The Catholic Church and the Bible

[benhur]

there was no bible until all those writings the Church deemed scripture, were collectecd and canonized.

Even wiki posts that Constantine ordered Eusebius to make 50 bibles in early to mid 4th century, before any canonizing council. The Vaticanus and Sinai one are possibly around same date.(wiki)

Origen quotes 2/3 rds on NT books and cites 27 books (250AD)
The Old Latin Version same time period has 23 books
Muratorian fragment (170 ad) lists 23 books
Tertullian(160-220) writes of "New Testament "(first coined around 193 AD) and has 1800 quotes (interesting if he cited from all 27 books-do not know)
I would ask you, name one writer of NT scripture who was not ALSO “in” the Church?

Yes that is understood and covered under the church receiving (from God) Writ thru its writers. if they were not in the church then writ was not received by church.

I bring up the points I did, because “the Church” being spoken of from the beginning, is the Catholic Church. #34 and the evidence is in the internal links. Please open them

I did thank you.
I have agreed to the church’s role in bible formation. I only raise the point that the Book evolved as to its compilation, much like the OT, (tradition) with the difference of eventually canonizng by council. I am just saying tradition did most of the work, both formally and informally by the Church and its leaders and theologians, and in differing churches geographically/regionally and finally universally.

Thank you for your points. The thread question is still open and valid as to the 17 centuries that have followed its formation.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Even wiki posts that Constantine ordered Eusebius to make 50 bibles in early to mid 4th century, before any canonizing council. The Vaticanus and Sinai one are possibly around same date.(wiki)

Origen quotes 2/3 rds on NT books and cites 27 books (250AD)
The Old Latin Version same time period has 23 books
Muratorian fragment (170 ad) lists 23 books
Tertullian(160-220) writes of "New Testament "(first coined around 193 AD) and has 1800 quotes (interesting if he cited from all 27 books-do not know)
Yes that is understood and covered under the church receiving (from God) Writ thru its writers. if they were not in the church then writ was not received by church.
I did thank you.
I have agreed to the church’s role in bible formation. I only raise the point that the Book evolved as to its compilation, much like the OT, (tradition) with the difference of eventually canonizng by council. I am just saying tradition did most of the work, both formally and informally by the Church and its leaders and theologians, and in differing churches geographically/regionally and finally universally.

Thank you for your points. The thread question is still open and valid as to the 17 centuries that have followed its formation.

Blessings

Re: wiki

If you want to use wiki that’s up to you

Personally here’s why I never use Wikipedia.

• Every article within the greater list of articles on each subject in wiki, has [Edit] next to the sections of each article. Anybody can add or subtract from the article.
• Then there are the "disclaimers " at the bottom of each wiki page. One probably doesn’t even notice them, NOR in extension, reads them.
• read them Disclaimers & Risk disclaimer

Therefore, based on their own words, in their disclaimers, that all can read, I have no business trusting that as a resource

 

[fatima4003]

I have a learning disability that makes reading difficult. I was not really taught the catechism as a kid. How can I learn? I tried to read it no effect.

 

[benhur]

I have a learning disability that makes reading difficult. I was not really taught the catechism as a kid. How can I learn? I tried to read it no effect.

Hi fatima
Have you tried tapes? Sometimes people learn better orally.
Welcome to this site and Blessings

 

[benhur]

Re: wiki

If you want to use wiki that’s up to you

Personally here’s why I never use Wikipedia.

• Every article within the greater list of articles on each subject in wiki, has [Edit] next to the sections of each article. Anybody can add or subtract from the article.
• Then there are the "disclaimers " at the bottom of each wiki page. One probably doesn’t even notice them, NOR in extension, reads them.
• read them Disclaimers & Risk disclaimer

Therefore, based on their own words, in their disclaimers, that all can read, I have no business trusting that as a resource

I will have to take a look. I know to some it is more of a joke as to its use. But actually what I cited from wiki was out of laziness but there are other sources I have seen so I had no trouble with the general statements I made,and yes, due to the antiquity and scant documentation, to be taken with a grain of salt(but for me, still taken).

 

[estesbob]

I will have to take a look. I know to some it is more of a joke as to its use. But actually what I cited from wiki was out of laziness but there are other sources I have seen so I had no trouble with the general statements I made,and yes, due to the antiquity and scant documentation, to be taken with a grain of salt(but for me, still taken).

