J
James_2_24
Guest
Opinions? Any problems with this?
- Status
I
iguana27
Guest
Nope, go for it!
“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” St. Jerome
Is there anything about it that you think might be a problem?
God Bless,
Iguana
“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” St. Jerome
Is there anything about it that you think might be a problem?
God Bless,
Iguana
J
James_2_24
Guest
Thanks… I seem to have remembered something about it being a liberal study… maybe i’m confusing it with another?
T
Tirian
Guest
I’d say go ahead and use it, but use it with caution. I led a number of home Bible studies with it and found it to be a mixed bag. Some of the stuff seemed fairly solid, but other of it was steeped in liberal higher critical theories.
The one series I had the biggest trouble with was the one on Paul’s captivity letters. The writer flat out denied the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, which self-attests to being written by Paul.
I had studied form-critical theories in seminary before becoming Catholic. I knew the assumptions of the men who teach this stuff and what to watch for, so I was armed. I wasn’t familiar with the writer of the series, but in checking his bibliography, I noticed that he included only “scholars” from this higher critical school. No fathers, no orthodox scholars, no documents from the Magisterium.
I called this to the attention of our DRE. I could see that she was upset by my challenging this material. A few days later, she handed me a document she had downloaded from the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Apparently, she didn’t take the time to read it, because it really made my case.
What I didn’t understand about all of the materials in this series is how they all went out of their way to avoid orthodox scholars, the commentaries of the Fathers, and any other material that might contradict higher critical theories.
Anybody else had experience with this material?
The one series I had the biggest trouble with was the one on Paul’s captivity letters. The writer flat out denied the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, which self-attests to being written by Paul.
I had studied form-critical theories in seminary before becoming Catholic. I knew the assumptions of the men who teach this stuff and what to watch for, so I was armed. I wasn’t familiar with the writer of the series, but in checking his bibliography, I noticed that he included only “scholars” from this higher critical school. No fathers, no orthodox scholars, no documents from the Magisterium.
I called this to the attention of our DRE. I could see that she was upset by my challenging this material. A few days later, she handed me a document she had downloaded from the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Apparently, she didn’t take the time to read it, because it really made my case.
What I didn’t understand about all of the materials in this series is how they all went out of their way to avoid orthodox scholars, the commentaries of the Fathers, and any other material that might contradict higher critical theories.
Anybody else had experience with this material?
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
It can be made into a liberal study. It depends on how the leaders use the material provided and how they present it. I would tend to recomend CSS (Catholic Scripture Study)
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
LRSS goes through the scriptures very quickly. There is a message in this perhaps? “Don’t worry about getting too picky about scripture” perhaps?
LRSS is a big game in town, and, yes, like a preceding post, I ran across that opinion about the authorship of the captivity letters. An alternate opinion about that is in newadvent.org and sanely argues that Paul is the author of them all, and refutes some of the intelligentia counter arguments. (I personally feel these arguments about authorship are way overblown, especially when the scholars can’t tell you who wrote them, otherwise, if it wasn’t Paul. The issue is that they were deemed inspired and authentic in the early church, so what?)
LRSS gives the study group leader an “answer book” which is OK as long as you realize that they simply answer their own questions. They don’t always opine as to the definitive view on the scriptures.
In spite of the hastiness of these studies, it does reinforce the participants to look up cross-references to related verses in scripture. This is a genuine Vatican II protocol from Verbum Dei.
Their study of Genesis, for example, is 10 weeks. So, you read FIVE CHAPTERS of Genesis each week, read the recommended Collegeville commentary, and answer their bag of discussion questions. Breathtaking. See what I mean?
My bottom line: Sure go ahead, but don’t let LRSS put blinders on you, which is merely to say that the studies are not exhaustive. But, they do usually give you 18 questions (captivity letters) for discussion in each meeting, so things roll along during the 90 minutes. Their wrapup video is optional, and it specifically and explicitly is not a run-through of the “answers” to the questions. Those, too, are very quick 20-30 minute commentaries.
LRSS is a big game in town, and, yes, like a preceding post, I ran across that opinion about the authorship of the captivity letters. An alternate opinion about that is in newadvent.org and sanely argues that Paul is the author of them all, and refutes some of the intelligentia counter arguments. (I personally feel these arguments about authorship are way overblown, especially when the scholars can’t tell you who wrote them, otherwise, if it wasn’t Paul. The issue is that they were deemed inspired and authentic in the early church, so what?)
LRSS gives the study group leader an “answer book” which is OK as long as you realize that they simply answer their own questions. They don’t always opine as to the definitive view on the scriptures.
