A Few Q's and A's on The Church and the Bible

From Radio Replies Vol 1, by Frs. Rumble & Carty, pg 119-120
(The questions in the 3 volume set, Radio Replies, were mailed in by listeners then answered over the airwaves by these "radio priests" before being published in written form.) 

548 Why is the Catholic Church antagonistic to the Bible? She is not. She protects and defends it. But she does teach that the private reading of the Bible with reliance solely upon one's own powers of comprehension is no sure way to arrive at the truth taught by Christ. And experience bears out her teaching.

549 Was not the Bible unknown to the people before the Reformation? No. Beautifully illuminated copies of the Scriptures, wrought by the monks, were in the charge of the Clergy and the Churches, and from these the Word of God was carefully preached to the people. Before the invention of the printing press, a wider diffusion was impossible.

550 Did not the Catholic Church burn all Bibles, and punish those who had copies? No. The Catholic church would have been very foolish to have copies multiplied only to destroy them. When the printing press was invented by the German Catholic Gutenberg in 1445, the first book printed was a Bible, before Protestantism had come into existence. 


551 Yet does not the Catholic church regard the work of the Bible Society as dangerous to Christianity? She condemns the principle that Bibles should be distributed indiscriminately to people on the understanding that they will be able to attain the truth without the guidance of the Church, and by their own unaided efforts. the wildest absurdities have resulted from the theory of private interpretation of Scripture, and if it is not dangerous to Christianity to have a new pretended Christian Church arising every ten years from some mad-cap reading of an isolated text, I would like to know your idea of what is really dangerous to Christianity.

552 Does she herself forbid the reading of Scripture in the vernacular? No. There are various Catholic societies for the diffusion of the Holy Gospels in the vernacular, such as the Society of St. Jerome, approved by the Church. Pope Pius X granted special blessings to those who would read Scripture daily and recommend others to do so. But it is essential that the teachings of the living Church be kept in mind as a key to the true sense of the Bible.

553 Then why did pope clement XI in 1713 condemn the doctrine that the Bible is for all to read? He did not condemn the doctrine that it is good to read Scripture. He condemned the theory that it is necessary to do so in order to attain Christian knowledge. Christ's method was to establish a teaching Church, it being necessary to be taught by the Church. He did not order the apostles to multiply and scatter copies of the Scriptures. If the reading of Scripture were necessary to salvation, what of the immense number of Christians through all the centuries prior to the invention of printing, when it was impossible to transcribe by hand sufficient copies for the multitudes? Could Christ make the possibility of his religion dependent upon the invention of the printing machine? And did He intend His religion to remain forever impossible as far as the illiterate are concerned? It is absurd to say that His religion essentially depends upon a printed book. The pope wisely condemned the proposition that the reading of Scripture is necessary to all. Every reasonable man would condemn so unreasonable a proposition.

555 You seem afraid that Catholics will be harmed by the reading of Scripture.Even granted a correct version, thousands of people have been harmed by the reading of Scripture, thinking themselves capable of interpreting it aright. The Pharisees read Scripture, yet managed to use, or misuse, quotations from the Bible as an argument against Christ, just as men today quote scripture as an argument against the true Church of Christ, the Catholic church.