The Catholic Church and the Bible

[eddie_too]

I may be mistaken in my understanding, but I do not think it is appropriate to claim that the RCC suppressed the Bible in any meaningful manner.

where does my understanding originate?

well, it is because I was taught and still believe that the Church from its earliest inception, i.e. the first Pentecost Sunday, always used the Bible in its celebration of the Love Feast. not only were passages read to the congregation, but the leader of that congregation also took time to teach and explain the Bible. that is not what I would call suppression. of course, others may choose to call it suppression and I would respond that we then simply have a disconnect in our definitions of terms.

 

[eddie_too]

since Jesus gave the twelve the power to bind and unbind, in them and their successors lies the ultimate earthly authority in understanding the relationship between the old and new testaments, in understanding what doctrines in the old and new testaments needed to be presented and explained so as to be consistent with what Jesus taught the twelve and the twelve taught their successors.

it may seem attractive to act or believe as though every tom, dick and harry, with a little self-discipline and education, are qualified to interpret the Gospel of Jesus Christ holistically and accurately; but, and we have seen this ever more often since the 16th century AD, such a belief leads only to confusion and division among the followers of Jesus. for that reason, I completely and without reservation reject any doctrine that teaches that the Bible interprets itself and any doctrine that says true and accurate interpretation of the Bible exists outside of the RCC.

 

[steve_b]

Good logic just that Mac prayed for dead for a better resurrection and even deliverance from mortal sin ( nothing about purgatory).

Even though Jews knew about hell and heaven, it was in types and shadows. Jews didn’t have the full understanding…yet. But they did know that praying for the dead is a good thing. So they knew, somehow the dead benefited from prayer.

Before the NT was written, when Jesus referred to “it is written”, He’s speaking of the OT. So Jesus is speaking of what His hearers would know based on what they knew was written.

Jews knew about gehenna and they knew about paradise. Put simply, both are permanent.

So again why is praying for the dead a good thing? What’s going to change with those 2 realities? Nothing…right?

So why pray for the dead? Who is it that they think benefits from prayer? Malachi 3 describes a process of one being purified, that is** temporary** but after the process, they are clearly purified . It doesn’t say “purgatory” but it sure sounds like it

Fast forward to the NT

benhur:

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

What they did in the OT pointed to a NT fulfillment

A person who dies but has baggage… not mortal sin on their soul mind you, but a person who dies in the state of grace, but needs purification, since nothing unclean shall enter heaven. Revelation 21:27

Therefore,

1 Cor 3: 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day[](1 - - Bible Gateway Corinthians+3&version=RSVCE#fen-RSVCE-32582b)] will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Paul does NOT describe a soul that is condemned. A soul going to hell won’t go through that. A soul who dies in mortal sin goes straight to hell. There is no 2nd chance. And purgatory is not a 2nd chance

Paul describes a process that only the soul who is already saved goes through. They are going to heaven after this process but not before this process of purification takes place.

Prayer helps these souls.

Blessings in return

 

[benhur]

I may be mistaken in my understanding, but I do not think it is appropriate to claim that the RCC suppressed the Bible in any meaningful manner.

where does my understanding originate?

well, it is because I was taught and still believe that the Church from its earliest inception, i.e. the first Pentecost Sunday, always used the Bible in its celebration of the Love Feast. not only were passages read to the congregation, but the leader of that congregation also took time to teach and explain the Bible. that is not what I would call suppression. of course, others may choose to call it suppression and I would respond that we then simply have a disconnect in our definitions of terms.

Hi et

Meaningful manner is quite subjective. Of course the CC uses the bible in it’s liturgy and mass and tries to have all things be scriptural. I mean no one is saying you use the Koran. And no one is saying the CC has not helped preserve scriptures etc. .

What I suppose the thread is asking , did the CC think herself sole receiver, therefore sole heir and sole interpreter of Writ, and therefore did she ever over step the bounds in protecting that role in regards to distribution, translation, sale or ownership of Writ ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Even though Jews knew about hell and heaven, it was in types and shadows. Jews didn’t have the full understanding…yet. But they did know that praying for the dead is a good thing. So they knew, somehow the dead benefited from prayer.

Before the NT was written, when Jesus referred to “it is written”, He’s speaking of the OT. So Jesus is speaking of what His hearers would know based on what they knew was written.

Jews knew about gehenna and they knew about paradise. Put simply, both are permanent.

So again why is praying for the dead a good thing? What’s going to change with those 2 realities? Nothing…right?

