C
Christian_Sr
Guest
Also, Luther did not break away, he was excommunicated. Luther stopped being Catholic. It wasn’t like he broke away and started a new Catholic church. Luther began an entirely new faith.
- Status
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
You experience is not related to binding and loosing for the entire Church. I don’t think that you believe that you have the right to declare doctrine, as the apostles did in Acts 15, for example.
Jesus was granting Peter authority with regard to the Church.
J
jmcrae
Guest
He had been running the Lutheran Church for many years before being formally excommunicated. He gathered the first Lutheran congregation in 1518, but he was not actually excommunicated until 1524.
Right, exactly. He was given many chances to recant and repent. Even after he had been excommunicated, the Church was still interested in bringing him back into the fold.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I think you would agree that a child cannot disobey his ordinary, normal parents on the basis that in another part of town, some parents may be abusing their children.
Okay, right. They have authority over how we can get married, how we go to school, how we do our banking, how we drive our cars, and other very personal, very important areas of our lives.
The Catholic Church is infallible in the areas of Doctrine and Morality. It is in the areas of discipline (ie: abstaining from meat on Fridays) and organization (unmarried priests) that we are looking at practical authority; not infallible authority. But we still have to obey the Church in these areas, as well even though the laws on fasting have changed over time, and even though the laws on priestly celibacy can be subject to change.
There are four levels of Scripture interpretation in Catholic thought, divided into two areas; the “literal” and the “spiritual.” The “literal” interpretation is not like Fundamentalist literalism, however - rather, it is to interpret the passage according to what the writer intended to mean by it, in it’s plain sense.
For example, the writer might use a figure of speech - (a camel through the eye of the needle, for example) - we read it according to what the figure of speech refers to; we don’t take it literalistically, by thinking that Jesus is referring to actual camels going through actual eyes of needles, but rather, the meaning of something rather large getting through a very small space. We do research, and in this example, we find that the saying Jesus was using came about because at night, when camels came to Jerusalem, in order to ensure that they were not carrying any weapons, the camels had to go through a very narrow passage-way (called “the eye of the needle”) that made it necessary to take all of the baggage off of the camel and carry it through separately. This allowed the guardians of the city to get a close look at the baggage and ensure that nothing was being brought in that could be used to attack the city. So, the “literal sense” of the phrase “a camel through the eye of the needle” is to remove baggage and get rid of anything harmful.
We have similar figures of speech in modern English. When we say that it is “raining cats and dogs” the “literal sense” is that it is raining too hard to be able to go out. We don’t imagine that we are talking about actual cats and dogs falling out of the sky.
The “spiritual sense” of Scripture is divided into three areas - the allegorical sense (how is this passage a picture of Heaven? Or perhaps it is a picture of Hell, or a picture of a particular stage of development in the spiritual life, or maybe it speaks about a specific Sacrament of the Church), the moral sense (How will I change the way I relate to others to have more positive relationships, in response to what I have learned in this passage?) and the anagogical sense (How is this passage or story a picture of my faith life? Who am I, in this passage or story? Am I the camel, or am I the eye of the needle? Do I need to divest myself of some excess baggage, or do I need to help someone else do that?)
Actually, the main argument against the authority of Protestantism is that Jesus is not the originator of that religion. Authority comes ultimately from Christ - not from being right. Christ has all authority in Heaven and on earth, so He can give authority to that which He has authored. But Luther had no authority to give, so Protestantism, of which he is the author, did not receive any. (Notice that “author” and “authority” have the same root word. What is authored receives the authority of its author, but it cannot receive more authority than its author has to give.)
The authority of the Church comes from its Author. Scripture is not the Author of the Church; Christ is.
This also comes with its own challenges. It is not easier to be obedient than it is to constantly question everything. However, there are greater rewards in obedience, I think.
No one says that it is. The literal (plain sense) interpretation of that passage is that Jesus was making Peter to be the first leader of the Church - the first Pope. This does not exclude an anagogical interpretation that speaks to your own faith journey and informs your own understanding of God’s love and care for you. Both interpretations can be right, because we are dealing with two different levels of interpretation.
P
PJM
Guest
Hi Anna,
I have no idea of what your final statement implies or is saying. Sorry?
But I can once again try to get you to see the solid logic for “One Church,” and as a natural consequence of this act, authority is necessary, logical and prudent. The church could and would never have “gotten to be but regional” were it not for the ever presence of the Holy Spirit assuring Her truth, nurturing Her Growth, and protecting Her Faith. It simply could not have happened without the direct intervention of God Himself.
Let’s put aside for the moment Mt. 16:15-18, and look solely at verse 19. Clearly and indisputably this is a conversation between Jesus and the one person He God is addressing, which with equal clarity is Peter. No matter what bible versions you are using these are inescapable facts.
Quoting the King James Bible. “And I [JESUS] will give unto thee [SINGULAR /PETER] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou [SINGULAR] shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou [SINGULAR] shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.
Anna, there is only one logical translation of this verse. ONLY ONE!
Forget what the CC claims and gain an historical perspective. History records only one Christian Faith, which means ONLY ONE Church. Therefore any and all bible verses that speak of authority, teaching and the like, in an absolute sense, simply must be referencing the Catholic Church. Denial of such denies abundant historical evidence and God Himself, who inspired these teachings. It is no more complicated than that.
Either the Bible which too historically and logically can be proven to come through the CC [not the other way around!] was the ONLY Bible along with the Only Christian Church until the mid 1600’s. Every single passage has specific meaning and relevance to and through Christ Only Church, called “Catholic” in 107 By Saint Ignaious. It was to be extremely clear specifically inspired by God for is One Catholic Church. Certainly it has meaning for others outside of this Church, but, and please get this point, it only, ONLY has proper understanding through the Church for which it was specifically written.
The bible verses I shared cannot and may not be properly understood except in the “light that Christ placed on the hill of Calvery” John 17: “12* While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.”
Anna, with the greatest humility possible I suggest that you need to get past your own personal perceptions and prejudices, and allow God to actually lead you. I’m not sharing any personal opinion. Only facts and the logical conclusions that they MUST led to.
Mark 3: 13 “And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons: Simon whom he surnamed Peter; James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-anerges, that is, sons of thunder; Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.”
Eph. 2:19 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”
Mt. 28: 18 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
You continue in my thoughts and prayers,
Pat
A
Amicus_Curae
Guest
The big sin which I see here is the audacity of Rome to teach and insist that only “SHE” has the right to call the shots and not scripture. I was at one time a lutheran who converted to the “True” church, the controling opinionated and biased church of Rome and Now the more I see and read from fundamentalist roman catholics on this site the more I agree with Luther By the way NOT all the protestant churches are in agreement with Luther especially those who follow the teachings of Calvin and Zwengli the Presbyterian and the anti-baptist movements now known as the Southern Baptists and others of that extreme protestant philosophy Luther and the Anglican communion are closer to catholic doctrine than any of the “protestants”
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
I see that you claim to be Catholic but your view doesn’t conform to Catholic teaching.
The Catholic Church does now and has always taught that the bible is the Word of God. The Church does not teach anything that contradicts the bible.
There is no conflict between the two.
From the Catechism:
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
J
jmcrae
Guest
We have a Bible because three Councils of Catholic Bishops and two Catholic Popes discerned its contents and decreed that we have one. Without those declarations, the books of the Bible would still be lying under 2,000 years of dust in the rubble of the ancient libraries where they first were stored, known only to a very few archaeologists.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
**PMJ: Before answering your recent Posts, and continuing the discussion regarding Scripture; I would like to hear your comments regarding Post #390. You answered some of the issues, but not these:
**
I think it would be very difficult to prove that the CC refused to publish the Bible in “common language” in order to “blunt the amount of error.”
According to the Bible Translation Guide (Faith Tab-this site,) the recommended Bible translation for Catholics, is the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition.
Link: catholic.com/library/Bibl…ions_Guide.asp
Ironically, the RSV is a Protestant Bible Translation, adopted by the Catholic Church, edited for Catholic use (very few changes were made,) and reissued by Ignatius Press under the title "The Ignatius Bible."
Quote from Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:
“For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions. It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike.”
This edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It is published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. . . . "
If I recall correctly, the literacy rate, at the time of N.T. authors, was only about 10%. Even within the 10%, some who could read, could not necessarily write. So, the early Church would have had someone read the Letters of Paul, etc. to them. Oral transmission preceded written Scripture. When the N.T. Books/Letters were finally penned, they circulated separately. A literate Church member would read to the largely-illiterate congregation.
