D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
And…we come full circle.
- Status
And…we come full circle.
N
neophyte
Guest
They get it from being taught distortions of actual events (although it would seem that at least some of them do it knowingly).
A lot of time they’ll point to Toulouse during the Albigensian heresy. There were a lot of heretical vernacular translations being spread around, and the Bishop ordered that one must obtain his permission to have a private bible study, and use only authentic texts in Latin (which most people could read anyway, if they could read at all). The purpose was to make sure that folks weren’t getting suckered by heretics.
People who have it in for the Church paint that as “the Church forbade bible reading” or similar nonsense. It’s a load of rubbish, totally without historical merit.
T
TimothyH
Guest
E
Elizium23
Guest
Yes, and we’re asking for solid evidence that the Church suppressed all reading or study of the Bible, which has not been quite forthcoming except as calumny from Protestant detractors of the Church. In supporting this position without evidence, you are putting yourself in a precarious position in a Catholic forum.
C
clem456
Guest
We could discuss this without the accusations.
I
Ignatius
Guest
The Church never suppressed study of The Bible. In fact, The Church has always encouraged it.
BTW, Wycliffe and Tyndale were persecuted by the Protestants.
G
gus
Guest
That’s not quite true occaccionally there are three reading 4 if you count psalms as a reading (I wasn’t aware it wasn’t)
I agree Sunday readings even over a three year period only cover a small portion of the Bible.
Daily readings cover a substantial portion but not all.
Catholics are Gospel and Cristo centric with parts of theold testament were there is prophecy being highlighted.
Unforunately many evangelicals are Paul centric some even claiming Jesus Gospel was a meant for the Jews.
Go to the scripture posts protestants will cite Paul more than the Gospels
Mostly Romans and Ephesians
Salvation can be found in the Gospels alone.
Paul’s letters are only helpful in the context of theGospel preached by Jesus.
The battles on these boards over old testament books is agreatexample of this.
The old testament is fine but not necessary
Some books not studied in the context of the time.
Can cause more harm than good.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
There are Citations at the end of the essay. Mostly, the essay is a compilation from several dozens sources. You might trace down the one you are interested in and find out. I assume you are talking about the entire essay as it appeared in the Catholic Encyclopedia? You might find out more by going to a physical copy of the Encyclopedia. I know that the New Catholic Encyclopedia identifies the authors of each piece or at least the editor responsible.
G
gus
Guest
That’s not quite true occaccionally there are three reading 4 if you count psalms as a reading (I wasn’t aware it wasn’t)
I agree Sunday readings even over a three year period only cover a small portion of the Bible.
Daily readings cover a substantial portion but not all.
Catholics are Gospel and Cristo centric with parts of theold testament were there is prophecy being highlighted.
Unforunately many evangelicals are Paul centric some even claiming Jesus Gospel was a meant for the Jews.
Go to the scripture posts protestants will cite Paul more than the Gospels
Mostly Romans and Ephesians
Salvation can be found in the Gospels alone.
Paul’s letters are only helpful in the context of theGospel preached by Jesus.
The battles on these boards over old testament books is agreatexample of this.
The old testament is fine but not necessary
Some books not studied in the context of the time.
Can cause more harm than good.
I
Ion
Guest
Orthodox church had the same canon interdicting the study of the scriptures of one by himself. Study was allowed only under the guidance of the church.
B
bettyg51
Guest
I think you might find this document interesting.
The Interpretation Of The Bible In The Church
Pontifical Biblical Commission
ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm
During the last century, there were Protestant scripture scholars who advocated Scripture interpretations that were harmful to the faith of many. Not only were Catholics alarmed, but also those who came to be called Fundamentalists. There were several breaks away from mainline churches over the issues.
One of these guys tried to say the Bible was just a bunch of legends, a history book, but the miracles like the parting of the Red Sea, etc didn’t really happen. There were others who tried to say that the Gospel of Mark was written first, ergo that part about Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter was a second or third century addition. They tried to do that with a lot of the New Testament. The Popes were alarmed and advised caution.
You can see why that would cause a reaction. I think it was a reasonable move, considering the times and state of Biblical scholarship.
I was told to read the Bible when there was a priest to help me interpret it. That pretty much limited my reading of the Bible to the readings at Mass. I went to a Catholic school, so we went to Mass every day during the school year and every Sunday. I graduated in 1969, so that is mostly before Vatican II.
