P
pete_29
Guest
It’s just my opinion, but I think your second to last sentance is kind of immature.
- Status
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
Jan Hus, a RCC priest in the 15th century and of whom I take my screen name from was burned at the stake for his position against some of the teachings of RCC. I hope I never have to take a stand such as he did but if I ever have to make a choice between agreeing with some of what Rome says vs. what the clear teaching of the Bible, I will take the stake. This poster is not “just separated” as you claim.
PS your logic is not logical by the way.
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
Sorry if i offend you.It’s just my opinion, but I think your second to last sentance is kind of immature.
P
pete_29
Guest
I just thought it was unnecessary, of course, I have done the same before so I’ll just shut up before I say something really stupid
A
AwGusTeen
Guest
Ok - let’s start with Mr Wycliff:
Wycliffe’s first Bible (1384), was a crude and very literal word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate which preserved the Latin construction and even the word order of the Vulgate. Right… This was really a scholarly translation.
Tyndal’s 1525 New Testament translation was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament). King Henry VIII thought little of his work as well.
There you have it!
I have a copy of the DR 1511 NT so they must not be that hard to find.
Oh please - give the sophomoric smarmy attitude a rest will ya?
Peace!
T
Tartini
Guest
Disprove me.
R
rinnie
Guest
What are you talking about. To begin with the Bible was on Scrollls and Parchments during th Early Centuries of the Church. NO ONE had a bible. Why do you think the Church’s had stain glass windows. That is how people read. For goodness sakes People could not even read back then. Very very few could read.
After the Printing Press was Created then 20 versions were being published in various German Dialects. There were Several Vernaculan versions before and after the Reformation for goodness sakes.
Yes the Church did condemn CERTAIN vernacular because they felt they were bad translations and contained anti-catholic notes.
Catholic Douay Rheims was the FIrst English to be completed in 1610 I believe.
One year after, the KJV was completed.
Geeze I guess its the Church’s fault that printing presses were not created yet!
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
You my friend are not so correct.Ok - let’s start with Mr Wycliff:
Wycliffe’s first Bible (1384), was a crude and very literal word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate which preserved the Latin construction and even the word order of the Vulgate. Right… This was really a scholarly translation.
Tyndal’s 1525 New Testament translation was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament). King Henry VIII thought little of his work as well.
There you have it!
I have a copy of the DR 1511 NT so they must not be that hard to find.
Oh please - give the sophomoric smarmy attitude a rest will ya?
Peace!
- Wycliff was a pioneer. He used the vulgate because the RCC didn’t bother to put a greek manuscript into circulation. There is unlikely that you have read Whcliff with understanding to be able to form an opinion because his (middle) english difficult.
Therfore, britheren, Y biseche ȝou bi the mercy of God, that ȝe ȝyue ȝoure bodies a lyuynge sacrifice, hooli, plesynge to God, and ȝoure seruyse resonable. 2 And nyle ȝe be confourmyd to this world, but be ȝe reformed in newnesse of ȝoure wit, that ȝe preue which is the wille of God, good, and wel plesynge, and parfit.
- Tyndale: You claim 2000 errors but give not 1 example. Tyndale gave us a beautiful translation that is a joy to read.
- Finding a copy of the D/R repro first edition is hard to do. I have seen it for sale at an internet site for $50.00 + s&h but the crude web site and high cost makes me too nervous to buy it. Finding the Challoner revision is very easy but you knew that and also know the differences between the two? And you don’t have a copy of the 1511 Douay NT because it wasn’t published until 1582.
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
A better question to ask rinnie is what are you talking about.What are you talking about. To begin with the Bible was on Scrollls and Parchments during th Early Centuries of the Church. NO ONE had a bible. Why do you think the Church’s had stain glass windows. That is how people read. For goodness sakes People could not even read back then. Very very few could read.
After the Printing Press was Created then 20 versions were being published in various German Dialects. There were Several Vernaculan versions before and after the Reformation for goodness sakes.
Yes the Church did condemn CERTAIN vernacular because they felt they were bad translations and contained anti-catholic notes.
Catholic Douay Rheims was the FIrst English to be completed in 1610 I believe.
One year after, the KJV was completed.
Geeze I guess its the Church’s fault that printing presses were not created yet!
I have in previous post mentioned that Luther was not the first to translate the Bible into German. The point is though, the RCC kept much of the Bible out of the hands fo the people, verses on stained glass windows considered. The complete D/R Bible (the NT in 1582) was finished in 1609, two years before the King James of 1611. The problem with this as an arguement from the catholic point of view is that the King James was not the first English translation of the Bible. As mentioned by the venerable AwGusTeen, Wycliff 1388, Tyndale 1528, Geneva 1560 to name a few all predate the D/R. So there were english Bibles a full 220 years before the RCC published an english translation that was not burn worthy.
