I have always wondered why Catholics don't have a bible study program like we do in Protestant Churches.

This is from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

[quote]Scripture always has played an important role in the prayer life of the Catholic Church and its members. For the ordinary Catholic in earlier centuries, exposure to Scripture was passive. They heard it read aloud or prayed aloud but did not read it themselves. One simple reason: Centuries ago the average person could not read or afford a book. Popular reading and ownership of books began to flourish only after the invention of the printing press.

Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture. [/quote]
...

You would think after the Printing Press was invented, the Catholic Church would be gleaming with joy. They were not happy about the printing press. They wanted to keep the bible in Latin and in the confinement of the church, so no one but clergymen could read it.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Persephonee · 22-25, F

[quote]They wanted to keep the bible in Latin and in the confinement of the church, [b]so no one but clergymen could read it[/b].[/quote]

This is fundamentally untrue. The Church DID however want to make sure that vernacular translations were (at least in the church's opinion) accurate translations, whether from Latin or from the Hebrew/Greek original texts. Plus not only clergy could read Latin, anyone with a half-decent education could.

And protestants did exactly the same thing. Lutherans only used Luther's translation (or translations of his translation). The Church of England used only 'authorised' translations, most famously ofc the King James Verson, and (on the idea of 'confining to the church) [i]literally chained bibles to the church building[/i]. (I think the chaining was just about making sure no one stole a valuable book to try and sell it off, though)

You can view religious authority as being about control if you like, but it applies to all the churches.

As for Bible study groups then I agree that's not a super common feature of Catholic churches (except for classes for confirmation or adult baptism ofc - and you definitely do find study and discussion groups in many churches!) - but that's probably because instead of studying Catholics are more encouraged to put things into practice. Any parish church has a whole raft of charitable groups. Now again one might view this as being about works over faith. But I'm not altogether sure that a highly knowledgeable but less practiced religion is better than one that puts all the emphasis on the practice in helping others.

Either way, there's room enough in the Church Universal for everybody so let's not fight over it. Just put a thought in here :)

Diotrephes · 70-79, M

@Persephonee Here's a link to Bible history =
https://greatsite.com/english-bible-history/

Gloomy · F

@Persephonee [quote]This is fundamentally untrue. The Church DID however want to make sure that vernacular translations were (at least in the church's opinion) accurate translations, whether from Latin or from the Hebrew/Greek original texts. Plus not only clergy could read Latin, anyone with a half-decent education could.[/quote]

Uhm no that's pretty much how it was and what lead up to the reformation movement.
A majority of the population was illiterate and sermons were held in latin making it easy for the Catholic Church to exploit the population.
You forgot the letters of indulgence? Can't tell me that wasn't fundamentally about control

Persephonee · 22-25, F

@Gloomy I didn't say there wasn't control...

But whether you agree with it or not (it's fine not to ofc) the Catholic Church's position was that excercising *some* control over people was actually in their interests, as a way to, (as the church understood things), make it easier for people to enter heaven. It's only in a very libertarian (protestant) view that this kind of control is seen as bad.

Sermons generally weren't in Latin (unless to an educated audience, eg we can assume many sermons in monasteries would be in Latin) but in the local vernacular. Indeed there are lots of mediaeval church laws ensuring priests did exactly this. (An arguably bigger problem in fact was the tendecy of priests to ignore or be largely ignorant of Latin and use their native language!)

Latin obviously got fetishised along the way (and a certain type of traddy Catholic fetishises it now too) but we should remember that it started being used because it WAS the vernacular for a lot of western Europe even long after the fall of the Roman Empire, and readily intelligible as a matter of course (for the educated) well into the 17th or 18th century and beyond.

The reformation obviously built on demands for easier access to scripture (although closing down all the monasteries where, at the time, a lot of the education went on might suggest more cynical other motivations?), but it was fundamentally about correcting church abuses which, fundamentally, the Catholic Church actually agreed with. Eg the selling of indulgences, which were never legal, ineffective (the church taught they didn't work but that doesn't stop nefarious priests trying it anyway!) and weren't remotely encouraged by the church hierarchy...but like lots of things, in practice often accepted because £££.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Persephonee I don't think it wise to ascribe motives to anyone in the past since the effects are what matter. The RC church did not use the language of the people in its services. It used Latin. I am sure it conducted its charitable works in the local language but its masses were done in Latin. Whether it was intended or not is debatable but the effect was that the church was able to maintain its 'gateway' to heaven by its practices in ways that the various protestant churches can not. Last night at our Bible study the question came up about parishes in the protestant church along the line of the catholic church. She was a bit amazed to learn the we protestants are free to church shop. If we don't like the Lutheran we are free to go to the Anglican and if we don't like that we can go to the Methodist and if we don't like that we can go to the Mennonite and if we don't like that..... I was thinking of my Christian walk and the number of different denominations I have attended or been a member of. Presbyterion, Anglican, Missionary, Four Square, North American Baptist, Mennonite Brethren, Southern Baptist, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Evangelical Missionary. I have also taken classes in Orthodoxy and done private study of Roman catholicism. I remain a Christian who is not easily pigeonholed and stand against a church when it wanders and for a church when it seeks a way back. I have no trouble with the catholic church or the orthodox church except where they deviate from the all sufficient sacrifice done once and for all on the cross by Jesus Christ. Attempts to bring in second or third intermediaries or rituals to add to that sacrifice causes me to leave the building and not return.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@Persephonee I tried. No one wants to veer from the popular story or Google answer that's going around.