Why was this Bible verse changed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stmaria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stmaria

Guest
Pope Pius IX used Luke 1:28 “Hail, full of grace” as evidence to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. However, after Vatican II new Bibles removed this translation. Only the Douay-Rheims has the Traditional verse.

Douay-Rheims Luke 1:28 “Hail, full of grace the Lord is with thee”

The New American Bible Luke 1: 28 “ Rejoice oh highly favored daughter

King James Luke 1:28 “Hail thou that art highly favored”

Why was this verse changed? Ecumenism!! Protestants don’t believe in this dogma therefore this evidence needed to be erased from the bible.
On the introduction page of the 1970 New American Bible, there is a quote from Pope Paul VI that states that the new Bible was “made in cooperation with our separated brethren”

Vatican II declared that the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ needs to consult with Protestants about translating the bible. Of course Protestants do not believe in the teachings of the Church and of course they have no need for the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the Vatican II document Dei Verbum it states:

Chapter VI:
22. Easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all
the Christian faithful….but since the Word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that
suitable and correct translations are made into different
languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.
And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities
approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the
separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.

Pope John Paul II agrees with this effect of ecumenism in
Ut unum sint
On commitment to Ecumenism
44. Significant progress in ecumenical cooperation has also been made in another area, that of the Word of God. I am thinking above all of the importance for the different language groups of ecumenical translations of the Bible. Following the promulgation by the Second Vatican Council of the Constitution Dei Verbum, the Catholic Church could not fail to welcome this development.75 These translations, prepared by experts, generally offer a solid basis for the prayer and pastoral activity of all Christ’s followers. Anyone who recalls how heavily debates about Scripture influenced divisions, especially in the West, can appreciate the significant step forward which these common translations represent”

This new translation will not make the Blessed Mother happy but it does fill the Protestants with joy.
 
You are correct. These changes are very worrying and are proving to have terrible effects upon the Church.
 
Stmaria,

I surely hope you are not joining ranks with the Sola Scriptura groups! 😃 Think about it. The belief in the Immaculate Conception was widely held in the church long before the document was made official. And this was not due to reading the bible, which was not even published for world-wide circulation until the printing press was invented.

The Church is the sole interpreter of Sacred Scripture, being divinely guided by the Holy Spirit. Do not forget that Sacred Tradition is also part of our history, not only the bible. To place one’s whole faith in a literal scripture verse is not what a Catholic does, for we rely upon the Church to declare what is true therein. A wonderful teaching companion to Scripture is the CCC. I would hope every serious Catholic owns a copy and reads it.
 
This thread really belongs in Scripture section where we will get some straight answers rather than cant and polemic.
 
At least the CCC still refers to our Lady —full of grace. To bad those bibles— reflect a protestant influence.

CCC.

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The “splendour of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137
 
Ignatius RSV-CE Second Catholic Edition Luke 1:28 - And he came to her and said “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.”
 
It’s a conspiracy…the Protestants did it!

In actuality, from what I’ve read, “highly favored one” is considered to be the more literal translation of the Greek, with “full of grace” arguably a more dynamic translation. Still, take what I say here with a grain of salt…I am no Greek scholar, just mentioning what I remember reading somewhere which may or may not be wrong. (And I’m a Protestant as well, so I might be in on the conspiracy!!!).

What does it matter to Catholics anyway? The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not rise or fall just on this translation…moreover, if you are a faithful Catholic you are conscience bound to believe it no matter how strong, or weak, the supporting evidence because the doctrine has been infallably defined.
 
rr1213 said:
It’s a conspiracy…the Protestants did it!

In actuality, from what I’ve read, “highly favored one” is considered to be the more literal translation of the Greek, with “full of grace” arguably a more dynamic translation. Still, take what I say here with a grain of salt…I am no Greek scholar, just mentioning what I remember reading somewhere which may or may not be wrong. (And I’m a Protestant as well, so I might be in on the conspiracy!!!).

What does it matter to Catholics anyway? The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not rise or fall just on this translation…moreover, if you are a faithful Catholic you are conscience bound to believe it no matter how strong, or weak, the supporting evidence because the doctrine has been infallably defined.
Click to expand...
The Latin Vulgate which was translated from the Greek translation of the Gospel write it as “Gratia Plena which means full of grace.” I doubt St. Jermone made an error.
 
