You often hear Protestants saying that the Church at one time or another forbad Catholics to read the Bible. I have searched pages on Internet on this subject, but so far I could not find anything. Has any of you knowledge of some prohibition on that line by the Church? I thank you in advance for the kindness of your anwers. Alberto

-- Alberto Flores (sabbueso@terra.com.mx), January 29, 2004

Answers

Jmj

Hello, Alberto.

The TRUE facts can be found on this page.

There were approved Catholic translations in various language even before Protestantism was invented in the 1500s. The Douay-Reims (English) translation of the Bible, from which my parents read to me in the 1950s, was published before the King James (Protestant) bible of 1611.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 29, 2004.

John, This, for me, is one of the highlights of the link you gave us:

"The misuse of the Gospel against the Church established by Christ himself is as Pope Leo XII noted nothing less than satanic."

Alberto,

The Catholic Church could not have done such a thing. The Word of God is read and proclaimed at every Mass for 2000 years. The entire bible (95%) is read to the people in the span of 3 years. The Word of God was never hidden but rather exposed. What the Catholic Church prohibits is private biblical misinterpretation.

The Church encourages bible reading; contrary to what the Protestants say. According to the Handbook of Indulgences of 1991:

#50. Reading the Sacred Scriptures

A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read the sacred scripture with the veneration due God's word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such a reading is done for at least one-half hour.

-- J.John (J.John@yahoo.com), January 29, 2004.

Censorship seems to be sometimes the best alternative for some people.

Yet, can the truth be hidden? Depends on the size of the light bulb and how many lumens and watts it has.

Mat 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Mat 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), February 05, 2004.

Acerca de este tema, les voy a contar una anécdota de hace algunos años: un conocido mío, de religión Bautista, me dijo lo mismo que Alberto escuchó: que la Iglesia Católica prohibía la lectura de la Biblia. Para convencerlo de que no es así le prometí darle mil pesos (como cien dólares) por cada documento oficial de la Iglesia en que se prohibiera la lectura de la Biblia. Dije "documento oficial", porque quizá algún sacerdote medio despistado quizá le haya prohibido leer la Biblia a alguien, pero eso de ningún modo es la enseñanza oficial de la Iglesia. De vez en cuando nos encontramos y siempre le pregunto: ¿ya hallaste algún documento donde la Iglesia haya prohibido la lectura de la Biblia? Su respuesta: "Todavía no, pero estoy seguro que lo he visto en algún lado y pronto te lo voy a mostrar". Siguen pasando los años y hasta la fecha NO me ha mostrado nada.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), February 06, 2004.

Translation of above post:

On this subject, I want to recount an anecdote from some years ago: an acquaintance, of the Bautista religion, said the same thing to me that Alberto said: that the Catholic Church prohibited the reading of the Bible. To convince him that this is not so, I promised to give him a thousand pesos (about a hundred dollars) for each official document of the Church in which reading of the Bible was prohibited. I said "official document", because possibly some individual priest might have prohibited someone from reading the Bible, but that in no way is the official teaching of the Church. Occasionally we find ourselves in this situation, and I always ask: "can you show me some document where the Church has prohibited the reading of the Bible?" Their answer: "not yet, but I am sure that I have seen it somewhere and I am going to show it you". The years continue to pass and to date NOTHING has been shown to me.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

Thank you, Paul, for the translation of my post. Sometimes I kind of feel in no mood to write in English. Fortunately there are some kind people like John Gecik, Eugene Chavez or yourself that do the translating. Thank you, again, and congratulations on the good job you are doing as Moderator.+

I'll keep you in my prayers.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

Me encontré de nuevo al señor de quien les platiqué hace tiempo y le pregunté si ya tenía algún documento donde se prohibía la lectura de la Biblia y me dijo que no. Yo creo que a veces dicen tales cosas no porque estén convencidos, sino sólo por molestar.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), February 17, 2004.

In fact, listening to what the Church teaches about its writings is the ONLY way to know what they mean. That's why the Word of God calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth". Without the pillars and foundation, a structure collapses. Without the Church, the truth collapses. Once you start trying to interpret it for yourself, you have no way of knowing what is true and what is not. 20,000 conflicting manmade denominations can't be right. What they teach can't be truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 17, 2004.

US; is the Catholic faithful. Not free-lance Christians who have a template cut out for them in advance by anti- Catholic ministers.

