The following is excerpted from "The Columbiad" [Knights of Columbus] sometime in the early 20th Century: ...This reply was communicated to Brother Dillon E. Mapother, of Louisville, an exceptionally well-informed and scholarly layman, who prepared an article for publication in The Observer. ***The Church does not forbid, nor does she discourage the reading of the Scriptures by the laity. On the contrary, numerous papal bulls, allocutions and encyclical letters have encouraged and enjoined, not only the reading of the Scriptures by the laity, but also their explanation to the laity. Among the latest of these authoritative admonitions is that of Pope Benedict XV, who in a recent letter to the Cardinal President of the Society of St. Jerome, the purpose of which is to promote the distribution of the Books of the Gospel, says: "We have every reason to congratulate the members of the Society, not only for the undertaking, excellent in itself and most pleasing to us, but also for the zeal with which you have striven to spread the Holy Books in greater numbers and more accurate form, so that the faithful may accustom themselves to read the Holy Gospels and commentaries thereon every day."That the Church does not admit the correctness of the so-called Authorized (King James) Version is true. By what authority did King James act in approving this Version? It is not claimed he had, nor did he pretend to have, any authority from God to translate His Word. Then, disregarding authoritative character, which it could not have, is the King James' translation, or Version, correct? We know it is not. Scholarly Protestants no longer claim it is correct or nearly so. The revised editions prepared by Protestant men of learning since the King James' translation, notably the editions of 1881, 1885, and 1901, discover thousands of errors in the "Authorized" Version, and it is not to the credit of Bible readers that they continue to use a translation so unmistakably incorrect as even Protestant research has shown this Version to be. If a garbled translation is acceptable, then why not accept the version recently published by Professor Vankataraatnam of Rajamundry, which though revised down to 158 pages, is claimed by its learned author to be "the only form in which the Bible should be circulated for the benefit of the masses." If King James' compilers had authority to leave out the 14 Books of the Apocrypha, if Luther had authority to leave out epistles of Apostles who "walked with the Lord," why has not the professor of Rajamundry authority to leave out the portions left out by him? If it is a question of authority, then must we decide among these and numerous other compilers as to which of them has authority. If it is a question of verity, then must we decide that a version demonstrably untrue is of no account. In either case the King James' Version must be shelved among other antiques, for it is admittedly not authorized, and proven not correct.From the time of the Apostles, the Church has been untiringly solicitous to the end that only accurate translations of the Scriptures will receive her approval, and repeatedly she has warned her children against unauthorized and garbled editions. As witness her condemnation of the Wyclif Version in English, the Luther Edition in German, the Erasmus Latin Edition, and many other garbled or expurgated rescripts from time to time issued by would-be critics of the Word of God, and which now are found only among collections of curios. Instead of indicating a purpose to discourage the spread of the Bible, as her enemies would teach, this evidence of her unremitting watchfulness over the purity of the Word marks the Church as its most zealous and intrepid defender. And her own authorized versions, published in the vernacular of every civilized country, show that she not only protects the Scriptures from distortion, but also, without stint of effort, provides the best possible translations in the language of