A question for all Protestants

[GratefulFred]

See biblelight.net/banned.htm

Again, with redactions to highlight only:

In 1408 the third synod of Oxford, England, banned unauthorized English translations of the Bible and decreed that possession of English translation’s had to be approved by diocesan authorities. The Oxford council declared:

“It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error.”

Source: The Western Watchman, a Catholic newspaper published in St. Louis, August 9, 1894, “The Word of God”, The English Bible Before the Reformation, page 7.

Pope Pius IV had a list of the forbidden books compiled and officially prohibited them in the Index of Trent (Index Librorum Prohibitorum) of 1559. This is an excerpt:

Rule I
All books which were condemned prior to 1515 by popes or ecumenical councils, and are not listed in this Index, are to stand condemned in the original fashion.

Rule II
Books of arch-heretics - those who after 1515 have invented or incited heresy or who have been or still are heads and leaders of heretics, such as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Hubmaier, Schwenckfeld, and the like — whatever their name, title or argumentation — are prohibited without exception.

Die Indices Librorum Prohibitorum des sechzehnten
**Jahrhunderts **(Tübingen, 1886), page 246f​

---

Synod - A general term for ecclesiastical gatherings under hierarchical authority, for the discussion and decision of matters relating to faith, morals, or discipline.

In my search for the strongest authority Brian rightfully asks for, I quickly realized that I would need to take a course in the History of the Bible to find THE BEST authority.

That said, I think we all agree that the Bible represents the revealed word FROM GOD. Thus, in order to ‘get it right,’ translations from the original language with the meanings of those times into the language of our day (be it the 1500s or the 2000s) with reliable meanings, requires very careful work by properly trained and supervised translators. Translators must be fully committed to the exact meaning and without a bias toward achieving some goal such as showing other translations to be false or useless.

Thus, Rule II by Pope Pius IV in about 1559 seems appropriate.

The risk is “What did God say” versus “What do I want God to have said?”

I believe that Christ gave divine powers and responsibility with HIS PERSONAL PROMISE TO GUIDE THEM ALWAYS to Peter and the Apostles and that there is a clear line of succession to this day. Anyone who prepares a translation who is not approved by that line from Christ is suspect, no matter how well intentioned he may be.

Nothing I have written here makes me an authority. It is simply states why I follow the Catholic Church.

My question remains, how do Protestants support that the Bible/s they use are indeed THE Word of God as GOD meant it and not a well intended error? What authority did Christ give their original leaders?

 

[GratefulFred]

Hi Darron,

Your point of not wanting or claiming the role of teacher on a religlious forum is well taken. I know that I am not a teacher here either. I try (sometimes fail) to explain what I think and why (reasoning and sources). I also try to draw others to do the same.

Regardless of how things are said, I take them as just an exchange of thoughts. We each consider what is said and WE each come to know better what we think and why. Sometimes we grow.

I know too that life requires our energy and thoughts be directed elsewhere and we answer when we can. No worries.

 

[izoid]

I do – to students.

To me, a student is someone who
a) believes s/he needs to learn from someone who knows more,
b) acknowledges that I am the expert, and s/he is to learn from me,
c) comes to me expecting me to be the one to fulfill the acknowledged need to learn.
In religious discussion boards, typically none of these criteria are met.

Further, in areas of religion, I do not consider myself an expert of such quality that I think everyone should accept what I assert. Equally intelligent and equally informed and equally knowledgeable people come to different conclusions about religion.

So, asking me to treat you like students is not really something you ought to be comfortable with, and I do not think it is realistic.

I do have some questions I want to answer, but I want to get some other things away from cyberspace done first.

You have a very high opinion of yourself. I for one feel we can all learn from one another and everyone can teach each other something. That in no way infers any superiority on any of our part. I wonder what Jesus would say regarding your idea of student and teacher?

BTW…In my vast life and educational experience, I find most math teachers to do a very poor job of actually teaching. My college years were filled with frustration due to the lack of teaching from my math professors, it only got better when I went to an engineering student for tutoring.

 

[Rightlydivide]

See biblelight.net/banned.htm

Again, with redactions to highlight only:

In 1408 the third synod of Oxford, England, banned unauthorized English translations of the Bible and decreed that possession of English translation’s had to be approved by diocesan authorities. The Oxford council declared:

“It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error.”

Source: The Western Watchman, a Catholic newspaper published in St. Louis, August 9, 1894, “The Word of God”, The English Bible Before the Reformation, page 7.

Pope Pius IV had a list of the forbidden books compiled and officially prohibited them in the Index of Trent (Index Librorum Prohibitorum) of 1559. This is an excerpt:

Rule I
All books which were condemned prior to 1515 by popes or ecumenical councils, and are not listed in this Index, are to stand condemned in the original fashion.

Rule II
Books of arch-heretics - those who after 1515 have invented or incited heresy or who have been or still are heads and leaders of heretics, such as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Hubmaier, Schwenckfeld, and the like — whatever their name, title or argumentation — are prohibited without exception.

Die Indices Librorum Prohibitorum des sechzehnten
**Jahrhunderts **(Tübingen, 1886), page 246f​

---

Synod - A general term for ecclesiastical gatherings under hierarchical authority, for the discussion and decision of matters relating to faith, morals, or discipline.

In my search for the strongest authority Brian rightfully asks for, I quickly realized that I would need to take a course in the History of the Bible to find THE BEST authority.

That said, I think we all agree that the Bible represents the revealed word FROM GOD. Thus, in order to ‘get it right,’ translations from the original language with the meanings of those times into the language of our day (be it the 1500s or the 2000s) with reliable meanings, requires very careful work by properly trained and supervised translators. Translators must be fully committed to the exact meaning and without a bias toward achieving some goal such as showing other translations to be false or useless.

Thus, Rule II by Pope Pius IV in about 1559 seems appropriate.

The risk is “What did God say” versus “What do I want God to have said?”

I believe that Christ gave divine powers and responsibility with HIS PERSONAL PROMISE TO GUIDE THEM ALWAYS to Peter and the Apostles and that there is a clear line of succession to this day. Anyone who prepares a translation who is not approved by that line from Christ is suspect, no matter how well intentioned he may be.

Nothing I have written here makes me an authority. It is simply states why I follow the Catholic Church.

My question remains, how do Protestants support that the Bible/s they use are indeed THE Word of God as GOD meant it and not a well intended error? What authority did Christ give their original leaders?

Do Catholic versions use the majority text or the critical text?

 

[chessmane4e5]

Do Catholic versions use the majority text or the critical text?

Still looking for that answer, but I did find this.

If you intend to do serious Bible study, a literal translation is what you want. This will enable you to catch more of the detailed implications of the text, but at the price of readability. You have to worry less about the translators’ views coloring the text, though even very literal translations are not free from this entirely.

A second question you will need to ask yourself is whether you want an old or a modern translation. Older versions, such as the King James and the Douay-Rheims, can sound more dignified, authoritative, and inspiring. But they are much harder to read and understand because English has changed in the almost four hundred years since they were done.

One down side to using certain modern translations is that they do not use the traditional renderings of certain passages and phrases, and the reader may find this annoying. The “Good News Bible” or TEV is especially known for non-traditional renderings. For example, “the abomination of desolation” referred to in the book of Daniel and the Gospels is called “the awful horror,” and the ark of the covenant is known as “the covenant box.”

Some Protestants will tell you that the only acceptable version of the Bible is the King James. This position is known as King James-onlyism. Its advocates often make jokes such as, “If the King James Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me,” or, “My King James Version corrects your Greek text.”

They commonly claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings, and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as “the Authorized Version” (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been “authorized.” To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations. For a still-in print critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).

As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, some people take it very seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call “Douay-Rheims-onlyism.” The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James by a few years, (the complete KJV was published in 1611, but the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century.

What many advocates of both King James-onlyism and Douay-Rheims-onlyism do not know is that neither Bible is the original issued in the 1600s. Over the last three centuries, numerous minor changes (for example, of spelling and grammar) have been made in the King James, with the result that most versions of the KJV currently on the market are significantly different from the original. This has led one publisher to recently re-issue the 1611 King James Version Bible.

The Douay-Rheims currently on the market is also not the original, 1609 version. It is technically called the “Douay-Challoner” version because it is a revision of the Douay-Rheims done in the mid-eighteenth century by Bishop Richard Challoner. He also consulted early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that the Douay Bible currently on the market is not simply a translation of the Vulgate (which many of its advocates do not realize).

 

[Rightlydivide]

Nice. So when I want to find out information about Catholics, I guess I should read Jack Chick. Those quotes from that article is like me saying Catholics worship statues.

