Translation error in Catechism

[dcdurel]

My, my—how quick we are to pull the fire alarm!
Does anyone really believe there was some sort of conspiracy at work in the Catechism? I know some complain it’s less clear than the previous version, but do any really think the Church tried to warp its own teaching for some nefarious reason?

Again, there is no way in the world that “testimonium” can mean “source.”

It can mean “testimony” or “witness”, but there is no dictionary in the world that has “source” as one of the definitions. “Source” would be almost opposite of “witness”. It would be just as likely to translate “testimonium” as “Mickey Mouse” than the word “source”. This hardly seems like a mistake.

Only the Latin version of the Catechism is official.
Other translations are not protected by the Church’s power of infallibility.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’d just relax if I was you.

Firstly, it is also technically correct that the Gospels are the principle source that we get our information about Our Lord from. Do you know of another source that fulfills that role better? I can’t think of any. I disagree that this is some sort of Protestant influence in translating the Catechism and your comments that the rest of the CCC might be unreliable, (because that is where you are ultimately going with that…) is imprudent.

A known incompetent? Ooooookay…

So far as the actual translation is concerned, I don’t really know since I don’t sit around and read it in Latin or any of the other languages.

Notice this excerpt from the new Compendium Catechism.

1. What importance does the New Testament have for Christians?

124-127
139

The New Testament, whose central object is Jesus Christ, conveys to us the ultimate truth of divine Revelation. Within the New Testament the four Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are the heart of all the Scriptures because they are the principle witness to the life and teaching of Jesus. As such, they hold a unique place in the Church.So the translation is perhaps more clear there.

I don’t think that this is even half the big deal that you seem to be making of it.

 

[Cranch]

Since the Gospels were written down and brought into the canon of Scripture, of course they’ve been the principle source and witness of our knowledge of Christ and his ministry. The apostles are long dead and we rely on their accounts in the Gospel to faithfully represent what Christ said and did and what they said and did.

You probably don’t mean to, but you make it sound like Tradition died with the Apostles and now it’s all about Scripture.Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.

—CCC 78
​

Moreover, Catholics know full well that Scripture is a product of Tradition and Magisterium. Protestants may believe the Bible just showed up on the doorstop one day, but we know where it came from.

Again, maybe this is me misunderstanding your meaning. Scripture is revelation from God. It did not come from Tradition and certainly not the Magisterium, though the Church defined the canon. As the CCC says, Scripture and Tradition are two distinct modes of transmission of revelation with one common divine source. Therefore one cannot be a product of the other.“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“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.”

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.”

—CCC 81 & 82
​

Does anyone really believe there was some sort of conspiracy at work in the Catechism? I know some complain it’s less clear than the previous version, but do any really think the Church tried to warp its own teaching for some nefarious reason?

No, I think the OP’s issue is simply about a perceived-to-be-poor English translation of the Latin original.

 

[ElizabethPH]

I believe he does, however I have not seen this word defined as you have done, to include “among the first”. I think the only sense of this word that is other than a singular, superlative one (other than unique usages like primary colors) is as a synonym for fundamental or basic, which I don’t think is what the OP means here.

You are right directly, primary is not defined as such; but through defining principal I found that definition.

 

[Contarini]

Again, there is no way in the world that “testimonium” can mean “source.”

It can mean “testimony” or “witness”, but there is no dictionary in the world that has “source” as one of the definitions. “Source” would be almost opposite of “witness”. It would be just as likely to translate “testimonium” as “Mickey Mouse” than the word “source”. This hardly seems like a mistake.

This claim has already been refuted. In the context of historical knowledge, a *testimonium *(which as you rightly note would be most typically translated as “witness” or “testimony”) is a source of our knowledge. It’s not the best translation, but it’s not an entirely unreasonable one. It is one that might well occur to a translator anxious to avoid the trap of automatically rendering a Latin word by its English cognate.

Suppose you actually respond to the posts refuting your original claim, instead of simply repeating the claim?

Edwin

P.S. Reading your post #15 above, I see that you are confusing “source of” and “source for.” The translation you find objectionable does not say that the Gospels are the “principal source of” Christ’s teaching, but the “principal source for” that teaching. I.e., they are the principal source to which we turn when we want to know what Jesus taught. Of course the Gospels themselves draw on Jesus’ oral teaching, which if we are to believe the scholarly consensus was transmitted for some decades before being written down.

 

[Teflon93]

You probably don’t mean to, but you make it sound like Tradition died with the Apostles and now it’s all about Scripture.Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.

—CCC 78
​

You’re right, that’s not what I meant. I simply meant that Christ’s ministry and that of the original apostles are what is contained in the Gospels; indeed, the reason for writing them down was to faithfully preserve them.

Again, maybe this is me misunderstanding your meaning. Scripture is revelation from God. It did not come from Tradition and certainly not the Magisterium, though the Church defined the canon. As the CCC says, Scripture and Tradition are two distinct modes of transmission of revelation with one common divine source. Therefore one cannot be a product of the other.

“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”
​

“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.”

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.”

—CCC 81 & 82
​

This is true, but what I was saying is the same thing. Scripture was transmitted through the Magisterium and Tradition by God. Both preexisted the New Testament. No Magisterium, no confidence that Scripture came from God. No Tradition, no New Testament, as Tradition written down is what the New Testament is.

I note this simply to contrast with the Koran, which Muslims claim to have been dictated by God. Thus their insistence it be read in Arabic.​

 

[porthos11]

What’s the problem here?

Yes, I know that testimonium best translates as witness or testimony, but does one immediately have to jump to Protestant conspiracy theories?

**The Gospels ARE the principal source of the life and teachings of Christ.

**The paragraph’s context has nothing to do about the wellsprings of divine revelation, it clearly limits itself to the life and teachings of Christ, and ONLY THE GOSPELS are our authoritative source of those. And if anyone even bothered to go to paragraph 126, it even expounds on what the Gospels cover, INCLUDING ORAL TRADITION.

Sheesh. Why we have to always suspect Protestants having a hand in everything is beyond me.

 

[dcdurel]

What’s the problem here?

Yes, I know that testimonium best translates as witness or testimony, but does one immediately have to jump to Protestant conspiracy theories?

The Gospels ARE the principal source of the life and teachings of Christ.

Absolutely false. The Gospels are NOT the principal source of the life and teachings of Christ. The Catholic Church has never taught such an idea. This derives from Protestantism.

The Gospels themselves are a witness that they are NOT the principle source:

                                  **Jesus taught the apostles “everything” and “all things” through the Holy Spirit. Nothing is left out. **

Mr 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
Mt 13:11 “to you it has been given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven”
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

Therefore the apostles learned 'EVERYTHING" about salvation directly from God Himself, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Since they learned EVERYTHING directly from God, there is NO DOCTRINE that scripture can add to what they already knew.

I repeat, there is NO DOCTRINE that scripture can add to what the Church already knew.  If scripture added any doctrine, then Jesus lied and the gospels themselves lied when they say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught them EVERYTHING.

I don’t know how clear this can be. But I know that people will deny this fact, ignore it, belittle it, and come back to their personal view that the written Gospels are the primary source. And it is a PROTESTANT view.

The Father revealed everything to Jesus, Jesus revealed everything to His apostles, and then Jesus commanded his apostles to make this known all this revelation to all men when he commanded them to “preach the Gospel”.
This Gospel they preached was to be “the source of all saving truth and moral discipline”1 and it contains “the fullness of the truth which God has enabled us to know about himself.”2
1Catechism of the Catholic Church 75
2Redemptoris missio, 5

Notice that it is the Gospel that the apostles PREACHED, that is handed down in Tradition, that is the “source of all saving truth and moral discipline” It is NOT the Gospel that they wrote.

Thus, since the entire message of salvation is handed down in the oral preaching and teaching the Church teaches in the Catechism:
Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.”

 

[dcdurel]

Notice to “EVERY GENERATION” The Church did not forget parts of the Gospel, then they had to go back and learn it again by reading the written Gospels. The entire word of God is handed on to each generation in TRADITION.

Thus the apostles learned this Gospel that they preached directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit and NOT from reading the gospels.

And if anyone even bothered to go to paragraph 126, it even expounds on what the Gospels cover, INCLUDING ORAL TRADITION.

If you go to paragraph 126 it only says that
"The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form;
Thus only “certain elements” of the Gospel they preached were written in the four Gospels.

That is why we always go to Tradition to interpret scripture. Because ONLY Tradition has the entire word of God that Jesus taught His apostles. The written Gospels only have “certain elements”.

Sheesh. Why we have to always suspect Protestants having a hand in everything is beyond me.

Because Protestantism rejects TRADITION as the sacred word of God and puts Scripture alone as our authority.

The reason Protestants can agree on any teachings is because they cannot find the Gospel the apostles taught in scripture. Scripture does NOT claim to present the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. The written Gospels only claim to be a narrative of the life of Jesus.

There is not a single book, not a single chapter, not a single paragraph in the entire bible that claims to be the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. And since Jesus taught them everything, how could a paragraph or chapter contain all God’s teachings on salvation? It couldn’t and it the bible does not claim to do it anywhere.

