Latin the Only Language

[jimmy]

Latin isn’t required for liturgy. I am simply stating that the Vulgate is the authentic version of the Church. Not to ignore the original languages, the are very accurate. St. Jerome translated the Vulgate from the original languages. Unfortuently his manuscripts don’t exist anymore. The Bishops committee has the right to decide what they want to hear at liturgy. In case you hadn’t known. Here in the US the NAB is what is used in liturgy, but it was modified as the Pope rejected the revised psalms of 1991

Remember that it is authoritative for the Latin Church, not for the whole Church. The Peshitta has a similar position within the Antiochene Churches and the Coptic translations have their own place. Likewise the Greek scriptures are pre-eminent in the Greek Church. The Greek scriptures are the ultimate reference. The Vulgate is authentic. It holds a place in the Latin Church due to the fact that the Tradition of the Latin Church developed with it It was always pre-eminent among the Latin translations. And due to its place within the Latin Church and Tradition it is a reference for translations of the scriptures from the original languages. If the Maronites were to make their own translation of the scriptures the standard would probably be the Peshitta because our tradition developed in relation to it. Many of our saints used words that were specific to the Peshitta translation in specific ways so it has a special meaning for us.

 

[tobinatorstark]

No, that is not what you “simply” stated. You claimed that the Vulgate was the ONLY Scripture version free of moral and doctrinal error.

As you put it:

“no other Bible has that distinction”–that’s what you stated and that’s what so many of us are reacting to as incorrect.

Then why can’t you prove me wrong

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur are NOT declarations that a work is free of moral and doctrinal error.

They are declarations that a work does not CONTRADICT Catholic teaching.

A translation could at the same time if taken in one sense not CONTRADICT Catholic teaching while simultaneously reflect error if taken in another sense.

The Nihil Obstat only says that a publications should not be hindered from printing.

2 Corinthians 2:10–“In the person of Christ” versus “In the presence of Christ”–

“In the presence of Christ” does not CONTRADICT Catholic teaching–it pases Nihil Obstat muster.

It does not contain the Fullness of Truth that “In the person of Christ” contains that is in the Vulgate.

And if taken in ANOTHER sense–it is doctrinally in error because it strikes at the Catholic doctrine of St. Paul as a priest offering absolution.

So see the translation can SIMULTANEOUSLY be both not in CONTRADICTION of Catholic teaching so that it could meet the standards of Nihil Obstat AND doctrinally in error if taken in another sense–namely of priests offering absolution!

Nihil Obstat DOES NOT EQUAL “freedom of doctirnal error”–it means non contradiction of Catholic teaching–there is a very big difference.

And Trent has declaratively stated that the Vulgate is free from errors in faith and doctrine and can be used in “all disputations”.

No other translation can say that.

And no other translation has had an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church state that about any other translation than the Vulgate!

And No Sir! The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are not official declarations by the Catholic Church that a printed work is FREE from doctrinal error in all its senses or that it contains the Fullness of Truth in all its particulars!

 

[jimmy]

Your distinction between a nihil obstat not contradicting Catholic faith and it not meaning that a book is free of error is nonsense. Any statement can be considered contradictory or erroneous if understood in the wrong sense. Christ said that some have been made eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom, some Christians like Origen have taken Christ’s words perfectly literal and castrated themselves. Are Christ’s words erroneous now because Origen took His words extremely literal? Christ said you must hate your mother and father if you want to follow Him. Is Christ erroneous if someone understands Him wrongly? No, He is not. Nor is a book wrong if you take it in the wrong sense.

 

[diggerdomer]

Then why can’t you prove me wrong

Well, frankly, I’m not interested in proving you wrong.

But if I were, the answer to your question would be because you’re right and I’m wrong.

Surely you can agree to that, can’t you?

 

[NHInsider]

The Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur are NOT declarations that a work is free of moral and doctrinal error.

Ummm, would you like to reconsider that statement? The quote in my previous post is the official church explanation of the nihil obstat:

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

 

[tobinatorstark]

The Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur are NOT declarations that a work is free of moral and doctrinal error.

They are declarations that a work does not CONTRADICT Catholic teaching.

A translation could at the same time if taken in one sense not CONTRADICT Catholic teaching while simultaneously reflect error if taken in another sense.

The Nihil Obstat only says that a publications should not be hindered from printing.

2 Corinthians 2:10–“In the person of Christ” versus “In the presence of Christ”–

“In the presence of Christ” does not CONTRADICT Catholic teaching–it pases Nihil Obstat muster.

It does not contain the Fullness of Truth that “In the person of Christ” contains that is in the Vulgate.

And if taken in ANOTHER sense–it is doctrinally in error because it strikes at the Catholic doctrine of St. Paul as a priest offering absolution.

So see the translation can SIMULTANEOUSLY be both not in CONTRADICTION of Catholic teaching so that it could meet the standards of Nihil Obstat AND doctrinally in error if taken in another sense–namely of priests offering absolution!

Nihil Obstat DOES NOT EQUAL “freedom of doctirnal error”–it means non contradiction of Catholic teaching–there is a very big difference.

And Trent has declaratively stated that the Vulgate is free from errors in faith and doctrine and can be used in “all disputations”.

No other translation can say that.

And no other translation has had an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church state that about any other translation than the Vulgate!

And No Sir! The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are not official declarations by the Catholic Church that a printed work is FREE from doctrinal error in all its senses or that it contains the Fullness of Truth in all its particulars!

