Why Does the Bible Encourage What This Decree Condemns?

Denzinger part 34

Why Does Scripture Consistently Move Toward Understanding?

Denzinger 1566 addresses what it calls "The Manner of Uniting the Voice of the People with the Voice of the Church in Public Prayers."

The decree condemns the proposition:

"it would be against apostolic practice and the plans of God, unless easier ways were prepared for the people to unite their voice with that of the whole Church"

and then declares that such a proposition, if understood as advocating the use of the popular language in liturgical prayer, is:

"false, rash, disturbing to the order prescribed for the celebration of the mysteries, easily productive of many evils."

Those are remarkably strong words. The decree does not merely reject the claim that vernacular worship is necessary. It goes further and warns that introducing the language of the people into liturgical prayer is something "easily productive of many evils."

That claim deserves careful examination in light of Scripture.

The issue is not whether God can be worshipped in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other language. Scripture never teaches that a particular human language possesses a unique holiness that makes worship acceptable only when conducted in that tongue. Nor is the issue whether ancient liturgical languages may possess historical significance. The issue is whether the ordinary worship of God's people should be conducted in a manner they can understand.

This question reaches into the very heart of biblical revelation because Christianity is a faith grounded in God's self-disclosure through words. Salvation comes through the proclamation of truth. Faith is born through hearing. The Gospel is preached so that it may be understood, believed, and obeyed.

Paul writes:

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)

Faith does not come through the mere hearing of sounds. Faith comes through hearing and receiving the message that God has revealed. The entire argument of Romans 10 depends upon understanding. A message is preached. The message is heard. The hearer believes. The chain breaks down if understanding is removed.

Throughout Scripture, God's concern is not merely that words be spoken. His concern is that His people understand those words.

This principle is vividly demonstrated after Israel's return from exile. When Ezra gathered the people and read the Law, the goal was not simply public recitation.

Nehemiah records:

"So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." (Nehemiah 8:8)

Notice the emphasis. They gave the sense. They caused the people to understand.

The Word of God was not treated as a sacred mystery whose power resided in its recitation alone. The purpose of reading was understanding. The purpose of teaching was comprehension.

The same pattern appears repeatedly in the ministry of Christ.

Jesus constantly called His listeners to hear, understand, and receive His words.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 11:15)

The Lord was not calling people merely to listen to sounds. He was calling them to grasp the truth being proclaimed.

Again and again Christ explained His teaching to His disciples because understanding mattered.

The Christian faith is not built upon hidden knowledge accessible only to a clerical elite. It is built upon revealed truth proclaimed openly to all.

The issue becomes even clearer in Paul's discussion of public worship in 1 Corinthians 14.

Although Paul is specifically addressing the gift of tongues, the principles he establishes concerning intelligibility are difficult to ignore.

He writes:

"Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?" (1 Corinthians 14:9)

Paul's argument is straightforward. Communication requires understanding. Words that are not understood fail to accomplish their purpose.

A few verses later he continues:

"If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." (1 Corinthians 14:11)

Language exists to communicate meaning. When meaning is absent, the intended purpose of language is frustrated.

Paul then asks a question that strikes directly at the heart of the issue:

"Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" (1 Corinthians 14:16)

The apostle assumes that those participating in worship should understand what is being prayed. They should be able to affirm it. They should be able to say "Amen" because they know what has been spoken.

This creates an unavoidable tension with any conception of worship that treats understanding as secondary.

Paul concludes the chapter with a governing principle:

"Let all things be done unto edifying." (1 Corinthians 14:26)

Edification requires understanding. Instruction requires understanding. Spiritual growth requires understanding.

The argument becomes even stronger when the events of Pentecost are considered.

Acts 2 records one of the most dramatic moments in redemptive history. The Holy Spirit descends upon the apostles and empowers them to proclaim the mighty works of God.

What is striking is the direction of the miracle.

The Spirit does not compel the nations to learn a sacred language.

The Spirit enables the nations to hear God's truth in their own languages.

Acts records:

"Every man heard them speak in his own language." (Acts 2:6)

Again:

"How hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" (Acts 2:8)

Pentecost moves toward intelligibility rather than away from it.

The Gospel crosses linguistic barriers so that people may understand.

Latin itself was originally adopted in the Western Church because it was the language people actually spoke and understood. The early Church did not embrace Latin because worship was supposed to be mysterious or inaccessible. Latin became dominant precisely because it was accessible.

The original justification for Latin was therefore rooted in the same principle later invoked by advocates of vernacular worship: God's people should hear and participate in worship in a language they understand.

This historical reality creates an important question.

If Latin was embraced because it was understood, why should understanding cease to matter once Latin is no longer understood?

The deeper issue ultimately concerns the purpose of divine revelation itself.

