Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?

Come on DHK, they did not have bibles as we know of them today in the days of Paul. All they had were a few letters written to them to go off of and oral tradition that Paul told them to hold fast to. Which now leads me to my question. You mention those leaders that would “rise to the top.” Do you believe that the early church fathers who were those that rose to the top as leaders of the church, were more likely to have understood the teachings of the apostles correctly, than those Protestant reformers who didn’t come on the scene until 13 centuries later?

Furthermore, didn’t Jesus send out more than just John and Peter during the commission? Do you believe that the other apostles didn’t start up churches and likewise written letters and passed along oral tradition?

 

Name one denomination that allows their congregation to interpret scripture as they see fit. That is exactly why we have different denominations. People tend to have different views when they interpret scripture.

My church, IFB, teaches and interpret scripture radically different that that of your charismatic denomination. You won’t get away with speaking in tongues and disturbing the service very often before you are pulled to the side and basically told you are in error and the way WE interpret scripture is right and YOU are wrong.

 

Name one denomination that allows their congregation to interpret scripture as they see fit. That is exactly why we have different denominations. People tend to have different views when they interpret scripture.

My church, IFB, teaches and interpret scripture radically different that that of your charismatic denomination. You won’t get away with speaking in tongues and disturbing the service very often before you are pulled to the side and basically told you are in error and the way WE interpret scripture is right and YOU are wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]I have a Sunday School teacher teaching the Adult Bible class, and teaching through the book of Hebrews. He has a completely different view on the Book of Hebrews than I do. I disagree with much of what he says. But we agree to disagree, and he teaches any way. That is soul liberty. It is sola scriptura.
DHK

 

Greetings,

I haven't read the replies yet, only the initial post. I am a priest: I tell my parishioners to read scriptures constantly. AT every mass we read an OT passage, a psalm, a New Test passage and a gospel passage. I often encourage the people to go read the entire chapter of the passage or even the entire book. this will add to the preaching I do at mass.
1. We have a bible study that looks at the weekend readings and study those led by our Religious Education minister. This normally had 20 or so people.

2. We have a woman's bible study that is currently going through 1 corinthians verse by verse. They use a study guide to help them. there are about 15 women in this.

3. We have a men study at the same time, but the men prefer watching videos and educational programs on the bible. They will stop them and have discussion. There are about 10 men in this.l

4. There is a Teen Bible study on Friday nights, and we have slowly been going through the Gospel of John for about 1 1/2 years know. VERY indepth and about 2 hours ever time we get together. The numbers vary from 12 to 25. Lots happens on Friday nights.

5. I also encourage a prayer called "Liturgy of the Hours". We have about 50 or so people doing this in the parish every day. This prayer consists of praying 3 psalms in the morning and 3 psalms in the Evening along with the Our Father and petitions. In the morning they also read the Canticle of Zachariah from Luke, and in the evening the Canticle of Mary from Luke. It is great to have them read the psalms.

I don't understand where people get the idea that catholics are not encouraged to read the bible. It is a great thing. Not to mention the fact that we read scripture out loud at all our services.

As far as not carrying bibles to Mass: We have the readings for the mass in missalettes, in our hymnals, and we Actually read the passages OUT Loud so everyone can hear them. Why would you have to bring a bible?

peace

 

Greetings,

Another thing we do in our parish. We give a Bible to every child in 6th grade and have them bring the bible with them to religion class so they can put notes in it. Before that time we have bibles for the kids to use here. Scriptures are a main part of our religious Education program.

peace

 

Greetings,

Another thing we do: All this week we have VACATION Bible School. Our school is filled with kids singing and dancing. First day was about gideon. They know Gideon well. Second day was about Daniel and the lions den. Today was about Nebuchanezzar, tommorrow is the Jesus and the empty tomb and the last day is Paul and Silas.
This is for small children, but they know the stories well when the leave every day. so even our little children get the scripture stories.

peace

 

Bump...
Two points I made below that I would like to see addressed.

Come on DHK, they did not have bibles as we know of them today in the days of Paul. All they had were a few letters written to them to go off of and oral tradition that Paul told them to hold fast to. Which now leads me to my question. You mention those leaders that would “rise to the top.” Do you believe that the early church fathers who were those that rose to the top as leaders of the church, were more likely to have understood the teachings of the apostles correctly, than those Protestant reformers who didn’t come on the scene until 13 centuries later?

