Catholics who read Protestant Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter kyleboerner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Tom wrote: *By- the-by’ the missing “apocrophia” * do provide more evidence of both the resurrection and the after-life, which gave the later Jewish authorities one more reason to eliminate them from the canon of Jewish scripture. I belive all the missing were only written in Greek. *​

Well, fortunately, it no longer is necessary to make that concession regarding languages to Protestants and sectaries. In recent decades, an astonishing amount of manuscript Hebrew evidence for the deuterocanonical writings has surfaced, not least (but not entirely, either) among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now we know that the majority of these writings did exist in Hebrew or Aramaic. For the remainder, and for the rest of the Hebrew/Aramaic texts of those already partly reconstructed, the years are likely to bring new MS. evidence to bear out their authenticity and antiquity.*
 

Richardprins wrote: *Interesting that KJV-onlyism has also influenced catholics.
BTW the nestle-aland is not based on statistics: that’s the Majority Text. The Nestlé aland (more or less the base of the new vulgate) is based on which texts are the earliest and from copying schools known not to make much errors. A traditional text strand catholics might also consider is the byzantine textual tradition.
But the differences between the different traditions are pretty minor anyway. *​

It is rather inappropriate :eek: to accuse Catholic defenders of the traditional texts of the Bible as being “King James Onlyist” influenced. Its a dummy monicker even for Protestants and sectaries who get slammed with that locution. Catholics, however, unlike those supposedly benighted defenders of the Authorised "King James" Version and its textual Hebrew and Greek base, do find more value, although not always sufficient validity, in the manuscript testimony of St. Jeromes Vulgate Latin leaning evidence as well as for the Latin evidence that is more Old Latin in provenance and which the Fundamentalist sectaries so cherish. The sectaries would not allow the kind of thinking that has any respect for St. Jeromes Latin text, though they like to use some of St. Jeromes attitude toward the deuterocanonical writings to “diss” them.

There are Catholic Biblical texts of the New Testament, above all the Complutensian Polyglot, which vindicate the Catholic identity of the Greek Textus Receptus as an Ecclesiastical Text for Catholics as well, obviously as long recognised, for the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants.

The Nestle-Aland as majority text? Surely you jest, Richard!! There is so much literature to counter any such perverse idea, but I would suggest that you read, A.S.A.P., Wilbur Pickerings The Identity of the New Testament Text. He is a sectary, but one who is very scholarly and who avoids Fundamentalist rant, making his book as valuable for Catholics as for others. There are plenty of other writers on the subject, too, but you can pick up on that from Pickerings references.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
I don’t think this is official Church stance on the matter (that I know of). While I see no reason to buy a King James over a Catholic version, I don’t believe KJV is considered “not a real Bible” or “heretical”. After all, Luther did not write the Bible (although it does not contain the complete truth because of missing books). Remember, no English translation is the original text anyway. Catholic specific translations will use certain wordings that line up more precisely with Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Well, now you know, you can find the council of trent documents on the vatican’s website, if you need the site name just tell me. second, luther did write the protestant “bible” via changing every one of the gospels in one way or another, making all the alterations i stated in my above answer, and several other ways, and in regards to your “no English translation is the original text anyway” the Douay Reihms is the original, translated directly from the Latin Vulgate, by the way, if your King James Version, has less than 72 books, then it is a heretical bible, that is simply the reality.
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Wings and Preppy,

**Between you two, you wrote: ** **Originally Posted by preppy ***
Very simply, the protestant “bible” is a heretical document, it does not even count as a bible. It does not count as a bible because the Council Of Trent proclaimed that its author, Martin Luther, was a heretic, and that all his writings were absolutely heretical… ***

Wings: *I don’t think this is official Church stance on the matter (that I know of). While I see no reason to buy a King James over a Catholic version, I don’t believe KJV is considered “not a real Bible” or “heretical”. After all, Luther did not write the Bible (although it does not contain the complete truth because of missing books). Remember, no English translation is the original text anyway. Catholic specific translations will use certain wordings that line up more precisely with Church teaching. *​

I am more with Wings on this matter! For one thing, I have read, for devotion and for doctrine, Dr. Martin Luthers translation of the Bible for many, many years, the New Testament of it too many times to count, As for the Lutherbibels Old Testament, I read it much less, but I did study the Psalms and the Wisdom Writings of the Old Testament (including those that Luther relegated to the Apocrypha) very carefully, indeed.

Luthers German is of unimaginable beauty and grandeur, :thumbsup: and a non-German-reading person simply cannot imagine the impact of such strong, ruggèd, but gorgeous prose. The New Testament is not only impressive from a literary standpoint, it is quite literal, very faithful to the Tex*tus Receptus*. Luthers Old Testament, on the other hand, while it has that same beauty, Luther translated it more freely, though not with the wild looseness all too common among 20th and 21st century translators who would displace, if these fools ever could, Luthers own BIble with their revisions of it or with their paltry modern versions. If you love German, *ipso facto* you revere and delight in Luthers prose and poetry.

The Catholic Church has been loosening its denunciations of Luthers Bible during several past decades. It is true that some of Luthers biases come through in his translation, e.g. the consistent replacement of the German word for church with the term for congregation. However, the reader adjusts to thinking Church when he sees congregation in Luthers text. German readers, Protestant or Catholic, just used Luthers Bible despite past Church pronouncements, because of its obvious superiority and loveliness, and its only real rival, especially in Switzerland, was Zwinglis liltingly sweet German in that more radical reformers own version (of which I have read the cmplete New Testament twice, with great pleasure). Luthers and Zwinglis German is a precious treasure to German speakers.

There is no way in H— that Luthers and Zwinglis truly monumental translations ever are going to be booted aside by any other German Bible, Catholic or Protestant, so, guys, just get used to it!

It is only for the last four years or so that I have stopped reading Luthers Bible daily. Now that I am retired and do not need to "keep up" my German for the sake of my profession (music librarianship, in which German is the Queen Language of musicology and the language of many texts set to imperishably great music), I am letting that language slide away from me. But I still get shivers when I hear the magnificent cadences of Luthers translation as he himself left it for us to savour and to enjoy, and from which to profit spiritually! Those who would condemn Luther`s Bible, refusing to acknowledge the claims of its literary beauty are vulgarians and are lacking in personal culture!./QUOTE

i didnt say that the idiocy of Luther and Zwingli dont have convincing and good prose, heresy often does, i am simply saying they are heretical and inaccurate, if you beleive different, you are in the area of heresy, and i would reccomend pastoral counseling.
Click to expand...
 
I took a course a year ago from a priest who had us get a bible titled “The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha.” It is the revised standard version and the most accurate biuble he has seen. If you didn’t know this bible was coordinated with Catholic and Protestant Bible scholars. The Apocrypha has now been approved by Protestant Bible scholars. These books were found written in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scroll selection.
 
preppyboy6 said:
Well, now you know, you can find the council of trent documents on the vatican’s website, if you need the site name just tell me. second, luther did write the protestant “bible” via changing every one of the gospels in one way or another, making all the alterations i stated in my above answer, and several other ways, and in regards to your “no English translation is the original text anyway” the Douay Reihms is the original, translated directly from the Latin Vulgate, by the way, if your King James Version, has less than 72 books, then it is a heretical bible, that is simply the reality.
Click to expand...
I would like to see proof of your assertion - and not just vatican.va - but a specific link. I have spent well over an hour searching for some such document, and have found nothing as you claim.
I found a website that reprints the English translation of the documents from the Council of Trent here, and this is what it says about the canon of scripture:
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
Click to expand...
I do not see anything that says that we cannot read various translations so long as we hold the full canon of scripture to be inspired, sacred and canonical.
 
Preppy Boy and Daizies,

Your exchange of opinions, and the documentation from the words of the Council of Trent, are interesting. However, while I really do think that a Bible version without the deuterocanonical books (or a printing of a version that has the Apocrypha, but which a publisher omits) is offendingly deficient, one must keep in mind that some Protestant versions did provide an Apocrypha section for the deuterocanonical writings, even if, alas, it would have been better for those writings to be in more normal canonical position within the text of the rest of the Old Testament.

So, the Authorised “King James” Version with all of its intended content Iwhich, indeed, includes the Apocrypha), as well as the English Standard Version or Revised Standard Version in a printing of either with the Apocrypha provided for them, and numerous other Protestant Bibles with the full Catholic canon of the Old Testament, are acceptable from the standpoint of canonical fulness. If such a version, additional, have a “Catholic Edition” for which to opt, so much the better.

The Council of Trent itself did not make a distinction, that I know of, between the canonical and the deuterocanonical Old Testament. The Eastern Orthodox remind us that deuterocanonicity is foreign to the Holy Orthodox Faith. We Catholics, in making that distinction, may be ourselves a bit less Catholic in our attitude towards the varioius parts of the Old Testament, though offending less seriously than Protestants do.
 
preppyboy6 said:
Well, now you know, you can find the council of trent documents on the vatican’s website, if you need the site name just tell me. second, luther did write the protestant “bible” via changing every one of the gospels in one way or another, making all the alterations i stated in my above answer, and several other ways, and in regards to your “no English translation is the original text anyway” the Douay Reihms is the original, translated directly from the Latin Vulgate, by the way, if your King James Version, has less than 72 books, then it is a heretical bible, that is simply the reality.
Click to expand...
Even translated from Latin Vulgate, it can be argued that it’s not the original text. When translating from one language to another, the translator has to sometimes decide on which word best suits the original intention. That is one reason why there are so many different Catholic Bibles (as well as the need to have English versions that are easier to understand for the modern reader). This is one of the reasons the NO Mass recently underwent changes too. There can be a lot of debate on best word choice to get across the original intended meaning.

Just so you know, when I read the Council of Trent, it simply spells out which books of the Bible are recognized by the Catholic Church. I do not read the text as banning a Catholic from reading (for example) the Gospel according to Matthew in a KJV, as that is a recognized book of the Bible. I read it as being more heretical to read Thomas’ Gospel or Mary’s because they are not recognized as valid books. Now would a Catholic Church ever use a KJV translation for readings at Mass? Of course not.

Something to chew on…what would be more heretical to do in your free time? Read a KJV Bible translation to compare to Catholic texts or read Harry Potter just for fun (which the Catholic Church has not banned)? I think OP’s friend is safe from being called a heretic.

That being said, I do not own a KJV. I own a Catholic NRSV, a Good News, and a New American.
 

Wings wrote: *I do not own a KJV. I own a Catholic NRSV, a Good News, and a New American. *​

How deprived you are, Wings! Well, the Catholic NRSV is at least a respectable (if somewhat flawed) version. The NAB and the Good News :eek: are dreadful! You should get a Douay-Rhiems-Challoner 👍 ASAP to have one really good Catholic Bible! Far better to have an Authorised “King James” Version Bible, with its Apocrypha (A.V.) included, than to be stuck only with what you have. At least, short of that, put the NAB and the Good News in the closet and use only the NRSV at home, until you have saved your pennies to buy a Douay-Rheims-Challoner or an Apocrypha-including edition of the A.V. Bible.
 
Jerry_Parker said:

Wings wrote: *I do not own a KJV. I own a Catholic NRSV, a Good News, and a New American. *​

How deprived you are, Wings! Well, the Catholic NRSV is at least a respectable (if somewhat flawed) version. The NAB and the Good News :eek: are dreadful! You should get a Douay-Rhiems-Challoner 👍 ASAP to have one really good Catholic Bible! Far better to have an Authorised “King James” Version Bible, with its Apocrypha (A.V.) included, than to be stuck only with what you have. At least, short of that, put the NAB and the Good News in the closet and use only the NRSV at home, until you have saved your pennies to buy a Douay-Rheims-Challoner or an Apocrypha-including edition of the A.V. Bible.
Click to expand...
I would like to get that translation. I don’t like Good News at all. The NRSV: Catholic Version was one recommended by a nun to me (partially because of some of its Student Bible footnotes). I actually do like the New American Bible, but it is also what is used for readings at Mass where I am located, so that could be why it sounds normal to me. 🤷
 

Wings wrote: *I would like to get that translation. I don’t like Good News at all. The NRSV: Catholic Version was one recommended by a nun to me (partially because of some of its Student Bible footnotes). I actually do like the New American Bible, but it is also what is used for readings at Mass where I am located, so that could be why it sounds normal to me. *​

Whew! That`s better! There is little reason-to-be for the N.A.B. paraphrase here in the Dominion of Canada. It has little official encouragement. The liturgically sanctioned English Bible is the N.R.S.V. (Catholic Edition). In the U.K. the liturgically-used version is the Jerusalem Bible in the Catholic Truth Society improved edition of it.
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Y. However, while I really do think that a Bible version without the deuterocanonical books (or a printing of a version that has the Apocrypha, but which a publisher omits) is offendingly deficient, one must keep in mind that some Protestant versions did provide an Apocrypha section for the deuterocanonical writings, even if, alas, it would have been better for those writings to be in more normal canonical position within the text of the rest of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
I have a couple of those, that I actually had before I converted 🙂 I have a KJV with apocrypha and a reprint of the 1611 KJV with apocrypha 🙂 I also have the deuterocanonical books in a separate volume, that I also had before I became a Catholic. Personally, I see no reason to discontinue using my protestant Bibles in conjunction with my Catholic Bibles. 🤷
 
Russ_of_Tokyo said:
I’m new to this! I’ve always had a habit of reading the Bible daily (convert from Protestantism). How does one get this indulgence?
Click to expand...
Russ_of_Tokyo said:
In other words, does one have to apply for it before hand, or is it automatically granted if you meet the conditions?
Click to expand...
An indulgence is “a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven.” It’s really God who grants it, although the Church may outline terms, so that it is automatic if you fulfill the conditions.