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. The Church doesn’t condemn any other Catholic translation, but never mentions that another translation is err free in moral or doctrinal matters. Yet no one here can show me a document where another translation has that distinction. You are absolutely right about the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. They are there to ensure that the translation is only safe for Catholics to read.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Well, frankly, I’m not interested in proving you wrong.

But if I were, the answer to your question would be because you’re right and I’m wrong.

Surely you can agree to that, can’t you?

All am asking is for a little proof that you are right and I am wrong.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Ummm, would you like to reconsider that statement? The quote in my previous post is the official church explanation of the nihil obstat:

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

please cite source

 

[Contarini]

From the link above…

This is a date and statement I have seen all over the place. Can anyone give documented evidence to back it up?

Or maybe where this idea is coming from?

I’m not sure where it is coming from. It’s bogus. For one thing, the Eastern Church has never used Latin, and in 600 the permanent East-West split was some centuries in the future. For another, there are substantial translations of the Bible into Old English, dating from well after 600. It wasn’t until the later Middle Ages (13-14th centuries) that the Church became nervous about vernacular translations, and even then there was never a time when all vernacular Bibles were banned. The Catholic Church has restricted vernacular Bibles but never banned them outright and across the board.

Liturgically, Latin was the language used for Scripture readings (as for the rest of the liturgy) in the Western Church. But that didn’t start in 600–it started as early as the second century when Western Christians started switching from Greek to Latin. Perhaps that year represents a rough approximation of the “vulgar” languages developing out of Latin into distinctly different languages, and the spread of Christianity to other Western cultures that didn’t speak Latin. But it’s not a very accurate date even for that.

Edwin

 

[NHInsider]

please cite source

Hmm. Open any book of doctrine recently published by a Catholic publisher. (I just grabbed off my shelf Alan Schreck’s The Essential Catholic Catechism (Servant Press), Michael Himes * The Mystery of Faith* (St. Anthony Messenger Press) and Kevin McKenna’s * A Concise Guide to Canon Law *(Ave Maria Press). (Note that I have seen the same text in books with pub dates in the late 1950s, but not as consistently.)

Right under the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (and in the case of the McKenna, the Imprimi Potest) all three have exactly the same language:

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with its contents, opinions, or statements expressed.

You can confirm this on the Fisheaters site, is he traditional enough for you?
fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html

The relevant canons are 822-832 and 838.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Hmm. Open any book of doctrine recently published by a Catholic publisher. (I just grabbed off my shelf Alan Schreck’s The Essential Catholic Catechism (Servant Press), Michael Himes * The Mystery of Faith* (St. Anthony Messenger Press) and Kevin McKenna’s * A Concise Guide to Canon Law *(Ave Maria Press). (Note that I have seen the same text in books with pub dates in the late 1950s, but not as consistently.)

Right under the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (and in the case of the McKenna, the Imprimi Potest) all three have exactly the same language:

You can confirm this on the Fisheaters site, is he traditional enough for you?
fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html

The relevant canons are 822-832 and 838.

Fisheaters is not a credible source they don’t accept Vatican II. I will check the Code of Canon Law 822-832 and 838

 

[tobinatorstark]

Hmm. Open any book of doctrine recently published by a Catholic publisher. (I just grabbed off my shelf Alan Schreck’s The Essential Catholic Catechism (Servant Press), Michael Himes * The Mystery of Faith* (St. Anthony Messenger Press) and Kevin McKenna’s * A Concise Guide to Canon Law *(Ave Maria Press). (Note that I have seen the same text in books with pub dates in the late 1950s, but not as consistently.)

Right under the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (and in the case of the McKenna, the Imprimi Potest) all three have exactly the same language:

You can confirm this on the Fisheaters site, is he traditional enough for you?
fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html

The relevant canons are 822-832 and 838.

none declare any thing about any scripture. Again where is it stated in any document that something other than the err free in doctrinal or moral matter. Not just books have an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat, but doesn’t make it err free is aforementioned matters.

 

[diggerdomer]

none declare any thing about any scripture. Again where is it stated in any document that something other than the err free in doctrinal or moral matter. Not just books have an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat, but doesn’t make it err free is aforementioned matters.

I have no idea what you are saying.

Could you please read aloud, to yourself, slowly and clearly, what you typed, then please clarify? (oh, and please listen as you read aloud)

Thanks.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I have no idea what you are saying.

Could you please read aloud, to yourself, slowly and clearly, what you typed, then please clarify? (oh, and please listen as you read aloud)

Thanks.

ignored. Poster doesn’t understand

 

[diggerdomer]

ignored. Poster doesn’t understand

Thanks for your help. You are most considerate.

Are you referring to yourself as “poster doesn’t understand”? Or me? Or someone else?

Are you saying we should ignore what you say, or are you telling everyone else to ingore what I say?

Anyway, back to my previous message that sincerely asked for help, can anyone else decipher what that message was saying? I think this is an important and interesting topic/thread, but I’m sorry I’m not able to understand what that message meant. Thanks for any help.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I am just saying you can’t understand the easiest of English, therefore, why reply to you

 

[diggerdomer]

I am just saying you can’t understand the easiest of English, therefore, why reply to you

Again, thank you for your consideration and assistance. Happy Easter.

p.s. did you actually do as I kindly requested or did you continue to ignore what other people say in this thread?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Again, thank you for your consideration and assistance. Happy Easter.

p.s. did you actually do as I kindly requested or did you continue to ignore what other people say in this thread?

nope. Listened to what people said and Jerry-Jet was right

 

[diggerdomer]

nope. Listened to what people said and Jerry-Jet was right

“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,

and

1. did you continue to ignore what other people post on this thread?

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.