Why 'Catholic Version' instead of 'Protestant Version'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elzee

Guest
It has always gotten under my skin a little that Protestant bibles (those that don’t contain the deuterocanonicals) are simply labeled ‘Holy Bible’, but Catholic bibles are labled ‘Holy Bible - Catholic version’. It subtley implies that the Catholic bible is the ‘exception’. Does anyone know how this got started? I’d rather see ‘Holy Bible - Protestant version’ be the norm in the publishing world. 😃
 
Elzee,

I suppose it’s because the U.S. is largely a Protestant nation, though Catholics make up, by far, the largest denomination of Christians.

Plus, many “Christian Book Stores” only peddle Protestant texts and articles…you rarely find a rosary in them.

Many “Christian Book Stores” should be named “Protestant Book Stores”. Most Catholic Bibles that I have found do not have the name “Catholic version” on them, as though Catholics are second class citizens.

I have found that most Catholic Bibles are entitled “New American”, or “Jerusalem Bible”,and are assumed to be the complete version of the approved scriptural texts.
 
40.png
dnewbern:
Most Catholic Bibles that I have found do not have the name “Catholic version” on them, as though Catholics are second class citizens.

I have found that most Catholic Bibles are entitled “New American”, or “Jerusalem Bible”,and are assumed to be the complete version of the approved scriptural texts.
Click to expand...
Except for my Douay-Rheims, I think all of my bibles have ‘Catholic version’ or something similar on them in one place or another. I guess an example is the RSV. Mine is ‘RSVCE’ (‘Catholic Edition’). I know it’s a minor point, but I think it propagates the false notion that we ‘added those books’ to the bible and that’s why it’s the ‘Catholic version’, as opposed to the fact that the books were actually removed, making it a ‘Protestant version’ of the original scriptures. Just a thought I’ve had in my mind for many years I thought I’d share…
 
That i know of the Title is not of as much consequence as the imprimatur.

God bless,
Aaron
 
Elzee,

You make a good point about the seven original books of the O.T. that were removed by Luther and his cohorts. It’s important to note that those inspired texts (e.g. Sirach, Macabbees, etc.) were part of the “scriptures” at the time of Christ, and Jesus himself had no problem with them.

I don’t want to start a new thread here…I just concur with your point. Because I, too, have seen the “Catholic version” treated as though it had “extra books”, when, in fact, it was Luther and his cohorts who actually removed the books from the original Bible that had been around since Pope Damasus’s Council of Rome in 385 A.D. 1,150 years is a long time

I also have read that Luther had big problems with Hebrews and James’s epistle, but, in the end, decided not to tamper with them.
 
I think it is mainly that the Catholic version (the correct one) is not the main U.S. bible. Therefore, most people looking for a bible want some sort of protestantized one, hence the “Catholic Version” moniker.

I see this as a veiled insult, but then again maybe it is a backhanded complement. What would the protestants say if their versions were called the “Bible-Protestant Version” or “Bible-Altered Heretical Edition w/o Deuterocanonicals”? 😉
 
Mine simply says “Holy Bible”

…and inside the front has a picture of Pope Pius XII!
 
40.png
dnewbern:
Elzee,

You make a good point about the seven original books of the O.T. that were removed by Luther and his cohorts. It’s important to note that those inspired texts (e.g. Sirach, Macabbees, etc.) were part of the “scriptures” at the time of Christ, and Jesus himself had no problem with them.

I don’t want to start a new thread here…I just concur with your point. Because I, too, have seen the “Catholic version” treated as though it had “extra books”, when, in fact, it was Luther and his cohorts who actually removed the books from the original Bible that had been around since Pope Damasus’s Council of Rome in 385 A.D. 1,150 years is a long time

I also have read that Luther had big problems with Hebrews and James’s epistle, but, in the end, decided not to tamper with them.
Click to expand...
Actually you have that a tad incorrect. Luther translated the NT and when bringing his entire Bible together, known today as the Luther Bible, it included those books.

As a Lutheran converting to Catholicism, I have to say it again, Luther kept them in there, and he was burried with his Rosary 😉

Lets not forget that the RC Church didn’t even form an official canon until the Reformation time anyway.
 
The only Bible that I know of that says “Catholic Edition” is the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). This is because the RSV was originally a Protestant translation. To make the CE, a few changes were made to the text and the dueterocanonical books were included. The “Good News” Bible (Catholic Edition) paraphrase had a similar origin.