This is a guarantee that NEVER will your Bible study arrive at truth. It must always conform to the negative view of ''Rome'' to which you've been conditioned.

The Bereans would have read 1 Cor 11: 24/26 as written. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is literally present in the Mass; making that equal in substance to Mal 1:11, the clean oblation acceptable to God from all the world. All the world means universal; Catholic.

This of course is forbidden for you to consider because your Bible study must ALWAYS contradict the Catholic Church. You're trapped in a vicious circle of counter-productive Bible scholarship.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2004.

"Now the Bereans were of more noble Character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

A: Obviously this did not apply to the doctrinal content of Paul's teaching, since the only scriptures the Bereans had available were the Hebrew (Old Testament) scriptures. Paul was teaching the doctrines of Christianity, the truths of the New Covenant, which were not to be found anywhere in the Old Testament. Therefore the Bereans could not have used the scriptures to confirm Paul's teaching. In fact, if they attempted to do so, they would have decided Paul was wrong. For example, if they heard Paul preaching "love your enemies; turn the other cheek", they would have looked in the scriptures and found "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", and concluded that Paul didn't know what he was talking about. But they accepted his teaching as authoritative because of the authority with which Paul preached it, as a representative of the Church - NOT because their personal guesses about the meaning of the Old Testament coincided with what Paul was saying. What they DID confirm by searching the scriptures was Paul's claim that Jesus was the Messiah, based on the Old Testament prophecies about Him. Nothing more.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 17, 2004.

Our parish has small scripture study classes--I honestly don't know why it is called study, because if everything has already been interpreted, why study it? I don't think the Catholic Church ever forbade the reading of the Bible, but I feel that the teachings about "no interpretation" amount to the same thing.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 17, 2004.

We can study the teachings of the Church, including its authoritative interpretations of scripture, for the rest of our lives and never exhaust what can be learned. On the other hand, one might ask, "why call it study if it is nothing more than the instructor's personal, unauthoritative opinions about what the texts might mean?" We can personally interpret scripture to the extent of finding meaning specific to our own lives and situations; but that is something that cannot be taught, since it is completely subjective, and applicable only to the individual. And, even in such cases, our personal interpretations and applications of God's Word to our individual lives must be within the context of doctrinal truth as defined by the Church. What we cannot do - and this is where Protestant groups go far afield - is define what we will accept and believe as doctrinal truth through a process of personal interpretation of scripture.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 17, 2004.

''why study it? I don't think the Catholic Church ever forbade the reading of the Bible, but I feel that the teachings about "no interpretation" amount to the same thing.''

GT, One aspect of protestant faith requires imposing upon Bible study that obligation that Christ laid on His Church. People must teach themselves. There is no Master, no authority. Each man is his own church because he reads a Bible.

A close look at the New Testament scriptures reveals nothing at all like this intent for Christ's people. If Jesus hadn't wanted us to follow Him as a Church --ONE Church, not a myriad of sectarian assemblies, --He would not have called the twelve apostles. He would not have sent us the Holy Spirit. He would have written the Bible.

In effect, this is what the ''Reformation'' does in the world: It disbands the legitimate Church, and sends the Holy Spirit away.

You say no interpretation amounts to forbidding the reading of the Bible. Though it may seem so to some, it's just reserving all teaching authority to His apostles. The Church passes it on, and the Bible ratifies it. Any interpretation of the New Testament that undermines the apostle's authority is forbidden to the faithful. Otherwise, sooner or later the devil will be teaching Christ's people in the world.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2004.

How can Christ insist on new testament study when there wouldn't be a new testament for 100 years???

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 17, 2004.

Faith says:
In the early Church, believers ''checked'' in the scripture: ''not with a religious leader or institution--to see the truth for themselves....and so can we.''

NOT with a religious leader or institution? What makes her think so?

So can we; (meaning non-Catholics); Well, Faith checks and checks; and never finds the truth. ''So CAN'T you, Faith. You have nothing like authority to ''check''.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2004.

faith,

You think that Christian teaching is not found in the Old Testament??

first off, thats not what big Paul really said. what he was refering to is the fact that the old testament lacks the FULLNESS of christian truth... or do you believe that eating pork is a sin?

I'm sorry--but I totally disagree. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old...

yup... that would be what Christ meant when he said "I have not come to abolish the old covenant but to fullfill it..." we're not ignorant faith, we do read.

and what Paul was teaching about Christ the Messiah must necessarily be found in the Old Testament.

not true. there is much of the new testament, and the gospels, which completely contradicts the "wrathful" God approach visible in the old testament

The whole point is still that the people checked with the Scriptures.., not with a religious leader or institution--to see the truth for themselves....and so can we.

REALLY FAITH? either you think we're gullable, or you REALLY havent thought this one through, no offense. lets see, the WORLDWIDE literacy rating TODAY is just around 70%, but we have printed books. in the middle ages prior to printed texts the literacy rate worldwide was less than 25%. only the EXTREMELY rich had any access to books in the first place, and those books cost what today would amount to THOUSANDS of dollars.

Even more so, in the time immediately following Jesus' ascension, the Jewish leaders (whose scribes laboriously copies the scriptures one letter at a time, triple verifying that they got the letter right for every character they wrote) were NOT letting just anyone take out the scriptures and read them. The cost of any one of those sets of scriptures today would be in the tens of thousands, if not more, so no, they would not be loaned out to a person who couldnt read.

But, what you want us to believe is that a man who couldnt read, checked out the scriptures from the local rabbi library, who had paid a small fortune to have the scriptures hand copied. in fact, i bet you want us to believe that everyone had a copy of the old testament already in a printed book, but since scrolls were about it for the first few hundred years after Christs' death...

Paul was a church leader and the people still double-checked with God's Word to see if what Paul said was true. Pretty clear who they-- including Peter, thought was the authority.

They couldnt even have checked everything, faith... certainly they could regard the prophecies of the Son of God, and such, but who could look at the old testament and devise "saved by faith" or "your sins may be forgiven?" these things were entirely FOREIGN to scripture at that point... so how did these people who could not read verify these things through the scriptures that dont include these parts? they didnt. they recognized paul for a holy servant of God and trusted his word, verifying from their LOCAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTOR that according to HIS reading of the scripture, pauls story fit with the prophecy of Christ.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 18, 2004.

Hi Eugene,

"You say no interpretation amounts to forbidding the reading of the Bible. Though it may seem so to some, it's just reserving all teaching authority to His apostles. The Church passes it on, and the Bible ratifies it. Any interpretation of the New Testament that undermines the apostle's authority is forbidden to the faithful. Otherwise, sooner or later the devil will be teaching Christ's people in the world."

Hmmm....I wonder what the Vatican would say about the sermon I heard years ago where the priest said that Simon Peter was the "rock" upon which the Church was built on because he was dense.... Btw, the priest used that example to show that Peter was not the perfect individual that he is often portrayed as, not to make fun.

I mean, I doubt that you hear the same exact sermon in the same diocese, let alone the entire Church. There must be some "interpretation" going on, even if it is in the spirit that Paul (our Paul here) describes as far as relating to personal experience. As far as trying to interpret the Bible in the light of our times as opposed to 'way back then, that is becoming more and more difficult.

Little Paul brings up a good point too about the literacy (lack of) of most people at the time. I would add to that that since there was some significant amount of time between when Jesus was on the earth and the writings we know as comprising the Bible were made, there also was some room for "interpretation", and far more likely, incorrect recollections, and things just plain left out. Look how rumors get spread so quickly today and added to. Ask witnesses what happened at an accident and you can often get several different points of view. All may be correct, all may be wrong, some right and some wrong, etc.

What would be interesting to know is whether the Vatican is open to finding more books of the Bible, if indeed they are discovered, or if all they are interested in is corroborating what they have since approved of. Anyone know?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 18, 2004.

Well paul.., I'm just going by what Peter said in Acts.

no, faith, and thats the problem, youre going off of what your INTERPRETATION of what peter said is...

You can argue the assumed literacy problem or lack of Bibles all you want.

good, im glad you see things my way then...

I see the Scriptures as being the Word of God and infallible.

... and your not alone!

Jesus often reminds the people that it is *written* and he seems to fully expect that they know their Scriptures.

what paul wrote had not been "written" in Jesus' time... revelations had not been "written" in Jesus' time. in fact, none of the new testament had been "written" in Jesus' time. are you saying that the new testament is not the word of God because it was not "written" when Jesus was here on earth?