Since we do not have any known autographs; Biblical Scholars must work with more than 5,000 N.T. manuscripts and try to determine which, of the many variants, are most likely to be the original words. New manuscripts continue to be discovered. So, this is an ongoing endeavor. I do believe that God’s truth does and will prevail.
Anna
**
Granted, the KJV contains many errors and was translated from inferior manuscripts.
I think it would be very difficult to prove that the CC refused to publish the Bible in “common language” in order to “blunt the amount of error.”
According to the Bible Translation Guide (Faith Tab-this site,) the recommended Bible translation for Catholics, is the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition.
Link: catholic.com/library/Bibl…ions_Guide.asp
Ironically, the RSV is a Protestant Bible Translation, adopted by the Catholic Church, edited for Catholic use (very few changes were made,) and reissued by Ignatius Press under the title "The Ignatius Bible."
Quote from Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:
“For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions. It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike.”
This edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It is published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. . . . "
I’m not sure that means the written word should only be in the hands of the Leadership in the Catholic Church and not the common man. Obviously, that is not the case today. The Catholic Church approves a number of English Bible Translations for use by the “common man.”
If I recall correctly, the literacy rate, at the time of N.T. authors, was only about 10%. Even within the 10%, some who could read, could not necessarily write. So, the early Church would have had someone read the Letters of Paul, etc. to them. Oral transmission preceded written Scripture. When the N.T. Books/Letters were finally penned, they circulated separately. A literate Church member would read to the largely-illiterate congregation.
I agree that the Bible contains divine inspiration; however, there are actually many contradictions–but that would be a topic for another Thread.
Since we do not have any known autographs; Biblical Scholars must work with more than 5,000 N.T. manuscripts and try to determine which, of the many variants, are most likely to be the original words. New manuscripts continue to be discovered. So, this is an ongoing endeavor. I do believe that God’s truth does and will prevail.
I agree.
Anna
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
**PMJ:
I think it would be very difficult to prove that the CC refused to publish the Bible in “common language” in order to “blunt the amount of error.”
**
Actually, it is quite easy!
The Catholic Church published the bible in multiple languages throughout history. It was only after the distortions written by some of the Reformers that they began to restrict the spread of what they viewed as a distorted message.
Here’s a great compilation of all the languages that the Catholic Church printed the bible in up to and after the Reformation:
GREEK: Septuagint; Aquila; Theodotion; Symmachus; other versions.
VERSIONS FROM THE SEPTUAGINT: Vetus Itala or Old Latin; Egyptian or Coptic (Bohairic, Sahidic, Akhmimic, and Fayûmic, i.e. Middle Egyptian or Bashmuric); Ethiopic and Amharic (Falasha, Galla); Gothic; Georgian or Grusian; Syriac; Slavic (Old Slavonic, Russian, Ruthenian, Polish, Czech or Bohemian, Slovak, Serbian or Illyrian, Croation, Bosnian, Dalmatian); Arabic; Armenian.
VERSIONS FROM THE HEBREW: Chaldaic; Syriac (Peschitto); Arabic (Carshuni); Persian; Samaritan Pentateuch; Vulgate; other Latin versions.
HEBREW VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
VERSIONS FROM MIXED SOURCES: Italian; Spanish; Basque; Portuguese; French; German; Dutch and Flemish; Scandinavian (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic); Finnish (Estonian, Laplandish); Hungarian; Celtic (Irish, Scottish, Breton or Armoric, Welsh or Cymric).
MISCELLANEOUS: Aleutian; Aniwa; Aneitumese; Battak; Benga; Bengali; Chinese; Gipsy or Romany; Hindu; Hindustani; Japanese; Javanese; Mexican; Modern Greek.
ENGLISH VERSIONS
newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
CHESTERTONRULES:Actually, it is quite easy!
The Catholic Church published the bible in multiple languages throughout history. It was only after the distortions written by some of the Reformers that they began to restrict the spread of what they viewed as a distorted message.
Here’s a great compilation of all the languages that the Catholic Church printed the bible in up to and after the Reformation:
GREEK: Septuagint; Aquila; Theodotion; Symmachus; other versions.
