Padraig, the problem I see with true bible believing protestant Christians is that they are not reading the correct bible. They will frequently always point you to the KJV which they seem to beat their chests about with so much pride as to being the proper source and yet you can prove to them over and over again how much the KJV changed from the original Latin Vulgate text not to mention the books they chose to remove from the LV. So how can you be scripture only and yet not see the hypocrisy in how they obtained their scripture with all the changes in it. They truly do not take to heart the bible verse saying you should not change one word of scripture and yet they changed many. Also they fail to recognize certain proofs of the bible to fit their anti-Catholic agenda and view points like pretty much all of John 6 for example. You can't blame many Protestant flock who listen and believe in their preachers and scholars but the scholars who truly claim to be theological experts can't deny the simply differences in the changes made in the KJV. The most alarming thing for me I have ever discovered in trying to research all the differences in their bible and the true LV is the number of times they changed the name of Christ or Jesus to something else. We as Catholics know the power in Our Lord's name so to change that could only come from the whisper of the devil in the ears of the writers of the KJV. Here are all the times that the name of Jesus was changed or removed by Luther in the bible: Mt. 5:1; 8:26; 9:23; 16:15; 17:19; 20:17; 22:20; 26:18; Mk. 9:15; 16:1; 16:19; Lk. 4:38; 6:11; 14:1; 18:31; 20:3; 22:2; 24:36; Jn. 2:8; 4:1; Acts 5:41; 9:17; 9:20; 10:48; 16:7; 18:4; 18:25; 24:24; Rom. 8:34; 15:16; 16:9; I Cor. 4:17; II Cor. 2:14; Eph. 3:6; Phil. 3:9; Col. 1:7; 2:2; 4:12; II Thes. 2:8; Phile. 8; Heb. 4:14- 16; 9:24; Jude 5,24,25; Hab. 3:18. and here are all the times that Christ was taken out of the Luther bible: I K. 2:10; 2:35; 12:3; 12:5; 16:6; II K. 22:51; II Par. 6:42; Ps. 2:2; 17:51; 19:7; 83:10; 88:39; 88:52; 131:10; 131:17; Is. 45:1; Lam. 4:20; Hab. 3:13; Acts 4:33; 10:48; 28:31; Rom. 3:26;4: 24; 8:35; 10:17; I Cor. 2:1; 4:16; 5:5; II Cor. 5:15; 11:4; Gal. 4:31; Eph. 5:21; 5:29; Col. 3:15; 3:17; I Thes. 4:17; Heb. 10:19; 13:20; I Pet. 3:15; Jude 24, 25; Apocalypse 11:15-19.
Andy3, My mother could read Latin but most of us can't so to get closest to Our Lord's exact words, we read the Douay-Rheims Bible. And hasn't Our Lord in the messages warned of reading modern translations? He means Catholic Bibles too besides the altered Protestant Bibles. John Salsa, Catholic apologist, loves the Douay-Rheims.
Jackie Sadly even the doay Rheims in print is not the original translation from the 1500's. It is one that was translated 1800s and even 1900's and was done to appease the Protestants. The original was banned in 1600's so the original old English one from the Latin vulgate has been altered. I found this one that has been more properly translated and love it. It even has the original footnotes that defend the Catholic faith against Luther and Calvin's schism. Read more about it here. http://www.realdouayrheims.com And this chart really drives home the difference in translation from original LV and Douay Rheims. http://www.realdouayrheims.com/versionschart.htm
Thanks Andy3, news to me. I have the Challoner translation at home and check the same at http://www.drbo.org/ Is the "real Douay-Rheims" complete to read on line or do you have to purchase it?
I have the same and this new one but only the New Testament. You have to buy it. He prints to order and it is large so in 3 volumes. Paperback is cheaper. I got the hardback one for $50 and it is like a college textbook. Rather large. I thinks the paperback ones are $30.
Ahem, it takes a wee while to recover from the online muggings, beatings and being thrown out the front-door a couple of times I suppose . Yes this is a topic I have, like yourself, been nursing and detectivating (is that even a word) for many years. This little beauty of a gem is only something I recently fossicked out. Excellent 2nd generation provenance isn't it? I doubt we will find anything earlier or clearer. When I give I give my best . For what its worth I now approach the problematic the other way around. That is, instead of starting with EENS and then interpreting the bigger Catholic Tradition solely in its light I do the opposite. So now I look at our whole Tradition (including Vatican II and later docs) then interpret Trent's EENS in the light of the rest of our Tradition. Things fall into place more harmoniously than the other way around. Trent's formulations can then be more readily understood in the light of its very difficult times (just like words in the New testament like "bushel"). It rightly made very narrow (but correct) statements for very hard political/religious times when the expected balancing sub-clauses would have been far too wishy washy to effect in the Faithful what was needed. What was needed at the time was a closing of Catholic ranks in the face of the confusing and materially heretical Reformation movements. Unfortunately the Reformation destined horse(s) have long bolted from the Catholic stables - though the closing of the doors kept many horses safe. Our leaders have re-opened those stable doors for a hundred years or so now, Vatican II pushing them wide open, as they usually should be. Horses are meant to run the wider fenced fields most of the time aren't they. Yet, as these interminable and eventually heated discussions show, even though our Catholic leaders have re-opened the stable doors some of us faithful horses have been molly-coddled inside for so long we no longer know how to run or enjoy the safety of that more open fenced field. Bit like getting out of prison after 30 yrs perhaps. Now Pope Francis is gently pulling us out by the bridle. Good on him, we all need it I suppose. I won't be engaging further with the analogy . There's no doubt a storm a-gathering on this far blue horizon which doesn't need to be encouraged further . Well, seeing we are all obsessed with "bushel" ... it seems the proper translation is actually "bushel basket." Now I would be surprised if at Jesus's time they were using a European Medieval unit of grain (volume) measurement standardised around 1100?AD. So this is really a paraphrase translation, translations are meant to make sense to the contemporary reader translated for aren't they? So why is it still translated as "bushel" in British Commonwealth countries who have never used the "bushel" as a grain measurement, since it was abolished in the 1500s? Fair enough for you Yanks, you apparently still use Bushels (along with your strange non-metric system which makes it hard for me to get the correct bolt thread size for my Ford car). Anyways, even you Americans no longer use Bushel as a volume measurement, its now a weight measurement. Back to the chase... So in Jesus's time a "modios" would prob not have been a bushel basket (about 36 litres in volume). Some translations say "under a peck measure". Wow, only a 1/4 the size of a bushel, but at least it goes back to Roman times. Though I doubt Jews would have used Roman measures (remember the Roman coin embarrassment with the Pharisees) in preference to their own well developed system of dry volume measurements. So if we are talking about a large basket or bowl commonly used as a measure of dry volume (grain) the most likely word Jesus would have actually used would apparently have been a "bath basket." One "bath" is about 36 litres. If he meant something more like "peck basket" that would prob be a "hin basket" (about 6 litres). I have no idea if such sized grain baskets were actually used in Palestinian homes at Jesus's time. It is interesting that the Israelites when gathering manna in the desert were allowed to collect only one "omer" (about 4 litres) per family member. An omer is also a "sheaf" (not a basket) However it was an ancient unit of dry volume measurement used in the Temple of Jerusalem. It was apparently a word/measure adapted from Babylon during the captivity. Another problem is that the Gospels are written in Greek. Jesus's Greek biographer gave us the saying reported in the New Testament and he "got in the way" as it were and chose the word "modios" It is not, from what I can tell, the Greek word for basket - it is a fixed measure of Greek? dry volume. So I think Jesus could well have said not to hide your light under an "omer" because that is a word a Jew speaking Aramaic would use, its a unit of dry measure and its possibly the right size. (Admittedly a sheaf might let out a little light and is not so good as bowl/basket at hiding the light). Close enough. It is moot whether anyone Jesus talked to in the towns of Palestine used such a Greek sized measuring basket as a "modios". Fairly obviously, in the Greek world two generations after Jesus, a "modios" amount was measured most commonly by means of a standard basket. By functional association a modios was therefore understood to be a certain sized basket well known to Greek readers of this Gospel. This change in meaning over time by functional usage (eg from a unit of measurement to a basket or bowl) is common-place. E.g. what is a "pound"? When I was a child it was money, a nice coloured piece of paper that was very light and got me an awful lot of goodies. In fact it is actually a unit of weight that is quite heavy. The reason it was "wrongly" called "pound" is because I was too young to know the history of that word and the context from which it arose. In fact what I called "a pound" was a "one pound stirling promissory note". And even in 1965 it was no longer promissory. Originally it promised the holder he could exchange it at the bank for one pound weight of silver. And why go on obsessively about all this? Well, I wasn't at Holiday Inn but do have the morning off and its freezing cold outside . Also if this small "bushel" thing is deeper than we think then what of similar scholarly translation issues when we come to "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus " (summary Latin, high theological jargon from 500 odd years ago) without regard for context or how the phrase came about and to what purpose. Does it really translate well today as "if you had the opportunity to be a Catholic and aren't you are going to hell."
