P
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I am still waiting for an English website stating that the manuscripts used to translate the RSV-CE are more accurate. You all attack the NAB for having inclusive language, but when someone has an attack on the RSV-CE, you all cry. I have yet seen a translation, Catholic and Non Catholic that was released after Vatican II that is worth reading. Yet I have seen Catholic and Non Catholic translations before Vatican II that are worth reading up until the beginning of Vatican II. Honestly another council probably could clear some stuff up. Vatican II, in my opinion did more bad than good. Not to knock Vatican II, but some “views” that the church sees now is way too relaxed compared of that of the same views before Vatican II. Somehow I don’t think that Pope Leo XIII and Pope Piux XII would ever approve the likes of the RSV-CE. I guess observing the old Cannon Law (1917) and not the the 1983, is just how I view things. I long to have some of the traditional things back in the church and not this modernization garbage. The Church is supposed to speak out on modernism.
Both Popes are dead, and we have brilliant and faithful Pope who is presently alive. The 1917 Canon Law is abrogated, and the 1983 is in force. And Vatican II had nothing to do with Scripture translations.I am still waiting for an English website stating that the manuscripts used to translate the RSV-CE are more accurate. You all attack the NAB for having inclusive language, but when someone has an attack on the RSV-CE, you all cry. I have yet seen a translation, Catholic and Non Catholic that was released after Vatican II that is worth reading. Yet I have seen Catholic and Non Catholic translations before Vatican II that are worth reading up until the beginning of Vatican II. Honestly another council probably could clear some stuff up. Vatican II, in my opinion did more bad than good. Not to knock Vatican II, but some “views” that the church sees now is way too relaxed compared of that of the same views before Vatican II. Somehow I don’t think that Pope Leo XIII and Pope Piux XII would ever approve the likes of the RSV-CE. I guess observing the old Cannon Law (1917) and not the the 1983, is just how I view things. I long to have some of the traditional things back in the church and not this modernization garbage. The Church is supposed to speak out on modernism.
Vatican II is an ecumenical council of the Church, and knocking it tells us something about anyone’s loyalty to the Church.
Not to knock your ego, but I think the Pope is smarter than any of us here.
M
mccorm45
Guest
This clearly shows your bias against anything that the Catholic Church of today, which by the way is the same Church instituted by Our Lord in 33AD, teaches in regards to Sacred Scripture and its translations. No need to comment any further.Vatican II, in my opinion did more bad than good.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I take that back. Oath against Modernism was dropped in 1967 by Pope Paul VI
The Church is NOT modernist and to say or even merely imply it is spitting on the Bride of Christ.I take that back. Oath against Modernism was dropped in 1967 by Pope Paul VI
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I am not biased against the Catholic Church of today, I just prefer to be traditional on some views. I do think the effects that Vatican II had on the Church is why so many people left the Church on bad terms. I feel that it is time toughen up the laws of the church. Revert back to some things not all. If Vatican II was supposed to be so great, why has it caused so much confusion, especially with scripture and behavior and manners during MassThis clearly shows your bias against anything that the Catholic Church of today, which by the way is the same Church instituted by Our Lord in 33AD, teaches in regards to Sacred Scripture and its translations. No need to comment any further.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I guess my choice here is to leave this RSV-CE biased forum and go elsewhere
Anyone who’s invested the time to read the documents of the Council will see how great they actually are. It’s people who did not obey the Council’s directives the the lack of discipline that caused the confusion, but the Council did a great job. Much of the problems were never ordered by the Council at all.I am not biased against the Catholic Church of today, I just prefer to be traditional on some views. I do think the effects that Vatican II had on the Church is why so many people left the Church on bad terms. I feel that it is time toughen up the laws of the church. Revert back to some things not all. If Vatican II was supposed to be so great, why has it caused so much confusion, especially with scripture and behavior and manners during Mass
But all this time, you have not even shown any consideration for the preferences of the present Holy Father, or the Congregations of the Holy See, instead sticking to your own opinions (not a bad thing) and branding everything else as modernist (a bad thing).
