Rsv-ce

  • Thread starter Thread starter tobinatorstark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I do know what the Immaculate Conception is. It when Mary was conceived For her to be full of grace the Immaculate Conception had to occur. She was born without original sin and remained a virgin. This is why she is blessed among women because of the Immaculate Conception. True, the Immaculate Conception happened quite some time before the conception and eventual birth of Jesus.Mary was the chosen one. Why would the angel have spoken to her if she wasn’t the woman that God promised in the prophesy of Isaias (Isaiah for modern translations). She had to be blessed among women and well as full of grace to be pregnant with the Lord. The Immaculate Conception is as pure as Mary being full of grace and blessed among women. Mary had to be blessed among women or her conception wouldn’t have been Immaculate to God, for to be chosen as the mother of the Lord
 
Popes_Soldier said:
Its just you. If I remember correctly, Jimmy Akin says its the best English translation going
Click to expand...
OK it is just me, but I still think that the RSV-CE has no business in the Catholic Church. Why you people put Jimmy Akin on a pedestal?? Regardless I never even heard of the guy til a few days ago. I beg to differ that the RSV-CE is the best English translation. Some the verses do offend me. Nothing based off Protestantism should be allowed to do with the Catholic Church. What makes the RSV-CE the king of all English translations anyway??? I don’t want to hear that the text that were used in translating the RSV-CE are more accurate than the those released before. What gives any translation and Catholic translation to differ so much from the Latin Vulgate??? Is everyone here saying that the Vulgate doesn’t matter anymore and there are much better out there. I just absolutely have a problem with Protestantism entering the Catholic Church.
 
tobinatorstark said:
OK it is just me, but I still think that the RSV-CE has no business in the Catholic Church. Why you people put Jimmy Akin on a pedestal?? Regardless I never even heard of the guy til a few days ago. I beg to differ that the RSV-CE is the best English translation. Some the verses do offend me. Nothing based off Protestantism should be allowed to do with the Catholic Church. What makes the RSV-CE the king of all English translations anyway??? I don’t want to hear that the text that were used in translating the RSV-CE are more accurate than the those released before. What gives any translation and Catholic translation to differ so much from the Latin Vulgate??? Is everyone here saying that the Vulgate doesn’t matter anymore and there are much better out there. I just absolutely have a problem with Protestantism entering the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
But the texts of the RSV-CE ARE indeed more accurate. That’s the plain-as-noses truth.

How about that the Pope uses it and that the Church uses it in its official Catechism? Never mind Jimmy Akin.

Is the Pope cowtowing to Protestantism?

No one has said the Vulgate doesn’t matter anymore. No one has said the DR sucks. It’s the DR and Vulgate people who have this strange urge to attack those who don’t share their views.

So again, what have you to say about the Pope and the Catechism using it? Has the Pope succumbed to Protestantism?
 
porthos11 said:
But the texts of the RSV-CE ARE indeed more accurate. That’s the plain-as-noses truth.

How about that the Pope uses it and that the Church uses it in its official Catechism? Never mind Jimmy Akin.

Is the Pope cowtowing to Protestantism?

No one has said the Vulgate doesn’t matter anymore. No one has said the DR sucks. It’s the DR and Vulgate people who have this strange urge to attack those who don’t share their views.

So again, what have you to say about the Pope and the Catechism using it? Has the Pope succumbed to Protestantism?
Click to expand...
prove to me that this inferior bible’s texts that it was translated from are more accurate. Just because the pope uses it doesn’t make it better and more accurate. Why change something that was believed for over 1400 years (the accuracy of the texts that translated the Vulgate) and WHY REJECT THE VULGATE?? Isn’t the Vulgate good enough for you?? Doesn’t the Council of Trent mean anything to you??? Why dwell on Pope Pius XII’s encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu”?? What about Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Providentissmus Deus” on Holy scripture or Benedict XV’s encyclical “Spiritus Paracletus” on St Jerome??? A few of the priest told me, one in particular that outside the Vulgate, the best way to go in English IS the Douay-Rheims. The one in particular, when he speaks you most defenately can tell the Holy Spirit is present.
 
tobinatorstark said:
prove to me that this inferior bible’s texts that it was translated from are more accurate. Just because the pope uses it doesn’t make it better and more accurate. Why change something that was believed for over 1400 years (the accuracy of the texts that translated the Vulgate) and WHY REJECT THE VULGATE?? Isn’t the Vulgate good enough for you?? Doesn’t the Council of Trent mean anything to you??? Why dwell on Pope Pius XII’s encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu”?? What about Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Providentissmus Deus” on Holy scripture or Benedict XV’s encyclical “Spiritus Paracletus” on St Jerome??? A few of the priest told me, one in particular that outside the Vulgate, the best way to go in English IS the Douay-Rheims. The one in particular, when he speaks you most defenately can tell the Holy Spirit is present.
Click to expand...
Again, no one of the RSV camp has ever rejected the Vulgate.

And while we can never have full proof because of the loss of the original manuscripts, the science of textual criticism, which has advanced well beyond the 17th century, has given us a reliable witness to the originals, and this is especially true of the New Testament. Whatever St. Jerome had, it’s not the thousands of manuscripts we have today, and it makes it very easy to strip off the extraneous glosses that made their way into the Vulgate, DR, and KJV.

