Catholic Church to Replace Priests With Robots

PS: In regard to your accusation of “googlesterium,” I did not do an Internet search to find “anything to impugn Catholicism.”

I have long been aware of the many, many sources of truth out there (besides the Bible, of course), including the Berean Call.

"I see you are full of venom toward people who deeply and carefully study the Bible, as the men at the Berean Call do.

Again, you come to us as a wolf in sheep's clothing. You feign defending those who deeply and carefully study the Bible while attacking the Episcopacy of the Catholic Church calling them a "corrupt, lying, murderous papacy".

There have been a few among the billions who have claimed to be Catholic, both laity and clergy alike, who have have been evil, but that is a human condition present in every faith and denomination. All are sinners, yet you see fit to cast the first stone. What would Christ write in the dirt about your darkest secrets? Even the Apostles, hand chosen by Jesus fell short. The denied, doubted and betrayed Jesus, yet their ministries bore fruit. St. Paul advised us that the Treasure would be held in such earthen vessels.

Jesus established the Catholic Church upon St. Peter to preserve preserve and defend the Revealed Word of God. He promised that His Church, the Catholic Church, would prevail against the gates of hell. It has and will. No $3.00 pamphlet or two bit harpie will change that.

Mark, I have already made it clear that my source for knowledge is the Word of God—the Bible. The Holy Spirit teaches us its meaning. Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man—the ONLY way to God.

There is nothing fruitful that can come from a discussion betwee you and I. You are firmly wedded to Catholicism, and I am firmly wedded to the Word of God, and neither of us is likely to change our position.

Some Roman Catholic apologists will not believe anything that impugns the claims of Romes, and require that,

1. Establishing books as being Scripture requires a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, as per Rome.

2. Being the instrument and steward of Scripture assures that the former (via a supreme magisterium) will always be infallible in its definitions and worthy of assent of faith.

3. That assurance of the claim of Rome to perpetual formulaic infallibility, that whatever the church will ever speak on faith and morals to the whole church, will be infallible (incapable of being in any error), is not based upon itself.

4. That this assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary for the preservation of Truth.

5. The canon was infallibly settled prior to the Reformation, thus precluding debate, and thus Roman Catholics had a infallible canon for most of her claimed history, and thus enabling an infallible canon to have been given to the Protestants prior to Trent, and which canon was not debated by notable Catholic scholars therein (with a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as infallible — an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.)

6. The first canon (that is asserted to have been) published by the Catholic Church approx 300 years after the resurrection of Jesus represented the entire church, and so its Old Testament canon was consistent with earlier lists such as by Melito (c. 180), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350) Athanasius (367), Jerome (347 – 420) prologue to his translation of the Old Testament, and "Against Rufinus", and placed the apocrypha separately in his Vulgate) and John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado and others who continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books, and possibly (debatable) the canon of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364).

7. That there is no debate as to whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of earlier canons such as that of Carthage and Hippo, or that all that Trent declares is infallible, including the attribution of Biblical authors.

8. That the Vulgate has the same authority as they original text (Divino Afflante Spiritu, #17), and that there is no dispute as whether any verse in the Vulgate is properly Scripture.

9. That there is no dispute as to whether all that Trent declares is infallible, including the attribution of Biblical authors.

10. That the infallible magisterium of Rome is effectively not the supreme authority on earth for Catholics.

11. That Roman Catholics have an infallible canon of all infallible decrees by the infallible magisterium, and thus how many there are is never a matter of interpretation.

12. That Protestants cannot be at least as certain as to what books belong in their canon as Roman Catholics can be as to how many

infallible pronouncements there are.

13. That Luther had no support from church fathers or Roman Catholic scholars in questioning or rejecting certain books as Scripture (which as with Jerome and the Apocrypha, he nonetheless included in his Bible, as of a lesser rank than Scripture.)

14. That the Protestants could not have rather quickly overall coming to affirm a 66 book canon (more than Luther had), out of a prior disputed canon, as Rome claims to have done with that of the Jews, without being bound to accept all that the entity held to through which the prior canon came.

