Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?

The Catholics plus the Orthodox... at over a billion people I would hardly call that a minority...

 

It seems that protestant who want to reject certain doctrines are the ones who rewrote history.

In popular history the earliest known canon of old testament books is known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek by seventy (hence Septuagint, commonly abbreviated LXX) scholars for Alexander's great library in Egypt around the year 300 BC.

The Septuagint contains the Old Testament books shared by all Christians along with the Deuterocanonical books used by Catholics, traditional Protestants , and many Orthodox Churches.

"In the first century the Christian Bible had simply been the Old Testament (read in the Septuagint version). Authority resided in this scripture and in the words of the Lord, which long circulated in oral tradition, as is apparent in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians." ("The Early Church" Henry Chadwick p 42)


The LXX version was also used by the authors of the New Testament. Most scholars date the New Testament books to various dates between 75 AD and about 150 AD depending on the book. The authors of scripture, writing in Greek, cite the Septuagint version Old Testament books since the Septuagint was in Greek.

The Council of Carthage (397) was the first Council to publish a list of all the inspired books of the Bible. The Council of Florence repeated the canon of the Bible, and it was restated at the Council of Trent. (No action of the Church causes a book to be inspired. The Church exercises its infallible judgment to certify post factum that a particular book was inspired when it was written. The fact that God is its Author makes a book to be inspired. The Holy Spirit prevents the Church from erring in judging which books are inspired and included in the Bible.)


For many years throughout Christendom the bible, with the Septuagint, was used. Martin Luther's break from Catholicism and the development of the idea of "faith alone" as the basis for salvation gave the reformers a chance to question books in the bible that did not support this view. The reformers particulary attacked Hebrews, Revelation, and the Deuterocanonical books. Since the New Testament books had already been agreed upon at the council at Carthage in 395AD, the idea of removing Hebrews and Revelation from the bible was not widely embraced. The Deuterocanonicals, however, did not fare so well. Some reformation churches included them in scripture and others did not. Finally the Church was forced to formally recognized what books had been traditionally used. This was done at the council of Trent

In 397 the Old Testament canon containing all 46 books was formalized along with the 27 inspired books of the New Testament at the Council of Carthage. St. Jerome completed a Latin translation of the entire Bible in 405, called the 'Vulgate' which can still be found today. It always had all 73 books. All Christian Bibles for the next 1100 years had all 73 books. Martin Luther, at about 1521 decided to remove the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and put them in an appendix, because they had teachings of the Catholic Church which he rejected, such as Purgatory. He used as an excuse, that they were already removed at Jamnia, and never should have been considered as inspired. Yes, but don't forget that the Jews did it at Jamnia, not the Christians. On Luther's own initiative, he removed 7 books that had been in use from before the first day of Christianity. Let me ask you, if they were "added" at the Council of Trent in 1545, how could Luther have removed them some 20 years earlier if they weren't there?

The Council of Trent was called in 1545 in response to the protestant reformation. One of the things they accomplished at Trent was a "reaffirmation that the 7 disputed books were indeed inspired and would continue to be included in the canon of the Old Testament". They did not add them. They merely reconfirmed that they should be there. All Christian Bibles for the first 1500 years of Christianity had 46 books in the Old Testament, and all Catholic Bibles today continue to have them.

History of the canons of the Old Testament can be confirmed by checking the records of the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. They are readily available, as is St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint.

 

And the book of James-- the "epistle of straw."

 

Living4Him,
It's no use. DHK totally ignored the evidence I presented from church historian JND Kelly showing that the earliest Christians (and the Jews of the Dispersion) did in fact use the deuterocanonicals and considered them to be Scripture. I guess it's best if we don't confuse him with the facts.
DT

 

Greetings,

You said: I have a neighbor who was planning on becoming a Nun, but then got married and had a family. She did teach in a Catholic School for 26 years before she retired. I gave her a Gideon New Testament... she told 'me what nice stories' that little book I gave her had in it.

Response: If by this comment you are suggesting that this catholic had never heard the stories of the bible, then I would say either you made up the story OR you misunderstood the woman.

