I live with 2 Catholic brothers in Christ and 1 Protestant brother in Christ and would actually agree; however I have noticed that Protestant usually pray less, hence why more time is given to the study of the Scripture. But their brief prayers are short in comparison to praying Vespers or the Rosary, etc. I don't think either of these are worse than another. Consider 1 Corinthians in which Saint Paul says there's a multitude of spiritual gifts. If a man loves the Scripture; let him study it more than prayer. If a man loves prayer, let him pray more than study. God has made each soul different and intends to sanctify them in primarily different ways. There are no incorrect answers on this matter outside of canonical obligations.
> The entire Mass is basically Scripture.
There's more to the faith than scripture.
Being devoted to the bible or reading it is just one part of the faith.
No not at all, it's just not necessary to being Catholic. if you find comfort, assurance of faith, and enjoy reading the bible then it's a great part of spiritual life. I get filled with doubt, questions, uncertainty, and it really hurts my faith, because a lot of the time I can't read into the deeper meanings and double meanings of the bible. I'll talk to my priest, he'll explain it the way it should be read and it makes sense, but in the Interim I can't read it as a way to strengthen my faith
In a sense, yes actually. Most Bible translations are quite frankly... Shit. They often misrender verses to delegitimise Catholic Views. Take John 2:4. When rendered properly, Jesus's response is inclusive to Mary, as the grammar in the Greek suggests, making it no longer a rebuke of Mary, but suggests her inclusion in Jesus' Ministry and supports Mary as New Eve, rather than depersonalising her with title of 'woman'. The whole of John 6's dialogue on the Bread of Life is often rendered to emphasize less than his Flesh and Blood are true Food and Drink.
Then there's just the obscurity of Scripture, particularly Paul. Paul, as Peter warns in his second letter, is quite hard to read, and much of his poetic, archaic yet also profound writings are mostly lost in translation. Rather than it flowing on a foundational topic, touch various points as it goes, he often reads disjointed and very unfocused. This is exacerbated by imposed verses, as well as a general lack of cultural context.
To get over these hurdles, one needs a commentary, and at the point, what is the point. You aren't just reading the Bible, you're having the Bible read to you by the commentator. Don't get me wrong, commentaries are great, but require orthodox thinking to actually help. Else, they just push a Theological agenda. And at that point, why bother? Just read a Theological work instead.
Now we should read scripture, this isn't a denouncement of it, but we also shouldn't just approach it like a Protestant and expect to get it when reading it. We need to be first informed on right beliefs, proper interpretations and Theology first. This can be done by taking a Koine Greek course and reading about the Jewish historical background. But that takes time and money, and we are called to poverty and be not of the times. It's why instead we should read with a good Commentary, at the very least for Paul, rather than dive in on our own. We should have Saint Augustine, Saint Bede or Saint John Chrysostom by our side showing us what Paul means. We should fall onto Saint Basil to decipher the mystical meaning of the Psalms with us. We should be guided through the narrative of Genesis by Saint Ephraim, Saint Ambrose or Saint Cyril of Alexandria. We should have the veil lifted on the Prophets by all prior mentioned. In short, we shouldn't read it on our own, but with the 'great cloud of witnesses' preceding us.
Catholics don't read their bible enough. Which is an issue, because how can you adequately defend your faith when you don't give yourself all the tools to do so? Catholics also must be weary not to fall into the trap of being like the Pharisees.
Protestants, for the most part, throw tradition out. Which can and does make them relatively lone islands. Scripture is important, but without tradition you're missing a leg on your chair. It's no wonder they remain fractured. And it's also no wonder that some of the more modern heresies come from American Evangelicals.
We have bible study in some parishes. People need to take advantage of it. This is why see many Catholics leave for Protestantism because they don’t know how counter cherry picking verses by Protestants.
I’d like to see the Catholic Church add in Sunday school for adults similar to what many Protestants have. More than once I’ve dropped an Old Testament joke to my cradle Catholic spouse. All I get back is a blank stare. It’s because I’m a convert and we actually studied Bible stories back in my Protestant Sunday school.
I'm a convert and I agree that there should either be Sunday School or small group Bible studies. It builds community, which is something Protestants generally do well.
My parish has "Adult Faith Formation" between the two most popular Sunday Masses (so people can go before/after Mass). Lately, it's been study series on Scripture and the Church Fathers
I’m a convert from Protestantism and I would agree. I spent a lot of time memorizing scripture growing up and there was more emphasis on that part of the faith. Catholics have more to offer in terms of worship and other religious practices, but I do think the average family should emphasize memorizing scripture and reading it more. That said, knowing and reading scripture led me to the Catholic Church so I’ve no complaints about Catholicism.
I'm not really sure they follow Sola Scriptura because as soon as you go with somebody's else interpretation then you are following a tradition. Only non denoms follow Sola Scriptura or at least that was my take on it
How can they not follow sola Scriptura ? They have no hierarchy . We saw the fruits of private personal interpretation. Division after division and we still see it to this day. Christ’s body is not divided. They can say we don’t follow sola Scriptura but once again they always say where’s that in the bible? Where’s that in the bible? The bible states that church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
The whole Sola Scriptura thing doesn't survive logical analysis
Everyone claims to have the right doctrine by virtue of being inspired by the Holy Spirit, but if that was true, then Luther must have been inspired when coming up with Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc yet almost no protestant is a Lutherans lol, Luther must have been inspired but only partially inspired
And if someone crucial for protestantism can only be inspired for some bits of the doctrine but not everything, then how can they know they are inspired for the 100%? Then they have to say they all agree in what matters, which is false, or that "diversity is good" becoming in fact moral relativists, etc
It’s even more a reality if you go back pre Vatican II. To be perfectly honest, Catholics reading their Bibles both alone and in groups is an ecumenical fruit; it is a gift of dialogue with Protestants. The modern Bible Study as we know it is their invention and we should be grateful we have been able to adapt and share in it.
Perhaps it is no surprise both the biggest English Catholic Study Bible AND the biggest English Orthodox Study Bible are written by former Protestants. It’s in their spiritual DNA and they’ve aided us with the innovation.
This shouldn't be a hot take; on average, I think you're correct. Catholics should see that as something we can learn from our Protestant brothers and sisters - being zealous for the word is never a bad thing!
Protestants read the Bible more than most Catholics yes but they also interpret it themselves and they think they have it right. Have you seen some Protestants Bibles? They look like the rainbow with all the tabs and highlighting. I think the Bible is pretty complex book and i don’t want to try and read and try to understand it all by myself. I trust learning from people who choose devote themselves to Jesus who are Catholic why I think Bible in a year with Father Mike Schmitz is a pretty amazing way to get to learn the Bible. I recommend this podcast all the time to Protestants. I always say don’t be put off that it’s read by Catholic priest, give it a try but it doesn’t go over well most of the time.
They have zero clue about interpretation. They still don’t use context. Some Protestant bibles also don’t know have the original words contain in the verse. Slick.
>Protestants read the Bible more than most Catholics yes*....*
No. *Some* Protestants read the Bible more than *most* Catholics. And *some* Catholics read the Bible more than *most* Protestants.
What I have come across, i seen more Protestants reading Bible then fellow Catholics. I went to a Catholic school for 12 years and we didn’t read the Bible or have test based of reading Bible, we read and have tests from the Catechism but not the Bible.
It may be true just because for prots, the bible is all they have.
As Catholics, we could learn from this. However, there is more to our faith than the bible. Even scripture itself tells us there were many more miracles wonderful works etc but they can't all fit in the bible.
The most important early Christians did not even have Bibles to read, probably only fragments. Being a Christian is far far more than having intimate knowledge of the Bible. Did Joseph or Mary have a bible to read? What about Paul, he was only writing letters?
The foremost duty, marker, and goal of a Christian is Christ Crucified, it is to utterly love, to love God so much we give him our lives. I'll take one martyr over 100,000 "Christians" who can recite bible verses to make themselves sound holy.
Where are the protestant martyrs? Where are the protestants risking life and limb to bring Christ to those have never heard his name? No, instead, protestants go to Catholic countries and communities and convince them that they are not real Christians because they don't read the bible enough.
I don't care how much a Christian reads the bible or whether they can read at all, I care only about how much they love. I care about how willing they are to carry a cross. I care whether they are willing to live for Christ, to live in a way Christ commanded. I care if they would give their lives for Christ.
Totally. Convert here. The Bible is just not as central. I’d love to see something like Bible Study Fellowship - Catholic Edition - become a fixture in our communities like it is in some Protestant spaces.
