"The Hidden Exodus" - Do Catholic Churches Need More Bible?

[Carlan]

Here’s a fun question. Are Catholics typically familiar with what the Bible says about reading the Bible? Or do you depend entirely on priestly/Magisterial/otherwise earthly authority in order to know how much you should care about reading it?

Are you allowed to read what the Bible says about what you should do with it and put that into action? Or would it be more appropriate for you to read an approved Church document (ie., the Catechism or an encyclical), use your own fallible private interpretation of that document, and take action based on that?

At this point, does the Bible even count as an approved Church document, in the sense that you’re cleared to read it and then do what it says?

Fun Question or typically anti - Catholic comment? Most get your drift, I’d say…
Peace, Carlan

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Since no one has replied to this comment yet… Yeah Carlan I am seeing the same thing you are.

First off, I wasn’t aware that this exodus was hidden; I was well aware of the fact that Catholicism has the worst net conversion ratio of any major religious group in America. And that on a global scale, it’s the only one of the six mega-blocks that has negative net conversion numbers.

Prove it with a statistic and a source.

Second, I’ve looked at a few of the studies on why people leave Catholciism, and no single reason or group of reasons ever stuck out to me. Even when you’re looking at a pretty long and detailed list of option, the “Other” category tends to be in the top two or three vote-getters. And while it might be encouraging to know that certain worrisome events or factors aren’t individually responsible for as much damage as one might fear, it kind of adds up to something a little more discouraging- there is no single thing that you can focus on in order to fix the problem. It’s got to be several things at once.

Or it’s simply that everyone is different and take things differently and weigh things with importance based on personal factors when they make decisions.

Yes, in the long run. Provided that Church leaders can succeed in demonstrating that various aspects of Church teaching, properly explained, actually do harmonize with Scripture. That can be a tough sell, though. In the short term, I think that could lead to a certain degree of trading quantity for quality. In the long term, though, quality does lead to more effective ministry and cultural/community impact.

Do you believe that there are Church teachings that don’t harmonize with Scripture??
Half of the Mass is the Liturgy of the Word… (Hint Hint… the Bible!)

Most definitely. They should emphasize Scripture as the highest authority and everything else as, at best, second in authority to that.

Where in Scripture does it say to do this??

Realistically, though, it would be nice if Catholics started treating Scripture like a self-interpreting document. They already do that with the Catechism, but they currently don’t do it with Scripture. That’s definitely not right.

Well gee let’s think, the Catechism was written ~15 years ago and the Bible was written over 1900 years ago. Maybe one of them is easier to understand given 21st century cultures are vastly different than 1st century ones, especially for Americans like me.

Why do you want Catholics to treat the Bible as self-interpreting?

Peace,
Phil

 

[Bluegoat]

I know exactly what the church says about the Bible. I read the daily mass readings and use a Catholic study bible to understand them in the context of the magisterium. And from my experience for a few years in a Protestant church that’s more time with the Bible than most of the Protestants I previously worshipped with, in fact, most of the Protestants in my small groups kept calling me an “over achiever” and made smarmy comments.

The CCC is why there aren’t 20,000 Roman Catholic denominations (even though there are many Catholic groups that are trying to achieve that). The CCC is where Catholics can find the answers to those questions that cause non-Catholics churches to split. The CCC is where Catholics can turn to actually enforce what is said in Matthew 18.

You know the CCC has only been around for a relatively short time, and it is simply a summary of what the church thinks on a variety of topics. It isn’t a complete exposition of the CC’s thought on even the topics it covers.

 

[jwinch2]

I used to read the books by Father Carroll Stuhmuller (I believe he was a Passionist) every day, in connection with the church calendar.

Before Mass (if possible) I would read the work for that day, and meditate upon it. I must say it was greatly beneficial.

I recommend the whole series to anyone, I wonder if anyone else here is familiar with this?

Interesting. I’ll check them out. I appreciate the information! I have considered using my study Bibles in concordance with the Liturgical calender of the Church but so far have just been reading them straight through.

Currently, my wife and I watch the Liturgy of the Word on the EWTN Mass *almost *everyday which has helped as well. I also just ordered the Navarre Old Testament Series yesterday which I can’t wait to dive into.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic Mass is very scriptural…but alot of Catholics don’t understand the meaning of the Mass.

The other issue is bringing the Scripture down to every day level…outside of the priest homily. What I am seeing now is people are so so busy that they cannot make a commitment to meet week or monthly with a small group.

We finished our Lenten series studying the new translation coming at Advent, that will be more in line with other languages throughout the world, and reflect the English used at Mass before Vatican II.

What came up was how more open people shared when in homes. Parallel, I suggested we work on satellite communities surround the parish center to build faith and community, and let each area seek the Holy Spirit’s direction. I was at another parish that had several Bible groups, and the facilitators were as such that they had this very open fellowship where people could truly share. The leaders retired and moved away…I miss them very much.

