POPE SIXTUS V, the infallible pope who re-wrote the Bible
SUMMARY
Pope Sixtus V personally made a botched translation of the Bible though he had
no competence as a translator. He wrote a papal bull excommunicating anybody
that didn’t believe his Bible was accurate and without error and declared this
by the fullness of apostolic authority. “By the fullness of Apostolical power,
we decree and declare that this edition …approved by the authority given to us
by the Lord, is to be received, and held as true, lawful, authentic, and
unquestioned in all public and private discussion, reading, preaching, and
explanation”. There is no doubt this was intended to be an infallible statement.
The Church burned his Bible after he died for it was full of errors and that was
putting it mildly.
Sixtus V had given his Bible and the Bull to his cardinals and died just before
both were released to the public.
The Catholic Church says as he didn’t make his decree public, it was not binding
on the Church and doesn’t disprove papal infallibility. But the Church says that
infallibility only means that the pope is protected from error while researching
something that he plans to speak to the whole Church infallibly about.
Infallibility is not inspiration but protection from error while working out a
solution to a theological question. So infallibility is at work before the
promulgation of the teaching. After all, before the pope can make a promulgation
of a new infallible teaching he has to infallibly realise that the teaching is
infallible and correct. He has to infallibly proclaim the doctrine to himself
first. Or to put it more accurately, the Holy Spirit has to declare the doctrine
infallible to the pope first. So doctrines are necessarily infallible before
they are voiced by the pope as infallible.
The Church says that the Sixtus case proves that God protects the papacy from
declaring error infallible for Sixtus miraculously died before he managed to
promulgate his travesty of a Bible translation.
The Sixtus shenanigans still disprove infallibility for the pope had already
used his alleged infallibility. A decree takes effect legally from the time it
is made and this decree is in the present tense. It says, “We decree.” The “We
decree” indicates that Sixtus and others had already decided that infallibility
was at work. Plus the Sixtus Bible was promulgated among the top teachers of the
Church with the decree of infallibility and declared binding on them and that is
enough. What else did Sixtus V give them a copy of the papal bull for if it
wasn’t to make them bound to accept his Bible so that they might promulgate it
for him when he said so? He was making an infallible declaration. The public
promulgation to everybody was just a formality. The pope as far as he was
concerned had used infallibility charism already and was planning a public
promulgation despite that. It was to proclaim that he had already used his
infallibility. The promulgation and publishing of the Bible to the general
public was just to complete the promulgation not the infallibility. It is totally
ridiculous to think that when Pius IX used his infallibility to work out the
immaculate conception of Mary that it wasn’t infallible until he announced it in
St Peter’s.
The botched Bible of Sixtus V disproves papal infallibility for the prime
purpose of infallibility is to work out and protect what the apostles taught
through scripture and tradition. Infallibility would cover declaring a Bible to
be the accurate Bible or defining what books belonged in the Bible. The Sixtus
farce shows that the Church can't be relied on to tell us what books God
inspired in the Bible.
Sixtus V and his faulty Bible refute papal infallibility. It was the Church that
declared the pope infallible in 1870 so it isn’t infallible either.
THE POPE WHO RE-WROTE THE BIBLE
Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) rewrote the Bible and stated that the result was to be
unquestioned and regarded as infallible by the fullness of his apostolic
authority in his name and in the name of the Church (page 304, Vicars of
Christ). St Robert Bellarmine covered up the scandal that ensued with this
polluted Bible for the sake of making sure the pope did not lose his credibility
(page 309). Some saint.
Pope Fiction admits that the pope was arrogant and believed that he had the
competence to revise the Bible and give out an accurate translation (page 247).
Undoubtedly, the pope was certain that God would inspire him to do the revision.
The pope believed he was infallible.
In 1590 he showed his new Bible to the cardinals and it was promptly found to be
a disgrace. The book also confesses that Sixtus V fulfilled all the conditions
for making the pope infallible laid out by Vatican 1 (Pope Fiction, page 249).
