Francisco Tourinho<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials\u00a0on my Facebook page<\/a>:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I have the respect of the academic community for my articles published in peer review magazines, translation of unpublished classical works into Portuguese and also the production of a book in the year 2019 with more than 2000 copies sold (with no marketing). In addition I have higher education in physical education from Piau\u00ed State University and theology from the Assemblies of God<\/a> Biblical Institute, am currently working towards a Masters from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, and did post-graduate work at Dom Bosco Catholic University. Also, I am a professor in the Reformed Scholasticism discipline at the Jonathan Edwards Seminary in the postgraduate course in Philosophical Theology. [edited slightly for more flowing English]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n First, I would like to thank Mr. Dave Armstrong (\u201cArmstrong\u201d hereafter) for the opportunity to debate.<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n As a blanket and universal statement<\/em> (\u201cNo Christian is allowed to read the Bible on his own\u201d, etc.), no: the Church did not ever make such a proclamation. Does anyone have to simply take my<\/em> word for that? No. The\u00a0Cambridge History of the Bible<\/em>\u00a0(not a Catholic work) stated that \u201cno universal and absolute prohibition of the translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular nor of the use of such translations by clergy or laity was ever issued by any council of the Church or any pope\u201d (p. 391). The 1910\u00a0New Catholic Dictionary<\/em>\u00a0(\u201cBible Reading by Laity\u201d<\/a>) reiterates this opinion:<\/p>\n In the history of the Church\u00a0there never has been a general prohibition against the reading of the Bible by the laity.\u00a0While the Church does not consider Bible reading necessary for salvation, she has always approved such reading under proper conditions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n *<\/p>\n 79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places and for all types of people, to study and know the spirit, piety and mysteries of Sacred Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, it is stating \u201cnegatively\u201d the idea that not all people are qualified to engage in personal Bible reading with no outside guidance; that this can (and has<\/em> in history) led to false doctrines. The decree was trying to protect the flock from error, not to bash the Bible, as if it were a bad thing. That\u2019s the Protestant stereotype of these sorts of decrees (as if the Catholic Church feared<\/em> that folks would conclude Catholicism is false by reading the Bible). But it\u2019s clearly not the intent<\/em>.<\/p>\n I cited Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin in my initial article, responding to each one of these \u201ccontroversial\u201d propositions (#79-85), because he provides such an excellent and helpful analysis of Unigenitus<\/em>. His article is entitled, \u201cDid the Church Forbid Bible Study?\u201d<\/a> (1-20-12). I need not repeat that. I direct folks to his article above. But here are a few highlights, for those who don\u2019t follow the link. I\u2019ll cite a portion of his commentary for each proposition:<\/p>\n [T]he concern with this proposition is quite likely . . . \u201cwe are worried about people reading and getting a wrong view so don\u2019t read without proper preparation.\u201d It does not seem to be \u201cWe reject the idea of individual study of Scripture since Scripture is unclear.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for everyone.<\/span><\/p>\n This seems to be objectionable on the same grounds as the previous proposition. Again: What about those unprepared for individual study?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for lay people to refrain from reading it.<\/span><\/p>\n [I]t\u2019s okay<\/em> for a person to say, \u201cBy God\u2019s providence the Scriptures are not as clear as I would need them to be to study them on my own. I\u2019m in the position of the Ethiopian eunuch [see Acts 8:27-31 below], who can\u2019t discern important points on his own, without guidance.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 82. The Lord\u2019s Day must be sanctified by Christians with readings from pious works and above all from the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.<\/span><\/p>\n It seems to be intended to protect Christians from the idea it is \u201charmful\u201d if they feel the need to say, \u201cI am not prepared to do unguided Scripture study on Sundays; therefore, I wish to withdraw from doing so.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 83. It is an illusion to be persuaded that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by reading the Holy Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men came the abuse of Scripture and heresies were born.<\/span><\/p>\n This seems to be concerned to protect the rights of women to make the same objections discussed in the previous two propositions. . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 84. To snatch the New Testament from the hands of Christians, or to keep it closed against them, depriving them of the means of understanding it, is to close the mouth of Christ to them.<\/span><\/p>\n . . . \u201ccaptious\u201d . . . means, roughly, uncharitably fault-finding. In other words, being unfair to those you are criticizing . . .\u00a0I could easily see this proposition as being captious.\u00a0It characterizes the Church as \u201csnatch[ing] away from the hands of Christians the New Testament.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 85. To prohibit Christians from reading Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light by the children of light and make them suffer a kind of excommunication.<\/span><\/p>\n The overall phrasing is hostile and contentious and seems, again, to \u00a0be casting the non-endorsement of universal, unguided Scripture study in the worst possible light.\u00a0Yet there are good reason for not endorsing universal, unguided Scripture study. Some people are simply not prepared for it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Then Jimmy summarizes:<\/p>\n It also seems to me that they [the above propositions] do not add up to a rejection of individual Scripture study for those who are properly prepared for this. They are merely rejecting the idea that unguided Scripture study should be universally engaged in by all Christians, regardless of their level of preparation, and Christians are not at fault if they do not feel themselves prepared to undertake this task and are content to learn the Scriptures under ecclesiastical guidance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now I\u2019d like to step back and examine Francisco\u2019s (and Protestantism\u2019s) always casually-assumed premise with regard to Bible-reading. As a good \u201csocratic\u201d in my methodology, it\u2019s what I do, very often. Can it stand up to scrutiny? Here is what they believe:<\/p>\n Individual Bible study ought to be utterly free and unrestricted, does not require any necessary<\/em> guidance, in order to rightly, properly understand Holy Scripture in a non-heretical way [referring here to heretical views agreed-to by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox alike, such as the denial of trinitarianism, the deity of Christ, etc.], and entails no spiritual danger whatsoever of the person falling prey to false doctrines due to their false interpretation of the inspired Scripture.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That is \u2014 at bottom \u2014 the premise behind all of this protest against restrictive recommendations such as that in Unigenitus<\/em>. It\u2019s assumed (seemingly without much reflection) that passing out Bibles to all and sundry (a practice that is never sanctioned in the Bible), to come up with theology on their own without ecclesiastical or scholarly guidance, is perfectly fine and dandy. How could any Christian possibly<\/em> object to that<\/em>!? Anyone who does<\/em> object is obviously anti-Bible<\/em>! So goes the reasoning. This is one reason why Francisco chose this article in particular, because he thinks it proves Catholic hostility towards the Bible: whereas Protestants regard themselves as uniquely the champions of Holy Scripture.<\/p>\n But is the proposition \/ premise above, true<\/em>? I would say it clearly is not<\/em> true, based on two considerations:<\/p>\n 1) biblical teaching about Bible-reading.<\/p>\n 2) the history of non-trinitarian cults, especially in America, as a result of these radically sola Scriptura<\/em> views.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s survey these in order:<\/p>\n Holy Scripture itself does indeed teach the principle of a\u00a0necessity for authoritative guides<\/em>\u00a0with regard to\u00a0reading\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0understanding<\/em>\u00a0Holy Scripture:<\/p>\n Exodus 18:20<\/strong> (RSV) and you shall teach them the statutes and the decisions, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Moses was not simply to deliver and read the Law (Torah: first five books of the Bible) to the Hebrews, but also \u201cteach them\u201d about it. Since he was the Lawgiver and author of the Torah, it stands to reason that his interpretation and teaching would be of a highly authoritative nature.<\/p>\n Leviticus 10:11<\/strong>\u00a0and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by Moses.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Moses\u2019 brother Aaron was also to teach the true meaning of the Torah. It was true at this early stage, just as it was in Jesus\u2019 time, that believers were not simply given Bibles (as if it were a mass \u201cGideon\u2019s Bible<\/a>\u201d crusade) to read. Authoritative interpretation was stressed as necessary from the beginning.<\/p>\n Deuteronomy 33:10<\/strong>\u00a0They shall teach Jacob thy ordinances,\u00a0and Israel thy law . . .<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Authoritative interpretation of the Torah was also the responsibility of the Levite priests.