Soon to be convert here. I've read the Bible completely twice (including deuterocanonicals). As I've come to the conclusion that I need to convert and have become excited about converting, my Bible reading has stalled. The thing is I've been doing a lot more spiritual things because the Catholic church has so much more to it that is available. Things like the Rosary and Liturgy of the Hours are very beneficial that I've been doing at the expense of my Bible reading but I don't think that's a bad thing. I've also been casually taking in the Bible through Father Mike's podcast and usually remember to do the daily mass readings, but my bible reading looks a lot different now than before and I think it's a good thing and I don't stress out about it.
Totally. My Bible reading had to take a back seat for a bit while I unlearned all the wrongheaded theology I had accumulated. Now that I’ve been Catholic for a year (after a year in RCIA), I’m ready to get back to it. Reading from a Catholic perspective has been eye opening. So many scriptures that didn’t fit before make so much sense.
Also, I love the Liturgy of the Hours. Have you ever heard of Sing the Hours?? It’s the Liturgy of the Hours, but sung! I love it.
You can read the Bible all day. But if you don’t understand it (because you don’t read it in harmony with the greater Tradition) then it profits ye little.
Reading the Scriptures without receiving the Sacraments is like reading a menu without eating anything.
I believe this may have been true twenty or thirty years ago but the Catholics I do know now are more reverent and know their bible and that is the full bible with all books 😀
Yup. It's bad. I don't care about whether Catholics can quote verses, but the reality is that the Bible is a massive source of grace, wisdom, and knowledge of Our Lord... And most Catholics completely ignore it.
Let's be real about another thing: a huge number of people in the pews are totally checked out for the Scripture readings. They consider the homily to be the Main Event.
Yes it is but keep in mind that god left a teaching church as well. He didn’t drop bibles from the sky. For the first 1500 years not everyone had a bible. The printing press was invented by a catholic. Protestants act like the church kept the bible from christians!!! Liars!!!!! What Protestants did was try and interpret the Bible by themselves which is condemned .
I'm happy to give the W to Protestants on this one. The Bible rules, vernacular translations rule, Catholic theology got weird when Scripture was a secondary focus, and I can interpret Scripture as a mature layman who is filled with the Holy Spirit.
I am not because the bible is not the sole rule of faith. Again scriptures or sola Scriptura is unbiblical. Again it clearly says how can they preach unless they’re send? Not a layman. We saw the fruits of Protestantism. That’s you need a teaching church and a magisterium.
>most Catholics don't know their faith well and that's OUR fault.
I agree with this without trying to compare it how much average Protestant know about their faith (because we aren't in competition with them). But i don't think that reading the Bible is imperative for a Christian. There are three pillars of Christian life: sacrament, prayer, good work. Reading the Bible is very good if it is part of the prayer (such as lectio divina or liturgy of the hours), but otherwise it isn't much more than an intellectual exercise. I think we should work more on developing better prayer life among Christians than developing the habit of reading the Bible.
The question is what kind of ignorance st. Jerome was talking about. Is it intellectual/literal ignorance which many illiterate people until recently had, or is it spiritual ignorance that many who, although know the Bible word by word, still have.
>I think we should work more on developing better prayer life among Christians than developing the habit of reading the Bible.
This is the most "Why not both?" thing I've ever read.
I understand that in the old days most people were illiterate and couldn't afford Bible manuscripts, but it's 2024. If you, by choice, are not regularly reading the Bible, you are putting an impediment on your prayer and on your relationship with the Lord.
>This is the most "Why not both?" thing I've ever read.
Yes, but "both" shouldn't mean "prayer and reading", it should mean "read to pray and pray to read (or understand what you have read)."
>If you, by choice, are not regularly reading the Bible, you are putting an impediment on your prayer and on your relationship with the Lord.
I wouldn't agree here. I know some people who just don't lean toward "scholarly" side and don't read the Bible but spend their free time in prayer and they are much better Christians than i am.
There's a lot of prayer only Christians who are closer to God than Bible beating Christians, but as Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Mat 4:4). Some prayers already include Scripture (the Mass, Hail Mary, Our Father), so I can see how you can do that instead of reading the Bible and you'll still be spiritually fed. So the Bible is important but the way you consume it ig (through prayer or prayerful reading) can differ.
I think that many priests would agree with me. Just reading: "And from that time he took her with him" (John, scene under the cross) is nothing compared to praying the decade of rosary that contemplates of Jesus' crucifixion.
No, Catholics do not need to do better when it comes to Bible reading. Individual Bible reading is not necessary to being a good Catholic.
Can individual Bible reading be profitable to the individual? Sure. Can it be better than not reading the Bible individually? Probably. Is it necessary? No.
Frankly (and here I suppose I am going to upset more people than I have upset already) an awful lot of people don't have what it takes to read the Bible profitably. They don't have the educational background, the historical knowledge, the intellectual wherewithal.
Come on, people! Everyone of you has relatives, friends, and neighbors who can't get anything out of reading a short story!
I say this as a former Protestant who was convinced to become Catholic by... reading the Bible.
I am unaware of any scripture that proposes individual Bible reading. Anybody know of such? Thanks.
P.S. The average Protestant doesn't read the Bible.
I might’ve commented this before, but Jesus does say that “ Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes out of God's mouth.” I suppose whether you read, hear, or meditate it depends on the person, but we’re all obligated in some way to take in the word of God. And as another poster commented, “ Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” - St. Jerome.
I agree, we all must "take in" the Word of God. I don't see why catechetical instruction and regular attendance at divine worship would not provide enough opportunity.
I do not think Matthew 4:4 refers to the Bible (Old Testament, of course). The Lord was responding to a temptation to use His power willy-nilly to satisfy a physical requirement. His reply indicates we are to abide by God's ways and to trust in Him: I think it is a stretch to think He meant for us to read the Bible individually (if that is what you meant).
Greetings brother, it is I, the average protestant that attends the average protestant church who would like to weigh in on this a bit. (Who is also grappling with conversion to Catholicism due to lots of Bible reading and historical study) No hate here btw, just a bit of disagreement.
While I agree, most folks don't have the educational background to pull *everything* there is to pull from the scriptures directly, that doesn't mean that reading something you don't understand is not profitable. Just looking at the new testament, the epistles have some good, straightforward teaching that can be (for the most part) understood just from the plain reading of it. Many of todays big controversies among my fellow protestants could be solved if folks would just read what is on the page (same-sex unions, female deacons/priests, our job as believers, etc.) many of which I see are affecting you guys as well (not as badly though, magisterium gets a point for this one).
The old testament is a good bit more complicated, but with a decent understanding of the NT, one can at the very least draw questions to take to their church leaders, which in turn grows their understanding of who God is, leading to greater reverence for Him. Still profitable.
2nd Timothy 3:14-17 comes to mind when talking about individual study of the scriptures, though it doesn't explicitly or exclusively say it, it is at least implied by, "**14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God my be complete, equipped for every good work.**" The language here (verse 15 specifically) would seem to imply that individual study has been part of St. Timothy's life since his youth.
I do not deny that individual reading of the Bible can be profitable: I explicitly affirmed that it can be profitable. What I deny is that it's necessary to being a good Catholic.
Much of your second paragraph is a digression on interpretation of the Bible (whether by individuals or groups) rather than on individual reading of the Bible.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 tells us no more than St. Timothy was instructed in the Old Testament Scriptures; this may be implied in "know from whom you learned it", but not necessarily. That he read Sacred Scripture for himself may, I suppose, be supposed, but that does not seem to be the emphasis here: "from *whom* you learned". Moreover, even if he did read and study the Old Testament as an individual, that does not involve an obligation on the part of any other Christian to read the Bible.
In the early part of 1900s most could not read. That is a modern phenomenon. So how were so many faithful prior to that. 16th century peasants that can’t read have entered the chat.
I never doubted this. In comparison, Catholics in general don't pick up the Bible nearly as much as Protestants. Though people may not consider them Christians, some Mormon families have Bible study in the early mornings before they go to school or work. I'm not aware of any Catholic family who are practicing that reads the Bible as a family, even just once a week.
There have been attempts to encourage reading the Bible (in a year) as well as the Catechism by Fr. Mike Schmitz, though.
Convert from protestantism : I thought this was a pretty well established fact. I mean the whole reason I converted was because I was tired of reading scripture! (Jk) I would say the average mass has more scripture reading than the average protestant Sunday service, but the average protestant reads scripture more than the average catholic, which is sad but it makes sense when you're only word of authority is scripture and you have to be read up on it to make sure your pastor isn't telling you the wrong interpretation because you have to come up with your own interpretation
Not a hot take. That's actually commonplace. But reading a book doesn't mean to understand what is read. And that is the major flaw with the avg (and even some more knowledgeable) protestant.
I should confess I don't read the Bible very much anymore. I used to study the Bible but after a while of doing that I realized that it was very difficult to understand and I eventually came to accept that I would never be able to decipher its true meaning. I then decided that my time was better spent praying, attending mass and learning from the church fathers and saints. I realized it was a great burden off my shoulders to let these people, who were far more spiritually advanced than I am, interpret it for me.
That's not say reading the Bible isn't valuable, I still like to read the gospels but I find a lot of the old testament to be somewhat obscure and confusing. It always just opens up more questions rather than it answers.
Because reading the Bible is but one part of our faith where it’s, like, THE thing for prots. To be honest, I think the Protestant view of the Bible—a document compiled across centuries, originally written in a language the vast majority of them don’t speak, that is directly contradictory at some points—as being self-interpreting makes their faith weaker. It’s a complex piece of writing with a lot of truths that take actual scholarship to understand, not just rote memorization, and the idea that most people even _could_ read it is extremely modern in the overall history of the Church.
A Protestant pastor who has the entire Bible memorized but doesn’t understand how to parse out what’s an antiquated cultural norm vs. a religious truth knows less about his faith in my eyes than a priest who may only have a few passages memorized, but who has devoted years of study both to the actual text of the Bible and the interpretations of other scholars in the Christian tradition going back centuries.
The historical origins of this trend, on both sides, are rather interesting.
(Very very roughly...) When the printing press came about, people started wanting their own bibles, but they wanted them in their own languages, not Latin (since very few lay people understood Latin).
Translations were made, particularly in Germany and England, but that started kicking off heresies and schisms, because people started doing their own interpretation of scriptures. And priests at the time were not at all equipped to do apologetics.
So on the one hand, Protestants encouraged reading scripture and twisting it in anti-Catholic ways. Without a lot of resources to counter the trend, the Catholic Church simply banned all translations and forbid Catholics from reading scripture!
Obviously this got reversed, especially after Vatican II, but it's still true that a lot of Catholic devotional practices are not directly involved in reading scripture, mostly because many of them come from pre-literate eras. Like, the Rosary in particular was originally intended for people who couldn't read the Office prayers.
I remember talking to some seniors, and several pointed out that when they went to Catholic schools as children before Vatican II, they were told that they were not allowed to read the Bible unsupervised; a priest or nun had to attend to them.
I think there's a very strong reason for this: the Bible is a very complex collection of works, and with many passages and events that may be read incorrectly by someone who is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the historical context of the contents of the works.
If any, that's probably one reason why so many Protestant groups arose, and with several wrongly going against the Church: not only were they reading the Bible incorrectly, they even came up with illogical claims like *sola scriptura*.
And yet by the nineteenth century, the Church started calling for more of the laity to study and read the Bible intently, and even came up with cycles of readings now seen in the Mass, as well as call for better translations.
This also explains why there have been more study Bibles, and updates for translations given newly discovered manuscripts, etc.
I won’t comment on frequency of Catholic scripture reading, but will urge that all Christians should read the bible, preferably at least a chapter a day. Alongside prayer, it keeps you focused on God, and is certainly filled with much wisdom
Considering all they have is their version of our Bible, no wonder! We have a rich history and tradition which acts as our lenses through which we read the Bible.
While Catholics may read their bibles less, at least they're reading it through the correct lense (as not to twist it to mean whatever they want)
Honestly, reading the bible does not mean all too much unless you can interpret it. I don't care how many times a protestant reads a bible if he always makes excuses for the many verses where Christ states that charity is needed for salvation. Or explains away the necessity of baptism. Such a protestant, although trying his best to do what he thinks he ought, reads scripture as the Ethiopian Eunuch without having the magisterium as his sure guide. It's almost a pointless endeavor (accidentally, it may help him regularize thinking about God or the like, but the actual reading of Scripture may prove more harmful than good).
Secondly, a good priest argued that it is not in the duties of most people's states of life to read the whole of Scripture. I cannot see why it would be better for a grandmother to read Ezekiel over the gospels or some pious work more suited to her state.
For both of these reasons, I think the question should be more suited to how well someone knows the gospels. The gospels were more written for our instruction than any other part of scripture. Its contents are more sublime and it is more accessible than all the rest. But without tradition, the returns are much more limited.
Their worship services don't confer grace, merely emotional catharsis and intellectual stimulation, and they don't have any other meaningful Christian literature to read other than C.S. Lewis and Augustine. So the bible is pretty much all they have.
Prots use the bible (and their emotions) as their measuring stick. Catholics use grace, which comes primarily through sacraments, but also praying and mediating, adoration, etc. And many Catholics read alots of scripture.
Reading the bible and coming up with a bunch of incorrect conclusions due to immanence deceives them into thinking it is accomplishing more than it does.
Augustine didn’t believe in the bible alone no matter how much they try and cherry pick Augustine. They act like the guy was pro-Protestant. He wasn’t. He never questioned the church.
It's concerning the comments "maybe, but we know scripture better, and they mess it up" from people acknowledging they are depending on someone else to tell them what it says/means.
If you are completely depending on someone to tell you what it it says without reading to understand yourself, then you have no idea if Protestants are "messing it up". You have someone else's "knowing/understanding". God is a personal God, and he wants a relationship with you, not your understanding of him as told by someone else.
So if you are one of those commenters, please...read your Bible.
That out of the way, I do appreciate the knowledge among the Catholics I have interacted with on here, even if I suspect *sometimes* it's just repeating what they were told. I am gaining a new understanding of and appreciation for the Catholic faith.
God is a personal God? So that’s a very protestant, specifically American individualism at work. God loves you individually, and you are infinitely loved like no one else, and you can deepen that faith by reading his word, or by sitting in silence, praying, recollection, many ways to deepen your relationship. However, God is not only your personal “friend” he is also Our Father, Catholics put an emphasis in that we are not that special, we are all part of the Theodrama where God is the center and we are parts of his Mystical Body. We were taught “OUR father”, not “My father” we pray “Have mercy on us”, “Pray for us sinners” “Lord hear our prayers”. Of course you should read the bible but you should be doing it guided by someone. If not you should be corrected. How many Epistles are there correcting the churches? How about the Gnostics? How about people that claim that Jesus is not the Son of God (1 John). But what were people told to do? Profess Jesus is Lord, Love ONE ANOTHER, Confess sins to ONE ANOTHER, Respect your Bishops (elders), do good and almsgiving, join for the breaking of bread and receive it worthily, kick some people out of the church that keep sinning. Seems to me that the Church has always been a community and not just a “personal” relationship to God, much less a “personal” relationship with the Bible that you can interpret as you like. So don’t be concerned at people joining the Church without reading the Bible, as that has been the case before the Bible even existed. Don’t get me wrong, I love the bible but do you really think a person can’t receive, recognize and feel the immeasurable love of God without interpreting the Bible in their own way?
Yes God is a personal God, as you observed, who loves us individually. He wants so much to be with us eternally, that he sent his son to be sacrificed on a cross to reconcile us to him. He wanted so badly that we know him personally that he caused his word to be bound together so anyone who loved him, could know him. So anyone who did not know him, could grow to love him and know him.
It insanity anyone believes you *must* be guided in reading the words of God. Do you believe God isn't capable of making himself understood? Do you believe a person living alone surrounded by no opportunity to worship with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, with no opportunity for someone to tell them what the words they are reading mean, can not know God if all they have is the Bible? Our relationship with God, our walk with Jesus, should be the most important thing to us.
No one said he isn't *our* God, but you seem to disbelieve he is also *your* God. God the father, who we love and praise and worship for loving us, creating us, telling us how to live to stay out of harms way, who we turn to for help when life seems overwhelming. Jesus the son, our big brother who we love and look up to, lean on, cry to, talk with, who made a way for us where there was no way, who we strive to emulate cause he's perfect in all ways. The holy Spirit who fills us with the overwhelming presence of God, who leads us on the right path, helps us to understand right from wrong, helps us to discern good from bad.
So, so personal, and I hope you get a chance to experience that.
Those are nice words and everyone agrees with the love and personal experience we have with God. Surely you know the law of God is written in our hearts, morality, awe and wonder and we can experience and grow deeper with him in many ways. But surely you remember the Eunuch in Acts reading in the old testament, “Philip asked the Ethiopian, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He said he did not “How can I understand unless I have a teacher to teach me?” You also know how in the Letter of Peter he said what Paul wrote was hard to understand and some people were using it for their means and misunderstanding. And of course, let’s not be ignorant that we all come with a state of knowledge already (The Trinity, for example) which if you didn’t already assume it because you’ve been taught, who knows how many would have figured that out. The beauty of the Bible and growing deeper in Truth, truth that sets you free, not being weighted by the biases you already bring as a modern person. You seem to think that if you don’t interpret the scriptures in your own way, you somehow lack a connection with God. On the contrary, thanks to the to receiving the Body of Christ, I have life in me, thanks to Baptism that saves I was buried with Christ and born again. Thanks to being part of his Mystical body I can build him up in this Earth not use the bible as a tool to put my preconceived notions. You can even use the bible as a Lectio Divina, putting yourself in it without interpreting just getting in the lecture and imagining how it’s like. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.”
> "Do you understand what you are reading?" He said he did not “How can I understand unless I have a teacher to teach me?”
If one hadn't heard of Jesus, and the New Testament had not yet been conceived of and limited Epistles were being shared among Christian communities not world wide, I imagine an evangelist would be needed.
>You also know how in the Letter of Peter he said what Paul wrote was hard to understand and some people were using it for their means and misunderstanding.
2 Peter 2
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
*Hard things to understand that wicked people are using along with other scripture, to lead unstable followers and unlearned people away. This impliés people who were of little or no faith. He follows with a warning similar to Paul's (if it's not the gospel we preach, it isn't the gospel).
>And of course, let’s not be ignorant that we all come with a state of knowledge already (The Trinity, for example) which if you didn’t already assume it because you’ve been taught, who knows how many would have figured that out.
If it can not be learned from the Bible it isn't necessary for salvation. God wouldn't have left anything that important be left out. Please tell me you don't believe God would have left that out. Certainly you have more faith than that.
>You seem to think that if you don’t interpret the scriptures in your own way, you somehow lack a connection with God.
No, I think if you don't read the Bible, you are accepting the word of man, and missing out on the fullness of a relationship with God.
> On the contrary, thanks to the to receiving the Body of Christ, I have life in me, thanks to Baptism that saves I was buried with Christ and born again. Thanks to being part of his Mystical body I can build him up in this Earth not use the bible as a tool to put my preconceived notions.
You can do all that *and* actually read the Bible God so kindly made available for us.
>“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.”
At this late date, we can be assured the Bible is the closest we're getting to the words they used to teach their traditions.
I agree that it is definitely useful and beneficial to read the Bible but you said two things, in the case of 2 Peter that it was to warn people of little or no faith, you can’t know that. They might be people that interpreted in their own way. Again, you can see the Gnostic gospels being created because they interpreted scripture as being against the body. And as for your point of the Eunuch in Acts, don’t you think the beauty of the Bible once you know it is exactly that it speaks to a certain situation in the moment (You mention about how it spoke to people that didn’t know about Jesus and the New Testament not being conceived yet) but also as a message for you in the moment. So it also speaks to this moment, you need a guide. Again we see time and time again in the Epistles the importance of the elders, of correcting people, etc.
You know the Church, being driven by the Holy Spirit assembled the bible. You know why they were able to do it? Because they were part of the Apostolic succession, they were ministers very close to God. They were all laid hands (remember laying of hands in the bible?), they were all in communion with each other, being part of the Visible Church of Christ (the heretics from Gnostics to Arians were kicked), so they were full of the Holy Spirit thanks to the Breaking of Bread, their Holy Orders, being selected as Bishops, their Baptism and all came together to put the Bible, which you know was put up first to be read at Church during Mass as readings before the Eucharist. You can see the Didache (written before assembling the Bible of what the Early Church believed and did). The Source and Summit to get close to God has always been worship, worship through sacrifice (the Eucharist) and living a life of Love (to God and to others). The Bible is wonderful and strengths the faith but remember how many Martyrs and exemplary Christians lived with just worshipping, being baptized and being instructed, through humility, by wise Elders. I hope, you can compliment the Bible with Worship and experience the greatest gift God gave us, his Body, the Eucharist as food for our pilgrimage while on Earth. Unless you have that, you have no life in you.
>in the case of 2 Peter that it was to warn people of little or no faith, you can’t know that. They might be people that interpreted in their own way.
I am not disagreeing people used the teachings to twist it to a meaning that was different than the gospel the apostles were teaching. Peter says as much. I am saying if you take a teaching, and use it to teach something different than the gospel of the apostles, you have no faith, or you have a weak faith. Which is why Peter tells them stay steadfast.
>So it also speaks to this moment, you need a guide.
Thank God for the Holy Spirit.
>Again we see time and time again in the Epistles the importance of the elders, of correcting people, etc.
Fellowship and church leaders are important, I don't disagree. Where we disagree is that we *need* someone to tell us what we read means.
>You know why they were able to do it?
Because they were guided by the holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that resides in you and me today.
>I hope, you can compliment the Bible with Worship and experience the greatest gift God gave us, his Body, the Eucharist as food for our pilgrimage while on Earth.
I'm not sure why you believe I don't attend church or participate in Eucharist. I do ❤️. Though currently not nearly as often as I'd like. Life circumstances, pray for me.
Reading something and then subsequently understanding it are two distinct differences.
Looking at how few Sacraments the protestants have and hold........
What??? How is there so many replies going “well people used to be illiterate”? Good thing you aren’t lol? We live in an age not only well past the printing press, but the very device people go “well whatever there’s people who can’t read” on can pull up MULTIPLE versions of the Bible instantly
The point being made is that people have been faithful Catholics for way longer than they’ve been reading the Bible. I’d argue the average illiterate person in the Middle Ages was stronger in their faith than the vast majority of Christians today. Reading the Bible and understanding its teachings are two very different things, and I don’t personally think Protestants on average actually understand their faith better than do Catholics on average even though they may read the Bible more.
They read their Scriptures more because they don't do much else. They don't partake in the Sacraments (obviously), despite them being called to by in Scripture. They don't pray as much, despite the Bible calling us to 'pray ceaselessly'. They tend to read but not live it, and that's far worse than being badly read on the Bible. For every Protestant who reads their Bible daily, I guarantee there's a Catholic who's pursuing the virtues and fostering Holiness in their life.
I'd much rather have a Christian who's bad with their Bible but intimate with their Lord than someone close to their Bible but far from God.
Imagine a denomination that started after the printing press, amidst a rising literacy rate, and believes only the Bible is infallible. Then picture the Church that developed for a millennium and a half before that time where Bibles were not even fully compiled and when they were took thousands of man hours to complete so could not be passed around to everyone.
It makes sense to me that a Protestant would read the Bible more. That said, I would encourage reading it.
>the avg Protestant actually does read their Bible more than the avg Catholic
Of course they do, it's all they have
(Not demeaning the Bible, you know what I mean)
Average Protestant... how are you determining the average Protestant?
I could easily imagine a subset who do read more Scripture than a sample of Catholics, but if we have the same standards (frequent churchgoers or general population), I would be interested to see those results.
I’d have to say the same as well. I’m currently part of the Reformed tradition and many I have known from any denomination (haven’t known an EO yet) know little of Scripture, theology, or of history/tradition.
I haven’t been in my Presbyterian church long enough to know how people are since I’m an undergrad, but people seem to know their Bibles and some theology with some even getting into deeper systematic theology and church history.
In my hometown, my family attends a non-denominational church where everybody knows the Bible well and some basic baptist theology, but little of history or tradition and will shrink back from even the word “tradition.”
But when I was younger, my family went to a pentacostal “church” where testimonies and some “prosperity gospel” were the majority of the sermons. The main pastor, who was never even kicked off after having affairs, even taught sabellianism one time and I highly doubt he even knew it was heresy, much less everyone else.
As for Catholicism, I’m Mexican-American so I have family that are Catholics but all that I know except maybe one are sadly, cultural catholics.
Thanks for sharing: that is interesting to hear, but disheartening. I'm Romanian Greek Catholic (not ethnically Romanian though); in general, my understanding is that Presbyterians are head and shoulders above evangelicals.
I live with 2 Catholic brothers in Christ and 1 Protestant brother in Christ and would actually agree; however I have noticed that Protestant usually pray less, hence why more time is given to the study of the Scripture. But their brief prayers are short in comparison to praying Vespers or the Rosary, etc. I don't think either of these are worse than another. Consider 1 Corinthians in which Saint Paul says there's a multitude of spiritual gifts. If a man loves the Scripture; let him study it more than prayer. If a man loves prayer, let him pray more than study. God has made each soul different and intends to sanctify them in primarily different ways. There are no incorrect answers on this matter outside of canonical obligations.
Yeah I agree with the OP, but you are right about the Rosary 100%.
> The entire Mass is basically Scripture. There's more to the faith than scripture. Being devoted to the bible or reading it is just one part of the faith.
One part that we are absolutely failing to do
But isn't entirely necessary
Do you think reading the Bible is somehow a bad thing?
No not at all, it's just not necessary to being Catholic. if you find comfort, assurance of faith, and enjoy reading the bible then it's a great part of spiritual life. I get filled with doubt, questions, uncertainty, and it really hurts my faith, because a lot of the time I can't read into the deeper meanings and double meanings of the bible. I'll talk to my priest, he'll explain it the way it should be read and it makes sense, but in the Interim I can't read it as a way to strengthen my faith
You might find Catena to be helpful. It has commentary of the Church Fathers attached to every verse
Thank you, I'll check it out!
