Do Catholics Hate the Bible?

[RNRobert]

In the thread Sola Scriptura: It’s Found in the Bible and an Idiot Can Practice It
I came across this statement:
%between%
"sandusky:

IMO, the true aim of those who oppose SS, if it is not the dismantling of the Bible, is certainly the diminishing of its authority, and its importance.

It’s not the first time I’ve encountered such an attitude among non-Catholics. Today I came across this gem:

Do you, a Roman Catholic, even need to possess a Bible? Couldn’t you function perfectly well as a RC without one since RC’ism is not actually Biblically based but traditionally based?

Three years ago when I joined this forum, I posted a thread outlining my reasons for abandoning Sola Scriptura and embracing Catholicism. While most of the Protestants participating were civil, there was one who accused me of “trampling on holy ground.”

Many Protestants (like the ones mentioned above) seem to be under the impression that Catholics hate the Bible, or at least relegate it to the background. As a fundamentalist I used to read how the bad old Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin so laypeople couldn’t read it, kept it chained to keep people from discovering it, and even (horror!) burned Bibles! I also read how Martin Luther “discovered” the Bible and made it available to all.

This is, to put it poliitely, a crock.

It was the Catholic church that wrote the New Testament,
determined the canon, and preserved the Bible for over a millenia before Luther’s revolt. Protestants wouldn’t even have a Bible if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church, something even Luther admits. Isn’t it ironic that Protestants hijack our Scriptures (throwing out some books in the process) and then use it to beat us over the head with?
The Catholic Mass is steeped in the Scriptures. At the beginning of Mass the lectionary (the book containing the Scripture readings for the year) is carried through the church in a procession with the priest and altar servers. During the Mass, there is a reading from the Old Testament, followed by a recitation of a Psalm, followed by a New Testament epistle and then the Gospel. The prayers said at the beginning of Mass, during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and at the end are all Scripture based. I hear more Scripture in a Catholic Mass than I heard in a Protestant service.
Many Popes have encouraged laypeople to read Scripture on their own. The Enchiridion of Indulgences provides an indulgence for at least a half-hour of Scripture reading each day.
I think the problem with Protestants (particularly fundamentalists) is that they have an either-or mentality (i.e., Scripture* or *Tradition, Jesus *or *Mary, faith *or *works, etc), while Catholics think in terms of both-and. They seem to think that because we value tradition, that somehow we disrespect the Scriptures, which is untrue. The Church considers itself the servant of Scripture (Dei Verbum 10, Vatican II), and Sacred Tradition is necessary to properly interpret Scripture (everybody reads their own traditions into Scripture, despite what they claim). For non-Catholics to claim that we disrespect Scripture or downplay it is downright false.

 

[clmowry]

Yeah the Catholic Church downright hates the bible.

That’s why it’s proclaimed esentially cover to cover verse by verse to billions of catholics in masses around the world every day of every year.

It’s all part of a master plot to fool people into thinking we really like the Word of God when we really despise it.

By keeping the bible in front of Catholics every day we can make sure that they never discover how it contradicts all of the Church’s teach.

Thank God we Catholics are all too stupid to figure out the scam or we’d all loose our faith and the Church couldn’t contiune to brian wash billions of people century after century in to niavely following its teachings.

Tounge planted firmly in cheek,

Chuck

 

[6glargento]

IMO, the true aim of those who oppose SS, if it is not the dismantling of the Bible, is certainly the diminishing of its authority, and its importance.

the ironic part of this of course is that the bible never claims sola scriptura

 

[mdstanzel]

Amen brothers. This is sounden like preachers files. We Catholics don’t need no stinking bible…it’s hersesy. Someone must a stole it from the man that dresses up for attention ans self proclaims himself to be a Pope.

I grew up in a mixed religious family. Baptized Catholic, accepted Catholic when I move with my Catholic Dad and grandparents. Went to seminary and saw a bunch of things that deeply distrubed me. I joined the army and isolated from real Catholicism I met a non-denomination young lady that swept me off of my feet being the daughter of a Bishop/Elder in the church of Christ. I defected through getting wet in baptism for a play like baptism and practiced that faith for 17 years. EWTN stepped in slapped me in the face. New catholic radio station started and did the same. Suddenly, I’m asking what the H. E. Double toothpicks have I done. My DW also struggling with the mean spirit of the protestant world that hate anything catholic motivated her to look for something peaceful. I’m back, she’s in RCIA with oldest boy in RCIC and our 2 youngest babtized and our marriage convalidated as of 2 weekends ago. We’re glowing.