If all she did was go to mass and never picked up a bible she would have heard all the stories of the bible and would have been VERY familiar with the Bible. Also, in CAtholic school she would have done religion class with students and EVERY catholic school religion text book is filled with scriptures and bible stories. EVEN BEfore VATican II.

peace

 

Where do you get your history from? And your logic? Get your head out of Catholic sources that don't make sense and read some actual history that makes sense.
Read some factual information about the Apocrypha. The earliest possible date assigned to any of the apocryphal books is in the 2nd century B.C., while some of them were as late as the first century A.D., written after the Temple was destroyed in 70A.D. And you say they were in the Septuagint in 300 B.C.???? That is one nasty trick!! Incredible!! How does the Catholic Church accomplish such things without completely rewriting history.
DHK

 

TP,

I can assure you, as one who spent 24 years as a Catholic, and now the past 23 years as a born again person, those little readings in mass are nothing...absolutly NOTHING...compared to prayerfully feeding on Gods scriptures all the time, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

After I was born of the Spirit I was more biblically literate after 3 months feeding on the scriptures myself than I was after 24 years of attending mass as a Catholic, or 8 years of catholic training in catholic parochial school.

And if those little readings are so effective, how come most Catholics are so mind numbingly illiterate regarding Gods truth found in the scriptures?

Wrong.

I spent 8 years going through parochial school...which included religion class...and it was primarily a class on learning the Catholic Catechism and being indoctrinated in Catholic dogma...and not feeding on Gods scriptures.

At 24 years of age, being raised Catholic, I was not only biblically illiterate...I was also dumbfounded when I heard the gospel of Jesus Christ for the 1st time being presented in its simplicity and truth.

I had never heard it before!

I could be reconciled with God, totally justified in His sight through faith in Jesus Christs work on my behalf alone, and recieving Him through faith alone???

I felt like going back to my old parish and grabbing those priests, nuns, and the monsignor and shaking them while asking "WHY DIDNT YOU TELL ME THIS???"

The answer was because they very well may have never heard the true gospel either and were too busy proclaiming a false one.

May God have mercy.

Sadly,

Mike

 

I can assure you, as one who spent 24 years as a Catholic, and now the past 23 years as a born again person, those little readings in mass are nothing...absolutly NOTHING...compared to prayerfully feeding on Gods scriptures all the time, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

After I was born of the Spirit I was more biblically literate after 3 months feeding on the scriptures myself than I was after 24 years of attending mass as a Catholic, or 8 years of catholic training in catholic parochial school.

And if those little readings are so effective, how come most Catholics are so mind numbingly illiterate regarding Gods truth found in the scriptures?</font>[/QUOTE]I agee with you completely D28guy. I also was in the Catholic Church for 20 years, and now have been out of it for over 30. I came out of it shortly after I got saved, when the Holy Spirit entered into my heart and gave me understanding that I never had before as to what the Scriptures meant. I was saved through an organization that was working on the campuses of the university such as Campus Crusade. They immediately got me involved in Bible Study, how to have devotions, memorization of Scripture, the importance of fellowship, and other very basic things of practical Christian living. After two years a member of our church was ready to depart for the mission field (Brazil). She had studied for four years in a respected Bible College. She made this comment to the Pastor about me. "I have had four years of Bible College education. I have been raised in a Christian family. I am ready to depart to the mission family, but I cannot quote Scripture like him. I do not know my Bible as well as he does."
Being blinded by the Catholic Church for 20 years, starved for the Word of God, gave me a zeal to study the Word of God that I never had before. And when I studied God, through his Holy Spirit, gave me understanding. I memorized in such a way that I never forgot the verses that I first memorized. I was taught a method on how to do that. It does come through hard work however. After two years I was firmly grounded in the word of God, and after three years, I had the opportunity to go to Bible College, during which time the Lord called me into his service. I have never looked back since, and have never regretted that decision.
The Catholic Church taught the Catechism. Those that led me to the Lord taught the Bible. Oh, what a difference it made in my life--a life changing difference. It changed the course of my life forever.
DHK

 

DoubtingThomas,

You are right. This below is taken from greatsite.com They are dealers of antique Bibles. From reading info on their site, it appears that they are Christian but not Catholic Christians.

 

Greetings,

I lived in a Lutheran campus center in college: Born and raised catholic. I went to public schools. I did not think I was biblically literate at all. As you I would have thought my self biblically illiterate. However, we started to play bible trivia. I didn't want to because they all bragged about reading the bible-- they were Lutheran, they MUST know the bible. They were good lutherans living at the Lutheran campus center and they carried their bibles every where. Well, we played and I won. In fact I won many times after that throughout the year.

I thought I was biblically illiterate. I couldn't tell you chapter or verse of anything. However, the stories, the phrases, the quotes-- they had become part of me. I knew them all. I never missed mass, and even went in the mornings often. Scripture was part of me. My guess is that when you became born again, it was easy to become acquainted with scripture-- you probably assumed because you loved it so much. My bet is that you knew more than you realized.

Not regarding any of you, but I have also had negative experiences with some born agains who left my Parish. One of them gave me a copy of his 'testimonial' from his church. Half the testimonial was how he NEVER heard scripture preached at mass, never even knew that Jesus died for our sins, never got scripture in the catholic church. He said this with confidence: However, this man was brainwashed to say this. Every catholic is TAUGHT, TAUGHT to say they received no scripture. How can I say this? I was his priest: In Almost EVERY sermon I preach I mention that Jesus died for our sins. The Paschal mystery is the Center of ALL my preaching. All my preaching is based on scripture. He would have heard over 100 sermons of mine with that as CENTER. He and his wife Also spent 3 years in our bible study every week, and even threw the bible study Christmas party at their home. It was a blatant LIE that he never heard scripture in the Catholic church. It was just what he was taught to say.

peace

 

The Catholics plus the Orthodox... at over a billion people I would hardly call that a minority... </font>[/QUOTE]I don't believe that the Catholic Religion is a Christian Religion; never have. It is one of the world's main religions by number only. It is on a par with Islam.
Islam believes that the Bible is a sacred Book.
Islam believes in Jesus.
Islam believes that Jesus is coming again.
But Islam does not necessarily believe in the Apocrypya.
Islam is the world's largest religion far outnumbering the Catholic Church.
Error is still error no matter how many people believe in it. That goes for both the Catholic Church and the Islaminc religion!

BTW, Violet, you have still not answered my question. Are you a Catholic?
DHK

 

TP-I did not make up a story about my Catholic friend who was not familiar with the New Testament,nor did I misunderstand her...I was glad to read the responsives from D28guy and DHK.

 

Greetings,

Martymaryk, Then your friend either has NOT been a practicing Catholic For Many Many Many years and has forgotten those stories, OR she falls immediately asleep whenever she is in church. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be an attentive practicing Catholic and NOT at least get all the bible stories down pat. Even just living in American culture will give a person a good idea of some of the stories even outside of church.

You made it sound like she didn't even know what the bible was, didn't own a bible, and that all the stories in the bible were New to her. I do not believe that is possible for a practicing catholic.

peace

 

I do; I think you are biased.

 

HA! And you are not biased?

 

I even met a few atheists in my soul winning adventures that even believed there was A Jesus, but just as an Islamic, they don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world and was buried and resurrected on the third day and now sits at His Fathers right hand. There’s the difference.

A Catholic, just as any Baptist believes the same thing regarding Jesus and His purpose of doing the will of His Father, and to lump a Catholic with Islam shows your bias towards the Catholic Church, especially from someone who claimed to have been raised Catholic.

 

Sorry. I didn't see it earlier (bottom of a page). Yes. After a lifetime as evangelicals, my husband and I are recent converts-- still settling in.

 

Perhaps you havent' followed this part of the debate closely enough John. Violet made a remark which is totally illogical, in reference to who has accepted the Apocrypha and who has not.

