• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Catholic Church's Position on the Bible

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
The Bible is Unclear

The very nature of the Bible ought to prove to any thinking man the impossibility of its being the one safe method to find out what the Saviour taught.
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 67]

The Bible does not pretend to be a formulary of belief, as is a creed or a catechism. There is nowhere in the New Testament a clear, methodical statement of the teaching of Christ.
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 66]

That the text of the Bible is not clear and conclusive on many points of doctrine on which it does treat, is efficiently proved by the very discordances of those who attempt to deduce doctrine from it without any other aid.
[George M. Searle, Plain Facts, Paulist Press, New York, page 23]

Again, it has ever been practically impossible for men, generally to find out Christ from the Bible only.
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 70]

The Bible was not intended to be a textbook of the Christian religion.
[John Francis Knoll, Catholic Facts, Our Sunday Visitor Press, Huntington, Indiana, 1927, page 50]

For the Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Ghost, it contains things of the deepest importance, which in many instances are very difficult and obscure. To understand and explain such things there is always required the 'coming' of the same Holy Spirit.
[Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, page 277]

Undoubtedly your reason would never find out such a mystery [the doctrine of the Trinity], which even when known by revelation is still utterly beyond the comprehension of man.
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 38]

Second, ... a competent religious guide must be clear and intelligible to all, so that everyone may fully understand the true meaning of the instructions it contains. Is the Bible a book intelligible to all? Far from it; it is full of obscurities and difficulties not only for the illiterate, but even for the learned.
[The Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, 1917, page 70]


Modern Writings are Preferred Over the Bible

In other spiritual books the truths of the Bible are presented more fully, and in a more modern and familiar style, so that we can hardly wonder that they are, as a rule preferred; and that though Catholic families generally have a Bible, it is more venerated than read.
[George M. Searle, Plain Facts, Paulist Press, New York, page 154]


The Bible is Not Complete

Akin to these divine laws is the purely ecclesiastical law or law of the Church. Christ sent forth His Church clothed with His own and His Father's authority ... To enable her to carry out this divine plan she makes laws, laws purely ecclesiastical, but laws that have the same binding force as the divine laws themselves ... For Catholics, therefore, as far as obligations are concerned there is no practical difference between God's law and the law of the Church.
[John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Benziger Brothers, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, 1904, page 26]

It is that of having for a fundamental authority in all ages, for a means of deciding all doubtful points, not a book alone, or a book with authorized interpreters, but simply authorized interpreters of the faith such as the Apostles were, with a book perhaps to help them, but still not absolutely needing that book for the discharge of their office any more than the Apostles did for theirs.
[George M. Searle, Plain Facts, Paulist Press, New York, page 33]

They [the Apostles] consigned to unwritten tradition many revealed truths and thus made the Church from the beginning independent of their writings.
[B. J. Spaulding, History of the Church of God, Schwarze, Kirwin and Fauss, New York, 1883, page 253

Of course if one is to take nothing as belonging to the Christian faith but what is plainly or unquestionably stated in the Bible, on will not believe or accept it [the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception].
[George M. Searle, Plain Facts, Paulist Press, New York, page 85]

By what right do you teach doctrines not found in the Bible?
Because the origin of our faith is not in the Bible alone, but the Church which gives us both the written and the unwritten word.
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 75]

Is it not strange that if Christianity were to be learned from the Bible only, that Christ himself never wrote a line or ever commanded his apostles to write; for their divine commission was not to write but to preach the gospel ... Again, it has ever been practically impossible for men, generally, to find out Christ from the Bible only.
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 70]


The Bible is a Dead Letter

The Scripture indeed is a divine book but it is a dead letter, which has to be explained, and cannot exercise the action which the preacher can obtain.
[Our Priesthood, page 155]

A dead and speechless book.
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 67]


Even Catholic Traditions are Sometimes Wrong

The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect.
[Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, page 295]


The Writers of the Bible Didn't Know They were Inspired

The Apostolic office implies doctrinal infallibility, but not necessarily the positive divine assistance in the act of writing which constitutes inspiration.
[Question Box, 1929 edition, page 67]

The sacred writers may have been unaware of the fact of their inspiration.
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 80]


Access to a Bible in Everyday Language is Dangerous

At Toledo, a young woman who had gained a reputation of virtue, petitioned to be admitted to the habit, but added: 'I will bring with me my Bible.' 'What!' said the Saint [Teresa], 'Your Bible? Do not come to us. We are poor women who know nothing but to spin, and to do what we are bid.' By what word she discovered in the postulant an inclination to vanity, and dangerous curiousity and wrangling; and the extravagances into which the woman afterwards fell, justified her discernment and penetration.
[Butlers, Lives of the Saints, Volume 10, page 366]

