Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheims errors

[tobinatorstark]

A Bishops Committee has no teaching or authority charism like a Bishop in his own Diocese has, or the Pope, or a Council of Bishops.

A bishops Committee I mean groups like the USCCB (it is a council of Bishop). My assertion comes from the Code of Canon Law. Part 1.

 

[tobinatorstark]

part 2

Code of Canon Law 822- 832

Can. 822 §1. The pastors of the Church, using a right proper to the Church in fulfilling their function, are to endeavor to make use of the instruments of social communication.

§2. These same pastors are to take care to teach the faithful that they are bound by the duty of cooperating so that a human and Christian spirit enlivens the use of instruments of social communication.

§3. All the Christian faithful, especially those who in any way have a role in the regulation or use of the same instruments, are to be concerned to offer assistance in pastoral action so that the Church exercises its function effectively through these instruments.

Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.

§2. Bishops, individually or gathered in particular councils or conferences of bishops, have the duty and right mentioned in §1 with regard to the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the supreme authority of the Church, however, has this duty and right with regard to the entire people of God.

Can. 824 §1. Unless it is established otherwise, the local ordinary whose permission or approval to publish books must be sought according to the canons of this title is the proper local ordinary of the author or the ordinary of the place where the books are published.

§2. Those things established regarding books in the canons of this title must be applied to any writings whatsoever which are destined for public distribution, unless it is otherwise evident.

Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures provided with appropriate annotations.

Can. 826 §1. The prescripts of ⇒ can. 838 are to be observed concerning liturgical books.

§2. To reprint liturgical books, their translations into the vernacular, or their parts, an attestation of the ordinary of the place where they are published must establish their agreement with the approved edition.

§3. Books of prayers for the public or private use of the faithful are not to be published without the permission of the local ordinary.

Can. 827 §1. To be published, catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical instruction or their translations require the approval of the local ordinary, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 775, §2.

§2. Books which regard questions pertaining to sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, and religious or moral disciplines cannot be used as texts on which instruction is based in elementary, middle, or higher schools unless they have been published with the approval of competent ecclesiastical authority or have been approved by it subsequently.

§3. It is recommended that books dealing with the matters mentioned in §2, although not used as texts in instruction, as well as writings which especially concern religion or good morals are submitted to the judgment of the local ordinary.

§4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.

Can. 828 It is not permitted to reprint collections of decrees or acts published by some ecclesiastical authority unless the prior permission of the same authority has been obtained and the conditions prescribed by it have been observed.

Can. 829 The approval or permission to publish some work is valid for the original text but not for new editions or translations of the same.

 

[tobinatorstark]

part 3

Can. 830 §1. The conference of bishops can compile a list of censors outstanding in knowledge, correct doctrine, and prudence to be available to diocesan curias or can also establish a commission of censors which local ordinaries can consult; the right of each local ordinary to entrust judgment regarding books to persons he approves, however, remains intact.

§2. In fulfilling this office, laying aside any favoritism, the censor is to consider only the doctrine of the Church concerning faith and morals as it is proposed by the ecclesiastical magisterium.

§3. A censor must give his or her opinion in writing; if it is favorable, the ordinary, according to his own prudent judgment, is to grant permission for publication to take place, with his name and the time and place of the permission granted expressed. If he does not grant permission, the ordinary is to communicate the reasons for the denial to the author of the work.

Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.

§2. It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms concerning the requirements for clerics and members of religious institutes to take part on radio or television in dealing with questions of Catholic doctrine or morals.

Can. 832 Members of religious institutes also need permission of their major superior according to the norm of the constitutions in order to publish writings dealing with questions of religion or morals.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

A bishops Committee I mean groups like the USCCB (it is a council of Bishop). My assertion comes from the Code of Canon Law. Part 1.

It is not a Council of Bishops. It is a conference for setting disciplinary standards, according to canon law. But still, your point is well taken, as it does have the authority to censure or approve printed translations etc.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Why so??? The NIV isn’t approved by the Catholic Church in any way, plus it is missing 17 verses (give or take a few). An example of this is Matthew 15:10-12. Verse 11 doesn’t exist. Doesn’t that go against Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelations 22:18-19, but may be subject to 2 Timothy 3:15-17? Why or why not?? BTW all Catholic Bibles approved by the Catholic Church or any Catholic material have an Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, Imprimi Potest or some approval by a Bishops Committee

Correction to my earlier post. Matthew 18:11 is not there

 

[Manfred]

Code of Canon Law

Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures provided with appropriate annotations.

Toby,

Thanks for digging this out and bringing it to our attention.

To me, there’s no way the NRSV or NIV’s NT should EVER have been allowed to be published in so-called “Catholic” editions, UNLESS said authorities above decided to be politically correct.

 

[Jehuty_X]

Consider these two translations of Proverbs 30:8 and 30:9

Douay-Rheims

8 Remove far from me vanity, and lying words. Give me neither beggary, nor riches: give me only the necessaries of life:

9 Lest perhaps being filled, I should be tempted to deny, and say: Who is the Lord? or being compelled by poverty, I should steal, and forswear the name of my God.

New International Version (NIV)

8 Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread.

9 Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you 
   and say, 'Who is the LORD? ' 
   Or I may become poor and steal, 
   and so dishonor the name of my God.

I know they are saying the same thing, but what hits you harder? I say NIV is the better translation.

// the niv as better translation???
// the douai-rheims DESTROYS the niv for free…

 

[tobinatorstark]

// the niv as better translation???
// the douai-rheims DESTROYS the niv for free…

LOL

 

[tobinatorstark]

did we scare Christine 77 and NDfan off?? Can anyone prove the claim that there are 8000 errors in the Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate? I highly doubt there are that many errors, but I am not doubting there might be errors in the Douay-Rheims, but not Latin Vulgate

 

[alih]

when doing some research on the douay-rheims version the bible translated from the vulgate, it was learned that the dr version was codified during trent. however, there were two revisions attributed to bishop richard challoner of which one was reported to have contained some 2,500 errors.
contemporarily, many of the translations authored by the i.c.e.l. in the last few years, were so far out or the orthodox translations that pope john-paul ii issued the directive liturgium authenticam and eventually the panel of the i.c.e.l. was replaced.
hope this doesn’t add too much confusion. the united states bishops committee on divine worship is having their problems with this subject at this time. have a good year. (alih)

 

[Jehuty_X]

did we scare Christine 77 and NDfan off?? Can anyone prove the claim that there are 8000 errors in the Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate? I highly doubt there are that many errors, but I am not doubting there might be errors in the Douay-Rheims, but not Latin Vulgate

// i don’t know…i am waiting for the proof as well…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Consider these two translations of Proverbs 30:8 and 30:9

Douay-Rheims

8 Remove far from me vanity, and lying words. Give me neither beggary, nor riches: give me only the necessaries of life:

9 Lest perhaps being filled, I should be tempted to deny, and say: Who is the Lord? or being compelled by poverty, I should steal, and forswear the name of my God.

New International Version (NIV)

8 Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread.

9 Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
and say, 'Who is the LORD? ’
Or I may become poor and steal,
and so dishonor the name of my God.

I know they are saying the same thing, but what hits you harder? I say NIV is the better translation.

Christine-

In many respects, the NIV is easier to read; it’s written in contemporary English. The problem is that it is VERY biased doctrinally.

Two examples:

In Persona Christi

The Douay-Rheims and King James Versions provide powerful backing for the Catholic doctrine of confession to a priest.

The passage is found in 2 Corinthians 2:10 and hinges upon the translation of the Greek word, prosopon. Here is the passage as seen in context in three major translations.

Douay-Rheims
“For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things. And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.”

King James Version
For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

New International Version
The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake

While the first two translations each contain the words “in the person of Christ” or in persona Christi, the modern Protestant translation carefully avoids this phrase. Why is this important?

---

In persona Christi is a Latin phrase which translates literally as “in the person of Christ.” This is an important theological concept of the Catholic Church referring to the action of a priest while celebrating a sacrament. The priest acts in the person of Christ, or it could be said, the Person of Christ is acting in the performance of the gesture and the pronouncing of the words of the sacramental rite.

In particular, there are essential moments in the rites where the priest’s words and gestures confect the sacrament. These words are spoken in persona Christi. “This is my body.” in the Eucharistic prayer and “I absolve you of your sins” in the Sacrament of Reconciliation are chief examples.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_persona_Christi

Works “Missing” in James 2

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. (James 2:14-18 NIV)

What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. (James 2:14-18 Douay-Rheims)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

when doing some research on the douay-rheims version the bible translated from the vulgate, it was learned that the dr version was codified during trent. however, there were two revisions attributed to bishop richard challoner of which one was reported to have contained some 2,500 errors.
contemporarily, many of the translations authored by the i.c.e.l. in the last few years, were so far out or the orthodox translations that pope john-paul ii issued the directive liturgium authenticam and eventually the panel of the i.c.e.l. was replaced.
hope this doesn’t add too much confusion. the united states bishops committee on divine worship is having their problems with this subject at this time. have a good year. (alih)

I don’t think there were 2,500 errors, but changes to words (from the original DR.) That is why the Blessed John Henry Newman said Challoner’s revision almost amounted to a new translation.

 

[tobinatorstark]

when doing some research on the douay-rheims version the bible translated from the vulgate, it was learned that the dr version was codified during trent. however, there were two revisions attributed to bishop richard challoner of which one was reported to have contained some 2,500 errors.
contemporarily, many of the translations authored by the i.c.e.l. in the last few years, were so far out or the orthodox translations that pope john-paul ii issued the directive liturgium authenticam and eventually the panel of the i.c.e.l. was replaced.
hope this doesn’t add too much confusion. the united states bishops committee on divine worship is having their problems with this subject at this time. have a good year. (alih)

Can you go in depth about this claim??? The Douay-Rheims was released well after the Council of Trent. Rheims NT was released in 1582, Douay OT released in 1609 and D-R as a whole Bible in 1610. Council of Trent was from 1545-1563. So there is a significant time gap between the Council of Trent and the Douay-Rheims. What do you mean by codified?? Can you provide any logical source and documentation about 2500 errors? Again I am not saying that the D-R is error free, but I don’t agree that it would have 2500 errors either.

 

[tobinatorstark]

obviously no one has been able to come up with logical proof and documentation

 

[Junebug999]

well that was sort of like a hit and run wreck – they come by and post and when challenged for documents/proof they take off?

BUT I am thankful for beomg able to read all the other discussion/posts in the thread – I learted a lot (learned I want to read about St. Jerome for one thing).

My first Catholic Bible is a New American …and I’m just not happy with it – it seems too modern in some ways, so I dug out my old Protestant NIV and of course that won’t do either…

So I am Bible shopping – what translation is the Navarre Bible?

 

[po18guy]

I am guessing NDfan couldn’t come up with proof. Such a shame I was looking forward to his response

You want some interesting reading? Just Google “KJV translation errors”. Quite a few of the 30,000 denominations are abuzz with disagreement over its accuracy. Some claim 3,000 errors.

Why can’t we just refer to the bible that Jesus carried?

 

[tobinatorstark]

well that was sort of like a hit and run wreck – they come by and post and when challenged for documents/proof they take off?

BUT I am thankful for beomg able to read all the other discussion/posts in the thread – I learted a lot (learned I want to read about St. Jerome for one thing).

My first Catholic Bible is a New American …and I’m just not happy with it – it seems too modern in some ways, so I dug out my old Protestant NIV and of course that won’t do either…

So I am Bible shopping – what translation is the Navarre Bible?

The Navarre Bible is of the RSV-CE. I recommend the Douay-Rheims. Some prefer with the Haydock Commentary, but it is very costly and you can view the commentary online. I never recommend the RSV-CE, I feel so uncomfortable reading it that I cannot recommend it to anyone

 

[zach_dunn]

You want some interesting reading? Just Google “KJV translation errors”. Quite a few of the 30,000 denominations are abuzz with disagreement over its accuracy. Some claim 3,000 errors.

Why can’t we just refer to the bible that Jesus carried?

Wouldn’t that be just the Old Testament?

 

[po18guy]

Wouldn’t that be just the Old Testament?

Sort of. Jesus carried no scripture at all. He occasionally quoted from scripture and read from the sacred scrolls in the Temple.

However, Christ is God in the Flesh, and is therefore superior to all scripture. Man was not saved trough scripture, making the Incarnation necessary. I know that some will argue, believing that the bible is the equal of Christ - or even better, since the bible does not argue with them about that nasty little matter of interpretation.

Hmmm. There may be a thread idea in there somewhere…