Are we really that ignorant?

[LIT56RD]

Are Catholics really that ignorant and stupid that we can not and should not read the Bible. I was told that once by a parish priest. That we as lay people do not have the ability to read and understand the Bible and that it is best left to those more learned and of more authority in the church. Are we devoid of any common sense that we can not read, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, glean some knowledge without someone else telling us EXACTLY what we need to think and do? Didn’t realize I, along with all the other Catholics, were just so stupid.

 

[puzzleannie]

Are Catholics really that ignorant and stupid that we can not and should not read the Bible. I was told that once by a parish priest.

I don’t think a priest has said that in the last 50 years so you must be as old as I am, although since we did read and study the bible for all 12 years of Catholic school, certainly it wasn’t our pastor you heard. Why not read the documents such as Dei Verbum on what the Catholic Church really teaches about reading the bible, and discuss that, instead of rehashing old false information?

 

[Scoobyshme]

Well, like a lot of things, what he said wasn’t nearly as bad as you think. There is some truth to it. Just look at Protestantism, which is constantly splintering into more and more denominations because they are based on personal interpretation of the Bible. They are not stupid, either. But they constantly contradict one another in their interpretation of the Bible.

Catholics have a methodology that we are supposed to use in reading the Bible. THAT is what should be taught. For starters, I would read the **Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - **Dei Verbum for starters. It’s not that long. You can read it in one sitting, probably. Here it is:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Basically, we use three principles in reading the Bible:

1. It is to be read as a whole, i.e., in totality. Not in snippets, out of context.
2. It is to be read in light of Sacred Tradition.
3. It is to be read through the analogy of the faith as provided by the living Magisterium of the Church. (The Pope and the bishops in union with him. The Catechism is an excellent place to start here. Better to have two “weapons,” one in each hand. The Bible and the Catechism.)

Note that nowhere in here are we to just jump in and “do our own thing,” making up “our own doctrines.” We are to read in light of what the Church has always taught.

 

[adrift]

I have a bible from the 50’s that has a blessing for those who read and meditate on the bible. There is ignorance here but not about Catholics reading the bible.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

The Popes have wrote several encyclicals over the last 200 years at least encouraging Catholics to read the scriptures.

If however when reading the scriptures you think it tells you something other than what is contained on the Catholic Faith and you put your faith in your own understanding then you would be stupid.

 

[Barbkw]

USCCB has Sacred Scripture online with footnotes and hotkeys:

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

Daily readings from Mass are there as well:

usccb.org/nab/index.shtml

Appears that they have a mobile link to download to a phone as well.

 

[valentino]

I’ve been reading the bible for 15yrs.and still need to have verses explained.I can read a verse and know what it means only to find out later it meant something a little different.One can study on passages and get a better understanding year after year.It does take meditation and references from different sources to get truer meanings and unless one has a lot of time it can be very frustrating.its easy to understand why so many preachers come up with various interpretations all claiming each is right.

 

[Barbkw]

Catechism of the Catholic Church is also online:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

reading of Sacred Scripture, 1437, 2653
in catechesis, 129
in the family, 2205
in the liturgy, 1093, 1177
necessity of, 133, 2653
in the sacraments, 1154, 1480, 1482

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
The Word of God

2653 The Church “forcefully and specially exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ’ (Phil 3:8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. . . . Let them remember, however, that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that a dialogue takes place between God and man. For 'we speak to him when we pray; we listen to him when we read the divine oracles.”'4

The Compendium of the Catechism is also online:

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[PattiDay]

One of the many beautiful things about our Catholic faith is that we don’t need to try individually to interpret Holy Scripture. Many other churches leave it to each pastor, even to each worshiper, to decide on their own what God’s Word says. There are 30,000 Christian denominations, each of which felt the need to form itself because its members interpret the Bible differently.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Are Catholics really that ignorant and stupid that we can not and should not read the Bible. I was told that once by a parish priest. That we as lay people do not have the ability to read and understand the Bible and that it is best left to those more learned and of more authority in the church. Are we devoid of any common sense that we can not read, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, glean some knowledge without someone else telling us EXACTLY what we need to think and do? Didn’t realize I, along with all the other Catholics, were just so stupid.

The only ‘ignorant and stupid thing’ would be for a person to take the words (hearsay at that) of ‘one parish priest’, not bother to check out what the Church actually does teach (fairly plentifully available teachings both on the web at everything from the Vatican to the USCCB with lots of on-line catechisms including ‘old’ ones), and then harrangue people with that mistaken teaching and thus perpetrate error upon error. . . and, upon becoming aware that one had indeed made that mistake, NOT apologize, learn, and then gracefully and humbly come back on the forums to give the same people one had harrangued the ‘correct’ teaching.

