Watching a non-Catholic Christian TV show right now

[Digital_Blue]

Hello everyone, I’m on my way to converting to Catholicism from being secular, and right now I’m just watching a, I’ll just use the term ‘non-Catholic’ Christian show on TV right now, and the speaker is making a point between Catholicism and his/their branch of Christianity,

This is a quick summary of some of the points he made,

The speaker said that before the 1960’s and the Second Vatican Council, Catholics were “forbidden from reading ‘scripture’” (does that mean the bible? I’m new so I don’t know all the history)

And he also said that to this day we’re only now allowed to read scripture but are forbidden from interpreting it,

on that second point I understand the authority on the matters of faith and doctrine come from the Hierarchy, from the Pope down,

but, we’re not allowed ANY freedom at all to interpret anything on our own (that hasn’t already been stated clearly by the Church of course)?

Anyone who can add on or clarify these things would be very much appreciated, the way he was wording things seemed a little suspect.

 

[Redratfish]

Hello everyone, I’m on my way to converting to Catholicism from being secular, and right now I’m just watching a, I’ll just use the term ‘non-Catholic’ Christian show on TV right now, and the speaker is making a point between Catholicism and his/their branch of Christianity,

Congrats on your conversion, I was once where you are now, and welcome you

This is a quick summary of some of the points he made,

The speaker said that before the 1960’s and the Second Vatican Council, Catholics were “forbidden from reading ‘scripture’” (does that mean the bible? I’m new so I don’t know all the history)

No, Catholics were never forbidding from reading scripture. For many years, people couldn’t read at all. Europe was largely iliterate for a long time. Also, just a warning, latin was not used a way to prevent people from understanding, but a common language uniting all people. Protestants twist this too.

And he also said that to this day we’re only now allowed to read scripture but are forbidden from interpreting it,

**True, to a degree. But Im sure it is spun differently. The Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth. It was the Church that created the Bible itself. A person claiming to know better than the author would seem rather foolish, wouldn’t you agree? But that is what Protestants claim. Also keep in mind, we are free to interpret the Bible as much as we want…as long as it doesn’t contradict Church teaching because…well the Church and God are the authors of the Bible. **

on that second point I understand the authority on the matters of faith and doctrine come from the Hierarchy, from the Pope down,

And his problem with that? Jesus is a king and handed his teachings to his disciples. The disciples past on those teachings in an unbroken chain known as apostolic succession. Only Catholics and Orthodox have full succession.

but, we’re not allowed ANY freedom at all to interpret anything on our own (that hasn’t already been stated clearly by the Church of course)?

See above about interpretation.

Anyone who can add on or clarify these things would be very much appreciated, the way he was wording things seemed a little suspect.

Hope this helped a bit!

 

[Dorothy]

There is only a handful of Sacred Scripture that the Church interprets for us definitively, and one of them is the Scripture in John 6 where He tells us that He is the living Bread, etc.

Scripture has many layers, and there is so much depth. It can have a simple meaning that we understand right away from reading it, and it can give insight to something much deeper as well.

No, we were not forbidden to read the Bible! In fact St. Jerome said “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”.

You will find much misinformation and exaggeration in what some non-Catholic preachers say.

 

[DianaCC]

The speaker said that before the 1960’s and the Second Vatican Council, Catholics were “forbidden from reading ‘scripture’” (does that mean the bible? I’m new so I don’t know all the history) And he also said that to this day we’re only now allowed to read scripture but are forbidden from interpreting it,

How irresponsible of him. Here’s a clever way to refute him. Get a Catholic Bible from before the 1960s. Flip through the first several pages before you get to Genesis. You will see two things. First you will see several pages of family records. Then after the title page you will see some introductory material. Why would there be pages for family records if regular Catholics were forbidden from reading scripture? Priests and monks have no use for tables of marriages and descendants. Now look at the introductory material. Here’s a selection from a Catholic Bible from 1854. That’s 1854. Before Vatican I.

I quote:

APPROBATION.

The present edition of the Douay Version of the Old and New Testament, published by Edward Dunigan, New York, having been revised by our direction, we have great pleasure in recommending it to the faithful, to be read with that reverence and respect which are due to the Word of God, and with that humility of heart and docility which the Church enjoins upon all who would read the Holy Scriptures with advantage to their souls.

* +JOHN HUGHES, Bishop of New York**
Given at the Episcopal residence this 27th of January, 1844.*
​

“Recommending it to the faithful”? Really? “With advantage to their souls”? Excuse me? I thought the Catholic Church barred the laity from reading the Bible.

​

But there’s more. After the table of contents, we find:

*ADMONITION.

The Scriptures, in which are contained the revealed mysteries of divine truth, are undoubtedly the most excellent of all writings: they were written by men divinely inspired, and are not the word of men, but the word of God, which can save our souls. But they ought to be read, even by the learned, with the spirit of humility, and with a fear of mistaking the true sense, as many have done. This we learn from Scripture itself, where Saint Peter says, that in the epistles of Saint Paul, there are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do all other scripture, to their own perdition.

To prevent and remedy this abuse, and to guard against error, it was judged necessary to forbid the reading of scriptures in the vernacular languages without the advice and permission of the pastors and spiritual guides whom God has appointed to govern his Church. Christ himself declared: “He who will not hear the Church - let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.”

Nor is this due submission to the Catholic Church to be understood by the ignorant and unlearned only, but also by men accomplished in all kinds of learning. The ignorant fall into errors for want of learning, and the learned through pride and reckless self-confidence.

Therefore let every reader of the sacred writings, who pretends to be a competent judge of the sense, and of the truths revealed therein, reflect on the words found in Isaiah 55:8-9 : “My thoughts are not as your thoughts, neither are your ways as my ways, saith the Lord. For as the Heavens are exalted above the Earth, so also are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.” How then shall any one by his private reason pretend to judge, to know, and to demonstrate the incomprehensible and unsearchable ways of God?*

Oh, so we can read the Bible all we want, but when it comes to interpreting and applying it to our lives, we have to follow ***the Bible’s own rules ***for interpretation and application? And those rules apply to the educated and uneducated alike? Well … that’s different then.

Oh look, there’s more: a letter from the Pope praising some guy for some Italian translation the guy made, saying how awesome it is that the faithful should be able to read the Bible in their own language (Italian, I guess) and how awesome it is that the guy included explanatory notes taken from approved authors. Then there’s a nice little prayer suggested for when you read the Bible. Then a selection from the Council of Trent on what books are to be included in the Bible, plus a brief anonymous explanatory essay about the traditional dates of the events recorded in the Bible.

So to sum up: The Bereans searched the scriptures to see whether the teachings of Paul were true (Acts 17). We don’t even have to get to Genesis 1:1 to see that what this TV preacher is saying ain’t so.

Isn’t it awesome being Catholic?

 

[Digital_Blue]

Thank you all for your replies, and Redratfish, that was really well written and informative, especially from a logical standpoint, who knows better than the author.

I was just in dismay. I knew it wasn’t a Catholic program, but anything taught directly from the bible, from books that Catholics read as well I’m all ears.

For awhile I thought his sermon was pretty good, teaching lessons on morality inspired by Jesus, and then out of nowhere he just goes on this mini-tirade against the Catholic Church saying how we’re like right wing ideology in politics, that all the lay people are oppressed thought-prisoners, not allowed to think except for what the Church tells us.

Then he goes on why theirs is so much better, because anyone can interpret the bible anyway they want (which made me wonder with that ideology why his audience even needed him when they could just all be at home interpreting the bible for themselves),

I didn’t mention what branch of Christianity his program represented because I’m very against the tit-for-tat politics and divisions within Christianity. I believe fully and faithfully as the Catholic Church as being the one true church, but I don’t go around in high-snobbery, trying to consciously and intentionally trivialize other branches of Christianity.

Correct me if I’m wrong on this but if you were baptized (proper), believe in the Ten Commandments, the Holy Trinity, are we still not all somehow children in Christ?

I just couldn’t believe how someone could go from telling about the love and acceptance of Jesus in one breath, and then attack a branch of Christianity in the next.

Anyway, I shouldn’t go on about this. But I realize, becoming a Catholic, I’m sure this is an issue I’ll have to face again

 

[Digital_Blue]

@ DianaCC

Thank you for your reply, I think you posted it just as I was posting my last one

Yeah, the whole thing became fishy once he brought up Catholicism in his sermon which is why I posted on here to get the right answers.

That just bugs me, he has his audience, they’re listening to him, he’s there to teach his interpretation of the gospel, why the need to go into saying such things about Catholicism?

This is one of the comforts I have about joining the Catholic Church and accepting Catholic Christianity as my religion is because of the Hierarchy. This is to help safeguard the laymen from false doctrine being taught by some rogue clergyman.