He was acting formally as pope, he was planning to give the entire Church an
unerring Bible translation, he was doing it for faith and morals as official
teacher of the Church. He wrote the Sixtine Bull making all this clear and it
was to be put on the first page of his Bible. The Bible in its poor state was
unofficially circulated and made fairly public (page 250, Pope Fiction). But in
the printing he left out that he wanted the Bible promulgated for it occurred to
him to check over the Bible and fix it up. The Catholic Church then because of
this says that Sixtus V didn’t infallibly declare the Bible infallible because
when he didn’t promulgate he didn’t speak to the Church as its teacher (page
250, Pope Fiction). But the Bull claiming to make the Bible infallible had
already been written up ages before (page 249, Pope Fiction). So he made an
infallible declaration, he just didn’t have it printed and promoted yet.
Who in their right mind would say the pope is infallible when he researches and
comes to a conclusion to be held binding on the Church but only when he gets the
chance to reveal it? When Pius IX infallibly declared the Immaculate Conception
of Mary in St Peters on that day in 1854 he was only delivering what decision he
infallibly made BEFOREHAND. It was infallible before he taught it because he
intended to teach it.
Pope Fiction tells us that the useless Sixtine Bible that the pope had “fixed”
but which in fact was only a little better than the dreadful first attempt was
given to the cardinals with the Bull printed in full saying the Bible was an
infallible unerring translation of the original scriptures and was invested by
the fullness of papal apostolic authority (page 250-251).
The Church says that because Sixtus died and didn’t get the chance to do the
official public launch of the Bible and the Bull it doesn’t disprove papal
infallibility. It does simply because when the pope promulgates a doctrine it
doesn’t become infallible there and then. He promulgates it because the Holy
Spirit led him in his research to see that it is infallible. To say a doctrine
does become infallible when taught publicly and not before is to say that
infallibility must be the same as divine inspiration. It denies the official
Catholic teaching that infallibility is only protection from drawing the wrong
conclusion while undertaking research and not inspiration. Catholic teaching
says papal infallibility must be exercised before he reveals his conclusion. His
revealing is only to do with revealing what his infallibility has already led
him to conclude.
The pope did officially promulgate the Bible when he gave it and the Bull to the
cardinals for the cardinals are next in charge of the Church and the future pope
would be among them. He gave them the Bull. He gave them the final product. All
he had left to do was carry out a further official promulgation.
Sixtus intended to have the Bull put on the door of St John Lateran and St
Peters to promulgate the Bible (page 250). It is foolish then to believe that he
didn’t become infallible until that happened but Pope Fiction says there was no
infallibility because he didn’t put the Bulls up. It didn’t happen. He gave his
Bible to the teachers of his Church and gave them the Bull to bind them to
believe his translation was right. Wouldn’t it be ridiculous to deny that this
was a promulgation? Isn’t it silly to think that he wouldn’t have expected the
Bible to fall into the hands of the world before the posting on the doors? He
would have intended his infallible declaration to have taken place with the
cardinals getting the Bibles. He just planned to put the Bulls up later. Would
you say that Pius IX was not infallible when he announced the Immaculate
Conception in St Peter’s for it was announced to the people in the building and
wouldn’t become infallible until he told the papers and then the world about it
after? Of course not. Nor would you say that Pius IX was not infallible if he
announced it to the fathers in the Vatican and warned them to keep it to
themselves till after the ceremony. He is promulgating it for the world but just
putting conditions on the timing. It’s still a valid and full promulgation. It
would be the same thing with Sixtus V. With Sixtus V there is no reason at all
to assume that his putting the Bulls on the doors was meant to start the
promulgation. The Bulls might only have been intended to advertise a
promulgation that has already happened. Would the pope have minded if his Bible
was leaked and emerged before promulgation?
Are we to believe that Sixtus V who wrote the Bull falsely declaring his
pathetic Bible infallible was not infallible until the Bulls were put up by his
assistants and what if they threw them away and poisoned the pope? Doesn’t his
intention to promulgate stand for anything? The Bull is promulgated the moment
anybody gets it. If nobody knows about the promulgation that isn’t the pope’s
fault and an infallible teaching has still taken place.
Pope Fiction wants us to believe that the cardinals getting the Bible and the
Bull was not a promulgation and putting a paper on two doors was! That is
ridiculous.
Pope Pius IX had his infallible declaration of the Immaculate Conception written
weeks before he proclaimed the dogma. When he proclaimed all he did was read it
out. There is absolutely no honesty or commonsense in Catholic apologists doing
what Pope Fiction does in pretending that a papal declaration is not infallible
until its put out. God can't make the declaration infallible or preserved from
error when it is put out. It is not the putting out that makes it infallible. It
has to be infallible or correct in itself. If the decree is wrong then is it
made infallible just by being put out? The question is preposterous. The
declaration needs to be put out for it is infallible and it can't be made
infallible by being made public.
Another tactic used by Catholic defenders of the faith is to say that Sixtus V
was infallible but only in matters of faith and morals and not in what Bible was
correctly translated or not or misleading or not (page 37, Catholicism and
Fundamentalism). But in that case, the Church would have no authority to say
what books should be listed as God's word. It would have no authority to say
that the versions it has now are the word of God. The Church claims such powers
and claims to have infallibly declared what books belong to the Bible and that
these books are written by God as they are now and have no error. That cannot be
done unless the Church infallibly has the power to correct the text or see that
it is correct. The Church excommunicates anybody who argues that the books that
the Church claims are the word of God are corrupt. It considers it heresy to
hold that the books are God's word but after God wrote them they were tampered
with and so we can't depend on them. The Church has proclaimed an infallible
interpretation for some Bible texts. The Church decreed that the proper
interpretation of a verse where Jesus says that a man must be born of water and
the spirit before he can enter the kingdom of God is that baptism in water is a
sacrament and necessary for salvation and forgiveness of sin. If the Church can
interpret texts infallibly that by implication is infallibly declaring that the
text is God's word and worded as God wants it worded. The Church then must have
the power to fix the Bible if it is corrupted. The defenders of the faith lie to
defend the doctrine of papal infallibility. They pretend to believe things
they don't.
Sixtus V is the perfect disproof of papal infallibility.
BOOKS CONSULTED
APPENDIX, FROM GIFFORD LECTURE BRAND BLANSARD
This inerrancy of the Vulgate text did not mean, of
course, the inerrancy of any meaning that the reader or even the scholar
attached to it, but its inerrancy as interpreted by the church; and so guarded,
the claim seemed safe enough. The Council of Trent could hardly have anticipated
the curious way in which this claim was soon to be tested. Not long after the
meeting of the famous Council, there appeared upon the Papal throne Sixtus V,
who thought that Jerome's version was in need of revision and that he himself
was uniquely qualified for the task. With a committee of advisers he set himself
to the large work, reserving for his own pen the final correction of all
readings. In 1590 he published his Sixtine edition with the announcement: ‘By
the fullness of apostolic power, we decree and declare that this edition,
approved by the authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and
held as true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned, in all public and private
discussion, reading, preaching, and explanations.’ Unfortunately, and to the
embarrassment of the scholars whose judgement he had often and arbitrarily
overruled, the edition that was to be ultimate was quickly seen to be full of
errors; and when the unhappy man soon afterward died, these scholars made it
plain to his successor that the edition would not do. The Vulgate was
accordingly gone over once again, and a few years later a new version was issued
by Clement VIII. Since Clement's version differed from that of Sixtus in more
than two thousand places,some explanation was necessary, and a preface was
prepared by Cardinal Bellarmine, who sought to save the face of Sixtus by laying
the ‘imperfections’ to the printer. But the fact was beyond concealment that
Pope Sixtus had erred, not in words only but in interpretation, and many times
over. What, then, was the status of the doctine that Scripture, officially
interpreted, was inerrant? Both these editions had been backed by the explicit
authority of the head of the church. If Sixtus was right in his way of
construing Scripture, Clement must have been wrong; if Clement was right, Sixtus
was wrong. One need not attempt the ungrateful business of deciding between
them, for whichever was in the wrong, and one of them must have been, the
official doctrine was no longer tenable.