C
Cyril_Of_Canada
Guest
I’m the first caller in on the first half of the show for those who haven’t listened.
- Status
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Oh I didn’t mean for you take my post in a negative or offending manner if you did. I perhaps more than some can very much understand your journey. Peace.Yes I’m well aware of the Catholic Church’s position on Former Catholics.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Co redemptrix is much easier to understand and not offensive at all. John the Baptist was in a sense a co redeemer. So were the apostles and martyrs who gave their lives so that we could hear and beliveve the gospel. Only one true redeemer and that’s Jesus, but he uses many instruments to build up the kingdom
With the apparations, OTOH, i question the terminology. I wonder if maybe those kids at Fatima misunderstood what was said
S
steve_b
Guest
having read the article, I was thinking the whole time I was reading, OK, Fr. Thomas Reese , author of the article, senior analyst at NCR, and past editor of “America” a Jesuit magazine, what is his position in teaching from the pulpit?
taking 2 excerpts from the article, (all emphasis mine)
I personally wouldn’t say it that way. He creates a false distinction IMV, between understanding the bible vs memorizing the Catechism. I would say both understanding the bible AND memorizing the Catechism, are good and important. It’s not an either /or and not a ranking of importance. The reason I say it that way, is because while the scriptures are all true, not all truth is written in the bible. The Catechism uses scripture copiously, & explains the faith through the scriptures and the teaching office of the Church. The Church that has the 2000 yr Tradition going back to Jesus and the apostles, & the promise of Jesus not even the gates of Hell will prevail against HIS Church.
The Church agrees with that. As St Jerome said “to be ignorant of scripture is to be ignorant of Christ”.
Therefore, if one really knows scripture, and worship is what is being attacked in this article, i.e. particularly the mass, then he should have said NO Catholic would ever leave the Catholic Church, and Protestants / evangelical Protestants of whatever stripe, could not stay away from the Catholic Church because the mass is pure scripture and it is a command in scripture.
#20
R
Reuben_J
Guest
If he is making a point, and to be seen that way, the statement is acceptable.
The first sentence - We can have an improved program in Bible education among Catholics which, at the moment, is mainly optional and on individual basis. If it is an exhortation it would simply mean let’s read, study, discus and live the Bible more.
We need to know our Bible well; it will solve many problems if it is understood correctly. For that matter, all Christians should.
I feel it is also untrue that Protestants are better in the Bible though perhaps marginally, considering their great emphasis on it. A well-known priest, a great Bible scholar himself, once said at our retreat that sometimes the focus can be lopsided - that Protestants put great emphasis on the Bible because they do not have the Eucharist while Catholics, because of the Eucharist, they neglect the Bible.
Of course he did not mean it literally that way but we knew what he meant.
As for the second sentence – understood literally, that should be true. The Bible should be the priority but not at the expense of the Catechism. Of course, it is near impossible to memorize the latter but as all Catholics have a copy in their home like they have the Bible, the Catechism should always be perused perhaps at least as references.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I thought we could only call women “father”.
P
Peter_J
Guest
My experience on this forum is that Catholic, with a capital C, means ICWR (in communion with Rome). But maybe that’s in the process of changing.
I know Fr Robert Hart calls Anglicans “Catholic”.
A
alwayswill
Guest
He never said “or” :
He never any made a distinction between understanding the bible bible vs memorizing the Catechism
He did say "
"The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. "
“More” is not “or”
A
alwayswill
Guest
Every post is from a Catholic source
for nearly four centuries the Catholic Church as effectively discourage the reading of the Bible
From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops
usccb.org/bible/understan…e-readings.cfm
"Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture. "
The Catholic Church has effectively deprecated the value of the Bible
catholicity.com/commentary/carlin/05386.html
.From Catholic city
“Of course, there is an old tradition among lay Catholics of not reading the Bible. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, this non-reading was a natural byproduct of the fact that the vast majority of lay Catholics were illiterate. Besides, such Bibles as were available were written in Latin, not the vernacular languages. And then, once the Reformation took place, Bible-reading took on the color of being a distinctively Protestant thing, therefore something faithful Catholics should avoid. Protestants, after all, appealed to the authority of the Bible to challenge the authority of the pope and the bishops, and when they read the Bible they came to certain theological conclusions that conflicted with Catholic doctrine.** Reading the Bible was dangerous for Catholics.”**
In the long period from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, a period of approximately four centuries, the Catholic Church adopted a highly defensive mode of being. There were two great intellectual dangers to the Faith – first the Protestant danger and then the secularist danger that stemmed from the Enlightenment. The Index of Prohibited Books was created to defend Catholics against these dangers.** Of course, it was impossible to put the Bible on the Index, since the Bible, according to Catholic teaching, was the inspired Word of God. But if the Bible couldn’t be banned, at least Catholics could be effectively discouraged from reading it. **
There were several ways of doing this:◦A strong emphasis on Natural Religion had the effect of depreciating the value of Revelation generally.
◦A strong emphasis on Tradition as a second source of Divine Revelation had the effect of depreciating the value of the Bible.◦
Secondhand narrations of biblical stories, instead of moving Catholics to consult the original sources (the Bible itself), more often gave them the impression that it was not necessary to examine the Bible.
◦Catholics were told that they must not read Protestant translations of the Bible (e.g., the Authorized Version); if they insisted on reading the Bible, they must read properly annotated Catholic translations.
◦Some gentle ridicule directed at the Biblicism of our “separated brethren” taught Catholics to shy away from the Bible.
◦In general, Catholics were seldom seriously encouraged by their priests and nuns to search the Scriptures.
Produced lazy Catholics
from Catholic.com
archive.is/UWfzV
.The Bible-reading habits of Catholics lag far behind those of Evangelical Protestants.
My guess is that many Catholics simply don’t want to do the work. They are content to let Mother Church spoon-feed them. (They want to remain “babes in Christ” who drink “milk,” as Paul says.)
But the “solution” of many Catholics—to not read the Bible at all so as to not be “confused” or "led astray"
and Produced Biblically illiterate Catholics
From EWTN
“Q**: Is one of the goals of this program to promote “biblical literacy” among Catholics, who have often been characterized as being “illiterate” when it comes to Scripture?
Healy: Absolutely! Unfortunately, that description is not far off the mark”**
And the result is:
from the National Catholic Reporter
That** Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches** because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace.
Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people.
Few Catholics read the Bible.
The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary.
If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.
ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants
P
Peter_J
Guest
A
alwayswill
Guest
quoting from
catholicity.com/commentary/carlin/05386.html
According to the poll, 25 percent of Evangelical Protestants read the Bible daily, as do 20 percent of other Protestants, while daily Bible-reading is done by only 7 percent of Catholics…
…
“Far more disturbing was the poll result that showed that 44 percent of Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible.”
quoting from:
christiantoday.com.au/article/luther.rome.and.the.bible/5255.htm
"Only one in four Italians had read a passage from the Bible in the past year, the survey revealed, compared to three out of four in the USA. Few even knew whether or not the Gospels were part of the Bible. Philosophy graduates confused Paul with Moses and thought that Jesus wrote Genesis, according to the survey. This despite the encouragement of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) for the faithful to rediscover Scripture as the primary source of spiritual life."
A
alwayswill
Guest
umm… i don’t know Steve BNot to “butt in” but interesting post. Are you, like, the non-Catholic Steve b?
If you asking if I am steve b: I am not
P
Peter_J
Guest
No, I said “Are you, like, the non-Catholic Steve b?”
Does no one around here have a sense of humor?
S
steve_b
Guest
The Catholic Church gave us both the bible and the catechism.
Re: understanding the bible is more important than memorizing the catechism, I’m saying, that is a false dichotomy. Both are equally needed
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Yes that is mine as well. Hence my adjective. I do find it a bit odd though that a forum purporting itself to be “CA” doesn’t define a Catholic as the Catholic Church does.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
It is not about merely reading the Bible but understanding it correctly. If you are mass going Christian, you are guaranteed of having the Bible being read and explained to you, though it pretty much depends on the homily/sermon regarding the passages being read.
On the other hand, your average Protestants’ knowledge of the Bible seem pretty much hanged on the memorized verses and do not have a clue when challenged or being asked on other parts of the Bible that they are not taught with. Any many of their understanding of certain part of the Bible are just plain wrong. At least those Evangelicals who came to my house anyway. While I admire their enthusiasm, their understanding and knowledge of the Bible were pitiful.
So there have to be a balance somewhere in the usage of the Bible but more importantly to know it correctly.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
I think there is plenty of truth here. I do believe the church witnessed the endless fragmentation that Sola Scriptura created on the protestant side. So the result was a intentional lack of emphasis on the reading of scriptures by the clergy to the parishoners.
Im fairly certain the church didnt like the idea of its parishoners causing so many headaces by trying to customize God and Christianity in general, into what they want it to be based on their own fallible interpretation of the scriptures.
But the point of Christians needing to be biblically literate is a valid one. That said, The bible and the catechism go hand and hand as there are countless scriptural references within it. Even Luther understood the extreme importance of proper catechesis, thus he composed multiple catechisms of his own. The later reformers chose to deviate from this reality, and as a result, have almost completely separated themselves from their roots, imo. Not Luther’s intention at all and if he did have buyer’s remorse as i have heard, i understand why.
A
alwayswill
Guest
" At least those Evangelicals who came to my house anyway"
I think we all can claim that “the people I know …”
That proves nothing.
for ex: everyone of my Catholic neighbors say they believe in the Immaculate Conception:
not one knew it was about Mary’s conception.
That proves nothing.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
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?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
A few times Evangelicals came to my house. They rang on my gate and I let them in. They started quoting the Biblical verses to me which they seemed to be quite fluent enough.
I said to them that we were a Catholic family (household) which was quite obvious even if I did not say so, what with all the crucifixes and the statues of Mother Mary placed prominently in the house.
I thought they were flaunting their Bible knowledge and did not respect my belief and as if I was ignorant of the Bible. So I discussed with them about the verses that they quoted and when I countered them with my own, they seemed to be at a loss.
They excused themselves, and after a week another couple came, probably from the same church and started the procedure all over again. I discussed with them again and gave them an earful of my own understanding of the Bible when they excused themselves. I said, stayed on but they did not and never returned ever since. Then there was another couple that came to our house after some time.
They were not that good in the Bible contrary to what they were purported to be.
- Status