15. That the Christian church was itself not born out of division, and that the authenticity of the church is based upon formal decent, versus effectual Scriptural faith, (Mt. 3:9; Rm. 2:28,29) primarily attested to by effecting manifest regeneration, (1Thes. 1:3,4ff) and by which the true church exists and has its members, (1Cor. 12:13) as the kingdom of God is not in self-declaration, but in power. (1Cor. 4:20)

15. And that those who Rome treats and will bury as members today are far more liberal than their evangelical counterparts.

16. That the catholic church of the 1^st century was the same church as that of the later ages, defined by holding to an supreme head claiming supreme (basically autocratic) power over all Christianity and the world, and using the sword of men to chastise (including torture) Catholics and kill theological dissenters, and universally officially consenting with the “fathers” (as is required) to such things as the use of images, the perpetual sinlessness and virginity of Mary, and the papacy being infallible whenever speaking in accordance with her criteria, etc., and otherwise being consistent with herself, without resorting to her claim that she defines what is a contradiction, and the extrapolations of her development of doctrine.

What is often not said in RC responses is the making the Scriptures available in the common tongue is not the same as allowing them to be read by all believers, and not hindering Biblical literacy.

That Rome did not overall promote Biblical literacy is true, and until recently little of the Bible was read in Mass, and today this is still not much. The average Catholic does not even get to Mass weekly, less alone daily as would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle, and it has already been established that historically Rome did not encourage Bible literacy among the laity, and even discouraged it. Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951. (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm) Also “at mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, just going to Mass will NOT give a functional knowledge of Scripture.

While accusations of censure of the Bible by Rome are sometimes exaggerated, and while Roman Catholicism did print Bibles in the common (“vulgar”) tongue (and in a notable encouragement, Pius VI in his letter to Martini, commended the printing and reading of his translation of his Bible into Italian), yet for most of her history she evidences that she not only did not place a priority upon personal Biblical literacy among the laity, but she actually hindered it, including by requiring permission to privately read Scripture, or more rarely, in some places outright banning the laity from reading it. Translations in the language of the laity was typical judged as “doing more harm than good.” This suppression based upon the position of “sola ecclesia,” that the Roman church only is the supreme authority and sufficient infallible authority on faith and morals. As stated in 1528 by Dominican Johannes Mensing, "Scripture can deceive, the Church cannot deceive. Who does not perceive then that the Church is greater than Scripture and that we can entrust ourselves better to the Church than to Scripture." (“Gründliche vnterricht: Was eyn frommer Christen von der heyligen Kirchen, von den Vetern vnd der heyligen schrifft halten sol”)

However, while Rome infallibly declares she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula (but which does not insure infallible interpretation of her), Scripture is the only transcendent material authority on faith and moral that is infallible, being wholly God-breathed, and which was established as being so due the supernatural attestation given them from God, and their unique heavenly qualities, and conflation and progressive complementarity to what was previously established as being from God.

Moreover, while today Bible reading is somewhat encouraged in Roman Catholicism, its authority is yet impugned by inculcating the idea that what Rome says it means is all that really doctrinally matters, and by the overall liberal interpretive approach to exegesis of most of her modern scholars, such as is seen (below) in the approved commentary in the official Roman Catholic Bible for America.

► Historical view:

It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests (De Lazaro concio, iii, MPG, xlviii, 992; Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, lvii, 30, NPNF, 2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament (Hom. ix in Col., MPG, lxii, 361, NPNF, xiii, 301). The women also, who were always at home, were diligently to read the Bible (Hom. xxxv on Gen. xii, MPG, liii, 323). Jerome recommended the reading and studying of Scripture on the part of the women (Epist., cxxviii, 3, MPL, xxii, 1098, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 259; Epist., lxxix, 9, MPG, xxii, 730-731, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 167). The translations of the Bible, Augustine considered a blessed means of propagating the Word of God among the nations (De doctr. christ., ii, 5, NPNF, 1st ser., ii, 536); Gregory I recommended the reading of the Bible without placing any limitations on it (Hom. iii in Ezek., MPL, lxxvi, 968). — New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia
► The Middle Ages:
Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff�, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular...
With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. (Philip Schaff, Bible reading by the laity, restrictions on. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II: Basilica – Chambers)
“There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us.” (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, The Catholic Publication Society, 1887, page 509)
Through most of the fourth century, the controversy with the Arians had turned upon Scripture, and appeals to past authority were few. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 6, page 2)
Our present convenient compendiums -- the Missal, Breviary, and so on were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed. [Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 9, page 296]
Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations (Canon 825 §1).
The Catholic dictionary states that, “In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people...New dangers came in during the Middle Ages...To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Terragona, (1234) [local councils], forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Toulouse was in response to the Albigensian heresy, and it is understood that when the Albigensian problem disappeared, so did the force of their order, which never affected more than southern France. http://www.lazyboysreststop.com/true_attitude.htm
Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14: "We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue" (Pierre Allix, Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213).
Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.” (Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1887, page 82).