So why pray for the dead? Who is it that they think benefits from prayer? Malachi 3 describes a process of one being purified, that is** temporary** but after the process, they are clearly purified . It doesn’t say “purgatory” but it sure sounds like it

Fast forward to the NT

What they did in the OT pointed to a NT fulfillment

A person who dies but has baggage… not mortal sin on their soul mind you, but a person who dies in the state of grace, but needs purification, since nothing unclean shall enter heaven. Revelation 21:27

Therefore,

1 Cor 3: 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day[](1 - - Bible Gateway Corinthians+3&version=RSVCE#fen-RSVCE-32582b)] will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Paul does NOT describe a soul that is condemned. A soul going to hell won’t go through that. A soul who dies in mortal sin goes straight to hell. There is no 2nd chance. And purgatory is not a 2nd chance

Paul describes a process that only the soul who is already saved goes through. They are going to heaven after this process but not before this process of purification takes place.

Prayer helps these souls.

Blessings in return

Hi steve

We have a thread going dealing with purgatory so I qwill refrain from answering here Not sure if you can just copy and paste it over there so I can answer. Re: Why do Catholics believe in Purgatory? forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13198754#post13198754

blessings

 

[benhur]

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?

Yes, qualifying any statement always helps direct the dialogue. One could go a step further and say yes she suppressed particular translations because they were "bad, and then go into what constitutes bad . On and on we could go with the qualifying

As far as private interpretation, that is no excuse for withholding Writ for that.But see how that is subjective ? To you it is justified, to me it is pure suppression. If one wants to be “fair”, I suppose we could understand the other side, while still holding on to what we believe to be right. One is saying it is proper suppression, the other not.

• 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.

That is a good list of possibilities.Very good. You could still add a fourth, where it came from the “top”, and then was practiced/carried out by a few, or some , or all.

In this case, though, we see that the Church never taught (doctrinally) what is being asserted here

Not sure anyone claims it has been a doctrine. Do not think so.I believe an early post cited decrees and other papal statements that were taken to be suppressive.It was more of a"practice" and again could be discussed in regards to your above layering.

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”?

As I noted in above post #104, I think this is the case. It is still suppression, especially to the “independent” reader. The action is the same. You are speaking of motive, but the action remains.

Reminds me of the steward asking the master if they should go back into the field and rip out the tares that were wrongly planted. The master said no because you might damage the wheat . Let them grow together and we will sort it out later.

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.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13161372&postcount=67

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.

A nice way of saying it never happened? That wisdom goes both ways. Like did we really reach the moon, or was there a holocaust, and did Noah’s flood finally come?

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…

So you gave three layers of possibilities above , and claim it still is not the CC as a whole therefore she never did "suppress’’ ? Back to beginning ?

Blessings

 

[estesbob]

Hi et

Meaningful manner is quite subjective. Of course the CC uses the bible in it’s liturgy and mass and tries to have all things be scriptural. I mean no one is saying you use the Koran. And no one is saying the CC has not helped preserve scriptures etc. .

What I suppose the thread is asking , did the CC think herself sole receiver, therefore sole heir and sole interpreter of Writ, and therefore did she ever over step the bounds in protecting that role in regards to distribution, translation, sale or ownership of Writ ?

Blessings

Yes,yes,yes,no

 

[benhur]

Yes,yes,yes,no

Rightly said when your toes have not been allegedly stepped on.

Blessings

 

[IGotQuestions]

Would it be possible to receive some more answers to this question?
Thanks!

 

[IGotQuestions]

Sure.
I still have Baptist friends and they often times say that the CC forbids Bible reading. There are some great answers on this thread, but I was just wondering if anyone else has anything to add that would help when I am asked this question.
Thanks so much.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Sure.
I still have Baptist friends and they often times say that the CC forbids Bible reading. There are some great answers on this thread, but I was just wondering if anyone else has anything to add that would help when I am asked this question.
Thanks so much.

They said what

 

[steve_b]

What I suppose the thread is asking , did the CC think herself sole receiver, therefore sole heir and sole interpreter of Writ, and therefore did she ever over step the bounds in protecting that role in regards to distribution, translation, sale or ownership of Writ ?

Blessings

Hi benhur :tiphat:just a few comments

Not only receiver but also writer of the Writ.

I say that because the NT writers were already in the Church they wrote to and for. That’s a no brainer. That Church Jesus said He will build on the apostles with Peter as the earthly head, is the Catholic Church. #34 The pillar and foundation of truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 Jesus really and truly gave Peter and His Church full authority Matthew 16:19 It only makes sense, the Catholic Church is the official interpreter of her own book(s)

Chronologically, the Catholic Church came first before the NT scriptures were even put to writing. That Tradition we have is both oral and written. Not one alone or the other alone, but Both together, are authoritative 2 Thessalonians 2:15 . What the Catholic Church collected that is written, then canonized by the Catholic Church, only those works are then deemed scripture.