\u00a0Compare this with 2 Chronicles 15:3; Malachi 2:6-8 \u2014 the latter calls them \u201cmessenger of the LORD of hosts\u201d.<\/p>\n Ezra 7:6, 10\u00a0<\/strong>this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses which the LORD the God of Israel had given; and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the LORD his God was upon him. . . . [10]\u00a0For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel.<\/p>\n Nehemiah 8:1-3, 7-8, 12\u00a0<\/strong>And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel.\u00a0[2] And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month.\u00a0[3] And he read from it . . . [7] Also Jesh\u2019ua, Bani, Sherebi\u2019ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab\u2019bethai, Hodi\u2019ah, Ma-asei\u2019ah, Keli\u2019ta, Azari\u2019ah, Jo\u2019zabad, Hanan, Pelai\u2019ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places.\u00a0[8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly [footnote, \u201cor with interpretation\u201d]; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. . . . [12]\u00a0And all the people went their way to eat and drink and to send portions and to make great rejoicing, because they had understood the words that were declared to them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n 8:7 describes thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra, and \u201cwho helped the people to understand the law.\u201d Much earlier, in King Jehoshaphat\u2019s reign, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chronicles 17:8-9). There is no\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, with its associated idea \u201cperspicuity\u201d (evident clearness in the main) here. The people did indeed understand the law (8:12), but not without much assistance \u2014 not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself, but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc.<\/p>\n Luke 24:25-27<\/strong>\u00a0And he said to them, \u201cO foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!\u00a0[26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?\u201d\u00a0[27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.<\/p>\n Acts 8:27-31\u00a0<\/strong>And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can\u2019dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship\u00a0[28] and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.\u00a0[29] And the Spirit said to Philip, \u201cGo up and join this chariot.\u201d\u00a0[30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, \u201cDo you understand what you are reading?\u201d\u00a0[31] And he said, \u201cHow can I, unless some one guides me?\u201d And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.<\/p>\n 2 Peter 3:15-17<\/strong>\u00a0So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. [17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s not just \u201cthe medieval Catholic Church\u201d that came up with this concept. It\u2019s clearly taught in inspired revelation. It\u2019s also true that in the first five centuries of the Church, it was a deliberate and widespread practice to only\u00a0gradually<\/em>\u00a0introduce new Christians to the \u201cdeeper\u201d elements of Christianity. This practice was known as the\u00a0Discipline of the Secret<\/a>, or\u00a0Disciplina Arcani\u00a0<\/em>in Latin.<\/p>\n Therefore, not only the Bible in both Testaments, but also the early Church for some 1500 years, held that not everyone should simply be given a Bible to read, with no authoritative guidance to steer them from erroneous interpretations (many of which have been observed throughout history, especially among schismatic and heretical \u201csects\u201d or \u201ccults\u201d).<\/p>\n Now onto a brief consideration of the history of heretical sects: especially in the United States. Here in America, false sects are particularly prone to develop, because we are the quintessential Protestant country. Historical heresies in the early Church and these late-arriving cults both espoused sola Scriptura<\/em>, just as Protestants do. From that premise they established their little heretical empires.<\/p>\n Charles Taze Russell<\/a> founded the Arian Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses in 1879. It now has about 21.3 million members<\/a> worldwide.<\/p>\n Mary Baker Eddy<\/a> founded the Gnostic-influenced Christian Science<\/a> in the same year. It had a little under 50,000 members in 2009, down from a high of 270,000 in 1936.<\/p>\n Joseph Smith<\/a> founded polytheistic Mormonism<\/a> in 1827. It now has over 16 million members.<\/p>\n The United Pentecostal Church<\/a> adopted the Sabellian heresy. It was begun by Charles Parham<\/a> and now has 5.2 million members.<\/p>\n Christadelphianism<\/a> is another Arian cult, begun by John Thomas<\/a> in 1848. It now numbers about 50,000.<\/p>\n This is what can happen by allowing unguided, unrestricted Bible study and applying sola Scriptura<\/em> (the denial that there is an infallible Church or tradition to guide one\u2019s interpretation of the sole infallible rule of faith, the Bible), and a disregard for historical precedent (or apostolic succession).