Why do Catholics beleive they can't read the bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnhenrykane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s hard for me to reply to a person who corrects my grammar instead of focusing on content. So i would like to say the writer who said Catholic’s are suppose to read their bible is correct. Protestants might say they go by every word of the Holy Scriptures, but they don’t the only faith on the planet who believes in every word of the Bible is the Roman catholic Church. All recent popes say read the bible everyday. Article 3 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says read the whole thing, and it is the Holy Spirit who wrote it not men, and it is the Holy Spirit who interprets it. Jesus said my people are destroyed from a lack of knowledge. It takes the average reader 40 hours to read the Bible, stay away form all the notes, they will confuse you.Christ said come as a child and you will understand come as a scholar and you will be confused. If you want to read an uncluttered version of Holy Scriptures go to claccp.org and click on American Bible on the right column of the home page.
Your Servant
 
  1. It takes the average reader 40 hours to read the Bible,
  2. …stay away f[ro]m all the notes, they will confuse you.
  3. Christ said come as a child and you will understand come as a scholar and you will be confused.
  4. If you want to read an uncluttered version of Holy Scriptures go to claccp.org and click on American Bible on the right column of the home page.
  1. I’ve heard of speed reading, but that’s an unrealistic figure. It takes much longer than that; however, reading only a few chapters a day, (perhaps 15 or 20 minutes) will get you through in a little less than a year. That would be about 80-120 hours, depending on one’s comfortable reading speed.
  2. Nonsense. In the first place, one needs to know the history of the Bible as a collection of books and the history of the books individually in order to understand scripture fully. One also needs to know the nuances of certain words and phrases, which is often lost in translation, in order to understand the context.
  3. Source, please. I do not recall that.
  4. Uncluttered by notes? That version is full of notes. But as I said, that’s good, as long as the notes are explanatory and not intended to compromise the meaning of the text.
 
I saw on EWTN a few months ago on the World over where there were many famous Catholics talking on Church doctrine. “Is it a sin to have homosexual tendencies if they did not act out the sin” out of the group only one knew the correct answer, but all spoke there own opinion,they all agreed to a popular false teaching that it was not a sin if one did not act out the tendencies, only Arch Bishop Burke knew the true teaching og the Roman Catholic Church, which is exactly what the scripture say’s, he said “It’s an abomination” Romans 1:13, You might still not be convinced, if a man looks on a woman lustfully he commits adultery even though he does not act it out, so like wise if a man looks on another man lustfully it’s a sin, the danger with many voices Catholics do not know their faith
A temptation is not a sin.

Giving in to temptation, even to the extent of dwelling mentally on the act without performing it, would be.

So, yes, indulging lust for either sex is a sin even if you take no action, but the fact that one has sexual desires involuntarily cannot be sinful.

I’d thus have to join the chorus disagreeing with Archbishop Burke, assuming you have understood the exchange you are reporting correctly. To be pulled in a sinful direction against your will is not a sin, unless you alter your will to embrace the temptation.

Otherwise a heterosexual person whose body reacted to the attractiveness of someone other than his/her spouse would be guilty of sin as well, which is absurd. We cannot always help our physical reactions, but we can master them by the grace of God empowering our own will.

The alternative opinion matches more with some forms of Protestant thinking, where concupiscence itself is viewed as sinful, therefore backing up the idea that we are totally depraved and cannot truly be free from sin in this life even by God’s grace.

Paragraphs 2357 through 2359 of the CCC address homosexuality, and clearly distinguish between the behavior and the tendency:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Usagi
 
Because frequently when I read a Biblical passage it makes me wonder about certain aspects of my life, or reminds me of things that occurred in the past.

And you’re telling me this constitutes ‘private revelation?’ Isn’t that a bit like saying, “Sure you can read the Bible, but you can’t THINK about it.”
I don’t think anyone’s trying to say that you can’t read the Bible reflectively – indeed, that is one of the primary ways in which we can be enriched by Scripture.

I’m not sure I’d call such insights “private revelation” as such, though I suppose that is one vehicle through which private revelation could come.

Whether true private revelation or simply your own mind connecting things from Scripture to your own life, there’s certainly nothing wrong with the practice.

The danger that non-Catholic sects run into (which is nothing like what you describe) is that of taking their own thoughts or private revelations as public revelation – the One True Meaning of the Bible that no one has been shown until now. Then you get painstakingly worked out novelties like Dispensationalism.