For more, these may be interesting or helpful:
www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences
www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences
 

Daizies wrote: *I have a couple of those *, that I actually had before I converted I have a KJV with apocrypha and a reprint of the 1611 KJV with apocrypha I also have the deuterocanonical books in a separate volume, that I also had before I became a Catholic. Personally, I see no reason to discontinue using my protestant Bibles in conjunction with my Catholic Bibles. *​

My sentiments (and usage, too) exactly, Daizies! There is no way anyone will separate me from the Authorised “King James” Bible (with Apocrypha) 👍 ! I do use and revere the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version a lot, too. 😛 It is the only Catholic version in English for which I can work up real enthusiasm.

Most Catholic Bibles in the English vernacular, alas, are substandard, generally, compared to the best Protestant Bibles in English, though there is an awful lot of dross among those endless English Bibles, devoid of the Apocrypha, that the publishers put out for the sectaries to squander their money on and to use so long as they are sect-fashionable. Thats just the way it is, i.e. that the most superior Bibles (apart from the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version) are not Catholic, but its not the way that I would prefer for the matter to continued to be.*
 
i am going to re-state my point one last time, if you believe the protestant bible to be an accurate translation, or to be accurate in any way, then you support a heretical document, making you by default, immersed in a heresy that was condemned by Trent as Anathaema. that is my point, very simply, if you dont like facts, then dont read my answers.
 
preppyboy6 said:
i am going to re-state my point one last time, if you believe the protestant bible to be an accurate translation, or to be accurate in any way, then you support a heretical document, making you by default, immersed in a heresy that was condemned by Trent as Anathaema. that is my point, very simply, if you dont like facts, then dont read my answers.
Click to expand...
Please read this article. 😉

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-exhibition-highlights-catholic-roots-of-king-james-bible/
 

Preppy Boy wrote: I am going to re-state my point one last time, if you believe the Protestant Bible to be an accurate translation, or to be accurate in any way, then you support a heretical document, making you by default, immersed in a heresy that was condemned by Trent as Anathaema. That is my point, very simply, if you dont like facts, then don`t read my answers.​

Getting so categorically authoritarian, eh, Preppy! The problem for Bible-reading Catholics is that, aside from the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, there is no Bible for Catholic use that is not full of doctrinal problems of the worst sort (for example, underming the wording of passages referring to Christs divinity, pre-existence, incarnation, and ascension, Our Ladys inviolability, and a whole lot more that dwarfs matters like the wording of the Angelic Salutation. In this sense, all of the modern Catholic Bibles are shockingly defective to one degree or another, as many, but thankfully not quite, the modern Protestant versions are, excepting something like the N.K.J.V. in the Orthodox Study Bible edition with its Old Testament put into accordance with the Septuagint, the New Testament following the Traditional Byzantine Text. Some of those Protestant versions have the deuterocanonical writings either in a separate Apocrypha section or in “Catholic Editions” for us. There are a few other obscure Orthodox translations of the N.T. which are outstandingly free of error.

If you make your argument, only the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible, among Catholic versions, is even tolerable. That strands those who want to read the Bible in more modern English idiom. (They should revert to the Challoner translation, but we know that they will not do so.)
 
preppyboy6 said:
i am going to re-state my point one last time, if you believe the protestant bible to be an accurate translation, or to be accurate in any way, then you support a heretical document, making you by default, immersed in a heresy that was condemned by Trent as Anathaema. that is my point, very simply, if you dont like facts, then dont read my answers.
Click to expand...
** John Cardinal Newman, Pope and on his way to Sainthood. Was an Anglican convert. He loved the KJV and continued to read it. So preppyboy is he a heretic?**
 

Beurice (brava!) wrote: *John Cardinal Newman, Pope and on his way to Sainthood. Was an Anglican convert. He loved the KJV and continued to read it. So preppyboy is he a heretic? *​

I thought of mentioning this fact, too, but since my own last comment carried so much information, I thought that it would be better to mention this precedent, Cdl. Newman`s very sane and cultured one, where it could sink in for its own sake alone. You did it! 👍 Great! Newman continued to use the A.V. (K.J.V.) Bible because it was superior, even though the alternative, a much better one, at the time (and still now) was the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, rather than the lacklustre array of 20th and 21st century alternatives :eek: that a Catholic faces, all of which attempt to displace even the Challoner Bible as well as the A.V., but, really, are hopelessly unable to meet that challenge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top