Catholicism
(05-06-2020, 10:19 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Yep. I'll look into those citations. Feel free to keep reminding me. By the way, what do you (and any others reading this) think of Pope Francis? A few Catholics I know don't like him much - for various reasons.

Start a new thread :)
Reply
(05-04-2020, 10:44 PM)Wingfold Wrote: I know the Church of the day thought people too stupid to grasp such words - you know, if they had brains they'd be dangerous - but the Church was wrong. And arrogant. 

lol, it's ironic you should say that, I'm currently in the process of trying to find myself a good Douay Rheims Bible, since even my RSVCE (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) has some questionable translations, and indeed there are others that have even worse translations, my brother even got one that was supposed to be 'Catholic' and had some complete pagan footnotes, then look at the LGBT bible they've tried to make and palm off.

Arrogant? Really? look around today and all these different English translations. Look at King Henry himself who created his own State Church because he didn't like Christ's teaching on adultery, I suppose he should've done his own translation and just tweaked those bits he didn't like and then palm it off to the masses?

Here, grab yourself a Queen James Bible - https://www.amazon.com/Queen-James-Bible...0615724531 (But seriously please don't...)

I don't think their concerns were unfounded or arrogant.

"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."

God Bless You
Reply
(05-07-2020, 07:37 AM)Justin Tertius Wrote:
Quote:Yep. I'll look into those citations. Feel free to keep reminding me. By the way, what do you (and any others reading this) think of Pope Francis? A few Catholics I know don't like him much - for various reasons.

Wingfold, you're encouraged to discuss here and I am sure that plenty if people will love you give you their opinion about the current pope, but try to stay on topic.

It seems like your trying to dodge having to give answers to difficult questions.

If you are interested in actual discussion, it would be better to creat a separate thread, that way discussions can be more focused.

Hi Justin,

No, not trying to dodge anything. I know they're difficult questions but researching them is how I learn. What happens is after something gets posted I'll go to work or do something around the house and I begin to think about other related topics. By the time I come back to the computer, I'm in a whole new head space and often don't go back to where I left off; or, others will have posted something different and I veer off to them. Point taken, though. I will try to do better.
Reply
(05-07-2020, 08:23 AM)josh987654321 Wrote:
(05-04-2020, 10:44 PM)Wingfold Wrote: I know the Church of the day thought people too stupid to grasp such words - you know, if they had brains they'd be dangerous - but the Church was wrong. And arrogant. 

lol, it's ironic you should say that, I'm currently in the process of trying to find myself a good Douay Rheims Bible, since even my RSVCE (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) has some questionable translations, and indeed there are others that have even worse translations, my brother even got one that was supposed to be 'Catholic' and had some complete pagan footnotes, then look at the LGBT bible they've tried to make and palm off.

Arrogant? Really? look around today and all these different English translations. Look at King Henry himself who created his own State Church because he didn't like Christ's teaching on adultery, I suppose he should've done his own translation and just tweaked those bits he didn't like and then palm it off to the masses?

Here, grab yourself a Queen James Bible - https://www.amazon.com/Queen-James-Bible...0615724531 (But seriously please don't...)

I don't think their concerns were unfounded or arrogant.

"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."

God Bless You

Hi Josh,

If you're looking for a new Bible version you can find a smorgasbord here: https://beta.biblegateway.com/versions/. Shop till you drop. 

Apparently, the RSVCE came out with a second edition in 2006. Scott Hahn uses the RSV-2CE. There is also the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition as well. Find out more here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-ce.html

Anyway, I just found out that the English Standard Version published a Catholic Edition in 2018. Have a look: http://stutler.cc/russ/esvce.html. The ESV is widely read and respected in Evangelical circles and I'm sure Catholics would consider the ESVCE a stand-up version. The guy on the link says it's hard to get, though.
Reply
(05-06-2020, 11:34 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
(05-06-2020, 10:19 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
(05-06-2020, 10:09 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Quote:
No. It could be heretical, and most Protestant translations were because they intentionally changed Scripture to suit a man-made false doctrine.

