someone is Catholic is a matter of the heart, and only God knows whether one is true in their faith. What has been pointed out to you here on the fora is that you espouse non-Catholic beliefs and attitudes. It is not a matter of others’ personal holiness or lack thereof, but the fact that you say things that appear to contradict the teaching of the church.

I ask because several Catholics on this forum have questioned whether I am Catholic, since I disagree with required celibacy for priests,

Celibacy is not “required” of priests. Celibacy is a gift of God, and the church prefers to take shepherds from among those who are called to be celibate, so that they will not have their attention divided from God’s flock, and their own family. The priesthood requires gifts in many areas, and many years are required to discern if the individual is indeed called to this work, and if they have all the requisite gifts. However, there are married priests.

and am uncertain whether it is important to our faith if Mary is or is not a perpetual virgin.

What is most important to your faith is whether or not you accept Jesus. Jesus sent the Apostles, and declared “he who rejects you, rejects me”. When you reject the teachings brought to us through apostolic succession, you are rejecting Jesus.

Then I realized, I don’t recall any of those who have questioned my faith mentioning Jesus or referring to Sacred Scripture.

Do you mean to say, then, that if I question your faith by mentioning Jesus and using sacred scripture, then you will be more satisfied?

Often seems more focused on the Church being perfect, whether Protestants can agree on anything, and how awful Luther was. Someone even characterized mentioning Scripture as throwing out a road block. Are many Catholics that uncomfortable with the Church’s Sacred Scripture?"

Catholics should rightly be uncomfortable with the evangelical use of scripture when it is interpreted privately, and verses taken out of context.

I asked a question, and mentioned what caused me to think about the question. Where in the OP am I insisting that others conform to my interpretation and what I think questioning means? I asked the question in relationship to what the Catechism states.

The tone of your question seems to imply that you consider Catholics to be ignorant of their scriptures.

 

[guanophore]

You get that from the OP? Or bringing in bias that need not enter this discussion?

The OP does indicate bias.

No thin skin here, never said anything was unfair. That others questioned whether I am Catholic is plainly seen in the words they posted.

Then, why does it bother you?

I don’t really care have Scripturally literate others are, let’s not read into the OP question more than is there. You think I have a problem because I ask is how often we mention Jesus and how Scripturally literate we are conveys anything about our Catholic faith?

I think you must care, or you would not have made the OP! You have looked around, and found your brethren wanting. I am not sure why you have a problem. I think your feelings got hurt. To me, it seems like you are judging others.

Now, now, please read the original post again. I did not make a blanket generalization of condemnation for fellow Catholics. I said, if, not knowing who or how many the question applies to, nor do I care to know who, that’s not for me to know. Just a question, not a generalization.

You do seem to be generalizing based on an experience with a few. I did go back and read the op. You did not use the word “we”. You used the word “they”, not including your own exalted self among “them”.

If a Catholic rarely mentions Jesus Christ as their savior so that others may know the only true God and reflect the gospel by their words and daily life, and rarely, if at all, mentions Scripture in sharing or defending their faith, then are they really living their faith? Are they really Catholic? And do they have any right question whether someone else is Catholic?

Kinda has the tone of “who do they think they are, anyway!?”

  I ask because several Catholics on this forum have questioned whether I am Catholic, since I disagree with required celibacy for priests, and am uncertain whether it is important to our faith if Mary is or is not a perpetual virgin.

You say that your reason for the OP is your own personal experience on the forum.

Yes I only know my heart. It was a question, not a castigation.

I submit that perhaps you do not even know your own heart. In posting this question, you have presumed to judge your brother.

Do you think some Catholics are Scriptural illiterates? Isn’t that a goal the St Paul Center and Scott Hahn have a a mission to address? Is Scott thus condemning and castigating? Why are some so offended by the question of the OP?

It is the tone in which it is posed. It seems to emanate from hurt feelings, and seems to judge others, and find them wanting.

However, in answer to your question, I think Catholics don’t know their bible well enough. If you agree, what are you going to do about it? If you are not Catholic, your parish priest will probably no allow you to lead a bible study.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I reread the original post and there are some things that need to be said.

First, …

"The Catholic View of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church

Many Christians do not understand the teachings of the Catholic Church, especially in regard to their view on the authority of the Scripture. They think that the Catholic church believes basically the same as every other Christian. That, however, is not true. The reason for this, is that the Catholic Church does not believe that the Bible alone is their final authority for formulating their beliefs. They believe that the Bible, Church Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church are all equally authoritative."

There is much more. The site is not a Catholic site.

But there is much more than just Scripture. Sola Scriptura does not apply to the Catholic Church.

Here is the Web site I found this on.

64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:-4IhBtxN1CkJ:www.guidedbytruth.com/modules.php%3Fname%3DContents%26file%3Dindex%26i%3D16%26f%3D0+catholic+authority+scripture+magisterium&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

---

Below are quotes from the beginning of the Catechism, and from the Catechism concerning Scripture. In relationship to these, my question is:

If a Catholic rarely mentions Jesus Christ as their savior so that others may know the only true God and reflect the gospel by their words and daily life, and rarely, if at all, mentions Scripture in sharing or defending their faith, then are they really living their faith? Are they really Catholic? And do they have any right question whether someone else is Catholic?

 I ask because several Catholics on this forum have questioned whether I am Catholic, since I disagree with required celibacy for priests, and am uncertain whether it is important to our faith if Mary is or is not a perpetual virgin. Then I realized, I don't recall any of those who have questioned my faith mentioning Jesus or referring to Sacred Scripture. Often seems more focused on the Church being perfect, whether Protestants can agree on anything, and how awful Luther was. Someone even characterized mentioning Scripture as throwing out a road block. Are many Catholics that uncomfortable with the Church's Sacred Scripture?

Michael

scborromeo.org/ccc/prologue.htm#I
PROLOGUE

"FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."1 "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."2 "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"3 - than the name of JESUS.
I. THE LIFE OF MAN - TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD

… [shortened here to comply with post length limits ] …

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#113
V. SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."109 Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."110

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."111

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112

 

[Al_Masetti]

Second, there are some phrases in the original post that are not familiar to me. I am a cradle Catholic, with a Catholic religious education of K-12. We used the Baltimore Catechism, the New Testament (in high school) and various issues of other books regarding the lives of the saints and church history.

For example, the expression “… Jesus Christ as their savior…” is only one that I have heard from Protestants. Never from a Catholic source.

Questioning “Mary’s perpetual virginity” … not a traditional Catholic discussion point.

“How awful Luther was”… we never discussed Luther. Any more than we discussed Calvin or any of the other Protestant theologians. We hardly even discussed the personalities or writings of the popes.

There is a HUMONGOUS amount of history, tradition, and other things to study about Catholicism. We used to study such as the different kinds of graces, the sacraments and sacramentals, the saints, all kinds of things, but some of the items in the OP were not big discussion points in my 65 years of being Catholic.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I quite agree that Catholics need to read the bible more often, the Church also encourages it highly. My only opposition to your question is that, given the history of the Church, one can NOT define someone’s “Catholicism” or Christianity by how much they have memorized bible verses or even by how often the do personal reading of the bible.

I would agree that it is not about memorizing Scripture verses, and would imaging some who quote Scripture verses often may not be applying them to their life, and thus may not in their “heart” be Christian. That said, the Catechism quotes “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”, so how often we do personal reading of Scripture does indeed seem important. In light of the Catechism, the way I worded the questions seems, in my opinion, fair:

“If a Catholic rarely mentions Jesus Christ as their savior so that others may know the only true God and reflect the gospel by their words and daily life, and rarely, if at all, mentions Scripture in sharing or defending their faith, then are they really living their faith? Are they really Catholic? And do they have any right question whether someone else is Catholic?”

Michael