Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1869-03-09
Catholics and the Bible.
ANSWER To LUTHER.

Mr. Editor In late issue of the Stan
dard, appeared an article under the head
of the g Pope and the Bible" signed by
Luther. The article shows neither scholar
nor gentleman.
Errors like stsas+a- npnn the surface flow. y
After reading it over carefully and ana
living it, | found it contained a slur on
Rev. F. Savoir's answers to Durivage, by
way Of meeting his candid arguments tC
prove that " Catholics are not allowed tC
read the Bible" The question is this
Are Catholics allowed to read the Bible
or in other words, does the Pope, the visi
bic head of the church. forbid it?
Luther maintains, in spite Of Father
Savoir's quotation of the Pope's letter
which quotation he admits to be genuine
that the reading of the Bible is forbid
den to Catholics, and represents them
when having one, as outlaws in the eyes
of the church, stupidity grounding his ar,
gument on a decree of the Index. His
] PlOVi II ltLbilCi idlilG. w IIN
LIST. Because the DEGREES are in force
only where they were promulgated they
have never been promulgated in this coun
! try, in Great Britain, or in France; con
sequcntly in these countries Catholics pos
sess the Bible without being outlaws, anC
it is not looked upon in their hands as rot
gut, though really some make no bette
use ofit.l Here at least Luther viii ad
nit we can read the Bible wita notes, ant
we do 50, atthe earnest request Of our Pope
our Bishops and Pastors.
2nd. Hi, proof is lame because he ad
mits We are allowed by the Pope ard b,
the DEGREES to read the Bible with explain
atory notes in every country.
/ VIII Luther maintain that explanator
notes destroy the Bible? l wonder if h
ever read Horace or Virgil with explana
tory notes? If 50, did he consider thos
notes destroyed Horace's meaning OF Vii
Igils? Ii notes destroy the Bible, why nc
paper and INK? | always thought that a
nothing was added to OF taken from sin
gle text from the beginning Of Genesis t
the end OF Revelation, rs long as the trans
Iation was genuine, the Bible WAS con
pIete.
viii Luther deny it? Perhaps he vii
Like Goldsmith's master though var
quished he will argue still It's true "
do not make the Bible our only rule 0
faith, and rea..y here Is the separatin
ground DetUcc. Us. viii Luther den
that individual Interpretation is liable /
err? We believe faith comes from teacl
ing, consequently from living teache
That teacher Is the church. Prove tt
Bible to be sure rule Of faith. to be OF
only teacher, and when you do sowe sha
not shrink from having our faith measure
by it. TO shrink from having piece {
+ work measured by an uneven rule is I
J admission that the work itself is crooke
any more than declining to be judged |
&, an incompetent tribunal is an acknow
= edgement Of guilt I have proved that v
= read the Bible. [ have showed that bv
t doing We violate no law-here at least, an
: it follows as a coroIlary that Luther mac
, false statement.
e viii he be gentleman enough to recti
. it? If Luther proves the Bible withol
: note or comment to be by itself sure ru
: Of faith, we shall meet on common groun
= and we shall follow it according to o.
r own private Interpretation. hope |
, will. JAMES CARROLL.
Derby Line, Feb "a, 1869.