|
Quizzes for a Street Preacher:
About the Bible
These are common questions asked by most non-catholics.
Select a question to view the proper response.
Ina pamphlet I just read the Catholic Church is charged with destroying theBible.
Yes.The Church is accused of hating the Bible, destroying the Bible, keeping theBible from the hands of the people, of burning it wherever and whenever shefound it and of sealing it up in thedead languageof Latin which themajority of people can neither read nor understand. And all this she does (sothey say), because she knows that her doctrines are absolutely opposed to andcontradicted by the letter of God's written Word, and that she holds to dogmasand creeds which could not stand one gleam of the searching light of HolyScripture. But in reality the Bible was always available to the people and manyeditions appeared before the Reformation.
Didnot the great revolt against the Roman Church let the people see how they hadbeen befooled and hoodwinked?
Manybelieve that putting the Bible into the hands of the people brought about theReformation. The multiplicity of Christian religions was brought about byputting the Bible into the hands of the people without a proper interpreter ofwhat the Scriptures were saying. The Bible was in the hands of the people longbefore the Reformation as you can observe through statements elsewhere in thispamphlet.
Doreal honest scholars believe the present-day Protestant statements against theChurch for her attitude on the Bible?
Dr.S. R. Maitland, Protestant secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, explodesthe common opinion of the masses who believe such charges because of traditionhanded down to them from their forefathers since the "Reformation," byminister, teacher, and parents; through sermon, catechism, newspaper, radio,fiction, and history. They believe the tradition that monasteries and conventswere sinks of iniquity and corruption; or that Catholics pay money to havetheir sins canceled, etc. The Protestant account of pre-Reformation Catholicismhas been largely a falsification of history and all the good the Church did hasbeen misconstrued, misjudged, misrepresented as Dr. Maitland and other studentsof history admit after their study of the documentary sources. It would be wellfor readers of this pamphlet to investigate and if they do they will come tothe conclusion of the story, told about Charles the Second, the Merry Monarchof England. Charles the Second propounded to his learned and scientific men thefollowing profound problem: "How is it that a dead fish weighs less than aliving one?" The scholars discussed the grave difficulty and wrote longarticles to win the favor of their Royal inquisitor, but they came to nosatisfactory solution of the problem. Finally, it occurred to one of thescientists to test whether a dead fish does weigh less than a living one; and,of course, he discovered the lie or the joke; for the fish weighed exactly thesame, dead or living. People act in the same gullible manner when treatingstatements concerning the oldest Christian Church in the world. It would bewell to investigate and you will soon remove the mountains of abuse, calumny,and false supposition.
Thebooks in our public library give testimony that your Church is the enemy of theBible.
Bya calm consideration of the facts of history and a mind open to conviction ongenuine Catholic and non-Catholic evidence, you will admit by sheer force ofhonesty that the Catholic Church is not the enemy of the Bible for she has beenthe parent, the author and maker of the Bible; she has guarded it and defendedit all through the ages against those who would destroy the Bible; she has everheld it in esteem and has refused to allow the fallible brain of man to tamperwith the Bible; she has grounded her doctrines upon the Bible; she, of all theChristian Churches in the world has the right to call the Bible HER OWN BOOK;she can boast to the world that she alone possesses the true Bible and thewhole Bible of not 66 books but 73 books, and that copies of the Scripturesoutside the Church are partly incomplete and partly defective and that whateverin them is true, is true because it comes from the Bible which the Churchpreserved from the days of the Apostles who were the authors of the NewTestament.
Wecan have a Bible without a Church.
Youcannot, for common sense would tell you that what comes first is the Church andthen her writings. We must not get the cart before the horse. The Jewish Churchor Synagogue existed before Moses wrote a single line of the Old Testament andin the like manner the Catholic Church existed before a single line of the NewTestament was written. Pentecost Day, the Birthday of Christianity, was not thecoming down of the Holy Ghost in the form of a book, for there was no book asJohannes Jorgensen, the famous convert writer of Stockholm, Sweden, declares.The Holy Ghost came down in the form of tongues of fire symbolizing thatChristianity was to be spread not through the written but the spoken word. Itis reasonable that Divine Providence had the Jewish Synagogue to protect theOld Testament from mutilation and it is logical and reasonable that the Churchthat gave the Bible to the world should be set up by God to preserve andperpetuate the inspired writings of the New Testament.
Wasthe Bible given to the world by God?
TheBible was not served to the world all complete upon a golden platter as theBook of Mormon is supposed to have been served to the fifteen-year-old boy,Joseph Smith. It did not suddenly appear upon the earth through theinstrumentality of angel or seraph, but it was written by men like ourselveswho used a pen or reed and wrote on parchment in the original languages of theOrient. They were divinely inspired, but they were human beings chosen by Godfor the work.
Wasthe Bible written all at once by one man?
NO.About 1500 years elapsed between the writing of Genesis (the first book of theOld Testament) and the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John (the last Book ofthe New Testament). The word Bible comes from the Greek plural word "biblia"which means "books". The Bible is not a single book but a number of bookswritten at different times by different men. If you lived at the time Mosesdied all that could be given to you of the Bible was the first five books ofthe Old Testament, written by Moses himself. His writings formed the firstrecord of the inspired Word.
Inwhat language was the Bible written?
Itwill not be out of place to say here that the Bible wasn't written originallyin English as so many seem to believe, judging from their arguments. Somebelieve that the Scriptures were written first in English and then set forth inthe barbarous languages of Latin, Greek or Hebrew for the sake of inquisitivescholars and critics. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the NewTestament was written in Greek. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament wastranslated into Greek, before the time of Christ by 70 translators.
Whenwas the Old Testament compiled?
Thefact that the Old Testament was already translated into Greek more than 100years before Christ, indicates that the original Hebrew text existed longbefore that time.
Whatdo you mean by the Septuagint Bible?
Becauseof the "Dispersion" of the Jews and their growing familiarity with Greek whichwas then the universal language, it was necessary to furnish the Jews with atranslation of the Hebrew Old Testament in the Greek language. The first Greektranslation was done by 70 translators, who worked at Alexandria. Septuagintmeans 70 in Latin hence the name of that first Greek version. Our Lord and theApostles used this version whenever they referred to the Scriptures. Itcontained the Catholic number of Old Testament books, namely 46 and not merely39, as found today in the Protestant Bibles. The Septuagint version used byChrist and the Apostles was begun about 280 years before Christ and finished inthe next century. It was the acknowledged Bible of all the "Jews of theDispersion" in Asia, as well as in Egypt, and it was used not only by Christ,His Apostles and Evangelists but by Jews and Gentiles and Christians in theearly days of Christianity. It is from this list of 46 books that Christ andthe New Testament writers and speakers quote when referring to the OldTestament. Of the 350 quotations of the Old Testament found in the NewTestament, 300 are taken directly from the Greek Septuagint Bible. Pope, theBiblical scholar in his "Aids to the Bible," i., 54, mentions 18 passages,citing Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Judith books rejected by the reformers. Theearly Christians of Rome were acquainted with the 7 books rejected byProtestants, for the frescoes of the Catacombs picture Susanna and the eldersas well as Moses and Jonas. The writers of the first three centuries oftenquote or allude to the books eliminated from the Protestant Version.
Whatbooks are not found in the Protestant Bible?
Theyare Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and the two Books ofMachabees, together with fragments of Esther (10:4; 16:24), and Daniel(3:24-90; 13; 14). These books were contained in the Alexandrian List or Canonof Books which was used by the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, Asia Minor,Greece and Italy.
Wellit may be that the clergy knew the Scriptures but certainly the lay people didnot.
Theusual statement is that it was a closed and sealed volume to the poor laypeople, because it was found only in the Dead Language of Latin. Dr. Maitlanddeclared that all civil and historical as well as religious writings weresaturated with Scripture when he says of the writers of the Middle Ages, "Theythought and spoke and wrote the thoughts and words and phrases of the Bible . .. not exclusively in theological or ecclesiastical matters, but in histories,biographies, familiar letters, legal instruments, and documents of everydescription." How many lawyers, doctors, professors, and lay folk of todayquote the Scriptures? We have millions of copies of the Bible and they had butthe common Bible of the monastery or parish church. The Catholic Church had todo the best she could in the circumstances of those days before the discoveryof printing and she did a marvelous job. Vast numbers could not read and theChurch was not to blame for that. Latin was not a dead language, but theuniversal language of all who could read. For those who could not read, theChurch had the medium of art, sculpture, Passion and Miracle Plays, to teachthe people the contents of Christian doctrine. The evidence brought out by theProtestant scholar, Dr. Maitland, gives the lie to those who hold the Churchdespised, hid, and dishonored the Bible.
Isyour Church doing anything to encourage Catholics to study the Bible?
TheChurch is trying to get Catholics to read and study the Bible by granting themindulgences for doing so. On a page in front of the Old Testament or else infront of the New Testament you will find printed these words, "An indulgence of300 days is granted to all the faithful who read the Holy Gospels at least aQUARTER OF AN HOUR. A plenary indulgence under the usual conditions is grantedonce a month for the daily reading." Certainly, this does not look as thoughthe Church was striving to keep the Bible out of the hands of the people.
Werethe people acquainted with the Bible in the Dark Ages?
TheDark Ages were not Dark but they were the AGES OF FAITH. Protestants in generalhave the false notion that from the eighth to the fifteenth century, thecenturies were the ages of ignorance, oppression, superstition and what not.The people were supposed to be in that period illiterate, immoral, halfcivilized and constantly at war like barbarians. All this chaos of darkness wasattributed to the blighting yoke of Rome which held the masses in ignorance ofthe Word of God. The light of the Reformation shone out in this darkness andgave light and freedom to these European masses. No, the Dark Ages were agesfull of light in comparison to what 400 years of Protestantism have broughtupon the world, which has been deformed instead of reformed.
Twocenturies from now writers can call our twentieth century the century ofinjustice, misery, free love, debauchery, banditry, drunkenness, dishonesty,immorality, unbelief, etc., compared to which the so-called Dark Ages can betermed the Holy Ages. The Dark Ages built the gorgeous Cathedrals, and Abbeyswhose architecture has not been rivaled by any architectural genius of thetwentieth century of progress and high education. Look at the terrible contrastbetween the paintings of our century and those of the Dark Ages. Are ouruniversities producing philosophers, thinkers of perennial thought like St.Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus and Scotus and Bacon?Has this age a scholastic system that betters that of the Schoolmen, whosemethod of learning and thinking is now being imitated in our universities afteryears of shunting true education? An age which produced such sociologists asFrancis Xavier, Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, and a host of otherscould not be intellectually dark and barren of Scriptural lore. The practicalteaching the people of those reputed dark days received from priests and monksin church and school was of far more real moral and intellectual value thanwhat our youth is getting today. The mediaevalists had the knowledge of God intheir souls and that is why the Protestant scholar, Dr. Maitland, writes insuch high praise of the Dark Ages. His book on the Dark Ages will show that itis the Middle Ages which have been a closed and sealed book to Protestants. Hisimpartial scholarship unlocks the treasures of those grand centuries. On page469 in his "Dark Ages" he writes, "The fact is . . . the writings of the DarkAges are, if I may use the expression, made of the Scriptures." AnotherProtestant historian says, "The notion that Bible-reading was frowned upon byecclesiastical authorities of that age is quite unfounded." Proof is quiteabundant that the Church made ample use of the Bible in instructing the peoplebefore the Reformation. The Mass is almost all Scripture and at every Mass itwas customary to read a portion of Scripture and explain it to the people. Thepeople were asked to stand in respect for the Holy Word of God whilst theGospel was read to them. Sermons of the Middle Ages abound with more Scripturalquotations than are heard from the pulpits of today. The divine office orbreviary said each day by the clergy is made up from the Bible. The Rosary wasanother Bible in the hands of the people for this pious devotion taught theCatholics to meditate on the Biblical mysteries. The fundamentals of the NewTestament teaching are meditated on when the Rosary is properly said. Beforethe printed Bible came, the Church instructed people through, "Miracle andPassion Plays." If the Church kept the Bible from the people, how explain theintimate knowledge of the Scriptures on the part of Chaucer, Dante, Shakespeareand other Christian authors? How explain the statement of Ruskin that the wallsof St. Mark's at Venice were the poor man's Bible? How could Michelangelo,Murillo, Raphael and other Catholic sculptors and artists portray on canvas andin stone such Biblical scenes if the Church kept the Bible from the people?
Werethe clergy of the Dark Ages ignorant of the Bible?
Theyhad a profound knowledge and understanding of the Bible, for Bishops and Abbotsrequired all their priests to know the Scriptures. In the old Constitutions ofdifferent dioceses we find that the clergy were obliged to know the Psalms, theEpistles, and Gospels. The Council of Toledo, 835, issued a decree that Bishopswere bound to inquire throughout their dioceses whether the clergy weresufficiently instructed in the Scriptures. The documentary history, as Dr.Maitland shows, proves that multitudes of ordinary priests and Bishops had theScriptures on their lips. Abbots caused the whole of the Old and New Testamentto be read through every year, and they had the Scriptures read daily duringmeals in monasteries. Sermons of today are valueless because they are likefishing nets without fish, whilst sermons of the reputed Dark Ages areinvaluable because they are like fishing nets overloaded with fish as a resultof their incessant Scriptural quotations. What a silly legend it is for modernpamphleteers to be still stating that Martin Luther first discovered byaccident the Scriptures, a book which, as a monk, he was bound to have knownand studied and recited for years! No modern minister can equal the priest ofthe Middle Ages in knowledge and familiarity with the written Word of God.
WasMartin Luther the first one to translate the Bible into the language of thepeople?
No.The Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian,Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian long before Martin Luther gave out his LutheranBible. Seven hundred years before the birth of Luther we had an Englishtranslation. At the end of the seventh century we have in the English tonguethe work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby. In the next century we have thewell-known translation of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow. The Preface of theAuthorized Version refers to previous translations of the Scriptures into thelanguage of the people and after speaking of the Greek and Latin Versions, itsays, "The Godly learned were not content to have the Scriptures in thelanguage which they themselves understood, Greek and Latin . . . but also forthe behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted afterrighteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they. They providedtranslations into the Vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nationsunder Heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto themin their Mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by thewritten Word translated."
Whendid Luther's Bible come out?
Itcame out in 1520 and before his Bible appeared there were exactly 104 editionsof the Bible in Latin; there were 9 before the birth of Luther in the Germanlanguage, and there were 27 in German before the Lutheran Bible appeared.Before the Protestant Bible appeared there were already in Italy more than 40editions and 25 of these were in the Italian language with the expresspermission of Rome. In France there were 18 editions before 1547. Spain beganher editions in 1478. In all, 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in thelanguage of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible wassent forth into the world. With all this evidence why should there be thoseintellectuals who declare that the Church despised the Bible? This testimonyshows that the Church fought to preserve it, translate it, and multiply it. Shesaved it from utter destruction at the hands of infidels; she saved it fromtotal extinction by guarding it as the greatest treasure of all ages.
Whydid the Church keep the Bible in Latin until the Reformation gave the peoplethe Bible in the vernacular?
Theusual belief is that the Church kept the Bible in Latin so that the massescould not read it, and thereby discover the wiles of priestcraft. That nobodybut priests could read the Bible is nonsense. There were just two classes ofpeople in the Middle Ages: those who could read, and those who could not read.Those who could read Latin and were perfectly content with the Scriptures inLatin, and those who could not read Latin could not read at all. So why shouldthe Church prior to the spread of education in the vernacular translate theBible from Latin for them? Latin was then the language of all cultured men andit was the common language of Europe. Students heard their lectures in Latinand they talked Latin. Retreats to nuns were preached in Latin and theyunderstood the discourses. Hence, Latin was not a dead language but a livingone. If the Church desired to keep the Bible from the people then why did theChurch translate the Bible out of Greek into Latin and call the Vulgate Versionof the fourth century the "Bible of the People"?
