Vatican Billions

[Mitchell_b55]

[color="#CC0000"][b]The Interpretation of Scripture.[/b][/color]

"To get the full flavor of an herb, it must be pressed between the fingers, so it is the same with the Scriptures; the more familiar they become, the more they reveal their hidden treasures and yield their indescribable riches." - [b]St. John Chrysostom[/b]

"The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New" - [b]St. Augustine[/b]

Well, I feel that it is time to finish this, Budge cannot respond, but Eutychus can, so I want a response from him. I have done thorough research on the passage, and have scanned, the Douay-Rheims, American Standard Edition, New American [Catholic] Edition, King James’s Version, and Young's Literal Translation, along with referencing Strong's Concordance, and Cruden's Concordance, and checking the Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide, a commentary by Adam Clark, and a commentary published by Abingdon. This wide range of sources, while probally not necessary, were helpful in discovering a position that can be taken by Protestans and Catholics mutually.

Mark 9, taken by itself lead me to no conclusions, no one had a commentary on it, but all referred to I Corinthians, 12 : 3, which after reading the verse, and the commentaries made perfect sense, and showed the remarkable connection between all the passages of scripture, the uniform essence of scripture as one work, bound by the spirit of God.

As for Mark 9 : 39, these are some common translations:

"But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man who shall do a [i]mighty work[/i] in my name, and be able [i]quickly[/i] to speak [i]evil[/i] of me." - [b]American Standard.[/b]

"But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a [i]miracle[/i] in my name, and can [i]soon[/i] speak [i]ill[/i] of me." -[b] Douay-Rheims.[/b]

"But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a [i]miracle[/i] in my name, that can [i]lightly[/i] speak [i]evil[/i] of me." - [b]King James.[/b]

"And Jesus said, `Forbid him not, for there is no one who shall do a [i]mighty work [/i] in my name, and shall be able [i]readily[/i] to speak [i]evil[/i] of me..." - [b]Young's Literal.[/b]

"Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a [i]mighty deed[/i] in my name who can at the [i]same time[/i] speak [i]ill[/i] of me." - [b]New American.[/b]

The words, 'miracle' and 'mighty deed [work]' are a little bit different in context, so that is important to take into consideration. A miracle is a supernatural event, that is it is 'above nature.' A 'might deed' or 'work' is altogether different, and is not necessarily supernatural. If it is indeed, a 'mighty deed' then it would have to be of monumental importance, such as the instance in question that is the exorcising of a demon, I am sure that a man in a state of sin, and thus under the control of satan, could not successfully perform an exorcism. If it is translated 'miracle' then we must realize, that Pope's are not miracle workers, but instead work with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Since the position of the papacy has been fundamentally defined, and explained before via historical, scriptural, and by the factors of reason, we can only conclude that whatever state the pontiff is in, he is guided from teaching error, whether he has personal grace, is his affair.

As for determining the literal translation, I would have to find the Greek text, and using Strong's Greek Dictionary of the Bible, figure out what the literal translation of the Greek is, but since I don't have the time or the ability to easily discern Greek, I will address the Latin, but I will respond with an answer to the Greek, when I can contact a man I know who teaches Greek, and [i]koine[/i] Greek to be precise. For now, I will address the Latin.

The passage in the [i]Vulgata Clementina[/i], is " [i]Jesus autem ait : Nolite prohibere eum : nemo est enim qui faciat virtutem in nomine meo, et possit cito male loqui de me[/i]"

The word for miracle, is [i]'miracula'[/i] and is no where present, but this isn’t necessarily important.

[i]'prohibere'[/i] which comes from [i]'prohibeo' [/i] - This means to [i]'prohibit'[/i], or otherwise [i]'forbid.'[/i]

[i]'virtutem' [/i] which comes from the [i]'virtus' [/i] - and as seen in a previous post, [i]'virtute, no verbis'[/i] is [i]'deeds, not words,' [/i] literally it means [i]'valor,'[/i] but this is an inappropriate translation and it is commonly translated, [i]'deed'[/i] or [i]'work.'[/i]

[i]'faciat'[/i] probally, from [i]'facio'[/i] – I am by no means an expert, but this word can in some cases mean ‘value’, if some one has a better knowledge of Latin, please offer insight.

The King James’s version is in this case entirely wrong, as long as the literal translation of the Latin from Greek is correct, since ‘cito’ in this case means ‘speedily’ or ‘quickly.’

The word, [i]'male'[/i] comes from [i]'malus'[/i] – which can be translated as [i]'evil'[/i] or [i]'ill'[/i], or simply [i]'negatively'[/i].