In spite of the hastiness of these studies, it does reinforce the participants to look up cross-references to related verses in scripture. This is a genuine Vatican II protocol from Verbum Dei.
Their study of Genesis, for example, is 10 weeks. So, you read FIVE CHAPTERS of Genesis each week, read the recommended Collegeville commentary, and answer their bag of discussion questions. Breathtaking. See what I mean?
My bottom line: Sure go ahead, but don’t let LRSS put blinders on you, which is merely to say that the studies are not exhaustive. But, they do usually give you 18 questions (captivity letters) for discussion in each meeting, so things roll along during the 90 minutes. Their wrapup video is optional, and it specifically and explicitly is not a run-through of the “answers” to the questions. Those, too, are very quick 20-30 minute commentaries.
J
jebeau
Guest
I have been conversing by email with a man who grew up Catholic but is now a sola-scriptura evangelical protestant. He says that before he became “born-again” and “found Jesus” he had been a devout Catholic and had also been an altar-boy. He says all that was just going through the motions. He also says that after Vatican II and before he left the Church, he was responsible for bringing Little Rock Scripture Study to his church, and even though he’s not Catholic any more, he seems proud of that accomplishment. I think he thinks all Catholics go to hell now. Anyway, I had never heard of Little Rock Scripture Study, so I looked it up on the web. Nothing on the site stands out as being fishy, but they don’t seem to talk much (or at all) about understanding typology. Typology is my favorite thing about Catholic interpretation of the bible, and it’s something this man seems to lack when I email him, so I wonder if the Little Rock Studies address typology at all. Does anyone know if they talk about typology?
C
Christy_Beth
Guest
I’ve been to four of these. I got absolutely nothing out of it. Of course some of it may have been the leadership. With two of the studies, I didn’t even finish those two. It got to the point where every time I opened my mouth, someone got nasty with me. So, I didn’t go to any more. Now, I’m not sure if these are still used. Which is fine by me.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Besides the liberal slant (it remains within the parameters of Catholic thought, for the most part, which is good), it’s got way too much homework for working adults to be able to finish. I found that most people could get through one study, but tended to drop out after that, unless they were retired, or only working part time.
It does have some good features - for example, it encourages people to get into the Scriptures at least once every day, and it encourages a wide variety of prayer forms, and promotes the idea of constant prayer. It also gets people talking about spiritual things, which is a great thing - the small-group discussion periods were everyone’s favourite part of the program.
I’m also glad that I took the leadership training - it’s applicable to almost any adult learning situation.
J
jebeau
Guest
I had never even heard of it before I talked to this particular ex-Catholic. I don’t think anybody uses it in my diocese. I think we have Catholic Scripture Study instead.
Learning of it for the first time by this ex-Catholic who thinks I’m going to hell for not knowing the “true-gospel” was not a vote of confidence for me for using this study someday. However, I’d still like to know if they stress any kind of Catholic typology. That’s the thing, I think, that really distinguishes Catholic study from Protestant study.
Learning a bit about typology and the connections between the OT and the NT was what started me on the road to Rome.
Learning of it for the first time by this ex-Catholic who thinks I’m going to hell for not knowing the “true-gospel” was not a vote of confidence for me for using this study someday. However, I’d still like to know if they stress any kind of Catholic typology. That’s the thing, I think, that really distinguishes Catholic study from Protestant study.
Learning a bit about typology and the connections between the OT and the NT was what started me on the road to Rome.
C
Crumpy
Guest
I found that all the meeting time was taken up with the “script” of the study outline. It can take 90 minutes just to go through all the study questions, to discover if we all got the “right” answer in the answer book.… it’s got way too much homework for working adults to be able to finish. I found that most people could get through one study, but tended to drop out after that, unless they were retired, or only working part time.
.
The leader of my group was a teacher, but not a bible teacher. So, the study was quite forced and artificial, rather than focused on the group and whether it was getting anything out the study. I too found that the other participants couldn’t keep up with the pace required by the study outline.
In a week’s time, it was a challenge to try to just read the number of assigned chapters, and to read the parallel commentaries.
On EWTN, Fr. Corapi had six-part series on Vatican II’s Constitution on Divine Liturgy. In it, he laid down the guideline that Catholics should just read the Bible, any way they can – just read it.
He did NOT like reading it and sitting around and discussing it. He says too often people just quickly end up disagreeing with one another. I’ve been in that situation.
