Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?

Self | January 2011 | Aquinasfan

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?

If Luther did not act infallibly:

- How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?
- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?

If Luther acted infallibly:

- How do you know?

[onedoug]

Get well soon.

[Vegasrugrat]

Can’t go wrong with Sola Scriptura.

You will never go wrong with Sola Scriptura!

[metmom]

So when Paul says for instance, in Corinthians,
“I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.” he was not speaking to them to be united in faith and beliefs. And if he were, does that not imply that there is a central and universal truth to which he wished all would adhere?

Church is always used singularly, for the church was to be as one. One mind, one faith, one baptism. Just as Jesus prayed for it to be.

And again, it does not necessarily follow that the Roman Catholic church IS that church.

They claim that they are, but that is spurious indeed.

For one thing, the RCC simply cannot trace its roots back to Peter as certainly as they would like everyone to believe. There's too much unknown of the first 300 years of church history.

The other thing is, due to the behavior and practices for most of its history, the Catholic church has basically disqualified itself from being able to claim that it alone is the true church of God on earth.

While I know most Catholics then turn around and argue that no one is perfect and God uses sinful men, yada, yada, yada, we are not talking occasional mistakes, errors in judgment, or falling into sin on occasion, but rather a history replete with immorality and corruption of the worst kind. Deliberate, pre-mediated sin is NOT excusable in any one who desires the office of elder or deacon.

No matter what office or position they held, sexual immorality disqualifies them from holding office by Scriptural command.

Titus 1:5-16 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

The clergy of the Catholic church does NOT meet the qualifications set forth here by Paul and for most of its history hasn't. Certainly not men like these ten worst popes.

These men are NOT part of the true church on earth. If the Catholic church owns them, then the Catholic church can no longer claim that title either.

[Free Vulcan]

You have a very Rome-centric view of church history. The fact is that Constantinople was the major church power for several hundred years, and the Syriac and African churches didn't weaken until the Muslim conquests.

They all considered themselves equal and didn't acknowledge the superiority of one over the other. Part of what caused the schisms in the early church was one trying to assert superiority over the others. There was a strong resistance to acknowledging a universal church authority. Here is a timeline of the church schisms:

[caww]

Well how is Jim and his crew going to cover another server?

[CynicalBear]

>>Your opinion, brother, which is not an infallible one:)<<

That’s why I leave the infallible stuff to those who wrote the scriptures. After all Jesus did tell them not to worry about what to say or write but that the Holy spirit would give them the words. He didn’t tell anyone else that.

[daniel1212]

“Church is always used singularly”

Actually it is not, but “churches” occurs 36 times in the N.T.

As for unity, comprehensive doctrinal unity was always a goal not realized, and the much invoked “unanimous consent of the fathers” Rome claims for her official definitions is a myth. (http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf)

But the church could be of one heart and and mind in dedication, love and faith. And the basic unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3) is a supernatural phenomenon, the Jesus being them and they in Him, which corresponds to Jn. 17:21, resulting from being born again, and transcends churches and is greater than disagreements, thank God.

And what no church is ever told to do is to submit to Peter as its supreme head, (though he was the leader among brethren and exercised a general pastoral function) which we would expect if they were like Rome became, nor was there any manifest provision made for a successor for him.

RC Patrologist Boniface Ramsey,
“Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.’ —Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6.

RC theologian Yves Congar,
“In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.” — Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.

Catholic historian and political conservatives Paul Johnson in his 1976 work “History of Christianity” states:
“By the third century, lists of bishops, each of whom had consecrated his successor, and which went back to the original founding of the see by one or the other of the apostles, had been collected or manufactured by most of the great cities of the empire and were reproduced by Eusebius…”– “A History of Christianity,” pgs 53 ff.)

Roger Collins (http://www.shc.ed.ac.uk/staff/hon_fellows/rcollins) adds,
“There was … no individual, committee or council of leaders within the Christian movement that could pronounce on which beliefs and practices were acceptable and which were not. This was particularly true of Rome with its numerous small groups of believers. Different Christian teachers and organizers of house-churches offered a variety of interpretations of the faith and attracted particular followings, rather in the way that modern denominations provide choice for worshipers looking for practices that particularly appeal to them on emotional, intellectual, aesthetic or other grounds (15-16).

