Does the Catholic Church teach from the Bible?

[PacoG]

If you make an effort to attend Mass every day for three years, you will have read most of the major parts of the bible.

The Church has–in her love and wisdom and concern for our spiritual growth–has arranged the Bible into the Lectionary of three cycles (A-B-C) for Sunday/Holy Day use and two cycles for daily use (I and II).

Why is this? So that one every Catholic Church is on the same page…you can walk into a Catholic Church in some po-dunk West Texas town, some posh New York suburb, a grand old Roman basilica, a mission church in Africa or a roadside improvised military Jeep hood altar in Afghanistan and have a pretty good chance of hearing the same Mass.

The Protestants have a million lectionaries. The readings for Sunday depend on what Brother Bill of the Fifth Memorial Sooner Southern Baptist Church of West Cow Patty, Oklahoma, or whatever the pastor, moderator, elder, minister, whatever feels like reading and sermonizing about at the whatever named local methopresbybaptiepiscometropdisciplesofpentcostal church.

 

[rniznik]

“We do teach from the Bible. We’re the ones that created it.”

Catholics created the Roman Catholic Bible somewhere between A.D.350-382.
The original Bible was created prior to A.D. 100.

I think the question refers to the teaching of the Bible during services.
Where the catholic church has organized mass and the non denominational church services vary their sermons according to what the Pastor/minister/preacher wants to get across.
They teach a different scripture, verse, etc, every week.

 

[jmcrae]

Communion was also weird, the grocery store loaf of italian bread combined with Welch’s grape juice made it seem like a snack.

I’m hoping you didn’t partake of it; Catholics are only allowed to receive Catholic Holy Communion; also, Methodists don’t have Mass; they aren’t Catholic, and they don’t have priests.

 

[jmcrae]

“We do teach from the Bible. We’re the ones that created it.”

Catholics created the Roman Catholic Bible somewhere between A.D.350-382.
The original Bible was created prior to A.D. 100.

There was no “original Bible.” There were hundreds of books written about Jesus in the First Century. At the time, it was obvious which ones were fiction, which ones were trying to fool people into believing false things about Jesus, and which ones were written by the Apostles and their close followers for the edification of the Church.

As time passed, it became less and less clear which ones were which, so Pope Damasus requested that lists of the books to be used at Mass be made. Three Councils came up with identical lists - Hippo, Carthage, and Rome, so (Pope Damasus having passed away by this time) in about 405 AD, Pope Innocent I decreed that these books be translated into the common language (which at the time was Latin), and housed or stored together in a single codex. This work was completed by St. Jerome, and the codex he produced was called “Biblios” meaning “The Books.”

Copies were made for Dioceses, Dioceses made copies for their parishes, and then, after the invention of the printing press, it became possible to create copies for library use, and then, when printing became commonplace and inexpensive in the late 1700s AD, it became possible to print huge numbers of Bibles for distribution to individuals.

But no - the Apostles weren’t going around with little New Testaments in their pockets.

 

[choliks]

“We do teach from the Bible. We’re the ones that created it.”

Catholics created the Roman Catholic Bible somewhere between A.D.350-382.

uhmmmm… There’s no such thing as a “Roman Catholic Bible” in AD 350-382. Because it did, it’s like ignoring the existence of the Church in the East.

The original Bible was created prior to A.D. 100.

Could you substantiate this please? Or is this part of revisionist history?

 

[choliks]

There was no “original Bible.” There were hundreds of books written about Jesus in the First Century. At the time, it was obvious which ones were fiction, which ones were trying to fool people into believing false things about Jesus, and which ones were written by the Apostles and their close followers for the edification of the Church.

As time passed, it became less and less clear which ones were which, so Pope Damasus requested that lists of the books to be used at Mass be made. Three Councils came up with identical lists - Hippo, Carthage, and Rome, so (Pope Damasus having passed away by this time) in about 405 AD, Pope Innocent I decreed that these books be translated into the common language (which at the time was Latin), and housed or stored together in a single codex. This work was completed by St. Jerome, and the codex he produced was called “Biblios” meaning “The Books.”

**Copies were made for Dioceses, Dioceses made copies for their parishes, **and then, after the invention of the printing press, it became possible to create copies for library use, and then, when printing became commonplace and inexpensive in the late 1700s AD, it became possible to print huge numbers of Bibles for distribution to individuals.

But no - the Apostles weren’t going around with little New Testaments in their pockets.

IIRC, the copies were made in monasteries.

