Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)

Catholic Exchange ^ | December 18, 2007 | Mickey Addison

[NYer]

Some Christians believe that Catholics are not encouraged to read the Bible.  In fact, the opposite is true...and why wouldn't it be, after all, the Bible is a Catholic book.  What do I mean by that?

The Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote the Bible.  The Catholic Church assembled the Canon (List) of books in the Bible, and the Catholic Church has safeguarded the Bible for 2,000 years.  The Church treasures Sacred Scripture because it is the Word of God.  The Church loves Holy Writ, so much so that she orders her prayer and worship around it.

First, let me dispel the idea that Catholics are not encouraged to read the Bible.  On the contrary, we are exhorted to spend time in God's Word often.  St Jerome, a famous Bible scholar (A.D. 342-420) and Catholic monk, wrote, "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."  He translated the Bible into Latin, the common tongue of the day, and his translation (Latin Vulgate) was the translation for 1,000 years.  Far from withholding the Holy Book from the people, the Catholic Church ensured that the Bible would be available to anyone who wanted it by preserving the definitive translation of it.

Listen to what the Second Vatican Council says about Sacred Scripture: "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God's word and of Christ's body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles" (Dei Verbum, #21).

Ah...I hear someone murmur from the back row...what about the Council of Trent?  Didn't that council forbid Catholics to read the Bible?  No, exactly the opposite.  The Council Fathers wrote, "...the synod, following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testament, seeing that one God is the author of both..." (April 8, 1546).  What the Council forbade was the reading of unapproved translations of Sacred Scripture since they could not vouch for the authenticity of any version not reviewed by Biblical scholars guided by the Magesterium of the Church.  To do otherwise would have given the "seal of approval" to potentially heretical books masquerading as the Bible and in the theological and political turmoil of 16th century Europe, there were plenty of "Bibles" out there that didn't measure up.  (If you have ever taken a gander at the New World Translation, the "Bible" of Jehovah's Witnesses, you would understand how egregious doctrinal errors can be spread through a faulty translation.)

The Second Vatican Council, echoing the constant teaching of the Church, decreed the necessity for the Bible to be accessible to the faithful and ecumenical if possible: "Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful...But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them" (DV #22).

Today, with the myriad of translations, the surest way to know that your Bible is trustworthy is to look for the imprimatur ("let it be printed") by a bishop on the inside cover.

Jesus Christ established the Church on Pentecost, under the leadership of the Apostles and the guidance of the Spirit.  The Apostles and their followers are the ones who began to write the letters and books that would become the New Testament.  Jesus didn't flip an armload of scrolls to His followers and tell them to "figure it out for yourself, you've got the Spirit"; He gave the Apostles the authority to teach and guide in His Name.  Most of the books of the New Testament were written in the first 100 years after the Resurrection, by men who either met Christ in Person on earth, or by men who knew the Apostles.  In other words, Catholics wrote the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

How did the Church assemble Sacred Scripture into the Bible we know today?  The Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) decreed the definitive list, but the canon of Scripture they promulgated was merely formalizing the decrees of earlier synods of bishops on the same subject.  The Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the three of Carthage (A.D. 393, 397, and 419), where St Augustine likely played a leading role, drew up the canon of Scripture that Trent later ratified.  Frankly, it wasn't until the 16th century that a decree from Rome on the Canon was even necessary, since almost everyone used the Latin Vulgate anyway.

To appreciate how much the Church treasures Sacred Scripture, one need only spend a day in prayer with her.  The hours of the day are marked with Lauds, Vespers, and Compline, where Psalms and Canticles are sung and passages from the Bible prayed over.  Other times of the day are marked with the Angelus or Regina Caeli, prayers that recount the joy of the Gospel's Incarnation and Resurrection narratives.  Most importantly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass immerses us in Scripture as we participate in the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.  Most of the prayers and all of the four readings come from the Bible, a journey through salvation history at each celebration.

Finally, one last, and perhaps the most important, comment about the Bible.  While it is true that the Church is immersed in Scripture, it is also true that Revelation is not confined to the 72 books of the Bible.  The Bible itself records that Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book (Jn 20:30). 

Because the Bible is the Church's book, it is not intended to be read apart from the Liturgy and Sacred Tradition of the Church. 

Immerse yourself in the Bible...it's a very Catholic thing to do!

[MarkBsnr]

Wyclif died in 1384. Martin Luther nailed up his protest in 1517.

Hardly hundreds of years.

[Soliton]

Both were burned for writing english translations of the Bible. I’m sure you get my point, but prefer splitting hairs.

People were often strangled to the point they blacked out but not killed to get confessions. He was burned after this process.

I love a good argument. Do you have any? If you want to continue address the salient fact that contrary to the original post, the Church was against members reading the Bible for most of its history.

By the way, the “hudreds of years” was in the original source, not that it touched on my point anyway.

[MarkBsnr]

I have read no information on any site that I could find that claims that either man was burned alive. They all say ‘strangled and then burned’, except for one which said that he was strangled to death and then burned.

