Ecumenism-New American Bible-Offensive Language to Jews Deleted

[Deacon_Ed]

Deacon Ed, showed the D-R was derived like this. Greek->Latin->English. Yes, but if you are not sure of the Greek (your starting point) you’d do well to use something written about the year 395 to 410. At least that had not changed. So, if the Greek had changed over 1400 years it might be better to use the Latin which was 1100 years old and Latin had not changed. A dead language we say.

The basic problem is that Jerome didn’t translate just what was found in the manuscripts. He included the emendations found in the margins in a couple of cases. There is material in the Vulgate that is, in fact, not found in any Greek manuscript (the Johannine comma being the most famous).

1. I assume Deacon Ed will have something to say about the Greek copies. I would welcome that…we learn a little bit each day. I hope the reasoning of the Priests at Douay is appreciated.:yup:
   From CrusaderNY’s Vatican reference( 3rd Paragraph- I think) , "The first English Catholic version of the Bible, the Douay-Rheims (1582-1609/10), and its revision by Bishop Challoner (1750) were based on the Latin Vulgate."

As I noted, the variations in the major Greek manuscripts are viirtually of no account. I say “virtually” because they are copyist’s errors – misspellings, an occasional omitted word, nothing of any consequence in the long run.

This is why Pope Pius XII told Catholic Bible scholars to examine with great diligence the original languages to see if we could produce a translation that was more faithful to what was originally written.

The Vulgate (I have two different editions) is a singularly great example of bible scholarship because it produced a bible that was accessible to the people – it was in the “vulgar” language which is what the term “vulgate” was derived from. It was a good translation and, considering it was done by one man, simply beyond what one would expect. The level of the translation is, however, uneven (I guess St. Jerome had good days and bad days like the rest of us).

Modern biblical scholarship, however, does bring us closer to the original Greek or Hebrew and, therefore, closer to the mind of the writer. And that, in the final analysis, is where we need to be because the Church tells us that “Scripture means what the writer intended it to mean.” Therefore, we must know the mind of the writer to get the real meaning to Scripture. This includes knowing the history of the time when it was written, the social context in which it was written, the people to whom it was written, the style of writing (poetry is, clearly, not interpreted the same as prose, Gospels are not read as biographies, midrash is not read as if it really happened – although, as my homiletics instructor once said with regard to illustrative stories: it’s true, it just didn’t happen).

Does that help? Was my answer clear enough? Did I actually answer the question you thought you were asking?

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Michael,

Thank you for your comments. I agree, the NIT is a paraphrase rather than a translation, and they really do eliminate sin. This is, INMSHO, a dangerous translation!

Deacon Ed

 

[Exporter]

innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/drb.htm

An exerpt: W.R.T. the D - R Bible (By an unbiased source)

"This is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Latin Vulgate Bible had been declared by the Council of Trent to be the official Latin version of the canonical Scriptures. The DRB translators took great pains to translate exactly. When a passage seemed strange and unintelligible they left it alone, even if obscure. The translators translated from a translation for ten reasons, ending by stating that the Latin Vulgate “is not onely better than al other Latin translations, but then the Greeke text itselfe, in those places where they disagree.” They also state that the Vulgate is “more pure then the Hebrew or Greke now extant” and that “the same Latin hath bene farre better conserved from corruptions.”

 

[TNT]

I use this site with commentary and a great text search, 90% of the time when I need a reference:
Latin Vulgate Douay-Rheims Bible

 

[Deacon_Ed]

innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/drb.htm

An exerpt: W.R.T. the D - R Bible (By an unbiased source)

"This is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Latin Vulgate Bible had been declared by the Council of Trent to be the official Latin version of the canonical Scriptures. The DRB translators took great pains to translate exactly. When a passage seemed strange and unintelligible they left it alone, even if obscure. The translators translated from a translation for ten reasons, ending by stating that the Latin Vulgate “is not onely better than al other Latin translations, but then the Greeke text itselfe, in those places where they disagree.” They also state that the Vulgate is “more pure then the Hebrew or Greke now extant” and that “the same Latin hath bene farre better conserved from corruptions.”