 

[jmcrae]

IIRC, the copies were made in monasteries.

Yes, they were. Monks copied them by hand, and they made them very beautiful. Examples that still exist today include the Lindesfarne Gospels and the Book of Kells. These were not merely decorative works of art, however - they were read out from at Mass.

 

[creole54]

I don’t think the OP was saying that Catholic teaching isn’t rooted in the Bible, I think he was questioning why so many Catholics don’t use an actual physical Bible. Why, when the scriptures are read every Sunday, do they not say “Turn with me in your bible to X Book, Y chapter, verse Z?” Why aren’t there pew Bibles in a Catholic church? Why just a missalette? I think a lot of Catholics are very uncomfortable using a Bible because they don’t know how to quickly find the verse they need, they fumble around and feel self-conscious. It’s not something we’re taught from childhood.

In my RCIA class last year we were all given a study Bible, yet we never once used it. Every week the readings were photocopied onto a piece of paper for us to read and study from. I think that would have been a great time to introduce people to how to use a Bible. Not everybody grew up in a household where their parents were diligent in teaching them the faith.

Not only that, but reading the Bible on your own is much, much different from actually understanding what you’re reading. Yes, if I attend Mass every day for 3 years I will have ‘heard’ most of the Bible, but unless I’m supplementing that with some serious Bible study I won’t have increased my understanding of God’s Word by much. Many times the homily doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the week’s readings. That’s where a good Catholic Bible study group would come in handy.

As a child I didn’t even know that what was being read each week at Mass was from the Bible…I thought it was just the priest’s own words. I had a lot of friends that were Protestant and they all had their own personal Bibles. I felt very inferior because I had no idea what the Bible was all about, so when I was 12 I saved my allowance and walked to the drug store and bought a cheap, white ‘leatherette’ KJV bible ( I didn’t know there was a difference between Protestant & Catholic Bibles.) Then I hid it for years from my family because I thought somehow owning my own Bible was being disloyal to the Church.

45 years later, I still have that little white KJV Bible, by the way. Along with my lovely D-R, NAB, RSV-CE, NJB and TEV-CE and a host of others. It took some searching, but I was finally able to find someone in my church who was willing to meet with me and help break open the Word with me.

“Don’t look to the Bible for answers. Look for the questions.” It is in this questioning that I have actually found answers.

Awesome! Love, love, love this!

 

[IanGE]

"We do teach from the Bible. We’re the ones that created it."
Catholics created the Roman Catholic Bible somewhere between A.D.350-382.
The original Bible was created prior to A.D. 100.

I think the question refers to the teaching of the Bible during services.
Where the catholic church has organized mass and the non denominational church services vary their sermons according to what the Pastor/minister/preacher wants to get across.
They teach a different scripture, verse, etc, every week.

I thought it was written by inspiration from the Holy Spirit In any case, the Bible is divided basically into two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Roman Catholic church had no part in the creation of the Old Testament. That was largely passed on by word of mouth and not written down until David had conquered Israel and Solomon built the Great Temple in Jerusalem. At the time of the first diaspora the written Old Testament was destroyed; according to Eusebius, the Old Testament was re-written when the Jews returned to Jerusalem (scholars accept this). Eusebius also writed that the King (Hezekiah?) ,suspicious of spurious rewrites, ordered a hundred or so scribes to rewrite the OT from memory and the Holy Spirit ensured that all copies were word-for-word correct.
The Roman Christian church, per se, also had no part in the creation of the New Testament, which was written from around 50AD (before the second diaspora) to the “kata Iohannen” (according to John) written at Paphos (?) by a very old Beloved Apostle around 90AD. Constantine made Christianity the Official religion of the Roman Empire somewhere between 313 and 325AD. Historians believe Constantine made Christianity the church of the new Constantinople, which he built as the religious centre of the Empire. Rome remained the political and religious centre of his empire.

 

[IanGE]

What you say here must be your own personal opinion since this is not what the charismatic movement teaches, you doubt the Original Sin the Baptism of babies, the confession to a priest, you change the order of the mass by introducing your own quotations and finally claim that you are born again.

You are on a dangerous path by denying the teachings of the church, no charismatics do this.

You deny the very teachings of the church and claim that God told you to stay in the catholic church, it seems like you didnt follow God´s advice, i wonder in what way you are catholic?

If I have misunderstood you, please correct me.

A few years ago on (British) TV, a spokesman priest for the Vatican stated that we had 800 years of bad popes. Shocked me at first but it confirmed my reluctance to accept church dogma, teaching and tradition as being the same weight as the Word of God. BTW, I did confess my many doubts to my parish priest, including the question of whether I am still a Catholic or not. He told me God gave us a brain to think, not blindly accept anyone’s word. Bit of a difference from when I was 9. In catholic school I was taught that God made the world in 7 days. But at my first Geography lessons the Nun told us the world was billions of years old, gradually transforming from a flaming ball of miasma, then cooling down for millions of years to form mountains, oceans, land etc. I took my puzzlement to a Priest who was also a family friend. “HOW DARE YOU DOUBT THE WORD OF GOD, BOY!” He thundered and threw me into a state of guilt that only just cleared when I was Born Again. He COULD have answered in words a 9-year-old child could grasp.
I also confessed to reading the Apocrypha to a born again priest. He said, “Ian, you have the Holy Spirit IN you: read what you like, He’ll stop you if its dangerous”. He also said, “question what you like, Jesus LOVES Hard Questions!!!”

 

[IanGE]

This is mainly for IanGE

Ian,

I am so glad that you and your wife feel the Lord has called you to remain in the Catholic Church. This is the unity He prayed for at the Last Supper. The Church, despite many misunderstanding, even among Catholics about what it teaches, is the true Church.

You do have many misconceptions about what the Church teaches and has always taught.

First, it is true that some Catholics have tended to envision God as a punishing God, but this error comes from a heretical trend of thought known as Jansenism, which has been around for centuries and whose original followers tried to base on the teachings of St. Augustine.

God has sent many saints to teach that He is Love. Read St. Therese’s of Lisieux’s Story of Soul.

Secondly, you are confused if you think the Church teaches that God blames the human race for the sin of our first parents. When the Church says that we are born with original sin on our souls, She means that we are not born with God’s sanctifying grace (God’s life) in our souls. Our first parents were given both their natural and supernatural lives by God, but they lost the right to supernatural life (life in heaven with God) by their disobedience and they lost this life for all their descendants as well. Christ came to restore this right and we must accept this gift by accepting Him and accepting His gift of baptism.

Adult baptism. What makes you think that all the baptisms in the New Testament were adult baptisms. The adults who were baptized certainly accepted baptism out of repentance and belief, but we read of "whole households’ being baptized.
(Lydia’s household, Cornelius’ household, the household of one of Paul’s jailers, etc). If entire households were baptized at least some of them would have included small children.

The reason we say “Lord I am not worthy” each time before communion is that we are all guilty of some failing, however, between one reception of communion and the next. We need to be constantly aware that He must “say but the word and my soul will be healed.” This is being thankful for His constant grace and presence in our lives.

My friends please study excellent, approved Catholic sources and learn what the Church, through the authority given to her by Jesus, actually teaches. I mean books and tapes from such publishers as Ignatius Press, Our Sunday Visitor and many of the other numerous, orthodox Catholic publishers.

I didn’t say “I think”, I wrote “I cannot conceive of”. But I thank you for correcting me: made me remember that yes, we are all born without God’s sanctifying grace. Jesus died to release that grace to all, but His immense can only be accepted by accepting Him and His gifts! As to having to say “I am not worthy” IS a denial of Jesus’ gift and I cannot do that. Not long after I was Born Again I was at mass saying “Lord have mercy” when I distinctly heard the Lord say, “Ian, I gave you mercy two thousand years ago - I sent my Son!” But I guess that for those who do not understand that, the church leads them to ask. I sometimes stand in deep gratitude for our priests who have to shepherd all from fervent Born Agains, through the Luke Warms and Sunday Catholics who read the racing results during mass. Not Judging, Lord, just commenting!
As to adult baptism, yes I very nearly added Cornelius’ baptism with “all his household”, but it would be derived theology to assume that meant babies too. One could just as easily assume that only the old ‘uns were there.
When it comes to teaching, I mentioned my reluctance to accept this elsewhere. There are the Church’s interpretations stamped on so many verses. EG, we still hear how deep was Peter’s love for Jesus: three times he emphasised his love. John 21:15 - 17, in the Greek reads: “Simon bar Jonas, do you agape me?” “Yes, Lord, you know that I philo you.” ;“Simon bar Jonas, do you truly * AGAPE* me?” “Yes Lord, you know that I PHILO you”; the third time He asked him: “Simon bar Jonas, do you PHILO (!!) me?” “Lord, you know all things. You know that I PHILO you!!!” That leads to a totally different interpretation. Peter’s honesty cos he didn’t understand what agape (God’s love) was, but could only rise to philo, man’s love. The third time shows Jesus’ love and understanding when He climbs down to philo!
There are other examples, notably the shortest verse in the Bible: “Jesus wept.” From my childhood I was taught that Jesus was weeping for his friend Lazarus, as Jewish bystanders said. But some of them said, “could He who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?” (Jn. 11:35 -38.) Jesus was once more deeply moved.
A re-reading of John 11 might offer a different insight. Verse 6: “Yet when news that Lazarus was sick, He stayed where He was two more days.” Why? He waited till Lazarus was dead and then went to demonstrate God’s glory, so that God’s Son would be glorified by it. But, after three years of teaching, of ddemonstrating miracles, people STILL did not believe He could raise Lazarus from the grave. He wept at their unbelief.

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t think the OP was saying that Catholic teaching isn’t rooted in the Bible, I think he was questioning why so many Catholics don’t use an actual physical Bible. Why, when the scriptures are read every Sunday, do they not say “Turn with me in your bible to X Book, Y chapter, verse Z?” Why aren’t there pew Bibles in a Catholic church? Why just a missalette? I think a lot of Catholics are very uncomfortable using a Bible because they don’t know how to quickly find the verse they need, they fumble around and feel self-conscious. It’s not something we’re taught from childhood.

In my RCIA class last year we were all given a study Bible, yet we never once used it. Every week the readings were photocopied onto a piece of paper for us to read and study from. I think that would have been a great time to introduce people to how to use a Bible. Not everybody grew up in a household where their parents were diligent in teaching them the faith.

Not only that, but reading the Bible on your own is much, much different from actually understanding what you’re reading. Yes, if I attend Mass every day for 3 years I will have ‘heard’ most of the Bible, but unless I’m supplementing that with some serious Bible study I won’t have increased my understanding of God’s Word by much. Many times the homily doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the week’s readings. That’s where a good Catholic Bible study group would come in handy.

As a child I didn’t even know that what was being read each week at Mass was from the Bible…I thought it was just the priest’s own words. I had a lot of friends that were Protestant and they all had their own personal Bibles. I felt very inferior because I had no idea what the Bible was all about, so when I was 12 I saved my allowance and walked to the drug store and bought a cheap, white ‘leatherette’ KJV bible ( I didn’t know there was a difference between Protestant & Catholic Bibles.) Then I hid it for years from my family because I thought somehow owning my own Bible was being disloyal to the Church.

45 years later, I still have that little white KJV Bible, by the way. Along with my lovely D-R, NAB, RSV-CE, NJB and TEV-CE and a host of others. It took some searching, but I was finally able to find someone in my church who was willing to meet with me and help break open the Word with me.

Awesome! Love, love, love this!

My thought too. I often heard fellow Catholics citing that we are the most Biblical oriented Christians, reason being that the major Biblical passages are included in the liturgy of the word of the mass. This statement seems to be more defensive rather supporting its argument. In fact in reality it is not true that we learn the Bible by just basing on the mass readings.

The reality of the mass does not permit this and as we know, more often the priests hardly explain the Bible passages in the homily. Thereare exceptions of course. Most Catholics agree that the mass is not for Bible study but rather hearing the proclamation of the words, and in the homily the priest has so much leeway that the can just simply say anything instead of explaining the readings.

Even if we go for daily mass for many years and suppose to have covered the Bible in the readings, it is still not the same like how we read the Bible itself. In other word, to really appreciate the reading of the mass, one has to have full knowledge of the Bible and its overview, and then it would be easier to know where the readings come from in the Bible. It should be to have knowledge of the Bible first to appreciate the readings and not the other way round.

Just a little comment on the OP. If we are not brought up in an environment where the Bible is not read, taught, discussed and pondered on, then it is not likely parents would do that to the children. More often parents would teach the children about the Sacraments, their do’s and the don’ts. I can say it is not the practice of the majority of Catholic’s homes that the Bible is studied and emphasized.

