Chaldean Catholics Not Allowed To Read The Bible

[Hap]

I was in a discussion with a person about how the Catholic Church encourages the reading of the bible and this was her response below. Has anyone else happen to them as an Eastern Rite Catholic?
“My Chaldean family lives here in the US. My mother in law was told that she cannot understand it, so she is not to read it as it will only confuse her. Also she was told in Iraq that a layman hands are too filthy to touch a holy book. This is common in the eastern rite”

 

[Corki]

While the poor woman may have been told this, I don’t think it is correct of common, at least not here in the US. There have been several Eastern Catholics who have attended our Bible studies and if this was commonly taught, I think we would have heard it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Did she come from Iraq? Sometimes there’s some “weird” practices that happens in many parts of the world that we thought are actual Church teaching but in fact its more like local custom or thought. Maybe in the area where she was from it was just common belief, albeit not actual Church belief, by the locals.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It is not just an Eastern problem. Many [most?] U. S. Catholics of a hundred years or so ago would have told you that you were not supposed to read the Bible. This in spite of repeated urgings by the popes for them to read it and even attaching an indulgence to reading it. It was only in mid-20th century that reading the Bible became common here.

 

[Hap]

Did she come from Iraq? Sometimes there’s some “weird” practices that happens in many parts of the world that we thought are actual Church teaching but in fact its more like local custom or thought. Maybe in the area where she was from it was just common belief, albeit not actual Church belief, by the locals.

Yes, they came from Irag

 

[TheChaldean]

Born and raised in the Chaldean Catholic Church, I never heard anything like it before. In fact, in the regular schooling of the Chaldeans in rural villages, Bible study was part of the curriculum. I know that most of the Chaldean clergy will stop at nothing to get others to read the Bible. [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[chaldobyzantine]

In what world does that make sense? I’m Chaldean and my family from the old country always read the bible, just as it is encouraged here. I guess its just the ramblings of another misguided sitoo (old lady) who loves to talk but has no idea what she’s talking about.

-Source: (I live in “little Iraq”, Michigan)

 

[freethinker83]

If I’m not mistaken (and I may be) this was common practice throughout the entire Church until the time of Martin Luther and the reformation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If I’m not mistaken (and I may be) this was common practice throughout the entire Church until the time of Martin Luther and the reformation.

You are mistaken

 

[freethinker83]

You are mistaken

But isn’t it true that until around this time The Bible was not available in the common languages, and that sermons were in Latin? Most people in the middle ages could not even read their own language let alone read Greek, Latin, or Hebrew.

 

[Formosus]

But isn’t it true that until around this time The Bible was not available in the common languages, and that sermons were in Latin? Most people in the middle ages could not even read their own language let alone read Greek, Latin, or Hebrew.

In the East, literacy was much higher and I imagine many Greek Christians read the Bible. I do not know enough about the slavic lands to comment too seriously, but I imagine the similarity of Church Slavonic to the middle ages vernaculars would have made it possible to read the Bible those lands as well. Its really only in the Latin west where this was an issue. Even to that point though, the first modern English Bible was produced by the Catholic Church.

I can not comment on the matters of sermons. I have a hard time believing that the average country parson had enough education to preach in Latin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But isn’t it true that until around this time The Bible was not available in the common languages, and that sermons were in Latin? Most people in the middle ages could not even read their own language let alone read Greek, Latin, or Hebrew.

In addition to what Formosus said, Latin was also readily understandable up until the time of the Reformation. Don’t think people had the same common lack of understanding of Latin as if it were today. Its a common misconception used by anti-Catholics. We shouldn’t think the world in the past is exactly the same as the world today.

One thing, most people also in the past were poor and illiterate. There were hardly any public schools. Plus production of Bibles were slow and expensive as it was mostly monks who were hand writting the Bibles back then. That is why unlike today, there isn’t a Bible in every home.

 

[porthos11]

In addition to what Formosus said, Latin was also readily understandable up until the time of the Reformation. Don’t think people had the same common lack of understanding of Latin as if it were today. Its a common misconception used by anti-Catholics. We shouldn’t think the world in the past is exactly the same as the world today.

One thing, most people also in the past were poor and illiterate. There were hardly any public schools. Plus production of Bibles were slow and expensive as it was mostly monks who were hand writting the Bibles back then. That is why unlike today, there isn’t a Bible in every home.

This is also the reason why that nasty rumour is true, that Catholics chained the Bible. We indeed chained the Bible, given that copies were rare and precious and we needed to ensure that they would not be stolen and the common man had access to it.

 

[malphono]

This is also the reason why that nasty rumour is true, that Catholics chained the Bible. We indeed chained the Bible, given that copies were rare and precious and we needed to ensure that they would not be stolen and the common man had access to it.

I’ve never heard that rumor before. Must be some sort of heavy-duty Protestant thing. I suppose those who hold to that silly opinion expect that in the days before the printing press, (and forget cheap pulp-paper), people could have just gone down the street to the local scriptorium to have a Bible manuscripted. It’s one thing I love about Protestants: twist history to conform to their prejudices. Almost (but not quite) unbelievable.

 

[kaid100]

If I’m not mistaken (and I may be) this was common practice throughout the entire Church until the time of Martin Luther and the reformation.

In some places translations of the Bible into local languages were banned, Wycliffe’s 14th century English translation was banned by the Oxford Synod. (England was Catholic at this point)

 

[ConstantineTG]

In some places translations of the Bible into local languages were banned, Wycliffe’s 14th century English translation was banned by the Oxford Synod. (England was Catholic at this point)

Given the choice and authority, I bet the Catholic Church today would ban half of the translations out there today. Not just because one translates it means its a good one. Banning a badly translated Bible is an act of mercy, not a conspiracy theory.

 

[porthos11]

In some places translations of the Bible into local languages were banned, Wycliffe’s 14th century English translation was banned by the Oxford Synod. (England was Catholic at this point)

Yeah, but they weren’t banned for being in the vernacular. They were banned for bad translations and/or heretical commentary.

 

[Cecilianus]

There have been approved translations of the Bible or books of the Bible into English ever since Anglo-Saxon times; new translations kept coming out after the Norman Conquest as the language was changing. I don’t remember the exact number of translations into English before the King James, but it was about 20ish. The standard (traditional) Catholic translation, the Douay-Rheims, predates the King James.

A similar situation was the case for German Bibles. The Bible printed by Gutenberg, for example, was an approved Catholic translation of the Bible long before Luther. The Church only forbad translations with deliberate falsifications or serious errors - again, as someone else said, an act of mercy.

 

[Cecilianus]

But isn’t it true that until around this time The Bible was not available in the common languages, and that sermons were in Latin?

This is not true. Most Masses actually didn’t even have sermons on a regular basis; preaching a sermon was regarded as the prerogative of the bishop well into the Middle Ages. (For example, when St. Dominic went to Rome to have his “Order of Preachers” approved, the Pope’s reaction was, “An order of bishops?”)

Most people in the middle ages could not even read their own language let alone read Greek, Latin, or Hebrew.

This is true. While there were translations of the Bible into the vernacular in most countries, there were too expensive for the average parish church to be able to purchase, and few people were literate enough to read them.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

But isn’t it true that until around this time The Bible was not available in the common languages, and that sermons were in Latin? Most people in the middle ages could not even read their own language let alone read Greek, Latin, or Hebrew.

The primary reason it wasn’t in common languages is because Bibles were intended to last indefinitely and Latin was immutable whereas vernacular changed a lot. Sermons where uncommon. Many people could understand Latin which was the language of science and religion.