Furthermore, didn’t Jesus send out more than just John and Peter during the commission? Do you believe that the other apostles didn’t start up churches and likewise written letters and passed along oral tradition?

 

Why bring a Bible?

To see if these things are so--like the saints at Berea who searched the scripture daily to see if what the preachers were saying was true. Seems the Bible was the rule of faith and practice in the Berea parish--maybe even the whole archdiocess.(sic)

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Doubting Thomas,

I said...

And you responded...

All christians turning to the scriptures alone...as God has admonished us to do...

"And they searched the scriptures daily, to see whether these things be so"

And I'll bet you believe that old worn out lie that has been proven false, that there are (((30,000!!!))) protestant denominations.

The reason you dont see is because you have been rendered unable to see by the hidious falsehoods of the Catholic Church.

Completly false. What is prevailant to a great extent in the evangelical world is the understanding of truth...with the accompanying fruit...and the rejection of error...and the accompanying freedom from it.

God bless,

Mike

 

john 6:63,

They had all the scriptures that were available at that time. They were in scroll form. Thats whey the Bereans could...

"Search the scriptures daily, to see wether these things be do"

They were admonished to do that then, and we are admonished to do that now.

Blessings,

Mike

 

john 6:63...

All of them do...if they are healthy fellowships. Any denomination that forbids their people to feed on the scriptures themselves...and interpret truth themselves...is a group headed down the road to cultism.

So what if we have different denominations? There is only one church. Not many. Its so important that we get a grip on that thruth.

The denominations are just like minded people gathering together. Its no problem whatsoever. And regarding different interpretations, God told us to expect it...read Romans 14...and he told us how to deal with it, and to not judge our brother if they see something differently...read more of Romans 14.

(Actually, my fellowship is nondenominational. But I get your point.)

On foundational teachings? Denying Christs divinity? Teaching hard core salvation by works? Denying justification through faith alone? Denying their people freedom regarding feeding on Gods truth?

Then one of these groups is a cult, or on the way to becoming one...(and its not mine )

If the disagreements are regarding non-foundational issues, then we are admonished by God to "let our brother be fully convinced in his own mind" and to "not judge your brother". That doesnt mean we cant contend for the truth, for "iron strenghens iron, and the two become stronger".

And they are free to that conviction, and a thoughtful charismatic or pentecostal will refrain from employing that gift while there out of courtesy to them.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Which truth? Which error? The Calvinist truth? The arminian truth? Dispensationalism? Covenantalism? Etc? How do you tell which is truth and which is error? All these positions can be argued from Scripture and they are mutually incompatible; it is not the case, as you argue, that one provides a check on the other - they are diametrically opposed.

Re the Bereans - all they had was the OT in LXX form which would have included the Apocrypha. Are you seriously arguing that this verse proves SS, because if you are then the OT LXX is the Scriptura concerned, and you should not even be using the NT!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt Black,

Gods truth.

Anything that is not Gods truth.

Sometimes.

Sometimes

Sometimes.

Sometimes.

There is truth to be found in all of those teachings. They are not in the least in any kind of substantial disagreement. Some "specific* conclusions found in those teaching are different than in the others, but God adresses that. He instructs us to "let our brother be fully convinced in his own mind".

I personally have been blessed many many times by teaching from all of those different slants on truth, even though I agree the most fully with one of them. (I wont say which one )

By studying and searching the scriptures and trusting God to open my understanding as He sees fit.

Totally false. I personally have been greatly blessed by good teaching from all of those camps. They are in agreement regarding many mnay many things, and most importantly foundational things. (or a false group is identified.)

Complete falsehood. Someone has lied to you.(I wonder who?) All of us turning to Gods truth standard is Gods "checks and balances" system.

For proof all one needs to do is take a look at the various disaster areas that reject that truth...

Jehovahs Wittneses
Mormons
Catholicicsm
Eastern Orthodox
David Koresh
Jim Jones.
Christian Science(Mary Baker Eddy)

Not only that verse, but the hundreds of others that prove beyond any doubt that Gods will is that we turn to the scriptures alone as our truth standard to judge all things against.