 

[LIT56RD]

So if I am reading the last 9 posts right. I am not to read the Bible and make ANY interpretation of its meaning without cross referencing it with about 1000 pages of what the church has to say about it. I can not be lead at all by what I believe the Bible says,unless some authority from the church thought of it first and said it was ok to think it?

 

[Barbkw]

So if I am reading the last 9 posts right. I am not to read the Bible and make ANY interpretation of its meaning without cross referencing it with about 1000 pages of what the church has to say about it. I can not be lead at all by what I believe the Bible says,unless some authority from the church thought of it first and said it was ok to think it?

You may want footnotes and “some” Catholic interpretation of Scripture if you want to know how the Early Church and the Apostles understood Jesus.

For instance, protestant denominations generally don’t understanding the “breaking of the Bread” in Sacred Scripture to mean the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.

 

[manualman]

So if I am reading the last 9 posts right. I am not to read the Bible and make ANY interpretation of its meaning without cross referencing it with about 1000 pages of what the church has to say about it. I can not be lead at all by what I believe the Bible says,unless some authority from the church thought of it first and said it was ok to think it?

You know what a troll is, right?

I can’t even come close to imagining how someone of genuine goodwill could come to that summary of the above passages.

The soundbite version of catholic teaching on the bible is that it is the divinely inspired revelation of God, inerrant and unchanging. But ANY individual needs to exercise caution in making radical interpretations of Scripture passages before vetting that interpretation against the REST of Scripture and Tradition (the teaching authority).

Perhaps not coincidentally, catholicism has experienced but a handful of fractures in 2,000 years while the “personal interpretation” approach has in a mere 500 years produced THOUSANDS of distinct faith communities each with some level of differing interpretations all thinking theirs is the one based on Scripture. Yeah, uh huh…

If you want to see the best of popular level (not academic) catholic scripture study, check out the Great Adventure Bible Study series.

 

[Godfollower]

LIT56RD;7856558:

So if I am reading the last 9 posts right. I am not to read the Bible and make ANY interpretation of its meaning without cross referencing it with about 1000 pages of what the church has to say about it. I can not be lead at all by what I believe the Bible says,unless some authority from the church thought of it first and said it was ok to think it?

You know what a troll is, right?

I can’t even come close to imagining how someone of genuine goodwill could come to that summary of the above passages.

The soundbite version of catholic teaching on the bible is that it is the divinely inspired revelation of God, inerrant and unchanging. But ANY individual needs to exercise caution in making radical interpretations of Scripture passages before vetting that interpretation against the REST of Scripture and Tradition (the teaching authority).

Perhaps not coincidentally, catholicism has experienced but a handful of fractures in 2,000 years while the “personal interpretation” approach has in a mere 500 years produced THOUSANDS of distinct faith communities each with some level of differing interpretations all thinking theirs is the one based on Scripture. Yeah, uh huh…

If you want to see the best of popular level (not academic) catholic scripture study, check out the Great Adventure Bible Study series.

No offense, but this sort of response strikes me as unhelpful. I’ve read quite a few of LIT56RD’s posts, and it seems to me that he is trying to understand a religion after suffering through a lot of poor catechesis. Those of us who have been on this forum for a while, including you, Manualman, know that there are a LOT of poorly catechized Catholics out there, some of whom have extremely bitter memories of mistreatment by Catholics, including by Catholic priests. We all know people who were told (by priests, even) “Your husband divorced you? You can’t receive Communion” – even though that’s a blatant violation of canon law. We have all known people who were told the equivalent of “Shut up and do as you’re told” – even though that flies in the face of the Catechism. And we’ve all known plenty of Catholics who are more focused on The Rules Of The Church (genuflect when you open the rubrics, please) than on evangelization or even Christian charity.

LIT56RD’s characterization above is understandable, given his history. I happen to disagree with it, and (given the opportunity) I hope that LIT56RD will eventually see things from my point of view and agree with me.

But please don’t call him a troll, challenge his goodwill, and use sarcasm to respond to him. That won’t help him understand what we’re trying to say.

 

[LIT56RD]

You know what a troll is, right?

I can’t even come close to imagining how someone of genuine goodwill could come to that summary of the above passages…The church that I was raised in instilled those thoughts, you can say I have no good will but I am just stating fact and what I still see happening.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not a troll.

But to me that is exactly what the church does is say you can only believe this this and this. You can only walk like this, stand like this, sing like this, talk like this, have sex like this and by God you better not enjoy it. For if you have sex for the pure pleasure that a couple can enjoy we are damned to hell for ever. They give no room for any independent thought on anything. It is all spelled out for you how to act and think a certain way.