VERSIONS FROM THE SEPTUAGINT: Vetus Itala or Old Latin; Egyptian or Coptic (Bohairic, Sahidic, Akhmimic, and Fayûmic, i.e. Middle Egyptian or Bashmuric); Ethiopic and Amharic (Falasha, Galla); Gothic; Georgian or Grusian; Syriac; Slavic (Old Slavonic, Russian, Ruthenian, Polish, Czech or Bohemian, Slovak, Serbian or Illyrian, Croation, Bosnian, Dalmatian); Arabic; Armenian.
VERSIONS FROM THE HEBREW: Chaldaic; Syriac (Peschitto); Arabic (Carshuni); Persian; Samaritan Pentateuch; Vulgate; other Latin versions.
HEBREW VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
VERSIONS FROM MIXED SOURCES: Italian; Spanish; Basque; Portuguese; French; German; Dutch and Flemish; Scandinavian (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic); Finnish (Estonian, Laplandish); Hungarian; Celtic (Irish, Scottish, Breton or Armoric, Welsh or Cymric).
MISCELLANEOUS: Aleutian; Aniwa; Aneitumese; Battak; Benga; Bengali; Chinese; Gipsy or Romany; Hindu; Hindustani; Japanese; Javanese; Mexican; Modern Greek.
ENGLISH VERSIONS
newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm
You ignored the most important points of my Post, including the very ironic fact that the RSV is a Protestant Bible Translation, adopted by the Catholic Church, edited for Catholic use (very few changes were made,) and reissued by Ignatius Press under the title “The Ignatius Bible.” This is the Bible Translation recommended by the Catholic Church, today.
Anna
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
That is fine. It is an approved translation.
However, there were bibles printed during the Reformation which contained major errors.
The job of the Church is to preserve and proclaim the truth. They did this with regard to scripture.
Here’s an example of what they were up against:
The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,
*Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. *
Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word “allein” (English ‘alone’) to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:
…Martin Luther would once again emphasize…that we are “justified by faith alone”, apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein (“alone”) in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther’s move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).
Luther’s comment on the matter confirms the need for diligence in protecting scripture:
You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
I know that Catholic Forum Members are trying to help me; and I am sincerely grateful.
I see our discussions heading down the same path of “authority” debates. I have had this discussion a number of times on these Forums; and I am certain that you have too. You can probably guess my arguments, and I can probably guess yours.
So, what would help me the most, in considering the Catholic Church, is a list of Apostolic Succession and proof of consistent doctrine from the early church to the present-day doctrines of the Catholic Church.
I welcome links to articles, other threads, books, etc.
Anna
I see our discussions heading down the same path of “authority” debates. I have had this discussion a number of times on these Forums; and I am certain that you have too. You can probably guess my arguments, and I can probably guess yours.
So, what would help me the most, in considering the Catholic Church, is a list of Apostolic Succession and proof of consistent doctrine from the early church to the present-day doctrines of the Catholic Church.
I welcome links to articles, other threads, books, etc.
Anna
P
PJM
Guest
Friend, I’m confused
Up until I read your post I thought I was also an “informed Catholic” but I guess I’m wrong:blush:
So tell please is the Bible “The Inspired word of God”? I assume this means that what it says is true?
From the Douey Rheims Bible: 2 Tim. 3:16 "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. " As you no doubt know, this Bible is the first English language Bible ever. It was published about fifty years before the King James; which has this quote of the same verse. “all scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof, for instruction in righteousness.”
WOW! That’s the same thing the Catholic Bible says??? And I’m sure its simply a matter of coincedience but about 90% of the King James, says the same thing, teaches the same thing as the Catholic Bible. So is the Catholic Church, and its ORGINAL BIBLE, to coin an expression: “just a little bit pregnant.” Just a little bit true???
And was The Bible the Inspired Word of God after is was written. Completed at the end of the First Century, and the Canon was set aroud the year 400. Or did God wait on his promise of Inspiration until about 1650??? One assumes to allow Luther time to correct God’s errors???
So where I need your help, your insight is if the bible is true??? And If the Bible is the Inspired Words of God Himself??? Then on what authority did Luther, Calvin et. All, claim as their justification to change at will everything in the Bible they choose not to agree with??? And this some 1,200 years after the Canon was finalized.
