Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[JonNC]

=SteveVH;9029153]Would you not agree that the Catholic Church has done some repairs on its own house (the abuse by some of selling indulgences, etc.)

Oh, absolutely, Steve. Listen, I think one of the best things that has happened for the cause of unity is Vat II. There has been so much positive between our communions since then, things that could never have happened 100 years ago.

What, in your opinion, is yet to be reconciled and do these things involve doctrinal issues?

Right off, I’d say we need to continue to reach further convergence on justification, how we view the mass, and most important for me, the role and primacy of the pope. There’s other things, but those are, for me, the biggies.

Jon

 

[Luvtosew]

Oh, absolutely, Steve. Listen, I think one of the best things that has happened for the cause of unity is Vat II. There has been so much positive between our communions since then, things that could never have happened 100 years ago.

Right off, I’d say we need to continue to reach further convergence on justification, how we view the mass, and most important for me, the role and primacy of the pope. There’s other things, but those are, for me, the biggies.

Jon

JonNC
Sorry if I’m budding in, tell me if I am , but I was just wondering what you mean about how
we view the mass part?

 

[christosdavid]

It makes it sound like Jesus wasn’t powerful enough to establish a Church which would not become corrupted. And Jesus is God!

“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…” It appears that the gates of hell really *did *prevail against God’s Church, even though Jesus said it wouldn’t happen. And that does not say much in Jesus’ favor.

the church may have a divine origin, but its made up of humans. One may defend the crusades but what about the sacking of Constantinople? That basically gave the orthodox a reason to “submit to the turban rather than the mitre”

Or following a **sacred duck **around… Im sure thats great doctrine and practise

besides, through the reforming work of both the council of Trent and Vatican II many of the corrupt practices such as simony were curtailed.

as for doctrine, hermeneutics have come a long way since the early fathers or Aquinas, newer and better translations eliminating the “she” will crush the serpent with her heel from the vulgate to the Hebrew text which has the proto-evangelium as the obvious HE (Jesus) rather than she (Mary)… you can see statutes with this mistranslation remaining in many CC…

If you feel you have to argue for everything in Catholic history then I comisserate because quite simply, no church is as perfect as we, our neighbours or even Christ would wish them to be.

a final word, prevail is too strong a word, the church still stood but was in need of reform

 

[Cat_Herder]

the church may have a divine origin, but its made up of humans. One may defend the crusades but what about the sacking of Constantinople? That basically gave the orthodox a reason to “submit to the turban rather than the mitre”

As I (and Wikipedia) understand it, the Orthodox supporters of Byzantine Emperor Isaac II Angelos, who had lost the throne to his brother, precipitated the sack of Constantinople by asking the crusaders to restore him to the throne in return for imperial support against the Ottomans (the original objective of the crusade). Emperor Alexios III Angelos, a very bad ruler who splurged the imperial treasury on gardens and palaces, did not want his brother back on the throne and the Crusaders got drawn into a literally Byzantine intrigue. So the Fourth Crusade was really a Byzantine civil war in which the Crusaders served as convenient pawns.

There is a reason that we now use the word “Byzantine” to describe anything that is politically complex.

as for doctrine, hermeneutics have come a long way since the early fathers or Aquinas, newer and better translations eliminating the “she” will crush the serpent with her heel from the vulgate to the Hebrew text which has the proto-evangelium as the obvious HE (Jesus) rather than she (Mary)… you can see statutes with this mistranslation remaining in many CC…

You make a common mistake in assuming the superiority of the “Hebrew text.” The original Hebrew text of the Old Testament is long gone. The primary Hebrew text used in modern Bible translations is the Masoretic Text, which is NOT of ancient origin; it was compiled in the tenth century A.D. by post-Calvary Jews, who carried an obvious bias against Jesus being the Messiah. That is why the Masoretic text is de-Christianized; for example, “the virgin shall conceive” was changed to “the young woman shall conceive” in Isaiah.

