Read the CCC in a year

totus tuus

Today begins the year of the faith. For this Year of Faith, Pope Benedict has encouraged us to study and reflect on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You can sign up here and get daily e-mails every morning about the Catechism.

Today's lesson 1
http://www.flocknote.com/note/61872

May our journey through the Year of the Faith be blessed!

uck51js9zml2yt

Would the Bible in a year not be a better read?

Peregrinus

I don't think you're required to choose between them, tatranska!

georgieporgy

Ariadne Odd Gravy wrote: »

Would the Bible in a year not be a better read?

Most catholics have already read the bible. But the catechism is a useful book to help focus the mind. It's a bit like having another look at the rules of the road 20 years after your driving test. it's amazing the stuff you forget.

uck51js9zml2yt

georgieporgy wrote: »

Ariadne Odd Gravy wrote: »

Would the Bible in a year not be a better read?

Most catholics have already read the bible. But the catechism is a useful book to help focus the mind. It's a bit like having another look at the rules of the road 20 years after your driving test. it's amazing the stuff you forget.

As a catholic I never read the bible and don't know any former or current ones who do.

Peregrinus

I, on the other hand, do read the bible, and I know lots of other Catholics who do.

I don't claim that my experience is any more normative than yours, but I think the contrast in our experiences shows that what's at work here has more to do with the choices individuals make than anything else.

(And, of course, we are talking here only of private, solo reading of the scriptures. Catholics - practising Catholics, at any rate - read and reflect on the scriptures collectively all the time; it's a central part of our practice and worship as Catholics.)

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

Ariadne Odd Gravy wrote: »

Would the Bible in a year not be a better read?

Most catholics have already read the bible. But the catechism is a useful book to help focus the mind. It's a bit like having another look at the rules of the road 20 years after your driving test. it's amazing the stuff you forget.

I don't believe that's true. You're telling me that most Roman Catholics have read the Bible right through. Even some of the most devout Roman Catholics I know haven't. Most people who identify as Christian haven't and it's a crying shame. I must get a copy of the CCC myself and read through it and assess it to see how it lines up.

If you forget, reading the Bible again is always a possibility.

Peregrinus: I find the lectionary as its used in many denominations to be inferior to expository preaching. The lectionary won't get you through the whole Bible because it's missing passages. At any rate an hour every Sunday isn't going to be enough either. That's why small groups exist, and indeed that's why personal Bible reading has been encouraged from the Reformation at least and before the point where widespread corruption was manifest in the church in Europe.

Onesimus

Where does the Church discourage us from reading the Bible right through?

Most devout Catholics I know have not read the CCC right through either. I know I havnt and I'm not even devout.

Manach

Re: Catechism I'd have read the more stripped down version which is fairly approachable - Youcat (amazon link.)

georgieporgy

Ariadne Odd Gravy wrote: »

As a catholic I never read the bible and don't know any former or current ones who do.

And that's probably why you are not catholic now.:)

Any catholic that goes to mass regularly will be very familiar with the bible after a few years from hearing the mass readings. By age 15 they should be able to quote many passages by heart. Anyone who then doesn't make the effort to at least read the New Testament would be a very poor example of a christian (catholic or otherwise).

The RCC has been strongly urging the faithful to read the scriptures for centuries.

Many catholics know very little about their religion. That's why they are encouraged to read the catechism. Catholics, like everyone else, have free will. And many don't give two hoots about religion. Some of these are regular posters in the A&A forum and now refer to themselves as athiests.

georgieporgy

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that's true. You're telling me that most Roman Catholics have read the Bible right through. Even some of the most devout Roman Catholics I know haven't. Most people who identify as Christian haven't and it's a crying shame. I must get a copy of the CCC myself and read through it and assess it to see how it lines up.

When I speak of roman catholics, I mean only the ones that go to Mass every Sunday (at a minimum). ie, believers.

I'm sure when you speak of christians, you too mean believers. Those who don't practise generally don't believe. I think Jesus refers to them as lukewarm/ to be vomited out of mouth etc.

uck51js9zml2yt

georgieporgy wrote: »

Ariadne Odd Gravy wrote: »

As a catholic I never read the bible and don't know any former or current ones who do.

And that's probably why you are not catholic now.:)

Any catholic that goes to mass regularly will be very familiar with the bible after a few years from hearing the mass readings. By age 15 they should be able to quote many passages by heart. Anyone who then doesn't make the effort to at least read the New Testament would be a very poor example of a christian (catholic or otherwise).

