US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study

Examiner.com ^ | 7/22/09 | Denise Hunnell, M.D.Go to Denise's Home Page

[bdeaner]

Don't let anyone tell you Catholics are told not to read the Bible. On the contrary, we are obligated to read it prayfully and with great care.

[GOP Poet]

thanks for the post

[bdeaner]

You’re welcome!

[bronxville]

There are some good downloads here:
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?SeriesID=1485508684&T1=

[Zionist Conspirator]

Don't let anyone tell you Catholics are told not to read the Bible. On the contrary, we are obligated to read it prayfully and with great care.

They're just not supposed to believe it.

[bdeaner]

They're just not supposed to believe it.

Jesus loves you.:)

And Catholics love the Bible and its Truth. Without Catholic Church, the Bible as we know it today would not exist.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Jesus loves you.:)

I doubt that.

And Catholics love the Bible and its Truth.

Catholics love "modern scholarship." Is there a "Catholic bible" in existence that contains traditional commentary from fathers or doctors of the church rather than "modern scholarship?" I doubt it.

Without Catholic Church, the Bible as we know it today would not exist.

Nope. G-d wrote the Torah, the Men of the Great Assembly canonized the Na"KH. All the Catholic Church did was to add a "new testament" that "spiritualized" the Hebrew Bible, which ultimately led to "modern scholarship" teaching that it is mere didactic mythology.

[ex-snook]

"Nope. G-d wrote the Torah,"

Really? Who said so?

[bdeaner]

Jesus loves us all, including you.

You will find many, many commentaries using Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Just one example is the Navarre Bible. Go to just about any bookstore, and you will see many recently published work on the Church Fathers. Search online at somewhere like Amazon. It would not be possible to read it all, there is such a volume.

The Catholic Church didn't write the Bible -- and I never claimed it did. God inspired it. The Catholic Church canonized and preserved it, as commanded by Christ. I'm talking about the collection as a whole, not individual sections of the OT, such as the Torah, which obviously long pre-dated Christ.

[bdeaner]

Another Catholic thread: an opening for another Klan meeting.

Very offensive. It's an open thread. You are welcome to voice your opinion. But frankly your comment says a lot more about you than it does about Catholics. Jesus loves you anyway. :)

[Zionist Conspirator]

"Nope. G-d wrote the Torah,"

Really? Who said so?

Immemorial Tradition. You have heard of Tradition, right? I mean, you aren't going to ask me for a "proof text" like a silly, naive Protestant would, are you?

Nice to know that an old timer like you is as hostile to the literal text of the Bible as a "scientist" like bdeaner.

[Petronski]

Is there a "Catholic bible" in existence that contains traditional commentary from fathers or doctors of the church rather than "modern scholarship?"

Of course there is.

[bdeaner]

Nice to know that an old timer like you is as hostile to the literal text of the Bible as a "scientist" like bdeaner.

Faith and reason are not in conflict. The Bible-loving Christian has nothing to fear from science.

[Petronski]

An even prettier version.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Jesus loves us all, including you.

Nope. J*sus love Eskimos and voodoo practitioners and Mayan peasants but he doesn't love "rednecks" because we won't exchange our Bible for Charles Darwin. J*sus accepts totem poles and voodoo cults but not the Bible.

You will find many, many commentaries using Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Just one example is the Navarre Bible. Go to just about any bookstore, and you will see many recently published work on the Church Fathers. Search online at somewhere like Amazon. It would not be possible to read it all, there is such a volume.

Then why does the article you posted echo "modern scholarship" rather than the classic commentators?

The Catholic Church didn't write the Bible -- and I never claimed it did. God inspired it. The Catholic Church canonized and preserved it, as commanded by Christ. I'm talking about the collection as a whole, not individual sections of the OT, such as the Torah, which obviously long pre-dated Christ.

G-d wrote the Torah (974 generations before the Creation, as a matter of fact). The Men of the Great Assembly canonized the rest of the Hebrew Bible. And that's all there is to it.

Why do you find it impossible to accept the literal historical sense of the first eleven chapters of Genesis while accepting without question such things as the virgin birth, transubstantiation, and the resurrection of the dead? Didn't you know that these things are just as scientifically impossible as anything recorded in the Torah? So how do you defend your glaring inconsistency?

[windsorknot]

Thank you. I guess if Jesus loves me, he can love anyone.

[Petronski]

...Jesus love Eskimos and voodoo practitioners and Mayan peasants but he doesn't love "rednecks" because we won't exchange our Bible for Charles Darwin....

An exquisitely putrid smear of Jesus Christ.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Hey, I have that one!

Unfortunately, the article at the head of this thread isn't talking about D-R but rather bibles with commentaries based on "modern scholarship" (all this "the Bible is not a textbook of science" "genres of literature" stuff). And yet more literalistic Catholics (such as, I assume, yourself) never find any fault whatsoever with your more liberal brethren. Perhaps I wouldn't spend so much time attacking liberal Catholic attitudes toward the Bible if more conservative Catholics did so. Unfortunately, they do not, so it is left to non-Catholics to defend the Word of G-d.

[KYGrandma]

Thanks. I will print out the list and start reading my Bible in a more meaningful way.