Didthe Catholic Church burn all Bibles, and punish those who had copies?
No.The Catholic Church would have been very stupid to have copies multiplied byher monks and nuns only to destroy them. She did burn Bibles that werecounterfeits of the Bible, such as the Coverdale, Tyndale, and Wycliffe Bibles.When the printing press was invented by the German Catholic Gutenberg called inEnglish (Gooseflesh) the first book ever printed in the world was the Bible andthat was in 1445, 80 years before Protestantism had been heard of.
Yetdoes not the Catholic Church scoff at Bible societies as dangerous toChristianity?
Shecondemns the principle that Bibles should be peddled indiscriminately to peopleon the understanding that they will be able to ascertain the truth without theguidance of the Church, and by their own unaided efforts. The wildest fanaticalreligions have resulted in America from the theory of private judgment orinterpretation of Scripture, and if it is not dangerous to Christianity to havea new pretended Christian Church arising every 10 years from some madcapreading of an isolated text, what is really dangerous to Christianity? The factthat 60 millions or more of Americans have no church affiliation whatsoevertoday is due to madcap readings of the Bible. In the City of Chicago recentlythe newspapers took an account of all those who went to Church on Sunday withinthe confines of the city. The final count showed that 85 percent of the SundayChurchgoers went into Catholic Churches and the remaining 15 percent went intoProtestant Churches and Jewish Synagogues. Hence, the multiplication of Biblesocieties creates agnosticism, indifferentism, for truth cannot be divided.
Doesyour Church prohibit the reading of Scripture in the vernacular?
No.There are various Catholic societies for the diffusion of the Holy Gospels inthe vernacular, such as the Society of St. Jerome, approved by the Church. Inthe front of every Catholic Bible you will find that Pope Leo XIII, on December13, 1898, granted "An indulgence of 300 days to all the faithful who read theHoly Gospels at least a quarter of an hour. A plenary indulgence under theusual conditions is granted once a month for the daily reading." Well, thisdoesn't look like keeping the people ignorant of the Word of God. The followingletter of His Holiness Pius VI to the Most Rev. Anthony Martini, on hisTranslation of the Holy Bible into Italian, shows the benefit which thefaithful may reap from their having the Holy Scriptures in the Vulgar Tongue,"At a time that a vast number of bad books, which most grossly attack theCatholic Religion, are circulated, even among the unlearned, to the greatdestruction of souls, you judge exceedingly well, that the faithful should beEXCITED TO THE READING of the Holy Scriptures; for these are the most abundantsources which ought to be left open to everyone to draw from them purity ofmorals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are so widelydisseminated in these corrupt times, etc."
Thenwhy did Pope Clement XI, in 1713, condemn the doctrine that the Bible is forall to read?
Hedid not condemn the doctrine that it is good to read Scripture. He merelycondemned the theory that it is necessary to do so in order to know what isChristianity. Christ's method was to establish a teaching Church, it beingnecessary to be taught by that Church. He did not order the Apostles to peddleBibles. If the reading of Scripture were necessary to salvation, Christ wouldhave written a book instead of giving the commission to His Apostles to teach,adding: "He that heareth you, heareth me." And before the discovery of printingcould Christ make the possibility of His religion dependent upon that discoveryby John Gutenberg? How about the illiterate and the unlearned of all history?It is absurd to make the Printed Page the Pope of religion. Pope Clement XIwisely condemned the proposition that the reading of Scripture is necessary toall.
Haveyou a correct translation of the Bible?
Yes.We have one that is recognized by Protestant scholars as being a substantiallytrue translation. A Catholic is forbidden to read those Protestant Versions inwhich there are many mistranslations and in which the text is often distortedto suit the enemies of the Catholic Church. Counterfeit texts are no longer theWord of God.
YouCatholics seem afraid that Catholics will be harmed by the reading ofScripture.
Evengranted a most perfect and correct version, thousands of people have beenharmed by the reading of Scripture, thinking themselves capable of interpretingit aright. The Pharisees read Scripture, yet managed to use, or misuse,quotations from the Bible as an argument against Christ, just as men todayquote Scripture as an argument against the true Church of Christ, the CatholicChurch.
Yousay that you have a Bible and that Catholics can read the Bible, but do they doso?
Somedo and some don't. All are free to do so, but it is not absolutely necessarythat they should give themselves to the private reading of Scripture.
Iknow many Catholics who have no Bible in their homes.
Catholicsare quite free to possess and read approved versions of the Bible; goodCatholics will see to it that they have in their homes the One Book given tothe world by God.
Ihave known Catholics to admit that they have never read the Bible, so whydoesn't the Catholic Church teach it to them?
Thedoctrines of the Bible are taught to her people by the Catholic Church morefaithfully than by any other Church on earth. The Bible tells us that Christ isGod and this, Protestant ministers in growing numbers deny. The Bible tells usthat Christ established a living, visible Church and this Protestants deny. TheBible tells us that the consecrated bread and wine is the true Body and Bloodof our Lord and this Protestants deny. The Bible tells us that Christ'sministers of reconciliation have the power to forgive sins and this Protestantsrefuse to believe. The Bible condemns divorce even in the case of adultery andthis Protestants by practice consider as nonsense. Catholics know morefundamental doctrine than the man who, parrot-like, can quote the Bible.Knowledge of text is not knowledge of doctrine. Some Catholics do not read theBible very much, but they know the doctrines taught by the Bible more clearlythan any other Christian people on earth. A Catholic may be at a loss when youquote some particular text, but he knows clearly what must be done to saveone's soul and he knows all that Christ condemns; namely, divorce, birthprevention, mercy killings, sterilization, prohibition, the injustices ofCapital and Labor, etc.
Youmust admit that Protestants love the Scriptures more than Catholics.
Howcan they when they slaughter all the doctrines taught by Christ?
Protestantshave a true copy of the Bible.
Howcan they when they cut out seven books from the Old Testament; namely, Tobias,Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the two Books of Machabees, and the varioussections of other Books. They have many errors in their supposedly true copy ofthe Bible.
Doyou accuse the Protestant translators of grossly infamous conduct in tamperingwith the text?
Iabsolutely do. Dixon, in his "Introduction to Scripture" says, "That the earlyProtestant translations were full of gross errors no unprejudiced Protestantwill now deny, and that these errors were willful, Ward, in his 'Errata,'satisfactorily proves." Blunt, in his "Key to the Knowledge and Use of theBible" says, "The characters of the translators were not such as to command therespect of men." Robert Gell writes that "Truth was often outvoted. Dogmaticinterests were in some cases allowed to bias the translation. The Calvinism ofone party, the prelatic views of another, were both represented at the expenseof accuracy."
Isnot the Douay Version poorer in English than the Protestant Version?
TheDouay Version is not a version deliberately accommodated to Catholic teaching.It is a substantially true Version which, because true, necessarily indicatesthe Catholic Church as the true Church. For that is the truth of Scripture.From a literary point of view, it is a less beautiful translation than that ofthe Authorized Version, because it is a more exact translation. When a foreignlanguage, classical or modem, is translated into English, the more one clingsto the text, the less purely literary beauty one attains in the new language.To obtain a more beautiful rendering one must translate more freely, thus moreor less forfeiting the exact sense of the original. But in the matter of God'sWord, we want, not so much literary beauty, but just what God intended. And forthat, the Douay Version far surpasses the Authorized Version, despite itsrather awkward literary structure at times.
Itis much better to have the Bible out of the hands of Rome.
HenryVIII himself will answer that for you in his last pathetic speech toParliament: "I am extremely sorry to find how much the Word of God is abused;with how little reverence it is mentioned; how it is turned into wretchedrhymes, sung and jangled in every ale house and tavern; and all this in a falseconstruction and countermeaning to the inspired writers. I am sorry to perceivethe readers of the Bible discover so little of it in their practice; for I amsure charity was never in a more languishing condition, virtue never at a lowerebb, nor God Himself less honored or worse served in Christendom." Due totaking the Bible out of the hands of Rome by the end of the sixteenth centurywe find 270 sects and because of this, Dr. Walton writes in the Preface to hisown Polyglot Bible, "There is no fanatic or clown from the lowest dregs of thepeople who does not give you his own dreams as the Word of God. For thebottomless pit seems to have been set open from whence a smoke has risen whichhas obscured the heavens and the stars, and locusts are come out with wings - anumerous race of sectarians and heretics, who have renewed all the oldheresies, and invented monstrous opinions of their own. These have filled ourcities, villages, camps, houses - nay, our churches and pulpits, too, and leadthe poor deluded people with them to the pit of perdition."
Isnot the Catholic Church arrogant in claiming the Bible as her own?
TheBible isher bookand you cannot disprove it. She has preserved it andshe alone knows what it means. No one else has any right to it whatsoever, orany authority to declare what the texts mean. The work of translating it, ofprinting it, and editing it, belongs strictly to her alone and if she cannotprevent those outside her jurisdiction from tampering with it and misusing itthen she will take care that her own children must avoid perusal ofcounterfeitBibles. History shows that the Church has been wise in prohibiting privatepersons from translating the Bible without ecclesiastical authority. Forinstance, look at what Judge Rutherford has done with the Bible. The Church isvery wise in prohibiting the faithful from reading Bibles that are not approvedby her, for she desires that the pure, uncorrupted Gospel should be placed intothe hands of the people. Mr. Allnatt (in his "Bible and the Reformation") says,"That all the early Protestant versions of the Bible literally swarmed withgross and flagrant corruptions - corruptions consisting in the willful anddeliberate mistranslation of various passages of the sacred text, and alldirectly aimed against those doctrines and practices of the Catholic Churchwhich the 'Reformers' were most anxious to uproot. They did give the people an'Open Bible,' but what a Bible." Hence, to hate the Bible is one thing, and toprohibit a false version like the notorious Wycliffe, Tyndale and CoverdaleBibles is quite another.
TheBible, and the Bible alone, is enough for me.
WhichBible? Have you the right Bible? Are you certain that your Bible contains alland only the true words that came down from the hands of Apostles andEvangelists? Are you positive that no other word has been inserted by man ordropped out deliberately by man? Have you an exact copy of the Holy Scripturesidentical with the writings from Moses to St. John? If you haven't then whytalk about the Bible and the Bible alone theory? How do you know the Bible camefrom God? Do you prove it by the intrinsic merit of the writings or do you relyupon the religious quality of the Scriptures as sufficient evidence? Theintrinsic merit of the Bible and the inspiration it gives the reader is noargument that it has God as the author for we have other books as, forinstance, "The Following of Christ," which is much more inspiring than someparts of the Bible. We know that the Bible is the Word of God, because theCatholic Church that gave the Bible to the world says so. You, to believe inthe Bible, must admit some third party to come between you and God. TheCatholic has as his third party, the Catholic Church which comes between himand God to tell him what's what about the Bible.
TheLord's Prayer or the Our Father is in the Bible, but the Catholic prayerdiffers from the Protestant.
Protestantsuse a conclusion which was not in the original Greek copies of the NewTestament, namely, "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory,forever. Amen." Catholics say the Lord's Prayer properly, for the Protestantconclusion taken from the King James Version is a marginal gloss, put in thereby some copyist, who had in mind words borrowed from the Greek liturgy. Theywere rejected as not authentic by St. Jerome in the fourth century, as theyhave been rejected by the authors of the Revised Version of 1881. Some versionsput these words today in parentheses. Even the King James Version omits thisgloss in Luke 11: 4. Such an addition was not uttered by Our Lord and that iswhy Catholics do not use it. This is an excellent example of how errors occurin the various copies made by old scribes. Pious Bible students may hold uptheir hands in horror and cry out, "There are no mistakes in the Bible. It isall inspired. It is God's own Book." Yes. But God never guaranteed that everyindividual scribe who took in hand the copying of the New Testament would nevercopy wrongly. The original Scripture is free from error because God is theauthor of the original.
Areany of the original writings of Moses or Paul, or John in existence today?
No.None of the originals exist today, but we know from history and tradition thatthese were the books they wrote. What we have now is the printed Bible; butbefore the invention of printing in 1438, the Bible existed only in handwritingor manuscript form. We have in our possession now copies of the Bible inmanuscript which date back as early as the fourth century. We have not theoriginals but copies of the originals for several reasons: (1) The persecutorsof the Church for the first 300 years destroyed everything Christian they couldlay their hands on. (2) The material upon which the inspired writers wrote waspapyrus, a frail, brittle, perishable, substance not destined to last long. (3)When copies were made of the originals for the various Churches there was notthe same necessity for preserving the originals. The early Christians certainlydid not consider it necessary for salvation that the very handwriting of St.Paul, etc., should be preserved. Since they had the living, infallible Churchto teach and guide them, they were content with mere COPIES of the originalworks of the authors. Manuscript or handwritten copies of the Bible known to bein existence number about 3,000 today. None have yet been found earlier thanthe fourth century.
Whydid Luther reject 7 books from the Bible?
Becausethey did not suit his new doctrines. He had arrived at the principle of privatejudgment-of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and whenever any book,such as the Book of Machabees, taught a doctrine contrary to his taste herejected it overboard and overboard that book went because it says: 2 Mach.12:46, "it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they maybe loosed from sins." He not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated somethat were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul's doctrine, "we arejustified by faith," Luther added the word "ALONE" to make the sentence read:"We are justified by faith alone." His explanation of this insertion is foundin his own words, "I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latinand Greek texts; but Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to beso, and my will is reason enough." St. Paul writes under the inspiration of theHoly Ghost. Luther creates a Lutheran Bible under his own audacity. He showslittle respect for the Bible when he calls the Epistle of St. James "an Epistleof straw with no character of the Gospel in it." He spoke disparagingly aboutthe Epistle of St. Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautifulApocalypse of St. John.
Werethere other writings besides the New Testament esteemed as Scripture?
Before397 A. D. there were 3 classes of sacred writings being read in the Churches.First, there were the genuine writings accepted universally by the ChristianChurch which hailed this first group of writings as actually written by theApostles whose names they bore. The second class of sacred writings, which werebeing used by the Churches, was the disputed class. In some places they wereaccepted as genuine Scripture and in other places they were not so accepted. Inthis second class, or disputed list, were St. James, St. Jude, the secondEpistle of St. Peter, the second and third Epistle of St. John, the Epistle tothe Hebrews, and the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse). Then there was a thirdclass of writings spread about, which was never accepted by any of the Churchesas genuine Scripture, books which contained all sorts of fanciful stories orfables of the early life of Our Lord. In 397, the Catholic Church gave adefinite decision as to which should be admitted into the Bible and whichshould be rejected, and every book which is in the Protestant New Testamenttoday, was put there by Pope Siricius and the Catholic Bishops in the year 397A. D. If Christ had intended that men should learn Christianity from the NewTestament, what about the hundreds who lived before the first Bible was givento the world by the Catholic Church?
Youseem to undervalue the written Word of God.
No.I am simply showing the position it was meant to occupy in the ChristianChurch. It was written by the Church; it belongs to the Church and it is herprerogative to declare what it means. It is intended for enlightenment,meditation, spiritual reading, encouragement, exhortation, devotion, and italso gives testimony of the Church's doctrines. It is not a complete guide toheaven.
Isthe Old Testament a civil and political history of the Jews?
No.It is their history as the Chosen People of God, chosen as the receivers andcarriers of His progressive Revelation through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses andthe Prophets. The Old and New Testaments can be called a great work of UNITY,since the Old Testament looks forward to the one central figure, the Messiah,Jesus Christ and the New Testament looks back to that Messiah.
Didn'tthe Apostles intend to make the New Testament a compendium of Christiandoctrine?
Thebooks of the New Testament were produced as a result of special circumstancesthat arose among the converts. They were written to meet the particular demandsand emergencies of the time. The authors never dreamed of writing the NewTestament or composing works which would one day be taken as the sole rule ofreligion. The Apostles would stand dazed if told that what they wrote would oneday be held up as the complete and exhaustive statement of Christian doctrines.No writings were ever intended to be used as an easy guide in faith and morals,independent of any living and teaching authority to interpret them. St. Paulhimself says, "How shall they hear without a preacher? How shall they preachunless they be sent? Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word ofChrist." When the Apostles speak they claim to speak with Divine authority andthey nowhere claim to be laying down a system of Christian doctrine. Theirteaching was at first ORAL, and it was no part of their intention to create apermanent literature. They wrote to believers, not to unbelievers. The Churchexisted and functioned before they wrote anything. Before a line in the NewTestament was written (1) Christ established His Church; (2) the Apostlespreached Christ's Gospel; (3) St. Peter converted 3,000 Jews; (4) Council ofJerusalem was assembled; (5) Jewish ceremonial law was abrogated.
Beforethe last book in the New Testament was written (1) the Catholic Churchcelebrated her golden jubilee; (2) 11 of the Apostles had died.
Hence,THE BIBLE CAME FROM THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH DID NOT COME FROM THE BIBLE.Christianity existed over 300 years without one single Bible Christian.
DidJesus Christ write any of the New Testament?
OurBlessed Lord Himself never, so far as we know, wrote a line of Scripture. Henever told His Apostles to write anything, and He certainly did not commandthem to commit to writing what He had revealed to them. He never said, "Go andwrite," but He did say, "Go ye and teach all nations," "Preach the Gospel toevery creature," "He that heareth you heareth Me." He, therefore, commandedthem to do just what He was doing; namely, delivering the Word of God to thepeople by the living voice - by which they were to convince, persuade,instruct, and convert. Faith was to be won by hearing, not by reading. Christdid not entrust His message to a dead book which might perish and be destroyed,mutilated, counterfeited, misinterpreted by man.
Thevery action of Christ proves that the Word of God was to be preserved by aLiving Tradition and not by a Written Message.
Whatis the Protestant and Catholic position on the Bible?
TheProtestant, believing in Christ, holds that He left no authoritatively teachingChurch, but only the Bible, which each individual may read and interpret forhimself on the principle of "private judgment." All churches are manmade. Noone of them was founded by Christ. The Catholic, believing in Christ, holdsthat He founded an authoritative Church which has the right to guide all hermembers in matters of faith and morals. The Catholic believes the Church isinfallible and cannot make a mistake or teach error. The Catholic goes to theChurch as his immediate Guide and Teacher. The Catholic believes in the Bibleand Tradition, whilst the Protestant believes in the Bible alone.
Whatis the difference between the Hebrew, Protestant, and Catholic Bibles?
TheHebrew Bible contains only books of the Old Testament, since the orthodox,reformed, or liberal Jew does not accept our Lord as the Messiah. ThePalestinian Jews had 39 books in the Old Testament and the Alexandrian Jews andthe Jews of Dispersion had 46 books in their Bible. The Protestant Biblecontains in the Old Testament, 39 books of the Palestinian Jews and the 27books of the New Testament, 66 books in all. The Catholic Bible contains 46books of the Alexandrian Canon or list of Old Testament books and the 27 booksof the New Testament, 73 books in all.
Besidesthe difference of numbers of books is there any other difference betweenCatholic and Protestant Bibles?
Seriousdifference is in the accuracy of translation. Protestant preachers and Bishopshave written volumes to point out the errors in the King James Version and theRevised Version. In a convention of ministers at St. Louis, Mo., some yearsago, a Presbyterian minister urged the necessity of a new translation of theProtestant Bible and held that there were no less than 30,000 errors. Anotherdifference is the titles of books: "Canticle of Canticles" for "Solomon'sSong," "Apocalypse" for "Book of Revelation . . . . . First and Second Kings,"for "First and Second Samuel," etc.
Whyare the names in the Protestant Bible spelled differently from those in theCatholic Bible?
TheProtestant version has, for instance, Nebuchadnezzar, the CatholicNabuchodonosor. The Protestant forms follow the Hebrew, the vocalized text ofwhich was fixed by the Massoretes between the fifth and seventh centuries afterChrist; the Catholic forms follow the Greek which was fixed about the secondcentury before Christ. The Catholic spelling has been in some cases confirmedby archeological discoveries.
Yousay the Church came before the Bible.
YES.The books of the New Testament were scattered around the Mediterraneancivilization for 300 years before the writings were gathered up and compiledinto one collection. It is a fact of history that the Council of Carthage (397A. D. ) settled the Canon Table of Contents of the New Testament as weCatholics have them today.
Wasthere ever a collection of the Scriptures before 397?
Wefind lists of books of the New Testament drawn up by St. Athanasius, St.Jerome, St. Augustine, and many other authorities, but their lists do notcorrespond perfectly to the collection we possess now. It was the Council ofCarthage (397 A.D.) that settled all doubts on the canon or list of books whichall Christendom had until the Reformers changed that list. If other lists ofbooks existed before 397, then the action of the Council of Carthage teachesthe world that the Catholic Church selected, sifted, and stamped with herauthority the Scriptures of the New Law. It is through the Catholic Church thatProtestants get their Bible. Imagine what standing Protestantism would have ifthe Catholic Church were indeed the enemy of the Bible and had destroyed allmanuscripts in the days of the infant Church.
Whatdo you mean by Inspiration of the Bible? Does God act as the author of everyword written?
Inspirationmeans the fact that God as the author of each and every book of the Bible didnot take away from Moses, David, Isaias, the Apostles, etc., anything at allexcept the power to write something God did not want them to write. Moses, forinstance, could not write what God did not want him to write or in a way Goddid not want him to write. His writing was controlled by God, yet it still lefthim a free human agent and author. God allowed freedom of style to each writer,but God was responsible for each and everything the writer wrote. God mayinspire the very words they use, but this is not essential to the motion ofinspiration. We may hold, for example, that Moses is the author of the first 5books of the Bible, but the Biblical Commission tells us that we are not boundto believe that Moses wrote or dictated everything himself. Writing underinspiration he may have "committed it to one or more to write, yet in such away that they should faithfully express his meaning, write nothing or omitnothing against his will, and that the work. . . approved by Moses, the chiefinspired author, should be published in his name."
Whatdo you mean by the Vulgate Edition?
Translationsof the Bible were made into Latin, Armenian, Syriac and Coptic, Arabic andEthiopic for the benefit of Christians in these lands. Latin first appeared in150 A. D. and other translations into Latin later. The best and grandest Latinversion was made by St. Jerome and this was called the "Vulgate" - that is, thecommon, or current or accepted version. St. Jerome, who was a monk, and themost learned scholar of his day, at the request of Pope St. Damasus in 382 A.D. made his fresh Latin translations correcting the existing Latin versionswith the Greek manuscripts he could find.
Isthe Vulgate the official version of your Church?
St.Jerome's Latin Vulgate is the official text in the Catholic Church, and allProtestant and Catholic scholars admit it to be the best down to theReformation. The Council of Trent, in 1546, issued a decree, stamping it as theonly recognized and authoritative version allowed to Catholics. The EnglishDouay Version comes from the Vulgate.
TheBible was not printed in any language until 1500 years after the birth ofChrist.
Howcould it when there was no such thing as printing? What would happen to theProtestant principle "the Bible and the Bible alone," if printing were neverdiscovered? If we lived before Mr. John Gutenberg discovered the art ofprinting in the fifteenth century we should have to read manuscripts of somemonk or nun who wrote out a copy of the Bible on pages of parchment or vellum.Are we to convert the world by peddling printed Bibles to the heathen andunconverted sinners? How about those who lived before the Bible was printed?How were nations made familiar with Christianity before the discovery ofprinting? Christ desired to save those who lived before printing was discoveredas well as those who lived after its discovery. If the reading of the Bible isthe only medium of salvation, how about those who cannot read and those who aretoo poor to buy one?