 

[Redratfish]

Thank you all for your replies, and Redratfish, that was really well written and informative, especially from a logical standpoint, who knows better than the author.
Thank you, and happy it helped

I was just in dismay. I knew it wasn’t a Catholic program, but anything taught directly from the bible, from books that Catholics read as well I’m all ears.

For awhile I thought his sermon was pretty good, teaching lessons on morality inspired by Jesus, and then out of nowhere he just goes on this mini-tirade against the Catholic Church saying how we’re like right wing ideology in politics, that all the lay people are oppressed thought-prisoners, not allowed to think except for what the Church tells us.

**I have been to Protestant churches with friends where such as happened, its more of a way to unite all the people together. Remember, the preacher himself is saying anyone can interpret the Bible. By mentioning Catholics, he is basically saying “we have differences, and you may not like some of the things I say, but lets be clear, it could be worse!” **

Then he goes on why theirs is so much better, because anyone can interpret the bible anyway they want (which made me wonder with that ideology why his audience even needed him when they could just all be at home interpreting the bible for themselves),

Exaclty, that is the self defeating argument they use. I have been in numerous debates where once it comes to this point, they have no response, other than Jesus said to keep the Sabbath holy. Which imo is a weak argument, But it makes sense to them.

I didn’t mention what branch of Christianity his program represented because I’m very against the tit-for-tat politics and divisions within Christianity. I believe fully and faithfully as the Catholic Church as being the one true church, but I don’t go around in high-snobbery, trying to consciously and intentionally trivialize other branches of Christianity.

As you should, there is enough division in the world as it is. Of course shows like that are on, but they dont really help the issues.****

Correct me if I’m wrong on this but if you were baptized (proper), believe in the Ten Commandments, the Holy Trinity, are we still not all somehow children in Christ?

If you fulfill are those pre requisites I believe everyone is a child of Christ.

I just couldn’t believe how someone could go from telling about the love and acceptance of Jesus in one breath, and then attack a branch of Christianity in the next.

I agree, one should never start the attack on anothers faith. If you must attack anothers faith, I hope it can be done in self defence of my own. That way I am not the agressor.

Anyway, I shouldn’t go on about this. But I realize, becoming a Catholic, I’m sure this is an issue I’ll have to face again

Matthew 5:10: Blessed are the persecuted, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven

 

[jesuspsr]

Thank you all for your replies, and Redratfish, that was really well written and informative, especially from a logical standpoint, who knows better than the author.

I was just in dismay. I knew it wasn’t a Catholic program, but anything taught directly from the bible, from books that Catholics read as well I’m all ears.

For awhile I thought his sermon was pretty good, teaching lessons on morality inspired by Jesus, and then out of nowhere he just goes on this mini-tirade against the Catholic Church saying how we’re like right wing ideology in politics, that all the lay people are oppressed thought-prisoners, not allowed to think except for what the Church tells us.

Then he goes on why theirs is so much better, because anyone can interpret the bible anyway they want (which made me wonder with that ideology why his audience even needed him when they could just all be at home interpreting the bible for themselves),

I didn’t mention what branch of Christianity his program represented because I’m very against the tit-for-tat politics and divisions within Christianity. I believe fully and faithfully as the Catholic Church as being the one true church, but I don’t go around in high-snobbery, trying to consciously and intentionally trivialize other branches of Christianity.

Correct me if I’m wrong on this but if you were baptized (proper), believe in the Ten Commandments, the Holy Trinity, are we still not all somehow children in Christ?

I just couldn’t believe how someone could go from telling about the love and acceptance of Jesus in one breath, and then attack a branch of Christianity in the next.

Anyway, I shouldn’t go on about this. But I realize, becoming a Catholic, I’m sure this is an issue I’ll have to face again

Welcome to Catholisim. It most certinaly, well not be your last time you’ll face this. for me, it just makes me a stonger catholic.

May the Holy Spirit guide you.