Most people find it very easy to evaluate the veracity of wiki. If it supports your view it is accurate. If it doesn’t it isn’t .

 

[benhur]

I don’t think Bob was calling your friends liars. . .in the context of the posts to which you and I were responding, it appeared that though you did not refer to this as a "monolithic teaching’ you used 'my data --Catholics in their 50s in the Midwest-- and Bob, himself in the age range and the geography range, had a completely different experience.

Thing is, I don’t think I have ever seen any person come onto the forums point blank and say that they were told by Father McNemo in 1950, while lisping the rosary at St. Immaculata in East Peoria, Illinois, that they were FORBIDDEN to open up their Bibles ‘at home’ or ‘in class’ as 'Scripture is only for us priests and experts to read, and we’ll tell YOU what it means", and that this class of 45 in this school of 500 kids was simply the latest to hear what ‘the fathers’ had been telling every class in said school since the school had started, because the BISHOP had told them and all the other priests in the diocese decades ago that ‘this was Catholic teaching’, and that everybody in the diocese KNEW it, everybody in the STATE knew it, everybody in the country, etc. etc.

I have always heard these tales third hand --by somebody who was told about it by a friend, often about the friend’s friend.

Well I have this to say, for what it’s worth.

In lo my ‘sunset years’ I am, quite unexpectedly, raising my grandsons, who are 4-1/2 and nearly 3. They are darling, NORMAL boys --they aren’t geniuses and they aren’t ‘slow’. . .and every day I tell them simple things that they ‘understand’ in some of the strangest possible ways.

I venture to say that a 1st or 2nd grader 50 some years ago, living in a ‘simpler’ time and not as ‘advanced’ as our current children (no I have NOT bought my boys computers, tablets, electronics, but I’m a dying breed in the educational world), could have EASILY MISUNDERSTOOD the words of a priest or teacher and now years later is CONVINCED that Father specifically told him “Don’t bother reading your Bible” when Father never said anything of the kind.

All these stories, and I am NOT calling people ‘liars’, have the kind of ‘urban legend’ characteristics to them. They all sound exactly alike.

Do you remember back in the 1980s when there were so many stories about children being abused in day care? The psychologists who interviewed the children were planting stories in the children’s minds, and after enough hearings, the children thought those stories had really happened TO THEM. But they hadn’t.

I think that either unwittingly or knowingly, people who spoke to your friends and others of the "we were told as Catholics not to read our Bibles’ ilk, were either projecting what they THOUGHT happened, or slanting and misrepresenting what happened, in the vast majority of cases. There are simply too many examples of Catholics, from the saints (even those of the 19th and 20th century) who were avid Bible readers from their youth. . .saints who lived ‘all over’.

It’s like a more 20th century version of the old canard, “Catholics repressed the Bible in the Middle Ages”. No matter how often we can demonstrate (even nonCatholic scholars of repute concur) that this didn’t happen, you will find many nonCatholics and even a few Catholics who still believe it did happen and is just being ‘covered up’. The old heresies never really change, they just get a new ‘urban legend’ attached to them as time goes by.

Hi TE

So is your assertion that the CC for 2000 years has had the same attitude towards laity and bible as today ? The CC was not “reactive” towards reformation and reformer’s attitude toward bible ? Was Deb in post #70 wrong that Vat 2 changed that ?

Thank you for properly urging correctness of any critique and not to fall into typical human error ala urban legend. I would just add that it has also been found that* sometimes *there is a grain of truth to some popular critiques.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Of a more interesting question to me is, with all the widespread reading of the bible, why does data show this country becoming more secular? I know Catholics and Protestants who can quote scripture and verse who never go to church.

Hi Duane

I would think we are becoming more secular because we are reading less. I have heard of no studies that show we are reading more. In fact, they show more and more ignorance, and less familiarity with scripture. (I see still old secular newspapers of the 60’s at garage or estate sales where on the front page was the “scripture of the day” !)

I think too that as the bible circulated more and more with the printing press superstitions and wives tales diminished ( not extinguished however).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Do you have solid evidence to support such a claim?

HI Kdz

Some has been given, though solid is a subjective term… I so far have refrained knowing it is difficult for some to even look at, and so what is the point until the ground be receptive.

