TOBIT -by NathanH83

[Josiah]

So @Josiah, you do not know when Protestants defined their canon?

Ask Andrew and Nathan.... they are the ones who insist Protestantism did this.

Many of us have been asking them for many MONTHS now, but all we get it "it did."

It may be that they hold that "The American Bible Society" is the authoritative, ruling body of all Protestantism. So it seems. But when asked for the evidence of this, just crickets.

Ask them.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ask Andrew and Nathan

No. I am asking you. Do you, @Josiah, know when Protestants defined their canon?

 

[Josiah]

No. I am asking you. Do you know when Protestants defined their canon?

See post 61


.

 

[Albion]

Do you, @Josiah, know when Protestants defined their canon?

Once again, the attempt to insinuate that there is a single "The Protestant Church" that did or thinks something or other, and that we can point to some document that is the equivalent of a Papal ex Cathedra decree, etc. .

Of course, when Catholicism is mentioned, THEN we're supposed to pretend that there is only one of them, instead of the dozen or more church bodies that are classified as Catholic in contrast to the churches classified as Protestant.

 

[NathanH83]

Urging anyone to make up his own personal version of a Bible, choosing which books he wants to consider to be divine revelation and which others he'll discard, is not very good advice.

No, no, no. That’s not what I said. You’re twisting my words. That’s misrepresentation. I’m not saying that at all. You’re so dishonest.

What I’m saying is that people should look at what the early church said, what the church councils said, because these early church councils accepted the Apocrypha, you know. They accepted them. And then look at what the earliest church fathers said, the ones who knew the disciples. You know Clement knew Paul. Ignatius knew John. Polycarp knew John. And these guys quote the Apocrypha. Clement quotes Judith. John and Polycarp quote Tobit. The author of Hebrews alludes to 2 Maccabees.

So people should look at this evidence and make up their own minds what to believe. Don’t just believe what the Pope tells you. Don’t just believe what the Protestant leaders tell you. Do your own research and formulate your own opinions.

These early church councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage accepted the Apocryphal books. And so if I decide that I want to agree with them, then I should be allowed to do so without being condemned by the likes of someone like you. I can make my own decision, and if I want to agree with the early church, then that’s my decision. I don’t need you coming along and telling me that I’m a heretic just because I agree with 3 early church councils.

I believe that the Apocryphal books are JEWISH books, they’re about JEWISH history, placed there BY JEWS (not Catholics), and added to the Septuagint which is a JEWISH translation, and the JEWISH disciples of Jesus accepted those books, and therefore the earliest Christians accepted them. That’s why the New Testament alludes to them as scripture, and that’s why the earliest of church authorities quoted them as scripture, and that’s why 3 early church councils declared them to be divine canonical scripture.

But immediately after the start of Christianity, Jews later removed them from the canon for various reasons, causing confusion in the church as to whether they belonged or not. So the church has been divided on the issue for a long time.

So it’s dishonest to say that I’m just willy nilly adding books to the Bible that I like, and removing ones I don’t like. No, no, no. I didn’t say that. If I see a church council declaring it scripture, then I’ll consider it belongs in the Bible. If I see an Apostolic father quoting it, then I’ll consider it belongs in the Bible. I would never consider false writings like the gospel of Thomas which the early church said doesn’t belong. I would never do that. I would never include Jasher which is a fraud. But the Cepher Bible includes it. They added Jasher to the Cepher Bible. Such a disgrace. But I wouldn’t do that because Jasher is a fraud and not genuine. No Early church council had Jasher included. I wouldn’t do that.

I’m only agreeing with what really church leaders said belongs in the Bible. I would never add anything of my own that the early church didn’t already accept. So you need to stop twisting my words and making it sound like I want to just add anything I like just Willy nilly like that. I didn’t say that. You know better than that. Don’t do that. It really makes you look dishonest when you twist my words like that.

 

[Josiah]

Once again, the attempt to insinuate that there is a single "The Protestant Church" that did or thinks something or other, and that we can point to some document that is the equivalent of a Papal ex Cathedra decree, etc. .

Of course, when Catholicism is mentioned, THEN we're supposed to pretend that there is only one of them, instead of the dozen or more church bodies that are classified as Catholic in contrast to the churches classified as Protestant.

Instead of substantiating claims, there's been an attempt to "turn the tables." Instead of directing the question to the 2 here who have claimed that Protestantism put some unidentified books IN and then Protestantism ripped out unidentified books, it's asked of people who did NOT claim that. Amazing.