Another thing that may have been changed for de-Christianization purposes is the she/he in Genesis 3:15. The historians agree that the Vulgate was based on a Hebrew text, probably the Hexapala, rather than the Septuagint (the oldest surviving Old Testament, albeit one that is in Greek). Thus, Jerome (the translator) drew on a text that was more authoritative than the Masoretic Text, the latter being the basis for your assault on the Vulgate. Since the Masoretic text is not ancient and is post-Christian, it is of inferior authority to both the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and thus cannot support an attack on the Vulgate.

 

[christosdavid]

As I (and Wikipedia) understand it, the Orthodox supporters of Byzantine Emperor Isaac II Angelos, who had lost the throne to his brother, precipitated the sack of Constantinople by asking the crusaders to restore him to the throne in return for imperial support against the Ottomans (the original objective of the crusade). Emperor Alexios III Angelos, a very bad ruler who splurged the imperial treasury on gardens and palaces, did not want his brother back on the throne and the Crusaders got drawn into a literally Byzantine intrigue. So the Fourth Crusade was really a Byzantine civil war in which the Crusaders served as convenient pawns.

There is a reason that we now use the word “Byzantine” to describe anything that is politically complex.

You make a common mistake in assuming the superiority of the “Hebrew text.” The original Hebrew text of the Old Testament is long gone. The primary Hebrew text used in modern Bible translations is the Masoretic Text, which is NOT of ancient origin; it was compiled in the tenth century A.D. by post-Calvary Jews, who carried an obvious bias against Jesus being the Messiah. That is why the Masoretic text is de-Christianized; for example, “the virgin shall conceive” was changed to “the young woman shall conceive” in Isaiah.

Another thing that may have been changed for de-Christianization purposes is the she/he in Genesis 3:15. The historians agree that the Vulgate was based on a Hebrew text, probably the Hexapala, rather than the Septuagint (the oldest surviving Old Testament, albeit one that is in Greek). Thus, Jerome (the translator) drew on a text that was more authoritative than the Masoretic Text, the latter being the basis for your assault on the Vulgate. Since the Masoretic text is not ancient and is post-Christian, it is of inferior authority to both the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and thus cannot support an attack on the Vulgate.

you didnt mention the** sacred duck**…

but anyway, the MT text of genesis is supported by the LXX which is both prechristian and therefore prevulgate. Modern Catholic translations follow these…

The word “young woman” which is translated as virgin by the LXX but its textual support can be found in the great Isaiah scroll of Qumran (DSS) which is also prechristian and prevulgate.

 

[Cat_Herder]

you didnt mention the** sacred duck**…

Quack.

but anyway, the MT text of genesis is supported by the LXX which is both prechristian and therefore prevulgate. Modern Catholic translations follow these…

As I understand it, the sequence of translations is as follows:

First the original Hebrew could be translated several ways: He/She/They shall crush…
Then the Septuagint said: He shall crush…

Now Jerome comes in and has to determine whether to translate it “he,” “she” or “they.” Jerome was following the same rules that most modern translators do: he preferred the Hebrew. So, based on the ambiguity in the Hebrew and the fact that the promised enmity was between both the Woman and Her Seed, he translated it like so:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

Of course, it was Jesus (i.e. “Her Seed”) Who did the direct crushing on Mount Calvary. But He did this through Mary. So “she shall crush” is a legitimate, but nonexclusive, way to translate the Scripture based on the Hebrew.

But now the bottom line: as concerns the Immaculate Conception, no matter which pronoun (he or she) is used in the “shall crush” part of the verse, the “enmity” part–which is what the dogma actually refers to–states that the enmity against the devil extends to both the Woman and Her Seed. Since Her Seed, Jesus Christ, was at total enmity with the devil, the Scripture requires that Mary be at the same enmity. We know that Christ was without sin and so we must understand that the same privilege extended to Mary. The only way to reach a different conclusion would be to delete the words “the Woman and” from the verse. No legitimate translation does that.

 

[christosdavid]

Quack.