The only positive thing I got out of the experience is 17 years of knowing how they screw up scripture interepretation, create their own non-sacred Tradition and teaching [majesterium]. Oh, I got a wonderful wife that loves God and understands the Catholic faith than most cradle and convert Catholics. That should inspire all Catholics to read their bible and stop acting dumb about it. There are some who worry about bible only so much that they avoid it thinking that their faith might waiver. That’s just not true. I’ve studied & read the New Testament at least 20 times - many times in detail. I’ve read and studied the Old Testament at least 3 times completely through. And in both I’ve focused on many books independent much more than that. The bible supports Catholicism more than any Christian faith that I’ve ever participated in (Baptist, non-denominational, methodist & church of Christ).

Don’t be afraid to read your bible. It is the word of God, don’t throw out the sacred Tradition that Paul speaks about.

 

[water]

Thanks for bringing this misconception about Catholic. Some non-Catholics need to be educated about the Catholic belief should they want to raise a voice accusing their Christian Brothers.

Perhaps, they should attend daily Mass at a Catholic to see if we ever read or love Bible.

It is sad to see such a comment.
I was wondering where some people get these weird misconception from?

 

[guanophore]

Yeah the Catholic Church downright hates the bible. Tounge planted firmly in cheek,
Chuck

I was reading this thread. I am not sure why it was closed. I gather that someone said something offensive.

Darrel,

You’re missing the point to Sola Scriptura. No, I don’t mean by this definition in the sense that there are different versions of the truth. But to judge truth using something that will never break. The scriptures themselves are sufficient enough to defend and guide the church. If that weren’t so, could you possibly explain what did Jesus really meant by saying the “scriptures cannot be broken” or “It is written”? Parker

I agree with what Parker has said here to the extent that Jesus did quote the scriptures and considered them the infallible record of divine revelation. I don’t think Parker knows that they did not go around with a Bible under their arm, in those days. The vast majority was passed down orally. I also gather that this is a common protestant view, since it seems that most protestants don’t realize that they have criteria or “tradition” to interpret the text. I took a course in hermeneutics at a protestant seminary, and looking back, it is very clear that the principles of interpretation are not recognized as such.

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}

Darrel,

You’re missing the point to Sola Scriptura. No, I don’t mean by this definition in the sense that there are different versions of the truth. But to judge truth using something that will never break. The scriptures themselves are sufficient enough to defend and guide the church. If that weren’t so, could you possibly explain what did Jesus really meant by saying the “scriptures cannot be broken” or “It is written”?

{snip}…

The protestant(s) position is that “scriptures themselves are sufficient enough to defend and guide the church”.

The Catholic position is that “the Church is sufficient to defend and guide the FAITH”.

The protestant(s) goal is to defend their (not THE) church (for “church” read: socio-political mutual prosperity unit) from “outsiders” (read: “authorities not of our liking”) with scripture.

The Catholic goal is to defend the FAITH (Jesus’ Church [singular]) from chaos and evil with scripture AND the accumulated wisdom of those who have composed the Church since it’s inception.

Protestants defend their “fiefdoms” (essentially mercantile units).

Catholics defend their “Church” (people of God).

Show me where I’m wrong?

 

[joshua_b]

Do you, a Roman Catholic, even need to possess a Bible? Couldn’t you function perfectly well as a RC without one since RC’ism is not actually Biblically based but traditionally based?

I just couldn’t pass this one up. The answer to this question, as any well Catechized Catholic would know, is “no”. We do not need to possess a Bible as a Roman Catholic (or as any Eastern Rite Catholic either), because in the attendance of Mass (which I might add is obligatory, and binding to all Catholics), the Bible is read to us, jsut as it has been for hundreds and hundreds of years before anyone ever got the silly notion of Sola Scriptura. The Catholic Church loves the Bible so much that it ensures that ANYONE can know the Scripture, even if they don’t own a Bible.

 

[teachccd]

Do Catholics hate the Bible?? Well let’s see. Do the Wright Brothers hate airplanes? You know, 99% of those who oppose Catholics oppose only what they think that we do. Anyone who comes to a Catholic Mass not only hears Scripture proclaimed but sees Scripture lived and actualized.

Do Catholics hate the Bible? St. Jerome said that to be ignorant of scripture is to be ignorant of Christ. Our Church was founded by Jesus Christ not Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddie, Charles Taze Russell, Pastor Billy Bob, etc. etc. etc… SO, since our Church was founded by Jesus who chose the apostles, who wrote Scripture, who laid hands on their successors who discerned the canon of Scripture, I’d have to say a resounding: CATHOLICS LOVE THE BIBLE!!! It’s our books!!

 

[Verita]

Originally Posted by apophasis
Do you, a Roman Catholic, even need to possess a Bible? Couldn’t you function perfectly well as a RC without one since RC’ism is not actually Biblically based but traditionally based?

No, no one needs the Bible. Salvation certainly doesn’t stem from having or reading a Bible. If it did, then all of those poor souls throughout the last 2000 years who could neither read nor afford to own a Bible would be damned.

Christianity isn’t Biblically based. It’s Christ based and Christ never wrote a word of Scripture. Christianity was never meant to be Biblically based.

If it was then all the Apostles would have done is sat in their houses writing down everything they knew about Christ and everything Christ had said and done (which would take a while since as John said not all the libraries of the world could contain them) and then they would have just distributed their writings throughout the known world. But they didn’t.

Originally Posted by sandusky
IMO, the true aim of those who oppose SS, if it is not the dismantling of the Bible, is certainly the diminishing of its authority, and its importance.

That’s a silly thing to say. The Church came first and the authority of the Church, supported by the Bible, was established (by Christ, in fact) long before anyone decided the Bible was the alpha and omega of Christianity. Sola Scripturists came after and their aim was, if not to dismantle the structure of the Church entirely, then certainly to diminish its authority and its importance. Those who oppose SS are merely defending the institution that Christ established against destructive, man made trends.

The truth is that instead of Catholics weakening the Bible, protestants are making it more authoritative than it was ever meant to be. Some of them elevate it until in practical use it is just as important as God himself. They worship the Bible by calling it the Word of God. Jesus is the Word, not a book, no matter how true it is.

 

[elvisman]

I was reading this thread. I am not sure why it was closed. I gather that someone said something offensive.

Darrel,

You’re missing the point to Sola Scriptura. No, I don’t mean by this definition in the sense that there are different versions of the truth. But to judge truth using something that will never break. The scriptures themselves are sufficient enough to defend and guide the church. If that weren’t so, could you possibly explain what did Jesus really meant by saying the “scriptures cannot be broken” or “It is written”? Parker

If they’re speaking of 2 Timothy 3:16, it says:
“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

---

It doesn’t say scripture is ALL you need or that it is ONLY way to teach, refute correct or to train. In fact, it says EXACTLY the opposite (2 Thess. 2:15)
It says that it is useful – helpful, if you will. Nowhere in ALL of scripture does it ever support the fallacy of sola Scriptura.

**I agree with everyone else. Catholics HATE ****the Bible. **
That’s way we wrote it, compiled it and approved which books were to be included – ALL under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
That’s why so many if us were martyred for the truths it contains.
I get so sick of these asinine claims from anti-Catholics.

 

[Tomster]

After reading many of the inconsistencies posted by our separated brothers and sisters on these message boards over the last few days I’d like to add my two cents worth for what its worth.

Protestantism, no matter how vague and indefinite may be its various creeds, is based on three principles. The first consists in the “Sources of faith,” according to which the Scriptures and nothing but the Scriptures must be accepted; the second lies in the “means of justification,” by which man is justified by faith alone; the third is the “Constitution of the Church,” according to which all believers constitute a universal priesthood, all having the right and duty not only to read and interpret the Bible, but also to take part in the government and public affairs of the Church.

I am only concerned with the first principle, that is, the “Sources of faith.”

As expressed in the Symbolic Books of all Protestant denominations, the principle of the “Sources of faith” is proclaimed in the following words: “We believe, we confess, and we teach that the only rule and guide, according to which all dogmas and all doctors must be considered ans judged, are nothing else but the prophetical and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testament.” This same principle was set forth by Chillingworth in this formula: “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” This means the supremacy of the Bible and its exclusive fountain-head of knowledge and information concerning the Christian Religion by means of private interpretation. We Catholics have seen how this principle is fatal to Faith and destructive of Christian unity.

It is, moreover, illogical and contradictory. It is illogical. Faith consists in the submission of the intellect to a higher authority for what man must believe, whether he understands it or not. It implies dependence and reliance on something higher than man’s intellect. It is evident that in this case reason is guided by Faith. On the contrary, when private interpretation constitutes reason as the sole judge, then the last word rests only with the intellect, that is, the reader or hearer. If only with the intellect, then there is no submission of the intellect to Faith: hence there is no faith, because there is no teacher to direct the intellect. If no faith or no teacher, why and what is the intellect - the reader or hearer - trying to learn? How can it be guided? By excluding authority the intellect excludes faith in God, or in His Church, and proclaims itself a little god. Reason is deified. St. Augustine is to the point; “he who believes whatever he likes, believes himself and not the Gospel.”

continued

 

[MrS]

Scott Hahn has an interesting observation about the “use” of the Written Word by protestants and by Catholics.