The RCC has been strongly urging the faithful to read the scriptures for centuries.

Many catholics know very little about their religion. That's why they are encouraged to read the catechism. Catholics, like everyone else, have free will. And many don't give two hoots about religion. Some of these are regular posters in the A&A forum and now refer to themselves as athiests.

You say if I had read it I would have stayed catholic.
The fact that I've read it and preached from it the last 28 years prevents me from ever going back.

I don't know how you can say people were encouraged tp read it for centuries.
Most people didn't understand Latin.

lmaopml

totus tuus wrote: »

Today begins the year of the faith. For this Year of Faith, Pope Benedict has encouraged us to study and reflect on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You can sign up here and get daily e-mails every morning about the Catechism.

Today's lesson 1
http://www.flocknote.com/note/61872

May our journey through the Year of the Faith be blessed!

I'm really looking forward to the initiatives in this the 'Year of Faith' Totus Tuus - I've signed up to this daily study...we're meant, not only to be people of the Word of the Book, but people of the 'Word Incarnate' through the Holy Spirit, the living Word. Many have gone before us...

The Catechism is a tool saturated with Scripture and with the Church Fathers, and beautiful understanding - it's meant to be read alongside Scripture, and is a great read for any Christian who may decide to delve in to the treasures therein...I think anybody would find it useful tbh.

I think it's cool to do it in a year too...it means that you can take your time and branch out, discuss and digest it, do your homework as such; it's a wise thing to tap into these resources. I'm debating about looking into starting a study group in our Parish - bit shy though..lol....:o I guess, we've got to jump in somewhere and not be shy too...nothing like getting up and going.

Onesimus

Ariadne Odd Gravy wrote: »

You say if I had read it I would have stayed catholic.
The fact that I've read it and preached from it the last 28 years prevents me from ever going back.

I don't know how you can say people were encouraged tp read it for centuries.
Most people didn't understand Latin.

Hi Tat. What made you want to leave the Catholic Church? Just thought I'd ask. I'm always interested in hearing why people leave. Call it nosiness if you will but...I don't know you and you don't know me and boards is all anonymous so I guess you wouldn't mind answering me. *shrug* But apologies if it is taken as a personal question regardless.

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that's true. You're telling me that most Roman Catholics have read the Bible right through. Even some of the most devout Roman Catholics I know haven't. Most people who identify as Christian haven't and it's a crying shame. I must get a copy of the CCC myself and read through it and assess it to see how it lines up.

When I speak of roman catholics, I mean only the ones that go to Mass every Sunday (at a minimum). ie, believers.

I'm sure when you speak of christians, you too mean believers. Those who don't practise generally don't believe. I think Jesus refers to them as lukewarm/ to be vomited out of mouth etc.

The Lectionary doesn't contain the whole Bible. It only contains part. By the by some of the people I'm thinking of fall into that category.

bonniebede

philologos wrote: »

: I find the lectionary as its used in many denominations to be inferior to expository preaching. .

can i suggest that the catechism is expository preaching. it is the distillation of 2000years if reflection on the scriptures, gathered together and expounded themaqtically by the successor to the the apostles.
its necessary to read the catechism with a bible in the other hand, so you can follow the copious scripture references baqck to the bible and see how it all fits together.

uck51js9zml2yt

Onesimus wrote: »

Hi Tat. What made you want to leave the Catholic Church? Just thought I'd ask. I'm always interested in hearing why people leave. Call it nosiness if you will but...I don't know you and you don't know me and boards is all anonymous so I guess you wouldn't mind answering me. *shrug* But apologies if it is taken as a personal question regardless.

I found an all encompassing forgiveness in Jesus Christ, a relationship with him and a certainty of eternal life that Catholicism doesn't give.

The other thread on indulgences makes my point. People still have to deal with the penalty of sin whereas He bore the penalty that we wouldn't have to.
How can you have the certainty of eternity if that's hanging over you? Even the funeral mass is still hoping the dead person will be taken to heaven.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

Peregrinus: I find the lectionary as its used in many denominations to be inferior to expository preaching.

I think you’re making a false distinction here. It’s perfectly possible to employ the lectionary and engage in expository preaching. In fact, that’s what you’re supposed to do. The homily at each mass is supposed to be an exposition of the scriptures which have been proclaimed.

