Catholics who read Protestant Bibles

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

In one of the old Tora-san movies, someone referred to YASO-KYOU which sent me scrambling for a dictionary. It was an old way to refer to Christianity instead of the current KIRISUTO-KYOU.

 

[patrick457]

In one of the old Tora-san movies, someone referred to YASO-KYOU which sent me scrambling for a dictionary. It was an old way to refer to Christianity instead of the current KIRISUTO-KYOU.

A number of the 19th century missionaries to Japan (mainly Protestant) like Divie Bethune McCartee came via China bringing with them the good word of 耶穌 (Mandarin: Yēsū, Cantonese Yèhsōu), apparently.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Russ wrote: T]he Japanese Catholic Church changed the wording of the Hail Mary (in Japanese) and we all had to re-learn it! Some people still stumble over it, which is a reliable clue as to who doesn’t say the rosary regularly, sort of a modern Japanese shibboleth.​

One could always switch permanently to saying the “Ave Maria” in Latin, which sounds so lovely, undeniably Catholic so!

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Russ wrote: It’s too bad other countries haven’t followed Japan’s example and produced a common Bible​

Actually, “Common Bible” editions of the R.S.V. and of the N.R.S.V. (both of which I have in my personal library at home) have existed for many years. They are ment to be used in common between Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics, and Easern Orthodox. To do this, they include the extra writings that are in the Orthodox Bible but which are not in the Catholic Bible. The “Catholic Editions” are not, thus, really “common Bibles” after all.

 

[x1980x]

Well this is an easy point to dispel…Carry your bible with you…Open up a conversation - quote a bible passage from Tobit or Maccabees and ask him to check his bible to see how it is translated there.
hhhmmmmm…how come he can’t find it???

…

I have a Protestant bible (KJV) with Tobit, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. It also has Bel and the Dragon, Judith, Sirach (referred to as Eccesiasticus), and other books.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

JRKH and x1980x (“Generation X”?) wrote: ***JRKH **: Well this is an easy point to dispel. Carry your Bible with you. Open up a conversation [and] quote a bible passage from Tobit or Maccabees and ask him to check his Bible to see how it is translated there. Hhhmmmmm…How come he can’t find it?

x1980x: I have a Protestant bible (KJV) with Tobit, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. It also has Bel and the Dragon, Judith, Sirach (referred to as Eccesiasticus), and other books.*​

Hee-hee! That always throws the sectaries off (and not a few Protestants, too). The early Protestant Bibles and, now again, more recent complete Protestant Bibles contain(ed) the Apocryphal writings (deutero-canon), including, of course, the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.), which the publishers maul for customers among the sectaries by cutting out the “Apocrypha” and other features of the A.V. Bible that mostly only the Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and some Lutherans among non-Catholics appreciate and use. I have had A.V. Bibles with the Apocrypha most of my already long life.

I once got a bit brazen and when asked to lead a Bible study segment of a Protestant-sectarian mission organisation (the African Inland Mission, Montréal chapter) I gave that study on the “Prayer of Manasseh”. I read it from my copy of the A.V. Bible and compared this beautiful prayer with other prayers recorded in the O.T. (to which, of course, it is similar in structure and style, as one rightly should expect). The others at this Bible study took it well, not being bigots, but they were a bit discountenanced by it all.

If one shows all of the passages of rectilinear prophecy in the deutero-canon that prophesy of Christ, that would make an hard-hitting attestation of the validity of the writings of the deutero-canon. However, even many Catholics, alas, are not very familiar with the presence of these passages or know where to find them.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Eric wrote: *I actually like using the American Standard Catholic Bible since it is very easy to understand, and is also used by the pope, vatican, and and many of the Catholic Churches.

I guess everyone has a personal preferance on this issue.*​

I suspect that you are referring to the N.A.B. Version in the message, despite the odd moniker that you give it.

Well, preferences are valid, at least to a point. As inferior as it is, the N.A.B. paraphrase is not a renegade version like the J.W.`s New World Translation.

I tried to answer your latest message of e-correspondence on C.A.`s WWW site, but apparently there is a problem, on your own end I think, about how much C.A. can accept for length, especially several quotes as they pile up. I put my reply on ice to send to you when I can. Send a message without any quotes soever this time.

