I said something in the post below perhaps over strongly, but I do find evidences of fear of Protestantism lingering in the Church. This is hardly unusual--anyone who knows anything of the Southern States knows that "old times there are no forgotten," it seems no matter how much time has passed.
The Reformation and the Counter-Reformation seem to have left certain very deep scars in the Catholic Church. I note this in particular when I am trying to get the Carmelite groups I oversee to accept the notion of Lectio Divina. The responses range from , "I listen in Mass and think about the Gospel," to "I pray the Rosary and it comes from Scripture," to what many seem to think the ultimate zinger, "What about private interpretation?"
The reality is that to some degree or another, we all do private "interpretation" of Scripture. When we hear the Gospel, I am sure each of us sees a different scene and different words are emphasized and sink down inside us. "Oh, Jesus is talking about peace," I might say, whereas my neighbor might say, "Oh Jesus is talking about how wars will ever be with us and our necessity to fight them." These are "private" interpretations.
The problem is not reading the Bible and having an understanding of it that differs from those around us--the problem comes in when we have the arrogance or pride to proclaim our particular understanding the one true interpretation of the passage of scripture, most particularly when that interpretation differs from the tradition of the Church and the interpretation of the Church where she has spoken.
In the wake of the reformation, much suspicion was cast upon those who read the Bible on their own and who engaged in anything remotely like mystical prayer. St. Teresa of Avila's works were examined by the inquisition and she was under its watchful eye for some time. In the Carmel of Lisieux, none of the sister possessed a complete Bible. Therese is said to have had a copy of some of the Letters of Paul which she read at every opportunity.
The fear continues even to this day. It is notoriously difficult to get many Catholics to even pick up a Bible, much less read it. I think about the Catholics I have seen in Mass. They might have a prayerbook, a Breviary, or a Missal, but nowhere is to be found a copy of the Bible. Of course, in many evangelical and fundamentalist Churches you wouldn't be caught dead without a Bible.
It seems that many Catholics have surrendered the proud patrimony that the Church has bestowed upon the world, into the hands of the Protestants, repudiating it because they use it. On the other hand, the Protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and in at least this one thing they serve as guides and examples. The honor they give to the sacred word of God is an inspiring thing indeed.
In the Mass, there is often so much focus on the Eucharist, that many Catholics either forget or did not know that Jesus is present to us as well in the liturgy of the Word. "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there amongst them." There is a real presence in the word proclaimed as well as in the Eucharist itself.
The Bible, the gift of the Church, belongs to and is the rightful possession of all Christians. Catholics need not fear it--there is nothing in it, despite the protestations of some brothers, that speaks against anything present in the Church. Indeed, for some time the Church herself has seen the wisdom of encouraging the faithful to reading and praying of scripture to the extent that there is a pleanary indulgence, under the usual conditions, for anyone who reads and prays scripture for a mere thirty minutes a day. Think of all the good one might do for the soul in purgatory merely by reading the Book. For those of us who are inveterate readers, we have little excuse--for those less inclined, the prayers of the souls so released should provide an additional inducement.
The Bible is nothing to be afraid of--and it is something that every Catholic should be involved with in Mass and outside of Mass. Ignorance of Scripture--Old Testament and New--is ignorance of Christ. Jesus is every bit as present in the story of the People of Israel as He is in the chronicle of the New Testament. In fact, I often see more of Him in Psalms than I do in some of Paul's letters.
So, reclaim what is rightfully yours and take it to yourself. Reading the Bible is no more a merely Protestant Activity than is prayer itself. God blesses those who come to Him to learn about Him in ways we cannot begin to understand.
I agree, but... As someone who comes from a Baptist background, I do NOT want most Catholics to bring their bibles to Mass; I do NOT want most priests to quote chapter and verse in their homilies. The Catholic Mass has always felt more alive to me precisely because it lacks those features of Protestant worship.
I'm all for Lectio Divina, though. In fact, I need to do it. But I also need to pray the breviary more, pray the Rosary more, ... As you wrote recently, "Time to get serious about prayer."
Dear Jack,
I'm all for Lectio Divina, though. In fact, I need to do it. But I also need to pray the breviary more, pray the Rosary more, ... As you wrote recently, "Time to get serious about prayer."
On this, I couldn't agree more. Adding into one's routine should not diminsh what is already present, unless it is by the will of God, which requires discernment on the part of the person praying with the guidance of their spiritual director. Getting serious about prayer doesn't mean multiplying devotions or prayers--and I'm not suggesting that you've said so, merely cautioning.