The issue really is this; will a minister who is free to select each week whatever sciptures he wants to be read at worship and then preached upon give a more full, or less full, exposition of scripture over time than a minister who follows the lectionary? And the only possible answer is: that depends on the minister, and the scripture passages he selects, and the basis which he uses for making his selection.

Effectively, it seems to me, a “free text” preacher is compiling and using his own lectionary. He’s doing exactly what the lectionary editors do; selecting a cycle of scriptures to proclaim and preach upon. I don’t see any a priori reason for assuming that he will make either a better or a worse job of it than the lectionary editors did.

philologos wrote: »

The lectionary won't get you through the whole Bible because it's missing passages. At any rate an hour every Sunday isn't going to be enough either.

There’s no guarantee that a minister who chooses his own passages is going to cover the whole bible either. I rather doubt that many ministers set out with that objective. I did read a piece once about an American minister who did set out to read and preach on every passage of scripture in the Bible; it took him something like seventeen years to complete the task (and he, of course, would have omitted the deuterocanonical books). The reaction of his congregation – or those of them that stayed the course – was not recorded.

The lectionary, it has to be said, does not aim to cover the bible in full. It aims to cover the gospels comprehensively, and to read the Hebrew scriptures in light of the gospels.

philologos wrote: »

That's why small groups exist, and indeed that's why personal Bible reading has been encouraged from the Reformation at least and before the point where widespread corruption was manifest in the church in Europe.

I’m a bit dubious about that last claim. Prior to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century the great majority of Christians (of all denominations) could not read; prior to the invention of the printing press the great majority of Christians (of all denominations) could never hope to own a bible. The notion that “personal bible reaching” was encouraged could only have been true for the literate and the wealthy – a comparative elite. It’s certainly true that some Protestant traditions strongly encouraged education so that the ordinary Christian would be equipped to read scripture, but it was a good two hundred years after the Reformation before the “average” Protestant could read well enough to read the bible. The fact is that proclamation of the scriptures, and preaching on the scriptures, was encouraged, because that was the only way the great bulk of Christians would ever encounter scripture. “Personal bible reading” is very much a tradition which grew up in the modern era. The notion that it was encouraged in the early church before being stomped on by those nasty Catholics is, I’m afraid, largely historical fiction.

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you’re making a false distinction here. It’s perfectly possible to employ the lectionary and engage in expository preaching. In fact, that’s what you’re supposed to do. The homily at each mass is supposed to be an exposition of the scriptures which have been proclaimed.

The issue really is this; will a minister who is free to select each week whatever sciptures he wants to be read at worship and then preached upon give a more full, or less full, exposition of scripture over time than a minister who follows the lectionary? And the only possible answer is: that depends on the minister, and the scripture passages he selects, and the basis which he uses for making his selection.

Effectively, it seems to me, a “free text” preacher is compiling and using his own lectionary. He’s doing exactly what the lectionary editors do; selecting a cycle of scriptures to proclaim and preach upon. I don’t see any a priori reason for assuming that he will make either a better or a worse job of it than the lectionary editors did.


There’s no guarantee that a minister who chooses his own passages is going to cover the whole bible either. I rather doubt that many ministers set out with that objective. I did read a piece once about an American minister who did set out to read and preach on every passage of scripture in the Bible; it took him something like seventeen years to complete the task (and he, of course, would have omitted the deuterocanonical books). The reaction of his congregation – or those of them that stayed the course – was not recorded.

The lectionary, it has to be said, does not aim to cover the bible in full. It aims to cover the gospels comprehensively, and to read the Hebrew scriptures in light of the gospels.


I’m a bit dubious about that last claim. Prior to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century the great majority of Christians (of all denominations) could not read; prior to the invention of the printing press the great majority of Christians (of all denominations) could never hope to own a bible. The notion that “personal bible reaching” was encouraged could only have been true for the literate and the wealthy – a comparative elite. It’s certainly true that some Protestant traditions strongly encouraged education so that the ordinary Christian would be equipped to read scripture, but it was a good two hundred years after the Reformation before the “average” Protestant could read well enough to read the bible. The fact is that proclamation of the scriptures, and preaching on the scriptures, was encouraged, because that was the only way the great bulk of Christians would ever encounter scripture. “Personal bible reading” is very much a tradition which grew up in the modern era. The notion that it was encouraged in the early church before being stomped on by those nasty Catholics is, I’m afraid, largely historical fiction.

That's why Wesley taught theology through the learning of songs.

