Interpretation of Scripture

[srfnolen]

TimothyH
I’d like to be sure I understand your comments.
In your first post you stated the Church, during the protest against her, recommended Catholics not READ Scripture.

Subsequent posts did not substantiate that, but discussed interpretation rather than reading.

Is it possible you initially typed “read” in error, when you really meant the Church recommended Catholics not try to “privately interpret apart from the teachings of the Church”?

Thanks & God bless.

My family member, I think, meant the interpretation of the Bible (without a good guide) was discouraged. Then again, I’m not sure what was meant. She has brought up the “worship Mary” argument, crucifix with no corpus, and so on. She didn’t even know the Catholic Church celebrated Easter for crying out loud! This has been an up hill battle.

 

[rfournier103]

Can Scripture be misinterpreted? Absolutely.

If the Church ever wanted people to be VERY careful about interpreting the Bible; it was only to prevent misinterpreting the Scriptures.

**ACTS 8:27-31 ~ So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
**

Acts 8 is a clear Biblical example of the Church interpreting Scripture for a layman.

St. Luke would never have penned that verse and the Church Fathers wouldn’t have allowed it to be part of the Canon unless there were some very important meaning for it.

Jesus sent His Apostles into the world to proclaim the Gospel. The Bible is God’s Holy Textbook; our churches are God’s classroom; and our bishops & priests our teachers. Only with ALL THREE - along with the Sacraments - can we share in the fullness of Faith.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I don’t think that’s the case at all. Someone mentioned that the Bible is the most talked about but the least read book. Today’s Catechism isn’t much different. As opposed to the Baltimore Catechism, for example.

They reflect on the Bible every time they attend Mass. New and Old Testament. The Bible is read at every Mass and if there is a Mass occurring every hour of every day around the world. You do the math.

I don’t know any Catholic who doesn’t own, read and reflect on the Bible. Today’s Catholics are not like the majority of 1950-60s Catholics who didn’t own or read the Bible and were only exposed to it at Mass.

 

[marywarfield]

They reflect on the Bible every time they attend Mass. New and Old Testament. The Bible is read at every Mass and if there is a Mass occurring every hour of every day around the world. You do the math.

I don’t know any Catholic who doesn’t own, read and reflect on the Bible. Today’s Catholics are not like the majority of 1950-60s Catholics who didn’t own or read the Bible and were only exposed to it at Mass.

Really? Which 1950-60s Catholics were these?
The ones I knew owned not just one but several
Different Bibles of various translations in the 1950-1960s
and they read them. Myself included.
One of my first ones was given to me by my Grandfather
in 1960. His father gave it to him in 1911. His father
bought it in 1873.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Really? Which 1950-60s Catholics were these?
The ones I knew owned not just one but several
Different Bibles of various translations in the 1950-1960s
and they read them. Myself included.
One of my first ones was given to me by my Grandfather
in 1960. His father gave it to him in 1911. His father
bought it in 1873.

Yes the ones you knew. I’m sure there were exceptions. My post mentioned ‘majority’ not all. That’s just the way it was back then.

Lets not deviate the original post from it’s topic. I was replying to someone else.

 

[marywarfield]

Yes the ones you knew. I’m sure there were exceptions. My post mentioned ‘majority’ not all. That’s just the way it was back then.

Lets not deviate the original post from it’s topic. I was replying to someone else.

The majority? Do you have some reference for that
some source for your interpretation?
Is it relevant to the thread? Certainly. That IS the topic.
You have asserted the majority of Carholics in the
50s and 60s did not read or own the Bible. Obviously
then they could not interpret it.
I’m just asking you to provide some evidence of your assertion
which has also been made by others also without
anything to back it up.
Lol

I would suggest you read Divino Afflante Spiritu by
Pope Pius XII in 1943 re: why Catholics were owning
and reading Scripture by 1950.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

The majority? Do you have some reference for that
some source for your interpretation?
Is it relevant to the thread? Certainly. That IS the topic.
You have asserted the majority of Carholics in the
50s and 60s did not read or own the Bible. Obviously
then they could not interpret it.
I’m just asking you to provide some evidence of your assertion
which has also been made by others also without
anything to back it up.
Lol

I would suggest you read Divino Afflante Spiritu by
Pope Pius XII in 1943 re: why Catholics were owning
and reading Scripture by 1950.

Why don’t you start another thread and I’ll follow you there. You are hijacking this thread on Interpretation.

 

[marywarfield]

Thanks to all of you in advance for your explanations and help as we enter the Catholic
Church. It will be a “hard row to hoe” with family who are non-catholic. Mentalities are hard to conquers but when I don’t have an answer I know where I can run.

My current question is I regards to interpreting Scripture. I have been told there was a time when the Catholic leaders did not want Catholics reading the Bible. It was read and interpreted by the priest only.

What do you know or say to that?
srfnolen

I know in answer to SavingGrace’s erroneous reassertion
of the myth that at least in 1943 Pope Pius XII
insisted all should read the Bible in his
encyclical vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html

Haydock’s Catholic Family Bible published in the mid to
late 1800’s admonished the laity to read the Bible
in the vulgar tongue (common language) as spiritually
enriching and this Bible and sentiment stated
clearly on the frontispiece was approved and recommended by
over thirty Bishops, Cardinals and Archbishops.

One wonders why Catholics and anti Catholics both
perpetuate this myth so easily disproven?

 

[marywarfield]

Why don’t you start another thread and I’ll follow you there. You are hijacking this thread on Interpretation.

The topic of the OP is:
Are Catholics discouraged from reading and interpreting
the Bible by the Church?
I suggest your read the OPs question.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

The majority? Do you have some reference for that
some source for your interpretation?
Is it relevant to the thread? Certainly. That IS the topic.
You have asserted the majority of Carholics in the
50s and 60s did not read or own the Bible. Obviously
then they could not interpret it.
I’m just asking you to provide some evidence of your assertion
which has also been made by others also without
anything to back it up.
Lol

I would suggest you read Divino Afflante Spiritu by
Pope Pius XII in 1943 re: why Catholics were owning
and reading Scripture by 1950.

"All this changed, officially at least, at Vatican II, which dropped the Church’s 400-year-old “defensive mode of being.” Lay Catholics were now at long last given the green light to read the Bible; indeed, they were encouraged to read it. " Vatican II ended in 1965.

catholicity.com/commentary/carlin/05386.html

“Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so.”

usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm

It wasn’t until after the 1960’s that more and more Catholics started reading the Bible at home. Prior to that, and up to the 1940s it was discouraged.

 

[marywarfield]

"All this changed, officially at least, at Vatican II, which dropped the Church’s 400-year-old “defensive mode of being.” Lay Catholics were now at long last given the green light to read the Bible; indeed, they were encouraged to read it. "

catholicity.com/commentary/carlin/05386.html

Is it your contention that a book written by a catholic
lay sociologist is more factual than the encyclicals of
the last eight popes encouraging Catholics to read the
Bible?

Hmmm.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Is it your contention that a book written by a catholic
lay sociologist is more factual than the encyclicals of
the last eight popes encouraging Catholics to read the
Bible?

Hmmm.

You conveniently ignore the USCCB source provided.

"Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so."

usccb.org/bible/understan…e-readings.cfm

 

[marywarfield]

"All this changed, officially at least, at Vatican II, which dropped the Church’s 400-year-old “defensive mode of being.” Lay Catholics were now at long last given the green light to read the Bible; indeed, they were encouraged to read it. " Vatican II ended in 1965.

catholicity.com/commentary/carlin/05386.html

“Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so.”

usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm

It wasn’t until after the 1960’s that more and more Catholics started reading the Bible at home. Prior to that, and up to the 1940s it was discouraged.

Facts are better:

The Catholic Church finally agreed on which writings should go into the Bible at the Council of Rome in 382 AD during the time of Pope Damasus.
Damasus encouraged St Jerome to translate the Scriptures into Latin since Latin was the common language of all educated people.
In the mid-1400s the Bible started to be translated into European languages
Some Reformers published Bibles with bits missing, faulty translation work and subversive notes
The authorities tried to regulate which Bibles were acceptable in order to control erroneous teaching
Throughout the years the Catholic Church encouraged Bible reading, but kept control of the interpretation of the Bible as part of her inspired authority to teach the truth and preserve the unity of the church
Pope Leo XIII published a letter in 1893 encouraging Bible study.
Pius XII in 1943 also encouraged the faithful to study and love the Bible
The second Vatican Council in the 1960s encouraged all the clergy and people to study the Bible faithfully

• See more at: patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/archived-articles-2/3549-2/more-christianity/why-dont-catholics-read-the-bible#sthash.XnUUPyBU.dpuf

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Facts are better:

The Catholic Church finally agreed on which writings should go into the Bible at the Council of Rome in 382 AD during the time of Pope Damasus.
Damasus encouraged St Jerome to translate the Scriptures into Latin since Latin was the common language of all educated people.
In the mid-1400s the Bible started to be translated into European languages
Some Reformers published Bibles with bits missing, faulty translation work and subversive notes
The authorities tried to regulate which Bibles were acceptable in order to control erroneous teaching
Throughout the years the Catholic Church encouraged Bible reading, but kept control of the interpretation of the Bible as part of her inspired authority to teach the truth and preserve the unity of the church
Pope Leo XIII published a letter in 1893 encouraging Bible study.
Pius XII in 1943 also encouraged the faithful to study and love the Bible
The second Vatican Council in the 1960s encouraged all the clergy and people to study the Bible faithfully

• See more at: patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/archived-articles-2/3549-2/more-christianity/why-dont-catholics-read-the-bible#sthash.XnUUPyBU.dpuf

You conveniently ignore the USCCB source provided. If you want to accuse the USCCB of not being factual go ahead. The highlighted below is directly from that source.

"Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so."

usccb.org/bible/understan…e-readings.cfm

 

[marywarfield]

You conveniently ignore the USCCB source provided.

"Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so."

usccb.org/bible/understan…e-readings.cfm

Hey I love our American bishops.

However as much as YOU want to ignore it
Pope Leo XIII beat Pope Pius to it in 1893 when
he supported Bible study in every home in HIS
encyclical.

I’m sorry the myth has spread as it has. But the reality
is actual church historical documents disprove
the idea that the Church tries to stop people from
reading the Bible. Not my fault that it is simply not
true.

Now a new Rasmussen poll shows that only
seven percent of American Catholics read Scripture
compared to 57 percent Protestant.

Look around CAF and ask yourself is that a
reasonable estimation?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Hey I love our American bishops.

However as much as YOU want to ignore it
Pope Leo XIII beat Pope Pius to it in 1893 when
he supported Bible study in every home in HIS
encyclical.

I’m sorry the myth has spread as it has. But the reality
is actual church historical documents disprove
the idea that the Church tries to stop people from
reading the Bible. Not my fault that it is simply not
true.

Now a new Rasmussen poll shows that only
seven percent of American Catholics read Scripture
compared to 57 percent Protestant.

Look around CAF and ask yourself is that a
reasonable estimation?

I love the American Bishops too. I love all our Bishops.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

From what I have read I truly believe the majority of Catholics worldwide (not just US) were not reading the Bible up to 40s-late 60s. Again, I said ‘majority’ not all. They were also very poorly catechised as the Church soon found out, because many were and still are being convinced to convert to other denominations. As we know what is being encouraged from Rome is not always what is practiced in the homes and parishes unfortunately.

 

[marywarfield]

I love the American Bishops too. I love all our Bishops.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

From what I have read I truly believe the majority of Catholics worldwide (not just US) were not reading the Bible up to 40s-late 60s. Again, I said ‘majority’ not all. They were also very poorly catechised as the Church soon found out, because many were and still are being convinced to convert to other denominations. As we know what is being encouraged from Rome is not always what is practiced in the homes and parishes unfortunately.

Oh dear. Do you have some source I.e we were poorly
catechized? I would again have to disagree cause I like
to look at the big picture.
Late 1800’s Catholics in the U.S were made up of
a majority of illiterate and poverty stricken immigrants
and the ones already here couldn’t get jobs.
Followed by hello a great depression and two World
Wars. So in light of those things I would say they were
remarkably well catechized and well read.
The 1950 and gasp a Catholic President in the 60s?
A high time financially for all. I would be surprised
if they didn’t spend money on luxuries such as Bibles
with full color plates.

It’s all in your perspective and actual grasp of history.
Btw I believe Bill O Reilly believes
he was well catechized in the 50s as well.

 

[ProVobis]

They reflect on the Bible every time they attend Mass. New and Old Testament. The Bible is read at every Mass and if there is a Mass occurring every hour of every day around the world. You do the math.

I don’t know any Catholic who doesn’t own, read and reflect on the Bible. Today’s Catholics are not like the majority of 1950-60s Catholics who didn’t own or read the Bible and were only exposed to it at Mass.

I don’t have the stats but people did use handmissals back in the 50’s and the epistle and gospel were read twice, once in the vernacular.

As for Bibles at home, mine had an indulgence attached to it for every 15 minutes of reading. So it wasn’t like it wasn’t encouraged.

 

[marywarfield]

I love the American Bishops too. I love all our Bishops.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

From what I have read I truly believe the majority of Catholics worldwide (not just US) were not reading the Bible up to 40s-late 60s. Again, I said ‘majority’ not all. They were also very poorly catechised as the Church soon found out, because many were and still are being convinced to convert to other denominations. As we know what is being encouraged from Rome is not always what is practiced in the homes and parishes unfortunately.

And here is another interesting article written in
1921 by the Catholic Evidence Society to defend
Catholics against the myth of no bible reading.
1921.
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0032.htm