Back to the subject! Some editions of the N.A.B. are better than others. I dislike the borderline-unbelieving, to me essentially non-catholic notes that one finds in most of them. (This is a bit problem in some editions, too, of the Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible.) I have a leather-bound edition of the N.A.B. it that is a bit less offensive in that regard, called the “Fireside Study Edition … 1991-1992 Edition”. It`s okay, no more, but the study features occasionally are of help to me.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

I had written: Phadraig and Russ, You both have some good things to say! I`ll look into this matter of a second edition of The Catechism of the Catholic Church. However, if there is a glossary with it, I want to be assured that it is part of the Vatican original and not added by whomever is editing the English text for publication, no doubt with good intentions but perhaps not reflecting what is in the Latin standard text itself; the misadventure of the initial English text, which the Vatican rightly condemned and had yanked off the market, makes one cautious about this matter. Anyway, I should obtain the second edition for myself. I just had not been aware that any revision had taken place. For that matter, perhaps I should have its text in Latin, too (a language which I still can read haltingly) to avoid being taken in by any cunning editors who wish to dilute the message of the Catechism itself.​

AHA! It took some time, but my copy of the revised Catechism of the Catholic Church (C.C.C.) has arrived. (Prior to that I had, in English, only the original, flawed edition of the C.C.C.)

Listen, you Americans who put American opinions on too high a pedestal, **the glossary in the American edition of the C.C.C. is not an integral part of the C.C.C.! ** It does not appear in the British English-language edition of the C.C.C. (published with the imprints of G. Chapman, “a Cassell imprint” as well of, as mentioned on the verso of the title page, Burns and Oates, “a Continuum imprint”), 1999, 2007 printing (ISBN: 0-86012-324-3, pbk.)

So, there is no transnational magisterial authority for the glossary which the American bishops (an often theologically wayward group of prelates) have added to your American edition. And, do not forget, I am Canadian (and glad of it!) and am under no obligation to consider American episcopal opinion and national authority as particularly applying to me or to other Canadians or as having some special authoritative aura attached to it.

You can keep your glossary, for whatever much or little that it is worth! I`ll take the C.C.C. as the Vatican authored it, without American additions to it.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Listen, you Americans who put American opinions on too high a pedestal, **the glossary in the American edition of the C.C.C. is not an integral part of the C.C.C.! ** It does not appear in the British English-language edition of the C.C.C. (published with the imprints of G. Chapman, “a Cassell imprint” as well of, as mentioned on the verso of the title page, Burns and Oates, “a Continuum imprint”), 1999, 2007 printing (ISBN: 0-86012-324-3, pbk.)

So, there is no transnational magisterial authority for the glossary which the American bishops (an often theologically wayward group of prelates) have added to your American edition. And, do not forget, I am Canadian (and glad of it!) and am under no obligation to consider American episcopal opinion and national authority as particularly applying to me or to other Canadians or as having some special authoritative aura attached to it.

Have you ever considered that you might REALLY be brushing your teeth with gunpoweder… ?

The CCC glossary was written including a then Archbishop William Leveda… Pope Benedict met him while he was doing that … and I find some of this sad, but None the less, the VATICAN’s congregation of the doctrine of the faith has a president (it’d be nice if that has changed since I last checked – but I doubt it.),
I suggest you look him up and his name.

You can keep your glossary, for whatever much or little that it is worth! I`ll take the C.C.C. as the Vatican authored it, without American additions to it.

FIne by me…
The 2nd edition, on the first page of the Glossary does say that the glossary doesn’t have PJP II’s approval in fidei depositum. It doesn’t rise to that level … but it does have some Vatican authority behind it…

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Huiou Theou wrote: The 2nd edition, on the first page of the Glossary does say that the glossary doesn’t have PJP II’s approval in fidei depositum. It doesn’t rise to that level … but it does have some Vatican authority behind it.​

Not enough, however, to have become an integral part of the C.C.C. All that the glossary amounts to is a study aid added to the American publisher`s edition. It did not become part of the C.C.C. itself. So, regarding the glossary, one can “take it or leave it” as even the British edition did so (i.e. not include this American intrusion on the C.C.C.). I personally would prefer by far to use a good, conservative Catholic dictionary than to use something that American bishops in these lacklustre times have cobbled up.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou wrote: The 2nd edition, on the first page of the Glossary does say that the glossary doesn’t have PJP II’s approval in fidei depositum. It doesn’t rise to that level … but it does have some Vatican authority behind it.​

Not enough, however, to have become an integral part of the C.C.C.

I never said it did – I simply responded to your comment that it had “NO” authority behind it.

All that the glossary amounts to is a study aid added to the American publisher`s edition.

No, it amounts to something that the Vatican CDF’s president had a hand in!

It did not become part of the C.C.C. itself. So, regarding the glossary, one can “take it or leave it” as even the British edition did so (i.e. not include this American intrusion on the C.C.C.)

Um – reread what I said about the preface to the glossary. I actually was agreeing with you on that point – not disputing it…

. I personally would prefer by far to use a good, conservative Catholic dictionary than to use something that American bishops in these lacklustre times have cobbled up.

fine; I prefer to study the context of each word in the original languages (such as Greek) and in scripture, and in encyclicals – to arrive at a much deeper understanding of words. It’s just my preference.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Huiou Theou,

If you like that study aid (i.e. the American add-on glossary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church), then use it. It is not in my British edition, since it is not an integral part of the Catechism, and I prefer, anyway, to avoid what comes from the American and Canadian bishops, who, to say the least of it, have not been very stellar performers at maintaining the Church in decent form in our respective countries. Take Cdl. Levada himself as an example of that. Levada himself provoked scandal in San Francisco by being implicated in the church sex scandals there, leaving the U. S. of A. (similarly to what Cdl. Bernard Law did) within days of his probable arrest by the police there, so I am not surprised that Levada did not last long in his position at the Vatican. Benedict got Levada out of a tight spot, but our Holy Father was wise to keep a strict watch on that man; it was more than Levada`s age that made it wise to retire such a man.

It is better, as I see it, to use study resources from men of more respectable and devout character and credentials. There are good Catholic dictionaries with imprimaturs from times less troubled and more holy than our own. Today an imprimatur does not have the significance for cautious laity that it did in earlier times. Your preferred approach, of course, is the best one, circumventing secondary sources like this American study aid, for those who have the ability to exercise it.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou,
… and I prefer, anyway, to avoid what comes from the American and Canadian bishops, who, to say the least of it, have not been very stellar performers at maintaining the Church in decent form in our respective countries. Take Cdl. Levada himself as an example of that. Levada himself provoked scandal in San Francisco by being implicated in the church sex scandals there, leaving the U. S. of A. (similarly to what Cdl. Bernard Law did) within days of his probable arrest by the police there, so I am not surprised that Levada did not last long in his position at the Vatican. Benedict got Levada out of a tight spot, but our Holy Father was wise to keep a strict watch on that man; it was more than Levada`s age that made it wise to retire such a man.

I was unaware that he has been retired. That’s a great relief to me; although I don’t believe St. Benedict removed him from San Fransisco on the basis of probable arrest; There are timing issues that indicate he wouldn’t have known the true extent of Leveda’s involvement; His only experience with Leveda (as I understand it) would have been as a kiss up at the penning of the Catechism.

Also – to preclude future re-hash – Leveda was arch-bishop of my archdiocese before he ever went to San Fransico; and the problems, as I personally encountered them, predated his move to california by more than a decade; but the media coverage and the ability of priests to “go over his head” did not occur until after Leveda left Portland.

Do recall that often times the Church is persecuted unjustly, and the presumptions from within are naturally going to be that accusations are false until proven otherwise – often, in fact, they are; Negligence, however, is too easily excused.

We live in strange times…

It is better, as I see it, to use study resources from men of more respectable and devout character and credentials. There are good Catholic dictionaries with imprimaturs from times less troubled and more holy than our own. Today an imprimatur does not have the significance for cautious laity that it did in earlier times. Your preferred approach, of course, is the best one, circumventing secondary sources like this American study aid, for those who have the ability to exercise it.

I am glad you understand my true preference; although I also study the encyclicals of various popes, for they often have amazing insights. Scripture is never wise to interpret apart from the continuing exhortations and reminders from papa.

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Heiou Theou,

Well, of course, it is good to withhold premture judgment about clerics, but in the case of Cdl. Levada things had gotten far along, to widespread and justified scandal, in the sex abuse investigation before he fled to Rome. His arrest was imminent. As bad as things are in the U. S. of A., I doubt that the police were trying to “frame” him. I take a strong interest in these sex abuse cases since one of the most celebrated victims is close to me. (I wont name him, being too close to his family, which has been utterly shattered by the consequences of Fr. Shanleys misconduct, for that.)

The thought of another Cardinal Bernard Law getting away with these things, as Levada has done, is infuriating. Homosexuality is one matter, about which justifiably there is much dispute in the Church today; priestly abuse of boys (pederasty) and teens (ephebophilia), which also is abuse of authority and of trust, is quite another, more odious matter. Levada has had a long association with gay causes, including scandalous ones. I do hope that Pope Benedict was not acting as Levada`s accomplice in avoiding the law. Certainly, dumping Levada from the Vatican was a very good idea!

So, this is to what the matter with that glossary of The Catechism of the Catholic Church amounts: it is the product of North American bishops, a particularly wayward branch of the worldwide Catholic episcopate. The Imprimatur of this document is that of a mentor and protector of pederastic and ephebophilic priests. The associations alone well could scare off anyone knowing of them from wishing even to touch this document. Its contents may or may not be so awful, but the document`s auspices and its imprimatur are tainted. I want nothing to do with it!