Protestants Rejecting Catholicism

[alwayswill]

Why do you say this (that proves nothing)?

I was not trying to prove anything. In fact you seemed want to do so by giving the poll result. Actually I was trying to say that ‘prove nothing’. It is not about reading the Bible per se that make you understand it but rather whether you have reliable source to understand it.

I already said Protestants are marginally better in Bible knowledge than Catholics. I was being candid about it. But that does not mean Catholics do not know the Bible and your poll result did not prove that.

More importantly it is whether you have the correct understanding of the Bible. That was my contention. Many of Protestants’ understanding of the Bible are flawed and conflict with each other. And if they come from the Holy Spirit, then which one has the right Holy Spirit.

At least for Catholics, they hear the Bible preached and taught to them in the mass, which roughly they get to hear and being taught the whole book of Bible in three year-cycle from the Sunday mass and two-year cycle in daily mass.

So it is not like Catholics are totally deprived of understanding the Bible. But I agreed with the author in the other post that the Catholic Church should have a better Bible program.

Is that alright with you? Do you agree with me?

I agree with this
“So it is not like Catholics are totally deprived of understanding the Bible. But I agreed with the author in the other post that the Catholic Church should have a better Bible program.”

I disagree with this
“At least for Catholics, they hear the Bible preached and taught to them in the mass, which roughly they get to hear and being taught the whole book of Bible in three year-cycle from the Sunday mass and two-year cycle in daily mass.”

Often repeated, but ever checked?
catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

If you went every day

5689 NT verses used used / 7957 NT total verses = 71.5%
3378 OT verses used / 25044 OT total verses = 13:5 %

combined = 27.5% Verses used in the three year cycle

**if you only went on Sundays & Major Feasts **
OT 3.7%
NT 40.8 %
combined = 12.7 %

Do you agree with me?

 

[wmscott]

Just my opinion here… These latest post bring to light the issue I have regarding sacred scripture (Bible) when you have a church that is a church of the book (Bible) instead of the Bible being a book of the Church. As a Convert to the Catholic faith I know that many Protestant churches focus on selected verses to define them and their theological/philosophical positions depending on what that churches main focus is.

So how did Christianity survive for the first 1500 years of Christian history? There were basically no Bibles available to the public. They were limited to the Church and monasteries, and the rich who could afford one. The population relied on the Church to read it to them as most of the world was illiterate at the time.

Christ never wrote any sacred scripture nor commanded the apostles to write any, He commanded them to go out and Preach the word of God. When Christ established His Church it was not a Church of the Bible, but a Church that preached. It wasn’t until the 390’s that the cannon of the Bible was established and is still valid even today.

 

[goout]

I agree with this
“So it is not like Catholics are totally deprived of understanding the Bible. But I agreed with the author in the other post that the Catholic Church should have a better Bible program.”

I disagree with this
“At least for Catholics, they hear the Bible preached and taught to them in the mass, which roughly they get to hear and being taught the whole book of Bible in three year-cycle from the Sunday mass and two-year cycle in daily mass.”

Often repeated, but ever checked?
catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

If you went every day

5689 NT verses used used / 7957 NT total verses = 71.5%
3378 OT verses used / 25044 OT total verses = 13:5 %

combined = 27.5% Verses used in the three year cycle

**if you only went on Sundays & Major Feasts **
OT 3.7%
NT 40.8 %
combined = 12.7 %

Do you agree with me?

What if I did agree with you? What would that prove?

Our faith is not about numbers. Our faith is in a person, not knowledge of a book. The Person is revealed through the scriptures and the living Tradition, which are inseparable.

In the Mass, we are fed by the Scriptures in a living way. Christ is truly present. So it’s not about quantities, it’s about being alive in the Word.
(no, I’m not excusing ignorance of Scripture, any more than excusing ignorance of Tradition)

 

[rcwitness]

I agree with this
“So it is not like Catholics are totally deprived of understanding the Bible. But I agreed with the author in the other post that the Catholic Church should have a better Bible program.”

I disagree with this
“At least for Catholics, they hear the Bible preached and taught to them in the mass, which roughly they get to hear and being taught the whole book of Bible in three year-cycle from the Sunday mass and two-year cycle in daily mass.”

Often repeated, but ever checked?
catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

If you went every day

5689 NT verses used used / 7957 NT total verses = 71.5%
3378 OT verses used / 25044 OT total verses = 13:5 %

combined = 27.5% Verses used in the three year cycle

**if you only went on Sundays & Major Feasts **
OT 3.7%
NT 40.8 %
combined = 12.7 %

Do you agree with me?

