I read Spe Salvi the first day it came out, and I’m still digesting it. It’s longer by more than 3,000 words than its predecessor, Deus Caritas Est and takes more than two hours to read (unless you’re speed reading, of course).
I’ll try to blog some about its contents, and the first thing I thought I’d note is something that lept out at me when I was making my way through it the very first time.
You see, I’m not a big fan of the New American Bible. It’s a squishy, lame, tin-eared translation. Even the people who worked on the translation (like Raymond Brown) complained about what the stylistic editors did to their work (though that applies more to the original edition than the current one).
The NAB also happens to be approved by the U.S. bishops for use in liturgy, and so occasionally I get someone who is more-bishopier-than-thou looking down his nose at me for finding fault with the translation, as if the U.S. bishops personally translated the document–as a body–under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. (Instead of approving as a conference the work of a set of interlocking committees of iconoclastic translators who were determined to desacralize the language of Scripture. Under those circumstances, an individual bishop had virtually no chance of getting substantive changes made in the document, especially in the heady atmosphere of the early 1970s, when the first edition came out.)
Well, in Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict is very diplomatic about it–in keeping with his position as pope–but he finds fault with a translation approved by the conference of bishops of his homeland, Germany.
Discussing, Hebrews, 11:1, he writes:
To Luther, who was not particularly fond of
the Letter to the Hebrews, the concept of “substance”, in the context of
his view of faith, meant nothing. For this reason he understood the term
hypostasis/substance not in the objective sense (of a reality present within
us), but in the subjective sense, as an expression of an interior attitude, and
so, naturally, he also had to understand the term argumentum as a
disposition of the subject. In the twentieth century this interpretation became
prevalent—at least in Germany—in Catholic exegesis too, so that the ecumenical
translation into German of the New Testament, approved by the Bishops, reads as
follows: Glaube aber ist: Feststehen in dem, was man erhofft, Überzeugtsein
von dem, was man nicht sieht (faith is: standing firm in what one hopes,
being convinced of what one does not see). This in itself is not incorrect, but
it is not the meaning of the text, because the Greek term used (elenchos)
does not have the subjective sense of “conviction” but the objective sense of
“proof”. Rightly, therefore, recent Protestant exegesis has arrived at a
different interpretation: “Yet there can be no question but that this classical
Protestant understanding is untenable.”5 Faith is not merely a
personal reaching out towards things to come that are still totally absent: it
gives us something. It gives us even now something of the reality we are waiting
for, and this present reality constitutes for us a “proof” of the things that
are still unseen. Faith draws the future into the present, so that it is no
longer simply a “not yet”. The fact that this future exists changes the present;
the present is touched by the future reality, and thus the things of the future
spill over into those of the present and those of the present into those of the
future (Spe Salvi 7).
Ultimately, it’s about what translation best captures what’s in the original, not who produced it or who approved it.
This is not to discount the importance of episcopal approval of Scripture translations. I’m not in the least suggesting we do away with that. But it is to note that even when we have episcopal approval of a translation, that doesn’t mean that the translation is infallible or the best one that could have been produced.
and so occasionally I get someone who is more-bishopier-than-thou looking down his nose at me for finding fault with the translation, as if the U.S. bishops personally translated the document–as a body–under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
Oh no Jimmy. What’s next down this slippery slope of dissent from Christ’s Holy Instituted Magisterium? Soon you’ll be telling us that it’s okay to disagree with the Bishops on such crucial non-negotiable issues as corn subsidies.
Right on, Jimmy.
Jimmy,
How great was it to see that the Holy Father did not quote word one from the documents of Vatican II.
As many bishops do who believe the Church began in the 1960’s.
I particularly found the reference to “Stella Maris”quite edifying
I was moved to tears in many parts of the encyclical, especially in the section on human suffering and how we must unite our pain to Christ on the Cross.
Long live our most awesome Supreme Pontiff!
“Soon you’ll be telling us that it’s okay to disagree with the Bishops on such crucial non-negotiable issues as corn subsidies.”
Well, be careful, because Christ did say “Whoever has ears, let them hear.”
