Why do MOST Catholics not know bible well?

[Ferdinand_Mary]

In an effort to get this thread back on topic (before it gets locked)

Good idea.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[Chancellare]

In an effort to get this thread back on topic (before it gets locked)

I don’t know why few Catholics don’t know their Bibles better. I think it’s partly due to poor catechesis and partly due to many being ‘cultural’ Catholics,- they were brought up in the faith, but never really knew it or lived it. The pastor at our parish sometimes likes to ask questions during the homily. Many times, I end up answering his questions because I know the Bible fairly well. Once, the Gospel reading mentioned Jesus heading towards Jerusalem, and the priest asked why Jesus was doing this. I said nothing at first, thinking this was an easy question, but no one answered. Finally, I stuck up my hand and said that he was going to Jerusalem to be crucified and die for our sins. After Mass, someone congratulated me on knowing the answer. I said, “That was embarassing; that question was Catholicism 101.”

However, I think the belief that most Protestants know the Bible better than Catholics is a myth. I recall hearing at least one Protestant minister on the radio bemoaning the fact that for most Christians (and he was talking mainly about Protestant Christians, not Catholics) , the Bible remains on the shelf gathering dust. My grandmother attended a Methodist church regularly, but I never saw her crack open a Bible. I’m sure there are as many ‘cultural’ Protestants as there are ‘cultural’ Catholics.

Thanks for your suggestion to keep this thread on track.

I also see the title of this thread as a myth. Quotes from Scriptures does not a Christian make.

 

[cleargospel99]

Chancellare,
I am not a Pharissee, I am a lowly sinner, much much more depraved than a Pharissee. Wholly reliant on God’s generous gift of divine grace to this poor sinner, for my salvation. His Word is precious and it convicts me everyday. It has immeasurable value that God would condescend to us, the lost, and provide his Holy Word so that we may know Him.

You can see that I have many faults, not least my lack of patience with posers who claim they have the infallible interpretation of scripture but can’t provide it when asked a simple Sunday School question.

NPS, Zooey, and Fidelis;
Here is my source on Tyndale: “How We Got the Bible”, by Neil R. Lightfoot, Ph.D. from Duke Univ. who is the Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Abilene Christian University in Abilene Texas. pp 176-180

Further I am providing the link to the text of Tyndales actual translation, (available online, imagine )
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/

So other readers can determine for themselves whether Tyndale did commit the gross error that you have alleged. Maybe they will see your undocumented and unsupported assertions to be nothing more than calumnous slander against a Christian saint.

I shall conclude with a benediction the Word of God written by the aposlte Paul and translated into English by our good friend William Tyndale. May God bless you all. (Romans 3:22-24)

22 The rightewesnes no dout which is good before God cometh by ye fayth of Iesus Christ vnto all and vpon all that beleve.Ther is no differece:
23 for all have synned and lacke the prayse yt is of valoure before God:
24 but are iustified frely by his grace through the redemcion that is in Christ Iesu

 

[Chancellare]

Chancellare,
I am not a Pharissee, I am a lowly sinner, much much more depraved than a Pharissee. Wholly reliant on God’s generous gift of divine grace to this poor sinner, for my salvation. His Word is precious and it convicts me everyday. It has immeasurable value that God would condescend to us, the lost, and provide his Holy Word so that we may know Him.

You can see that I have many faults, not least my lack of patience with posers who claim they have the infallible interpretation of scripture but can’t provide it when asked a simple Sunday School question.

NPS, Zooey, and Fidelis;
Here is my source on Tyndale: “How We Got the Bible”, by Neil R. Lightfoot, Ph.D. from Duke Univ. who is the Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Abilene Christian University in Abilene Texas. pp 176-180

Further I am providing the link to the text of Tyndales actual translation, (available online, imagine )
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/

So other readers can determine for themselves whether Tyndale did commit the gross error that you have alleged. Maybe they will see your undocumented and unsupported assertions to be nothing more than calumnous slander against a Christian saint.

I shall conclude with a benediction the Word of God written by the aposlte Paul and translated into English by our good friend William Tyndale. May God bless you all. (Romans 3:22-24)

22 The rightewesnes no dout which is good before God cometh by ye fayth of Iesus Christ vnto all and vpon all that beleve.Ther is no differece:
23 for all have synned and lacke the prayse yt is of valoure before God:
24 but are iustified frely by his grace through the redemcion that is in Christ Iesu

I appreciate your humble dismount statement. Indeed we are all sinners and fall short in God’s balance scale.

