If a Protestant Gives You a Bible

[Dale]

<<Don Bosco stood up, walked to the bookcase, fetched a Greek Bible and put it to the
Waldensian pastor out by saying, "Here, sir, the Greek text. You are welcome to refer to it, and you will find that it agrees completely with the Latin text.">>

Don Bosco in this quote from the eponymousflower blog is St. Don Bosco or St. John Bosco or St. Giovanni Melchior Bosco. He lived form 1815 to 1888.

In this quote from the same blog, the Latin text that Bosco is talking about is the Latin Vulgate, a translation produced under the supervision of St. Jerome (347-420 AD). The blog quotes Bosco as saying that the Latin Vulgate contains all Biblical truth. The implication is that we may as well get rid of the original manuscripts since the Vulgate is so nearly perfect a translation. So the translation from Hebrew and Greek used by Catholic priests for most of its history is virtually perfect.

Even if this were true, it wouldn't help those of us who don't read Latin. Regardless, is it true?

In 1907, St. Pope Pius X appointed a Commission of Benedictine monks to reconcile the many renditions of the Vulgate. That's right, it's not a question of consulting the original: "No copy of the actual text is known to exist," we are told. The purpose of the Commission is to study the discrepancies (also known as "corruptions" and "errors") and attempt to figure out what the original Vulgate released by St. Jerome really said.

The source of this information is the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912 edition. The article is "Revision of Vulgate." The work of the Commission was ongoing when this Encyclopedia went to press.

On the accuracy of St. Jerome's translation: New Advent suggests that it may require another Commission to determine that.


Link to Blog:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2015/06/pope-kisses-waldensian-bible-pope.htm


Link to New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia article Revision of Vulgate:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Revision of Vulgate

 

[Dale]

What would you do if someone handed you a Jehovah's Witness New World Translation? Would you take it home, put it on your shelf, and let your children read it?

Remind me to do a thread on the Jehovah's Witnesses sometime. One thing to remember is that they do not believe in the Divinity of Jesus. That's why they aren't the Jesus Witnesses.

Someone was just telling me that one of our local Methodist ministers does keep the JW New World Translation on hand so that he can invite them in and show them that it is not accurate.

I was given a copy of the Book of Mormon by a Mormon Elder. I read part of it and decided that it was a very silly attempt to imitate the language of the Bible. Later I gave it to a roommate, who does not believe it either.

 

[JoeP222w]

What would you do if someone handed you a Jehovah's Witness New World Translation? Would you take it home, put it on your shelf, and let your children read it?

I would say thank you and keep it. I would talk with my children about it and read it with them.

I trust that God is sovereign, that He is able preserve His word and truth and simply having a corrupt, cultic translation (NWT) in your house is not going to condemn you or your family to Hell. Simply having a NWT does not override the sovereignty and truth of God.

 

[JoeP222w]

What should a Roman Catholic do if a Protestant gives them a Bible?

I found one answer from a blog called Eponymousflower. This is a blog by traditionalist Catholics, deeply suspicious of post-Vatican II Popes, but still within the Roman Catholic Church.

The answer: Refuse the gift of a Protestant Bible. If it comes in the mail, or you don't unwrap it until you get home, burn it. Yes, throw it into a fire, or light a fire to burn this Protestant Bible.

Where does this bizarre attitude come from? The blog cites the Catechism of Pope Pius X, who reigned from 1903-1914, and was canonized as a saint by Pope Pius XII in 1954.

An excerpt from the Catechism of Pope Pius X under the heading The Ninth Article of the Creed and Communion of the Saints:

<< Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?
A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest. >>

Note: "burnt as soon as possible." Why does Pius X take this position?

<< 33 Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?
A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her. >>


In other words, the footnotes approved by the Vatican are more important than the text of the Bible, even if the translation is both accurate and approved. Even if there are no Protestant notes, it is still forbidden. It really sounds like Pius X is afraid to have Catholics read the text of the Bible.

The article where this occurs is written by Giuseppe Nardi. So far the blog might be on good ground if you respect popes more than you respect the Bible. There is one word of caution that might make sense even to a traditionalist Catholic. The Catechism of Pius X was only used in Rome and parts of Italy. It was never addressed to the whole Church or to all priests. Even Pius X wasn't foolish enough to send this Catechism to a country with lots of Protestants.