I would like to point out something…

You seem to be VERY influenced by statistical polls!

I don’t say this to imply that it’s wrong to use, and rely on polls. Yet! Shouldn’t they be taken with a grain of salt?

I mean, it’s fine to take an educated guess and poll to assess information and make corrections with more emphasis where needed. But to use polls to create a whole conclusion that the Catholic faith is wrong because of supposed numbers that researchers have somehow come up with, is rather an extreme and gross dependency on them.

If Catholics need to study Scripture more, then so be it. If Protestants need to understand Scripture better, then so be it. These are both good messages, and issues that should be dedicated to.

I am in total agreement with Reubens J about two things. First, that even Catholics who do NOT have a good devotion to Scripture study DO in fact get a strong dose of Scripture by merely attending Mass regularly. Secondly, I personally have known many Protestant Christians, and many of them neither know Scripture very well OR have a sound understanding of Scriptural understanding and it’s practice.

I know several Protestants (Evangelical) who claim to be Christian from very young, and now in their 40’s and finally starting to understand what Baptism means, but yet still not seeking to be Baptized! But they have the impulsive reaction to claim bi lical knowledge and devotion to Scripture. It has become a superficial response, and one that they actually believe because a pastor has convinced them that the Word of God is all they need (when that really means that particular pastor’s interpretation). And somehow listening to a bible study to them means having a proper personal devotion to the Bible.

None of this is to claim to know whether more Protestants or Catholics actually study the Scriptures more for themselves. I’m just not persuaded that these polls actually proves such an extreme conclusion that Protestants are adhering to God more accurately because they claim to read the Bible more often.

 

[alwayswill]

I would like to point out something…

You seem to be VERY influenced by statistical polls!

I don’t say this to imply that it’s wrong to use, and rely on polls. Yet! Shouldn’t they be taken with a grain of salt?

I mean, it’s fine to take an educated guess and poll to assess information and make corrections with more emphasis where needed. But to use polls to create a whole conclusion that the Catholic faith is wrong because of supposed numbers that researchers have somehow come up with, is rather an extreme and gross dependency on them.
…

I quote polls in response to…" the people I know…" comments;
as if my Catholic neighbors or Protestants knocking at the door are reasons to make blanket statements.

When there have been multple polls over multiple years from multiple polling companies; all finding the same results; it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to dismiss them with the response…": the people I know…"

Maybe because of my math background , but I fail to see how saying 70% of anything is making a conclusion that that is true about the whole 100%

Maybe I wrongly assume people understand how percentages work.

 

[alwayswill]

I am in total agreement with Reubens J about two things. First, that even Catholics who do NOT have a good devotion to Scripture study DO in fact get a strong dose of Scripture by merely attending Mass regularly. .

I disagree:

This site is not a poll: its not asking anyone’s opinion.
just straight numbers

catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

5689 NT verses used used / 7957 NT total verses = 71.5%
3378 OT verses used / 25044 OT total verses = 13:5 %

combined = 27.5% Verses used in the three year cycle

if you only went on Sundays & Major Feasts
OT 3.7%
NT 40.8 %
combined = 12.7 %

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This is a question for our Protestant friends, especially those who converted away from Catholicism.

What would you describe as being the most important intellectual argument that lead to your either rejecting or not embracing Catholicism?

I’m not attempting to debate you and show you that you’re wrong, I’m just interested in your perspective.

This is difficult to summarize and I also don’t know if one could call this an “argument” per se, but for me it was coming to the realization that the Catholic view of its own history is essentially incorrect, or maybe I should say, grossly incomplete.

Over time, I came to understand that this sort of Petrarchian worldview and theology has produced an imperial church, which I think is contrary to the teachings of Jesus and Christianity. So basically for me, doing more historical research was the beginning of the end.

 

[rcwitness]

I disagree:

This site is not a poll: its not asking anyone’s opinion.
just straight numbers

catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

5689 NT verses used used / 7957 NT total verses = 71.5%
3378 OT verses used / 25044 OT total verses = 13:5 %

combined = 27.5% Verses used in the three year cycle

if you only went on Sundays & Major Feasts
OT 3.7%
NT 40.8 %
combined = 12.7 %

Now can you compare this with Evangelical statistics? What percentage of the bible do they read per Sundays of a 3 yr period?

