28 Q. Is the reading of the Bible necessary to all Christians?(source)
A. The reading of the Bible is not necessary to all Christians since they are instructed by the Church; however its reading is very useful and recommended to all.
29 Q. May any translation of the Bible, in the vernacular, be read?
A. We can read those translations of the Bible in the vernacular which have been acknowledged as faithful by the Catholic Church and which have explanations also approved by the Church.
30 Q. Why may we only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church?
A. We may only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church because she alone is the lawful guardian of the Bible.
31 Q. Through which means can we know the true meaning of the Holy Scripture?
A. We can only know the true meaning of Holy Scripture through the Church's interpretation, because she alone is secure against error in that interpretation.
32 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.
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.
Notice the interesting idea that reading the Bible without approved footnotes "may be harmful to the Faith." One has to wonder if the reader is supposed to think:
No wonder so few of the churches to which Paul wrote letters are still around! Had only Paul had the wisdom of Pius X, he would have included footnotes to the obscure passages, so that the obscure parts of his writings would not damage their faith. Thankfully, annotated Bibles clear up that problem and are consequently safe for the Faith.Whatever was intended, you can be confident that you won't see a continuation of these views in the CCC or the current code of canon law. This is not the faith of modern Roman Catholicism, and it would be "gotcha apologetics" for me to suggest that Roman Catholics today actually follow Pius X teaching. They don't. This is the way it was, not the way it is. I've never heard of Roman Catholics these days even burning such mutilated Bibles as the New World Translation (authorized by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) or the LDS edition of the KJV (with its approved annotations). So please, don't get me wrong. Things have changed, and the above views expressed by the authority of Pope Pius X are not the views expressed by the current pontiff (of course, probably Q/A 28 is still the same, and maybe bits and pieces of the others remain in some form, but they are not, as a whole, the views of contemporary Roman Catholicism).
-TurretinFan
48 comments:
I laughed at this at first, until I realized that this catechism indoctrinated millions of Catholic children of the day into thinking Protestants and their Bibles were practically evil. It makes me sorry for my ancestors (some of whom were Protestant and some of whom were Catholic), and thankful that most Catholics today wouldn't be inclined to burn a Bible if I gave them one.
"Speaking of the Catechism of Saint Pius X, which continues to have its admirers still today: will it be considered definitely surpassed with the publication of the Compendium?
RATZINGER: The faith as such is always the same. Hence the Catechism of Saint Pius X always preserves its value. Whereas ways of transmitting the contents of the faith can change instead. And hence one may wonder whether the Catechism of Saint Pius X can in that sense still be considered valid today. I believe the Compendium we’re preparing can respond better to the needs of today. But that doesn’t exclude that there may be people or groups of persons who feel more at ease with the Catechism of Saint Pius X.... the Catechism of Saint Pius X may still find friends in the future. But that certainly doesn’t make our work superfluous....
http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=775
A very post-modern answer. It's still valid, to the extent that it is, and to the extent that it meets people's needs better.
I think the Catholic would argue that, when Paul was writing and afterwards, his letters could be explained by bishops and/or prebyters in the community receiving the letter. Before the printing press, remember, it would be doubtful that an individual Christian would often be reading Scripture completely removed from an ecclesiastical context.
Also, don't forget that some very influential Protestant Bibles (e.g. The Geneva Bible) had pro-Protestant commentary and footnotes.
Lastly, about the change in practice, I'll refer again to the difference between principle and concrete application (a distinction which is key in, for example, moral philosophy). When circumstances change principles are applied differently. If someone can't understand that, then perhaps they should not present themselves as a competant commentator on Catholicism (or ethics or intellectual history).
I anticipated that response, and consequently have a prepared rebuttal: Did the Roman Catholic church in Pius X's day lack "bishops and/or pre[s]byters in the community"?
And, as you ought to know, if you are going to comment on this, by the time of Pius X, the predominant English translation was the KJV, not the Geneva Bible.
And I'll add one more time that vague appeals to changes in circumstances as an excuse for what might otherwise appear to be a change in principle is practically worthless in this sort of discussion. Especially when the rationale for either the original or changed position is explained in terms of principle not circumstances by the magisterium.
"A very post-modern answer. It's still valid, to the extent that it is, and to the extent that it meets people's needs better."
B16 a postmodernist? Really?
Anyway, a pedgogical tool, like a catechism, is useful and valid insofar as it serves its educational purpose. The fact that it reflects pastoral and practical applications which are today outdated (but not heretical) does not detract from the fact that some people will respond better to its presentation of the Catholic faith.
DTKing posted the following in another thread:
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.
Latin Text of the Same:
Regula IV: Cum experimento manifestum sit, si sacra biblia vulgari lingua passim sine discrimine permittantur, plus inde ob hominum temeritatem detrimenti quam utilitas oriri, hac in parte judicio episcopi aut inquisitoris stetur, ut cum consilio parochi vel confessarii bibliorum a catholicis auctoribus versorum lectionem in vulgari lingua eis concedere possint, quos intellexerint ex hujusmodi lectione non damnum, sed fideí atque pietatis augmentum capere posse; quam facultatem in scriptis habeant. Qui autem absque tali facultate ea legere seu habere praesumpserit, nisi prius bibliis ordinario redditis peccatorum absolutionem percipere non possit. Bibliopolae vero, qui praedictam facultatem non habenti biblia idiomate vulgari conscripta vendiderint vel alio quovis modo concesserint, liborum pretium in usus pios ab episcopo convertendum amittant, aliisque poenis pro delicti qualitate ejusdem episcopi arbitrio subjaceant. Regulares vero non nisi facultate a praelatis suis habita ea legere aut emere possint.
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.
"B16 a postmodernist? Really?"
No. Yet his evasive answer is quite post-modern.
'Did the Roman Catholic church in Pius X's day lack "bishops and/or pre[s]byters in the community"?'
No, but in a post-printing press world everyone can own a copy of the Bible and bishops and/or presbyters cannot personally explain everypassage of Scripture to each individual Catholic.
"And, as you ought to know, if you are going to comment on this, by the time of Pius X, the predominant English translation was the KJV, not the Geneva Bible."
I know. I was just noting that a very influential English Protestant Bible did use footnotes.
"Especially when the rationale for either the original or changed position is explained in terms of principle not circumstances by the magisterium."
Where is it explicitly explained as a matter of principle or doctrine, not discipline?
"No, but in a post-printing press world everyone can own a copy of the Bible and bishops and/or presbyters cannot personally explain everypassage of Scripture to each individual Catholic."
That suggests that the times are more dangerous now (in the Internet age) than in Pius X's day (in the Industrial age). Note as well that in the time of the council of Toulouse, the printing press hadn't been invented yet, and in the time of Trent printed books weren't cheap.
Would you like to rethink your response?
-TurretinFan
"That suggests that the times are more dangerous now (in the Internet age) than in Pius X's day (in the Industrial age)."
I would say that it true. There are thousands, perhaps millions, of websites which poses dangers to faith and morals. So many that having an Index of Forbidden Books that was anything near complete would be impossible. Better, today, to teach people to use discernment in what they read.
"I would say that it true. There are thousands, perhaps millions, of websites which poses dangers to faith and morals."
Some of them even feature the notes for the Geneva Bible! (link)
"So many that having an Index of Forbidden Books that was anything near complete would be impossible."
Yet it would be easy to continue to say, "No Protestant Bibles or Bibles without approved footnotes."
"Better, today, to teach people to use discernment in what they read."
Ah, why didn't Paul and Pius X think of that! (or perhaps they did, and ...)
-TurretinFan
Or you can just do what the JWs do and prohibit people from reading anything not published by the Society.
Or you can just say that on religious subjects, one should look for an imprimatur/nihil obstat before reading.
It's not as though teaching ordinary people to read with discretion is the last resort in view of the Internet age.