American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown, “The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)

[daniel1212]

This may help as concerns the USA (see http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Education_in_the_United_States for whole article, praise God): While widespread free and inclusive primary public schooling would not begin in America until the late 1800's, the first public school in America was founded April 23, 1635 in Boston, Mass. . Boston Latin School was begun by the Puritan preacher John Cotton, who modeled the school after the Free Grammar School in Boston, England, which taught Latin and Greek, these being languages which copies of Biblical manuscripts were written in. The school was publicly funded, with the first classes being held in the home of the schoolmaster Philemon Pormort. Five of the 56 signers of the U.S. Constitution attended Boston Latin: Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine, Samuel Adams, and William Hooper.^[1]

Much due to the Protestant belief that lay people should learn to read the Bible in English, instead of Latin or Greek, many colonists pushed for literacy. In 1647 the Massachusetts colonial legislature commented that as the "old deluder Satan" had worked to keep the Bible (in the vernacular) from the people in the times before the Protestant Reformation, they passed a law that towns of over 50 families should provide a school.

However, education was mainly considered to be a local, or a family responsibility, often using private schools, rather than being an duty of the State. Ralph Walker, author of Old Readers, believes that in this period "children were often taught to read at home before they were subjected to the rigours of school. In middle-class families, where the mother would be expected to be literate, this was considered part of her duties.^[2]

In Puritan New England this seems to have been particularly evidenced. In The Intellectual Life of New England Samuel Eliot Morison notes that Boston Latin was "the only public school down to 1684, when a writing school was established; and it is probable that only children who already read were admitted to that . . . . they must have learned to read somehow, since there is no evidence of unusual illiteracy in the town. And a Boston bookseller’s stock in 1700 includes no less than eleven dozen spellers and sixty-one dozen primers." ^[3]

While Congress declared in the Land Ordinance of 1785 that a section of every township which was surveyed in the public lands in the western territories was to be set aside for the maintenance of public schools, and a similar provision was made in the the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 for the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley regions, neither ordinance was fully implemented.^[4]

Robert A Peterson^[5] argues,

For two hundred years in American history, from the mid-1600s to the mid-1800s,...America produced several generations of highly skilled and literate men and women who laid the foundation for a nation dedicated to the principles of freedom and self-government. The private system of education in which our forefathers were educated included home, school, church, voluntary associations such as library companies and philosophical societies, circulating libraries, apprenticeships, and private study. It was a system supported primarily by those who bought the services of education, and by private benefactors. All was done without compulsion. Although there was a veneer of government involvement in some colonies, such as in Puritan Massachusetts, early American education was essentially based on the principle of voluntarism.^[6]

Libraries with good books contributed to the literacy of the average American. Desire for books brought a large number of libraries into existence. These included church libraries, which were supported primarily by voluntarism. Non-private, non-church libraries in America were first maintained by membership fees, and by gifts of books and money from private benefactors interested in education. Entrepreneurs also served to fulfill the desire for self-improvement by colonial Americans, providing new services and innovative ways to sell or rent printed matter. ^[7]

According to Benjamin Franklin, the North American libraries alone “have improved the general conversation of Americans, made the common tradesmen and farmers as intelligent as most gentlemen from other countries, and perhaps have contributed in some degree to the stand so generally made throughout the colonies in defense of their privileges.^[8]

Some contend that in colonial America literacy rates were as high or higher than they are today.^[9] Ruth Wallis Herndon, in Literacy among New England's transient poor, 1750-1800, states that Using different sources, a number of "historians have discovered a nearly universal literacy among New England men and varying levels of literacy among New England women in the latter part of the eighteenth century."^[10]

However, nationwide access to education was not universal, and was seen to be insufficient by some.

[Mr Rogers]

"Literacy was limited in the middle and dark age to only the very few and most historians would attest to that fact."

Odd, then, that as soon as Wycliffe and Tyndale did their translations, that people risked their lives to buy and distribute them.

"Calling Tyndale's translation a “Good translation” is a prime facile example of the prideful private interpretation employed to deceive the faithful."

Tyndale was the basis for the KJV New Testament. The KJV was the basis for the revised Douay-Rheims Challoner in the 1700s.

