Table of Contents. To return here, click on TOC

1. Sufficiency of Scripture

2. Interpretation of Scripture

3. Perspicuity of Scripture

4. Discerning the Canon

5. Distribution of Scripture

6. Supplement A: Additional quotes

7. Supplement B: RC hindrance of Biblical literacy, and its modern interpretive school

8. Supplement C: The Canon and the Apocrypha

9. Supplement D: Church “fathers” and the place of Scripture

Supplement A: Additional quotes

Chrysostom (349-407); from sections 2 & 3 of his 3rd sermon on Lazarus:

And with good cause He calleth the Scriptures “a door,” for they bring us to God, and open to us the knowledge of God, they make the sheep, they guard them, and suffer not the wolves to come in after them. For Scripture, like some sure door, barreth the passage against the heretics, placing us in a state of safety as to all that we desire, and not allowing us to wander; and if we undo it not, we shall not easily be conquered by our foes. By it we can know all, both those who are, and those who are not, shepherds. NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, Homily 59.

2. Many other such things there are that beset our soul; and we have need of the divine remedies that we may heal wounds inflicted, and ward off those which, though not inflicted, would else be received in time to come—thus quenching afar off the darts of Satan, and shielding ourselves by the constant reading of the Divine Scriptures. It is not possible—I say, it is not possible, for any one to be secure without constant supplies of this spiritual instruction (translator’s note, “Or without constantly making use of spiritual reading”).

As the instruments of their art are the hammer and anvil and pincers, so the instruments of our work are the apostolic and prophetic books, and all the inspired and profitable Scriptures.

Let us then not neglect the possession of the sacred books. For gold, whenever it becomes abundant, causes trouble to its possessors; but these books, when carefully preserved, afford great benefit to those who possess them.

“But what,” say they, “if we do not understand the things we read?” Even if you do not understand the contents, your sanctification in a high degree results from it. However, it is impossible that all these things should alike be misunderstood; for it was for this reason that the grace of the Holy Spirit ordained that tax-gatherers, and fishermen, and tent-makers, and shepherds, and goatherds, and uninstructed and illiterate men, should compose these books, that no untaught man should be able to make this pretext; in order that the things delivered should be easily comprehended by all—in order that the handicraftsman, the domestic, the widow, yea, the most unlearned of all men, should profit and be benefited by the reading. For it is not for vain-glory, as men of the world, but for the salvation of the hearers, that they composed these writings, who, from the beginning, were endued with the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Show great eagerness to learn; then, when God sees that you are using such diligence, He will not disregard your perseverance and carefulness; but if no human being can teach you that which you seek to know, He himself will reveal the whole...

Let us not, beloved, neglect our salvation! “All these things are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come,” (1 Cor. x. 11). The reading of the Scriptures is a great safeguard against sin; ignorance of the Scriptures is a great precipice and a deep gulf; to know nothing of the Scriptures, is a great betrayal of our salvation. This ignorance is the cause of heresies; this it is that leads to dissolute living; this it is that makes all things confused. It is impossible—I say, it is impossible, that any one should remain unbenefited who engages in persevering and intelligent reading. (Four Discourses of Chrysostom, Chiefly on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 3rd Sermon, §2-3 (London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1869), pp. 62-68. See Concionis VII, de Lazaro 3.2-3 PG 48:993-996 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857-87). Cf. PG 62:485. F. Allen, trans.)

►But how shall any one who is unskillful as these men pretend, be able to convict the gainsayers and stop their mouths? or what need is there to give attention to reading and to the Holy Scriptures, if such a state of unskillfulness is to be welcome among us? Such arguments are mere makeshifts and pretexts, the marks of idleness and sloth. But some one will say, “it is to the priests that these charges are given:” — certainly, for they are the subjects of our discourse. But that the apostle gives the same charge to the laity, hear what he says in another epistle to other than the priesthood: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom,” and again, “Let your speech be always with grace seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one,” and there is a general charge to all that they “be ready to” render an account of their faith, and to the Thessalonians, he gives the following command: “Build each other up, even as also ye do.” (NPNF1: Vol. IX, The Christian Priesthood, Book 4, §7-8)

► But what do the multitude say? “I do not hear what is read,” saith one, “nor do I know what the words are which are spoken.” Because thou makest a tumult and confusion, because thou comest not with a reverent soul. What sayest thou? “I know not what things are said.” Well then, for this very reason oughtest thou to give heed. But if not even the obscurity stir up thy soul, much more if things were clear wouldest thou hurry them by. Yea, this is the reason why neither all things are clear, lest thou shouldest indulge indolence; nor obscure, lest thou shouldest be in despair.

And whereas that eunuch and barbarian (Acts 8:20.) said none of these things, but surrounded as he was with a crowd of so important affairs and on his journey, had a book in his hands and was reading: dost thou, both abounding in teachers, and having others to read to thee privately, allege to me thine excuses and pretexts? Knowest thou not what is said? Why then pray that thou mayest learn: but sure it is impossible to be ignorant of all things. For many things are of themselves evident and clear. And further, even if thou be ignorant of all, even so oughtest thou to be quiet, not to put out them that are attentive; that God, accepting thy quietness and thy reverence, may make the obscure things also plain. (NPNF1: Vol. XII, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 36.9)

Caesarius, bishop of Arles (470-543): I will say something about which you are not ignorant. We know that some merchants who are illiterate look for literate mercenaries; although they themselves do not know letters, they acquire immense profits by having others write their ideas. Now, if those who are unlearned hire literate mercenaries in order to obtain earthly wealth, why do not you, whoever you are that is illiterate, seek with the price of reward someone to read over the sacred Scriptures for you, so that you may be able to acquire eternal rewards through them? It is definitely a fact, brethren, that anyone who diligently seeks this believes that it will profit him for eternity.

However, if a man neither will read the text himself nor willingly listen to others do so, he does not believe that he can derive any good at all from it. Therefore, I beg and exhort you, dearly beloved, if any of you know letters, read the sacred Scriptures rather frequently; those of you who do not should listen with attentive ears when others read it. The light and eternal food of the soul is nothing else but the word of God, without which the soul can neither see nor live. Just as our body dies if it does not receive food, so, too, our soul is killed if it does not receive the word of God. (FC, Vol. 31, Saint Caesarius of Arles, Sermons (1-80), Sermon 6.2 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1956), pp. 39-40.)

►Another may report: I recall that my bishop said that a man who knows letters should be eager to read sacred Scripture, and one who does not should look for someone and ask him to read God’s precepts to him so that with God’s help he may fulfill what was read. Again, another may say: I heard my bishop say that just as merchants who are illiterate hire learned mercenaries so that they may acquire wealth, so Christians should seek, ask, and if necessary, pay for someone to read the sacred Scriptures to them; that just as a trader gets money by having someone else read, so Christians should obtain eternal life in this way. If you do this and admonish each other, you can both live devoutly in this world and afterwards attain to the bliss of eternal life. (Ibid. Sermon 6.8, pp. 44-45)

►I beseech you, beloved brethren, be eager to engage in divine reading whatever hours you can. Moreover, since what a man procures in this life by reading or good works will be the food of his soul forever, let no one try to excuse himself by saying he has not learned letters at all. If those who are illiterate love God in truth, they look for learned people who can read the sacred Scriptures to them. (Ibid, Sermon 8.1, p. 49)

►Therefore consider at once, brethren, and carefully notice that the man who frequently reads or listens to sacred Scripture speaks with God. See, then, whether the Devil can overtake him when he perceives him in constant conversation with God. However, if a man neglects to do this, with what boldness or with what feelings does he believe God will grant him an eternal reward, when he refuses to speak with Him in this world through the divine text? (Ibid, Sermon 8.3; p. 52)

►Commenting on Rev. 22:10: Just as the divine Scriptures are sealed for those who are proud and who love the world more than God, so are they opened for those who are humble and who fear God. (William C. Weinrich, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XII, Revelation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 398. Cf. Commentary on the Apocalypse 22.10, Homily 19)

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67): For he is the best student who does not read his thoughts into the book, but lets it reveal its own; who draws from it its sense, and does not import his own into it, nor force upon its words a meaning which he had determined was the right one before he opened its pages. Since then we are to discourse of the things of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of Himself, and bow with humble reverence to His words. For He Whom we can only know through His own utterances is the fitting witness concerning Himself. (NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book 1, §18).TOC

► Supplement B: Roman Catholic hindrance of Biblical literacy, and its modern NAB interpretations.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29)

“And the common people heard him gladly.” (Mk. 12:37)

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

"And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me. {45} Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, " (Luke 24:44-45)

"And that 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)

“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.” (Act 17:11)

"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." (1 Peter 2:2)

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. " (2 Timothy 2:15)

Summary: It has been established that historically Rome did not overall encourage Bible literacy among the laity as time went on, and can be said to have hindered and even discouraged it. And until recently very little of the Bible was read in Mass. Catholic sources report, “At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts.” (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) Even by 1951 just 22.4% of the gospels and 16.5% of all the NT was read on Sundays and major feast days, and just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days (readings from the Old Testament were not used on Sundays). (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm)

While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, contrary to some Catholics who claim that they hear most of the entire Bible at Mass, attendees still hear only a small percentage of the whole Bible (at best less than 35% even for daily Mass-going RCs) and most of what is heard is redundant), and thus typical Mass-going Catholics will hardly obtain much of a functional knowledge of Scripture. For the average Catholic does not even go to Mass weekly, which would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible during the reading cycle, let alone faithfully attend Mass daily ( few can, and according to a Catholic source, fewer than 1 percent of Catholics attend daily Mass: www.lifezette.com/faithzette/going-daily-mass-changed-life/)), which would be required in order to hear 27.5% of the entire Bible, excluding Psalms, a few verses of which are read during the liturgy (calculation is of 4179 out of 33001 verses for Sunday Masses, and 9067 out of 33001 for Sunday and weekday masses based on stats from the aforementioned lectionary page.). I also found a Catholic poster (Todd Easton: https://forums.catholic.com/t/reading-the-entire-bible-in-3-years-at-mass/37504/9 who calculated that if one faithfully one goes to Sunday and daily mass then these RCs only hear 30% of the entire Catholic bible, and faithful Sunday-only Mass attendees only hear 14% of the same. Of course, liberal Protestants most likely hear even less, and like Catholics, but in contrast to evangelicals overall, they testify to engaging in little personal Bible reading.

► Preface:

While accusations of censure of Bible reading by Rome are sometimes exaggerated, and while Roman Catholicism did print Bibles in the common (“vulgar”) tongue (and in a notable encouragement, Pius VI in his letter to Martini, commended the printing and reading of his translation of his Bible into Italian), yet for too much of her history it is evidenced that the church of Rome did not place a priority upon personal Biblical literacy among the laity, but actually hindered it. While for a long time she effectively exercised civil power and for some time could even (unScripturally) require civil authorities to torture theological dissidents and possible witnesses against them, yet enabling the laity to read was not a high priority, nor on providing copies of the Scriptures in the common tongue and placing them in the hands of the laity (before the printing press and a long time after). The hindrance of personal Bible reading by laity included requiring special permission from the clergy to privately read Scripture, and more rarely, in some places Rome outright banned the laity from reading any translations in the common language. As but few could read the Scriptures in Latin, much less Hebrew or Greek, this amounted to a prohibition upon the multitudes against personal Bible reading. Translations in the language of the laity and without restrictions on reading were even judged by Trent as “doing more harm than good.

This suppression was based upon the position of “sola ecclesia,” that the Roman church only is the supreme authority and sufficient infallible authority on faith and morals. As stated in 1528 by Dominican Johannes Mensing, "Scripture can deceive, the Church cannot deceive. Who does not perceive then that the Church is greater than Scripture and that we can entrust ourselves better to the Church than to Scripture." (“Gründliche vnterricht: Was eyn frommer Christen von der heyligen Kirchen, von den Vetern vnd der heyligen schrifft halten sol”)

However, while Rome has presumed to "infallibly' declare that she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula (but which does not insure infallible interpretation of her), the fact is that Scripture is the only transcendent material authority on faith and moral that is affirmed to be wholly inspired (God-breathed), and which writings were progressively established as being of God (like as true men of God are) due to their unique heavenly qualities, supernatural attestation and conflation and complementarity to what was previously established as being from God. And it is abundantly evidenced to be the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims.

Moreover, while today Bible reading is somewhat encouraged in Roman Catholicism, and many quote it in defense of their church, it is not their real authority as only interpretation that has authority is that which Rome provides. Its authority is further impugned by the overall liberal interpretive approach of most of her modern scholarship, such as is seen (below) in the approved commentary in the official Roman Catholic Bible for America.

► Historical overview:

• It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests (De Lazaro concio, iii, MPG, xlviii, 992; Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, lvii, 30, NPNF, 2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament (Hom. ix in Col., MPG, lxii, 361, NPNF, xiii, 301). The women also, who were always at home, were diligently to read the Bible (Hom. xxxv on Gen. xii, MPG, liii, 323). Jerome recommended the reading and studying of Scripture on the part of the women (Epist., cxxviii, 3, MPL, xxii, 1098, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 259; Epist., lxxix, 9, MPG, xxii, 730-731, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 167). The translations of the Bible, Augustine considered a blessed means of propagating the Word of God among the nations (De doctr. christ., ii, 5, NPNF, 1st ser., ii, 536); Gregory I recommended the reading of the Bible without placing any limitations on it (Hom. iii in Ezek., MPL, lxxvi, 968). — New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia

• “There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us.” (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, The Catholic Publication Society, 1887, page 509)

• Through most of the fourth century, the controversy with the Arians had turned upon Scripture, and appeals to past authority were few. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 6, page 2)

• Our present convenient compendiums -- the Missal, Breviary, and so on were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 9, page 296)

  • From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm):

  (1) During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not promulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the Sacred Books according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenæus, "Adv. haer.", III, iv).

  (2) The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text. ( St. Gregory VII, "Epist.", vii, xi).

  The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned. ("Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, "Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III", Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.)....

• It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, "Dominici gregis", the Index of Prohibited Books . According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate.

  The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice.

  Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix.

  Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it.

  This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible , by the Bull "Unigenitus" issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816.

  But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844.

  In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm. (Catholic Encyclopedia>Scripture)

  ► Early to Middle Ages (mainly):

• A Catholic dictionary states that, “In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people. and the Fathers encouraged them to do so...No prohibitions were issued against the popular reading of the Bible...New dangers came in during the Middle Ages...To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse, France (1229) and Terragona, Spain, (1234) [local councils], forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. (Toulouse was in response to the Albigensian heresy, and while this reveals a recourse of restrinction of access to Scripture when faced with challenges, it is understood that when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France.) http://www.lazyboysreststop.org/true_attitude.htm; A Catholic Dictionary: William Edward Addis, ?Thomas Arnold, p. 82

  While it is claimed that a general prohibition of Bible reading was never unconditionally forbidden, yet not only was reading forbidden without special permission, but since the laity usually could not read Latin, what the decrees such as the synods of Toulouse and Tarragona amount to is a prohibition on reading Scripture for most, even if local and a small portion was allowed.

• Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14: "We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue" (Pierre Allix, Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213).

• Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff�, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular...

• With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. (Philip Schaff, Bible reading by the laity, restrictions on. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II: Basilica – Chambers)

• Pius IV (1499 -1565) required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.” (Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1887, page 82)

• During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times. Their history is chiefly connected with the names of medieval heretics like Berengarius of Tours, Abelard, John Wyclif, and John Hus. However, especially in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, there were also issued prohibitions of various kinds of superstitious writings, among them the Talmud and other Jewish books. In this period, also, the first decrees about the reading of translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigenses. What these decrees (e.g. of the synods of Toulouse in 1229, Tarragona in 1234, Oxford in 1408) aimed at was the restriction of Bible-reading in the vernacular [the common tongue; the only language most could read] A general prohibition [in any language] was never in existence. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, (v3, pg. 520; http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Censorship_of_Books)

• Council of Trent

• Session XXV: Rule IV of the Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books Drawn Up by The Fathers Chosen by the Council of Trent and Approved by Pope Pius:

• Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/trent-booksrules.asp)

• The most stringent censorship decree after the Reformation was the Papal bull “Inter Solicitudines,” issued by Pope Leo X, December 1516, which Leo X ordered censorship to be applied to all translations from Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Chaldaic into Latin, and from Latin into the vernacular. [While its focus is on singing, its injunction against singing "anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions," as "the language proper to the Roman Church is Latin," would likely also apply to reading of Scripture.] (Hirsch, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450-1550 [1967] 90).

• In addition to the printed books being seized and publicly burnt, payment of a hundred ducats to the fabric of the basilica of the prince of the apostles in Rome, without hope of relief, and suspension for a whole year from the possibility of engaging in the printing, There Is To be imposed upon anyone presuming to act otherwise the sentence of excommunication. Finally, if the offender's contumacy Increases, he is to be punished with all the sanctions of the law, by His bishop or by our vicar, in such a way that others will have no incentive to try to follow His example. (Papal Bull, Inter Sollicitudines; December 1516) [Wiki Translation].

• “When English Roman Catholics created their first English biblical translation in exile at Douai and Reims, it was not for ordinary folk to read, but [primarily] for priests to use as a polemical weapon.—the explicit purpose which the 1582 title-page and preface of the Reims New Testament proclaimed. Only the Jansenists of early seventeenth-century France came to have a more positive and generous attitude to promoting Bible-reading among Catholics" (Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History, 2003, p. 406; p. 585.)

  Douay-Rheims

• The Douay–Rheims Bible...is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English undertaken by members of the English College, Douai in the service of the Catholic Church.

  Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all, or could be easily understood by every one that readeth or heareth them in a known language; or that they were not often through man's malice or infirmity, pernicious and much hurtful to many; or that we generally and absolutely deemed it more convenient in itself, and more agreeable to God's Word and honour or edification of the faithful, to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages.

  Not for these nor any such like reasons do we translate this sacred book, but upon special consideration of the present time, state, and condition of our country, unto which diverse things are either necessary or profitable and medicinable now that otherwise, in the peace of the Church, were neither much requisite, nor perchance wholly tolerable.

  In our own country, notwithstanding the Latin tongue was ever (to use Venerable Bede's words) common to all the provinces of the same for meditation or study of Scriptures, and no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church,..

  Which causeth the Holy Church not to forbid utterly any Catholic translation, though she allow not the publishing or reading of any absolutely and without exception or limitation, knowing by her Divine and most sincere wisdom, how, where, when, and to whom these her Master's and Spouse's gifts are to be bestowed to the most good of the faithful. (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(Douay-Rheims_Original)/Preface)In short, Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all, or...to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...and no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude...

• INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS:

• The Index of Prohibited Books was first published in 1544, and the Inquisition in Rome prepared the first Roman Index, issued by Paul IV in 1559. It contained more than a thousand interdictions divided into three classes: authors, all of whose works were to be prohibited;...

• The number of writers and works placed on the Roman Index from the mid-sixteenth century to the end of the eighteenth amounted to about four thousand...

• “The defense against Protestantism always remained a major pre-occupation of Roman censors. Protection of the political and juridical rights and privileges of the church, the pope, and the hierarchy also find a notable echo in the Index. Thus, writings favoring Gallicanism and those advocating the right of civil authorities to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs appear prominently, alongside polemical works dealing with the political intervention of the Holy See, such as during its conflict with the Republic of Venice in 1606–1607, or the oath of loyalty in England during the pontificate of Paul V (1605–1621).” (http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eemw_03/eemw_03_00542.html)

• The Bull Unigenitus, published at Rome, September 8, 1713, as part of its censure of the propositions of Jansenism*, also condemned the following as being errors:

• 79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.

• 80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.

• 81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.

• 82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.

• 84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.

• 85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication. (INNOCENT XIII 1721-1724 BENEDICT XIII 1724-1730, CLEMENT XII 1730-174, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm)

  • INTER PRAECIPUAS (On Biblical Societies) of Pope Gregory XVI, MAY 8, 1844:

• 1. Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that We now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels. Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided.

• In the many translations from the biblical societies, serious errors are easily inserted by the great number of translators, either through ignorance or deception. These errors, because of the very number and variety of translations, are long hidden and hence lead the faithful astray...

• 3. For this end the same biblical societies never cease to slander the Church and this Chair of Peter as if We have tried to keep the knowledge of sacred Scripture from the faithful. However, We have documents clearly detailing the singular zeal which the Supreme Pontiffs and bishops in recent times have used to instruct the Catholic people more thoroughly in the word of God, both as it exists in writing and in tradition.

• 5. ..the school of Jansenius. Borrowing the tactics of the Lutherans and Calvinists, they rebuked the Apostolic See on the grounds that because the reading of the Scriptures for all the faithful, at all times and places, was useful and necessary, it therefore could not be forbidden anyone by any authority...

• 11. Therefore, taking counsel with a number of Cardinals, and weighing the whole matter seriously and in good time, We have decided to send this letter to all of you. We again condemn all the above-mentioned biblical societies of which our predecessors disapproved. We specifically condemn the new one called Christian League founded last year in New York and other societies of the same kind, if they have already joined with it or do so in the future. Therefore let it be known to all that anyone who joins one of these societies, or aids it, or favors it in any way will be guilty of a grievous crime. Besides We confirm and renew by Our apostolic authority the prescriptions listed and published long ago concerning the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/g16inter.htm)

• "A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church...We must also keep in mind that whenever or wherever reading endangers the purity of Christian thought and living the unum necessarium it has to be wisely restricted." — A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953) pp. 11-12.

  ► Modern era

  • Providentissimus Deus: On the study of Holy Scripture, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII , November 18, 1893,

• 6. It is in this that the watchful care of the Church shines forth conspicuously. By admirable laws and regulations, she has always shown herself solicitous that "the celestial treasure of the Sacred Books, so bountifully bestowed upon man by the Holy Spirit, should not lie neglected."25 She has prescribed that a considerable portion of them shall be read and piously reflected upon by all her ministers in the daily office of the sacred psalmody. She has ordered that in Cathedral Churches, in monasteries, and in other convents in which study can conveniently be pursued, they shall be expounded and interpreted by capable men; and she has strictly commanded that her children shall be fed with the saving words of the Gospel at least on Sundays and solemn feasts.26 Moreover, it is owing to the wisdom and exertions of the Church that there has always been continued from century to century that cultivation of Holy Scripture which has been so remarkable and has borne such ample fruit. (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm)

• While the above encyclical was partly motivated by the rise of the historical-critical method of analyzing Scripture, which impugns its authority, yet liberal scholarship reigns in Roman Catholicism. See below for more.

  • Officiorum ac Munerum, Encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII. The prohibition and censorship of books Apostolic Constitution, January 25, 1897

• 5. Editions of the Original Text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in Theological and Biblical Studies, provided also that the Dogma of Catholic Faith are not impugned in the Prolegomena or Annotations.

• 6. In the same manner, and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible, whether in Latin or in any other dead language, published by non-Catholics, are permitted.

• 7. Since experience teaches that if the Holy Bible is indistinctly permitted in the vernacular it derives from it, because of the imprudence of men, more harm than utility; consequently all the versions in the vernacular, even published by Catholic people, are absolutely forbidden, unless they are approved by the Holy See, or published under the supervision of the Bishops with notes taken from the Holy Fathers of the Church and learned Catholic writers.

• 23. Those only shall be allowed to read and keep books prohibited, either by Special Decrees or by these General Decrees, who shall have obtained the necessary permission, either from the Apostolic See or from its delegates.

• 41. All the faithful are bound to submit to preliminary Ecclesiastical Censorship at least those books which treat of Holy Scripture, ..

• 48. Those who, without the Approbation of the Ordinary, print, or cause to be printed, books of Holy Scripture, or notes of commentaries on the same, incur ipso facto excommunication, but not reserved.

• 49....We Decree that these presents and whatsoever they contain shall at no time be questioned or impugned for any fault of subreption, or obreption, or of Our intention, or for any other defect whatsoever; but are and shall be ever valid and efficacious, and to be inviolably observed, both Judicially and extra-Judicially, by all of whatsoever rank and pre-eminence. And We declare to be invalid and of no avail, whatsoever may be attempted knowingly or unknowingly contrary to these, by any one, under any Authority or pretext whatsoever; all to the contrary notwithstanding. (http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/Censorship.htm)

  • Spiritus Paraclitus, Pope Benedict XV encyclical of 1920: "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, with the veneration due the divine Word, make a spiritual reading from the Sacred Scriptures. A plenary indulgence is granted if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour."

  • DeI Verbum, Pope Paul vi on November 18, 1965: Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful...But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. [Note: The ecumenical Council of Trent declared that the Catholic Church, "ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever (Council of Trent, fourth Session)", and restricted access to it.] And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.

• Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations (Canon 825 §1).

  • The Catholic Study Bible: At mid-century the Scripture were read in Latin at Mass. There were few selections from the Old Testament, and a rather small number of New Testament passages dominated... Since Vatican 2...the Old Testament is very prominent and almost the entire New Testament...is represented...At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts...Now the texts of the Bible form the primary resource for Catholic religious education at all levels. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16)

  • U.S,. conference Catholic bishops: Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation...Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.

  Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so... The Charismatic movement and the rise of prayer groups exposed Catholics to Scripture even more. (http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm)

  • Vatican Two: With Vatican two (1966) came a marked difference in the Roman Catholic stance toward general Bible reading. Abolishes the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which was founded in 1557.

  • Enchiridion of Indulgences: "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due to the divine word make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture. A plenary indulgence is granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour." (Enchiridion of Indulgences. Authorized English edition. 1969. Catholic Book Publishers. New York. Page 68. # 50) TOC

• * a distinct movement within the Catholic Church from the 16th to 18th centuries. It opposed Pelagianism (and semi-Pelagianism), and what is saw as the "relaxed morality" of Jesuitism and its frequent communion, and it followers identified themselves as rigorous followers of Augustinism, and it thus shared some tenets of Calvinism (though its pious Catholic founder, Jansen, rejected the doctrine of assurance). Its key conflict with Roman Catholic soteriology is that it denies the role of free will in the acceptance and use of grace.

• The Bull condemns 101 propositions which are taken verbatim from the last (and enlarged edition of Pasquier Quesnel's book entitled Abrégé de la morale de l'Evangile ("Morality of the Gospel, Abridged") , first published 1671. The work was approved by the French bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne, and the last edition of 1693 was highly recommended by the new bishop of Châlons, Gaston-Louis de Noailles.

• Pope Clement XI condemned it in a brief, July 13, 1708, but Noailles, who had become Archbishop of Paris and cardinal, was not prepared to withdraw his approbation of it. This resulted in the Pope issuing the Bull Unigenitus, and later the Bull "Pastoralis officii" on 28 Aug., 1718, excommunicating all that refused to accept the Bull "Unigenitus," as Noailles, who did withdraw his approval of Morality of the Gospel, worked to prevent unconditional acceptance of the Bull "Unigenitus," but relented shortly before his death. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenist)

• The 101 propositions were overall “Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.”

• Among the condemned propositions were that: grace works with omnipotence and is irresistible; without grace man can only commit sin; Christ died for the elect only; every love that is not supernatural is evil; without supernatural love there can be no hope in God, no obedience to His law, no good work, no prayer, no merit, no religion; the prayer of the sinner and his other good acts performed out of fear of punishment are only new sins, etc. http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/11/alleged-errors-of-paschasius-quesnel.html TOC

► Remarks on the New American Bible

The New American Bible (NAB), was the American bishop's official* Bible for use in America, including the edition provided by the Vatican's own web site, [2002 Copyright: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM], and continues to be approved for use by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), though the official Bible for America is now the Revised Edition (NABRE). However, the revivisons are few, with few differences that I am aware of as regards what follows here in criticism of the NAB. Both the NAB and NABRE impugn the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and by relegating numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, among other denials, along with other problems which even some Catholics complain about.

In addition, some NAB footnotes assert alleged contradictions in Scripture, and Catholics are divided on whether the Vatican Two statement in Dei Verbum (which was seen as a response to a behind-the-scenes debate at Vatican II about inerrancy), that the Bible “teaches without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation," supports the position that the Bible is only immune from error within a certain limited area, versus what Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus and Pope Benedict XV Spiritus Paraclitus state. However, the real authority for Catholics is their self-proclaimed infallible magisterium, although there is disagreement as to how many infallible statements there are, and the full meaning of these as well as multiple other non-infallible teachings can be subject to some interpretation.

I myself first became aware of the basic liberal bent in the NAB when reading the notes in the NAB, St. Joseph’s medium size, Catholic publishing co., copyright 1970, which has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur stamps of sanction. The NAB has gone through revisions, but I have found the same O. T. footnotes in “The Catholic Study Bible,” Oxford University Press, 1990, which also has the proper stamps, and uses the 1970 O.T. text and the 1986 revised N.T. And a Roman Catholic apologist using the 1992 version also lists some of the same errors described below, and is likewise critical of the liberal scholarship behind it (though he elsewhere denigrated Israel as illegally occupying Palestine), while a Roman Catholic cardinal is also crtical of the NAB on additional grounds.

The study aids therein teaches that, "The Bible is God’s word and man’s word. One must understand man’s word first in order to understand the word of God." ("A Library of Books," p. 19) and warns,

“You may hear interpreters of the Bible who are literalists or fundamentalists. They explain the Bible according to the letter: Eve really ate from the apple and Jonah was miraculously kept alive in the belly of the whale. Then there are ultra-liberal scholars who qualify the whole Bible as another book of fairly tales. Catholic Bible scholars follow the sound middle of the road.” (15. “How do you know”)

However, they are clearly driving on the left.

It “explains”, under “Literary Genres” (p. 19) that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.

It next states that the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson. After all, its understanding that “Inspiration is guidance” means that Scripture is “God’s word and man’s word.” What this means is that the NAB rejects such things as that the Bible's attribution of Divine sanction to wars of conquest, “cannot be qualified as revelation from God,” and states,

Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." (4. "Inspiration and Revelation," p. 18)

It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.” (8. “The Bible on God.”)

The Preface to Genesis in my St. Joseph's 1970 NAB edition attributes it to many authors, rather than Moses as indicated in Dt. 31:24, and the footnote to Gn. 1:5 refers to the days of creation as a “highly artificial literal structure.”

The footnote in online NABRE (http://www.usccb.org/bible/gn/1:26#01001026-1) to Gn. 1:26 states that “sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth,” thus negating this as literal, while God refers to Himself in the plural (“Us” or “Our”) 6 times in the OT.

► Supplement C: Infallibility and the Roman Catholic Canon, its formation and evidence against the Apocrypha

This is provided in response to the Roman Catholic polemic that the canon was settled until Luther came along and rejected some books, resulting in the Protestant canon, which is a distortion of facts which will be provided below. And which helps answer the question as to the who and how the books of the Bible were determined. For a list of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible (and brief description of each), see here.