Naturally, if reflective reading of Scripture, or even a seeming private revelation from the Holy Spirit, winds up leading one down a profoundly strange path, the notion should be checked against Tradition and the Magisterium. Unlike Protestants, we’ve never believed that Scripture is a universal handbook for life that just anyone can pick up and understand Christianity. It’s the book of the Christian community, and has to be understood as we have always understood it.

Usagi
 
Getting back to the OP’s original question…

There is a Church document that came out of Vatican II that discusses the reading and intrepretation of Holy Scripture. It is titled, “DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION: DEI VERBUM. SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965.”

You can download it at the following link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html.

Blessings to all…and read your Bibles daily!
 
It’s not that Catholics can’t read the Bible…

It’s that they can’t interpret the Bible outside of the Church’s teachings… in doing so they are corrupting Scripture and that’s why the Church works to interpret it for us to keep us within Truth and not to let us stray from that Truth.

No offense to Protestants, but look at the good interpreting Scriptures outside of the Church’s teachings has done to them… They have over 30,000 denominations and no way to trace their teachings back to a specific authoritarian figure. They may say, “We get our revelation from Christ.” When in fact they have to trip over the “stumbling block” the Holy Spirit has laid within the Catholic Church to remind them that there is only ONE One, Holy, True, Apostolic Church… the Catholic Church!
 
I did not read all the very lengthly posts because all I needed to see was the title.

Of course we, as Catholics, may read the bible. We have Scripture readings in every Mass; the Holy Rosary is a sucession of Scripture; Divine Office; Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, etc. etc. etc.

Why would anyone, especially a Catholic fallen away or not, believe we may not read the bible.

Daily reading of the Bible is encouraged by the Catholic Church.
🤷 :amen:
 
The Church would not offer indulgences for reading the Bible if Catholics were not supposed to read it. From this website:
  1. Reading of Sacred Scripture (Sacrae Scripturae lectio)
    A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due the divine word make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture.
    A plenary indulgence is granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour.
 
I don’t think anyone’s trying to say that you can’t read the Bible reflectively – indeed, that is one of the primary ways in which we can be enriched by Scripture.

I’m not sure I’d call such insights “private revelation” as such, though I suppose that is one vehicle through which private revelation could come.

Whether true private revelation or simply your own mind connecting things from Scripture to your own life, there’s certainly nothing wrong with the practice.

The danger that non-Catholic sects run into (which is nothing like what you describe) is that of taking their own thoughts or private revelations as public revelation – the One True Meaning of the Bible that no one has been shown until now. Then you get painstakingly worked out novelties like Dispensationalism.

Naturally, if reflective reading of Scripture, or even a seeming private revelation from the Holy Spirit, winds up leading one down a profoundly strange path, the notion should be checked against Tradition and the Magisterium. Unlike Protestants, we’ve never believed that Scripture is a universal handbook for life that just anyone can pick up and understand Christianity. It’s the book of the Christian community, and has to be understood as we have always understood it.

Usagi
Heck, no—I’m just reflecting and connecting as you said. I don’t think people can avoid that even if they try.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
No, that is private revelation.

When a reading makes us “think of thus-and-such”, the “thus-and-such” could be correct or incorrect.

ANY conclusion drawn from reading (any writing, actually, but especially of scripture) must be checked against public revelation as interpreted by the Church (given to us via the Magisterium) for it’s “truth value”.

Why do you ask?

Because frequently when I read a Biblical passage it makes me wonder about certain aspects of my life, or reminds me of things that occurred in the past.

And you’re telling me this constitutes ‘private revelation?’ Isn’t that a bit like saying, "Sure you can read the Bible, but you can’t THINK about it."
You can read the bible, and think about it, but what your thoughts ARE about it need to be confirmed by public revelation (via the Magisterium).

Private revelation is very important, and a great gift gotten by reading scripture and other writings.

Have you ever had a private revelation which is counter to public revelation, or which you think might be “questionable” in some way in relation to public revelation?

For example, some people might be able to “justify” genocide by various examples in the bible. What does the Magisterium say about the verses cited in such a “justification”?

That is what I mean by the necessity of always checking private revelation against (Magisterially given) public revelation. 🙂
 
Not only are we Catholics encouraged to read the Bible, but we are given indulgences for doing so. In fact there is an entire type of prayer lectio divina that involves reading the Bible and meditation on what was read.

Marsha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top