Why don't Catholics read the Bible?

BilliardsBall · May 17, 2018

metis said:
I want to return to this because what you did was to push a false paradigm, and then you had a chance to correct it but instead you just diverted attention into something that was not even being discussed.

So, with the above, were you wrong or were you just being disingenuous?

Huh?!

When a Catholic adherent, which you are not, approaches a typical priest to push salvation by faith, they get push back and "I know because I took vows and went to seminary and God put me here to interpret (and even read) the Bible on your behalf," the very priestcraft that ushered in the Reformation.

The Roman "church" is yet to rescind their centuries-old statements that salvation via faith alone is anathema and heresy. Evangelicals are disallowed from communion because they are heretics.

I doubt if you have spoken to priests to emphasize salvation by faith as I have, and as few Catholics have. Don't question ME, question the priests.

BilliardsBall · May 17, 2018

metis said:
Better yet, let me quote the Bible itself, BB:

James 2[14]
What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
[15] If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
[16] and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
[17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
[18]But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
[19] You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder.
[20] Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
[22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
[23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.
[24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
[25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
[26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Luke 6[46]"Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?

Matthew 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Hebrews 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to Go

Colossians 3:23-24 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.

Romans 2:6-10 He will render to each one according to his works

2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

And there's more where these come from that are found right smack dab in your Bible, BB, so maybe go tell your pastor if he teaches you otherwise that maybe he really isn't teaching what the gospel actually says.

What you are conflating is when the gospel refers to "good works under the Law" because the early church gradually walked away from Jewish Law, which one should clearly be able to see in the gospels, in Acts, and in the epistles.

Where in the Bible does it teach that the Roman church should burn living people for believing differently, or bar born again Christians from communion now, for believing differently?

And by the way, defending bad Roman doctrine by quoting the scriptures without understanding is what the Catholic church does, still, my point to you for which you're responded to defend Catholic doctrine as a sometimes attendee--so don't tell me Roman priests don't believe this nonsense.

Salvation NOT by faith alone is the heresy IMO!

BilliardsBall · May 17, 2018

exchemist said:
How would this tell you whether priests discourage their flocks from reading the bible?

What occurs often is the priest tells the Catholic who has gone "Reformation crazy" to take it easy and that they may be reading the Bible too much, and that the priest will show them all they need for Hell, oops, I mean, salvation!

Try it!

Unveiled Artist · May 17, 2018

joe1776 said:
In the Protestant Reformation," led by Martin Luther. Luther and others were critical of certain doctrines and what they believed to be corruption within the Catholic church.

I think one of those doctrines was the prohibition on reading the Bible. I think the reasoning behind the prohibition was that it would result in a splitting of Christianity into factions based on different interpretations of scripture -- which is, obviously, what happened.

Why would they prohibit people from reading the bible but then hand us a bible after confirmation?

Unless you all are using history to define the catholic church today. Catholics came a long way and theyre still discredited. Maybe based on location rather than The Church itself.

Estro Felino · May 17, 2018

I think that being Catholic is something strongly cultural...it's part of your DNA. I still feel I am a Catholic...it's unwilling.

At the same time I really don't understand those people who didn't have the disgrace to be born in a Catholic country (as I did) and still they decide to convert to Catholicism.

It's a mystery to me,

metis · May 17, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
The Roman "church" is yet to rescind their centuries-old statements that salvation via faith alone is anathema and heresy.

No, the actual "heresy", if you had actually done your homework on early church history, is that salvation there is a requirement for followers of Jesus to actually believe in and do what Jesus taught if at all possible. It was Luther who came up with the concept that one only needs to follow a politically-correct belief in order to be saved.

The many verses I linked you to clearly show that, as do the teachings found in the Sermon On the Mount and Matthew 25, plus elsewhere, requires doing good works as mandated by Jesus. So, what you're looking for is a easy path to salvation, and yet Jesus taught the it's a "narrow path", thus quite difficult since there are so many potential possible pitfalls, like the Parable of the Sower & Seed teaches..

BilliardsBall said:
Evangelicals are disallowed from communion because they are heretics.

They are disallowed because they are not Catholic, not that they're "heretics". The Church teaches that they are "brothers & sisters in Christ", plus only God can judge-- not you nor I.

BilliardsBall said:
I doubt if you have spoken to priests to emphasize salvation by faith as I have, and as few Catholics have. Don't question ME, question the priests.

Well BB, besides going to Catholic churches for over 50 years, I also taught the RCIA program for adult converts interested in possibly coming into the church for 14 years, so I can categorically say that you simply do not know what you're talking about and that you are relying on anti-Catholic clap-trap, much like I was when I grew up in my fundamentalist Protestant church many moons ago.

exchemist · May 17, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
What occurs often is the priest tells the Catholic who has gone "Reformation crazy" to take it easy and that they may be reading the Bible too much, and that the priest will show them all they need for Hell, oops, I mean, salvation!

Try it!

I've never heard the term "Reformation crazy". I think you have made it up. This sounds like mad anti-Catholic rubbish, quite frankly. But then the "joke" about Hell confirms you are not someone with a serious contribution to offer. Useful to know: I shall call you "Balls" for short, I think.

But just for any other readers, I can state categorically that none of the parish priests we have had in my parish would ever talk like that to one of their parishioners. It is unthinkable.

exchemist · May 17, 2018

Unveiled Artist said:
Why would they prohibit people from reading the bihle but then hand us a bible after confirmation?

Unless you all are using history to define the catholic church today. Catholics came a long way and theyre still discredited. Maybe based on location rather than The Church itself.

That's a rather good point!

I think we have four bibles in our (not very) Catholic household, two of them in French (one from my French wife and one given to my son at his first communion by his French godmother.)

But our friend Balls doesn't have a serious contribution to make, as I expect you realise.

metis · May 17, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
Where in the Bible does it teach that the Roman church should burn living people for believing differently, or bar born again Christians from communion now, for believing differently?

And by the way, defending bad Roman doctrine by quoting the scriptures without understanding is what the Catholic church does, still, my point to you for which you're responded to defend Catholic doctrine as a sometimes attendee--so don't tell me Roman priests don't believe this nonsense.

Let me remind you of real church history that clearly shows that the CC was indeed at times being involved with events quite unChristian as were almost all other churches-- not that that excuses what the CC did. The Catholic church has admitted as such, but for all the years that I went to Protestant churches, I never heard a single apology. Not even one, BB.

This "discussion" started between you and I when you wrote this in a previous post: "Therefore, the priests discourage Catholics from Word study", whereas it was pointed out to you by a few of us here that this was not true. And then I challenged you to admit that you were wrong, and yet you have not done so. A person following the teachings of Jesus would admit their errors, BB, and yet you cannot bring yourself to do that. Why?

Instead, you double-down on making even more bigoted anti-Catholic posts that rather clearly are in error, so will you now admit that you have done that or will you let your ego get into the way again? Maybe check with your pastor and ask him whether stereotyping a group and making false accusations ("bearing false witness") is moral?

exchemist · May 17, 2018

metis said:
No, the actual "heresy", if you had actually done your homework on early church history, is that salvation there is a requirement for followers of Jesus to actually believe in and do what Jesus taught if at all possible. It was Luther who came up with the concept that one only needs to follow a politically-correct belief in order to be saved.

The many verses I linked you to clearly show that, as do the teachings found in the Sermon On the Mount and Matthew 25, plus elsewhere, requires doing good works as mandated by Jesus. So, what you're looking for is a easy path to salvation, and yet Jesus taught the it's a "narrow path", thus quite difficult since there are so many potential possible pitfalls, like the Parable of the Sower & Seed teaches..

They are disallowed because they are not Catholic, not that they're "heretics". The Church teaches that they are "brothers & sisters in Christ", plus only God can judge-- not you nor I.

Well BB, besides going to Catholic churches for over 50 years, I also taught the RCIA program for adult converts interested in possibly coming into the church for 14 years, so I can categorically say that you simply do not know what you're talking about and that you are relying on anti-Catholic clap-trap, much like I was when I grew up in my fundamentalist Protestant church many moons ago.

Respect!

metis · May 17, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
What occurs often is the priest tells the Catholic who has gone "Reformation crazy" to take it easy and that they may be reading the Bible too much, and that the priest will show them all they need for Hell, oops, I mean, salvation!

In my 50 years of attending, I have never heard such a preposterous thing, nor have I ever heard or read any Catholic being told as such.

And your reference above ("for Hell") is so pathetically bizarre. Jesus said "judge ye not...", and yet you disregard what he taught on that.

It's easy to believe some things about Jesus, but it's much harder to believe in Jesus, thus taking "the narrow path".

exchemist · May 17, 2018

Luca85 said:
I think that being Catholic is something strongly cultural...it's part of your DNA. I still feel I am a Catholic...it's unwilling.

At the same time I really don't understand those people who didn't have the disgrace to be born in a Catholic country (as I did) and still they decide to convert to Catholicism.

It's a mystery to me,

My father was one. He told me once it was studying mediaeval history at university that aroused his interest. And then he got into the story of the recusants during the Catholic repression under Elizabeth I, which made him more interested. His father was a Methodist minister and I think he found Methodism rather narrow and sanctimonious. And at university he met my mother, a committed Anglican, but at the sacramental end of the spectrum. And somehow that led him to convert. What helped was taking instruction from a Jesuit priest, who was well-educated and liberal, as they tend to be.

But I agree there is a big cultural element to it. As there is to Judaism and Islam, too. But perhaps less with some of the Protestant denominations, as they seem to carry less weight of tradition (perhaps indeed deliberately making a point of not carrying "baggage" from the past).

joe1776 · May 17, 2018

Unveiled Artist said:
Why would they prohibit people from reading the bible but then hand us a bible after confirmation?

Unless you all are using history to define the catholic church today. Catholics came a long way and theyre still discredited. Maybe based on location rather than The Church itself.

My post obviously referred to one explanation I've read of the history of the prohibition. I don't know the church's current official position.

exchemist · May 17, 2018

joe1776 said:
My post obviously referred to one explanation I've read of the history of the prohibition. I don't know the church's current official position.

My understanding is there was a prohibition on unauthorised vernacular translations. This is rather different. There were a lot of different versions flying around once the printing press made copies so much easier to make and some of these were a bit contentious in places.

Even in Protestant England the "Authorised Version" was the only one allowed.

joe1776 · May 17, 2018

exchemist said:
My understanding is there was a prohibition on unauthorised vernacular translations. This is rather different. There were a lot of different versions flying around once the printing press made copies so much easier to make and some of these were a bit contentious in places.

Even in Protestant England the "Authorised Version" was the only one allowed.

You could be right, I don't even remember my source.

However, The logic supporting the prohibition -- that the reading of scripture would divide the original church into factions -- is unassailable. That, for me, makes what I read believable. Moreover, I don't see that it would necessarily be a corrupt policy if that was the church's motivation.

exchemist · May 17, 2018

joe1776 said:
You could be right, I don't even remember my source.

However, The logic supporting the prohibition -- that the reading of scripture would divide the original church into factions -- is unassailable. That, for me, makes what I read believable. Moreover, I don't see that it would necessarily be a corrupt policy if that was the church's motivation.

Well I'm not so sure. It seems to me that just reading the bible would not do that, unless people started constructing their own homespun theology and doctrine on the basis of what they read, rather than continuing to accept the teaching of the church.

To my mind, it was the conscious rejection of church teaching and, instead, going back to rebuild doctrine from the bible alone that caused the splits.

joe1776 · May 17, 2018

exchemist said:
Well I'm not so sure. It seems to me that just reading the bible would not do that, unless people started constructing their own homespun theology and doctrine on the basis of what they read, rather than continuing to accept the teaching of the church.

To my mind, it was the conscious rejection of church teaching and, instead, going back to rebuild doctrine from the bible alone that caused the splits.

More than 20,000 Protestant sects were formed by men reading their Bible and deciding on their own interpretation that the Catholic Church was being misled. So, doesn't that confirm that the original church would have been right if they foresaw that problem and hoped to prevent it by a prohibition against reading the Bible?

exchemist · May 17, 2018

joe1776 said:
More than 20,000 Protestant sects were formed by men reading their Bible and deciding on their own interpretation that the Catholic Church was being misled. So, doesn't that confirm that the original church would have been right if they foresaw that problem and hoped to prevent it by a prohibition against reading the Bible?

No they didn't do that in isolation. The various Protestant movements started with criticism of the abuses of the church and some of the doubtful and self-serving doctrines that had been added by degrees and decided to chuck them out, and go back to the bible to make a fresh start.

They did not start by just perusing the bible and thinking oh let's invent our own doctrines, out of thin air. For a regular Catholic bible reader - as opposed to one already seething with discontent - it would simply not have occurred to them to do that.

Anna Therese · May 17, 2018

Luca85 said:
I still believe you can't understand the Bible, unless you studied theology.

So, you believe a person who has reached the age of reason and knows how to read doesn'y have the ability to understand what he's reading?

exchemist · May 17, 2018

Anna Therese said:
So, you believe a person who has reached the age of reason and knows how to read doesn'y have the ability to understand what he's reading?

I don't think that's what he meant. If you ask a teenager to read Shakespeare, or a Dickens novel, he or she may need help from an English teacher to get the most out of it.

Why don't Catholics read the Bible?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Believer in free will

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Veteran Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member