Tyndale's translation is still available, and I use it regularly. If you don't own one, here is the 1526 edition - feel free to tell me what error you find, and the heresy:

[Mr Rogers]

Closer up:

[driftdiver]

Well if the Church didn’t allow people to learn latin how were the parents supposed to learn it so they could then teach their child?

hmmm?

[daniel1212]

That Rome was acting in self interest is true, but that Rome did not promote Biblical literacy is also true, and until recently little of the Bible was read in Mass, and still is not much.

The average Catholic does not even get to Mass weekly, less alone daily as would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle, and it has already been established that historically Rome did not encourage Bible literacy among the laity, and even discouraged it. Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951. Also “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) While that is increased since before Vatican Two, just going to Mass will NOT give a functional knowledge of Scripture.

Why is Mamab unqualified to read the Word of God? Can you tell me where I can find that in scripture - that man is unqualified to read the Word of God? I thought faith came from hearing...and hearing from the Word of God. I think the question is, “Did the Catholic Church forbid Bible reading, or to what scope and degree?” Yes: http://www.bible.ca/cath-bible-attitude-towards.htm No: http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/did_the_catholic_church_forbid_bible_reading.htm While the accusations of censure of the Bible are sometimes exaggerated, and while Roman Catholicism did print Bibles in the common (“vulgar”) tongue, and among other encouragements, Pius VI. in his letter to Martini, the author of a translation of the Bible into Italian, commended its printing and reading, yet for much of her history she evidences that it did not place a priority upon personal Biblical literacy among the laity, including by requiring permission to do so, or more rarely, an outright ban in some places. Historical view: It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read (John v, 47; Acts viii, 28; xvii, 11; II Tim. iii, 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). The Middle Ages: 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) “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) 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 lesons 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] 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] 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 dictionary states that, “In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people...New dangers came in during the Middle Ages...To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Terragona, (1234) [local councils], forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Toulouse was in response to the Albigensian heresy, and it is understood that when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France. 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). Pius IV 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). The Bull Unigenitus, published at Rome, September 8, 1713, as part of its censure of the propositions of Jansenism*, condemned the following: 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. 83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born. 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) The Council of Trent did allow reading of Scripture, but apparently only after a license in writing was obtained from the proper ecclesiastical authority: 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. H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with English Translation (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1955), p. 274-75. http://teachers.sduhsd.net/mmontgomery/world_history/reformation/trent.htm Between 1567 and 1773, not a single edition of an Italian-language Bible was printed anywhere in the Italian peninsula." “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 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.)

Douai-Rheims New Testament [verbose] Introduction, excerpts: 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,..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. More excerpts: 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, Providentissimus deus on the study of Holy Scripture Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII , November 18, 1893, states, 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. 23. In order that all these endeavors and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures -- and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm However, while this 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, in which historical accounts are relegated to being fables and folk tales, such is seen in the NAB, which impugns upon the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and Catholics themselves have complained that it relegates numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, among other denials, along with having other problems and gender inclusive language. Protestant translations of the Bible were not the only books to be banned. 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 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 INTER PRAECIPUAS (On Biblical Societies) of Pope Gregory XVI declared: 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. Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus 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." Since Vatican a marked difference in the Roman Catholic attitude toward general Bible reading became evident. 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) "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) *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. 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.

The official RC Bible for America, the NAB impugns upon the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and Catholics themselves have complained that it relegates numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, among other denials, along with other problems and gender inclusive language.

The USCCB owns the copyright for the NAB and the RNAB, and a Catholic podcast Lectionary even got a quick "cease and desist" letter for violating copyright However, their Bible text had to be amended for the lectionary because the Vatican rejected it for Mass no one in authority seems inclined to incorporate these same emendations back into the RNAB.

Also, the NAB footnotes assert alleged contradictions in Scripture, and Catholics are divided on whether the Vatican Two statement in Dei Verbum, which was the result of a behind-the-scenes debate at Vatican II about inerrancy, and states 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 domain, which at least one frequent Roman Catholic poster here seems to think, if that, versus what Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus states. Of course, there is also disagreement as to whether all encyclicals are infallible, or how much therein is. Also debated is whether the Bible teaches geocentrism.

[caww]

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

They certainly provided an environment for control by not allowing or encouraging reading of the scriptures. But would make sense that they would do so in order to firmly establish Romes agendas. Actually cults do this today...they ease people away from the scriptures to their own literature or books...and it unfortunately doesn't take much to get people to do that as so many today are looking for something "new".

