Question to Protestants...

[Archbishop]

In many Protestant churches, particularly those who are evangelical in nature, there is an emphasis on systematic preaching and teaching of the Scriptures. We call this expository preaching. For example, preaching through books of the Bible, or preaching a series of messages on certain doctrines such as election, predestination, the second coming, the Levitical Offerings, Spiritual Gifts, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.

Generally this is not done in Catholic pulpits due to the nature of the homilies. (The same can be said for many Protestant churches that follow the lectionary.) Thus, when preaching is done by skipping around, there tends to be less continuity to what the people know about the Bible unless they study it in depth on their own.

My own experience in Catholic churches is that the priests talk as if they have not even studied the text they were preaching from. The homily is usually a feel good talk that may not even reference the readings for the day. There is no real explanation of the Scriptures. There was one exception at a church near St. Louis. The priest was a very good preacher and I actually heard the gospel presented there.

I know I will hear excuses about how the main thing at Mass is the Eucharist, etc, etc. and that Bible study is done at other times. Well, the Mass is a service of both Word and Sacrament. I think many priests forget that and focus on the Sacrament only.

I encourage my people to bring their Bibles anyway and to take notes. The sermons are recorded and put up on the Internet and my sermon notes are emailed to people after the service. This way we ensure that the parishioners are getting study materials and have something to look at, read, or listen to during the week.

 

[Thal59]

joshua_b:

I will concede that many of my Catholic bretheren (myself included) are not near as adept at reciting Scripture as our Protestant friends, but I take exception to the attitude that Catholics “dont know the Bible” and that “Catholicism is not based on Scripture” or “doesn’t view Scripture as important”. Are there any Protestants out there who can offer some reasons as to why this attitude seems to be so pervasive, or, if any Protestants out there agree with this opinion, give me some insight as to why they perceive the Catholic Church in this light ?

Pardon me for jumping in; I have only read a few lines among the many posts here.

Josh, it is quite simple. When the “Protestants,” as they are generally reffered to, broke way from the church, they also broke away from its authority. (One cannot deny a church while conceeding God given authority to it; one must follow the other.) This left them with a huge authority question. Their answer was to give it to the bible. In essence, many Protestant denominations really have only the bible combined with the personal interpretation of their pastor to anchor them. Therefore, it is mandatory for their preachers to practically memorize scriptures. What would the Presbyterians have, for instance, if they had no bible?

In essence, Catholics do not need to be so beholden to the bible because we have all that the apostles preached in the apostolic Tradition. In other words, we don’t absolutley have to have the written because we have the oral which consists of all that is written and more. Remember the Lord’s promises? He will send the advocate (Holy Spirit) who will …“bring to mind all that I have taught you, (infallible memory) teach you all new things, guide you into all truth, and be with you forever.”

But this causes a sort of side-effect on Catholics. Since we know that the magesterium of the church is perpetually guided by the Holy Spirit, we know we can trust the church in all matters of doctrines and morals. Therefore, if we have faith in the Lord’s promises I listed above, we really do not need to read the bible at all.

The magesterium has, and has had for almost 2,000 years, all of the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Theological, Judaic, Historic etc., scholars necessary (combined with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to make full sense out of scripture that we need. Would it be advisable, that every member of the congregation should obtain a dozen or more PHDs in order to try and figure everything out by himself?

Therefore, Protestants have greater verse memory and recall, (which can be to no avail if said verses are spliced and patched together out of context) while Catholics have a theological treasure trove in academia and Spirit guidance in the magesterium. This allows Catholics a certain freedom from perpetual scriptural arguments and head-scratching and gives us a freedom to employ the tenets of scriptures from the start by adhering to the doctrines of the church and living the faith rather than endlessly arguing about what constitutes the faith.

Thal59

 

[reneeville]

Dear Joshua,

As a former protestant (a mainline denomination) I can tell you that Catholics / Catholicism are either A.) totally ignored (ignorant) or B.) looked upon as rigidly paternalistic (i.e. a common antecdote is “if you want to keep a secret from a Catholic, hide it in the Bible”). I used to think it was great that the pastor where I was would take confirmation kids to a Catholic Mass and a Shabbat service at a local synogouge so they could see how others worshipped… I’ve come to understand that this probably does more to instill the notion of “them versus us”. Most protestant theology is based on sola scriptura and it is precisely these attitudes that prompted me to inquire of God: why I was a protestant?.. Thanks be to God, I’ll be confirmed in the church Jesus charged to Peter at the Easter Vigil. btw… to all protestants reading this: Catholics do read and study the sacred Scriptures.
Renee

If it’s not a child…you’re not pregnant.

joshua_b:

I will concede that many of my Catholic bretheren (myself included) are not near as adept at reciting Scripture as our Protestant friends, but I take exception to the attitude that Catholics “dont know the Bible” and that “Catholicism is not based on Scripture” or “doesn’t view Scripture as important”. Are there any Protestants out there who can offer some reasons as to why this attitude seems to be so pervasive, or, if any Protestants out there agree with this opinion, give me some insight as to why they perceive the Catholic Church in this light ?

 

[joshua_b]

If I may offer another thought for comment…

In light of these perceptions, how much Scripture reading is done in various Protestant services, as compared to the Catholic Mass.

Two points came to mind that are probably worth throwing out for discussion. (Actually its one point, but in two parts). 1. Even if I were to never pick up a Bible, if i did nothing more but attend Mass every day for 3 years, almost the entire Bible would be read to me. (How do different Protestant services compare ?) 2.This would hold true even if I were completely illiterate and had no education whatsoever; I would still be able to hear almost the entire Bible in those 3 years.

Also, BrianH, your comments about putting the Scripture in context puzzles me. Isn’t the whole idea of Sola Scriptura that we can interpret the Bible for ourselves without all of the outside influences of other people, and without the need for anyone to “put it in context ?”

Thank you to EVERYONE by the way…this is a great discussion thread in my humble opinion, and I’m glad to have started it.

 

[aurora77]

joshua_b:

If I may offer another thought for comment…

In light of these perceptions, how much Scripture reading is done in various Protestant services, as compared to the Catholic Mass.

I’m interested in responses to this too. I was thinking about this on Christmas Eve. We went to church at my in-laws non-denom Christian church and then later that night to midnight Mass. There was no comparison in amount of scripture–their preacher spoke on a very small section of Luke, while our Mass was just filled with scripture. I’m curious if others have had similar experiences.

 

[BrianH]

JoshuaB
One of the things we know from the field of education, through the work of Marzanno in particular, is in order to activiate prior knowledge, context must be introduced, connections must be made, and then the learning systematically reinforced. To think a group of verses can be read and information retained without these, flies in the face of the educational research I am familiar with.
Your presuppositions about what constitutes “Sola Scripture” and mine differ. It should be noted, I do not readily embrace that term anyway. It carries, it appears, a certain degree of baggage and lack of scholarship I am not ready to embrace for my personal theological beliefs.
Brian

 

[Kitty_Chan]

joshua_b:

(How do different Protestant services compare ?)

Also, BrianH, your comments about putting the Scripture in context puzzles me. Isn’t the whole idea of Sola Scriptura that we can interpret the Bible for ourselves without all of the outside influences of other people, and without the need for anyone to “put it in context ?”
.

Now Brian may answer but I just want to comment I have never heard so much about sola scripture and interpet oneself. I have never been shown to “go it on my own”. If I said something about the bible and no one could agree with me then Im wrong. I have to be ACCOUNTABLE for what I say especially if I teach.

So we actually speak to one another about scripture, including pastors, elders, family, friends, then theres books, tapes, videos, history, what others have said over the centuries, there is certainly no lack of information out there. This whole “protestants interpert the bible by themselves” is totally inaccurate.

Its like saying catholics say they are only going to be in Heaven, its inaccurate.​

And a thought about the “Protestant services compare” now what im going to say is not about that question it just twigged my brain to remember something and its this;

Try surfing through the channels on Sunday of the church programs the various preachers, pastors and even priests. Listen to the message they have. Im not good at numbers but I would hazzard a guess that 8 out of 10 have the same topic. But are all very different ministries.

They certainly didnt speak to each other before the broadcast, but perhaps the Program Director did

 

[BrianH]

aurora77:

I’m interested in responses to this too. I was thinking about this on Christmas Eve. We went to church at my in-laws non-denom Christian church and then later that night to midnight Mass. There was no comparison in amount of scripture–their preacher spoke on a very small section of Luke, while our Mass was just filled with scripture. I’m curious if others have had similar experiences.

Liturgical churches, in general, read more scripture at the services, I would agree. Evangelical churches, in general, have more Bible studies to compensate for that… I think.
BH

 

[Archbishop]

I always see much ado made about the amount of Scripture that is read in Catholic services (or other liturgical churches for that matter such as Anglican). Now granted, this is a good thing. It is wonderful. But simply hearing the Word read is no substitute for having it taught. There is no substitute for personal study of the Word.

 

[MariaG]

Kitty and Brian,

I would agree with you that in Protestant Churches, scripture is put in context, and you look to your pastors and others to help understand the word of God.

**Here is the million dollar question for you both. **(okay as I wrote more questions came so they are worth a little less )

Why is your pastor and those who he has studied from a historical and theological perspective more accurate than the Catholic scholars and early Church fathers? Why is a man who was taught by the apostle John not given more weight than men who were born thousands of years later? Why if they use the early Church fathers, do they think they are better at interpreting those Church fathers than the Catholic Church who has been following their words for almost 2thousand years?

Note: This is not meant to be confrontational and in your face, but both of you and this thread (Thank you Joshua) have been great at explaining why you believe what you believe without anyone falling into agressive name calling.

So just in case you can’t read the “tone” of my post, it is inquiring and interested. Picture my head tipped to the side in inquiry

God Bless,
Maria

 

[ChrisR246]

MommyofFive:

… In my past experiences in many Protestant churches, not everyone brings a Bible to church and most of my Protestant friends couldn’t quote the Bible either (except for maybe what they overheard in Sunday school). It’s true that a lot of Catholics are not great Bible readers, but I’m willing to bet that not many Protestants are either.

As I was scrolling through here, this was similar to a point I want to make. This topic is generally set up as a comparison of Evangelical protestants (a small self selecting group) to all Catholics.

I know a number of people who identify themselves as Christian, but not Catholic or Orthodox ( so by definition they are Protestant) but can not quote the Bible, do not own a Bible and can only remember the last time the went to a service because it was Christmas (or in a few months, Easter). Compare all Protestants to all Catholics and the lack of knowledge is fairly similar, I’d bet.

Now, if we took Evangelical Proterstants and compared them to a subset of well catechized, active, inspired Catholics, I think the comparison is much different.On the one hand, Evangelical Protestnats may still be better at quoting scripture, but, imo, the select Catholic group is much better at holding up a free ranging discussion. That is, the Evangelicals, within a topic have lots of quotes, but can not seem to connect different topics together, while the Catholics can produce a coherent series of points, but not as many direct quotes. Now if we get to the smaller subset of Evangelicals who convert to Catholicism, they can generally do both.

 

[BrianH]

Why is your pastor and those who he has studied from a historical and theological perspective more accurate than the Catholic scholars

All scholars have a bias or a framework in which they approach their research. I will hasten to add I read a lot of Catholic scholars, in fact one book I am reading right now Upon this Rock, strengthens my view that the early church DID NOT have a single bishop for each city until much later on.

and early Church fathers?

You see, this is where we differ. Because from your perspective, framed like it is, anyone would be foolish not to see it that way.
I can go through one early church father at a time on another thread it anyone wants to…and show the early church fathers held views…in some cases…quite contrary to the Catholic church as it sits right now.

Why is a man who was taught by the apostle John not given more weight than men who were born thousands of years later?

Why if they use the early Church fathers, do they think they are better at interpreting those Church fathers than the Catholic Church who has been following their words for almost 2thousand years?

Note: This is not meant to be confrontational and in your face, but both of you and this thread (Thank you Joshua) have been great at explaining why you believe what you believe without anyone falling into agressive name calling.

So just in case you can’t read the “tone” of my post, it is inquiring and interested. Picture my head tipped to the side in inquiry

God Bless,
Maria

 

[BrianH]

Why is your pastor and those who he has studied from a historical and theological perspective more accurate than the Catholic scholars

All scholars have a bias or a framework in which they approach their research. I will hasten to add I read a lot of Catholic scholars, in fact one book I am reading right now Upon this Rock, strengthens my view that the early church DID NOT have a single bishop for each city until much later on.

and early Church fathers?

You see, this is where we differ. Because from your perspective, framed like it is, anyone would be foolish not to see it that way.
I can go through one early church father at a time on another thread it anyone wants to…and show the early church fathers held views…in some cases…quite contrary to the Catholic church as it sits right now.

Why is a man who was taught by the apostle John not given more weight than men who were born thousands of years later?

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have a sustained thread comparing Polycarp to current RC belief.

Why if they use the early Church fathers, do they think they are better at interpreting those Church fathers than the Catholic Church who has been following their words for almost 2thousand years?

I do not agree with the premise of the question. I do not think they have been following on many key things.

thank you
Brian

 

[BrianH]

I double posted, please just read the last one.
sorry

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by** BrianH**
All scholars have a bias or a framework in which they approach their research. I will hasten to add I read a lot of Catholic scholars, in fact one book I am reading right now Upon this Rock, strengthens my view that the early church DID NOT have a single bishop for each city until much later on.

Haven’t read that book, but from the title, I would imagine it is about Peter and the primacy of the pope to one extent or another? And I guess this would be for a new thread but the question comes to my mind is what does it have to do with the primacy of Peter and having a single bishop for each city? But like I said, probably a different thread.

originally posted by BrianH
You see, this is where we differ. Because from your perspective, framed like it is, anyone would be foolish not to see it that way.
I can go through one early church father at a time on another thread it anyone wants to…and show the early church fathers held views…in some cases…quite contrary to the Catholic church as it sits right now.

Yes, some Church fathers had contrary views. But individuals alone do not make up the Church. As well as some Church fathers are used completely out of context. Not saying you do that, but just saying the frequently, that charge is made and then the quotes provided are not in context.

originally posted by BrianH
I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have a sustained thread comparing Polycarp to current RC belief.

I would encourage you to start one. Be specific like “Where I think the RC differs from Polycarp” There are many, many knowledgable people here on this forum. (I am not one of them. I am still studying and working on that area )

For clarity, here is the question

originally posted by MariaG
Why if they use the early Church fathers, do they think they are better at interpreting those Church fathers than the Catholic Church who has been following their words for almost 2thousand years?

Response

originally posted by BrianH
I do not agree with the premise of the question. I do not think they have been following on many key things.

Maybe that could be worked into your new thread? Because in the past, what I have found is that it appears, from the Catholic perspective , that people take the early church fathers, things that the Catholic Church says mean (X), have said they mean (X) consistently over time, and others come in and say no, he really means (Y) according to Wesley.

Even if I could not provide the expertise to such a thread, I always read such threads to help further my knowledge. I hope you start one and put a link in this thread to it

thank you
Brian

Thank you and God Bless,
Maria

 

[BrianH]

Maria,
You are right there are many potential threads.
Do you realize how impossible the burden of proof is for me when it concerns the views of early church fathers. If they support the RC view, they can use it. If they do not, like you just did, they do not represent the Church.
I can show how much they differ and it will not matter to you.
True?
Just curious
Brian
Oh yes, i forgot, it matters that there is only one bishop per city because that is a later developing tradition/practice. If there is more than one bishop in Rome, how can you have a Bishop of Rome?

 

[ChrisR246]

BrianH:

Oh yes, i forgot, it matters that there is only one bishop per city because that is a later developing tradition/practice. If there is more than one bishop in Rome, how can you have a Bishop of Rome?

There still would only be one successor of Peter. As I understand, it’s being the successor of Peter that gives Rome it’s importance, not that the city of Rome gives the bishop his primacy. The later smacks of caeseropapism, to me.

 

[BrianH]

ChrisR246:

There still would only be one successor of Peter. As I understand, it’s being the successor of Peter that gives Rome it’s importance, not that the city of Rome gives the bishop his primacy. The later smacks of caeseropapism, to me.

How do we know that he could pass the key to one individual?
How do we know that Peter thought he COULD have a successor in the formal sense that the RC says that he did?
Did the other apostles agree with this?
What is the historical evidence from the first century to back this view?
Where is the scriptural evidence that such a transfer would occur?
Which successor, Antioch or Rome?
Why did both Paul AND Peter hand the key…if this is what occured?
When did the church as a whole agree with the primacy of Peters successor and what is our historical evidence of that?
Why does Paul mention “pillars”?
Lets stop there.
So many questions…
Thanks
BH

 

[joshua_b]

All good questions Brian, but I wasn’t planning on ending up in an apologetics discussion on the primacy of Peter. I encourage you to start another thread (or many for that fact), and keep searching for the answers to your questions…I guarantee if you search for the answers to your questions long enough and hard enough you will find them.

Back to the topic at hand…how long would it take (and would it even be possible) for a person who did nothing but attend service as often as was possible at any of your various Protestant churches to hear the entire Bible ?

And, in response to Brian and Kitty both, as far as “context” is concerned, we as Catholics have all of the “context” we need in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is an exhaustively comprehensive and systematic explaination of virtually all of the teachings of the Catholic church. Whether or not you agree with its correctness is not my point, since we can amicably “agree to disagree” on theology; either way, we are given said “context”.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Brian Im just not good at all this history bit, I get it but theres so much to catch up on it takes a while. I just want to underscore the “myth” that protestants (gee I hate that name) anyway we are accountable to each other and God and we dont just interpert on our own. Ive know some who are like that and they are scary.

Question / comment re whos better at interperting what. You said you look at catholic teachings would it be correct to say that when one is looking at anything in scripture one looks at alot of sources. And would it be safe to say that at this point in the game and even earlier someone has read or been influenced by someone else and around in a circle.

In other words what really is “new” with any protestant understanding of Jesus, maybe something left out or not emphasised. But I cant think of anything new. Maybe Im missing something.

I still am of the opinion that we are all onto the same goal, just on different paths that are still ending up in the same place.