No Longer a Forbidden Book

THE attitude of the Catholic Church toward the Bible has changed drastically in some Catholic countries over the past few decades. Older Catholics can still recall the days when Bible reading was frowned upon, if not condemned outright. In many predominantly Catholic countries, the common people viewed the Bible as a Protestant book to be avoided.

Concerning the situation in France during the 18th and 19th centuries, Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture at the Great Seminary in Rouen, France, wrote in his church-approved book La Parole de Dieu (The Word of God): “Bible reading was not encouraged. . . . In fact, apart from the clergy and some intellectual circles, the holy Book was no longer read by Catholics. It had disappeared from [Catholic] bookstores. The idea was continually fostered that the Bible was a dangerous and even an unhealthy book . . . It was positively proscribed in nuns’ convents and in Christian [Catholic] educational institutions.”

Then things began to change. Mignot, Catholic bishop of Fréjus and Toulon, France, wrote in his preface to Vigouroux’s Dictionnaire de la Bible (1891-1912): “We are truly witnessing an awakening of Bible study in France. Twenty years ago [Bible questions] . . . interested only a very limited circle of initiated ones. . . . Less and less importance was attached to Bible reading and study. Such things were never discussed, and if, perchance, some pious layman quoted Isaiah or Proverbs, people looked at him with surprise and suspected him of having secret leanings toward Protestantism!”

In the face of increasing activities by Protestant Bible societies, encyclicals on Bible study were published by Pope Leo XIII in 1893, Pope Benedict XV in 1920, and Pope Pius XII in 1943. But these papal letters had more effect on theologians and the clergy than on the Catholic public.

The real change came with the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). The council stated: “The sacred Synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the ‘excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ’ (Phil 3,:8). ‘For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ’ [said Jerome].”

Thus, in 1966 the authors of the book A Guide to Catholic Reading were able to write: “For centuries now the average Catholic has believed the Bible to be a divinely inspired book and, with tradition, the source of all Catholic teaching. But he has also been admonished to exercise the utmost care in his approach to Bible reading and encouraged to read it preferably under close clerical or religious supervision. . . . Happily the situation has changed radically and today Catholics are urged, exhorted, and entreated on every side to read the Book of Books.”​—Italics ours.

The Bible or Tradition?​—A Dilemma for Sincere Catholics

THE Bible has become increasingly available in Catholic countries in recent years. In Spain, for example, more translations of the Holy Scriptures in Castilian have been published over the past 50 years than during the previous 500 years. Similarly, French Catholics now have at their disposal several church-approved Bibles translated from the original languages. English-speaking Catholic scholars have also produced some new translations of the Bible.

So today any Catholic who wants to read the Bible can do so. But he must read a duly approved version, which must be provided with explanatory notes. Why does the Catholic Church make this proviso? Because it claims another source of divine revelation​—tradition—​and such notes are deemed necessary to reconcile the one with the other. Now which of the two sources​—the Bible or tradition—​is considered by the church to be the more important?

Allowed But Not Essential

The book A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture asks the question: “Is Bible Reading Necessary for Salvation?” In answer it states: “There is no universal precept, either divine or apostolic, that all the faithful​—every man, woman and child—​should personally read the Bible.”

Thus, while the Catholic Church now permits its members to read the Holy Scriptures, even granting a plenary indulgence “if the reading continues for at least one half hour,” it does not consider such Bible reading to be indispensable.a Explaining why, the French Catholic Dictionnaire de la Bible states: “Tradition is the most normal channel by which all teaching of the faith reaches mankind. Use of the New Testament Scriptures came later. They do not contain the entire deposit of faith, and their use is not essential.”

Tradition Put Above the Bible

The Bible is not, therefore, required reading for Catholics. And even if they do read it, it must take second place, behind tradition. The Catholic Church claims that the early Christians depended on oral tradition before receiving the written Word and that, accordingly, Scripture must be understood in the light of tradition as preserved by the church.

Confirming this viewpoint, a book designed to help French-speaking Catholics to read the Bible states: “The divine revelation, even that expressed predominantly in the Scriptures, has been committed to a faithful community, the living Church; this raises the vital question of the relationship between the Bible, Tradition and the Church. . . . This added light [in the Scriptures], once given, joins and completes the treasure of Tradition. . . . The Scriptures are, therefore, entirely dependent upon Tradition.”​—Initiation Biblique, pages 963, 971. Author’s italics.

How much confidence will a sincere Catholic have in the Bible when he reads in a book written by a Catholic professor of Sacred Scripture: “Tradition precedes, envelops, accompanies and goes beyond the Scriptures”?b Or what will he think if he picks up A Catholic Dictionary and reads: “The Church . . . affirms that all Scripture is the word of God, but at the same time it maintains that there is an unwritten word of God over and above Scripture”?

A Dilemma for Bible-Reading Catholics

For centuries the average Catholic accepted church dogma without questioning because laymen had no yardstick by which to measure the truthfulness of church doctrines. Most Catholics learned their faith by rote at catechism classes. If they asked the catechist or their priest to explain such hard-to-understand doctrines as the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception of Mary, they would more than likely hear by way of an answer: “It is a holy mystery.”

But the Second Vatican Council changed things. The Roman Catholic Church underwent an aggiornamento, or updating, that opened the way for unprecedented heart-searchings among Catholics. Vatican II gave the green light for the publishing of additional “suitable and correct translations” of the Bible, and it instructed Catholic bishops “to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books.” Thus, rank-and-file Catholics can at present obtain Bibles, read them, and compare what they read with what they have been taught.

