Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”

Crisis Magazine ^ | October 3, 2014 | RICHARD BECKER

[NYer]

“Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught,
either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
~ St. Paul to the Thessalonians

A former student of mine is thinking of becoming a Catholic, and she had a question for me. “I don’t understand the deuterocanonical books,” she ventured. “If the Catholic faith is supposed to be a fulfillment of the Jewish faith, why do Catholics accept those books and the Jews don’t?” She’d done her homework, and was troubled that the seven books and other writings of the deuterocanon had been preserved only in Greek instead of Hebrew like the rest of the Jewish scriptures—which is part of the reason why they were classified, even by Catholics, as a “second” (deutero) canon.

My student went on. “I’m just struggling because there are a lot of references to those books in Church doctrine, but they aren’t considered inspired Scripture. Why did Luther feel those books needed to be taken out?” she asked. “And why are Protestants so against them?”

The short answer sounds petty and mean, but it’s true nonetheless: Luther jettisoned those “extra” Old Testament books—Tobit, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the like—because they were inconvenient. The Apocrypha (or, “false writings”), as they came to be known, supported pesky Catholic doctrines that Luther and other reformers wanted to suppress—praying for the dead, for instance, and the intercession of the saints. Here’s John Calvin on the subject:

Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?

However, the deuterocanonical literature was (and is) prominent in the liturgy and very familiar to that first generation of Protestant converts, so Luther and company couldn’t very well ignore it altogether. Consequently, those seven “apocryphal” books, along with the Greek portions of Esther and Daniel, were relegated to an appendix in early Protestant translations of the Bible.

Eventually, in the nineteenth century sometime, many Protestant Bible publishers starting dropping the appendix altogether, and the modern translations used by most evangelicals today don’t even reference the Apocrypha at all. Thus, the myth is perpetuated that nefarious popes and bishops have gotten away with brazenly foisting a bunch of bogus scripture on the ignorant Catholic masses.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

To begin with, it was Luther and Calvin and the other reformers who did all the foisting. The Old Testament that Christians had been using for 1,500 years had always included the so-called Apocrypha, and there was never a question as to its canonicity. Thus, by selectively editing and streamlining their own versions of the Bible according to their sectarian biases (including, in Luther’s case, both Testaments, Old and New), the reformers engaged in a theological con game. To make matters worse, they covered their tracks by pointing fingers at the Catholic Church for “adding” phony texts to the closed canon of Hebrew Sacred Writ.

In this sense, the reformers were anticipating what I call the Twain-Jefferson approach to canonical revisionism. It involves two simple steps.

• Step one: Identify the parts of Scripture that you find especially onerous or troublesome. Generally, these will be straightforward biblical references that don’t quite square with the doctrine one is championing or the practices one has already embraced. Mark Twain is the modern herald of this half of creative textual reconstruction: “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me,” Twain wrote, “it is the parts that I do understand.”

• Step two: Yank the vexing parts out. It’s what Thomas Jefferson literally did when he took his own Bible and cut out the passages he found offensive—a kind of “scripture by subtraction” in the words of religion professor Stephen Prothero.

The reformers justified their Twain-Jefferson humbug by pointing to the canon of scriptures in use by European Jews during that time, and it did not include those extra Catholic books—case closed! Still unconvinced? Today’s defenders of the reformers’ biblical reshaping will then proceed to throw around historical precedent and references to the first-century Council of Jamnia, but it’s all really smoke and mirrors.

The fact is that the first-century Jewish canon was pretty mutable and there was no universal definitive list of sacred texts. On the other hand, it is indisputable that the version being used by Jesus and the Apostles during that time was the Septuagint—the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures that included Luther’s rejected apocryphal books. SCORE: Deuterocanon – 1; Twain-Jefferson Revisionism – 0.

But this is all beside the point. It’s like an argument about creationism vs. evolution that gets funneled in the direction of whether dinosaurs could’ve been on board Noah’s Ark. Once you’re arguing about that, you’re no longer arguing about the bigger issue of the historicity of those early chapters in Genesis. The parallel red herring here is arguing over the content of the Christian Old Testament canon instead of considering the nature of authority itself and how it’s supposed to work in the Church, especially with regards to the Bible.

I mean, even if we can settle what the canon should include, we don’t have the autographs (original documents) from any biblical books anyway. While we affirm the Church’s teaching that all Scripture is inspired and teaches “solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings” (DV 11), there are no absolutes when it comes to the precise content of the Bible.

Can there be any doubt that this is by God’s design? Without the autographs, we are much less tempted to worship a static book instead of the One it reveals to us. Even so, it’s true that we are still encouraged to venerate the Scriptures, but we worship the incarnate Word—and we ought not confuse the two. John the Baptist said as much when he painstakingly distinguished between himself, the announcer, and the actual Christ he was announcing. The Catechism, quoting St. Bernard, offers a further helpful distinction:

The Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living.”

Anyway, with regards to authority and the canon of Scripture, Mark Shea couldn’t have put it more succinctly than his recent response to a request for a summary of why the deuterocanon should be included in the Bible:

Because the Church in union with Peter, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) granted authority by Christ to loose and bind (Matthew 16:19), says they should be.

Right. The Church says so, and that’s good enough.

For it’s the Church who gives us the Scriptures. It’s the Church who preserves the Scriptures and tells us to turn to them. It’s the Church who bathes us in the Scriptures with the liturgy, day in and day out, constantly watering our souls with God’s Word. Isn’t it a bit bizarre to be challenging the Church with regards to which Scriptures she’s feeding us with? “No, mother,” the infant cries, “not breast milk! I want Ovaltine! Better yet, how about some Sprite!”

Think of it this way. My daughter Margaret and I share an intense devotion to Betty Smith’s remarkable novel, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. It’s a bittersweet family tale of impoverishment, tragedy, and perseverance, and we often remark how curious it is that Smith’s epic story receives so little attention.

I was rooting around the sale shelf at the public library one day, and I happened upon a paperback with the name “Betty Smith” on the spine. I took a closer look: Joy in the Morning, a 1963 novel of romance and the struggles of newlyweds, and it was indeed by the same Smith of Tree fame. I snatched it up for Meg.

The other day, Meg thanked me for the book, and asked me to be on the lookout for others by Smith. “It wasn’t nearly as good as Tree,” she said, “and I don’t expect any of her others to be as good. But I want to read everything she wrote because Tree was so wonderful.”

See, she wants to get to know Betty Smith because of what she encountered in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. And all we have are her books and other writings; Betty Smith herself is gone.

But Jesus isn’t like that. We have the book, yes, but we have more. We still have the Word himself.

[editor-surveyor]

I provided the chief thrust of Yeshua’s earthly ministry: Crushing the Jewish nicolaitan Prushim and their false man made laws.

The churches have simply mimicked the Prushim, and done it well.

[annalex]

Ah, OK. Your phrase "The codices of the LXX that have the deuterocanonicals were the not the immediate product of the Jewish magisterium, but were apparently the result of 4th-5th Century Christian scholarship", combined with "Timothy’s OT was, best we know, absent the deuterocanonicals" (#766) made me perceive the assertion that the Deteurocaninicals were supposedly not written yet in 1 C. AD. So the contention is that the Septuagint does not have a well-defined table of content, while Jewish "canon" did not have them in it.

All that may be so; it is not then at least "absurd on its face" as I wrote. It is simply an irrelevant to the present dispute hypothesis.

This precludes them from being part of the corpus of canonical text to which Paul was referring in his epistle to Timothy.

Absolutely not. St. Paul was referring to a set of books coming from the Jewish tradition that are nevertheless inspired. Not canonical according to some false religion, but inspired by God. It is, remember the same Paul who corrected Peter for keeping kosher; what concern of his would have been, at the end of his life, what some group of rabbis decided about the books pious Jews wrote dreaming of Christ and freedom centuries prior, and which Christians knew and loved?