 

[smiddle]

O dear. Biblical baptism was for ADULTS, conditional on Repentance, which is not just saying “sorry”: it is an understanding and repugnance for one’s own sin and a fervent (inner) resolution never to do that again, to change one’s lifestyle. Original sin is the Church’s concept: I cannot conceive of a loving God who holds all of mankind to blame for whatever Adam and Eve got up to. In any case, Jesus suffered a horrid death to rid us of all sin, including that original one. St. Paul encourages us: “For as one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made RIGHTEOUS!” (Rom. 5:19). I can no longer say, before Communion, “Lord I am UNWORTHY…”: its like slapping Jesus in the face. I HAVE to say, “Lord Jesus, thank you for MAKING me worthy by your sacrifice on the cross.” When will the Church change to a catechism of love instead of fear of sin, fear of an unbiblical purgatory. Even confession to a priest is unbiblical. Jesus told you, me, us to forgive; “how often must **I ** forgive my brother?” "70 times 7 (or 70: 7 being God’s number). Although I must admit that confessing to a priest in humility does unburden one, but I feel its a bit of a cop out, confessing to a priest instead of making your peace with whoever you have hurt (BTW, THAT is biblical).
Even the Greek word for sin is a gentle “hamartia” - “missing the mark”, instead of the horrid concept of a huge black gunge on one’s soul condemning one to hell or that unbiblical Purgatory. Jesus taught us to say to Our Father, “forgive us our hamartia FOR (because) we have ALREADY forgiven those who have sinned against us.” My Father is a God of love: please turn to Him through Jesus.
PS My wife and I, both “born again” by the grace of God, were instructed by Him to remain in the Catholic Church. So don’t worry about it.

If Jesus did not want us to confess our sins to others, why would he grant the apostles the ability to forgive sins?

 

[smiddle]

I’m hoping you didn’t partake of it; Catholics are only allowed to receive Catholic Holy Communion; also, Methodists don’t have Mass; they aren’t Catholic, and they don’t have priests.

I did, I was kind of young, I had no idea… I understand that some sin done out of ignorance is automatically forgiven, because I did not know better, correct? Should I still talk to my priest about it in confession this Saturday?

 

[Cristiano]

A few years ago on (British) TV, a spokesman priest for the Vatican stated that we had 800 years of bad popes. Shocked me at first but it confirmed my reluctance to accept church dogma, teaching and tradition as being the same weight as the Word of God. BTW, I did confess my many doubts to my parish priest, including the question of whether I am still a Catholic or not. He told me God gave us a brain to think, not blindly accept anyone’s word. Bit of a difference from when I was 9. In catholic school I was taught that God made the world in 7 days. But at my first Geography lessons the Nun told us the world was billions of years old, gradually transforming from a flaming ball of miasma, then cooling down for millions of years to form mountains, oceans, land etc. I took my puzzlement to a Priest who was also a family friend. “HOW DARE YOU DOUBT THE WORD OF GOD, BOY!” He thundered and threw me into a state of guilt that only just cleared when I was Born Again. He COULD have answered in words a 9-year-old child could grasp.
I also confessed to reading the Apocrypha to a born again priest. He said, “Ian, you have the Holy Spirit IN you: read what you like, He’ll stop you if its dangerous”. He also said, “question what you like, Jesus LOVES Hard Questions!!!”

So you are putting your faith in a TV comment from a priest that has not authority, because he is not the spokesperson for the Vatican, instead of following the teachings of your bishop that got his teaching authority from Jesus Christ. That is a very dangerous path.

 

[IanGE]

If Jesus did not want us to confess our sins to others, why would he grant the apostles the ability to forgive sins?

John 20: 19 - 23 clearly reads that Jesus spoke to the DISCIPLES, then he breathed “receive ye the Holy Spirit” and THEN gave them the authority to forgive or abstain sins. Those who have not received the Baptism of the Spirit will obviously take Nicodemus’ sarcastic view of Born Again as spoken by Jesus. In Luke 11 -13 Jesus encourages us: “how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him.” Ask. To those who insist that they were given the Holy Spirit at Baptism and ratified at Confirmation, I ask where are the signs that Jesus told us about in Mark 16:17 and 18? Where are the gifts of the Spirit which were given for the benefit of the whole church? Why aren’t there healings every sunday? Why aren’t demons driven out in the Name of Jesus? According to Eusebius, in his time the church in Rome comprised 72ushers, 48 exorcists…

 

[The_Patriarch]

Before you jump at my throat, I know that this is where we get our dogmas, rules, etc. My question pertains more to Sunday school.

It was just pointed out to me, by a Baptist, that all we (Catholics) do is read the same Bible stories at church, so we never really learn anything new. Naturally I jumped to defend the Church, but after I thought about it, it’s kind of true.

In Sunday school, not once did we ever look at or read from the Bible. We were taught how church and the sacraments work and how to complete them, not why we even do them in the first place. In eighth grade, about 3 weeks before my confirmation, I was given a Bible. That was great, except for the fact that we never opened them, except to write our names on the inside cover.

This does not make any sense to me, especially since how powerful the Bible is. It has really opened my eyes and helped me better understand my faith. My friends that are Baptist, Protestant, etc. know the Bible very well, and they can recite verses as quickly as they can prayers.

I think the teachers should stress reading the Bible and actually understanding why we do things and where we got them from, instead of reviewing what to do at confirmation everyday.

Parents should read it to there kids and explain how the teachings of the Church can be found in scripture. Not always explicitly, but how the Tradition and Scripture mesh perfectly. The Parents are the first teachers of the faith. To me that means = “Primary”

Patriarch and Matriarch

“How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many donuts.”
-Homer Simpson

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Catholics have Scripture, Tradition, The Sacraments and The Apostolic Succession. Protestants have only their opinions about Scripture. They know the verses but they may not know the proper interpretation. They’re in the hands of Pastor John of The Madeup Church of Some Bible Quote, God help them.

 

[DebChris]

In Acts 2:42, we find that the early Church devoted themselves to the teachings of the Apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to prayers.
Here we find the magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, in its earliest form. The Apostles taught the followers of The Way what they themselves had been taught directly by Jesus during the time that they spent with Him. This Apostolic teaching is what we call Tradition. These are the precepts of our Faith protected by the Holy Spirit through time and delivered intact to us, heirs of the kingdom, and entrusted to the magisterium of the Church.

A poster mentioned the OT scriptures which were familiar to the Jews. The Bible itself points to Jesus reading in the synagogue, announcing the good news that the promises held in the book of Isaiah were indeed being fulfilled in the presence of the people who lived at that time.
The written Word of God is the inspired Word of God, given to men to record. The words of each individual author were dependent on the time in which it was written and the audience to which it was written. How many of these men knew that their words would echo through the ages, to be read by generations yet unborn?

My Catholic Answer Bible contains the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation which points to the importance of the unity between Tradition, magisterium, and the written word. It also contains a brief history of the Bible. This brings us back to the OP. The Catholic Church does not put emphasis on “teaching from the Bible” because the Catholic Church derives its teaching authority from its Tradition which comes directly from Christ. The Bible contains in written form the principle truths of faith taught to the Disciples by Christ. Early Christian communities demanded the authority of an Apostle before any book was accepted as “authentic.” The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, remains the official guardian and interpreter of the Bible.

St. John of the Cross said it is the priest who reads the Word and it is the congregation who reads the priest when the Word of God is proclaimed from the altar. In our world of instantaneous communication, we often forget how few people in the past could actually read.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Before you jump at my throat, I know that this is where we get our dogmas, rules, etc. My question pertains more to Sunday school.

It was just pointed out to me, by a Baptist, that all we (Catholics) do is read the same Bible stories at church, so we never really learn anything new. Naturally I jumped to defend the Church, but after I thought about it, it’s kind of true.

In Sunday school, not once did we ever look at or read from the Bible. We were taught how church and the sacraments work and how to complete them, not why we even do them in the first place. In eighth grade, about 3 weeks before my confirmation, I was given a Bible. That was great, except for the fact that we never opened them, except to write our names on the inside cover.

This does not make any sense to me, especially since how powerful the Bible is. It has really opened my eyes and helped me better understand my faith. My friends that are Baptist, Protestant, etc. know the Bible very well, and they can recite verses as quickly as they can prayers.

I think the teachers should stress reading the Bible and actually understanding why we do things and where we got them from, instead of reviewing what to do at confirmation everyday.

I’m sorry if this has been said i have not read the whole thread. but if you go to Mass every Sunday and Holiday like you are suppose to of the years cycle you will have heard ( and if you follow in the missal read) 13.5 % of the OT not including the Psalms add them and I would say added another 2 % and 71.5% of the NT. Now that said the Homily should in some way reflect those reading. Given the typical baptist service you will hear and read more of the bible at Mass than any baptist service. and this is just Sundays if you go to mass through the week you will increase these numbers. Now as far as known book chapter and verse it is true that protestants are normally better at knowing that info but to say they know the bible itself better is wrong. I can quote scripture even if I can not tell you the chapter and verse. Remember when they were written they were not broken up in chapter and verse. You want to know the Scripture go to Mass listen and read along in the missal and listen the the Homily. As for Sunday school, keep in mind that as you learn of the sacraments you are learning what is in scripture. and if you are being taught to do something and don’t know why ask.