On Reading Holy Scripture

[Livin_the_MASS]

"It is truth that must be sought in Holy Scripture, not beauty of expression. It should be read with the same spirit in which it was written. We must seek the good of our soul rather than literary style, and just as gladly read simple and devout books as those of deep and subtle learning.

[b]"Be concerned only with the pure truth in what you read and not with the greatness or lack of learning of the author. Think more of what is said than of the one who said it.[/b]

"Humans soon pass away; God's truth remains forever. Through the Scripture God speaks to us in many ways, regardless of those He uses as instruments.[b] Too often we are led by curisoity to read Holy Scripture and want to understand and argue passages we should simply pass over.[/b]

[b]"If you wish to profit by the reading of Scripture, [u]then do so with humility, simplicity and faith and never try to acquire a reputation for being a scholar. [/u]Inquire, and then listen meekly to what the Saints tell you.[/b] Do not be critical of the sayings of the ancient Fathers, for they were not written without reason."

I read this today, wanted to share with you guys!

God Bless
Jason

[Jake Huether]

Was the person who wrote the Immitation of Christ a Catholic?

Just wondering...

I'm reading "The Utmost for the Highest". The auther is not a Catholic, but much of what he says is so Catholic. Makes me wonder why they aren't. May be they don't know that what they are saying is Catholic.

[God Conquers]

Thomas a Kempis was a Catholic monk of the 14? century. Late middle ages anyhow. Pre-reformation. Everyone was Catholic!

[Livin_the_MASS]

So would someone like to share what they get out of the above quote by Thomas A Kempis?


God Bless
Jason

[God Conquers]

Read your bible! And listen to your fathers!

[amarkich]

Kempis was not speaking of individual laymen reading the Bible (as there were no Bibles available at that time). He was speaking of the beneficial aspects of Bible reading for those who are properly disposed and who are obedient to the Church and the Church Fathers. This fact seems to count out Protestants and most laymen from Bible reading. While the Bible can be beneficial for seeking truth, it is not the vocation of laymen or the ignorant to do. I am posting just to clarify so that no one is confused by his writings. God bless.

[p0lar_bear]

amarkich,

Are you saying that lay people should not read the Bible?

[amarkich]

I did not say that laymen should absolutely refrain from reading the Bible. I do say, however, that laymen should not read the Bible for the same purpose which Thomas A Kempis stated, to come to a knowledge of the truth (as he says, the reason for which it was written). Laymen can, should they choose to read the Bible extra-liturgically as an optional devotion, read the Bible as a form of prayer (the method to which several books of the Bible tend, especially the Psalms). The fact of the matter is that no one, not even clergy, can read the Bible as truth if it is read by itself, apart from the Church. Of course, it is possible to come to a knowledge of the truth (as the Church teaches it) apart from the Church's teaching, but the chances of this ever happening are "very few if not non-existent". Saint Thomas Aquinas, for example, may have been able to do this. The Bible should be read, by the Church, to come to a knowledge of doctrinal truth, by the clergy as a means of clarifying and supporting this truth, and by laymen (should they choose to read it) as a prayer. God bless.

[p0lar_bear]

amarkich,

You're serious? I, as a lay person, should not read the Bible in order to discover truth in it? You do realize that a number of the Church Fathers were laymen?

Of course the Scriptures should be read in the context of the Church, but it does not follow that the laity are incapable of this or should not attempt it. Unless you can prove me wrong, I would say that no where in Church teaching does the Church say that the laity should only read the Scriptures as prayer ([i]lectio divina[/i] is, of course, a beneficial method of prayer, I'm not disputing that).

[mulls]

wow

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Apr 15 2004, 06:53 PM']I did not say that laymen should absolutely refrain from reading the Bible. I do say, however, that laymen should not read the Bible for the same purpose which Thomas A Kempis stated, to come to a knowledge of the truth (as he says, the reason for which it was written). Laymen can, should they choose to read the Bible extra-liturgically as an optional devotion, read the Bible as a form of prayer (the method to which several books of the Bible tend, especially the Psalms). The fact of the matter is that no one, not even clergy, can read the Bible as truth if it is read by itself, apart from the Church. Of course, it is possible to come to a knowledge of the truth (as the Church teaches it) apart from the Church's teaching, but the chances of this ever happening are "very few if not non-existent". Saint Thomas Aquinas, for example, may have been able to do this. The Bible should be read, by the Church, to come to a knowledge of doctrinal truth, by the clergy as a means of clarifying and supporting this truth, and by laymen (should they choose to read it) as a prayer. God bless.[/quote]

amarkich,

Don't make things so complicated. You skipped over that part were Kempis also says [b]"Too often we are led by curisoity to read Holy Scripture and want to [u]understand and argue passages we should simply pass over."[/b][/u]

St. Josemaria, said that we should have the Scriptures so well known that threw out the day or in any situation we should be able to close our eyes and play it like a movie in our minds.

He goes on to say even to mingle yourself with the characters. So your statement does not go with Kempis above or of what St. Josemaria says on Scripture.

Scripture should be a part of our daily lifes!!!

In the love of Christ
Jason

[Livin_the_MASS]

any more insights?

God Bless
Jason

[amarkich]

Jason, did I say that it should not be a part of our lives? No. Did I say that laymen, unguided by the Holy Ghost, cannot interpret Scripture in order to find Truth? Yes. Does the Church teach that individuals cannot discern Truth which is not in union with the Church's teaching on the Scripture? Yes. The Church does not speak authoritatively on many aspects of Scripture (at least in the strict sense), so it can be very detrimental for individuals to read Scripture in order to discern Truth. It is true that individuals can discern basic truths concerning things like virtue, works of mercy, etc, but it must be recognized that the more complex truths cannot and should not be discerned by laymen, who have not been given the authority by God to speak His Truth infallibly. This is the job of the Church. Likewise, here are just a few examples concerning the destructiveness of laymen interpreting the Bible individually.

"We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books." c.f., Council of Toulouse, Canon 14, A.D. 1229.
N.B., This Council was concerned with the Albigensian heresy, a form of Manichaeanism (similar to Dualism), which was making poor translations of the Bible in order to support their heretical claims. The Council, however, not only makes provisions for the vernacular translations (which were poorly made) but also for the possession of a Bible (many literate people during this time knew Latin as well as their language), which for the laity, proved to be a scandal because of personal interpretation.

"Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission [i]may not receive absolution from their sins [/i]till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them." (emphasis added)
c.f., Rule IV Concerning Prohibited Books (drawn up by the Fathers of the Council of Trent and approved by Pope Pius, A.D. 1515.
N.B. the Bible was a prohibited book after the Council of Trent (once the banned books list began) for the very reasons which I have given; note also that during the time of the Council of Trent the mistranslations of the Bible were not an issue as they had been in the past (as the Church had eradicated this problem)
[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html[/url] (this link has all ten rules)

"To be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted." c.f., Pope Innocent III (1199)
N.B., This pre-dates Papal Encyclicals by 27 years, but I am unaware of whether or not this was in a Papal Bull; regardless of whether or not it is in a Bull or not (I do not claim infallibility on the issue of translations to the vernacular), we must heed his warning.

Edited April 18, 2004 by amarkich

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Apr 17 2004, 07:39 PM']Jason, did I say that it should not be a part of our lives? No. Did I say that laymen, unguided by the Holy Ghost, cannot interpret Scripture in order to find Truth? Yes. Does the Church teach that individuals cannot discern Truth which is not in union with the Church's teaching on the Scripture? Yes. The Church does not speak authoritatively on many aspects of Scripture (at least in the strict sense), so it can be very detrimental for individuals to read Scripture in order to discern Truth. It is true that individuals can discern basic truths concerning things like virtue, works of mercy, etc, but it must be recognized that the more complex truths cannot and should not be discerned by laymen, who have not been given the authority by God to speak His Truth infallibly. This is the job of the Church. Likewise, here are just a few examples concerning the destructiveness of laymen interpreting the Bible individually.

"We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books." c.f., Council of Toulouse, Canon 14, A.D. 1229.
N.B., This Council was concerned with the Albigensian heresy, a form of Manichaeanism (similar to Dualism), which was making poor translations of the Bible in order to support their heretical claims. The Council, however, not only makes provisions for the vernacular translations (which were poorly made) but also for the possession of a Bible (many literate people during this time knew Latin as well as their language), which for the laity, proved to be a scandal because of personal interpretation.

"Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission [i]may not receive absolution from their sins [/i]till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them." (emphasis added)
c.f., Rule IV Concerning Prohibited Books (drawn up by the Fathers of the Council of Trent and approved by Pope Pius, A.D. 1515.
N.B. the Bible was a prohibited book after the Council of Trent (once the banned books list began) for the very reasons which I have given; note also that during the time of the Council of Trent the mistranslations of the Bible were not an issue as they had been in the past (as the Church had eradicated this problem)
[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html[/url] (this link has all ten rules)

"To be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted." c.f., Pope Innocent III (1199)
N.B., This pre-dates Papal Encyclicals by 27 years, but I am unaware of whether or not this was in a Papal Bull; regardless of whether or not it is in a Bull or not (I do not claim infallibility on the issue of translations to the vernacular), we must heed his warning.[/quote]


"Saint Josemaria practiced and preached a particular way to approach the Scriptures in prayer. His way is intensive rather than exhaustive. Bishop del Portillo recalled that the founder 'gave constant proof of an extraordinary veneration for Sacred Scripture. The Holy Bible, together with the tradition of the Chruch, was the source from which he ceaselessly drew for his personal prayer and preaching. Every day he read some pages---about a chapter---of Scripture, generally from the New Testament.