The Bereans checked the Scriptures every day to be sure that what Paul was saying was the truth. can be found in Acts 17:11

and here's where you er, faith, in your logic. you assume bereans to be a group of people. peter does not say HOW they checked the scriptures, or even WHO the bereans were. these are your assumptions. How do YOU know the bereans were even a peoples, maybe they were an order of former rabbis... its certainly safe to assume that even if they were a people that their checking of the scriptures would have been done THROUGH ministers who had access to those scriptures. Remember, in Jesus' day, not everyone had access to the holy writings...

the silly assumption that all people had access to all scripture, could read it, and checked it literally every day is just plain make believe.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 18, 2004.

Sure, the Bereans (whoever they were) checked the scriptures against the ORAL testimony of the apostles, since the N.T. was in the process of being written.

Of course, the Bible is the inerrent word of God. Of course, Christ fullfilled every single prophesy concerning Messiah. Of course, it was encumbant upon Jews to search the Messianic prophecies. Again I say, what did they test against these O.T. passages but the ORAL testimony of the apostles?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 18, 2004.

The clearest evidence that the Bereans did not try to verify Paul's doctrinal teaching from the scriptures is the fact that they remained within the Church, and did not break away as a separate denomination. Historically, every group which has attempted to apply the false tradition of sola scriptura, second-guessing the authoritative, rock-solid, Spirit-guided teaching of Christ's Church by comparing it to the shifting sands of personal biblical interpretation, has ended up falling into heresy and separating from the Church Jesus founded for all men. You simply can't know the truth apart from the biblical pillar and foundation of truth, the Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

As already explained, they were able to confirm Christ's identity as Messiah from Old Testament prophecies. They were not able to confirm Paul's doctrinal preaching, nor did they have any need to do so. History has confirmed what scripture clearly states - that listening to the Church is the only means of knowing the truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

Faith: a quote of something you said before:

"What I remember in my experience growing up Catholic--is that the Bible was nowhere to be found either at my home or in my Church. I mean, sure--the priest had a huge one up front...but the layperson had none."

it is very sad that in your life you could not find the Bible in your home or your Church, but don't think that that was the case in every Catholic home or in every Catholic Church.

I had a very different experience: both my grandmothers had the Bible in their homes. We the grandchildren could look at the beautiful engravings it had and so without any pushing by my parents I came in contact with the Bible at a very young age. When I was about ten on my mother's request I began reading the Acts of the Apostles, I found it so beautiful that up to this day I have read it whole at least 30 times. Besides I have read the entire Bible many times and St. Paul's letters (one of my favorite Bible writers) many many times. St. Paul made such a great impression on me that my oldest son is called Juan Pablo (even before Pope John Paul I) and his son (5) is called PABLO. Both my sons have the Bible at their homes. So, you see, the tradition goes on. In no way does that mean that our family (from my grandparents down) was a special family. We were born and lived our youngest days in a small village but when we moved to the city to continue our studies we came into cantact with the Bible at school and my brothers and sisters have it in their homes. So it sounds very strange to me to hear that a Catholic had no contact with the Bible in his or her early years.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), February 19, 2004.

Thanks, Enrique; you are absolutely correct. I recall from early childhood our family's Bible; those words in the New Testament that were spoken by Jesus Christ were printed in red. Not to mention each excerpted reading from the four gospels within every celebration of the liturgy, and written for the laity in our Daily Missals. Faith must have been brought up in the only Catholic home in outer Mongolia.

Faith goes on to say: ''Search the New Testament yourself--He preached Jesus is the promised Messiah... He preached Jesus fulfilled the Law..etc...'' Oh, well-- NOT JUST THAT, Faith:

Paul preached holy baptism and the sacrament of the Eucharist, as well as our obligations as Catholics; to live our salvation ''in fear and trembling,'' . Not ''eternal security'' --without repentence, or a Church without ordained priests and ministers. None of these things were written previous to the New Testament; and the NT did not reach Christians as our Bible till well after Paul's lifetime. The Bereans could NOT have ''checked'' what Paul preached. They only had the Hebrew scriptures. This lame argument of Faith's is just another denial of the Church Christ founded on the holy apostles, that's all.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2004.

Not to agree with everything else Faith says, but I've never seen Bibles in any Catholic church I've been in either (other than the one the priest has). Every book is either Breaking Bread (and most parishes cheap out and only go for the book that has what verses are to be read, etc., but no readings to follow for yourself) or whatever else is diocese-approved. I even remember those awful laminated cards from years ago. I've even seen priests on occasion conduct Mass using a missalette (in the churches that bought the monthly ones and the separate songbooks)!