[caww]

encyclicals .....what exactly are these Daniel? I see them on the Vatican site.

[cookcounty]

"historically Rome did not encourage Bible literacy among the laity, and even discouraged it."

I was in a community Bible Study way back in 1971, when a young man with a bachelor's degree who was studying to be a priest sat in with us. The text was from the Gospel of Mark. After a few minutes of fumbling around, I ended his embarrassment by quietly showing him where it was in the New Testament. I didn't say anything to him negative, but I was very shocked and amazed. Still am.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

‘Well if the Church didn’t allow people to learn latin how were the parents supposed to learn it so they could then teach their child?’

The higher social levels in the Roman Empire were literate in Latin long before the Church had much influence on society. People wrote each other letters, generally about business matters. Most of the population of the former Empire were descendants of Roman citizens from that day to this. Each generation learned from the previous one for hundreds of years. In addition there were occasional development and provision of Grammar (Latin) schools by some more progressive secular leaders, notably Charlemagne in France and Germany and Alfred the Great in Anglo Saxon Britain, which lead to an improvement in the general level of English proficiency.

[daniel1212]

Its a papal post to the church, A Papal Encyclical is the name typically given to a letter written by a Pope to a particular audience of Bishops.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/encyclical.htm

This audience of Bishops may be all of the Bishops in a specific country or all of the Bishops in all countries throughout the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical

According to its etymology, an encyclical (from the Greek egkyklios, kyklos meaning a circle) is nothing more than a circular letter. In modern times, usage has confined the term almost exclusively to certain papal documents which differ in their technical form from the ordinary style of either Bulls or Briefs, and which in their superscription are explicitly addressed to the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops of the Universal Church in communion with the Apostolic See. By exception, encyclicals are also sometimes addressed to the archbishops and bishops of a particular country.”

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Bulls and Briefs further explains other papal documents:

“In official language papal documents have at all times been called by various names, more or less descriptive of their character. For example, there are “constitutions,” i.e., decisions addressed to all the faithful and determining some matter of faith or discipline; “encyclicals,” which are letters sent to all the bishops of Christendom, or at least to all those in one particular country, and intended to guide them in their relations with their flocks; “decrees,” pronouncements on points affecting the general welfare of the Church; “decretals” (epistolae decretales), which are papal replies to some particular difficulty submitted to the Holy See, but having the force of precedents to rule on all analogous cases. “Rescript,” again, is a form applicable to almost any form of Apostolic letter which has been elicited by some previous appeal, while the nature of a “privilege” speaks for itself. But all these, down to the fifteenth century, seem to have been expedited by the papal chancery in the shape of bulls authenticated with leaden seals, and it is common enough to apply the term bull even to those very early papal letters of which we know little more than the substance, independently of the forms under which they were issue

---

But whether all encyclicals are infallible is one more things which Catholics may debates, as there is no infallible list of all infallible statements.

[daniel1212]

And formally and or effectively hold men or office to be a superior authority over the Scriptures.

Back to encyclicals, here is some of what they can say due to said exaltation:

But such extraBiblical

The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help...How rightly, too, has every nation and every liturgy without exception acclaimed her great renown, which has grown greater with the voice of each succeeding century. Among her many other titles we find her hailed as ‘our Lady, our Mediatrix,’ (St. Bernard, Serm.II in Adv. 4) ‘the Reparatrix of the whole world,’ (St. Tharasius, Orat. in Praesentatione) ‘the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.’ (On Off. Graec., 8 Dec.).” Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #8.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm

‘O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.’” Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #9.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm

With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ. Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother.” Pope Leo XIII, in Octobri Mense (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 22, 1891, # 4.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro1.htm

Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: ‘Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.’”Pope Leo XIII, in Iucunda Semper Expectatione (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 8, 1894, #5.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro5.htm

“The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” Pope Pius IX, in Ubi Primum (On the Immaculate Conception), Encyclical promulgated on February 2, 1849, #5.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ubipr2.htm

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Oops — ‘an improvement in the general level of Latin proficiency.’

[metmom]

And we keep being told, by the Catholics, it’s all about Jesus?

They’re obviously failed Catholics then because they are NOT following the teachings of their church.