As I understand it, the sequence of translations is as follows:

First the original Hebrew could be translated several ways: He/She/They shall crush…
Then the Septuagint said: He shall crush…

Now Jerome comes in and has to determine whether to translate it “he,” “she” or “they.” Jerome was following the same rules that most modern translators do: he preferred the Hebrew. So, based on the ambiguity in the Hebrew and the fact that the promised enmity was between both the Woman and Her Seed, he translated it like so:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

Of course, it was Jesus (i.e. “Her Seed”) Who did the direct crushing on Mount Calvary. But He did this through Mary. So “she shall crush” is a legitimate, but nonexclusive, way to translate the Scripture based on the Hebrew.

But now the bottom line: as concerns the Immaculate Conception, no matter which pronoun (he or she) is used in the “shall crush” part of the verse, the “enmity” part–which is what the dogma actually refers to–states that the enmity against the devil extends to both the Woman and Her Seed. Since Her Seed, Jesus Christ, was at total enmity with the devil, the Scripture requires that Mary be at the same enmity. We know that Christ was without sin and so we must understand that the same privilege extended to Mary. The only way to reach a different conclusion would be to delete the words “the Woman and” from the verse. No legitimate translation does that.

following a duck as a messanger from God seriously undervalues any claim that the magisterium is doing the same job

secondly the hebrew verb (he shall crush) is obviously masculine as it has the yod for 3rd person masculine (which is why the LXX is masculine) and to make it plural or feminine is simply mistaken - sorry

 

[AnglicanForMary]

Not willing to admit “mistakes”? Are you familiar with the Council of Trent?

of course, (and for that matter I can wholeheartedly accept its teachings on the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass). I admit to probably over-generalizing on both sides, but, the beginning of my sentence which you quoted only in part, went "The perceptio[n/B] [emphasis added] that the Church -as represented by the clergy" As a reforming council Trent was too little too late to preserve a unified Christendom, as the ‘battle lines’ had hardened too greatly by that point…

 

[GaryTaylor]

simply mistaken - sorry

Simply an opinion, sorry.

First of all, let’s admit that St. Jerome did translated the verse in question as “SHE shall strike at your head”. So, does this mean that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary “alone” will crush the head of Satan? Well, the Catholic Church teaches that Genesis 3:15 is the Proto-Evangelium – the first prophecy of the Messiah; and thus the actual Person Who crushes the head of the serpent is Christ Himself. So, it’s silly to claim that the Catholic Church teaches otherwise.

Then there is the story of Jael in Judges 5, which reads:

Blessed among women be Jael, blessed among tent-dwelling women. He asked for water, she gave him milk; in a princely bowl she offered curds. With her left hand she reached for the peg, with her right, for the workman’s mallet. She hammered Sisera, crushed his head… (Judges 5:24-26)

A similar pre-figurement is seen in the Book of Judith, Chapter 13, where Judith, a beautiful Jewish widow, delivers Israel from the Assyrians by gaining access to the enemy’s camp and beheading the Assyrian commander, Holofernes (Judith 13:8).

So, this recurring Biblical theme is the reason why St. Jerome preferred to translate Genesis 3:15 as “she will crush thy head”. A matter of emphasis. However, this was always with the clear understanding that it was the Seed of this woman Who was actually the cause of the enemy’s destruction.

So, St. Jerome didn’t “mistranslate” anything at all.

As for Western statues (and other icons) depicting Mary crushing the serpent’s head beneath her feet, … Tell me, … Doesn’t Sacred Tradition recognize Mary as an image of the Church itself? It sure does, right: Revelation 12:1-3, etc. So, if you have a problem with Mary being depicted crushing the serpent’s head, please explain Romans 16:20, which reads:

…then the God of peace will quickly crush Satan UNDER YOUR FEET.

…That is, the “feet” of the Church. So, if not only the Messiah Himself (Genesis 3:15) crushes the head of Satan, but ALSO His Church, why do you have a problem with His mother (i.e., the first member of this Church and the very image of it) crushing the head of Satan? Clearly, if you wish to agree with Scripture, you must accept the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) “both-and” understanding of Genesis 3:15, as opposed to this non-Traditional, Protestant thought prosess which you’ve acquired.

“ipsum” in Genesis 3:15 is very significant and cannot be ignored. It allows both interpretations (he or she) as being acceptable by Catholics. But IMHO, “she” is still the only logical choice.

Re: the JPS (Jewish Publications Society) has it in verse form as follows:

I will put enmity
Between you and the woman
And between your offspring and hers;
They shall strike at your head
And you shall strike at their heel

See what JPS does here? To make this work they are ignoring the SINGULAR number of the verb “she shall strike” and the noun “her heel” in bar 3. They recognize (I have pointed out) that the respective “seeds” in bar two represent collective nouns, not individual persons. Despite the obvious grammar of the 3rd bar, they make the same mistake that everyone modern exegete makes: they CHANGE the enmity in bar 3 to enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman even though in bar 2 it is CLEARLY enmity between their respective seeds.

A more dynamic interpretation is necessary based on literary form, not on the text itself which IMHO is either corrupted (i.e., LXX & Masoretic Text) or unclear (Hebrew sans nikud).

Look, this is what the Protestants want the verse to read like:

I will put enmity
between you (A) and the woman (B)
between your (A’) seed (C) and her (B’) seed (D)
he (E) will strike at your (A’) head
and you (A) will strike at his (E’) heel.

(E) is a singular masculine pronoun in the 3rd bar which comes out of nowhere and has no referent in the earlier text. It cannot refer to the woman’s seed (D) because (as the JPS Version and Revelation 12:17 clearly show) that is a “they” not a “he”. The only single person mentioned in the first 2 bars who is opposed to the serpent is the woman.

In this version, “seed” could represent a single individual and it would make sense to have bar 3 as you prefer it. In this version, bar 2 bridges into bar 3 and justifies the currently preferred reading by switching the enmity to one between the serpent and the woman’s seed. If that were the text in Hebrew, I would support to the currently preferred interpretation of the “experts”. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE TEXT OF BAR 2 SAYS!

The critical point is that bar 2 does not allow us to infer a direct enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman. Bar 2 only re-states the enmity between the serpent and the woman. It does not introduce a new protagonist against the serpent. As such there is no justification for introducing a new antagonism in bar 3. Bar 3 is merely reiterating the same antagonism between the serpent and the woman from bars 1 & 2.

St Jerome and the Catholic Church are agreed of this and we shall know on THAT DAY when God will reveal everything to us. article by Art Sippo, Catholic Legate

Peace

 

[JonNC]

JonNC
Sorry if I’m budding in, tell me if I am , but I was just wondering what you mean about how
we view the mass part?

Not a problem. ne of the complaints of the Lutheran reformers was the sacrifice of the Mass. It continues to be one of the issues Lutherans and Catholics must work on in dialogue.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

secondly the hebrew verb (he shall crush) is obviously masculine as it has the yod for 3rd person masculine (which is why the LXX is masculine) and to make it plural or feminine is simply mistaken - sorry

Then why did the Jews translate it as plural?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Simply an opinion, sorry.

First of all, let’s admit that St. Jerome did translated the verse in question as “SHE shall strike at your head”. So, does this mean that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary “alone” will crush the head of Satan?

I don’t think anyone should admit to that. Happily, what amounts to Jerome’s translation notes for the book of Genesis can be accessed here:

amazon.com/Jeromes-Questions-Genesis-Christian-Studies/dp/0198263503/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1330824356&sr=8-2

If you flip to the discussion of Genesis 3:15, you will note there’s no discussion of “she”–for Jerome, the translation is: “He will crush…” The “she” is a later interpolation that make it into the Vulgate somehow; but don’t blame poor Jerome.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I don’t think the Protestants here objecting to “she” would mind if the “she” was the Church which as the bride of Christ is female. After all, Paul said:

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 16:20[/BIBLEDRB]

Mary is obviously the Queen Mother of the Heavenly Jerusalem, another name for the said Bride of Christ.

So… I fail to see what there is to dispute.

Can we get back on topic now?

 

[Luvtosew]

My Nab says He will strike at your head and the footnotes refer to He as Jesus Christ.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I don’t think the Protestants here objecting to “she” would mind if the “she” was the Church which as the bride of Christ is female. After all, Paul said:

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 16:20[/BIBLEDRB]

Mary is obviously the Queen Mother of the Heavenly Jerusalem, another name for the said Bride of Christ.

So… I fail to see what there is to dispute.

Can we get back on topic now?

 

[christosdavid]

Simply an opinion, sorry.

First of all, let’s admit that St. Jerome did translated the verse in question as “SHE shall strike at your head”. So, does this mean that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary “alone” will crush the head of Satan? Well, the Catholic Church teaches that Genesis 3:15 is the Proto-Evangelium – the first prophecy of the Messiah; and thus the actual Person Who crushes the head of the serpent is Christ Himself. So, it’s silly to claim that the Catholic Church teaches otherwise.

Then there is the story of Jael in Judges 5, which reads:

Blessed among women be Jael, blessed among tent-dwelling women. He asked for water, she gave him milk; in a princely bowl she offered curds. With her left hand she reached for the peg, with her right, for the workman’s mallet. She hammered Sisera, crushed his head… (Judges 5:24-26)

cut for space

So, this recurring Biblical theme is the reason why St. Jerome preferred to translate Genesis 3:15 as “she will crush thy head”. A matter of emphasis. However, this was always with the clear understanding that it was the Seed of this woman Who was actually the cause of the enemy’s destruction.

So, St. Jerome didn’t “mistranslate” anything at all.

As for Western statues (and other icons) depicting Mary crushing the serpent’s head beneath her feet, … Tell me, … Doesn’t Sacred Tradition recognize Mary as an image of the Church itself? It sure does, right: Revelation 12:1-3, etc. So, if you have a problem with Mary being depicted crushing the serpent’s head, please explain Romans 16:20, which reads:

…then the God of peace will quickly crush Satan UNDER YOUR FEET.

…That is, the “feet” of the Church. So, if not only the Messiah Himself (Genesis 3:15) crushes the head of Satan, but ALSO His Church, why do you have a problem with His mother (i.e., the first member of this Church and the very image of it) crushing the head of Satan? Clearly, if you wish to agree with Scripture, you must accept the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) “both-and” understanding of Genesis 3:15, as opposed to this non-Traditional, Protestant thought prosess which you’ve acquired.

“ipsum” in Genesis 3:15 is very significant and cannot be ignored. It allows both interpretations (he or she) as being acceptable by Catholics. But IMHO, “she” is still the only logical choice.

Re: the JPS (Jewish Publications Society) has it in verse form as follows:

I will put enmity
Between you and the woman
And between your offspring and hers;
They shall strike at your head
And you shall strike at their heel

cut for space

A more dynamic interpretation is necessary based on literary form, not on the text itself which IMHO is either corrupted (i.e., LXX & Masoretic Text) or unclear (Hebrew sans nikud).

Look, this is what the Protestants want the verse to read like:

I will put enmity
between you (A) and the woman (B)
between your (A’) seed (C) and her (B’) seed (D)
he (E) will strike at your (A’) head
and you (A) will strike at his (E’) heel.

(E) is a singular masculine pronoun in the 3rd bar which comes out of nowhere and has no referent in the earlier text. It cannot refer to the woman’s seed (D) because (as the JPS Version and Revelation 12:17 clearly show) that is a “they” not a “he”. The only single person mentioned in the first 2 bars who is opposed to the serpent is the woman.

In this version, “seed” could represent a single individual and it would make sense to have bar 3 as you prefer it. In this version, bar 2 bridges into bar 3 and justifies the currently preferred reading by switching the enmity to one between the serpent and the woman’s seed. If that were the text in Hebrew, I would support to the currently preferred interpretation of the “experts”. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE TEXT OF BAR 2 SAYS!

The critical point is that bar 2 does not allow us to infer a direct enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman. Bar 2 only re-states the enmity between the serpent and the woman. It does not introduce a new protagonist against the serpent. As such there is no justification for introducing a new antagonism in bar 3. Bar 3 is merely reiterating the same antagonism between the serpent and the woman from bars 1 & 2.

St Jerome and the Catholic Church are agreed of this and we shall know on THAT DAY when God will reveal everything to us. article by Art Sippo, Catholic Legate

Peace

as you say, an opinion… however, I have studied hebrew for 5 years at tertiary level and so I know that although Jerome was an outstanding translator, he was merely one man and nowdays there are universities full of people who have studied hebrew language.

The word translated as ipsum in latin is a masculine pronoun in hebrew - hu which is HE the following verb then starts with a yod which is the masculine 3rd person indicator, as opposed to teh which would be feminine. Latin doesnt have this for third person verbs which in the singular can all be he/she/it. Hebrew is different!!

There can no longer be any mistake and trying to translate she because of other grammatico-historical sections of the bible like Jael in Judges or the book of revelation (which is a different language) means that your theology is determining your exegesis rather than the other way round.

This is called eisegesis (reading into the text) in case you didnt know

 

[Cat_Herder]

as you say, an opinion… however, I have studied hebrew for 5 years at tertiary level and so I know that although Jerome was an outstanding translator, he was merely one man and nowdays there are universities full of people who have studied hebrew language.

The word translated as ipsum in latin is a masculine pronoun in hebrew - hu which is HE the following verb then starts with a yod which is the masculine 3rd person indicator, as opposed to teh which would be feminine. Latin doesnt have this for third person verbs which in the singular can all be he/she/it. Hebrew is different!!

There can no longer be any mistake and trying to translate she because of other grammatico-historical sections of the bible like Jael in Judges or the book of revelation (which is a different language) means that your theology is determining your exegesis rather than the other way round.

This is called eisegesis (reading into the text) in case you didnt know

All of these scholars are working from the inferior Masoretic text, the same one that changes virgin to young woman. Jerome was working from an ancient Hebrew text that was almost certainly different than the Masoretic.

But in the end this is a tempest in a teapot, and I still don’t see what it has to do with the topic.

 

[christosdavid]

All of these scholars are working from the inferior Masoretic text, the same one that changes virgin to young woman. Jerome was working from an ancient Hebrew text that was almost certainly different than the Masoretic.

But in the end this is a tempest in a teapot, and I still don’t see what it has to do with the topic.

500 years ago scholars only had the MT but as already pointed out but ignored, **the great Isaiah scroll (1QIsa) from the Dead Sea Scrolls predates Jerome **and has been untampered with by either Jew or Christian.

How does it relate to the topic? How did the church loose its main focus? obviously the amount of attention which the Scriptures received was diminished by the time of the reformation or else there wouldnt have been a need to restore it to its rightful place as the “lively oracles of God” (perhaps they were too busy following sacred ducks in circles)

I agree that they have always had a high regard, just that theres little knowledge of what they actually say. The state of biblical studies in the CC is woeful - and thats even with the encouragement VII and subsequent pastoral efforts by wonderful scholars such as Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI…

 

[Luvtosew]

I don’t think the Protestants here objecting to “she” would mind if the “she” was the Church which as the bride of Christ is female. After all, Paul said:

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 16:20[/BIBLEDRB]

Mary is obviously the Queen Mother of the Heavenly Jerusalem, another name for the said Bride of Christ.

So… I fail to see what there is to dispute.

Can we get back on topic now?

Where do you get Mary is the Bride of Christ?

 

[CatholicZ09]

Where do you get Mary is the Bride of Christ?

I believe that Cat Herder was saying that Heavenly Jerusalem is another name for the Bride of Christ, not Mary.