Catholic Church against Bible Reading?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlphaOmega
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
stanley123:
Why did they burn Tyndale at the stake?
For the picture and story see:
wayoflife.org/articles/williamtyndale.htm
Click to expand...
:rotfl: That’s right: bring out the heavy artillery! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
40.png
Ignatius:
It is the Catholic Church which, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determined the Canon of the New Testament. Do a search for the term “Canon of the New Testament” and you will find that it is from the Catholic Church, long before any protestant denominations existed.

In answer to your last question, yes the readings in the U.S. are generally from the American Standard Version and some from the NIV.
Click to expand...
Sorry,I don,t believe you answered my last question. Are you saying they are reading from an actual bible? :confused: God Bless
 
40.png
mercygate:
Spokes! You gotta be kidding! (Reaching for my smelling salts here.)

The word “Scripture” ***means ***“Bible.” Yes, we believe the word of God comes to us also from Sacred Tradition, but there is only **one **meaning of the word “Scripture.” Anything we call “scripture” comes from the Bible.

Do we use an “actual” Bible in our services? We use what we call a “Lectionary” – that is a book of Scripture passages laid out in portions for reading at each Mass. We have 3 readings on Sundays: an OT lesson, a second reading either from the Epistles or from Acts, and a third from the Gospel (we get through virtually the entire Bible in 3 years of Sundays). The OT lesson is always thematically linked to the Gospel reading, but the second reading is most often what we call “lectio continuo” – we just keep on a-readin’ from one book and move along to the next. So, no: it isn’t laid out the way our personal Bibles are organized: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges . . . but the whole Bible is there. In fact, the lectionary is so well done that many Protestants have adopted it.

Spokes, you left the Church too soon. You have some amazing ideas about what goes on in a Catholic church.
Click to expand...
You said the complete bible is there. Are you sure of your statement? :confused: God Bless
 
Spokenword,
To answer your question directly - no, there usually is not an “actual” Bible used. Rather, things FROM the Bible (which is virtually completed in about three years of Masses, like someone said earlier) are put INTO a book that is read from. It’s like having a third edition book rather than a first one - but does it really matter which?

Yes, our readings are from the Bible, but we usually read them out of a different book that contains the readings.

Peace 🙂
 
40.png
Peace_Seeker:
Spokenword,
To answer your question directly - no, there usually is not an “actual” Bible used. Rather, things FROM the Bible (which is virtually completed in about three years of Masses, like someone said earlier) are put INTO a book that is read from. It’s like having a third edition book rather than a first one - but does it really matter which?

Yes, our readings are from the Bible, but we usually read them out of a different book that contains the readings.

Peace 🙂
Click to expand...
As I pointed out, “The Bible” is a relatively recent development. In Christ’s time, there was no single book containing all the scriptures. Wherever you find the inspired writings, you find scripture – it doesn’t have to be all in one book.
 
40.png
stanley123:
However, wasn’t William Tyndale strangled and burned at the stake in 1536 for translating the Bible ?
Click to expand...
There were English translations of at least part of the Bible (actually, there were translations in several vernacular languages) long before Tyndale’s time. What people fail to understand is that, before the printing press, the copying and translating of the Bible was a huge undertaking. Large-scale distribution was simply not possible.
 
Excuse me? What’s the point? It seems like Spokes is trying to make a point here, since we’re not actually taking the New and the Old Testaments and reading them.

How 'bout it?

Notworthy
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
You said the complete bible is there. Are you sure of your statement? :confused: God Bless
Click to expand...
I believe that for the liturgical readings at Mass we omit some of the lengthy “Begats” from Chronicles. I haven’t compared verse for verse, but it is likely that some parallel passages may be omitted. But otherwise, YES, we do cover the entire Bible in 3 years of Sundays.

Your other question about whether this is an “actual” Bible also needs an answer. The answer is, yes. All of the readings are from the Bible. The reason we put them in our lectionary book rather than just reading out of the kind of Bible we have at home is to make it easier to follow throughout the year. You just keep turning the pages for whichever year you are in: Year A, Year B, Year C.

