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

[elvisman]

That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a particular way of preaching, rooted in a theology teaching that efforts toward sanctification have no direct effect on one’s acceptance by God. I’m not claiming that Law/Gospel preaching is necessarily incompatible with Catholicism–Wesleyans are closer in soteriology to Catholics than to Lutherans in many ways, and yet have historically used a form of Law/Gospel preaching (the Wesley brothers themselves certainly did). Law/Gospel may be adaptable to Catholicism, but it’s not the same as saying that we can’t be saved without the saving blood of Christ, and it’s not historically shaped the way Catholics preach. Catholics tend to see preaching as expounding some aspect of the Faith–after Vatican II this was specifically narrowed down to some aspect of the readings for that Sunday. Evangelical Protestants traditionally have a very specific understanding of what a sermon is supposed to do–it’s a sacramental act that puts people in touch with the saving grace of God by convincing them of their sin and then offering them forgiveness. I’m not claiming that every Protestant sermon conforms to this pattern, but it has powerfully shaped Protestant ideas about preaching in a way that I don’t think is equally true in Catholicism.

Please be less defensive and engage what I’m actually saying, not what you assume I’m saying.

Edwin

Then be more clear about what you are actually saying.
Go back and read some of your posts on this thread and maybe you’ll see what I mean . . .

As for your astute observation about what Evangelical Protestants expect from their sermons - I agree. I believe that this is largely a consequence of a staunch adherence to Sola Scriptura.

 

[nickybr38]

I have earlier made comments about the poor quality of Catholic preaching, and I grant that they are perhaps excessive, though I have relatively extensive experience for a non-Catholic.

However, that wasn’t my point in this post at all. My point was that
a. these particular Catholics probably weren’t used to preaching that dealt with the Four Last Things; and
b. Catholics in general do not use a Law/Gospel paradigm in their preaching, which is central to traditional Protestant preaching.

I think that this is actually one of the reasons why ex-Catholic evangelicals say they didn’t hear the Word preached. Once you are formed by the Law/Gospel preaching paradigm, you don’t see anything else as the preaching of the Gospel. That being said, many modern evangelicals know the Law/Gospel preaching paradigm only in the debased form “you have needs and Jesus can supply them.”

The Law/Gospel paradigm, for those not familiar with it, goes like this:

1. Convince the hearers that they are sinners facing death and judgment, and that they cannot save themselves;
2. Offer free forgiveness through Jesus’ blood as the response to this predicament.

Edwin

Ugh. I hate that preaching style. Okay, I know I’m a sinner and I know Jesus forgives me… now what? How do I proceed from there? How do I grow from there?

I know this post isn’t about Protestant denominations but in general I get frustrated with how nothing more is ever expected. You sin, you forgive and nothing else. Eventually a person grows up and wants to learn more.

I am SO glad I don’t have to sit through altar calls anymore.

 

[Contarini]

Then be more clear about what you are actually saying.
Go back and read some of your posts on this thread and maybe you’ll see what I mean . . .

Or maybe not. This kind of argument goes nowhere. In the absence of any evidence from you showing that what I said was misleading, I continue to believe that the fault was yours. I very clearly spoke of “Law/Gospel” preaching and did not speak of salvation through the blood of Jesus. You used language I did not use. How is it my fault that I spoke of one thing and you jumped to the conclusion that I was speaking of something else?

**

As for your astute observation about what Evangelical Protestants expect from their sermons - I agree. I believe that this is largely

a consequence of a staunch adherence to Sola Scriptura.**Depends on what you mean by Sola Scriptura.

I think that the operative theological element here is actually the view that preaching is necessary in order to make Scripture function as the Word of God, which is the Lutheran version of Sola Scriptura and quite different from the Reformed view that Scripture is an all-purpose manual, though the Law/Gospel paradigm has affected all of Protestantism.

 

[Contarini]

Ugh. I hate that preaching style. Okay, I know I’m a sinner and I know Jesus forgives me… now what? How do I proceed from there? How do I grow from there?

I know this post isn’t about Protestant denominations but in general I get frustrated with how nothing more is ever expected. You sin, you forgive and nothing else. Eventually a person grows up and wants to learn more.

I am SO glad I don’t have to sit through altar calls anymore.