 

[chessmane4e5]

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

Another interesting Article.

I have an Ignatius Bible.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Not sure what your purpose of the last two questions are. There was two ecumenical councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325 and A.D. 787) and they took place in the city of Nicaea (hence their names) Here is some information about the first council catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705fea3.asp

As for you first question, St. Sylvester I was Bishop (Pope).

So you must have some purpose in asking me these questions, I am anxiously waiting

Thank you for the article. My point is that if Im not mistaken there was a couple hundred bishops traveling from all over the known world to vote on such an important doctrine. WHY!
Why have a vote at all? If it was understood that the bishop of Rome had the only keys to heaven and he was infallible, then why didnt he just announce his verdict and settle the matter for good? This entire procces would have been so much folly.

 

[GratefulFred]

One of the great virtues is HOPE.

Chessmane4e5 and I have put forth considerable support for the Catholic bible/s as being more reliable and other bibles to be avoided. Sorry protestant friends, the Word FROM GOD is just too important to let just any denomination without Christ’s authority to set itself as a true spokeman for Christ no matter how well intended. Reliable bibles have “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” [sic]] on the copyright page. The Latin phrases mean Nothing Objectionable and Let It Be Printed. These authorities are from a bishop.

Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, Peter being the first among them for bibilical reasons given earlier. Throughout history the Bishops have gathered together to discuss matters and present their views to the Pope. He considers their views and decides, usually agreeing but sometimes changing with his explanation. The Pope may also act on his own authority from Christ. The Pope answers to Christ alone, but he does considers many views and he is charged with teaching according to Christ. The Bishops assist him.

I have asked for a protestant’s answers to a number of questions in 2 or 3 posts above, the last two at the end of the quote in #84. Rightlydivide responded NOT with an answer but yet another question. Darron and Brian will check in later, I HOPE.

I am begining to understand the PROTEST mentality - The Catholic Church is “wrong” completely or in some aspect, but, judging from this thread, a Protestant is unable to provide support for his or her belief that he or she is in a denomination authorized by Christ. I know you want to follow Christ, but you seem to protest the Church He established without saying how you are correct in that protest.

“Wrong” could mean either that 1) “I don’t understand, therefore I protest.” 2) “I understand but I just don’t like it.” Or 3) I have support that can answer the questions in #84 and elsewhere.

I HOPE to read a one or more posts that go beyond protest and deal with 3).

 

[chessmane4e5]

Thank you for the article. My point is that if Im not mistaken there was a couple hundred bishops traveling from all over the known world to vote on such an important doctrine. WHY!
Why have a vote at all? If it was understood that the bishop of Rome had the only keys to heaven and he was infallible, then why didnt he just announce his verdict and settle the matter for good? This entire procces would have been so much folly.

From what I understand, the purpose of the Council was to stop the heresy being spread by Arius. Apparently 22 Bishops came in support of Arius, but when they got there and heard exactly what Arius was saying, they all dropped their support for him.

So I guess it was kind of like a public trial, where Arius could speak to everyone and defend himself. I suppose the Pope could have just issues a decree and sent it to all the Churches, but they have not stopped Arius and his “supports” may have allied with Arius because they didn’t completely understand what was going on. By having the Council and having lots of the Bishops and priests there, they all can discuss what is going on and get their facts straight.

Also, infallibility is not like a direct line to God. The Pope still needs to gather facts and evidence about what ever issue is in question. So it is not like the Pope can be asked a question about Faith and Morals and we expect the Pope to answer, right then and there, infallibly. We know that he needs to pray about it, do some research, probably talk with different Bishops or priests. At least this is what I think happens most of the time, I am sure their may have been times in the past where the Holy Spirit did inspire the Pope to speak directly to a question without any of this.

 

[raggetyann]

Hi Darron,

Your point of not wanting or claiming the role of teacher on a religlious forum is well taken. I know that I am not a teacher here either. I try (sometimes fail) to explain what I think and why (reasoning and sources). I also try to draw others to do the same.

Regardless of how things are said, I take them as just an exchange of thoughts. We each consider what is said and WE each come to know better what we think and why. Sometimes we grow.

I know too that life requires our energy and thoughts be directed elsewhere and we answer when we can. No worries.

Hello, you just come off as a brilliant talker but i shun on sophistication of words as not every one is able to follow to the same pace of speech, i am just getting into Plato (The Republic of) and he is a little challenge but the translation and notes by Francis MacDonald Cornfield is quite a comfort to my intellectual boundaries, and we all have them.However(Parenthetical Phrase) I do know that not all of the biblical masterpieces are in either bible. there are over 600 books that were not counted as expertise accounts and they are allot of these that are the works of the disciples of Christ, What say ye! raggetyann

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

This mentality does not show a whole lot of trust in God. Rather it shows a trust in democratic arguments and majority superiority. If in fact no one can be infallible, then there is no way we can arrive at all truth, which is contrary to the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit will teach us all truth.

Are we going to rely on a democratic process where we use our intellectual debate skills to seek truth, or are we going to rely on the authority provided by God Himself?

We know that God does not side with the majority all the time.

the democratic process was good for the council of Nicea. Were they wrong?

 

[Justy90]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

Trinity is explicitly Scriptural (1Corinthians). Infallibility is not. Purgatory is nowhere in Scripture. You must twist and distort to get it. The Eucharist is also explicit in Scripture. The saints are as well. Mary isn’t metioned beyond the book of Acts which leads one to believe that the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Catholic theology are two different concepts of Mary. The Canons were compiled by the Early Church, not Roman Catholicism.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Trinity is explicitly Scriptural (1Corinthians). Infallibility is not. Purgatory is nowhere in Scripture. You must twist and distort to get it. The Eucharist is also explicit in Scripture. The saints are as well. Mary isn’t metioned beyond the book of Acts which leads one to believe that the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Catholic theology are two different concepts of Mary. The Canons were compiled by the Early Church, not Roman Catholicism.

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

Scripture alone is not scriptural.

The cannons were compiled by St Jerome at the request of Pope Damascus.

Mary is not mentioned in the Bible because the focus of the Bible is Jesus, but the early fathers surely had an opinion of Mary. catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

 

[raggetyann]

If Einstein was basically right about relativity, was he necessarily right about everything?

As a logician, I first thought the relativity theory was just sarcasm, but I found people worshiping it as though it were something of grand revelation. I thought, “Oh wow, if we measure everything relative to everything else, all of our measurements will be relative. NOW we understand!” I looked at the other things that Einstein espoused and found the man to be a child in the realm of metaphysics and thus saying many things that were just simple minded non-sense. Einstein was a great mathematician, but when it came to the “rest of the story”, he presumed, as do almost all people.

So the question becomes one of how much presumption has been accepted in the Catholic way. Gauging such isn’t that easy since it requires a temptation to presume on the part of the assessor. The protestant wouldn’t be a protestant if he didn’t suspect too much had been presumed. He need not be a black-or-white judge. He merely needs to be someone who rightfully understands that people presume far, far too often. Presumption is the very seed of all sin. When he looks into the infallibility of Catholic history, he sees clear evidence of presumption.

So it is understandable to me that the protestant would believe that even though the Catholic Church is right about some basic things, they get presumptuously carried away with others.

Not to be arrogant, But i would have to agree with that statement, Just because people sound rightous doesn’t mean they are, or, just because i tell you 6 things in the bible and they are true it dosent mean i know the whole book, or the way you may have been tought.For now we see through rose colored glasses but then we will see clear, face to face. raggetyann

 

[Justy90]

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

Scripture alone is not scriptural.

The cannons were compiled by St Jerome at the request of Pope Damascus.

Mary is not mentioned in the Bible because the focus of the Bible is Jesus, but the early fathers surely had an opinion of Mary. catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

??? St. Jerome compiled the Latin Vulgate, not the original Canon. St. Jerome even kept the Apocrypha separate from the other books. It was the Catholic church that decided to include it as Scripture.

And, who said anything about Scripture alone?

 

[chessmane4e5]

??? St. Jerome compiled the Latin Vulgate, not the original Canon. St. Jerome even kept the Apocrypha separate from the other books. It was the Catholic church that decided to include it as Scripture.

And, who said anything about Scripture alone?

St Jerome did compile the Latin Vulgate (and he was unsure of whether or not to include the Apocrypha because their were Jews who did not consider it part of the Old Testament), but he also played a big role in choosing what would be in the New Testament.

“St Jerome has worked closely with Pope Damascus in Rome, aiding him in preparing a list of all the books rightly to be included in the canon of Scripture (later) proclaimed by St. Augustine in Africa.” Warren Carroll “The Building of Christendom, A history of Christendom Vol 2.” page 57.

Now we know that the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament were read aloud to the congregations of Christians that met on the first day of the week for Holy Mass (just as they are still among ourselves), one Gospel here, another there; one Epistle of St Paul in one place, another in another; all scattered about in various parts of the world where there were bodies of Christians. And the next question that naturally occurs to us is, when were these separate works gathered together so as to form a volume, and added to the Old Testament to make up what we now call the Bible? Well, they were not collected for the best part of 300 years. So that here again I am afraid is a hard nut for Protestants to crack, viz.—That though we admit that the separate works composing the New Testament were now in existence, yet they were for centuries not to be found altogether in one volume, were not obtainable by multitudes of Christians, and even were altogether unknown to many in different parts of the world. How then, could they possibly form a guide to Heaven and the chart of salvation for those who had never seen or read or known about them? It is a fact of history that the Council of Carthage, which was held in 397 A.D., mainly through the influence of St Augustine, settled the Canon or Collection of New Testament Scriptures as we Catholics have them now, and decreed that its decision should be sent on to Rome for confirmation. No Council (that is, no gathering of the Bishops of the Catholic Church for the settlement of some point of doctrine) was ever considered to be authoritative or binding unless it was approved and confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, whilst the decisions of every General Council that has received the approval of Rome are binding on the consciences of all Catholics. The Council of Carthage, then, is the first known to us in which we find a clear and undisputed catalogue of all the New Testament books as we have them in Bibles now.

It is true that many Fathers and Doctors and writers of the Church in the first three centuries from time to time mention by name many of the various Gospels and Epistles; and some, as we come nearer 397, even refer to a collection already existing in places. For example, we find Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, after the Council of Nicea, applying to Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, and a great scholar, to provide fifty copies of the Christian Scriptures for public use in the churches of Constantinople, his new capital. This was in 332 A.D. The contents of these copies are known to us, perhaps (according to some, even probably) one of these very copies of Eusebius’ handiwork has come down to us; but they are not precisely the same as our New Testament, though very nearly so. Again, we find lists of the books of the New Testament drawn up by St Athanasius, St Jerome, St Augustine, and many other great authorities, as witnessing to what was generally acknowledged as inspired Scripture in their day and generation and country; but I repeat that none of these corresponds perfectly to the collection in the Bible that we possess now; we must wait till 397 for the Council of Carthage, before we find the complete collection of New Testament books settled as we have it today, and as all Christendom had it till the sixteenth century, when the Reformers changed it.

where we got the bible

But I guess I should have more clear that the New Testament was not finally settled until 397.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Trinity is explicitly Scriptural (1Corinthians). Infallibility is not.

Matt 16:13-19 is one place where we get Papal Infallibility.

“Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (the Church)”, so we know the Church can not be wrong.

“Power to loose and Bind”, is given to Peter so he has power to make rules.

“Keys to the Kingdom”, in case anyone was unsure of what was happening, this clarifies that Peter is in charge when Jesus is not around.

The Eucharist is also explicit in Scripture.

Luke 22:14-20, Mark 14:22-25, Matt 26:26-29

The saints are as well.

Saints are scriptural. catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp

Mary isn’t metioned beyond the book of Acts which leads one to believe that the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Catholic theology are two different concepts of Mary.

This is why I was talking about Scripture Alone. Because Mary is not mentioned, does not mean we do not have information about her from Tradition (The Early Church fathers spoke highly of Mary here and here

 

[chessmane4e5]

Trinity is explicitly Scriptural (1Corinthians). Purgatory is nowhere in Scripture…

catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

I have provided you with Biblical evidence for the things you said were not in the Bible. Could you be a little more specific about how 1Corinthians proves the Trinity?

 

[Bill_Pick]

As others have pointed out, you have a wrong premise. Your entire position is based on the premise that if a teacher is right at one point, he MUST ergo be correct at all points. This is absurd.

President Obama said during the campaign that there are 50 States in the USA. Do you agree that’s true? Assuming you do, does your agreeing THEREBY mean that you view President Obama as infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, that when he speaks - God speaks, and that WHATEVER he officially says MUST be accepted as correct? I hope you see the fault with your premise of this thread.

.

May be you need to know the diff with INFALLIBITY AND FALLIBITY