F
fisherman_carl
Guest
I heard the pre-Vatican II Catholics were discouraged from reading the bible on their own. Is this true? If so what was the reasoning for this?
- Status
P
prodigalson12
Guest
I and many others I’ve known have faced the same things growing up in post V2, so it’s not just pre when it comes down to it. Luckily it’s no longer the case and even originally, it was bad teachings by some of the church leaders at the time.
K
kepha1
Guest
We often hear that the Catholic Church has forbidden the reading of the Bible! This is another one of those big myths which has worked its way into the popular dialog but one that has not been proved from Church teaching and documents.
There are two good list of quotes from Church documents and leaders of the Church from the early centuries until today.
The second is a list of Catholic Bibles from ancient times that prove the charge against the Catholic Church false, since the Forewords and Prefaces prove that the Catholic Church PROMOTED the reading of Scripture.
Here is the beginning of a long article which gives a TON of information on this topic and proves the Catholic Church has not forbidden the reading of Scripture — but quite the contrary, it has always promoted the reading and study of Scripture by the faithful.
catholic-convert.com/2010/03/03/catholic-church-dont-read-the-bible/
There are two good list of quotes from Church documents and leaders of the Church from the early centuries until today.
The second is a list of Catholic Bibles from ancient times that prove the charge against the Catholic Church false, since the Forewords and Prefaces prove that the Catholic Church PROMOTED the reading of Scripture.
Here is the beginning of a long article which gives a TON of information on this topic and proves the Catholic Church has not forbidden the reading of Scripture — but quite the contrary, it has always promoted the reading and study of Scripture by the faithful.
catholic-convert.com/2010/03/03/catholic-church-dont-read-the-bible/
G
grace_singh
Guest
one of the reasons, even if in light of modern practice a bad idea, would have been to keep the laity from reading and interpreting the text of the Bible in strange ways, and wading into heresy.
this was one of the practices of certain heretical groups, like the Cathars, which angered and challenged the Catholic Church. these groups often read the Scriptures in the common tongue, and would interpret what they read in non-traditional, heretical, or counter-Catholic ways.
when the Church interprets the Bible and the laity hears and understands the contents of the Bible solely through homilies, liturgy, hymns, art work, religious instruction, and prayers, there is a lesser chance of someone taking an idea or passage found in Scripture out of context, infusing his own ideas instead of sound doctrine, finding himself at odds with the Church, and influencing others to think similarly.
this was one of the practices of certain heretical groups, like the Cathars, which angered and challenged the Catholic Church. these groups often read the Scriptures in the common tongue, and would interpret what they read in non-traditional, heretical, or counter-Catholic ways.
when the Church interprets the Bible and the laity hears and understands the contents of the Bible solely through homilies, liturgy, hymns, art work, religious instruction, and prayers, there is a lesser chance of someone taking an idea or passage found in Scripture out of context, infusing his own ideas instead of sound doctrine, finding himself at odds with the Church, and influencing others to think similarly.
M
momor
Guest
I went to Catholic grade school in the 60’s and Bible reading was never encouraged. Our instruction always involved the Baltimore catechism or religion books, not the Bible. So while it was not discouraged, neither was it encouraged. I grew up with the idea that I got all of the Bible teaching I needed from Mass.
H
hellopeople
Guest
Prevention of another reformation?
G
grace_singh
Guest
more like helping the faithful to stay within the parameters of sound doctrine and practice, and leaving teaching, interpretation, and theology for the Church.
and also of course, in light of the break-away or heretical groups which arose, preventing further disunity and mis-use (from the Catholic point of view) of the Scriptures.
E
edwest2
Guest
More Vatican II related nonsense. Reading of the Bible was not discouraged. Most people owned Family Bibles that recorded births and marriages.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
If reading the Scriptures was forbidden, why did, for instance, Pope Leo XIII in 1893 write Providentissimus Deus which encouraged reading of the Scriptures and then went further and gave an indulgence for reading the Scriptures for a minimum of 30 minutes. 
The prohibition was (and STILL is) against interpreting Scripture in a way contrary to the magisterial teaching of the Church.
The prohibition was (and STILL is) against interpreting Scripture in a way contrary to the magisterial teaching of the Church.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The Protestant Reformation did NOT come about because people were ‘suddenly’ ALLOWED to read the Bible and (as a matter of course) ‘found out’ that Catholicism wasn’t ‘Biblical’.
First, Bibles had existed (in written in the vernacular, as well as in Latin) for centuries. Thing was, until the Industrial Revolution, the majority of people were not literate. And until the advent of the printing press, any book–and especially a large book like the Bible–would have to be hand-copied and the cost was prohibitive. Even so, many ‘nobles’, kings, etc. owned Bibles. There would be Bibles in monasteries. BECAUSE Bibles were rare and expensive to produce, they couldn’t be ‘left out’ (and as I mentioned, 90% and more of the people there couldn’t have read it anyway); if it were left out, it would be stolen and either sold as is or broken down (often Bibles were illustrated with gold ‘leaf’, for example, or the cover had precious stones embedded in it, and this could be ‘stripped’ and sold.) Does your local art gallery leave its works ‘out’ for you to take home and look it?
Second, the Church IS Biblical. But readers of the Bible do not necessarily read and understand ‘correctly’ (unless there is someone to ‘interpret’, as the eunuch told St. Philip when St. Philip asked said eunuch if he understood what he was READING.)
Here is an exercise. Simple sentence, 7 words.
I didn’t say you stole the money.
Seems easy to understand, right?
But just from reading the above and without any understanding of the context or the emphasis. . .
Is the sentence,
<> didn’t say you stole the money. (somebody else did, so don’t accuse me)
I <<didn’t>> say you stole the money. (I stood up for you.)
I didn’t <> you stole the money. (I may have ‘looked’ or ‘implied’ but I never came right out and said it in so many words.)
I didn’t say <> stole the money. (I said somebody ELSE stole the money).
I didn’t say you <> the money. (I may have said you borrowed it, or it was given to you).
I didn’t say you stole the <<money.>> (I may have said you took something else, but not the money).
See, that one little sentence can be understood in SEVERAL different ways. Radically different in fact. Everything from standing up for a person unjustly accused of stealing money, to accusing somebody ELSE of stealing, or to say that something was taken but not money. . .
So people just ‘reading’ in a Bible, especially if they start reading words which (as words will) change slightly in meaning from century to century. . .
As ‘pray’ in its original meaning meant ‘ask’ and now to certain Fundamentalists means, and ONLY means, “speaking to God alone”. . .
and ‘gay’ only 50 years ago meant ‘happy’ (Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble, in having a ‘gay old time’, were not a homosexual couple! But today’s cool scion of 2010 hearing the word ‘gay’ automatically thinks 'homosexual!"). . .
Would find themselves caught up with skewed understanding and lack of comprehension. Because they thought that they could simply ‘read a sentence’ and understand ‘plain words.’
So what --and tell me how you are CERTAIN–did I mean by my sentence above, and by what authority do you know that I meant what you say I did?
First, Bibles had existed (in written in the vernacular, as well as in Latin) for centuries. Thing was, until the Industrial Revolution, the majority of people were not literate. And until the advent of the printing press, any book–and especially a large book like the Bible–would have to be hand-copied and the cost was prohibitive. Even so, many ‘nobles’, kings, etc. owned Bibles. There would be Bibles in monasteries. BECAUSE Bibles were rare and expensive to produce, they couldn’t be ‘left out’ (and as I mentioned, 90% and more of the people there couldn’t have read it anyway); if it were left out, it would be stolen and either sold as is or broken down (often Bibles were illustrated with gold ‘leaf’, for example, or the cover had precious stones embedded in it, and this could be ‘stripped’ and sold.) Does your local art gallery leave its works ‘out’ for you to take home and look it?
Second, the Church IS Biblical. But readers of the Bible do not necessarily read and understand ‘correctly’ (unless there is someone to ‘interpret’, as the eunuch told St. Philip when St. Philip asked said eunuch if he understood what he was READING.)
Here is an exercise. Simple sentence, 7 words.
I didn’t say you stole the money.
Seems easy to understand, right?
But just from reading the above and without any understanding of the context or the emphasis. . .
Is the sentence,
<> didn’t say you stole the money. (somebody else did, so don’t accuse me)
I <<didn’t>> say you stole the money. (I stood up for you.)
I didn’t <> you stole the money. (I may have ‘looked’ or ‘implied’ but I never came right out and said it in so many words.)
I didn’t say <> stole the money. (I said somebody ELSE stole the money).
I didn’t say you <> the money. (I may have said you borrowed it, or it was given to you).
I didn’t say you stole the <<money.>> (I may have said you took something else, but not the money).
