Walking on egg shells

I will warn you this is a sensitive thread and it is not meant for debate but it is definitely wouldn't stay as a DIR. This is about experiences with Catholicism.

Briefly, I had great experiences in the Church. However, I became Catholic 2012. The Church I used to go to and sometimes pay respects to sometimes is modern. So, there isn't a high focus on Mary. People are from diverse cultures; so, they come in with different outlooks their relationship with God. A lot of the anti-catholic debates are irrelevant in the Church I was confirmed in because I never experienced and seen worship in that way.

In general, conversely, I hear a lot of bad experiences from those specifically raised in the Church.

I am wondering if those experiences are related to time period?

I know not too recently we started having Bible study. Churches are encouraging parishioners to read their Bibles which, on the other side of town, I haven't seen yet. Years ago, that was not the case. I went to a Cursillo retreat (Catholic retreat/worship) for the weekend and one lady, I think she is in her mid 50s told me she wasn't allowed to read her Bible. No Bibles in the pews, and so forth.

I'm thinking that maybe some people who are anti-catholic have a point in their arguments because the things they are focusing on is what the Church used to do rather than what the churches, especially American Churches, are doing today.... or it could be just American churches since now we're having charismatic services which were unheard of when I was growing up.

Also, I'm thinking that because Churches are now letting Catholics read their Bibles and those who stay in the Church are reading their Bibles, they will strengthen even more their relationship with the Church.

Maybe we can pin point if time period has something to do with the conflict of Catholicism and Protestantism.

Of course, there are other catholic/protestant nitty gritties, but that's not the theme of this thread.

---

If you'd like to add your experiences with the Catholic Church and why you left it in relation to the above topic please, that would be great for us to talk about.

Carlita said:

Also, I'm thinking that because Churches are now letting Catholics read their Bibles and those who stay in the Church are reading their Bibles, they will strengthen even more their relationship with the Church.

Click to expand...

The Church has never forbidden Catholics to read the Bible. When the printing press came about and the Bible was being translated into the vulgar languages, she banned the translations which had not been approved. In large part due to being composed by Protestants. The Catholic Douay-Rheims predates the King James for goodness sake.

We are dealing with a time when most of the common people couldn't read anyway.

That's the testimony I received from the woman at the retreat. When I went to a Catholic Church for the first time I was surprised there were no Bibles in the pews since in protestant Churches like Southern Baptist in particular, if you don't have your Bible, you aren't prepared for Church. That's another thing with people not being able to read. It's completely different than today where we finally have a library in our new church and have bible study classes. The charismatic thing is new too, so things are changing.

While down the street an hour or so around the corner from me, it is traditional. We hear bible verses from the priest. We read it in the Missal, that's about it.

I know, though, for a fact that the Catholic Church's emphasis on Bible reading in Church is not as strong as that of the Southern Baptist church and other sola scriptura churches. What the Bible is to a Sola Scripturian is the Eucharist to a Catholic type of thing.

Tlaloc said:

The Church has never forbidden Catholics to read the Bible. When the printing press came about and the Bible was being translated into the vulgar languages, she banned the translations which had not been approved. In large part due to being composed by Protestants. The Catholic Douay-Rheims predates the King James for goodness sake.

We are dealing with a time when most of the common people couldn't read anyway.

Click to expand...

Carlita said:

When I went to a Catholic Church for the first time I was surprised there were no Bibles in the pews since in protestant Churches like Southern Baptist in particular, if you don't have your Bible, you aren't prepared for Church.

Click to expand...

There are two readings and the Gospel at every Mass. Combine the daily Masses with the Sunday readings and the Bible is read in its entirety every three years. Years A, B and C in the Missal.

The Mass is the continued sacrifice of Calvary where we come to receive Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Reading the Bible whilst well and good is not the rasion d'être of why we go to Mass. Catholics are of course encouraged to frequently read the Bible. Whether or not you do is up to you.

Aren't Catholics taught not to read the Bible?

"THIS CHERISHED MYTH is false!.The Church highly encourages personal Scripture reading; at the same time urges the faithful to approach the Bible within the framework of Catholic tradition, and to avoid excessive individualism of interpretation.

seventy years before Vatican II Pope Leo XIII wrote: Let all...understand how deeply the sacred books should be esteemed and with what eagerness and reverence they should approach this great arsenal of heavenly arms...As St. Jerome says, "to be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Christ"..."A man who is well grounded in the testimonies of the Scripture is the bulwark of the Church."

