I finally got a Catholic Bible!

  • Thread starter Thread starter amazingcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back to the OP, congratulations on your first Catholic Bible. I received this same Bible at my Easter Vigil. Since then, I have purchased many other translations - they all some something to add. Enjoy and happy reading.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
And neither do they have any business putting their opinions on authenticity of books in the Catholic Bible. The Church spoke. Their opinions do not matter in the least.
Click to expand...
Exactly right – which is why I have little patience with arguments against the authority of the Church. If it’s wrong, it is up to the Church, not us, to correct it.
 
OP ignore the joyless people who hijacked your thread. Congratulations!
 
Catholic Bibles omit texts that the Church chose to have in the Bible. For example in the appendix of the Clementine Vulgate which came out in 1592, Pope Clement Vlll wrote.
Oratio Manassa, necnon Libri duo, qui sub libri Tertii & Quarti Esdrae nomine circumferuntur, hoc in loco, extra scilicet seriem canonicorum Librorum, quos sancta Tridentina Synodus suscepit, & pro Canonicis suscipiendos decreuit, sepositi sunt, ne prorsus interirent, quippe qui a nonnullis sanctis Patribus interdum citantur, & in aliquibus Bibliis Latinis tam manuscriptis quam impressis reperiuntur.

The Prayer of Manasseh, as well as two books, which circulate under the name of the Third and Fourth Book of Ezra, are set aside in this place—that is, outside the series of canonical books, which the holy Tridentine Synod accepted, and determined should be taken up for canonical—lest they should perish completely, since they are sometimes cited by some of the holy Fathers, and they are found in some Latin books, both manuscript and printed.

Someone down the line was disobedient to the Pope ( Bishop Challoner removed them from the Douay Rheims in 1752 along with a treasure of annotations found in the original)and they aren’t found in Catholic Bibles anymore. Even if they aren’t canonical the Pope who issued the Vulgate used for over four centuries and is still used by traditionalists wished them to be included to be read. Where are they in modern Catholic Bibles?
Seriously, we always talk about Protestants not including what they call apocrypha in their Bibles, yet we don’t even include what we call the apocrypha in ours. Thus it is sort of hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
Posts are time stamped though obviously not to the exact second, but that too is obvious. So why state the obvious. Highlighting the timing I gave to explain my reasoning, does not explain your comment in relation to this thread title/topic.
 
CRV said:
Posts are time stamped though obviously not to the exact second, but that too is obvious. So why state the obvious. Highlighting the timing I gave to explain my reasoning, does not explain your comment in relation to this thread title/topic.
Click to expand...
Have it your way.
 
Very happy for you @amazingcatholic , perhaps as another poster suggested you may wish to have it blessed by your parish priest.
 
It’s a beautiful translation, and you’re allowed to have your preference. But here’s the thing, I don’t talk like that and I don’t know anyone that does. I agree that some translations can be too simplistic, if that’s what you’re trying to say, I disagree that that’s the only one we should read, because right in front of me I have the Book of Ezekiel open in an RSV Catholic edition Bible, there’s nothing wrong with the translation, it’s not perfect but no translation is. I’m a little confused why you’re claiming that’s better because it’s translated from Latin, when the original languages of the Bible were Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. I don’t have a problem with Latin, but the Bible was not written in Latin, the Latin is in fact a translation of the other works, so what you’re reading is a translation of a translation
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry the topic got a little off track, I don’t know why some people are like that, but anyway whilst it is not a version that I necessarily favour, I’m glad you are reading the Bible.
 
Last edited:
The Vulgate has been the official Bible of the Church since the fourth century. It worked just fine that long.
Sure newer translations may have earlier source material but this causes confusion. Some books have actual differences now. For example, some books such as Sirach or others new translations use the Hebrew and not the Greek and there are certain differences in some verses that alter the text considerably. The earliest Councils confirmed the books as they were when Saint Jerome translated them. So yes, our source should always be the Vulgate. Preferably the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate which in my opinion is the most true Vulgate. The Nova is pretty bad and just for the reason that it uses this earlier source material.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
Sure newer translations may have earlier source material but this causes confusion. Some books have actual differences now. For example, some books such as Sirach or others new translations use the Hebrew and not the Greek and there are certain differences in some verses that alter the text considerably. The earliest Councils confirmed the books as they were when Saint Jerome translated them. So yes, our source should always be the Vulgate. Preferably the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate which in my opinion is the most true Vulgate. The Nova is pretty bad and just for the reason that it uses this earlier source material .
Click to expand...
Well, you do you. I prefer to know what the earliest manuscripts, closest to the original people, say.
 
I feel like in that case we don’t even know what the canon of the Bible is.
Seriously, it may sound ridiculous but it is true. If texts have enough differences, how do we even know which version is the scripture and which is not? If a verse in the Greek says one thing and the Latin says another, and the Church in the 4th century made the Vulgate the sole source from which all other translations must be based, then which one is scripture? If it is different than the text the Church approved than it could be false and non canonical verses are all over modern Bibles in that case. For example, in the Vulgate there is the Johannine Comma; there is Acts 15:34. Many modern Bibles omit them. These Bibles then are going against the text the Church approved as canon at various councils and for all we know the canon could be up for grabs at this point as there is no source which our text is based off of but only differing manuscripts.
 
You won’t even read RSV2CE Ignatius Catholic Study Bible? If not you are missing out on some great modern Catholic commentary.
 
Last edited:
The only NRSV Bible I own is the Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books. I used it in college. It contains all of the Catholic books but is more of a common Bible, actually it includes a few books only the Eastern Orthodox accept.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top