The Lutheran version of this does not have altar calls, and is in my opinion more interesting. But perhaps that’s just because I come from an altar-call, revivalistic tradition (though my family were a bit skeptical of altar calls, seeing them as contributing to “easy believism”) and the Lutheran difference is intriguing to me.

I think there is some value to altar calls, though I find them personally uncomfortable. But Law/Gospel preaching does not necessarily have anything to do with altar calls. Nor does the paradigm exclude instruction for the Christian life–but that instruction is supposed to be based on an exhortation to live in joy and gratitude for the gift of free forgiveness.

Luther himself preached detailed sermons on the Sermon on the Mount telling people how to live!

 

[Nicea325]

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod lets the individual parishes decide if they want to use the 0ne Year or the Three Year Lectionary. At my church, the pastor uses the three lectionary because he feels that it covers more of the Bible.
His sermons are always based on one of the readings for the day. He also says that for every minute of preaching, a half hour of study is needed, His sermons are about twenty minutes. A side note, LC-MS pastors always preach Law and Gospel sermons and they are required to study C.F.W. Walther’s The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel.
Also, I don’t think that Bible Study should be lead by a lay person, it should be lead by a pastor or priest .

I disagree with you that a Bible Study should not be led by a lay person. Why not? Not every Catholic Church has a priest or priests to lead;moreover, many do no have the time to teach a Bible Study class. If the lay person for example has a Ph.D in theology, I think he or she is more than adequate to teach. Of course,his or her interpretations must jive with church teachings.

 

[nickybr38]

The Lutheran version of this does not have altar calls, and is in my opinion more interesting. But perhaps that’s just because I come from an altar-call, revivalistic tradition (though my family were a bit skeptical of altar calls, seeing them as contributing to “easy believism”) and the Lutheran difference is intriguing to me.

I think there is some value to altar calls, though I find them personally uncomfortable. But Law/Gospel preaching does not necessarily have anything to do with altar calls. Nor does the paradigm exclude instruction for the Christian life–but that instruction is supposed to be based on an exhortation to live in joy and gratitude for the gift of free forgiveness.

Luther himself preached detailed sermons on the Sermon on the Mount telling people how to live!

In my experience the Law/Gospel method hasn’t been that great… but perhaps I’m still experiencing it now just in the hands of a more capable priest?

 

[elvisman]

Or maybe not. This kind of argument goes nowhere. In the absence of any evidence from you showing that what I said was misleading, I continue to believe that the fault was yours. I very clearly spoke of “Law/Gospel” preaching and did not speak of salvation through the blood of Jesus. You used language I did not use. How is it my fault that I spoke of one thing and you jumped to the conclusion that I was speaking of something else?

Maybe it was in your explanation of the 2 rules of the Law/Gospel paradigm in post #193:
1. Convince the hearers that they are sinners facing death and judgment, and that they cannot save themselves;
2. Offer free forgiveness through Jesus’ blood as the response to this predicament.

I don’t make this stuff up – I just respond to it.

Depends on what you mean by Sola Scriptura.

I think that the operative theological element here is actually the view that preaching is necessary in order to make Scripture function as the Word of God, which is the Lutheran version of Sola Scriptura and quite different from the Reformed view that Scripture is an all-purpose manual, though the Law/Gospel paradigm has affected all of Protestantism.

**You’re absolutely correct. Sola Scriptura has as many flavors as Protestantism itself. I can *****never ***get a consensus on the doctrine because everybody has their own interpretation of it - which is the consequence of such a false and self-refuting doctrine.

 

[mark_a]

sadly.

Professors of scripture who did not know scripture, how to understand it, to read it and teach others how.

Example, Catholic Old Testament professor who could not fathom why the prophet Nathan spoke to David in the manner he did about his murder of Uriah and adultery in 2 Samuel 11-12. We thought it was a trick to get us to think. But it was not, just an example used by him to show how unreliable the scriptures are for us. When I point out that the Scriptures expressly state the Lord sent Nathan to David in context of giving a message…started a 20 minute argument on if David ever existed, much less Nathan, regardless of the historical artifacts from Tel-Dan (?) actually discussing the household of David.