I have wondered about this for along time. I’m sure looking forward to you setting me straight:shrug:
Oh, and friend may I suggest you read Hebrews chapter six, It was written especially for those with your bakground.
Love and prayers friend.
J
jmcrae
Guest
There isn’t really any “short-hand” way to do that, although I think the list of the Popes is of help in establishing the Apostolic Succession - we see from looking at that list that we have always had a Pope, and that each Pope is duly appointed by the Council of Bishops that was working with the previous one - no legitimate Pope has ever grabbed power by violence, or set himself upon Peter’s chair without the authority of the Bishops of the Church to put him there.
List of the Popes from St. Peter to Benedict XVI.
When you read through The Faith of the Early Fathers (translated and collected by William Jurgens) it’s clear even from page 1 that those guys were not operating according to Protestant assumptions of “faith alone” or “Bible alone” - they were relying on the oral testimony of the Apostles, miracles, the Sacraments, the Bishops, and building their ideas around all of that. They also really come across as being “very Catholic” in their outlook on things. My father (who is Protestant) was given something to read by St. Ignatius of Antioch (died in 107 AD) and his comment was, “Wow, is that guy ever Catholic. Don’t you have anything by the Protestants of the same era?”
No, 'fraid not.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
First, I am not a fan of Luther.
Secondly, I am not claiming that the Bibles published in the Reformation were without error or bias; nor would I claim that all Protestant Bibles today are without error. Some Protestant Bibles, especially some of the Amplified versions, are what I would consider to be heretical—because they insert commentaries (identified only by parentheses) into the main body of Holy Scripture.
Also, many current Bible translations manipulate the text by simply choosing which variants to include in the main body of text, and which variants to relegate to the footnotes–not to mention the use of Greek and Hebrew variants with clear bias.
Can you claim that the Latin Vulgate was without error? If it was without error, wouldn’t the Douay-Rheims Bible, be the Bible Version recommended by the Catholic Church, today?
If I remember correctly, in 1546, the Latin Vulgate was declared by the Catholic Church to be the only authentic and official version.
Yet today, at least according to the Catholic resources on this website; the RSV is the recommended Bible Translation for Catholics. Again, the RVS is a Protestant Bible Translation, adopted by the Catholic Church, edited for Catholic use (very few changes were made,) and reissued by Ignatius Press under the title “The Ignatius Bible.”
Since the RSV-Catholic Edition has been reissued under the title, “The Ignatius Bible;” I doubt all Catholics are aware of its origin.
Anna
J
jmcrae
Guest
The Douay-Rheims is written in a form of English that is no longer in use, in the modern world. Certain important words have changed their meaning, so more modern translations are recommended for average readers today.
The Latin Vulgate is still the official Bible of the Church.
that’s not a recommendation from the Pope; that’s a recommendation from the people who run this web site. No one on this web site is claiming that the RSV is the official translation for the Catholic Church. This would be impossible, since the Catholic Church is comprised of at least 400 different language groups. English is only one of them. Latin is the official language of the Church; not English.
The RSV is actually an Ecumenical Bible that was translated by both Catholics and Protestants working together in the late 1800s. (That’s why it has Deuterocanonical Books - because of the Catholics who were involved with it.)
It’s a good translation. It is suitable for modern-day English-speaking Catholics to use, with Catholic footnotes. (The Ignatius Bible has different footnotes than the Protestant edition, but the text of the actual Scriptures is the same.)
When we say that the Catholic Church is the only Church with God-given authority to teach, we do not mean to say that Protestants have no gifts to offer, or that their work is useless in every way. But in order to make that Protestant work useful to us, we put it into a Catholic context, and we make use of it that way, rather than moving ourselves into a Protestant context, or taking on Protestant assumptions.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
jmcrae: thank you so much for the references. CHESTERTONRULES also sent some in a PM. I will definitely read them all.There isn’t really any “short-hand” way to do that, although I think the list of the Popes is of help in establishing the Apostolic Succession - we see from looking at that list that we have always had a Pope, and that each Pope is duly appointed by the Council of Bishops that was working with the previous one - no legitimate Pope has ever grabbed power by violence, or set himself upon Peter’s chair without the authority of the Bishops of the Church to put him there.
List of the Popes from St. Peter to Benedict XVI.
When you read through The Faith of the Early Fathers (translated and collected by William Jurgens) it’s clear even from page 1 that those guys were not operating according to Protestant assumptions of “faith alone” or “Bible alone” - they were relying on the oral testimony of the Apostles, miracles, the Sacraments, the Bishops, and building their ideas around all of that. They also really come across as being “very Catholic” in their outlook on things. My father (who is Protestant) was given something to read by St. Ignatius of Antioch (died in 107 AD) and his comment was, “Wow, is that guy ever Catholic. Don’t you have anything by the Protestants of the same era?”
No, 'fraid not.
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Pat:
I’m not sure all Catholics would agree that the CC’s refusal to publish the Bible in “common languages” was to try to blunt the amount of error. You are probably familiar with Greg Youell. He offers a different perspective:
Link: bible-researcher.com/catholic-intro.html
THE BIBLE AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, by Greg Youell
III. BIBLE TRANSLATION AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
A. Old-English and Middle-English
Today many still believe that the Catholic Church endeavored to keep the Bible from the people. This demonstrates the Church’s dismal performance in public relations over the past 500 years, for nothing could be farther from the truth.
Indeed, it was at the request of Pope Damasus in the late 4th century that St. Jerome undertook the creation of the Latin Vulgate. The eminent scholarship of St. Jerome produced this translation as an accurate standard and rendered all previous Latin translations obsolete. This text would serve as the authoritative Scripture for the Western Church for the next fifteen-hundred years. The Council of Trent reiterated its authority and endorsed its use “in disputations, in lectures and in preaching.”
In order to understand the Vulgate’s value, one must first grasp that throughout the Middle Ages and even until quite recently, Latin was not the dead language it is today. In Western Europe throughout the Middle Ages, anyone who was literate read and wrote in Latin. Education was conducted entirely in Latin. It was the language of all men of learning and culture. Thus, for the literate people of England, the Vulgate served as the primary Bible during the Middle Ages.
However, this is not to admit the charge that the Bible was kept in Latin during the Middle Ages. In the seventh century poetic renderings of portions of the Bible were done by a monk named Caedmon. During the following century the well-known Venerable Bede undertook a translation into the vernacular. Many other partial translations were done during the next couple centuries, including one of the Psalms attributed to King Alfred the Great.
In 1066 the Normans conquered England, and Middle English and French replaced Old English (Saxon). From this time we have various manuscripts such as the paraphrase of Orm (ca. 1150) and the Salus Animæ (ca. 1250). The existence of translations during this period is affirmed by the original preface to the King James Bible and Sir Thomas More, who wrote: “The whole Bible long before Wycliff’s day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read.”
“The Bible and the Catholic Church” © by Greg Youell, 2003
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
First, there are many people who, thinking in a post-modern mindset, would have no problem holding two diametertically contradictory truths at the same time. While this may not be something that you can resonate with, it is a reality for other people’s experience.
Second, the ONE truth that we all hold in common is Jesus Christ. No doubt you are familiar with the phrase: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity. Jesus is the one essential. Whether a church is administered by a bishop or a congregational system seems to be something where we can grant liberty. For those who adopt this latter model of being truly independent churches answerable on earth only to their own membership, they are in effect denominations unto themselves. Given that, what is suprising is not that there are 30,000 denominations, but that there are not more.
Third, that 30,000 different denominations exist does not mean that there are 30,000 different sets of beliefs. The beliefs of the United Methodists, Free Methodists, and Wesleyans are strikingly the same. The differ from one another over some historical adminstrative issues, but not doctrine. I imagine that you will find this pattern repeated often.
Fourth, don’t be so quick to assume that there is ONE truth within the Catholic church. Based on my local observations there are some signficant differences. And while all may stay under the one roof, the existence of these differences in our faith communities has lead to some of those denominational splits you mention. Indeed those differences are oft times smaller than what is sometimes seen within the Catholic church.
So, while it is great that this has not split you as it has others, but given that differences do exist within the Catholic church and that similarities exist among different denominations outside of it, do not make the hasty conclusion that different denominations means there are different truths, or that being just one denominations means that there are not different truths.
- Status