Why is there not a single Protestant Understanding of the Bible?

[Newsy]

Newsy
If you read the Baltimore Cathechism you will not see mention of flesh for the host. We werre taught by Nuns, no they did not teach flesh. No misunderstanding there. More a Real Presence in the spiritual sense. No confusion.

, Don’t talk about what you don’t know , the scriptures were always frowned upon being read by lay person by the Church till after the advent of Vatican II, and even today they will interpret it for you as you won’t understaqnd. I showed enough proff, if you need more search the net , better yet talk to older Catholics, or I hate to say it but most Catholics don’t crack open a bible even today, unfortuanately.

You have given no proof. If it is so readily available, please post a little more.

Again, the practice of members of the Church, proves nothing about Church teaching.

BTW, if you were taught a “spiritual sense” about the host, what difference was there from a protestant church?

 

[Newsy]

CopticChristian;8895166:

Coptic, You don’t know the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 3 distinct persons in one?
surely don’t feel bad if you don’t as I’m sure its not your fault.

Could you explain it to us? I know good priests that don’t explain too much for fear of falling into heresy.

 

[Newsy]

BTW, the Baltimore Catechism that was referenced goes into detail on the Eucharist. It calls the Eucharist the Body, Blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Starting with lesson 22, it details and explains the Eucharist.

 

[Luvtosew]

BTW, the Baltimore Catechism that was referenced goes into detail on the Eucharist. It calls the Eucharist the Body, Blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Starting with lesson 22, it details and explains the Eucharist.

right thats pretty much it, , why do so many Catholics believe as I do.

we take the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ,

the sacrifice is the bread and wine.

 

[Anthony_V]

Perhaps not. But not knowing who actually did the jumping makes things difficult.

Jon

I concur.

 

[vsedriver]

John WycliffeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and other places, the early RCC didn’t want the bible out and then they destroyed all those except in Latin becasue they taught the Priest to read Latin.

It never ceases to amaze me how little history is taught today. Latin was the common language of the early Church because Latin was the common language for everyone in the west. Since the Romans ruled most of the western world for close to a 1000 years, all countries learned to speak Latin so they could talk to their conquerors. Greek was the common language in the east. Spanish, Italian, and French are all descendant languages of Latin. Once Scripture was canonized it was translated from Greek and Hebrew into Latin for the express purpose of making it available to the common people. That’s why St. Jerome’s Bible is called the Latin Vulgate. Vulgate means vulgar or common so it was written in the average person’s language.

The majority of people were not literate, which means they didn’t know how to read and write. Only the rich or merchant middle class would have an education that resembles our educations. That’s not to say they were stupid or uneducated. They just got the majority of their education orally.

Writing was hard to record. First, you had to take a young kid and skin it and prepare the hide by scraping it down to vellum. A pretty labor intensive product and a very expensive one. All early Bibles would have been produced on vellum and would have been hand copied. The expense of keeping people fed and clothed just to spend all day copying books could only be supported by the Church. It could take a long time to produce one copy of the Bible. Getting one copy of the Bible to each Church was a major undertaking and a great expense for a small parish church. Plus they were easily damaged. Thus the book was chained in the Church. All those who could read could access the Bible but they couldn’t easily walk off with it.

Paper did not show up till after about 1100 AD. Making paper was difficult and a trade secret. You didn’t have a papermill on every corner. In fact, Germany didn’t have one till almost 1400! In an age where most people were more interested in finding enough to eat and clothe themselves, having paper and time to read and write was a real luxury reserved for the very rich or the Church which could pull large resources.

So the Church never told people they couldn’t read the Bible. In fact the Church heavily decorated their buildings just to illustrate the Bible for those who could not read. There were English translations of parts of the Bible as early as the 700s. But since the priest spoke the local language he taught from the Bible.

What you are presenting is the argument that we are to interpret the Bible as individuals. That was never the purpose of the Bible or the early use of it. There is a huge difference between personal interpretation and personal inspiration. The Catholic Church teaches that personal inspiration is a fine and holy thing but interpretation belongs to the Church which received the teachings and the authority from Christ and His Apostles orally.

 

[Luvtosew]

I’m talking the Baltimore Cathochism which was wrote by 5 bishops in Baltimore to decide how and what to each North Americans catholics, 1885 thruough its first revision in 1977 and then the new Cathechism in 1992. Now it was then taught no need to seach scripture as the Church is all you need and one couldn’t understand it anyway.

while some people may of said, well I’m getting a bible anyway, the majority didn’t, no need why bother. now scripture study brings one merit according to the Church, and well I guess with the internet and bible study now, and the new CC one can check to see what the scripture means on a Catholic site or ewtn.

Before of course there was no internet or anything and well no bible study.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;8895166:

Coptic, You don’t know the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 3 distinct persons in one?
surely don’t feel bad if you don’t as I’m sure its not your fault.

Sew,

I know what the Trinity is named. I don’t understand the concept. You said understand. This in my opinion means to be able to explain and that is understanding. I know and understand the Kreb’s cycle. I know and understand how to convert double bonds to triple bonds. I know and understand the helical structure of DNA. I know that the Trinity is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I cannot understand it.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/understand

 

[vsedriver]

Before of course there was no internet or anything and well no bible study.

That’s not true, there were many wonderful books on Catholic Bible study. Most devout Catholics are living the Bible in their everyday life. The rosary is the Bible, the liturgical year is the Bible. The Divine Office is based on the Bible. There is more than one way to study the Bible. The Bible is a living, breathing, activity in the Catholic Church.

 

[Newsy]

I’m talking the Baltimore Cathochism which was wrote by 5 bishops in Baltimore to decide how and what to each North Americans catholics, 1885 thruough its first revision in 1977 and then the new Cathechism in 1992. Now it was then taught no need to seach scripture as the Church is all you need and one couldn’t understand it anyway.

while some people may of said, well I’m getting a bible anyway, the majority didn’t, no need why bother. now scripture study brings one merit according to the Church, and well I guess with the internet and bible study now, and the new CC one can check to see what the scripture means on a Catholic site or ewtn.

Before of course there was no internet or anything and well no bible study.

The Baltimore Catechism, you referenced, specifically explains how and when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. It explains that there is no bread and wine left, they become the Body and Blood. It refers to the sacrifice of the Mass as an unbloody presentation of the Body of Christ. It is all in there starting with lesson 24.

I am having a hard time understanding something. First, you were thankful to Wycliffe for a bad translation of the Bible. Then, you told us you have a brain, so you did not need the Catholic Church to explain the Bible to you. Then, you blame the nuns for not teaching you about the Real Presence. You reference a book, the Baltimore Catechism, that explains it all very clearly. I’m confused.

 

[Luvtosew]

The Baltimore Catechism, you referenced, specifically explains how and when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. It explains that there is no bread and wine left, they become the Body and Blood. It refers to the sacrifice of the Mass as an unbloody presentation of the Body of Christ. It is all in there starting with lesson 24.

I am having a hard time understanding something. First, you were thankful to Wycliffe for a bad translation of the Bible. Then, you told us you have a brain, so you did not need the Catholic Church to explain the Bible to you. Then, you blame the nuns for not teaching you about the Real Presence. You reference a book, the Baltimore Catechism, that explains it all very clearly. I’m confused.

What about, the Nuns did teach us and we didn’t have the Cathechism ourselves, they taught out of it. they never mentioned blood. I also see the T word in the Baltimore Cathechism, they never mentioned that either. They taught out of it the basics.
Why is the Real Presencs important that now I find out its the flesh , as some people put it the person of Christ, his nerves, heart muslce, bones, etc in the host, and not his spiritual body blood and divinity, well its important because two very different concepts.

why is it a bad translation of the Bible , Wycliffe’s. All bibles are different my Catholic is different than my NIV and that is different than my KJV.

No I don’t need the church to explain the bible for me. do you??

 

[rom422]

Newsy
If you read the Baltimore Cathechism you will not see mention of flesh for the host. We werre taught by Nuns, no they did not teach flesh. No misunderstanding there. More a Real Presence in the spiritual sense. No confusion.

, Don’t talk about what you don’t know , the scriptures were always frowned upon being read by lay person by the Church till after the advent of Vatican II, and even today they will interpret it for you as you won’t understaqnd. I showed enough proff, if you need more search the net , better yet talk to older Catholics, or I hate to say it but most Catholics don’t crack open a bible even today, unfortuanately.

OK I am an older Catholic. I am 63 years old and I lived prior to Vatican II. What I remember is that the Church never discouraged the reading of Holy Scripture. The Church actually encouraged it. Many Catholics were very familiar with the gospels, not so much with some historical OT texts. I don’t think Leviticus, for example, was very popular reading. It is also true that many Catholics were lazy to open their Bibles, but that does not mean the Church discouraged the reading of the Holy Scripture. And even if they can’t cite Bible teachings by chapter and verse, many of them knew the teachings from Sunday homilies, meditations, classroom instructions, etc.

Also, I remember receiving Holy Communion when I was 7 years old. I clearly remember that I was taught that I was receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord, not just His spirit. So, this is my written testimony. The Baltimore Catechism was a great book, but we learned its contents by listening to the teacher, not so much by reading it. Although it was very much simplified, it was still not easy reading for very young children.

What else would you like to know from the old days?

 

[CopticChristian]

What about, the Nuns did teach us and we didn’t have the Cathechism ourselves, they taught out of it. they never mentioned blood. I also see the T word in the Baltimore Cathechism, they never mentioned that either. They taught out of it the basics.
Why is the Real Presencs important that now I find out its the flesh , as some people put it the person of Christ, his nerves, heart muslce, bones, etc in the host, and not his spiritual body blood and divinity, well its important because two very different concepts.

why is it a bad translation of the Bible , Wycliffe’s. All bibles are different my Catholic is different than my NIV and that is different than my KJV.

No I don’t need the church to explain the bible for me. do you??

Sew,

Explain this verse to me…

9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

without reference to the Church…

 

[Luvtosew]

OK I am an older Catholic. I am 63 years old and I lived prior to Vatican II. What I remember is that the Church never discouraged the reading of Holy Scripture. The Church actually encouraged it. Many Catholics were very familiar with the gospels, not so much with some historical OT texts. I don’t think Leviticus, for example, was very popular reading. It is also true that many Catholics were lazy to open their Bibles, but that does not mean the Church discouraged the reading of the Holy Scripture. And even if they can’t cite Bible teachings by chapter and verse, many of them knew the teachings from Sunday homilies, meditations, classroom instructions, etc.

Also, I remember receiving Holy Communion when I was 7 years old. I clearly remember that I was taught that I was receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord, not just His spirit. So, this is my written testimony. The Baltimore Catechism was a great book, but we learned its contents by listening to the teacher, not so much by reading it. Although it was very much simplified, it was still not easy reading for very young children.

What else would you like to know from the old days?

I’m happy for you, you obviously didn’t live in the same area or have the same teaching as I did. And I do think most Catholics back then did not read the scriptures and not due to their laziness, but I"m sure there were some that did, did you have the chruch teaching to help you understand them or did you understand on your own.

 

[Newsy]

What about, the Nuns did teach us and we didn’t have the Cathechism ourselves, they taught out of it. they never mentioned blood. I also see the T word in the Baltimore Cathechism, they never mentioned that either. They taught out of it the basics.
Why is the Real Presencs important that now I find out its the flesh , as some people put it the person of Christ, his nerves, heart muslce, bones, etc in the host, and not his spiritual body blood and divinity, well its important because two very different concepts.

why is it a bad translation of the Bible , Wycliffe’s. All bibles are different my Catholic is different than my NIV and that is different than my KJV.

No I don’t need the church to explain the bible for me. do you??

I came from a church that allowed much freedom in interpreting the Bible. It didn’t focus on historical fact as much as personal interpretation. Many fell into heresy, why? Because they didn’t want to acknowledge historical teaching and the Oral Tradition. I need the Catholic Church to help guide me in understanding the Scriptures, to help me from falling into heresy. Many things were accepted in my former church, but most of it was lacking in factual and historical basis. The laity did as much teaching as the pastor, and we were untrained. A person can study for a lifetime and still not completely understand the context that Scripture was written in. You don’t have to have a Phd in theology for Scripture to speak to you, but uneducated self interpretation is a dangerous thing. A child can pick up a gun, but it is not a toy; in the same way one may read the Bible, but not understanding can be as harmful to our lives and souls.

If you believe you don’t need the Catholic Church to explain the Bible to you, good luck. If you are a Bible Scholar, you might have some success, if you keep an active prayer life. But even then, you are taking your chances. When we drive along a narrow road, edged by a steep cliff, there are guardrails to keep us from falling if we make a mistake. The Catholic teachings on Scripture are the guardrails to keep us from falling into heresy, in case we make a mistake. Some claim that they are guided by the Holy Spirit, how do they know? It seems that their personal interpretation is always right, according to the Holy Spirit. This brings us back to the OP, why are there so many protestant understandings? Because sometimes men are wrong, but won’t admit it!

 

[vsedriver]

No I don’t need the church to explain the bible for me. do you??

Yes, because Christ founded a Church. He could have written a book. But Jesus knew that it is the teaching that is to be handed down. Without the Church to hold the understanding of Christ’s teaching you don’t know what Christ taught.

Is the Eucharist symbolic or is it Real Presence? There can be only one Truth. The Church has the Truth on the teaching of the Eucharist. The Church had this Truth long before it was officially accepted in written form. Truth doesn’t change. The Bible backs up the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

better yet talk to older Catholics, or I hate to say it but most Catholics don’t crack open a bible even today, unfortuanately.

This is true.

However, what Catholics do is often quite different from what Catholicism teaches.

I think you are confusing the two. You think because Catholics didn’t read the Bible that this means that the Church taught this.

Not the case.

We can take this to our current times.

Are you aware of what the Church teaches regarding artificial birth control, Luv?
(She says that it is gravely immoral.)

Now, about 80-90% of self-identified Catholics use some method of artificial birth control.

Are you really going to say that because of this statistic that the Church teaches that it’s ok?

Or are you going to grasp that sometimes what Catholics DO is different than what the Church TEACHES.

And the Church NEVER taught that reading Scripture was forbidden.

 

[PRmerger]

No I don’t need the church to explain the bible for me. do you??

Well, Luv, without the Church to direct and guide us you now have people reading the Scriptures and concluding that there is no such thing as the Trinity.

And there are some people who read the Scriptures and conclude that Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead.

And there are some people who read the Scriptures and conclude that all you need to do is accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and you’re in.

And, there are some people who read the very same Scriptures and conclude that you can lose your salvation.

So your paradigm has given birth to the obscenity of tens of thousands of different denominations, each proclaiming that their particular interpretation is the truth. That’s exactly what the Devil ordered, IMHO. Confusion and chaos, all thanks to the belief that you don’t need the Church to provide guidance. :bigyikes:

 

[CMatt25]

Latin was the common language of the early Church.

Define what you consider “early”.

 

[CMatt25]

Fair enough, Loboto. However, I fail to see the difference between following the particular traditions of the Roman Catholic Church as a guide to understanding Scripture, and a Lutheran or Baptist who understands Scripture within the confines of their own tradition. Both allow for a personal understanding of the text of Scripture within the tenets of the stated beliefs of the tradition. Granted, the Roman Catholic Church claims that its tradition is the word of God and was handed on by the apostles. So you, as a Roman Catholic, believe those claims and believe that the Magisterium has been protected from having false traditions. But that is a presuppositional claim. That is, it is assumed.

Among the keywords I believe here are “beliefs” and “believe” as in “within the tenets of stated beliefs” and “believe those claims”.