So catholics are extremely encouraged and even required to read their Bible

In 1943 Pope Pius XII reminded the Church--citing his predecessor Benedict XV--to read Scripture "piously"and "meditate on it constantly," for the Bible is that "by which the spiritual life is nourished unto perfection." (Divino Afflante Spiritu)

The Church didnt forbade vernacular translation and people are misinformed about why Bibles were chained up. The most treasured books were those that were chained up in the libraries so that the would not be stolen precisely because they were so valued and treasured and it took so much time to produce a copy.

Vernacular Bible translations in fact became very common by the Middle Ages, as Latin ceased to be the language of the people. Scores of Church-approved translations in many European vernacular languages appeared in the late fifteenth century alone. When the Church did oppose certain bad vernacular translations, it was out of a desire to protect the integrity of Scripture. Not everyone who makes a copy of the Bible is infallible at doing so (meaning they have made mistakes)

Doesnt the Catholic Church control the interpretation of the Bible so tightly that you cant have a personal opinion about what you read?

This is another myth.
Scripture is deep and rich in meaning; never has the Catholic Church claimed to provide a prepackaged interpretation of every verse, binding on all believers to accept.

In fact the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia article "Biblical Exegesis" states about "Defined Texts" : The catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of textswhich the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle."

The council of Trent listed only seven biblical passages that were not allowed to be interpreted in a certain way: 1) Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24(the Eucharist), 2)John 3:5 (Baptism), 3) Matt 18:18, John 20:22-23 (priesthood), 4)Romans 5:12 (original sin); and 5) James 6:14 (annointing of the sick). Even in those cases, interpretations that did not contradict Catholic dogma were allowed.

Most protestant denominations subject their members to restrictions on how to interpret Scripture.

The Catholic Student of Scripture is "bound" by very little.

"To the possession by worthy lay men of licensed translations the Church was never opposed; but to place such a weapon as an English Bible in the hands of men who had no regard for authority, and who would use it without being instructed how to use it properly, was dangerous not only to the souls of those who read, but to the peace and order of the Church."
James Gairdner (Protestant Church Historian)"
Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat

Morning, and yes I have participated in Mass for 15 years and the sacraments for 4 years being a Catholic; so, I am aware of what is in Mass (saying nicely). I was comparing the Southern Baptist Church to the Catholic. One time I came from Mass, I heard heavy traditional gospel music coming from a church (used in a doctor's office) and so I went to their service. While in the Church prayer and worship is a solemn and prayer is silent and private, in some Churches it is the opposite. It was the gospel music from my childhood. When I went in to sit down forgetting about a Bible a little girl came up to me and gave me a Bible. She gave me this look like "you came without your Bible?!"

In these churches, the pastor preaches spontaneously. He'll tell us "turn to Mark 2:40 and read" and he will recite it. Then he will say something in relation or interpretation to that scripture.

In Mass, it is different rather than wrong. During Christmas and Easter Vigil (Can't think of any other important Masses) they have the most readings (Two old testament and one New/gospel) and translation in Spanish. It would be very cumbersome and hard to go through the beauty of Mass (holding hands, prayer, watching Him break the bread) when we have a Bible or even Missal in our hands trying to follow along.

That's my experience when I brought my Bible and then set it aside.

My point, though, is the comparison that maybe the time period before when people didn't and some couldn't read their Bibles in Church (like the lady told me at the treat) to today where we have a parish library and bible study. It may be the reason protestants may be looking at the "no bible" part is time period. Also, many parishes emphasis on different things. Many traditional churches may have some focus on Mary while my Church and other modern ones only focus on Christ. The prayers to Mary are private. Unless it's during the Christmas and Eastern vigil where saints are called out to intercede for us.

Tlaloc said:

There are two readings and the Gospel at every Mass. Combine the daily Masses with the Sunday readings and the Bible is read in its entirety every three years. Years A, B and C in the Missal.

The Mass is the continued sacrifice of Calvary where we come to receive Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Reading the Bible whilst well and good is not the rasion d'être of why we go to Mass. Catholics are of course encouraged to frequently read the Bible. Whether or not you do is up to you.

Click to expand...

I don't understand where the anti-catholic sentiment, (very widespread in Anglo-Saxons countries) comes from.

I think it exclusively deals with a linguistic\cultural rejection. People think that Catholicism is related to the Romance languages speaking world.
which is absolutely not true, given that there are lots of Catholic countries in the Slavic world (Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, etc) who never use Latin or any Romance language.

another misconception: they think that Catholicism is the Vatican. False- the Pope is just the bishop of Rome. The Archbishop of Sidney (to give an example) is autonomous in his diocese.

I use a English Bible myself, because English is a language that explains concepts in a better way than my native language does.

Carlita said:

In general, conversely, I hear a lot of bad experiences from those specifically raised in the Church.

Click to expand...

I didn't have a positive experience of Roman Catholicism when I was growing up, but that was a long time ago now. I can't really comment on whether it is any better now, it might be just that the PR has just improved.

Believe it or I not, I have been to Churches and talked with priests (not all mind you) who have said we were not taught to read the Bible at Church outside the Missal. There are literally no Bible's in the pews. In my protestant experience, when we go to church we bring our own Bibles or have the King James in the pew. We can listen to the pastor while we follow along many different verses he'll call out and relate his sermon to. In Mass, the OT is read and there is no talk afterwards--that would make the Mass pretty long. It's done only after the gospel. (and for the life of me, I can't think of the word when the priest preaches at the pulpit).

It's not wrong, it's different.

SaintMatthew said:

Aren't Catholics taught not to read the Bible?

"THIS CHERISHED MYTH is false!.The Church highly encourages personal Scripture reading; at the same time urges the faithful to approach the Bible within the framework of Catholic tradition, and to avoid excessive individualism of interpretation.

seventy years before Vatican II Pope Leo XIII wrote: Let all...understand how deeply the sacred books should be esteemed and with what eagerness and reverence they should approach this great arsenal of heavenly arms...As St. Jerome says, "to be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Christ"..."A man who is well grounded in the testimonies of the Scripture is the bulwark of the Church."

So catholics are extremely encouraged and even required to read their Bible

In 1943 Pope Pius XII reminded the Church--citing his predecessor Benedict XV--to read Scripture "piously"and "meditate on it constantly," for the Bible is that "by which the spiritual life is nourished unto perfection." (Divino Afflante Spiritu)

The Church didnt forbade vernacular translation and people are misinformed about why Bibles were chained up. The most treasured books were those that were chained up in the libraries so that the would not be stolen precisely because they were so valued and treasured and it took so much time to produce a copy.

Vernacular Bible translations in fact became very common by the Middle Ages, as Latin ceased to be the language of the people. Scores of Church-approved translations in many European vernacular languages appeared in the late fifteenth century alone. When the Church did oppose certain bad vernacular translations, it was out of a desire to protect the integrity of Scripture. Not everyone who makes a copy of the Bible is infallible at doing so (meaning they have made mistakes)

Doesnt the Catholic Church control the interpretation of the Bible so tightly that you cant have a personal opinion about what you read?

This is another myth.
Scripture is deep and rich in meaning; never has the Catholic Church claimed to provide a prepackaged interpretation of every verse, binding on all believers to accept.

In fact the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia article "Biblical Exegesis" states about "Defined Texts" : The catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of textswhich the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle."

The council of Trent listed only seven biblical passages that were not allowed to be interpreted in a certain way: 1) Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24(the Eucharist), 2)John 3:5 (Baptism), 3) Matt 18:18, John 20:22-23 (priesthood), 4)Romans 5:12 (original sin); and 5) James 6:14 (annointing of the sick). Even in those cases, interpretations that did not contradict Catholic dogma were allowed.

Most protestant denominations subject their members to restrictions on how to interpret Scripture.

The Catholic Student of Scripture is "bound" by very little.

"To the possession by worthy lay men of licensed translations the Church was never opposed; but to place such a weapon as an English Bible in the hands of men who had no regard for authority, and who would use it without being instructed how to use it properly, was dangerous not only to the souls of those who read, but to the peace and order of the Church."
James Gairdner (Protestant Church Historian)"
Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat

Click to expand...