You may not know it, but the KJV-only crowd says exactly the same thing about the KJV. The problem is that we cannot get a better source than the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. No translation can be better than the original – it simply isn’t possible.

And, yes, the Vulgate was (and I believe, remains) the official version of Scripture used by Rome. At the same time the Church stresses the importance of translations from the original as much as possible to provide us with the clearest understanding of the thinking of the writer.

Deacon Ed

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Deacon Ed:

Michael,

Thank you for your comments. I agree, the NIT is a paraphrase rather than a translation, and they really do eliminate sin. This is, INMSHO, a dangerous translation!

Deacon Ed

I think you’ll see the reason why in this article written by an ECUSA Priest who served in Uganda for 10 years. (BTW, the C of E had a LOT to do with the NIT):

ECUSA’S GOD

A Descriptive Comment on the “Working Theology” of the Episcopal Church U.S.A.

by The Rev. Dr. Philip Turner (Jan 18, 2005)

The contents of the preaching I had heard Sunday by Sunday from the pulpits of the Church of Uganda (and from other Christians throughout the continent of Africa) was simply not to be found. One could, of course, dismiss this instance of vacuous preaching as simply another example of the painful inadequacy of the preaching of most seminarians; but, over the years, I have heard the same sermon preached from pulpit after pulpit by experienced priests. Only the examples change. The standard Episcopal sermon, at its most fulsome, begins with a statement to the effect that the incarnation is to be understood (in an almost exhaustive sense) as a manifestation of divine love. From this starting point, several conclusions are drawn. The first is that God is love pure and simple. Thus, one is to see in Christ’s death no judgment upon the human condition. Rather, one is to see an affirmation of creation and the persons we are. The great news of the Christian Gospel is this. The life and death of Jesus reveal the fact that God accepts and affirms us. From this revelation, we can draw a further conclusion. God wants us to love one another, and such love requires of us both acceptance and affirmation of the other. From this point we can derive yet another. Accepting love requires a form of justice that is inclusive of all people, particularly those who in some way have been marginalized by oppressive social practice. The mission of the church is, therefore, to see that those who have been rejected are included, and that justice as inclusion defines public policy. The result is a practical equivalence between the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and this form of social justice. The statements “It’s a matter of the Gospel” and “It’s a justice issue” stand on all fours one with another.

anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/ECUSA_God.htm

It’s a very good article, and one of the best at describing what happened to ECUSA. This “Working Theology” is the reason for the NIT. It’s also the reason for almost everything ECUSA has done for the past 30 years.

And, he’s not alone:

Anglicans, Episcopalians & Insanity

*The effects of the disease are total (what Calvinists used to call Òtotal depravityÓ) and thus everything that makes up what we normally think of as the Church, her worship, her prayer, her mission, her doctrine, her polity, her discipline and her morality is profoundly affected Ð not in the same degree and at the same speed in all areas but yet, nevertheless in all areas.

Worship becomes the celebration of an immanent friendly God and autonomous human beings; prayer becomes the building up of the self-sufficiency and self worth of androgynous humanity; mission becomes a political and social program of justice & peace with human rights; doctrine becomes the adding of the word ÒGodÓ to the tenets of modern ideology; polity becomes the means by which the program is effectively introduced and executed, and morality becomes the norms and mores of modern, secular culture, again given the prefix of ÒGodÓ.

So a new ÒChurchÓ is created, and though much of the ceremonial, ritual, music and socializing continue much as before, it is a Church that Ð in comparison with say 1950 or 1900, or 1850 or 1800, and in comparison with Anglican provinces in the South Ð is insane.*

pbs1928.blogspot.com/

If you hear this in your Church, take the paster aside and let him know what’s happened to ATTENDENCE in ECUSA:

Why 85 Episcopal churches closed their doors
Posted: December 25, 2004 - 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Les Kinsolving

If this walkout of 36,000 Ð while evangelical denominations continue to grow Ð seems grim, the next statistic is horrendous: Some 85 parishes closed their doors Ð 7,395 in 2002 to 7,220 in 2003…

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42104

This is truly tragic, and this is just part of a TREND for ECUSA!