When I started reading the Bible for myself, the only parts that were missing in my knowledge were in Chronicles. There were readings about the Babylonian captivity that I didn’t understand because I did not know the context. They were familiar though.
The point I am making is that I knew the Bible without going to Bible Studies and I knew what it meant, which is the most important part.
Catholics put emphasis on understanding doctrine because we have a certainty of truth. We do not reinvent the wheel with every generation. We emphasize growing in holiness, so spirituality taught through prayer meetings are important. We study the Bible for inspiration more than to decide what doctrines we feel like believing.
It took me awhile to understand this. Bible study is something that is never ending. My motivation for memorizing it is so that I can talk with Protestants.
The Interpretation Of The Bible In The Church
Pontifical Biblical Commission
ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm
During the last century, there were Protestant scripture scholars who advocated Scripture interpretations that were harmful to the faith of many. Not only were Catholics alarmed, but also those who came to be called Fundamentalists. There were several breaks away from mainline churches over the issues.
One of these guys tried to say the Bible was just a bunch of legends, a history book, but the miracles like the parting of the Red Sea, etc didn’t really happen. There were others who tried to say that the Gospel of Mark was written first, ergo that part about Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter was a second or third century addition. They tried to do that with a lot of the New Testament. The Popes were alarmed and advised caution.
You can see why that would cause a reaction. I think it was a reasonable move, considering the times and state of Biblical scholarship.
I was told to read the Bible when there was a priest to help me interpret it. That pretty much limited my reading of the Bible to the readings at Mass. I went to a Catholic school, so we went to Mass every day during the school year and every Sunday. I graduated in 1969, so that is mostly before Vatican II.
When I started reading the Bible for myself, the only parts that were missing in my knowledge were in Chronicles. There were readings about the Babylonian captivity that I didn’t understand because I did not know the context. They were familiar though.
The point I am making is that I knew the Bible without going to Bible Studies and I knew what it meant, which is the most important part.
Catholics put emphasis on understanding doctrine because we have a certainty of truth. We do not reinvent the wheel with every generation. We emphasize growing in holiness, so spirituality taught through prayer meetings are important. We study the Bible for inspiration more than to decide what doctrines we feel like believing.
It took me awhile to understand this. Bible study is something that is never ending. My motivation for memorizing it is so that I can talk with Protestants.
F
Farsight001
Guest
I don’t know why anyone would point to Tyndale. *Protestant *Henry VIII had him executed for his bible translation.
No, it is not true. There is, from the middle ages, the personal musings of some clergy about not allowing the masses to read the bible, but they were shot down. In fact, bibles were kept in public access places in many churches. Because they were handwritten by scholars of the course of multiple years, they were often chained down(to prevent theft), which is something else people often point to to claim the Church denied people access to scripture, but they were at least chained down in public access areas. Bibles in Catholic churches today are harder to get a hold of because the churches actually have closing times.
Furthermore, since the masses were largely illiterate, they taught the bible through pictures, which is where stained glass windows come from.
In short, the claim is simply patently untrue.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
I would say that the Church saw the Mass as so steeped in scripture that every Mass was an hour-long or more Bible-study in itself. Many Christians went to daily Mass so the received scripture as well as the Eucharist daily.
In those terms there was no suppression of scripture study. What the Church was wary of was heretical groups spreading false gospels.
In those terms there was no suppression of scripture study. What the Church was wary of was heretical groups spreading false gospels.
G
gus
Guest
Has anyone ever been to a old fashion Catholic Church.The bible is alive on the walls
Why don’t people today accept the fact that the stories depicted in the art were well known to a largly ilitterate but intelligent people.
A written christainity excludes the vast majority of people before the 20th century.
Its becomes Gnostic in a sense. A religion reserved for the few.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
I don’t know if that’s entirely true. I’ve spent a lot of time listening to radio programs on Church history and during one program he was discussing the general decline in Greek grammer among most in the Roman population except one group: Catholic Christians. According to him Christians retained a high level of Greek grammer and it he believed it was because of their familiarity with the Bible. There may have been a decline in the late middle ages, but early Christinas I think were very literate all the way into the middle-ages. Just food for thought.
I think many protestants have a vested interest in keeping the Christianity before the protestant revolution in the silent past.
“To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.” John Henry Cardinal Newman
- Status