Do Catholics read the Bible? Obviously, the answer to such a question depends on the individual Catholic. Certainly, however, all myths to the contrary notwithstanding, Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible by the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for instance, states:
The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful...to learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,' by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.' (#133)Nor is such an encouragement to read Scripture a novelty, but rather something the Church has striven to encourage her children to do, whenever possible, since the beginning of her existence, for as Pope Leo XIII described it in his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus (1893), the Bible is "a Letter, written by our heavenly Father, and transmitted by the sacred writers to the human race in its pilgrimage so far from its heavenly country." For this reason, the Church has also always read from the Scriptures in her liturgy, which is, in itself, soaked in Scripture in its prayers and rituals as well. And, indeed, in the wider culture as a whole, the art, literature, music, and other cultural expressions Christendom has produced through the ages (in which frequent biblical allusions show that the creators take for granted that the audience is familiar with the contents of the sacred page) are witnesses to the care that the Church has taken for diffusing a wide knowledge of holy Scripture.
Of course, it is true that most Catholics throughout the Church's history have experienced the power of the Word of God primarily in the context of the liturgy of the church as distinct from personal reading, but this should cause no surprise. First, a great portion of Scripture (such as Paul's letters to the various churches he founded, for instance) were originally written precisely to be read aloud in such a context, so it should hardly be surprising that such a pattern has continued in the Church as the primary mode of reaching the masses. And, more obviously, until the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century, copies of the Bible had to be copied out by hand, and consequently were rare and very expensive. Moreover, most of the population could not read and write in any case. That being so, naturally the average Catholic of necessity could not read the Bible for most of the history of the Church (such still holding true even today in many parts of the world). If that is indeed the case, then what else could the Church do other than what she did, in fact, do, that is, try to make sure that the average Catholic still was aware of the Bible through the liturgy, sermons, plays, art, statues, stained-glass windows, and other avenues of teaching which Christendom has produced, and which are filled with Scripture? Once the printing press was invented, however, editions of the Scriptures in various languages were printed in quick succession, well before the Reformation.
But for the above listed historical reasons, while there is much to recommend the reading and study of Scripture even outside the context of the liturgy, its most natural home is in the liturgy itself. Certainly the providence of God has arranged for such to be the case, such that what is written of the book of Revelation by the Apostle John would apply to the Bible as a whole. "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy" (Rev 1:3, emphasis mine). For most Christians throughout history, they by necessity could only hear the word of God through its proclamation in the Church, or become familiar with it through some such method as described above. And even today, so long as they are faithfully attending the liturgy, then while outside reading is highly encouraged (and done by many Catholics), it is not, strictly speaking, necessary in order to be familiar with the Scriptures. The Church provides the Scriptures to her faithful at every Mass, with the additional security of guidelines for their proper interpretation.
That, in fact, is where the real issue comes into play. It is not that Catholics are not exposed to the Scriptures (as, indeed, the Catholic Mass is filled with them, from beginning to end- which is strange if the Church discourages being familiar with them.) Rather, the objection is instead to the Church's authority to interpret the Scriptures. Many Protestants believe that the individual believer should have freedom from any ecclesial authority when it comes to interpreting the Bible, and instead should ultimately rely only on the Holy Spirit to guide them personally to the correct interpretation. (They do not deny that outside help can be useful, to be sure, but they insist it is not necessary). While that may sound nice in theory, there are various problems with it when put into practice.
The most obvious is the question: what happens when two believers disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, yet both are sure that they are being "led by the Holy Spirit" to the correct interpretation? Is the Holy Spirit contradicting Himself? It is unlikely anybody would wish to make such an assertion. Yet if such is not the case, then it would appear that it is not simply a matter of relying on the Holy Spirit to lead one to the correct interpretation of the text as an individual. Otherwise there should be complete agreement between sincere Christians. (Most especially is this the case when it comes to verses touching the fundamentals of the Christian faith.) Rather, it appears we should instead proclaim, with the humility of the Ethiopian eunuch when asked if he understood the prophet Isaiah, "How can I, except some man should guide me?" (Acts 8:31). The experiences of believers should show that it is not only the Ethiopian eunuch who is in need of such guidance.