The reformation produced indeed an exaggerated individualism, which by declaring every man equally competent to find out the doctrine of the Saviour from his own private reading of the Scriptures, has led millions to the utter denial of Christ.
[Question Box, 1913 edition, page 131]

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary.
[Fourth rule on prohibited books, Council of Trent, 1583]

As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the Holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused, owing to human temerity: all versions in the vernacular, even by Catholics, are altogether prohibited unlesss approved by the Holy See, or published, under the vigilant care of the bishops, with annotations taken from the Fathers of the Church and learned Catholic writers.
[Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, pages 412-413]

An enraged Pope Paul V, in 1606, told the Venetian ambassador, "Do you not know that so much reading of Scripture ruins the Catholic religion?"
[The Reformation: A History by Diarmaid MacCulloch, 1972]

More than this, parts of the Bible are evidently unsuited to the very young or to the ignorant, and hence Clement XI condemned the proposition that the reading of the Scriptures is for all. These principles are fixed and invariable but the discipline of the Church with regard to the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue has varied with varying circumstances. In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people ... New dangers came in during the Middle Ages ... To meet these evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229 ) and Terragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scriptures unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.
[Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1887, page 82]
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
The Bible is Unclear
So, where do we go given from here if what you say is mostly true.

I personally look at evidence (paranormal events) and listen to modern people I believe are inspired or highly intelligent to form my beliefs.
 

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
So, where do we go given from here if what you say is mostly true.

I personally look at evidence (paranormal events) and listen to modern people I believe are inspired or highly intelligent to form my beliefs.

What I said? This is all from Catholic sources. None of this has my own commentary. Why don't you ask the Church that question? The purpose of me posting this was to reveal that Catholicism is not a Biblical religion.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
What I said? This is all from Catholic sources. None of this has my own commentary. Why don't you ask the Church that question? The purpose of me posting this was to reveal that Catholicism is not a Biblical religion.

I had to reply just this once since I told myself I wouldnt get involved with christian related debates.

Catholicism is not a Bible religion. It is first based on tradition (what you posted) and that tradition, according to the Church, is based on the Bible.

Some of those sources you have I wouldnt considder a resource for debate. Papal Encylicals, the Catechism, and their Bible is a good start.

-The Bible was not intended to be a textbook of the Christian religion.
[John Francis Knoll, Catholic Facts, Our Sunday Visitor Press, Huntington, Indiana, 1927, page 50]

I dont see how this proves your statement. The Bible is not intented to be a text book. Most Christian denominations would agree

-By what right do you teach doctrines not found in the Bible?
-Because the origin of our faith is not in the Bible alone, but the Church which gives us both the written and the unwritten word. [Question Box, 1913 edition, page 75]

Catholicism isnt a Sola Scriptura religion. It depends on both the Bible and Sacred Tradition. Also, all religions originally were based on oral tradition. Christianity is no exception.

The best way to prove your argument is to use their Bible. If their tradition wasnt based on the Bible, why would they have one for themselves?
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I think I trust the Bible more than a bunch of old men sitting around making decisions about what is correct or not.
Yet you apparently put the same faith in the men who have told you what is in the Bible to begin with.

@MountainPine
I will address your points in order.

The very nature of the Bible ought to prove to any thinking man the impossibility of its being the one safe method to find out what the Saviour taught.
If I may ask, what is your objection to this statement? Is it that it does not lift the Bible to the realm of God's direct grace (my answer if someone asked what is the one safe method to know God's teachings)?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
One basic Catholic position is that no teaching that counters what is in the Bible can be part of Canon Law. Also, Jesus claims that the church will be guided to the end of times, and since Protestant churches didn't exist back then, this couldn't obviously include them.

BTW, I am neither a Catholic nor a Christian, but I have long felt that an attack on another denomination's or religion's theology is short-sighted because most basic religious beliefs are unfalsifiable.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I was raised Catholic, and attended Catechism school every week when I was a child. And you are absolutely right: all that you've said is totally true. I've never analyzed my Catholic education thoroughly, but thanks to your attentive analysis, I'm realizing that my strong criticism on the Bible is the result of an authentic Catholic upbringing.
We were taught that the Bible is supposed to be "venerated more than read" (I am quoting your quotation).
I am realizing that it's my Catholic upbringing that induced me to develop a very strict sense of criticism on the New Testament. This allowed me to criticize Saint Paul and his doctrine, and to embrace Pelagianism, even if I still respect the Catholic Church, despite its flaws.

One basic Catholic position is that no teaching that counters what is in the Bible can be part of Canon Law. Also, Jesus claims that the church will be guided to the end of times, and since Protestant churches didn't exist back then, this couldn't obviously include them.
To be honest, I am astonished to see that a Jewish person is very informed about Jesus's sentences and his message. As a Christian, I am really, really honored and grateful. :)(And I agree with you, obviously).
 

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
I had to reply just this once since I told myself I wouldnt get involved with christian related debates.

Catholicism is not a Bible religion. It is first based on tradition (what you posted) and that tradition, according to the Church, is based on the Bible.

Right, according to the Church. Of course the Church isn't going to speak the truth. Their traditions are based on Roman paganism, such as the veneration of Mary taken after the worship of Magna Mater, the Eucharist being a Mithraic rite, the monstrance being a symbol for the sun (sun worship, on Sunday), etc.


-The Bible was not intended to be a textbook of the Christian religion.
[John Francis Knoll, Catholic Facts, Our Sunday Visitor Press, Huntington, Indiana, 1927, page 50]

I don't see how this proves your statement. The Bible is not intended to be a text book. Most Christian denominations would agree.

Most Christian denominations carry after the Church. The reason why the Catholics believe that for an excuse not to read the Bible and do what its says, hence the other quotes from the OP.

-By what right do you teach doctrines not found in the Bible?
-Because the origin of our faith is not in the Bible alone, but the Church which gives us both the written and the unwritten word. [Question Box, 1913 edition, page 75]

Catholicism isn't a Sola Scriptura religion. It depends on both the Bible and Sacred Tradition. Also, all religions originally were based on oral tradition. Christianity is no exception.

The best way to prove your argument is to use their Bible. If their tradition wasn't based on the Bible, why would they have one for themselves?

...because the Church wants people to think that their tradition is based on the Bible. They twist scripture to make it fit Catholic dogma.

Yet you apparently put the same faith in the men who have told you what is in the Bible to begin with.

Actually the Church kept the masses asleep to what was in the Bible until the Reformation. Before the Reformation, the only Bible available in Europe was the Latin Vulgate (apart from the Wycliffe), which only the clergy and the wealthy class whom were loyal to the Church had access to. The Bible didn't even begin to be revealed until Tyndale made copies of it in English and attempted to spread it, in which he was killed for it and all vernacular Bibles were burned. The Church didn't want people interpreting the Bible for themselves and turning away from the Church.


If I may ask, what is your objection to this statement? Is it that it does not lift the Bible to the realm of God's direct grace (my answer if someone asked what is the one safe method to know God's teachings)?

Why wouldn't the Bible be a safe method to learn what the Savior taught? That is what the Gospels are. The Catholic Church would rather tell you what the Bible says via their tradition rather than encourage you for learning yourself.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Right, according to the Church. Of course the Church isn't going to speak the truth. Their traditions are based on Roman paganism, such as the veneration of Mary taken after the worship of Magna Mater, the Eucharist being a Mithraic rite, the monstrance being a symbol for the sun (sun worship, on Sunday), etc.




Most Christian denominations carry after the Church. The reason why the Catholics believe that for an excuse not to read the Bible and do what its says, hence the other quotes from the OP.



...because the Church wants people to think that their tradition is based on the Bible. They twist scripture to make it fit Catholic dogma.



Actually the Church kept the masses asleep to what was in the Bible until the Reformation. Before the Reformation, the only Bible available in Europe was the Latin Vulgate (apart from the Wycliffe), which only the clergy and the wealthy class whom were loyal to the Church had access to. The Bible didn't even begin to be revealed until Tyndale made copies of it in English and attempted to spread it, in which he was killed for it and all vernacular Bibles were burned. The Church didn't want people interpreting the Bible for themselves and turning away from the Church.




Why wouldn't the Bible be a safe method to learn what the Savior taught? That is what the Gospels are. The Catholic Church would rather tell you what the Bible says via their tradition rather than encourage you for learning yourself.

Im wont judge if you are right or wrong. I know we shoulsnt judge books by their covers, and going by your religious titles why do you care one way or another what the Church teaches?

Roman Catholicism had bad history. It also has good history. It is a bad experience for many. It is a good experience for others.

I choose to look to the latters. My experiences in the Church did not give me any impression of the common debates said against the Church (praying to statues; to the dead; etc). What I experienced was a union with god through through the body of christ.

The Eucharist, regardless the history, is the core of the Church with which all churches celebrate. All christian churches who have communion do so (as said by priests) in the memory of christ. The bread is life, the wine sacrifice. To an outsider its just history. To an insider..a Catholic... it is not based on history and roman paganism. They have an intimate relationshipnwith Christ.

Putting down the Eucharist is putting down a Catholics relationship with christ. History cannot stain the relationship a Catholic has with the church. It is personal.

Please respect that.

That said, please read the Catholic Bible and King James Bible. That is the closest you will get to Catholic teachings.

Belittling the Church is belittling the Bible. Its saying they are going against their own Bible. Its not a sola scriptura faith.

Why is this even important to you? Its the experience thats the key not what you read in a book.
 

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
I'm not belittling anybody. All I said is that the Catholic Eucharist is based on a Roman Mithraic rite. I'm not bashing Catholics. I think you need to chill out.
 
Top