But if, in the Lectionary, the Gospel reading for the 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time is Mt. 22:15-21, and you bring your Bible to Church to follow along, you will find that the Lectionary reading exactly matches what you will find in your “actual” Bible at Mt 22:15-21. I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly.

Is it an actual Bible? Yes. The Bible was originally collated from the scriptures being read in the churches during their worship. When the books got bound together in a volume that came to be known as “THE Bible,” those were the writings that made the cut.

I think what troubles you is that you seem to think that the Lectionary is not “Bible” because it is not arranged in the order with which you are familiar. I believe you have not BEEN in a Catholic Church for decades and you are carrying around images from a somewhat distracted youth. Not your fault. It happens all the time. I think it’s great that you are even able to ask the questions you do.
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
You said the complete bible is there. Are you sure of your statement? :confused: God Bless
Click to expand...
Over a period of time, yes, the Bible is gone through. The Lectionary is arranged so that it contains the readings and prayers for each day. It is far simpler (and less huge!!!) to arrange the readings by the days, instead of having to flip from one reading, to the Psalms, to the Gospels, and then flip some more to find the Mass prayers for that day (which add bulk as well). The readings are selected so that, over a period of time, people are exposed to the whole of the Bible. Needless to say, that takes some time.

In my Protestant years, I was never exposed to the amount of Scripture that I am exposed to in the Mass. Typically, the minister would select a verse (usually not a particularly long passage), and talk about that particular verse and expand upon it. There was no systematic attempt to expose people to the whole of the Bible.

Am I to understand from what a poster wrote that you used to be Catholic? If so, then I find it very odd you seem to be unaware of the role of Sacred Scripture at Mass. Also, if your objection is that Sacred Scripture is only Sacred Scripture when it’s together in one volume with “HOLY BIBLE” stamped on the cover, then frankly you’ve just lost a huge amount of credibility with me, as it appears you’re clutching at straws in an attempt to maintain the idea in your head that Catholics aren’t Bible-friendly.
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
…you’re Baptist friends might have a few facts a little bit off kilter there…
Click to expand...
Which facts would you say were a bit off kilter?
According to the references I have looked at, Mr. Tyndale did translate the Bible, and his translation and footnotes were not appreciated by some of the Catholic clergy, and he was subsequently burned at the stake.
In response, one poster has a series of laughing circles rolling back and forth, but to the friends and supporters of Mr. Tyndale, this was not a laughing matter. Also, I would suspect that this procedure of burning people alive in public at the stake was both extremely painful and humiliating.
 
Tantum ergo:
Big Dave, a lot of your Catholic friends were misinformed; whether from poor teaching or poor learning (or both). I encourage you to either buy a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or go online HERE .christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html
and read it through.

I think it’s great that you want to learn what the Church REALLY teaches, not rely on hearsay, not even from an “average Catholic”. “Average Catholic”, “average Protestant”, “average ANYTHING” really doesn’t cut the mustard when it comes to knowing the basis of the Catholic faith, the Protestant faith, or even DNA sequencing or how to double crochet for that matter. Go to the source.

One small caveat: The “things” that may have “changed” in the Catholic Church are incidentals. No DOGMA OR DOCTRINE HAS CHANGED, or WILL CHANGE.

The Catholic Church has not decided to worship the Hexagon instead of the Trinity. It has not decided to consecrate pizza and Kool Aid for the Precious Body and Blood. It has not decided to allow contraception. It has not added one iota to the Scriptures.

It has decided that while Latin is stil expected for parts of the Mass, because this makes those parts able to be understood by all and expresses unity, other parts may be said in any of the world’s languages. This decision does not “change” any part of Catholic teachings, it doesn’t say that what was done in 600 AD, or 1600 AD, was WRONG, and that we are changing now to do it RIGHT.

God bless you in your search and may you be ever near to Him, in your heart, mind, and soul.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reference to the catechism of the Catholic Church. I have been wanting to read it. One of the things that attracted me to the Catholic Church is the fact that they guard the message from ever changing. It really bothers me that so many mainline protestant churches have discussions about same sex marrage and the right to obortion. These are not negotably. Never ceases to follow the Scriptures!!! Thank you for your interest.
 
40.png
stanley123:
Which facts would you say were a bit off kilter?
According to the references I have looked at, Mr. Tyndale did translate the Bible, and his translation and footnotes were not appreciated by some of the Catholic clergy, and he was subsequently burned at the stake.
In response, one poster has a series of laughing circles rolling back and forth, but to the friends and supporters of Mr. Tyndale, this was not a laughing matter. Also, I would suspect that this procedure of burning people alive in public at the stake was both extremely painful and humiliating.
Click to expand...
Yes, Tyndale did translate the Bible. Was he the first to make an English Translation? NO! There were several available by the time he came out with his.

Was that why he was condemned? NO!! He was condemned because his translations were extremely inaccurate. Again, if someone was passing out a Jehovah’s Witness Bible to your congregation and passing it off as YOUR bible, wouldn’t your church leadership condemn them?

Did the Catholic Church burn him at the stake? NO!!! As mentioned in a previous post, it was the Secular Government that burned him at the stake.

Notworthy
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
Yes, Tyndale did translate the Bible. Was he the first to make an English Translation? NO! There were several available by the time he came out with his.

Was that why he was condemned? NO!! He was condemned because his translations were extremely inaccurate. Again, if someone was passing out a Jehovah’s Witness Bible to your congregation and passing it off as YOUR bible, wouldn’t your church leadership condemn them?

Did the Catholic Church burn him at the stake? NO!!! As mentioned in a previous post, it was the Secular Government that burned him at the stake.

Notworthy
Click to expand...
And the reason the government did him in was they still remembered the Peasant’s Rebellion and didn’t want a repeat.
 
Look, this is all bogus #&@*.

The Catholic Church, from the very beginning, has loved and cherished the Scriptures. There have been times when some colloquial translations have been downright false and misleading, usually to accommodate someone’s heresies. In these instances, the Mother Church, wanting to protect her flock from being misled, has banned the spread of these translation.

Now, if they were trying to truly prevent the peasants from gaining access to the Written Word, wouldn’t many of the bishops and priests from throughout the world have raised a peep??? There are numerous occasions where the local leadership have voiced their disapproval of decisions made at a higher level, and we have proof in writing of these protests. But nowhere do we see from any of the Church Doctors or other clergy condemning these Bible Bans. Doesn’t this speak volumes???

Notworthy
 
edward_george said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale

Hmmmm…burned at the stake indeed…by the Catholic Church?

Right…

-ACEGC
Click to expand...

So Tyndale was burned at the stake by the
Anglican Church, and not by the Catholic Church? Why are there so many false accusation on the Catholic Church?
 
40.png
AlphaOmega:
So Tyndale was burned at the stake by the
Anglican Church, and not by the Catholic Church? Why are there so many false accusation on the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Tyndale was burned by the English government, which had a strong opposition to bibles in English since the Peasant Rebellion of 1382.
 
Why are there so many false accusations of the Catholic Church? OK, this here is the Gospel of Notworthy, so take it for what it is, or isn’t.

I’ve often wondered the same thing. Then I realized, The Catholic Church was the one and only Church for 1500 years (no matter what the Church of Christ and a few others say about the “remnant”). Anyway, every other denomination broke off ultimately from the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is wrong, then there is some justification for them breaking away. BUT, if the Catholic Church is right, then anyone breaking off from the Church is in heresy!

No one, I assume, wants to be a heretic. So people have wanted to believe that they are justified. It doesn’t take much convincing to believe that the Cathoic Church has done some of the things she’s accused of.

Garbage, you say? Just ask the Germans in the 1930’s why it was so easy to convince them that the Jews caused all their problems. Ask the white man why it was so easy to believe that all Indians were Savages. Ask the Japanese why they thought the American Soldiers were going to rape and torture them and their children.

Notworthy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top