Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When i was a child, and teenager, the Catholic Church still considered it a "sin" for "laymen" to read the Holy Bible, church services where done in Latin, and there were no "Sunday School classes". Liar. And I’m not even Catholic. You’ve been reading Chick Tracts too much. Everything else you said is now suspect because of this blatant lie. Now, how about a game of hide and go fuck yourself? Do you know this person, how old they are, what church they went to, and in what country?
I don’t have to. It has never been "a sin" to read the Bible in the history of Catholicism. The person can be any age and come from any place, and the anti-Catholic propaganda will never be able to be reconciled. This was absolutely part of the history of the church, they were rather dismayed by the invention of the printing press, and reading the Bible for oneself was an integral part of the Protestant reformation.
Incorrect. Reading the Bible was never a sin for Catholics. This all arises from the fact that before the printing press, the Bible was rare and the church would make sure it was always safe because it was nearly impossible to get another hand-writen copy. And Catholic tradition has strict views on interpreting the Bible and Catcheism, which needless to say the Protestants don’t dig (even though many Protestant sects are as guilty of this now as well, but that’s another issue), but saying "this is how Catholicism interprets the book" and "it’s a sin to read the Bible" are two different concepts. People who expound upon the latter are almost always involved in some sort of anti-Catholic propaganda, I’ve found. I know several older people who went to mass in this country when it was still spoken in latin, and I’m sure in come countries that it is still quite common.
The issue was the supposed sin of reading the Bible. Of course the church backed off this issue, because it became too
unpopular. It was never a sin to read the Bible. [snipping rhetoric irrelevant to my assertions] You don’t like the way the Roman Catholic Church is run? I don’t suggest you be Catholic then. I’m not. But propagating lies about how it’s run doesn’t do much for the credibility of the liar, you know. [[NOTE: I added alt.religion.Christian.roman-catholic to this thread as they can talk more intelligently about this than I if you need citations and the like...]] -Brian TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING: One year, one month, five days, 18 hours, 33 minutes and 33 seconds. 16030 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,003.86. Extra life saved: 7 weeks, 6 days, 15 hours, 50 minutes. See my Sig File FAQ: http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I don’t have to. It has never been "a sin" to read the Bible in the history of Catholicism. The person can be any age and come from any place, and the anti-Catholic propaganda will never be able to be reconciled. This was absolutely part of the history of the church, they were rather dismayed by the invention of the printing press, and reading the Bible for oneself was an integral part of the Protestant reformation. Incorrect. Reading the Bible was never a sin for Catholics. This all arises from the fact that before the printing press, the Bible was rare and the church would make sure it was always safe because it was nearly impossible to get another hand-writen copy. And Catholic tradition has strict views on interpreting the Bible and Catcheism, which needless to say the Protestants don’t dig (even though many Protestant sects are as guilty of this now as well, but that’s another issue), but saying "this is how Catholicism interprets the book" and "it’s a sin to read the Bible" are two different concepts. People who expound upon the latter are almost always involved in some sort of anti-Catholic propaganda, I’ve found.
I don’t have a citation handy, but I do have a book somewhere at home that discusses how the Church strongly discouraged people from trying to interpret the word of God themselves, saying they should rely on the learned men of the Church hierarchy to do it for them. It wasn’t a sin, but it might have been cause for persecution…
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t have to. It has never been "a sin" to read the Bible in the history of Catholicism. The person can be any age and come from any place, and the anti-Catholic propaganda will never be able to be reconciled. This was absolutely part of the history of the church, they were rather dismayed by the invention of the printing press, and reading the Bible for oneself was an integral part of the Protestant reformation. Incorrect. Reading the Bible was never a sin for Catholics. This all arises from the fact that before the printing press, the Bible was rare and the church would make sure it was always safe because it was nearly impossible to get another hand-writen copy. And Catholic tradition has strict views on interpreting the Bible and Catcheism, which needless to say the Protestants don’t dig (even though many Protestant sects are as guilty of this now as well, but that’s another issue), but saying "this is how Catholicism interprets the book" and "it’s a sin to read the Bible" are two different concepts. People who expound upon the latter are almost always involved in some sort of anti-Catholic propaganda, I’ve found. I don’t have a citation handy, but I do have a book somewhere at home that discusses how the Church strongly discouraged people from trying to interpret the word of God themselves, saying they should rely on the learned men of the Church hierarchy to do it for them. It wasn’t a sin, but it might have been cause for persecution…
Your book – was it from a CATHOLIC perspective, or a PROTESTANT perspective, interpreting the Catholic?
Response:
I don’t have a citation handy, but I do have a book somewhere at home that discusses how the Church strongly discouraged people from trying to interpret the word of God themselves,
Gee let me guess, Jack Chick.
Response:
I don’t have a citation handy, but I do have a book somewhere at home that discusses how the Church strongly discouraged people from trying to interpret the word of God themselves, saying they should rely on the learned men of the Church hierarchy to do it for them. It wasn’t a sin, but it might have been cause for persecution… Your book – was it from a CATHOLIC perspective, or a PROTESTANT perspective, interpreting the Catholic? I’ll have to dig it up, but it was almost certainly not from either of those. Possibly an atheist, maybe Unitarian perspective.
Gah! As a card-carrying Unitarian Universalist, I can say that our perspective usually does not involve taking other religions to task. We are very big about studying other religions (usually in a comparative religions-type environment), but usually we have a live-and-let-live attitude about what they believe. I would like to see this source, though still, it shows the "it’s a sin" comments to be a lie, which was my main point. -Brian TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING: One year, one month, two weeks, one day, 21 hours, 23 minutes and 8 seconds. 16435 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,054.45. Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 35 minutes. See my Sig File FAQ: http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm
Response:
I don’t have a citation handy, but I do have a book somewhere at home that discusses how the Church strongly discouraged people from trying to interpret the word of God themselves, saying they should rely on the learned men of the Church hierarchy to do it for them. It wasn’t a sin, but it might have been cause for persecution… Your book – was it from a CATHOLIC perspective, or a PROTESTANT perspective, interpreting the Catholic?
I’ll have to dig it up, but it was almost certainly not from either of those. Possibly an atheist, maybe Unitarian perspective.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.