[b]St. Josemaria advice[/b]

"I advised you to read the New Testament and to enter into each scene and take part in it, as one more of the characters. [b][u]The minutes you spend in this way each day enable you to incarnate the Gospel, reflect it in your life and help others to reflect it."[/u][/b]

[b]Quotes from "Scripture Matters" by:Scott Hahn[/b]

Well from what I read from the above everybody should read the Sacred Scripture and partake in it in a special way.

Plus your reply makes no sense why?

Because when you pray the Rosary you pray the Gospel!

You have me very confused, I wouldn't argue with a Saint either but thats just me!

Peace of Christ be with you brother
Jason

[Livin_the_MASS]

bump

[amarkich]

Jason, we do not seem to be disagreeing. We both assert the fact that the Bible is a [i]prayer[/i] and should be used by the laity as such! Further, I am not agreeing with any Saint, just to clarify. I love the Bible and think it is a great devotion for those who reflect upon it as a prayer. There is a reason that Scripture is included in the Mass (and the Brievary, etc). The Scriptures are beautiful, part of God's Word to us (the other part being Tradition, the Teachings of the Church, etc). I love Saint Josemaría Escriva and think that Opus Dei is a very conservative Order. I would be even more pleased with it if it would follow more strictly the life of Saint Josemaria Escrivia! He was a very holy man and as nearly all the Saints, practiced penances very often that were certainly Saintly. I wish more people would imitate him. This is not the issue, though. We agree on all that has been said here. My comment was simply that Thomas A Kempis was not referring to the laity (which he wasn't). I then went on to illustrate this using logic and a few decrees from the Church. I wouldn't argue with a Saint either (that is why I am such a strong supporter of the fact that the Church is the only way to Heaven). Likewise, I would not argue with a Council of the Church which asserted the scandal that can befall those who not only are "illiterate and uninitiated" but also the "educated and the gifted." God bless.
By the way, you seem to be very interested in the Lives of the Saints. If you have not already read it, you should pick up Memoirs of the Oratory (the Autobiography of Saint John Bosco); this collection of his memoirs is great. The only problem is that it is published by Modernists. It is interesting to note that in one of his memoirs (titled "A Jewish Friend"), Saint John Bosco writes of a Jewish boy with whom he was friends in his younger years. He told the Jewish boy that he could not be saved unless he converted to Catholicism. The publishers spent one paragraph in a foot note trying to explain how Saint Bosco did not really mean what he said and that the Dogma [i]Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus[/i] does not really mean that the Church is necessary for salvation (it is even so ignorant as to bring up Father Feeney, who was not "excommunicated"--it was not a true excommunication in the actual sense of the term--for doctrine but for disobedience and who was re-instituted into the Church by reciting the Athanasian Creed which begins, "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.", so he clearly was not excommunicated for teaching this!). I hope you enjoyed the aside His memoirs really are great, and you should consider reading them. I think I will now go start a thread to clarify some things about Father Feeney.

[Livin_the_MASS]

So who is Thomas A Kempis talking to?

I'm confused, throughout the book Christ speaks to the soul, and Thomas gives advise, and speaks back to Christ as if it were us.

So who is he talking to?

God Bless

Edited April 18, 2004 by Jason

[the lumberjack]

so much for being free thinking, eh?

be good little spoonfed sheep who don't question anything that is fed to you.

and don't read the Bible to learn anything...but read the documents that have already translated it for you...

like a motherbird who prechews food for her young...

say what you will, this only reinforces that fact that any Christian would be fully capable of carrying the Gospel of Christ with only the Bible...where as Catholics would not know what they believed were your Volumes of Verbiage were to be lost...and you were left with only the Bible.

try maintaining your "oral tradition" then....

[dUSt]

[quote]and don't read the Bible to learn anything...but read the documents that have already translated it for you...[/quote]
You know Catholics read the Bible. Why are you being so ugly?

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 19 2004, 10:46 AM'] so much for being free thinking, eh?

be good little spoonfed sheep who don't question anything that is fed to you.

and don't read the Bible to learn anything...but read the documents that have already translated it for you...

like a motherbird who prechews food for her young...

say what you will, this only reinforces that fact that any Christian would be fully capable of carrying the Gospel of Christ with only the Bible...where as Catholics would not know what they believed were your Volumes of Verbiage were to be lost...and you were left with only the Bible.

try maintaining your "oral tradition" then.... [/quote]
Heb 5:11-14

[b]Exhortation to Spirtual Renewal[/b]

[b]"About this we have much to say, and it is difficult to explain, for you have become sluggish in hearing.[/b] Although you should be teachers by this time, [b]you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, [and] not solid food.[/b] Everyone who lives on milk lacks experience of the word righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for mature, for those whose faculities are trained by practice to discern good and evil."

LJ,

It looks like to me we are "spoon feed" spiritual things!

St. Paul talks about it right here!

God Bless
Jason

Edited April 19, 2004 by Jason