Pilgrim's Progress Week 3

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "And they did. Backwards and forwards, upside down and right side up. Catholics, at least traditionally, had a different philosophy, a different method. I don't see that as discounting scholarship. There were plenty of Catholic scholars. "

As I understand it, it was only the priests and monks who read the Bible. They indeed were scholars, but lay people were not to read the Bible directly, but were to rely on the priests and ministers to interpret it for them and instruct them in those parts of the Bible that the church approved of.

But I'm not a scholar of the times, so I may be misunderstanding. But I think this is why there is both great Catholic scholarship (Aquinas certainly read the Bible extensively!) along with the principle that laypeople didn't read it.

Also, the Catholic Bible, I think, was only in Latin (and Greek??), and was not to be translated, so unless you read Latin you had no access to it.

[Hilary]

Yes, a fascinating discussion. As you say, Everyman, the Latin scriptures, (The Septuagint) were favoured over the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scriptures for many a year. I'm afraid my exact memory of timelines is hazy.
Oh and just a wee point, Lily, the term 'sects' is a powder keg here in Ireland, but I'm presuming it doesn't spur the same feelings in the US! Yet again we may be culturally divided by a common language... :D

[Roger]

The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Bible from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek, made in the 1st or 2nd century BC in Alexandria.

The Vulgate is a widely-used translation of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures into Latin, made in the 4th century AD.

Over here it's not "sects" that's the powder keg, it's "sex."

[Lily]

Hilary wrote: "...Oh and just a wee point, Lily, the term 'sects' is a powder keg here in Ireland, but I'm presuming it doesn't spur the same feelings in the US! Yet again we may be culturally divided by a common language... :D ..."

Thanks for the heads up, Hilary! Roger's and Patrice's comments certainly apply here....

I could have used "denominations", but somehow that felt awkward as I wrote. I will say some commentators have suggested, as frustrating as the splitting and fractionation of the Christian Church may be, in the United States we see evidence that the relative ease of forming new denominations is one of the factors that has tended to keep Christianity flourishing. Whether this will continue or has reached its breaking point is certainly a valid question.

[Laurel]

Lily wrote: "Laurel wrote: "Catholics in the United States today own Bibles and read them freely. This was not the case in the 1950's, but it is now. Much has changed."

Laurel -- The New Jerusalem Bible, widel..."

Yes, I think that is the one my friend uses. It is newer than the Douay and the Douay-Rhiems. (Not sure of the spelling of those older Catholic translations.)

[Laurel]

Patrice wrote: "I just did a quick search, googling "Do Catholics read the Bible"? There were many articles explaining why they do (did) not.
As I was reading of the differences it occurred to me that this is the..."

That is correct, Patrice. For centuries, only the church officials studied the Bible, and few common people were even taught to read. Fortunately (from the perspective of Protestants and mass education), Martin Luther was a priest and thus had access to the Bible. He started schools for the common people so everyone could read the Bible for himself, or even for herself. I do not know what led to the openness to the Bible among American Catholics in the past few decades, but it is something I have observed with pleasure. I think it is perhaps not the case in Catholic-majority countries, but I cannot authenticate my opinion.

[Hilary]

Roger, thanks for putting me straight. I studied that stuff years ago and I'm always mixing things up! For shame, I say!

[Laurel]

Patrice wrote: "Laurel wrote: "Patrice wrote: "I just did a quick search, googling "Do Catholics read the Bible"? There were many articles explaining why they do (did) not.
As I was reading of the differences it ..."

That makes sense, Patrice.

[Everyman]

A bit off topic to PP, but relevant to the post:

Roger wrote: The Vulgate is a widely-used translation of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures into Latin, made in the 4th century AD."

There's a very amusing passage in Helen Hanff's delightful "84, Charing Cross Road" about her correspondence buying second hand books from a shop in England. She has asked for Latin and Greek New Testaments, and when they come here is her reply, in part:

"WHAT KIND OF A BLACK PROTESTANT BIBLE IS THIS?
Kindly inform the Church of England they have loused up the most beautiful prose ever written, whoever told them to tinker with the Vulgate Latin? They'll burn for it, you mark my words.
It's nothing to me, I'm Jewish myself. But I have [she lists several Christian relatives] and I like to think none of them would countenance this Anglican Latin Bible if they knew it existed. (As it happens, they don't know Latin existed.)
Well, the hell with it. I've been using my Latin teacher's Vulgate, what I imagine I'll do is just not give it back till you find me one of my own."

[Hilary]

Hahaha, very funny, Everyman! [g]