I have seen some editions of the NAB say something on the spine or cover like “Official Catholic Bible,” but I think that is so Catholics will be able to find it easier when they are looking for a Bible, and not pick up a truncated Protestant version by mistake.

Other than that, all other Catholic Bibles I know of are labeled according to what translation or edition they are, like “New American” or “Jerusalem” or “Douay” or “Catholic Study Bible.”
 
In some cases, this may be to let the buyer know that the deuterocanonical books are placed in the traditional Catholic order, instead as a separate section of “apocrypha”.
As has been pointed out, this mostly refers to Bibles like the RSV & NRSV, which are protestant translations. But, they are widely used by Catholics, so they are labelled “Catholic” so that people can easily distinguish them.
It’s not a perfect system, by any means. It just happens to be the case that if a translation started out as protestant, the Catholic label gets added.
The Catholic Bibles that I see are just marked with their actual name.
 
40.png
Elzee:
It has always gotten under my skin a little that Protestant bibles (those that don’t contain the deuterocanonicals) are simply labeled ‘Holy Bible’, but Catholic bibles are labled ‘Holy Bible - Catholic version’. It subtley implies that the Catholic bible is the ‘exception’. Does anyone know how this got started? I’d rather see ‘Holy Bible - Protestant version’ be the norm in the publishing world. 😃
Click to expand...
All of my Catholic Bibles either say, “Holy Bible” or the version of the Holy Bible. ex. “The New American Bible.”
 
Elzee, I think it’s important to remember that the Bibles you are talking about come from and are published by Protestant institutes that donot accept the LXX books of the OT, therefore, sincerely believe that their Bible and Canon of Sacred Books is the true Bible.
 
40.png
dnewbern:
Elzee,

I suppose it’s because the U.S. is largely a Protestant nation, though Catholics make up, by far, the largest denomination of Christians.

Plus, many “Christian Book Stores” only peddle Protestant texts and articles…you rarely find a rosary in them.

Many “Christian Book Stores” should be named “Protestant Book Stores”. Most Catholic Bibles that I have found do not have the name “Catholic version” on them, as though Catholics are second class citizens.

I have found that most Catholic Bibles are entitled “New American”, or “Jerusalem Bible”,and are assumed to be the complete version of the approved scriptural texts.
Click to expand...
When I bought my JB many moons ago at a local bookstore the clerk (a nice young lady wearing an ichthys brooch) asked me if I was sure that was the Bible I wanted.
Still not sure if she was a fundie or an RC who hated the Jerusalem Bible. Either way, I was prepared to get ticked off, then I decided her concern for my soul was touching & let it go at that 🙂
 
40.png
St.Curious:
Lets not forget that the RC Church didn’t even form an official canon until the Reformation time anyway.
Click to expand...
Whoa, whoa, whoa. **The Roman Catholic Church had the canon definatively in place for almost 1200 years before the Reformation. **

As for the other stuff here— The bible is a Catholic book written for Catholics. Why is a bible labelled “Catholic” and other bibles not labelled per denomination? Because the Catholic bible is one which must have official approval. A Catholic bible is produced (including all the explanations and footnotes) to be offically approved by The Catholic Church.

Anyone could produce a bible. I could make one tomorrow and call it something nice like “New Jerusalem American Christian Bible.” I could translate any passage the way I wanted, I could leave out books or parts of books that didn’t suit my theological views, I could use the footnotes to say whatever I wanted in interpreting passages. Who could stop me? Why is my bible different, authority-wise, than any other bible out there, save the Catholic bibles.

So be happy and thankful that your bible says “Catholic” on it. That means it was approved of by the Catholic Church and can be relied upon. It has all the books that have been considered canonical for centuries and the notes are not tainted by Protestant, evangelical, or new-age type bias.
 
In Petto:
Whoa, whoa, whoa. **The Roman Catholic Church had the canon definatively in place for almost 1200 years before the Reformation. **

As for the other stuff here— The bible is a Catholic book written for Catholics. Why is a bible labelled “Catholic” and other bibles not labelled per denomination? Because the Catholic bible is one which must have official approval. A Catholic bible is produced (including all the explanations and footnotes) to be offically approved by The Catholic Church.