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
Romans 12 1-2 in the Tyndale translation of 1526:
I BESECHE you therfore brethren, by the mercyfulnes of God, that ye make youre bodyes aquicke sacrifise holy and acceptable vnto God which is youre resonable seruynge of god. 1 And fassion not youre selves lyke vnto this worlde: But be ye chaunged in youre shape, by the renuynge of youre wittes that ye maye fele what thynge that good, that acceptable, and perfaycte will of god is.
That is a beautiful translation and actually easier to read than the first edition 1611 King James. The King James in circulation today is actually a revision from 1769.
Tyndale is “Early Modern English” same as the 1611 King James (english from 1450 to 1750)
Wycliff is “Middle English” English from 1150 to 1450.
Old English (or Anglo-Saxon) is from 600 to 1150
Anything from 1750 to today is Modern English. When we say the King james is Old English, this is actually in error as it is early modern english. We cannot read “Old English” unless we study it at a univ. level.
Your welcome,
Jon
I BESECHE you therfore brethren, by the mercyfulnes of God, that ye make youre bodyes aquicke sacrifise holy and acceptable vnto God which is youre resonable seruynge of god. 1 And fassion not youre selves lyke vnto this worlde: But be ye chaunged in youre shape, by the renuynge of youre wittes that ye maye fele what thynge that good, that acceptable, and perfaycte will of god is.
That is a beautiful translation and actually easier to read than the first edition 1611 King James. The King James in circulation today is actually a revision from 1769.
Tyndale is “Early Modern English” same as the 1611 King James (english from 1450 to 1750)
Wycliff is “Middle English” English from 1150 to 1450.
Old English (or Anglo-Saxon) is from 600 to 1150
Anything from 1750 to today is Modern English. When we say the King james is Old English, this is actually in error as it is early modern english. We cannot read “Old English” unless we study it at a univ. level.
Your welcome,
Jon
This is an interesting post, Tartini, and, seeing that you refer to yourself as a traditional Catholic, it raises a single question, with a short preface.
the approach to unity you suggest in the bolded last paragraph is the approach that has been used, East and West for 1,000 years, and within the west for 500 years. It would be an understatement to say that it hasn’t been very successful.
Since Vatican II, Rome has taken a different approach, and Pope Benedict XVI has been very involved in that new approach, and with some success. As a Lutheran, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification comes to mind.
Question: Do you support or oppose the efforts of ecumenism taken by the Catholic Church since Vatican II?
Jon
A
AwGusTeen
Guest
So you say. Wycliff was not a scholar and that is why the RCC denied him approval to do any translation work. The man was simply not qualified. If you don’t believe me, then read his original work - it’s a word for word translation. Do you interpret scripture based upon this model? I hope not!
Well, I’m not going to do your homework for you. Look at the statements of The Bishop of London, Cuthbert Tunstall as-well-as those of Henry VIII. Get up off of your lazy tucus and find out.
Yes - and that is also the beautiful translation that caused all of the errors in the KJV 1611 1st ED. Hmmm…
Yes it was 1582 - my bad. 1611 and 1582 = 1511
Peace!
T
Tartini
Guest
The Vatican 2 situation was an attempt at actually working towards that, but I have yet to see a significant changes in any one attitude on either sides. I have rather mixed feelings and are never one to condone fence-sitting as a solution. Realist as I am, I have to say that Luther was not thinking on those lines when he did what he did. It is not highly likely that a single man, with whatever motives (personal or otherwise) that he may have had, could ever replace that which Christ Himself founded. He did not do anything great, as his actions split the very unity of Christendom apart as if it were a nuclear warhead. It just took longer to produce damage. Luther acted under the influence of Satanic forces, so that right there is suspicious as to his character altogether. It seems strange to me that anyone would have followed him, but some found opportunity in the event and took full advantage. The fact that people listened to his heresy is not surprising in the least as the times were ripe for it. It will probably happen again, just a different face with another philosophy to sell. It was due to happen at the time it did, and still goes on today. People either know what is right or not, but a Catholic is secure from error, so they have the one aspect that make them credible–authority given by Christ to proclaim the TRUTH.
T
Tartini
Guest
I have to say that the ecumenical situation was a great attempt at what could be, but is not realistic. Luther was inspired by Satan. Only Satan could have pulled off what entailed and created such chaos. It is not surprising that some individuals followed the lead and kept the ball rolling. There was much to be gained if one could pull away from Rome and make their own rules. Today, no modern mind wants to think like that, nor any Lutheran admit the origins of their denomination. The Church of England has just as equal a bad birth as the Lutherans. They were conceived because of one man’s lust for another woman and greed for land. Modernist thought and the promotion of it always tends to sugar what is reality and truth. I try not to fall into that vat of molasses and keep watch not to even slip. Once in, it is very difficult to get out.