Hay85 said:

I don't understand where the anti-catholic sentiment, (very widespread in Anglo-Saxons countries) comes from.

I think it exclusively deals with a linguistic\cultural rejection. People think that Catholicism is related to the Romance languages speaking world. which is absolutely not true, given that there are lots of Catholic countries in the Slavic world (Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, etc) who never use Latin or any Romance language.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Why would using romance languages be a problem?

Hay85 said:

another misconception: they think that Catholicism is the Vatican. False- the Pope is just the bishop of Rome. The Archbishop of Sidney (to give an example) is autonomous in his diocese.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I never knew that. I thought the Roman Catholic Church main point (kind of like Mecca) was the Basilica at the Vatican. Which, in what are saying, would make anti-catholics bash the Catholic Church for a lot of things the Vatican has done.

Hay85 said:

I use a English Bible myself, because English is a language that explains concepts in a better way than my native language does.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I used to cross-reference New American with New Living Translation. When we received our new polished Bibles at the RCIA and had it blessed with Holy Water, I sometimes used that but since the pages are thing, I set it aside so I won't mess it up.

I wonder why my reply never showed up. I was recalling the woman's experience at the retreat. She was told she was not allowed to read her Bible. Someone else said that normally the priests are allowed to read the Bible as in the past people were illiterate so they relied on the priest, images, and statues to depict the teachings of Christ.

Now, she is reading the Bible. We actually never used the Bible at the retreat either. I don't know if they still do the things they did when the lady was in Church since it was int he 60s/70s.

We actually never even gone over the Bible in RCIA. We talked about the sacraments, God's grace, had worships with the Parish priests, and silent prayer time though. However, we did get our own Bible from the Church. I think the Churches are slowly bringing in the Bible into the Church. I mean, we didn't have a parish library until almost recently.

The emphasis on the Bible is very different in protestant Churches than in Catholic ones. Anyone can read their Bible in private...now that people can read.

SaintMatthew said:

Aren't Catholics taught not to read the Bible?

"THIS CHERISHED MYTH is false!.The Church highly encourages personal Scripture reading; at the same time urges the faithful to approach the Bible within the framework of Catholic tradition, and to avoid excessive individualism of interpretation.

seventy years before Vatican II Pope Leo XIII wrote: Let all...understand how deeply the sacred books should be esteemed and with what eagerness and reverence they should approach this great arsenal of heavenly arms...As St. Jerome says, "to be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Christ"..."A man who is well grounded in the testimonies of the Scripture is the bulwark of the Church."

So catholics are extremely encouraged and even required to read their Bible

In 1943 Pope Pius XII reminded the Church--citing his predecessor Benedict XV--to read Scripture "piously"and "meditate on it constantly," for the Bible is that "by which the spiritual life is nourished unto perfection." (Divino Afflante Spiritu)

The Church didnt forbade vernacular translation and people are misinformed about why Bibles were chained up. The most treasured books were those that were chained up in the libraries so that the would not be stolen precisely because they were so valued and treasured and it took so much time to produce a copy.

Vernacular Bible translations in fact became very common by the Middle Ages, as Latin ceased to be the language of the people. Scores of Church-approved translations in many European vernacular languages appeared in the late fifteenth century alone. When the Church did oppose certain bad vernacular translations, it was out of a desire to protect the integrity of Scripture. Not everyone who makes a copy of the Bible is infallible at doing so (meaning they have made mistakes)

Doesnt the Catholic Church control the interpretation of the Bible so tightly that you cant have a personal opinion about what you read?

This is another myth.
Scripture is deep and rich in meaning; never has the Catholic Church claimed to provide a prepackaged interpretation of every verse, binding on all believers to accept.

In fact the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia article "Biblical Exegesis" states about "Defined Texts" : The catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of textswhich the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle."

The council of Trent listed only seven biblical passages that were not allowed to be interpreted in a certain way: 1) Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24(the Eucharist), 2)John 3:5 (Baptism), 3) Matt 18:18, John 20:22-23 (priesthood), 4)Romans 5:12 (original sin); and 5) James 6:14 (annointing of the sick). Even in those cases, interpretations that did not contradict Catholic dogma were allowed.

Most protestant denominations subject their members to restrictions on how to interpret Scripture.

