Pope tried to translate Bible?

[rwoehmke]

But the question remains: was the promulgation going to fit the conditions for infallibility?

Is the CCC considered an infallible document or is it rather a document that contains infallible material? The difference is subtle, but I think it is a real one. Otherwise how could one replace it with a new edition? Which was done.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi,

I wonder if anyone could help me clarify whether the following story is truth or fiction, and if so some facts of the truth. I am sure I heard this story on CA Live, and I have been trying to track down the facts to no avail.

What I remember they said was there was a story of a Pope that showed how the Holy Spirit protects the Church. One of the Popes attempted to do his own translation of the Bible, and make this the standard for the Church. I think some time in the Middle Ages. He was advised that his translation had lots of problems, it was a bad translation, but he was committed to completing the work. Just before he was ready to publish iut, he dropped dead. The Bible never saw the light of day, and it was an example of how the Holy Spirit intervenes if/when necessary.

Truth or fiction?

True. The Holy Spirit will go to great lengths to protect the Church from teaching error.

Why does this surprise us? Scripture tells us of Ananias and Saphira, also.

The story can be found in an MP3 file by Patrick Madrid from his “Pope Fiction” series in the electronics sticky.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[MTD]

But the question remains: was the promulgation going to fit the conditions for infallibility?

I’m pretty sure it could fall under dogmatic fact. And it is theologically certain that dogmatic facts are infallible.

A little info about what a dogmatic fact is:

"Assertion 2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts.

This proposition is theologically certain.

A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: “Was the Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately elected bishop of Rome?” One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Piux XII is to be recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church." (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II - Christ’s Church, by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.

In other words, were the pope to declare that a particular translation is an absolutely accurate translation of the original text, it would be a dogmatic fact that said translation is absolutely accurate and this fact would be infallible.

Maria

 

[porthos11]

Is the CCC considered an infallible document or is it rather a document that contains infallible material? The difference is subtle, but I think it is a real one. Otherwise how could one replace it with a new edition? Which was done.

I think the question is not this; rather, was the bull going to be along the likes of Ineffabilis and Munificentissimus Deus defining the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. If so, then it would have triggered infallibility, resulting in the Pope’s prevention from doing so.

This is nothing like the Catechism, which is not promulgated as a solemn definition.

---

 

[porthos11]

I’m pretty sure it could fall under dogmatic fact. And it is theologically certain that dogmatic facts are infallible.

A little info about what a dogmatic fact is:
"Assertion 2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts.

This proposition is theologically certain.

A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: “Was the Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately elected bishop of Rome?” One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Piux XII is to be recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church." (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II - Christ’s Church, by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.In other words, were the pope to declare that a particular translation is an absolutely accurate translation of the original text, it would be a dogmatic fact that said translation is absolutely accurate and this fact would be infallible.

Maria

True, but without a copy of the bull, we don’t know for sure if it was going to contain a “We define…” clause.

 

[MTD]

True, but without a copy of the bull, we don’t know for sure if it was going to contain a “We define…” clause.

But that wasn’t my point. I was merely pointing out that it would be possible for a translation to be infallibly declared absolutely accurate. I was just answering the question as to whether a translation can be the object of infallibility.

Maria

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

But the question remains: was the promulgation going to fit the conditions for infallibility?

1. the Pope must be speaking in his capacity as shepherd and teacher of the Universal Church (i.e. ex cathedra);
2. it must be a solemn definition specifically on faith or morals.

Pope S was speaking as the sheperd of the church, and scripture deals with faith and morals, thus he did meet the conditions for infalliblity.

