Catholic supression of popular scripture study

[clem456]

One of my Protestant friends has the impression that the Catholic Church supressed the learning and dissemination of Scripture in past history, pointing to Wycliffe and Tyndale etc… as proof of this. Is it the truth that the Church at one time either neglected dissemination of scripture or the understanding of it? And if not, where do protestants get this idea from?

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

One of my Protestant friends has the impression that the Catholic Church supressed the learning and dissemination of Scripture in past history, pointing to Wycliffe and Tyndale etc… as proof of this. Is it the truth that the Church at one time either neglected dissemination of scripture or the understanding of it? And if not, where do protestants get this idea from?

I do remember reading that Bible studies were forbidden. Granted for good reason, but regardless. To be honest, I don’t see this as a bad thing.

 

[Elizium23]

Tyndale’s Heresy

 

[Dave_Noonan]

One of my Protestant friends has the impression that the Catholic Church supressed the learning and dissemination of Scripture in past history, pointing to Wycliffe and Tyndale etc… as proof of this. Is it the truth that the Church at one time either neglected dissemination of scripture or the understanding of it? And if not, where do protestants get this idea from?

I think it’s important to understand that between the promulgation of the codex (bound book) in the fourth century and the invention of the printing press around the mid-fifteenth century, Bibles were extremely expensive to produce and were not generally disseminated–thus the study of scripture and its often highly allegorical modes of interpretation was limited to institutions with educated people and a lot of resources–i.e., the Church and/or the Crown.

The invention of the printing press and cheaper Bibles, along with the idea of a more personalized and literal understanding of scripture that came along with the Reformation radically changed all that.

But even prior to the invention of the printing press, followers of Wycliffe produced hand-copied Bibles for greater circulation of the biblical text among lay people who could read. Because Wycliffe’s work was unauthorized and uncontrolled by the Church and because the dissemination was promoted by the Lollards who were highly critical of the Church to begin with, there was a great deal of animosity between the groups. Is this really suppression of the Bible or it is suppression of the Lollards and people with similar views? Hard to say.

But what is often overlooked in this discussion is the situation of the more common folk who could neither read the Bible–even if they could afford one–nor who could understand the Latin readings at Mass–which were pretty limited anyway. Scholars who are now studying popular plays and other more folkloric forms of communication indicate that the general populace actually had a fairly high degree of familiarity with at least the important stories in scripture, especially considering the fact that these people were illiterate. How did this happen? Again, hard to say. But it’s important not to equate owning a Bible with knowing what’s in it, or the flip side being that just because people don’t have their own Bible necessarily equates to biblical illiteracy and ignorance.

Plenty of people who own a Bible today couldn’t tell you the first thing about it.

 

[Link0126]

Well, consider what has happened since the scriptures have become common place and open to individual interpretation. 30,000 denominations. Complete chaos in the Body of Christ.

 

[katy]

I don’t know of any time the Church prohibited Bible study. Wycliff and Tyndale both had serious problems with what they were distributing, and that is why they were denounced. I suppose Protestants figure anyone who got in trouble with the Catholic Church was a hero by that very fact.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

One of my Protestant friends has the impression that the Catholic Church supressed the learning and dissemination of Scripture in past history, pointing to Wycliffe and Tyndale etc… as proof of this. Is it the truth that the Church at one time either neglected dissemination of scripture or the understanding of it? And if not, where do protestants get this idea from?

You need some history lessons. The following link will explain some of the history of the Reformation and its causes. Just remember that Protestants are still getting a warped view of the Catholic Church and the complete white washing of the Reformation. The truth is the success of the Reformation lay in greed. Catholics and the Church in England and Scandanavian countries were deprived of their properties and the proceeds turned over to the Reformers who had slandered the Church and Catholics visciously and continue to do so to this day. Its funny, apparantly slander, calumny, back biting aren’t sins in the Protestant churches - at least when it applies to Catholics. Kinda the same idea Muslims have toward Christians.

newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm

 

[Crumpy]

yes, the protestant attitude then and today seems to remain the same, that, according to them, the CC is not just wrong – perhaps a little – no, it’s wrong from top to bottom.

But, going back a mere 60 years, the Roman Pontiff used to be carried about on his chair, in a rather flamboyant fashion to suggest that he was not a mere mortal. Where did that come from?

Also in that recent time frame, even the cardinals used to approach him by kissing his foot, his knee, and then his ring.

But, that was a different era, when even then-president Abraham Lincoln was addressed as “your excellency.” ( or so I’ve heard).

Father Mitch Pacwa has stated that although he’s researched the subject, that Catholic reading or study of scripture has never been suppressed except in only one instance that he found, when a certain translation was deemed to be lacking. Otherwise, the reading of scripture has been indulgenced since at least around 1890.

