Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?
Catholic Exchange ^ | April 2, 2013 | JOHN ZMIRAK

Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer

Q: Okay, so what is the Christian account of how revelation occurred?

As Elmer Fudd might say, “Vewy, vewy swowly.” Divine revelation didn’t happen in a blinding flash—such as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them….) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I don’t pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.

So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the world—which might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole “apple incident,” combined with crude deductions that boil down to “Nothing comes from nothing.” But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.

The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligan’s Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles—7 of them, instead of 613—and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. That’s the reason that Jews don’t generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:

Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensical—though we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.

Q: That ark must have been the size of Alabama…

I know, I know.

Q. …to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose…

Okay, smart guy.

Q. …not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure they’re mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.

Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.

Look, there’s a reason why Catholics don’t read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and haven’t since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegory—which means that on top of some historical content (and there’s flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we don’t use this principle to explain away Jesus’ miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literally—except for “This is my body,” (Luke 22: 19) “Thou art Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) and “No, your pastor can’t get divorced.” (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.

Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?

In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldn’t we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primary—some of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Mary’s childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the “Gospel of Thomas,” which has Jesus using His “superpowers” to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door: that bible you’re waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographic—who every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas’ “To-do” list.

In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scriptures—but with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the “faithful remnant” who’d remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abraham’s sacrifice, and Isaiah’s references to the “suffering servant.” The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet who’d tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom they’d gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name….

The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul converted—books that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabees—which means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But don’t tell the judges in New York City, or they’ll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.

TOPICS: Catholic; History; Ministry/Outreach; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: bible; biblecopyright; catholicism; copyright; scripture; theology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 661-672 next last
To: JCBreckenridge; Elsie
Given that these passages were in the Vulgate prior to Luther, then yes, he took them out.

Luther did NOT take any books out of the Bible. I've referenced this work a half a dozen times just in the last six months. Please take a few moments to educate yourself about what is the truth about this rather than what deceivers want people to think. Here it is again:

From 1: Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible:

    An obvious sign that someone has not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, “Luther removed books from the Bible,” or “Luther removed books from the New Testament.” It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. During these years, various incomplete editions were released. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”[9]

    Even after Luther finished his translation, he never ceased revising it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, “He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.”[10] Great care and work went into Luther’s Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated. As Catholic writer John Todd observed, “The work was done with great method…”[11] Todd then relates this famous description:

    “Dr. M. Luther gathered his own Sanhedrin of the best persons available, which assembled weekly, several hours before supper in the doctor’s cloister, namely D. Johann Burgenhagen, D. Justus Jonas, D. Creuziger, M. Philippum, Mattheum Aurogallum; Magister Georg Roerer, the Korrektor was also present…M. Philipp brought the Greek text with him. D Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to Hebrew. The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text…The President submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the doctors in earlier times.”[12]

    Thus, Luther’s Bible is not simply the result of Martin Luther: “Especially in his work on the Old Testament, Luther considered himself to be only one of a consortium of scholars at work on the project. He was convinced a translator should not work alone, for as he said, ‘the correct and appropriate words do not always occur to one person alone.’”[13] Rather than Luther expressing authoritarian power over the translation or removing books from the Bible by fiat, the facts of history show Luther involved other capable scholars. They worked throughout their lives to translate every book of the Bible, and even those books which “are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

    Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with “Luther removed books from the canon.” For an example of such confusion, see the claims of this Catholic apologist here. If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luther’s Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. Catholic apologists that equivocate in such a way should either define their arguments more carefully, or account for the fact that Luther included all the books in his Bible.

121 posted on 04/03/2013 10:04:26 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: mitch5501
No but some certainly seem to go to a lot of trouble to diminish it's importance.After all,so much of it is simply poetic stories and can't be taken at face value.

Ever wonder why? I think it is because they know that some of what they teach goes against what the Scriptures teach. If everything matches perfectly, then there wouldn't be a need to assert authority over what God has given us. The Roman Catholic Church says that the Scriptures+Tradition*+the Church Magesterium = the truth of the Christian faith. *Tradition being what they claim was orally taught but not written down in the Bible. That way, whenever anyone notices that a RC teaching is contradicted by Scripture, they can say that whatever the Church teaches is the truth and you just have to take their word for it because they are THE church. All the past mistakes and corrections that have happened over the course of their history is marked off as simply "development" of doctrine - the Church growing in her understanding of the truth or human errors that weren't "official".

Much like the author of this thread article, they explain away things they get wrong or don't accept as, "God didn't MEAN it to be taken literally!" or, "Just trust us on this.". If I have to choose between man says or what God says, there would be no hesitation...God's word trumps man's!

122 posted on 04/03/2013 10:50:03 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
123 posted on 04/03/2013 10:59:39 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"If I have to choose between man says or what God says, there would be no hesitation...God's word trumps man's!"

Amen to that dear sister! and of course we will have to answer to God for that...for "how readest thou?"...I am happy to have to answer for that!

Over the years I've spoken to many who profess Christ and also over those years I have come to prick up my 'spiritual ears' when anyone starts preaching 'their' particular church instead of Jesus.It happens a lot and since reading the RF over the years it's become apparent that none hold a candle to the RC in that department.I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong but we are supposed to preach "Christ and Him crucified" and that,on the RF is far more rare than it should be!

God's grace to you bb and thankyou for your patience in posting the same rebuttals over and over and over again!

124 posted on 04/04/2013 1:03:18 AM PDT by mitch5501 ("make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things ye shall never fall")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

...And the virgin birth?.....the feeding of the multitudes?.......and the raising of Lazurus?.....and the resurrection?.....

125 posted on 04/04/2013 3:00:11 AM PDT by wesagain (The God #Elohim# of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the One True GOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
"Exactly, as the divine substance of God’s Word has no relation to the paper and ink, which maintain the properties of paper and ink."

Not exactly. Scripture is of God, and that Scripture tells us that the Eucharist IS God.

Peace be with you

126 posted on 04/04/2013 3:14:57 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: NYer

God’s Holy Bible came via the Church.

127 posted on 04/04/2013 3:51:47 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Though, there might be some books like them, I suppose, that God has chosen to keep hidden during these times for some reason.


128 posted on 04/04/2013 4:06:12 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

What would a ‘missing’ book do?

What would be it’s effect?

1. Reinforce what we alREADY know, or...
2. Reveal to us that OMG!!!! We ain’t saved after all!!!!

129 posted on 04/04/2013 4:13:10 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Given that these passages were in the Vulgate prior to Luther, then yes, he took them out.

But you didn't address this challenge: The same reason Catholicism stuffs things in?

130 posted on 04/04/2013 4:15:03 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Here is a group of text downloads for a number versions of the KJV in various languages.

There's an oxymoron for you!

131 posted on 04/04/2013 4:16:45 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
What I liked about it was the entire bible text would fit on a 3-1/2” floppy.


I started, LOooooong ago, with a shareware/freeware KJV that I picked up from a local grocery store; from a kiosk that stood near the checkout lanes.

132 posted on 04/04/2013 4:22:16 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
All it requires is Your Own Personal Opinion.

Calling NARSES!!

Pickup the white courtesy phone.

133 posted on 04/04/2013 4:23:32 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
**Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?**

**Who Holds the Joseph Smith Translation (Inspired Version) Copyright?**

Why... The Community of Christ; of course!

134 posted on 04/04/2013 4:27:06 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Since when does the Author’s work become property of the editors?

You are ON to something!!!

135 posted on 04/04/2013 4:30:12 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

NOW you are in trouble!

You KNOW how incensed our MORMON friends on FR get when excerpts from THEIR publications get exposted!

136 posted on 04/04/2013 4:33:57 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge; Boogieman
“until then there was no infallible, indisputable canon” Were they included in Gutenberg’s bible?

Its Old Testament included the books that Jerome considered apocryphal, plus books considered apocryphal by Catholics, 3 and 4 Esdras (note nomenclature can be confusing) Prayer of Manasseh and i have read that Clement VIII later moved these to the appendix.

And why did the Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament, and soon receive papal sanction?

As for the Vulgate, the apocrypha came to be included, if not uniformly or universally in all versions and "In his famous 'Prologus Galeatus', or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he (Jerome) declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament).

Moreover, the inclusion of apoc. books in the GB is irrelevant as it does not infer or establish an indisputable canon prior of Trent, and that Luther dissented from one and was a maverick in doing do is untenable.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (

“The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (

“The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.

Decrees by non-ecumenical early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence were not infallible, and thus doubts and disputes among scholars continued right into Trent. The decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” indisputable and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent : Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17, and see below) after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.

Luther's own Bible contained the apocrypha, save for 1 and 2 Esdra, but separately as per an ancient tradition denoting their "second canon' status. The page to see on Luther's canon is here .

The Catholic Encyclopedia (Canon of the Old Testament) affirms, “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.” (

British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)

The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament;

The Eastern Orthodox theologian Demetrios J. Constantelos also observed, "The early church as a whole did not take a definite position for or against the Deuterocanonicals. Church leaders and ecclesiastical writers of both the Greek east and Latin west were not in full agreement. Some preferred the Hebrew canon, while others accepted the longer canon that included the Deuterocanonicals. The ambivalence of ecumenical and local synods (Nicea, 325 CE; Rome, 382; Laodicea, 365; Hippo, 393) was resolved by the Trullan Synod (692). It adopted deliberations of councils that had favored the shorter list, and decisions of other synods that had advocated the longer list" . See his article “Eastern Orthodoxy and the Bible” in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 174.

Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Hubert_Jedin explained. “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin writes that his position was

“Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)

“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282;

Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— Not only was the canon not settled before Trent, with Trent following one of two scholarly tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired, but it is still a matter of debate whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and other councils: More here on all this.

Thus while Roman Catholics often charge that Luther excluded some books as being Scripture due to doctrinal reasons, Luther did have some scholarly reasons and concurrence in Rome for his exclusions.

137 posted on 04/04/2013 4:34:16 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
“An infallible magisterium is not necessary to recognize and establish writings as Scripture” Indeed. All it requires is Your Own Personal Opinion. You can have it your way.

So rather than arguing that an infallible magisterium is not necessary to recognize and establish writings as Scripture, which you cannot, you presume that the alternative is "sola individualistica" (if there is such a word)?"

This is misleading as as SS disallows claiming assured infallibility, so that neither the individual nor the council are the supreme authority. It was by manifestation of the truth that a general consensus saw writings established as Scripture before there ever was a church in Rome, and which writings the church relied upon. And it is by "manifestation of the truth" (2Cor. 4:2) that the claim to be the church of the living (not dead) God continues to be established.

And yet all individuals, including Catholics, choose what they will believe from pastors, and engage in some interpretation. For they individually first choose to submit to Rome, and then to continue, and then often must engage in some interpretation of what is taught, and what magisterial level a teaching falls under, and thus what degree of assent is required. In addition, your last pope taught that “over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else..,” even it is not an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

However, under Rome is where "sola individualistica" is supremely manifest, if the pope is not subject to ecumenical council as most Roman Catholics (Bellarmine, etc.) hold, and Dictatus Papae and other teaching affirms (thus no council, not even an Ecumenical one — which he must call and approve — has authority to depose a Pope against his will). Others hold that he is subject to councils, for his “relation is one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of "intrinsic cohesion."

138 posted on 04/04/2013 4:49:58 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Sorry, should have said Jewish scripture - thinking probably of "Where, where are the Hebrew children"? Hate typing on an iPad!

I really like the LXX because I can't get past the aleph-beis, but I do read Greek.

139 posted on 04/04/2013 4:54:11 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Relax. Read C.S. Lewis on Job, he gets it. The fact that a Biblical book is allegorical (like Job) or in the style of a pious Jewish fable (like Tobit) does NOT foreclose its value or its truth. The problem with the revisionist Bible “scholars” is not literary or historiographic analysis, but that they are bad scholars in that they set out to DISPROVE scripture.

140 posted on 04/04/2013 4:59:05 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 661-672 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson