The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1925-04-09
THE BISMARCK TRIBUNE

Ollie principles: The Bible is Gods
1t is Gods Testament, and Christians
speak of the Old and the New Testa
ment. Now a Testament is under
stood correctly only when it is TAX
en- in that sense in which the tes-
tator understood it. The Bible is
for us Gods word only when we -un-
derstand it in that sense in which
God wants us to understand it. For
us Catholics the matter is simple.
We have the deepest conviction that
God through Jesus Christ has in His
Church instituted a teaching author
ity, the apostles and their success
sors, to whom He gave the promise:
"Behold l am with you even to the
end of the world" and the COM
mand: "Who hears you hears me-"
We have, therefore, the deepest con-
viction that the one, holy and Cath
olic Church as Christ's Church, is
the divinely appointed guardian and
interpreter of the Holy Scripture.
We accept the Bible in that sense in
which the Catholic Church accepts it;
We consider only those TRANSACTIONS
of the Bible as authentic and reliable
which are published with the approx
al of the Catholic Church auLnori-
ties.
We say, therefore, it is not Mr..
Dralle nor the men appointed by
King James who are authorized by
God to decide which books are parts
Of the Bible The mere name CAP
ocrypha" given by Protestant auth
ors to some books of the Bible does
not make these books typographical or
spurious.
From the writings Of some Of the
earliest Christian fathers-Clemen MS,
Polycarp, Justin the Martyr, Iren-
aeus--it became evident that they
quoted as parts of the Bible books
which Protestants call now cap
ocrypha."
1t is also evident that in the year
1872 at Synod in Rome under Pope
Damascus canon or list of the book S
CT the Bible was published which
contained the very same books which
were later on rejected by Protest
ants.
In 405, Innocent I. sent to Bishop
in Gallia, the present France, a cata-
logue of the books of the Bible, and
it is automatically the very same cat
alogue which was published again
| by the Council of Trent April g.
I 1916.
Here Mr.. Dralle has my reasons
! for the assertion that the Protest
ant Bible has rejected books which
for more than a thousand years be-
! fore have been honored as parts OF
the Bible by all Christendom.
wish to remind Mr.. Dralle OF
the fact that the Greek church
! has also in it's canon or catalogue OF
| the Bible the very same books which
Portestants later rejected. This is
evident from the "Syntagma Canon.
UNI" of Photius who was the origin.
ator of the Greek Schisma.
may add, the very way how Mr.
, Dralle handles parts of those books
which he wants to prove as "apocry
| phal" illustrates in striking wa!
! how necessary the principles laid
| down by the Catholic church are fol
a sane understanding and interpreted
ton of the Bible. In regard to To-
bias 4, II, Rev. Mr.. Dralle's quota
ton is not correct when compared
with the venerable Vulgata. Their
he quotes only small sentenc,
which receives it's full meaning from
the text given in the foregoin:
verses, Z, &, ., and lO. Even, whel
quoted as by Mr.. Drale, the tex
does by no means exclude jesus
Christ as the Redeemer and onl,
source of salvation, as he claims i
! does. The meaning is plain enough
"Mercy practiced by men draw
Gods mercy upon them" If such
quotation shall be considered evi
dcnce enough to prove that the boo
of Tobias has to be rejected as APP
ocryphical, every other book of tn
Bible may also be rejected. The sam
is true in regard to the other quo
tations of Tobias, 6. $50.
From the second book of the Mac
cabees Rev. Mr.. Dralle lringa
garbled quotation of chapter IL, 40
as, and then says: "The tcachin
that may be drawn from the con
tents of verses as and 46 constitute
a blasphemy-not a true teaching o