Total nonsense. I find it stunning that when you were told that you believed it. Its utter nonsense.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Matt, Where do you get this garbage from? Who has revised history for you, that you have so gullibly accepted it? Can I guess?

Here are a couple of facts that you should know that will make things quite evident:
#1. The Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew into the Greek about 250 B.C. Copies of this authoritative edition accepted by the Jews, and quoted by Christ would have been the one and only Septuagint that would have been used at that time.

#2. Yes, there in time came to be a Septuagint that included the Apocrypha--no doubt about it.

#3. When did it come Matt? Some of the books of the Apocrypha were not written until well after the time of Christ. So did the Bereans use the Apocrypha?? What say ye? One of those books was not written until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It was not written in that date, but well after that date. So these story books that were not even officially part of the Catholic Bible until 1546, were always rejected by all other groups of Christians and Jews alike, were never part of the canon to begin with. Why do you even suggest that the Bereans used them??
DHK

 

Which books of the "Apocrypha" (in the LXX) were written after the time of Christ? Can you be more specific, because all of the Deuterocanonicals were written before Christ.

 

That is utter nonsense along the lines of those who suggest that the many world's religions are different paths to the same truth.

Actually, they represent mutually contradictory conclusions, so yes, there is substantial disagreement. I'm truly stunned at such naive relativism.

That has nothing to do with contradictory theological positions. That has to do with eating and drinking. There is only one faith, not many contraditory versions of it. I'm stunned that you can't grasp the difference.

 

II Esdras in particular was written well after the time of Christ. " To this original, composed by an unknown Jew, probably near the end of the first century A.D., and later translated into Greek.. The Jewish original offers its apocalyptic prospects as an answer to the theodicy problem, acutley posed for Judaism by the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, The Christian addition assigns the casting off of Israel in favor of the Gentiles to Israel's apostasy." (Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney)

It reflects back to the events of the destruction of the Temple. It was written near the end of the first century. This book alone shows the fraudulent nature of the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon.
DHK

 

Doubting Thomas,

I said...

And you, unbelievably, said...

Nice try. Nice diversionary attempt. Obviously my post has struck a nerve. I'm going to hope that thats a good thing in this case.

But it wont work.

Me...

You...

The disagreements are regarding some conclusions having to do with some specific elements of each view. But those who hold to all of those views would be in complete agreement regarding multitudes upon multitudes upon multiplied multitudes of other areas of christian thought and biblical teaching.

Me...

You...

Yes it does.

Which were doctrinal "hot button" topics of that day.

Have you forgotten that the meat in the market had been offered to DEMONS before it was put on the market? Other issues brought up in some of these passages are keeping sabbaths days and religious festivals.

Those were examples...from that day and age...of theological and doctrinal views that people held to. And its clear that Gods view is that its no big deal at all...UNLESS we become mean spirited, condemning and sectarian regarding those who hold a different view. And we do sometimes get that way. THAT is a problem...NOT brothers and sisters having different convictions.

If we believe God of course, rather than men, for God tells us...

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind...who are you to judge anothers servant?"

The Catholic Church, in contrast to God, says...

"NO!!!...you have no business being fully convinced in your own mind unless you believe EXACTLY WHAT WE TELL YOU you must believe!

Exactly as the Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons tell their people.

Absolutly...and if you believe that, and if you are Catholic, you need to flee Catholicism like the plague.

The ONE FAITH is the scriptural one, not unscriptural ones like Catholicism, Jehovahs Witnesses or Mormonism.

Mike

 

So my wife, my brother and myself all read a passage of scripture. We all tell each other that we prayed and felt the Holy Spirit has led us to our own interpretations. We reveal to each other our respective interpretations and all three are different. We argue or discuss, that we are the one with the correct interpretation because the Holy Spirit led us.

My understanding (and any Catholic please correct me if I am wrong) is that when this happens in the Catholic Church, this discrepancy between interpretations is discussed at a council and a consensus is reached after a thorough such of the scriptures and that becomes the Churches stance.

 

But that particular "II Esdras" was not in the LXX nor has it ever been part of the RCC's Canon or the Orthodox Canon (since it wasn't in the LXX). What I was asking for was specific examples of Deuterocanonical books from the LXX that were written before the time of Christ? (Hint: there aren't any.)