Latin the Only Language

[tobinatorstark]

“nope” to what?

Sorry if I am yet again failing to understand your clear statements, but I asked two questions:

1. did you do as I kindly requested and read aloud and clearly and slowly to yourself what you posted,

yes. It was quite clear

and

1. did you continue to ignore what other people post on this thread?
   nope Jerry-Jet is a part of this thread and I agreed with him. I also read every post on this thread too. No not ingnoring.

Sorry again if I’m being obtuse, but was your “nope” a response to one of the above or both? If only one, which one?

Thanks and happy Easter.

 

[Ron_Conte]

“The “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.”

But the declaration is fallible (not infallible and not non-infallible) and is from the temporal authority of the Church, not the Magisterium.

If all works with the imprimatur are certainly and entirely free from doctrinal and moral error, then they are all infallible, which is absurd. Has Divine Revelation been transferred from Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium (TSM) to any book that has an imprimatur from any Bishop?

A fallible declaration of the temporal authority about the absence of error on matters of faith and morals is of limited usefulness. Any Catholic would be foolish to believe and live the faith based on the imprimatur, rather than TSM.

 

[NHInsider]

But the declaration is fallible (not infallible and not non-infallible) and is from the temporal authority of the Church, not the Magisterium.

If all works with the imprimatur are certainly and entirely free from doctrinal and moral error, then they are all infallible, which is absurd. Has Divine Revelation been transferred from Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium (TSM) to any book that has an imprimatur from any Bishop?

A fallible declaration of the temporal authority about the absence of error on matters of faith and morals is of limited usefulness. Any Catholic would be foolish to believe and live the faith based on the imprimatur, rather than TSM.

It doesn’t claim to be infallible teaching, just that it doesn’t contradict infallible teaching.

The fact that the nihil obstat/imprimatur is revocable makes that fairly apparent.

And the question on the table is, can we search for Divine Revelation in any translation of Scripture which carries imprimatur, or are we only assured of grace if we stick to the D-R?

 

[tobinatorstark]

It doesn’t claim to be infallible teaching, just that it doesn’t contradict infallible teaching.

The fact that the nihil obstat/imprimatur is revocable makes that fairly apparent.

And the question on the table is, can we search for Divine Revelation in any translation of Scripture which carries imprimatur, or are we only assured of grace if we stick to the D-R?

We aren’t saying one should be reading the D-R and that we can only be assured of grace if we stick to that Bible. The D-R too has a imprimatur. We are saying that if everything that has a Nihil Obstat or imprimatur is error free of doctrinal and moral matters, it would be absurd because all things can’t be error free.

 

[Ron_Conte]

It doesn’t claim to be infallible teaching, just that it doesn’t contradict infallible teaching.

The fact that the nihil obstat/imprimatur is revocable makes that fairly apparent.

And the question on the table is, can we search for Divine Revelation in any translation of Scripture which carries imprimatur, or are we only assured of grace if we stick to the D-R?

Some persons treat the imprimatur as if it were a declaration of infallibility.

It is absurd to base our faith in Scripture on the imprimatur, since Scripture is the infallible Word of God written by the Holy Spirit, whereas the imprimatur is a fallible declaration by one Bishop (or a small committee of Bishops) from the temporal authority, not the teaching authority.

In the history of the Latin Bible, the first Latin translations were many, were done by ordinary members of the faithful, and were done without any approval or imprimatur. And all these many translations are the many roots of the Latin Scriptural tradition, which Trent gave a special place to in the Scriptural life of the Church.

I find even the translation done by Wycliff (a heretic condemned by an Ecumenical Council) to be useful. And the Church does permit Protestant scholars today to participate in Catholic translations, even though Protestantism is material heresy.

The true approval for Bible translations comes from the sensus fidelium.