THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE BIBLE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23542, 4 July 1938, Page 7

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE BIBLE

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—l am not to be side-tracked into a discussion on the proof of biblical inspiration. I know enough of Roman doctrine to see his ultimate goal. Father Bennett, reared in an absolutist, totalitarian institution, with a dictator at its head, can conceive ox no other kind of authority. Nor can he rid himself of the opinion that Catholic means Roman. The Reformed position is found in the Westminster Confession, expressed clearly by the quotation from Robertson Smith Our discussion, however, concerns fact o of history, not dogmas. And my letter gave the indisputable fact? regarding the authorising of the “ Canon, or Books of the Bible as at present used. I refer readers again to that letter, but gather up the results as follows: 1. The Catholic Church to which we owe the Bible was not the Church of Rome; this Father Bennett admitted. We are- indebted almost entirely to the Greek-speaking Eastern churches that never recognised the Papal junsdic2. It is indispu*able that the authority of the Bible did not depend on the decrees of synods or councils. They only ratified what had come to be accepted for generations by the various churches. My auotations are accurate in fact. Of course, it was necessary that councils should come to a decision and give the authority of the Church to books collected and used. Only rn extreme individualist de ires otherwise. It is of value also that these books have the authority of the collective Christian instinct, created by the Holy Spirit. But the earliest authentic decree of a synod dates from near the close of the fourth century. At the same time Eastern teacher? and councils were still in doubt. And it wrs not till a council in 681 that East and West cam-’ to an agreement as to what books constituted the New Testament. , . , Did the people have no authoritative Bible before those dates? Also, there has been, no universal acceptance of Ihe Pope of Rome as Supreme Pontiff. Indeed, one of the greatest authorities on this historv of the “Canon” sums up his book: “We have not said anything about a determination, of the books which belong to the New Testament on the nart of a general council of the Christian Church. We could say nothing about such a determination because there never was one. Now and then a local or partial council ratified the statements of some preceding church writer.” Thus historical investigation shows that the Church of Rome has no historical ground for her claims to be the sole judge of the "Canon” and of the interpretation of the books thereof. Now, let us get on to Father Bennett’s substantiation of his statements. The editorial and his opening letter deal with the spread of the open Bible.

Will he, then, first tell us what translations of the Bible were made into English before and after Wycliffe’s version by the Roman Church, and from what language or languages they were translated: and, secondly, will he give examples of the “ false and mutilated translations of the sacred text ” deliberately perpetrated to spread the erroneous teachings of Protestantism? —I am. etc.. Calvin.