Actually, that isn't the case. The only group that ever changed Scripture to suit their beliefs are the Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Luther modified Romans to fit his doctrine : https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online...ture-alone

The King James version deliberately translates certain phrases against the Latin and Greek : http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scri...ersion.htm

The NIV is full of mistranslations and modifications according to this Protestant to teach certain doctrines : https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/a...rsion-niv/

Here's a 118-page book from the early 1800s (this is a reprint) discussing the various changes and mistranslations in Protestant Bibles : https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=aLYVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=protestant+mistranslations+of+the+bible&source=bl&ots=9JUagFamvA&sig=ACfU3U2tmv9hHIwNKZgVUbFxN1CpomVpog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi13fmo0qDpAhX9yzgGHUDBDvwQ6AEwEHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=protestant%20mistranslations%20of%20the%20bible&f=false

I'd go on with other references, but I have a feeling you won't read them, and will just start posting more quotations from books designed to confirm you in your false opinions and provably-false history.


So, to be clear, yes, Luther and others intentionally mistranslated the Bible to fit their doctrines.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
This is offensive? I was speaking of the medieval leaders of the Catholic Church.

I know who you were speaking of. It's clearly false for the reasons above, and namely one you admitted : the "unwashed masses" couldn't read.

You attribute an evil motive to the clergy for not giving something that people could not use to them. It's offensive to attribute that motive, but also offensive to common sense and decency.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
You've said a lot worse about the Reformers, including the seemingly tacit approval of Tyndale's murder.

Murder is the unjust killing of an innocent person. Capital punishment for a criminal is not murder. Heresy is a crime, even if today we would not punish it as such. Heresy is a crime against God and against souls.

So no. I don't approve of Tyndale's murder, because he was not murdered. I fully approve of his execution. His false doctrines were leading and have led many souls to Hell, and would have led more to Hell, had he not been stopped.

(05-06-2020, 08:31 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
It does seem, though, that you have a hard time with anyone who sees the RC Church as less than perfect - at all times throughout its history.

The Church is full of sinners. It's a field hospital, so I don't expect the members of the Church to be pristine at all.

The Church itself, however, is a Divine institution, so inasmuch as it is this, indeed, I do expect the Church to be perfect, even if Popes, Bishops, Priests, and the laity are, more often than not, self-serving scoundrels.


I'll renew again here my call for the citations I've mentioned now for the third time.


Yep. I'll look into those citations. Feel free to keep reminding me. By the way, what do you (and any others reading this) think of Pope Francis? A few Catholics I know don't like him much - for various reasons.

MM - Quite likely not what you’re looking for but interesting just the same - the words of Pius IV just after the Council of Trent. 

“Time was running out. In the twenty-fifth and last session (Dec. 3-4, 1563) of the Council it was resolved that the whole project should be entrusted to the Holy See. Accordingly, some months later, on March 24, 1564, Pius IV published the bull Dominici gregis custodias, which set down ten rules basic to the Index. Its fourth rule describes the method which is to be followed where there is question of the Bible in the vernacular:

‘We have learned by experience that if the sacred books, translated into the vernacular, are indiscriminantly circulated, there follows because of the weakness of man more harm than good. In this matter the judgment of the bishop or the inquisitor must be sought, who on the advice of the pastor or the confessor may permit the reading of a Bible translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors. This may be done with the understanding that from this reading no harm, but an increase of faith and piety, results. The permission must be in writing. But he who dares to read or possess Scripture without this permission cannot receive absolution from his sins until he has returned the Bible to the ordinary... ,”44

It was cautious legislation such as this that was to prove influential in creating the unbiblical atmosphere of the post-Tridentine Church, an atmosphere which has only begun to clarify in our own day under the impact of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

44 C. Mirbt, op. cit., p. 341.

Source of above: http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/27/27.2/27.2.2.pdf
Reply
(05-07-2020, 10:34 AM)Wingfold Wrote: Anyway, I just found out that the English Standard Version published a Catholic Edition in 2018. Have a look: http://stutler.cc/russ/esvce.html. The ESV is widely read and respected in Evangelical circles and I'm sure Catholics would consider the ESVCE a stand-up version. The guy on the link says it's hard to get, though.