<\/p>\n The notion of complete, utterly unbounded individual religious freedom also has historical reasons for why it came to be. Protestants and Catholics alike used to practice persecution and intolerance of other Christians different from themselves. Both Luther<\/a> and Calvin<\/a> sanctioned the death penalty for Anabaptists, because they believed in adult baptism. I have an extensive web page, \u201cProtestantism: Historic Persecution & Intolerance\u201d<\/a>: lest anyone doubt that Protestants persecuted just as much as Catholics did.<\/p>\n No one has a \u201cperfect record\u201d in this respect. And one only need to look at how Protestant England (where most of my ancestors came from) treated Ireland for 400 years. Catholicism was either outlawed outright, or Catholics disenfranchised from mainstream society in England from 1536 to 1829. I have documented on my web page above, 1275 Catholic martyrs by name, including 430 in just ten years by King Henry VIII<\/a>,\u00a0 312 under Queen Elizabeth I<\/a>, and 444 Irish martyrs<\/a>. Often, these executions for the \u201ctreasonous\u201d crime of being a Catholic or a Catholic priest utilized the most barbaric, inhuman tortures, such as (notoriously), being hanged, drawn, and quartered, involving, in the worst cases, being disemboweled or having their hearts cut out, or both arms and legs cut off while still alive.<\/p>\n But we mustn\u2019t think that all such executions were done out of hatred. There is a case that can be made for the general notion<\/em> of capital punishment for heresy. I wrote about this in my paper, The Inquisition: Its Purpose and Rationale Within the Medi\u00e6val Worldview<\/a> [2-21-06]:<\/p>\n In the Middle Ages, all heresy was pretty much regarded as obstinacy and in bad faith; evil will, etc. The Church today takes a much more psychologically nuanced approach: much heresy is believed in good faith; hence the adherent is less culpable; hence not guilty enough to be punished, etc. (i.e., on the human level: divine judgment being something else altogether). We have also learned that coercion is pointless, which was the original Christian position, anyway . . .<\/p>\n The medievals believed (with a great degree of justification from a Christian perspective) that heresy can be every bit as dangerous to individuals and societies as physical crime is (in fact, much more so, assuming the background premises). This inner principle has remained the same, while the application and particular understanding of it has undergone positive development. The belief that heresy is bad and soul-destroying is altogether in effect today in Catholicism, just as it always has been. But the understanding of the motives of the heretic and thereby the treatment or punishment changed (along with the relationship of church and state in modern societies). . . .<\/p>\n The killing of heretics was based on the notion that they were a menace to society, and would cause untold harm to society and souls, because in those days, heresy was considered as harmful and dangerous (if not more so) than physical crime is today. Humanists believe that the body dies and that is it. Christians believe that a deliberate, obstinate heretic will burn in hell forever; hence the high importance placed on preventing the spread of heresy. . . .<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think that the Inquisition can or should be absolutely defended by the Catholic apologist. I don\u2019t try to do that. I don\u2019t like the Inquisition at all myself (as I view coercion in matters of religion and conscience as a contradiction in terms \u2013 precisely the position of Vatican II). But to say that there is no \u201cessential\u201d difference between the Inquisition and Communism or the Nazi Holocaust (as some critics of Christianity or Catholicism in particular try to do) is patently ludicrous and preposterous. . . .<\/p>\n The Church has come to realize that the rights of individual freedom and conscience are relatively more important than temporal punishment of heretics (because the causes of heresy are regarded as extremely complex and not given to harsh and swift judgment).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Christians of all stripes thought that religion was supremely important, and that fostering their brand of religion was good for souls and society. So they persecuted to the death, according to those goals, as they saw it, and Protestants and Catholics fought wars with each other almost continuously for 125 years or so, ending with the Peace of Westphalia<\/a> in 1648, which \u201cended the\u00a0Thirty Years\u2019 War<\/a>\u00a0(1618\u20131648) and\u00a0Eighty Years\u2019 War<\/a>\u00a0(1568\u20131648), and brought peace to the\u00a0Holy Roman Empire<\/a>, closing a calamitous period of European history that killed approximately eight million people.