Sorry, couldn’t resist……
LarryD,
Great King David reference.
Divine Office.
Jimmy,
I find the Douay-Rheims Bible much closer to St Jerome in translation and infinitely more breathtaking in style than NAB or many other versions.
Also my missal uses the Douay translations for the epistle’s and Gospel’s along with the propers of course.
Needless to say, extremely accurate.
God bless you
and I’m still digesting it
Jimmy, thank you. I thought it was just me.
Dan Hunter
How great was it to see that the Holy Father did not quote word one from the documents of Vatican II.
Have you not read/heard any others of BXVI’s/Ratzinger’s works/speeches that do?
I find the Douay-Rheims Bible much closer to St Jerome in translation and infinitely more breathtaking in style than NAB or many other versions.
Also my missal uses the Douay translations for the epistle’s and Gospel’s along with the propers of course.
Needless to say, extremely accurate.
And how, exactly, did you prove here that the Duoay-Rheims is much more accurate?
St. Jerome’s Vulgate may have been; I’m not sure I can say the same about the Duoay-Rheims though!
The mention of the Traditional Baptismal Rite is another great sign of His Holiness love of beauty.
Hope springs eternal.
Esau,
Which translation dost thou favor?
God bless thee, my feather ruffled friend.
DH wrote: “How great was it to see that the Holy Father did not quote word one from the documents of Vatican II.”
What’s that supposed to mean?
B16 didn’t quote Trent either, or Nicea, or…. Anyway, what so neat about a pope NOT quoting some council or another? Talk about eisegesis.
“Spe Salvi” is a great antidote to “Gaudiem et Spes”.
Deo Gratis!
Esau,
Which translation dost thou favor?
God bless thee, my feather ruffled friend
I may stand by the Vulgate; but as for Duoay Rheims?
I may have a copy for reference, but it’s not exactly the copy I would endorse for in-depth bible studies.
As Pope Benedict XVI did in his recently-released book, I would use the RSV just as he did!
Esau,
The Douay Rheims is directly based on the St Jerome Vulgate.
God bless you.
The Douay Rheims is directly based on the St Jerome Vulgate
So you say but scholars who have truly read and studied the Vulgate say otherwise.
Also, to prove my point concerning Pope Benedict XVI:
In his book, Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI says that the pious Jew prays every day the Shema Israel: “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut 6:4-5 RSV).
Note that, as in his other works, Pope Benedict XVI has used the RSV!
Not that I completely endorse the RSV (as there have been instances of poor translation as well); yet, it is far better than the Duoay Rheims for bible study purposes.
If BXVI thought as you did, he would’ve utilized Duoay Rheims in these of his works.
Pope Benedict has used the Douay Rheims repeatedly.
Also the Douay Rheims translations are used in the 1962 Missal.
The Sacrifice of Holy Mass in and of itself superceded’s bible study.
Show me a bible translation that is more beautiful than the Douay, that has been in print in the last 500 years.
God bless you
Clearly, you’ve not read many of Cardinal Ratzinger’s/Pope Benedict XVI’s works.
JIMMY AKIN FOR PRESIDENT~!
How great was it to see that the Holy Father did not quote word one from the documents of Vatican II.
B16 didn’t need to – as Ed Peters explains. 7 of the 40 given references in Spe Salvi are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). JP2’s introduction to the CCC shows that the CCC is a synthesis of the Second Vatican Council and its developments http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/aposcons.htm
“Spe Salvi” is a great antidote to “Gaudiem et Spes”
I don’t see any conflict between Vatican II and Spe Salvi.
As Joseph Ratzinger, B16 was a rising star as a peritus at the Council.
Enough of this red herring – let’s move on and profitably study Spe Salvi.
“But it is to note that even when we have episcopal approval of a translation, that doesn’t mean that the translation is infallible or the best one that could have been produced.”
I’ll say! That is quite an understatement. The USCCB endorsing the NAB isn’t nearly as bad as the CCCB endorsing the NRSV!
“”Spe Salvi” is a great antidote to “Gaudiem et Spes”.”
You could say “Spe Salvi” clarifies “Gaudiem et Spes”, if you wish. ‘antidote’ is usually used in reference to poison. “Gaudiem et Spes” is not poison, and one shouldn’t say such things in a Catholic blog. The internet is full of lurkers who just might take your post too seriously.
David B.,
I believe that was Dan Hunter’s intention.
This can be corroborated by his other statement:
“How great was it to see that the Holy Father did not quote word one from the documents of Vatican II.”
Dan’s comments periodically need a caveat to lurkers to not pay attention to them.
Dan is not content to let well enough alone. As you can probably tell, Dan has an attachment to the extraordinary form. But that’s not sufficient for Dan. He needles and provokes and “disses” anything post Vatican II with unfortunate regularity.
Somebody reacts to his statements and the board escalates. Dan eventually says he’s sorry, but sooner or later, he repeats the needling and provoking and dissing.
Mary Kay hates the Tridentine Mass.
Mary Kay hates the Tridentine Mass.
That is her little flag that she likes to wave about.
No Dan, I feel sorry for you. You never seem to get the point.
I do not hate the Extraordinary Form of Mass[Ijust love calling it that since it, thankfully is not the Ordinary Form and we won’t see it that often in Rochester,just those wackjobs at St Stanislaus and maybe one other church. Thank God.]
You seem to have a unfortunate penchant to belittle those who do not feel as you do.
I do apreciate the value of the Mass that nourished every single canonized saint from Clement through Pio, I just personally do not find it edifying and I,”get more out” of the Pauline Mass.
You seem to have a juvenile and relentless obsession with claiming that the “Extraordinary Mass is somehow superior to the McDona…I mean fast food ma….I mean Novus Ordo.
The former is most certainly not any more efficacious than the latter…just ask his Excellency Bishop Clark.
I shall pray for you Dan.
Apparently you are in need of many Ave’s,I mean Hail Marys.
Your so disssssrespectful.
Naughty, Naughty.
Do not feed into his babbling. He is only changing the subject and rambling on to produce a reaction.
That horrible messy different language mass with all the propers chanted in their so called High Mass…yuck!
Gimme “Gather us in” or “Eagles Wings” any day over Veni Creator Spiritus.
Hey who wants to bring up the gifts with me???
I love standing up to recieve Jesus in my hands.
I get so much out of it.
See what I mean everyone?
Dan is so lost
That horrible thing called the Canon. I cant even get anything out of it cause the priest is so quiet.
I need a hearing aid.
“Spe Salvi” is a great antidote to “Gaudiem et Spes.”
“How great was it to see that the Holy Father did not quote word one from the documents of Vatican II.”
I haven’t read GES, and I have read Spe Salvi. But I don’t like that you’re acting as though GES, or Vatican II itself, is some sort of bastard child of the Church. Which one is worse, acting as though there was no pre-Vatican II or acting as though there was no Vatican II, I can’t say – but I would think that both show the same lack of respect for the constancy of the Church’s authority. You don’t get to be the Magisterial copy editor, Dan.
Oh, and I use the Confraternity version. I don’t know that it’s better than the Douay or the NAB or the NRSV – it’s just more readable for me. Anyways.
I don’t believe the Holy Father writes in English, so I’m pretty sure he uses a German translation, and/or the Latin Vulgate, and perhaps some Greek texts. His translators probably used the RSV because that is the Vatican standard, which is likely a compromise betwee the horrible NAB, and the old English of the Douay.
For myself I love the Douay, but I also appreciate the RSV. I especially like the Navarre with the RSV parallel to the Latin Vulgate.
Dan,
the 1962 missal is in Latin. The translations are not part of the missal but added to it by the publishers. Some are Douay, but many are also the Confraternity version.
God Bless,
Matt
God Bless,
Matt
Dan, I have to admit that your responses are getting more interesting. Not accurate, but definitely more interesting.
You probably didn’t mean it as parody, but it was quite good. Of course, what you’re parodying is your view of where I’m coming from rather than what I’ve been saying, but I enjoyed it anyway.
