Are Catholics allowed to question the inspiration of Luke 22:43-44?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anna_Scott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gabriel_of_12 said:
The Catholic position allows the reader the freedom to accept either interpretation with the foot notes or without the foot notes. It does not become a matter of faith if the reader accepts the footnotes apart from the text or included in the text.

We are at liberty to read the scriptures and come away with a private interpretation, so long as ones private interpretation is not voiced out in contradiction to the Catholic Church’s teachings. As far as inspiration from the text questioned by Catholics? to my knowledge is never the case. Only when private interpretations publicly contradict all of scripture and Catholic Church teachings.

What should be noted here, is that the Catholic church does not interpret the scriptures, When she has the Catholic Church has done so in the negative. The Catholic church has a very high standard in interpreting or teaching from sacred scripture.

A biblical interpretation will not and must never contradict the whole of sacred scripture, the revelations of Jesus, the written teachings from the apostles and the sacred Traditions from the apostles. If ones private interpretation meets all these requirements, then it can recieve the seal of the Church as “Nihil Obstat” (does not contradict “all” of Church teaching) and “Imprimi potest” (let it be printed).

Infallibility does not play a part from ones private interpretation from scripture, nor can any individual give an infallible interpretation from scripture. Infallibility comes on the scene based on faith and morals, not interpretation of the scriptures. Infallibility is already believed in by the Catholic faithful in the scriptures as infallibly inspired of God.

The addition or subtraction of Jesus sweating blood is left suspended in mystery for the faithful to contemplate, it does not bring in the question of faith but adds to the already contemplation of the scripture, with the mental picture of Jesus sweating blood or not does not question the faith.

If the interpreters interpretation of Lukes gosples meets the Church’s “Nihil obstate”, “Imprimi potest” that includes the footnotes or not, it meets the requirement of the Church to allow it to be printed with the freedom of the faithful to accept either translation that does not conflict with the Catholic Church.

CCC 113 … read the scripture within “the Living Tradition of the whole Church… sacred scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture, according to the spiritual meaning which the spirit grants the church.

Peace be with you
Click to expand...
Gabriel,

Beautifully written and very helpful in answering my question. 🙂

Peace and blessings,
Anna
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Your welcome Anna, and thank you for your kind words

God bless you
Click to expand...
I don’t always frame my questions just right. 😊 So, it’s always nice when someone zeroes in on precisely what I’m asking.

God bless you, as well, Gabriel.
Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
Swiss Guy,

**1 John 5:6-8 **does present a similar problem.

Latin Vulgate
1 John 5: 6 hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Iesus Christus non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine et Spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas 7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant 8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

Douay-Rheims
1 John 5: 6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth. 7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

Notice in the NAB, the three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are omitted.

New American Bible
1 John 5: 6 This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.

The same reading is found in the RSV, RSV-CE, NRSV, and NRSV-CE----except the three are of one accord is translated as these three agree, which basically means the same thing.

New Revised Standard Version
1 John 5: 6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. 7 There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

New Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition
1 John 5: 6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. 7 There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

Revised Standard Version
1 John 5: 6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition
I John 5: 6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost is very different from the Spirit, the water, and the blood----and these three are one is very different from*** the three are of one accord*** or these three agree.

At some point in the transmission of Scripture, The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one were inserted into the Biblical text. I guess the question is, was the addition inspired and why is it not found in the early manuscripts?

Again, the CCC uses the RSV and NRSV.

Thanks for your comments, 🙂
Anna
Click to expand...
Do you believe that Trinity has been there without any beginning nor end?
 
swariffin said:
Do you believe that Trinity has been there without any beginning nor end?
Click to expand...
swariffin,
Answering a question with a question is not an answer.

If you read back through the thread, you will see that I’m not making an argument against the Trinity. 🙂

I was simply pointing out the fact that the RSV, NRSV, RSV-CE, and NRSV-CE omit “And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.” It just seems rather strange that Catholic Bibles would omit this passage, if Catholics are not allowed to question its inspiration.

However, Gabriel of 12 answered my question in post #19.

Peace,
Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
swariffin,
Answering a question with a question is not an answer.

If you read back through the thread, you will see that I’m not making an argument against the Trinity. 🙂

I was simply pointing out the fact that the RSV, NRSV, RSV-CE, and NRSV-CE omit “And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.” It just seems rather strange that Catholic Bibles would omit this passage, if Catholics are not allowed to question its inspiration.

However, Gabriel of 12 answered my question in post #19.

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
Dear Sister,

I am not replying your question with a question as a matter of fact. Remember in 1 John 3:8. It said that God is Love, is it not? Do you realize what is the implication of “Loving”? A bell is no bell, till you ring it. A song is no song till you sing it. And love isn’t love till you give it away. Actually, there is a problem with English, since there is only one word to describe “Love”. In Indonesian (I don’t mean that my language is better compared to English), we have “Kasih” and “Cinta”. “Kasih” is a word closer to “Agape” in Greek, while “Cinta” can be “Agape”, but can also means “Eros”. So, for this post, I do mean Agape, when I mention “Love”.

That’s it. God cannot be called “Love” if God does not deliver love away from himself. On the other hand, God also is passion, that means God never force nor make anything so that God will receive love involuntarily. So, to deliver Love away, there must be another “Persona” who we know as God’s word and also God’s spirit. There should be more that “One” other persona, so there can be no exclusivity. There, we have God’s word who was with God, and is God (John 1:1). We also have God’s spirit (Paracletos) who was not created but proceeded from God (John 15:26). Whenever we refer to God, there must be God the Father who deliver love away to God the words and God the HS. At the same time, we also have God the words who receive love from God the Father, and responded by His own free will by delivering love to God the Father and the HS. So does the HS. So, since the “beginning” (keep in mind that God has no beginning), there has been God the Father, the Words, and HS in Heaven.

Based on 1 John 3:8, and using the FACT that If God is love, and the FACT that Love must be given away, then 1 John 5:6-8 does reasonable. Indeed there is God the Father, God the words and God the HS bear witness in Heaven.
 
JM3 said:
vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_index_lt.html

EDITIO TYPICA ALTERA

This is the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, of which there is no official english translation.
Click to expand...
JM3,
I really appreciate the link.

**Luke 22:43-44 **(thread topic):

Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio
EVANGELIUM SECUNDUM LUCAM
22
43 Apparuit autem illi angelus de caelo confortans eum. Et factus in agonia prolixius orabat.
44 Et factus est sudor eius sicut guttae sanguinis decurrentis in terram.
Latin and English side by side: Link: latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=3&c=22

**Latin
Luke 22: **43 apparuit autem illi angelus de caelo confortans eum et factus in agonia prolixius orabat 44 et factus est sudor eius sicut guttae sanguinis decurrentis in terram
**
English
Luke 22: 43 **And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony, he prayed the longer. 44 And his sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground.
Link: latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=3&c=22
If Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio is the official translation of the Catholic Church; why has it not been translated into English and other languages for use in the Catechism?

Instead, the Catholic Church obtained permission from Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States to use the RSV and NRSV in the Catechism.

The RSV-CE and NRSV-CE do not agree with **Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio **in Luke 22:43-44.

The Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible (Catholic Comparative New Testament) banished Luke 22:43-44 to the footnotes. The passage is absent from the main body of text. The footnotes says, Other ancient manuscripts add verses 43 and 44: 43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.

The New Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible (Anglicized) (Catholic Comparative New Testament) places Luke 22:43-44 in the main body of text with a footnote that says, Other ancient manuscripts lack verses 43 and 44.

So, why does the Catholic Church use the RSV and NRSV in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when these translations do not agree with the official translation of the CC? This doesn’t make sense to me.

Would you shed some light on this?

Thanks,
Anna
 
swariffin said:
Dear Sister,

I am not replying your question with a question as a matter of fact. Remember in 1 John 3:8. It said that God is Love, is it not? Do you realize what is the implication of “Loving”? A bell is no bell, till you ring it. A song is no song till you sing it. And love isn’t love till you give it away. Actually, there is a problem with English, since there is only one word to describe “Love”. In Indonesian (I don’t mean that my language is better compared to English), we have “Kasih” and “Cinta”. “Kasih” is a word closer to “Agape” in Greek, while “Cinta” can be “Agape”, but can also means “Eros”. So, for this post, I do mean Agape, when I mention “Love”.

That’s it. God cannot be called “Love” if God does not deliver love away from himself. On the other hand, God also is passion, that means God never force nor make anything so that God will receive love involuntarily. So, to deliver Love away, there must be another “Persona” who we know as God’s word and also God’s spirit. There should be more that “One” other persona, so there can be no exclusivity. There, we have God’s word who was with God, and is God (John 1:1). We also have God’s spirit (Paracletos) who was not created but proceeded from God (John 15:26). Whenever we refer to God, there must be God the Father who deliver love away to God the words and God the HS. At the same time, we also have God the words who receive love from God the Father, and responded by His own free will by delivering love to God the Father and the HS. So does the HS. So, since the “beginning” (keep in mind that God has no beginning), there has been God the Father, the Words, and HS in Heaven.

Based on 1 John 3:8, and using the FACT that If God is love, and the FACT that Love must be given away, then 1 John 5:6-8 does reasonable. Indeed there is God the Father, God the words and God the HS bear witness in Heaven.
Click to expand...
swariffin,

I think something is getting “lost in translation” between us. 😊

I am in no way arguing against the Holy Trinity or the fact that the Holy Trinity has always existed.

Peace,
Anna

Peace,
Anna
 
Good response from Gabriel…

In regards to translation of Scripture, we were introduced to the new translation to the Mass and studied them during our Lenten series.

The English translation of the Mass, for example, was hurriedly done after Vatican II and now we are now in conformity of the use of the language, more in line with St. Jerome’s…in the use of ‘many’. ‘All’ did not exist in Aramaic, but ‘many’. Also, Hebrew does not have superlatives…so instead of saying ‘I am most sorry for having offended you’, one would say, ‘mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa’…this the Latin translation of saying ‘I am sorry’ three times…that is how the Hebrews spoke, repeating an emotionally based statement 3 times. It could also reflect the interaction of Christ asking Peter ‘Do you love Me’ 3 times.

We now say at the Nicene Creed, Christ consubstantiated with the Father…meaning, being of the same substance. The word, ‘to consubstantiate’ is only found in the Church, because that is the only place in the world where the bread and wine is changed into the Eucharist…so the Church had to create a word, and it is ‘consubstantiated’.

Also, the use of this language is more Latin, more flowery, and the usage will be coinciding with the Latin speaking and other languages of the wording of Mass come this Advent.

So the English form, because English is the most used in the world, is now further aligned with the Latin form.

The use of language, culture, and times while drawing back to the original intent is most difficult…St. Jerome drew literally from Aramaic and Hebrew, knew Greek, translated into the Latin as is.

Newer versions of the Bible for Catholics have been modified, yet attempting to be orthodox…but relate to our modern use of American English…I still draw more to the New American Bible, and pray to the Holy Spirit to guide me in its deep and authentic meaning in the Lord for the time I live in.
 
KathleenGee said:
Good response from Gabriel…

In regards to translation of Scripture, we were introduced to the new translation to the Mass and studied them during our Lenten series.

The English translation of the Mass, for example, was hurriedly done after Vatican II and now we are now in conformity of the use of the language, more in line with St. Jerome’s…in the use of ‘many’. ‘All’ did not exist in Aramaic, but ‘many’. Also, Hebrew does not have superlatives…so instead of saying ‘I am most sorry for having offended you’, one would say, ‘mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa’…this the Latin translation of saying ‘I am sorry’ three times…that is how the Hebrews spoke, repeating an emotionally based statement 3 times. It could also reflect the interaction of Christ asking Peter ‘Do you love Me’ 3 times.

We now say at the Nicene Creed, Christ consubstantiated with the Father…meaning, being of the same substance. The word, ‘to consubstantiate’ is only found in the Church, because that is the only place in the world where the bread and wine is changed into the Eucharist…so the Church had to create a word, and it is ‘consubstantiated’.

Also, the use of this language is more Latin, more flowery, and the usage will be coinciding with the Latin speaking and other languages of the wording of Mass come this Advent.

So the English form, because English is the most used in the world, is now further aligned with the Latin form.

The use of language, culture, and times while drawing back to the original intent is most difficult…St. Jerome drew literally from Aramaic and Hebrew, knew Greek, translated into the Latin as is.

Newer versions of the Bible for Catholics have been modified, yet attempting to be orthodox…but relate to our modern use of American English…I still draw more to the New American Bible, and pray to the Holy Spirit to guide me in its deep and authentic meaning in the Lord for the time I live in.
Click to expand...
Kathleen,
Very interesting comments. Glad you found my thread. 🙂

I still don’t understand why the CCC uses the RSV and NRSV. See Post #27. Any thoughts on this?

Peace,
Anna
 
Will check more…I do know that the comment from our presenter was part of the main body of those here in the USA who consider Latin a dead language…no need for it…but that our English translation use of language is more Latin style…more ‘flowery’…I have my parents’ Dhouey Rheims, and find it tedious to constantly adjust it to modern language…but it is good to have to get a more emotive and descriptive language of the event…

But you are asking excellent questions, Anna…I will pursue this more…and looking at the new English translation – it is now more like how I read at the Latin Mass as a child…the Latin on one column and next to it on the same page, the English translation…so parts of today’s Mass will be more like how they were…translating English more literally from the Latin, pre-Vatican II…I would first hand call it as i did…more emotive, personally rich and descriptive language than modern and economical standard English…rather flat…I have the Jerusalem Bible i take with me to Bible studies…
 
KathleenGee said:
Will check more…I do know that the comment from our presenter was part of the main body of those here in the USA who consider Latin a dead language…no need for it…but that our English translation use of language is more Latin style…more ‘flowery’…I have my parents’ Dhouey Rheims, and find it tedious to constantly adjust it to modern language…but it is good to have to get a more emotive and descriptive language of the event…

But you are asking excellent questions, Anna…I will pursue this more…and looking at the new English translation – it is now more like how I read at the Latin Mass as a child…the Latin on one column and next to it on the same page, the English translation…so parts of today’s Mass will be more like how they were…translating English more literally from the Latin, pre-Vatican II…I would first hand call it as i did…more emotive, personally rich and descriptive language than modern and economical standard English…rather flat…I have the Jerusalem Bible i take with me to Bible studies…
Click to expand...
KathleenGee,

I appreciate your comments, as always, Kathleen.

I have done some comparisons in the New Jerusalem Bible at B&N (love going through books there over coffee :coffeeread:), but don’t own this translation. I found the commentary very interesting.

Peace,
Anna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top