Posted on 02/05/2014 8:25:43 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
Rediscovering the riches of Scripture
A revolution has taken place in the Roman Catholic Church’s understanding of the Bible. As a result, the life and mission of the church have been transformed. Biblical stories and themes formerly unknown have become familiar. This is a relatively recent phenomenon. While the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century championed biblically based preaching and teaching (sola scriptura), the Roman Church focused on traditional doctrine and insisted that its leaders alone were authorized to interpret the Bible. It was not until Pius XII’s encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu” (“On Promoting the Study of Sacred Scripture,” 1943) that a dramatic change in church teaching on the Bible was launched. Considered the Magna Carta of the biblical movement, this document inaugurated a new era in Catholic life.
The Second Vatican Council spearheaded a marvelous revitalizing of the Bible in the church. Many of the council participants frequently attended private lectures given by prominent biblical scholars. The Book of the Gospels was solemnly enthroned at the beginning of many general sessions. In 1965, “Dei Verbum” (“The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation”) opened the door to critical approaches to biblical interpretation. It was almost as if the Bible had been rediscovered, and those engaged in Bible study found new meaning in their religious tradition. The study of the Bible became exciting, and this excitement responded to a profound hunger in the people of God for the word of God. In a matter of decades, the hundreds of years of unfamiliarity with the Bible were quickly spanned and many Roman Catholics became as biblically astute as their Protestant sisters and brothers.
(Excerpt) Read more at americamagazine.org ...
Thanks for posting this... Good to see this happening... Isn’t this what Wyclif, Luther and many others were doing by translating the Bible into the common people’s language?
There is no better translator nor interpreter than the Holy Spirit while in communion.
Comment from the conclusion of the article:
But it is already clear that by opening the treasures of the Scriptures for the entire Catholic community, the church’s revolutionary teachings on the Bible have revitalized its life and mission and continue to do so. They make it possible for Catholics to become acquainted with the deep and challenging religious message found in both testaments of the Bible and to have their lives transformed by it.
Warms my heart to hear this.......
“While the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century championed biblically based preaching and teaching (sola scriptura)...”
It’s a myth to posit that Protestants had biblically based preaching and teaching and that Catholics didn’t. No one should ever trust anything in America magazine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
You've got that right, vladimir998!
For a quick example, in this article -- ("‘New Era’ Under Pope Francis?") in the current edition, "America the National Catholic Review" speaks glowingly of a Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, who they quote as speaking about a "new era" in the Church, and who says the Pope was right to attack capitalism in his recent exhortation.
The Cardinal is also quoted there in "America" magazine as saying the Church is "bound by God’s commandment" but he 'explained' that there were "many ways to interpret" the commandment, and "still much room for a deeper interpretation" of God's commandment (presumably to change some teaching of the Church).
In that same article, this Jesuit "America" magazine (headquartered in New York City) also bashed another Cardinal for being "too rigid" in his own defense of Church teachings.
Catholics were better off when they didn't read the Bible but believed it implicitly. They read it now, but with irreverence and skepticism. In this case familiarity really has bred contempt.
I disagree with Fundamentalist Protestants on many things (sola scriptura being one of them). But they have never allowed their access to the Bible to cost them their reverence of it.
PS: America is a liberal J*suit rag. No wonder they celebrate this new attitude.
I predict a descent into our normal catfighting.
Can’t go wrong with the Bible which was all divinely inspired vs. many other religious tenets that were decided upon by mortal men without the divine inspiration. Quite frankly, it is the reason I opted to go non-denominational some years ago; to keep the message clean and free of one of the 30,000 some odd interpretations that have come about with the rise of so many sects/versions of Christian religions. The Bible provides all one needs to understand how God’s love for us is complete and deserving of our return love and worship.
Get back to me when it's time for breakfast cereal.
30,000 interpretations of the Bible?
But as it is gives some credit to Prots, and rightly so as Bible study was very rare among RCs, this it will be attacked by some who suffer from the Roman Reactionary Syndrome, which kicks in whenever anything at all seems to impugn their cherished conception of their One True Church®.