Catholic priest in our Christology class, ran by a Lutheran Deaconess who thought using the Jesus Seminar was a good way to teach Christology…and no she did not think they were in error. This priest constantly attacked catholic teaching and particularly the Pope. Thought the creeds were a joke and needed to be toss out. And no, Fr. B was not joking.
A priest from Africa and I were constantly defending the church. Father even went to the chair of the department. Who, also a priest, routinely threw people out of class for disagreeing with his teaching when it went outside church teaching.

Protestants…The SBC does not really have the structure of the Church. Pinnock, Mclaren, Warren etc held up as models of church growth and theology. Superficial teaching of history, not answering questions such as why did a certain church father say where the bishop is there is the church, etc. No depth to discussion of scriptures. Example…does Paul and James contradict each other when one says were are save without works and the other seems to say the opposition. Response…sit down, you must be a calvinist.

teaching that the Q document is actually and historically accurate. Though scholars were silent on it for about 1700 years. and no one has the original, much less a copy.

These are some of the things taught in protestant and catholic schools

Thank you so much for the thoughtful reply. It’s an eye opener!!

 

[babylonsfalling]

This isn’t an idea I made up. It’s an idea that you can find in papal and conciliar declarations over a period of centuries. It’s a pretty standard idea in traditional Catholicism. Now I disagree with the practice (up to about 1850) of limiting laypeople’s access to Scripture because of these concerns. But to say that the concerns were invalid is to show a level of disrespect to the Catholic tradition that I’m not willing to do, especially when my own experience bears it out.

I’m not attacking private Bible study. I’m saying <—Actually your CHANGING what you said from one post to another. I’ll paste what you REALLY said below that it shouldn’t bear the sole weight of Scriptural exposition. The best place for Scriptural exposition, as for all other basic aspects of Christian worship, is within the Liturgy. Of course that needs to be supplemented by private Bible study.

He actually preached entire sermons on single phrases:<—So now it’s “phrases”?! First you said it was a “passage”, then you said it was more than one passage…you keep changing things from post to post. like “the grace of God.” I mean, if you think you can’t spend 45 minutes on grace, you have a pretty superficial understanding of grace! <—Actually I never said that so now you’re now arguing against a point which I never made in the first place. And you’re again changing what you’re said in previous posts.

I’m granting that this is an extreme example, but the assumptions this pastor worked from about the theological depth and richness of Scripture, and the way all of Scripture is interconnected, are precisely those of the Fathers. The only difference is that he rejected much of the Tradition within which Scripture should be interpreted. But if you interpret Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition, that should give you more to say about it, not less!

This wasn’t show-preaching. It was preaching motivated by the highly orthodox and patristic conviction that every part of Scripture contains infinite riches.

Edwin

Here’s what you really said…

Privatizing Bible study is unhealthy

It’s also not true that private Bible study by Catholics bears the “sole weight of Scriptural exposition”. If you believe that then all you really show us is that you don’t know anything about Catholicism. Granted, I’ve never seen a priest spend 45 minutes weeks or months the following four verses…

Titus 2:11-14
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

but even you seemed willing to acknowledge that doing so by a non Catholic preacher was “over the top”. That kind of preaching is just show preaching. Some passages definitely deserves more time than others, and all passages have importance because they are the Word of God, but weeks or months on those four verses is as you said, over the top. That only serves as a good example of where non Catholics can definitely learn something from the Catholic Church.

In regard to the subject matter of these 45 minute sermons, first you said it was an

in-depth theological analysis of a Biblical passage for 45 minutes

then when I asked you which passage you were referring to you said it was

Different passages

and now you’re saying it was

phrases

What’s it going to be in your next post?

 

[MarkInOregon]

There are widely varying estimates. In grad school I read Harry Gamble’s Books and Readers in the Early Church, and he seemed to think that there was no way to be sure whether the “maximalists” or the “minimalists” were right about literacy in the ancient world. (At least, I emerged from the book unsure which side had the stronger case.) Certainly it would have been a minority.

That’s why I then mentioned the practice of reading aloud. I’m not talking just about reading aloud in worship, but in private or semi-public circles as well. I’ve seen references to Roman poets reading their work out loud in public, for instance. Reading was generally more performative than it is today. So it seems likely that literate Christians would have read the Bible (and other books) out loud to the non-literate, even outside formal worship.

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong–but wouldn’t public reading be out of the question for Christians in the early Church as they were being persecuted? Didn’t they usually meet in secret? Additionally reading outside of formal worship seems to imply that there were lots of copies of the gospels and other writing floating around for anyone to have. That seems highly unlikely given the cost of and fragility of the early writings–it would seem that these writings would have been more rare and protected and hidden–which would make reading outside of the formal worship difficult. It seems more likely that these writing would have been recited, as best one could, from memory. I think the quotes in many of the early non-Biblical writings of what we know today as the Bible–bare this out–as they often appear to be the writers memory of the verse–not his copying from an actual available text. Is there any evidence for what you propose?

My point is that common people may have had many chances to hear reading. And of course among Jews literacy was pretty high–I think that’s generally agreed.

No. How did you miss the word “possibly”? I said in an earlier post that there is no evidence I know of for small Bible study groups before Pietism in the late 17th century. My point is that if, as is likely, people were reading the Bible out loud to each other, it is certainly possible that sometimes they stopped to talk about what they were reading. I doubt that this was much like modern “small group Bible studies”–again, I said “possibly some analogy.” I know this is obvious and that you know it–but I feel the need to point it out–there was no “Bible” in the early Church. They had various writings–each area having different writings—no complete printed Bible for reading and study.

One small bit of evidence for the kind of thing I have in mind is in Egeria’s account of her pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the fourth century. She mentions that whenever she arrived in a new part of the Holy Land she would have the relevant passage of Scripture read to her. I am not familiar with the account–by whom and at what location did she have the passage read to her? Does she mention–public square, private home, worship service, local bishop, priest?

Edwin

 

[MarkInOregon]

Here’s what you really said…

It’s also not true that private Bible study by Catholics bears the “sole weight of Scriptural exposition”. If you believe that then all you really show us is that you don’t know anything about Catholicism. Granted, I’ve never seen a priest spend 45 minutes weeks or months the following four verses…

but even you seemed willing to acknowledge that doing so by a non Catholic preacher was “over the top”. That kind of preaching is just show preaching. Some passages definitely deserves more time than others, and all passages have importance because they are the Word of God, but weeks or months on those four verses is as you said, over the top. That only serves as a good example of where non Catholics can definitely learn something from the Catholic Church.

In regard to the subject matter of these 45 minute sermons, first you said it was an
then when I asked you which passage you were referring to you said it was
and now you’re saying it was
What’s it going to be in your next post?

Please be fair to Contarini. Many here seem to be reading much into or just plain misinterpreting what he writes.

You quoted Contarini saying “I’m not attacking private Bible study. I’m saying…” and you cut it off and accuse him of changing what he is saying by using this quote from him: “Privatizing Bible study is unhealthy”

Explain how saying “privatizing Bible study is unhealthy” is attacking private Bible study? To me–and I don’t want to put words into Contarini’s mouth because…well because he doesn’t need any words from me as he is much more well spoken than I will ever be–he is saying that when you divorce the study of the Bible from the Church you are asking for trouble. In our parish we always make sure our private Bible studies are in keeping with Church teaching. Our study of the Bible is to be guided by the Church–not by our own private inclinations and desires. If I read a passage and understand it in a way contrary to Church teaching–I need to dig deeper and see what I am missing. When he said “privatizing bible study” I thought he was talking about divorcing it from Church teaching and subjecting it to our private thoughts and desires–not that privately studying the Bible was bad. I never got what you did from reading his posts. I have said this poorly and I am sure Contarini will let you know what he meant and how the two statements don’t conflict.

Peace,
Mark

 

[babylonsfalling]

]<–Actually the original post was about about asking why Catholics leave the church AND suggesting that it was because they weren’t getting enough Bible, which is ridiculous because they already get MORE Bible than they would in the average non Catholic Church.

The question is: are these churches doing something right from which Catholics can learn?*** <–The answer is, No, when it comes to the amount of Bible they AREN’T doing something that Catholics can learn from. Non Catholic churches should learn from Catholics on this matter and have MORE Bible as Catholic Churches already do.***

This isn’t about whether the average Catholic church is better or worse than the average non-Catholic church. <–It’s about the ridiculous claim that Catholics aren’t getting enough Bible when in fact they are getting more Bible than the average non Catholic church.

Protestants don’t learn from the average Catholic parish <—I know, that why they have LESS Bible than the Catholic Church despite the claim by some that Catholics need more. --we learn from the best teachings and practices found within Catholicism. <—GOOD!! So what have you learned?

Fair enough. So the question is: why do so many Catholics perceive it differently?*** <—Assuming they really do think they’re not getting enough Bible, those Catholics aren’t comparing it to what goes on in the average non Catholic church where people get LESS than Catholics. So if Catholics need more Bible, non Catholics need more times two. For a non Catholic to be claiming that the Catholic Church needs more Bible is ridiculous.***

And even if you’re right, the question remains: how can Catholics make the rich table of the Word more accessible to people? <—Certainly not be listening to non Catholic claims that the Catholic Church isn’t providing enough Bible, when the reality is that it’s actually the non Catholic Churches providing less.

I’m suggesting that the missing piece, which is a central part of traditional Protestantism, is a robust tradition of exegetical preaching. <–The examples you’re provided of good teaching have been show preaching in my opinion, and even you’ve suggested that they were over the top. I’ve been to non Catholics Churches and their teaching has not been better than in Catholic Churches. And I’m meeting a quite remarkable resistance to that idea in this thead. I wonder why? It is surely more in keeping with Catholic tradition to say that priests should expound Scripture in depth from the pulpit than to say that laypeople should go off and study it on their own.<—I’ve actually heard in both Catholic Churches and non Catholic churches that both should be done. You’re the only one that’s ever told me that privatizing Bible study is unhealthy.

I’m not claiming, of course, that priests expounding Scripture more richly from the pulpit would solve all the problems with folks leaving the Church. But I think it would make a difference. It would make people see the point of Bible studies and private Bible reading, and it would make it harder for them to claim (even if they’re only doing so as an excuse) that they didn’t hear much about the Bible in the Catholic Church. In Protestant churches–and yes, I’m thinking of the best ones–there is a unity between what goes on on Sunday morning and what goes on in the small group Bible studies or family worship or private devotions or whatever. A lot of the megachurches have broken this link, and I think that’s one of the most disturbing developments in modern evangelicalism. Definitely not something I would like to see Catholics imitate!

The truth about Catholic Bible teaching…I grew up Catholic and I didn’t pay attention in church, I was not a good Catholic by any means. Having said that, I’ve still not learned anything new from non Catholic Bible teaching in non Catholic Churches than I already knew from Catholic teaching.

Non Catholic churches are about equal with Catholic Churches when it comes to teaching.

Non Catholic churches are way behind Catholic Churches when it comes to a church needing more Bible. Contrary to what the OP suggests, Catholic Churches have more Bible and non Catholic churches have less.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Please be fair to Contarini. Many here seem to be reading much into or just plain misinterpreting what he writes.

You quoted Contarini saying “I’m not attacking private Bible study. I’m saying…” and you cut it off and accuse him of changing what he is saying by using this quote from him: “Privatizing Bible study is unhealthy”

Explain how saying “privatizing Bible study is unhealthy” is attacking private Bible study? To me–and I don’t want to put words into Contarini’s mouth because…well because he doesn’t need any words from me as he is much more well spoken than I will ever be–he is saying that when you divorce the study of the Bible from the Church you are asking for trouble. In our parish we always make sure our private Bible studies are in keeping with Church teaching. Our study of the Bible is to be guided by the Church–not by our own private inclinations and desires. If I read a passage and understand it in a way contrary to Church teaching–I need to dig deeper and see what I am missing. When he said “privatizing bible study” I thought he was talking about divorcing it from Church teaching and subjecting it to our private thoughts and desires–not that privately studying the Bible was bad. I never got what you did from reading his posts. I have said this poorly and I am sure Contarini will let you know what he meant and how the two statements don’t conflict.

Peace,
Mark

What I was trying to get at is that:

1. Scripture must be studied within the living Tradition of the whole Church (CCC 113)
2. “Finally, the exegete must realize that he does not stand in some neutral area, above or outside history and the Church…It must recognize that the faith of the Church is that form of ‘sympathia’ without which the Bible remains a closed book.” Cardinal Ratzinger 1988 Erasmus lecture.
3. In Spiritus Paraclitus IV, 3, Pope Benedict XV states that if a person wants to understand the Bible he must understand its relation to Tradition and the Magisterium. If an interpretation contradicts the sacred Tradition doctine passed down to us through the Church–that interpretation is in error.
4. "It is clear therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s wise disign, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and all together and each in its own way under action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls (Dei Verbum 10)

The interpretation of sacred scripture is not the perogative of each and every individual Christian–see CCC 100: The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted soley to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

When Contarini talks of “privatizing Bible study” I understood it to mean studying the Bible and interpreting it away from and apart from the Magisterium of the Church–and that is indeed a bad thing that can and has given rise to heresy but it is a far cry from attacking private Bible study–which is something that should be done–but should be done with the proper understanding that it needs to be studied in the living Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Mark

 

[jwinch2]

What I was trying to get at is that:

1. Scripture must be studied within the living Tradition of the whole Church (CCC 113)
2. “Finally, the exegete must realize that he does not stand in some neutral area, above or outside history and the Church…It must recognize that the faith of the Church is that form of ‘sympathia’ without which the Bible remains a closed book.” Cardinal Ratzinger 1988 Erasmus lecture.
3. In Spiritus Paraclitus IV, 3, Pope Benedict XV states that if a person wants to understand the Bible he must understand its relation to Tradition and the Magisterium. If an interpretation contradicts the sacred Tradition doctine passed down to us through the Church–that interpretation is in error.
4. "It is clear therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s wise disign, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and all together and each in its own way under action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls (Dei Verbum 10)

The interpretation of sacred scripture is not the perogative of each and every individual Christian–see CCC 100: The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted soley to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

When Contarini talks of “privatizing Bible study” I understood it to mean studying the Bible and interpreting it away from and apart from the Magisterium of the Church–and that is indeed a bad thing that can and has given rise to heresy but it is a far cry from attacking private Bible study–which is something that should be done–but should be done with the proper understanding that it needs to be studied in the living Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Mark

Very good stuff! I agree 100% that it is important for all members of the faithful to study scripture on their own, however, they should always take advantage of the resources provided to ensure that their study is guiding them in the proper direction. The CCC, writings of various Saints, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and some good orthodox study Bibles can help to foster this situation.

I believe it is particularly important for all of the faithful to study sacred scripture to assist our call to evangelize, particularly our Protestant brothers and sisters with their focus on scripture.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Thank you so much for the thoughtful reply. It’s an eye opener!!

I disagree with you!

(Private joke).

 

[Miriam1947]

As a person who grew up in an evangelical church, one that is ALL Bible oriented, I can say that the Roman Catholic Church does in fact emphasize the Bible a LOT more than most non-Catholics want to acknowledge.

Keep in mind that people often leave churches for a wide variety of reasons. Attempting to pin it down to one issue is rarely fair at all. And, those drawn to the more evangelical churches are often more interested in the “show” than anything else. They will say whatever they are taught to say.

I was raised to believe that The Pope was quite literally the Devil Incarnate on Earth. That Nuns wore the old style habits to hide their horns and tails, because they were all sworn “Brides of the Devil”. That every Nun was required to have a baby by a priest, and that those babies were sacrificed at “Black masses” worshiping the Devil.

We were taught this drivel in Sunday School. My beloved grandfather was a Minister in that Sect for 55 years, as were his brother-in-law, his father-in-law, all of his wife’s uncles, etc. The entire family was, and still is, Free Methodist.

We kids spent each summer with our grandparents, and we had it drilled into us that all Catholic were evil. We went to church on Sunday and Wednesday evening, and Papa preached at least 2-3 week long “Camp Meetings” every summer, and we went to those all day, every day they lasted.

We had people that cam to our church, and to those Camp Meetings that claimed to be "former Priests and “former Nuns”, who would tell everyone lurid tales of the depravity of the Catholic Church. I now realize that they were all a bunch of liars!

But, you can imagine how I felt at the age of 9, when in the middle of the school year (January 2, 1953 to be exact) I was suddenly informed that I was going to be placed in a Catholic Boarding School that very day. I was horrified, I truly believed that she was turning me over to the devil. I was quite literally shaking with fear, as she hugged me goodby and left me in their “care”.

Inside of a month, I knew that everything I had been taught about Catholics was a total and complete lie.

