Catholic Attitude Toward Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicJon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Six people in my pew for 11am Solemn Mass today, 4 of them reading the Bible before the bell rings.
 
irenaeuslyons said:
That’s because its repeated by so many protestants and atheists, they believe it.
Click to expand...
Correct.
When one does not wish to do something one ought to be doing it is convenient to blame the source of the mandate for not giving the mandate.

If Dave Noonan would ask his students the name of the Priest of the students claiming they were not allowed to read their Bibles with the intent of verifying with the Priests, he would find a different answer.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
As I’ve mentioned before on some other threads, I still today have self-described Catholic students who show up to my classes claiming that the Catholic Church doesn’t permit them to read the Bible on their own outside of Mass.
Click to expand...
I suspect that’s the first excuse that comes to mind.
 
I did some more reading and digging around and read the encyclical, so this is for anyone else interested.

It was never forbidden that Catholics not read the Bible. However, some Priests in some circles did not encourage it early in the 20th century because at that time there were already 300 or so different Protestant denominations with different interpretations of Scripture and they were worried that their congregations would come up with more conflicting interpretations of Scripture.

In the encyclical that I read what I gleaned is basically that Pope Pius XII wanted to renew and re-encourage Catholics to read the Bible as so many Church Fathers had encouraged as well. It sounds like he especially wanted for the faithful to be able to defend against the misinterpretations of Scripture that were (are) so prevelant and to grow in their love of Christ from doing so.
 
I find it interesting to realize that Catholic Biblical exegesis is so modern. 1943 is not so long ago. It was during my life. One of the problems may be that St Pius X may have put Catholic scholarship back by years.
 
Todd977 said:
Going to Mass everyday for 3 years you would actually heard only about 18% of the Old Testament and about 74% of the New Testament. (breakdown)
Click to expand...
Yes that sounds correct. We get a great deal of the New Testament, but not much old. Also it is not in order. I really enjoy the readings and how they relate to each other, but it’s also important to get to know the Bible. I have read the Bible through a few times and have studied a lot of the books. I think if you don’t do that, sometimes things don’t make much sense. The gospels are easy enough, Paul’s letters really need to be put in context.
 
NoelFitz said:
I find it interesting to realize that Catholic Biblical exegesis is so modern. 1943 is not so long ago. It was during my life. One of the problems may be that St Pius X may have put Catholic scholarship back by years.
Click to expand...
Interesting theory. I thought he promoted Scripture scholarship. Can you think of a way he might have set it back?
 
agnes_therese said:
I suspect that’s the first excuse that comes to mind.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by that. They’re actually taking the time to take a non-required course on the Bible—so they are obviously very interested, but present as if they are doing something subversive. They certainly don’t have to offer excuses to me. I really don’t care whether they have read the Bible on their own before or not.
 
Dmar198,
You ask me how did St Pius X put back biblical scholarship. This is a huge issue, as is the whole discussion of the Modernist crisis.

It seems that Lamentabili sane exitu, Pascendi Dominia Gregis and Praestantia Scripturae Sacrae had huge negative impacts on Catholic biblical and other scholarship.
 
The Church discouraged reading the Bible in certain places and times for the same reason the Protestant Churches did.

Many were extremely poor translations done by people lacking proper training or printing mistakes. “Let the children first be killed” instead of “Let the children first be filled” is the classic example. Some guy killed one of his children because of it. One of the Protestant Churches forbade reading of the Bible temporarily, rounded up and burned the offending Bibles and fined the printer.

All the Churches have done this from time to time.

-Tim-
 
The 30 years war death toll was about 7.5 million people. It was with good reason the reading and interpretation of the bible was restricted at certain localities.
 
NoelFitz said:
Dmar198,
You ask me how did St Pius X put back biblical scholarship. This is a huge issue, as is the whole discussion of the Modernist crisis.

It seems that Lamentabili sane exitu, Pascendi Dominia Gregis and Praestantia Scripturae Sacrae had huge negative impacts on Catholic biblical and other scholarship.
Click to expand...
You say they had a negative impact on scholarship. Can you give an example of that?

I don’t see how those encyclicals could have caused people to stop studying the Bible, because I don’t see where they either tell people not to or where they make it more difficult. Thus, *if people *did stop studying the Bible after those documents came out, I would think we should attribute that to some other cause. What am I missing?
 
CatholicJon said:
I was on the USCCB site and saw this.

So until 1943, reading the Bible was discouraged? I’m just trying to understand this as a new Catholic from a historical perspective and what is meant by discouraged and by who and how? And the other part of the question is it said the encyclical allowed for the study of scripture like it was forbidden beforehand? Or am I misinterpreting that?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
You did not misinterpret him. That is what he said. BUT, He was wrong, very, very wrong.

It is very sad the Bishops have this article on their website.

Please go to my web page at

defendingthebride.com/bible.html

In the first article you find many quotes encouraging Bible reading and study.
You can read a quote from Pope Leo XIII who in 1893 wrote an Encyclical Of Pope Leo XIII On The Study Of Holy Scripture, Providentissimus Deus

Also see

**Myth #3 **:
Catholic Church Prohibited Bible Reading.
And she desired to prevent Catholics from reading the Bible before Vatican II ?