Do you have solid assurance that the CC has not erred for 500 years reacting to “reformers”, or with laity for 2000 years regarding scripture in their hands ?

Do you deny that even from a reformers point of view the reaction seemed oppressive ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

“*She condemns the principle that Bibles should be distributed *indiscriminately to people on the understanding that they will be able to attain the truth without the guidance of the Church, and by their own unaided efforts.” from Radio Replies, per your Post #6

Hi CM

Can not you admit that to Bible Societies this seems “oppressive” ? Condemning the printing or distribution of the bible to Catholics or Lutherans in Catholic “territories” back in the days was at least “oppressive”. The assumption is wrong that the bibles are handed out to “unchurched folk” or “unguided Catholics”. Did these bible missionaries hand out New Testaments and say, "do not talk to your priest about what you read "? Did they hand them out and say, “Become a Lutheran, or Anglican , or Methodist, etc., etc., etc.” ? Was there not a Catholic church even cathedral within eyes reach of any reader for many of these Bible society missionaries ? And what is indiscriminately ? Are you of the opinion that only a baptized Christian should be given a bible ? Do they have to be under Catholic magisterium ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

We were asked for specifics, so I gave mine. That was then dismissed, as it is here as being wrong. So, from the perspective here, either my friends (from different parishes and families) are lying to me, or they aren’t intelligent enough to understand what was taught to them. I don’t believe either of those things are true. I don’t believe, as I stated earlier, that this was a monolithic teaching of the RCC, and even stated I know priests and nuns who pushed scripture study, memorization, etc…

What I believe, based on the facts I have gathered from secular, Catholic, and protestant sources, is that the RCC did indeed have reasons they thought were good ones for persecuting individuals in the middle ages for translating and owning personal copies of the bible not approved by the RCC itself. History shows that the RCC and/or governments swayed by the RCC did indeed persecute protestants for various reasons including translating scripture without their permission or oversight. I understand why some would want to deny it, as we now know it to be a heinous thing, but it doesn’t come across very well to deny persecution when it happens on any side. Protestants persecuted Catholics. Catholics persecuted Protestants. Protestants and Catholics persecuted Anabaptists, etc… It doesn’t prove who is right or who is wrong, and we modern believers didn’t do it, but it still happened.

What I believe, based on facts I have gathered from individuals I know personally who are devout Catholics, is that independent bible study was frowned upon at one point in time. Not owning a Catholic bible, not reading the Catholic bible, but the attempt to learn it and study it on one’s own was actively discouraged.

I know plenty of ex-Catholics that would indeed come here and post that. I wouldn’t think of using their data, however, because if people won’t believe devout practicing Catholics, why would they believe ex-Catholics?

There can also be other reasons for that, other than it being misunderstood or someone slanting/lying about it. It could be that it actually did happen. Maybe not, but just maybe it did. I know people personally that say it did indeed happen to them, not a friend of a friend but to them personally. My friends that I’m referring to are closer to 60 than to 40, so were plenty old enough, as well as being serious Catholics that actually practice their faith, not “Christmas and Easter” Catholics, or Catholics that only got serious when they were older.

Did it happen to me personally? Of course not, I’m not Catholic nor have I ever been Catholic. Did it happen to people I trust to tell the truth, that were Catholic and still are? Yup. That’s all I really have to add to the conversation.

Grace and Peace,
K

Hi K .

Good, honest and fair response.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

boo boo sorry

 

[benhur]

"She condemns the principle that Bibles should be distributed indiscriminately to people on the understanding that they will be able to attain the truth without the guidance of the Church, and by their own unaided efforts.She condemns the principle that Bibles should be distributed indiscriminately to people on the understanding that they will be able to attain the truth without the guidance of the Church, and by their own unaided efforts. post #6 press radio

Hi CM,

Why is it that many of these bible society missionaries in Catholic countries find many parishioners, even book stores, without bibles, though they had the means to purchase them (as they did from the missionaries) ?

Blessings

 

[Gorgias]

benhur & Kliska,

Here’s the thing: the original premise – to which, IIRC, you agreed – is that “the Catholic Church suppressed the Bible.” What you’ve been attempting to demonstrate, though, is a subtly (yet significantly) different premise: that the Catholic Church opposed translations of the Bible that it found to be in error, and that the Catholic Church opposed the doctrine that one could interpret the Bible accurately solely on one’s own (without the aid of official sources of interpretation).