Preface: The issue of the Catholicism and the canon of Scripture is an issue of authority and determination of Truth, and thus this preface is provided. It is also often asserted by Roman Catholics that they gave the world the Bible and thus they are the infallible interpreters of it, but even if it could be said that the Catholic church of Trent was the same as that of the first century (which it clearly deviates from), this logic would require us to submit to Judaism. For (unlike the Roman church) the Bible clearly affirms that the Jews, over which were the Scribes and Pharisees who “sat in Moses' seat,” (Mt. 23:2) were the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, as “unto them were committed the oracles of God,” and more, and “of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.” (Rm. 3:2; 9:4,5) But it is evident that neither a commission to teach, nor formal decent of office or promises of preservation (Gn. 28:15; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; 31:6,8; Num. 23:19,23; Josh. 1:5; Neh. 9:31; 1Sam. 12:22; 1Ch. 28:20; Ps 37:25,28; 89:31-37; Isa 41:10; Jer. 23:39; Mal. 3:6) meant that they were assuredly infallible, and both men of God and writings of God were established as being so without an assuredly infallible magisterium. (Lk. 24:44)

Therefore first century souls recognized a holy man in the desert and an itinerant Preacher as being of God even though the Jewish magisterium rejected them. (Mk. 11:27-33) And thus Christianity began in dissent from those, who like Rome, presumed of themselves more than what was written, (cf. 1Cor. 4:6), including assured veracity, and thus they were reproved from Scripture by Christ and His apostles for teaching as doctrines mere traditions of the elders, (Mk. 7:2-16) while the Lord established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

True men of God, writings of God, and thus the books of the Bible, became established as being of God in the light of their Heavenly qualities, virtues and the manner of Divine supernatural attestation often afforded them,. While the powers that be were to affirm such as being of God, yet they were so even if the magisterium failed to do so. And thus the church began.

Going back further, God supernaturally affirmed the faith of Abraham, and the same God confirmed that faith in providing undeniable attestation to Moses, who apparently wrote most of the Torah. And as written, Scripture became the standard for obedience and testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced . And as Scripture attests to writings being recognized and established as being of God, then Scripture provides for a canon.

Protestants are attacked as having no certitude of doctrine, because although they have an infallible authority (Scripture), they do not have an assuredly infallible interpreter which Roman Catholics claim is needed for determining what Truth is, and what it means. (For unlike what Rome as well as cults effectively do, Protestant magisteriums do not claim assured infallibility for whatever they teach on faith and morals to the church universal.) But this Roman and cultic basis for determining Truth would preclude souls from having assurance of truth before the church Rome presumed she was necessary for it, while the Protestant disallowance of assured infallibility does not mean they cannot realize infallible truths (even “there is a Creator” would qualify) or have Scriptural assurance of Truth insomuch as the Scriptures promise assurance, based upon conformity to Scripture and the manner of attestation it affirms. (1Jn. 5:13)

Moreover, the basis for assurance for a Roman Catholic that Rome is the One True infallible Church magisterium is the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome. And as Rome has presumed to infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, this renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, including which books belong in the Bible. And by which circular reasoning Roman Catholics have assurance, and which infallible teaching they are required to give implicit “assent of faith” to. (Realizing the circularity of their polemical claims, Roman Catholic apologists attempt to argue for the necessity of the Roman magisterium by appealing to Scripture simply as if a reliable historical document that they argue supports Rome. But if a soul can judge Scriptural books as being persuasive reliable historical documents, then they can also realize that an assuredly infallible magisterium was not necessary to know which books are Scripture, nor was such a magisterium necessary or the basis upon which the NT church began. Thus the goal of RC apologists is to convince souls they must see all evidence through the eyes of Rome.)

Yet while Roman Catholics are to give the highest level of assent of faith to infallible pronouncements, which ones and which parts of teachings are infallible out of potentially hundreds is itself also a matter of fallible interpretation, with only a few being settled, and it is also held that the “guarantee” of infallibility does not extend to the reasons and arguments behind it. Nor do RCs know for sure what magisterial level many other teachings fall under, and thus whether they can dissent from them.

Furthermore, while Catholics claim a supreme infallible interpretive authority, they have not only made a fallible decision to trust in their purportedly “infallible” authority, but they also do not have an infallible interpreter of their infallible authority, and thus engage in fallible interpretation of its teachings. In addition, much or most (depends upon RC interpretation) of what Roman Catholics believe and practice comes from the Ordinary magisterium, in which are teachings which can allow for some error and for more interpretation and some possibility of some degree of dissent. And in practical effect what is manifest is that Catholics vary in their understanding of Catholic doctrine (as well as disagree with it). Thus what level a magisterial teaching belongs to, and the meaning of such to varying degrees, and what degree of dissent may be allowed, is much a matter that is left to fallible judgment.

Finally, the unity that results from implicit assent to an assuredly infallible magisterium is that which cults effectively practice, and is inferior in quality to that which is based upon the supremacy of Scripture, and its means of “manifestation of the truth,” by which the apostles persuaded men, by the Scriptures and the power of God. (2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10) The more this is a manifest reality, then they more unity, and thus the level of unity of the NT church was under manifest apostles, “in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..,” (2Cor., 6:4) And the greater the claim to authority, then the greater the attestation must be, and by which Rome is disqualified as warranting faith in all her claims, which include those that even apostles did not make.

And instead of the books of the Bible owing their establishment to her “infallible decree, they were essentially established upon the same basis as souls of recognized men of God as being so, and the Son of God as being so, and upon which the church began.

▀ The apocryphal books, mainly referred to as deuterocanonical books by Catholics (or 'Deuteros" for short)

While the 27 books of the New Testament had ancient support is not in dispute between Catholics and Protestants, the Apocrypha refers to extra books included in Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, though their lists are not quite the same, but which are not contained in the Protestant (and most popular) canon of inspired Scripture, as they are manifested to be of an inferiorquality or questionable integrity, the Wisdom of Solomon perhaps being the best, although for much of Protestant history they were typically printed in a separate section of their Bibles. The Roman Catholic books are: Tobit; Judith; Additions to Esther (Vulgate: Esther 10:4-16:24); Wisdom; Sirach (also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus); Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint); Additions to Daniel, which are the Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (which in the Vulgate was Daniel 3:24-90) and Susanna (Vulgate: Daniel 13, Septuagint: prologue) as well as Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate: Daniel 14, Septuagint: epilogue); 1 Maccabees; 2 Maccabees. The Greek Orthodox adds 1 Esdras, 3 +4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.