THEBLUNDERING BLUNDER OF ALL HISTORY is that people fail to understand that forthe first 300 years of Christianity there was not one single BIBLE CHRISTIAN inthe world and that they do not sufficiently realize, read, mark, learn, andinwardly digest the fact that the Bible was not multiplied in printed copiesuntil 1,400 years after Christ.
Doall ministers believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God?
No.Professor G. H. Betts, of the Northwestern University, not long ago sent out alist of 56 questions on religion and theology to 1,309 Protestant ministersthen in active service, and to 5 Protestant theological seminaries. Between 700and 800 ministers replied, and also a large number of students in the 5seminaries. Here are the results concerning the Bible as published by Prof.Betts, himself a Protestant, 2 percent of the Lutheran ministers, 38 percent ofthe Baptist ministers, 56 percent of the Presbyterian ministers, 60 percent ofthe Episcopalian ministers, 65 percent of the Methodist ministers, 83 percentof the Congregational ministers, and 92 percent of the students denied ordoubted the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. In view of this astoundingrevelation we see who, indeed, is the enemy of the Bible.
Protestantsects claim to be founded on the Bible, and the Bible alone. THEN WHY IS ITTHAT WE HAVE SO MANY OF THEM?
Itis just because there are so many different interpretations as to what theBible means. It is the sad result of the doctrine of the right of privatejudgment. Every Protestant denomination claims to be founded on the Scriptures.Then how can they all be right? Is the Methodist right, or the Lutheran, or theBaptist or the Episcopalian? They can't be right for they all differ indoctrine and government. If they do not differ, then why are they separated?Protestantism says, "Let each one read the Bible for himself and then the HolyGhost will guide him into the truth." Well, then the Holy Ghost must be blamedfor the Babylon of religions around us. If the Holy Ghost guides one man hebecomes a Baptist, if he guides another he becomes something else and so onuntil people give up religion entirely. The Holy Ghost inspires no one usinghis own private interpretation. The Holy Ghost was guaranteed to the Church andnot to individuals in the teaching of truth.
Byway of analogy, suppose our Constitution of the United States could be termedour Bible of Democracy. Just think what confusion would happen if every Tom,Dick, and Harry using the right of private judgment interpreted the laws of ournation as he felt himself inspired by the Holy Ghost. See what would soonhappen to our 48 states if we didn't have the Supreme Court to tell us what theConstitution is saying. Without the Supreme Court our nation would come to anend as a democracy if we tolerated in government the absurd and fallaciousprinciple of private judgment. As we must maintain a Supreme Court ingovernment is it not all the more rational and reasonable that we have aSupreme Authority to interpret the Bible, our Constitution of Christianity, toavoid religious confusion? The proper authority to interpret the Bible is theSupreme Court of the Catholic Church, which gave the Bible to the world.
WasLuther responsible for the private judgment theory?
Yes.It was inaugurated by him and shortly after, when he saw the numerous sectsgrowing and multiplying, he said in his Epis. ad. Zwingli (ap. Balmes, p. 423),"If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account ofthe many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive thedecrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity offaith."
DidLuther ever acknowledge the danger of private judgment?
Hesays this, as quoted in "An Meine Kritiker" (by Johannes Jorgensen, p. 181),"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one willnot admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another placesanother world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach thatJesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he maybe, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not putforth as prophecies his ravings and dreams." We have over 60 millions ofAmericans quite indifferent to the doctrines of their Protestant ancestorsprecisely because -- "In Religion, What damned error, but some sober-brow Willbless it, and approve it with a text?"
Somebooks speak of 72 books and others speak of 73 books in the Catholic Bible.
Someeditors unite the Prophecies of Jeremias with the Lamentations of Jeremias andmake one book out of both, thereby accounting for 72 books, and other editorsseparate Jeremias and Lamentations entirely into two books making thereby 73books.
Wheredo you get the statement that Luther discovered the Bible?
Inthe Lutheran World Almanac and Annual Encyclopedia for 1923, you will find thehoary falsehood running thus: The "incomparable Luther" gave to the world "TheOpen Bible. . ." "In the university he discovered a chained Latin Bible," thestudy of which "brought him the peace of mind which he craved the assurance ofjustification and of salvation by faith alone, without the works of the law. .." That there was a "chained" Latin Bible in the university is very likely.Even today public telephone books are chained for the purpose of keeping themin their proper place. Bibles were chained down to the pulpit, rostrum ormonastery table, for there were thieves in those days as there are thievestoday. The Church chained the Bible not to keep the Bible from but for thepeople. A Bible in those days, declares the Protestant scholar, Dr. Maitland,would cost anywhere from $1,000 up, because it was a manuscript copy made oncostly parchment or vellum. You will find Bibles still chained down today inchurches on the continent of the Old World, in monasteries, and twentiethcentury museums for obvious reasons. That Luther had access to the Bible in hisyouth is attested by himself in his "Table Talks" (ed. 1566, p. 22). "When Iwas young, I acquainted myself with the Bible, read the same often, so that Iknew where any reference was contained and could be found when anyone spokeabout it."
TheGospel of Christ is simplicity itself.
Inone way it is. It tells us clearly that Christ established a definite Churchwhich He commissioned to teach all nations. It is very simple from this pointof view, for men have but to accept the Catholic Church, and be taught by thatChurch. But the Gospel is not simplicity itself in the way you intend. Men havedevoted their lives to the study of the Gospels, preparing themselves for thetask by profound research in the Hebrew, Syrian, Arabic, Greek, and Latinlanguages. And even then, many passages are most difficult to understand.
Butat least the plan of salvation can he understood by the simplest person.
We Protestants even tell our children to read their Bibles in order to discernit.
Accordingto the findings of your simple readers there must be hundreds of conflictingplans of salvation, all revealed by the one Christ. As for the capacity of yourchildren, you might as well give them the article in the EncyclopaediaBritannica on "Spectroscopic Analysis" as the subject matter of their studies.But the Bible itself is against your theory. Thus, St. Peter says that inScripture there are certain things "hard to be understood, which the unlearnedand unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their owndestruction." 2 Pet. 3:16. To his mind the private interpretation of Scripturecan be most dangerous.
Godhas given us brains to think for ourselves. We do not need help to understandScripture.
Godhad given men brains before He came to teach them Himself, and He came to teachthem precisely because their brains could not succeed in finding out the thingswhich were to their peace. If you say that His revealed teachings in theScriptures together with our brains are enough, those very revealed teachingstell you that they are not. Even in the Old Law, God said, "The lips of thepriest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." Mal.2:7. In the New Law, Christ sent His Church to teach men, transferring to HisChurch that authority of God once possessed by the priests of the Old Law. Inthe New Testament itself, we find Philip the Deacon saying to the Ethiopian,who was reading the Scriptures, "Thinkest thou that thou understandest whatthou readest?" and the Ethiopian replying, "And how can I unless some man showme?" Acts 8:30. St. Peter, too, explicitly refutes your ideas. "No prophecy ofScripture," he writes, "is of any private interpretation." 2Pet. 1:20.
St.Peter means that the prophets did not prophesy by their own will, but by theHoly Spirit. He does not refer to interpretation by us.
Yourown Protestant Bishop Ellicott says of these verses. "The words 'privateinterpretation' might seem to mean that the sacred writers did not get theirprophecies by private interpretation, but by divine inspiration. But this iscertainly not the meaning. The real meaning is that the reader must not presumeto interpret privately that which is far more than ordinary human thought."
Anyman who can think has the moral right to interpret anything.
Hehas not. The very laws of the state are not subject to the interpretation ofeach and every citizen. There is such a thing as thinking erroneously. Indifficulties of civil law a man consults a lawyer who knows legal practice andparallel statutes. Who gives you the right to take greater liberties withdivine legislation? A man who knows nothing of Hebrew or Greek, and is quiteuntrained in Scriptural exegesis, would misapprehend the sense of Scripture inhundreds of places.
Didnot Christ promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us all truth?
Hedid not promise that the Holy Spirit would teach each individual separately. Ifevery individual were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all who readScripture sincerely should come to the same conclusion. But they do not. Thefrightful chaos as to the meaning of Scripture is proof positive that the HolySpirit has not chosen this way of leading men to the truth. It is blasphemy tosay that the Holy Spirit does not know His own mind, and that He deliberatelyleads men into contradictory notions. Christ promised to preserve His church asa Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the only Church which showssigns of having been preserved is the consistent Catholic Church. Theindividual is guided by the Holy Spirit to a certain extent in the ways ofholiness, but in the knowledge of revealed truth he is to be guided by theCatholic Church which Christ sent to teach all nations.
Idon't see the need of learning to understand a simple story for simple people.
TheBible is not a simple story for simple people. We live thousands of years afterthe Bible was written, and our language and customs are very different now. Nobook written at one age is easy for another age. The study of antiquitiesdemands a knowledge of primitive languages of which few are capable, and forwhich still fewer have the time. Anyway, God never intended the Bible to be thesole guide to religion for all time. Christ taught orally and with authority,and He sent His Church to teach in the same way and with the same authority.
Howdoes it help to know Hebrew or Greek?
Becauseone must know what the original words meant in the language in which Scripturewas written. A knowledge of Hebrew and Greek soon shows that the translators donot always find an English word to express the exact sense of the original. Godinspired the thoughts of the original writers, not the work of the translators.And if you read a sense into Scripture which God did not intend at all, you nolonger have God's Word.
Christchose poor fishermen, not learned men.
Hetrained them personally, and infused into their minds an exact knowledge of Hisdoctrine. We cannot claim to have received a similar revelation, that we shouldrank ourselves with them.
ThenCatholics have to believe just what the priest likes to tell them?
Thepriest cannot tell the people just what he likes. He is obliged to teach justwhat Christ taught, and which has been taught him in the Name of Christ by theinfallible Catholic Church.
Isyour Church afraid that people will form opinions for themselves?
Ifwe consider some of the opinions people have formed for themselves from theirprivate reading of Scripture there is need to be afraid. Christ's method was toestablish a teaching Church. Protestants have a peculiar method of their own,but you cannot blame the Catholic Church for not using the Protestant method, amethod which has led to nothing but uncertainty and widespread unbelief.
Admittingthe necessity of guidance, are not our Protestant ministers as capable asCatholic priests in telling us what Scripture means?
Theymight be, if priests had not an infallible Catholic Church to guide them. TheCatholic Church rejoices in the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, and thepriest has the help of her defined doctrines and the constant Catholictradition as a safeguard. But your Protestant ministers do not claim to bespokesmen of an infallible Church. On their own principles they have to admitthat they are possibly wrong. And, as a matter of fact, where all priests areagreed in the essential teachings of Scripture, your ministers come to allkinds of contradictory conclusions. The unity of teaching among Catholicpriests is a greater indication of capability than the chaos which prevailsoutside the Catholic Church. But the capability of Catholic priests has littleto do with authoritative teaching. It is derived from the authority of theinfallible Catholic Church.
Youspeak of the authority of the Church and the weight of tradition. But I havebeen taught that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
Youhave been taught wrongly. Scripture itself denies that it is the only rule offaith. The last verse of St. John's Gospel tells us that not all concerning ourLord's work is contained in Scripture. St. Paul tells us over and over againthat many might be able to cite hundreds of texts yet not know Christiandoctrine by any means. In fact, the adoption of the Bible only has led to asmany opinions as there are men-amongst non-Catholics. Finally, Scripture tellsus most clearly that the Catholic Church is the rule of faith, that Churchwhich Christ sent to teach all nations and which He commanded men to hear andobey. He who believes in Scripture as his only guide ends by believing in hisown mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means that he ends bybelieving in himself.
Isnot the Church built on the knowledge it gets from the Bible?
No.The Catholic Church was built by Christ and upon Christ before a line of theNew Testament was written. She received her doctrine immediately from the lipsof Christ, and is safeguarded from error in her teaching by the Holy Spirit.Between 40 and 80 years after her foundation, some of her members wrote thebooks of the New Testament. If the Gospels were the only rule of faith, thenbefore they were written there could have been no Christian rule of faith atall!
Christgave us the command to search the Scriptures. Jn. 5:39.
Thatwas a retort, not a command, and you cannot turn a particular rebuke into auniversal law. Were it a universal law, it would have been impossible offulfillment by the vast majority during the 14 centuries prior to the inventionof the printing press! But take the context. The Jews, who boasted of theirfidelity to the Mosaic Law, would not believe in Christ. He challenged them:"(you) search the Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting;and the same are they that give testimony of me." The Catholic Church could sayin the same way to Protestants: "You are ever speaking of searching theScriptures as opposed to my methods, and think in them to have everlasting lifeindependently of me; yet the same are they that give testimony of me."
Dowe not read that the early Christians searched the Scriptures daily?Acts 17:11
Theyfirst received the true doctrine from the teaching Church, and then merelychecked it in the Scriptures. That is the right procedure, and Catholics todaydo the same. But your way is not first to be taught by the Church, and thenverify, but to try to make out your own religion from the Bible with anuntrained mind and by that private interpretation which Scripture itselfforbids.
Well,I am afraid of nothing as long as I have the pure Word of God to fall backupon.
Withoutthe Catholic Church you cannot prove it to be the pure Word of God. Nor needanyone be afraid of the pure Word of God. What we must fear is the Word of Godadulterated by people who read into it whatever they like.
Iobject to the way you put human traditions on the same level as Scripture.
Asa source of doctrine the Catholic Church relies upon divinely guaranteedtradition, not upon merely human tradition. This divine tradition is theteaching of Christ, given orally to the Apostles and handed down in the Church,although not written in the pages of the New Testament.
Thenyou appeal to tradition in addition to Scripture?
Yes,and I am quite Biblical in doing so. Christ sent the Apostles to teach allthings that He had taught them. In the last verse of his Gospel, St. John tellsus that not all is written in Scripture. If all is to be taught, and all is notset down in Scripture, part of Christian doctrine must be elsewhere. Where? St.Paul tells us clearly, "Brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which youhave learned, whether by word, or by our Epistle." 2 Thess. 2:14. "Hold theform of sound words which you have heard of me in faith." 2 Tim. 1:13. "Thethings thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithfulmen, who shall be fit to teach others also." 2 Tim. 2:2. All Christians fromthe very beginning believed that Christian revelation was contained not only inScripture, but also in tradition. Acts 2:42, tells us that "they werepersevering in the doctrine of the Apostles," that is, in the oral teaching ofthe Apostles which they taught to one another, and handed on to their children.Those who repudiate tradition have lost the complete doctrine of Christ.
Ido not question traditions contained in Scripture. I object to the Romantraditions which are not in Scripture and which are against Scripture.
TheCatholic Church rejects all traditions which are against Scripture. She acceptsdivine traditions which are complementary to Scripture, and which are inperfect harmony with the principles taught in Scripture. The traditionsthemselves cannot be in Scripture for the traditional Word of God cannot be thewritten Word of God. But Scripture itself says that tradition exists, and thatit is of equal authority with the written Word of God.
Didnot Christ blame the Pharisees, saying, "Why do you transgress the commandmentof God for your tradition"? Matt. 15:3.
Hedid, but he called it their tradition, condemning their erroneous and merelyhuman tradition, not the right traditions to which, according to St. Paul, wemust hold fast. You quote this text merely because it happens to contain theword tradition, and without any appreciation of its true sense.
St.Paul himself warns us, "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vaindeceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of theworld, and not according to Christ." Coloss. 2:8.