Thus the Gospels cannot be the PRIMARY SOURCE of the teachings of Jesus, because they only contain “certain elements” of the entire Gospel that is FIRST handed on and only handed on in its entirety through TRADITION.

The Gospels can only be “witnesses” to the teachings and life of Jesus. Not the primary source.

 

[Melchior]

There is a major error in the translation of the Catechism.
The English translation of parapraph 125 has

“The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principle source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour”

That is a translation that leans toward Protestantism. It makes Scripture primary and Tradition secondary when it comes to doctrine. The Church teaches that the Gospel handed down in TRADITION is the source of all saving truth, NOT the Gospel handed down in scripture. Scripture is only a witness to the teachings handed down in Tradition.

The correct translation, according to the French, Latin and to Dei Verbum from which this teaching came is:

“The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principle witness to the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour”

The apostles learned the entire Gospel directly from Jesus before a single word of scripture was written. Thus
Sacred Tradition is the principle source of the teachings of Jesus, NOT scripture. That is why we always interpret scripture according to Sacred Tradition.

It seems we have clandestine Protestants in the Catholic Church. There is no way anyone could mistake the French
“le témoignage par excellence” or the latin
“praecipuum testimonium”

to mean “principle source” instead of “principle witness”.

The Gospels are the principle witness to the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour. This should be abundantly clear everytime you go to mass. Do you know of any other witness to life and teaching of Jesus that is equal to these primary sources? All of scripture holds a primacy in sacred tradition for what should be obvious reasons. This has nothing to do with Protestants. Every Sunday in Mass it is the liturgy of the Word (scripture) and Liturgy of the Sacraments. Everything done in the Mass is 80% quoted from scripture or directly derived from it. We don’t read the fathers or catechisms in mass. We read (hear) God’s word precisely because it is the primary witness to the Word made flesh. Scripture holds primacy in Catholicism, it is somethingto be embraced not feared if Catholics ever want to reclaim scripture at the lay level and stop losing people to Evangelical churches precisely because of this wrong-headed minimizing of scripture that is not Catholic in the least.

 

[Contarini]

Absolutely false. The Gospels are NOT the principal source of the life and teachings of Christ. The Catholic Church has never taught such an idea. This derives from Protestantism.

The Gospels themselves are a witness that they are NOT the principle source:

                                  **Jesus taught the apostles “everything” and “all things” through the Holy Spirit. Nothing is left out. **

Mr 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
Mt 13:11 “to you it has been given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven”
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

Therefore the apostles learned 'EVERYTHING" about salvation directly from God Himself, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Since they learned EVERYTHING directly from God, there is NO DOCTRINE that scripture can add to what they already knew.

I repeat, there is NO DOCTRINE that scripture can add to what the Church already knew.

This may shock you, but Protestants would not disagree with this (certainly the Reformers would not). Of course the message of the NT was oral proclamation first. That is not the point.

You are creating an issue that does not exist. The point is that the apostles did commit much of what Jesus taught them to writing *under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit *(so that the Church has always taught that the principal author of Holy Scripture is God–that is not some Protestant notion), and this is today our principal source for knowledge of what Jesus taught. That much seems obvious. Scripture is the most compendious and certain repository of apostolic tradition. Protestants say that all apostolic tradition is contained in Scripture and that we have no reliable access to AT outside Scripture; Catholics deny this, teaching either that all AT is handed down in both Scripture and in the continuous witness of the Church or (as you seem to believe) that some AT is not found in Scripture but was handed down separately.

I am not going to quarrel with this latter claim. It may be true. But I will quarrel with the claim that extra-Scriptural Tradition specifically about Jesus’ life and teachings is significant enough to invalidate the claim that the Gospels are our primary source for knowledge of Jesus’ life and teachings. To support that claim (if that is what you are saying), you would need to point to specific things that the Catholic Church knows about Jesus through Tradition rather than through Scripture. What specific things would you point to?

Edwin

 

[porthos11]

Absolutely false. The Gospels are NOT the principal source of the life and teachings of Christ. The Catholic Church has never taught such an idea. This derives from Protestantism.

No YOU are wrong. The Gospels ARE the principal source of the life and teachings of Christ. There is nothing else that tells of Jesus’ life that bears inspiration. The paragraph doesn’t even claim that the Gospels are the ONLY source, just the PRINCIPAL or PRIMARY sources (which is true). And why do we know this? Because the Gospels are read at Mass and we STAND for the Gospels and ONLY the Gospels; we acclaim them with Alleluias, we incense them, bear them in procession, honor them with candles, and bookmark them with apostolic greetings and praise to Christ. Oh, yes, the Gospels ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. and the liturgy of the Church affirms that.

Not even Church Tradition outside of Scripture teaches anything about Jesus himself. Tell me where the Church teaches extra-scripturally about what Jesus did and said? There is nothing other than the Gospels themselves. This is not about doctrine. This is about the man-God and his life and deeds.

Nevertheless, this is what stands. The English translation of the Catechism is APPROVED and PROMULGATED by the CDF. I would rather believe them than you and your conspiracy theories.

As usual, blame the Protestants for everything.

 

[dcdurel]

No YOU are wrong. The Gospels ARE the principal source of the life and teachings of Christ. There is nothing else that tells of Jesus’ life that bears inspiration. The paragraph doesn’t even claim that the Gospels are the ONLY source, just the PRINCIPAL or PRIMARY sources (which is true). And why do we know this? Because the Gospels are read at Mass and we STAND for the Gospels and ONLY the Gospels; we acclaim them with Alleluias, we incense them, bear them in procession, honor them with candles, and bookmark them with apostolic greetings and praise to Christ. Oh, yes, the Gospels ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. and the liturgy of the Church affirms that.

 I never denied that the Gospels are the primary sources of the life of Christ.  I denied the false translation in the Catechism that the Gospels are the primary sources for the life AND TEACHINGS of Christ.  This is a false translation.  The Catechism was quoting Vatican II on this paragraph 125 and Vatican II at the Vatican web site and in the beginning of the New American Bible Vatican II has a totally different meaning. from the "quote" in the catechism.    The Latin is the only official approved standard of the Catechism approved by the Church, and the Latin has "testimonium", which never, never, never ever means "source".   It means testimony or witness, but never, ever means source.

Here is only a smidgen of what the Gospels are missing, but was handed down in Tradition.
Jesus taught the apostles how to evangelize. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught the apostles the content of the Gospel that they were to teach and preach. The gospels don’t. Jesus taught the apostles the meaning of salvation. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught the apostles everything baptism does. The gospels don’t. That is why Protestant denominations can’t agree on the content of the Gospel, the meaning of salvation, whether baptism is an ordinance or really gives grace, etc.
Jesus taught the the apostles how we receive the grace He merited by His death and resurrection. The gospels don’t. That is why Protestants don’t agree. Jesus taught the exact meaning of salvation. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles the meaning of the sacrament of confession, who can administer it, what is necessary to receive it worthily, etc. The Gosples don’t. Jesus taught His apostles the clear doctrines about the Trinity. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what original sin did to man. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught the exact meaning of the word “faith”. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostlest the where we receive the greatest source of grace. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles how to worship and the prayers of worship. The gospels don’t. That is why Protestants can’t agree how to worship, how to receive the grace of salvation, exactly what “faith” means, or even if the sacrament of confession exists, etc. Jesus taught His apostles the what is the center and kernal of the Gospel.

 

[dcdurel]

The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what the “kingdom of God” is. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what heaven is. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what mortal sin is. The Gospels don’t, though they do give some examples. Jesus taught His apostles how to pray to the angels and saints in heaven. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles all about prayer. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles why we pray to the saints in heaven. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught exactly what the Eucharist is. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles exactly what the Church is. The Gospels don’t.
Jesus taught His apostles what happens at Mass. The Gospels don’t. Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the apostles how to organize their teaching when teaching the Gospel. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles the hierarchy of truths of the Gospel. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what Confirmation does. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles how to confirm. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles how to ordain successors. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles the prayers of the ordination rite. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles the different ways to baptize. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles how to receive the sacrament of marriage. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what makes marriage a sacrament. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles why we need to fast. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles how to participate at mass. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what happens when the priest says “this is my body”, The Gospels don’t.

I could go on and on and on about what is handed down in Tradition and what is NOT taught in the bible.

Nevertheless, this is what stands. The English translation of the Catechism is APPROVED and PROMULGATED by the CDF. I would rather believe them than you and your conspiracy theories.

But is is NOT approved by the Pope. Only the Latin version is approved by the Pope. Thus the Latin version is correct and the English version is NOT.

 

[Contarini]

The Latin is the only official approved standard of the Catechism approved by the Church, and the Latin has “testimonium”, which never, never, never ever means “source”. It means testimony or witness, but never, ever means source.

Again, you are simply ignoring the arguments to the contrary that have been presented. Can you deny that a “testimony” to something that happened in the past is a “source” of our knowledge of that event?

Here is only a smidgen of what the Gospels are missing, but was handed down in Tradition.
Jesus taught the apostles how to evangelize.

What exactly did He teach them about this and how do you know it?

Jesus taught the apostles the content of the Gospel that they were to teach and preach.

What was the specific content He taught them not found in the Four Gospels? (And we are talking about Jesus’ oral teaching while on earth, not about what was later revealed by the Holy Spirit to the apostles.)

Jesus taught the apostles the meaning of salvation.

What exactly did He teach them?

Jesus taught the apostles everything baptism does. The gospels don’t.

What did Jesus teach them that goes beyond John 3:5?

  Jesus taught the the apostles how we receive the grace He merited by His death and resurrection.

Again, you’re giving a vague description with no specifics. What exactly did He teach them orally while on earth that is not recorded in the Gospels, and how do we know this?

Jesus taught the exact meaning of salvation.

Again, you fail to say what this is.

Jesus taught His apostles the meaning of the sacrament of confession,

Vague again

who can administer it,

You are saying, I presume, that Jesus said something like “Only you or someone on whom you have laid hands can hear people’s confessions and forgive them in My name.” I don’t have a problem with this–but then this is arguably implicit in John 20:23, Matt. 16:19, and Matt. 18:18. If you want to say that Jesus gave orally a more explicit definition of who the “you” in those passages refers to, I will not quarrel with you.

what is necessary to receive it worthily, etc.

Again, what exactly do you mean by that?

Jesus taught His apostles the clear doctrines about the Trinity.

Then why did it take 300 years for this clear oral teaching to become widely known in the Church? Why didn’t the writers of the 2nd century, for instance, reveal this clear teaching? The problem with your view is that you are bordering on the Gnostic concept of a “secret teaching” not publicly made known by the apostles and their successors. This completely defeats the point of apostolic tradition as taught by early Fathers such as Irenaeus. Why would Irenaeus, who insists on the public nature of apostolic tradition, not make known these “clear teachings on the Trinity” if they had been handed down to him (since he discusses this very topic)?

Jesus taught His apostles what original sin did to man.

Again, you are essentially saying that when Augustine began teaching about original sin and his contemporaries were rather startled by this development of the tradition, they were either shamming or were inexplicably ignorant of the Church’s explicit oral teaching. It just doesn’t work. There is a good reason why most Catholics have come to believe in the development of doctrine–not to believe in it requires one to ignore the evidence of history. It makes faith utterly irrational.

The same is of course true for your other points.

The position you are defending is untenable, and therefore has been abandoned by almost all of your fellow Catholics. It is not what the Pope believes, it is not what Vatican II taught, and it simply makes no sense.

Furthermore, apart from the question of development of doctrine, you are ignoring Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the disciples into all truth, which implies that after Pentecost there were many things revealed by the Spirit to the disciples which Jesus had not explicitly taught.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[porthos11]

The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what the “kingdom of God” is. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what heaven is. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what mortal sin is. The Gospels don’t, though they do give some examples. Jesus taught His apostles how to pray to the angels and saints in heaven. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles all about prayer. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles why we pray to the saints in heaven. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught exactly what the Eucharist is. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles exactly what the Church is. The Gospels don’t.
Jesus taught His apostles what happens at Mass. The Gospels don’t. Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the apostles how to organize their teaching when teaching the Gospel. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles the hierarchy of truths of the Gospel. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what Confirmation does. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles how to confirm. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles how to ordain successors. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles the prayers of the ordination rite. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles the different ways to baptize. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles how to receive the sacrament of marriage. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what makes marriage a sacrament. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles why we need to fast. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles how to participate at mass. The Gospels don’t. Jesus taught His apostles what happens when the priest says “this is my body”, The Gospels don’t.

And where do we find in extra-scriptural tradition where Jesus did all these things outside of the Gospels themselves? I demand your sources. It should have been easy for you to simply include them as parenthetical references beside each claim. I demand your sources.

The Gospels are still the PRIMARY and PRINCIPAL SOURCES of the life AND TEACHINGS of Christ. Heck, the Catechism doesn’t even claim them to be the ONLY sources but you decided to knock it anyway as “Protestant”. But I will not accept your stance and silly conspiracy theories until we incense at Mass whatever non-principal sources you cite, if you even have any. I challenge you and I demand it.

But is is NOT approved by the Pope. Only the Latin version is approved by the Pope. Thus the Latin version is correct and the English version is NOT.

You’re sorely wrong. The English edition is the official English translation and is approved by the CDF. Catechisms cannot be released in translation without formal approval by the Congregation. If you did some reading you will find out how the original English was REJECTED by the Congregation due to NRSV errors.

Your emphasis on the Latin applies only to Canon Law.