Can't read the bible this way?

[felsguy]

There is much to be learned by reading scripture privately, as long as we understand that we are fallible in our understanding and intepreation and that the Church’s teaching is authoritative.

Well put!

 

[laszlo]

Yesterday at RCIA class one of the ladies that helps out said something really interesting…

She said “We as catholics, may own a bible and keep it in our house but we don’t need to come to our own understanding of it, we go to church a lot so there is no point in needing to read or come to any conclusion when its being spoken and interpreted for us anyway by the church.”

The Church attached indulgences to the reading of the Bible, so certainly wants the faithful to read the Bible on their own. One have to use Catholic Bible, with commentaries about problematic passages.

Either the Duoay-Rheims drbo.org/
or the New American Bible usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

are such editions either in the WEB and the printed versions.

Catholic faithful after the XXI Ecumenical council are considered adults, can read and are advised to read the Bible. Naturally this does not makes unnecessary the attendance of the Sunday Masses with homilies, the true interpreter is the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Some like us were told it was a sin to read a non-Catholic Bible at the time. That they were on the Church’s Index of Forbidden Books or something.

The Index Librorum Prohibitorum did include heretical versions of the Bible. Yet, that didn’t mean we were not supposed to read Catholic versions. In fact, the reason indulgences were granted for prayerful reading of Scripture was because the Magisterium desired that all the faithful prayerfully read the Scritpure.

I believe the Index was abolished in 1966. Now-a-days, when we come across a “translation” like the New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witness), we may unwittingly expose ourselves to rather Unitarian assertions like, “the Word was a god.”

As I understand it, canon law still obliges Catholics to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to the Catholic faith (can. 750.1).

 

[puzzleannie]

Yesterday at RCIA class one of the ladies that helps out said something really interesting…

She said “We as catholics, may own a bible and keep it in our house but we don’t need to come to our own understanding of it, we go to church a lot so there is no point in needing to read or come to any conclusion when its being spoken and interpreted for us anyway by the church.”

I wish I had raised my hand to asked her more questions about that but my husband and I were both kinda taken aback by the comment.

So I’ll ask you guys, is that true? Do we leave it up to the church to tell us what the bible is trying to say?

there are two questions here
Can Catholics read the bible for their own benefit and find a personal word from Christ that applies to their own situation each day, can they read with personal prayer and devotion, and can they study the bible in a scholarly approach with appropriate aids. Yes they can and should and have been enjoined to do so by every pope for the last 150 years or so and by several papal and conciliar proclamations.

Can Catholics read the bible and interpret its meaning in a global way that defines doctrine, in opposition to Church teaching, and act on that false interpretation, and promote that error to others. No they may not, that is gravely wrong.

The RCIA director implied a 3rd question. Is it necessary to study the bible with the specific view of looking for an interpretation that amplifies or with a Church interprepation, in the scholarly sense. No it is not. It is required for faith to know the truths proclaimed in the bible, to assent to what the Church teaches, and to pray biblically, but it is not required for each Catholic to become a scripture scholar and arrive at a personal interpretion of each, or any, passage. My guess is she is making the point that it is not required for reception into the Church that one read and understand each and every troublesome passage of the bible and reach full intellectual understanding and knowledge of each such passage.

it does not sound as if she was saying it is not profitable or necessary for Catholics to read the bible. If she did, she was wrong. My advice, as with each and every such misunderstanding or question about what was heard in RCIA is to ASK, ASK, ASK, for clarification. Ask first the person who said it.

Do recall that for over 1000 years the average Christian could not read, had no access to bibles, which were hand written, huge, and expensive, and relied on the readings in Church, instruction from priests and religious, sermons, and even visual means like stained glass windows and other art, even popular plays and stories based on bible events, to learn those truths. So if they could be brought to ardent life-long saving faith through those means, obviously it is not required for salvation that one read and intepret himself. Otherwise all children who die before being able to read are damned.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’m not feeling quite right with this statement, that we don’t have to come to our own understanding of scripture.