And, in fact, we see in the New Testament, that when conflicts arose, appeals were not made to the text of Scripture by itself to settle the disputes. Rather, the faithful trusted the Holy Spirit to guide them to the truth through the instrumentality of the Church, "the pillar and ground of the truth", as the Apostle Paul describes it (1 Tim 3:15).
Thus, when there arose a dispute as to whether it was necessary for Gentiles to first be circumcised before coming into the Church, it was settled, not by an appeal to the text of the Scriptures alone, but rather to the authority of the leaders of the Church gathered at the Council of Jerusalem, and specifically the apostle Peter (cf. Acts 15). They had the authority granted them by Christ. "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us..." the Apostles wrote (Acts 15:28). They indeed could call Scripture as a witness to the correctness of their decisions, but even then, it was certainly the interpretation of the leaders of the Church that was authoritative, and not the interpretation of individuals who opposed the Apostles. The Jewish Christians who believed in the necessity of circumcision for Gentile converts (and who, to say the least of it, could certainly provide Scriptural arguments to back their position from the only Scriptures then existing, the Old Testament) were forced to submit to the authority of the Church, at the risk of being condemned for preaching "another gospel" (Gal 1:6).
It would appear, then, that based on the practice of the New Testament church, that the Holy Spirit guided the Church's understanding of divine revelation in general (and the Scriptures in particular) through those whom Christ gave the authority to "bind and loose" (Matt 16:18; 18:18).
The Spirit did not do so through those who refused to submit to that authority. Those who did that chose rather to imitate the example of certain other early heretics, who perished "in the gainsaying of Core" (Jude 11). The Apostle Jude, in this passage, is alluding to the rebellion of Korah that occurred during Israel's journeying in the wilderness after the Exodus, and after the establishment of the old covenant. Korah's rebellion consisted precisely in protesting that the entire congregation was holy, and therefore need not submit to Moses and Aaron.
And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? (Num 16:3)The rebels in the desert maintained that "the LORD is among them", and therefore they could disregard the authority of Moses and Aaron, whom they accused of lifting themselves up "above the congregation of the LORD". It is hard not to see the parallel to the accusation above, of those who claim that they have the Holy Spirit, and therefore need not submit to "someone in Rome", whom they frequently accuse of lifting himself up above other Christians. That the Apostle Jude presents heretics in his own day who imitated Korah as having "perished" is a sober warning to us today.
(Of course, I hope it goes without saying that I am not at all meaning to suggest that good Protestants are anything at all like the rebels and heretics, described in the Scriptures quoted above, in any aspect other than in rejecting legitimate authority. And even then, I realize that most Protestants do so in all good faith, not realizing it to be such, and so are not to be personally blamed for rejecting it.)
Obviously, the authority of the Pope in particular is another discussion altogether, and as such not something I am able to discuss the Scriptural evidence for in this piece. More to the present topic, however, is the fact that, in any case, certainly the New Testament does take for granted that the leaders of the Church have authority which is divinely instituted, and that those who disregard that authority are in error by doing so. And while I could have gone into more detail by providing many more verses to show this to be the case, in order to keep this piece from getting too long, I stuck to one example, and chose the one I did precisely because of how nicely it parallels the original accusation.
With all that said, I would be remiss if I failed to note that, as a matter of fact, the Church usually grants a fairly wide latitude in interpreting the Scriptures. With the exceptions of a handful of verses, the Church’s guidance in this respect is of a negative nature. That is to say, the Church gives some general guidelines (so as to prevent a Catholic from falling into heresy, for instance), but otherwise gives individual Catholics great freedom to try to figure out how best to interpret the Bible. Thus, if a Catholic were to interpret Scripture in a heretical manner (for instance, interpreting Jesus’s statement in John 14:28 that “my Father is greater than I” in such a manner as to deny Christ’s divinity), then of course the Church would deem such an interpretation to be in error. Such is part of the purpose of the teaching authority of the Church. But otherwise, the Church usually allows Catholics to choose whatever they believe to be the best interpretation, so long as the teachings of the faith are not compromised. It is generally only when the latter occurs that the authority of the Church is invoked.
In short, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides believers through the leaders of the Church, and not just through one’s own interpretation of Scripture.