In the Pope’s talk with the US Bishops in Washington DC, he mentioned the value of lay Catholics spiritual growth based on regular scripture reading. I expect there to be a big impetus to scripture study after the Fall 2008 synod of bishops in Rome. The popes usually put out an encyclical or such after a synod like that, and I’m praying that B16 speaks his heart and mind on the subject.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The “answer book” is only supposed to be a guideline. Also, the participants are not supposed to even know that it exists. It’s only supposed to be for the leader, and only to be used in cases where he or she doesn’t understand the intent of the question. The “answers” are just supposed to be sample answers that people might give; they aren’t supposed to be considered “the correct answer,” as if there could be no other possible answers, that might be even more correct. (Most of the people in my groups came up with better answers than those in the “answer book.”
)Yes, I agree. The amount of stuff was overwhelming. I had a lot of people drop out, based on the fact that there was way too much homework. In retrospect, I’m thinking we should have extended each “lesson” over a period of two weeks. That would have made things a lot easier for people, I think.
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
Very, very liberal–as in “there is no right or wrong answers”. The leader is usually just a “facilitator” with absolutely no training (but plenty of opinions–some actually Protestant!–like why there should be women priests or “priests for hire” or why there shouldn’t be Confession using the book of Romans as a reason.) The questions are more of a “coffee klatch” variety (“what would you do?” or “what do you think?”). When I mentioned that there were other Bible Studies available–I was told that this one was the easiest so the ladies voted on this one (rather than the Paulist one that required in-depth reading). And the hour long “movie” is “sappy” and IMO introduces somewhat heterodoxical ideas (plus at the time I was attending the “study”, the priests on the movie didn’t even wear their collars).
Honestly, there are better programs (Scott Hahn’s “Our Father’s Plan” and Jeff Cavin’s “The Great Adventure”, besides other separate Bible Studies by Scott Hahn), or even the Bible Study Commentary like the Navarre Series–which includes not only the Bible texts, but something by the early Church fathers.)
C
Crumpy
Guest
I was once getting a lecture from my department head about computer software. We had been developing some, and it seemed that we were overly attached to it. The dept. head said that to him, software was like a “paper cup.” If he didn’t like the one he had, he’d throw it out and get another.
As Bible study proliferates in the modern church, we will trod down the same paths that protestants have long trodden. We will discover that we may like it or not. Some groups are better for us and some are not.
We have to get passed the provincial idea that LRSS or any other is anything more than it really is, like a paper cup. If we don’t like it, we should throw it out and get another.
I’m sure that the originators worked very hard on it, and that it is tested, but it is also expensive. At a certain level, it is a commodity and we simply need to shop around. And, you see what happens if we aren’t objective about it, as posters have said: people just get frustrated and drop out!
There is also another myth in Bible study groups – that is, if a priest is there, the group is “good” and it’s not if he’s not there. There’s nothing more presumptuous than that assumption. I’ve found that if a priest is there, everybody else clams up and he’s the only one talking. I don’t think that’s the ideal study group.
Another myth I heard a pastor say is that they couldn’t have a bible study, unless they got somebody to teach it. Yeah, that’s one type of study that I’d call a Bible “class.” I think it has its place.
I think it’s best to say a Bible study group will succeed with good leadership (no matter what study book is used) – you know? somebody with people skills. It also needs some flexibility (like actually reading the scripture so that people who didn’t have time to study can catch up and join in and benefit from the meeting). And, sure, it needs a definite Catholic foundation, with supporting materials.
I tried to find a “good” bible study group for 20 years and have given up. I followed Fr. Corapi’s rule and have decided just to read the Bible on my own, and use resources that I can afford to expand my insight. He’s right. Don’t put yourself into a box, like LRSS, and trick yourself into thinking that it’s the only way to get started.
Let’s get explicit: parish level bible study, if it is attempted, should just be a friendly way to get “into” scripture, especially for people who have never done that. Let us kill the devil’s work here of striking fear in timid people that they might say the “wrong” thing in a Bible study group. Why don’t we start there and move upward?
How else can we become the effective priestly people evangelizing the world, if we are afraid to take these simple steps to educate ourselves? Let the devil win, and make people afraid to read their bibles, that they might misinterpret it.
L
Larry1700
Guest
We’re doing “Israel’s Story” by LRSS right now, and I hate it. Seems like every section is devoted to telling us how “scholars” demonstrate that this part of the Bible probably didn’t REALLY happen; it was a story that Israel made up or borrowed from another culture. It happens over and over. Please provide the source for the Pontifical Biblical Institute document you’re referring to.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I hate that sort of thing, too - I always want to write back to them and ask, why did the ancients even bother to write the Bible, if they didn’t think any of it was really true?
- Status