For myself, the lack of respect for Scripture here is appalling. I don't know whether to be more amazed that a Twentieth Century Pope said such a thing, that he was later elevated to sainthood, or that people are still quoting and following one of the most foolish things he ever said.


Link to Blog:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2015/06/pope-kisses-waldensian-bible-pope.htm

Link to Catechism of Pius X:
CATECHISM OF ST

If there are Roman Catholics that do this, they would need to throw there own Bible as well, and the only thing they could keep would be the Apocrypha. Rome is the one who has added corruption to the Bible, not Protestants.

 

[Padres1969]

What should a Catholic do that's been handed a non-Catholic bible by another Catholic

 

[Vicomte13]

I thought you were actually advocating for burning Bible's at first lol. Good thing i read that entire post. I wonder if Catholics still have this view 100 years later?

Do you really wonder that?
Pope John Paul II...?
Pope Francis...?
You really wonder that?
Really?

Have you been living in a cave?

 

[mark kennedy]

What should a Roman Catholic do if a Protestant gives them a Bible?

I found one answer from a blog called Eponymousflower. This is a blog by traditionalist Catholics, deeply suspicious of post-Vatican II Popes, but still within the Roman Catholic Church.

The answer: Refuse the gift of a Protestant Bible. If it comes in the mail, or you don't unwrap it until you get home, burn it. Yes, throw it into a fire, or light a fire to burn this Protestant Bible.

Where does this bizarre attitude come from? The blog cites the Catechism of Pope Pius X, who reigned from 1903-1914, and was canonized as a saint by Pope Pius XII in 1954.

An excerpt from the Catechism of Pope Pius X under the heading The Ninth Article of the Creed and Communion of the Saints:

<< Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?
A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest. >>

Note: "burnt as soon as possible." Why does Pius X take this position?

<< 33 Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?
A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her. >>


In other words, the footnotes approved by the Vatican are more important than the text of the Bible, even if the translation is both accurate and approved. Even if there are no Protestant notes, it is still forbidden. It really sounds like Pius X is afraid to have Catholics read the text of the Bible.

The article where this occurs is written by Giuseppe Nardi. So far the blog might be on good ground if you respect popes more than you respect the Bible. There is one word of caution that might make sense even to a traditionalist Catholic. The Catechism of Pius X was only used in Rome and parts of Italy. It was never addressed to the whole Church or to all priests. Even Pius X wasn't foolish enough to send this Catechism to a country with lots of Protestants.

For myself, the lack of respect for Scripture here is appalling. I don't know whether to be more amazed that a Twentieth Century Pope said such a thing, that he was later elevated to sainthood, or that people are still quoting and following one of the most foolish things he ever said.


Link to Blog:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2015/06/pope-kisses-waldensian-bible-pope.htm

Link to Catechism of Pius X:
CATECHISM OF ST

I wonder if people realize that the KJV is based on Textus Recepticus which was published by an Augustinian Jesuit. Now there are going to be problems with any translation and virtually any manuscript. I owned a Jerusalem Bible for years and I didn't really see all that many differences. I was going to a Baptist church and one of the evangelists confronted me once asking me why I wanted so many different translations. I simply told him for cross referencing, he insisted it was too confusing and really got incensed when I mention I even had a Catholic Bible. At the time I just rolled with it, I was familiar enough with the various translations that I knew exegetical work involved is about as close to science as Christian scholarship gets.

I'm actually perplexed that Rome suffers from the same misconception. I remember he told me I should use the NKJV and of course I already had one. The only one I've found that I just didn't like was the Revised Standard Version, the wording is just so blah, wooden some would call it.

If I were a Catholic and a Protestant offered me a Protestant translation I would just politely decline. I certainly wouldn't refuse it in disgust. When I encounter Jehovah's Witnesses they like to quote from the New World Translation, I just happen to know isn't a translation but rewording of the KJV. I will just break out on the good ole KJV and when I tell them why it generally ends the conversation.