Peregrinus

Ariadne Odd Gravy wrote: »

That's why Wesley taught theology through the learning of songs.

Indeed. But Wesley didn't come up with the idea; it's a very ancient Christian practice. The Gloria is one of the oldest parts of the Christian liturgy, and the Kyrie is even older; they are both hymns or chants which are laden with theological signifcance. And do I have to mention the liturgical use of the creed?

In fact the practice could almost be said to be pre-scriptural. At any rate, it seems to precede the Christian scriptures. The letters of Paul contain passages which are said to be transcriptions of hymns that were already being sung by Christian communities when Paul wrote, and he employs them for their theological content - Phil 2:5-11, Col 1:15-20, no doubt other passages as well. And there's a view that John 1 likewise draws on a pre-existing hymn.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you’re making a false distinction here. It’s perfectly possible to employ the lectionary and engage in expository preaching. In fact, that’s what you’re supposed to do. The homily at each mass is supposed to be an exposition of the scriptures which have been proclaimed.

The Lectionary doesn't satisfactorily cover a lot of Scripture. By the by, this isn't a specific criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. I apply this across the board. Preaching on 3 separate and at times largely varying Scripture is not as effective as studying a book of Scripture right through in its original context over several weeks. Preaching on 3 separate books simultaneously in a church service does not allow for adequate attention to be given to any single passage.

I've also seen some cases where passages were selected which actually compromises the reading of the passage. For example on June 3rd this year in the Revised Common Lectionary and the Episcopal / Anglican lectionary the Gospel passage was John 3:1-17.

This entirely breaks up the logic of Jesus' argument:

16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

17: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

18: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

You're missing a whole great big chunk of the Gospel truth by leaving out verse 18. You could be led to thinking that nobody is condemned if you stop at verse 17. However, Jesus goes on to say that the ones who do not believe already are condemned.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue really is this; will a minister who is free to select each week whatever sciptures he wants to be read at worship and then preached upon give a more full, or less full, exposition of scripture over time than a minister who follows the lectionary? And the only possible answer is: that depends on the minister, and the scripture passages he selects, and the basis which he uses for making his selection.

One would hope that one who is in the service of being a church minister or church leader would put shepherding his people and bringing them to a personal understanding of God's word as first and foremost in a church congregation. Whether that is through Sunday preaching or small groups in the church.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Effectively, it seems to me, a “free text” preacher is compiling and using his own lectionary. He’s doing exactly what the lectionary editors do; selecting a cycle of scriptures to proclaim and preach upon. I don’t see any a priori reason for assuming that he will make either a better or a worse job of it than the lectionary editors did.

I don't see what you mean. There are certainly advantages to focusing on one possibly longer text of Scripture. You could argue that it is compiling ones own lectionary, but the best expository preaching I've seen is where the person who is preaching literally goes through entire texts of Scripture one by one. This allows people to hit topics head on even if they are controversial to members of the congregation. Topical preaching on the other hand tends to allow people to pick and choose what passages they want to use on a given occasion.

The question to ask is what is best for the church.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There’s no guarantee that a minister who chooses his own passages is going to cover the whole bible either. I rather doubt that many ministers set out with that objective. I did read a piece once about an American minister who did set out to read and preach on every passage of scripture in the Bible; it took him something like seventeen years to complete the task (and he, of course, would have omitted the deuterocanonical books). The reaction of his congregation – or those of them that stayed the course – was not recorded.

The argument for not considering the Deuterocanonical books is that they were never regarded as Scripture in early Judaism. I've read them all by the by, and I think they are interesting, but there is still doubt as to whether or not they are Scripture in the same sense as the Tanakh as a whole.

The reaction of a congregation is absolutely irrelevant. What is more important whether or not your teaching is popular? Or whether or not your teaching is grounded deeply in God's word? One of the advantages of preaching straight through a book in one go is that issues that people may find difficult can't really be avoided.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The lectionary, it has to be said, does not aim to cover the bible in full. It aims to cover the gospels comprehensively, and to read the Hebrew scriptures in light of the gospels.

