Fr.Z: "We must deny to Protestantism any right to use the Bible..."

[Fauken]

This also means that an Eccumenical dialogue with the Protestants on the Bible on the grounds that they might be right is to be severely discouraged?

That’s putting it mildly. There are no grounds for ecumenical discussion on that basis because the Protestants are wrong, period. The Catholic Church wants to bring them back to the one true Church, not entertain their heretical beliefs. That is the point of ecumenism.

 

[Hodos]

Good luck with that.

 

[TULIPed]

There are no grounds for ecumenical discussion on that basis because the Protestants are wrong, period

There are many, many complex philosophical concepts in the Bible. Thankfully, every once in a while, the good Lord mercifully sprinkled some things in that even we heretical Protestants can understand. That one that begins, “Love is patient, love is kind…” comes to mind.

If only we Protestants would do a better job putting it into practice.

 

[Gorgias]

So in his Dec. 27 post, Fr.Z approvingly quotes this statement - twice - which was apparently made by a Cardinal Wiseman in 1850.

You might do well to read the entire essay from which the quote was cited. (I found it by Googling “Cruel and unfeeling it may be pronounced by those who understand the strength of our position” – and yes, the quotes are part of the search term.) It also helps to think in terms of the ways that words are used differently by different generations and communities. This quote, I would assert, must be read through the lens of 19th-century English usage in Britain (well, in this case, Ireland).

What’s being said isn’t “take Bibles away from Protestants”, but rather, “stop allowing Protestants to dictate to Catholics what the Bible means.”

When read in context, then… is that as embarrassing a sentiment to you as you initially presumed?

 

[angel12]

If only we Protestants would do a better job putting it into practice.

If only we ALL . . .

 

[JohnR77]

Father Z was Not talking about a moral right to use The Bible. Everyone has a moral right and even obligation to follow The Bible although those who are not Christian obviously Have Mitigating circumstances.

All good Catholics want Protestants to follow The Bible as closely as possible. Because the better they do that the closer they are to the Catholic Church.

Fr . Z was speaking from a point of logic. Because protestants reject the church from which The Bible came they Have no logical right to use The Bible .

John

 

[JohnR77]

If a person is born into a non Catholic family they could quote Curly and say,
" I’m a victim of circumstance."

Watch “I’m a victim of circumstance” on YouTube

For more Contexts see this.

At 1:52

 

[MichaelP3]

I never took you to have this mindset from your other posts I have seen (given I have not seen them all). Now maybe a bit more will make sense.

All I can say is that thanks to God there is someone like Pope Francis in charge there for if he had that mindset it will all be pushed back 100s of years.

 

[Fauken]

All I can say is that thanks to God there is someone like Pope Francis in charge there for if he had your mindset it will all be pushed back 100s of years.

And what mindset is that? I have a feeling that I’m being severely misunderstood. Nothing I said is against what the Church teaches. The purpose of ecumenism is to bring people back to the Catholic Church. A prime example of this is the Special Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. I didn’t call Protestants heretics, I called their beliefs (the ones at variance with Catholic teaching) heretical, which they are. There is nothing to discuss regarding the Catholic Church being wrong in Faith and morals, because it cannot be and is not wrong. This is all Church teaching.

 

[JimG]

Here is a link to the blog post that the OP was referring to:

https://wdtprs.com/2018/12/27-dec-st-john-evangelist-we-must-deny-to-protestantism-any-right-to-use-the-bible-much-more-to-interpret-it-2/

 

[ZMystiCat]

I kind of figured the OP was trying to trick us when he intentionally cut off the quote with an ellipsis in the title, failed to provide the cite or any context, and proceeded with wild accusations.

It really doesn’t get that much better with the context.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Writings, opinions of priests or Bishops, even Cardinal Bishops, are not in and of themselves impeccable or doctrinal.

 

[jericho777]

By his reasoning the Jews should deny use of the OT to the catholic church?

 

[dochawk]

No, not at all.

Catholicism does not deny the truth of Judaism.

Protestantism, however, denies the authority of Orthodoxy/Catholicism, and the Bible is nothing more or less than an exercise of that very teaching authority.

hawk

 

[MagdalenaRita]

If the Protestant table of contents is the authoritative version, then were all Christians prior to Luther heretics for considering the Deuterocanonical books inspired? If that’s not the case, why can’t we throw out other books in the Bible? Or were the Deuterocanonicals inspired until the 1500s, then suddenly became uninspired?

The protestant table of contents is not the authoritative version at all.

Myth: 3. But the seven deuterocanonical books were added at the Council of Trent (1546) in order to justify Catholic doctrinal inventions.**

This is a myth that always comes up but is simple to answer. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out."

Myth _6. Which translation did the first Christians use?** _

Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (, 53). The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.

How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[MagdalenaRita]

“Where did you get this book?” I asked. I don’t remember his exact reply, but my follow up comment was, “I think you got it from the Catholic Church.”

Yes, it has become a curious thing to me how there are those who feel they can interpret better a book they did not have anything to do with putting together. There is a trust that the Catholic church put it together right but just do not interpret right what they put together.

This used to be me, though, when away from the Church.

 

[TULIPed]

There is nothing to discuss regarding the Catholic Church being wrong in Faith and morals, because it cannot be and is not wrong.

Strike “Catholic Church” and insert “me” and you’d have (almost verbatim) a quote from my teenager to me a couple of nights ago regarding some late night behavior. But that’s another story.

Interestingly, if you talk to Protestants, I think you’d find that a majority of them would say that they greatly admired Pope John Paul II. Speaking for myself, the thing I most admired about him was his humility. I think he personified St. Paul’s words from Philippians 2, " Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, each looking out not for his own interests, but [also] everyone for those of others."

Here’s an example of his words from one of his last public homilies (I think ):

“We forgive and we ask forgiveness. We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed towards followers of other religions.”

And another:

“We are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours [the Jews] to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood.”

What an amazing example of what it is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. We can argue about a lot, but you guys had a winner with JP2, thanks be to God.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

What an amazing example of what it is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. We can argue about a lot, but you guys had a winner with JP2, thanks be to God.

I really like Pope John Paul II also and it is true there needs to be a lot of forgiveness and healing but he didn’t change, nor could he, that salvation is of the Catholic church.

The Catholic church is not wrong in faith and morals because Jesus promised He would lead us into all truth and He would never leave us and in His Word, through Paul, that the Church would be the pillar and foundation of truth.

God bless

 

[Fauken]

Interestingly, if you talk to Protestants, I think you’d find that a majority of them would say that they greatly admired Pope John Paul II. Speaking for myself, the thing I most admired about him was his humility. I think he personified St. Paul’s words from Philippians 2, " Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, each looking out not for his own interests, but [also] everyone for those of others."

I was a Protestant. There are many who like JPII, and there are many who believe he was the Anti-Christ since he was the Pope. He was a humble man, however, that is true, and was an example all could learn from.

“We forgive and we ask forgiveness. We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed towards followers of other religions.”

And another:

“We are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours [the Jews] to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood.”

Are you suggesting I want people to be forcibly converted to Catholicism? If you are, that is patently false. And also, that same Pope wrote in the Catechism:

"820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me.“278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279”

We should acknowledge and repent of the terrible things that people have done to unify the Church. But that does not mean we should stop trying to unify it. These divisions are neither praiseworthy nor something to be proud of.

 

[guanophore]

Do Protestants think of themselves as heretics or “protesters”?

Most of them, neither. And they don’t think of themselves as “Protestants” either. The new breed of Non-Demoninationals do not realize they espouse Protestant doctrines.