Maybe and maybe not. St. Jerome made a number of translation errors with the Vulgate.
 
rr1213 said:
Maybe and maybe not. St. Jerome made a number of translation errors with the Vulgate.
Click to expand...
Gratia Plena wasn’t one of them. There have been numerous revision of the Latin Vulgate and they had been corrected. The copy of My Douy Rheims which was translated from the Latin Vulgate states, “full grace.” In the Vatican website their Latin Vulgate states Gratia Plena.

Same can be said with the King James Bible that it too had errors
 
stmaria said:
Pope Pius IX used Luke 1:28 “Hail, full of grace” as evidence to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. However, after Vatican II new Bibles removed this translation. Only the Douay-Rheims has the Traditional verse.
Click to expand...
Do you ask me to believe that Pope Bl Pius IX relied on an *English *translation of scripture to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? I, for one, find that *highly unlikely. More reasonable would be the Clementine Vulgate Ave gratia plena. 🤓 (Which, btw, is unchanged in the Nova Vulgata)

(* But I am willing to be corrected. If not, please find something less like a strawman to gripe about)

:twocents:
tee
 
where I live we have “full of grace”, of course in our native language. america isn’t the only catholic country! 😛
 
antimon said:
where I live we have “full of grace”, of course in our native language. america isn’t the only catholic country! 😛
Click to expand...
Historically and demographically, the USA is a predominately Protestant nation, not a Catholic one.
 
There is a phenomenon that says if you water something down to avoid offending people who disagree with what you are saying, what you say may not be worth saying. Imagine, a politically correct Bible. We already have the new mass that does not mention prayers for the conversion of Jews, lest we offend them. We have new Bible translations make in cooperation with Protestants, so that they are not offended.

Modern churches look more like meeting halls. Modern worship songs sound more like folk or childrens songs.

WIth all of these efforts not to offend, look at church attendance!

ابو كمون
 
Joysong said:
Stmaria,

I surely hope you are not joining ranks with the Sola Scriptura groups! 😃 Think about it. The belief in the Immaculate Conception was widely held in the church long before the document was made official. And this was not due to reading the bible, which was not even published for world-wide circulation until the printing press was invented.
The Church is the sole interpreter of Sacred Scripture
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
stmaria said:
This new translation will not make the Blessed Mother happy but it does fill the Protestants with joy.
Click to expand...
WRONG!!! Not all Protestants feel that way about the Blessed Mother. There are some who are much more in line with Catholic beliefs on the Blessed Mother than others. We can’t lump all Protestants into the same group. You fall into a trap when you do that.

Secondly the Church has also stated that Protestants who are baptized in the Trinitarian formula ARE a part of the Church. They are just not in full communion. Should we ignore what they have to say simply because they are not in full communion? I don’t think so. I may not agree with what they say but I do agree that they have a right to be heard. Secondly, if we are going to work toward unity we ARE going to have to address this issue with those Protestants for whom this is an issue. Treating people with respect and showing concern for what they think goes a long way toward getting them to really think about what you have to say.

From what I understand, Protestants tend to go more by the original language when translating the Bible and not the latin. It’s my understanding that the original word is not easily translated into English and “full of grace” is not exactly an accurate translation, but neither is “highly favored”. But I’m no Biblical scholar so I’m just going by what I have learned. 🙂
 
Sabda said:
WRONG!!! Not all Protestants feel that way about the Blessed Mother. There are some who are much more in line with Catholic beliefs on the Blessed Mother than others. We can’t lump all Protestants into the same group. You fall into a trap when you do that.

Secondly the Church has also stated that Protestants who are baptized in the Trinitarian formula ARE a part of the Church. They are just not in full communion. Should we ignore what they have to say simply because they are not in full communion? I don’t think so. I may not agree with what they say but I do agree that they have a right to be heard.
Secondly, if we are going to work toward unity we ARE going to have to address this issue with those Protestants for whom this is an issue.
Click to expand...
The Imaculate Conception is Catholic dogma not protestant. Is ecumenism unity or reunion? There is a big difference.

If a protestant wanted me to show him biblicial evidence of the Immacualte Conception, I could not even use a new Catholic bible to do it. It has been removed for ecumenical reasons and that is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top