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 19, 2004.

Everything that Paul preached SHE says. Did Baptism appear for believers in any Hebrew Bible? Or the Holy Eucharist, (1 Cor 11:23-29)-- ? ? ? Did they even speak of a CHURCH?

No-- these truths were only written in epistle form, letters. later, as the canon was selcted (by a Catholic council of bishops), the epistles were included in our scriptures. We are concerned strictly now, with those disciples on the road toward Emmaus, and the Bereans; whom Faith THINKS had a Bible.

They couldn't have known the Christian truths. The scriptures these people had for reference were all Old Testament. Only prophesies applied to Christ. His own Gospel was not preached in the Old Testament, or the Law of Moses.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2004.

GT:
Would you explain why the Church should provide a Bible at every seat? The Bible is read in private, or else quoted from during our services. We don't assist at these services (certainly not Holy Mass) to read Bibles. The Church promotes group Bible study classes, and declares emphatically the holiness of the Bible.

The liturgy of the mass is replete with scriptural quotation, prayer taken from the scriptures, and the fulness of scriptural teaching. For these activities, we merely need to listen.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2004.

"we merely need to listen."

That's a tall order if given to protestants. They love to blabber and shout their newly discovered personal interpretations. Catholics, for the most part, really act like sheep ... listening, contemplating, eating grass (finest wheat), obeying the Shepherd (Christ's Vicar).

-- (Papist@catholic.forum), February 19, 2004.

"For these activities, we merely need to listen."

And if someone reads it wrong, either accidentally or deliberately, how would we know? Not everyone reads the scriptures correctly. I'm sure you've sat through (as I have) some really bad readings.

Remember my post about the "good thief" now "revolutionary"--what next?

So I say again, the Church, by its teaching, does not really encourage the reading of the Bible, because it is impossible to read something without interpreting it in some way.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 19, 2004.

She insists: ''But the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation is a private one--in my opinion. It is not open to all people. That can be dangerous because there is no way to avoid cult like religion because there is no way to keep it honest.''

And, so doing denies the Advocate has any role within Christ's Church. She denies the Holy Spirit.

This is the Band-Aid she pastes on her lack of faith: --''. . . we can understand His revelation to us when we are filled with the Spirit. When we have truly received Christ,''

As if she had ''received'' anyone. She denies the Holy Spirit; she denies Christ's promises to His Church. (Yet somehow thinks she's ''received'' Him and should be given the Holy Spirit personally as one individual without a church!) Haha! And all the while she adores the Bible which only arrived on earth after the Church certified it!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2004.

It is way too CLEAR that "Faith" does NOT have the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit loves His Bride, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Holy Spirit elevates His Bride, the Church.

"Faith" maligns the Blessed Virgin Mary. "Faith" hates the Church.

therefore, "Faith" does NOT have the Holy Spirit.

-- (Papist@catholic.forum), February 19, 2004.

"But the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation is a private one--in my opinion. It is not open to all people."

A: In fact, the Church's interpretations of its writings are not only "open" to all people who seek the truth, but are BINDING on all people. Unfortunately, many people are either invincibly ignorant of this fact, or knowing it have nevertheless chosen to reject it, in which case they will be accountable at their judgement.

"People are fallible--including priests and popes and elders within the Church."

A: Yes they are. Unless God has personally told them "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". God never made such a statement to anyone except the leaders of the Catholic Church.

"look at what the Mormons have done with their private interpretation and look at the Jehovah Witnesses."

A: What have Mormons and JW's done with the Bible that Baptists and Presbyterians and Anglicans and Pentecostals and Adventists have not done? Granted, Mormons and JW's have strayed farther from the path of truth than most Protestants have; but why is their private interpretation of the Bible any less authoritative or valid than yours?

"When we have truly received Christ and He is in us--the Holy Spirit will guide *each of us* to all understanding--not just church leaders."

A: So you are publicly stating that Protestants have not truly received Christ?? Obviously the doctrinal chaos of denominational religion is FAR removed from "all understanding".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

"Faith," you presume too much if you think you are worthy at all. lol

-- (Papist@catholic.forum), February 19, 2004.

Papist@catholic.forum, are you aware the term "papist" is highly offensive to Catholics? Dictionary.com lists "papist" as: "Used as a disparaging term for a Roman Catholic"; and they have put it mildly.