No one questions the accuracy of Homer’s Iliad or Virgil’s work, and they do not even have the same number of extant manuscripts, and they are much older than the NT. So yes, we can be very very confident that the critical editions are the accurate ones.

And you err in saying that we ignore other Church pronouncements. We do not, but we take everything as a whole, and none of the later pronouncements conflict with previous ones. More importantly, why do YOU ignore Divino Afflante Spiritu?

Trent? Trent said the Vulgate is free of moral and doctrinal error. I agree. That does not mean the Vulgate had no translation errors otherwise there would have been no need for the Nova Vulgata.

Haven’t you even considered that the Pope may know something more than you or me? Or that the CDF MAY just have known what they were doing when they used the evil RSV in the official English Catechism to teach the faith?

How come their examples mean nothing to you?
 
tobinatorstark said:
prove to me that this inferior bible’s texts that it was translated from are more accurate. Just because the pope uses it doesn’t make it better and more accurate. Why change something that was believed for over 1400 years (the accuracy of the texts that translated the Vulgate) and WHY REJECT THE VULGATE?? Isn’t the Vulgate good enough for you?? Doesn’t the Council of Trent mean anything to you??? Why dwell on Pope Pius XII’s encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu”?? What about Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Providentissmus Deus” on Holy scripture or Benedict XV’s encyclical “Spiritus Paracletus” on St Jerome??? A few of the priest told me, one in particular that outside the Vulgate, the best way to go in English IS the Douay-Rheims. The one in particular, when he speaks you most defenately can tell the Holy Spirit is present.
Click to expand...
Well, if your priest friend is inspired by the Holy Spirit, why don’t you just listen to him and quit worrying about what other people think about the DR. I still don’t remember anyone who has put it down on this thread so far. As a matter of fact, many of us like it and use it, but prefer the “modern” RSV/NRSV translations. And so to it seems does Pope Benedict XVI, Scott Hahn, “the mysterious” Jimmy Akin, the fine folks at Ignatius Press, the folks who put together the Navarre Bible Commentary, Raymond Brown (who you will probably call a heretic), NT Wright (a conservative Anglican scholar, so he must be an agent of Satan), Daniel J. Harrington, Tim Grey, Jeff Cavins, etc… Kind of a broad spectrum of people.

Again, nobody is saying that the DR is bad or should not be read. You however, continue to make outrageous statements about modern Bible, albeit Catholic or ecumenical, which clearly the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of 2008 does not hold. I don’t think we are the ones who have to prove anything.

Sorry if I am sounding a little harsh.
 
I am reminded of a phrase from the Gospels: Do not cast your pearls before swines, and St Paul’s admonition: all things to all men.

What’s the point of arguing with someone who is so fixed in his mind on the status of the RSV or DRB? It isn’t an essential matter of faith, and we will have our own preferences. Both are approved by the Church, and are profitable in its own way for Catholics. I think the Catholic Church can accept children who loves the RSV and hates the DRB and vice versa.

Above all, charity!
 
porthos11 said:
Again, no one of the RSV camp has ever rejected the Vulgate.

And while we can never have full proof because of the loss of the original manuscripts, the science of textual criticism, which has advanced well beyond the 17th century, has given us a reliable witness to the originals, and this is especially true of the New Testament. Whatever St. Jerome had, it’s not the thousands of manuscripts we have today, and it makes it very easy to strip off the extraneous glosses that made their way into the Vulgate, DR, and KJV.

No one questions the accuracy of Homer’s Iliad or Virgil’s work, and they do not even have the same number of extant manuscripts, and they are much older than the NT. So yes, we can be very very confident that the critical editions are the accurate ones.

And you err in saying that we ignore other Church pronouncements. We do not, but we take everything as a whole, and none of the later pronouncements conflict with previous ones. More importantly, why do YOU ignore Divino Afflante Spiritu?

Trent? Trent said the Vulgate is free of moral and doctrinal error. I agree. That does not mean the Vulgate had no translation errors otherwise there would have been no need for the Nova Vulgata.

Haven’t you even considered that the Pope may know something more than you or me? Or that the CDF MAY just have known what they were doing when they used the evil RSV in the official English Catechism to teach the faith?

How come their examples mean nothing to you?
Click to expand...
I don’t ignore “Divino Afflante Spiritu”, I simply ask when it comes to scripture, why does everyone dwell on this encyclical alone?? My main point on the encyclicals is why no one on the study of the scriptures mentions mentions Pope Leo XIII and his encyclical “Providentissmus Deus” on the study of scripture. As far as the manuscripts is concerned, can anyone give a reliable website that proves the accuracy of these manuscripts or proves the accuracy of them over those that St. Jerome used
 
tobinatorstark said:
I don’t ignore “Divino Afflante Spiritu”, I simply ask when it comes to scripture, why does everyone dwell on this encyclical alone?? My main point on the encyclicals is why no one on the study of the scriptures mentions mentions Pope Leo XIII and his encyclical “Providentissmus Deus” on the study of scripture. As far as the manuscripts is concerned, can anyone give a reliable website that proves the accuracy of these manuscripts or proves the accuracy of them over those that St. Jerome used
Click to expand...
Here is a website that you can look through, sponsored by the CDF: clerus.org/bibliaclerus/index_eng.html
(notice which English translation they use)

Another from your buddie Jimmy Akin: catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

Nova Vulgate on Wikipedia (Notice the various editions)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate#Nova_Vulgata

Again, enjoy your DR and read it. Its a fine translation. However, the fact remains that the Church does not use it any more. For official liturgical prayers it is based on the Nova Vulgate. On the Vatican Website they have the NAB. And on many other books and documents they use the RSV/NRSV. That is the simple fact. This is the current wisdom of the Church, from Trent to 2008, including Providentissmus Deus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Dei Verbum, CCC, and the writings of JPII and Pope Benedict XVI.
 
In 2001, the Vatican released the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam,[21] establishing the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for all translations of the liturgy of the Roman rite into the vernacular from the original languages, “in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy”.

That line says a lot to me. As far as the first link you gave me, well I can’t do Spanish. Very little of it is in English and I see a bunch of dead links. Still to this point I would still have to say that Jerome’s manuscripts that he had access were more accurate than those that the RSV-CE. I guess I am going to have to do some research myself to prove myself wrong
 
Popes_Soldier said:
Its just you. If I remember correctly, Jimmy Akin says its the best English translation going
Click to expand...
tobinatorstark said:
OK it is just me, but I still think that the RSV-CE has no business in the Catholic Church. Why you people put Jimmy Akin on a pedestal??..
Click to expand...
Well, I believe that the Catechism Of The Catholic Church uses the RSV-CE when it quotes from scripture.

As for Jimmy Akin, I don’t know that I so much put him on a “pedestal”, but rather I recognize that he in one of the most knowledgable AND most orthodox Catholics out there. The man’s head is a walking library.
 
watch in what way you use orthodox. It has good and bad meanings
 
tobinatorstark said:
watch in what way you use orthodox. It has good and bad meanings
Click to expand...
orthodox with a small “o” is always good.
ortho = right
doxy = teaching

A small “o” orthodox Catholic is a Catholic who faithfully follows and/or teaches Catholic doctrine without deviation, as opposed to a liberal Catholic who tries to infect the Church with heresy and lead the flock astray
 
tobinatorstark said:
In 2001, the Vatican released the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam,[21] establishing the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for all translations of the liturgy of the Roman rite into the vernacular from the original languages, “in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy”.
Click to expand...
Context, mister.
  1. Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin, as regards the texts of ecclesiastical composition, or the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture. [24] Furthermore, in the preparation of these translations for liturgical use, the Nova Vulgata Editio, promulgated by the Apostolic See, is normally to be consulted as an auxiliary tool, in a manner described elsewhere in this Instruction, in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy.
The whole PARAGRAPH gives the mind of the Church. Scripture readings are to be made from the ORIGINAL languages, not from the Latin, except there there are unresolvable manuscript differences, in which case, the Instruction states:

If a previously prepared translation reflects a choice that departs from that which is found in the Nova Vulgata Editio as regards the underlying textual tradition, the order of verses, or similar factors, the discrepancy needs to be remedied in the preparation of any Lectionary so that conformity with the Latin liturgical text may be maintained.

Of all the translations of compliance, only the 2nd Edition RSV-CE does so.

So clearly, your insistence is not consistent with the instruction of the Church.
 
tobinatorstark said:
In 2001, the Vatican released the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam,[21] establishing the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for all translations of the liturgy of the Roman rite into the vernacular from the original languages, “in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy”.

This was mentioned show that the Vulgate is still considered as a tool and is still used, not to show the compliance of the RSV-2CE
Click to expand...
 
tobinatorstark said:
tobinatorstark;4056033:
In 2001, the Vatican released the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam,[21] establishing the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for all translations of the liturgy of the Roman rite into the vernacular from the original languages, “in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy”.

This was mentioned show that the Vulgate is still considered as a tool and is still used, not to show the compliance of the RSV-2CE
Click to expand...
And you haven’t addressed my rebuttal and the context of your quote. You speak against the original language manuscripts which the Church now requires in all new translation work. The Nova Vulgata (not Jerome’s Vulgate) is to be the referee so to speak in disputed passages, and that’s fine.

And the compliance of the RSV-2CE with Liturgiam Authenticam has been determined not by Ignatius Press but by the Congregation on Divine Worship itself.
Click to expand...
 
tobinatorstark said:
tobinatorstark;4056033:
In 2001, the Vatican released the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam,[21] establishing the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for all translations of the liturgy of the Roman rite into the vernacular from the original languages, “in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy”.

This was mentioned show that the Vulgate is still considered as a tool and is still used, not to show the compliance of the RSV-2CE
Click to expand...
Once again, the point is that the Nova Vulgate is to be used as an auxillary tool. Yet in regards to Sacred Scripture, of which this whole topic is about, the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) hold pride of place.

According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary:
Auxilliary: offering or providing help; functioning in a *subsidiary *capacity.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top