There’s a WWW link inserter at the top of the post editor. The easiest way to get it right is just to link to the EWTN page you’re interested in.Phadraig;9687785 said:
The bull which you cite is a disciplinary action and does not apply for all times. But even if it were to be applied there are a few things to note:
Quoting a line or two from a heretical bible isn’t the same as printing a book.
Section X, deals with such minor collecting from heretical books – and so long as the portion which is strict heresy is corrected/expurged, it’s not a problem.
Those doing apologetic here on CAF, so long as they are faithfully following the reasoning of the Catholic Church, would not be misusing these texts; and the site itself is in control of deleting problem posts, so that if one were to accidentally post something (and it’s possible I might have over the years), it could still be censored by the site on request. (A good reason for posting it here…)
As to the meaning of “anathema”, it’s literal meaning is not quite the same as ex-communication, although the two do overlap. It’s a greek word which literally means “ana” (another, or again), “thema” which is just “theme”. Anathema, then, means another theme.
If you check the greek of the NT, specifically Luke 21:5, you will find the word itself used there:
Luke 21:5 και τινων λεγοντων περι του ιερου οτι λιθοις καλοις και αναθημασιν κεκοσμηται ειπεν
Since the time of David, the outside walls of the temple were adorned with quality rock of beauty (Kalois Lithois) and gold, and other precious items (anathema). If these items were from impure soruces, only those which could be purified through fire/water would be attached to the outside walls; My understanding is that this would typically be metallic items, such as Gold.
Although the word is sometimes translated “curse”, that’s really incorrect.
“Cut off” would be correct; in the sense that it is to be severed from any damaging position of power.
In one of the Psalms, God makes it clear – that even in heaven, he will take captives in addition to releasing prisoners. From that perspective, I would understand that God will bring trophys from his enemies to become beautiful items upon his heavenly temple. They will, through purgation, of course – be rendered clean first. Some of us will be saved, as though through fire.
I would point you to St. Paul who is the prime example of an enemy of God’s who was captured in war, and cleansed. He is an example of an anathema in the historical sense of the word.
Not only that, but after listing all the qualities of the messiah – St. Paul says; “if it were possible, I could wish to be anathema for the sake of my brethren” (Check the Greek).
The scriptures also say, “he who loves … more than me, is not worthy of me”; and again, “if your holiness does not exceed that of the Pharisees… you will not enter heaven”.
St. Paul’s remarks show a great deal of introspection and understanding of history; the fine line that one can walk as anathema; He calls himself a pharisee of pharisees – the utmost pharisee; and so he was and in some ways still is; In the context of the temple: Perhaps he imagined his potential as being a living anathema, or precious stone – found attached but on the outside of the heavenly Jerusalem’s wall.
I don’t know … but I do see the connections.
St. Paul was martyred for the very name of Jesus Christ. A second kind of baptism which cleanses and Guarantees entry into heaven. He was, quite literally – cut off.
Now, what were you thinking anathema is… :ehh:
Not all anathema enters heaven, for burnable items such as stubble and hay can’t withstand purification; a full heretic to the end, has nothing left after he is burned up… But the word itself, is not absolute; It’s connotation depends on the intent of the one using it; and the judgment of God.
Phadraig;9687950:
κεκοσμηται ειπενThere’s a WWW link inserter at the top of the post editor. The easiest way to get it right is just to link to the EWTN page you’re interested in.
The bull which you cite is a disciplinary action and does not apply for all times. But even if it were to be applied there are a few things to note:
Quoting a line or two from a heretical bible isn’t the same as printing a book.
Section X, deals with such minor collecting from heretical books – and so long as the portion which is strict heresy is corrected/expurged, it’s not a problem.
Those doing apologetic here on CAF, so long as they are faithfully following the reasoning of the Catholic Church, would not be misusing these texts; and the site itself is in control of deleting problem posts, so that if one were to accidentally post something (and it’s possible I might have over the years), it could still be censored by the site on request. (A good reason for posting it here…
As to the meaning of “anathema”, it’s literal meaning is not quite the same as ex-communication, although the two do overlap. It’s a greek word which literally means “ana” (another, or again), “thema” which is just “theme”. Anathema, then, means another theme.
If you check the greek of the NT, specifically Luke 21:5, you will find the word itself used there:
Luke 21:5 και τινων λεγοντων περι του ιερου οτι λιθοις καλοις και αναθημασιν
Since the time of David, the outside walls of the temple were adorned with quality rock of beauty (Kalois Lithois) and gold, and other precious items (anathema). If these items were from impure soruces, only those which could be purified through fire/water would be attached to the outside walls; My understanding is that this would typically be metallic items, such as Gold.
Although the word is sometimes translated “curse”, that’s really incorrect.
“Cut off” would be correct; in the sense that it is to be severed from any damaging position of power.