Scripture consistently presents God as revealing truth so that people may know it.

The prophets spoke so that Israel might understand.

Christ taught so that His hearers might understand.

The apostles preached so that sinners might understand.

The Scriptures were copied, translated, explained, and proclaimed so that God's truth might be understood.

Even the widespread use of the Greek Septuagint before the coming of Christ demonstrates this principle. The Hebrew Scriptures were translated into the common language of the Mediterranean world because understanding mattered.

The New Testament itself frequently quotes that translation.

The movement of biblical revelation is therefore remarkably consistent.

God brings His Word closer to people.

He does not place it further away.

He illuminates.

He explains.

He reveals.

He makes known.

For this reason, the language of Denzinger 1566 appears difficult to reconcile with the overall trajectory of Scripture. The decree warns that the use of popular language in public prayer is "easily productive of many evils." Yet Scripture repeatedly presents understanding as a blessing rather than a danger.

The biblical concern is never that people understand too much.

The biblical concern is that they understand too little.

The problem in Scripture is ignorance, not comprehension.

The problem is blindness, not clarity.

The problem is hardness of heart, not access to God's Word.

The ultimate question raised by Denzinger 1566 is therefore not whether Latin may be used in worship. Scripture does not forbid its use. The ultimate question is whether the ordinary worship of God's people should be conducted in a way that allows them to understand what is being said.

When Scripture itself is allowed to speak, the answer appears remarkably consistent.

God's Word is given to be understood.

The Gospel is proclaimed to be understood.

Prayer is offered so that believers may join in it with understanding.

Teaching is given so that disciples may understand and obey.

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

The burden of proof therefore rests not upon those who desire the language of worship to be understood by the people, but upon those who would argue that understanding is somehow dangerous to the life of the Church.

From Nehemiah's reading of the Law, to Christ's public teaching, to Paul's insistence upon intelligible worship, to Pentecost's miraculous proclamation in the languages of the nations, Scripture consistently moves in one direction. God speaks so that His people may understand Him. If salvation itself is grounded in hearing and believing the truth revealed in Christ, then understanding cannot be treated as a threat. Understanding is one of the very purposes for which God has spoken.

Why Does the Bible Consistently Encourage What This Decree Condemns?

Denzinger 1567 addresses the reading of Sacred Scripture and condemns the following proposition:

"only a true impotence excuses" from the reading of the Sacred Scriptures

The proposition goes on to assert that neglect of this duty produces:

"the obscurity which arises from a neglect of this precept in regard to the primary truths of religion."

Pope Pius VI responds by condemning this doctrine as:

"false, rash, disturbing to the peace of souls."

At first glance, this may appear to be a minor disciplinary dispute arising from the controversies surrounding Pasquier Quesnel and the Jansenist movement. Yet the closer one examines the decree, the more profound the issues become. This is not merely a debate about devotional habits. It is a debate about the place of Scripture in the life of the ordinary believer. It raises fundamental questions concerning divine revelation, spiritual knowledge, salvation, the nature of the Church, and the relationship between God's Word and God's people.

Before examining the biblical evidence, it is important to understand what Pius VI and the Roman Catholic authorities were attempting to defend.

The decree was not issued in a vacuum. For centuries, Church authorities had expressed concern about unrestricted access to Scripture apart from ecclesiastical supervision. The fear was not entirely irrational. Heresies had arisen. False teachers had twisted biblical texts. Competing interpretations had led to controversy and division. Church leaders increasingly concluded that unrestricted Bible reading could become a source of confusion rather than unity.

This concern can be seen clearly in the regulations associated with the Council of Trent. The Fourth Rule attached to the Tridentine Index stated:

"Since it is manifest from experience that if the Sacred Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately permitted to everyone, the temerity of men will cause more harm than good."

That statement reveals the underlying concern. The problem was not the existence of Scripture itself. The concern was that ordinary people might misinterpret it.

The logic was straightforward. Scripture can be misunderstood. Misunderstanding can produce error. Therefore Scripture should be approached under the guidance and supervision of the Church.

Yet this line of reasoning raises another important question. How much confidence does the New Testament place in the ministry of the Holy Spirit within the people of God?

The concern behind restrictions on Scripture often assumes that ordinary believers, if left to engage the Word of God directly, will inevitably drift into confusion and error. Yet the New Testament repeatedly speaks of the Holy Spirit as the One who teaches, guides, illuminates, and leads believers into truth.

Jesus told His disciples:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things." (John 14:26)

Again He declared:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13)

Likewise the apostle John writes:

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things." (1 John 2:27)

These passages do not eliminate the need for teachers, pastors, or instruction. The New Testament clearly affirms all of those gifts. Yet they do raise a significant question. If Christ has given His people the Spirit of truth, and if that Spirit works through the Word He Himself inspired, why should access to Scripture be viewed primarily with suspicion?