I know it doesn't. I'm pointing out some of the flaws of the lectionary from my position.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m a bit dubious about that last claim. Prior to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century the great majority of Christians (of all denominations) could not read; prior to the invention of the printing press the great majority of Christians (of all denominations) could never hope to own a bible. The notion that “personal bible reaching” was encouraged could only have been true for the literate and the wealthy – a comparative elite. It’s certainly true that some Protestant traditions strongly encouraged education so that the ordinary Christian would be equipped to read scripture, but it was a good two hundred years after the Reformation before the “average” Protestant could read well enough to read the bible. The fact is that proclamation of the scriptures, and preaching on the scriptures, was encouraged, because that was the only way the great bulk of Christians would ever encounter scripture. “Personal bible reading” is very much a tradition which grew up in the modern era. The notion that it was encouraged in the early church before being stomped on by those nasty Catholics is, I’m afraid, largely historical fiction.

There is a whole lot in that post. I don't think it is "historical fiction" by the by.

Even if people could not read (I'll need to look into literacy percentages in Europe at that time). As a result of the Protestant Reformation in Europe, the Bible was at least read in their language. The service being entirely in Latin pre-Vatican 2 and the Biblical passages being read in Latin weren't conducive to human understanding. After all if as you claim people were illiterate, how do you expect people to understand Latin? In the Protestant Reformation in Britain for example, there were protest sermons in RCC churches where someone would read a passage in English and preach on it while the service was continuing in Latin.

It's also true that the Reformers did encourage personal understanding of the Gospel. Many Reformed groups actually encouraged teaching people to read using the Bible.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

The Lectionary doesn't satisfactorily cover a lot of Scripture. By the by, this isn't a specific criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. I apply this across the board. Preaching on 3 separate and at times largely varying Scripture is not as effective as studying a book of Scripture right through in its original context over several weeks. Preaching on 3 separate books simultaneously in a church service does not allow for adequate attention to be given to any single passage.

It’s a fair point. But I think it’s inevitable that choices have to be made here. If you just consider (say) Isaiah or Exodus on their own, then you’re not considering it in the light of the gospel.

The Lectionary does take account of this to some extent; it presents large chunks of the NT letters read over several days or weeks, on a cycle quite independent of the gospel readings for those days. But it’s true that it really presents the OT texts as adjuncts to the gospel, which makes for a very “broken up” reading of those texts. It’s also the case that the associated preaching tends to be very focused on the gospel, rather than on the other lections for the day.

But if you can criticize the lectionary for being too gospel-focussed, and neglecting a holistic reading of the OT texts in particular, you can just as easily criticize the other approach as being insufficiently gospel-focussed. The truth is that I think choices have to be made here. And the fact that we could always have made a different choice about how to present and preach on scripture doesn’t necessarily mean that the choice we made was a bad one.

philologos wrote: »

I've also seen some cases where passages were selected which actually compromises the reading of the passage. For example on June 3rd this year in the Revised Common Lectionary and the Episcopal / Anglican lectionary the Gospel passage was John 3:1-17.

This entirely breaks up the logic of Jesus' argument:

16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

17: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

18: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

You're missing a whole great big chunk of the Gospel truth by leaving out verse 18. You could be led to thinking that nobody is condemned if you stop at verse 17. However, Jesus goes on to say that the ones who do not believe already are condemned.

I think you’re always going to face this problem. Unless you read the entirety of the scriptures every day, which is hardly feasible, you’re always going to have to decide where to break off, and you’re necessarily presenting the final verse or two out of context. (And the first verse or two, of course. And arguably the entire passage.)

And I think you need to consider the lectionary as a whole. On the particular day you mention, verse 17 may have been separated from verse 18, but verses 16 to 18 are included as a whole in the lections for the 4th Sunday of Lent in Year B, the Sunday after Pentecost in Year C, and Wednesday of the second week of Easter every year. (In fact most of the second week of Easter is taken up with reading the entirety of John 3 over several days, which is precisely the approach you favour.)

philologos wrote: »

One would hope that one who is in the service of being a church minister or church leader would put shepherding his people and bringing them to a personal understanding of God's word as first and foremost in a church congregation. Whether that is through Sunday preaching or small groups in the church.

One would hope so, but one’s hopes would not necessarily be borne out, would they? And even if the minister did adopt that guiding principle, he wouldn’t necessarily feel that the best way of giving effect to it was to set out to present the entirety of scripture in his preaching. He might well favour gospel-centred preaching, or topical preaching in which scripture passages were chosen according to their perceived relevance to issues facing his congregation. Or he might favour preaching on passages which he himself had something to say. Or passages that he found it easier to preach on. Or whatever. The point of “free text” preaching is that he is in fact free to select texts on any basis which appeals to him.

I think the point of a lectionary system is that the judgment of the church as to the optimal liturgical proclamation of scripture in liturgy is to be trusted over the judgment of any one individual.

philologos wrote: »

The argument for not considering the Deuterocanonical books is that they were never regarded as Scripture in early Judaism. I've read them all by the by, and I think they are interesting, but there is still doubt as to whether or not they are Scripture in the same sense as the Tanakh as a whole.

I don’t have a problem with the minister concerned omitting the Deuterocanicals; I understand completely why he would do so. My point was simply that, if he had not omitted them, his project would have taken even longer than seventeen years.

philologos wrote: »

The reaction of a congregation is absolutely irrelevant.

Huh? If your preaching bores or alienates your congregation, or if they simply lose track of it because they cannot follow a seventeen-year cycle, that’s irrelevant? Surely the whole point about preaching is that it give life to the Word - a life which is reflected in the way in which the congregation is called to a change of heart, and a change of life? If your preaching is not leading the congregation to this, the problem is not the congregation, is it?

philologos wrote: »

Even if people could not read (I'll need to look into literacy percentages in Europe at that time). As a result of the Protestant Reformation in Europe, the Bible was at least read in their language. The service being entirely in Latin pre-Vatican 2 and the Biblical passages being read in Latin weren't conducive to human understanding. After all if as you claim people were illiterate, how do you expect people to understand Latin? In the Protestant Reformation in Britain for example, there were protest sermons in RCC churches where someone would read a passage in English and preach on it while the service was continuing in Latin.

It's also true that the Reformers did encourage personal understanding of the Gospel. Many Reformed groups actually encouraged teaching people to read using the Bible.

Here’s a thought; in encouraging personal scripture reading, and literacy for the purposes of personal scripture reading, the reformers were not so much reviving a practice of the pre-Constantinian church as reviving a Jewish practice.

At the time of Jesus, every synagogue in Palestine was supposed to have a school attached, in which all the boys of the community were taught to read, so that they would be able to read scripture, and recite the prayers, etc, expected of a Jewish man. This edict wasn’t followed through universally, but it was followed pretty widely, and the result was that literacy was widespread among Palestinian Jews, at any rate by contrast with the societies around them. This explains how Jesus, the son of a tradesman, was able to take up the scroll and read in the synagogue; any Jewish man was expected to be able to do this. (Women, of course, were overlooked in all this, but that’s another story.)

Interestingly, though, Jewish boys were not taught to read and write Aramaic, which was the language they spoke. They were taught first to understand and then to read Hebrew, which was the language of the scriptures and the prayers. The reformers, although following a very similar impulse, took a different approach; they translated the scriptures into vernacular languages, and then taught people to read their own vernaculars.

How did the early church handle this? Well, the Christian scriptures were written in Greek, which was the vernacular of the early church, and the Hebrew scriptures had already been translated into Greek (by the Jews), so the translation issue didn’t arise. When it did arise, as the church became increasingly Latin-speaking, the scriptures were translated into Latin.

Did they follow the Jews, and set about a comprehensive literacy program, to ensue that all Christians, or even all Christian men, could read the scriptures in Greek, or later in Latin? They did not. Education remained linked to social class, as it had been in the preceding Greek and Roman pagan societies. Most people’s exposure to scripture was through proclamation, not reading, and there was no effort to change this. All there was in terms of education was a sustained effort to ensure that pastors and presbyters would be literate, so that they could proclaim and preach on scripture, and this is what gave rise to monasteries, etc, as centres of learning and scholarship.

What the reformers brought together was the approach of the early church to scripture in the vernacular, plus the Jewish approach to literacy. This was a laudable but it has to be said an ambitious project; as already mentioned it was a couple of hundred years before the “average” Protestant Christian could read well enough to read scripture.

And it should also be pointed out that, while the Catholic church did not favour scripture in the vernacular until much later, it fairly enthusiastically picked up on the literacy aspect of the reformers’ project. This was one of the many reforms that was picked up and enthusiastically pushed in the counter-reformation. Under the influence of the counter-reformation, there’s an explosion of schools in Catholic territories (as there is in Protestant territories), and the foundation of the great teaching orders dates from this time. As regards the education of women, in fact, Catholic countries are generally in advance of protestant countries from the sixteenth century onwards; this is probably because an existing tradition of convents and religious orders of women provides a springboard through which the education of women can be addressed effectively. The Ursuline order, whose primary apostolate is the education of girls and women, was founded in 1535.