A Catholic ESV was released recently:  https://www.sunrisemarian.com/product/august-bible.html
Reply
(05-08-2020, 09:24 PM)LionHippo Wrote:
(05-07-2020, 10:34 AM)Wingfold Wrote: Anyway, I just found out that the English Standard Version published a Catholic Edition in 2018. Have a look: http://stutler.cc/russ/esvce.html. The ESV is widely read and respected in Evangelical circles and I'm sure Catholics would consider the ESVCE a stand-up version. The guy on the link says it's hard to get, though.

A Catholic ESV was released recently:  https://www.sunrisemarian.com/product/august-bible.html


There’s a cheaper price here: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/catholic.mar...le-esv-ce/
Reply
(05-08-2020, 09:13 PM)Wingfold Wrote: ‘We have learned by experience that if the sacred books, translated into the vernacular, are indiscriminantly circulated, there follows because of the weakness of man more harm than good. In this matter the judgment of the bishop or the inquisitor must be sought, who on the advice of the pastor or the confessor may permit the reading of a Bible translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors. This may be done with the understanding that from this reading no harm, but an increase of faith and piety, results. The permission must be in writing. But he who dares to read or possess Scripture without this permission cannot receive absolution from his sins until he has returned the Bible to the ordinary... ,”44

It was cautious legislation such as this that was to prove influential in creating the unbiblical atmosphere of the post-Tridentine Church, an atmosphere which has only begun to clarify in our own day under the impact of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

Wingfold, thank you for this.

Firstly, Theological studies is an extremely liberal Jesuit periodical and has been for a very long time. It has published articles, for instance, denying the Resurrection of Christ, among other blatant heresies, so one needs to take things published therein with several pounds of seasoning.

So, I don't deny the quote from the Papal Bull is accurate, but the commentary afterward is ahistorical platitudes. There are three great modern encyclical letters of the Popes promoting Sacred Scripture, Provdentissimus Deus (Pope Leo XIII, 1893), Spiritus Paraclitus (Benedict XV, 1920), and Divino Afflantu Spiritu (Pope Pius XII, 1943). Each highly praised and promoted Scripture reading and the correct understanding of Scripture, so it is simply a falsehood to suggest that only in 1966 (when that article was published) was the Church finally discarding some "un-biblical" period.

Secondly, to the quote of the Pius IV, I don't see the problem here, or any unbiblical attitude, especially given that as we showed above many non-Catholic vernacular translations had badly, and in some cases intentionally, translated the Scriptures to provide a false gospel. In such an environment, indeed, "indiscriminately circulated" these false gospels would do "more harm than good". And so in an environment where literacy was increasing, mass produced printed books were becoming more common and the vernacular translations were also circulating, that all sounds like a very prudent course. In fact in Italy since 1532, Antonio Brucioli's flawed translation had been circulating and causing disturbance.

That 1564 decision was not long in standing, however. By 1574, Gregory XIII personally permitted the vernacular of the Gospels, Lessons and Epistles read at Mass to be read in the vernacular, and approved the Epistole e Vangeli of Fr Remigio Nannini.

So the prohibition seems to have stemmed from flawed translations floating around, when the Index of Forbidden Books began these flawed vernacular Bibles were forbidden except with permission, and then ten years later when a faithful translation was available it was not only permitted, but recommended by the Gregory XIII.