Could you please change your "handle" in future posts? Thanks.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 19, 2004.

Ed,

I apologize if I offended you or any other Catholic.

I am well aware of the historical use of the term, "papist." Protestants used it as a derogatory term for us, Catholics. However, I don't see any shame for it because it simply means someone who follows the Pope. Since I am a Pope-follower, I meant to use the term in a positive way. IMHO, I think a Catholic can use the term for it's true meaning. I equate this with the use of the term, "black." If a "white" person uses the term, "black," it can be derogatory. However, if a "black" person uses the very same term, "black," it is socially acceptable. A "black" person can use the term, "black" proudly. Even now, "whites" are also using the term "black" in a positive way, and "blacks" are OK with it. The word, "papist" is already 500 years old; way past the original stigma. I was simply trying to make a good and "new" use for it.

Peace.

-- (Pro-PopeJPII@catholic.forum), February 19, 2004.

"There is a difference between what is God's Word as revealed by the apostles and what is God's Word as interpreted by your church clergy."

A: My Church's clergy don't interpret God's Word. If they did, every Catholic parish church would be teaching something different just like every Protestant church. My clergy listens to the authoritative voice of God speaking through the Magisterium of the one true Church - just as the Bible instructs us to do. What part of "he who hears you hears Me" don't you understand? That means that in the true Church there is NO difference between what God revealede to the Apostles and what is taught by the leaders of the Church.

"whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven" ... That was said His disciples, and we are all who have received Him, disciples of Christ."

A: It was said to His APOSTLES, the first bishops of His Church, assembled in closed session apart from the rest of the Church membership. That makes it very clear that it was meant for them and no-one else. It was also said specifically and individually to the one man Jesus appointed to a position of pastoral headship over the rest.

"What makes your private interpretation any better? You all have indeed strayed from the truth."

A: If the Catholic Church strayed from the truth, Jesus would thereby be a liar and a fraud, since He said the Holy Spirit would guide the Catholic Church to ALL TRUTH. The Catholic Church does not have "private" doctrinal interpretation. If it did, it could not have existed in unity for 2,000 years, but would have long ago fractured into thousands of conflicting denominations just like those who DO futilely attempt to use private interpretation.

"What makes protestant interpretation any better? Nothing--especially if you are speaking about Calvinism."

A: I'm sure a Calvinist would say the same about you. What gives you more authority than a Calvinist??

"We all have to choose what and where is the best way to worship God."

A: REALLY! Chapter and verse please?? Where does the Word of God indicate that we are each free to design our own system of worship? If I recall correctly, Jesus demonstrated how we are to worship Him, and then COMMANDED "DO THIS in remembrance of Me". I do. Do you? If not, why not? Do your "private insights" tell you that Almighty God didn't really mean it when He gave this divine COMMAND?

"I find that the best way to know God is through His Holy Word to us."

A: Surely you realize by now that thousands of conflicting denominations each teaching their private version of God's Word is not the same as hearing or knowing His actual Word. You cannot know His Word apart from the pillar and foundation of truth. God said it. Protestantism proves it.

"I cannot have it dictated to me by anyone who is going to dictate something other than what I also find in the Bible."

A: That makes about as much sense as saying "I won't have medical information dictated to me other than what I can find and interpret in medical books on my own". And doctors don't even have a divine assurance of correct teaching! The Church does!

"Thje apostles are the only ones qualified to dictate--in my opinion. We have their testimony in writing."

A: No written text can convey truthful information unless properly interpreted. Not even a STOP sign. Your tradition has consistently demonstrated its inability to properly interpret scripture for 450 years. God's Church has taught the same truth for 2,000 years. What you see is what you get.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

Dear Pro, I know you meant no harm in using the word and I could tell from your writing that you were pro-Catholic; however, others in many parts of the world, particularly in the United Kingdom find this word extremely offensive. It wasn't so long ago that Catholics were branded "papists" and were sought out and executed. Again, I realize you meant no harm but, out of sensitivity for what others might feel, I thought it best to mention it.

By the way, I love your new "handle". :)

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 19, 2004.

"No written text can convey truthful information unless properly interpreted. Not even a STOP sign."

That's right. I can imagine "Faith" stopping at a road STOP sign with her personal misinterpretation of stopping there forever. lol. What does a STOP sign mean? Stop there for 10 seconds, 5 minutes, 1 hour? Half-stop, full-stop? The authority of correctly interpreting road signs, the DMV, says that drivers are to make a full-stop at a STOP sign until it is safe to pass ...