I do NOT want most Catholics to bring their bibles to Mass; I do NOT want most priests to quote chapter and verse in their homilies.
As to the first of these, I am indifferent--I wouldn't be horrified or thrilled at the prospect--after all, Mass is the Mass--the word is already present.
As to the second point, I would probably disagree. Most of the Priests I have heard would improve the focus and message of their homilies if they got a bit more serious about their construction. We have at least one priest in our Parish (whom I call Father Agenda) who gets up in the ambo (actually, more disconertingly, down in the aisles) and rambles on forever. During the celebratory Sunday of Advent he started out with something having to do with the Gospels and then spent twenty-five minutes talking about how Catholics needed to be opposed to torture. I can tell you, I was sorely tempted to ask him afterwards if he has heard anyone of the congregation recently saying that torture was a good idea.
Chapter and verse can get tedious, but use of scripture within the homily is an excellent notion, and some indication of where it might be found so that were I so inclined I could look it up and reflect upon it would be much appreciated.
I don't think Catholic priests should construct their homiletics after the fashion of the Baptists. A homily and a sermon perform two very different functions. However, staying a little closer to the texts and supporting your "breaking open the word," with either additional scriptural support OR with support from the writing of the Church fathers or the Saints would not be something I'd shy away from either. One of the things I do miss from the Baptist Church is the sense of teaching that I got from a sermon. Few homilies give me that impression--and given the relatively poor state of adult Catechism in the Church, I'd welcome more of it.
However, as you note--not chapter and verse in the sense that a Baptist minister might construct a sermon. I really got tired of taking notes in Church.
shalom,
Steven
Dear Jack,
Oh, in the interest of full disclosure, I should probably say that I do bring my Bible to Mass every day and spend the minutes before Mass reading it or the Liturgy of the Hours, depending upon time and what has gone before. In fact, I'm usually carrying three or four Bibles at a time (KJV, RSV, Latin Vulgate, and perhaps one or two others) on my PDA.
(I now have a 2 gig chip that I store literally thousands of books on--including all the major works of the Carmelite Saints, and just about any worthwhile public domain classic or relgious book I can get ahold of.)
Just can't seem to get away from certain old practices.
shalom,
Steven
The Bible I used in my Baptist Sunday School class is very precious to me. I love to look back over the notes I wrote in the margins, the underlinings, and hymns that particularly struck me that I pasted in it. It's sort of akin to reading one of the favorite cookbooks of my deceased mother, with her scribblings in the margins, a favorite recipe, and the little tell-tale stains that indicated it was used very, very often.
Dear Psalm 41,
I know what you mean. I own probably 30-40 different Bibles, but the one that means much to me is the one that my Grandparents gave as a birthday present when I was 7 years old. (I think my Mother's Bible would mean even more, but my brother has that.)
But this old Bible, a "children's bible," has few fairly poor watercolor paintings of Bible scenes, but it is the unadulterated KJV. That's what we were expected to read at the time. And I know those little marks, bends, and tears you refer to that show that it was well-used and well-loved.
shalom,
Steven
Steven:
Your point about general Catholic disinterest in reading the Bible is well taken.
But the idea that "The Bible... is something that every Catholic should be involved with in Mass" couldn't be more Protestant!
Every Catholic involved with Mass is plenty involved in Holy Scripture. But a Bible, as in a single volume containing translations of all the books of Scripture? Sorry, that's not a liturgical book, and the Mass is liturgy.
More generally, the idea that a Bible somehow scores more points than a breviary or a missal is pretty Protestant, too. What, are they going to read all eleven hundred pages before the opening hymn?
I understood Jack's "chapter and verse" comment to mean things like, "As Paul says in Romans two thirteen says, ...." I.e., literally mentioning the chapter and verse numbers. I don't have a strong feeling on that, having not met it much (outside the handful of universally known verses like John 3:16), but I suspect it would come off as show-offy, particularly given that Catholics don't take notes during homilies.
I should add that, when I say the idea is "Protestant," I don't mean "bad" or "imperfect," as though you, personally, are wrong to bring a Bible to Mass. I mean that it's not a custom Catholics particularly ought to develop (except as part of a broader habit of regular devotional reading of Scripture).
Dear Tom,
Thank you for the correction. I can't find the particular passage you site, but I do agree with you as regards the Bible and Mass, or more properly scriptural involvement and Mass and if I said something contrary, I will reread and remove it, because that certainly takes more away from my point than adds to it. I am sorry to have given this impression.