However, this radical change has not taken place without creating problems. Many Catholics are discovering for the first time in their lives that much church dogma is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Among such teachings are devotion to Mary, prayers to the “saints,” veneration of relics, indulgences, purgatory, and limbo.

Concerning the latter, A Catholic Dictionary admits: “There was a natural repugnance to the belief that those who had committed no sin should be tortured in hell, and this difficulty led theologians to adopt various theories as by way of escape.” Limbo is one such theory.c

However, the Bible states that the dead are asleep in the grave, awaiting the resurrection. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; John 5:28, 29) Since there is no immortal soul, there can be no hell torture. So there was no need to invent the theory of limbo to get out of a theological predicament! This is just one example of the dilemma in which many Bible-reading Catholics now find themselves. Which are they to believe, man-invented traditions or the Bible?

A Dilemma for the Catholic Church

But the problem is deeper than that. A priest would likely elude the above-mentioned dilemma for individual Catholics by saying: ‘There is no problem. The revelation in the Bible has been completed by tradition. Accept the tradition of the Church.’ However, things are not that simple.

Jesuit professor Paul Henry, of the Catholic Institute in Paris, wrote: “Scripture is normative [establishes an authoritative standard] for the life, the worship, the morals, and the theological doctrine of the Church. Normative, not in the sense that everything revealed or desired by God is explicitly written in Scripture, but inasmuch as nothing done or taught infallibly by the Church can be contrary to Scripture.”

It is bad enough to claim that tradition completes the Holy Scriptures. This in itself is contrary to what Catholics can read in their Bibles at 1 Corinthians 4:6. But to teach dogmas​—such as hellfire, purgatory, and limbo—​that not only cannot be found in the Bible but also are clearly “contrary to the Scripture” places the Catholic Church on the horns of a dilemma.​—Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Romans 6:23.

Measure Tradition Against the Bible

At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church publicly urged “all the Christian faithful” to engage in “frequent reading of the divine Scriptures.”

A Catholic Bible Education Work

The Third General Assembly of the World Catholic Federation for the Biblical Apostolate was held in Bangalore, India, in August 1984. Delegates from 53 countries convened. The Federation was founded in Rome in 1969. That was three years after Pope Paul VI had commissioned a German cardinal in Rome to study the needs of the Catholic Church in matters pertaining to the Bible. Presently, Msgr. Ablondi, bishop of Leghorn, Italy, is president.

Exhorting the Federation to review its goals, Pope John Paul said in his message: “The commitment of the Federation is one of helping Catholics all over the world to have easy access to the Word of God. . . . Indeed all activity and all witness in the Church should flow from the living Word . . . The ‘prophetic office’ of the People of God must be consciously exercised as a true service of the Word. . . . By participation in the work of translation, publication and the diffusion of the Word, one is engaged in satisfying the needs of those who hunger and thirst for the Word of God (cf. Amos 8:11). This applies as well to the work of forming those who will one day dedicate themselves to teaching and preaching Holy Scripture.”

In line with its theme, in its final declaration this Catholic Biblical assembly stated: “The Federation is aware that if all the People of God are to play their prophetic part, they must have access to the Word of God (their personal copy of the Bible in their own language). They have the right to be trained in the knowledge of Scripture . . . This Assembly reaffirms that the Church’s work of evangelization is centered on the Bible.”

An Impossible Situation

Catholics, therefore, are now encouraged not only to read the Bible but to take an active part in an evangelization work centered on the Bible. This is commendable. But it places them in an impossible situation.

For one thing, the Catholic Church teaches that tradition takes precedence over the Bible. How can a Catholic be expected to become a zealous teacher of the Bible and at the same time remain faithful to his church? For instance, he will read in the Bible: “The soul that sins shall die.” (Ezekiel 18:4, 20, Revised Standard Version, Catholic edition; compare Douay Version.) But his church teaches that the soul is immortal and that all souls are in hell, limbo, purgatory, or heaven. What is he to teach​—Catholic dogma or the Bible?

Furthermore, the Catholic Church approves the publishing of Bible editions containing notes and comments that can only undermine the reader’s confidence in the Bible as being the inspired Word of God. For example, in its introduction, “How to Read Your Bible,” The New American Bible, containing a prefatory blessing by Pope Paul VI, states: “How does one know whether one deals with history or some form of figurative speech? . . . Most scientists hold that the human species has developed somehow from lower kinds of life. This knowledge helped Christians to rethink the ‘how’ of God’s creative activity and to understand that Genesis 2 and 3 is not a lesson in Anthropology, but an allegory, teaching us the lesson that sin is the root of all evil.”

Thus, before they even reach the first pages of Genesis, readers of this Catholic Bible are told that they will not be reading history but merely an allegory. This is tantamount to saying that Jesus used an allegory as the foundation for Christian monogamy when he used the example of Adam and Eve. (Matthew 19:3-9; Genesis 1:27; 2:24) Also, if mankind did not have one common ancestor, the fundamental Christian doctrine of Christ’s ransom sacrifice falls.​—Matthew 20:28; Romans 5:12, 17-19; 1 Corinthians 15:45.

This same Catholic Bible goes so far as to cast doubt on the authenticity of Jesus’ words as recorded in the Bible. Under “How to Read Your Bible,” it says: “We must keep in mind that the Gospel writers did not intend to write history in the scientific sense . . . Was Jesus involved in these conversations? Did He answer exactly as related in the Bible? It is not certain.”

How can sincere Catholics be expected to read the Bible with faith and “dedicate themselves to teaching and preaching Holy Scripture” to others when their church approves the publication of such faith-destroying statements? And similar undermining comments are to be found in The Jerusalem Bible, and in other Catholic Bibles and encyclopedias.