Sorry.

 

I am not aware of any point in the history of the Catholic church where we were discouraged in reading The Bible. I've been Catholic since 1966, which is obviously just post-Vatican II. As Vatican II actually "modernized" some things in the Church, I can't imagine that it were any different pre-Vatican II. I'll do more research, but in my searches on the Vatican website and others, nothing indicates a lack of encouragement by the Church to it's members in reading The Bible.

 

I was looking a bit further back...like several hundred years.

The Bible was on scrolls and parchments during the early centuries of Christianity. No one had a "Bible". Even into the Middle Ages, each Bible was written by hand. Most people were, at best, only functionally literate. That is partially why they used stained glass windowsand art to tell the Bible story. The printing press was not invented until 1436 by Johann Gutenberg. So prior to 1436, the idea of everybody having a Bible was out of the question, even if they could read.

 

After the invention of the press, prior to Luther's Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes. The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610.

The Latin Vulgate was always available to anyone who wanted to read it without restriction. Some Evangelicals have said that it would only have been usable by people who read Latin. But in the 16th Century there were no public schools and literacy was not that common, especially among the peasants. Those people who could read had been well educated and could read Latin.

 

The common people of the middle ages had no intellectual defense with which they could make a reasonable judgment about the Truth. They were almost as vulnerable to the heresies that were sweeping through their communities as a person standing in front of a gun today. Except a lot more than their lives was at stake, their eternal lives were in jeopardy. Today, if someone went out into the street and started shooting people, we wouldn't say, "let him go ahead and do it, people can protect themselves...its there own fault if they are shot to death." The Church was very worried that people who were influenced by these heresies were going to spend eternity in hell. No one was punished for simply believing a heresy. The crime was teaching it, and leading others astray. The Church felt it was their job to protect the souls of the innocent. In hindsight, we see that we would have done better by not using force.

Some Evangelicals accuse the Catholic Church of "Chaining Bibles". The Church DID chain Bibles in the Middle Ages; and for the same reason that the Telephone Company chains its directories to the booth -- to prevent people from STEALING them.

 

We must remember that each Bible had to be copied by hand and that it took the lifetime of a monk to do this. According to standards today, each one of these Bibles would probably be worth $20,000. Records have been compiled which show that there were 5,000 chained books in 11 Protestant and 2 Catholic libraries. The Reformers, likewise, chained their Bibles in their churches for at least 300 years. Therefore, Catholics were not alone in chaining Bibles.

 

It is true that earlier in this century, in some Catholic circles, people were not encouraged to read their Bibles. This discouragement was a mistake. The Church does not claim that these types of mistakes have not been made. Catholics believe that although the teaching of the Church is "infallible" on matters of doctrine, the Church is not "indefectable." Sometimes God chooses people who fall. He has done that since the beginning of the Church. (i.e., Judas)

 

It was never forbidden to read the Bible. But some priests were worried that congregations would come up with dozens of conflicting interpretations of Scripture. These priests knew of over 300 Protestant denominations who had distinct beliefs about the interpretation of Scripture. Many of these interpretations conflicted with each other yet every one of them claimed divine inspiration. As a whole, neither Catholics or Evangelicals are into relativism (which says there are many truths). So we have to conclude that the vast majority of conflicting Evangelical biblical interpretations are incorrect since only one can be true. (Perhaps this is a powerful argument against Sola Scriptura - Bible alone.) Some priests saw this divisional process in Protestant circles and felt it was a danger.

 

Today, Catholics who are faithful to the teaching of the Church are totally into the Word. The level of education is higher than it has ever been and people are better able to comprehend its meaning. The New American Bible has a preface from the Vatican that regular private Scripture study is a blessing to all Catholics who crack open the Word.

While it is true that the church discouraged Bible reading during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, since Vatican II (or even earlier, since Pius XII), the church has encouraged Scripture reading by the laity.

 

That's what I thought. Now my question is, why did the church discourage Bible reading?

That's what I thought. Now my question is, why did the church discourage Bible reading?

 

See rockmom's above post. That ought to cover it. :thumb:

The Bible was on scrolls and parchments during the early centuries of Christianity. No one had a "Bible". Even into the Middle Ages, each Bible was written by hand. Most people were, at best, only functionally literate. That is partially why they used stained glass windowsand art to tell the Bible story. The printing press was not invented until 1436 by Johann Gutenberg. So prior to 1436, the idea of everybody having a Bible was out of the question, even if they could read.

 

After the invention of the press, prior to Luther's Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes. The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610.

The Latin Vulgate was always available to anyone who wanted to read it without restriction. Some Evangelicals have said that it would only have been usable by people who read Latin. But in the 16th Century there were no public schools and literacy was not that common, especially among the peasants. Those people who could read had been well educated and could read Latin.

 

The common people of the middle ages had no intellectual defense with which they could make a reasonable judgment about the Truth. They were almost as vulnerable to the heresies that were sweeping through their communities as a person standing in front of a gun today. Except a lot more than their lives was at stake, their eternal lives were in jeopardy. Today, if someone went out into the street and started shooting people, we wouldn't say, "let him go ahead and do it, people can protect themselves...its there own fault if they are shot to death." The Church was very worried that people who were influenced by these heresies were going to spend eternity in hell. No one was punished for simply believing a heresy. The crime was teaching it, and leading others astray. The Church felt it was their job to protect the souls of the innocent. In hindsight, we see that we would have done better by not using force.

Some Evangelicals accuse the Catholic Church of "Chaining Bibles". The Church DID chain Bibles in the Middle Ages; and for the same reason that the Telephone Company chains its directories to the booth -- to prevent people from STEALING them.

 

We must remember that each Bible had to be copied by hand and that it took the lifetime of a monk to do this. According to standards today, each one of these Bibles would probably be worth $20,000. Records have been compiled which show that there were 5,000 chained books in 11 Protestant and 2 Catholic libraries. The Reformers, likewise, chained their Bibles in their churches for at least 300 years. Therefore, Catholics were not alone in chaining Bibles.

 

It is true that earlier in this century, in some Catholic circles, people were not encouraged to read their Bibles. This discouragement was a mistake. The Church does not claim that these types of mistakes have not been made. Catholics believe that although the teaching of the Church is "infallible" on matters of doctrine, the Church is not "indefectable." Sometimes God chooses people who fall. He has done that since the beginning of the Church. (i.e., Judas)

 

It was never forbidden to read the Bible. But some priests were worried that congregations would come up with dozens of conflicting interpretations of Scripture. These priests knew of over 300 Protestant denominations who had distinct beliefs about the interpretation of Scripture. Many of these interpretations conflicted with each other yet every one of them claimed divine inspiration. As a whole, neither Catholics or Evangelicals are into relativism (which says there are many truths). So we have to conclude that the vast majority of conflicting Evangelical biblical interpretations are incorrect since only one can be true. (Perhaps this is a powerful argument against Sola Scriptura - Bible alone.) Some priests saw this divisional process in Protestant circles and felt it was a danger.

 

Today, Catholics who are faithful to the teaching of the Church are totally into the Word. The level of education is higher than it has ever been and people are better able to comprehend its meaning. The New American Bible has a preface from the Vatican that regular private Scripture study is a blessing to all Catholics who crack open the Word.

 

:thumb:

 

Thanks. That should about cover that topic for me. I appreciate your help.

See rockmom's above post. That ought to cover it. :thumb:

 

Yeah...I was just in the midst of reading and posting that while you were posting this...:lol:

Yeah...I was just in the midst of reading and posting that while you were posting this...:lol:

 

Dangit, I wasn't fast enough! :lol:

Dangit, I wasn't fast enough! :lol:

 

Sure you were...your post was 2 minutes ahead of mine...:mad:

Sure you were...your post was 2 minutes ahead of mine...:mad:

 

Good point! :banana:

Its been two hours since I last read anything on here.

 

I'm now at Wilmore Kentucky at FCA Camp. No TV... just teaching kids how to be leaders at their schools to promote Jesus Christ.

 

We are here until late Sunday and will be able to check in sometimes.

 

There will be kids from all of the religions and they will be treated with all the respect that I can offer.

 

The Bottom line is Jesus Christ and Paul mentions that in Philipians chapter 1.

 

When Birdsfan and I get into this "cage" is it a Birdcage?

 

Him and I are cool and I'm sure we will differ in a few posts from now.

 

On the drive down Momma said..."Can't you just be a little understanding"?

 

5wide nice thoughts by the way.

 

Almost 90 comments, that is really a good thing. Pray for me and these teens from Tennessee.:banana:

I'll address the above later-maybe. :lol:

There is but One True Catholic Church. There should not be a Church teaching something different than another. Can you provide some examples? I think you may misunderstand.

 

I know there should NOT be, but there are. Surely you don't believe that there are not individual churches that vary from one another in minor doctrine? However, for the sake of argument, I'll appease you.

 

I have personally heard the "bishop" ("minister" - I do not know the correct phraseology) at St. Margaret Mary in Louisville (this was probably eight years ago) state unequivocally that the Virgin Mary's MOTHER was also a virgin. This same bishop also told me that Mary had no other children and remained a virgin.

 

The "bishop" (again, question) at St. Joseph's Proto-Cathedral told me (interestingly, during halftime of a Bethlehem football game - how the topic came up I do not know) that the only Catholic claim to pure virginity was Mary herself, and that Catholic doctrine taught that Mary had other children.

 

Another example: a Catholic church at which I attended a wedding in Danville, CA allowed "all" believers in Christ to take communion, and their pew literature expressed unequivocally that this was universal Catholic doctrine. The same pew literature at St. Joseph's Proto-Cathedral claims that communion was closed except to Catholics, and that this was according to the teachings of the Catholic church.

 

I'm sure this will stir the pot, but this is just one of many such examples, and these types of minor doctrines are heavily disputed in Protestant churches as well. They are irrelevant to me.

I know there should NOT be, but there are. Surely you don't believe that there are not individual churches that vary from one another in minor doctrine? However, for the sake of argument, I'll appease you.

 

I have personally heard the "bishop" ("minister" - I do not know the correct phraseology) at St. Margaret Mary in Louisville (this was probably eight years ago) state unequivocally that the Virgin Mary's MOTHER was also a virgin. This same bishop also told me that Mary had no other children and remained a virgin.

 

The "bishop" (again, question) at St. Joseph's Proto-Cathedral told me (interestingly, during halftime of a Bethlehem football game - how the topic came up I do not know) that the only Catholic claim to pure virginity was Mary herself, and that Catholic doctrine taught that Mary had other children.

 

Another example: a Catholic church at which I attended a wedding in Danville, CA allowed "all" believers in Christ to take communion, and their pew literature expressed unequivocally that this was universal Catholic doctrine. The same pew literature at St. Joseph's Proto-Cathedral claims that communion was closed except to Catholics, and that this was according to the teachings of the Catholic church.

 

I'm sure this will stir the pot, but this is just one of many such examples, and these types of minor doctrines are heavily disputed in Protestant churches as well. They are irrelevant to me.

 

 

Priest is the appropriate term. :thumb:

 

This is also something that I have noticed as well. To the best of my knowledge the St. Joe's literature is actually the correct one.

 

Not sure if I have time to tackle the other two on there while at work.

Hearsay,

 

I'll echo PepRock. I can't tackle all the nuances of the Virgin Mary right now. But regarding communion, I am 100% certain that St. Joe's information is correct. The Eucharist is not to be taken by those who are not Baptised into the Catholic faith, and received the Sacrament of the Eucharist (First Communion). That's a non-negotiable.

Hearsay,

 

I'll echo PepRock. I can't tackle all the nuances of the Virgin Mary right now. But regarding communion, I am 100% certain that St. Joe's information is correct. The Eucharist is not to be taken by those who are not Baptised into the Catholic faith, and received the Sacrament of the Eucharist (First Communion). That's a non-negotiable.

 

Just out of curiosity, Why?

I am not offended by evangelical denominations. I am offended when I'm told that because of my beliefs (which are most often misinterpreted by the person who is evangelizing) I am not "saved".

I consider myself fortunate in that I've had the opportunity to study many different Christian denominations, as well as non-Christian religions. I feel I've made, and continue to make, every effort to understand the religious beliefs of others, and to respect them.

 

I become offended when the same is not offered to me, or other members of my faith.

 

I agree 100% with this. It is those misrepresentations that were the reason for my question to Alabama Larry. I once had a person that I considered a friend tell me that I was going to hell because I am a Catholic and Larry's first response in this thread was almost to a letter the reasons that I was given for my eventual dangation. That line of thinking absolutely infuriates me.

 

Larry, I'm going to give you another chance. Your faith is very strong from what I have read and I salute you. I'll give you another chance. If I, or any other Catholic, came to you and wanted to know what I need to do to give myself the best chance of getting into Heaven would it involve converting? You obviously have very strong opinions about what the Catholic Church is doing wrong, do we do enough right to get to Heaven?