Douay-Rheims only?

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

eggsbenedictine

Guest
Now I Know the Douay-Rheims that most of us have is the Challoner update, but I have heard that there are Douay-Rheims “onlyists” similar to Protestant KJV onlyists. Just curious if there are any out there and if so, why only the Douay-Rheims? I have one by Benedict Press and I also use the RSV 2nd Catholic edition by Ignatius Press, and haven’t decided which bible I prefer over the other.
 
For spiritual/meditative reading, I stick with the Douay-Rheims…

RSV-2 2nd Catholic edition for the purpose of bible study…

In Holy Mother Church’s wisdom, she has given us many bibles to choose from, and personally, I like the idea of having as many of them as possible for comparing and cross referencing.

Just make sure which ever bible you choose, it has ALL 73 books (a complete bible)👍
 
I’m editing and publishing the Douay-Rheims Study Bible of 1609. While I think its a great translation, probably the most dependable (my opinion), but I’m not a DR onlyist. I do believe that Catholics should use only Catholic Bibles for their main trusted source.
 
There are countless good Bibles that are Catholic and they all teach the same doctrine. It isn’t like different Protestant Bible’s that have their own slant towards different doctrines and express that in their Scriptures. I love the Douay-Rheims and I use it a lot but I am not a Douay-Rheims onliest because there is no point to it. I use a myriad of different Catholic Bible’s in addition to the DR.

God bless!
 
landon13 said:
There are countless good Bibles that are Catholic and they all teach the same doctrine. It isn’t like different Protestant Bible’s that have their own slant towards different doctrines and express that in their Scriptures. I love the Douay-Rheims and I use it a lot but I am not a Douay-Rheims onliest because there is no point to it. I use a myriad of different Catholic Bible’s in addition to the DR.

God bless!
Click to expand...
Excellent!
 
MaryandJoseph said:
For spiritual/meditative reading, I stick with the Douay-Rheims…

RSV-2 2nd Catholic edition for the purpose of bible study…

In Holy Mother Church’s wisdom, she has given us many bibles to choose from, and personally, I like the idea of having as many of them as possible for comparing and cross referencing.

Just make sure which ever bible you choose, it has ALL 73 books (a complete bible)👍
Click to expand...
I agree.

I thought about the DR only question, and then reasoned: what will DR onlyists do in a thousand years when DR English is as unrecognizable as French or German? Will they have to learn the language? If so, they might as well learn Latin or Greek. If not, there will have to be a new translation. Why can’t the RSV be that, since it’s been approved by the Church?
 
This is the translation I prefer, as I understand it is closest to the Latin Vulgate.
 
MaryandJoseph said:
For spiritual/meditative reading, I stick with the Douay-Rheims…

RSV-2 2nd Catholic edition for the purpose of bible study…
Click to expand...
I think this is a good philosophy (although I’m using the Jerusalem Bible in addition to the Douay for devotional reading, depending on how much thee/thy/thine I’m in the mood for that day).
 
I like the RSV-CE, but I will also admit to liking the Protestant NIV.

In my opinion, it is good to read Protestant translations, and Protestant Bible commentaries. We should regularly challenge our own thinking.
 
The greatest bible in English would be if the Nova Vulgata was translated into English.

Until then I think that the best bible is the Confraternity Douay Bible with a New translation of the New Latin Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII.

The copyright for most of these bibles is 1949 through 1952.

It is totally Catholic–totally non liberal–totally non modernist–totally non inclusive language–with arguably the most accurate version of the Psalms.

For all of you that do not know–it is an improvement over the Douay Rheims of 1750 without going into the liberal modernist abyss.

It has conservative notes with conservative introductions to the books of the bible.

It isn’t a Catholic polished PROTESTANT version like the NRSV–the RSV-CE or the RSV2CE.

Tell me oh people out there–what is wrong with it?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
The greatest bible in English would be if the Nova Vulgata was translated into English.

Until then I think that the best bible is the Confraternity Douay Bible with a New translation of the New Latin Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII.
Click to expand...
In that case, one could compare the Clementine Bible and the Nova Vulgata, and adjust his “best” bible with the changes? Seems like a fun project. Shouldn’t be that difficult with modern tools. 🙂
 
Jerry-Jet said:
The greatest bible in English would be if the Nova Vulgata was translated into English.

Until then I think that the best bible is the Confraternity Douay Bible with a New translation of the New Latin Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII.

The copyright for most of these bibles is 1949 through 1952.

It is totally Catholic–totally non liberal–totally non modernist–totally non inclusive language–with arguably the most accurate version of the Psalms.