Maybe someone can find his exact words to prove it one way or the other.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I’ll quote from St. Robert Bellarmine’s biographer:

Quote:
… [Sixtus V] immediately began to think of some way to remedy the evil and … decided to do the corrections with his pen or by means of little square, oblong, or triangular pieces of paper, pasted over the blunders … it took him a full six months to complete, but even then he was not satisfied. The Spanish ambassador relates that no sooner had he been given a copy of the corrected Bible for presentation to his royal masters than a monk arrived … demanding it back for further retouches … in a few places phrases and whole verses had been accidentally omitted … publication of the long-expected volume was deferred from day to day and month to month, though the bull which was to introduce it to the Christian world had been drafted, printed, and made ready for posting upon the doors of St. Peter’s … much earlier. (James Broderick, S.J., Robert Bellarmine: Saint and Scholar, p. 113)

In April 1590, the cardinals had their hands on Sixtus’ version, but then he died in August, and consequently the further sale and printing of the Sistine version was forbidden - they even went so far as to destroy copies of the text currently in circulation, so bad was the final product.

St. Robert Bellarmine counseled the next pope (Gregory XIV) to go ahead and quickly have the version corrected, removing Sixtus’ errors, but to publish it under Sixtus’ name so as not to dishonor the dead pope.

The work was finished in July 1591, Pope Gregory died in October, Innocent IX died after only two months on the papal throne, and then finally the next pope - Clement VIII - authorized the publishing of the revised-revised-revised edition of the Vulgate.

That is why it is sometimes known as the Clementine Vulgate, or the Sistine-Clementine edition.

Given that history, I hardly think we can call it “free from error” in the literal sense.

websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=698628

In 1588 he issued from the Vatican Press an edition of the Septuagint revised according to a Vatican manuscript His edition of the Vulgate, printed shortly before his death, was withdrawn from circulation on account of its many errors, corrected, and reissued in 1592

newadvent.org/cathen/14033a.htm

The Church of Rome has had some unenviable experiences with papal ventures in the sphere of textual criticism. Pope Sixtus V, in 1590, published an edition of the Latin Vulgate, with a revised text, which he sought to make authoritative. He prefaced his edition with a bull in which he declared:

In this our perpetually valid constitution. . . we resolve and declare from our certain knowledge and from the plenitude of apostolical authority that that Vulgate Latin edition of the sacred page of the Old and New Testament, which was received as authentic by the Council of Trent is without any doubt or controversy to be reckoned that very one which we now publish, corrected as best may be, and printed in the printing office of the Vatican, to be read in the universal republic of Christendom and in all the Churches of the Christian world, decreeing that it, approved as it is, first by the universal consent of the holy Church and of the holy fathers, then by the decree of the general Council of Trent, and now also by the apostolical authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, legitimate, authentic, and undoubted in all public and private controversies, readings, preachings, and expositions.57

Variant readings, according to Sixtus’ proscription, were not to be printed in the margin in subsequent editions and the edition then issued was not to be modified. The major excommunication was to be visited upon violators and absolution was to be received from the pope alone.58

Sixtus V died soon after the appearance of his edition of the Vulgate, and his authoritative edition came on evil days. As early as September 5, 1590, according to Dr. Steinmueller, the sale of Sixtus’ Bible was forbidden and the available copies were destroyed.59

64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3OqGiRJsiK0J:thirdmill.org/newfiles/joh_skilton/joh_skilton.TransmissionScriptures.doc+Sixtus+V+Bull+Latin+Vulgate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

 

[runandsew]

Patrick Madrid covers this topic plus many more myths about the Popes in his series and book ‘Pope Fiction’

(“ftp://217.160.246.215/pub/audionet/EWTN_programs/Patrick_Madrid/Pope_Fiction/”)

Real audio

 

[Nita]

Is the CCC considered an infallible document or is it rather a document that contains infallible material? The difference is subtle, but I think it is a real one. Otherwise how could one replace it with a new edition? Which was done.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is not an infallible document but a document that contains infallible teaching. The first edition in English was never the official one. It was a temporary edition which was allowed to be issued and used until the Vatican examined it to be sure it presented the material accurately. As you know, there were shortcomings and revisions had to be made.

Nita

 

[awalt]

Back to the question of whether Pope Sixtus V was intending to teach infallibly on the issuing of a revised Bible, as one member suggested I read the excerpt in Pope Fiction by Madrid, and he is of the strong opinion that yes this would have been an infallible teaching. He states:

1. He was acting in his formal capacity as Pope (his introduction read “We, weighing the importance of this matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles…are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question.”
2. He was planning to officially promulgate a version of Scripture for the whole Church, indeed the whole Christian world;
3. What he intended to promulgate was squarely in the category of faith and morals.