Now having said so much, I recall one bishop say at the USCCB meeting a few years ago (when it was televised on EWTN) that he was wary of uncontrolled scripture speculation and wayward interpretations. Orthodoxy prevails and aren’t we glad about that?

When I read about Wycliffe, the irony struck me that he wanted open and unfettered interpretation of scripture by everyone – except Catholics, of course.

 

[TimothyH]

Well, consider what has happened since the scriptures have become common place and open to individual interpretation. 30,000 denominations. Complete chaos in the Body of Christ.

This gets to the heart of the matter.

Many people don’t like that it was done or like to think that it wasn’t, but the Church did discourage private reading and study of the Bible. Whether this was done by officially by Church hierarchy or locally by individual priests and bishops, that it was done is fact, and it was done with very good reason.

The printing press had been invented in 1433 and Bibles had just become commercially available. Luther came along in 1520 and then Calvin in 1536. Christians have always understood scripture within the framework of the Church’s teaching and Traditions, but now there were people with little or no training running around with Bibles teaching incorrect doctrine. Discouraging private use of the Bible was simply a reaction to these incorrect doctrines, an attempt to protect the purity of the faith and more importantly, an attempt to keep people connected to the Church and the sacraments.

Someone would point to Romans 9:10 where it says, “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” and teach that salvation is through belief in the heart and confession of the lips. They would preach a sermon on it, people would look it up in the Bible, see those words in black and white, and begin to believe it. The Church however, said, “Whoa! It’s not that simple!!!” and suggested, sometimes strongly, that the Bible is best left to professionals. At that time, they were absolutely right, and so personal us of Scripture was discouraged, and sometimes prohibited.

To a certain extent, the Church wasn’t able to hold back the flood. This is part of what Vatican II was about, a realization that in a society where more and more people were educated and where Scripture studies were now available through mail order catalogs, we couldn’t keep fighting the reformation with the same tactics and techniques.

But yes, it was done. People were discouraged, and even prohibited from reading and studying scripture, but it was done to protect them from the misinterpretations that started with the progenitors of the reformation. It was done so that people didn’t abandon the sacraments.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

So it seems to me that my friend and others are judging the Church on this issue using our modern ideas of open, easy, and cheap communication.
I need to discuss this with him in an historical context, cause it is hard to defend using our current sensibilities.
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[clem456]

You need some history lessons. The following link will explain some of the history of the Reformation and its causes. Just remember that Protestants are still getting a warped view of the Catholic Church and the complete white washing of the Reformation. The truth is the success of the Reformation lay in greed. Catholics and the Church in England and Scandanavian countries were deprived of their properties and the proceeds turned over to the Reformers who had slandered the Church and Catholics visciously and continue to do so to this day. Its funny, apparantly slander, calumny, back biting aren’t sins in the Protestant churches - at least when it applies to Catholics. Kinda the same idea Muslims have toward Christians.

newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm

I couldn’t find authorship for this article.
It reads like Henry Graham a little. Do you know?

 

[TimothyH]

So it seems to me that my friend and others are judging the Church on this issue using our modern ideas of open, easy, and cheap communication.
I need to discusee this with him in an historical context, cause it is hard to defend using our current sensibilities.
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

They will say that that the prohibition against or discouragement of private study was an attempt at preventing much needed corrections to Church doctrine which had become corrupted, and even abused over time.

Or they will say that it was an attempt to hold on to power structures in place at the time. There is no doubt that some of this went on, but the primary motivation was to keep people connected to the sacraments.

Understand that those with whom you will be discussing this don’t understand the difference between Sacred Tradition, which is revealed truth, and ecclesial tradition, or disciplines, and as such, will see much of what the Church does as a corruption of the faith. They are unable to tell the difference between, for example, the revealed truths which the rosary contains and the rosary itself. In a broader sense, they are unable to see the Sacred Tradtions (revealed truths) contained in the life and institutions of the Church vs. the institutions and practices of the Church themselves which are merely (if one could say merely!) containers.

You are at a disadvantage here before you even begin. This discussion will require much patience and a willingness to walk away from what appears on the outside to have been a complete waste of time.

Having had some experience with such things here in the deep south, my suggestion would be to just show own beautiful doctrine of the Church. Leave them with something that makes them say, “Wow! I never thought of it that way. That’s actually really beautiful!” Get them to see that we really arn’t as crazy as we are made out to be, that there is deep beauty in our faith, an let God do the rest.

Plant the seed, water it with prayer, and let God do the rest. Something beautiful about Mary works well. Many shy away from Mary, but I go there often. Non-Catholics don’t expect it and I know of one man who was very shaken when I showed him in the Bible how Mary was a queen. It made him question everthing he had ever thought about faith and God and the Bible, really rattled him.

-Tim-

 

[qui_est_ce]

One of my Protestant friends has the impression that the Catholic Church supressed the learning and dissemination of Scripture in past history, pointing to Wycliffe and Tyndale etc… as proof of this. Is it the truth that the Church at one time either neglected dissemination of scripture or the understanding of it? And if not, where do protestants get this idea from?

Catholics have Bible study every day of the week at mass. There are a minimum of three readings at each mass. If one attends mass only on Sundays, within three years, one will have read from every book in the Bible complete with homilies.

We still have homilies from ancient Bible Scholars, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Athanasius, and others.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Catholics have Bible study every day of the week at mass. There are a minimum of three readings at each mass. If one attends mass only on Sundays, within three years, one will have read from every book in the Bible complete with homilies.

As has been pointed out on some other threads, that’s actually a common misconception among Catholics. There are no Sunday Mass readings from: Judges, Ruth, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, 1 Maccabees, Judith, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, or Haggai, II John, III John, or Jude. (I might have missed some others.)

And only two readings at daily Mass.

 

[TimothyH]

As has been pointed out on some other threads, that’s actually a common misconception among Catholics. There are no Sunday Mass readings from: Judges, Ruth, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, 1 Maccabees, Judith, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, or Haggai, II John, III John, or Jude. (I might have missed some others.)

And only two readings at daily Mass.

I didn’t know that. Thanks.

If we read from the Song of Solomon, Church would be packed!

For Catholics, scripture is part of the entirety of God’s revelation to man. God is the source of all revelation, which he gave in part to the prophets and fulfilled entirely in Christ. But we find Christ’s teachings - the revealed truth given to man by God - not just in scripture but in the instutions Christ founded; institutions like the Eucharist, baptism, the priesthood, and the Church herself.

Times have changed though. I dare say that there is a new breed of Catholic who is not only knowledgeable about scripture, but hungry for it. I’ll admit that non-Catholics have far surpassed Catholics in making Scripture a part of their life, and that Catholics are worse off for it.

For us however, uniting Scripture with the teachings of the Church and the revealed thruths given to man which were not written down makes scripture come alive. Several denominational and non-denominational converts to Catholicism have told me that scripture finally came alive for them, finally made sense, after they started reading it in the context of the Church.

Evangelicals taught me to love scripture. I’ll forever be thankful to my Evangelical friends for that. Veneration of the Sacred Scriptures is a great gift which they will bring into the Church when the non-Catholic Churches finally unite around the Holy Father.

-Tim-

 

[qui_est_ce]

As has been pointed out on some other threads, that’s actually a common misconception among Catholics. There are no Sunday Mass readings from: Judges, Ruth, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, 1 Maccabees, Judith, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, or Haggai, II John, III John, or Jude. (I might have missed some others.)

Well, then I’ve been mislead.

And only two readings at daily Mass.

Psalms

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well, then I’ve been mislead.

Don’t worry, even Cardinal Arinze (former Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship) mistakenly thinks most of the Bible is in the Lectionary:

adoremus.org/Arinze-FDLC-Liturgy.html (section 2, second paragraph).

So you are in esteemed company!

Psalms

Excellent point.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Don’t worry, even Cardinal Arinze (former Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship) mistakenly thinks most of the Bible is in the Lectionary:

adoremus.org/Arinze-FDLC-Liturgy.html (section 2, second paragraph).

So you are in esteemed company!

Excellent point.

Hah, you reminded me of where I heard that. I have his CD on the CCC.

 

[Godfollower]

This gets to the heart of the matter.

Many people don’t like that it was done or like to think that it wasn’t, but the Church did discourage private reading and study of the Bible. Whether this was done by officially by Church hierarchy or locally by individual priests and bishops, that it was done is fact, and it was done with very good reason.{Snip}.

But yes, it was done. People were discouraged, and even prohibited from reading and studying scripture, but it was done to protect them from the misinterpretations that started with the progenitors of the reformation. It was done so that people didn’t abandon the sacraments.

-Tim-

I keep hearing this, but I’ve never seen any evidence of it.

From the very beginning, the Church has proclaimed the Scriptures everywhere it has gone. The idea that reading the Bible was prohibited is unsupported calumny as far as I can tell. As far as private ownership of the Bible is concerned, there are plenty of people who have banned (or attempted to ban) the Bible, but none of them was the Catholic Church (other than heretical translations, of course).

But I have seen any evidence of the Church prohibiting the study of Scripture.

 

[Dubay]

That was a comment from my mother who converted from Lutheran to Catholicism when married. She said Catholics don’t spend much time with scripture, they spend more with guidance from leaders.