Please pray for the people effected by this ongoing disaster.

May God bless you.

In Christ, Michael

 

[CrusaderNY]

I hope you are not smoking something funny out there in Vegas, they don’t call it “Sin City” for nothing. No Jkirk…I do Protest, no different I guess than the Modernists back in the 50’s and 60’s were behind the scenes, with all of the other non-Catholics to overthrow the church and all she stood for and implement a platform of so called “Ecumenism”, hold a Council that rejected 2000 years of teaching and doctrine, throw in a new Mass to boot, and then, as I just found out re-translate a Bible to suit this Council which, in many Catholics opinion, may or may not have been allowed to, as the purpose of any council is to redefine or make clear existing church teachings and dogma and not invent their own, at the behest of Moslems, Jews, Protestants and the Modernists. No body, no Catholic requested a council, and for Pope Paul VI to admit that he let the devil into the sacresty, even he at the twilight of his life knew he did tremendous harm.

JKirkLVNV:

But with all due respect, you ARE a Protestant. You protest against the Church, right? You dissent? That makes you a dissident, a Protestant.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

CrusaderNY:

I hope you are not smoking something funny out there in Vegas, they don’t call it “Sin City” for nothing. No Jkirk…I do Protest, no different I guess than the Modernists back in the 50’s and 60’s were behind the scenes, with all of the other non-Catholics to overthrow the church and all she stood for and implement a platform of so called “Ecumenism”, hold a Council that rejected 2000 years of teaching and doctrine, throw in a new Mass to boot, and then, as I just found out re-translate a Bible to suit this Council which, in many Catholics opinion, may or may not have been allowed to, as the purpose of any council is to redefine or make clear existing church teachings and dogma and not invent their own, at the behest of Moslems, Jews, Protestants and the Modernists. No body, no Catholic requested a council, and for Pope Paul VI to admit that he let the devil into the sacresty, even he at the twilight of his life knew he did tremendous harm.

No, no, you’re virtually like the Old Catholics who split when VI and Blessed Pius IX bound infallibility on us. They didn’t like it, they protested, they dissented. They were, in essence, Protestants.

 

[Exporter]

May I throw my hat in the ring? JKirk, I think you are likening CrusaderNY to Protestants. I think you are wrong. One two points.

CrusaderNY has said he does not want Catholic Doctrine to be changed. This is because a Council has never overturned the Doctrines of an ealier Council (they may difine or clearify BUT not change) You will agree with me that the reason Protestantism arose was that they (Protestants) disputed existing Dogma of the Holy Catholic Church. These are two dissimilar things. CrusaderNY is not protesting on this count. He wants Doctrine to remain as it has.

I want to again say you miss what CrusaderNY has been saying. The reason for a Council to be called has always been to clearify something in the Dogma of the Church. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN INTERNALLY INIATIATED. What some in the Vatican are trying to do now is to act on EXRERNAL STIMULII. I think these people who want to change Doctrine are called Liberals.

We, all traditional and/or conservative Roman Catholics, want is for the Church to remain the Church. What could be wrong with that?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Exporter:

The reason for a Council to be called has always been to clearify something in the Dogma of the Church. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN INTERNALLY INIATIATED. What some in the Vatican are trying to do now is to act on EXRERNAL STIMULII. I think these people who want to change Doctrine are called Liberals.

This is not true. Ecumenical councils have been called to deal with strictly disciplinary matters. For example, the Ninth Ecumenical Council (the First Lateran Council in 1123) was called specifically to deal with canonical issues and not doctrinal issues. The same is true for the Fifth Lateran Council.

While it is *generally *true that Ecumenical Councils are called to deal with errors, that is not a requirement.

Deacon Ed

 

[BulldogCath]

Deacon

I am not sure that you are correct here and maybe need to do some research, I just checked and looked for Canon Law as it pertains to Ecumenical Councils and they basicall all say the same thing I read this from the Catholic Encyclopedia, I thing the other poster Exporter is correct. They are called to address matters of faith, morals and discipline. Well after what I see going on in church, I think then we need another Council soon, as the church benches are getting emptier and emptier,but then again so is the Priesthood!

