The Bible, in the Pre-Vatican II era

[Darryl_B]

Hi, Darryl!

…it’s my understanding (personal belief) that that practice originated from the protestant view that the Church was keeping the Bible from the people; there may have been a different origin, but I believe that, as with other of their practices, they wanted to demonstrate that unlike Catholics “they” had the freedom to read (interpret) Scriptures… though it does infers mistrust… yet, most importantly, it is not Apostolic Teaching because: 1) for several decades after Jesus’ Ascension there were no New Testament Writings, and 2) even Scriptures (NT) demonstrate that the Epistles were Written for the Church and shared (read) out loud for the congregations–there’s no indication that the Epistles were mass-produced and distributed amongst the Believers or given to new converts as introductory tool.

Maran atha!

Angel

Thanks for the answer, my friend. I wonder whether the practice began as an attempt to decrease the illiteracy rate, (ie teach people to read which is a good thing) and it has just carried on to our mostly literate generations as a tradition.

 

[jcrichton]

Get a copy of Pat Mahohan;s Where is [Ihat] in the Bible ?

He begins with a simple six word sentence and shows how simply changing the emphasis on a single word can change the whole meaning of the sentence.
He recommends when using the Revised Standard Version when engaging in dialogue with non-Catholics. It is the most universally accepted translation.

Both Chesterton and Newman point to the fact that the devil is never mentioned as being in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were tempted by the snake. Nowhere is it written that the snake was Satan nor that the fruit was an apple.Hi, Deb!

…I know that I often rub people the wrong way… yet, please understand that I do not mean to disparage… even the greatest of minds can miss the forest for the trees…

While it is absolutely true that certain technical terms or certain language or certain names are not found in Scriptures or that the connect is far flung… we cannot simply ignore that Revelation is not found in a single or a few passages so our exegesis must include the totality of Scriptures:

9 The great dragon, the primeval serpent, known as the devil or Satan, who had deceived all the world, was hurled down to the earth and his angels were hurled down with him.

(Apocalypse [Revelation] 12:9)
Since this particular passage alludes to the “ancient” or primeval serpent that is known as the devil or Satan, how can we ascertain that the serpent mentioned in Genesis is not Satan but another seemingly eternal being who is out to War against Christ?

If we take the prophetic Battle of Genesis 3:15 and we match it to the Unfolding of the Heavenly Battle, in Apocalypse 12, which spills onto the earth, we must surmise that both passages are speaking to one an only ancient dragon/serpent, previously known as Lucifer, who traded his Heavenly place for a shot at usurping the Divine Power and Authority.

…the apple thing is a total different subject… as I understand it, back when one of the Fathers of the Church thought that such a beautiful fruit (the red apple) could very well represent the actual fruit of the Tree of Life…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks for the answer, my friend. I wonder whether the practice began as an attempt to decrease the illiteracy rate, (ie teach people to read which is a good thing) and it has just carried on to our mostly literate generations as a tradition.

Hi, Darryl!

I think that that may not be so much the case since it was not unlawful to teach people to read and write… this would have been a method during the colonial days and the years that followed as slaves were forbidden to learn to read and write–some good-hearted people took to the task of teaching them to read “so that they could have access to the Sacred Scriptures.” (The gambit paid well!)

I’m not versed in much, but I think that illiteracy was not really seen as a biggie since even the monarchs employed aides to handle matters of communication… I think that it was seen as a lower thing to do (spending time learning to read and write) as these rulers would often engage in direct warfare and did not see a need for literacy.

This mentality was often appropriated by many throughout the centuries… my own Mom was removed from elementary school because “she was too old to be in school.” (I can only surmise that the idea was that she was at an age where boys would be paying attention to her and she could be useful around the farm or doing house chores.)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[DebChris]

Hi, Deb!

…I know that I often rub people the wrong way… yet, please understand that I do not mean to disparage… even the greatest of minds can miss the forest for the trees…

While it is absolutely true that certain technical terms or certain language or certain names are not found in Scriptures or that the connect is far flung… we cannot simply ignore that Revelation is not found in a single or a few passages so our exegesis must include the totality of Scriptures:

Since this particular passage alludes to the “ancient” or primeval serpent that is known as the devil or Satan, how can we ascertain that the serpent mentioned in Genesis is not Satan but another seemingly eternal being who is out to War against Christ?

If we take the prophetic Battle of Genesis 3:15 and we match it to the Unfolding of the Heavenly Battle, in Apocalypse 12, which spills onto the earth, we must surmise that both passages are speaking to one an only ancient dragon/serpent, previously known as Lucifer, who traded his Heavenly place for a shot at usurping the Divine Power and Authority.

…the apple thing is a total different subject… as I understand it, back when one of the Fathers of the Church thought that such a beautiful fruit (the red apple) could very well represent the actual fruit of the Tree of Life…

Maran atha!

Angel

It is understood that the snake represents evil even by those who claim solo scriptura. That is the point that both Chesterton and Newton make.
Both were around during Vatican I as the issue of Papal infallibility was discussed. They are both more eloquent than I in their discussion as to why this would be the proper stance for the Church to take.
As Darwin’s works became published, they also showed how they failed to conflict with Church teaching. We can accept scientific discovery, which will always remain a theory as none of us was there when God created the earth (see Job).

I was thinking about the story about the eunuch reading scripture. Along comes Phillip to explain the passages. The eunuch was a learned man. Yet he did not depend on his own understanding, but submitted to the teachings of the Apostle.
I often point to Acts2 in which the newly baptized submitted to the teachings of the Apostles. As Catholics that is what we continue to do. Yes, we listen to the Word proclaimed at Mass. If we pray the Liturgy of the Hours, we engage in the prayer of the Church. Most of our prayers come directly from scripture. The rosary began as a way for the common people, who lacked the time the monks had for prayer, to join with them.

There may be more lay persons engaged in the Liturgy of the Hours, and actually setting aside time for lectio divina than before Vatican II in a structured manner.
It seems to me that scripture and prayer was more informally woven into daily life. Yes, there was the formal time for the family rosary after supper. Families scraped to put send their children to parochial schools if possible. My very short time at parochial school included daily Mass. We heard the story of David and Goliath, just as our non-Catholic brothers and sisters did was the earliest ages. It was simply a part of the culture in which we lived.