 

[porthos11]

Patrick Madrid is one of the best sources on matters like these. With his backing, the Sixtus V episode can actually serve as a prime example of infallibility.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is not an infallible document but a document that contains infallible teaching. The first edition in English was never the official one. It was a temporary edition which was allowed to be issued and used until the Vatican examined it to be sure it presented the material accurately. As you know, there were shortcomings and revisions had to be made.

Nita

Hi Nita, what revisions were made?

maybe as a new thread.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

In this our perpetually valid constitution. . . we resolve and declare from our certain knowledge and from the plenitude of apostolical authority that that Vulgate Latin edition of the sacred page of the Old and New Testament, which was received as authentic by the Council of Trent is without any doubt or controversy to be reckoned that very one which we now publish, corrected as best may be, and printed in the printing office of the Vatican, to be read in the universal republic of Christendom and in all the Churches of the Christian world, decreeing that it, approved as it is, first by the universal consent of the holy Church and of the holy fathers, then by the decree of the general Council of Trent, and now also by the apostolical authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, legitimate, authentic, and undoubted in all public and private controversies, readings, preachings, and expositions.57

sorry that Bull makes it offically infallible.

 

[porthos11]

sorry that Bull makes it offically infallible.

Looks like it, indeed. Then before it could be promulgated, Pope Sixtus dies suddenly, despite being in (apparently) perfect health.

Infallibility is risky business indeed.

 

[Nita]

Hi Nita, what revisions were made?

maybe as a new thread.

I don’t know what they all were. The one that comes to mind had to do with homosexuality.

When the revisions were made, you could buy a small booklet that contained the revisions - so you would not have to buy a whole new catechism to get the approved text. That got to be a pain, so I threw my original catechism and the pamphlet away and bought the new revised Catechism.

Nita

 

[Bishopite]

The Pope in question was Sixtus V.

I don’t see how an anti-Catholic publisher can exploit this; if Pope Sixtus was going to solemnly promulgate an erroneous Bible ex cathedra (however that’s possible), then he dies before it can be done, this only serves to support infallibility rather than disprove it. Infallibility is preventive.

Exactly. This story is further explained in Patrick Madrid’s book “Pope Fiction.” surprisedbytruth.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=24

It seems Pope Sixtus V had a “towering ego” according to Patrick Madrids book and his revision had serious errors but was never prolmagated upon the Church which is one of the factors required for papal infallibility. In fact, he died before it could be mass produced or given to the multitude…

“On August 27, 1590, Pope Sixtus V died after a very brief illness. He had been in excellent health, and was one of the most vigorous and active pontiffs in the history of the papacy. But at the last moment, it seems the Holy Spirit fulfilled, once again, Christ’s promise that He would guide the Church into all truth. Advance copies of the version were quietly withdrawn by the cardinals. The bull anouncing it was never issued.”
(Pope Fiction, Patrick Madrid, page 251)

 

[nguyencongbinh]

Dear all
The Popes who wished to translate the Bible were:
St Pius X down to Pius XII, Paul VI
then John Paul II finished the task
bringing us THE NOVA VULGATA
The new official Bible of the Church
Binh

 

[porthos11]

Dear all
The Popes who wished to translate the Bible were:
St Pius X down to Pius XII, Paul VI
then John Paul II finished the task
bringing us THE NOVA VULGATA
The new official Bible of the Church
Binh

the point here being… ?

 

[paarsurrey]

My vote is fiction, because if it were true, then surely an anti-catholic publisher would have published it as proof aganist your doctrine of infalliblity.

shopping.com/xPF-The_Holy_Bible_Translated_from_the_Latin_Vulgate_and_Diligently_Compared_With_the_Hebrew_Greek_and_Other_Edtions_in_Divers_Languages_The_Old_Testament_Was_First_pu_by_Pope_Leo_Xiii

Hi
I also agree with you. I think it is superstitions not a fact.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics