In 1933, Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, acknowledged Infiltration o
#11
In addition, how many of you remember how Pius XII was plagued by hiccups?

I have always wondered IF maybe these hiccups were a "side-effect" of some kind of a mind-control drug that was being given to Pius XII without the Pope being aware of it?  Some research seems to indicate that his personal physician was, to say the least, "strange"?


Pius XII's mortal disease and death were very suspicious. Once dead his body began to corrupt very quickly.
In my opinion though Sr Lucy didn't yet write the 3rd Secret in these times, possibly did Card. Pacelli have any insight about it from relatives and/or spiritual advisor and confessor of Sr Lucy.
Anyways, if not relating in any way to the Fatima's 3rd Secret, that letter looks very prophetic.
Reply
#12
I agree with Alcuin Reid in his Organic Development of the Liturgy that it was an organic break. And he provides quotes that show not a few were upset, and that the break Pius X create upset the "logic" of the psalms. I really don't care, because I think Pius X did the right thing. I am just sharing the info with you.
Reply
#13
(06-16-2013, 02:38 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-16-2013, 09:17 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: a) The "Vulgate Psalter" itself was later retranslated by St Jerome from Hebrew, which says that he was not satisfied with his previous work. The work appearing as the "gallican Psalter" is from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. So maybe St Jerome was Protestant too. The point is that the objection to the Pian Psalter is a non-starter. It may have been a bad translation, but the notion of going off the Hebrew is quite traditional. I think we got the better solution with the New Vulgate revision. (And anyone with any knowledge of Hebrew knows that the Gallican Psalter is far from perfect. It has quite a few places which make little sense. Like the "chair of pestilence" in Psalm 1.)

b) The Breviary reform of Pius X was a break in the organic tradition. That's quite clear. If we take Quod a Nobis literally, as people take Quo Primum, then Pius X's in hell. We know he's not in hell, therefore breaking organic development can be okay. While the Mass was a rubrical revision, and a very good one, the Breviary was also a complete restructuring of the traditional psalm order, which many at the time decried and ... wait for it ...did not want to adopt. Think about that.

The changes to the Breviary do not represent a break in organic tradition; they are simply circumstantially-dictated accidental modifications aimed at safeguarding the Breviary's liturgical integrity and purpose.

A break with organic tradition would be, for example, a departure from the  entire Breviary in favor of the creation of a  completely new Breviary pasted together with various liturgical scraps from ecclesiastical antiquity.

There is a difference between the act of pruning a tree and the act of piecing together a new, synthetic tree with the clippings of the pruned tree, the act of cutting up the old tree and then piecing together a new, synthetic tree with the choicest pieces of the cut up tree, or taking a piece of another tree and pasting it onto the original tree.   

One is healthy and good for the organic life, growth, and beauty of the tree; the other destroys it. It may still resemble a tree, but it certainly is not organically grown.

I agree. The proof is in the simple observation of what happened in the Church when the new mass was put into effect....mass falling away if the faith...priests, religious and layfolk alike fell away in droves. The numbers are staggering. This is due in large part because the new mass was such a shock to the sensus catholicus that souls left simply because it appeared the Church changed her beliefs - which for the Catholic Church is suicide.

I'll bet a third of my protestant or otherwise non-catholic friends and acquaintances are the children/grandchildren of catholicd who left the Church after V2 and the new mass introduction.

DD
Reply
#14
(06-16-2013, 09:17 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: a) The "Vulgate Psalter" itself was later retranslated by St Jerome from Hebrew, which says that he was not satisfied with his previous work. The work appearing as the "gallican Psalter" is from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. So maybe St Jerome was Protestant too. The point is that the objection to the Pian Psalter is a non-starter. It may have been a bad translation, but the notion of going off the Hebrew is quite traditional. I think we got the better solution with the New Vulgate revision. (And anyone with any knowledge of Hebrew knows that the Gallican Psalter is far from perfect. It has quite a few places which make little sense. Like the "chair of pestilence" in Psalm 1.)

Hi Scriptorium -  :tiphat:

Apparently your above response is in regard to my previous observation?:

Quote:
Quote:translated again into Latin from their original text.

This was not necessary because Saint Jerome had already done this very thing many centuries ago, along with the rest of what is called the "Latin Vulgate"!

This was Pius XII's first liturgical change to the Mass, the new liturgical translation of the Psalms.

It should be noted that Saint Jerome’s Vulgate was extremely disliked by the Protestants because the Vulgate was the official translation of the Holy Scriptures in the Roman Catholic Church, and this translation had been declared to be authentic by the Nineteenth Œcumenical Council, the Infallible Dogmatic Roman Catholic Council of Trent!

Therefore, my original point still stands:

Quote:
Quote:translated again into Latin from their original text.

This was not necessary because Saint Jerome, a.k.a. Eusebius Hieronymus, a.k.a. Sophronius [b. Stridon, Dalmatia c. 340 A.D. - d. Bethlehem, Palestine, Wednesday, September 30, 420 A.D.] had already done this very thing many centuries ago, along with the rest of what is called the “Latin Vulgate”!

Why?

Your position, IF I understand it correctly, as stated:

Quote:a) The "Vulgate Psalter" itself was later retranslated by St Jerome from Hebrew, which says that he was not satisfied with his previous work.

makes an assumption which is not proven - to wit, that Saint Jerome

Quote:was not satisfied with his previous work.

I can only speak for myself, but with the passage of time, and the opportunity to read more sources on a certain subject to which I did not have previous access, or did not even know that such sources existed, from time to time cause me to update what I wrote by incorporating some of the previously unknown data.  This is not understood to mean that I "was not satisfied" with my previous work, but merely that I wanted to share additional and/or corrected data with my readers.  In other words, something "better" in the sense of being "more complete".

The historical context is important to understand why Saint Jerome produced three translations of the Psalter.

Please consider how it was that because of the diffusion of the Hebrew Septuagint version of the Scriptures, including the Psalms, among the Hellenistic Jews and the early Christian Catholics, copies of the Septuagint were multiplied.  The effect, as to be expected, was that many changes, both deliberate, as well as involuntary, slid into the various texts, including the Psalter. Therefore, the necessity of restoring the text as far as possible to its pristine purity was required.

In addition to this problem, there was also a problem with the Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures which texts had existed from the earliest times of the Catholic Church.

Even in those relatively “early days”, i.e. during the time of Bishop Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome, exactly who the translators of these Latin texts actually were are not know.

Nevertheless, Saint Augustine says the old Latin version had certainly come “from the first days of the Faith”.  Saint Jerome states that the old Latin version  “had helped to strengthen the faith of the infant Church.”

When one understands that these texts were translated and copied, many times over, without any official supervision, these many texts quickly became corrupted, or at the very best, doubtful.  Hence, by the time of Saint Jerome all was chaos and confusion so that Saint Jerome himself said that there were almost “as many readings as there were codices”.

It was because of the great uncertainties concerning these varied texts, which obliged Pope Damasus, who was “then Bishop of Rome, to employ Saint Jerome to regulate the last revised translation of each part of the New Testament to the original Greek and to set out a new edition so castigated and corrected” according to a letter to Archbishop Wade from one Richard Bentley.

This is what Saint Jerome did, as he himself says in his preface: “Ad Graecam Veritatem, ad exemplaria Graeca sed Vetera.”

It was in 384 that Saint Jerome made his first revision of the Latin Psalter according to the accepted text of the Septuagint, a.k.a. the Roman Psalter.

But near the end of 384, Saint Jerome was forced to leave Rome because of the death of Pope Damasus who died on December 11, 384.  Saint Jerome had a reputation for making harsh criticisms which, as one might expect, made bitter enemies for him, so that after a few months, he left Rome.  Traveling by way of Antioch and Alexandria he reached Bethlehem in 386 where he began to live in a monastery which was near a convent founded by two Roman ladies, Paula and Eustochium, who had followed him to Palestine. Now in Bethlehem, Saint Jerome led a life of asceticism and continuing study.

After getting situated in Bethlehem, Saint Jerome began his second revision of the Psalter because he realized that the original corrections he had made were not adequate.  Saint Jerome worked on this translation between 386 and 391 by making use of the text of the “Hexapla” of Origen.  This is known as the “Gallican Psalter” which became embodied in the Vulgate and which does have  various problems, as you have correctly mentioned, and which was the eventual reason for Saint Jerome’s “third version”:

Quote:“[# 3] ....The third version made by St. Jerome at a later period of his life was translated directly from the Hebrew. Although St. Jerome considered that this version really represented the true sense of the Psalmist, it was never accepted by the Church for practical use. It is to be found in some Bibles, especially of Spanish origin, either as an addition to the usual ‘Gallicana version,’ or in place of it.”  (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume Fifteen, Tournon - Zwirner, Errata, The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., New York, Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912, Remy Lafort,  S.T.D., Censor; Imprimatur, John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, Copyright, 1912 by Robert Appleton Company, Copyright, 1913 by The Encyclopedia Press, Inc.;  “Vulgate; Revision of Vulgate”; p. 516, column 2, # 3; emphasis added.)

To conclude this historical context, it needs to be remembered as well that Saint Jerome had access to a variety of texts which do not exist today, which would include various Greek and other manuscripts which, even in the days of Saint Jerome, were regarded as already being “ancient” and which, of course, do not exist today as far as is presently known.

In this way, Saint Jerome had the great advantage of being able to compare dozens of important texts, such as Origen’s “Hexapla”, as well as other means of determining the authenticity of his material, none of which is known to exist today.

So, then, for any claim that Saint Jerome

Quote:was not satisfied with his previous work

fails to take into account the reason for this fact, namely the multiplicity of texts, obviously conflicting with each other in one or more areas and was merely a method Saint Jerome use to help better "perfect" what he had already done.

Since none of those texts are known to exist at present, except for the so-called “Dead Sea Scrolls” which are irrelevant insofar as it would seem that most probably either Saint Jerome did not know about their existence since they had been written before he was born, or at least that he did not have access to them, because, according to some scholars - but not all of them, it was the Jewish sect of the Essenes which possessed them and which supposedly had already hidden them away in various caves before the time of Saint Jerome to keep them safe from the Roman invaders?, it seems to be very unfair and unjust to put the label of “Protestant” on Saint Jerome.  ???

Why?

Because this false label is to impute to Saint Jerome a devious purpose for his second and third revisions of the Latin Psalter when it seems more that self-evident that all he was trying to do was to make the most accurate translation of the Psalms that was possible in his day.

This is in contradistinction to the Protestants in the 16th Century who obviously did not have access to any of these ancient texts, either because they did not exist in the 16th Century, or the whereabouts of their existence was not known, which, as already mentioned, would have included the various Greek and other manuscripts which, even in the days of Saint Jerome, were regarded as already being “ancient”.

Furthermore, Saint Jerome originally made use of the text of the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text which the Protestants have used in an effort to attempt to support their various heresies.  Depending upon which school of Biblical Scholars one prefers, since some claim that the Masoretic text is not as old as the text of the Septuagint, and that it was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries A.D., with the oldest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic text dating from about the 9th century A.D., Saint Jerome probably never saw these apparently newer versions of the Old Testament?

Whether one agrees with this assessment or not, the ultimate point in all of this is that since Saint Jerome used texts which, to the best of our knowledge today, no longer exist, does anyone really know exactly upon what basis was the NEW liturgical translation of the Psalms based which NEW translation was mandated by Pius XII, beginning in some of the liturgical books in 1944, e.g. the Missale Romanum?

Therefore, the claim that

Quote:The point is that the objection to the Pian Psalter is a non-starter.

is very definitely a “starter” because apparently the highly questionable “Pian Psalter” merely “appeared out of thin air” - or is it from the Protestant Masoretic text?   :LOL:

No, because the answer is to be found here:

Quote:We fully appreciated, of course, what a difficult undertaking this would be. We realized, too, how intimately bound up the Latin Vulgate is with the writings and interpretations of the Holy Fathers and Doctors, how by its long centuries of use it has obtained in the Church the very highest authority [Note: This is an obvious reference to the Council of Trent.]

Nevertheless We decided to comply with these devout wishes and gave orders that a new Latin translation of the psalms be provided. It was to follow the original texts, follow them exactly, faithfully. At the same time it was, as far as possible, to take into account the venerable Vulgate along with other ancient versions, and to apply sound critical norms where their readings differed. Not even the Hebrew text, as We are well aware, has reached us altogether free from error and obscurity. It needs to be compared with other texts that have come down to us from ancient times[/b ]with a view to discovering which of them renders the sense more true and exact. In fact there are times when, even after every help that text criticism and a knowledge of languages can offer has been exhausted, the meaning of the words is still not perfectly clear and their more definite clarification will have to be left to future study.

Still we are confident that today, thanks to the painstaking use made of all the latest findings, it has been possible to provide a translation of the psalms such as was desired. It presents their meaning and content clearly enough to enable priests reciting the Divine Office to grasp readily what the Holy Spirit intended to convey by the lips of the Psalmist; clearly enough, too, for them to be stirred up by the divine words and urged on to true and genuine piety.

Now that [b]the professors of Our Pontifical Biblical Institute have completed the longed-for new translation
with the diligence befitting such a task, We offer it with fatherly affection to all who have the obligation to recite the canonical Hours daily.... (Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Letter, “In Cotidianis Precibus”, On the New Latin Psalter and its use in the Divine Office, March 24, 1945; emphasis added.)

Because of all of the many changes in the Church over the last more than almost 70 years, many of them based upon questionable reasons, and in some cases questionable texts, I must question, among other things, this statement:

Quote:We decided to comply with these devout wishes and gave orders that a new Latin translation of the psalms be provided. It was to follow the original texts, follow them exactly, faithfully. At the same time it was, as far as possible, to take into account the venerable Vulgate along with other ancient versions

especially when Saint Jerome himself

Quote:considered that this [third] version really represented the true sense of the Psalmist

On the contrary, because Saint Jerome, who had access to what in his day were some “ancient” texts, and who also had direct access to a variety of texts which do not exist today, including various Greek and other ancient manuscripts, and who also had the great advantage of being able to compare dozens of important texts, such as Origen’s “Hexapla”, as well as other means of determining the authenticity of his material, none of which is known to exist today, just exactly what are the alleged “original texts” and the “other ancient versions”?

One is left to wonder if someone hopped into a “time machine” and “visited Saint Jerome” and somehow made copies of all of the “ancient” texts that he could use but which no longer exist today?   :LOL:

Therefore, until further proof emerges, it sounds as if one or more people - “the professors of Our Pontifical Biblical Institute” ending up “selling a bill of goods” to Pope Pius XII who obviously took them at their word?

Who exactly were these “professors of Our Pontifical Biblical Institute”?  Cardinal Bea and his anti-Catholic compatriots?

It is not that I do not trust Pope Pius XII.  Based upon the above data, my personal opinion is that certain anti-Catholic Infiltrators lied to him!

On the contrary, the ones I do not trust are these “professors of Our Pontifical Biblical Institute”!

After all, even when yet Cardinal Pacelli, in 1933 he mentioned that he knew about the infiltration of Communists into the Church!

So, ten years later, how many of these Communist Infiltrators had worked their way into the “Pontifical Biblical Institute”?

It all seems very suspicious to me.  The anti-Catholic Infiltrators have been working for hundreds of years to try to destroy the Catholic Church - but that is impossible - we have Christ's promise the gates of Hell shall not prevail!

Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to read this!   :tiphat:

God Bless You!   :pray:

A-Catholic-Catholic: Father Jim
Reply
#15
I would have to admit the Pian Psalter is not melodic. It does not roll off the tongue. It is especially noticeable when reciting the Office, and the Gallican is much better for reciting the Office.

tim
Reply
#16
So Pope Pius XII was derelict in duty. Should we halt the canonization?
Reply
#17
(06-20-2013, 07:10 AM)Tim Wrote: I would have to admit the Pian Psalter is not melodic. It does not roll off the tongue. It is especially noticeable when reciting the Office, and the Gallican is much better for reciting the Office.

tim

Hi Tim -  :tiphat:

Yes, the difference, at least to me, and obviously to you, that the pre-Pius XII Psalter seems to me to "flow" better, not only when reciting the Divine Office, but also when Offering Mass in those portions of the Propers which use portions of the Psalms.

This is even more noticeable, it seems to me, when chanting the Breviary in Choir! 

Again, I have to wonder how many anti-Catholic Infiltrators, including Communists and members of the Zionist Fifth Column, as some call them, as well as Freemasons and Illuminati, etc., were either directly - as members of the “Pontifical Biblical Institute” at that time, or somehow indirectly, responsible for foisting upon Pope Pius XII this "updated" Psalter which supposedly was based, at least in part, on either apparently heretofore unknown, but questionable in terms of their authenticity,  "ancient" texts, or were merely deliberate mistranslations - all done  (in my personal opinion) in order to destroy the Official Prayer of the Catholic Church, in addition to the forthcoming destruction of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which they had planned, and which was prophecized by Daniel:

Quote:“And in the half of the week the Victim and the Sacrifice [of the Catholic Mass] shall fail: and there shall be in the Temple the Abomination of Desolation [the NEW mass]:  and the Desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end” (Daniel 9:27; emphasis added.).

Quote:“They shall defile the Sanctuary of Strength, and shall take away the Continual Sacrifice [of the Catholic Mass], and they shall place there the Abomination unto Desolation [the NEW mass]” (Daniel 11:31; emphasis added).  N.B.:  The Jews NEVER had a Continual Sacrifice!

Quote:“I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now [1902 A.D.] working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of Souls [Satan],  a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives [Sunday, November 30, 1969 A.D.] where the faith of My Priests are put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period.” (Prophecy about the Satanic  NEW Mass by Jesus Christ to the great Catholic Mystic, Marie-Julie Jahenny [b. at Blain, Brittany - West France - on Tuesday, February 12, 1850 - d. at La Fraudais, a short distance Northeast of Blain, Brittany on Tuesday, March 4, 1941] in an apparition on Saturday, November 27, 1902; emphasis added.)

"Updating" was part of the reason given for "updating" the Breviary under Pope Pius XII.

The same reason was also given for "updating" the Mass, especially under Pope Paul 6.


As a matter of fact, the Mass was "updated" to such a degree that it was totally destroyed according to one of the people who helped to do this!:

Quote:The NEW mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite... has been destroyed! (Father Joseph Gelineau S.J. [b. at Champ-sur-Layon, Maine-et-Loire, West-Central France, on Sunday, October 31, 1920 - d. at Sallanches, a commune in the Haute-Savoie  department in the Rhône-Alps, South-Eastern France, on Friday, August 8, 2008] “Demain La Liturgk”, Paris, 1976, pp. 9-10; emphasis added).

So the Roman Rite, which helped unknown very large numbers of ordinary Catholics to become Saints from the time of the Apostles, no longer exists today, except where it can be found today in what can best be described as the "Catacombs", and also in other places where Prelates and Priests, like myself, also use a pre-1944 Missale Romanum.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.  :tiphat:

God Bless You!   :pray:

A-Catholic-Catholic:  Father Jim
Reply
#18
(06-20-2013, 09:37 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: So Pope Pius XII was derelict in duty. Should we halt the canonization?

Hi Scriptorium -  :tiphat:

Thank you for your question.  :)

I do NOT consider that Pope Pius XII was "derelict in duty".

It seems to me that he was - at the very least - DELIBERATELY MISLED by his Confessor, the "super-ecumenist:, as he is sometimes called, Cardinal Bea, who obviously was promoting a different agenda!

Regarding the subject of "canonizations" - because of the very obvious infiltration of the Church by anti-Catholics - which fact was mentioned as early as 1933 by the then Cardinal Pacelli, UNTIL all anti-Catholic Infiltrators - whoever and wherever they are in the Church - have been removed, whether by direct Divine Intervention, or by an indirect Divine Intervention - ALL processes must be temporarily put on hold until ALL Infiltrators, and ALL NEW Theology Theologians and ALL Modernist and other Heretics are removed from the Catholic Church. 

After all, who wants a Communist Infiltrator, for example, declared a "Saint"? 

N.B.:  Please do not try to say that I am saying that Pius XII was any kind of an "Infiltrator".

On the contrary, according to some data I have come upon recently, Pius XII was wanting to have a Doctrinal Council which would continue on the path of Pope Saint Pius X - to also condemn the Heresy of Modernism, and to remove from the Church all heretics, because it was well-known by the Popes from Saint Pius X to Pius XII that Modernist Heretics were working in the Vatican itself!  But Pius XII chose not to do this because of his ill health at that time.

I continue to wonder if at least part of his "ill health" was because he was being slowly poisoned by one or more of these anti-Catholic Infiltrators?  At least this is what several "Vatican Insiders" have told me, along with their claim that all of the Popes of the 20th Century were "assassinated".

Based upon the principle of "by their fruits you will know them", this seems to continue to be the sad situation of the Vatican yet today?

I hope and pray that Pope Francis I will be the one who "cleans house" and throws out all of the anti-Catholic Infiltrators!

God Bless You!   :pray:

A-Catholic-Catholic:  Father Jim
Reply
#19
All of this "updating" seems to me at it's heart is saying the Holy Ghost no longer operates in the faithful. I see it all around me and I'm no Pope but the Invisible has been dismissed. In fact I see the Apostasy based on this and as S. Lucia said and I paraphrase the dogmas will be lost except in Portugal, etc is pointing smack dab at this. We have theologians and apologists of every stripe saying this and that, but humble little people are at a minimum. Miracles are no longer believed, but God will not be mocked, and if there is no Consecration, the Chastisement will be the  Miracle no one can deny. Psalm 11 leaps to my mind.

{11:1} In finem pro octava, Psalmus David.
{11:1} Unto the end. For the octave. A Psalm of David.

{11:2} Salvum me fac Domine, quoniam defecit sanctus: quoniam diminutæ sunt veritates a filiis hominum.
{11:2} Save me, O Lord, because holiness has passed away, because truths have been diminished, before the sons of men.

{11:3} Vana locuti sunt unusquisque ad proximum suum: labia dolosa, in corde et corde locuti sunt.
{11:3} They have been speaking emptiness, each one to his neighbor; they have been speaking with deceitful lips and a duplicitous heart.

{11:4} Disperdat Dominus universa labia dolosa, et linguam magniloquam.
{11:4} May the Lord scatter all deceitful lips, along with the tongue that speaks malice.

{11:5} Qui dixerunt: Linguam nostram magnificabimus, labia nostra a nobis sunt, quis noster Dominus est?
{11:5} They have said: “We will magnify our tongue; our lips belong to us. Who is our Lord?”

{11:6} Propter miseriam inopum, et gemitum pauperum nunc exurgam, dicit Dominus. Ponam in salutari: fiducialiter agam in eo.
{11:6} Because of the misery of the destitute and the groaning of the poor, now I will arise, says the Lord. I will place him in safety. I will act faithfully toward him.

{11:7} Eloquia Domini, eloquia casta: argentum igne examinatum, probatum terræ purgatum septuplum.
{11:7} The eloquence of the Lord is pure eloquence, silver tested by fire, purged from the earth, refined seven times.

{11:8} Tu Domine servabis nos: et custodies nos a generatione hac in æternum.
{11:8} You, O Lord, will preserve us, and you will guard us from this generation into eternity.

{11:9} In circuitu impii ambulant: secundum altitudinem tuam multiplicasti filios hominum.
{11:9} The impious wander aimlessly. According to your loftiness, you have multiplied the sons of men.

just a layman's opinion,

tim
Reply
#20
(06-20-2013, 07:06 PM)Tim Wrote: All of this "updating" seems to me at it's heart is saying the Holy Ghost no longer operates in the faithful. I see it all around me and I'm no Pope but the Invisible has been dismissed. In fact I see the Apostasy based on this and as S. Lucia said and I paraphrase the dogmas will be lost except in Portugal, etc is pointing smack dab at this. We have theologians and apologists of every stripe saying this and that, but humble little people are at a minimum. Miracles are no longer believed, but God will not be mocked, and if there is no Consecration, the Chastisement will be the  Miracle no one can deny. Psalm 11 leaps to my mind.

{11:1} In finem pro octava, Psalmus David.
{11:1} Unto the end. For the octave. A Psalm of David.

{11:2} Salvum me fac Domine, quoniam defecit sanctus: quoniam diminutæ sunt veritates a filiis hominum.
{11:2} Save me, O Lord, because holiness has passed away, because truths have been diminished, before the sons of men.

{11:3} Vana locuti sunt unusquisque ad proximum suum: labia dolosa, in corde et corde locuti sunt.
{11:3} They have been speaking emptiness, each one to his neighbor; they have been speaking with deceitful lips and a duplicitous heart.

{11:4} Disperdat Dominus universa labia dolosa, et linguam magniloquam.
{11:4} May the Lord scatter all deceitful lips, along with the tongue that speaks malice.

{11:5} Qui dixerunt: Linguam nostram magnificabimus, labia nostra a nobis sunt, quis noster Dominus est?
{11:5} They have said: “We will magnify our tongue; our lips belong to us. Who is our Lord?”

{11:6} Propter miseriam inopum, et gemitum pauperum nunc exurgam, dicit Dominus. Ponam in salutari: fiducialiter agam in eo.
{11:6} Because of the misery of the destitute and the groaning of the poor, now I will arise, says the Lord. I will place him in safety. I will act faithfully toward him.

{11:7} Eloquia Domini, eloquia casta: argentum igne examinatum, probatum terræ purgatum septuplum.
{11:7} The eloquence of the Lord is pure eloquence, silver tested by fire, purged from the earth, refined seven times.

{11:8} Tu Domine servabis nos: et custodies nos a generatione hac in æternum.
{11:8} You, O Lord, will preserve us, and you will guard us from this generation into eternity.

{11:9} In circuitu impii ambulant: secundum altitudinem tuam multiplicasti filios hominum.
{11:9} The impious wander aimlessly. According to your loftiness, you have multiplied the sons of men.

just a layman's opinion,

tim

Hi Tim -  :tiphat:

Please add me to the list of those who agree with your opinion!

In my mind it is like you have taken a very bright, strong, spotlight and focused it on the proverbial "elephant in the room" which everyone sees, but no one wants to admit is there!

Psalm 11 is an excellent choice!

Keep up the good work!

God Bless You!  :pray:

A-Catholic-Catholic:  Father Jim
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)