So, without much research it is easy to show that the article you have quoted is badly flawed in its presentation and conclusions : The Popes were recommending vernacular Scriptures, correctly translated, since 1574. And in three major encyclical letters, three Popes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries promoted Scripture. It was not Vatican II that somehow "rediscovered" Scripture. It was never lost.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
(05-07-2020, 08:23 AM)josh987654321 Wrote: Look at King Henry himself who created his own State Church because he didn't like Christ's teaching on adultery, I suppose he should've done his own translation and just tweaked those bits he didn't like and then palm it off to the masses?

You mean like Luther did? Dropping entire books, and portions of others, from the Bible that Christians had used for over a thousand years, trying to drop the Epistle of St James which he called 'an Epistle of straw', and making subtle changes to support his heresies?

Again, we come back to that question of authority. By what authority did Luther simply discard parts of Holy Scripture that all Christians had accepted until he came along? Of course, in his arrogance, he is reported to have said, 'My opinion is God's opinion and God's opinion is my opinion'.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Augustinian, HailGilbert
Reply
(05-09-2020, 12:53 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-08-2020, 09:13 PM)Wingfold Wrote: ‘We have learned by experience that if the sacred books, translated into the vernacular, are indiscriminantly circulated, there follows because of the weakness of man more harm than good. In this matter the judgment of the bishop or the inquisitor must be sought, who on the advice of the pastor or the confessor may permit the reading of a Bible translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors. This may be done with the understanding that from this reading no harm, but an increase of faith and piety, results. The permission must be in writing. But he who dares to read or possess Scripture without this permission cannot receive absolution from his sins until he has returned the Bible to the ordinary... ,”44

It was cautious legislation such as this that was to prove influential in creating the unbiblical atmosphere of the post-Tridentine Church, an atmosphere which has only begun to clarify in our own day under the impact of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

Wingfold, thank you for this.

Firstly, Theological studies is an extremely liberal Jesuit periodical and has been for a very long time. It has published articles, for instance, denying the Resurrection of Christ, among other blatant heresies, so one needs to take things published therein with several pounds of seasoning.

So, I don't deny the quote from the Papal Bull is accurate, but the commentary afterward is ahistorical platitudes. There are three great modern encyclical letters of the Popes promoting Sacred Scripture, Provdentissimus Deus (Pope Leo XIII, 1893), Spiritus Paraclitus (Benedict XV, 1920), and Divino Afflantu Spiritu (Pope Pius XII, 1943). Each highly praised and promoted Scripture reading and the correct understanding of Scripture, so it is simply a falsehood to suggest that only in 1966 (when that article was published) was the Church finally discarding some "un-biblical" period.

Secondly, to the quote of the Pius IV, I don't see the problem here, or any unbiblical attitude, especially given that as we showed above many non-Catholic vernacular translations had badly, and in some cases intentionally, translated the Scriptures to provide a false gospel. In such an environment, indeed, "indiscriminately circulated" these false gospels would do "more harm than good". And so in an environment where literacy was increasing, mass produced printed books were becoming more common and the vernacular translations were also circulating, that all sounds like a very prudent course. In fact in Italy since 1532, Antonio Brucioli's flawed translation had been circulating and causing disturbance.

That 1564 decision was not long in standing, however. By 1574, Gregory XIII personally permitted the vernacular of the Gospels, Lessons and Epistles read at Mass to be read in the vernacular, and approved the Epistole e Vangeli of Fr Remigio Nannini.

So the prohibition seems to have stemmed from flawed translations floating around, when the Index of Forbidden Books began these flawed vernacular Bibles were forbidden except with permission, and then ten years later when a faithful translation was available it was not only permitted, but recommended by the Gregory XIII.

So, without much research it is easy to show that the article you have quoted is badly flawed in its presentation and conclusions : The Popes were recommending vernacular Scriptures, correctly translated, since 1574. And in three major encyclical letters, three Popes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries promoted Scripture. It was not Vatican II that somehow "rediscovered" Scripture. It was never lost.

No doubt there were some bad translations and the Church had to police that but that doesn’t that mean all the English or vernacular translators had nefarious intentions. And it sure doesn't justify Tyndale’s execution.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)