Dangerous biblical study

[Riddle_me_this]

Thank you all for the responses. Let’s grant that the Catholic repression of scripture is a Protestant myth (which is not true). I would like to refocus the post to the heart of the question. Why read the bible at all if all that can happen is you take the risk of twisting them to your own destruction? Wouldnt a Catholic be better off not reading them at all and simply attending mass? Ignorance is bliss in the Catholic system. If you have no idea whats going on you aren’t judged. If you read the bible and find yourself agreeing with Protestant theology you are condemned. All risk and no reward it seems.

Why on earth would anyone grant history to be a myth? Sounds like brainwashing to me.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Hmmm I like that. But by saying that everyone that reads and believes in the bible would be saved.

Can be. Doesn’t mean they will be. Cases vary according the person and circumstances.

Alan

 

[Maryann_C]

Laughable.

This along with other comments I have read from you, makes me wonder about whether or not you really are open to debate or if you just thought you had a stumpper!

So let me put this to you… When I was Protestant ( starting out with Luther - you can read my - 'why I became Catholic 'story in the thread I started to share such stories in the water cooler section) I read the Bible all the way through one summer and I read John 6 in the light of what I had just read in Exodus so I completely understood what Jesus was saying there and I realized there was only ONE Church that had the real Jesus and if I was going to be a full complete obedient follower of Jesus then I needed to be IN that church.

In your OP and your comments you have given the same tired protestant arguments that twist truth, I know because I believed them too once …until I REALLY read what the Bible ( NIV at the time) said and not just relied upon a few memorized verses thrown about by my fellow protestants.

I invite you to jump on in the water is warm!!

 

[Armyvet007]

Why do Catholics read the bible? If an unlearned person can twist scripture to ones own destruction and private interpretation leads to disaster wouldn’t one be better off simply going to mass and remaining ignorant. For many centuries the Church would not allow lay people to read the bible at all and if this is what they believe they did so consistently and wisely. Why now are Catholics allowed to study Gods word? Would the early church fathers such as Polycarp and Ignatious be for or against everyone having a bible? I do not understand the logic behind the change.

While it is very possible for someone to misinterpt the Bible, Catholic readers have something Protestant readers choice not to use, namely the Church.

 

[Riddle_me_this]

they were a heretical group who taught unorthodox ideas and forbidden to teach by Pope Alexander III. founded by Peter Waldo who was a street preacher who taught to his own understanding. It was their teaching that got them into trouble not reading the Bible.

He definitely started it but it didn’t end with him.

Canon 36 of the Council of Béziers, France, stipulates: “You will see to it that all just and legal means are used to prevent the laity from possessing theological books, even in Latin, and the clergy from possessing them in the vulgar tongue.”

 

[Maryann_C]

Alot of people also brought up authority which inevitably always comes up in these

.

If I may share another bit of my conversino story from protestant to Catholic. It was Joyce Meyers ( are you familiar with her?)- big time protestant Charismatic - Methodist female preacher -who gave em another BIG push as I was balking on my decision after having read the Bible that summer. I was listening to her on the radio and she started talking about how people should "RESPECT the AUTHORITY of their Pastor given by GOD’ and stop Church hopping every time they disagree with something the pastor says! the Catholic Church is not the only one who recognizes that there is a God given authority. your argument is with God not his Church …I would tread lightly on this one.

 

[Riddle_me_this]

Unlike Protestants, Catholics cannot twist scripture because we have Sacred Tradition as given to the Apostles through Jesus and handed down to our Bishops and protected by the Holy Spirit. We have the authentic teaching of Jesus and as such is not open to our interpretation unlike the 30,000+ Protestant sects each “twisting scripture,” to their own means as you put. Therefor, Catholics have no fear of reading the bible after all it is our book.

Cool so why did the Pope not allow the bible to be translated to a common tongue? What was he afraid of?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It was a non-denominational TV preacher who reached out to me and showed me that the Bible actually is useful, something the Church failed to do when I was young. I was 25 and had been on haitus for several years. I bought a Bible and came back to Church.