By Sal Ciresi
HERALD Columnist
(From the issue of 2/14/02)

Canon 751 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that “heresy” (theological error), “schism” (ecclesiastical division), and “apostasy” (renouncing Christianity) are serious matters. Therefore, anxious to protect the faithful, the Catholic Church has met officially, at various times, to address matters of faith, morals, and discipline. These formal events, under certain conditions, are known as “Ecumenical Councils.”

The term “ecumenical,” derived from the Greek oikoumene and Latin oecumenicus, implies the concept of “universality.” This word sheds light on the nature of an Ecumenical (or General) Council: an assembly of the world’s college of bishops, in union with the Pope, for the purpose of explaining, defending, and clarifying ecclesiastical issues. Ecumenical Councils are never conducted for a mere display of ecclesiastical power — an Ecumenical Council is called to benefit the Church; individually and collectively.

The Ecumenical Council has its foundation in Sacred Scripture. The Old Testament shows a type of hierarchy, instruments utilized by God, that promulgated binding decisions for the Old Covenant faithful (cf. Dt. 4:1-14; Neh. 8:1-8). The New Testament continued this pattern (cf. Mt. 28:18-20; 1 Cor. 5:1-2). A significant example of this authority is the formal gathering seen in Acts 15:1-35, the “Jerusalem Council.” Although not an Ecumenical Council in the strict sense, this official meeting at Jerusalem, circa A.D. 50, was a model for legitimate doctrinal and councilor development. Acts 15 shows the primacy of St. Peter (cf. Code, Can. 749.1) and the related work of the bishops with him (cf. Code, Can. 749.2).

In the first millennium, the emperors participated in the summoning or convoking of the first eight Ecumenical Councils. Nevertheless, they were still subject to final confirmation by the Bishop of Rome. The documents drawn up by these Ecumenical Councils became obligatory only when the Pope confirmed and promulgated these works; a norm followed today (cf. Code, Can. 341.1-2).

. In chronological order, they are Nicea I (A.D. 325); Constantinople I (A.D. 381); Ephesus (A.D. 431); Chalcedon (A.D. 451); Constantinople II (A.D. 553); Constantinople III (A.D. 680-681); Nicea II (A.D. 787); Constantinople IV (A.D. 869-870); Lateran I (1123); Lateran II (1139); Lateran III (1179); Lateran IV (1215); Lyons I (1245); Lyons II (1274); Vienne (1311-1312); Constance (1414-1418); Florence (1439-1445); Lateran V (1512-1517); Trent (1545-1563); Vatican I (1869-1870); and Vatican II (1962-1965).

Each Ecumenical Council is unique. The first eight Councils were held in the East (the Mediterranean area); the remaining 13 took place in the West (Italy, France, or the Holy Roman Empire). Ephesus (A.D. 431) was completed in less than one month; Trent (1545-1563) lasted approximately 18 years because of interruptions. Lyons I (1245) had three sessions in its lone year; Constance (1414-1418) had 45 sessions over a four-year span. Constantinople IV (869-870) was attended by approximately 100 bishops; Lateran II (1139) was occupied by nearly 1000 apostolic successors. Florence (1439-1445) met in three different locales: Basle, Ferrara, and Florence. Vatican I (1869-1870) ended prematurely because of the Franco-Prussian War.

The 21 Ecumenical Councils are an essential part of Church history. These formal gatherings provided crucial data for a lifetime of prayer and study. The most relevant Counciliar documents are accessible via EWTN (www.ewtn.com).

Ciresi serves on the faculty of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College.
Deacon Ed:

This is not true. Ecumenical councils have been called to deal with strictly disciplinary matters. For example, the Ninth Ecumenical Council (the First Lateran Council in 1123) was called specifically to deal with canonical issues and not doctrinal issues. The same is true for the Fifth Lateran Council.

While it is *generally *true that Ecumenical Councils are called to deal with errors, that is not a requirement.

Deacon Ed