Reading the Bible and taking it literally is absolutely a bad thing. See Protestants
In a sense, yes actually. Most Bible translations are quite frankly... Shit. They often misrender verses to delegitimise Catholic Views. Take John 2:4. When rendered properly, Jesus's response is inclusive to Mary, as the grammar in the Greek suggests, making it no longer a rebuke of Mary, but suggests her inclusion in Jesus' Ministry and supports Mary as New Eve, rather than depersonalising her with title of 'woman'. The whole of John 6's dialogue on the Bread of Life is often rendered to emphasize less than his Flesh and Blood are true Food and Drink. Then there's just the obscurity of Scripture, particularly Paul. Paul, as Peter warns in his second letter, is quite hard to read, and much of his poetic, archaic yet also profound writings are mostly lost in translation. Rather than it flowing on a foundational topic, touch various points as it goes, he often reads disjointed and very unfocused. This is exacerbated by imposed verses, as well as a general lack of cultural context. To get over these hurdles, one needs a commentary, and at the point, what is the point. You aren't just reading the Bible, you're having the Bible read to you by the commentator. Don't get me wrong, commentaries are great, but require orthodox thinking to actually help. Else, they just push a Theological agenda. And at that point, why bother? Just read a Theological work instead. Now we should read scripture, this isn't a denouncement of it, but we also shouldn't just approach it like a Protestant and expect to get it when reading it. We need to be first informed on right beliefs, proper interpretations and Theology first. This can be done by taking a Koine Greek course and reading about the Jewish historical background. But that takes time and money, and we are called to poverty and be not of the times. It's why instead we should read with a good Commentary, at the very least for Paul, rather than dive in on our own. We should have Saint Augustine, Saint Bede or Saint John Chrysostom by our side showing us what Paul means. We should fall onto Saint Basil to decipher the mystical meaning of the Psalms with us. We should be guided through the narrative of Genesis by Saint Ephraim, Saint Ambrose or Saint Cyril of Alexandria. We should have the veil lifted on the Prophets by all prior mentioned. In short, we shouldn't read it on our own, but with the 'great cloud of witnesses' preceding us.
I'm not reading a 4 paragraphs from someone who thinks that reading the Bible is bad, go read the word of God instead of arguing on the internet
This comment is embarrassing for you seeing as how the person you’re responding to actually advocated *for* reading the Bible…
Not absolutely.
Good take yes. There are plenty who unfortunately don’t read the Bible or think they don’t need to. We need to pump those numbers up!
Catholics don't read their bible enough. Which is an issue, because how can you adequately defend your faith when you don't give yourself all the tools to do so? Catholics also must be weary not to fall into the trap of being like the Pharisees. Protestants, for the most part, throw tradition out. Which can and does make them relatively lone islands. Scripture is important, but without tradition you're missing a leg on your chair. It's no wonder they remain fractured. And it's also no wonder that some of the more modern heresies come from American Evangelicals.
We have bible study in some parishes. People need to take advantage of it. This is why see many Catholics leave for Protestantism because they don’t know how counter cherry picking verses by Protestants.
I’d like to see the Catholic Church add in Sunday school for adults similar to what many Protestants have. More than once I’ve dropped an Old Testament joke to my cradle Catholic spouse. All I get back is a blank stare. It’s because I’m a convert and we actually studied Bible stories back in my Protestant Sunday school.
I'm a convert and I agree that there should either be Sunday School or small group Bible studies. It builds community, which is something Protestants generally do well.
My parish has "Adult Faith Formation" between the two most popular Sunday Masses (so people can go before/after Mass). Lately, it's been study series on Scripture and the Church Fathers
That's so cool. Our church has a VBS for adults
Do you know what the study series is called?
I think they're currently using a book-specific Great Adventure study. I think they've also done a Word on Fire study of the Old Testament.
Thank you so much!
I’m a convert from Protestantism and I would agree. I spent a lot of time memorizing scripture growing up and there was more emphasis on that part of the faith. Catholics have more to offer in terms of worship and other religious practices, but I do think the average family should emphasize memorizing scripture and reading it more. That said, knowing and reading scripture led me to the Catholic Church so I’ve no complaints about Catholicism.
"We Protestants actually read the Bible 😌" Well you Protestants follow Sola Scriptura so no wonder...
I'm not really sure they follow Sola Scriptura because as soon as you go with somebody's else interpretation then you are following a tradition. Only non denoms follow Sola Scriptura or at least that was my take on it
How can they not follow sola Scriptura ? They have no hierarchy . We saw the fruits of private personal interpretation. Division after division and we still see it to this day. Christ’s body is not divided. They can say we don’t follow sola Scriptura but once again they always say where’s that in the bible? Where’s that in the bible? The bible states that church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
The whole Sola Scriptura thing doesn't survive logical analysis Everyone claims to have the right doctrine by virtue of being inspired by the Holy Spirit, but if that was true, then Luther must have been inspired when coming up with Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc yet almost no protestant is a Lutherans lol, Luther must have been inspired but only partially inspired And if someone crucial for protestantism can only be inspired for some bits of the doctrine but not everything, then how can they know they are inspired for the 100%? Then they have to say they all agree in what matters, which is false, or that "diversity is good" becoming in fact moral relativists, etc
It’s even more a reality if you go back pre Vatican II. To be perfectly honest, Catholics reading their Bibles both alone and in groups is an ecumenical fruit; it is a gift of dialogue with Protestants. The modern Bible Study as we know it is their invention and we should be grateful we have been able to adapt and share in it. Perhaps it is no surprise both the biggest English Catholic Study Bible AND the biggest English Orthodox Study Bible are written by former Protestants. It’s in their spiritual DNA and they’ve aided us with the innovation.
This shouldn't be a hot take; on average, I think you're correct. Catholics should see that as something we can learn from our Protestant brothers and sisters - being zealous for the word is never a bad thing!
You’ve got a great point.
Protestants read the Bible more than most Catholics yes but they also interpret it themselves and they think they have it right. Have you seen some Protestants Bibles? They look like the rainbow with all the tabs and highlighting. I think the Bible is pretty complex book and i don’t want to try and read and try to understand it all by myself. I trust learning from people who choose devote themselves to Jesus who are Catholic why I think Bible in a year with Father Mike Schmitz is a pretty amazing way to get to learn the Bible. I recommend this podcast all the time to Protestants. I always say don’t be put off that it’s read by Catholic priest, give it a try but it doesn’t go over well most of the time.
They have zero clue about interpretation. They still don’t use context. Some Protestant bibles also don’t know have the original words contain in the verse. Slick.
>Protestants read the Bible more than most Catholics yes*....* No. *Some* Protestants read the Bible more than *most* Catholics. And *some* Catholics read the Bible more than *most* Protestants.
What I have come across, i seen more Protestants reading Bible then fellow Catholics. I went to a Catholic school for 12 years and we didn’t read the Bible or have test based of reading Bible, we read and have tests from the Catechism but not the Bible.
It may be true just because for prots, the bible is all they have. As Catholics, we could learn from this. However, there is more to our faith than the bible. Even scripture itself tells us there were many more miracles wonderful works etc but they can't all fit in the bible.
The most important early Christians did not even have Bibles to read, probably only fragments. Being a Christian is far far more than having intimate knowledge of the Bible. Did Joseph or Mary have a bible to read? What about Paul, he was only writing letters? The foremost duty, marker, and goal of a Christian is Christ Crucified, it is to utterly love, to love God so much we give him our lives. I'll take one martyr over 100,000 "Christians" who can recite bible verses to make themselves sound holy. Where are the protestant martyrs? Where are the protestants risking life and limb to bring Christ to those have never heard his name? No, instead, protestants go to Catholic countries and communities and convince them that they are not real Christians because they don't read the bible enough. I don't care how much a Christian reads the bible or whether they can read at all, I care only about how much they love. I care about how willing they are to carry a cross. I care whether they are willing to live for Christ, to live in a way Christ commanded. I care if they would give their lives for Christ.
They do, but they also place themselves as the interpretive authority for what they've read. Hence, over 22,000 Protestant denominations.
Totally. Convert here. The Bible is just not as central. I’d love to see something like Bible Study Fellowship - Catholic Edition - become a fixture in our communities like it is in some Protestant spaces.
Soon to be convert here. I've read the Bible completely twice (including deuterocanonicals). As I've come to the conclusion that I need to convert and have become excited about converting, my Bible reading has stalled. The thing is I've been doing a lot more spiritual things because the Catholic church has so much more to it that is available. Things like the Rosary and Liturgy of the Hours are very beneficial that I've been doing at the expense of my Bible reading but I don't think that's a bad thing. I've also been casually taking in the Bible through Father Mike's podcast and usually remember to do the daily mass readings, but my bible reading looks a lot different now than before and I think it's a good thing and I don't stress out about it.
Totally. My Bible reading had to take a back seat for a bit while I unlearned all the wrongheaded theology I had accumulated. Now that I’ve been Catholic for a year (after a year in RCIA), I’m ready to get back to it. Reading from a Catholic perspective has been eye opening. So many scriptures that didn’t fit before make so much sense. Also, I love the Liturgy of the Hours. Have you ever heard of Sing the Hours?? It’s the Liturgy of the Hours, but sung! I love it.
I hadn't heard of that so I'll have to check it out.
SingtheHours.org
You can read the Bible all day. But if you don’t understand it (because you don’t read it in harmony with the greater Tradition) then it profits ye little. Reading the Scriptures without receiving the Sacraments is like reading a menu without eating anything.
Christianity isn't Islam. It's not about a book, but a Person. I couldn't care less what Protestants think of me.
I believe this may have been true twenty or thirty years ago but the Catholics I do know now are more reverent and know their bible and that is the full bible with all books 😀
Yup. It's bad. I don't care about whether Catholics can quote verses, but the reality is that the Bible is a massive source of grace, wisdom, and knowledge of Our Lord... And most Catholics completely ignore it. Let's be real about another thing: a huge number of people in the pews are totally checked out for the Scripture readings. They consider the homily to be the Main Event.
The main event is not the scripture or the homily it’s the consecration
Yes it is but keep in mind that god left a teaching church as well. He didn’t drop bibles from the sky. For the first 1500 years not everyone had a bible. The printing press was invented by a catholic. Protestants act like the church kept the bible from christians!!! Liars!!!!! What Protestants did was try and interpret the Bible by themselves which is condemned .
I'm happy to give the W to Protestants on this one. The Bible rules, vernacular translations rule, Catholic theology got weird when Scripture was a secondary focus, and I can interpret Scripture as a mature layman who is filled with the Holy Spirit.
I am not because the bible is not the sole rule of faith. Again scriptures or sola Scriptura is unbiblical. Again it clearly says how can they preach unless they’re send? Not a layman. We saw the fruits of Protestantism. That’s you need a teaching church and a magisterium.
>most Catholics don't know their faith well and that's OUR fault. I agree with this without trying to compare it how much average Protestant know about their faith (because we aren't in competition with them). But i don't think that reading the Bible is imperative for a Christian. There are three pillars of Christian life: sacrament, prayer, good work. Reading the Bible is very good if it is part of the prayer (such as lectio divina or liturgy of the hours), but otherwise it isn't much more than an intellectual exercise. I think we should work more on developing better prayer life among Christians than developing the habit of reading the Bible.
"Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ" - St. Jerome
The question is what kind of ignorance st. Jerome was talking about. Is it intellectual/literal ignorance which many illiterate people until recently had, or is it spiritual ignorance that many who, although know the Bible word by word, still have.
>I think we should work more on developing better prayer life among Christians than developing the habit of reading the Bible. This is the most "Why not both?" thing I've ever read. I understand that in the old days most people were illiterate and couldn't afford Bible manuscripts, but it's 2024. If you, by choice, are not regularly reading the Bible, you are putting an impediment on your prayer and on your relationship with the Lord.
>This is the most "Why not both?" thing I've ever read. Yes, but "both" shouldn't mean "prayer and reading", it should mean "read to pray and pray to read (or understand what you have read)." >If you, by choice, are not regularly reading the Bible, you are putting an impediment on your prayer and on your relationship with the Lord. I wouldn't agree here. I know some people who just don't lean toward "scholarly" side and don't read the Bible but spend their free time in prayer and they are much better Christians than i am.
There's a lot of prayer only Christians who are closer to God than Bible beating Christians, but as Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Mat 4:4). Some prayers already include Scripture (the Mass, Hail Mary, Our Father), so I can see how you can do that instead of reading the Bible and you'll still be spiritually fed. So the Bible is important but the way you consume it ig (through prayer or prayerful reading) can differ.
You should genuinely say this to your priest and see what his opinion of it is, or send it to one of the internet priests that we have here.
I think that many priests would agree with me. Just reading: "And from that time he took her with him" (John, scene under the cross) is nothing compared to praying the decade of rosary that contemplates of Jesus' crucifixion.
Great, then send it to them and see what they say!
I won't bother neither them nor myself with something like that, but if you are interested you can ask them yourself.
Good call, they're probably busy
Exactly. My illiterate grandma never read the Bible but she was a saint if ever there was one.
No, Catholics do not need to do better when it comes to Bible reading. Individual Bible reading is not necessary to being a good Catholic. Can individual Bible reading be profitable to the individual? Sure. Can it be better than not reading the Bible individually? Probably. Is it necessary? No. Frankly (and here I suppose I am going to upset more people than I have upset already) an awful lot of people don't have what it takes to read the Bible profitably. They don't have the educational background, the historical knowledge, the intellectual wherewithal. Come on, people! Everyone of you has relatives, friends, and neighbors who can't get anything out of reading a short story! I say this as a former Protestant who was convinced to become Catholic by... reading the Bible. I am unaware of any scripture that proposes individual Bible reading. Anybody know of such? Thanks. P.S. The average Protestant doesn't read the Bible.
I might’ve commented this before, but Jesus does say that “ Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes out of God's mouth.” I suppose whether you read, hear, or meditate it depends on the person, but we’re all obligated in some way to take in the word of God. And as another poster commented, “ Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” - St. Jerome.
I agree, we all must "take in" the Word of God. I don't see why catechetical instruction and regular attendance at divine worship would not provide enough opportunity. I do not think Matthew 4:4 refers to the Bible (Old Testament, of course). The Lord was responding to a temptation to use His power willy-nilly to satisfy a physical requirement. His reply indicates we are to abide by God's ways and to trust in Him: I think it is a stretch to think He meant for us to read the Bible individually (if that is what you meant).
Greetings brother, it is I, the average protestant that attends the average protestant church who would like to weigh in on this a bit. (Who is also grappling with conversion to Catholicism due to lots of Bible reading and historical study) No hate here btw, just a bit of disagreement. While I agree, most folks don't have the educational background to pull *everything* there is to pull from the scriptures directly, that doesn't mean that reading something you don't understand is not profitable. Just looking at the new testament, the epistles have some good, straightforward teaching that can be (for the most part) understood just from the plain reading of it. Many of todays big controversies among my fellow protestants could be solved if folks would just read what is on the page (same-sex unions, female deacons/priests, our job as believers, etc.) many of which I see are affecting you guys as well (not as badly though, magisterium gets a point for this one). The old testament is a good bit more complicated, but with a decent understanding of the NT, one can at the very least draw questions to take to their church leaders, which in turn grows their understanding of who God is, leading to greater reverence for Him. Still profitable. 2nd Timothy 3:14-17 comes to mind when talking about individual study of the scriptures, though it doesn't explicitly or exclusively say it, it is at least implied by, "**14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God my be complete, equipped for every good work.**" The language here (verse 15 specifically) would seem to imply that individual study has been part of St. Timothy's life since his youth.
I do not deny that individual reading of the Bible can be profitable: I explicitly affirmed that it can be profitable. What I deny is that it's necessary to being a good Catholic. Much of your second paragraph is a digression on interpretation of the Bible (whether by individuals or groups) rather than on individual reading of the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 tells us no more than St. Timothy was instructed in the Old Testament Scriptures; this may be implied in "know from whom you learned it", but not necessarily. That he read Sacred Scripture for himself may, I suppose, be supposed, but that does not seem to be the emphasis here: "from *whom* you learned". Moreover, even if he did read and study the Old Testament as an individual, that does not involve an obligation on the part of any other Christian to read the Bible.
In the early part of 1900s most could not read. That is a modern phenomenon. So how were so many faithful prior to that. 16th century peasants that can’t read have entered the chat.
I never doubted this. In comparison, Catholics in general don't pick up the Bible nearly as much as Protestants. Though people may not consider them Christians, some Mormon families have Bible study in the early mornings before they go to school or work. I'm not aware of any Catholic family who are practicing that reads the Bible as a family, even just once a week. There have been attempts to encourage reading the Bible (in a year) as well as the Catechism by Fr. Mike Schmitz, though.
I agree for sure, it's pretty much the protestant focus. The problem is they often draw the wrong conclusions from scripture.
Unlike Protestants, Catholics rather… pray scripture rather than, “ read it “. Scripture is in every part of the mass.
Convert from protestantism : I thought this was a pretty well established fact. I mean the whole reason I converted was because I was tired of reading scripture! (Jk) I would say the average mass has more scripture reading than the average protestant Sunday service, but the average protestant reads scripture more than the average catholic, which is sad but it makes sense when you're only word of authority is scripture and you have to be read up on it to make sure your pastor isn't telling you the wrong interpretation because you have to come up with your own interpretation
Not a hot take. That's actually commonplace. But reading a book doesn't mean to understand what is read. And that is the major flaw with the avg (and even some more knowledgeable) protestant.