91% of Evangelical Christians and 63% of other Protestants and 25% of Catholics consider themselves to be born again; ^
44% of Evangelical Christians reflect at least daily on the meaning of Scripture in their lives. 36% of other Protestants and 22% of Catholics do the same; ^
52% of Evangelical Christians have had a meaningful discussion about their faith with a non-Christian during the past month. 28% of other Protestants and 18% of Catholics also have held such a discussion. ^
68% of Evangelical Christians attend a regular Bible Study or participate in some other small-group activity. 47% of other Protestants take part in small groups related to their faith, along with 24% of Catholics. ^
And then we have testimonies as this from Catholic Answers:
My 13 year old son's friend (a baptist and Great kid) attends a church with incredible youth involvement and activities designed to keep the young people "ALIVE WITH THE FAITH" and IT WORKS!!!! Tons of pressure on my son because our parish is "flatlined" when it comes to youth. As a side note to this, I allowed him to attend one evening program at his friends church and when he came home, he was excited about what he read in the bible and what it meant in his life (he NEVER once had to bring a bible with him to religious ed. nor did they ever read from scripture)
cellodude: I think it is a good idea to study what vibrant non-Catholic churches do, though any impulse to imitate must be tested and measured against our own beliefs as Catholics. That being said, I really see the Holy Spirit working outside the Catholic Church drawing people closer to him. HOW MUCH MORE, then, will the Holy Spirit blow with loving fury WITHIN the Catholic Church when our own members become docile to His presene? AntalKalnoky: All it takes ONE, or One Couple, who KNOW The Bible, to get Approval by the Pastor, or Bishop, to start. We have 3 Excellent Bible Studies , by Converts from Protestant bible Churches who have 3 types [eph. mine] (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=578988)
The reality is that they covet converts from evangelical churches to give them some life, while usual excuse for the lack thereof in Rome by the few RCs who admit this is not that there is something fundamentally wrong with the RC gospel, but that adults are "poorly catechized."
Meanwhile, RC scholarship is overall liberal , as are most RCs in America.
Indeed, as often said, within the parameters of RC teaching, RCs have great liberty to interpret Scripture as they want in order to support Rome, and thus often wrest it (2Pt. 3:16) to do so, as in reality Scripture is not their supreme authority for doctrine, but is mad into a servant to support Rome's traditions of men.
Then they disallow our interpretations under the premise that 2Pt. 1:20 forbids "private interpretation," but which itself is an example of "wresting" Scripture as that is not what it is referring to.
Meanwhile, they will claim they are not engaging in private interpretation as they are teaching in accordance with the magisterium. However, as seen in cases such as Lumen Gentium, Canon 915, etc., this is subject to interpretations by the RC. For they have no infallible interpreter for their infallible interpreter, and cannot even tell what magisterial level every teaching falls under, so as to know what level of submission is required, and whether it allows dissent.
And what RCs can disagree on is extensive, but not as pronounced as it is with doctrine extensive evangelicals (which also have the greater unity) , while the sharpest divisions in Catholicism are among the more doctrinally committed.
Great advice Alamo....
When my second son was going thru some problems I told him to read John and knowing him I emailed one chapter a day for him to read.
After the second day being a very literal kid, he came back with ‘what’s all this Word stuff?’ After a little ‘splainin’ he understood much better.
Lurking’
But I do believe now, with a new Pope who is not afraid to based his teaching presentations on scripture, it will force more of us Catholics to start to really, really search the scriptures.
They can based upon the premise that according to Rome's interpretation, only her interpretation (more like decree) can be correct in any conflict, while oftentimes is it the RCs interpretation of Rome that they are presenting.
Which is more dangerous: a church which autocratically declares its interpretations are and will always be assuredly correct (which assured, conditional infallibility Scripture does not promise), thus leading multitudes to error and even Hell, or individuals examining Scripture with the heart of a noble Berean in order to ascertain the veracity of what is taught.
Scripture upholds the teaching office, and which functions on many levels, but not as possessing assured, conditional infallibility as per Rome. That is not how God preserved Truth in Scripture nor how the church began.
God works in mysterious ways!
Personally, I’d like to see that list of, or at least your source for those 30,000 interpretations.
The RC attitude towards the Bible went from restricting personal access to it by the laity - and not because of a lack of texts, but in order to prevent challenges to her supreme authority - to promoting Bible reading when it could no longer restrict personal access to it.
But then it accomplished much the same by impugning the authority of Scripture via its subscription to liberal revisionism which the modern evangelical movement arose to counter.
Why would there be “catfighting” about a positive turn of events? I would think that this type of encouragement to personally study scripture is a positive all around. I would say it’s something both Protestants and Catholics can applaud.
There are over 30,000 flavors of Christianity - each has it's own spin on what is what.
An allegation without basis, unless you have a list or a source.
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches.....
There are over 30K versions/sects/religions of Christianity - each has its own spin on what parts of the Bible mean/require, etc. Many of these interpretations may not be Bible-specific, but they manifest in doctrine/tenets/canons, etc.
Of course, I'm assuming that the Bible is the basis of Christianity because that is where we learn of what led up to Christ and the spread of the Word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.