Instead of emphasizing how you would be punished if you sinned, they emphasized how much Jesus loved you and wanted you to be in heaven with him. How he gave us the opportunity to seek forgiveness for our sins. How he loved us, that God the Father loved us, and the Holy Ghost also loved us. That we need not “fear God”, but that we should love him. (Which by the way is what the old English word “fear”, as used in the King James Bible actually means.)

Their example of living a true Christian life is what converted me. Not their words, but they way they lived and they way they treated us children. They showed their love of their fellow humans every day, every hour and every minute. They also taught s about Scripture and what it meant a LOT better than the protestant church I had grown up in did.

You see, they actually taught you to think about what the Bible was saying, not to just memorize it.

Any Catholic that wants to learn about scripture can learn all they could possibly want to know through the Catholic Church. Contrary to what many Protestants claim, the Church does not discourage people from reading the Bible (I personally own 7 different editions of it). Every Catholic Book Store in this country carries at least two or three editions of the Bible, and they sell a LOT of them.

My 4th grade teacher was a brand new Nun, having taken her solemn vows the summer before and was teaching her first year. It was her example, more than anything else, that converted me. You see, she was the first person I had ever seen that was connected to religion that actually seemed to be happy because of it. I owe my faith to Sr. Renilda Cade, O.P. (of the Dominican Sisters of Mission San Jose, and may God bless her soul eternally.)

Better come up with another reason why people leave. And, keep in mind that the Catholic Church is GROWING, not shrinking as most Protestant sects are doing.

I love this, thank you for posting. I am a convert as well and cannot believe how many people say that the church is not biblical. And just try to get those people to even go to a mass. If they could get beyond their pre-conceived hatred, they would learn that the mass is wholly biblical and biblically based.

Where do they think the Bible came from? It just dropped down from heaven written in King James English?

 

[Alex_Luciano]

I think the answer to the question is a resounding yes. The Mass is very biblical and in addition to the readings almost everything else is a direct quote or paraphrase from Scripture. But, the issue we have is that many (perhaps most) Catholic parishes have not developed a good Bible study program that can compete with the very dynamic Protestant Bible study groups in every corner. The issue is also cultural. Catholics a few generations ago could rely on the culture around them to inculcate Christian principles and teachings on the faithful even if very few of them read the Bible.

 To many Catholics reading the Bible was a "Protestant thing". We had processions, pilgrimages, retreats, feast days, novenas and other devotional practices that transmitted the essence of the faith to us. Like a priest friend of mine who grew up in the 40's and 50's has told me "people knew that Christ had died for them but articulating it was another thing". We were Catholic and that's it. Now the religious landscape is much more competitive (thanks in no small part to the Catholic suicidal attempt called ecumenism) and the cultural aspects of Catholicism have largely disappeared in many communities. 

We need a much better Bible educated laity but since this is not part of Catholic culture it will be hard to change things. Many parishes develop Bible study groups but few people go. What I find disturbing is that these same people will then be super duper Protestant Bible study junkies when they leave the Church. It makes no sense to me. Why didn't they look up their parish's Bible study groups before jumping ship? Perhaps we'll never know.

 

[Contarini]

Mark has done a good job of explaining basically what I was trying to say. I’ll try to restate my overall argument more clearly one more time:

1. It is an observable fact that ex-Catholics often claim that they get more Bible in Protestantism than they did in Catholicism.
2. As has been pointed out here, this claim certainly does not refer to the relative amount of Scripture publicly read in worship on Sunday. Catholics are essentially the same in this regard with Anglicans and others who use the full RCL, and far above the majority of Protestants.
3. Catholics on this thread have therefore argued that the claim in point 1 is simply false. However, this conclusion seems to be driven by apologetic defensiveness rather than by probability. It is far more likely that these ex-Catholics are referring to something other than the amount of Scripture that they hear read on a Sunday morning–that in some way they have failed to understand or be edified by Scripture in the Catholic Church. Ex-Catholics (and some who remain in the Church) typically describe Catholic liturgy as dead, dry, boring ritual. The public reading of Scripture would appear to such people as simply another ritual.
4. The most reasonable conclusion is therefore that Protestant churches by and large do a better job (or are perceived to do so–I’m not claiming that the spiritual results are necessarily better across the board) in teaching, explaining, and applying Scripture.
5. There are three ways in which this happens in Protestant churches: public preaching, small-group Bible study, and private reading.
6. My argument, which apparently has been seen as offensive by some on this thread, is that **of these three the first is the most clearly lacking in Catholic churches, and at the same time is the most appropriate means of Biblical exposition according to the Catholic Tradition. **To support this claim, I’ll work through the three means in reverse order:
7. Private Bible reading has often been regarded with suspicion within Catholicism. That seems to be news to some Catholic converts on this forum, but it’s hardly an obscure or debatable matter. The private reading of Scripture by laypeople has never been condemned outright (not in Latin, at least), but it has often been restricted and has always been seen as something that needed to be shaped and controlled by the Church’s public teaching.
8. Since the later 19th century, the Church has encouraged private Bible reading, while of course continuing to warn that this reading needed to be done in the context of the Tradition. I need to make it clear that I consider this to be an entirely appropriate and sound approach. The earlier attitude was mistaken in many ways, although its theological premise (that private Bible reading was highly dangerous and should always be done in conjunction with the Church’s Tradition) was thoroughly correct. Ironically, some of the Catholics on this forum seem less in agreement with traditional Catholic teaching on this point than i am.
9. However, in spite of these encouragements, private Bible reading continues to languish among Catholics. Many Catholics (and ex-Catholics) who are still alive report being told by nuns in their youth that they should not read the Bible privately, even though the official policy of the Church since Leo XIII (in other words, before the birth of anyone now alive) has been to encourage such reading. Even apart from such unofficial teaching by low-level authority figures within the Church, Catholics by and large seem unenthusiastic about private Bible reading. I welcome the fact that the Catholic Church (both officially and through many grass-roots groups) is trying to change this, but I think that given the shape of Catholic faith private Bible reading is never going to be as central for Catholics as for evangelical Protestants. The solution, therefore, lies elsewhere.
10. What then of small-group Bible studies? As I said earlier, these appear to be essentially an invention of Pietist Protestantism, at least as a widespread institution–of course it’s likely that Christians did sometimes discuss Scripture with each other in small groups at earlier periods of history. Many of the same concerns expressed by the leaders of the Church in the past about private reading apply to small-group study. Again, it’s ironic that on this forum a Lutheran has expressed the most rigorously clerical view of Bible study, arguing that all such groups should be led by an ordained minister. I wouldn’t go so far myself, but in both cases the traditional worries about privatization should not be ignored.
11. What does “privatization” mean? As Mark correctly deduced, I’m not simply talking about reading Scripture alone or with a small group, but about placing the primary weight of Biblical interpretation on such private or small-group study, taking it out of the context of the Church’s liturgy and public preaching by an authorized person. Rightly, all three means of the study of Scripture should be practiced, but
12. My central contention is that **if the Eucharist is indeed the source and summit of Christian worship, then the Eucharistic liturgy is also the best place for the exposition of Scripture. **The objections to this claim I’ve seen have rested on a false dichotomy between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, as if the latter were the real point and the former a sideshow. I do not think that setting up parts of the Liturgy over against each other in this way is orthodox or in any way edifying. The exposition of Scripture in its fullest and most richly Catholic form should take place in the context of the Mass, as a preparation for receiving the Eucharist. And it’s easy to ascertain that this is how the Fathers did it–we have many of their written sermons which are easily available online.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

1. It is an observable fact that ex-Catholics often claim that they get more Bible in Protestantism than they did in Catholicism.

But look at the source making the claim: EX-CATHOLICS! It speaks volumes!

 

[Contarini]

But look at the source making the claim: EX-CATHOLICS! It speaks volumes!

To me, what speaks volumes is your willingness to dismiss anything said by ex-Catholics. It’s irrational and counterproductive. Of course ex-Catholics are not to be trusted as analysts of Catholicism. But they may generally be trusted to describe their experience. Defensiveness doesn’t help solve the problem.

You and I both know that the Catholic Church has a rich Scriptural heritage. The question is: how can Catholic laypeople who are disposed to abandon Catholicism be exposed to this heritage in a compelling way? I have proposed that a renewal of the ancient and properly Catholic tradition (best exemplified in the last 500 years by the Reformed, however) of exegetical preaching would be of great benefit in this regard.

If you prefer simply to disregard the testimony of people who have left the Catholic Church, that’s your choice. But I don’t think you’re doing the Church a service by this.

Edwin