 

[peter26]

In fairness, simple reading the Bible doesn’t really constitute scripture study, which would be more about discussing the passage, its context, its meaning its application. It would be reasonable to accept that this sort of Bible study is more common at a protestant church than at a Catholic church. That is not to say of course that we do not do other important things (e.g. Communion) more than protestants do. We can each learn from one another!

 

[alwayswill]

Now can you compare this with Evangelical statistics? What percentage of the bible do they read per Sundays of a 3 yr period?

i could for some Evangelical churches: but they are not the ones who made the claim:

“At least for Catholics, they hear the Bible preached and taught to them in the mass, which roughly they get to hear and being taught the whole book of Bible in three year-cycle from the Sunday mass and two-year cycle in daily mass.”"

Which is factually (not an opinion poll) not true.

 

[alwayswill]

In fairness, simple reading the Bible doesn’t really constitute scripture study, which would be more about discussing the passage, its context, its meaning its application. It would be reasonable to accept that this sort of Bible study is more common at a protestant church than at a Catholic church. That is not to say of course that we do not do other important things (e.g. Communion) more than protestants do. We can each learn from one another!

Agreed:
Reading the Bible to yourself or having it read to you from the pulpit is NOT Scripture study.

**“The expository preacher
Expository preachers generally believe that their main duty as a pastor is the preaching of the Bible.
As such, they will spend a considerable amount, if not the majority, of their time studying and understanding the text in question, as well as associated texts on the same subject, **believing it to be absolutely necessary for the welfare of their congregation. **
While studying, they will also be praying that God will reveal to them the proper meaning of the text, and that the hearts and minds of the congregation will be changed by it (believing that they do not have any inherent ability to effect such change, only God can do so).
Expository preachers thus assure themselves that, no matter the “results”, so long as they preach the Bible and through the Bible, they have followed God’s direction.**”
John MacArthur is probably the best known expository preacher in America, and is a proponent of the expository method of preaching (and an outspoken opponent of the topical method as used almost exclusively by some churches).”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expository_preaching#The_expository_preacher

“An expositor cares little if his audience says, “What a great sermon” or “What an entertaining speaker.”
What he truly wants them to say is, “Now I know what that passage means,” or “I better understand who God is and what He requires of me.”****”

gotquestions.org/expository-preaching.html

---

 

[goout]

i could for some Evangelical churches: but they are not the ones who made the claim:

“At least for Catholics, they hear the Bible preached and taught to them in the mass, which roughly they get to hear and being taught the whole book of Bible in three year-cycle from the Sunday mass and two-year cycle in daily mass.”"

Which is factually (not an opinion poll) not true.

And so it is not literally true. I’m not sure the claim was to literalism.
Which passages of the bible do you know by heart? Which do you not? Do you really know “the whole book of the bible”?

At the Mass we have the living Word of God. Everyday the Catholic Church has a scripture study in a context that can be had nowhere else on earth.
Everyday we have scripture, OT and NT. Psalms, Revelation. Hosana.
The Mass is one long tour of Scripture, but in the only context that matters, that of Christ himself.
No other Church has the living Word of God, body blood soul and divinity.

 

[alwayswill]

And so it is not literally true. I’m not sure the claim was to literalism.
Which passages of the bible do you know by heart? Which do you not?

At the Mass we have the living Word of God. Everyday the Catholic Church has a scripture study in a context that can be had nowhere else on earth.
Everyday we have scripture, OT and NT. Psalms, Revelation. Hosana.
The Mass is one long tour of Scripture, but in the only context that matters, that of Christ himself.
No other Church has the living Word of God, body blood soul and divinity.

The claim has been repeated so often i would bet most Catholics think it is 99% true: not 27.5 % true:

I’m not very good at memorizing Scripture: I wish i was better at it: I have changed translations too many times: KJV to NJKC to NIV to ESV

Either way this thread is not about me.
If I have memorized 3000 verses and the average Evangelical has memorized 12 verses; then still, the average Evangelical has memorized 12 verses

While both Logos and graphe theopneustos. can be translated as the Word of God in English
The Logos is not graphe theopneustos
and
Graphe theopneustos is not the Logos

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Even Cardinal Arinze, former head of the Congregation for Divine Worship was extremely confused on the relationship between the Lectionary and the Bible:

“In the Mass, the Lectionary is so arranged as to cover most of the Bible in a three-year Sunday Reading and a two-year weekday lesson programme.” “Introduction to Sacrosanctum Concilium,” in The Second Vatican Council: The Four Constitutions. Ignatius Press, 2013.]