In fairness to CAF rules, many of us did not post replies to your “Sunday School question” which would divert from the OP.

But we will all be there if you open another thread to satisfy your question.

 

[Athanasiy]

The Bible reading and the Bible quoting is not the things of the first importance.
The things of the First Importance is the’’ Following what the Catholic Cathehism teaches’’.
If You live as the Catholic Cathechism teaches You-You don’t need the Bible.:yup:

 

[cleargospel99]

If the Word of God were written on your heart you would not need the catechism.

Romans 10:17 (Tyndale)

“So then fayth cometh by hearynge and hearynge cometh by the worde of God.”

 

[Fidelis]

NPS, Zooey, and Fidelis;
Here is my source on Tyndale: “How We Got the Bible”, by Neil R. Lightfoot, Ph.D. from Duke Univ. who is the Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Abilene Christian University in Abilene Texas. pp 176-180

Further I am providing the link to the text of Tyndales actual translation, (available online, imagine )
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/

So other readers can determine for themselves whether Tyndale did commit the gross error that you have alleged. Maybe they will see your undocumented and unsupported assertions to be nothing more than calumnous slander against a Christian saint.

For readers to **truly **determine for themselves, they need to get both sides of the story.

Even though Tyndales tactics made him resemble the Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course, he was not* literally* a JW (that sect not being invented until the mid-19th century).However, if you look at all the factors in his case, he was by any definition a heretic. And don’t forget: at that time and place, being a heretic was not just a religious error, but because it could and did lead to violence and rebellion, it was a crime against the State. Political, cultural and religious revisionism aside, like it or not, that is a fact. Society as a whole took religion much more seriously than we do today.

It is pretty much impossible to find a biography of him that is completely impartial. This is because Protestants have made him out to be a folk hero in their efforts to legitimize their existence and as a stick to bash Catholics. It doesn’t help that they tend to completely remove the event from the context of the times in which they occurred. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those who actually lived in those times, not those who pass judgement on them and their motives with 2000 years removed 20/20 hindsight.

Catholics, in reaction to this, when they try to fill in the omitted facts, simply come across as defensive in their attempts to give the other side of the story. Popular histories like you hear in school and see on TV tend to take the Protestant angle. It is easier for those sources to repeat the myth than to dig for facts, and makes for a more titillating retelling.

What one must do, consequently, is look at it with a true historian’s eye: consider the times these events occurred; the people, current events, culture, politics, average educational level, and society as a whole. Then look at it from more than one perspective, and draw your conclusions from that.

Here are two articles about Tyndale and his errors – what we might call “the rest of the story.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp

catholicapologetics.net/apolo_52.htm

Don’t swallow anti-Catholic propaganda, from whatever source, whole and uncritically. Without preconceptions, consider what you read, balance it with what you already know, THEN draw your conclusions.

This is my last post on this subject in this thread. So as to not continue disrupting the thread, I am starting a new one.

 

[Chancellare]

The Bible reading and the Bible quoting is not the things of the first importance.
The things of the First Importance is the’’ Following what the Catholic Cathehism teaches’’.
If You live as the Catholic Cathechism teaches You-You don’t need the Bible.:yup:

On the other side of the caricature, you might just as well say:

If you are able to read the Bible, quote it and interpret it as you like, you don’t need the church, even your congregation.

 

[Athanasiy]

On the other side of the caricature, you might just as well say:

If you are able to read the Bible, quote it and interpret it as you like, you don’t need the church, even your congregation.

Sorry , You probably saw my profile, and You think that I am the Baptist
I grew up in the Baptist Church.
I am the member of the Baptist Church for a 16 years.
But I am going to move to the Catholic Church soon.
Because I am Catholic in my understanding, I am not the Baptist in my understanding anymore.
I am convinced more and more, that it is not possible to change the Baptists.
Baptists will be Baptists always,just because they are Baptists not the Catholics.
I am the Catholic.
Thank You.

 

[cleargospel99]

Chancellare,
You are caricaturing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura if you are equating it with private interpretation. Indeed *Sola Scriptua *does not obviate the essential role of the church. It only binds the church to the authority of God’s Word.

No man made doctrine can nullify the Word of God any more than you can nullify the laws of physics. Doctrine derives from Scripture (the Law, the Prophets and the Apostolic testimony) not Scripture from doctrine. (this is Sola Scriptura)

2Tim3:16,17

16 For all scripture geve by inspiracion of god is proffitable to teache to improve to amende and to instruct in rightewesnes
17 yt ye man of god maye be perfect and prepared vnto all good workes.

 

[Chancellare]

You can see that I have many faults, not least my lack of patience with posers who claim they have the infallible interpretation of scripture but can’t provide it when asked a simple Sunday School question.

Now I see your point.
Catholic Scriptural understanding which goes all the way back to Early Church Fathers up to St Augustine is wrong. It is Tyndale who is infallible. If you want to prove it, please open another thread.

 

[Kristopher]

Why do MOST Catholics not know the bible well, … , I read it daily, but I don’t know it.

I’m not really ceartain what you would qualify as “knowing the Bible well”. Knowledge of the Bible would mean: all books of the Bible are read. How can any Protestant know the Bible well, while skipping for well over half a millenia now more than a few books of the Bible that have always been part of the Bible, not only as Jesus quoted from it–the Septuagint, but also as foremost scholars of the superannuated Twelve Tribes of Judea throughout Alexander the Great’s time wrote them, inclusive of all other books of the Old Testament.

The arguement Pharisees of Jesus’ day cited to reject the Septuagint has been thoroughly refuted on the basis of what scriptures of the Old Testament were found at the site of the Dead Sea Scrolls–many of them the fallaciously labelled “Apocrypha” scriptures: what doubt could there have been on the part of the Hebrew scholars that directly translated there own history of their own people into the Greek, for Alexander the Great’s commission? It makes no sense. Especially when you consider that Jesus quoted extensively, well over ninety percent of his quotes were directly from the Septuagint; the Septuagint is essentially the reason the Hebrew language was a dead language during Jesus’ day: Alexander the Great demanded allegiance to him, this meant Greek as the language of his empire. The Roman Empire had conquered whatever remained of Alexander the Great’s empire, thus, Latin was the language of the New Testament, the vulgar language of the day, the word “vulgar” meaning: of the common people, as opposed to the language of whatever extant aristocracy persisted. Whatever semitic language rooted in Hebrew, that Jesus spoke was attributed not to any invention of the Pharisees of his day, but to his stay in Egypt to escape Herod, The Massacre of the Infants.

On what grounds are you going to establish that Protestants know their Bible, the Bible?

Catholics acknowledge many sources outside the Bible to substantiate knowledge of the Bible as well; thus, much of what any of us may, or may not know about the Bible is substantially from sources outside the Bible, perhaps. But the Bible was popularly studied, known, very well during Martin Luther’s time. Martin Luther was not alone among Catholics to be on fire for learning his Bible–to the contrary, he was part of what no one may dispute, a part of Catholic history that astoundingly resonated among laity with knowledge of the Bible. Must you read to know your Bible? Attending mass can be sufficient. You can know your Bible by having it read to you.

Ignorance of the Bible is ignorance of Christ’s life, there is no way to fight this point in our Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

I live in an area dominated by Baptists, this is the Bible Belt of California. Where the majority of the state has been recognized as essentially religiously dead, with respect to church attendance–this area is alive and kicking.

I think that sometimes quite a few of the elderly in the congregation, and it is mostly elderly: seniors not only of the WWII generation, but also of the Baby Boomer generation now–I think that sometimes they simply are worn-out with convincing Protestants that they are well enough versed in matters concerning scripture, that they simply concede that they know very little of course, it is always a bit impressive that someone may recite from scripture, word-for-word, with book, chapter and verse–where it is exactly that you are speaking about some scripture of particular emphasis.

I do not beleive most Protestants know the Bible very well: they leave out too many books; they reference only what is convenient for their views to remain substantiated, and they enjoy a history in America slanted toward the Protestant view. Why on earth would any Catholic call an entire age where the very means to overcome overpopulation: resources being depleted beyond their ability to be replenished, hence the plow, and the printing press–Gutenberg, which brought en masse a more literary Europe–how could anyone but a Protestant slanted history call this Medieval? What could be evil about it? What do you hear about history on this continent, as it concerns the first and extant successful colony of St. Augustine in FL? Nothing. What do you hear about the startlingly human, philanthropic, and liberating strategy of Spain to educate, train, and grant ownership of land to the indigenous peoples of California, before the onslaught of migrants from the east coast, for gold? Nothing. Very little. Hardly a footnote. “Thank you Napolean!”, somewhat bitterly spoken.