The official bible we have today with 73 books in the canon, was decreed by pope Damasus I, at the council of Rome in 382. Here is that decree. rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html . Count the books. It’s 73. The same canon OT and NT we have today. Before that we didn’t have that list decreed. No final canon no bible

Luther on his own, in the 16th century, mister sola scriptura, removed 7 OT books in HIS bible. Bible “lite” as I call it, (66 books) that Protestants have used for the last 500 years is a product of Luther…

I’m Just thinking out loud. And some carryover from #77 and #79

Carry on

 

[fhansen]

Would it be possible to receive some more answers to this question?
Thanks!

One of the reasons I came back to the church from conservative Protestantism with a decidedly anti-Catholic bent was due to my debating scripture with JWs and even other Protestants. JWs have some very plausible “reasoning from Scripture”, as they put it, in support of their non-Trinitarian beliefs, for example. Round and round we’d go, trading verses, with no honestly satisfactory resolution as often as not. There had to be another source for authority than personal interpretation of Scripture alone-or else there could be no reliable way to ascertain the gospel truth with any degree of certainty. The only solution was that the historical Church, itself, would be that authority, and that meant either the eastern or western Church, or both, but certainly not any johnny-come-latelys.

 

[Seachange]

Sure.
I still have Baptist friends and they often times say that the CC forbids Bible reading. There are some great answers on this thread, but I was just wondering if anyone else has anything to add that would help when I am asked this question.
Thanks so much.

At risk of changing the subject, far from forbidding, the Church actually encourages the reading of Scripture and even grants indulgences under the usual conditions for doing so.

From the Enchiridion of Indulgences:
pg 18 (bolding mine)

1. Deserving of special mention are the following works, for any one of which the faithful can gain a plenary indulgence each day of the year – saving, however, the provision of Norm 24, § 1, according to which no one can gain more than one plenary indulgence in the course of a single day:

– adoration of the Blessed Sacrament for at least one half an hour (n. 3);

– devout reading of the Sacred Scriptures for at least one half an hour (n. 50);

(pg 33-34)

1. Reading of Sacred Scripture
   (Sacrae Scripturae lectio)
   A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due the divine word
   make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture. A plenary indulgence is granted, if this
   reading is continued for at least one half an hour.

pg 6

Norms On Indulgences

1. An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven as far as their guilt is concerned. This remission the faithful with the proper dispositions and under certain determined conditions acquire through the intervention of the Church which, as minister of the Redemption, authoritatively dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the Saints.
2. An indulgence is partial or plenary, according as it removes either part or all of the
   temporal punishment due for sin.

to discuss indulgences/purgatory more, please go to the thread on purgatory previously linked.

Obviously, the Church would not grant an indulgence for reading Scripture if it were forbidden.

 

[Michael68]

Why did historically, the Catholic Church suppress the Bible?

It didn’t. Another made up story

 

[St_Pancake]

People in authority are told things, and they believe it because…well, the preachers been to “Bible College” so he must know what he’s talking about.
I was told the same thing. And you’d be surprised how many people, in this day and age, believe it.

This just reeks of condescension and pettiness.

 

[adf417]

This just reeks of condescension and pettiness.

I respectfully disagree.

Peace!!!

 

[mary_bobo]

Sure.
I still have Baptist friends and they oMften times say that the CC forbids Bible reading. There are some great answers on this thread, but I was just wondering if anyone else has anything to add that would help when I am asked this question.

If this has not already been put forth, the CC has three reading from the Bible during the Mass. I hardly think that rumors get started.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yeah another false accusation, the Catholic Church has always encouraged daily bible reading on your own, and today they will email you their daily bible readings of the daily mass for who-ever shall want to hear the Good News and fullness of truth.

The biggest issue imho is the translations from the Vulgate and the TR which at some point imho became bad reverse latin translation and some terrible and long arguments of learned behavior.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Why did historically, the Catholic Church suppress the Bible?

I don’t think it is accurate to say the Bible was suppressed. Remember most people were illiterate until the Renaissance or even later. My sense is that the Church (rightly or wrongly, likely rightly) held that the Scriptures and Tradition were under the care of the Church - to be administered or imparted if you will to the people. The intent was a good one, and given what has happened in history to Protestants for example when you dismiss the Church as a central authority, I think there is a strong argument in support of this approach.

Of course, it only works with sheep in the lead - when you get a wolf or a goat or two, there are problems. Wayward clergy, hierarchy, and tending/imparting the wisdom of Scripture or tradition for that matter - not a good mix.

The Reformation/Renaissance did produce a plus in making Scripture more accessible to people.

The one that gets me is withholding the cup from the laity - also there was whispering of prayers and I think Scripture as it was to held to be more or less profaning it to recite it loud enough for hearing of the congregation. But of course this is all gone now too. We have our cup and our Scripture.