BH, I awaited with anticipation your post. You did not disappoint. Thank you. I have read your closing sentence a few times and i am surprised to say I remain unsure as to its meaning. Would be happy for a paraphrase.
This might sound disingenuous Jerry but it isn't... If you could first give me your best shot at what you understand me to be saying that will give me a handle.
Here goes: The Church formulated the dogma Outside the Church there is no Salvation at the time of the protestant rebellion within the Church. It did so to warn as starkly as it could what fate would befall those that would choose to willfully separate from the Catholic Church. Now with the protestant rebellion in history, the formula is best understood as warning to all that the same desperate fate threatens all that have been given the opportunity to be a member of the Catholic Church yet have rejected that opportunity.
The dogmas of the Church are not subject to changing interpretations over time. "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema." (First Vatican Council) "I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously." (From the Oath Against Modernism, Prescribed by Pope St. Pius X, 1910 A.D.)
Jerry you have put some thought into that. I was really saying something more generalised (I don't know what the final "answer" is) and was more on about about hermeneutic principles 101 (whether that be about examing/translating the ancient Biblical texts, the reports of an alleged Apparition or the formulations of a long ago Council in another language). The main principle is that the sense of "what is sent" and what "is received" (500 years later or in another culture) cannot be assumed to be the same even in those rare cases where the transmitted "words" may be exactly the same. All the same, I am finding it hard to fault that sentence above. As Little Me stated all dogma is true and dogma does not change. The same holds for the indissolubility of marriage for that matter. But dogma certainly has to be "interpretted" (ie in the sense of being re-understood in the original sense it was meant when first proclaimed) especially due to the erosion of clear meaning over time due to lost context and the fact, as I tried to exemplify above, that words we use now cannot be assumed to have the same signification they had 500 yrs ago. Also there is the translation problem. Trent did not speak in 21st Centrury colloquial English. Also, what we understand by "Church" today is probably very different from what a Council Father understood by "Ecclesia" at that time. We may well better understand helpful nuances (due to Catholic "evolution" of implicit meanings in that ancient word brought about by long Catholic reflection on the Reformation problem itself and the closer everyday contact of Europe with other World Religions) that were implicit in the minds of Council Fathers yet only implicitly so. The Church's dogma of the indissolubility of marriage has never changed and it surely will not. However, as Pope Benedict clearly stated, our understanding of what constitutes a valid "marriage" in the first place certainly has "evolved" and continues to deepen(in the sense that previously unrecognised impediments have overtime been recognised, better clarified and accepted). And such deepened understandings certainly cause an evolution in pastoral practice and disciplines over time (e.g Annulments). We can prob expect this process to continue (as it always has in the Church) after the Synod. Are these changes in long-standing pastoral practise or discipline an evolution of dogma? I don't think so - but clearly some of the faithful do. There are still some who see annulments as an unacceptable "evolution" or re-interpretation of dogma watering down Jesus's teaching the indissolubility of marriage. Hasn't such a reaction (confusing unchanging principle with changing discipline) always happened in the past, e.g. disputes over re-acceptance (Communion) into the Church of those who broke their baptismal innocence (by murder or adultery or "apostacy" (the traditores)), eating of unclean foods, slavery, charging interest and so on...