See, that one little sentence can be understood in SEVERAL different ways. Radically different in fact. Everything from standing up for a person unjustly accused of stealing money, to accusing somebody ELSE of stealing, or to say that something was taken but not money. . .
So people just ‘reading’ in a Bible, especially if they start reading words which (as words will) change slightly in meaning from century to century. . .
As ‘pray’ in its original meaning meant ‘ask’ and now to certain Fundamentalists means, and ONLY means, “speaking to God alone”. . .
and ‘gay’ only 50 years ago meant ‘happy’ (Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble, in having a ‘gay old time’, were not a homosexual couple! But today’s cool scion of 2010 hearing the word ‘gay’ automatically thinks 'homosexual!"). . .
Would find themselves caught up with skewed understanding and lack of comprehension. Because they thought that they could simply ‘read a sentence’ and understand ‘plain words.’
So what --and tell me how you are CERTAIN–did I mean by my sentence above, and by what authority do you know that I meant what you say I did?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Anecdotally, Carl, my grandfather (born in Bavaria in 1885) had several Bibles (one in German, one in Latin, one in Greek, one in French, and one in English. He spoke and wrote 8 languages altogether). My mother, born the youngest of 6 in 1929, grew up with the big “family” Bibles (German and English --her older sisters having received for their families the Latin and the French ones respectively) to read. My grandmother to the day of her death read from the Old Testament and New Testament daily every morning when she woke and every night before bed.
My mother’s children (born in the 1950s) grew up with the big family Bible with all the birth, death, first communion, confirmation, marriage records etc. We also had a marvelous set (lost tragically in a fire in my teen years) of the Bible Stories for Children which was a set of I believe at least a dozen large books of ‘stories’ which were in magazine-like style about the size of the National Geographic and included along with the stories (Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, David, Ruth, and the New Testament etc.) color photographs of the various regions and information about Israel, its history, geography, customs etc. Loved reading those!
So we always knew how important it was to read the Bible, and that there was an INDULGENCE for doing so. And. . .we did so. And still do. And will, God willing, our lives long.
My mother’s children (born in the 1950s) grew up with the big family Bible with all the birth, death, first communion, confirmation, marriage records etc. We also had a marvelous set (lost tragically in a fire in my teen years) of the Bible Stories for Children which was a set of I believe at least a dozen large books of ‘stories’ which were in magazine-like style about the size of the National Geographic and included along with the stories (Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, David, Ruth, and the New Testament etc.) color photographs of the various regions and information about Israel, its history, geography, customs etc. Loved reading those!
So we always knew how important it was to read the Bible, and that there was an INDULGENCE for doing so. And. . .we did so. And still do. And will, God willing, our lives long.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Catholic Church never forbade the reading of the Bible. This is one of those myths that grew out of proportion. Like many myths, it has its roots in something that is true, but the truth of this myth has been forgotten.
During the Protestant Reformation the Reformers taught that the individual did not need the intervention of the Church to understand Sacred Scripture, but that the Holy Spirit would enlighten the reader. Well, we all know how this turned out. From three Protestant movements we now have several thousand branches of the Reformation Communities.
The Church, in an effort to combat this problem forbade the individual interpretation of scripture. Let’s look back at history. Let’s go further back, before the Reformation. Long before he became a religious Francis of Assisi was reading the scriptures. We know this from his writings. He actually quotes the passages in scripture that prompted him to leave everything and follow Christ. But he checked out his interpretation with the local priest, then the local bishop and finally with Pope Honorius III.
St. Catherine of Siena, a lay woman and Doctor of the Church, wrote her great theological treatise on the Mystical Marriage in which she quotes many images and passages from Sacred Scripture. St. Teresa of Avila also quotes from scripture in her writings and in her letters. We go over to England to Thomas More, a Secular Franciscan. He too wrote spiritual writings and quoted Sacred Scripture.
If you move into the Pre-Vatican II 20th century you have prolific writers and spiritual guides such as Catherine de Hueck Doherty who wrote a great deal on the spiritual life and quoted very freely from Sacred Scripture.
What these people all have in common is that they do not interpret scripture liberally. They interpret scripture against the backdrop of Catholic teaching and the faith of the Apostles. They were always guided by a spiritual director.
Today, even among faithful Catholics, the problem that arose during the Reformation is repeating itself. Too many people are citing scripture out of context, without the historical background, and with their own understanding and not the meaning that the Church gives to the different passages from scripture. We see it in these forums all the time. It is this kind of reading of scripture that the Church has always forbidden.