\u201d<\/p>\n I would trace the secularism that currently plagues all formerly Christian countries in the West as deriving from that time. The notion was that religious conflicts could not ever be solved. Everyone was exhausted by the endless fighting. It was basically decided that religion wasn\u2019t worth fighting for anymore, and that every man ought to be free to believe and practice as he wished (except in England, where severe persecution against Catholics continued another 80 years). The French Revolution and so-called \u201cEnlightenment\u201d continued this rejection of the importance of religion, and fostered a rapidly increasing secularism.<\/p>\n Thus, total freedom of religion was the extreme reaction to the killing and capital punishment. One extreme to the other . . . It was now thought that no one (no matter how high of an authority) should tell anyone else how to believe, or guide them: at least not in an infallible, binding manner, and that religion was merely personal and subjective and had no particular relevance to larger society. But with that new understanding, came the advent of all the new heretical cults in the 19th century in America.<\/p>\n I believe that this thinking of \u201cabsolute religious freedom\u201d (along with the prior sola Scriptura<\/em> and its related idea of perspicuity or clearness of Scripture) lies behind much of the Protestant root assumption that individual Bible study must not be prohibited for anyone, and that anyone has the \u201cright\u201d to read the Bible without religious authority guiding it or limiting it to some standard of \u201corthodoxy.\u201d Thus, decrees of the Catholic Church that seek this are automatically viewed as repressive \u201canti-biblical\u201d \/ \u201cfear of the Bible\u201d measures. Yet the Bible itself<\/em> never teaches any such thing, as already shown above.<\/p>\n Rightly or wrongly, Catholics and Protestants both now agree that religious freedom is a bedrock right and privilege. It was considered relatively better to allow religious liberty (though the Catholic Church always strongly suggests being guided by the Church, so as to remain orthodox), despite the dangers of heresy, than it was to persecute for what was considered heretical and dangerous belief. Neither approach is absolute or without serious problems. But both sides now advocate freedom of religion.<\/p>\n That\u2019s why I have to defend what the Catholic Church decreed in the past, because it can\u2019t be comprehended<\/em>, given our present premises about religious freedom. I have to \u201cget inside the thinking\u201d of that time and try to objectively analyze it, rather than condemn it out of hand as outrageous and indefensible. This isn\u2019t easy, because I myself, as an apologist, passionately advocate religious freedom and tolerance all around, while opposing what I think is theological error. But it\u2019s necessary and important to do: out of charity towards my Christian brothers \u2014 Catholic and Protestant \u2014 in the past.<\/p>\n The Constitution is very clear, the Church of Rome prohibited the reading of Sacred Scripture by all Christians, by all men. This echoes the canons of the Council of Trent, in the Section Concerning Prohibited Books, Rule IV which says:<\/span><\/p>\n While it is evident from experience that, if sacred books are allowed indiscriminately in the common language, more harm than good accrues from them on account of the temerity of men, in this respect it depends on the discretion of the bishop or inquisitor, so that, with the on the advice of the parish priest or confessor, those who consider that they have not suffered harm, but an increase in faith and piety from such reading, grant them the reading of books translated by Catholic authors into the vulgar language; what power they can have with regard to the scriptures. But whoever dares to read them without such power, cannot obtain absolution from his sins, unless he has first returned the books to the ordinary. But the booksellers, who will sell the Bible written in the vulgar language, from the same bishop. But the regulars should not have the power to read them or buy them, unless they have the power to do so from their prelates.<\/span> [link<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is understood by reading the two documents that deal with the same topic, that the reading is only for authorized people, who have a certain type of knowledge, that is, the simple person cannot have a Bible at home, much less make their own reading without suffering a sanction from the Church of Rome.<\/span><\/p>\n I think that\u2019s reading too much into it. The key phrase is \u201cif sacred books are allowed indiscriminately<\/em> in the common language.\u201d It\u2019s a question of degree<\/em>. And that is justified based on my analysis above: what the Bible teaches about it, and the history of heresies arising from unrestricted application of the principles of sola Scriptura<\/em> and \u201cprivate, subjective religion with no legitimate oversight: either Catholic or Protestant. I deny the Protestant premise: that nothing<\/em><\/strong> bad can possibly come from such unrestricted Bible-reading. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I think it\u2019s even self-evident<\/em> that that is false. Once the falsity of the premise is granted, then it can be comprehended why the Catholic Church felt led to make such decrees and what motivated it to do so (the good of souls , rather than \u2014 as Protestant anti-Catholic myths would have it \u2014 its own supposed lust for power and fear of the vernacular Bible).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This is confirmed by the quotes from apologist Jimmy Akin made by Armstrong. The apologist says when commenting on the condemnation of thesis number 79:<\/span><\/p>\n 79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places and for all types of people, to study and know the spirit, piety and mysteries of Sacred Scripture. <\/span><\/p>\n The most problematic word Quesnel put in this proposition is \u201cnecessary\u201d. Is it really necessary that at all times, in all places, all kinds of people should study the mysteries of Holy Scripture? . . . <\/span><\/p>\n Similar problems recur if we focus on the useful word. Is it really useful at all times, in all places, for all kinds of people? And those who are not ready?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Akin is correct. It\u2019s not<\/em> necessary to this extreme: \u201cat<\/span> all times, in all places and for all types of people . . .\u201d The condemnation dealt with a proposition that was extreme and obviously false in the first place.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Here it is clear that the Church of Rome does think that there are people who do not need the reading of Scripture, <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s not true. This confuses what was stated. It\u2019s not saying that some people don\u2019t need Scripture at all. It\u2019s saying that study of the mysteries of the Bible all the time, everywhere, and by all types of people is not \u201cnecessary.\u201d These are two completely different propositions<\/em>. that Francisco has illogically collapsed into one. As I said, the pope was dealing with extreme<\/em> statements from Quesnel.<\/p>\n but worse still, that reading the Bible is harmful to some people. <\/span><\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t say that here; it is merely read into it. The Bible itself doesn\u2019t harm people, but people are harmed if they study it with false premises and false conclusions, leading to heresy that the Bible doesn\u2019t teach. That is unarguable as well.<\/p>\n It is also confirmed, not only here, but throughout the text, that the Church of Rome defends that Scripture is not for all men, that knowledge is due to the few who belong to a certain group, basically this is gnosis.<\/span><\/p>\n Nonsense. These texts don\u2019t say that it is reserved for \u201cfew\u201d: as if it is like Gnosticism. Francisco is reading things into the documents that aren\u2019t there, due to his Protestant bias. We mustn\u2019t distort what sources state. That\u2019s fighting straw men.<\/p>\n The question I have for Francisco is: why the focus on a papal document from over 300 years ago, when the Catholic Church has encouraged the widespread individual reading of Scripture since at least the 1890s? Why not rejoice that we all agree on this now, rather than revisiting past positions no longer held? What\u2019s the point? A non-infallible document from 1713 is no more relevant to Catholicism today than citing Luther\u2019s and Calvin\u2019s persecution to the death of those who believed in adult baptism is relevant to Protestantism today.\u00a0 Heaven knows we have enough real<\/em> differences without concentrating on imagined<\/em> ones that don\u2019t exist anymore. So why was my paper on Unigenitus<\/em> chosen to refute?<\/p>\n Francisco comments on Akin\u2019s commentary on #80 by saying, \u201c<\/span>the interpretation is Ad Hoc in order to defend the Church of Rome from something that it no longer defends, but defended in the past.\u201d<\/span> This is precisely related to the point I just made. He makes a cynical remark about Jimmy Akin\u2019s explanation of a 309-year-old fallible papal document and then notes that the Catholic Church no longer teaches what it teaches. Why, then, would he be more concerned about Jimmy\u2019s supposedly \u201cad hoc\u201d<\/span> interpretation than the fact that Catholics and Protestants are joyfully in basic agreement<\/em> today, and for over a hundred years, about personal Bible-reading? Is that not misplaced priorities?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Francisco objects to the notion \u2014 described by Akin \u2014 that of a bunch of negative general judgments stated in Unigenitus<\/em>, we aren\u2019t sure which apply to which propositions. But if that\u2019s the nature of the document it is<\/em>. Obviously, exactitude was not of the essence of the document. It was a general condemnation of some false notions. This very vagueness, however, is another proof that the document is not infallible<\/em> and binding forever, as Lawrence King and Robert T. Miller explain in their article, <\/span>\u201c<\/span>On Integralism, Religious Liberty, and the Authority of the Church: 19th Century Popes and 20th Century Popes Disagreed\u201d<\/a> (![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/06\/Bible-Reading.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n