Please help me

[Pete_1]

I read somewhere in the CCC that if someone accepts another account of the New Testament apart from the Vulgate let him be anethema.

I only have the NIV version, is this ok to read, is the CCC i am quoting correct?

Please help me

Thanks,

 

[homeric]

There are no anthema statements in the CCC.

 

[Bishopite]

I read somewhere in the CCC that if someone accepts another account of the New Testament apart from the Vulgate let him be anethema.

I only have the NIV version, is this ok to read, is the CCC i am quoting correct?

Please help me

Thanks,

Maybe you are thinking of Galations 1:6-9?

“6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.
7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

In this passage, Paul is using the word “anathema” as “excommunication” from the Church, NOT as condemned to hell, as anathema is used in Church writings this way. The councils e.g., Trent also used anathema as excommunication from the Catholic Church, not as condemned to hell as some wrongly claim.

 

[Pete_1]

It was from a certain council if it was not the CCC

 

[buffalo]

Look at it this way:

Today it might read - if someone accepts another account of the New Testament apart from the Vulgate. the NAB, the Douay-Rheims Version, etc… let him be anethema.

 

[MH84]

The CCC uses Scripture references from either the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition or the RSV-Second Catholic Edtion.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Perhaps you are thinking of the Council of Trent when it states that “if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” So the anathema is for those who disdain the old Latin Vulgate. But it’s ok for Catholics to read other translations approved by the Catholic Church.

I don’t think that it’s anathema to read translations that are not approved, but it is still probably a bad idea… unless you have your reasons. Like if you read the NIV in order to have common ground with non Catholic Christians who use it, for the purpose of (1) coming to know them better and (2) more effectively witnessing to them, then that’s probably fine and even commendable… as far as I know the Catholic Church would support that endeavor. But it might be more helpful to become familiar with a Catholic translation first. I would get an RSV Catholic Edition.

May the LORD be with you!

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Perhaps you are thinking of the Council of Trent when it states that “if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” So the anathema is for those who disdain the old Latin Vulgate. But it’s ok for Catholics to read other translations approved by the Catholic Church.

I would guess that they are actually saying that “anyone who claims that their New Testament contains any more or less than the 27 books declared canonical by the Church, it’s a problem.” Since the Protestant Bibles have the same 27 books in their NT the problem with reading from a Protestant translation would likely have more to do with the slant of footnotes than the Scriptures themselves. (Yes, I do realize the Catholic Church has approved translations and as Catholics you do have several approved options in English Bibles, so there really isn’t a good reason for a Catholic to feel it necessary to own or read a Protestant translation.)

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Howdie !!
It won’t hurt you to read your NIV bible.
But the NIV is missing several books found in the Catholic bibles.

Don’t panic about having only an NIV to read for now,
but do look into getting yourself a Catholic edition bible, too,
whenever you can.

I learned the Catholic faith using the protestant
New American Standard Bible published by the Lockman Foundation. It was only after I started believing in Catholicism
that I went out and got a Catholic edition of the bible.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Ignatius]

It was from a certain council if it was not the CCC

Nope! 'Fraid not my friend.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Howdie !!
It won’t hurt you to read your NIV bible.
But the NIV is missing several books found in the Catholic bibles.

The NIV New Testament is the same as a Catholic New Testament, so as far as the OP is concerned about the NT, it’s fine to read the NIV NT if that’s all he has.

 

[rwoehmke]

Perhaps you are thinking of the Council of Trent when it states that “if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” May the LORD be with you!

This is another example of a Church document that, like the Bible, can be easily misunderstood. The Council of Trent was concerned with those who would delete a book, parts of a book, or use a translation that changed the meaning of verses that support Catholic Teaching. As someone else said above the devil can also be in the notes. As Catholics it is a blessing that we have a teaching authority to fall back on when things don’t make common sense or seem unreasonable.

 

[Pete_1]

Thankyou , i only have the NIV at the moment

 

[Pophead]

Thankyou , i only have the NIV at the moment

It is not to bad, but just remember they have relegated some of the passages to the footnotes, seeing you are on computer why not go to ESword and get yourself a whole ton of Bibles and resourses, to help you know what is missing and what is not.

So many Modern Bibles these days are simply terrifying. If you can learn Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French and German you will get a really blast from reading that Bible in your hands, or the one on your computer screen.

The ESword has Duo Rheims, Textus Receptus, KJV and Strongs, it is really quite a remarkable resourse, I use it regularly.

Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

additional:
It has 81 Bibles, and 7 really cool one’s you can buy. It even has the Latin Vulgate.

Goodnight all,
Pophead.

 

[Manfred]

The CCC uses Scripture references from either the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition or the RSV-Second Catholic Edtion.

No, the CCC uses both the “ecumenical” RSV (1973) and the NRSV (most regrettably!).

Why not the RSV-CE? my two-cents’ worth:

(1) the RSV-CE was out of print when the CCC was first promulgated in 1994;

(2) for “apologetics” purposes, it probably makes more sense to refer to a Scriptural translation that does not have the word “Catholic” in its title, so as not to give the impression (albeit false) that Church doctrine is supported by “altered” biblical texts.

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

The NIV New Testament is the same as a Catholic New Testament, so as far as the OP is concerned about the NT, it’s fine to read the NIV NT if that’s all he has.

The NIV interprets many of the idiomatic expressions for the reader, and it does so with a Protestant slant. It does not give you a Catholic allegorical(how the text relates to Jesus) and anagogical(how it relates to our future or heaven) perspective. If you want to read the NIV, why not cross reference a particular chapter and verse with the NAB or RSV. Many will be the same, but many will be different. The Old Testament especially does not have a Catholic allegorical and anagogical perspective.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The NIV interprets many of the idiomatic expressions for the reader, and it does so with a Protestant slant. It does not give you a Catholic allegorical(how the text relates to Jesus) and anagogical(how it relates to our future or heaven) perspective. If you want to read the NIV, why not cross reference a particular chapter and verse with the NAB or RSV. Many will be the same, but many will be different. The Old Testament especially does not have a Catholic allegorical and anagogical perspective.

That is very true. I personally dislike the NIV and always have. (I was a staunch KJV-mostly fundamentalist in my previous life )

To the OP, you can go here and read the NAB online - and it’s free. I think that would be a better option than reading your NIV.

 

[Manfred]

That is very true. I personally dislike the NIV and always have. (I was a staunch KJV-mostly fundamentalist in my previous life )

To the OP, you can go here and read the NAB online - and it’s free. I think that would be a better option than reading your NIV.

Or, you can go here, to

hti.umich.edu/r/rsv/

and read the “ecumenical” edition of the RSV (it does not have the Catholic changes made in 1965).

It’s generally mainstream translation/editing team kept it from having the evangelical slant of the Non-Inspired Version.

 

[lak611]

Or, you can go here, to

hti.umich.edu/r/rsv/

and read the “ecumenical” edition of the RSV (it does not have the Catholic changes made in 1965).

It’s generally mainstream translation/editing team kept it from having the evangelical slant of the Non-Inspired Version.

I have the NIV bookmarked, but I do not actually have a copy of that particular translation. I own a lot of Bibles, both Catholic and Protestant. For Catholic Bibles, I recommend the RSV-CE, Douay-Rheims and NJB. For Protestant Bibles, I recommend the NASB, KJV, and RSV. Any of those is better than the NIV or NAB, both of which are too dynamic. The other translations that I mentioned are more literal (especially the RSV, RSV-CE, Douay-Rheims, NASB and KJV). The NJB is somewhat of a dynamic equivalence translation, but it is still more literal than the NAB or NIV.