Do Some Priests Prohibit Bible Reading?

[jilly4ski]

It is unfortunate, but I have noticed that in my “catholic” college, the kids who attended Catholic High schools seemed to perpetuate the worst myths of Catholic teaching and even bible knowledge. In my mandatory theology class (which was actually taught by a presbyterian minister) the students who had “12 years of Catholic schooling” were the ones most ignorant of scripture and often perpetuated this oft repeated myths about the Church. (especially historical myths).

JRKH, interesting theory, my Grandparents and Father grew up in a town where the German Church was Saint Paul’s and the Irish Church was “Our Lady of the Angles.”
And my Grandparents being of strong German heritage only attended St. Paul’s. But I would have to ask to see if there was any “discouraging” going on.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

In his post above, (name removed by moderator) mentions ethnic backgrounds (Irish and Polish) and I think that this may be a very important factor since we obviously have folks who have heard this and those who have not…

In my case, my background is German Catholic and even though my mother was at least second or third generation American, at the time she was in School, the parishes were still quite “ethnic”…In fact, although they actually lived closer to “Sacred Heart” Parish, they went to “Sts Peter and Paul” because that was the “German” parish whereas Sacred Heart was "Irish…
This is not unlike today when we have Hispanic parishes, Vietnamese parishes etc…

Anyway - Just thinking here a bit…
I wonder if the concerns expressed by the priests and nuns in this “German Catholic” parish might not have their roots in the fact that Luther was German and the “Reformation” was very strong in Germany. Is it possible that where the reformation did not take root (Ireland for instance) independent Bible reading was not as much of a concern as it was in countries where the Reformation had taken hold??
This might account for my mom (Germanic) being discouraged, and (name removed by moderator)'s family heard no such thing…

Peace
James

Actually, no James. Maybe it was a midwestern thing? My grandparents came over from Germany in 1910 with their Bibles and one of our favorite religious brothers (also from Germany and of an age with them) also carried on the tradition of family Bible reading. We never imagined a Catholic house where the Bible wasn’t prominently displayed AND read. My mother was taught in schools in NYC and NJ in the 1930s and the students there not only studied the Bible, they were GIVEN Bibles as rewards for scholarship.

 

[JRKH]

Actually, no James. Maybe it was a midwestern thing? My grandparents came over from Germany in 1910 with their Bibles and one of our favorite religious brothers (also from Germany and of an age with them) also carried on the tradition of family Bible reading. We never imagined a Catholic house where the Bible wasn’t prominently displayed AND read. My mother was taught in schools in NYC and NJ in the 1930s and the students there not only studied the Bible, they were GIVEN Bibles as rewards for scholarship.

Interesting…Of course I did not intend my musings to indicate anything culturally universal…It’s possible that some areas in the Germanic states were more effected than others. This could have become somewhat mixed up as people immigrated to the U.S.
Don’t know - just musing…

As for it being a “mid-western” thing…that actually would not dismiss my idea as much of the mid-west was populated by immigrants from “northern European” countries that were heavily Protestant - Germany, Norway and Sweden.

Then of course I could be completely off my nut…

Peace
James

 

[COPLAND_3]

I heard an older woman in a Catholic small group i was leading say that when she was growing up Catholics were encouraged not to read the Bible. I dont understand, considering that i have printed Bibles that were published during about every decade of the 1900’s, and they all have letters from the Pope to Catholics, with greatest encouragement to read Scripture everyday. I honestly think that the whole idea was created by uncommited Catholics, and other Catholics who were not interested in learning their faith used that as an excuse not to learn Scripture or to take time to teach their children the Bible.

 

[MotoCatholic]

“Quoting the Catechism in its new form does in no way negate the reality that in past centuries the Church did discourage the personal reading and interpretation of scripture. That is what makes Vatican 2 so wondrous and amazing; it was a major leap in faith to truly encourage personal faith, and unity with other Christians in their faith of Christ, in the knowledge that if the Church provided the truth of scripture, it would not lead its congregants away from the Catholic Church, but would, through the power of the Holy Spirit, attract them and lead them to live holy, humble lives that truly glorify God for His amazing grace to all of us.”

Lutgardis - It’s probably me, as I’ve had a long day, but I’m not sure what you’re getting at here? I think I’m agreeing with you, but it sounds like you’re disagreeing with me? I have no doubt that the Church did discourage personal reading of scripture - a terribly unfortunate thing. I think the encouragement of personal faith is seriously undermined by Catholics (or anyone) who don’t know the Biblical foundation of the faith. They don’t see the truth, they can’t see the big picture. It’s impossible to “live” what you don’t know. As a result, Catholicism becomes very non-personal. It sure did for me.

And I must be slower than I thought…but how do you pull quoted text from someone else’s message into your message, in that nice text box?? Thanks

 

[Bookcat]

The church in earlier centuries did discourage reading the bible (that’s why Martin Luther had to hide and translate the scriptures into common language).

The Church encouraged reading of Sacred Scripture…depending of course on those who could read etc etc ever since the time of her founding by Christ . Two thousand years can meet a lot different situations. The Second Vatican Council yes bring out rather forcefully…but reading has made may saints.

Have there been corrupted translations and difficult times? Sure.

And there was all sorts of translations in the common language too as the various languages began to be able to have the Scriptures translated into them…

 

[Mintaka]

They made us buy a Bible for CCD class in 7th grade or so? I think I was probably the only one in class who read mine, but we all had Bibles.

I started with the Song of Songs, because they’d just mentioned that on a MASH episode. Heh, that’ll get you interested.

 

[Lutgardis]

. . .Lutgardis - It’s probably me, as I’ve had a long day, but I’m not sure what you’re getting at here? I think I’m agreeing with you, but it sounds like you’re disagreeing with me? I have no doubt that the Church did discourage personal reading of scripture - a terribly unfortunate thing. I think the encouragement of personal faith is seriously undermined by Catholics (or anyone) who don’t know the Biblical foundation of the faith. They don’t see the truth, they can’t see the big picture. It’s impossible to “live” what you don’t know. As a result, Catholicism becomes very non-personal. It sure did for me.

And I must be slower than I thought…but how do you pull quoted text from someone else’s message into your message, in that nice text box?? Thanks

I think we see do see it the same way. And I’ve had the same experience as you in the sense that it seemed that suddenly, at a certain point in my life, God’s Word opened up to me. Even in the OT–things that can often seem irrelevant or inapplicable–affected me so much. If Israel was unfaithful, and God pleaded with them to change, I saw my unfaithfulness, and knew He was pleading with me to change. I would be crying and reading and talking to God . . . Everything I read came to life. It suddenly became so clear that this was God Himself, opening up and exposing His heart, broken for me. It changed my life in a radical way.

I was merely homing in on the point I think is so important of being willing as Catholic Christians to look introspectively at the Church’s history. I was trying to say that John Paul 2 was godly and humble enough to do it, and we should follow his example, as a Church and also in our personal lives. I wasn’t referring to your words in particular; I was focusing on what I sensed in a general way (throughout the whole thread) in some of the comments others were making regarding whose fault it is that Catholics, in general, haven’t read the bible much. It sounded to me as if some felt that parents just invented the idea, when in fact, that wasn’t the case throughout our history. Sorry if I sounded like I was scrapping!

Insofar as the little box, just go to the particular post you want to comment on and hit “Quote” in the right bottom corner. It will take you right to where you will begin to post. The little box won’t be apparent until you hit, “Submit Reply.” Is that what you’re referring to??? Maybe you are referring to something else and I’m not understanding what you mean . . .

 

[Lutgardis]

They made us buy a Bible for CCD class in 7th grade or so? I think I was probably the only one in class who read mine, but we all had Bibles.

I started with the Song of Songs, because they’d just mentioned that on a MASH episode. Heh, that’ll get you interested.

Yes, indeed; perhaps that could be a new and effective strategy for the Church in encouraging the reading of scripture. Of course, those in earlier centuries were also warned that one must be mature, godly, and pure of heart before he began to read that one . . .

 

[Church_Militant]

Sorry Everyone, but I don’t think it is fair to blame parents. Catholic parents got this idea from what the Church emphasized throughout history.

Really? Perhaps you haven’t read Where we got the Bible by Rev. HENRY G. GRAHAM, which blows your statement completely out of the water with historical facts. Check it out!

I HAVE said that people who could read at all in the Middle Ages could read Latin: hence there was little need for the Church to issue the Scriptures in any other language. But as a matter of fact she did in many countries put the Scriptures in the hands of her children in their own tongue. (I) We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing, but we shall confine ourselves to England, so as to refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382.

(3) There is no need, it seems to me, to waste further time and space in accumulating proofs that the Bible was known, read and distributed by the Catholic Church in the common language of the people in all countries from the 7th down to the 14th century. I have paid more attention to the case of England because of the popularity of the myth about Wycliff having been the first to translate it, and to enable the poor blinded Papists, for the first time in their experience, to behold the Figure of the Christ of the Gospels in 1382. Such a grotesque notion can only be due either to ignorance or concealment of the now well-known facts of history. One would fain hope that, in this age of enlightenment and study, no one valuing his scholarship will so far imperil it as to attempt to revive the silly fable. But supposing it were as true as it is false, that John Wycliff was the first to publish the Bible in English, how in the name of reason can it be true at the same time that Luther, more than 100 years afterwards, discovered it? Really, people must decide which story they are going to tell, for the one is the direct contradictory of the other. Wycliff or Luther, let it be; but Wycliff and Luther together—that is impossible.

I love the Church, embrace especially the whole philosophy of Vatican 2. But lets not gloss over the Church’s past flaws and just blame others (in this case parents). We need to grow up and take responsibility for our mistakes of the past.

This is dead wrong. Just as the catechism states that we do not hold modern n-Cs accountable for the errors of the reformers, we do not bear responsibility or accountability for anything that the Church has done on the past.

Why do all of you think Pope John Paul II apologized for how we dropped the ball on on the Jewish people in WW2 when they were being slaughtered by the Nazis?

I’m well familiar with the history of the Church in WWII and the Jews, and I know of no such place where John Paul the Great made any such apology and I challenge you to supply a source for your statement. I do however, have entire article on my blog that sets forth what the facts are from the war. (See Someone Has Lied to You About Our Pope Pius XII) The Church by no means “dropped the ball” and in fact, did more to help Jews escape the Nazis than anyone else did, especially, (and shamefully) the allied nations, who knew about it and did exactly nothing.

Come on, guys. Get real. The way to true holiness is to acknowledge our flaws like true virtuous men and women and move on. The church in earlier centuries did discourage reading the bible (that’s why Martin Luther had to hide and translate the scriptures into common language).

Nice rhetoric, but contrary to the facts of history as shown by the linked book above. The fact is that there were nearly 150 translations to various vernacular languages of the Bible or parts thereof before Luther was ever even born. ALL of them authorized and supplied by the Catholic Church.

Quit blaming “parents” as if members of the Catholic Church pulled this idea out of their own heads. Get real!

I suggest that you take your own advice and “get real” and get yourself educated as to history, the Church, and the Word of God, because your comments here show some serious ignorance.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes, indeed; perhaps that could be a new and effective strategy for the Church in encouraging the reading of scripture. Of course, those in earlier centuries were also warned that one must be mature, godly, and pure of heart before he began to read that one . . .

Most parishes give Bibles to their RCIA and confirmation classes. At least here in the Bible Belt where I live.

Moreover, the Church already has a very effective way to encourage her faithful to read the Bible. If the Church didn’t want us reading it then why does the following indulgence attach to it as I plainly showed earlier in this very thread. (See here)

 

[Church_Militant]

I started with the Song of Songs, because they’d just mentioned that on a MASH episode. Heh, that’ll get you interested.

Yeah, I had a buddy who was floored when I showed him where that was in the Bible. I pointed out that it shows God’s understanding of how human we are and how our love and desire for the one we love mirrors His love and desire for us as well.

He too began to read the Bible for himself.

 

[Lutgardis]

You are using the “not holding Protestants responsible for not being in the Catholic Church” in a difference sense than I am using it.

The Catholic Church recognizes that Protestants born into another Christian Church have been educated and brought up in their own faith communities, and that those communities are truly Christian. The Church is not calling Protestants into account for that. They understand the history of those communities, and how these Protestant believers ended up where they are in history today–in other Christian communities. In the same way, I am pointing out the historical facts that have led many Catholic Christians to do (or in this case to not do) certain things. You have an apples and oranges problem, here, in the way you reason.

In addition:

“Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular (in the common language of the people) there will by reasons of the boldness of men arise there from more harm than good…” (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 274).

“As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused…” (Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, pp. 412-413).

“It is evident, from experience, that the Holy Scriptures when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have produced more harm than benefit…We have deliberated upon the measures proper to be adopted, by our pontifical authority, in order to remedy and abolish the pestilence.” Pope Pius the 7th Encyclical letter of 1816

My note: You may realize this, but in case you are unaware, the vulgar tongue is any language but Latin!

Though very early on, bible reading was encouraged in the Church, yet, even the Church itself admits, “New dangers came in during the Middle Ages…To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Terragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.” (Catholic Dictionary, p. 82).

(Edited)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

“Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular (in the common language of the people) there will by reasons of the boldness of men arise there from more harm than good…” (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 274).

“As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused…” (Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, pp. 412-413).

“It is evident, from experience, that the Holy Scriptures when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have produced more harm than benefit…We have deliberated upon the measures proper to be adopted, by our pontifical authority, in order to remedy and abolish the pestilence.” Pope Pius the 7th Encyclical letter of 1816

My note: You may realize this, but in case you are unaware, the vulgar tongue is any language but Latin!

Though very early on, bible reading was encouraged in the Church, yet, even the Church itself admits, “New dangers came in during the Middle Ages…To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Terragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.” (Catholic Dictionary, p. 82).
(Edited)

Are you aware that the Council of Toulouse did not forbid any and all vernacular translations of the Bible but rather the FALSE ALBIGENSIAN translation which was being promoted as the true Bible?

IOW, THE BIBLE was not forbidden reading. False and unapproved translations which attempted to present, for example, fornication and suicide as GOOD and marriage as evil, WERE forbidden.

Let me ask you, if the Mormons were attempting to present the Book of Mormon as not just ‘another gospel’ but as the Holy Bible ITSELF, would you not protest against people being told to read it as the Holy Bible?

If so, then you understand why the Church’s Council of Toulouse which also DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN WORLD, made the judgment it did for that particular time, that particular work, and those particular people.

If not, you’d be a good example as to why the decision was made, because if you don’t see why the Book of Mormon is NOT the Holy Bible and should be allowed to be presented as such and read as such, then you would certainly lead a lot of people into error. . .

Many years ago my siggy was the Alexander Pope line, "A little learning is a dangerous thing’. I think your post is a good example of such. "A little learning’ led you into making some false conclusions. A little further learning would have helped you to avoid them.

And please don’t take that as a personal attack. The good Lord knows that all of us have made that kind of mistake at some time. I certainly have made my share of mistakes so take me, if you will, as a grim warning who learned from her mistakes and would like to help others avoid them as well.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Lutgardis: you haven’t been here too long (and I hope you’ll stay even if I disagree with you on this particular topic) but please be aware that Church Militant’s research is far from slipshod and that such, uh, snarky comments toward someone who is extremely well respected on these forums doesn’t advance your cause but rather harms it.

I say ‘snarky’ because you added the further comments about happy pills and blood pressure. Again, this kind of witty repartee doesn’t come across so well (not even an emoticon, tsk) and again, is not germane to the conversation. It is always best to address a topic rather than to attack the person presenting it, I find.

 

[hawkeye125646]

Are you aware that the Council of Toulouse did not forbid any and all vernacular translations of the Bible but rather the FALSE ALBIGENSIAN translation which was being promoted as the true Bible?

IOW, THE BIBLE was not forbidden reading. False and unapproved translations which attempted to present, for example, fornication and suicide as GOOD and marriage as evil, WERE forbidden.

Let me ask you, if the Mormons were attempting to present the Book of Mormon as not just ‘another gospel’ but as the Holy Bible ITSELF, would you not protest against people being told to read it as the Holy Bible?

If so, then you understand why the Church’s Council of Toulouse which also DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN WORLD, made the judgment it did for that particular time, that particular work, and those particular people.

If not, you’d be a good example as to why the decision was made, because if you don’t see why the Book of Mormon is NOT the Holy Bible and should be allowed to be presented as such and read as such, then you would certainly lead a lot of people into error. . .

Many years ago my siggy was the Alexander Pope line, "A little learning is a dangerous thing’. I think your post is a good example of such. "A little learning’ led you into making some false conclusions. A little further learning would have helped you to avoid them.

And please don’t take that as a personal attack. The good Lord knows that all of us have made that kind of mistake at some time. I certainly have made my share of mistakes so take me, if you will, as a grim warning who learned from her mistakes and would like to help others avoid them as well.

This is beautifully well thought out, and articulate… I was discussing these very issues with 2 mormon elders… After 3 weeks, they had to go back to Utah… I am hoping they will come back, down the road!

 

[Lutgardis]

Lutgardis: you haven’t been here too long (and I hope you’ll stay even if I disagree with you on this particular topic) but please be aware that Church Militant’s research is far from slipshod and that such, uh, snarky comments toward someone who is extremely well respected on these forums doesn’t advance your cause but rather harms it.

I say ‘snarky’ because you added the further comments about happy pills and blood pressure. Again, this kind of witty repartee doesn’t come across so well (not even an emoticon, tsk) and again, is not germane to the conversation. It is always best to address a topic rather than to attack the person presenting it, I find.

And you read his answer to me and thought it was–well–what–polite and just fine? Great, then, we’ll just have to disagree.

 

[Lutgardis]

Are you aware that the Council of Toulouse did not forbid any and all vernacular translations of the Bible but rather the FALSE ALBIGENSIAN translation which was being promoted as the true Bible?

IOW, THE BIBLE was not forbidden reading. False and unapproved translations which attempted to present, for example, fornication and suicide as GOOD and marriage as evil, WERE forbidden.

Let me ask you, if the Mormons were attempting to present the Book of Mormon as not just ‘another gospel’ but as the Holy Bible ITSELF, would you not protest against people being told to read it as the Holy Bible?

If so, then you understand why the Church’s Council of Toulouse which also DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN WORLD, made the judgment it did for that particular time, that particular work, and those particular people.

If not, you’d be a good example as to why the decision was made, because if you don’t see why the Book of Mormon is NOT the Holy Bible and should be allowed to be presented as such and read as such, then you would certainly lead a lot of people into error. . .

Many years ago my siggy was the Alexander Pope line, "A little learning is a dangerous thing’. I think your post is a good example of such. "A little learning’ led you into making some false conclusions. A little further learning would have helped you to avoid them.

And please don’t take that as a personal attack. The good Lord knows that all of us have made that kind of mistake at some time. I certainly have made my share of mistakes so take me, if you will, as a grim warning who learned from her mistakes and would like to help others avoid them as well.

I am not familiar with that translation, but the argument seems to stand from the other sources, regardless.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Posts have been edited and/or deleted for being off topic.
Please stay on topic or this thread may be closed and citations issued.

 

[Church_Militant]

You are using the “not holding Protestants responsible for not being in the Catholic Church” in a difference sense than I am using it.

The Catholic Church recognizes that Protestants born into another Christian Church have been educated and brought up in their own faith communities, and that those communities are truly Christian. The Church is not calling Protestants into account for that. They understand the history of those communities, and how these Protestant believers ended up where they are in history today–in other Christian communities. In the same way, I am pointing out the historical facts that have led many Catholic Christians to do (or in this case to not do) certain things. You have an apples and oranges problem, here, in the way you reason.

I disagree with you about that. You appear to be trying to hold the Church to a different standard and that is fallacious reasoning.

In addition:

“Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular (in the common language of the people) there will by reasons of the boldness of men arise there from more harm than good…” (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 274).

Don’t know what source you’re using but it is apparently an anti-Catholic site since that’s the only place that I found that spurious quote you used. It’s nowhere in the actual The canons and decrees of the sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent.

“As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused…” (Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, pp. 412-413).

Again, you seem to have offered false information from the same anti-Catholic source linked above, because I just searched through every single encyclical of Pope Leo XIII and no such passage exists in any of them. In fact, there is one encyclical from him that I would encourage you to read at the link below. It’s quite long and deals very specifically with Catholics reading the Bible.*** PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS***
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

“It is evident, from experience, that the Holy Scriptures when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have produced more harm than benefit…We have deliberated upon the measures proper to be adopted, by our pontifical authority, in order to remedy and abolish the pestilence.” Pope Pius the 7th Encyclical letter of 1816

This is also odd, since there are only 2 encyclicals from Pope Pius VII, one in 1800 and one in 1814, but nothing in 1816 and nothing that shows your cited passage, but again, the above a-C site shows the same passage.

My note: You may realize this, but in case you are unaware, the vulgar tongue is any language but Latin!

If you say so. Odd then that the Latin translation of the Word of God is known as the “Vulgate” and even the newest Latin translation is called the Nova Vulgata.
(Cont’d)