There are serious problems between Catholic and Protestant doctrine and theology, translations aren't one of them. If I had to stick to a New Jerusalem Bible I suppose I would but not until I figured out what the problem with the Protestant translation actual was. I'm a bit hard headed about that sort of thing.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What would you do if someone handed you a Jehovah's Witness New World Translation? Would you take it home, put it on your shelf, and let your children read it?

I was given one, took it home, put it on the shelf, and on rare occasions bring it out to point out mistranslations.

 

[Vicomte13]

I wonder if people realize that the KJV is based on Textus Recepticus which was published by an Augustinian Jesuit. Now there are going to be problems with any translation and virtually any manuscript. I owned a Jerusalem Bible for years and I didn't really see all that many differences. I was going to a Baptist church and one of the evangelists confronted me once asking me why I wanted so many different translations. I simply told him for cross referencing, he insisted it was too confusing and really got incensed when I mention I even had a Catholic Bible. At the time I just rolled with it, I was familiar enough with the various translations that I knew exegetical work involved is about as close to science as Christian scholarship gets.

I'm actually perplexed that Rome suffers from the same misconception. I remember he told me I should use the NKJV and of course I already had one. The only one I've found that I just didn't like was the Revised Standard Version, the wording is just so blah, wooden some would call it.

If I were a Catholic and a Protestant offered me a Protestant translation I would just politely decline. I certainly wouldn't refuse it in disgust. When I encounter Jehovah's Witnesses they like to quote from the New World Translation, I just happen to know isn't a translation but rewording of the KJV. I will just break out on the good ole KJV and when I tell them why it generally ends the conversation.

There are serious problems between Catholic and Protestant doctrine and theology, translations aren't one of them. If I had to stick to a New Jerusalem Bible I suppose I would but not until I figured out what the problem with the Protestant translation actual was. I'm a bit hard headed about that sort of thing.

What many do not know is that the traditional Catholic Douay-Rheims translation, part of which was published several years before the famous Anglican King James Version, and part of which was published later, was completely re-edited by Bishop Challoner in the mid-1700s to bring its language as closely in line with the KJV as possible.

Likewise, the "traditional" KJV is not really the KJV of 1611, which had completely different spelling and different punctuation, but a modernized and revised version of it.

So, if you look at a modern KJV and a modern Douai-Rheims, you will find barely any difference between the two, although one is Protestant and the other is Catholic. This is particularly true if you look at the FULL KJV text, which includes the so-called "Apocrypha" following the primary text.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That's a big improvement, they used to burn the Protestant

Funny, your words. lol..

Not burning Protestants, of course.

 

[mark kennedy]

What many do not know is that the traditional Catholic Douay-Rheims translation, part of which was published several years before the famous Anglican King James Version, and part of which was published later, was completely re-edited by Bishop Challoner in the mid-1700s to bring its language as closely in line with the KJV as possible.

Isn't that interesting, I found a Wikipedia article on it and apparently it was based on the Vulgate. The first Greek manuscript of the originals was actually back edited based on the Latin Vulgate. Apparently manuscript replication isn't a perfect process, back editing them was a constant problem.

Likewise, the "traditional" KJV is not really the KJV of 1611, which had completely different spelling and different punctuation, but a modernized and revised version of it.

Have you ever tried to read the 1611 version? The language has changed so much and the Cambridge people have done an excellent job updating the translation. Most people are using the 1679 version, which I think has a great track record and an enviable longevity.

So, if you look at a modern KJV and a modern Douai-Rheims, you will find barely any difference between the two, although one is Protestant and the other is Catholic. This is particularly true if you look at the FULL KJV text, which includes the so-called "Apocrypha" following the primary text.

I rarely find any significant differences between the translations. I know wording can be tricky so I like to cross compare for some of the more difficult passages. It's interesting how many ways the early verses of Romans 6 can be translated. Shall we sin so that grace may increase is straight forward but Paul's answer is a double negative, a big no no for English. I'm pretty sure the KJV 'God forbid!' isn't the best way to do that. A simple 'no, absolutely not' would suffice.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Do you really wonder that?
Pope John Paul II...?
Pope Francis...?
You really wonder that?
Really?

Have you been living in a cave?

Ummm... what do John Paul and Francis have to do with this?

 

[Vicomte13]

Ummm... what do John Paul and Francis have to do with this?

They're Popes, heads of the Church, just like the idiot who said to burn Protestant Bibles, but later in time. Which means that what THESE guys say, NOW, is what the Church's stance is. They have the same office as the other guy, but he's not in it anymore. So, his (bad) opinions aren't the rule anymore.

Catholics were used to urge to dispute with Protestants with the same fury that some Protestants (such as the OP) continue to work at disputing with (or about) Catholics today.

Catholics have been taught not to do that anymore, since Vatican 2. Since Vatican 2, we're supposed to be ecumenical, to seek to understand and work together. And the older forms of Catholic attacks on Protestantism are no longer acceptable. They have been erased by newer instructions.

A perfect analogy: Congress enacted a Fugitive Slave Law, and the federal government of the United States actively sought out, pursued, arrested (and, if they resisted, maimed and killed) slaves escaped out of the South heading North towards Canada on the underground railroad. The whites who helped them were also prosecuted as felons under the federal law. Aiding escaped slaves was a very serious offense, like aiding escaped prisoners-of-war.

There was a great deal written at the time about the duty to obey the law, the duty to turn in escaped slaves and their abetters. The federal law left no doubt, and the (evil) federal agents pursued the law vigorously and with force - the same degree of forced and aggressiveness that the current war on drugs is pursued by the DEA.

Can one, then, take the Federal Law - the Fugitive Slave Law, and the regulations and rules and public pronouncements associated with it, put them up and say "Behold the morality of the United States constitutional system and the character of the American people. The American people are evil scum and their Constitution deserves to be burnt and the ashes thrown into a latrine! Their proclamation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a bald-faced racist lie. They are no different than Nazis, and their law enforcement are Gestapo who should all be hanged for crimes against humanity, as should every member of their Congress and Supreme Court that voted for and upheld such acts!"

Certainly one could have VALIDLY made those claims in 1861 - because that WAS the truth, that WAS the law, that WAS America, under the American Constitution, THEN.

Obviously times have changed, and it is no longer legitimate to make such an argument against America or its Constitution or its officials over the laws of slavery. One can look BACK and say that Americans of that era were truly scumbags, and it is very difficult to argue that case. But one cannot move that same argument forward after the 13th Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts and all that has been done to rectify the terrible errors of the past.

Likewise, to take a quote from a bigoted old fool of a Pope on a matter which has, since then, been completely reversed by an Ecumenical Council of the Church (Vatican 2), and manifestly rejected by two famous popes - John Paul II and Francis - is to do the same thing as to vilify America for slavery.

It happened. It was wrong. People figured that out and changed. It doesn't happen anymore.
It is unjust to go back to the rhetoric of 1860 and ignore what has happened since. Either that, or it's just ignorant.

The mainstream Protestant churches also burnt a lot of people at the stake, and supported slavery - even defended it on theological grounds. The Southern Baptists in particular, famously and egregiously had a whole "Mark of Cain" theology regarding black people.

Is it fair to call out the Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians and Calvinist Reformed as mass murderers and torturers for what their misguided forbears did? Sure it is - IF the people of the present have not RENOUNCED those old evil acts. But they HAVE renounced them, so no, it is not.

Is it fair to call out the Bapists as racists because many decades ago they were? Yes, it is fair, if they haven't RENOUNCED that racism as wrong. But they HAVE.

The Catholics have RENOUNCED hatred of Protestants, and the sort of "Burn a Protestant Bible" nonsense of some bigoted old Pope would get the man disciplined and taken out of his office by the current Pope if he did it today. That's not Catholic practice or teaching NOW. And NOW is what matters.

Right?

Francis is Pope NOW. HE is the one with authority, not Pius X.

As to Pius X's other qualities, does a man's sins mean that he is not to be venerated for his good qualities? If you answer yes, then you will need to spit upon Luther, Calvin and the founders of your Church, whatever it may be, because they were all murderous in some regard, or utter bigots. Find some founder of any of the modern churches who was not a sinner!

Can't.
They all were.