[annalex]

Is it your contention that Paul included them as well as inspired by God?

I don't read St. Paul's mind, but I believe the Holy Scripture and there he did nor provide the table of content. He simply pointed to scripture traditionally known to Jews of the time, so we have to accept his judgment.

Yes the Church did not put every book that was ever in Septuagint into the Canon. But those seven she did put into the canon as early as 4 century, -- and no Christian canon existed earlier.

You are confusing "canonical" and "inspired" again. The second category is much larger.

[boatbums]

You are confusing "canonical" and "inspired" again. The second category is much larger.

Nope...I'm not the one who is confused here. You stated:

We know that the deuterocanonicals specifically are inspired because St. Paul made a reference to "all scripture" without excluding anything and without qualifying the language, -- so that was then the Septuagint of the 1st century that is wholly inspired.

It is obvious that the "Scriptures" to which Paul referred in his letter to Timothy mean the traditional Jewish Scripture that they kept in their synagogues, studied, used and obeyed because they came FROM Almighty God. We know for a fact that the Jewish Scripture NEVER included those Apocryphal books - they weren't even written in Hebrew which WOULD have been the case for any writings the Jews kept in their temple/synagogues. If you say you have to accept Paul's judgment, then accept that he would NOT have meant those extra-biblical books as Divinely-inspired Scripture. There IS a difference!

For a well done article on the Apocrypha, the Septuagint and the Canon, please read The Apocrypha, And Why It's Not Scripture

[daniel1212]

It is obvious that the "Scriptures" to which Paul referred in his letter to Timothy mean the traditional Jewish Scripture that they kept in their synagogues, studied, used and obeyed because they came FROM Almighty God.

Indeed, but according to some Catholics, even some writings from some so-called church "fathers" and infallble pronouncements are inspired of God just like Scripture is - or they fail to make any real distinction - while this is rejected by other Catholics. Thus this issue needs to be clarified. Is plenary Divine inspiration restricted to the words of Scripture or do certain writings of church "fathers" and infallible pronouncements enjoy the same?

And it remains that

“No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

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)

Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)

Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,

Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)

The German historian Martin Hengel writes, “Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)

Also,

The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382.

And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)

And if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.

Also, saying the church and church fathers recognized the deuterocanonicals from early one fails to admit that this was not a universally accepted, or a settled canon.

As the the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.

The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)

● The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,

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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

This issue has been settled many times by the RC propaganda continues.

[daniel1212]

No he didn't and the pronoun is masculine because it is referencing Jesus alone. Including Mary is a corruption by the Catholic Church to bolster the apostacy of Mariology.

Actually, it is a corruption by some RCs, not an indisputable official interpretation, even if a couple popes sided with it. The notes in the RC New American Bible translates Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” And its notes include,

Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. - http://www.usccb.org/bible/gn/3:15#01003015-1

Likewise the Catholic RSV-2CE, while even anti-evangelical RC apologist Akin states,

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman. - http://jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia states on the IM, The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically," even if it still thinks the women is Mary.

And contrary to the Hebrew being rendered as 'she,' the word is a Qal imperfect, second person singular masculine with third person singular masculine suffix. http://www.wlsessays.net/files/MillerGenesis.rtf

There is also another use of the word for "seed" as coming to a woman in Rebekah in Gn. 24:60. And the Hebrew is said to allow a plural rendering.

But like their father, some RCs presume they cannot be wrong as Catholics, and cannot tolerate any dissent, thus resorting to sophistry and spitballs when refuted, rendering themselves as unworthy of extended exchange.

[CynicalBear]

Interesting! Even the contradictions within Catholic teaching expose the duplicity. Thanks for posting that.