Also, there is this ‘professionalism’ Pope Benedict talked about recently…and I think the Catholic Church really needs the Protestants that can teach Scripture on the daily life level; priests are too busy. We need more priests and deacons, and Scripture teachers that speak from authentic person hood than professionalism…I have witnessed the issues at the seminaries as well…I was invited by some seminarians to go there…but the thought of going into that environment…I don’t know…

I think the best church model, and I shared this with my pastor and RCIA group, is in Apulia, Italy where the Catholics are so wholesome…the model more a big family.

Catholics are now in these days and in some ways, over educated in some areas, but under educated in sharing faith in real life…

I really laughed when our group leader in our Bible group told us she blessed her husband at night when he was asleep with Holy Water, so he would go to church.

 

[Contarini]

Here’s a fun question. Are Catholics typically familiar with what the Bible says about reading the Bible?

The Bible doesn’t really say much about reading the Bible. The OT talks quite a bit about reading the Torah, if that’s what you have in mind.

At this point, does the Bible even count as an approved Church document, in the sense that you’re cleared to read it and then do what it says?

You’re assuming that the Bible “says” something clear and easy to understand, about this or any other topic. Myself, I find it hard to see how people who are really reading the Bible could come to that conclusion. The persistent assumption by conservative Protestants that the Bible “says” something that’s easy to understand and just needs to be put into practice is actually a witness to the effectiveness with which Protestants have inculcated their traditions.

 

[Contarini]

You can read the list of denominations that do here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Common_Lectionary.

As I said, the fact that denominational hierarchies approve the RCL doesn’t mean that congregations are using it. And when it is used, it’s often not used in its entirety. I know this for a fact with regard to Methodism and Presbyterianism. We Episcopalians certainly use the RCL, and ELCA does as well–they may truncate it some, but I’m not sure. I don’t know as much about the other denominations, but I suspect strongly that they’re more like the Methodists than like us.

I also know of other denominations where following the RCL is a fairly common practice, but are not listed in the article–for example, various Mennonite groups. Granted, uniformity cannot be guaranteed and the practice is indeed optional on a practical level. And while free-church denominations like Southern Baptists are prominent in the U.S., recall that’s not the situation in the rest of the world.

Actually it is. In much of the world Pentecostals predominate. And in some areas–much of Africa, for instance–even the Anglicans look a lot more like free-church Protestants than they do in the U.S.

It’s Europe, not the U.S., that is the anomaly in this regard.

But despite the numbers or Protestants that do or don’t follow a lectionary, broad-brushing Protestant preaching as based on “one verse” and contrasting that with the amount of Scripture at a Catholic Mass isn’t a fair picture.

Not entirely fair, but in context a reasonable response to the stereotype of Catholics not knowing the Bible very well.

I think it’s fair to say that evangelical Protestants (who are the majority of Protestants in the U.S. and a much vaster majority of Protestants worldwide) these days typically assume a lot of private Bible reading and study, and that public reading of Scripture is relatively minimal. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing depends on your theology of worship and of Scripture.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Realistically, though, it would be nice if Catholics started treating Scripture like a self-interpreting document.

It might be nice in the sense of giving you warm fuzzy feelings, but it would be completely crazy, because Scripture is obviously nothing of the sort. (For that matter, it isn’t even a single document!)

They already do that with the Catechism, but they currently don’t do it with Scripture. That’s definitely not right.

Some Catholics treat the Catechism as if it were self-interpreting. That is indeed a mistake. No text is self-interpreting. Some texts are clearer than others. The Catechism is by and large clearer than the Bible, but that’s not saying much.

Edwin

 

[Redbaron998]

I find it interesting that many of the more than a few of the most knowledgeable protestant bible scholars are becoming Catholic.

Its one of those “A little knowledge can be a bad thing” There are plenty of verses that a protestant can twist to mislead Catholics, but once the scripture is really understood in context it always fully backs Catholic teaching.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

From the USCCB website the order of the Mass

usccb.org/romanmissal/annotated-mass.pdf

If you look at the annotations nearly the entire Mass comes from scripture. that is not even talking about the responsorel Pslam and the 3 readings. And this is each and every Mass. If a Catholic is not gettign scripture It maybe that they are a) not at mass. b) not paying attention at mass. c) looking for a reason to leave the church.

Not only that but most all parishes have bible study groups and such throughout the year.
It is a lack of knowledge on what the faith teaches ( intenitonal or unintenional) that leads people away.

 

[Bluegoat]

I find it interesting that many of the more than a few of the most knowledgeable protestant bible scholars are becoming Catholic.

Its one of those “A little knowledge can be a bad thing” There are plenty of verses that a protestant can twist to mislead Catholics, but once the scripture is really understood in context it always fully backs Catholic teaching.

I hear this from Catholics a lot, but I know quite a few non-Catholic Bible Scholars.

 

[Contarini]

I find it interesting that many of the more than a few of the most knowledgeable protestant bible scholars are becoming Catholic.

Who would these be? How would you rate who is the most “knowledgeable”? I actually can’t think of prominent Protestant Biblical scholars who have become Catholic. Of course you can say that others who weren’t particularly prominent were very knowledgeable, but at that point one has to suspect that you’re giving them the title in order to make your point.

Some of the most prominent Protestant Biblical scholars of the past half century that I can think of would be:

F. F. Bruce
J. D. G. Dunn
N. T. Wright
Gordon Fee
Bruce Metzger
Richard Hays
Brevard Childs

None of these have become Catholic or (in the case of the ones still alive) show any signs of doing so. I think Hays would be the closest–there’s something in the air at Duke. (That’s where I first started considering conversion to Catholicism.)

You find Protestant systematic theologians and church historians becoming Catholic–Biblical scholars less often.

A study of the Bible in its historical context is going to make someone more likely to be Protestant than Catholic, if it doesn’t make them abandon orthodox Christianity altogether. That’s because Catholicism depends essentially on the acceptance of a complex process of development which results in doctrines that must be accepted by faith. Protestantism rests from the beginning on the willingness to set one’s scholarly study of Scripture up against the traditions of the Church (the more radical forms miss out the “scholarly” part). Even when Protestants decide that specific traditional Protestant doctrines don’t hold up Scripturally (N. T. Wright’s acceptance of the “New Perspective” would be a good example), that doesn’t make them more likely to become Catholic. Wright has come to Catholic conclusions because he’s methodologically a thorough Protestant–he’s willing to question even Protestant traditions in the light of Scripture. And there are many other Catholic teachings that he would say are not Scripturally supported.

It’s simply false to say that when Scripture is fully understood in its original historical context the result is favorable to Catholic teaching. The result tends to unsettle any later doctrinal developments by pointing out how far they have moved away from the questions the text was originally designed to answer.

In order to remain an orthodox Christian at all, one needs to privilege the context of the Christian theological tradition over the historically relativizing inquiry into the original context. That’s the insight that leads Protestants to become Catholics. But it’s an insight that the discipline of Biblical scholarship, in and of itself, tends to obscure more than it reveals.

Edwin

 

[agnes_therese]

At this point, does the Bible even count as an approved Church document, in the sense that you’re cleared to read it and then do what it says?

Please provide a source for your contention that a Catholic must be “cleared” to read the Bible.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

It’s simply false to say that when Scripture is fully understood in its original historical context the result is favorable to Catholic teaching. The result tends to unsettle any later doctrinal developments by pointing out how far they have moved away from the questions the text was originally designed to answer.

In order to remain an orthodox Christian at all, one needs to privilege the context of the Christian theological tradition over the historically relativizing inquiry into the original context. That’s the insight that leads Protestants to become Catholics. But it’s an insight that the discipline of Biblical scholarship, in and of itself, tends to obscure more than it reveals.

Edwin

Might I direct you to look up information on a fellow named Scott Hahn.

Regards,
Phil

 

[C_the_K]

• All Catholics are exposed to the Bible in the mass
• The focus of most Protestants is to read your Bible regularly and understand it

How well do Protestants really understand the bible?

 

[Contarini]

Might I direct you to look up information on a fellow named Scott Hahn.

Regards,
Phil

Why would you do that? Scott Hahn was never a prominent Protestant Biblical scholar. His prominence has come solely after his conversion, and derives more from his popular work than from anything he’s done within the scholarly guild, anyway. I figured you had Scott Hahn in mind, but I didn’t want to assume so. that’s why I made the point that some folks who weren’t necessarily famous as Biblical scholars were no doubt very knowledgeable, but you can’t just pick out people you like and declare them “among the most knowledgeable.”

Hahn is a very smart and learned guy and I have no desire to denigrate his scholarship, but when he converted to Catholicism he was not a published Biblical scholar. He wasn’t an eminent figure within Protestantism. Again, that’s not to his discredit, but if you’re “counting scalps” in terms of famous Protestants who converted (probably a bad idea, but it was yours, not mine), Hahn isn’t on the radar screen. He became famous only after he converted. He hadn’t completed his Ph.D. when he converted, in fact.

His work since then has been mostly popular and not within the guild–he still wouldn’t be regarded as a great Biblical scholar by most other scholars. But he certainly is a scholar with fine credentials, and I applaud him for writing work that non-scholars can understand instead of trying to score points within the guild.