Do you hear about the lack of religious freedom sought for long and hard by Maryland against the British, Protestant, crown?

There are details neglected by an American Protestant history.

 

[NPS]

In an effort to get this thread back on topic (before it gets locked)

I don’t know why few Catholics don’t know their Bibles better. I think it’s partly due to poor catechesis and partly due to many being ‘cultural’ Catholics,- they were brought up in the faith, but never really knew it or lived it. The pastor at our parish sometimes likes to ask questions during the homily. Many times, I end up answering his questions because I know the Bible fairly well. Once, the Gospel reading mentioned Jesus heading towards Jerusalem, and the priest asked why Jesus was doing this. I said nothing at first, thinking this was an easy question, but no one answered. Finally, I stuck up my hand and said that he was going to Jerusalem to be crucified and die for our sins. After Mass, someone congratulated me on knowing the answer. I said, “That was embarassing; that question was Catholicism 101.”.

A priest at my old parish does that often. I find it hard, however, to take the hesitant reactions from the pews as a sign of ignorance en masse. How many people are comfortable in suddenly being thrust into a position to answer a question about their faith in front of hundreds of people, let alone in front of hundreds of people who share that faith? That same Grandmother or young father of three or single woman who is quiet in front of hundreds of people may very well be able to thoroughly discuss that same issue in a more comfortable setting.

I have little doubt that if I walked with a microphone into the crowd at any evangelical/Protestant/non-denominational church and asked random individuals questions like “What is faith?” “Name the books of the New Testament” “Name the Ten Commandments”
“Name each of Paul’s letters” etc etc, people would be pooping in their pants and praying that I don’t call on them.

 

[Chancellare]

Chancellare,
You are caricaturing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura if you are equating it with private interpretation. Indeed *Sola Scriptua *does not obviate the essential role of the church. It only binds the church to the authority of God’s Word.

And your church follows Tyndale’s infallible interpretation.

No man made doctrine can nullify the Word of God any more than you can nullify the laws of physics. Doctrine derives from Scripture (the Law, the Prophets and the Apostolic testimony) not Scripture from doctrine. (this is Sola Scriptura)

And Tyndale’s interpretations are not man made.

 

[lak611]

However, I think the belief that most Protestants know the Bible better than Catholics is a myth. I recall hearing at least one Protestant minister on the radio bemoaning the fact that for most Christians (and he was talking mainly about Protestant Christians, not Catholics) , the Bible remains on the shelf gathering dust. My grandmother attended a Methodist church regularly, but I never saw her crack open a Bible. I’m sure there are as many ‘cultural’ Protestants as there are ‘cultural’ Catholics.

Perhaps it was this Protestant minister, Woodrow Kroll. I read this book. amazon.com/Back-Bible-Woodrow-Kroll/dp/1576736784/ref=sr_1_3/102-0560232-2073703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175542448&sr=1-3. In it, he mentions the decline in Bible reading by Catholics and Protestants. He also has a little quiz testing Biblical knowledge.

 

[Fidelis]

You are caricaturing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura if you are equating it with private interpretation. Indeed *Sola Scriptua *does not obviate the essential role of the church. It only binds the church to the authority of God’s Word.

As interpreted by whom?

 

[NPS]

I have little doubt that if I walked with a microphone into the crowd at any evangelical/Protestant/non-denominational church and asked random individuals questions like “What is faith?” “Name the books of the New Testament” “Name the Ten Commandments”
“Name each of Paul’s letters” etc etc, people would be pooping in their pants and praying that I don’t call on them.

btw–I also have little doubt that if I walked into any of those church crowds with a microphone and asked what people knew about Catholicism, I’d get plenty of people wanting to tell me how “Catholics worship Mary” and “Catholicism is a pagan religion” “Catholics worship statues” “Catholics hate the bible” etc etc.

On what grounds are you going to establish that Protestants know their Bible, the Bible?