These two latter notions are quite different than the one that you’ve attempted to substantiate. Is it simply that you’re using “the Church suppressed the Bible” as shorthand for what you’re asserting? If so, your shorthand is doing you a disservice. Or, is it that you truly believe the shorthand? If so, then you might be well served to prove what you originally set out to prove, rather than what you’ve been saying.

Finally, the anecdotal evidence you’ve presented is just that – a collection of stories. Such anecdotal evidence is sorely lacking, if it is your sole proof.

Blessings,
G.

 

[benhur]

benhur & Kliska,

Here’s the thing: the original premise – to which, IIRC, you agreed – is that “the Catholic Church suppressed the Bible.” What you’ve been attempting to demonstrate, though, is a subtly (yet significantly) different premise: that the Catholic Church opposed translations of the Bible that it found to be in error, and that the Catholic Church opposed the doctrine that one could interpret the Bible accurately solely on one’s own (without the aid of official sources of interpretation).

These two latter notions are quite different than the one that you’ve attempted to substantiate. Is it simply that you’re using “the Church suppressed the Bible” as shorthand for what you’re asserting? If so, your shorthand is doing you a disservice. Or, is it that you truly believe the shorthand? If so, then you might be well served to prove what you originally set out to prove, rather than what you’ve been saying.

Finally, the anecdotal evidence you’ve presented is just that – a collection of stories. Such anecdotal evidence is sorely lacking, if it is your sole proof.

Blessings,
G.

Hi G

Well we are deep into thread so not sure that anybody agreed to anything as to "premise’’. The thread and the word “suppress” is quite inclusive of many things. We have discussed it from the viewpoint of "protecting’’ the Written Word from poor translations. This has been put forth by Catholics and I acknowledge it as valid discussion per thread. I have said it is a subjective judgement , as to whether it has always been proper or not construed as “oppressive”. I said it is in eye of beholder.

As to the idea that “suppression” was proper due to combating the idea or opportunity for private interpretation, again this is put forth by the CC as properly posted here by CM, a Catholic, in post #6. I disagreed with this justifying premise.

While some anecdotal (personal accounts) evidence was given, I think one is right to be careful with what one deduces from them. Yet I would also not belittle to what actually happens to any member of Christ’s body. If it happens to you, it is quite pertinent, and is immaterial what happens elsewhere, or if it is not “according to proper doctrine normal practice”. At some point it is hard to separate a bad "practice’ or event’’ from an underlying problem.

Also, if anecdotals are brushed aside, then is any fertile, humble ground for anything else that would suggest *any * impropriety covering 2000 years on this topic ?

As CS Lewis quipped on another topic, “the unhistorical, without knowing it, are enslaved to a fairly recent past”. That is, the fairly recent past and present show no indication of suppression, in doctrine and practice (the only caveat is if post #6 “condemning of indiscriminate handing out of bibles” still stands). Now, have there been no hiccups going beyond the fairly recent past ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Finally, the anecdotal evidence you’ve presented is just that – a collection of stories. Such anecdotal evidence is sorely lacking, if it is your sole proof.

Blessings,
G.

Hi G,

just thinking but one could say 2 Mac story folks cite as pro purgatory is also anecdotal evidence.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi G,

just thinking but one could say 2 Mac story folks cite as pro purgatory is also anecdotal evidence.

Blessings

It’s strong evidence. Afterall, why pray for the dead

since

1. 
   *]People in heaven need no prayer
   *]Prayer does no good for people in hell
   
   So who is prayer for the dead helping? It helps those after death, who are being purified for heaven.

 

[Gorgias]

Hi G,

just thinking but one could say 2 Mac story folks cite as pro purgatory is also anecdotal evidence.

Hmm… no, I’m not sure that holds up. Would you say that Jesus’ resurrection is just “anecdotal”?

No – when we assert canonicity, we’re making an assertion about Truth (with a capital-T!). So, if 2 Maccabees is canonical, then it teaches God’s Truth, and just doesn’t tell a hearsay story…!

 

[Gorgias]

Well we are deep into thread so not sure that anybody agreed to anything as to "premise’’. The thread and the word “suppress” is quite inclusive of many things. We have discussed it from the viewpoint of "protecting’’ the Written Word from poor translations. This has been put forth by Catholics and I acknowledge it as valid discussion per thread. I have said it is a subjective judgement , as to whether it has always been proper or not construed as “oppressive”. I said it is in eye of beholder.