The apostles certainly warned about false teachers, but they did not respond by distancing believers from Scripture. Instead they repeatedly directed believers back to Scripture, trusting that the Spirit who inspired the Word would use that Word to instruct, correct, and mature God's people.

At this point a difficult question emerges. Is the primary concern really the danger of misunderstanding Scripture, or is it the danger that ordinary believers, equipped with Scripture, might begin to question existing structures of authority? The New Testament consistently presents the Word of God and the Spirit of God as gifts given to the whole body of Christ. Consequently, any system that appears more confident in institutional control than in the Spirit's ability to guide believers through the Scriptures invites careful examination.

Peter himself warns that some people distort the writings of Paul.

"In which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

No serious student of Scripture can deny that biblical texts can be abused. Heresy is real. False teaching is real. Spiritual deception is real.

Yet an even deeper question immediately emerges. What kind of unity is the New Testament primarily concerned with preserving?

The concern expressed by Trent and later by Pius VI was fundamentally a concern for unity. The fear was that unrestricted engagement with Scripture would produce competing interpretations, doctrinal disputes, challenges to ecclesiastical authority, and ultimately fragmentation within the visible Church.

Viewed historically, this concern is understandable. The sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries witnessed enormous religious upheaval. Church authorities saw division spreading across Europe and concluded that tighter supervision of biblical interpretation was necessary to preserve unity.

Yet the New Testament repeatedly defines unity in a very different way.

Paul does not begin with an institution. He begins with the Holy Spirit.

He writes:

"Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Ephesians 4:3)

Notice that Paul does not command believers to create unity through institutional mechanisms. He speaks of preserving a unity that already exists because of the Spirit's presence among God's people.

He immediately continues:

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling." (Ephesians 4:4)

The foundation of Christian unity is not a common bureaucracy, a common language, or a common administrative structure. The foundation is the one Spirit who indwells all who belong to Christ.

Paul makes the same point elsewhere:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." (1 Corinthians 12:13)

The body is one because the Spirit is one.

Likewise Jesus prays:

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee." (John 17:21)

The model of Christian unity is not institutional uniformity. The model is the shared life that exists between the Father and the Son. The unity for which Christ prays is profoundly spiritual before it is organizational.

This distinction matters because it raises an important question. If believers are united by the indwelling Spirit and nourished by the same Word of God, should Scripture be viewed primarily as a threat to unity or as one of the principal means by which genuine unity is strengthened?

The New Testament consistently presents the Word and the Spirit working together. The Spirit inspired the Scriptures. The Spirit illuminates the Scriptures. The Spirit uses the Scriptures to reveal Christ. The Spirit uses the truth of God to sanctify God's people.

Jesus prayed:

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17)

The path to unity is therefore not ignorance of Scripture but deeper conformity to the truth revealed in Scripture.

This creates a significant tension with the reasoning that underlies many restrictions on biblical access. The New Testament never suggests that ordinary believers should be protected from Scripture in order to preserve unity. Instead, believers are repeatedly directed toward Scripture as the means through which they are instructed, corrected, sanctified, and brought into greater conformity to Christ.

The unity envisioned by the apostles is not maintained by keeping God's people away from God's Word. It is maintained by drawing God's people more deeply into God's Word and more deeply into the life of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

This leads directly to the crucial question.

How do Christ, the apostles, and the Scriptures themselves respond to the danger of misunderstanding Scripture?

Do they respond by limiting access to Scripture?

Do they respond by discouraging ordinary believers from reading Scripture?

Do they respond by treating Scripture as something potentially dangerous in the hands of common Christians?

The answer repeatedly given throughout Scripture is exactly the opposite.

Again and again the biblical solution to error is not less Scripture but more Scripture.

The solution to ignorance is not distance from God's Word but deeper immersion in God's Word.

The solution to falsehood is not reduced access to divine revelation but greater familiarity with divine revelation.

One of the most striking features of Jesus' earthly ministry is how frequently He appeals to Scripture.

Repeatedly He asks:

"Have ye not read?" (Matthew 12:3)

"Have ye not read?" (Matthew 19:4)

"Did ye never read in the scriptures?" (Matthew 21:42)

These questions reveal something important. Jesus expected people to know the Scriptures.

He did not ask these questions of rabbis alone.

He did not reserve Scripture for a scholarly class.

He assumed that God's people should be familiar with God's Word.

More significantly, Christ identifies ignorance of Scripture as the direct cause of doctrinal error.

Speaking to the Sadducees, He declares:

"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29)

Those words deserve careful attention.

Jesus does not say, "You err because you have read Scripture too much."

He does not say, "You err because Scripture is too accessible."

He says they err because they do not know the Scriptures.

The source of error is ignorance.

The remedy is knowledge.

This principle is not unique to the ministry of Christ.

Centuries earlier the prophet Hosea delivered a devastating indictment against Israel:

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6)

The tragedy was not excessive study of God's revelation.

The tragedy was neglect of God's revelation.

Likewise, when Israel returned from exile and Ezra publicly read the Law, the Levites did not merely recite sacred words.

Nehemiah records:

"So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." (Nehemiah 8:8)

The purpose of Scripture was not mystical obscurity. The purpose was understanding. The purpose was illumination. The purpose was instruction.

The same pattern continues throughout the New Testament.

One of the most remarkable examples appears in Acts 17.

After Paul preached in Berea, Luke writes:

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

The Bereans did not merely listen passively. They tested apostolic preaching against Scripture. They searched the Scriptures daily. Far from condemning this behavior, Luke praises it. The Bereans are called noble because they searched the Scriptures.

Their diligence is presented as a virtue rather than a danger.

The apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy are even more significant.

Paul reminds Timothy:

"From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15)

This statement reaches the very heart of the issue.

The Scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation.

The Scriptures reveal Christ.

The Scriptures testify of God's redemptive plan.

The Scriptures communicate truth necessary for faith.

The following verses continue:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16)

If Scripture is profitable for doctrine, profitable for correction, profitable for instruction, and able to make one wise unto salvation, why would believers not be encouraged to immerse themselves in it as deeply as possible?

What exactly is being protected when access to Scripture is restricted?

The tension becomes even greater when one considers the broader biblical doctrine of God's Word.

The Psalmist writes:

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." (Psalm 119:105)

A lamp illuminates. A light reveals. Light is given because darkness is dangerous.

Yet the logic behind restrictions on Scripture often seems to reverse this biblical pattern. The danger is treated as too much light rather than too little.

Psalm 119 repeatedly celebrates God's Word.

The Psalmist cries:

"Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." (Psalm 119:18)

His prayer is not for less Scripture. His prayer is for greater understanding of Scripture.

Likewise Joshua is instructed:

"This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night." (Joshua 1:8)

Meditation upon God's Word is presented as a blessing. Knowledge of God's Word is presented as a blessing. Familiarity with God's Word is presented as a blessing.

The cumulative force of this evidence creates a serious challenge for Denzinger 1567.

The condemned proposition essentially asserts two things. First, Christians should ordinarily read Scripture unless genuinely prevented from doing so. Second, neglect of Scripture contributes to ignorance concerning the fundamental truths of religion.

Yet both claims appear remarkably consistent with the testimony of Scripture itself.

Jesus attributes error to ignorance of Scripture. Hosea attributes destruction to lack of knowledge. The Bereans are praised for searching Scripture daily. Timothy is commended for knowing Scripture from childhood. The Psalmist delights in God's Word. Joshua is commanded to meditate upon God's Word day and night. Paul teaches that Scripture makes one wise unto salvation.

Again and again Scripture points in the same direction.

The ordinary believer is not pushed away from God's Word.

The ordinary believer is drawn toward God's Word.

If God inspired Scripture, preserved Scripture, proclaimed Scripture, and entrusted Scripture to His people, for what purpose was it given?

Was it given primarily to remain under institutional control?

Or was it given so that God's people might hear His voice through its pages?

Jesus provides the answer.

Speaking to His opponents, He says:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39)

The Scriptures testify of Christ.

That is their ultimate purpose.

The believer who reads Scripture is not merely studying ancient texts. He is encountering the witness God has provided concerning His Son.

For that reason the central issue raised by Denzinger 1567 is not ultimately about ecclesiastical discipline, Jansenism, or eighteenth-century controversies.

The central issue is whether God's people should be encouraged to read the very Word through which God reveals Christ.

The overwhelming testimony of Scripture answers with remarkable clarity.

God's Word is not presented as a threat. It is presented as nourishment.

It is not presented as a danger. It is presented as light.

It is not presented as a cause of confusion. It is presented as wisdom.

The biblical response to ignorance is not less Scripture but more Scripture. The biblical response to error is not distance from God's Word but deeper knowledge of God's Word. The biblical response to spiritual darkness is the light of divine revelation.

From Moses to the prophets, from Christ to the apostles, from the Psalms to the epistles, the consistent voice of Scripture is that God's people should know God's Word. If the Scriptures are able to make a person wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, then encouraging believers to read, study, search, meditate upon, and treasure those Scriptures is not a threat to spiritual peace. It is one of the primary means by which God leads His people into truth.

Amen.