And of course, we could ask When and where did "the Apostolic Church" put in books to its Bible? But what we'll get is, "MY church - that considers itself Apostolic - did that!" Maybe, in a case or two. Never the same books, of course. But they must ignore that they aren't speaking of Apostolic Churches but just their own individual claim to be part of that; indeed, as we all know, there is no single Bible among all churches that claim to be Apostolic. Compare a Coptic Orthodox Church Bible to a post Trent RCC one - they ain't the same. And from them, we sometimes get "If one Bible has fewer books in it than another, it proves that other RIPPED OUT some books." Well, compare the post 1546 RCC Bible to any other church that claims to be "Apostolic" and....


To the point: Two here have claimed that "The Church" and "The Apostles" and "Christianity" and "Protestantism" put some books IN (they just won't tell us WHICH books - or when or where this was done)... and then "Protestantism" ripped OUT some (they just won't tell which... or when or where this was done). It's like the rest of their long, long, long list of remarkable claims they've made related to this.... never substantiated. Why? Well, Andy's response seems to be "I could care less"



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

See post 61

You do not know. Okay. Thanks.

 

[Albion]

No, no, no. That’s not what I said. You’re twisting my words. That’s misrepresentation. I’m not saying that at all.

I can only go by what you wrote. If you didn't want to say what you wrote, you should have thought about your wording a bit more carefully.

However, your slip-up in no way justifies the slander you indulge in in your next sentence (see below).

And, by the way, if "blowing off" one of the Ten Commandments like that doesn't show some disposition towards "lone wolf," "Do-it-yourself" Christianity, what does it show us? Merely a lack of maturity? An inability to relate to other people?

You’re so dishonest.

And with that, you go to "Ignore.."

 

[Andrew]

Ask Andrew and Nathan.... they are the ones who insist Protestantism did this.

Many of us have been asking them for many MONTHS now, but all we get it "it did."

It may be that they hold that "The American Bible Society" is the authoritative, ruling body of all Protestantism. So it seems. But when asked for the evidence of this, just crickets.

Ask them.




.

The ABS is part of the UBS... and you are 100% correct! ...about my view on the Bible Society.. which IS the authorized Protestant Bible and it's main contributing sponser was St. Theodore Roosevelt, but don't take my word for it please!!! The book "The Bible Cause" is written by one of the members themselves.. here are some very "non Protestant bias" and very "non anti Catholic" portions of the chapter "The Bible is the Religion of the Protestants"
...........

"The ABS took a decidedly Protestant and American approach to the Bible. The Bible was a book of liberty. It not only taught individuals how to be free from the bonds of sin and the devil, but it was wholly compatible with the kind of political liberty that flowed naturally from the American Revolution. The Bible was the source of religious freedom in the sense that it “guarantees the conscience of the Christian against the encroachments of ecclesiastical ambition.” In fact, the “Sacred Scriptures” were nothing short of a “bill of rights dictated by the Holy Spirit—a charter granted by the Deity himself!” The Bible was a Christian “Magna Carta.” It was a book to which ordinary people should appeal whenever their rights were threatened"..

.."In December 1845 an ABS agent in Granville, Massachusetts, reported to the ABS headquarters in New York news of a religious revival occurring in the town. As was quite common whenever an agent presided over such an awakening, he credited the renewed religious fervor to the distribution of the Bible. In a moment of spirit-filled exaltation, he ended his letter with a word of praise to God for all that was happening in Granville: “He has magnified the word above all thy name! The Bible! The Bible is the religion of Protestants!” Indeed, as the ABS made abundantly clear in the first forty years of its existence, the Bible was indeed the religion of the Protestants."..

.."Though ABS Bibles were popular in the Catholic regions..the Society’s decision to publish them without the so-called Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books, and without Catholic commentary or notes, ultimately presented an obstacle to distribution"..

.."ABS publications during the 1840s and 1850s described “the rapid influx of foreigners” bringing with them “the prevalence of infidelity, of Papacy, Mormonism, and other soul-destroying delusions” that could only be countered by the spread of the “volume of truth without delay over all our land.” An ABS agent in Iowa wrote, “Catholics, aware of the future importance of Iowa, are pouring in their population with a rapidity truly alarming to those who have come here to find a home for themselves and families.” ABS agents feared that “the Papists” were making the city of Indianapolis “one of their strongholds.” It was time for all Bible-loving Protestants to “redouble their efforts” in the dissemination of the Holy Scriptures as the “surest means” of keeping the Protestant settlers of Indianapolis “free from the errors of Popery.” After all, “Rome cannot take root in soils impregnated with the salt of divine truth.”

..."By 1850, Catholicism was the largest religious body in the United States.. ..the ABS was very aware of these demographic trends. Located in New York City, its staff had a first-hand look at the social and cultural transformation. The New York Bible Society, for example, noted that “Irish Roman Catholics” constituted “almost the entire population” in some parts of the city. In an 1847 report the New York society described the Irish immigrants as “extremely ignorant and generally bigoted.” They had beliefs and practices that were foreign to Protestant America such as transubstantiation, the use of holy water, and the practice of praying to the Virgin Mary"...

 

[Josiah]

What I’m saying is that people should look at what the early church said

It said nothing on this. We know that you have CLAIMED very much about what "The Church" and "The Apostles" and "Christianity" said on this, but there's a reason why you've so consistently refused to quote it doing so. It didn't say a THING about what books are and are not inerrant, canonical, inscripturated words of God... and not a word about what law should be enacted mandating what printers, publishing houses, Bible soceities, and book stores may or may not have in tomes with the word BIBLE on the cover.

True, you can find 2 or 3 (maybe even more) individual, singular Christian people giving their view... but no one person (or 2 or 3 persons) IS "The Church" or "Christianity". And you've not yet quoted even one Apostle saying anything at all about this.

what the church councils said

None said anything on this.

Yes, you can find three tiny, obscure, regional, diocesan meetings that did say SOMETHING related to this, but as you have already admit, these were not meetings of The Church, these were not ecumenical meetings. Indeed, there's no evidence that most churches at the time were even aware of them (and if so, paid any attention to them). It's generally accepted that there were 7 Ecumenical Councils.... virtually all Christians embraced the first 3, less the last 4 - but these are the only times in history that it can even remotely be claimed that "The Church" spoke (and that's pushing it!) and at NONE of them was there any statement about any books or any mandated international law about what books labled "BIBLE" must and must not contain between the covers.

Ignatius knew John. Polycarp knew John. And these guys quote the Apocrypha. Clement quotes Judith. John and Polycarp quote Tobit.

1. None of these is The Church.

2. None of these is an Ecumenical Council.

3. None of these is an Apostle.

4. None of these states that some list are all inerrant, canonical, inspired words of God equal to all the rest and that printers, publishers and book sellers must be forbidden to including anything in Bibles other than this list of books.

Origen lists 7 books together - in the same category - Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache and The Gospel of the Hebrews. He specifically states that Barnabas and Hermas are "Scripture" and "Catholic epistles. So, since your rubric is that if some person had a VIEW about what is "Scripture" then that proves The Apostles said that, The Church declared that - then why aren't you arguing for Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews?

So people should look at this evidence and make up their own minds what to believe.

We can if you presented any. So far, all we have is a long, long, long list of CLAIMS - all baseless, all unsubstantiated.

why the earliest of church authorities quoted them as scripture,

You've presented NOTHING that indicates that the reason some writing is quoted is because The Church declared it to be inerrant, canonical, inscripturated words of God. They quoted from each other A LOT - does that mean their writings are also Scripture because the Apostles all said so, because The Church declared so? Early Christians also quoted from philosophers (as Paul himself does in Scripture). In your church, if your pastor quotes from some book or newspaper or the lyrics of a hymn or even from some some TV show or movie, does that prove ERGOall that is thus inerrant, canonical, inspired Scripture equal to all the rest, obviously all 12-14 Apostles believed so, The Church declared it so? Obviously not.

Now, I'll yield that you can find a FEW (a very tiny number) of cases where some singular, individual person quotes something and suggests such is Scripture. This only proves that what is and is not Scripture was not fixed at the time, it does not prove that all 12-14 Apostles sent out this email to all Christians saying so... that The Church at one of its Seven Ecumenical Councils declared it so .. it shows that ONE MAN felt it was Scripture. Sorry, but one man is not The Apostles, not The Church, not an Ecumenical Council.

So it’s dishonest to say that I’m just willy nilly adding books to the Bible

I think what you are doing is "willy nilly" making claims that you won't support as true, that you don't substantiate. And I think you are making huge, olympic, amazing, remarkable LEAPS that are entirely unsubstantiated.

I’m only agreeing with what really church leaders said belongs in the Bible.

It might help if you quoted them.... maybe just 12, only 12, just a dozen. NONE Apostles. NONE the Church. NONE an Ecumenical Council. I'll even permit you to forget you said "Church Leaders." Just 12. Just 12 saying: "Here's the complete list of all books that are inerrant, canonical, inspired books equal to all the rest, no others are" Just 12. Only 12. That would substantiate NOTHING about Christianity but would show 12 saying what you claim they did. Go for it.

We all know you won't. And why.




Now, IF... IF... IF you can Andy said, "Look, for much of Christian history, some Christians have read and used several books beyond "the 66" even holding them in great esteem and at times listing them with Scripture and including them in biblical tomes... and at times some of these are often seen (even today) as very useful, helpful, informational and inspirational, at times included in lectionaries and to support teachings. And it would be good if today we were more often encouraged to read these." IF, IF, IF you had said THAT, most here at CH would have said "AMEN!" I could have noted how Luther so often quoted from 8 of them and how he included those in his translation, how Lutherans have entire lectionaries that fully embrace them and conduct studies of them.... Ablion would note Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England and how Anglican churches include it's set of them in the lectionary and not infrequently use them as sermon texts...

But that's not what you've claimed. The issue is the claims you've made. And how you've not once even attempted them to be true. For people who think truth matters, THAT'S the problem.




.




.

 

[Josiah]

The ABS is part of the UBS... and you are 100% correct! ...about my view on the Bible Society.. which IS the authorized Protestant Bible

No. The American Bible Society is NOT the authoritative ruling body of Protestantism.

No. The American Bible Society is NOT the official spokesman organization for Protestantism. Not 200 years ago, not now. I suspect if you asked most Protestants in the world, they've probably never heard of it.

No. The American Bible Society is not now, and never has been, The Authoritative Body that Protestantism has to approve and disprove of what printers, publishing houses and book stores may put in (or can't put in) books with "BIBLE" on the cover.



The issue remains: Where is your evidence that PROTESTANTISM (not one society) RIPPED OUT a bunch of books (you won't identify) that The Apostles, The Church, the Ecumenical Councils and Protestantism first put IN (but you won't identify when or where this happened)? And the proof for you claim that I'm (Josiah) the "prime example" of "Lutherans who especially discourage people from reading them" (but you don't say what "them")? Waiting....




.

 

[Andrew]

No. The American Bible Society is NOT the authoritative ruling body of Protestantism.

No. The American Bible Society is NOT the official spokesman organization for Protestantism. Not 200 years ago, not now. I suspect if you asked most Protestants in the world, they've probably never heard of it.

No. The American Bible Society is not now, and never has been, The Authoritative Body that Protestantism has to approve and disprove of what printers, publishing houses and book stores may put in (or can't put in) books with "BIBLE" on the cover.



The issue remains: Where is your evidence that PROTESTANTISM (not one society) RIPPED OUT a bunch of books (you won't identify) that The Apostles, The Church, the Ecumenical Councils and Protestantism first put IN (but you won't identify when or where this happened)? And the proof for you claim that I'm (Josiah) the "prime example" of "Lutherans who especially discourage people from reading them" (but you don't say what "them")? Waiting....




.

Why don't Lutherans include the same books Luther had in Luthers Bible? OHHH that's right! You got the Bible Society Reformers to defend against Luthers Bible now!

 

[Josiah]

Why don't Lutherans include the same books Luther had in Luthers Bible? OHHH that's right! You got the Bible Society Reformers to defend against Luthers Bible now!

why do you CONSTANTLY run from points made?

But to address your latest diversion, and to repeat what has been said to you MANY times (I know, "I could care less")....


1. Lutherans do not have a LAW about what books printers, publishing houses, bible societies and book stores may or may not put between the covers of tomes with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. You have not been able to list even one (of the over 100,000) denominations that does. Certainly no Lutheran one. Perhaps a Catholic book store doesn't have on its shelf any Bibles with the Prayer of Manassah or Psalm 151 in it; if so it's broken no law and suggests no grand Jewish or Protestant conspiracy.

2. My Bible - published and sold by the Lutheran Concordia Publishing House - DOES include Luther's 8. It also publishes a very excellent study of the 8. It also publishes GREAT notations about the 8 and how they relate to the OT and NT. It also publishes a daily lectionary to encourage laity to daily read the 8. But as you've said, "I could not care less" - you'll just make the claim anyway, doesn't matter if you have nothing to support your claim, "I could not care less."


Now, how does your question about my Bible prove....

All those Jewish Conspiracy claims...

That the Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

All books found in all Bibles are equal....

That "The Church", "Christianity" "Christians" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

That "Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

That there is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books (but won't say which)....

That every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

That Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books ....

That Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

I'm (Josiah) THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them"..





.

 

[Andrew]

If you encouraged them you would do so in the manner of Martin Luther who kept them in his Bible.

 

[Albion]

The ABS is part of the UBS... and you are 100% correct! ...about my view on the Bible Society.. which IS the authorized Protestant Bible....

How in the world are we readers supposed to take such fantasies seriously? You might as well write that the Yellow Pages are the "official Protestant" version of the Bible.

The only thing I can surmise is that it's another case of using ambiguous language in order to get away with an incorrect claim. By "authorized," you apparently want to say that all the Protestant denominations have agreed that this is their official version--not some publication of a private business that met the standards of some Protestants or other, but THE VERSION of the Bible that is official.

And then we have the notion (already proffered by another poster) that there is a single Protestant denomination that approves or authorizes such materials for use by all reformed Christians in the first place.

 

[Josiah]

How in the world are we readers supposed to take such fantasies seriously? You might as well write that the Yellow Pages are the "official Protestant" version of the Bible.

The claims just get crazier and crazier, more and more laughable.... and of course, NEVER substantiated. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised, Andy said "I could care less."


It's just NUTS to even suggest that the American Bible Society is THE authoritative, ruling body for Protestantism. Nuts. He claims the Apostles did stuff - but can't find even one ever doing that, but it doesn't matter if the claim is true. He claims that "The Church" did stuff - but can't find even one statement from "The Church" doing that, but he couldn't care less. He claims that Protestantism did stuff - but can't find even one statement from Protestantism doing that, but that doesn't matter, he couldn't care less. He claims that the 70 million Lutherans currently alive especially discourage people from reading "them" but can't find even one the 300 or so Lutheran denominations doing that or even one of the 70,000,000 or so Lutherans doing that, but it doesn't matter, he couldn't care less. He claims that I'M (me, Josiah) I am "the prime example" of a Lutheran discouraging reading these books, but he has not ONE quote from me remotely doing so, but it just doesn't matter, he couldn't care less. Ahe claims he's proven that I'm THE prime example of Lutherans who especially discourage people from reading "them" but that too just isn't true but it just doesn't matter.

All the Jewish Conspiracy theories.... all the claims about "THEM" (without even agreeing on what "them" he's talking about)... all the claims about Christianity this, Apostles that, the Church... all the claims about Protestantism and Lutherans.... NONE with any substantiation at all, but it just doesn't matter, he couldn't care less. All he does is pile more and more baseless, unsubstantiated claims on top of the ever growing pile, perhaps thinking that 10 falsehoods makes a truth.



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

At one time, back in the 19th century, the Catholic Church regarded the Bible Societies as anti-Catholic. They were in fact quite anti-Catholic during part of the 19th Century and maybe beyond.

Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI on Biblical Societies on 8 May 1844

To the Venerable Brothers, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops.

Venerable Brothers, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction.

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. Therefore it is just as Jerome complained in his day:1 they make the art of understanding the Scriptures without a teacher "common to babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists," and to anyone who can read, no matter what his status. Indeed, what is even more absurd and almost unheard of, they do not exclude the common people of the infidels from sharing this kind of a knowledge.

2. But you know the aim of these societies. In his sacred writings, Peter, after praising the letters of Paul, warns that in these epistles "certain things are difficult to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable distort just as they do the rest of the Scriptures, which also leads to their destruction." He adds at once, "Since you know this beforehand, be on your guard lest, carried away by the error of the foolish, you fall away from your own steadfastness."2 Hence it is clear to you that even from the first ages of Christianity this was a skill appropriate for heretics. Having repudiated the given word of God and rejected the authority of the Catholic Church, they either interpolate "by artifice" into the Scriptures or pervert "its meaning through interpretation."3 Nor finally are you ignorant of the diligence and knowledge required to faithfully translate into another language the words of the Lord. 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. It is of little concern to these societies if men reading their vernacular Bibles fall into error. They are concerned primarily that the reader becomes accustomed to judging for himself the meaning of the books of Scripture, to scorning divine tradition preserved by the Catholic Church in the teaching of the Fathers, and to repudiating the very authority of the Church.

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. The decrees of the Council of Trent even commanded the bishops to see to it that "the sacred Scriptures and the divine law" are preached more frequently in the dioceses.4 In expanding the provisions of the Lateran Council,5 they order that in each church, either cathedral or collegiate in the cities and better known towns, individuals able to explain and interpret sacred Scripture must be obtained.6 Later action was taken in many provincial synods7 concerning the establishment of an ecclesiastical benefice according to the norms of articles sanctioned by the Council of Trent,8 and about readings to be given publicly to the clergy and also to the people by a canonical theologian. Also, in the Roman Council of 1725, Benedict XIII assembled not only the sacred bishops of the Roman province but also many of the archbishops, bishops and other ordinaries of places in no way subject to this Holy See to deal with this same matter.9 In addition, for the same purpose he proposed several measures in apostolic letters which he wrote expressly for Italy and the adjacent islands.10 You customarily report on the condition of diocesan affairs at stated times to the Apostolic See.11 It is clear from the answers of our Congregation of the Council, sent repeatedly to your predecessors or to you yourselves, how this same Holy See congratulates bishops if they have beneficed theologians who give public readings of the sacred Scriptures. The Holy See never fails to admonish and aid the pastoral care of those bishops, if anywhere this matter has not succeeded according to plan.

4. Moreover, regarding the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, even many centuries ago bishops in various places have at times had to exercise greater vigilance when they became aware that such translations were being read in secret gatherings or were being distributed by heretics. Innocent III issued warnings concerning the secret gatherings of laymen and women, under the pretext of piety, for the reading of Scripture in the diocese of Metz.12 There was also a special prohibition of Scripture translations promulgated either in Gaul a little later13 or in Spain before the sixteenth century.14 But later even more care was required when the Lutherans and Calvinists dared to oppose the changeless doctrine of the faith with an almost incredible variety of errors. They left no means untried to deceive the faithful with perverse explanations of the sacred books, which were published by their adherents with new interpretations in the vernacular.15 They were aided in multiplying copies and quickly spreading them by the newly invented art of printing. Therefore in the rules written by the fathers chosen by the Council of Trent, approved by Pius IV,'s and placed in the Index of forbidden books, we read the statute declaring that vernacular Bibles are forbidden except to those for whom it is judged that the reading will contribute "to the increase of faith and piety."16 Because of the continued deceptions of heretics, this rule was further restricted and supplemented by a declaration of Benedict XIV: for the future the only vernacular translations which may be read are those which "are approved by the Apostolic See" or at least were published "with annotations taken from the holy Fathers of the Church, or from learned and Catholic authors."17

5. Meanwhile there was no dearth of new sect members in 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. But this audacity of the Jansenists we find reprehended by the grave censures of two recent supreme pontiffs, namely Clement XI in the Constitution Unigenitus in 1713[18] and Pius VI in the Constitution Auctorem Fidei in 1794.[19]

6. So before the biblical societies were founded, the faithful had already been alerted by the aforementioned decrees against the deception of the heretics, which works in their specious zeal to spread the divine writings for the common use. However Pius VII, who understood that these societies founded in his time were flourishing, opposed their efforts by means of his apostolic nuncio, by his letters, by published decrees,20 by various Congregations of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and by two of his pontifical letters which he addressed to the archbishops of Gniezno21 and Mohilev.22 Immediately thereafter Leo XII continued the battle against the biblical societies with an encyclical letter addressed to all the bishops of the Catholic world, published on May 5, 1824, and Pius VIII did the same in an encyclical letter published May 24, 1829. And lastly, We who, though unworthy, have succeeded to his place have taken great pains to remind the faithful of the ancient laws concerning vernacular translations of the Scriptures.23

7. However We have reason to congratulate you, since, moved by piety and prudence and strengthened by these letters of Our predecessors, you warned Catholics to be on their guard against the snares which the biblical societies were spreading for them. Thus, by the efforts of God and His Church, it has come to pass that some incautious Catholic men who imprudently favored the biblical societies have understood how they were deceived. They have left the societies, and the remaining faithful have continued almost immune from the contagion which threatened them from this source.

8. In the meantime, the biblical societies did not doubt that they would obtain high praise for leading infidels in some manner or other to the profession of the Christian name by the reading of the sacred books published in their own language. They strove to distribute these in immense numbers by their missionaries and scouts, who even forced them upon the unwilling. But for the men striving to propagate the Christian name outside of the rules established by Christ himself, almost nothing happened according to plan. They were able at times to create new impediments for Catholic priests who set out to these peoples with a commission from this Holy See. These priests spared no labor to bring forth new sons of the Church by preaching the word of God and administering the Sacraments; they even prepared to shed their blood under all kinds of intense tortures for their salvation and for the defense of the faith.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Continued

9. Now, however, these sect members are deprived of their expectations and regret the immense outlay of money spent in publishing their Bibles and spreading them without success. Some have now been found who have directed their efforts toward Italians, especially the citizens of Rome herself, after the manner of a new first assault. Actually We learned from reports and documents just received that a number of men of various sects met in the city of New York last year on June 12 and founded a new society called Christian League. Their common purpose is to spread religious liberty, or rather an insane desire for indifference concerning religion, among Romans and Italians. They assert that the institutions of the Roman and Italian peoples have been so influential that anything of any consequence that has happened in the world had its origin in Rome. They arrive at this conclusion not because the Supreme See of Peter is here according to the plan of the Lord, but because there has been a certain residue of ancient Roman domination, usurped by Our predecessors, as they often repeat, but still active. Therefore they are determined to give everyone the gift of liberty of conscience, or rather of error; they liken it to a fountain from which political liberty and increased public prosperity may spring forth. But they feel that they can accomplish nothing unless they make some progress with Roman and Italian citizens, thereafter using their authority and efforts to influence other nations. And they are confident that they will achieve this easily, since there are so many Italians everywhere on earth, many of whom will return to their fatherland. Of these, some are attracted to new things, some have corrupt morals, and some are oppressed with poverty and may thus be lured to join the society voluntarily or to join for a price. Therefore the societies have concentrated on these people so that they will bring corrupt, vernacular Bibles here and secretly spread them among the faithful. They will also distribute other evil books and pamphlets composed with the aid of some Italians or translated into Italian in order to alienate the minds of the readers from the Holy Church and from obedience to it. Among these they designate particularly the Histoire de la reformation by Merle d'Aubigne and Fostes de la Reforme en Italie by John Cric. The nature of these books and of their future publications can be understood from the fact that no two members on the committee selecting books may ever be of the same religious sect.

10. When these things were first brought to Our attention, We were greatly saddened by the dangers to religion not only in places far from Rome, but in the very center of Catholic unity. We need fear little that the See of Peter may ever fall because the impregnable foundation of his Church was laid by Christ the Lord; however We must not cease to defend its authority. Besides the divine Leader of pastors will demand of Us a severe reckoning for the growth of weeds in the field of the Lord if they have been sown by an enemy while We were asleep, and for the blood of the sheep who have perished here through Our fault.

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. Concerning other works of any writer We repeat that all must abide by the general rules and decrees of Our predecessors which are found in the Index of forbidden books, and indeed not only for those books specifically listed, but also for others to which the aforementioned prohibitions apply.

12. Thus, We emphatically exhort you to announce these Our commands to the people accredited to your pastoral care; explain them in the proper place and time, and strive mightily to keep the faithful sheep away from the Christian League and other biblical societies, as well as away from their followers. Also take from the faithful both the vernacular Bibles which have been published contrary to the sanctions of the Roman Pontiffs and all other books which are proscribed and condemned. In this way see that the faithful themselves by your warnings and authority "are taught that they ought to consider what kind of food is healthful for them, and what is noxious and deadly."24 Meanwhile be more zealous each day to preach the word of God, both through yourselves and through the individual pastors in each diocese, and through other ecclesiastical men fit for the task. In particular, watch more carefully over those who are assigned to give public readings of holy scripture, so that they function diligently in their office within the comprehension of the audience; under no pretext whatsoever should they dare to explain and interpret the divine writings contrary to the tradition of the Fathers or the interpretation of the Catholic Church. Finally it is proper for a good pastor not only to safeguard and nourish his sheep, but also to seek and recall to the sheepfold those who have gone to a distant place. So it will also be your duty and Ours to direct Our fullest zeal to this end, that all who have been seduced by such sect members and the distributers of evil books recognize the gravity of their sin and strive to expiate it with penance. Nor indeed are the seducers to be deprived of the same priestly solicitude, especially the teachers of impiety themselves; although their sin is greater, We should not shrink from their salvation, which We may be able to procure by some means.

13. We ask those of you who rule churches in Italy, or in other places where Italians live in great numbers, or where there are trading centers and ports from which passage into Italy is frequent, that special and intense vigilance be exercised against the deceits and labors of the members of the Christian League. Since it is there that the sect members have determined to bring their plans to fruition, it follows that the bishops in those places especially must collaborate with Us in ready and constant zeal to dissipate their machinations. We earnestly desire the help of the Lord in this task.

14. We have no doubt that these cares of Ours and yours will be seconded with the aid of the civil powers, especially by the more influential princes of Italy. This is because of their exceptional zeal for preserving the Catholic religion and because they realize that the state would benefit if the efforts of the above-mentioned sect members should fail. Experience shows that there is no more direct way of alienating the populace from fidelity and obedience to their leaders than through that indifference to religion propagated by the sect members under the name of religious liberty. And this not even the members of the Christian League conceal: although they profess themselves strangers to inciting sedition, they advocate allowing every man of the masses to interpret the Bible as he likes. As complete liberty of conscience, as they call it, spreads among the Italian people, political liberty will result of its own accord.

15. But what is truly first and foremost, let Us raise Our hands together to God and let Us commend to him, with the humility of prayer as fervent as We can make it, Our cause and that of the whole flock and of the Church; let Us also invoke with pious petitions Peter the prince of the apostles, the other saints, and especially the Blessed Virgin Mary, who has the power to end all the heresies in the whole world.

16. Finally, as a pledge of Our ardent love, We grant the Apostolic Benediction with an outpouring of affection to all of you, venerable brothers, and to the clergy and faithful laity committed to your care.

Given at Rome at St. Peter's, May 8, 1844, in the fourteenth year of Our Pontificate.

 

[Andrew]

The claims just get crazier and crazier, more and more laughable.... and of course, NEVER substantiated. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised, Andy said "I could care less."


It's just NUTS to even suggest that the American Bible Society is THE authoritative, ruling body for Protestantism. Nuts. He claims the Apostles did stuff - but can't find even one ever doing that, but it doesn't matter if the claim is true. He claims that "The Church" did stuff - but can't find even one statement from "The Church" doing that, but he couldn't care less. He claims that Protestantism did stuff - but can't find even one statement from Protestantism doing that, but that doesn't matter, he couldn't care less. He claims that the 70 million Lutherans currently alive especially discourage people from reading "them" but can't find even one the 300 or so Lutheran denominations doing that or even one of the 70,000,000 or so Lutherans doing that, but it doesn't matter, he couldn't care less. He claims that I'M (me, Josiah) I am "the prime example" of a Lutheran discouraging reading these books, but he has not ONE quote from me remotely doing so, but it just doesn't matter, he couldn't care less. Ahe claims he's proven that I'm THE prime example of Lutherans who especially discourage people from reading "them" but that too just isn't true but it just doesn't matter.

All the Jewish Conspiracy theories.... all the claims about "THEM" (without even agreeing on what "them" he's talking about)... all the claims about Christianity this, Apostles that, the Church... all the claims about Protestantism and Lutherans.... NONE with any substantiation at all, but it just doesn't matter, he couldn't care less. All he does is pile more and more baseless, unsubstantiated claims on top of the ever growing pile, perhaps thinking that 10 falsehoods makes a truth.



.

I think I finally get it!

Jews conspiring?? How absurd! Why they were never known to conspire against The Body of Christ!!

Bible Societies being Anti-Catholic? Ridiculous! Only Protestants are Anti-Catholic! It's only a mere coincidence that the Protestant Bibles dropped the Apocrypha books fromt their copies at the precise exact time the Bible Societies did, leaving them with exactly 66 books in their Bibles!

The title of this very thread is malarkey!! There were never ever ever ever any Bible ever that included any book outside divine scripture!! Those were all just typos! That's why there were so many translations, the centuries of work it took to correct the typos was FINALLY completed in the 19th century!!

OH THANK YOU dearest Josiah, man of such great saintly patience! FOR OPENING MY EYES

Now I can finally move on!

 

[MoreCoffee]

THE authoritative, ruling body for Protestantism.

Yes indeed, even Lutheranism alone has no such governing body and relatively little unity. In North America there are more than 40 Lutheran denominations so to have a single governing body is quite impossible.

• American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC)
• Apostolic Lutheran Church of America (ALCA)
• Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches (ACLC)
• Association of Free Lutheran Congregations (AFLC)
• Augsburg Lutheran Churches (ALC)
• Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations (CALC)
• Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America (CLBA)
• Church of the Lutheran Confession (CLC)
• Concordia Lutheran Conference (CLC)
• Conservative Lutheran Association (CLA)
• Eielsen Synod
• Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church (EELK)
• Evangelical Lutheran Church - Eesti Synod (E.E.L.K.)[2]
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC)
• Evangelical Lutheran Conference & Ministerium of North America (ELCM)
• Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA)
• Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS)
• General Lutheran Church (GLC)[3]
• Illinois Lutheran Conference (ILC)[4]
• Independent Lutheran Diocese (ILD)[5]
• Laestadian Lutheran Church (LLC)
• Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (LELCA)
• Lutheran Church–Canada (LCC)
• Lutheran Church - International (LC-I)
• Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS)
• Lutheran Churches of the Reformation (LCR)
• Lutheran Conference of Confessional Fellowship (LCCF)[6]
• Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC)
• The Reformed Lutheran Church of America (RLCA)
• The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church (GCEPC)
• Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA (LMS-USA)
• North American Lutheran Church (NALC)
• Old Apostolic Lutheran Church
• Orthodox Lutheran Confessional Conference (OLCC)
• Protes'tant Conference
• United Lutheran Mission Association (ULMA)
• Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)