-- (Pro-PopeJPII@catholic.forum), February 19, 2004.

Ed,

Cheers.

-- (Pro-PopeJPII@catholic.forum), February 19, 2004.

But it is still your call on when it is safe to pass.....;-)

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 19, 2004.

I think the point that pro is trying to make is that faith wouldnt trust the DMV about this, because they arent standing at the stop sign with her... they're an outside source. Judging by her literal interpretation of EVERY SINGLE BEREAN ON EARTH checking and reading the scriptures EVERY SINGLE DAY in a time when only a small part of the population could read the very limited number of scriptures available, she would probably interpret the stop sign to mean she either had to wait there forever, or find another way to get there...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 20, 2004.

Also in the case of the stop sign we have a court system that has the authority to interpret what STOP means in case their is a dispute. What Faith and others are arguing is that the Church has no authority. Faith has her interpretation and it doesn't matter whether she is wrong or right, since there is no authority to settle disputes. Plus she always has the right to go and start her own denomination if she doesn't like the interpretation of those she worships with.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 20, 2004.

So try driving through the stop sign, and just explain to the officer that according to your personal interpretation of the sign, the official, authoritative interpretation doesn't jive with the law.

-- (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 20, 2004.

If a reader could be certain that after stopping as directed, and proceeding through the intersection, his vehicle would make it to the other side safely; that would be correct. That is the Catholic faith.

Faith's car stalls in the intersection, since she has no faith at all. She's out of fuel at the most important point in her journey; the Bible.

She will insist her interpretation has been perfect. But she'll be broadsided by the devil before coming out of that crossroads. She will meet her spiritual death there because of overweening pride.
PRIDE GOES BEFORE A FALL.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2004.

Ah, but does "clear" mean no other cars, or if you think you can make it, and you do, but only by narrowly missing someone else....Hee, hee, hee.

Look at all the yellow-light intersection accidents. You slow down, but the person in back of you thinks, "well, that person is going to go through the intersection, so I have a little extra time to brake because I can fudge in the crosswalk". Well, guess what, you stop and don't go through the intersection, because you don't know how long the yellow light is (and don't want to risk someone jumping the green light), and the person hits you.....

So interpretation can be good or bad, depending. And yes, the person in back would be at fault in this case....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 20, 2004.

"I can imagine that you would need a pope to come along and tell you what stop means"

Now I can see how twisted your brain is.
Let me speak slowly: The authority on road signs is the DMV & the government -- not the Pope -- and not you.
The authority on the Holy Bible is the Pope & the Magisterium - - not the DMV -- and not you.
Don't get confused between the Pope with the DMV.
Truth hurts: You are NOT an authority on road signs and the Holy Bible.


-- (Pro-PopeJPII@catholic.forum), February 20, 2004.

Hi Faith, I've also never seen any Bibles in the pews......I also see that Gene Chavez has not lost his touch in the rude department!

-- * (poster from the past@left from the rudeness.com), February 25, 2004.

dear asterix (*),

faith, however, has been banned because of repeated attacks with no willingness to learn... which is why she was rather cooly recieved here...

perhaps you did the same and, as a rude guest, warranted a lack of generosity from your hosts? but why not reveal your real old name, instead of just some little star and a notification that you were rebuked?

Finally, you make a claim that you have never seen a bible in a catholic church... but did you ever think to read the little book that is there? if you had TRULY spent any real time researching our church or looking around in one, you would realize that that little book contains all sorts of bible passages. In fact, over the space of three years, catholics can read almost 95% the bible in those little books. Thats more than most protestants will read out of their bible in their entire life.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 25, 2004.

Hi Little Paul,

I am not so sure about that--many Protestants I know do make a habit of reading and reflecting on the Bible every day, for 15, 20, 30 minutes or more. One advantage is that there is less skipping around, and that things can be read more in context.

Also, depending upon which missalette you buy, you will get the names and verse numbers of the readings, but you may or may not see the actual readings. Some parishes use the monthly missalettes (which have the readings) with the separate songbook, others use a single book which is mainly a songbook, with a page for each Sunday/Holy Day which has the references, and the responsorial psalm refrain, but no readings, and no psalm.

I do know what you're saying, but the missalettes are not the same thing as having Bibles in the pews.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 25, 2004.