One may read the scriptures and ask oneself what the Lord is trying to tell us, as individuals. But we cannot apply what we get out of our reading of scripture, to others. That is not allowed by the Church. Only the Church and those whom the Church delegates to do so, may interpret scripture and apply it to the general population. Private interpretation of scripture must remain private. One can share, but not apply it to others. There is a difference between sharing what one understands and what one gets out of a passage and quite another story applying what one interprets as a given doctrine for everyone. Not everything in scripture means what it says. Many passages in scripture are connected to passages and stories in other books of the bible. Many are written for a specific purpose and with a specific audience in mind. Many words in the original Greek do not exist in English. We have to use the closest possible term. This is the danger in trying to apply what one interprets to the whole Church, unless one is very familiar with hermeneutics, exegesis, history, linguistics, literary genre, dogma and tradition. All the pieces have to fit together.
To close, Catholics have never been forbidden to read Scripture. The application of private interpretation to the universal Church Is not allowed, unless the interpretation is approved by the Church. Unfortunately, this evolved into a myth that some people believed and enforced. But it appears nowhere in Church law past or present.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
During the Protestant Reformation the Reformers taught that the individual did not need the intervention of the Church to understand Sacred Scripture, but that the Holy Spirit would enlighten the reader. Well, we all know how this turned out. From three Protestant movements we now have several thousand branches of the Reformation Communities.
The Church, in an effort to combat this problem forbade the individual interpretation of scripture. Let’s look back at history. Let’s go further back, before the Reformation. Long before he became a religious Francis of Assisi was reading the scriptures. We know this from his writings. He actually quotes the passages in scripture that prompted him to leave everything and follow Christ. But he checked out his interpretation with the local priest, then the local bishop and finally with Pope Honorius III.
St. Catherine of Siena, a lay woman and Doctor of the Church, wrote her great theological treatise on the Mystical Marriage in which she quotes many images and passages from Sacred Scripture. St. Teresa of Avila also quotes from scripture in her writings and in her letters. We go over to England to Thomas More, a Secular Franciscan. He too wrote spiritual writings and quoted Sacred Scripture.
If you move into the Pre-Vatican II 20th century you have prolific writers and spiritual guides such as Catherine de Hueck Doherty who wrote a great deal on the spiritual life and quoted very freely from Sacred Scripture.
What these people all have in common is that they do not interpret scripture liberally. They interpret scripture against the backdrop of Catholic teaching and the faith of the Apostles. They were always guided by a spiritual director.
Today, even among faithful Catholics, the problem that arose during the Reformation is repeating itself. Too many people are citing scripture out of context, without the historical background, and with their own understanding and not the meaning that the Church gives to the different passages from scripture. We see it in these forums all the time. It is this kind of reading of scripture that the Church has always forbidden.
One may read the scriptures and ask oneself what the Lord is trying to tell us, as individuals. But we cannot apply what we get out of our reading of scripture, to others. That is not allowed by the Church. Only the Church and those whom the Church delegates to do so, may interpret scripture and apply it to the general population. Private interpretation of scripture must remain private. One can share, but not apply it to others. There is a difference between sharing what one understands and what one gets out of a passage and quite another story applying what one interprets as a given doctrine for everyone. Not everything in scripture means what it says. Many passages in scripture are connected to passages and stories in other books of the bible. Many are written for a specific purpose and with a specific audience in mind. Many words in the original Greek do not exist in English. We have to use the closest possible term. This is the danger in trying to apply what one interprets to the whole Church, unless one is very familiar with hermeneutics, exegesis, history, linguistics, literary genre, dogma and tradition. All the pieces have to fit together.
To close, Catholics have never been forbidden to read Scripture. The application of private interpretation to the universal Church Is not allowed, unless the interpretation is approved by the Church. Unfortunately, this evolved into a myth that some people believed and enforced. But it appears nowhere in Church law past or present.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Major_Tom
Guest
I’ve heard that point before. With respect, it’s never seemed convincing to me. I imagine a scenario where Jesus retruns to Earth, and is about to speak to all… when he is ushered into a room with only the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops. His comments are sequestered from the public. Why? Well, the public may not fully understand the theology of his teachings! Best have the Church listen and explicate as necessary, to avoid any confusion…!