This is not so much an RSV-CE biased forum but a Holy See-biased forum. What the Pope likes, we like. What he doesn’t like, we don’t.
And if you scan all my responses, I have not uttered a single word against the venerable Vulgate or Douay-Rheims.
M
mccorm45
Guest
There is no reason to leave. It would just be nice to see you answer some questions that some of us have proposed, instead of simply ignoring them, or proposing more questions, or making blanket statements without documentation.I guess my choice here is to leave this RSV-CE biased forum and go elsewhere
And let me just say again, this is not a RSV-CE bias forum, I don’t even use it for my primary Bible. I, along with Porthos, are simply stating the wisdom that the Church has bestowed on us during the past 50+ years. Simply that. Keep in mind that we both like the Douay-Rheims.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Anyone who’s invested the time to read the documents of the Council will see how great they actually are
Yet, how many of those that were a part of Vatican II, felt they made a big mistake. Plenty!!! I have read some of the documents of the Vatican II council.
Yet, how many of those that were a part of Vatican II, felt they made a big mistake. Plenty!!! I have read some of the documents of the Vatican II council.
M
mccorm45
Guest
How about you provide some documentation for that statement. Last time I checked, neither JPII nor B16 have ever said that they regretted the documents of the Vatican II.Anyone who’s invested the time to read the documents of the Council will see how great they actually are
Yet, how many of those that were a part of Vatican II, felt they made a big mistake. Plenty!!! I have read some of the documents of the Vatican II council.
And?Anyone who’s invested the time to read the documents of the Council will see how great they actually are
Yet, how many of those that were a part of Vatican II, felt they made a big mistake. Plenty!!! I have read some of the documents of the Vatican II council.
And as for those who felt they made a big mistake, are there any sources for such a claim outside of disloyal traditionalist sites?
The point is, we have cited multiple examples and Instructions that clearly show the mind of the Holy See and the Holy Father. But instead of duly considering them, you violently attack the Council (which has nothing to do with translations), Canon Law (which has nothing to do with translations), and even imply that the Church has embraced modernism.
We took care to address your citations of Trent, and we agree with it. In turn, we presented Divino Afflante Spiritu, the Catechism, and Liturgiam Authenticam. You have not addressed a single document, and instead snidely brushed them aside and accuse the Church of coddling heresy.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
No I had never heard that that Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI did, but I have heard that Paul VI did. I am trying hard to find that document
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
You have not addressed a single document,
Yes I have, one being “Providentissmus Deus” Do you consider all traditionalist sites as disloyal?? Some of them, I do, for the fact they refuse to accept Vatican II as a council and some view that the Holy See has been vacant since Pope Piux XII or some Pope John XXIII. Some of them do point some pretty good points. I don’t consider myself a traditional catholic . I have never even attended a Latin Mass. I do however try observe a lot of Latin Rites.I feel it was a mistake that we went from all Latin to venecular language, but we should revert back. I have read “Divino Afflante Spirtiu” and understand his concerns and I have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Put yourself at the time that RSV-CE was translated and you were the Pope. Given this is the 1960’s and you are 65- 70 years old what would be your thoughts on scripture, mass and changes within the church especially that regarding Protestantism. I have been looking for answers and I don’t seem to find them here
Yes I have, one being “Providentissmus Deus” Do you consider all traditionalist sites as disloyal?? Some of them, I do, for the fact they refuse to accept Vatican II as a council and some view that the Holy See has been vacant since Pope Piux XII or some Pope John XXIII. Some of them do point some pretty good points. I don’t consider myself a traditional catholic . I have never even attended a Latin Mass. I do however try observe a lot of Latin Rites.I feel it was a mistake that we went from all Latin to venecular language, but we should revert back. I have read “Divino Afflante Spirtiu” and understand his concerns and I have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Put yourself at the time that RSV-CE was translated and you were the Pope. Given this is the 1960’s and you are 65- 70 years old what would be your thoughts on scripture, mass and changes within the church especially that regarding Protestantism. I have been looking for answers and I don’t seem to find them here
Which is a beautiful encyclical on the study of Scripture and it does mention the authenticity of the Vulgate. It did not deal with translations.You have not addressed a single document,
Yes I have, one being “Providentissmus Deus”
No site that refuses to recognize the Holy Father or the Second Vatican Council is worth any loyal Catholic’s time.Do you consider all traditionalist sites as disloyal?? Some of them, I do, for the fact they refuse to accept Vatican II as a council and some view that the Holy See has been vacant since Pope Piux XII or some Pope John XXIII. Some of them do point some pretty good points.
No, clearly, you don’t. Otherwise, you must know by now that it is now the Church’s desire translate from the original languages, and that the Church recognizes the advances in criticism, and authority and weight of the original languages over any translation. You would realize that the Pope attaches the stigma of “levity and sloth” to scholars who do not study the original languages. But here you are asking for “proof” even though the Church and the Holy Father are satisfied with the state of the manuscripts THEN, much less today.I don’t consider myself a traditional catholic . I have never even attended a Latin Mass. I do however try observe a lot of Latin Rites.I feel it was a mistake that we went from all Latin to venecular language, but we should revert back. I have read “Divino Afflante Spirtiu” and understand his concerns
Liturgiam Authenticam says basically the same thing: that Lectionary readings be translated from the original languages and refer to the Nova Vulgata (not the original one) where manuscript traditions do not yield a consensus. It’s the perfect arrangement.
Yes, which uses the evil RSV.and I have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Why go through such an exercise? The RSV has been around for 50 years. That’s more than enough time for Catholic scripture scholars to have pored over it. No reputable Catholic scholar has said anything against it, and neither has the Holy See. The Holy See HAS however rejected the NAB and NRSV, which is why I also reject the NAB and NRSV in their present incarnations.Put yourself at the time that RSV-CE was translated and you were the Pope. Given this is the 1960’s and you are 65- 70 years old what would be your thoughts on scripture, mass and changes within the church especially that regarding Protestantism. I have been looking for answers and I don’t seem to find them here
So I do not care what people think. I care what the Holy Father thinks. I care what the Holy See thinks.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Yes the RSV has been around for 50+ years but the RSV-CE was released after Vatican II. Would you still read the Protestant version??. I can see you rejecting the NAB, but in honesty the RSV-CE makes some of the same mistakes the NAB does. Changing important words and omitting partial verses.
P
Popes_Soldier
Guest
What mistakes are in the RSV-CE that are not in the RSV
No. Merely translating them correctly.Yes the RSV has been around for 50+ years but the RSV-CE was released after Vatican II. Would you still read the Protestant version??. I can see you rejecting the NAB, but in honesty the RSV-CE makes some of the same mistakes the NAB does. Changing important words and omitting partial verses.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
The RSV and RSV-CE are different. The RSV-CE correct somethings in that were unsuited in the RSV. Example of this is in Luke 1:28. Hail, highly favored instead of Hail full of grace. The RSV-CE and the RSV do end on the same note. The Lord is with you. Both have omitted Blessed are thou among women at the end of the verse. The RSV-CE also corrected RSV in Luke 1:42. The RSV uses a young woman while the RSV-CE uses the word virgin to utilize the meaning of the virgin birth that was to come later on. The RSV-CE corrected the RSV to suite the Catholic doctrine. Also the RSV doesn’t have the 7 deutrocanon books, whereas the RSV-CE does. All translations do need to be improved on. My advice is if you are willing to read, I would recommend reading the RSV-CE over the RSV IF you are Catholic and I am assuming that you are Catholic. Porthos11 can give you a better explanation on the differences on the Protestant RSV and the Catholic RSV-CE
- Status
- Not open for further replies.