I didn’t ask about Luther. Here, again, is my question:
Question: Do you support or oppose the efforts of ecumenism taken by the Catholic Church since Vatican II?
Two extra questions:
- Do you believe that when the joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification says:
that this is a true statement?
- Do you agree with the statement in my signature?
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
T
Tartini
Guest
Put into a few words what you are asking me, it sounds like some loaded question. Presenting it from the mouth of the Pope, when a Lutheran does not recognize the authority of the Pope is confusing, if not strangely suspect. Perhaps I don’t understand your question fully or what you are getting at. As for ecumenical relations, that is valuable to idealists, but most of the time it is not done properly, as there is very little room for idealism when the truth is being considered. You have the Catholic Church and then all others, where is the need for dialogue that would change anything differently on that level?
B
benidict
Guest
thank you. i really mean what i tell him. this poor guy is so full of hate, he cant help himself. i really believe that we need to lift him up in prayer, so that the Lord will touch him in some special way, to bring him to the Cross. i really cant get angry with him. much of what he says, only brings on a feeling of pity. i have to wonder what this persons religious education was like. or what is inside eating at him. lets all pray for his salvation. he is our brother, and we are our brothers keeper. Peace
F
FrJohnB
Guest
I think it takes guts to admit that you could not be totally sold out to Catholic doctrine and that if you did you would be a “cafeteria Catholic.”
I also agree with you that there are things that we all can agree on. When we find that common ground the other things will not look quite as insurmountable.
If we do this it will no longer be an us versus them debate but what makes us right. I would love to see all come home to the Catholic church, but many who do sometimes hold to past churches. at least you have the guts to say “I could not because…” That is something I can respect.God Bless you.
Fr John
T
Tartini
Guest
Never mind my last post. I see what you are saying. Ok, as I have had time to read the document, in general I will agree it is true. It is a worthy attempt at repairing past damages. It works with only one doctrinal disagreement (as there are many others), but stresses the similarities that Catholics and Lutherans hold, which is what is most important- Christ as the central figure in the plan of salvation. I must admit that many, if not all, Vatican 2 documents are very ambiguous in their wording, but as for the basic truths I will agree.
I have, by my own conservative nature, shunned using Vatican 2 documents to discuss Catholic truths, as the council was pastoral, not doctrinal. The council strived to bring about a better unity with other beliefs, not only other Christians, but instead created a confusion among the very group it was meant to aid. Catholics became a little confused, but that seems to be turning around with the increased ability to attend a traditional Latin Mass. I will not get into the details of all that here. I concern myself more with the preservation of traditional Catholic practice much in the same way as a museum preserves a work of art. These things must be preserved, as liberal and modernist minds seek to replace that which is eternal with that which is in vogue for a few years. The Church is not in the business of attempting to attract converts by telling them what they want to hear or updating the wallpaper, so to speak, but by offering Truth.
The statement by Cardinal Ratzinger makes sense and is very well worded to fit the purpose it was designed for–ecumenical relations. It is worded in such a way that it does not offend. There are so many other points to consider, and it would be foolish of me to attempt to explain that which I have had little study. When one gets into the Vatican 2 documents, whether or not they are protestant or Catholic, they tend to present themselves in light of interpretation of the individual. This has caused a great deal of confusion for both protestants and Catholics, but has also done much good in settling old feuds of the past. The disagreements of the past were often more of a “business” nature than anything religious, and I have always found it saddening that this is a truth.
I do realize I may come across as very matter-of-fact in my assessment of Luther, maybe too harsh. Luther himself doubted his own sanity on the whole issue and was often at odds with reality itself. It technically would make him innocent of any conscious wrongdoings. History tends to be concrete and present many circumstances that today are widely just overlooked. People who buy Ford automobiles rarely ever think of the man the car was named after. It seems that the problems we often face in the ecumenical movement is more due to lack of understanding the others understanding of history as it was, and how we can apply certain mistakes made in order to avoid future ones. I will make a point to study both the Vatican 2 document you cited as well as the doctrines of the Lutheran churches, as I am not certain of their differences. A good start of proper ecumenical relations is understanding the others’ point of view. God Bless You.
Thank you, Tartini, for your well thought out and measured response. It was a pleasure to read.
I agree with your last thought, which I bolded, and BTW, I recommend the Augsburg Confession, Luther’s Small Catechism, and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession as a good start to understand Lutheranism. www.bookofconcord.org
May I also add one suggestion; were I to start a dialogue with you, how fruitful would it be for me to start by saying that theecumenical situation is a good attempt at what could be, but is not realistic. The papacy is anti-Chirst.
It would close off any possibility of charitable, constructive discussion. And well it should. I suggest to you that your quote here has the same effect.I suggest further, that the leaders of our two communions are, for the most part, beyond that kind of language, and so should we be.
His blessings also with you,
Jon
- Status