The fact that you mention Scott Hahn undercuts your argument, because nearly every time a Catholic makes the claim you did, Hahn is the person they name first. If there really were all these Protestant Biblical scholars converting, you’d be able to name more–it wouldn’t begin and end with Hahn. (And, of course, I’m not claiming he’s the only one–only that his immense popularity in conservative American Catholic circles doesn’t entitle you to make claims about some larger trend of Protestant scholars converting, especially since his Ph.D. and most of his published work are Catholic, not Protestant.)

As Hahn’s own account makes clear, Hahn converted not because “the Bible” in some self-interpreting Protestant sense led him there, but because of his precommitment to a radical version of covenant theology. He had a theological grid within which he was interpreting the Bible. That’s fine. We all do. But to claim that this proves that whenever you interpret the Bible in context you’ll find that Catholicism is right–that’s just to repeat the basic Protestant mistake in defense of Catholicism.

The Bible is not self-interpreting. Interpreted as a historical document in its original context, it doesn’t support any theological system very well. It needs to be read within the context of the Church’s Tradition in order to function as the Word of God–while at the same time (here the Protestants are right, I believe) it retains an amazing power to challenge and renew the tradition.

Edwin

 

[Carlan]

• All Catholics are exposed to the Bible in the mass
• The focus of most Protestants is to read your Bible regularly and understand it

How well do Protestants really understand the bible?

Yes , I do wonder, especially considering how very many of them rely on and believe in only their own understanding. Peace, Carlan

 

[ESMDHokie77]

The Bible is not self-interpreting. Interpreted as a historical document in its original context, it doesn’t support any theological system very well. It needs to be read within the context of the Church’s Tradition in order to function as the Word of God–while at the same time (here the Protestants are right, I believe) it retains an amazing power to challenge and renew the tradition.

Edwin

I agree with this paragraph of yours, except for the part after the hyphen. I question how it would challenge tradition?

Alright, how about John Henry Newman? He was an Anglican academic at Oxford, and he wanted to prove that the Catholic Church was not the Church established by Christ. He found it impossible to argue for that, and converted.

Phil

 

[babylonsfalling]

Hi there,
Another poster from last month mentioned this article, which I read and found very interesting. Apologies if this is not the best forum to discuss… I’m new and learning the ropes a bit.

Here’s a link to the article:
ncronline.org/news/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants

The article attempts to look at data regarding departures from the RCC towards either evangelical churches or mainline Protestant churches (i.e. Episcopal/Lutheran/Methodist,etc).

It seems the underlying theme of departures is directly relevant NOT to social beliefs of the RCC, but a lack of Biblical focus and a lack of an engaging worship service:

As a non-Catholic, I can agree with this sentiment, but I’d like to hear the opinions of you folks on this topic.

Would it HELP the Roman Catholic Church to increase time spent on scripture interpretation at mass?

Do you AGREE with the article’s author that the Church needs to emphasize SCRIPTURE even above the Catechism?

Thanks all!

Actually NO. The Catholic Church I go to ALWAYS has more than one Scripture reading in each service. The non Catholic Churches I’ve been to have only one. The Catholic Church I go to is having their multiple Scripture readings every day of the weak. The non Catholic Churches I’ve been to have only done 3 times per week at most and most only do it once per week. Catholics already have more Scripture AND more chances per week to be at Church for Scriptural readings and interpretations.

The Catholic sermons are shorter but more to the point and contain more “meat on the bone”…the non Catholic sermons are longer but that’s mostly because they are peppered with jokes, comedy, and pleas for money.

I DO think it might be an improvement if Catholics brought Bibles to Church and if the priest actually cited chapter/verse before beginning the reading. The down side might be that they end up bringing Bibles only because they’re expected to, as I know goes on in many non Catholic churches. It’s also very arguable as how much good bring those Bible really does. In non Catholic Churches people open them up and read along as the pastor reads aloud. In Catholic Churches, people just listen more directly to the priest. I don’t know that there’s more value in splitting your attention to reading and hearing at the same time in a non Catholic church, or devoting all your attention to hearing it read in a Catholic Church…seems that would vary from one person to another…also seems like a case of splitting hairs.

You should also be aware that there is much more prayer going on in a Catholic Church than ANY non Catholic church I’ve ever been to, and a much greater humility before God which (in my opinion) is a direct result of Catholicism’s greater sense of sin and the need for forgiveness.

The penitential rite…

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned through my own fault

• we strike our breast -

in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
May almighty God have mercy on us,
forgive us our sins,
and bring us to everlasting life.
Amen.

…was a huge factor in my decision to return to Catholicism. And it’s something that I’ve never seen anything close to in any non Catholic Church. I believe some other churches have it (or something similar) but I also think that those other churches have much to do with Catholicism anyway.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Might I direct you to look up information on a fellow named Scott Hahn.

Regards,
Phil

I think most people in the field would think of Scott Hahn as a Catholic apologist, or perhaps a biblical theologian, but not a Bible scholar.