Bible Scholars?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey everyone, a friend of mine has asked me a question. She said her "ministry formation director" (heterodox parish, but my friend is very orthodox) taught her that there were no catholic bible scholars after the Council of Trent until an encyclical of Pope Pius 12th's came out that praised the Bible. This director said that Trent "closed the Bible" and from then on scripture wasn't even taught in seminaries.

I'm just wondering how true these things are. I am very skeptical of their authenticity, and I cant find anything about the "Closing of the Bible" the lack of "Official Bible Scholars" or "No Scripture in Seminaries" during that time period.

Anyone know?

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[StColette]

Jeff,

I'm looking through everything I have, and doing searches I've yet to find anything on the subject. I'll keep looking though.

God Bless,
Jennie

[VeraMaria]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 9 2004, 04:26 PM'] Hey everyone, a friend of mine has asked me a question. She said her "ministry formation director" (heterodox parish, but my friend is very orthodox) taught her that there were no catholic bible scholars after the Council of Trent until an encyclical of Pope Pius 12th's came out that praised the Bible. This director said that Trent "closed the Bible" and from then on scripture wasn't even taught in seminaries.

I'm just wondering how true these things are. I am very skeptical of their authenticity, and I cant find anything about the "Closing of the Bible" the lack of "Official Bible Scholars" or "No Scripture in Seminaries" during that time period.

Anyone know?

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
I'm trying to find out, but until then, BUMP so maybe someone else sees it and can help

[StColette]

I'm still looking too, I asked my dad and he had never heard this before.

[Guest JeffCR07]

thanks a lot guys

[StColette]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM[/url]

This article may help its sorta long but it may have something on the matter

[Cure of Ars]

This is probably addresses some of your question;

[quote]An anti-Catholic critic claimed knowing middle-aged ex-Catholics who were not encouraged to read God's Word. I asked a priest in his mid-60's and he said he never heard such a thing; indeed, a special indulgence was granted to anyone who faithfully read the bible on a daily basis. Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920:  "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, with the veneration due the divine Word, make a spiritual reading from the Sacred Scriptures. A plenary indulgence is granted if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour."  My late aunt admitted that she was hesitant to read the bible for fear of misinterpreting the texts; however, such a personal sentiment cannot be said to reflect a Catholic prohibition. Anti-Catholic apologists themselves use isolated bits-and-pieces to refute Catholic teachings and then accuse the Church of using the same flawed methods. Such just is not the case. An anti-Catholic author, David Cloud, furthered such distortions in an article entitled, "The KJV and the Latin Vulgate." He writes:

[quote]The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair." [/quote]

Let us look at his assertions. First, did the council of Trent really prohibit the reading and ownership of the bible? The answer is, no. The council fathers decreed on April 8, 1546, ". . . the synod, following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testament, --seeing that one God is the author of both, . . . ." Oddly, I could not find the quotation as given by the above author; however, I did find decrees regarding UNAPPROVED and or FAULTY translations of the Scrtiptures. Just as with theological works, the Church asserted her role over their legitimate use. To suggest that the council of Trent opposed the authentic Word of God is untrue. Second, the prohibition for Catholics in joining Bible Societies was due to the fact that these said groups did not use Scriptures approved by Church sources and were quite anti-Catholic in their approach. Such has been the continued problem with gullible Catholics stolen from Christ's Church by anti-Catholic fundamentalist bible study programs, some which particularly target Catholics. Again, this was no disdain for the holy Scriptures, only for the malicious intent by which some men use them. Third, the concern about bible distribution was that Protestant bibles were being circulated which in missing texts and in footnotes often questioned and ridiculed Catholic teaching. Obviously, the Church preferred that Catholics read bibles which reflected the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Word of God. The misuse of the Gospel against the Church established by Christ himself is as Pope Leo XII noted nothing less than satanic. Cloud's interpretation of Church history, or tradition, is as cloudy as the anti-Catholic's understanding of the Scriptures.[/quote]

[url="http://members.tripod.com/~frjoe/bigot6.htm"]http://members.tripod.com/~frjoe/bigot6.htm[/url]

Edited July 12, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

Phatcatholic, I would not post that article in the reference section. It goes on to call Jimmy Swaggert the "pornography and prostitute addicted Jimmy Swaggert". I would consider it gossip and the author should have left it out.

[Crusader_4]

I do not have a specific response to your question however to me it sounds like one of those comments such as "why did the Church chain bibles?" because of the expesnse and threat of stealing. However i am not sure if it was after or before Trent altho i would not be suprised if it was Trent the Church warned the faithful against reading unauthorized editions of the Bible. Which as one can imagine during the reformation and even today (altho i am not sure if it is still binding) is a wise precaution as to limit error and mistakes in the Holy Scriptures this is often taken by Protestants and twisted to us not being allowed to read scriputre rahter then us not being allowed to read a bible where there could be grave errors present within the texts.

[cmotherofpirl]

I sent off to EWTN type people for this for a scholarly response.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Sweet.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote][b]Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible[/b]

[b]Council of Trent[/b], an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)

The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 45 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; "Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority." The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.

[b]Vatican I Council[/b] (1869-1870)

Reaffirmed the decree of Trent. The Church holds the books of Holy Scripture as sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them, nor because they contain revelation without error, but precisely because "having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself."

[b]Providentissimus Deus [/b](1893), Pope Leo XIII, Bishop of Rome, 1878-1903

[color=red]Inaugurated a new era in Roman Catholic biblical studies.[/color] Presented a plan for biblical study; Defined inspiration: "By supernatural power God so moved and impelled the human authors to write - he so assisted them in writing - that the things he ordered and those only they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth."

[b]Pascendi Dominica Gregis[/b] (1907), Pope Pius X, Bishop of Rome, 1903-1914

Refuted the errors of the Modernists; Scored erroneous teaching on the origin and nature of the Sacred Books, on inspiration; on the distinction between the purely human Christ of history and the divine Christ of faith; on the origin and growth of the Scriptures.

[b]Spiritus Paraclitus [/b](1920), Pope Benedict XV, Bishop of Rome, 1914-1922

Commends modern critical methods in biblical studies. All biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense. Goal of biblical studies is to learn spiritual perfection, to arm oneself to defend the faith, to preach the word of God fruitfully.

[b]Divino Afflante Spiritus[/b] (1943), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939-1958

Permitted scholars to use original text of Scriptures. No claim was made that the Vulgate is always an accurate translation, but that it is free from any errors in faith or morals. The scholar must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures; search out and expound the spiritual sense; avoid other figurative senses. Literary criticism should be employed. Stated that there are but few texts whose sense was determined by the authority of the Church (only seven biblical passages have been definitively interpreted in defending traditional doctrine and morals--Jn 3:5, Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24, Jn 20:22, Jn 20:23, Rom 5:12, Ja 5: 14); this counteracts the frequent misunderstanding that Catholics have no freedom interpreting the Scriptures.

[b]Humani Generis [/b](1950), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939 - 1958

Instructs scholars on evolution, polygenism and OT historical narratives [/quote]



[url="http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm"]http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm[/url]



From what I can gather, the council of Trent proclaimed that the Vulgate was an “authentic” translation of the Bible. The Church never prohibited translations from the original language but many interpreted the fact that the Vulgate was “authentic” with there being no need to go back to the original languages. Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritus encouraged scholars to go back to the original languages to translate the Bible and to look at the genre of scripture. So my take on it is that there were definitely scripture scholars before Pope Pius XII in the Church but after there was more focus on certain aspects the scripture and the field probably grew because of this. But in actuality it sounds like the real leap in Catholic Biblical scholarship happened with Pope Leo XIII because he laid out a plan for biblical study in Providentissimus Deus.

Edited July 12, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[cmotherofpirl]

I got this today:

Dear Cheryl,

The great preachers of the Catholic Church, in the wake of the
Protestant Revolt, were extremely well trained in Scripture. They
argued from Scripture using the Vulgate.

Men such as St. Robert Bellarmine come to mind. :-)

The Council of Trent declared the Vulgate, the translation of the
Bible by Saint Jerome, to be the only version of the Bible on which
authoritative teaching could be based.

The Vulgate of St. Jerome was the definitive edition of the
Scriptures to be used in all Seminaries (yes, they taught Scripture
in the Seminaries), and the Vulgate was also to be used in all
Scripture readings at Mass, and for homilies.

Anyone who made the claims you mention has been reading some pretty
bad propaganda.

Proof that; the charge that Scripture wasen't taught in the Seminaries
is a falsehood is found in one fact alone:

The Jesuits (who were formed after the Council of Trent by St.
Ignatius of Loyola) - were absolutely feared by Protestant leaders in
Protestant countries.

Know why?

Their knowledge of Scripture was so prodigious that they quickly
developed a reputation for completly demolishing any Protestants who
dared to debate the meaning of Scripture with them in front of
audiences. And those Jesuits were 'seminary trained' - in Jesuit
Seminaries.

That is why many Protestants tries to kill the Jesuits before they
could arrive in a town. They knew that once the people saw the
knowledge of Scripture shown by the Jesuits - their big lie that
Catholics didn't read Scripture would be destroyed.

As a matter of fact, up till the Council of Trent, the great Seminary
System we are currently familiar with did not exist. That system as
it exists today, was created by the Council of Trent.

The usual method of preparation for the priesthood in the Infant
Church - was to learn under an experienced priest: a young man would
be entered into the service of the Church, assist the priest and
bishop in the exercise of their ministry and so gradually learn the
necessary elements of their duties.

They slowly advanced through all the minor orders, lector, deacons,
etc. They mastered Scripture and the administration of the sacraments
and often received a general education in the various schools then
available in different dioceses. Later one, Diocesan Houses (for the
training of priests) were developed [You'll read more about that in
the last paragraph].

In Medieval Europe, this practice continued. But then the Church
literally invented the modern University system. That's right.
The 'University' as we know it in the West was invented/created by
the Catholic Church. Thus St. Thomas Aquinas received most of his
training in Scripture and Tradition, philosophy and theology, at the
great University of Paris.

The Council of Trent ordered the creation a systematized Seminary
System - which took a number of years to put in place. Part of that
system was the systematic training in the Old and New Testament - for
every priest.

What follows is a very very brief history of how the training of
priests gradually developed in the Infant Church:

"A significant innovation was introduced by St. Augustine Near his
own house in Hippo, he established a monasterium clericorum where the
clergy lived together. Those expressing a desire to become priests in
the diocese were required to live in the monasterium. While a house
for clergy, the institution nevertheless produced ten bishops for the
African Church over succeeding years. The Augustinian initiative was
soon adopted elsewhere, including Milan and Nola. The tradition was
soon begun in Rome to have a parish priest provide basic instruction
to candidates, gathering several candidates under their direction. In
529, at the Council of Vaison, in southern Gaul, the decree was
passed formalizing the Roman custom. This was followed in 531 by the
Council of Toledo that stipulated that clerics should be trained in
the house of the Church (in domo Ecclesiae) under the observation of
the bishop. Another council in Toledo, in 633, proposed that such
training be undertaken as early as possible to prevent the
dissolution of youth with wasteful pleasures. Hence began the first
of the cathedral schools, centers of learning that served a vital
role in the development of theology, the arts, and the so-called
Carolingian Renaissance. The cathedral schools of St. Victor in
Paris, Bec, and Normandy educated many young men, including a large
number of candidates for the priesthood. It was only under the
Council of Trent that formal seminaries as we know them today were
established, during its Twenty-Third session."

This is from Desmond Birch who did the EWTN series [i]The Last Things in Time and Eternity.[/i]

[St. Catherine]

Correction on my last post;

When I said, “authentic” translation of the Bible, this is wrong, I should have said, “authoritative” translation of the Bible.


Boy EWTN does not fool around. They ato this answer back fast. Very cool history. Thanks cmotherofpirl

[Cure of Ars]

:stupid: