A Catechism of the Bible

8/6/2019 A Catechism of the Bible

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-catechism-of-the-bible 1/31

A Catechism Of The Bible

By Rev. John O'Brien, M.A.

New York 1924Revised and enlarged byFr. Jaime Pazat De Lys, F.S.S.P.X

St. Mary's, Kansas 1997Copyright © 1997, 2003. Jaime Pazat De Lys

For eword (By a Roman Catholic Bishop)

There is only one true God. He took flesh and became

man only once. When man, He founded only onereligion and one Church, the Roman Catholic Religion

and the Roman Catholic Church. That Church is thedivinely appointed guardian of the writings divinely

inspired by God, known as the Bible. This Holy Bible islike no other book, because no other book has God for its principal author. Nevertheless the Bible is not the

foundation of the Church, but the Church is thefoundation of the Bible. That is why Catholics need

Mother Church as the guardian and interpreter of theBible. Alas, Protestants have sown much confusion in

the domain of Bible translations and Bible Studies, andin our own time their errors have been renewed by the

pseudo-Catholics known as modernists. With thesimplicity and clarity of a Catholic Catechism, this

"Catechism of the Bible" re-establishes the mind of theCatholic Church on many a vexed point. May it help

many Catholics graze safely in the divine pastures of Holy Scripture.

Contents

Lesson 1. Bible Definitions

Lesson 2. Inspiration of the Bible Lesson 3. Dates and Division of the Bible

Lesson 4. The Old Testament Lesson 5. The New Testament

Lesson 6. The Canon of Sacred Scripture Lesson 7. The Bible and Tradition

Lesson 8. The Languages of the Bible

Lesson 9. The Septuagint Version Lesson 10. The Vulgate Lesson 11. The Douay Bible

Lesson 12. The Bible and Science Lesson 13. The Bible and History

Lesson 14. Interpreting the Bible Lesson 15. Reading the Bible

Lesson 16. Differences between Catholic and Protestant



versions Lesson 17. Materials used in composing the Bible

Lesson 1:Bible Definitions

1. What does the word "Bible" mean?

The word "Bible" means "book."

2. From what language is the word der ived?

(Etymological definition)

From the Latin "Biblia," which in turn comes from the

Greek.

3. Is the Gr eek word f or what we call the "Bible" in the singular or in the plur al?

In the plural, which means that it should be translated"the books".

4. Why did the Gr eeks use the plur al f or m?

They used the plural form because the Bible is not one book but a collection of books.

5. Is the Latin word f or what we call the Bible in the singular or in the plur al?

It is in the singular and, therefore, should be translated

"the book".

6. Why does the Latin use the singular f or m?

Because the Bible is the most important book there is,since it is the Word of God.

7. What does the Bible contain?

The Bible contains chiefly a history of God's Revelationto mankind.

8. What does the Bible give us in addition to the histor y of God's dealings with mankind?

In addition, the Bible gives us instructions in faith andmorals.

9. Does the Bible give other instructions?

Certain books give detailed instructions for the carryingout of religious worship in the Old Law.

10. Did the Bible, as some seem to think, fall f rom heaven?

No; the Bible was written by man.

11. If the Bible was wr itten by man, why do we say it is the wr itten word of God?

Though written by man, we can truly say it is the written

word of God, because it was written under the



inspiration of God.

Lesson 2:

Inspir ation Of The Bible

1. Must we believe in the inspir ation of the Bible?

Yes, the inspiration of the Bible is an article of Faith

which cannot be denied without sin.

2. What is meant by inspir ation of the Bible?

Inspiration of the Bible means, in the first place, that

those who wrote the Bible were impelled to do so byGod.

3. What else is meant by inspir ation of the Bible?

Principally that those who wrote the Bible were protected from error while writing what God impelledthem to write.

4. Is ther e a special name f or that protection of the wr iter f rom error?

Yes, it is called "biblical inerrancy." It means that thereare no errors in the Bible.

5. What proof have we that the Bible is inspir ed?

The Catholic Church, which is infallible, teaches us so.

6. Does not the Chur ch itself r ely on the Bible f or proofs of its infallibility?

Besides those found in the Bible, the Church has manyother proofs for its infallibility.

7. What gener al proof have we f or the inspir ation of the Bible?

Besides many others, we have Our Lord's constant

references to the Old Testament as the word of God,while the early Christian Church testifies to the

inspiration of the New Testament.

8. Ar e all the par ts of the Bible inspir ed?

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred

and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with alltheir parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost ..." (Leo the

XIII in Providentissimus Deus, E.B. 124, 127)

9. Does the inspir ation apply to the or iginals only, or to the tr anslations also?

Both: It applies absolutely to the originals, and to thetranslations insofar as they are faithful to the originals.



Lesson 3:Dates And Division Of The Bible

1. When was the Bible wr itten?

The Bible was written during a period covering morethan 1500 years.

2. When was the fir st book wr itten?

The exact date is not known, but it must have been somefifteen hundred years before Christ, since its author was

Moses.

3. When was the last book wr itten?

The last book was written about the year 93 A.D.

4. What per iod of time does the Bible, as a book of histor y, cover?

As a history, the Bible covers a period of manythousands of years.

5. Name the event with which the Bible, as a book of histor y, begins.

The creation of the universe.

6. What events br ing the Bible, as a book of histor y, to a close?

The life of Christ and early spread of Christianity.

7. How is the Bible divided?

The Bible is divided into the Old and New Testaments.

8. Is the division into Old and New Testaments suitable?

It is, since the Old Testament deals with the span of time

before Christ's first coming with the expectation for thefuture Savior, while the New Testament treats of His life

and work in this world, or the realization of that hope.

Lesson 4:The Old Testament

1. How many books does the Old Testament contain?

It contains from forty-five to forty-seven books,depending on how the books are divided.

2. Into how many classes may these books be divided?

Three.

3. Name these classes.

Didactic or Doctrinal, Historical, and Prophetic books.



4. Is ther e any r eason f or this classification?

Yes, the very matter contained in them suggests thisclassification.

5. What ar e the Didactic or Doctr inal books?

There are the books that contain the teachings of God toman.

6. How many Didactic books ar e ther e in the Old Testament?

Seven: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of

Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus.

7. Why ar e other s called "Prophetical Books"?

Because they treat of the Messiah and His life, passion,and death in a prophetical manner.

8. Ar e all the Prophetical books of equal impor tance?

No; four of these books are called the Greater Prophets because they are greater in length and deal with more

important matters, generally, than the other twelve whichare called the Lesser Prophets.

9. Why ar e the r emaining books classified as "Histor ical books"?

The remaining books are so classified because they

narrate the history of the People of God and the historyof our salvation.

Lesson 5:

The New Testament

1. How many books ar e ther e in the New Testament?

There are twenty-seven books in the New Testament.

2. When wer e these books wr itten?

These books were written during a period extending

from 35 A.D. to 93 A.D.

3. By whom wer e they wr itten?

They were written mainly by the Apostles.

4. Why do we say "mainly"?

We say "mainly" because some books of the New

Testament were written by men who were not theApostles, i.e., St. Mark and St. Luke.

5. How may the books of the New Testament be classified?

Like those of the Old Testament, the books of the New



may be grouped into three classes.

6. Name these thr ee classes.

They are the same classes as with the Old Testament:Historical, Didactic, and Prophetical.

7. Name the Histor ical Books.

The Historical Books are the four Gospels and the Actsof the Apostles.

8. Name the Didactic Books.

The Didactic Books are all the Epistles.

9. Name the Prophetical Books.

There is only one Prophetical Book i? the NewTestament, namely, the Apocalypse of St. John.

10. What do we learn f rom the New Testament?

From the New Testament we learn the principal events in

the Life of Christ, many Christian beliefs and practices,as well as much history of the early Catholic Church.

11. Was the New Testament wr itten pr imar ily to conver t people?

No, conversion was done by preaching. The NewTestament was written to strengthen the Faith of the

people already converted.

12. Can we prove it?

Yes: "It seems good to me also, ... to write to thee in

order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest knowthe verity of those words in which thou hast beeninstructed" (Lc. I, 3-4).

Lesson 6:

CanonOf Sacr ed Scr iptur e

1. How many books does the entir e Bible contain?

Seventy-two or seventy-four, depending on the way they

are calculated

2. How do we know with cer tainty that the Bible contains only these books?

We know with certainty that the Bible contains onlythese books because the number is fixed by the "Canon

of the Scriptures."

3. What is meant by the word "Canon"?



"Canon" is a Greek word that means a standard or rule.

4. What is meant by the "Canon of Scr iptur es"?

Originally, the Canon of Scriptures meant thequalifications required of a book before admittance into

the number of recognized inspired writings; now itmeans the very collection of these books recognized as

inspired.

5. Who decides which books belong to the Bible and which do not?

The Catholic Church decides.

6. By what author ity does the Catholic Chur ch make this decision?

By that of Christ, Who has made her the infallible

teacher of faith and morals by both the oral and thewritten word.

7. What special mar k was r equir ed of a book bef or e its admittance into the collection

known as the Bible?

The special mark required was clear proof of itsinspiration.

8. By whom was the fir st list of the books of the Bible dr awn up?

Pope Damasus, at the Roman Council of 382 A.D.

9. By what name ar e those books, whose authenticity was never questioned, known?

They are known as the Proto-Canonical Books.

10. Why ar e they so called?

They are so called because from the beginning they wererecognized as Scriptural; the Greek prefix "proto" has the

signification "from the first" or "originally," hence theuse of the term "proto-canonical" to describe those

books.

11. By what name ar e the disputed books known?

They are known as the Deutero-Canonical Books.

12. Why ar e they so called?

They are so called because their recognition as Scriptural

came "afterwards"; the Greek word "Deutero" used as a

prefix has the signification of "second" or "later."

13. Name the Deutero-Canonical Books.

Tobias, Wisdom, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees (I

& II), Judith, Esther (Ch X. v. 4 to end), Daniel (Ch. III,vs. 52-93). The Protestants call them "Apocryphal"

Books.



14. Why did the Hebr ews not admit these books as par t of the Bible?

As a whole, the Hebrews stopped admitting these booksafter the second Century A.D., because they were written

in languages other than Hebrew, or were of uncertainauthorship.

15. Did the Hebr ews ever f or mally r ejected these books?

On the contrary, even if they did not accept these booksas part of the Bible, they were always held in the greatest

reverence by the Hebrews.

16. Under what guidance does the Chur ch declar e which books ar e canonical and which

ar e not?

Under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

17. How do we know that she has this guidance?

We know that she has this guidance because Christ

promised assistance to His Church until the end of times[Matthew 28:20].

18. Has the Chur ch made use of human means in dr awing up the Canon of Scr iptur es?

Yes; she investigated carefully whether the doctrine

taught in the book was in harmony with Tradition andwhether the book was of apostolic origin.

Lesson 7:The Bible And Tr adition

1. Do we not have in the Bible books wr itten by author s, other than the Apostles?

We have, but these authors lived in apostolic times andmerely recorded the words and deeds of the Apostles

themselves.

2. Why does the Chur ch not admit any books except those of Apostolic or igin?

The Church does not accept any book not of Apostolic

origin because the Deposit of Faith was completed withthe death of the last Apostle (St. John).

3. Why does the Chur ch r equir e that a book should be in har mony with Tr adition?

She requires that a book be in harmony with Tradition because the Gospel had already been preached before aword of the New Testament was ever written.

4. Ar e ther e in the Bible any books whose inspir ation was doubted by some f or a time?

Yes, the Second Epistle of St Peter, the Epistle to theHebrews, and the Apocalypse.



5. Ar e ther e any books not f ound in the Bible today which f or a time wer e thought by

some to be inspir ed?

Yes, namely the "Gospel of St. James," the "Gospel of St. Thomas," the "Acts of St. Paul," amongst many

others.

6. What happened to these books once thought to be inspir ed?

They were rejected as spurious. It does not mean

necessarily that these books are bad; it simply means thatthey are not part of the Bible because they were not

inspired by the Holy Ghost; they are what we Catholicscall "Apocrypha" or "Apocryphal books." The

Protestants erroneously give the name "Apocrypha" tothe Deutero-Canonical books.

7. What does this attitude of the Chur ch prove?

This attitude proves, amongst other things, that the

Church sifts everything carefully before approving or rejecting.

8. What do we mean by Tr adition?

By Tradition we mean that body of doctrine which has been handed down to us, alongside the doctrine clearly

taught in the Bible.

9. Who has handed down Tr adition?

The Church, through her teaching office (Also called"Magisterium"), has handed down Tradition.

10. What guar antee have we that Tr adition is not false?

We have the guarantee of Christ in His statement that the

Church would not err in teaching.

11. Does the Bible then, not contain all Chr istian r evelation?

No, and it was never intended that it should.

12. What proof do we have that the Bible does not contain the complete Deposit of Faith?

There is the fact that Christ commissioned His Apostles

to "Preach and teach" (Mt. 28, 19), whereas no mentionof "Writing" is found; furthermore, the Gospel was

widely spread before a single word of the NewTestament was ever written.

13. What f ur ther Scr iptur al proof have we that the Bible does not contain the complete

Deposit of Faith?

The words of St. John that conclude his Gospel, "Butthere are also many other things which Jesus did; which

if they were written every one, the world itself, I think,would not be able to contain the books that should be



written" (Jn. 21, 25).

14. What view do Protestants hold about the Deposit of Faith?

Protestants hold that all things necessary for salvationare found in the Bible. To quote Luther: "The Bible and

the Bible only."

15. Do Protestants ignor e Tr adition?

Totally, and in this t?ey are illogical, for it is by

Tradition that we know what the Bible contains.

16. What is the Catholic view of the Bible and Tr adition?

That, while the Bible is the chief source, it is neither theonly nor the original source of our knowledge of

Revelation.

17. To what may we compar e the r elation between the Bible and Tr adition?

We may compare it to a professor's textbooks and hislectures; as a professor's lectures in the classroom, andhis textbooks clarify each other, so does the Bible clarify

Tradition and is clarified by it in turn.

18. Has Tr adition aided the Bible in other ways?

Yes, it has preserved the Bible and has helped theChurch to sift the true from the false, and has kept us

from false interpretation.

Lesson 8:The Languages Of The Bible

1. Wer e all the books of the Bible or iginally wr itten in one language?

No, besides Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic were used.

2. What books wer e wr itten in Hebr ew?

Almost all the books of the Old Testament.

3. What books wer e wr itten in Gr eek?

In the Old Testament, the Second Book of Machabees

and the Book of Wisdom; in the New Testament, all books except the Gospel of St. Matthew.

4. What books wer e wr itten in Ar amaic?

The Gospel of St. Matthew.

5. When wer e the books of the Old Testament, that wer e or iginally wr itten in Hebr ew,

tr anslated into Gr eek?



About 220 years before Christ.

6. Why was the tr anslation f rom Hebr ew into Gr eek made?

Because the Jewish people was dispersed into countrieswhere the Greek tongue predominated, and so it

gradually forgot the mother tongue, speaking onlyGreek. Hence the wish to have the Bible in the Greek

tongue.

Lesson 9:The Septuagint Ver sion

1. Who wer e the tr anslator s of the Old Testament?

The translators of the Old Testament were Jewishscholars well acquainted with both the Hebrew and the

Greek languages.

2. By what name is this tr anslation known?

It is known as the Septuagint Version.

3. Why is it called by that name?

It is called by that name because it was commonly

supposed that seventy scholars were employed in thework of translating.

4. Was it known by any other name besides that of the Septuagint?

It was known as the Alexandrian Version to distinguish

it from the Hebrew or Palestinian Version.

5. Why was it known as the "Alexandr ian Bible?"

Because this translation was made in Alexandria, Egypt,

which had the biggest and most vibrant Jewishcommunity outside of Israel.

6. Is ther e any other differ ence between the Septuagint and the Palestinian ver sion,

besides their language?

Several; The Septuagint contains more books than the

Palestinian version and is about three hundred yearsolder. The Palestinian Version originated approximately

around 106 A.D. and is different from the Hebrew textsthat were the basis for the Septuagint translation.

7. Why does the Septuagint have mor e books than the Palestinian ver sion?

The translators had a well-founded belief that these books were inspired.

8. Wer e these added books accepted by the Hebr ews?



Yes, but only up until 106 A.D., when the Palestinian,known also as the pharisaic version, became the norm.

9. Was the Septuagint Ver sion much in use in Our Lord's time?

It was used not only by the Greek-speaking Jews but also

by the Palestinian Jews; Our Lord and the Apostlesfrequently quoted it.

10. Did this Gr eek tr anslation of the Bible help to spr ead Chr istianity?

It helped very much, because Gentiles, particularly theGreek philosophers, had ?ead it, and had knowledge of

the prophecies referring to the Messiah, with the resultthat when St. Paul preached to them, many converts were

made.

Lesson 10:

The Vulgate

1. Name again the languages of the Old Testament bef or e the time of Chr ist.

Hebrew and Greek.

2. In what languages did the Apostles wr ite their Gospels and Epistles?

They wrote their Gospels and Epistles in Greek, exceptSt. Matthew, who wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.

3. How did tr anslations in languages other than Hebr ew and Gr eek come into existence?

As Catholicism spread among peoples of different

languages, the demand for the Bible in their variouslanguages grew.

4. Name some of the ear lier languages into which the Bible was tr anslated.

Armenian, Syrian, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopian.

5. Was the Bible tr anslated into Latin?

Many translations into Latin were made during the earlyCatholic centuries.

6. Wer e these Latin tr anslations satisfactor y?

No; many inaccuracies existed, due to errors of thecopyists, or errors of translation caused by a poor

understanding of the original language.

7. Which of the Latin tr anslations was the best known?

The best known Latin translation was either the "OldAfrican" or the "Old Italian" (Vetus Itala).

8. What was the r esult of the gener al dissatisfaction with these Latin tr anslations?



Pope Damasus (Pope from 366 to 384) commissioned St.Jerome to make a new and accurate translation.

9. How did St Jerome go about this wor k?

He studied carefully the Hebrew and Greek versions, and

from these made his new translation.

10. By what name is the Latin tr anslation of St. Jerome known?

It is known as the Vulgate Version. Vulgate means

common or vulgar in Latin and it was called so becauseLatin was the common tongue of the Western Roman

Empire.

11. Does the Vulgate have the Chur ch's special approval?

The Council of Trent (Italy) in 1546 declared it to be theonly authentic and official version for the Latin Rite: "

The same Sacred and Holy Synod ... hereby declares andenacts that the same well-known Old Latin Vulgate

edition ... is to be held authentic in public readings,disputations,sermons, and expositions, and that no one

shall dare or presume to reject it under any pretensewhatsoever." (DZ. 785). It is still the official Catholic

Bible today.

Lesson 11:The Douay Bible

1. Is ther e a Catholic tr anslation of the Bible in English?

Yes, it is the translation known as the Douay-RheimsVersion. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

2. Why is it called "Douay-Rheims"?

Because it was begun at Rheims and finished at Douay

in 1582-1609 by a group of English priests exiled inFrance.

3. What happened in the sixteenth centur y to cause the publication of a r eliable and

accur ate tr anslation?

During the Protestant "Deformation" in England manyfalse translations had been made, hence there was great

necessity of placing in the hands of Catholics a reliableand accurate translation.

4. Is it true that the Bible was never tr anslated into vernacular languages bef or e the

Protestant Def or mation?

It is not true; the first translation known in England was

the translation into Anglo-Saxon made by Venerable



example of obvious error?

No, we must remember that the Bible was written inevery-day language of the time, not in scientific terms.

Even to this day, for example, we speak of sunset eventhough the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that

the Earth is turning around the Sun and not vice-versa.

7. Can one be a gr eat scientist and still be a fir m believer in the Bible?

Yes, there have been and are now many great Catholic

scientists, believing firmly in the Bible.

8. Name some scientists who, at the same time, believed fir mly in the Bible.

Copernicus (a priest), Pascal, Gauss, Ampere, Pasteur,Marconi, to name just a few.

9. Does the Catholic Chur ch discour age the study of science as being opposed to the

Bible?

Nonsense; on the contrary, the Catholic Church hasalways encouraged science; some of her most eminent

children have also been leaders in science.

10. Can science be of any help to Bible study?

True science can help Bible study in interpreting somedifficult passages.

11. Is the Bible helpf ul in the study of science?

As a lighthouse helps a ship at sea, so does the Bible

help scientists.

Lesson 13:The Bible And Histor y

1. Is the Bible an histor ical book?

The Bible is not an historical book per se; it is primarilya religious book; but it does contain a certain amount of

historical teaching, which benefits from inerrancy, likeall the rest of the Bible.

2. Why would histor ical teachings benefit f rom inerr ancy?

A great number of historical facts are intimately unitedto our Faith in such a way that one cannot deny thehistorical facts in the Bible, without denying the Faith.

3. Give an example of such a connection between our faith and histor y.

The historical fact of the Resurrection of Our Lordcannot be denied without denying our Faith at the same

time, for: "... If Christ be not risen again, then is our



preaching vain, and your faith also is vain ..." (I Cor.XV, 14).

4. How ar e we to account f or the appar ent contr adictions between the Bible and his?or y?

There are several reasons which account for these

apparent contradictions:- Most of the time the apparent contradiction is due,

either to a poor understanding of the text, or to a poor understanding of the context.

- When this is not the case and we have historicalsources which contradict the Bible, it is the Bible which,time after time, is finally proven right.

5. Give an example of the Bible being proven r ight against histor ians.

Barely two hundred years ago, most of the non-Catholic

historians denied the existence of the Assyrian and

Babylonian empires, because the only known historicalreferences of the time came from the Bible. Thearchaeological excavations of the last century not only

proved the existence of both empires, but located their capital cities: Babylon and Ninive. No self-respecting

historian will doubt the existence of these civilizationsnow.

6. So the Bible is always histor ically corr ect?

Yes, it is undoubtedly better to take God at His Word,

than any self-proclaimed "Expert historian." Most of thehistorians who cling to an historical interpretation which

contradict the Bible, do so because of their religious prejudices, and not for any serious historical or scientific

reasons.

7. Can histor y be of any help to the study of the Holy Scr iptur es?

Yes; a good historical background is very useful for a

proper understanding of many parts of the Bible.

8. Is the Bible helpf ul in the study of histor y?

Yes: both as an historical source and as a guideline toavoid errors.

Lesson 14:Inter pr eting The Bible

1. Is the meaning of the Bible so clear that anyone r eading it, can r eadily under stand it?

The Bible is by no means so easily understood: St. Peter

himself tells us that it contains many things: "... hard to



be understood ..." (II Pet. III,16).

2. Whom do we have to inter pr et the Bible f or us?

The Catholic Church interprets the Bible for us.

3. Is it natur al that we should have a guide in inter pr eting the Bible?

Quite natural, just as in America, we have the Supreme

Court to interpret the Constitution of the United States.The difference is that the Church is infallible and the

Supreme Court is not!

4. So the Chur ch cannot make mistakes in inter pr eting the Bible?

No, for she is under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

5. How does that guidance manifest itself ?

Through Tradition, the teachings of the Fathers, the

Doctors of the Church, and of learned men.

6. Do Protestants acknowledge the inter pr etation of the Chur ch or of any other

author ity?

No; Protestants hold that anyone who reads the Bible inthe proper spirit will be guided by the Holy Ghost in

interpretation.

7. Is this belief of Protestants a sensible one?

No; it is against the Bible, against Tradition, against

reason.

8. How is it against r eason?

Because the result of this belief has been that, as manyinterpretations exist as there are individual thinkers, and

many of these interpretations contradict each other; sincethe Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself, He cannot be

the guide of these interpretations, and therefore, this belief of these Protestants is false.

9. How is it against Tr adition?

The constant Tradition of the Church since Apostolictimes is that the proper interpretation of the Word of God

belongs to the Church founded by Him, i.e., the CatholicChurch; and as St Paul tells us, we have to: "... stand

fast: and hold the traditions which you have learned,whether by word, or by our epistle. ..." (II Thes. II, 14).

10. How is it against the Bible?

St. Peter warns us that in the Bi?le, there are: "... things

hard to be understood, which the unlearned and theunstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to

their own destruction. ..." (II Pet. III,16). Now, if the



Holy Ghost was inspiring personally, every individualreader of Scripture, what St Peter tells us would be

impossible, because obviously, no one can read the Biblefor their own destruction, and be inspired by the Holy

Ghost at the same time. Since it is certain that St Peter was inspired by the Holy Ghost when he wrote that, it

means that there is no personal inspiration from the HolyGhost while reading the Bible; and that this Protestant

belief cannot be true, since it contradicts the Bible.

11. Is the accusation that Catholics have no f r eedom of inter pr etation in biblical matter s

true?

In a material or literal sense, it is true, exactly as in any

well-regulated society, nobody has the "freedom" to kill,maim, and loot. In a spiritual sense, it is quite the

opposite, for St. John reminds us that: "... the truth shall

make you free ..." (Jn. VIII, 32), and thanks to thevigilance of the Church, Catholics do enjoy freedomfrom error, which cannot be the case with the

Protestants.

Lesson 15:Reading The Bible

1. Ar e we under any obligation to r ead the Bible?

We are under no obligation to read the Bible.

2. Ar e Catholics f or bidden to r ead the Bible?

By no means; on the contrary, all Catholics are urged toread the Bible.

3. Besides ordinar y benefits, what do those gain who r ead por tions of the Bible ever y

day?

"A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with

the veneration due to the divine word make a spiritualreading from Sacred Scripture. A plenary indulgence is

granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour." (Enchiridion of Indulgences. Authorized

English edition. 1969. Catholic Book Publishers. NewYork. Page 68. # 50)

4. Is the Bible ever r ead f or Catholics?

During every single Mass of every single day, portionsof one of the Gospels and of some other book of the

Bible, often the Epistles, are read. Many of the prayers of



the Missal come from the Bible.

5. Who is bound to r ead the Bible daily?

All those who have received Major Orders, and those belonging to certain orders of monks or nuns, are bound

to read parts of the Bible daily.

6. What is such r eading called?

It is called "saying the Holy Office" or "reciting the

Breviary."

7. What por tions of the Bible ar e r ead by those who ar e bound to it?

In the course of the week the complete Book of thePsalms is read, while in the course of the year a good

part of the Bible, together with commentaries of some parts, is read.

8. Is the r eading of the Bible profitable?

The reading of the Bible is most profitable, for suchreadings elevate our thoughts and lift them nearer to

God.

9. In what spir it should the Bible be r ead?

It should be read in the spirit in which it was written, i.e.,not out of idle curiosity or for the sake of the language

and literature, but humbly and devoutly, for instructionand enlightenment.

10. May Catholics r ead any ver sion of the Bible they choose?

No; Catholics are forbidden to read false versions, just asthey are forbidden to read bad books. The same principle

is to be applied by analogy to many so-called "ModernCatholic" versions of the Bible because they depart

considerably from the only official Bible of the Church,which is the Vulgate, and they were written with a

Modernist and Ecumenical motivation, more aimed at pacifying Protestants than for the edification of the

Catholic faithful.

11. How is the Bible r ead most profitably?

Eith?r under a professor's guidance or with the aid of areliable commentary.

Lesson 16:Differ ences Between Catholic And Protestant Ver sions



the name of some books while the King James giveswhat they thought at the time to be the Hebrew name.

Many Protestant versions other than King James omit theEpistle of St. James.

Lesson 17:Mater ials Used In Composing The Bible

1. What has become of the or iginal copies of the Bible?

They have been either destroyed or lost.

2. What wer e the causes of destruction or loss?

Many, particularly persecution and the fragility of the

materials used, which did not withstand the ravages of time.

3. How was per secution a cause f or the loss or destruction of the or iginals?

Sometimes the Christians themselves destroyed the

original to prevent profanation at the hands of the pagan persecutors; some other times they were found and

destroyed by the pagans. The persecution of Decius(Roman Emperor from 249 to 251) was particularly

vicious in this regard.

4. If the or iginals have been lost, how do we know whether what we possess now ar e

accur ate copies?

We know from Tradition, History and the teaching

authority of the Church, that we possess accurate copiesof the originals.

5. What mater ial was used in the wr iting of the Bible?

Before the invention of paper, papyrus, and vellum or

parchment were used.

6. What is papyrus?

Papyrus is the substance made from reeds of bull-rushes;

a plant particularly abundant in the valley?of the Nile inEgypt. Two layers were placed at right angles to each

other and glued together. It was used mainly before theChristian era.

7. What is par chment or vellum?

The skin of animals, preferably goats and calves,

especially prepared for writing.

8. What was used in lieu of a pen?

For writing on papyrus, reeds were used, and for vellum,



a stylus or metal pen.

9. Wer e the books of the Bible bound as ar e our books?

No, they were rolled around a stick, hence we read of Our Lord rolling and unrolling the Scriptures in the

Temple. When documents are in that form (rolled), theyare usually called scrolls.

10. What style of wr iting was used?

Up to around the third century A.D. only capital letterswere used. There was no separation between words, no

division between chapters, and no division betweenverses. This style was call the Uncial style.

11. What style was used after the third centur y A.D.?

The style known as the Cursive style. There was still no

spacing between words, but capitals were introduced atthe beginning of sentences.

12. When wer e the books divided into chapter s?

This was done by Stephen Langton (+ 1228). Chancellor of the University of Paris until 1213, when he became

Archbishop of Canterbury (England).

13. When wer e the chapter s divided into ver ses?

Even more recently; this was done by the French printer Robert Estienne (1503-1559).

14. What was the fir st book pr inted after the invention of the pr inting pr ess?

The first book printed around 1455 by Gutenberg, theinventor of the printing press, was the Catholic Bible in

Latin (Vulgate). It has been a best-seller ever since.



1989 Preface

Preface dated August 24, 1989 From the Tan Books Printing.

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible

which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly

became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite (by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church).

St. Jerome, who was one of the four great Western Fathers of the Church, was a man raised up by God

to translate the Holy Bible into the common Latin tongue of his day. He knew Latin and Greek perfectly.

He was 1500 years closer to the original languages than any scholar today, which would make him a

better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in the Scriptures. Besides being a

towering linguistic genius, he was also a great saint, and he had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek

manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which have since perished and are no longer available to

scholars today. St. Jerome's translation, moreover, was a careful, word-for-word rendering of theoriginal texts into Latin.

The Latin Vulgate Bible has been read and honored by the Western Church for 1500 years! It was

declared by the Council of Trent to be the official Latin version of the original. Hear what the Sacred

Council decreed: "Moreover, the same Holy Council ... ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate

Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public

lectures, disputatious, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and so no one dare or presume under

any pretext whatsoever to reject it." (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546). As Pope Pius XII stated in his 1943

encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu, this means the Vulgate is "free from any error whatsoever in

matters of faith and morals." And the Douay-Rheims bible is a faithful, word-for-word translation of the

Latin Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome.

In their translation, the Douay-Rheims translators took great pains to translate exactly. Contrary to the

procedure of the modern Bible translators, when a passage seemed strange and unintelligible they left it

alone, even if obscure, and "let the chips fall as they may." The modern Bible translators, on the other

hand, will often look at an obscure passage, decide what they think it means, then translate into words

that bring out that meaning. The result is that the English is usually (not always!) easier to understand,but it is not necessarily what the Bible says; rather, it is their interpretation and understanding of what

the Bible says. Moreover, the Holy Ghost may have hidden several additional meanings in the passage.

Those meanings may well be completely translated out!



Sometimes the question is raised: Why translate from a translation (the Latin Vulgate) rather than from

the original Greek and Hebrew? This question was also raised in the 16th century when the Douay-

Rheims translators (Fr. Gregory Martin and his assistants) first published the Rheims New Testament.

They gave ten reasons, ending up by stating that the Latin Vulgate "is not only better than all other Latin

translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree." (Preface to the Rheims

New Testament, 1582). They state that the Vulgate is "more pure than the Hebrew or Greek now

extant" and that "the same Latin hath bene barre better conserved from corruption." (Preface to the

Douay Old Testament, 1609).

The present Bible is the Challoner revision (1749-1752) of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Catholics owe the

saintly Bishop Richard Challoner (1691-1781) a great debt of gratitude for undertaking this work.

Challoner was one of those courageous priests who traveled around offering Mass secretly for small

groups during the religious persecutions in England. Such Catholics needed a Bible, and had needed one

for 100 years. The Douay-Rheims Bible had been printed a few times on the Continent but had never

really spread to England. Some Catholics in England were even reading the King James version -- a

situation which Bishop Challoner knew had to be rectified.

Some of the passages in the original Douay-Rheims Bible were needlessly obscure. As an extreme

example, Ephesians 6:12 read, "For our wrestling is not against flesh and bloud: but against Princes and

Potestats, against the rectors of the world of this dankness, against the spirituals of wickedness in the

celestials." The spellings were archaic, and the verses were not set off by new lines for clarity.

Challoner rectified these problems, checking carefully against the Clementine Vulgate and the original-

language texts. On the whole, Bishop Challoner's revisions were minor. He replaced certain anglicizedLatin words and archaic words and expressions, rearranged the word order of the sentences, and yet

maintained the overall word-for-word accuracy of the 16th/17th-century Douay-Rheims Bible.

The Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible was a godsend. It became the standard Catholic Bible

in English until the mid-20th century (when the Confraternity Bible was published). It continued to be

called the "Douay-Rheims" because of its similarity to the original Douay-Rheims Bible. The great work

English Versions of the Bible, by Frs. Pope and Bullough, states that English-speaking Catholics the world

over owe Dr. Challoner an immense debt of gratitude, for he provided them for the first time in history

with a portable, cheap and readable version of the Bible, which has stood the test of 200 years of use.

Moreover, it is more accurate than any modern Bible because it is based on ancient texts, no longer

extant, which were "captured" and "frozen," so to speak, by St. Jerome (342-420) in his Latin Vulgate.

The Douay-Rheims is thus the most reliable English-language Bible there is. We look forward to the day

when the Christian world will rediscover this fact and come to a renewed appreciation of the

monumental work of St. Jerome, of the Douay-Rheims translators and of Bishop Richard Challoner --

men who were raised up by God to make the Bible available to the English-speaking world.



The Chur ch Or The Bible < prev article | next article > by Fr. Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815 - 1890)

The following sermon is as relevant today as it was over 100 years ago when it was first preached by Father

Arnold Damen, S.J. This message was and still is achallenge to the many who pride themselves as being

"Bible-and-Bible-Only Christians."

One cannot have God for his Father, who will not havethe Church for his Mother, and likewise, one cannot have

the Word of God for his faith who will not have theChurch for his teacher. It is the infallible teaching

authority of the Church, as promised by Christ, whichalone preserves God's Word from erroneous

interpretation. This is the essence of Fr. Damen's sermon.

Every sincere Bible reader deserves to know the true

relation God has established between His Church andHoly Scripture. Therefore, we invite all who love the

Bible, to read Father Damen's exposition with an openmind, lest while reading the Scriptures "... the unlearned

and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,to their own destruction." [2 Peter 3:16]

I.

Dearly Beloved Christians, when our Divine Saviour sent His Apostles and His Disciples throughout the

whole universe to preach the Gospel to every creature, He laid down the conditions of salvation thus:

"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned"

[Mark 16:16]. Here, then, Our Blessed Lord laid down the two conditions of salvation, Faith and

Baptism. I will speak this evening on the condition of Faith.

We must have Faith in order to be saved, and we must have Divine Faith, not human faith. Human

faith will not save a man, but only Divine Faith. What is Divine Faith? It is to believe, upon the

authority of God, the truths that God has revealed. That is Divine Faith, to believe all that God has

taught upon the authority of God, and to believe without doubting, without hesitation. For the

moment you begin to doubt or hesitate, that moment you begin to mistrust the authority of God,

and, therefore, insult God by doubting His word. Divine Faith, therefore, is to believe without

doubting and without hesitating. Human faith is belief upon the authority of men, on human

authority. But Divine Faith is to believe without doubting, without hesitating, whatsoever God has

revealed upon the authority of God, upon the Word of God.

Therefore, my dear people, it is not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes, providing

he be a good man.

You hear it said nowadays in this Nineteenth Century of little faith that it matter not what religion a

man professes, providing he be a good man. That is heresy, my dear people, and I will prove it to you

to be such. If it be a matter of indifference what a man believes, providing he be a good man, then it

is useless for God to make any revelation whatever. If a man is at liberty to reject what God

revealeth, what's the use for Christ to send out His Apostles and disciples to teach all nations, if

those nations are at liberty to believe or reject the teachings of the Apostles or disciples? You see at

once that this would be insulting God.

If God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed. Man is bound to believe

whatsoever God has revealed, for, my dear people, we are bound to worship God, both with our

reason and intellect, as well as with our heart and will. God is master of the whole man. He claims



his will, his heart, his reason and his intellect.

Where is the man, no matter what denomination, church or religion, that will deny that we are

bound to believe what God has taught? I am sure there is not a Christian who will deny that we are

bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed. Therefore, it is not a matter of indifference what

religion a man professes. He must profess the true religion if he wants to be saved.

But what is the true religion? To believe all that God has taught. I am sure that even my Protestant

friends will admit this is right, for, if they do not, I would say they are no Christians at all.

"But what is the true Faith?"

"The true Faith," say Protestant friends, "is to believe in the Lord Jesus."

Agreed, Catholics believe in that. Tell me what you mean by believing in the Lord Jesus?

"Why," says my Protestant friend, "you must believe that He is the Son of the Living God."

Agreed again. Thanks be to God, we can agree on something. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son

of the Living God, that He is God. To this we all agree, excepting the Unitarians and Socinians, but

we will leave them alone tonight. If Christ be God, then we must believe all He teaches. Is this not

so, my dearly beloved Protestant brethren and sisters? And that's the r ight Faith, isn't it?

"Well, yes," says my Protestant friend, "I guess that is the right Faith. To believe that Jesus is the Son

of the Living God, we must believe all that Christ has taught."

We Catholics say the same, and here we agree again. We must believe all that Christ has taught, that

God has revealed. Without this Faith, there is no salvation. Without this Faith, there is no hope of

Heaven. Without this Faith, there is eternal damnation! We have the words of Christ for it, "He that

believeth not shall be condemned."

II.

But if Christ, my dearly beloved people commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all

that He has taught, He must give me the means to know what He has taught. And the means Christ

gives us of knowing this must have been at all times within the reach of all people.

Secondly, the means that God gives us to know what He has taught must be a means adapted to the

capacities of all intellects, even the dullest. For even the dullest have a right to salvation, and

consequently they have a right to the means whereby they shall learn the truths that God has taught,

that they may believe them and be saved.

The means that God give us to know what he has taught must be an infallible means. For if it be a

means that can lead us astray, it can be no means at all. It must be an infallible means, so that if aman makes use of that means, he will infallibly, without fear of mistake or error, be brought to a

knowledge of all the truths that God has taught.

I don't think there can be anyone present here, I care not what he is, a Christian or an unbeliever,

who can object to my premises. And these premises are the groundwork of my discourse and of all my

reasoning, therefore, I want you to bear them in mind. I will repeat them, for on these premises rests

all the strength of my discourse and reasoning.

If God commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all that He has taught, He is bound

to give me the means to know what He has taught. And the means that God gives me must have been

at all times within the reach of all people, must be adapted to the capacities of all intellects, must

be an infallible means to us, so that if a man makes use of it he will be brought to a knowledge of all

the truths that God has taught.

III.

Has God given us such means? "Yes," say my Protestant friends, "He has." And so says the Catholic.

God has given us such means. What is the means God has given us whereby we shall learn the truth

that God has revealed? "The Bible," say my Protestant friends, "the Bible, the whole of the Bible, and

nothing but the Bible." But we Catholics say, "No, not the Bible and its private interpretation, but the

Church of the Living God."

I will prove the facts, and I defy all my separated brethren, and all the preachers, to disprove what I

will say tonight. I say, then, it is not the private interpretation of the Bible that has been appointed

by God to be the teacher of man, but the Church of the Living God.

For, my dear people, if God has intended that man should learn His religion from a book, the Bible,

surely God would have given that book to man. Christ would have given that book to man. Did He do



it? He did not. Christ sent His Apostles throughout the whole universe and said, "Go ye, therefore,

and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

Christ did not say, "Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over the earth, and let every man

read his Bible and judge for himself." If Christ had said that, there would never have been a

Christianity on the earth at all, but a Babylon and confusion instead, and never one Church, the union

of one body. Hence, Christ never said to His Apostles, "Go and write Bibles and distribute them, and

let everyone judge for himself." That injunction was reserved for the Sixteenth Century, and we have

seen the result of it. Ever since the Sixteenth Century there have been springing up religion upon

religion, and churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another, and all because of

the private interpretation of the Bible.

Christ sent His Apostles with authority to teach all nations, and never gave them any command of

writing the Bible. And the Apostles went forth and preached everywhere, and planted the Church of

God throughout the earth, but never thought of writing.

The first word written was by Saint Matthew, and he wrote for the benefit of a few individuals. He

wrote the Gospel about seven years after Christ left this earth, so that the Church of God,

established by Christ, existed seven years before a line was written of the New Testament.

Saint Mark wrote about ten years after Christ left this earth, Saint Luke about twenty-five years, and

Saint John about sixty-three years after Christ had established the Church of God. Saint John wrote

the last portion of the Bible, the Book of Revelation, about sixty-five years after Christ had left this

earth and the Church of God had been established. The Catholic religion had existed sixty-five years

before the Bible was completed.

Now, I ask you, my dearly beloved separated brethren. Were these Christian people, who lived during

the period between the establishment of the Church of Jesus and the finishing of the Bible, really

Christians, good Christians and enlightened Christians? Did they know the religion of Jesus? Where is

the man that will dare to say that those who lived from the time that Christ went up to Heaven to

the time that the Bible was completed were not Christians? It is admitted on all sides, by all

denominations, that they were the very best of Christians, the first fruit of the Blood of Jesus Christ.

But how did they know what they had to do to save their souls? Was it from the Bible that they

learned it? No, because the Bible was not written. And would our Divine Saviour have left His Church

for sixty-five years without a teacher, if the Bible is the teacher of man? Most assuredly not.

Were the Apostles Christians, I ask you, my dear Protestant friends? You say, "Yes sir, they were the

very founders of Christianity." Now, my dear friends, none of the Apostles ever read the Bible, not

one of them except perhaps, Saint John. For all of them had died martyrs for the Faith of Jesus

Christ and never saw the cover of a Bible. Every one of them died martyrs and heroes for the Church

of Jesus before the Bible was completed.

How, then, did those Christians, that lived in the first sixty-five years after Christ ascended, know

what they had to do to save their souls? They knew it precisely in the same way that you know it, my

dear Catholic friends. You know it from the teachings of the Church of God and so did the primitive

Christians know it.

IV.

For not only sixty-five years did Christ leave the Church He had established without a Bible, but for

over three hundred years. The Church of God was established and went on spreading itself over the

whole globe without the Bible for more than three hundred years. In all that time the people did not

know what constituted the Bible.

In the days of the Apostles, there were many false gospels. There was the Gospel of Simon, the

Gospel of Nicodemus, of Mary, of Barnabas, and the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus. All of these

gospels were spread among the people, and the people did not know which of these were inspired

and which were false and spurious. Even the learned themselves were disputing whether preference

should be given to the Gospel of Simon or that of Matthew, to the Gospel of Nicodemus or the Gospel

of Mark, the Gospel of Mary or that of Luke, the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus or the Gospel of Saint

John the Evangelist.

And so it was in regard to the epistles. Many spurious epistles were written and the people were at a

loss for over three hundred years to know which was false or spurious, or which was inspired. And,

therefore, they did not know what constituted the books of the Bible.

It was not until the Fourth Century that the Pope of Rome, the Head of the Church, the successor of

Saint Peter, assembled together the Bishops of the world in a council. And there in that council it

was decided that the Bible, as we Catholics have it now, is the Word of God, and that the Gospels of

Simon, Nicodemus, Mary, the Infancy of Jesus, and Barnabas, and all those other epistles were



spurious or, at least, unauthentic. At least, that there was no evidence of their inspiration, and that

the Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the Book of Revelation, were inspired by

the Holy Ghost.

Up to that time the whole world for three hundred years did not know what the Bible was. Hence,

they could not take the Bible for their guide, for they did not know what constituted the Bible.

Would our Divine Saviour, if He intended man to learn his religion from a book, have left the

Christian world for three hundred years without that book? Most assuredly not.

V.

Not only for three hundred years was the world left without the Bible, but for 1,400 years the

Christian world was left without the Sacred Book.

Before the art of printing was invented, Bibles were rare things. Bibles were costly things. Now, you

must all be aware, if you have read history at all, that the art of printing was invented only a little

more than four hundred years ago, about the middle of the Fifteenth Century, and about one

hundred years before there was a Protestant in the world.

As I have said, before printing was invented books were rare and costly things. Historians tell us that,

in the Eleventh Century, eight hundred years ago, Bibles were so rare and costly that it took a

fortune, a considerable fortune, to buy oneself a copy of the Bible! Before the art of printing,

everything had to be done with the pen upon parchment or sheepskin. It was, therefore, a tedious

and slow operation, a costly operation.

Now, in order to arrive at the probable cost of a Bible at that time, let us suppose that a man should

work ten years to make a copy of the Bible and earn a dollar a day. Well, then, the cost of that Bible

would be $3,650. Now, let us suppose that a man should work at the copying of the Bible for twenty

years, as historians say it would have taken him at that time, not having the conveniences and

improvements to aid him that we have now. Then, at a dollar a day, for twenty years, the cost of a

Bible would be nearly $8,000.

Suppose I came and said to you, "My dear people, save your soul, for if you lose your soul all is lost."

You would ask, "What are we to do to save our souls?" The Protestant preacher would say to you, "You

must get a Bible. You can get one at such-and-such a shop." You would ask the cost and be told it was

$8,000. You would exclaim, "The Lord save us! And can we not go to Heaven without that book?" The

answer would be: "No, you must have the Bible and read it." You murmur at the price, but are asked,

"Is not your soul worth $8,000?" Yes, of course it is, but you say you do not have the money, and if

you cannot get a Bible, and your salvation depends upon it, evidently you would have to remain

outside the Kingdom of Heaven. This would be a hopeless condition, indeed.

For 1,400 years the world was left without a Bible -- not one in ten thousand, not one in twenty

thousand, before the art of printing was invented, had the Bible. And would our Divine Lord have left

the world without that book if it was necessary to man's salvation? Most assuredly not.

VI.

But let us suppose for a moment that all had Bibles, that Bibles were written from the beginning, and

that every man, woman, and child had a copy. What good would that book be to people who did not

know how to read it? It is a blind thing to such persons.

Even now one-half the inhabitants of the earth cannot read. Moreover, as the Bible was written in

Greek and Hebrew, it would be necessary to know these languages in order to be able to read it.

But it is said that we have it translated now in French, English, and other languages of the day. Yes,

but are you sure you have a faithful translation? If not, you have not the Word of God. If you have a

false translation, it is the work of man. How shall you ascertain that? How shall you find out if you

have a faithful translation from the Greek and Hebrew?

"I do not know Greek or Hebrew," says my separated friend; "for my translation I must depend upon

the opinion of the learned."

Well, then, my dear friends, suppose the learned should be divided in their opinions, and some of

them should say it is good, and some false? Then your faith is gone, you must begin doubting and

hesitating, because you do not know if the translation is good.

Now with regard to the Protestant translation of the Bible, allow me to tell you that the most learned

among Protestants tell you that your translation, the King James edition, is a very faulty translation

and is full of errors. Your own learned divines, preachers, and bishops have written whole volumes to

point out all the errors that are there in the King James translation, and Protestants of various



denominations acknowledge it.

Some years ago, when I lived in St. Louis, there was held in that city a convention of ministers. All

denominations were invited, the object being to arrange for a new translation of the Bible, and give

it to the world. The proceedings of the convention were published daily in the Missouri Republican. A

very learned Presbyterian, I think it was, stood up, and, urging the necessity of giving a new

translation of the Bible, said that in the present Protestant translation of the Bible there were no less

than 30,000 errors.

And you say, my dear Protestant friends, that the Bible is your guide and teacher. What a teacher,

with 30,000 errors! The Lord save us from such a teacher! One error is bad enough, but thirty

thousand is a little too much.

Another preacher stood up in the convention, I think he was a Baptist, and, urging the necessity of

giving a new translation of the Bible, said for thirty years past the world was without the Word of

God, for the Bible we have is not the Word of God at all.

Here are your own preachers for you. You all read the newspapers, no doubt, my friends, and must

know what happened in England a few years ago. A petition was sent to Parliament for an allowance

of a few thousand pounds sterling for the purpose of getting up a new translation of the Bible. And

that movement was headed and carried on by Protestant bishops and clergymen.

VII.

But, my dear people, how can you be sure of your faith? You say the Bible is your guide, but youcannot be sure that you have the faith. Let us suppose for a moment that all have a Bible which is a

faithful translation. Even then it cannot be the guide of man, because the private interpretation of

the Bible is not infallible, but, on the contrary, most fallible. It is the source and fountain of all kinds

of errors and heresies and all kinds of blasphemous doctrines. Do not be shocked, my dear friends.

Just be calm and listen to my arguments.

There are now throughout the world 350 different denominations or churches, and all of them say the

Bible is their guide and teacher. I suppose they are all sincere. Are all of them true churches? This is

an impossibility. Truth is one as God is one, and there can be no contradiction. Every man in his

senses sees that every one of them cannot be true, for they differ and contradict one another, and

cannot, therefore, be all true. The Protestants say the man that reads the Bible right and prayerfully

has truth, and they all say that they read it right.

Let us suppose that there is an Episcopal minister. He is a sincere, honest, well-meaning and

prayerful man. He reads his Bible in a prayerful spirit, and from the word of the Bible, he says it is

clear that there must be bishops. For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no

Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and well-meaning man.

He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters. "Here is

the Bible," says the Episcopalian, and "here is the Bible to give you the lie," says the Presbyterian. Yet

both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men.

Then the Baptist comes in. He is a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also. "Well," says the

Baptist, "have you ever been baptized?" "I was," says the Episcopalian, "when I was a baby."

"And so was I," says the Presbyterian, "when I was a baby." "But," says the Baptist, "you are going to

Hell as sure as you live."

Next comes the Unitarian, well-meaning, honest, and sincere. "Well," says the Unitarian, "allow me to

tell you that you are a pack of idolators. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all." And he

gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may

not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true meaning of

the Bible.

Next comes the Methodist, and he says, "My friends, have you got any religion at all?" "Of course we

have," they say. "Did you ever feel religion," says the Methodist, "the spirit of God moving within

you?" "Nonsense," says the Presbyterian, "we are guided by our reason and judgment." "Well," says theMethodist, "if you never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity."

The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with eternal hellfire. "Why,"

says he, "you are a strange set of people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at

all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children," and he proves it from the Bible.

Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all.

He is the sincerest of men, and gives the Bible for his faith.

Another comes in and says, "Baptize the men and leave the women alone. For the Bible says, unless a

man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. "So," says



he, "the women are all right, but baptize the men."

Next comes in the Shaker and he says, "You are a presumptuous people. Do you not know that the

Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble

at all. My brethren, if you want to go to Heaven shake, my brethren, shake!"

VIII.

I have here brought together seven or eight denominations, differing one from another, or

understanding the Bible in different ways, illustrative of the fruits of private interpretation. What,

then, if I brought together the 350 different denominations, all taking the Bible for their guide and

teaching, and all differing from one another? Are they all right? One says there is a Hell, and another

says there is not Hell. Are both right? One says Christ is God, another says He is not. One says they

are unessential. One says Baptism is a requisite, and another says it is not. Are both true? This is an

impossibility, my friends. All cannot be true.

Who, then, is true? He that has the true meaning of the Bible, you say. But the Bible does not tell us

who that is, the Bible never settles the quarrel. It is not the teacher.

The Bible, my dear people, is a good book. We Catholics admit that the Bible is the Word of God, the

language of inspiration, and every Catholic is exhorted to read the Bible. But good as it is, the Bible,

my dear friends, does not explain itself. It is a good book, the Word of God, the language of

inspiration, but your explanation of the Bible is not the language of inspiration. Your understanding

of the Bible is not inspired, for surely you do not pretend to be inspired!

It is with the Bible as it is with the Constitution of the United States. When Washington and his

associates established the Constitution and the Supreme Law of the United States, they did not say to

the people of the States: "Let every man read the Constitution and make a government unto himself.

Let every man make his own explanation of the Constitution." If Washington had done that, there

never would have been a United States. The people would all have been divided among themselves,

and the country would have been cut up into a thousand different divisions or governments.

What did Washington do? He gave the people the Constitution and the Supreme Law, and appointed

his Supreme Court and Supreme Judge of the Constitution. And these are to give the true explanation

of the Constitution to all the American citizens, all without exception, from the President to the

beggar. All are bound to go by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and it is this and this alone that

can keep the people together and preserve the Union of the United States. At the moment the people

take the interpretation of the Constitution into their own hands, there is the end of the union.

And so it is in every government. So it is here and everywhere. There is a Constitution, a Supreme

Court or Law, a Supreme Judge of that Constitution, and that Supreme Court is to give us the

meaning of the Constitution and the Law.

In every well-ruled country there must be such a thing as this: a Supreme Law, Supreme Court,

Supreme Judge, that all the people abide by. All are bound by decisions, and without that, no

government could stand. Even among the Indian tribes such a condition of affairs exists. How are

they kept together? By their chief, who is their dictator.

So our Divine Savior also has established His Supreme Court, His Supreme Judge, to give us the true

meaning of the Scriptures, and to give us the true revelation and doctrines of the Word of Jesus. The

Son of the Living God has pledged His Word that this Supreme Court is infallible, and therefore, the

true Catholic never doubts.

"I believe," says the Catholic, "because the Church teaches me so. I believe the Church because God

has commanded me to believe her." Jesus said: "Tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church,

let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." [Matt 18:17]. "He that believeth you believeth Me."

said Christ, "and he that despiseth you despiseth Me." [Luke 10:16]. Therefore, the Catholic believes

because God has spoken, and upon the authority of God.

But our Protestant friends say, "We believe in the Bible." Very well, how do you understand the Bible?

"Well," says the Protestant, "to the best of my opinion and judgment this is the meaning of the text."He is not sure of it, but to the best of his opinion and judgment. This, my friends, is only the

testimony of a man. It is only human faith, not Divine Faith.

It is Divine Faith alone by which we give honor and glory to God, by which we adore His infinite

wisdom and veracity. That adoration and worship is necessary for salvation.

I have now proved to you that private interpretation of the Scripture cannot be the guide or teacher

of man. In another lecture I shall prove that the Catholic Church is the only true Church of God, and

that there is no other.

A Catechism of the Bible

Documents

Transcript of A Catechism of the Bible