[annalex]

the Jews kept in their temple/synagogues

What Jews kept in their temples is not relevant to what Christians realize that inspired. We, for example realize the Gospels and Epistles as inspired. The Jews put St. Paul to jail and ultimately engineered his execution for writing his letters. No wonder he wrote in Greek, the language of the Septuagint.

If St. Paul meant to say something like "Scripture in Hebrew" or "Scripture the Jews use in synagogues", or something similar to what you want to put in his mouth, he would have said that; he was not tongue-tied. He instead said "all scripture" -- not this and that scripture, and he said "known" not "approved by the Jews". Read the Scripture and respect it. Please. All of it.

[Springfield Reformer]

We accept scripture and read it. Our differences come from different starting assumptions, and different modes of processing the data. You see how many go-arounds you and I had and still I don't think you are reacting to what I actually said. Where we are at odds here is we will not accept circular reasoning, and I have recently read RC polemic pieces that appear to actively embrace circular reasoning. Naturally, this creates an impasse I am not sure can be overcome without divine intervention.

For example, when we speak of what Paul had, we invoke a probablistic mode of analysis that asks, not what did the Roman See consider important 400 years into the future and work back from that, but what would a typical Jewish Christian apostle of the First Century most likely have in his possession, based on what we know of the Jewish Canon at that point in time. Under that model, second class documents not being treated as canonical at that time would not pass that test. We know Paul had regard for the Jewish magisterium, as he stated to them were given the oracles of God. If they had not accepted the deuteros, and we know they didn't, we would expect Paul to make an argument for their use, and also to use them, as he was very well versed in the Scriptures. But in fact everything he used, as having the force of canonical authority, was from within the limits of the smaller Jewish Canon. This makes sense. Speculating forward 400 years then reading it back to Paul is circular reasoning at its finest, and therefore completely untenable, at least to us evangelicals, who are not ever going to be comfortable with such blatant circularity.

[boatbums]

If St. Paul meant to say something like "Scripture in Hebrew" or "Scripture the Jews use in synagogues", or something similar to what you want to put in his mouth, he would have said that; he was not tongue-tied. He instead said "all scripture" -- not this and that scripture, and he said "known" not "approved by the Jews". Read the Scripture and respect it. Please. All of it.

Yes, please read the Scripture and respect it - ALL of it - because we KNOW that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. If some are unable to recognize the serious and supernatural basis of such writings, so that they foolishly imagine whatever "their" religious leaders decide is "Scripture" centuries after the fact must be so, it is THEIR error to work out, not those who truly respect God's word.

There IS no argument you have that can convince me your religion's decision to include humanly devised fables, myths, vain imaginings and fallible recollections into what ALL genuine Christendom acknowledges is Divinely inspired and SACRED Scripture. I respect God too much to blithely consider His revelation could be polluted this way. However, if you feel you have no other choice but to defend what is indefensible because your "church" deemed it so, you have my sympathy. What you will NEVER have is my agreement.

[boatbums]

This issue has been settled many times but the RC propaganda continues.

As is patently obvious every single time it is tossed out here whenever a FRoman Catholic wants to impugn "Protestants", boast of a superior "Bible", condemn Luther (wrongly, BTW) or mock those as somehow missing out on the "fullness of the faith".

I've repeatedly asked for their favorite passages in those books or to name a doctrine devised from them that either isn't taught anywhere in the universally recognized canon or which doesn't contradict them, and NOBODY has yet answered the challenge.

I've come to the conclusion - over the many years this topic has been argued - that the real reason these books are defended is because "their" church made it a matter of their authority to determine what is Scripture and, therefore, their authority OVER Scripture. Whether or not the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha can be logically or intellectually proved to belong in the canon - which they cannot - is beside the point. Rome's defenders simply MUST stand by any decision made as de fide even when there is substantial evidence against it because they know that not doing so opens their religion up to doubt in the many other areas where this has happened. Luther and the Reformers are mocked for holding to sola Scriptura, yet, as we can see every time this kind of discussion takes place, the value of relying upon the infallible word of God for the basis of our doctrines will never fail.