During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times. Their history is chiefly connected with the names of medieval heretics like Berengarius of Tours, Abelard, John Wyclif, and John Hus. However, especially in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, there were also issued prohibitions of various kinds of superstitious writings, among them the Talmud and other Jewish books. In this period, also, the first decrees about the reading of translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigenses. What these decrees (e.g. of the synods of Toulouse in 1229, Tarragona in 1234, Oxford in 1408) aimed at was the restriction of Bible-reading in the vernacular. A general prohibition was never in existence. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, (v3, pg. 520; http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Censorship_of_Books)

The Council of Trent broadly prohibited all Latin translations of the New Testament coming from what she decreed were were heretics, and also prohibited “all their books, even those free from objection, i.e. not treating of religious questions, as well as future publications.” “Any person reading or keeping a book prohibited for other reasons commits a grievous sin and is to be punished according to the bishop's discretion. The ten rules remained in force until Leo XIII abrogated them by the Constitution "Officiorum ac Munerum" (January 25, 1897) and replaced them by new general decrees.” However, consistent with other hindrances, Trent did allow reading of Scripture, that of “reading of Latin translations of the Old Testament edited by heretics, and for the use of Bible-versions in the vernacular written by Catholics,” but only after a license in writing was obtained from the proper ecclesiastical authority:

Council of Trent

Session XXV: Rule IV of the Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books Drawn Up by The Fathers Chosen by the Council of Trent and Approved by Pope Pius:

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with English Translation (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1955), p. 274-75. http://teachers.sduhsd.net/mmontgomery/world_history/reformation/trent.htm
The most stringent censorship decree after the Reformation was the Papal bull “Inter Solicitudines,” issued by Pope Leo X, December 1516, which Leo X ordered censorship to be applied to all translations from Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Chaldaic into Latin, and from Latin into the vernacular. (Hirsch, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450-1550 [1967] 90).
In addition to the printed books being seized and publicly burnt , payment of a hundred ducats to the fabric of the basilica of the prince of the apostles in Rome , without hope of relief , and suspension for a whole year from the possibility of engaging in the printing , There Is To be imposed upon anyone presuming to act otherwise the sentence of excommunication . Finally , if the offender 's contumacy Increases , he is to be punished with all the sanctions of the law , by His bishop or by our vicar , in Such a way That others will have no incentive to try to follow His example. Papal Bull, Inter Sollicitudines (December 1516) [Wiki Translation].
Between 1567 and 1773, not a single edition of an Italian-language Bible was printed anywhere in the Italian peninsula. “When English Roman Catholics created their first English biblical translation in exile at Douai and Reims, it was not for ordinary folk to read, but [primarily] for priests to use as a polemical weapon.—the explicit purpose which the 1582 title-page and preface of the Reims New Testament proclaimed. Only the Jansenists of early seventeenth-century France came to have a more positive and generous attitude to promoting Bible-reading among Catholics" (Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History, 2003, p. 406; p. 585.)
Douay-Rheims
The Douay–Rheims Bible...is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English undertaken by members of the English College, Douai in the service of the Catholic Church.
Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all, or could be easily understood by every one that readeth or heareth them in a known language; or that they were not often through man's malice or infirmity, pernicious and much hurtful to many; or that we generally and absolutely deemed it more convenient in itself, and more agreeable to God's Word and honour or edification of the faithful, to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages.
Not for these nor any such like reasons do we translate this sacred book, but upon special consideration of the present time, state, and condition of our country, unto which diverse things are either necessary or profitable and medicinable now that otherwise, in the peace of the Church, were neither much requisite, nor perchance wholly tolerable.
In our own country, notwithstanding the Latin tongue was ever (to use Venerable Bede's words) common to all the provinces of the same for meditation or study of Scriptures, and no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church,..
Which causeth the Holy Church not to forbid utterly any Catholic translation, though she allow not the publishing or reading of any absolutely and without exception or limitation, knowing by her Divine and most sincere wisdom, how, where, when, and to whom these her Master's and Spouse's gifts are to be bestowed to the most good of the faithful. http://www.bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html

INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS:

The Index of Prohibited Books was first published in 1544, and the Inquisition in Rome prepared the first Roman Index, issued by Paul IV in 1559. It contained more than a thousand interdictions divided into three classes: authors, all of whose works were to be prohibited;...
The number of writers and works placed on the Roman Index from the mid-sixteenth century to the end of the eighteenth amounted to about four thousand...
“The defense against Protestantism always remained a major pre-occupation of Roman censors. Protection of the political and juridical rights and privileges of the church, the pope, and the hierarchy also find a notable echo in the Index. Thus, writings favoring Gallicanism and those advocating the right of civil authorities to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs appear prominently, alongside polemical works dealing with the political intervention of the Holy See, such as during its conflict with the Republic of Venice in 1606–1607, or the oath of loyalty in England during the pontificate of Paul V (1605–1621).” http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eemw_03/eemw_03_00542.html

The Bull Unigenitus, published at Rome, September 8, 1713, as part of its censure of the propositions of Jansenism*, also condemned the following as being errors:

79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.
84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.
85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication. (INNOCENT XIII 1721-1724 BENEDICT XIII 1724-1730, CLEMENT XII 1730-174, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm)

INTER PRAECIPUAS (On Biblical Societies) of Pope Gregory XVI, MAY 8, 1844:

1. Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that We now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels. Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided.
In the many translations from the biblical societies, serious errors are easily inserted by the great number of translators, either through ignorance or deception. These errors, because of the very number and variety of translations, are long hidden and hence lead the faithful astray...
3. For this end the same biblical societies never cease to slander the Church and this Chair of Peter as if We have tried to keep the knowledge of sacred Scripture from the faithful. However, We have documents clearly detailing the singular zeal which the Supreme Pontiffs and bishops in recent times have used to instruct the Catholic people more thoroughly in the word of God, both as it exists in writing and in tradition.
5. ..the school of Jansenius. Borrowing the tactics of the Lutherans and Calvinists, they rebuked the Apostolic See on the grounds that because the reading of the Scriptures for all the faithful, at all times and places, was useful and necessary, it therefore could not be forbidden anyone by any authority...
11. Therefore, taking counsel with a number of Cardinals, and weighing the whole matter seriously and in good time, We have decided to send this letter to all of you. We again condemn all the above-mentioned biblical societies of which our predecessors disapproved. We specifically condemn the new one called Christian League founded last year in New York and other societies of the same kind, if they have already joined with it or do so in the future. Therefore let it be known to all that anyone who joins one of these societies, or aids it, or favors it in any way will be guilty of a grievous crime. Besides We confirm and renew by Our apostolic authority the prescriptions listed and published long ago concerning the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/g16inter.htm)

"A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church...We must also keep in mind that whenever or wherever reading endangers the purity of Christian thought and living the unum necessarium it has to be wisely restricted." — A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953) pp. 11-12.
► Modern era

Providentissimus Deus: On the study of Holy Scripture, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII , November 18, 1893,

