You were whining. That wasn’t a big hit with me. If you are complaining about being frustrated by having to explain things multiple times over different threads then perhaps you need a break.Would you care to elaborate on this profound exhortation?
Cite where my analysis is wrong.
I would jump off a bridge if the Pope told me so. My question is, why wouldn’t you?I am going to have to agree with Jerry-Jet on this one. The Pope probably uses several different Bibles for writings and everything else spiritually. Some of these people would actually jump off a bridge if the Pope told them to. I believe in the Popes latest encyclical, he emphasized on utilizing the 1962 Roman Missal and practice some traditional methods. I could be wrong, maybe he feels that the 1962 and the Vulgate should be tossed in the fire. From what I even gathered about anything to do with the Pope is that he wants us to be familiar with the Latin Rite and its documents concerning it. I believe that the Pope is trying lead all to Christ. I don’t believe the Pope’s encyclical stressed on the use of the RSV-CE and Protestant based doctrine. Maybe again, I might be wrong and that all he wants us to utilize is the RSV-CE
I would not ever jump off a bridge because the Pope told me to. I have no reason to ever jump off a bridge. When I posted my 1st post on this thread, I do so in a manner I felt the OP would find helpful. He wanted to know what version would be the best to read. I gave him a thoughtful answer, The Douay-Rheims. In all honesty the Douay-Rheims isn’t the best translation for everybody to read. He said that he didn’t care for the NAB, so I politely suggested the Jerusalem Bible. I politely suggested to stay away from the RSV-CE for the fact the he wants a CATHOLIC Bible not a Protestant based Catholic Bible. Immediately I had a bunch of crybabies whining because I suggested staying away from the RSV-CE. I am not trying to put you down in any way. I most likely feel the same way if I were Protestant and wanted to read a PROTESTANT Bible, I wouldn’t want a CATHOLIC based PROSTANT Bible. Do you see where I am going with this???I would jump off a bridge if the Pope told me so. My question is, why wouldn’t you?
The Pope has not said we should use the RSV. We’re saying he DOES use the RSV himself, so it’s good enough for me. So he used the Vulgate in his encyclical. So? He recognized where the Vulgate had a better rendering. None of us “RSV-lovers” have a problem with that.
The encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu did NOT endorse the RSV. It DID recognize the authority of the original languages over any translations, and the Vulgate is only a translation. The Congregation for Divine Worship required that Scripture readings be made primarily from the original languages. So those of you who demand “photographic” evidence of original manuscripts are being unreasonable and hold opinions contrary to the desires of the Church.
As for polling converts, they most likely converted from reading their cherished Protestant Bibles: the NIV, KJV, and NASB. Those Protestant translations have probably led more people into the Church more than any Catholic edition ever did.
All we are saying is that if you don’t like the RSV, then don’t. But don’t put down those who do, because that crowd includes the Pope and the Holy See. If their opinions don’t matter to you then that’s between you and them. But the Holy See’s opinion matters to me.
Aren’t you the guy who didn’t know what the Immaculate Conception is? Maybe you should spend some time learning the basics of the Catholic faith and not so much attacking authorized translations of the Holy Bible.I would not ever jump off a bridge because the Pope told me to. I have no reason to ever jump off a bridge. When I posted my 1st post on this thread, I do so in a manner I felt the OP would find helpful. He wanted to know what version would be the best to read. I gave him a thoughtful answer, The Douay-Rheims. In all honesty the Douay-Rheims isn’t the best translation for everybody to read. He said that he didn’t care for the NAB, so I politely suggested the Jerusalem Bible. I politely suggested to stay away from the RSV-CE for the fact the he wants a CATHOLIC Bible not a Protestant based Catholic Bible. Immediately I had a bunch of crybabies whining because I suggested staying away from the RSV-CE. I am not trying to put you down in any way. I most likely feel the same way if I were Protestant and wanted to read a PROTESTANT Bible, I wouldn’t want a CATHOLIC based PROSTANT Bible. Do you see where I am going with this???
If the angel didn’t say it, then nobody, Catholic or Protestant has any business putting words in his mouth, no matter how true it is.I do know what the Immaculate Conception is. Just because an event happened earlier in time doesn’t mean something down the line because of this event, it becomes a major factor.Mary becoming conceived and born without original sin is a major factor in her perpetual virginity, relationship with God and the Angel and Elizabeth telling her that she is blessed among women. If Mary wasn’t conceived Immaculately she would haven’t been blessed among women. So in this case of Luke 1:28 not having the Angel tell Mary that blessed are thou among women diminishes the Immaculate Conception. Mary being conceived IS one of many reasons that she is blessed among women
I agree with this, however I would also like to note that if, as you say, “Prosopon” means “Face”, then it’s most representative translation is most certainly “in the Person of Christ”, because in using “face” it may indeed be talking about the open representation of Christ and “In the face of christ” sounds insulting and just a plain wrong way of translating it in order to get the meaning of “representing” Christ across(in both latin and English).I have already cited this a dozen times before only to have this poor exegesis pop up again.
The primary translation for “prosopon” is not person, but "face, which is rendered in Latin as “persona”, which is properly translated into English as “persona” or “presence”. The more precise Greek for “person” is “hypostasis”. The “presence” of Christ is therefore not a “lie” or “denies” in persona Christi as some would like to pretend, but a proper and reasonable translation of the Greek term.
I absolutely believe in “in persona Christi” when it comes to the Sacraments, but it’s useless energy wasted to tie into knots over a properly translated verse that denies nothing of Catholic dogma whatsoever.
See previous post…Are you serious pal? Get a grip.
The problem isn’t how it was translated into English a hundred years ago or how it’s translated now. The problem is that there is difference between the two. Someone is going to say “in the person of Christ” isn’t accurate. That is why the changed the translation. In the "presence"or in the “sight” of Christ is accurate. So when a Catholic says the priest is doing something In persona Christi “in the person of Christ” they are misusing scripture yet again and are just plain wrong. That is the problem.
And you might be in the need of break. This sort of thing will come up time after time. If the amount of repetition is getting to you, take a few days off so you don’t burn out.
Really, I do not object a single bit to translating this verse as “in the person of”, since it is a fine, valid translation. A search of all my posts will show that not a single time did I ever object to this translation.See previous post…
If the Greek for “face” was used, and in Latin they translated it as “Persona” which primarily means “Mask”(obviously why they used it here! I mean “Face” and “Mask”!) but also means “Character”, “Personage” and ALSO “Presence”, than the use of the words “Person”(Pertaining to the other following 2 words which “Person” can actually also mean in English), “Character” and “Personage” in English is fully representative of the spiritual and literal intentions of the verse.
“In the Face of Christ” doesn’t make sense in english and neither would the latin translation of Mask(“Persona”), so we must use “Person”, “Character” or “Personage” which is ALSO what the Latin word can be translated as.
yes I agree with you. I believe “Person” is the best translation but I will not argue with “Presence”. I do not believe it is representative of the original work because of how they translated it into latin with the word that primarily means “Mask” or “Character”, But I do understand why some would allow that translation because it is also what the latin word can mean, but not in the primary sense. I was more actually responding to RedSox’s incorrect ruling out of “Person”, because it’s clearly wrong.Really, I do not object a single bit to translating this verse as “in the person of”, since it is a fine, valid translation. A search of all my posts will show that not a single time did I ever object to this translation.
What I’m trying to drive home is that “in the presence of” is NOT a wrong translation either, as the Douay-Rheims itself attests in other places where “prosopon” appears, and neither does it contradict Catholic dogma whatsoever.
I have that list. Are you sure you want it? It’s a very long one, covering several thousand manuscripts.The Vulgate perfectly fine and acceptable to people for 900 years before a version of the Bible was put in English. Most of the earlier translations in English were viewed as unacceptable because of the authors wanting to rebel against the Catholic Church and make changes that they seen necessary to benefit there doctrine and not the Catholic Doctrine. William Tyndale was one of those translator’s who tried to go beyond the Church’s authority. Subsequently he was burned at the stake for his rebellion against the Church and his version of the NT (Tyndale NT). As the title suggest. The OP wanted the bestCATHOLIC Bible version. The RSV is a Protestant translation and the RSV-CE is based off of that with the exception of the deutrocanonical books. So otherwise it is Protestant and has Protestant views. If there were no other denominations other than the Catholic, there would be no need for Catholic and Protestant translations. They would be just translations and they all would be based off of the Vulgate and not these “so called” better and more accurate texts. I want proof of these texts. No one has even given me any proof in any form. Jerry-Jet also as requested proof these texts. What are the names of these texts??? I bet you can’t answer that for me