I agree. We ARE supposed to prayerfully read, meditate, pray, & contemplate (lectio divina) on the Sacred Texts. This necessarily involves coming to our own understanding. I think people are too worried thy might become Protestant if they admit that we need to interpret Holy Writ when we read Holy Writ. My mom, raised on the Balitmore Catechism, use to have weekly Bible study in my house, so this notion that we should be fearful of what we might find in the Bible through personal interpretation is rather strange to me.

My Balitmore Catechism no. 4 says in the approbations: “I am glad you marked the Scripture references, for the higher classes after Confirmation can unite their Scripture lessons with such study of your book.” The reason the Scripture passages are placed in the BC is, as the preface said, “so that those wishing may read it as it is in the Holy Scripture.”

It should be remembered, however, than even today, probably 1/3 of the world cannot read and write. We cannot simply hand out Bibles to make ourselves feel good that we’ve spread the Word of God among the heathens. To be a CATHOLIC Church, one must preach the Scripture. That is the point that the Church has made, and continues to make. St. Bonaventure, for example, due to the lack of literacy in his day, made a “Pauper’s Bible” which depicted the Scripture in pictures. The Church has always found ways to preach the Gospel, even in a world where many of those in most need of the Gospel cannot read.

Furthermore, what we CANNOT do (nor should any Protestant) is assert that our own interpretation is definitive, and must therefore now become part of the authentic deposit of faith binding upon all the faithful. Speculative theology (even speculative Scriptureal theology) is necessary for expounding upon the deposit of faith. Yet, that which is “speculative” does not become “certain teaching” (sententia certa) unless the Magisterium adopts it and makes it her own.

 

[ProVobis]

It should be remembered, however, than even today, probably 1/3 of the world cannot read and write.

Probably much more than that. And another third who don’t want to be bothered with doing more than the bare minimum.

We cannot simply hand out Bibles to make ourselves feel good that we’ve spread the Word of God among the heathens. To be a CATHOLIC Church, one must preach the Scripture.

Wouldn’t you think, though, that this can be accomplished better by example rather than the Jimmy Swaggart or the Dave Karesh type of preaching? Note that I didn’t suggest that you implied that; it’s just a question.

 

[JReducation]

The Church has always encouraged Lectio Divinia. It’s restated it again.

The reason that the scriptures were not pushed in Catholic education in the past was probably twofold.

First: Catholics had the benefit of a catechism. All of the truths found in scripture and more had been neatly summarized in the catechism. It was not the bible, but it contained the same truths.

Second: I believe there was a fear that the average Catholic would go donw the path of our anscestors in the past and end up in Protestantism, whee everyone has an infallible understanding of the scripture, but no one agrees with each other.

That’s just my guess.

Fraternally,

Br. Jr, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Second: I believe there was a fear that the average Catholic would go donw the path of our anscestors in the past and end up in Protestantism, whee everyone has an infallible understanding of the scripture, but no one agrees with each other.

That’s just my guess.

I’d agree with that guess, especially seeing that there are well over 20,000 Christian denominations out there, most if not all claiming they know the truth.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Wouldn’t you think, though, that this can be accomplished better by example rather than the Jimmy Swaggart or the Dave Karesh type of preaching?

Absolutely! Compare your favorite televangelist to people like Mother Teresa. Our preaching ought to be through word and deed. People are more convinced when they see the preaching lived out authentically. It doesn’t take long to notice folks like Mother Angelica, who simply standout from the rest. She is clearly dedicated and not just in it for worldly motives.

 

[maryj]

I’m not feeling quite right with this statement, that we don’t have to come to our own understanding of scripture.

Are we not required to read and to try to understand? One cannot hope to understand the word of God by not reading it and relying on the Church to tell them what it means. There is much to be learned by reading scripture privately, as long as we understand that we are fallible in our understanding and intepreation and that the Church’s teaching is authoritative.

-Tim-

Isn’t that what I said?