The Church is a fundamentally human organization. It prays to God and looks to God and seeks to advance the ways of God in the world, but it itself is NOT God. It is composed of men and run by men, and men do stupid and evil things in every generation. Sometimes their evil is supremely stupid and lasting in its legacy.

The important thing, the thing that MATTERS in our day, is that we do not PRESENTLY continue to do the same old stupid evils, and that we admit the wrongs of the past and not persist in them. Or defend them too much.

Leave God to forgive the sins of the past. We should forgive them also, but not deny they took place, or pretend they weren't sins.

Francis is front and center because HE's the Pope. Pius X is not the Pope. He WAS the Pope. Now he's dead, and his stupid opinions died with him.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

That's a big improvement, they used to burn the Protestant

LOOOOOOOL

 

[98cwitr]

They're Popes, heads of the Church, just like the idiot who said to burn Protestant Bibles, but later in time. Which means that what THESE guys say, NOW, is what the Church's stance is. They have the same office as the other guy, but he's not in it anymore. So, his (bad) opinions aren't the rule anymore.

Catholics were used to urge to dispute with Protestants with the same fury that some Protestants (such as the OP) continue to work at disputing with (or about) Catholics today.

Catholics have been taught not to do that anymore, since Vatican 2. Since Vatican 2, we're supposed to be ecumenical, to seek to understand and work together. And the older forms of Catholic attacks on Protestantism are no longer acceptable. They have been erased by newer instructions.

A perfect analogy: Congress enacted a Fugitive Slave Law, and the federal government of the United States actively sought out, pursued, arrested (and, if they resisted, maimed and killed) slaves escaped out of the South heading North towards Canada on the underground railroad. The whites who helped them were also prosecuted as felons under the federal law. Aiding escaped slaves was a very serious offense, like aiding escaped prisoners-of-war.

There was a great deal written at the time about the duty to obey the law, the duty to turn in escaped slaves and their abetters. The federal law left no doubt, and the (evil) federal agents pursued the law vigorously and with force - the same degree of forced and aggressiveness that the current war on drugs is pursued by the DEA.

Can one, then, take the Federal Law - the Fugitive Slave Law, and the regulations and rules and public pronouncements associated with it, put them up and say "Behold the morality of the United States constitutional system and the character of the American people. The American people are evil scum and their Constitution deserves to be burnt and the ashes thrown into a latrine! Their proclamation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a bald-faced racist lie. They are no different than Nazis, and their law enforcement are Gestapo who should all be hanged for crimes against humanity, as should every member of their Congress and Supreme Court that voted for and upheld such acts!"

Certainly one could have VALIDLY made those claims in 1861 - because that WAS the truth, that WAS the law, that WAS America, under the American Constitution, THEN.

Obviously times have changed, and it is no longer legitimate to make such an argument against America or its Constitution or its officials over the laws of slavery. One can look BACK and say that Americans of that era were truly scumbags, and it is very difficult to argue that case. But one cannot move that same argument forward after the 13th Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts and all that has been done to rectify the terrible errors of the past.

Likewise, to take a quote from a bigoted old fool of a Pope on a matter which has, since then, been completely reversed by an Ecumenical Council of the Church (Vatican 2), and manifestly rejected by two famous popes - John Paul II and Francis - is to do the same thing as to vilify America for slavery.

It happened. It was wrong. People figured that out and changed. It doesn't happen anymore.
It is unjust to go back to the rhetoric of 1860 and ignore what has happened since. Either that, or it's just ignorant.

The mainstream Protestant churches also burnt a lot of people at the stake, and supported slavery - even defended it on theological grounds. The Southern Baptists in particular, famously and egregiously had a whole "Mark of Cain" theology regarding black people.

Is it fair to call out the Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians and Calvinist Reformed as mass murderers and torturers for what their misguided forbears did? Sure it is - IF the people of the present have not RENOUNCED those old evil acts. But they HAVE renounced them, so no, it is not.

Is it fair to call out the Bapists as racists because many decades ago they were? Yes, it is fair, if they haven't RENOUNCED that racism as wrong. But they HAVE.