6. It is in this that the watchful care of the Church shines forth conspicuously. By admirable laws and regulations, she has always shown herself solicitous that "the celestial treasure of the Sacred Books, so bountifully bestowed upon man by the Holy Spirit, should not lie neglected."25 She has prescribed that a considerable portion of them shall be read and piously reflected upon by all her ministers in the daily office of the sacred psalmody. She has ordered that in Cathedral Churches, in monasteries, and in other convents in which study can conveniently be pursued, they shall be expounded and interpreted by capable men; and she has strictly commanded that her children shall be fed with the saving words of the Gospel at least on Sundays and solemn feasts.26 Moreover, it is owing to the wisdom and exertions of the Church that there has always been continued from century to century that cultivation of Holy Scripture which has been so remarkable and has borne such ample fruit. (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm)

Comment:

While the above encyclical was partly motivated by the rise of the historical-critical method of analyzing Scripture, which impugns its authority, yet liberal scholarship reigns in Roman Catholicism. See below for more.

Officiorum ac Munerum, Encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII. The prohibition and censorship of books Apostolic Constitution, January 25, 1897
5. Editions of the Original Text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in Theological and Biblical Studies, provided also that the Dogma of Catholic Faith are not impugned in the Prolegomena or Annotations.
6. In the same manner, and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible, whether in Latin or in any other dead language, published by non-Catholics, are permitted. 5. Editions of the Original Text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in Theological and Biblical Studies, provided also that the Dogma of Catholic Faith are not impugned in the Prolegomena or Annotations.
6. In the same manner, and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible, whether in Latin or in any other dead language, published by non-Catholics, are permitted.
23. Those only shall be allowed to read and keep books prohibited, either by Special Decrees or by these General Decrees, who shall have obtained the necessary permission, either from the Apostolic See or from its delegates.
41. All the faithful are bound to submit to preliminary Ecclesiastical Censorship at least those books which treat of Holy Scripture, ..
48. Those who, without the Approbation of the Ordinary, print, or cause to be printed, books of Holy Scripture, or notes of commentaries on the same, incur ipso facto excommunication, but not reserved.
49....We Decree that these presents and whatsoever they contain shall at no time be questioned or impugned for any fault of subreption, or obreption, or of Our intention, or for any other defect whatsoever; but are and shall be ever valid and efficacious, and to be inviolably observed, both Judicially and extra-Judicially, by all of whatsoever rank and pre-eminence. And We declare to be invalid and of no avail, whatsoever may be attempted knowingly or unknowingly contrary to these, by any one, under any Authority or pretext whatsoever; all to the contrary notwithstanding. http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/Censorship.htm
Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920: "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, with the veneration due the divine Word, make a spiritual reading from the Sacred Scriptures. A plenary indulgence is granted if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour."

Vatican Two: With Vatican came a marked difference in the Roman Catholic stance toward general Bible reading.

The Second Vatican Council, 1966, under Pope Paul VI abolishes the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which was founded in 1557.
The Catholic Study Bible: At mid-century the Scripture were read in Latin at Mass. There were few selections from the Old Testament, and a rather small number of New Testament passages dominated... Since Vatican 2...the Old Testament is very prominent and almost the entire New Testament...is represented...At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts...Now the texts of the Bible form the primary resource for Catholic religious education at all levels. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16)
"A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due to the divine word make a spiritual reading 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. New York. Page 68. # 50) TOC

* a distinct movement within the Catholic Church from the 16th to 18th centuries. It opposed Pelagianism (and semi-Pelagianism), and what is saw as the "relaxed morality" of Jesuitism and its frequent communion, and it followers identified themselves as rigorous followers of Augustinism, and it thus shared some tenets of Calvinism (though its pious Catholic founder, Jansen, rejected the doctrine of assurance). Its key conflict with Roman Catholic soteriology is that it denies the role of free will in the acceptance and use of grace.

The United Bible Society announced that as of 31 December 2007 the Bible was available in 438 languages, 123 of which included the deuterocanonical material as well as the Tanakh and New Testament. Either the Tanakh or the New Testament alone was available in an additional 1168 languages, and portions of the Bible were available in another 848 languages, for a total of 2,454 languages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations#Modern_translation_efforts

Mark, I have already made it clear that my source for knowledge is the Word of God—the Bible. The Holy Spirit teaches us its meaning. Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man—the ONLY way to God.

Negative. What you have posted is that you believe that Catholicism is not Christian have found supporting websites that bolster that belief.

There is nothing fruitful that can come from a discussion betwee you and I. You are firmly wedded to Catholicism, and I am firmly wedded to the Word of God, and neither of us is likely to change our position.

I see no indication of belief in the Word of God in your posts. You prate about a viciously antiCatholic website and smugly sit upon that tuffet.

Jesus established the Catholic Church upon St. Peter to preserve preserve and defend the Revealed Word of God. He promised that His Church, the Catholic Church, would prevail against the gates of hell. It has and will. No $3.00 pamphlet or two bit harpie will change that.

You may be overestimating the price.

Jesus established the Catholic Church upon St. Peter to preserve preserve and defend the Revealed Word of God. He promised that His Church, the Catholic Church, would prevail against the gates of hell.

Jesus did no such thing. That is a gross misinterpretation of Jesus' words.

As I told Mark, there can be nothing worthwhile that comes out of a conversation between us. You are stuck firmly to your Catholicism, and I will not budge from the Bible. Your insults at me ("wolf/sheep's clothing," "you feign" "two bit harpie") don't make you look any better, either. If you would like to descend into hateful, juvenile name-calling (how very "Christian" of you!), you can ease on down the road. I'm not interested.

I do not need any “supporting website.” The Bible alone is clear. As I said, there will be no agreement between us—NONE AT ALL. It is only a waste of time for us to talk. So, I’ll move along.

"That is a gross misinterpretation of Jesus' words."

What is your authority for that interpretation?

Thank you Alex. I appreciate it. I am managing to take care of myself and my needs pretty well, just the darn fingers and brain seem wobbly.

As the cooler weather comes in, I am doing better than a couple of weeks ago when we were at the tail end of a long blazing hot spell..

Catholic Church to Replace Priests With Robots

As opposed to Calvinism where everyone is replaced with robots and living a simulacrum.

While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, just going to Mass will NOT give a functional knowledge of Scripture.

I have little doubt that the exposure to the freedom Protestants have to own and read a Bible was instrumental in that V2 decision. The Catholic church simply could not keep its membership shielded any more from other's life and beliefs.

I find it peculiar that the very Bible the Catholic church takes responsibility for is the one that it fights tooth and nail people reading and interpreting on their own.

Jesus established the Catholic Church upon St. Peter to preserve preserve and defend the Revealed Word of God. He promised that His Church, the Catholic Church, would prevail against the gates of hell.
Jesus did no such thing. That is a gross misinterpretation of Jesus' words.

As I told Mark, there can be nothing worthwhile that comes out of a conversation between us. You are stuck firmly to your Catholicism, and I will not budge from the Bible. Your insults at me ("wolf/sheep's clothing," "you feign" "two bit harpie") don't make you look any better, either. If you would like to descend into hateful, juvenile name-calling (how very "Christian" of you!), you can ease on down the road. I'm not interested.

You may be interested in posting etiquette in that those referenced should be courtesy pinged to the post. I am stuck firmly to Christianity. I think that I know what you are stuck firmly to and it bears little resemblance to Christianity.

You think to interpret the words of Jesus by gazing into your navel? 2000 years of the Magisterium prove you wrong. Your lack of consideration simply adds to your posting persona.

I do not need any “supporting website.” The Bible alone is clear. As I said, there will be no agreement between us—NONE AT ALL. It is only a waste of time for us to talk. So, I’ll move along.

The Bible is very clear. The Church is the authority that Jesus Created and left on Earth. The very fact that you reject it indicates that you reject the Word and instead substitute your own.

Catholic Church to Replace Priests With Robots

As opposed to Calvinism where everyone is replaced with robots and living a simulacrum.

Very well analyzed. Have you been following some of the failed Christians posting on this thread?

I find it peculiar that the very Bible the Catholic church takes responsibility for is the one that it fights tooth and nail people reading and interpreting on their own.

2 Peter 13 14-16. The Reformation is a convincing proof.

ooops. Make that 2 Peter 3.

Catholic Church to Replace Priests With Robots

AND..my thread on Jeff the mormon was pulled????Hmmmm.