Chapter and verse are useful if it is the main point of what you are talking about and it isn't already in what has been read. If one is going to the trouble in a homily of making a scriptural point, it is useful to have a reference. I suppose it isn't a common pass time, but I spend a good deal of time out of Mass thinking about what was said in the homily--if the homily was especially cogent or utterly incoherent.
I won't comment on the Breviary and Missal except to say that I use both, and I've yet to be able to make a coherent chronological narrative out of either the Sunday readings or out of much of the Office of Readings. It is in this sense that I see the Bible as "scoring higher." Sometimes the order of events makes all the difference in our understanding of them.
shalom,
Steven
Steven:
You're right that the Bible scores higher in terms of making a coherent chronological narrative. (The Office of Readings is about as close a second as you'll come.)
My point is that the Mass isn't about making a coherent chronological narrative, and that when you're participating in a liturgy the ordering of Scripture in liturgical books is better than the ordering of Scripture in a Bible.
I guess a slightly broader point is that the Bible and e.g. the Breviary (a.k.a. the Psalter) can be equally regarded as Holy Scripture. True, not every word in the Breviary is divine revelation, but not every word in the Bible is, either (at least not if the Bible has notes, a table of contents, or names all the books).
Dear Tom,
Agreed. I would not suggest using the Bible for the Liturgical celebratin which is ordered to a purpose. But I wouldn't mind seeing a few Catholics thumbing through a Bible before Mass rather than say, chatting with their neighbors. But you are of course correct, both the Lectionary and the Liturgy of the Hours is ordered to a purpose and a deliberate focus which cannot come from a chronological reading of the Bible; which, I'm sure you will agree, only makes reading of the Bible that much more important--it contextualizes what is heard in bits and pieces and makes cohesive a story heard in parts.
But I think with these clarifications, we are largely in agreement, and I will seek out the offending passage once I have a moment and alter it to express whatever might have really been going through my mind when I wrote. Thanks again for the correction and caveat.
shalom,
Steven
Dear Tom,
I see the reference now, and technically your absolutely right; however my meanings was more along your lines and for the in Mass part "Scripture" is more appropriate. I don't tend to separate the two. So a rephrasing might go along the lines of "The Bible is not something to be afraid of and it is something that every Catholic IS involved with in Mass and should be involved with outside of Mass."
That was the line of thinking--realising now that it was a very imprecise expression. Hope this clarifies my intent.
shalom,
Steven
The Bible does not present one with a sure thing.
The Bible will, in fact, rock your world.
If you want a sure thing, what you want is not to read and interpret, but to accept and obey. "Somebody has to think about this (or did it once a long time ago) and *thank God* it isn't me!"
Here's the rub: faith is not a sure thing either.
Steven,
Regarding Chapter and Verse, in spite of what you say here, you seem to have become fully Catholic, because in the very next post you use the Catholic method of quoting scripture, which is to leave out the Phil. 4:4 and just say "St. Paul writes..."
I noticed this yesterday, but I didn't say anything. Since no one else has pointed it out yet, I figure I should.
peace,
brandon.
Dear Rob,
Boy did you say a mouthful. But the difficulty is to figure out exactly what that obedience entails. That is why we all "work out our salvation with fear and trembling."
Dear Drandon,
Two reasons: (1) I'm really lazy sometimes. (2) Any frequent reader of the blog has seen that particular quote often enough that they can probably find it in the Bible with their eyes closed. (3) Oops, make that three reasons. . . It's a common enough refrain that it is almost not Biblical any more in the sense of popular usage.
But were I to quote a passage where Jesus says "Who is not against me is for me," you'd probably like to know where that is because He is also recorded as saying "Who is not for me is against me." And were I to say that St. Paul tells us that the Gentile who lived the law in his heart is saved by that law even though he is not part of the people of Israel, you might want to know what exactly I was talking about.
You'll note that on occasion, particularly as I'm trying to make a point that may be contested or possibly controversial, or confusing, I will site chapter and verse. I don't think it is a necessary thing all the time. And sometimes it is sufficient to say, "Paul write to the Colossians and says. . ." That's enough to give me an idea of where to find it after Mass if I am so inclined.
But I am not a rigorist, I'll take whatever I can get. I just like knowing where it comes from. There's a sense of comfort knowing that if what was said was useful, I can find it again if I need to.
It's sort of like asking the St. Blog's audience in general, where does one find the story of Elijah. The hard reality of that matter is that St. Blogs may well know, but the majority of Carmelites of my acquaintance have no real idea.
So, I'm flexible--when in Rome. . . unless not. :-)
shalom,
Steven
Steven,
Yeah, and obviously I had no trouble finding it myself. (Although my love for that particular verse dates from my Protestant days).
Actually, I've thought a bit about this matter, and I'm on the "no need to give exact citations" side of the fence, at least in homilies. My reasoning is that the appearence that I think chapter and verse citations give is to say "I'm right, because you can look it up and verify me." Like a legal argument, you need to give the exact paragraph from which the law comes. I think this is a sola scriptora legalistic point of view that says "anyone can figure out the same thing that I'm telling you, if you just go to this particular verse and read it." The slightly more organic, historical type of Scriptural interpretation is exemplified by your little cloud over the sea, and in the way that seemingly different passages are juxtaposed in the Mass readings. It is my opinion that this view takes Scripture as an organic whole, rather than isolated chapters and verses bound together in the 1700's by Royal approval. (And I don't mean to take issue with yoru favourite translation, just to point out what I see as the prevailing mindset). Actually, in the Scriptures themselves the second method is used, for example the letter to the Hebrews and also Jesus' quotations of OT Scripture. (And sometimes they even quote wrongly, because they were doing it from memory). I know that footnotes are necessary in any scholarly study, and certainly when you are making a contested point and using Scripture to make your point, but I don't know that homilies should be either of those. Sermons: yes, homilies: I'm not sure, but I think no.
I guess I am a little surprised that Carmelites wouldn't know where to find the story of Elijah. Perhaps you exaggerate?
peace,
brandon.
Dear Brandon,
I guess I am a little surprised that Carmelites wouldn't know where to find the story of Elijah. Perhaps you exaggerate?
I can't speak for all Carmelites, but I have found that many that I have come into contact with in this region have difficulty knowing where to turn to find the story. Eventually, through formation and other means, many come to be able to tell you--but in most groups its one or two people (usually ex-protestants) who can tell you where to find it. The average Catholic seems to think he has a book of the Bible all his own. (Again anecdotal.)
On the chapter and verse, you will note that I felt a general reference was useful most of the time. But if you're giving a specific homily on, say the sanctity of life and you want to make a point about abortion, or homosexuality, it is insufficient and intellectually dishonest to say "Somewhere in the Bible you'll find something like. . . " That is my point about chapter and verse.
Also, I don't think chapter and verse say, "I know and you don't," but rather operate as a courtesy. "Paul says to pray constantly." Where does he say it, what is the context, and what is the advice he gives about doing it? How am I to know unless I have some idea of where Paul says it?
I don't think homilies should be long runs of chapter and verse--I've said that before. But if you're making a powerful and useful point, having a roadmap is helpful. Often, I want to know more, and I have the wherewithal to find it, but many in the pews do not. This tends to make the homily a largely forgettable reflection on the gospel and less a breaking open of the word. I think eschewing the chapter and verse is a relatively recent Catholic innovation, because when I read Cardinal Newman they seem to be peppered through with scriptural references that don't appear to be editorial interpolations.
My point has neveer been every homily should come with a list of references, but more that Chapter and Verse are not always bad things--at times they are very helpful and when dealing with very difficult, very controversial matters, they may even be essential. I know that the reason the Church shies away from them is because they rely to heavily on one arm of Authority, but as it was Her Tradition that established the Authority in its final form anyway, I think She's entitled to lean upon it. I am not "sola scriptura," but I don't think it does a religious argument any harm to have firm backing from the scripture.
Thanks for writing.
shalom,
Steven
Steven,
I agree with what you say. I certainly wasn't trying to call you sola scriptora. (I know well that even Rob does not subscribe to sola scriptora theology either). It's probably the bad taste left in my mouth by past Evangelical experiences that makes me shy from the citation of chapter and verse.
peace,
brandon.
Dear Brandon,
And that may explain much of our difference in attitude. I didn't leave the fundamentalists because of bad experiences; indeed, based on bad experiences I would never set foot in a Catholic Church again (comparatively speaking). I was blessed with a remarkably trauma free and wonderful experience among the fundamentalists. But gradually I came to realize that in several places they were skirting the truth, they were afraid to look at certain things too closely because they knew where they would wind up. As a result of that averted gaze, I ended up looking straight at what they were avoiding and coming to terms with it.
It took me a long, long time to become as Catholic as I am, and I know that I have many holdover attitudes from Prostestantism, it is where I was nurtured and where I came to know God--it would be kind of like not loving my mother were I to condemn everything they did. All I hold against them is that they were afraid to look at the truth of the Scirptures they so ardently supported.
But I have heard horror stories of others in both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, so I know your story is not an isolated one.
shalom,
Steven