Here are the facts again, and let me remind you that it has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers.
Throughout the ages:
The Jews have never accepted the Apocrypha,
The Apostles never accepted the Apocrypha,
The early church never accepted the Apocrypha,
Before the Reformation different groups of all kinds of stripes and colors never accepted the Apocypha.
After the Reformation, all the various Protestant denominations never accepted the Apocrypha.
The only ones that have ever accepted the Apocrypha are the Catholic Church, and then they only officially accepted them as inspired books at the Council of Trent in 1534.

Clearly the Catholic Church is in the minority regarding this issue.

Being in the minority has nothing to do with numbers as you can see. Violets response was that the Catholic Church had one billion adherents. That is a red herring, and has nothing to do with the facts presented. The Catholic Church is the only group of all the ones presented that believe the Apocrypha is part of the Canon of Scripture. They are in the minority. That is a fact.
DHK

 

Greetings,

You said: Throughout the ages:
The Jews have never accepted the Apocrypha,
The Apostles never accepted the Apocrypha,
The early church never accepted the Apocrypha,
Before the Reformation different groups of all kinds of stripes and colors never accepted the Apocypha.
After the Reformation, all the various Protestant denominations never accepted the Apocrypha.
The only ones that have ever accepted the Apocrypha are the Catholic Church, and then they only officially accepted them as inspired books at the Council of Trent in 1534.

Response: You are VERY incorrect in your history. The Early church used the Septuigint version of scriptures(They were writing in Greek to dispora often). The Septuigint INCLUDED the Deuterocanonical books(what you call the apocrapha). It is quoted verbatim in many of the New Testament quotes of the OT.
Also, when the lists of the canon are given in the Councils of carthage, Hippo, and by Innocent I which gave us the New Testament canon: All these lists included the deuterocanolicals. Why would you accept the New Testament list, but not the Old Testament list.

Lastly, you accuse the catholics of adding the Deuterocanonical books at Trent. However, the Greek Orthodox, who broke from the Catholic Church in 1054 Also has the Deuterocanonical texts in their canon. That means it was part of the canon when we split: Or are you saying that after Trent the catholics went to the Greeks and forced them to accept the books. Also, the Coptic Church which was separated from the CAtholic around AD 600 because the muslims invasion: Copts were in the south and the rest of Christianity were north of the muslims: They have the deuterocanonical books in their canon. So that means by at least AD 600 those books were canonical.

Luther changed everything when he took the hebrew scriptures which were defined at Jamnia around AD 90, but these leaders ALSO condemned all the Gospels and letters of Paul-- So that could not have been an inspired Group.

peace

 

This lame argument really makes me laugh. I have explained it before. ALL of the apocryphal books were written between the end of 2nd century B.C. and the end of the first A.D. Lest there be any confusion concerning dating, let me give you an example. The first century B.C. is from 0 to 99 B.C. and the 2nd century B.C. is from 100 to 199 B.C. Thus the oldest book of the apocrypha would have a "1" in front of it, as in 150 B.C. Some were written as late as the end of the 1st century A.D. after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.!
Now the Septuagint was written between 250 and 300 B.C. Please explain how these 14 book written between 199 B.C. and 99 A.D. would get into a book written around 250 B.C. Was it the Book of Tobit that taught about sorcery and magic?? The Septuagint used by the Christ and the Apostles did not have the Apocrypha in it. This much is quite evident. The Apocrypha crept into the modern day editions of the Septuagint at a much later date. You just can't have a book written after the destruction of Jerusalem ocntained in a book written 250 years before the birth of Christ. You have a problem!!

The greater problem is this. The Septuagint is simply a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Nothing was added. The Hebrew Scriptures were completed in 400 B.C. and considered as canonized by that time. The Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek; Not Greek fairy tales translated into Greek! Again, the Hebrew Scriptures were completed in 400 A.D. Then they--those Hebrew Scriptures and none others--were translated into Greek in 250 B.C. Where does that leave your beloved Apocrypha? As good as in the garbage I would say. (If you are speaking of inspiration)
DHK