GT: ''. . .many Protestants I know do make a habit of reading and reflecting on the Bible every day, for 15, 20, 30 minutes or more.

Habitual reading doesn't mean understanding; and reflecting on error is bad for the spiritual life of the reflectionist. ''One advantage is that there is less skipping around, and that things can be read more in context.'' There is no advantage at all, unless our interpretation of scripture is correct and apostolic. If you want reading without context, go to a protestant church.

''. . . missalettes are not the same thing as having Bibles in the pews.'' That's only your feeling. Not really true, however. If a missalette quotes the Word of God throughout every page (it does), then it serves exactly the same purpose as a Bible. It just has readings organised around selected daily reflections and the whole congregation in worship. ''Skipping around'' is precisely what missalettes prevent us from doing; we concentrate on the worship at hand. Further reading or reflection is easily attended to privately somewhere else. We assist in Church to offer God divine worship, not to read and reflect.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2004.

Eugene,

You are truly blinded by your love of the "traditions of men".

The Word of God is the Truth. The Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth, as we read it.

"faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God"

By keeping your head buried in the sand, and not asking God for understanding of the Scriptures, as you read them yourself, is the reason that the Roman Cathololic "cult" is as messed up and full of homsexuals and child mollesters as it is.

I get the feeling that you are an old man. As such, you are set in your ways, and are intent on riding the "roman" relgion ship, right down to the ground in your death.

I will pray for you, that you will be "born again", and be saved.

Dan

-- Dan Gracely (sabueso@terra.com), February 25, 2004.

Thanks, Dan-- sincerely.
You mean well, that can't be doubted. If my post(s) seem narrow-minded, forgive an old man. We only have so much space and time here in this life. What you may see as blinded and not yet ''born again'' is urgency. I cut to the chase in matters of urgent importance. I hope to give somebody somewhere in cyberspace the very thing you treasure: re-birth in the faith. Being ''born again'' as a ''petty'' Christian, however sincere, is not what Christ wanted for you or the other 30,000 sectarians who have fallen away from the only true faith; the faith given us by His apostles. Christ intended for every one of His faithful followers to become a living SAINT, right here.

There are millions of upright, good, hard-line Christians giving it their best; I have to think you are like that. But why can't you be a saint? You ought to be; it's apparent you want it badly.

You haven't received the truth as Christ revealed it. You came to know Him inperfectly; without the Church to teach you. Only some self-ordained free-lance Preacher or another.

God has so much MORE to give you; as He gave your ancestors, who all were born again into the faith of the apostles, the Catholic Church.

You have Catholic roots, Dan; just as Catholic as my own. THAT makes some souls real saints! But a ways back somewhere, because this world is so perverse your Catholic faith was uprooted by false Christians. They exchanged GOLD for LEAD.

Instead of the living Church, they settled for a Bible; but a Bible interpreted by anti-Catholics, opposed to Jesus Christ's true Church. We know them as the original ''reformers''. They DEFORMED their own Bible, and told you you could be ''born again'' without the Church Christ himself founded. The very Church their own ancestors and YOURS belonged to, until Christ's enemy deceived them. They in turn deceived you and your protestant forebears and you live deceived NOW, in bibliolatry.

Sorry to ramble on so, I just figured Strike --While the iron is hot. You may never see a day of Catholic truth again. That's why I feel it's urgent.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2004.

"The Word of God is the Truth. The Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth, as we read it."

A: It would be laughable if it weren't so pitiful that followers of denominational religion continue to mindlessly parrot this phrase, even as their manmade tradition continues to disintegrate into more and more conflicting, contradictory sects every week! The cause of this ungodly situation? Trying to find the truth through personal reading of the Bible! Isn't 450 years of self-destruction enough to convince you of the patent false hood of this silly idea?? Of course, I realize you are trapped between a rock and a hard place. Either continue to say "the Holy Spirit will guide us into ALL truth", even as the untruths of your tradition continue to multiply; or, abandon your manmade tradition for the Church Jesus Christ founded for you, where ALL truth really does exist in undivided unity.

I will pray for you, that you will be "born again", and be saved.

A: First you need to learn what being saved really means. You found the phrase in a Catholic book. Why not consult the writers and compilers of that book regarding its correct meaning, rather than adding your personal guesses to the mountain of conflicting Protestant guesses that already exist?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 25, 2004.