As to the idea that “suppression” was proper due to combating the idea or opportunity for private interpretation, again this is put forth by the CC as properly posted here by CM, a Catholic, in post #6. I disagreed with this justifying premise.

Fair enough. From any perspective, though, the statement “X suppressed the Bible” is a whole lot different than “X suppressed particular translation(s) of the Bible” or even “X taught that there is no personal interpretation of the Bible”, wouldn’t you say?

While some anecdotal (personal accounts) evidence was given, I think one is right to be careful with what one deduces from them. Yet I would also not belittle to what actually happens to any member of Christ’s body. If it happens to you, it is quite pertinent, and is immaterial what happens elsewhere, or if it is not “according to proper doctrine normal practice”. At some point it is hard to separate a bad "practice’ or event’’ from an underlying problem.

I think this is a very insightful point, and it has many layers to unravel!

• If members of a group assert something, does that mean that the group asserts it? On the face of it, no.
• But, what if this faction is made up of some of the leaders of the group? Could we then say that the group as a whole asserts the claim? That’s a harder one, but still we could say that it’s not the position of the group as a whole. At best, we could say that there’s some support for the claim among the membership/leadership of the group.
• But, let’s press harder: what if the group as a whole knows that a portion of its leaders are saying these things? If they’re silent, does this count as tacit acceptance of the claims? That’s a really difficult one to answer, and would require specific deliberation of the particular circumstances surrounding the situation.

In this case, though, we see that the Church never taught (doctrinally) what is being asserted here. Was there an ‘underlying problem’? That’s open to discussion, I would think. After all, if the Church sees that a splinter group exists, and is teaching certain things in opposition to the Church’s teachings, then it would make sense for them to stress that the splinter group’s teachings are in error and shouldn’t be practiced by Catholics. So, if the Church – seeing that Reformers are teaching that all should read the Bible and trust the Spirit to lead them individually to correct interpretations – wants to counter this teaching that she denies, then is the Church really saying “we suppress the reading of the Bible”, or is she actually asserting “Catholics shouldn’t take on these Reformation practices that we perceive as erroneous”?

Also, if anecdotals are brushed aside, then is any fertile, humble ground for anything else that would suggest *any * impropriety covering 2000 years on this topic ?

I think that, if we want to ask what the institutional Church taught, then we need to look at the doctrinal statements made by the magisterium (rather than what was happening in various places, or by some people). In that way, we avoid the distortions that anecdotal evidence creates. Does this mean that we deny the stories of people who lived through the experience of what they tell us? Of course not. However, we don’t take these individual stories and use them to assert a doctrinal teaching that was never present.

As CS Lewis quipped on another topic, “the unhistorical, without knowing it, are enslaved to a fairly recent past”. That is, the fairly recent past and present show no indication of suppression, in doctrine and practice

The problem is that there’s a huge difference between ‘history’ and ‘conventional wisdom’ – that is, the difference between what actually was and what everybody knows is true (without substantiation). After all, for a very long time, everybody ‘knew’ that the earth was flat; but, the ‘consensus reality’ did not make the earth flat. So, at the least, there’s an opportunity to take the assertion at hand with a grain of salt: ‘everybody knows’ that the Catholic Church suppressed the Bible, right? Except that… she didn’t.

One way to salvage the claim is to suggest that “the Catholic Church suppressed the Bible” is simply convenient shorthand for a more nuanced and accurate statement. Yet, those who make this claim really do believe that the Catholic Church was (or is?) anti-Bible. To appropriate your Lewis quote, that means that they are “the unhistorical” who find themselves enslaved to a lack of knowledge…

 

[benhur]

It’s strong evidence. Afterall, why pray for the dead

since

1. 
   *]People in heaven need no prayer
   *]Prayer does no good for people in hell
   
   So who is prayer for the dead helping? It helps those after death, who are being purified for heaven.

1. 
   Good logic just that Mac prayed for dead for a better resurrection and even deliverance from mortal sin ( nothing about purgatory).
   
   But yes, they prayed for dead. Now can you make a doctrine out of anything OT folk did or even claim to be a doctrine? Were they ever wrong ? Did Jesus ever correct any of it?
   
   Blessings