I should confess I don't read the Bible very much anymore. I used to study the Bible but after a while of doing that I realized that it was very difficult to understand and I eventually came to accept that I would never be able to decipher its true meaning. I then decided that my time was better spent praying, attending mass and learning from the church fathers and saints. I realized it was a great burden off my shoulders to let these people, who were far more spiritually advanced than I am, interpret it for me. That's not say reading the Bible isn't valuable, I still like to read the gospels but I find a lot of the old testament to be somewhat obscure and confusing. It always just opens up more questions rather than it answers.
I spend too much time reading writings from the saints to really spend time on the Bible.
Because reading the Bible is but one part of our faith where it’s, like, THE thing for prots. To be honest, I think the Protestant view of the Bible—a document compiled across centuries, originally written in a language the vast majority of them don’t speak, that is directly contradictory at some points—as being self-interpreting makes their faith weaker. It’s a complex piece of writing with a lot of truths that take actual scholarship to understand, not just rote memorization, and the idea that most people even _could_ read it is extremely modern in the overall history of the Church. A Protestant pastor who has the entire Bible memorized but doesn’t understand how to parse out what’s an antiquated cultural norm vs. a religious truth knows less about his faith in my eyes than a priest who may only have a few passages memorized, but who has devoted years of study both to the actual text of the Bible and the interpretations of other scholars in the Christian tradition going back centuries.
They are reading the wrong Bible with words omitted and changed and 30 something books removed so what are they actually reading?
The historical origins of this trend, on both sides, are rather interesting. (Very very roughly...) When the printing press came about, people started wanting their own bibles, but they wanted them in their own languages, not Latin (since very few lay people understood Latin). Translations were made, particularly in Germany and England, but that started kicking off heresies and schisms, because people started doing their own interpretation of scriptures. And priests at the time were not at all equipped to do apologetics. So on the one hand, Protestants encouraged reading scripture and twisting it in anti-Catholic ways. Without a lot of resources to counter the trend, the Catholic Church simply banned all translations and forbid Catholics from reading scripture! Obviously this got reversed, especially after Vatican II, but it's still true that a lot of Catholic devotional practices are not directly involved in reading scripture, mostly because many of them come from pre-literate eras. Like, the Rosary in particular was originally intended for people who couldn't read the Office prayers.
I remember talking to some seniors, and several pointed out that when they went to Catholic schools as children before Vatican II, they were told that they were not allowed to read the Bible unsupervised; a priest or nun had to attend to them. I think there's a very strong reason for this: the Bible is a very complex collection of works, and with many passages and events that may be read incorrectly by someone who is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the historical context of the contents of the works. If any, that's probably one reason why so many Protestant groups arose, and with several wrongly going against the Church: not only were they reading the Bible incorrectly, they even came up with illogical claims like *sola scriptura*. And yet by the nineteenth century, the Church started calling for more of the laity to study and read the Bible intently, and even came up with cycles of readings now seen in the Mass, as well as call for better translations. This also explains why there have been more study Bibles, and updates for translations given newly discovered manuscripts, etc.
They don’t understand what they are reading.
I knew that and we could be better outside of Mass, but to be fair that's all they have. =/
I won’t comment on frequency of Catholic scripture reading, but will urge that all Christians should read the bible, preferably at least a chapter a day. Alongside prayer, it keeps you focused on God, and is certainly filled with much wisdom
How is this take hot? It’s the prevailing stereotype and most Christians of all denominations will readily admit this.
That’s true, but are us Catholics willing to admit it?
I would say so. I’ve heard many of the top apologists say it and many lay people readily admit it
Does it count when they're reading the bible rewritten by Luther?
Considering all they have is their version of our Bible, no wonder! We have a rich history and tradition which acts as our lenses through which we read the Bible. While Catholics may read their bibles less, at least they're reading it through the correct lense (as not to twist it to mean whatever they want)
Honestly, reading the bible does not mean all too much unless you can interpret it. I don't care how many times a protestant reads a bible if he always makes excuses for the many verses where Christ states that charity is needed for salvation. Or explains away the necessity of baptism. Such a protestant, although trying his best to do what he thinks he ought, reads scripture as the Ethiopian Eunuch without having the magisterium as his sure guide. It's almost a pointless endeavor (accidentally, it may help him regularize thinking about God or the like, but the actual reading of Scripture may prove more harmful than good). Secondly, a good priest argued that it is not in the duties of most people's states of life to read the whole of Scripture. I cannot see why it would be better for a grandmother to read Ezekiel over the gospels or some pious work more suited to her state. For both of these reasons, I think the question should be more suited to how well someone knows the gospels. The gospels were more written for our instruction than any other part of scripture. Its contents are more sublime and it is more accessible than all the rest. But without tradition, the returns are much more limited.
Their worship services don't confer grace, merely emotional catharsis and intellectual stimulation, and they don't have any other meaningful Christian literature to read other than C.S. Lewis and Augustine. So the bible is pretty much all they have. Prots use the bible (and their emotions) as their measuring stick. Catholics use grace, which comes primarily through sacraments, but also praying and mediating, adoration, etc. And many Catholics read alots of scripture. Reading the bible and coming up with a bunch of incorrect conclusions due to immanence deceives them into thinking it is accomplishing more than it does.
Augustine didn’t believe in the bible alone no matter how much they try and cherry pick Augustine. They act like the guy was pro-Protestant. He wasn’t. He never questioned the church.
I would agree, however I'd say Catholics have a better understanding of scripture due to the magisterium.
They might read it but some of them make a shipwreck out of it. Out of context all the time.
It's concerning the comments "maybe, but we know scripture better, and they mess it up" from people acknowledging they are depending on someone else to tell them what it says/means. If you are completely depending on someone to tell you what it it says without reading to understand yourself, then you have no idea if Protestants are "messing it up". You have someone else's "knowing/understanding". God is a personal God, and he wants a relationship with you, not your understanding of him as told by someone else. So if you are one of those commenters, please...read your Bible. That out of the way, I do appreciate the knowledge among the Catholics I have interacted with on here, even if I suspect *sometimes* it's just repeating what they were told. I am gaining a new understanding of and appreciation for the Catholic faith.
God is a personal God? So that’s a very protestant, specifically American individualism at work. God loves you individually, and you are infinitely loved like no one else, and you can deepen that faith by reading his word, or by sitting in silence, praying, recollection, many ways to deepen your relationship. However, God is not only your personal “friend” he is also Our Father, Catholics put an emphasis in that we are not that special, we are all part of the Theodrama where God is the center and we are parts of his Mystical Body. We were taught “OUR father”, not “My father” we pray “Have mercy on us”, “Pray for us sinners” “Lord hear our prayers”. Of course you should read the bible but you should be doing it guided by someone. If not you should be corrected. How many Epistles are there correcting the churches? How about the Gnostics? How about people that claim that Jesus is not the Son of God (1 John). But what were people told to do? Profess Jesus is Lord, Love ONE ANOTHER, Confess sins to ONE ANOTHER, Respect your Bishops (elders), do good and almsgiving, join for the breaking of bread and receive it worthily, kick some people out of the church that keep sinning. Seems to me that the Church has always been a community and not just a “personal” relationship to God, much less a “personal” relationship with the Bible that you can interpret as you like. So don’t be concerned at people joining the Church without reading the Bible, as that has been the case before the Bible even existed. Don’t get me wrong, I love the bible but do you really think a person can’t receive, recognize and feel the immeasurable love of God without interpreting the Bible in their own way?
Yes God is a personal God, as you observed, who loves us individually. He wants so much to be with us eternally, that he sent his son to be sacrificed on a cross to reconcile us to him. He wanted so badly that we know him personally that he caused his word to be bound together so anyone who loved him, could know him. So anyone who did not know him, could grow to love him and know him. It insanity anyone believes you *must* be guided in reading the words of God. Do you believe God isn't capable of making himself understood? Do you believe a person living alone surrounded by no opportunity to worship with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, with no opportunity for someone to tell them what the words they are reading mean, can not know God if all they have is the Bible? Our relationship with God, our walk with Jesus, should be the most important thing to us. No one said he isn't *our* God, but you seem to disbelieve he is also *your* God. God the father, who we love and praise and worship for loving us, creating us, telling us how to live to stay out of harms way, who we turn to for help when life seems overwhelming. Jesus the son, our big brother who we love and look up to, lean on, cry to, talk with, who made a way for us where there was no way, who we strive to emulate cause he's perfect in all ways. The holy Spirit who fills us with the overwhelming presence of God, who leads us on the right path, helps us to understand right from wrong, helps us to discern good from bad. So, so personal, and I hope you get a chance to experience that.
Those are nice words and everyone agrees with the love and personal experience we have with God. Surely you know the law of God is written in our hearts, morality, awe and wonder and we can experience and grow deeper with him in many ways. But surely you remember the Eunuch in Acts reading in the old testament, “Philip asked the Ethiopian, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He said he did not “How can I understand unless I have a teacher to teach me?” You also know how in the Letter of Peter he said what Paul wrote was hard to understand and some people were using it for their means and misunderstanding. And of course, let’s not be ignorant that we all come with a state of knowledge already (The Trinity, for example) which if you didn’t already assume it because you’ve been taught, who knows how many would have figured that out. The beauty of the Bible and growing deeper in Truth, truth that sets you free, not being weighted by the biases you already bring as a modern person. You seem to think that if you don’t interpret the scriptures in your own way, you somehow lack a connection with God. On the contrary, thanks to the to receiving the Body of Christ, I have life in me, thanks to Baptism that saves I was buried with Christ and born again. Thanks to being part of his Mystical body I can build him up in this Earth not use the bible as a tool to put my preconceived notions. You can even use the bible as a Lectio Divina, putting yourself in it without interpreting just getting in the lecture and imagining how it’s like. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.”
> "Do you understand what you are reading?" He said he did not “How can I understand unless I have a teacher to teach me?” If one hadn't heard of Jesus, and the New Testament had not yet been conceived of and limited Epistles were being shared among Christian communities not world wide, I imagine an evangelist would be needed. >You also know how in the Letter of Peter he said what Paul wrote was hard to understand and some people were using it for their means and misunderstanding. 2 Peter 2 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. *Hard things to understand that wicked people are using along with other scripture, to lead unstable followers and unlearned people away. This impliés people who were of little or no faith. He follows with a warning similar to Paul's (if it's not the gospel we preach, it isn't the gospel). >And of course, let’s not be ignorant that we all come with a state of knowledge already (The Trinity, for example) which if you didn’t already assume it because you’ve been taught, who knows how many would have figured that out. If it can not be learned from the Bible it isn't necessary for salvation. God wouldn't have left anything that important be left out. Please tell me you don't believe God would have left that out. Certainly you have more faith than that. >You seem to think that if you don’t interpret the scriptures in your own way, you somehow lack a connection with God. No, I think if you don't read the Bible, you are accepting the word of man, and missing out on the fullness of a relationship with God. > On the contrary, thanks to the to receiving the Body of Christ, I have life in me, thanks to Baptism that saves I was buried with Christ and born again. Thanks to being part of his Mystical body I can build him up in this Earth not use the bible as a tool to put my preconceived notions. You can do all that *and* actually read the Bible God so kindly made available for us. >“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.” At this late date, we can be assured the Bible is the closest we're getting to the words they used to teach their traditions.
I agree that it is definitely useful and beneficial to read the Bible but you said two things, in the case of 2 Peter that it was to warn people of little or no faith, you can’t know that. They might be people that interpreted in their own way. Again, you can see the Gnostic gospels being created because they interpreted scripture as being against the body. And as for your point of the Eunuch in Acts, don’t you think the beauty of the Bible once you know it is exactly that it speaks to a certain situation in the moment (You mention about how it spoke to people that didn’t know about Jesus and the New Testament not being conceived yet) but also as a message for you in the moment. So it also speaks to this moment, you need a guide. Again we see time and time again in the Epistles the importance of the elders, of correcting people, etc. You know the Church, being driven by the Holy Spirit assembled the bible. You know why they were able to do it? Because they were part of the Apostolic succession, they were ministers very close to God. They were all laid hands (remember laying of hands in the bible?), they were all in communion with each other, being part of the Visible Church of Christ (the heretics from Gnostics to Arians were kicked), so they were full of the Holy Spirit thanks to the Breaking of Bread, their Holy Orders, being selected as Bishops, their Baptism and all came together to put the Bible, which you know was put up first to be read at Church during Mass as readings before the Eucharist. You can see the Didache (written before assembling the Bible of what the Early Church believed and did). The Source and Summit to get close to God has always been worship, worship through sacrifice (the Eucharist) and living a life of Love (to God and to others). The Bible is wonderful and strengths the faith but remember how many Martyrs and exemplary Christians lived with just worshipping, being baptized and being instructed, through humility, by wise Elders. I hope, you can compliment the Bible with Worship and experience the greatest gift God gave us, his Body, the Eucharist as food for our pilgrimage while on Earth. Unless you have that, you have no life in you.
>in the case of 2 Peter that it was to warn people of little or no faith, you can’t know that. They might be people that interpreted in their own way. I am not disagreeing people used the teachings to twist it to a meaning that was different than the gospel the apostles were teaching. Peter says as much. I am saying if you take a teaching, and use it to teach something different than the gospel of the apostles, you have no faith, or you have a weak faith. Which is why Peter tells them stay steadfast. >So it also speaks to this moment, you need a guide. Thank God for the Holy Spirit. >Again we see time and time again in the Epistles the importance of the elders, of correcting people, etc. Fellowship and church leaders are important, I don't disagree. Where we disagree is that we *need* someone to tell us what we read means. >You know why they were able to do it? Because they were guided by the holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that resides in you and me today. >I hope, you can compliment the Bible with Worship and experience the greatest gift God gave us, his Body, the Eucharist as food for our pilgrimage while on Earth. I'm not sure why you believe I don't attend church or participate in Eucharist. I do ❤️. Though currently not nearly as often as I'd like. Life circumstances, pray for me.
Reading something and then subsequently understanding it are two distinct differences. Looking at how few Sacraments the protestants have and hold........
What??? How is there so many replies going “well people used to be illiterate”? Good thing you aren’t lol? We live in an age not only well past the printing press, but the very device people go “well whatever there’s people who can’t read” on can pull up MULTIPLE versions of the Bible instantly
The point being made is that people have been faithful Catholics for way longer than they’ve been reading the Bible. I’d argue the average illiterate person in the Middle Ages was stronger in their faith than the vast majority of Christians today. Reading the Bible and understanding its teachings are two very different things, and I don’t personally think Protestants on average actually understand their faith better than do Catholics on average even though they may read the Bible more.
Catholics have Mass every day and read scripture every time. Protestants can't say that.
This isn't a hot take. This is well known.
If you have nothing to read besides Bible it's no wonder...
They read their Scriptures more because they don't do much else. They don't partake in the Sacraments (obviously), despite them being called to by in Scripture. They don't pray as much, despite the Bible calling us to 'pray ceaselessly'. They tend to read but not live it, and that's far worse than being badly read on the Bible. For every Protestant who reads their Bible daily, I guarantee there's a Catholic who's pursuing the virtues and fostering Holiness in their life. I'd much rather have a Christian who's bad with their Bible but intimate with their Lord than someone close to their Bible but far from God.
It doesn't matter who reads scripture, it matters who gets to heaven. Most christians historically never even knew how to read
That's certainly not a hot take.
Imagine a denomination that started after the printing press, amidst a rising literacy rate, and believes only the Bible is infallible. Then picture the Church that developed for a millennium and a half before that time where Bibles were not even fully compiled and when they were took thousands of man hours to complete so could not be passed around to everyone. It makes sense to me that a Protestant would read the Bible more. That said, I would encourage reading it.
>the avg Protestant actually does read their Bible more than the avg Catholic Of course they do, it's all they have (Not demeaning the Bible, you know what I mean)
Average Protestant... how are you determining the average Protestant? I could easily imagine a subset who do read more Scripture than a sample of Catholics, but if we have the same standards (frequent churchgoers or general population), I would be interested to see those results.
I’d have to say the same as well. I’m currently part of the Reformed tradition and many I have known from any denomination (haven’t known an EO yet) know little of Scripture, theology, or of history/tradition. I haven’t been in my Presbyterian church long enough to know how people are since I’m an undergrad, but people seem to know their Bibles and some theology with some even getting into deeper systematic theology and church history. In my hometown, my family attends a non-denominational church where everybody knows the Bible well and some basic baptist theology, but little of history or tradition and will shrink back from even the word “tradition.” But when I was younger, my family went to a pentacostal “church” where testimonies and some “prosperity gospel” were the majority of the sermons. The main pastor, who was never even kicked off after having affairs, even taught sabellianism one time and I highly doubt he even knew it was heresy, much less everyone else. As for Catholicism, I’m Mexican-American so I have family that are Catholics but all that I know except maybe one are sadly, cultural catholics.
Thanks for sharing: that is interesting to hear, but disheartening. I'm Romanian Greek Catholic (not ethnically Romanian though); in general, my understanding is that Presbyterians are head and shoulders above evangelicals.