Anyone could produce a bible. I could make one tomorrow and call it something nice like “New Jerusalem American Christian Bible.” I could translate any passage the way I wanted, I could leave out books or parts of books that didn’t suit my theological views, I could use the footnotes to say whatever I wanted in interpreting passages. Who could stop me? Why is my bible different, authority-wise, than any other bible out there, save the Catholic bibles.

So be happy and thankful that your bible says “Catholic” on it. That means it was approved of by the Catholic Church and can be relied upon. It has all the books that have been considered canonical for centuries and the notes are not tainted by Protestant, evangelical, or new-age type bias.
Click to expand...
Great Points!!!
 
In Petto:
Whoa, whoa, whoa. **The Roman Catholic Church had the canon definatively in place for almost 1200 years before the Reformation. **
Click to expand...
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Aside from the fact that that argument is somewhat off topic in this thread, there’s no need to claim “definitive” status when there is none. The first ecumenical council to infallibly define the canon was Trent. On the other hand, in response to the claim that Luther included those books in the bible, I don’t think pulling books out of order and putting them into an Apochrypha “ghetto” at the back of the bible can honestly be considered the sort of inclusion meant by the original comment.
 
40.png
Elzee:
It has always gotten under my skin a little that Protestant bibles (those that don’t contain the deuterocanonicals) are simply labeled ‘Holy Bible’, but Catholic bibles are labled ‘Holy Bible - Catholic version’. It subtley implies that the Catholic bible is the ‘exception’. Does anyone know how this got started? I’d rather see ‘Holy Bible - Protestant version’ be the norm in the publishing world. 😃
Click to expand...
Catholicism is, and has long been, a minority faith within the English-speaking world, despite being by far the largest group within Christianity. England, which gave us all our language and much of our culture, was often aggressively anti-Catholic, especially in the C16th and 17th (i.e., the first couple of hundred years after they went Anglican). Thus, there are anti-Catholic elements within the language itself: Romish, papist, papistry, popish, popery.
 
Andreas Hofer:
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Aside from the fact that that argument is somewhat off topic in this thread, there’s no need to claim “definitive” status when there is none. The first ecumenical council to infallibly define the canon was Trent. On the other hand, in response to the claim that Luther included those books in the bible, I don’t think pulling books out of order and putting them into an Apochrypha “ghetto” at the back of the bible can honestly be considered the sort of inclusion meant by the original comment.
Click to expand...
Cry “off topic” if you wish, but I was corrrecting a misrepresentation. Protestant v. Catholic versions is the topic, sheriff. Anyway, Hippo and Carthage prove my point quite well, as does the accepted canon of the 1200 year gap. Don’t misintepret what went on at Trent.
 
40.png
St.Curious:
Lets not forget that the RC Church didn’t even form an official canon until the Reformation time anyway.
Click to expand...
the canon was formed in the first 4 centuries of the Church and confirmed in 4th century church councils, and re-affirmed and confirmed (not created) by the Council of Trent in th 16th century
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
the canon was formed in the first 4 centuries of the Church and confirmed in 4th century church councils, and re-affirmed and confirmed (not created) by the Council of Trent in th 16th century
Click to expand...
***Hi, Everyone!

I know I’m quite late… still… I’ve encountered this phenomenon in many sites that I visit…

Though the claim is multi-denomenationalism or inter-faith… they can’t help but view the world in a Protestant prism where all roads lead away from Rome and their plethora of denominational doctrines are viewed as an enhancement on Christ’s Command to be One ("…on this rock I will build my Church…")

Much of the arguement is the same (Christ’s Church dismantled by man; the Holy Spirit abondoning the Church for nearly fifteen hundred years; personal interpretation as clear revelation of the Holy Spirit; Salvation by Faith alone–specially if a person subscribes to certain “keys” or “personal revelations;” …and the innovations go on…); they converge on some myth that interprets Christ’s own words as subjective doctrine (“feel good Christianity”) while ignoring His Mandates: “abide in Me,” “be one,” “love one another…”

St. John’s Epistle explained it succinctly:

If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. (1 St. John 4:20)***

Any claim to walk in the Light while rejecting Christ’s Chruch is in itself sterile since he who rejects the Son rejects the Father (1 St. John 2:23)… so, even this light veil of “Holy Bible” or “Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha” is clearly seen by the world (check Muslim/Jehovah Witnesses arguments–as well as that of the more active atheist’s) as a pronounced disunity in Christianity… and as Paul said, there’s but one God, one Lord, one Spirit… to promote otherwise is to sanction schism!

God Bless!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top