He compared it to a postman(woman). who has his route laid out for him, and who can, at any time, quote you the verses (names and addresses) on his route… probably in any order you choose.

Yet the very people who live on that route, and whose names the postman can quote… those people won’t know the address…

But here is the big difference.

Those people… know the people/families who live in those homes by them, not their address.

The postman, with all his memorizing, does not know the families in those houses.

Catholics often know the Bible much more than they give themselves credit for… the concept of the Truth is engrained… not the chapter and verse.

Protestants are missing out … they may love the Scriptures, but they don’t have access to what real power is in those words.

.

 

[Tomster]

Nor can it be said that, in matters of private interpretation, reason constitutes as its teacher or higher authority the Bible itself. The Protestant reader or hearer, according to his own statement, constitutes his private intellect as the sole Judge. Who tells him that he must learn Religion from the Bible and only from the Bible to conform his life accordingly? If he persists in affirming that that is the Creed of his Church, he must confess that there is some authority, higher than his intellect, namely, the Creed of his Church. But, how can he logically admit the authority of the Creed of his Church over his own intellect, when by his own confession he asserts that his intellect is the only Judge? In such a case he is the Judge of his Church and Creed. Hence St. Augustine again: “I would not believe the Gospel were I not moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

But it is not only illogical, it is also contradictory. When our non-Catholic brethren speak of faith in the Scriptures, they must certainly mean a profession of divine faith. They declare that only the books of the Old and New Testaments are the sole Rule and guide, by which all dogmas and all doctors must be weighed and judged.

continued

 

[Tomster]

This statement contains three points. The first point declares that, not only are all those books sacred and divine, but also that they are the only books, truly sacred and divine, which constitute the only “Rule of Faith.” The second point proclaims that “there is no other word of God but those divine and sacred books which must be believed, nor any other doctrine of faith, which is not contained in, and which cannot be proved by, those divine and sacred books.” The third point asserts that everyone of the faithful is a sufficient interpreter of the true sense of the Sacred Scriptures and that all dogmas and all doctors must be considered and judged according to those divine and sacred books, which forn the only “Rule of Faith.” Hence, they deny that the Church is the authentic interpreter of the true sense of Scriptures; on the contrary, they claim that such right of interpretation belongs to every man and woman. This is what they call the right of private judgment.

Unfortunately, however, for our separated brethren, none of these three points - which according to them, are the fundamental doctrine of their belief - is contained in the Scriptures. If they “search the Scriptures” from cover to cover, they will not find any one of them. The consequence is, therefore, that while they believe, declare, and proclaim, that nothing is to be believed, which is not written in the Scriptures, at the same time they believe, declare, and proclaim before everyone, as a fundamental principle of their religion, what was never written in the Scriptures. This is something affirmative and negative of the same principle.

It is a contradiction !

 

[chivita]

No, I don’t think catholics hate the bible. I think some of us don’t want to read it, or think is not inmportant. I practice the faith since I was born. I go to church every Sunday. I started reading the bible a year ago, every day. Reading it it had help me with my grieving, I after I lost my dad. What I don’t understand why at church ,the priest don’t talk about the old testament. Always just on the new testament.

 

[rtconstant]

I think that we as Catholics sometimes end up in a bad position when we debate modern doctrines like SS. It can sometimes make it appear that we are fighting the Bible as opposed to a particular doctrine or apologist.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

These kind of caricatures…

RC’ism is not actually Biblically based but traditionally based?

…tell us more about the ignorance of the antagonist then they do about what Catholicism is actually based upon.

The Catholic Church affirms:

all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, 21]

See more here: Bible kept from ordinary Catholics?

 

[RNRobert]

These kind of caricatures…
…tell us more about the ignorance of the antagonist then they do about what Catholicism is actually based upon.

The Catholic Church affirms:

See more here: Bible kept from ordinary Catholics?

Hi Dave,

I tried your link, but the page was about HTTP.

There was another forum member named hoosierdaddy (now banned) who wrote in a post (I tried to locate it but was unable to) that his “Protestant forefathers died so he could read the Bible.” What rubbish!

 

[water]

Robert,

Here is the correct link:
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/05/bible-kept-from-ordinary-catholics.html

the other one has extra “http”