For all of you that do not know–it is an improvement over the Douay Rheims of 1750 without going into the liberal modernist abyss.

It has conservative notes with conservative introductions to the books of the bible.

It isn’t a Catholic polished PROTESTANT version like the NRSV–the RSV-CE or the RSV2CE.

Tell me oh people out there–what is wrong with it?
Click to expand...
What’s wrong with it is that such a project does not comply with Church directives that Scripture, especially for liturgical use, must be translated from the original languages. Not my opinion, but the Church’s (Divino Afflante Spiritu 15; Liturgiam Authenticam 24).
 
Anyone can erroneously claim to translate from the original languages. Answer me this: what is better–the Confraternity Douay Bible with a New Translation of the New Latin Psalms which was indeed authorized for liturgical use in the English liturgy in the late sixties–OR

Any iterations of the RSV which claiming to translate from the original languages–simply translate erroneously?

I’ve heard the original languages game played many times here to justify LOUSY translations of the bible.

Should translations be based on the original languages? Of course. Is the Nova Vulgata–the juridicial text of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church–would it fit that criterion? Is it based on the original languages sufficiently or is it based on Latin?

What would be superior–the Nova Vulgata in English or ANY of the RSV iterations?

I would say that the Nova Vulgata would be vastly superior.

See the average Catholic knows that the Jerusalem bible–the New Jerusalem Bible and the NAB simply don’t cut it. They search for an alternative. For many the alternative is the RSV-CE–for others it is the RSV-2CE.

They don’t choose these Protestant based translations because they love them–only because there are no modern language English alternatives.

The NAB has horrendous notes–a smattering of language inclusiveness–and Psalms so bad that the Holy See rejected them for use in the liturgy.

If you want a reason NOT to use the RSV in any of its forms it would be because the deuterocanonical books are abbreviated–they are shorter than what is in the Latin Vulgate–shorter than the Nova Vulgata–shorter than the Knox Bible–shorter than the Douay Rheims Challoner Bible.

Why should Catholics rely on shorter forms of the deuterocanonical books in Protestant based translations such as the RSV edited by Protestants who don’t believe that the deuterocanonical books are inspired sacred scripture in the first place?

Now don’t get me wrong–he KJV has the most beautiful Psalms and if I HAD to pick a
Protestant based Catholic polished translation it would be the RSV-2CE.

Do I think that it translates as accurately as the Confraternity Douay? No. And just because it uses the original languages doesn’t mean it does them as accurately.

What the Catholic Church needs is a better alternative to the NAB which is dreadful and Protestant based alternatives.

If the Nova Vulgata was translated into English it wouldn’t be perfect but it would put ANY of the RSVs in the trash can when it comes to accuracy.

What I will say good about the RSVs is that stylistically they are very superior to the NAB which is ALWAYS stilted and awkward.

The Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem bible simply aren’t literal enough.

And any bible that doesn’t say “A virgin will conceive” in Isaiah 7:14 and “Hail Mary Full of grace” in Luke simply doesn’t cut it.

The RSV-2CE at least gets those right.

I will say this: if you use the RSV-2CE AND the Douay Confraternity BOTH–you will be 99% there when it comes to the bible.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Should translations be based on the original languages? Of course. Is the Nova Vulgata–the juridicial text of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church–would it fit that criterion? Is it based on the original languages sufficiently or is it based on Latin?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the content of the NV is based on the Clementine Bible and more recent findings and discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, archaelogical findings, etc. It just happens to be in Latin because Latin is the language of the Church and is intended for everyone in the Church, not only the Anglophones. Any translation or even paraphrase will only further remove you from the original, whether you have the original or not.
 
ANY translation of ANYTHING Latin in the Church is further away from the original–that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have translation from Latin.

Great translation from Latin is a good thing–mpt becaiuse Eng;lish is superior to Latin–but because in the Latin lies what the church is tryong to say.

If one doesn’t know Latin then the best they can do with is the best possible translation from Latin–that of course isn’t perfect–it just many times winds up being WAY better than liberal modernist translation when it comes to the bible.

In other words a translation of a translation of a translation is bettert than a liberal modernist translation directly from original language texts.

The way to STOP liberal modernists is to translate eveything church related–including the bible FROM a Latin base into vernacular languages. That helps all non Latin speakers.

Having said that it shouldn’t stop the Latin originals.

In other words things like the EF and the Nova Vulgata in Latin are great–all I’m saying is that copies of BOTH translated as well as possible should be available in English.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
ANY translation of ANYTHING Latin in the Church is further away from the original–that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have translation from Latin.
Click to expand...
So run it through the Google translator. Can it be that much worse than what some committee decides should be the translation for the moment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top