 

[LIT56RD]

No offense, but this sort of response strikes me as unhelpful. I’ve read quite a few of LIT56RD’s posts, and it seems to me that he is trying to understand a religion after suffering through a lot of poor catechesis. Those of us who have been on this forum for a while, including you, Manualman, know that there are a LOT of poorly catechized Catholics out there, some of whom have extremely bitter memories of mistreatment by Catholics, including by Catholic priests. We all know people who were told (by priests, even) “Your husband divorced you? You can’t receive Communion” – even though that’s a blatant violation of canon law. We have all known people who were told the equivalent of “Shut up and do as you’re told” – even though that flies in the face of the Catechism. And we’ve all known plenty of Catholics who are more focused on The Rules Of The Church (genuflect when you open the rubrics, please) than on evangelization or even Christian charity.

LIT56RD’s characterization above is understandable, given his history. I happen to disagree with it, and (given the opportunity) I hope that LIT56RD will eventually see things from my point of view and agree with me.

But please don’t call him a troll, challenge his goodwill, and use sarcasm to respond to him. That won’t help him understand what we’re trying to say.

Godfollower I greatly appreciate your comments and support, Thank you

 

[manualman]

I don’t and can’t know his history. But I CAN clearly read the 9 posts before his that he cites. There simply isn’t any way to summarize them the way he did.

I’ll admit that it’s a judgement call deciding when mischaracterization is intentional or not. I’ll also admit to not having an infallible judgement on the matter (as if you needed my admission! ) If further clarification from the OP shows me wrong, I’ll humbly apologize.

 

[Barbkw]

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not a troll.

But to me that is exactly what the church does is say you can only believe this this and this. You can only walk like this, stand like this, sing like this, talk like this, have sex like this and by God you better not enjoy it. For if you have sex for the pure pleasure that a couple can enjoy we are damned to hell for ever. They give no room for any independent thought on anything. It is all spelled out for you how to act and think a certain way.

The Church dates back 2,000 years and is tasked with preserving Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles and the Early Church.

Your concept of married sex in the Catholic Church is well, simply not accurate.

The Catechism’s chapter on the Sacrament of Marriage:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#1638

 

[manualman]

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not a troll.

But to me that is exactly what the church does is say you can only believe this this and this. You can only walk like this, stand like this, sing like this, talk like this, have sex like this and by God you better not enjoy it. For if you have sex for the pure pleasure that a couple can enjoy we are damned to hell for ever. They give no room for any independent thought on anything. It is all spelled out for you how to act and think a certain way.

But those 9 posters above that you grossly mischaracterized are not the people who you allege to have so badly misinformed you all those years ago. They deserve better treatment than you gave them.

The catholic worldview is very much like a western range. It is enormously wide open and free for adventure, experience and freedom. If we are like horses on that range, than revelation (Scripture and Tradition) are like barbed wire fences that God has placed around the bogs, cliffs, gullies, quicksand and other hazards. When we encounter such a fence we have a choice: turn and continue to enjoy the beautiful bounty of creation or rear, rage, kick and leap that fence. But don’t go blaming everybody else when you eventually learn what that fence is there for.

If you really think catholic sexual moral teaching is about making sure nobody ever has any fun, you REALLY need to read “Good News About Sex & Marriage.”

You might also be mistaking liturgical norms for MASS with larger command and control attempts on catholic spiritual and artistic expression. Just because we consider bongos inappropriate for mass, doesn’t mean you can’t use them in spiritual music in other settings. I’m afraid you’ve received a caricature of catholicism and have mistaken it for the real thing.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not a troll.

But to me that is exactly what the church does is say you can only believe this this and this. You can only walk like this, stand like this, sing like this, talk like this, have sex like this and by God you better not enjoy it. For if you have sex for the pure pleasure that a couple can enjoy we are damned to hell for ever. They give no room for any independent thought on anything. It is all spelled out for you how to act and think a certain way.

Wow.
All I can say is, as a Catholic woman, I have a totally, and I mean TOTALLY, different take on the Church and its teachings.

It’s a puzzle, isn’t it?

I was never taught that I couldn’t ‘enjoy’ sex as a married woman. I was never taught that pleasure was ‘sinful’ or damnable. As for independent thought, we have 2000 years of some of the world’s finest thinkers, and they didn’t seem to be ‘hampered’ by the fact that as Catholics they were thinking about Catholicism and not, say, Zorastrianism, as truth.

I see Catholics acting in all sorts of different ways, from the lively Catholics in the charismatic groups to the quiet Catholics at the TLM to the ‘diverse’ cross section of every race, color, and culture throughout thousands of churches in hundreds of cities, none of whom seem to feel that they must march lockstep through life looking ‘a certain way’.

Yes, it’s a puzzle to me how a person can see Catholicism so differently from the way I see it. . .