I remember being shocked when I first read this claim, which Cardinal Arinze repeated in many various contexts. I thought that “Wow, if the person in charge of worship for the entire Catholic Church is this unfamiliar with what’s in the Bible and the differences between the Bible and the contents of the lectionary, that’s a serious problem for Catholics.”

 

[camkutz]

A lot of Anglicans I have spoken to have either a strong anti-papal/purgatory approach or the fact that we seem to be “behind the times” with regards to homosexuality and female ordination and the like.

I try to explain that truth cannot change but there you go

 

[Reuben_J]

I disagree with this
“At least for Catholics, they hear the Bible preached and taught to them in the mass, which roughly they get to hear and being taught the whole book of Bible in three year-cycle from the Sunday mass and two-year cycle in daily mass.”

Often repeated, but ever checked?
catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

If you went every day

5689 NT verses used used / 7957 NT total verses = 71.5%
3378 OT verses used / 25044 OT total verses = 13:5 %

combined = 27.5% Verses used in the three year cycle

**if you only went on Sundays & Major Feasts **
OT 3.7%
NT 40.8 %
combined = 12.7 %

Do you agree with me?

I disagree. I cannot agree with something I did not say.

I said roughly.

I said they roughly get to hear the whole Bible, not the whole Bible but roughly the whole Bible. The readings would cover the main passages of the Bible, and just by attending Sunday mass, they got to cover roughly the whole Bible.

That is not so bad actually. And if they read on their own at home, even not as intensive as the Protestants, they are not completely ignorant.

I had given you an example where the Evangelicals who came to my house a few times literally armed with the Bible to challenge my belief, disrespect and disparaged my religion. I think these were the type who really read the Bible. They packed the Bible in their bags and under their arms and confident enough to approach Catholics, even though they knew that I was a Catholic, to sort of ‘testing’ my Bible knowledge.

I thought they failed, and what a shame that a Bible reading Christian could not out do a mass going Catholic in their own trade.

So my point was, it does not necessarily mean that you know your Bible well even though you read it a lot if you are not being taught the correct understanding of it.

God bless you.

 

[rcwitness]

So my point was, it does not necessarily mean that you know your Bible well even though you read it a lot if you are not being taught the correct understanding of it.

Yes. The Scriptures, heard in context and veneration with the Veneration of the Liturgy of His Eucharist, is greater than even memorizing the whole Bible. It still goes to support, ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

This is difficult to summarize and I also don’t know if one could call this an “argument” per se, but for me it was coming to the realization that the Catholic view of its own history is essentially incorrect, or maybe I should say, grossly incomplete.

I’ve always found it rather interesting when people say this.

 

[rcwitness]

Even Cardinal Arinze, former head of the Congregation for Divine Worship was extremely confused on the relationship between the Lectionary and the Bible:

“In the Mass, the Lectionary is so arranged as to cover most of the Bible in a three-year Sunday Reading and a two-year weekday lesson programme.” “Introduction to Sacrosanctum Concilium,” in The Second Vatican Council: The Four Constitutions. Ignatius Press, 2013.]So how much Bible is covered in a 3 yr Sunday cycle and a 2 yr weekday lesson programme?

I remember being shocked when I first read this claim, which Cardinal Arinze repeated in many various contexts. I thought that “Wow, if the person in charge of worship for the entire Catholic Church is this unfamiliar with what’s in the Bible and the differences between the Bible and the contents of the lectionary, that’s a serious problem for Catholics.”

 

[Reuben_J]

Dave Noonan:

Even Cardinal Arinze, former head of the Congregation for Divine Worship was extremely confused on the relationship between the Lectionary and the Bible:

"In the Mass, the Lectionary is so arranged as to cover most of the Bible in a three-year Sunday Reading and a two-year weekday lesson programme." “Introduction to Sacrosanctum Concilium,” in The Second Vatican Council: The Four Constitutions. Ignatius Press, 2013.]So how much Bible is covered in a 3 yr Sunday cycle and a 2 yr weekday lesson programme?

I remember being shocked when I first read this claim, which Cardinal Arinze repeated in many various contexts. I thought that “Wow, if the person in charge of worship for the entire Catholic Church is this unfamiliar with what’s in the Bible and the differences between the Bible and the contents of the lectionary, that’s a serious problem for Catholics.”

How was the Cardinal ’unfamiliar with what’s in the Bible and the differences between the Bible and the contents of the lectionary’?