Don't forget what Leo X's approach was with Luther (link). It wasn't to teach discretion (however useful that might have seemed in the day and age when the printing press was revolutionizing information dissemination)
Just pointing out that the answer to the first question is the right one. Since the Bible does not make it a requirement to be able to read, it does not make it a requirement to read itself. There are other methods of Biblical instruction which cannot be neglected, and reading alone (as in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch) is rarely sufficient (to understand it fully).
"Just pointing out that the answer to the first question is the right one. Since the Bible does not make it a requirement to be able to read, it does not make it a requirement to read itself. There are other methods of Biblical instruction which cannot be neglected, and reading alone (as in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch) is rarely sufficient (to understand it fully). "
It's not necessary for salvation, but it cannot be considered pious for a Christian to neglect the Word of God.
Subilia, on the eve of Vatican II:
"The twin principles of the Council of Trent, Scripture and Tradition, have recently become the triad, Scripture, Tradition, and the Teaching Authority of the Church.... Now, it seems, one of these elements is to undergo a special reassessment... Holy Scripture, which for four centuries fear of Protestantism had thrust into the background....
"It is stated that 'only' Holy Scripture constitutes 'intrinsic and immediate evidence of God himself' and this gives it... 'precedence over tradition'... maintaining however the balance in favor of Catholicism, by producing a Catholic version of one of the points that had been the special object of Protestant attack,and thus eliminating one of the objectives of the polemic.
"Thus Protestant requirements would be met, without -- as Father Boyer says so candidly -- this introduction of the practice of using the bible 'making any substantial difference.' The Scripture is read in the church, and understood in the sense that tradition has given it through history. It can be accepted as the normative norm, and still require the light of another norm to explain and expound it... this is provided by the Church."
-This is not the faith of modern Roman Catholicism, and it would be "gotcha apologetics" for me to suggest that Roman Catholics today actually follow Pius X teaching. They don't.-
Well, here's one Catholic that agrees with Pius X. And I don't even go to Latin mass.
-This is the way it was, not the way it is.-
Don't worry. The good old days will come back eventually and Catholics will start thinking correctly again.
Hi Rob,
In fact, there's a whole "society of saint pius x" (SSPX) who would probably take umbrage with my suggesting that the catechism of Pius X is outdated. Nevertheless, I think you'd agree with me that if someone called the Catholic Answers radio program and asked question 33, the answer would start with "she doesn't," and if they asked question 32, the answer would not look much like PX's answer.
Given the universal popularity of Protestant Study bibles with extensive footnotes, Pius must have been onto something with this whole footnote business.
Thanks for your thoughts, John.
Turretinfan,
Yes, but I think you would be surprised at the number of Catholics who (passively, like me) essentially agree with Pius X on a number of issues considered "Pre-Vatican II". We don't come out and say it, but we stay in a ship that is apparently sinking due to concession afer concession to protestantism (our horrible new mass, our modernist, married deacons) because we believe it is the true church and that we risk salvation by even considering becoming protestant. Otherwise, how to explain all the people listening to the priest dribble on about "brotherhood" at mass in my parish last weekend? LOL
But the topic was, more specifically, our approach to the Bible. The CA crowd does it's best to cowtow to Protestants (I say this without rancor towards you, but rather towards Catholics whom I feel are essentially commiting heresy in expending so much effort to tell Protestants, "Hey, we really believe the same things!" ), but they're full of it. Many of us don't read the Bible and don't feel it's necessary, since we get scripture at mass. Myself, I have no interest in encouraging Catholics to read the Bible on their own. Why should they? As St. Jerome (I think) said, "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." But he wasn't recommending people whip out their paperback bibles (a truly atrocious invention, good thing for St. Jerry he didn't see it) and start reading. As there was no printing press and it took an army of monks to make a bible, he obviously wasn't recommending that.
The Magisterium has been put aside for a while like an unsatisfactory wife, but she'll be back. Our leaders are being chastised now, and soon they will come back home to their spurned Woman and make nice. The SSPX is the future of the Catholic Church (you may be glad to know that there may no be so many of us, but we'll see what the Holy Spirit will do).