[editor-surveyor]

Ignore the "table of contents," the links were from a different site than the one where it is now posted.

This is the treatise from which my FR posts were taken:

Undeniable evidence that Greek NT MS were translated from Hebrew

Trimm has received numerous threats and attacks for preparing this revealing work. Satan's people truly love the Greek MS.

[daniel1212]

I've come to the conclusion - over the many years this topic has been argued - that the real reason these books are defended is because "their" church made it a matter of their authority to determine what is Scripture and, therefore, their authority OVER Scripture.

True: if Rome sanctioned married priests then RCs would come to defend it just as they defend mandated clerical celibacy, as what the assured word of God - the Scriptures - says is not what matters, but what Rome says, and therein is the conflict .

[annalex]

what would a typical Jewish Christian apostle of the First Century most likely have in his possession

Most diaspora Jews had a difficulty reading Hebrew and read Septuagint instead. That is the reference St. Paul is making: not the scripture "read in synagogues" or "canonized by one or another Jewish body" but scripture "known". No one is denying that the Jewish race gave us Mary and through her Christ, and had the oracles of God prior to the Sacrifice of Christ.

[annalex]

There IS no argument you have that can convince me

I don't really care what you personally think about the Holy Scripture. I ask the reader to read the scripture and think of what he reads, rather than listen to various anti-Catholic charlatans from Luther on.

[boatbums]

I don't really care what you personally think about the Holy Scripture. I ask the reader to read the scripture and think of what he reads, rather than listen to various anti-Catholic charlatans from Luther on.

And I've pretty much given up on you ever understanding why "Divinely-inspired" is not a label to be attached to just any human writing - no matter how old it is (though I do still pray for you from time to time). I've read those books the Roman Catholic charlatans decided to make equal to sacred Scripture and there IS no there, there. No presence of the Holy Spirit, no power, nothing in them that speaks to the heart of a believer like TRUE Scripture does. I don't worry one bit that those who diligently seek to know the Lord and truth WILL find them.

[annalex]

Thank you.

O Israel, how great is the house of God, and how vast is the place of his possession! It is great, and hath no end: it is high and immense. There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish. And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly.

[...]

This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of him. He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men. (Baruch 3:24-38)

[Rumplemeyer]

Because I am a Catholic, if you don’t want to, don’t.

You do what you feel is correct and I will do what I feel is correct.

Any more questions?

[Elsie]

I ask the reader to read the scripture and think of what he reads, rather than listen to various anti-Catholic charlatans from Luther on.

I ask the reader to read the scripture and think of what he reads, rather than emulate what a LOT of leaders of the Catholic Church did when in positions of POWER.

[Elsie]

I ask the reader to read the scripture and think of what he reads, AND then read what leaders of the Catholic Church have said about it!

---

As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1,

 

Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. — http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm

Yet as the Dominican cardinal and Catholic theologian Yves Congar O.P. states,

Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...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 M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71

And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,

“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.

Your own CCC allows the interpretation that, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424), for some of the ancients (for what their opinion is worth) provided for this or other interpretations.

• Ambrosiaster [who elsewhere upholds Peter as being the chief apostle to whom the Lord had entrusted the care of the Church, but not superior to Paul as an apostle except in time], Eph. 2:20:

Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life. — Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians—Philemon, Eph. 2:20; Gerald L. Bray, p. 42

• Augustine, sermon:

"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.

• Augustine, sermon:

For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)

• Augustine, sermon:

And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289

• Augustine, sermon:

Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95

• Augustine, sermon:

...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193

• Augustine, Psalm LXI:

Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)

• Augustine, in “Retractions,”

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:

'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.

• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:

You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].

• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:

'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455

• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:

Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)

• Cyril of Alexandria:

When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.

• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):

“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'

“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)

• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.