From the “Going away? Post so here!” Thread.
Probably realized a ton of the stuff they do outright contradicted the scripture that already existed so they had to make their own.
You really shouldn’t talk about something of which you really have no knowledge of the history of how it came to be.
Of course that’s not the official reason the catholic Bible was made. Are you suggesting the scriptures that warn against celibacy and strictly forbid calling a man heavenly father and warn against restricting diet for certain times didn’t count or what? There’s also the matter of the Bible quite clearly saying each individual congregation should be it’s own governing body and not answer to another higher church or church figure other than God himself. That had to go, amirite? (And yes, I am. Catholics don’t read the Bible very much for the most part in my experience. Once upon a time they were actually discouraged from reading it. I wonder why…)
Oh boy, there are so many things wrong with this.
- The Catholic Church is firmly grounded in the Bible. It’s not our only source of authority and we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us), but almost everything about Catholicism has at least something to do with Scripture.
- The Catholic Church assembled the Bible. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage established the canon, although some local churches still included additional books, and it was more firmly defined at the Council of Trent when it was challenged by Luther and other reformers during the Protestant Reformation.
- Any Scriptures that warn against celibacy are in the Old Testament, as far as I am aware, and therefore have been superseded because of the new understanding of priesthood, etc. "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:12). “Eunuchs for the…kingdom” has long been understood to refer to celibacy, and Jesus doesn’t condemn it. Not to mention that he was celibate…
St. Paul writes:
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. (1 Corinthians 7:1-7)
Here, he clearly recommends marriage to avoid sexual immorality. He concludes, however, by saying that this is a concession and that he wishes that all were like him, which is to say, celibate (which can be interpreted as him saying that marriage is a necessary evil, but it’s more likely that the statement about different gifts is an acknowledgement that not all are called to celibacy, and that perhaps his view that the second coming was imminent meant that he saw no need for the procreative aspect of marriage).
4. The passage about not calling people “father” also says not to call them “teacher” or “master,” and in context, can be easily understood as a call to recognize that all authority comes from God. Not to mention that if Jesus meant it literally, St. Paul is guilty of breaking this rule: “For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 4:15).
5. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.
6. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
a. Most people couldn’t read.
b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.
c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.
d. There was a reaction against the Protestant idea of personal interpretation over Church authority and Tradition that led to Catholics shunning biblical scholarship and people not being encouraged to read the Bible on their own. This was simply to avoid people with little education misinterpreting Scripture and falling into heresy.
e. Catholics are steeped in Scripture through their participation in the Mass. Typically, when the Mass was in Latin, the priest would translate the gospel and other reading into the vernacular. If you ever read anything written by almost any saint, whether or not they were clergy, they constantly reference Scripture, even if they couldn’t read it for themselves because of an ignorance of Latin (St. Teresa of Avila comes to mind).
f. Why didn’t the Church commission vernacular translations before the Renaissance? Because most people who could read knew Latin anyway.
As a Catholic, I have been immersed in Scripture from the time I was born, whether at Mass (which, again, is highly Scriptural), or learning my catechism, or memorizing Scripture, or reading Bible stories (or the writings of the saints). It boggles my mind that people think Catholicism is anti-Biblical.