The Catholic Student of Scripture is "bound" by very little.

"To the possession by worthy lay men of licensed translations the Church was never opposed; but to place such a weapon as an English Bible in the hands of men who had no regard for authority, and who would use it without being instructed how to use it properly, was dangerous not only to the souls of those who read, but to the peace and order of the Church."
James Gairdner (Protestant Church Historian)"
Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat

Click to expand...

Spiny Norman said:

I didn't have a positive experience of Roman Catholicism when I was growing up, but that was a long time ago now. I can't really comment on whether it is any better now, it might be just that the PR has just improved.

Click to expand...

It is a little better depending on where you are. I went to one parish and the priest yelled at me when I asked if he could talk and look at me rather than fall asleep during confession. At another confession in New York, the priest said "the devil made you do it!" I never got that where I live. Priests here are very warm and friendly. Churches here are different than in, say DC (US). The emphasis on tradition is more relaxed where I live while you can see it more there in DC parishes. I went to a Latin Mass once in MD... now that brought out a lot of history of the Church--both good and bad--and it washed over me to where I had to re-evaluate how my relationship with the Church will still be.

I know everyone's experience is private. I guess hearing about testimonies of people's good and/or bad experiences may be enlightening.. given no one attacks each other.

Went catholic schools.
The high school was all male and very strict.
But I lean to discipline....it didn't bother me.

Almost became a priest.
Lived next door to the cathedral.

Dealing directly with the priests and monsignors.....I noticed a tendency to use quotes in manner and reason for which they are not intended.
As if the authority of person and robe was more important.

Situation and circumstance....I continued reading scripture and stopped hanging about the cathedral.
Probably a good thing, I never took the collar for myself.

I do not believe in blind faith.

I have reason for my beliefs. I would stand against anyone who quotes as if the scripture is for his own authority.
The priest hood would have not been a life time work for me.

Are you still a practicing Catholic (didn't take your collar off ) or Catholic leanings but more scripture oriented? I was told there is a lot of discipline in Catholic schools. In your experience, did you all learn from the Bible or from the Catechism?

Thief said:

Went catholic schools.
The high school was all male and very strict.
But I lean to discipline....it didn't bother me.

Almost became a priest.
Lived next door to the cathedral.

Dealing directly with the priests and monsignors.....I noticed a tendency to use quotes in manner and reason for which they are not intended.
As if the authority of person and robe was more important.

Situation and circumstance....I continued reading scripture and stopped hanging about the cathedral.
Probably a good things I never took the collar for myself.

I do not believe in blind faith.

I have reason for my beliefs. I would stand against anyone who quotes as if the scripture is for his own authority.
The priest hood would have not been a life time work for me.

Click to expand...

Carlita said:

Are you still a practicing Catholic (didn't take your collar off ) or Catholic leanings but more scripture oriented? I was told there is a lot of discipline in Catholic schools. In your experience, did you all learn from the Bible or from the Catechism?

Click to expand...

The catechism was 'officially' dropped when I was in 6th grade.
The announcement was a disappoint to some.
They were hard core about recitals.

I was relieved. I do not believe recitals are appropriate.
Dogma is sooooo unproven.
At best they are indication of having been told .....and you should know better.
But what do you really know?
I do not see that recital of 6000 and 6 verses to be beneficial.

Far easier and more effective...the hearing of one parable.

Like a seed...ponder and nourish the thought....and it will take root in your heart.

As for the collar....the seminary found two other candidates for the position offered.
Two people holier than me.

oh well.....

Aaw. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I know I always had put scripture with Church so... kinda went hand in hand; so hearing the readings was a replay of what I already read.

Since I don't practice, I guess it doesn't much matter likewise.

Thief said:

The catechism was 'officially' dropped when I was in 6th grade.
The announcement was a disappoint to some.
They were hard core about recitals.

I was relieved. I do not believe recitals are appropriate.
Dogma is sooooo unproven.
At best they are indication of having been told .....and you should know better.
But what do you really know?
I do not see that recital of 6000 and 6 verses to be beneficial.

Far easier and more effective...the hearing of one parable.

Like a seed...ponder and nourish the thought....and it will take root in your heart.

As for the collar....the seminary found two other candidates for the position offered.
Two people holier than me.

oh well.....

Click to expand...