The Church is not now nor has been against people reading the Bible. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[Soliton]

The Vaudois’ crime was not their chosen lifestyle; it was the content of their preaching. By the end of the 4th Century, the scriptures, and all the ordinances of the Church, were completed in Latin. The Vaudois taught the scriptures in common language, and refuted non-scriptural teachings that had become part of doctrine. In the 12th Century, this was an offense worthy of excommunication.

[MarkBsnr]

:::Both were burned for writing english translations of the Bible. I’m sure you get my point, but prefer splitting hairs.:::

They got into trouble for writing bad translations. Deliberately so. Let us not forget that the Venerable Bede translated the first Bible into English in the 700s.

Let us not further forget that Tyndale incurred the enmity of Henry VIII and it was he who ensured Tyndale’s death.

Wyclif died a free man - he was never imprisoned.

Those who say that the Church stopped people from reading the Bible forget that books took many months each to copy out; the manpower was to produce books and not spend inordinate amounts of time translating correctly into every language, not just English.

Plus the population even of London in 1600 ran 70% illiterate for men and 90% for women. Only the nobles, the clergy and the merchants could read (well, some of them), so what would great quantities of Bibles have done anyway?

You cannot look at medieval times and understand them properly if you think that all was as it is today. Lighting was from tallow candles, when it was available. Life was short and hard and working to live occupied almost all of every day. Pastimes like reading or bathing were considered to be frivolous, even if possible.

[MarkBsnr]

They rejected Mass, prayers for the dead, indulgences, confessions, penances, church music, the reciting of prayers in Latin, the adoration of saints, the adoration of the sacrament, killing, and the swearing of oaths. They also allowed women to preach.

A suitable preamble to the Reformation; the Waldensians in part merged in with some Methodists.

[Soliton]

You are obviously very knowledgeable and devout.

When you say they, who do you mean?

[MarkBsnr]

The Waldensians; followers of Peter Waldo (or Pierre de Vaux) of Lyons.

Thank you for the compliment; however I am nowhere near as devout or knowledgeable as many on FR. Every once in a while, I just get louder. :)

[Soliton]

They were lucky heretics. The albegensians got ex-everythinged.

[MarkBsnr]

It is debatable as to whether or not the Albigenses were actually heretical Christians or non Christians altogether.

It is true that they resurrected a number of heresies (Gnostic, Manichean, Paulicians), but they took things to an extent that went beyond the fantastic.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

PRINCIPLES
(a) Doctrinal
The Albigenses asserted the co-existence of two mutually opposed principles, one good, the other evil. The former is the creator of the spiritual, the latter of the material world. The bad principle is the source of all evil; natural phenomena, either ordinary like the growth of plants, or extraordinary as earthquakes, likewise moral disorders (war), must be attributed to him. He created the human body and is the author of sin, which springs from matter and not from the spirit. The Old Testament must be either partly or entirely ascribed to him; whereas the New Testament is the revelation of the beneficent God. The latter is the creator of human souls, which the bad principle imprisoned in material bodies after he had deceived them into leaving the kingdom of light. This earth is a place of punishment, the only hell that exists for the human soul. Punishment, however, is not everlasting; for all souls, being Divine in nature, must eventually be liberated. To accomplish this deliverance God sent upon earth Jesus Christ, who, although very perfect, like the Holy Ghost, is still a mere creature. The Redeemer could not take on a genuine human body, because he would thereby have come under the control of the evil principle. His body was, therefore, of celestial essence, and with it He penetrated the ear of Mary. It was only apparently that He was born from her and only apparently that He suffered. His redemption was not operative, but solely instructive. To enjoy its benefits, one must become a member of the Church of Christ (the Albigenses). Here below, it is not the Catholic sacraments but the peculiar ceremony of the Albigenses known as the consolamentum, or “consolation,” that purifies the soul from all sin and ensures its immediate return to heaven. The resurrection of the body will not take place, since by its nature all flesh is evil.

(b) Moral
The dualism of the Albigenses was also the basis of their moral teaching. Man, they taught, is a living contradiction. Hence, the liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation). The extinction of bodily life on the largest scale consistent with human existence is also a perfect aim. As generation propagates the slavery of the soul to the body, perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. Generation was abhorred by the Albigenses even in the animal kingdom. Consequently, abstention from all animal food, except fish, was enjoined. Their belief in metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls, the result of their logical rejection of purgatory, furnishes another explanation for the same abstinence. To this practice they added long and rigorous fasts. The necessity of absolute fidelity to the sect was strongly inculcated. War and capital punishment were absolutely condemned.

No marriage, suicide is desireable, etc. Beyond the pale.

[Soliton]

My only beef is that the Catholics killed them for it and instituted the inquisition. Excommunication makes sense. If someone doesn’t obey they club by-laws, throw em out. But wiping them off of the face of the Earth seems like protecting turf IMHO.

[MarkBsnr]

Uh, uh.

Remember the times.

This is a radical free love, suicide promoting cult that arose and started sucking the people into their ways. The temporal authorities were just as much against them as the Church and would have handled them just as violently.

[Soliton]

No, the had temporal support. They were killed too. Somehow the Jews got killed along the way too.

[MarkBsnr]

The entire population was being incited to disaffection. There was no way that this was going to be allowed either from the Church or from the temporal authorities.