The apocryphal books are relatively obscure, and one of their notable accounts is the tale of Tobit, which concerns a women, Sarah, who has lost seven husbands because Asmodeus, the demon of lust, and ‘the worst of demons,’ abducts and kills every man she marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated!

And about a man, Tobias, who was sleeping with his eyes open while birds dropped dung into in his eyes (sound sleeper!) and blinded him. And who later is attacked by a fish leaping out of the river to devour him! But the angel Raphael has him capture it and he later burns the fish’s liver and heart to drive away the demon Asmodeus away to Upper Egypt, enabling him and Sarah to consummate their marriage.

Which story is like that of Jewish fables and commandments of men, (Titus 1:14) found in the Talmud, such as “He who drinks in pairs, his blood is upon his own head,” as one can be possessed by demons by drinking an even number of cups of wine, versus an odd number. One man who was thus possessed hugged a palm tree to deal with it, and the tree cried out and the man burst. [Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 110a; http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Pesachim.pdf]

^

▀ The canon prior to Luther and Trent

Overview:

While Roman Catholic apologists often argue that the canon was indisputably settled from the 4^th century onward until Luther changed it, this is contrary to what research reveals.

Luther was not alone in questioning or rejecting certain books, and his views (like early church leaders) were part of a process of development, and had the support of scholarly principles, and that of substantial Catholic scholarship from antiquity and right into Trent over the certain books, especially those of the apocrypha. (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent: St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947; pp. 278, 281-282. More)

Luther and the Reformers (overall) treated the Apocrypha as many others did, which was that these books were not to be held as equal to the Scriptures, but were useful and good to read, but not for establishment of doctrine. Luther's Bible included almost all the apocryphal books of the Catholic canon, wanting them to be available despite not being qualified to be classed as Scripture, and therefore he placed apocryphal works between the Old and New Testaments following the ancient practice of Jerome, who had separately placed such at the end of the Old Testament. (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, by Michael David Coogan, Marc Zvi Brettler, p. 457) In addition, Luther also doubted the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation of John, but did not call them apocryphal. (The Esoteric Codex: Old Testament Apocrypha by Julius Allsop, p. 2) Luther expressed that his canon was his own non-binding judgment, and his views (which he prefaced them with) on some of these books may have changed in later years, and the 66 book Protestant canon is not exactly the same as Luther's. However, it is more ancient than that of Rome's, reflecting a more ancient canon held by Palestinian Jews from before the third century, and which is affirmed in Catholicism: “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)

Thus, together with the 27 book N.T. canon that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism hold in common, and which was overall settled early in church history, the 66 book canon of Protestantism clearly has ancient support. This does not mean that the apocryphal book are of no value, and but they can be edifying, if not equally so, and I would say that the Wisdom of Solomon would be the one that comes closest to being like Scripture, yet it wrongly (apparently) ascribes itself to being from Solomon, and its possible dating by scholars can extend to just after the resurrection.

Supplement D: Church “fathers” and the place of Scripture

While overall contending for many core Scriptural truths, the church fathers are charged with not always being consistent with themselves, and as usually lacking the unanimous consent which Roman Catholicism claims for its doctrines, though Rome allows defining non-unanimous as “unanimous” according to the theory of the development of doctrine.

Vatican 1 also prohibits anyone from interpreting the Bible contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, although no infallible list of all the fathers exists (nor of all “infallible” teachings), and the most complete written compilation of the Fathers (Oxford/Edinburgh "Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," compiled by Anglicans) fills 38 volumes, and it is held that this work contains only a small selection of the writings of the Church Fathers. The perspicuity of their writings is also a challenge, and i do not find any of the samples I have read by them to be more understandable than the Scriptures, and or as edifying, and they also lead to differing doctrinal stands.

While church father were at variance with Scripture and evangelical Protestant faith in certain teachings, it is also apparent that church fathers can often be seen to be at variance with the modern church of Rome. Moreover, while Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox (EO) both largely base their claim to supremacy on church Tradition, they disagree on who all the fathers were and on aspects of what Tradition teaches, resulting in different “traditions.” These include things such as how many immersions in baptism, the use of images, instrumental music and more, with each one picking which ones it will keep. EO apologist Clark Carlton writes, The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 135)

Therefore it can be seen that holding to church Tradition does not solve the problem of divisive differences, and holding to a supreme autocratic power over the church (the pope) to define Truth is a prime cause of division between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, among others. However, truth, being exclusive by nature, is divisive, and the goal of the Godly is not simply unity, but Scriptural unity which relies upon persuading honest souls by “the manifestation of the truth,” (1Cor. 4:2), and which must above all be based on that which has been established as being infallible.

Roman Catholicism effectively holds that this supreme authority is their assuredly infallible magisterium (as the magisterium claims to infallibly define both the extent and meaning of Scripture, and requires assent of faith to its decrees), which has infallibly defined itself to be infallible whenever it speaks according to its infallibly defined formula, which autocratic circularity renders their own decree that she is infallible to be infallible, and precludes any possibility of error no matter what evidence is presented. That is, according to their interpretation only their interpretation can be correct in any conflict.

Under this presumption Rome decrees her oral church Tradition (things passed on) to be equal with Scripture, reasoning that since much of Scripture came out of Tradition, therefore it is also infallible. However, both weeds (or “tares”) and wheat come out of the same ground, yet they are not equal, and not all that was passed on or is inspired, even from those whom God used to write Scripture. However, Scripture is the part of tradition that has been established as wholly God-breathed, and is the only transcendent material source of Divine revelation on faith and morals on earth that Scripture affirms to be so. (2Tim. 3:16).

The Divine writings which make up Scripture were essentially progressively established as being of God due to their doctrinal conformity and complementarity to what had been prior established are being from God, and by the manner of effectual attestation it reveals that God gave to them, especially to new Scriptural teachings and those who preached them. (Josh. 3:7 (cf. Is. 63:12); 2Ki. 18:6,7; Mk. 16:20; Jn. 5:36; 14:11,12; Acts 4:33; 15:7-18; Rm. 15:19; Gal. 4:6; 1Thes. 1:3-10, etc.) And it is the evangelical gospel of grace that most effects manifest regeneration and its fruits, as the church that supports the truth is that of the living God. (1Tim. 3:15)

And as all Scripture is God-breathed, it is assuredly infallible, and by which all other truth claims and all teaching and preaching on faith and morals by the church must be judged by. And in particular, being God-breathed, infallible, tangible, transcendent and testable, and the extent of it being settled, by its nature Scripture stands supreme over the non-codified nebulous essence called oral Tradition, which is supremely susceptible to undetected corruption.

What Rome essentially does is presume to be as one of the inspired writers (even though she denies she is inspired like them), but rather than being moved by the Holy Spirit to pen Scripture, (2Pt. 1:20,21) she claims His guidance in what basically is the “channeling” of certain traditions into dogma or church law, and effectively adds to the canon such things as purgatory, prayer to departed saints, mandatory clerical celibacy, etc., which require extrapolating out of texts or reading into them meanings which are not there, while being contrary to what is most clearly taught.

In contrast to Scripture, we are not promised therein that the teaching office of the church will perpetually always be right whenever it speaks to the whole church on faith or morals, which Rome claims for herself, but it is evidenced that the “word of God” was usually written, and as it was it became the standard for obedience and by which further revelation was tested by and (if true) established as being from God.

Therefore, rather than holding that that church is the supreme infallible authority (sola ecclesia, or SE), the historical Protestant position has been that of Sola Scriptura (SS), which basically means that Scripture alone is the supreme infallible authority on earth, the sure “rule” “norm” or authority on faith and morals, and formally (providing basic truths) and materially (affirming such things as the church and means of discernment and teaching) sufficient. Yet in contrast to how Roman Catholic apologists (RCAs) often describe SS, “sola” does not mean that only the Bible can be used in understanding and teaching truth, nor that explicit texts are required, but that Scripture is what supremely is determinative of truth under God.

While Catholics often assert that holding to SS means that the interpreters see themselves as infallible, or that they cannot be sure of beliefs, yet appealing to Scripture as infallible is not the same as holding to assured formulaic infallibility, while Protestants can claim to be at least as sure of certain teachings of Scripture as Roman Catholics can claim to be of certain teachings of their church, and Rome does not claim that proclaiming her decrees a infallible means that they will be rightly understood.

Likewise, Protestants can claim that their canon contains all of infallible Scripture, but while Catholics assert that their magisterium provides additional infallible teachings, yet they cannot be sure that what they believe to be infallible decrees from the supreme source really are infallible — which they have a right to know before they yield the assent of faith Rome which requires of them — as there is no infallible canon of all such. In other words, while overall the canon of Protestantism's supreme authority (Scripture) was settled quite early, the RC cannot tell what all the infallible decrees from its supreme authority consist of, as there is no infallible canon of all infallible decrees.

In addition, while Catholics often attempt to argue that being the instrument of New Testament revelation (which they assert Rome uniquely was as regards the N.T.) and stewards of it makes Rome the assuredly infallible interpreters of Scripture, this leap of specious logic would have required submission to the Jews, as unlike a church in Rome, they were explicitly affirmed to be the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) But which did not confer on them an assured perpetual infallible magisterium, nor was this necessary, as God knows how to raise up men from without the formal magisterial office to correct them by Scripture, which the Lord did when those who sat in the seat of Moses (Mt 23:2) presumed to teach as doctrine the unscriptural “tradition of the elders.” (Mk. 7:3-16)

A Roman Catholic premise is also that its “living” magisterium is necessary to provide answers to divisive issues in a timely manner is not reality, as this can take generations, and still leaves many things which RCs can disagree on, especially what Scripture texts mean.

Lay Catholics not only interpret which teachings are infallible, and what they mean, as well as the meaning of teachings from the non-infallible magisterium (from whence the bulk of Roman Catholic teaching comes from, and in which some dissent is allowed), but they also have much liberty to interpret the Bible in order to support Rome, as long as they do not contradict her, according to their understanding of what she teaches. And which has resulted in varying attempts to wrest support for teachings which were not soundly derived from Scripture in the first place, but were a product of her selective use of her amorphous Tradition.

As far as assurance is concerned however, the Scriptures do promise this, based upon Scriptural conformity to texts and fruit and attestation, objectively examined. (Acts 17:2,11; 1Thes. 1:5; 2Tim. 3:14; 1Jn. 3:19; 5:13) While the magisterium is Scriptural and critical, no promise is given of assured formulaic infallibility, but God raises up men from without the formal office to correct it, as needed, with the Scriptures being abundantly evidenced to be the supreme infallible material standard for obedience and testing truth claims.

What the Catholic premise overall misses is that of how truth was Scripturally established, which was not through a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium as per Rome, but that ultimately by Divine power, and essentially the Scriptures were established as being from God due to that, with the manifest power of God attesting to men of God and what they wrote, and that becoming the standard for obedience and future truth claims, with divine writings being established as from God due to their conflation and complementarity with what has been previously established as Scripture, and heavenly qualities and effects, and often by other supernatural attestation given them by God, consistent with His word. (Josh. 3:7 (cf. Is. 63:12); 2Ki. 18:6,7; Mk. 16:20; Jn. 5:36; 14:11,12; Acts 4:33; 15:7-18; Rm. 15:19; Gal. 4:6; 1Thes. 1:3-10, Heb. 2:3,4, Rv. 12:11, etc.) And likewise was apostolic authority which affirmed the Scriptures. (Rm. 15:19; 1Cor. 2:4,5; 4:19)

And it is the historical evangelical preaching of the gospel of the grace of God, (versus its institutional Catholic counterpart), which convicts souls “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” (Jn. 16:9) which has most effected manifest regeneration, in correspondence to Scripture, To God be the glory, though we (i) come short of all that He would do if we stood in the way, and more fully and firmly walked in the old gospel paths of Scripture. TOC

Link to index page (http://peacebyjesus.net/Ancients_on_Issues.html). To download the file that these compilations are from, download this file (http://peacebyjesus.net/cbnrc.exe) for Windows-based computers, and install the executable to a location you choose, then run the CBNRC.chm file)