No Absolution from Sin for Catholics who Read the Bible

According to the infallible Council of Trent:

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise there from more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission, may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Book-dealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. (Council of Trent, Tridentine Rules: Rule 4)

If you are Catholic and want to read or possess a Bible you have to have written permission from your bishop, if not, you’re sins are not forgiven.

This statement speaks volumes about the leadership of the Catholic Church. According to them, Catholic laity have no brains of their own and are denied the gift of the Holy Spirit. Apparently, one can only grow in faith and knowledge of our Savior through the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. So long as one has their approval, one can possess and read God’s holy word. In absence of the express written permission of one’s bishop, reading the Scriptures is considered a sinful act. Amazing!

Advertisements

9 Responses to No Absolution from Sin for Catholics who Read the Bible

  1. David says:

    Again, this is not what it says. It says that reading a bible that wasn’t translated to the common language by someone approved by the church (bishop) cannot count on the translation, and may be reading in error.

    So much for that theory!

  2. Let me break it down for you.

    …which permission they must have in writing.

    Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission, may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary.

    Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.

    And you are fine with that? Wow!!

  3. David says:

    Brian, again, you mischaracterize. It says that you cannot read an unapproved translation of the Biuble and expect to receive grace by reading it. Let me spell it out-WE TRUST THE MAGISTERIUM. WE KNOW THEY ACT BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

  4. David of MI says:

    You mean, you hope they do.

  5. David the Catholic,

    You know nothing of the sort! And in my comment I never even used my own words except to tell you how amazed I am that you are okay with what they said. It sounds like your issue is not with me, but with your own church. Take it up with them.

  6. David says:

    Let me fill out the remainder of this conversation.

    Yes, we do.

    Brian: No we don’t.

    Etc.

    I have no issues with my Church other than gaining a deeper understanding of her teachings.

  7. Thoshammer says:

    Hey, have recently discovered this blog and was wondering what the author makes of Jerome’s “On the Perpetual Virginity of the Mary”? I’m a Presbyterian Calvinist but I’ve been looking at Early Church Fathers.

    I was wondering if you had any good sources from the Early Church better refuting it, considering Tertulian and Origen were both anathematised.

  8. I wouldn’t allow a proponents of Mary’s perpetual virginity to cause me to discount the opinions of Tertullian and Origen simply because Rome had a problem with them on unrelated matters. Tertullian’s “On The Flesh of Christ” is strong evidence for the absence of perpetual virginity doctrine as orthodox in the ante-Nicene church. Origen, who tended to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, admitted that the belief originated from spurious works. Both demonstrate that Jerome’s theory about the brethren being cousins was never heard prior to Nicene. Jerome’s copout saying Tertullian never belonged to the church was simply an excuse to dismiss the evidence against his point of view.

    Brian

  9. Kevin says:

    Hi Brian, and Mike, I thought you guys might be interested in Tim’s current 8 part series on tracing the true church. He is tracing those who have been wrongly classified as heretics by Roman Catholic historians. The whole series is a fascinating trace of our true ancestors. He makes an eschatological argument as well as the strongest one from history I’ve seen. Hope you guys check it out and hope you both are well. Brother Kevin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: