The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1868-04-19

OGnerS the Bible OF the SynOO Ol AsaO0iccss,
that of Origen, of St. Gregory of Nazianzen,
Of st. Cyril of Jerusalem, of Tertullian, oil
st. Cyprian, and the Syriac version. Each
of these collections differed from all the rest
1 in the number of books and names of au-
thors. The wisdom of the Church could
never have settled this perplexity, for the
wisdom of the Church was divided against
itself in the persons of its greatest lights. 1t
was the infallibility alone of the Church,
speaking with the authority left with it by
its Divine Founder. that coultI,ls it did.
with one decree. put the question ut rest
forever.
What would nome Catholics do Tor their
only and sufficient rule of faith if the
Church had not seen tit to settle this ques-
/ ton ? Luther fact, was not satisfied
with the decision of the Church in this re-
gard. He had many grave objections
! against the Bible as now taken by Protest
antism for its guide. Father Jacobs quoted
as follows from the orig inal manuscript,
which he had personally seen and examined,
some of
LUTHER OPINIONS ABOUT THE BIBLE.
OF the five books OF Moses, he says-"We
will neither nor hear Moses. Moses
is only for the Jews, and nothing to us
heathens and Christians
OF Ecclesiastes-s'T This book ought to be
more complete; it is without boots or spurs,
and rides only with socks, just as did
when was still in the convent"
Of Ecclesiasticus- Whoever made that
book was only lawyer, teaching exterior
conduct, but is not prophet, nor teaches
anything of Christ"
OF Macchabees-''I hate that book and
exist, for they Judaize too much, and have
too much of heathenish manners"
III Of the four Gospels: Since TIL ee Evan
gelists have so much of Christ's works, and
so little of His words, therefore ST. Johns
Gospel is the only tender and authentic
Evangel, and far preferable to the other
three. Even ST. Pauls and ST. Peters
Epistles ere far above those three Gospels"
Epistle to the Hebrews This Epistle
shall not be in our way, although much
wood, straw, and hay is mingled in it,
Epistle of st. James, 1t is an Epistle.
of st1aw."
The Apocalypse" do not care for this
book, nor do respect it,"
Why, then, does Professionalism of the
present day assert SO stoutly that it has the
genuine Bible
Again. But granting to the non-Catholic
the existence of the genuine Eible at this
day in it's original Hebrew and Greek,
HAVE WE CORRECT TRANsLATIoNs OF TEE
BIBLE
Or, in other words, is the Bible, in it's trans
lations, the Word of God? This is q prac-
teal application of the question, but a
proper one, when we remember that the
Bible is to be used as a rule of faith. The
nou-Catholic cannot prove that his transla-
tons are correct. Frequently word in the
original may be equivocal in its meaning,
and in translating, it becomes necessary to
choose one of the different meanings. Here
the peculiar views OF the translator. become
| Gospel for the reader, and the right of pri-
yste Interpretation is lost to that extent.
The only guaranty of correct translation
is the supervision OF an authority which
can decide infallibly on the meaning of the
c,iginal.
The idea that the expressions of the Bible
are so miraculously ineligible, on all es-
,e.,iaI points of doctrine, that no one car
possibly misapprehend them, is as irrational
when applied to the construction of the
original text as to that of the translation
In the first place, who is to say which arc
material points? Everything in the Bib.
is inspired, therefore important, and wha
appears at one time an immateriai expires
sion, may one day become very material
aud show itself to be frll of Significance.
In the second place, this assumption il
totally contrary TO the plainest facts. Ever
among non-C Catholics themselves, the mos
| i,,tn .t,f