In one of the Psalms, God makes it clear – that even in heaven, he will take captives in addition to releasing prisoners. From that perspective, I would understand that God will bring trophys from his enemies to become beautiful items upon his heavenly temple. They will, through purgation, of course – be rendered clean first. Some of us will be saved, as though through fire.
I would point you to St. Paul who is the prime example of an enemy of God’s who was captured in war, and cleansed. He is an example of an anathema in the historical sense of the word.
Not only that, but after listing all the qualities of the messiah – St. Paul says; “if it were possible, I could wish to be anathema for the sake of my brethren” (Check the Greek).
The scriptures also say, “he who loves … more than me, is not worthy of me”; and again, “if your holiness does not exceed that of the Pharisees… you will not enter heaven”.
St. Paul’s remarks show a great deal of introspection and understanding of history; the fine line that one can walk as anathema; He calls himself a pharisee of pharisees – the utmost pharisee; and so he was and in some ways still is; In the context of the temple: Perhaps he imagined his potential as being a living anathema, or precious stone – found attached but on the outside of the heavenly Jerusalem’s wall.
I don’t know … but I do see the connections.
St. Paul was martyred for the very name of Jesus Christ. A second kind of baptism which cleanses and Guarantees entry into heaven. He was, quite literally – cut off.
Now, what were you thinking anathema is… :ehh:
Not all anathema enters heaven, for burnable items such as stubble and hay can’t withstand purification; a full heretic to the end, has nothing left after he is burned up… But the word itself, is not absolute; It’s connotation depends on the intent of the one using it; and the judgment of God.
a·nath·e·ma [uh-nath-uh-muh] Show IPA
noun, plural a·nath·e·mas.
Please show me the revocation of the council’s findings in the *Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books Drawn Up By The Fathers Chosen By The Council Of Trent And Approved By Pope Pius. *
- a person or thing detested or loathed: That subject is anathema to him.
- a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
- a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
- any imprecation of divine punishment.
- a curse; execration.
By the way, there is no Section X in the council documents. There is a Session X in which a Decree Concerning The Prorogation Of The Session was issued.
You also seemed to not have read the entirity of my posts, specifically where I wrote “Trent is very specific about the prohibitions and the exceptions.”
I do find it interesting that using the reasoning of the Catholic Church has been invoked, but the arguement made is primarily Sola Scriptora.
The authority of the Council of Trent still exists today. It has not been revoked. I’ll offer the same counsel as I have before, after reading the documents, ask your priest or bishop to explain it to you.
I have some shocking news for you. All those heretical protesters have died – a few centuries ago. Today, the people who are in these separated communities are called Protestants with a capital P and they have access to honestly and accurately translated Bibles that the old heretical protesters did not even dream of. Some of these Bibles are even shared by Catholics and Protestants such as the one in Japan. And here is what the catechism says about these people you insist on calling protesters:
As for the “Spiritual Work of Mercy which is Educating the Ignorant” you mentioned above, you will probably have more success educating these “ignorant” people if you refrain from calling them heretics and protesters and instead show them a little “respect and affection as brothers”. You might even consider calling them Christians and “brothers in the Lord” as the Catechism does.
t forget that I am writing as a Canadian Catholic, not one immediately under the jurisdiction of your U.S.C.C.B., although, of course, our own Canadian bishops are far from being models of strictly episcopal Catholic orthodoxy). I would not trust this glossary as representing the Vaticans own position. Here is what a footnote in Wikipedia has to say about this: “In the U.S., the bishops then published a new English translation, from the official Latin text. (English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Modifications from the Editio Typica, copyright 1997, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.—Libreria Editrice Vaticana.) ** The U.S. bishops added a Glossary and Index Analyticus´ (copyright 2000, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.) and published the new translation, with glossary and index, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ** revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II´. (From the title page.)”t forget that I am writing as a Canadian Catholic, not one immediately under the jurisdiction of your U.S.C.C.B., although, of course, our own Canadian bishops are far from being models of strictly episcopal Catholic orthodoxy). I would not trust this glossary as representing the Vaticans own position. Here is what a footnote in Wikipedia has to say about this: “In the U.S., the bishops then published a new English translation, from the official Latin text. (English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Modifications from the Editio Typica, copyright 1997, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.—Libreria Editrice Vaticana.) The U.S. bishops added a Glossary and Index Analyticus´ (copyright 2000, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.) and published the new translation, with glossary and index, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II´. (From the title page.)”s own as I discovered but rather that of the U.S.C.C.B., will be included in the U.K. edition. If it is not, that shows how little weight it really carries and how much one can ignore its supposed authority. I trust the Catholic Church itself, :thumbsup: but not the often treacherous Canadian or American bishops, :shrug: so many of whom constantly are undermining the Vaticans authority, teaching, and words (as anyone who follows church politics on a Catholic and orthodox lay site such as Church Militant TV will know). As for the Latin edition, it is quite costly and not easily obtainable here in Canada, so I shall wait to order it, “biting the bullet” over the high cost, after I shall have received the Catechisms English-language 2nd edition as the U.K. publishes it. Ill try to remember to inform you all of the results of these efforts.Huiou Theou;9688447:
By the way, there is no Section X in the council documents. There is a Session X in which a Decree Concerning The Prorogation Of The Session was issued.
I don’t need to.
There is a section X in the bull itself; exactly as I said. But that’s not the item which permits snippets from heretical works – that’s number V, and VI.
If you check, number VI even specifies heretics of “our time”. It doesn’t apply to all times, just as I said…
I wished you had linked to the document yourself, but since your careless…
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trentbks.htm
I read it.
Sola Scriptura
I find it interesting that you are using an English dictionary written by Protestant thinkers to define a Greek word. I’ll take the bible over !that! any day. But if you happen to have a CATHOLIC teaching on all possible meanings of the word from the Cathechism, or directly from Rome, that’d be definitive.
Otherwise, it’s just hypocrisy.
I can show usage of the word from several Greek, non-bible sources, as well.would that help? !* I doubt it *!
But – It’s interesting how approved Catholic bibles don’t translate Luke 21:5 as “cursed”,“excommunicated”, or “detestable” RATHER:
Ronald Knox, Ignatius Study Bible: “spoke to him the noble masonry and the offerings which adorned it.”
New Jerusalem and NAB: “fine stonework and votive offerings”
(eg: the NAB of the USCCB and the lectionary…)
old.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke21.htm
NOT ONE of them translates it as “curse”; how strange, your dictionary doesn’t include a POSSBILE and legitimate Catholic translation of the word “votive offering”.
I’ll offer some advice, ask your local ordinary if it is still necessary to get formal permission to read books on the banned book list. I think it possible mine has different requirements than yours and (Thankfully!) I not under the authority of yours…
Again, the internet forum is not a “book”. You may complain to the moderator, and if you check – Catholic answers gets imprimaturs for their apologetic; Hence, they have to run this site in accordance with Catholic teaching. If I am in violation, they certainly would have corrected me at least once by now… But I am being careful.
Russ, i can assure you that Phadraig and i are not the same person, i will even swear on a Bible if you want me too. But the Bible i swear on wont be the forgery created by Luther:thumbsup:
from) the fine Confraternity Version. What went wrong immediately in 1970 was that the Confratermity of Christian Doctrine (who developed both) junked the superb 1941 Confraternity New Testament for the near-infinitely less worth New Testament that it had cobbled together to conjoin, in 1970, with the existing Confraternity Old Testament with only a few (but often lousy) changes. As the years went by both the O.T. and N.T. of the N.A.B. diverged further and further, seldom for any good, from the Confraternity 1969 O.T., which, as part of the at last finished Confraternity Version of 1969, had been yanked off the market within a year of its publication, making it very difficult now to source for purchase. and it was quite fine, and, in some ways the earliest Confraternity-Douay (the O.T. entirely Douay-Challoner; the N.T. 1941 Confraternity) 
was at least as satisfying and certainly more consistent. thankfully.No sob. We have the NRSV instead. :crying:Jerry Jet wrote: *Catholics shouldn’t have to read Protestant translations just because the NAB is awful. The reason you hear so much about Protestant translations here is not because they are good but because the NAB is so awful!
Confraternity Douay with Bea Psalter isn’t perfect–but at least it is Catholic with Catholic notes and no inclusive language and better than the old Douay-Rheims.
Pray that the final revision of the NAB will be a good one – until then if you do read Protestant translations at least know where they are biased and take them with a grain of salt.*
I am with you nearly all the way on that, Jerry-Jet! One of the pities of all this is that the revolting N.A.B. grew out of (or, rather, morphed cancerously
The Confraternity-Douay is what most Catholics know as “the Confraternity Version” (its O.T. partly Confraternity, partly Douay-Challoner; its N.T. 1941 Confraternity),
Those who do these revisions will continue to make a mess of the unsavoury N.A.B., which really has become unsalvageable. Let it go, without any tears. We in Canada and the U.K. never have had the N.A.B. rammed down our happily unamerican throats,
is flawed, as the N.A.B. is, but the N.R.S.V. has a far more felicitous style, so at least grating less on the ear when publicly read, than the clangy-bangy oo-oo-oogly, ear-raping N.A.B. does so. However, it would be far better, if one persists in refusing to revert, with profit, to the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, :thumbsup:1969 Confraternity, or to the :thumbsup:Confraternity-Douay, to follow the Vatican`s example in using the R.S.V.-C.E. (or, even better, the R.S.V.-C.E.2).That’s going too far.
to fob off on congregations a coarse paraphrase like the N.A.B. At least for myself, I am lucky enough to live in a country, the Dominion of Canada, that made a better, if not perfect (if there be such) choice of Bible for the Liturgy.