I was the lost sheep the Church let go… it took a TV preacher to get me to even believe in God again. I was without spiritual nourishment because the Church fed me baby food until I was old enough to get away from my parents. The TV preacher showed how to get more than a bunch of cute stories, out of the Bible.

Jesus said, “whoever is not against us is for us.”

St. Paul wrote about this sort of thing. “I follow this person or that.” I don’t care what church you go to, Catholic or not – if you profess to be Christian than you shouldn’t be bashing other Christians. And yes, they are Christians even if they are not Catholic, if they profess it.

Alan

 

[Riddle_me_this]

Show me where the church had an official teaching that people could not read the bible? I’ve yet to find anyone who can show that. For centuries having a bible was unlikely so there was no need to encourage reading it, the odds of owning one was very slim before the printing press. In fact, one the early church father’s said, Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. The church encourages reading of the scripture because it is sacred, and it helps us grow closer to God.

Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. - - St. Jerome quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 133.

Here is a good article for you to read: Did the Catholic church forbid reading the bible?

1179 Pope AlexanderIII forbade the Waldenses to preach, which preaching they were doing with a common-language translation of parts of the Bible.
1184 At the Synod of Verona, Italy, Pope LuciusIII, supported by Holy Roman Emperor FrederickI Barbarossa, decreed the excommunication and handing over to civil authorities for punishment (usually burning) of all Bible-loving “heretics” who persisted in preaching or even thinking contrary to Catholic dogma.
1199 Pope InnocentIII condemned the translation into French of the Psalms, the Gospels and Paul’s letters, and forbade meetings held in the bishopric of Metz, France, for the “reprehensible purpose” of studying the Scriptures. Any copies of these vernacular translations that could be found were burned by Cistercian monks.
1211 By order of Pope InnocentIII, Bishop Bertram of Metz organized a crusade against all people reading the Bible in the vernacular, and any such Bibles found were duly burned.
1215 The Fourth Lateran Council was held, and the first three canons were directed against heretics who dared “take it upon themselves to preach.” The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique recognizes that this measure was aimed mainly at the Waldenses, who were preaching with common-language Bibles.
1229 Canon 14 of the Council of Toulouse, France, states: “We forbid the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament, except the Psalter, and such portions of them as are contained in the Breviary, or the Hours of the Blessed Virgin; and we most strictly forbid even these works in the vulgar tongue.”
1246 Canon 36 of the Council of Béziers, France, stipulates: “You will see to it that all just and legal means are used to prevent the laity from possessing theological books, even in Latin, and the clergy from possessing them in the vulgar tongue.”
1559 “[Pope] PaulIV put a whole series of Latin Bibles among the Biblia prohibita (prohibited books); he added that no Bible in the vernacular may be printed nor kept without the permission of the Holy Office. This amounted to prohibiting the reading of the Bible in any common language.”—Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Volume 15, column 2738.
1564 The fourth rule of the Index (of prohibited books) published by Pope PiusIV stated: “Experience has shown that if reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue is permitted indiscriminately, due to the rashness of men, more harm than good arises therefrom.”
1590 Pope SixtusV stipulated that no one could read the Bible in a common language without “special permission from the Apostolic See.”
1664 Pope AlexanderVII put all vernacular Bibles on the Index of prohibited books.
1836 Pope GregoryXVI issued a warning to all Catholics that the fourth rule of the Index published in 1564 by PiusIV was still valid.
1897 In his Apostolic Constitution Officiorum Pope LeoXIII issued the following restrictions on the use of common-language Bibles: “All native-language versions, even those published by Catholics, are absolutely prohibited unless they have been approved by the Apostolic See or edited under the supervision of bishops, with explanatory notes taken from the Church Fathers and learned Catholic writers. ... All versions of the Holy Books made by any non-Catholic writer whatsoever and in any common language are prohibited, especially those published by Bible societies, which have been condemned by the Pontiff of Rome on several occasions.”
1955 Summing up the reasons for the Catholic Church’s opposition to Bible education, French Catholic author Daniel-Rops wrote, with due “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” from ecclesiastical authorities: “By giving back to the Book [the Bible] its supremacy and its renown, Luther and the other ‘reformers’ committed the inexpiable error of separating it from the Tradition that had safeguarded its text and had contributed so much to its understanding. Once it became the only source of faith and of spiritual life for man, the Bible afforded the means for doing without the Church ... The Catholic Church ... reacted through the protective measures taken by the Council of Trent [1545-1563], which, among other things, forbade the faithful from reading versions of the Holy Scriptures in common languages unless they had been approved by the Church and contained commentaries in line with Catholic Tradition. ... It became commonplace to hear people repeat that ‘a Catholic should not read the Bible.’”—Qu’est-ce que la Bible? (What Is the Bible?)

 

[Riddle_me_this]

Also,

Item: “Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia . . . [A.D.] 1229.”

This looks rather damaging, but Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.

The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.

catholic.com/tracts/catholic-inventions

Wow you are definitely uninformed:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says of the NWT reference edition: “[Jehovah’s Witnesses’] translation of the Bible [has] an impressive critical apparatus. The work is excellent except when scientific knowledge comes into conflict with the accepted doctrines of the movement.” It criticizes the NWT’s rendering of Kyrios as “Jehovah” in 237 instances in the New Testament

 

[Maryann_C]

hahaha that’s rich. The bible has been around a heck of a lot longer than Catholics so how do you come to that conclusion.

My Dear Riddle, This statement shows how little you know of Church history and the early fathers. I suggest you take this to a new thread and ask people to show you how the Catholic Church was around before the Bible was compiled as an official collection ( Bible) of books and letters. If you are not willing to learn here then please go to any Family Christian Book store and ask for the book called The Four Witnesses they carry it. I know because I have stocked it.

 

[Maryann_C]

@ Riddle- let me ask you this;
Do you trust ANY and EVERY translation of the Bible that exists on the shelves of any Christian book store today? As in do you trust that those translations are true to the original and trustworthy to convey the true WORD of God, intent and meaning of scripture?? For example…The Message, The Story, NLT, ESV, JKV ( not 1611), NKJ, NIV, NIVr, The Book, The Amplified version, NAB, NASB, RSV, NRSV , The Gideon Bible , or perhaps the Mormon Bible…and on…

 

[Riddle_me_this]

My Dear Riddle, This statement shows how little you know of Church history and the early fathers. I suggest you take this to a new thread and ask people to show you how the Catholic Church was around before the Bible was compiled as an official collection ( Bible) of books and letters. If you are not willing to learn here then please go to any Family Christian Book store and ask for the book called The Four Witnesses they carry it. I know because I have stocked it.

Oh I see. So when you refer to the bible you refer to the actual book containing leaves and pages. You aren’t referring to the actual information contained on the original scrolls. Sorry my mistake. So when Jesus read from the Scolls you wouldn’t say that was the Old Testament of the “Bible” it just had the exact same wording that’s all.

 

[Riddle_me_this]

I agree with you; I meant my comments to apply only to posting at CAF. If there is serious abuse, it’s up to the mods. If these isn’t, there is no reason a poster has to be nasty, no matter what the provocation. They may be nasty, but not because they didn’t have a choice.

Alan

Well I think that people get a little heated because of their beliefs but considering that the number 2 commentment of the 2 most important commendments was to love your neighbour as yourself (yes I am Canadian), then we should all try and disuss our points without getting personal or nasty.
I love to talk and learn about the bible. I get a little annoyed when things are said that are inaccurate but I am not going to get nasty because of it.

 

[Boywonder23k]

Riddle can you please reduce your frequency posting? We get it. You think Carholics suppressed the bible. Now take a deep breath and relax for a while.

Mary Anne I am very open to discussion and just recently was very near converting to Catholicism. After much study I just couldn’t do so with a clear conscience. I look forward to seeing many Carholic saints in heaven I just simply do not agree with so many catholic doctrines (most importantly catholic authority).

Forgive me but I just don’t see any great attraction to catholic claims of infallibility. Think on how many times Catholics have taught heresy. And we are told “no that’s ok because the church hadn’t yet defined as dogma that certain thing so they were allowed to think that way”. Imagine you had a guide who was leading you through a trail and you came to a fork in the road. If your guide said “many people have come and gone both ways and reached their destination… But now that I’ve told you it’s THIS way if you had gone THAT way you surely would be lost.”

Mary could you please explain to me why you think catholics are so united? Alan just said all you have to do is confess that you are a Christian and then you go to heaven! How many Catholics would agree with that? There are only 7 verses interpreted by the catholic church “infallibly”. How have you been relieved of “making your own interpretation”. The Church as a whole is moving towards open theism. I’ve heard many Catholic priests and theologians say things like "atheists can go to heaven, Muslims can too, etc etc. if this becomes dogma will you stay in the Church? Will you just follow any where it leads you? I would LOVE to have an infallible guide Mary but I just don’t see it.

 

[Riddle_me_this]

@ Riddle- let me ask you this;
Do you trust ANY and EVERY translation of the Bible that exists on the shelves of any Christian book store today? As in do you trust that those translations are true to the original and trustworthy to convey the true WORD of God, intent and meaning of scripture?? For example…The Message, The Story, NLT, ESV, JKV ( not 1611), NKJ, NIV, NIVr, The Book, The Amplified version, NAB, NASB, RSV, NRSV , The Gideon Bible , or perhaps the Mormon Bible…and on…

Well when I read the bible in its entirety and I have numerous times (I am not boasting but just giving my experience) I come to an understanding of its theme and the important parts.
By delving into individual words you can easily get into misinterpretation.

“Stale bread is better than nothing
Nothing is better than steak
Steak is therefore better than stale bread”

Follow what I am saying?

If you go to the Vatican and go into the back room and open up the big huge bible that they have there you will find it very different from the one that you use now. Well somewhat different but nonetheless different. We have the dead sea scrolls now and can compare a lot of the new translation directly to those scrolls to see which ones are accurate and which ones are not.

 

[Maryann_C]

Oh I see. So when you refer to the bible you refer to the actual book containing leaves and pages. You aren’t referring to the actual information contained on the original scrolls. Sorry my mistake. So when Jesus read from the Scolls you wouldn’t say that was the Old Testament of the “Bible” it just had the exact same wording that’s all.

Sorry you wouldn’t get far with this line with most learned Protestant Bible scholars either.

Now if you wish to use the words ‘sacred scripture’ or ‘the Word of God’ then that is entirely different, but the Bible as every Christian will commonly understand what you mean when you say “The Bible” was not in existence as ‘The Bible’ until the Church was already established by Jesus and had been around for several 100 years.

 

[Maryann_C]

Well when I read the bible in its entirety and I have numerous times (I am not boasting but just giving my experience) I come to an understanding of its theme and the important parts.
By delving into individual words you can easily get into misinterpretation.

“Stale bread is better than nothing
Nothing is better than steak
Steak is therefore better than stale bread”

Follow what I am saying?

If you go to the Vatican and go into the back room and open up the big huge bible that they have there you will find it very different from the one that you use now. Well somewhat different but nonetheless different. We have the dead sea scrolls now and can compare a lot of the new translation directly to those scrolls to see which ones are accurate and which ones are not.

You didn’t answer my question. YES or NO do you trust as reliable EVERY translation on the shelves of any Christian Book store in any town in America?

 

[Riddle_me_this]

So if an author writes a book it doesn’t actually come into existence until some publishes it?

 

[Riddle_me_this]

I’m just:

hahaha love it! love it!