God bless

jesus g

 

[fred_conty]

This will help clarify your question and the answer

www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

 

[BertBlyleven]

I wonder if he knows lying is a sin…

 

[Monica4316]

I heard that one point in the Counter Reformation, the Catholic Church didn’t allow Protestant vernacular translations of the Bible, and it could be that this is why today some Protestants say that the Catholic Church “didn’t allow people to read the Bible”. But in reality, the reason those versions weren’t allowed, is because they had mistakes, for example in the German Bible, the Reformers included the word “alone” for “faith alone”, though this is not in the original. The Reformers also took out books of the Bible… Luther wanted to take out James and Revelation… some Protestants today say that the books that were taken out (the “deteurocanonicals”) were never in the Bible to begin with, and were put there in the Council of Trent… but in reality, - they were always considered inspired and Scriptural, they just weren’t in the “canon” that is what is read publically like in the Mass. In the Council of Trent, the Church included them in the “canon”… but they were always part of Scripture and considered inspired. Hope that helps…

God bless

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=Digital_Blue;8300981]Hello everyone, I’m on my way to converting to Catholicism from being secular, and right now I’m just watching a, I’ll just use the term ‘non-Catholic’ Christian show on TV right now, and the speaker is making a point between Catholicism and his/their branch of Christianity,

This is a quick summary of some of the points he made,

The speaker said that before the 1960’s and the Second Vatican Council, Catholics were “forbidden from reading ‘scripture’” (does that mean the bible? I’m new so I don’t know all the history)

That is incorrect the Church has never forbidden the reading of the Bible by the faithful. It has forbidd the readding of unapproved translations.

And he also said that to this day we’re only now allowed to read scripture but are forbidden from interpreting it,

on that second point I understand the authority on the matters of faith and doctrine come from the Hierarchy, from the Pope down,but, we’re not allowed ANY freedom at all to interpret anything on our own (that hasn’t already been stated clearly by the Church of course)?

Yes private interpetation is not approved of in a way that most understand it. If I read a passage from the Bible god maybe trying to tell me sometime very specific to me at this point in my life. so at that moment what I get from that reading is absolutely correct for me. It is in no way bidding on the whole church nor is bidding on me for all times. And even then I really need to pray on it and understand that if it conflicts with church teaching that I am not getting that inturpetatioon from God.

Anyone who can add on or clarify these things would be very much appreciated, the way he was wording things seemed a little suspect.

I hope that helps he is preaching on a way to justify not being catholic.

 

[RTully]

The Reformers also took out books of the Bible… Luther wanted to take out James and Revelation… some Protestants today say that the books that were taken out (the “deteurocanonicals”) were never in the Bible to begin with, and were put there in the Council of Trent… but in reality, - they were always considered inspired and Scriptural, they just weren’t in the “canon” that is what is read publically like in the Mass. In the Council of Trent, the Church included them in the “canon”… but they were always part of Scripture and considered inspired. Hope that helps…

God bless

I have an honest question I don’t understand.

When it comes to the deteurocanonical books, why does the Catholic Church use them in their Old Testement but the Hebrew Bible excludes them much like the Protestant Old Testement? You would think the Jews would know a thing or two about the Old Testement, it seems, and maybe I am missing something Christianity should only start from the New Testement.

This is something I have very little knowledge in and would be curious in a Catholics answer.

Thanks

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I have an honest question I don’t understand.

When it comes to the deteurocanonical books, why does the Catholic Church use them in their Old Testement but the Hebrew Bible excludes them much like the Protestant Old Testement? You would think the Jews would know a thing or two about the Old Testement, it seems, and maybe I am missing something Christianity should only start from the New Testement.

This is something I have very little knowledge in and would be curious in a Catholics answer.

Thanks

the Hebrew canon was not a closed canon till the late first century. prior to that the detruto and other books as well were accepted by the Jewish community ( or at least parts of it) and from what we see and read in the new testement they were accepted and used by christ and the apostels.

 

[puzzleannie]

This is a quick summary of some of the points he made,

The speaker said that before the 1960’s and the Second Vatican Council, Catholics were “forbidden from reading ‘scripture’” (does that mean the bible? I’m new so I don’t know all the history)

And he also said that to this day we’re only now allowed to read scripture but are forbidden from interpreting it,

.

he is lying, it remains to be seen whether his remarks were made in good faith out of ignorance, or deliberately malicious lies.

 

[daCatholicGuard]

Greetings Digital Blue,

The Church NEVER forbade the reading of Scripture, (the Bible), before or since Vatican II. However, prior to Vatican II, the Church did caution against self interpretation of Scripture- this comes from the fact that we can sometimes interpret things incorrectly, (just take an honest look at your own life through the years). They used to recommend discussing any revelations/observations/questions you had with your priest.

I might be mistaken, (I am not a Vatican II scholar); however, I do think Vatican II did start to encourage self interpretation of Scripture, (I cannot recall which document discusses this; however, I do recall reading something like this at one time- I could look it up if necessary). Hopefully, someone more fluent in the VII documents will chime in here.

Oremus pro invicem,

Sean C. :knight2:

 

[fred_conty]

Hello everyone, I’m on my way to converting to Catholicism from being secular, and right now I’m just watching a, I’ll just use the term ‘non-Catholic’ Christian show on TV right now, and the speaker is making a point between Catholicism and his/their branch of Christianity,

This is a quick summary of some of the points he made,

The speaker said that before the 1960’s and the Second Vatican Council, Catholics were “forbidden from reading ‘scripture’” (does that mean the bible? I’m new so I don’t know all the history)

And he also said that to this day we’re only now allowed to read scripture but are forbidden from interpreting it,

on that second point I understand the authority on the matters of faith and doctrine come from the Hierarchy, from the Pope down,

but, we’re not allowed ANY freedom at all to interpret anything on our own (that hasn’t already been stated clearly by the Church of course)?

Anyone who can add on or clarify these things would be very much appreciated, the way he was wording things seemed a little suspect.

I can help clarify this.

Suppose I said that all protestants don’t believe in the Trinity.
And that they don’t read enough of the bible.
and that they do not believe that Jesus is God
and that they do not accept the apostles.

What I just said is called? Clear enough?

 

[Digital_Blue]

I thought I’d share another story about another ‘divisive’ Christian experience I’ve had in the last little while.

During high school I met and befriended fellow students who where hardcore (non-Catholic) Christians.

They invited me and took me to their church for awhile, an experience I’m still fairly fond of to this day.

Eventually I stopped going with them and we all lost touch. Fast forward a decade to the advent of social media and Facebook, where we all connected with one another again.

They were still very much devout to their branch of Christianity, while I was very much secular. On my news page I’d make all sort of updates that would be considered crude and offensive to most. A lot of swearing, perverse, remarks, you-name-it. And despite their strong religious stance, they never said anything to me about my nature or removed me as a friend.

Then one morning months ago I woke up, laid straight up in bed and the first thought that ran into my mind was “Catholic”, I don’t know where it came from but I got the call. And for the last few months I’ve been reading the bible, I’ve been reading “Catholic for beginners” type books, researching on the internet which has also led me here, watching Catholic television… Basically I’m getting as much info, learning the ways of the Church as best I can, and any week now I’m about ready to step into my local Parish and speak to a father about formally converting to Catholicism.

ANYWAY,

I posted all that as an update on my social-media account, about my desire to convert to the Roman Catholic Church and guess what, all my non-Catholic Christian friends DELETED & BLOCKED ME!! I mean can you believe it?

I post profanity, crude and offensive jokes, suggestive photos they don’t say a word to me or remove me as a friend. I profess that I’m going to be a Catholic and poof, gone within the very same day.

I know it’s not going to be an easy path, but it’s the path I choose. You all might be strangers to me on here over the internet, but I look very much forward to becoming a member of this faith family.

I’m just preparing myself for the friends I might lose, and discrimination I might face. This is a whole new world for me, but one I am called to without any hesitation.

 

[daCatholicGuard]

Hello Digital Blue,

Jesus warned that brother would rise up against brother and fathers and children would be at odds because of Him; He also said He came to bring division; He also said, “pick up your cross and follow Me.”

Fear not; everything you’re experiencing is all part of being a practicing Christian; especially a Catholic.

Oremus pro invicem,

Sean C. :knight2:

 

[amsjj]

The difference between the Catholic and Protestant rules and their mode of using the Scriptures, may be thus illustrated. I am placed in a strange country, over which I have to travel before I can reach my destination. Ignorant of the way, and of the difficulties and dangers I may meet, I, naturally, procure a map of the country. Not yet feeling secure, I seek a guide. I am now assisted; but, nevertheless, I do not forego the use of my eyes, to which these are only assistants. The eyes are my reason; the Scriptures are my map; the interpretation of the Church is my guide, who, I ascertain, is duly qualified. The infidel meets me, and tells me to throw away my map, and to dismiss my guide, for my own eyes will guide me better. The Protestant comes up and tells me to keep my map by all means, but to dismiss my guide. I, thinking all this very strange, keep my map in hand, use my eyes, follow my guide, and reach the place of my destination, whilst the two gentlemen who accosted me are still disputing whether I can possibly go right with all this assistance.
Archbishop William Bernard Ullathorne, “Observations on the Use and Abuse of Sacred Scriptures as exhibited in the Discipline and Practice of the Protestant and Catholic Communions”, p. 47.