J
JReducation
Guest
If you read my post above, you will see what actuallly happened and how the instruction given by the Holy See were evolved into something that was not meant by the Holy See. The only point that the Holy See made was that there is no private interpretation of scripture that can be applied to the universal Church. All interpretation of scripture for the universal Church must come from the successors of the Apostles.
Individuals have always been allowed to reflect on the scriptures for their personal edification and sanctification. They simply cannot take what they understand and what works for their spiritual development and apply it to others without the approval of the Magisterium. The teaching authority was handed to the Apostles. Therefore, only the Apostles and their successors were to teach the meaning of the scriptures for the entire Church. But that never implied that individuals should not read the scriptures and try to hear what God is saying to them for their personal circumstances.
History bears this out. Many lay people have used the scriptures very correclty to begin great movements in the Church or to teach great theology. Two great examples were Francis of Assisi and Catherine of Siena. Neither was a religious or a priest when they began using the scriptures. Catherine never became a religious and Francis became a religious must later after his order had already existed for several years. It was originally a lay movement.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
PJM
Guest
Yes IF ???
If by pre Vatican II you mean to go back to about the year 1,600 and the advent of the Protestant Revolutation; your correct. If on the other hand; your referring to modern or present times; then you are incorrect.
Two questions:
1. Why did the CC have this practice?
2. Looking back, was it a proper [fruitful] decision?
- The Catholic Church implemented this dicision for th following reasons.
- The level of education and ability to read and write was limited. Of course it grew over time. But when implemented this was a very valid consideration.
Acts 8: 30 "So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
[BThes. 2:13 ** “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”
** Eph. 4: 18** “they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart;”
It was because of passages such as these, that led the Fathers to implement such a policy.
2.Looking back was it a proper and fruitful decision?
** That is profoundly signifiant.**Code:History gives it a resounding YES. Based on the growth of the CC, the level of piety, the numbers of recorded Saints, one cn reach no other conclusion Further... looking at the results of about 400 years of Protestant unacceptance of this policy and the resulting MANY, Many Hundreds if not Thousands of seperate denomination..... One ought to accept the Catholic Position as the better choice. Even after the Publication of the Douey Rheims Bible in the common language, publisded just a few years before the King James Bible, the first truly "sucessful" Protestant Bible; the Catholic Church after 2,000 years still holds to a Common Faith, and 27 branches all still tied togather as "Catholics."
X
Xeyed818
Guest
Same here. In 12 yrs of parochial school, I never once opened a Bible in any religion class. Guess Mass six days a week in grade school was counted as a sufficient foundation. Even as electives, it would have been nice, in high school, to have had the option of Greek/Hebrew/ language studies along with Bible study. Also, the existence of and how to use the reference materials like lexicons and commentaries.
I received a great education that served me well in the world…good study habits and critical thinking skills. Religion/spirituality simply wasn’t part of the package, nor part of my life for many years.
When all four children in our family left the CC after high school, my parents were mystified. It wasn’t until years later that I could see how differently things might have gone if we had early begun to love the Word.
“Train a child up in the way you want him to go…” Why didn’t the CC do that? I don’t know. But to say that ‘passive discouragement’ was not in play, is simply not true. Is it different today? Perhaps, to a degree.
PJ
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Maybe this is where Catholics get the idea they aren’t supposed to read the Bible? It comes from not having had the Bible as part of their education?
K
kkollwitz
Guest
I was born in '57. In my experience, the typical Catholic on both sides of V2 wasn’t-isn’t a Bible reader because, as they will tell you, the Bible is read to Catholics at Mass. I never got a “don’t read the Bible” vibe; it was more like “why would we need to?”
E
edwest2
Guest
It was common during the time period for families to own Bibles. We had Religion Class and it was all about the Bible. The Catechism was about the Bible. We were taught, as appropriate to our age, the things we needed to know. The Ten Commandments. There was a book titled Lives of the Saints. The Bible was brought to life so that we would live by its teachings and understand it. Jesus and His life, death and Resurrection were all explained. That helped us live our lives under the watchful eyes of God every day. There were Catholic calendars.
Ed
Ed
J
janeway529
Guest
Anecdotally, my mother who was born in 1947 in the Philippines recalled that when the laity asked their parish priests for ‘Bible Studies,’ the usual response was, “No, that’s something the Protestants do.” Unfortunately, this discouragement/non-encouragement led to some parishioners seeking Sacred Scripture outside the Catholic Church and their eventual leaving the Church.
- Status