That’s the problem. It’s much easier to make blanket statements than to prove or quantify such statements. What passes for “common knowledge” is really just a convenient pseudo-fact which non-Catholics often use in apologetic situations. Catholics as a whole may very well know the bible less than some particular denomination. I haven’t seen evidence of this, but it may very well be true. If so, I would guess that the main reason is that Catholicism (and the Orthodox Church and Anglicans) have so much more going on than so many others. There can be little argument that we [RCC, O, Ang] have a more varied church life than many of the newer churches who rely on music and sermons virtually exclusively.

To imply or say that Catholics dismiss or discount the bible and to imply or say that the Catholic Church is not “true to the Gospel” because so many of her members don’t “know” the bible well is completely erroneous.

How well we see the splinter in other denomination’s eyes while ignoring the planks which make our own pews.
[yes, I include myself in this]

To paraphrase someOne I love, "Let he who considers that he knows the bible well enough cast the first stone."

 

[cleargospel99]

Fidelis,

Here is a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

Remarkably consistent with the very Church of Rome itself as described in Jim Akin’s article right here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp

Deuteronomy 6:4-7
4 Heare Israel, the Lorde thy God is Lorde only
5 and thou shalt loue the Lorde thy God with all thyne harte, with all thy soule and with all thy myght.
6 And these wordes which I commaunde the this daye, shalbe in thine herte
7 ad thou shalt whett them on thy childern, and shalt talke of them when thou art at home
in thyne housse and as thou walkest by the waye, ad when thou lyest doune and when thou rysest vpp:

Christians please read your bible because God told you to do it. If you let me hang around long enough, we could get through the whole thing just by reading this thread.

 

[cleargospel99]

Chancellare and others,

I don’t understand the insistence on having an infallible interpreter.

Is God not capable of speaking for himself. Does the Scripture not make this clear. Luke 16:19-31 or Matthew 15: 1-9

1 Then came to Iesus scribes and pharises from Ierusalem sayinge:
2 why do thy disciples transgresse the tradicios of ye elders? for they wesshe not their hondes when they eate breed.
3 He answered and sayde vnto them: why do ye also transgresse ye comaundment of God thorowe youre tradicions?
4 For God comaunded sayinge: honoure thy father and mother and he that cursseth father or mother shall suffer deeth.
5 But ye saye every ma shall saye to his father or mother: That which thou desyrest of me to helpe ye with: is geven God:
6 and so shall he not honoure his father or his mother. And thus haue ye made yt the comaundment of God is with out effecte through youre tradicios.
7 Ypocrites well prophesyed of you Esay sayinge:
8 This people draweth nye vnto me with their mouthes and honoureth me with their lippes howbe it their hertes are farre from me:
9 but in vayne they worshippe me teachinge doctrines whiche are nothing but mens precepts.

For those bored with Tyndale here is cg99’s INFALLIBLE interpretation (just kidding

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!"
3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’** 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his father[c]’ with it. **Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8” ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’[d]" **

These were the Pharissees who sat on Moses Seat.(Matthew 23)

Work with me and we may solve this problem together. May God bless you all.

cg99**

 

[NPS]

Deuteronomy 6:4-7
4 Heare Israel, the Lorde thy God is Lorde only
5 and thou shalt loue the Lorde thy God with all thyne harte, with all thy soule and with all thy myght.
6 And these wordes which I commaunde the this daye, shalbe in thine herte
7 ad thou shalt whett them on thy childern, and shalt talke of them when thou art at home
in thyne housse and as thou walkest by the waye, ad when thou lyest doune and when thou rysest vpp:

Christians please read your bible because God told you to do it. If you let me hang around long enough, we could get through the whole thing just by reading this thread.

I think you’re a bit mixed up, cleargospel. You seem to be laboring under the impression that Catholics don’t believe reading the bible to be something we should do. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Also–your examples from the bible don’t seem to prove what you want them to prove. Read that Deut passage again (verse 3 added) :

3 Hear then, Israel, and be careful to observe them, that you may grow and prosper the more, in keeping with the promise of the LORD, the God of your fathers, to give you a land flowing with milk and honey.
4
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!
5
Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.
6
Take to heart these words which I enjoin on you today.

This is hardly anything telling us to that we will need to read our bibles thousands of years later. This is Moses explaining the covenant and the Mosaic law.