Thetext warns us against wrong traditions, but in no way condemns traditions whichare not merely of human invention, but which are according to Christ. St. Pauldoes not contradict his own teaching.
St.Peter condemns tradition, saying, "You were not redeemed by your vainconversation of the tradition of your fathers." 1 Pet. 1:18.
Thisis not a condemnation of Christian traditions, but of doctrines held by thoseto whom St. Peter wrote, and handed on to them by human tradition from theirfathers. These were the traditions our Lord condemned in Matt. 15:3.
Iadmit the force of Apostolic traditions for the early Christians. But theycould be sure of them as we cannot today.
Werethe Apostolic traditions part of the Christian faith then? Is it thereforeimpossible to know the full Christian truth now? Did Christ mean it when Hesaid that He would be with His Church all days till the very end of the world?Or would you suggest that He meant it, but could not accomplish it? He sent theChurch to teach all things, yet you say that it is impossible today. Be surethat the Catholic Church has all necessary traditions embodied in herteachings. Within her fold each succeeding generation of Bishops has taughtfaithful men who have been fit to teach others also. But you refuse to betaught by that Church. You rely upon your own fallible judgment. And as long asyou adopt that method you will never be sure, not only of the Christiantraditions, but even of the true Christian doctrine to be derived fromScripture itself.
Youkeep insisting, not only upon tradition, but also upon the teaching authorityof your Church. Why follow her interpretations?
Becausewe cannot safely follow the interpretation given by anybody else. All guidesexcept the Catholic Church confess to being fallible. The Catholic Church aloneclaims infallibility, and proves her claim. I prefer to follow so sure a guide.Those who refuse to do so are at sixes and sevens as to the true meaning ofChristianity.
Havenot laymen as much intelligence as priests?
Apartfrom the fact that priests give, not their own human ideas, but the teachingsof the Catholic Church, it is certain that the layman cannot know theologicalmatters as do priests, even as you are not as well acquainted withjurisprudence and surgery as lawyers and doctors. A specialist in a subject, byyears of study, is bound to know more of that subject than the man in thestreet. If an average man is so liable to error in the interpretation of humanlaw, how can he have the vanity to think himself expert in the interpretationof divine legislation?
Whatspecial qualifications has the Catholic Church in the interpretation ofScripture?
(1)
The New Testament was written by members of the Catholic Church. She existedbefore a line of the New Testament was written. Protestantism came on the scenecenturies afterwards. The Gospels are really the family papers of the CatholicChurch, and she alone, possessing the family traditions, can interpret whatthose family papers really mean.
(2)
The Catholic Church carefully and jealously preserved theBible through the ages, so that Protestants would have no Gospel were it notfor her.
(3)
She has been much more faithful to Scripture than any of the ProtestantChurches. Whilst many Protestant leaders are prepared to sacrifice the Bible inorder to appear scientific and modern, the Catholic Church consistently demandsthat every jot and tittle of God's Word must be accepted in the original senseintended by God.
(4)
The Protestant Churches owe their separate existences to the fact that eachdenies that the others really know what Scripture means.
(5)
The Catholic Church was established by Christ as the rule offaith, and He declared that a man is to be regarded as a heathen if he will nothear the Church. The Catholic Church is the only qualified interpreter ofScripture.
TheBible tells us to prove all things. 1 Thess. 5:21. The Catholic Church demandsthat her adherents prove nothing, accepting all on her authority, and withoutquestion.
Haveyou proved all things? Your own fantastic interpretations show that you havenot. The text you quote has a meaning very different from that you attribute toit. It refers to conduct. The full text is, "Prove all things; hold fast thatwhich is good. From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves." In other words,"Reflect, test, examine your conscience before you act, and do the rightthing." In the same way, St. Paul said that one who desires to receive the HolyEucharist must "prove himself, and so let him eat, for he that eateth anddrinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." 1Cor. 11:28.Your interpretation of Catholic requirements is just as fantastic. The CatholicChurch does not demand that her adherents prove nothing.
Shewants them to examine the reasons for their Catholic faith, and prove theclaims of their Church. We prove that she is the only possible Churchhistorically, Scripturally, and logically, and that she must be infallible.Then when she speaks in the Name of Christ we reasonably accept her teachings.If I consult a doctor whom I know to be competent, I accept his decisions. I donot fight every inch of the way, disputing, arguing, and challenging hisstatements. So, once I know that the Catholic Church is divinely qualified tospeak the truth in religious matters, I accept her decisions and definitions.Nothing could be more wise than that. In fact, it would be sheer folly to dootherwise.
WhatNon-Catholics say about Protestantism and the Bible.
Addressingthe "Bible League," Dr. Booth says: "If the assaults on the Scripturescontinue, the time will come when to those always faithful to God there will bebut one refuge, and that will be the Roman Catholic Church." Says the Rev. C.Tinsley, a Methodist minister: "The Bible is a very embarrassing book becauseof its many contradictions." In "History of Literature" by Hallam, we read:"The translation of the Old and the New Testaments by Luther is more renownedfor the purity of his German idiom than for its adherence to the original text.Simon has charged him with ignorance of Hebrew and when we consider how late hecame to a knowledge of that or the Greek language, and the multiplicity of hisemployments, it may be believed that his knowledge of them was far fromextensive." The Rev. Dr. Aked, a Baptist minister, writing in "Appleton'sMagazine," Sept. , 1908, said: "In the pages of the Protestant Version of theBible are to be found historical errors, arithmetical mistakes, inconsistenciesand manifold contradictions, and, what is far worse, one finds that the mosthorrible crimes are committed by men who plea, 'God said,' in justification oftheir terrible misdeeds. Moreover, the English Bible is a version of a versionwhich is a translation of a translation. It has come down through Hebrew, Greekand Latin into English. In all its earlier stages it was copied by hand fromone manuscript to another by different writers, a process certain to result inmany mistakes." The Anglican Bishop of London, Eng., Dr. Ingraham, says: "Atthe present moment, there is only one Church in England that officially acceptsthe Scriptures as the infallible Word of God, and that Church is the Church ofRome." Dr. Decosta said: "The Church of Rome stands before the English-speakingworld and Protestants everywhere as the solitary defender of the Bible in itsintegrity and entirety." The Rev. O. J. Nelson, of Bellingham, Wash., says:"Strictly speaking, none but the Catholic has an infallible Bible and none butthe Catholic can be rightly called an orthodox Christian . . . There is onlyone Christian Church of real and consistent authority and that is the CatholicChurch." Charles Buder, in his "Horae Biblicae," says: "For the sacred writingswhich contain the Word of God, and for the traditions of the wise and goodrespecting it, we are almost wholly indebted, under Providence, to the zeal andexertion of the priests and monks of the Church of Rome." The ProtestantBiblical critic, George Campbell, says: "The Vulgate may be pronounced, on thewhole, a good and faithful version." An editorial in the New York "Sun," says:"The time is coming, if, indeed, it has not already, when these Churches musttake their stand definitely and decidedly on the question whether the Bible isof God or only of man. As it is now, the Pope is the sole bold, positive anduncompromising champion of the Bible as the Word of God." Rev. Dr. A. S.Crapsey, addressing the "Free Religious Association": "Most of the Protestantdenominations are drifting backward, gravitating toward the Catholic. They arelosing their intellectual leadership by not keeping pace with the scholars.Protestantism will follow and obey the law of gravitation, disintegrate, andthus lose all power." The Methodist Bishop, Dr. Seliew: "The spirit ofProtestantism is declining in America with the progress of Catholicism. It isdying, and will soon be a thing of the past."
IMPRIMATUR:JoannesGregorius Murray Archiepiscopus Sancti Pauli.
Writtenby Fr. Chas. M. Carty Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C. Copyright 1976 by TAN Booksand Publishers, Inc.
Originallypublished by Fathers Rumble and Carty Radio Replies Press, Inc.
St.Paul, Minn., U.S.A. Complete and Unabridged
|