Hopefully this may cast illumination on the subject, since we now see who truly fallible and easily manipulated language is, and that an infallible interpretation is the only way the bible can be considered infallible, unless we had the original autographs, then we would not truly have the ‘inspired word’ of God, and no English translation is the ‘word,’ so we must turn to an infallible source on the interpretation of the scripture.

[b]As for the reference to I Corinthians, 12 : 3, I will explain the connection, but first the quotes.[/b]

"Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus is accursed'; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.” - American Standard.

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, saith Anathema to Jesus. And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost." - Douay-Rheims.

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." - King James.

"wherefore, I give you to understand that no one, in the Spirit of God speaking, saith Jesus [is] anathema, and no one is able to say Jesus [is] Lord, except in the Holy Spirit." – Young’s Literal.

"Therefore, I tell you that nobody speaking by the spirit of God says, 'Jesus be accursed.' And no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the holy Spirit." – New American.

The translations are consistent and therefore require no linguistic analysis, and thus I will begin my commentary. By the way I still hold to the interpretation of Mark 9, hypothesized in my previous posts.

Now the New American Bible, actually has a footnote on this verse, "this power to confess Jesus as Lord can come only from the Spirit, and it is inconceivable that the Spirit would move anyone to curse the Lord."

I will also provide the thoughts of Adam Clark, which seemed relevant, for Budge and Eutychus, Clark is a Weslyen-Arminian, who wrote a massive verse-by-verse commentary in the eighteenth century.

[quote]Wherefore I give you to know. Having admonished them from their own experience, he sets before them a general doctrine, which he deduces from it; for what the Corinthians had experienced in themselves is common to all mankind -- to wander on in error,4 previously to their being brought back, through the kindness of God, into the way of truth. Hence it is necessary that we should be directed by the Spirit of God, or we shall wander on for ever. From this, too, it follows, that all things that pertain to the true knowledge of God, are the gifts of the Holy Spirit,. He at the same time derives an argument from opposite causes to opposite effects. No one, speaking by the Spirit of God, can revile Christ; so, on the other hand, no one can speak well of Christ, but by the Spirit of Christ. To say that Jesus is accursed is utter blasphemy against him. To say that Jesus is the Lord, is to speak of him in honorable terms and with reverence, and to extol his majesty.

Here it is asked -- "As the wicked sometimes speak of Christ in honorable and magnificent terms, is this an indication that they have the Spirit of God?" I answer - "They undoubtedly have, so far as that effect is concerned; but the gift of regeneration is one thing, and the gift of bare intelligence, with which Judas himself was endowed, when he preached the gospel, is quite another." Hence, too, we perceive how great our weakness is, as we cannot so much as move our tongue for the celebration of God's praise, unless it be governed by his Spirit. Of this the Scripture, also, frequently reminds us, and the saints everywhere acknowledge that unless the Lord open their mouths, they are not fit to be the heralds of his praise. Among others, Isaiah says - I am a man of unclean lips, etc. [Isaiah 6:5.][/quote]

Father Haydock says, "He tells them, if they see a person moved in an extraordinary manner, and say anathema, curse, or speak ill of Jesus, such an one cannot be moved by a good spirit. And no man can say, the Lord Jesus, that is, praise Christ as he ought, but by a good spirit. [Witham]"

Karl Keating commented on Papal Infallibility in this way:

[quote]Inerrant would not be the word to use about, say, a pope. A pope may act infallibly in carefully prescribed circumstances, but he is not inerrant. To claim that he is inerrant is to claim that he "contains" no error, but every pope does. A pope’s store of knowledge, at least on matters of religion, is likely far better than yours or mine, but no pope has had a mind so capacious and exacting that he knew every religious fact with perfection.

When Vatican I [1869–70] taught about papal prerogatives, it did not say that the pope is inerrant. It said he teaches infallibly in certain circumstances. He is able to do that through the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

The word superintendence is interesting, the Pope does not necessarily need to be ‘filled’ with the Holy Ghost, but because of his position the Holy Ghost will take care of and oversee for the purpose of direction, It will supervise the statements that pertain to faith or morals. For God will not allow men to be deceived, since the Church is the mystical body of Christ, the Church cannot deceive since Christ cannot deceive.

As for infallible sinners some biblical examples would be Moses, David, Peter, and the other apostles, as well as just about everybody that wrote the Bible. If you equate a common sinner with a truly ‘wicked’ man, a man who hates and despises God, you say that every man who sins, hates and despises God, but most of us sin, and we don not all hate God, nor are we all ‘wicked.’

Your reasoning denies, the sinfulness of man, no Pope and no Old Testament Patriarch is freed from the possibility of sin, since man has free will.

To say that to be infallible you must not commit sin is to say that man has no free will.

[b]Just hope that helps.[/b]