Why is there such a disconnect between Catholics and Bible -reading?

[Michael_Allen]

I’ve already read the bible, why should I read it again? Really, I think prayer is more important because it directs my mind towards worshipping God… The Bible is meant to teach.

…so if I’ve already learned about Jesus, then I think the next step as a Christian is to apply what I’ve learned through prayer and actions.

My experience is that scripture reading and prayer are complimentary, so I don’t think it’s necessary to choose between the two.

You might want to try reading the bible again - you’ll probably notice all sorts of things that didn’t strike you the first time. I read through the bible yearly and I’m always amazed at things I hadn’t noticed before, or perhaps I noticed them but had just forgotten them But also scripture reading is not all about information, it is about formation as well - it can frequently be done in a prayerful manner where we let the word of God shape and form us.

A devotion to regularly reading all of scripture, in its original context, is one thing I think we can learn from our non-Catholic brethren.

 

[bmonk]

As craddel Catholics we seem to absorb scripture especialy the Gospels, we kind of know it and learn it through a sort of osmosses.
From the time I was born I have been going to mass twice weekly for most of my life, and I reminde my “Bible only” friends that If a Catholic attends mass every day he will have the entire Bible read to him every three years.
I find it very frustrating to have someone stand defiant and basicaly say I wont beleive thats in the bible because you dont have the verse numbers at your finger tips and to look smug and say “see I knew it all along Catholics don’t read the Bible”

Actually, that’s not quite true: If you attend the daily Mass for two years, and the Sunday Mass for three, you do get readings from nearly every book of the Bible–I believe only a few books are left out (1 Chronicles, Judith, and Obadiah)–but large parts of other books are also omitted due to the mass of the material. It simply is too much to read–without having much longer readings at every Mass.

 

[kkollwitz]

Having a book read to you is not the same as reading it yourself. Equating the two just makes the point that Catholics don’t read the Bible.

 

[Della]

Having a book read to you is not the same as reading it yourself. Equating the two just makes the point that Catholics don’t read the Bible.

That’s saying too much, surely. I listen to the readings at Mass and read the Bible, as well. The one does not negate the other.

The point of citing the fact that Catholics hear a good portion of the Bible at Mass is to counter the idea that Protestant services give their people more of the Bible. In general, this latter statement is simply not true.

 

[teeboy]

If the Catechism has everything you need, and there isn’t much room for interpretation, then why bother with the Bible?

In any classroom, most students will do the least work required. The Bible may provide further elucidation but most will not take advantage of that.

Plus, if people read the Bible they would start thinking for themselves, and I don’t think the Church likes that idea much. In fact, if the Church is the only way to salvation then it makes perfect sense to want to preserve people in their ignorance. If you stay ignorant, you have salvation. If you start thinking, then you are risking your soul. I hate to put it in such a jaded way, but isn’t that accurate?

Your error is freedom of interpretation which is typical protestant error. There can only be one truth. The truth has been and is in the process of being revealed by God.

Just look at the Immaculate Conception.

There is authority in the Church and it is evident and spelled out in the Bible. Hence doctrine.

 

[kkollwitz]

“That’s saying too much, surely.”

Of course. I too read the Bible, so I myself disprove the absoluteness of my statement.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Hi Matt,

You may be unintentionally misleading people - you only read about half the old testament (perhaps less) in weekday/sunday masses. You don’t cover quite all the new testament either - there are gaps of missing verses in the epistles, and even whole chapters are missed from Revelation (chapters, 2,6,8,9,12,13,16,17 and 19 are never read in weekday or sunday mass).

I think another good reason for reading the bible as a whole is you get much more of a sense of the flow of it, and the context of the readings - that can be rather lost in the lectionary as it does rather dot around a lot (especially in the old testament).

God bless +

Thanks Allen

 

[RobbyS]

That’s saying too much, surely. I listen to the readings at Mass and read the Bible, as well. The one does not negate the other.

The point of citing the fact that Catholics hear a good portion of the Bible at Mass is to counter the idea that Protestant services give their people more of the Bible. In general, this latter statement is simply not true.

I agree, It is my impression that Protestant services where the preacher gives a line by line explication of the text are rare. That would require hours. and people today, cannot listen for that long.

 

[tom_sathre]

The best way I can explain it with impartiality:

The Bible has been so absorbed into the Church’s teachings that, when speaking about this or that bit from the catechism, or this or that part of ___ document, you are automatically speaking about and from the Bible. The teachings of the Church and the Bible itself are, in a poetic sort of sense, the same thing. It is easier to just say this or that bit from the catechism than set up a whole theological treatise with Biblical premises and reasoning. The truths presented in the catechism are so squeaky clean that it can perhaps seem a bit impersonal and cold, but the Catechism teaches in prose what the Bible says in poetry.

Show me please

Tom

 

[kkollwitz]

Show yourself. Read the Bible. Read the Catechism.