The Catholics have RENOUNCED hatred of Protestants, and the sort of "Burn a Protestant Bible" nonsense of some bigoted old Pope would get the man disciplined and taken out of his office by the current Pope if he did it today. That's not Catholic practice or teaching NOW. And NOW is what matters.

Right?

Francis is Pope NOW. HE is the one with authority, not Pius X.

As to Pius X's other qualities, does a man's sins mean that he is not to be venerated for his good qualities? If you answer yes, then you will need to spit upon Luther, Calvin and the founders of your Church, whatever it may be, because they were all murderous in some regard, or utter bigots. Find some founder of any of the modern churches who was not a sinner!

Can't.
They all were.

The Church is a fundamentally human organization. It prays to God and looks to God and seeks to advance the ways of God in the world, but it itself is NOT God. It is composed of men and run by men, and men do stupid and evil things in every generation. Sometimes their evil is supremely stupid and lasting in its legacy.

The important thing, the thing that MATTERS in our day, is that we do not PRESENTLY continue to do the same old stupid evils, and that we admit the wrongs of the past and not persist in them. Or defend them too much.

Leave God to forgive the sins of the past. We should forgive them also, but not deny they took place, or pretend they weren't sins.

Francis is front and center because HE's the Pope. Pius X is not the Pope. He WAS the Pope. Now he's dead, and his stupid opinions died with him.

So is it commonplace for a Catholic to believe that the Pope is simply a man, and thus fallible, and thus their teachings, rules, and ordinances can also be made in error? I am not asking as a rhetorical slight; these are sincere legitimate questions. Your post seems to suggest so, but I'd like to be clear. I dated a Catholic girl in high school, and attended Mass with her a few times, but beyond that, my education is rather limited in regards to Roman Catholicism.

 

[Vicomte13]

So is it commonplace for a Catholic to believe that the Pope is simply a man, and thus fallible, and thus their teachings, rules, and ordinances can also be made in error? I am not asking as a rhetorical slight; these are sincere legitimate questions.

Yes.
The Pope is not generally infallible. Neither are bishops, priests or the laity. Including saints.

There is a very narrow, specific, explicit and difficult set of conditions required for a papal (or conciliar) statement to be infallible. Hardly anything ever is. Example: priestly celibacy is not an infallible doctrine. It is a mere disciplinary rule. Pius X's views on the Protestant Bible, and Francis I's views on global warming, are not infallible at all. They're the opinions of men. Important leaders, holy men - they should be considered seriously, of course. My dismissal of Pius X as an "idiot" and a "bigot" was not Catholic - too disrespectful, too arrogant - a sin, actually. But if I engaged in a serious discussion of his thoughts, and ultimately rejected them, that would be acceptable, particularly now that the Church itself, through the Vatican 2 Council and its teachings since, disagrees comprehensively with Pius X's approach.

Francis would tell you to say "Thank you" and accept the gift as a gift - and that's that.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What should a Roman Catholic do if a Protestant gives them a Bible?

Read it.

 

[98cwitr]

Yes.
The Pope is not generally infallible. Neither are bishops, priests or the laity. Including saints.

There is a very narrow, specific, explicit and difficult set of conditions required for a papal (or conciliar) statement to be infallible. Hardly anything ever is. Example: priestly celibacy is not an infallible doctrine. It is a mere disciplinary rule. Pius X's views on the Protestant Bible, and Francis I's views on global warming, are not infallible at all. They're the opinions of men. Important leaders, holy men - they should be considered seriously, of course. My dismissal of Pius X as an "idiot" and a "bigot" was not Catholic - too disrespectful, too arrogant - a sin, actually. But if I engaged in a serious discussion of his thoughts, and ultimately rejected them, that would be acceptable, particularly now that the Church itself, through the Vatican 2 Council and its teachings since, disagrees comprehensively with Pius X's approach.

Francis would tell you to say "Thank you" and accept the gift as a gift - and that's that.

Gotcha. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

When one of the youth leaders saw what I was reading, her suggestion was that I should rip them out, deface and destroy the Bible.

Good idea.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Note: "burnt as soon as possible." Why does Pius X take this position?

Because reading it might lead to their separation from heirarchal authority of men.