Hope you had a merry Christmas! (Or do you guys not celebrate Christmas? LOL) I will pray for you on the feast of the Circumcision tomorrow! (Before or after a bowl game, I haven't decided yet)
Happy New Year, Rob!
I'd like to respond to just one of your comments (after agreeing with you that you're not the only one who feels as you do within your church):
"We don't come out and say it, but we stay in a ship that is apparently sinking due to concession afer concession to protestantism (our horrible new mass, our modernist, married deacons) because we believe it is the true church and that we risk salvation by even considering becoming protestant."
We (and I mean me and at least most of the folks who have been responding on "my side" here) don't want people specifically to "become Protestant" but to place their entire trust for salvation in Christ and in His finished work. Your comment suggests (notice I say suggests, not proves) that you place a lot of confidence in your particular church. That's understandable, but we would respectfully suggest to you that it does not properly honor God.
Hey, it's New Year's. Let's all go over to Shea's blog and post like crazy while he's out getting sauced. :)
"Hey, it's New Year's. Let's all go over to Shea's blog and post like crazy while he's out getting sauced. :)"
I think that might actually be interesting, given that the dynamics of an internet discussion are heavily influenced by the host site's readership. On this blog, for instance, Catholic commentators will generally be outmatched in terms of numbers. On Shea's blog, there will be a preponderance of Catholics available to answer Protestant questions and critiques. In fact, if you're interested in "what Catholics think," Shea's blog might be the place to begin a discussion. You'll certainly find many more Catholic interlocutors there.
I'd like to think that the Roman Catholics who want to interact with the substance would come to the blog that offers substance.
-Your comment suggests (notice I say suggests, not proves) that you place a lot of confidence in your particular church.-
I place confidence in Christ, who founded the Catholic Church upon the apostles 2,000 years ago. I'm not much enthused about the philosophies and theologies first espoused by a bunch of rebels and heretics in the 16th century.
"I place confidence in Christ, who founded the Catholic Church upon the apostles 2,000 years ago."
Those are apostles who knew nothing of the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, Roman primacy, etc. The historical record bears me out on this.
Those are apostles who warned that false teachers would come and who, by divine inspiration, left behind books from which we can discern the way to salvation.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said: "It's not necessary for salvation, but it cannot be considered pious for a Christian to neglect the Word of God."
Agreed. And doesn't the Catechism you quoted say as much in answer to Q#28? It is recommended for all. But it is not necessary even for piety to read the Bible, since it is not necessary for piety to be able to read. The Bible, of course, is necessary for perfect piety in the fallen world.
"Agreed. And doesn't the Catechism you quoted say as much in answer to Q#28? It is recommended for all. But it is not necessary even for piety to read the Bible, since it is not necessary for piety to be able to read. The Bible, of course, is necessary for perfect piety in the fallen world."
Perhaps you're under the misconception that I hold to the position that if Pius X says something it must be wrong.
But let me ask you something, was Enoch's piety imperfect?
"Notice the interesting idea that reading the Bible without approved footnotes "may be harmful to the Faith." One has to wonder if the reader is supposed to think:
No wonder so few of the churches to which Paul wrote letters are still around! Had only Paul had the wisdom of Pius X, he would have included footnotes to the obscure passages, so that the obscure parts of his writings would not damage their faith. Thankfully, annotated Bibles clear up that problem and are consequently safe for the Faith."
If you regard him as the author of the books attributed to him, St. Peter gave his footnotes on Paul's letters orally (cf. 2 Pt. 3:16), for it was in fact widely admitted that they were hard to understand. And anyone who has read them knows that. Unfortunately, St. Paul does not seem to have taken a college writing class, is known to ramble on occasion, and often leaves his arguments for the reader to complete.
-Those are apostles who knew nothing of the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, Roman primacy, etc. The historical record bears me out on this.-
I don't think so.
-Those are apostles who warned that false teachers would come and who, by divine inspiration, left behind books from which we can discern the way to salvation.-
False teachers, such as Luther, Calvin, etc.
You see, you'll never win this argument with me, since it was apparent at a young age (and I do not come from devout people. My father was not Catholic) that the very premise of Protestantism was absurd. Why should I believe guys that came 1500 years after the fact? Why would God make a church that goes underground for 1500 years only to be finally set right by a bunch of Northern Europeans who wanted out of the priesthood? The scriptural arguments are just invented for the sake of fighting about something. I mean, how is it that you trust this text, which was in our keeping for 15 centuries, to prove that we are wrong? It doesn't make sense. And if we kept it so well, we must be pretty good guys, right? Right from the start, I was only interested in being part of the Church that goes back to the beginning.
The only argument worth having is between Orthodox and Catholic (and the Orthodox are wrong. LOL) Well, I'll stop bothering you now. Apologetics aren't my thing, I was just stopping by. God bless. (BTW, I saw you mentioned on Arturo's blog, but I also knew about you through Lucian a long time ago.) God bless.
TurretinFan, I don't believe you disagree with everything Pius X says, but I could not understand why you were responding to my first comment the way you did except to (in part) correct me.
As to your question, I suspect that Enoch's piety was imperfect, since he was a fallen creature. I also see no problem in asserting that man was incapable of perfect piety before the complete revelation of God: Paul tells the Athenians that God had "overlooked the times of ignorance" (Acts 17:30). Sin makes perfect piety impossible even after God's revelation. (The word "piety" is a bit vague to me.)
THE PREACHING OF THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WORD OF GOD. Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.
The 2nd Helvetic Confession. I don't agree. The preached word may be preached wrongly.... Godith
Rob,
TF's blog here does a lot to demonstrate that your claim that protestants were newbies and the RCC goes back to the beginning is inaccurate. Do you accept that view before considering the evidence?
God be with you,
Dan
"Why should I believe guys that came 1500 years after the fact? Why would God make a church that goes underground for 1500 years only to be finally set right by a bunch of Northern Europeans...."
The easy answer to this is that the church was not underground for 1500 years. God's people were in the Roman church, and God's people came out of the Roman church, as they should have, when that church became increasingly apostate and idolatrous.
Well, now we are getting somewhere.
I am not sure I can Faithfully accept the premise that Pious X and his spirit are coming back to take over the world as some have suggested in here?
No, Christ is coming back to claim His Own for which He died.
Some will find it musing that some of His Own are presently inside the RCC.
Some of them are inside the Protestant herectical form as well.
Does Sanctification mean anything to anyone in here?
Let me put over an ancient catechism that most if not all of you can enjoy:::>
Pro 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;
Pro 2:7 he stores up sound wisdom for the upright; he is a shield to those who walk in integrity,
Pro 2:8 guarding the paths of justice and watching over the way of his saints.
Pro 2:9 Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path;
Pro 2:10 for wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul;
Pro 2:11 discretion will watch over you, understanding will guard you,
Pro 2:12 delivering you from the way of evil, from men of perverted speech,
Pro 2:13 who forsake the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness,
Pro 2:14 who rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perverseness of evil,
Pro 2:15 men whose paths are crooked, and who are devious in their ways.
Pro 2:16 So you will be delivered from the forbidden woman, from the adulteress with her smooth words,
Pro 2:17 who forsakes the companion of her youth and forgets the covenant of her God;
Pro 2:18 for her house sinks down to death, and her paths to the departed;
Pro 2:19 none who go to her come back, nor do they regain the paths of life.
Pro 2:20 So you will walk in the way of the good and keep to the paths of the righteous.
Pro 2:21 For the upright will inhabit the land, and those with integrity will remain in it,
Pro 2:22 but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the treacherous will be rooted out of it.
-God's people were in the Roman church, and God's people came out of the Roman church, as they should have, when that church became increasingly apostate and idolatrous.-
Mythology.
TF: We (and I mean me and at least most of the folks who have been responding on "my side" here) don't want people specifically to "become Protestant" but to place their entire trust for salvation in Christ and in His finished work. Your comment suggests (notice I say suggests, not proves) that you place a lot of confidence in your particular church.
TF - This is a brilliant assessment. You've cut to the heart of the matter here. Jesus says (paraphrase) "I am the door that admits to the Church. Come to me and I will let you in." The Pope says, "the [Roman] Church is the door that admits to Christ, come to me and I will let you in."
This is the primary paradigm difference between Romanists and Bible believers. The Bible believer says, "Have faith in Christ alone. Take Him at his word and He will save you as He promised." The Romanists responds, why would I join a new church for salvation?
GM: "No wonder so few of the churches to which Paul wrote letters are still around! Had only Paul had the wisdom of Pius X... If you regard him as the author of the books attributed to him, St. Peter gave his footnotes on Paul's letters orally (cf. 2 Pt. 3:16), for it was in fact widely admitted that they were hard to understand. And anyone who has read them knows that. Unfortunately, St. Paul does not seem to have taken a college writing class, is known to ramble on occasion, and often leaves his arguments for the reader to complete."
So you are denying the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Yes, "some" parts of Paul are difficult to read, but much is VERY plain - too plain for some to bear. Is the answer to set the Apostle aside in favor of non-inspired works? After all, as you noted, even Peter recognized the works as inspired. None of Peter's "footnotes" have been preserved, but God preserved the things the Holy Spirit wrote through Paul.
Rob: Why should I believe guys that came 1500 years after the fact? Why would God make a church that goes underground for 1500 years only to be finally set right by a bunch of Northern Europeans who wanted out of the priesthood?
You shouldn't. That's the idea. You shouldn't be a man follower. You should make a study of the Word of God for yourself and not be enslaved to man.
That aside, that the following scripture was new with Luther and Calvin in bunk and you know it. The Pope had been burning Bible believers (Waldensians, Hus, Wycliffe, Savonarola) for hundreds of years. What made the Reformation possible was the invention of the printing press so common folk could read the Bible for themselves.
Rob wrote: "Mythology"
Rob, the Iliad and the Odyssey is mythology. The decline of the Western church is history.
Godith:
I think the key is "when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called," which presumably would contrast with something like "when human errors are introduced" or "when this Word is distorted ...."
Jordan:
You wrote: "As to your question, I suspect that Enoch's piety was imperfect, since he was a fallen creature. I also see no problem in asserting that man was incapable of perfect piety before the complete revelation of God: Paul tells the Athenians that God had "overlooked the times of ignorance" (Acts 17:30). Sin makes perfect piety impossible even after God's revelation. (The word "piety" is a bit vague to me.)"
I used the term in my response, because you had written: "The Bible, of course, is necessary for perfect piety in the fallen world."
"If you regard him as the author of the books attributed to him, St. Peter gave his footnotes on Paul's letters orally (cf. 2 Pt. 3:16), for it was in fact widely admitted that they were hard to understand."
a) 2 Peter itself states that Peter is the author. Thus, there ought to be no doubt about it.
b) 2 Peter 3:16 does not say that Peter give footnotes on Paul's letters orally.
Recall
2 Peter 3:15-16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
"And anyone who has read them knows that."
uh ...
"Unfortunately, St. Paul does not seem to have taken a college writing class, is known to ramble on occasion, and often leaves his arguments for the reader to complete."
I suppose we could take Peter's comment "according to the wisdom given unto him" in a sarcastic light, but otherwise Paul's style (which is not according to modern norms) wasn't unfortunate, but exactly what God intended and most wise.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan, I used "piety" because you used "pious":
"it cannot be considered pious for a Christian to neglect the Word of God."
My only point was that we must not mistake *reading the Bible* for heeding the Word of God, which can in fact be (and has often been) done without reading the Bible. Sorry if I was confusing. I wasn't trying to disagree, but only to clarify. Doesn't seem like it worked.
Post a Comment