​
You can see pictures of a Bible published in AD 1884 where every major Bishop in the US strongly encouraged Bible reading.

The Msgr. you had read was just wrong, and repeats a common false Protestant argument against the Catholic Church. He over generalizes the little he does know and simply makes outlandishly false statements. Is it possible that some priests in the decades before AD 1943 discouraged Bible reading ? If so, they were acting contrary to what the Popes were saying. See my web page.

defendingthebride.com/bible.html
dmar198 said:
1778 A.D. - Pope Pius VI - “[Y]ou judge exceedingly well, that the faithful should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures…by publishing the sacred writings in the language of your country, suitable to every one’s capacity…” “[F]or these are the most abundant sources which ought to be left open to every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are widely disseminated in these corrupt times.” (Letter to the Most Rev. Anthony Martini, Archbishop Of Florence, on his Italian translation of the Bible. Translated and printed in the Haydock Bible, revised by the Very Reverend Dr. Husenbeth, 1884 AD. See Photograph)
Click to expand...
HI dmar198,
Where did you get your quote ?

.
 
Hi dmar198,

I just thought maybe you found the link at another web site. If you sent that web site I was just going to suggest that they consider using my active page instead of just an archived one since I have been making updates to the live page.

God bless,
john
 
CatholicJon said:
I was on the USCCB site and saw this.

So until 1943, reading the Bible was discouraged? I’m just trying to understand this as a new Catholic from a historical perspective and what is meant by discouraged and by who and how? And the other part of the question is it said the encyclical allowed for the study of scripture like it was forbidden beforehand? Or am I misinterpreting that?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
That’s an inaccurate impression (the website is at fault, not you). The move toward encouraging laypeople to read the Bible started much earlier. In looking this up, I found this website which gives a quote from Pius VI in 1778, earlier than anything I’d heard of previously, endorsing an Italian translation of Scripture and encouraging laypeople to read Scripture. As you can see from the same website, Leo XIII in 1898 granted an indulgence for the reading of Scripture. Without getting into a debate on indulgences:p, it’s clear that they are among other things an official way in which the Church puts its stamp of approval on devotional practices. So by 1898 laypeople were officially encouraged to read Scripture, and given the letter of Pius VI referred to above the shift had started at least a century before.

Go back to the beginning of the eighteenth century, in 1713, though, and you see a quite different tone. The Jansenist theologian Paschal Quesnel was condemned for teaching, among other things, that the difficulty of Scripture was no reason to discourage laypeople from reading it. In general, during the early modern period (from the Reformation to the eighteenth century), the tone taken by official Catholic documents was pretty discouraging of laypeople reading Scripture (in the sense of sitting down with a complete text and working through it–obviously Scripture saturated Catholic piety in all sorts of ways). And this was a continuation of a policy adopted at certain times and places in the later Middle Ages.

Edwin
 
CatholicJon said:
So until 1943, reading the Bible was discouraged? I’m just trying to understand this as a new Catholic from a historical perspective and what is meant by discouraged and by who and how? And the other part of the question is it said the encyclical allowed for the study of scripture like it was forbidden beforehand? Or am I misinterpreting that?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The actual teaching of The Catholic Church, going back to the beginning is that :
Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

“http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com...pture_is_ignorance_of_christ__st._jerome.html”
 
Contarini said:
That’s an inaccurate impression (the website is at fault, not you). The move toward encouraging laypeople to read the Bible started much earlier. In looking this up, I found this website which gives a quote from Pius VI in 1778, earlier than anything I’d heard of previously, endorsing an Italian translation of Scripture and encouraging laypeople to read Scripture…

Go back to the beginning of the eighteenth century, in 1713, though, and you see a quite different tone. The Jansenist theologian Paschal Quesnel was condemned for teaching, among other things, that the difficulty of Scripture was no reason to discourage laypeople from reading it. In general, during the early modern period (from the Reformation to the eighteenth century), the tone taken by official Catholic documents was pretty discouraging of laypeople reading Scripture (in the sense of sitting down with a complete text and working through it–obviously Scripture saturated Catholic piety in all sorts of ways). And this was a continuation of a policy adopted at certain times and places in the later Middle Ages.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is an accurate portrayal of the Church’s attitude. I think that many doctors of the Church and saints from each century encouraged Bible reading among the laity. I don’t think it matters whether you look in the 1100s, 1200s, 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, or 1700s, no matter where you look, I think you can find plenty of saints encouraging lay people in general to read the Bible. How do you explain that if the general attitude was to discourage that?

Regarding Quesnel, I don’t think you quoted the pope accurately. I think he condemned the teaching that everyone Must read the Bible. I think he condemned the idea that reading the Bible is Always a good idea for everyone no matter what. But I don’t think the pope denied that reading the Bible is a good idea in general, and I think many saints from that time period said it Was a good idea, in general, to read the Bible. Does that explanation make sense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top