I don’t hate the Tridentine Mass, but you already know that. I call it the extraordinary form because that’s what the pope calls it. But – and here comes the broken record from my side – I don’t like you (or anyone) disparaging the 1970 Missal. I get that you prefer the extraordinary use, TLM, however you want to call it. Everyone on this board gets that.
Your comment about Gaudiem et Spes – does that mean you’ve read it?
Be back tomorrow. G’night.
Thx Mary Kay. That about sums it up.
Mary Kay,
Sadly yes, I have read that, unfortunate in many ways, document.
And yes it was a parody.
Lame, but a parody nonetheless
Sweet dreams.
the 1962 missal is in Latin. The translations are not part of the missal but added to it by the publishers.
Thank-you, Matt!
Dan Hunter:
Nê tibi hercle haud longê est ôs ab înfortûnâtiô, ita dentifrangibula haec meîs manibus gestiunt.
To all,
I’m no rocket surgeon or brain theologian, but doesn’t the Pope’s point regarding the relationship between Faith and Hope totally wipe out the imputed righteousness alone argument of Luther and Calvin- especially the “alone” part? And in turn demonstrate that the whole, “This is the doctrine that the Church stands or falls on”, ie., Sola Fide, the material principal of the Reformation- is untenable. IOW, Sola Fide is wrong and it is an error to teach this.
Why is it that some people in these comboxes think they’re impressing people or making a better point by writing in Latin?
Some people in these comboxes won’t be able to understand it… We’re not all smart and learned like Dr. Peters or Esau.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful but unless one of you is willing to give latin classes to the rest of us then why do that? It’s kind of childish actually.
Sky, while I can’t speak for Esau, having read his comments for a while, my guess is that the Latin comment was not to look impressive or be elite in any way. Just the opposite actually. I think it was to avoid derailing the discussion.
Dan, I’d be interested in where you think Gaudiem et Spes is unfortunate and where it got it right.
Dan Hunter,
May I suggest you read the homily below.
HOMILY OF CARD. JOSEPH RATZINGER 40th ANNIVERSARY OF GAUDIUM ET SPES
St Peter’s Basilica
Friday, 18 March 2005
Excerpt:
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mary Kay,
I shall give you two of the unfortunate parts of Gaudium et Spes. One an glaring omission and one a commision.
I.The document is supposed to deal with the Church in the modern world, but we never see any condemnation of communism mentioned.
During the 1960’s the communist governments were slaughtering millions of innocent human beings as well as enslaving mans body and soul by incarcerating them in the Gulag system.
The communist government attempted to destroy Christianity by killing priests, stealing churches and Church property and making it illiegal to worship at divine service.
Gaudium et Spes and in fact Vatican II in general never called out communism by name.
Yes they condemned dictatorships, but there is no comparison between the term dictatorship and communism and the complete destruction of Christianity that communism attempted and still attempts. His Eminence the Primate of Hungary Jozeph Cardinal Mindzsenty found great fault with Gaudium st Spes for this reason, and he could talk. Thankfully our Holy Father has condemned communism by name in his wonderful enyclical “Spe Salvi”.
Secondly a glaring mistake of commission was made by Gaudium et Spes when the document stated:
“Man is the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake” [24]
This is not what the Church has always taught.
She has always taugh that:”The Lord hath made all things for Himself” [Prov. 16]
God love you.
+J.M.J+
The “Douay-Rheims” Bible most widely used today (the one sold by TAN, Baronius Press, Loreto Pubs, etc.) is *not* the original Douay-Rheims completed in 1609 AD. Rather, it is Bishop Richard Challoner’s *revision* of the original Douay-Rheims, made during the mid-18th C.
While the 1609 DR is a slavishly accurate translation of the Vulgate – even retaining many Latin words – the Challoner Revision differs in various respects from the original, and in some ways is actually closer to the Protestant King James Version. This page:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/challoner.html
gives one example of how Bishop Challoner’s version clearly borrows verses and phrases from the KJV.
Not all English-speaking Catholics were happy with the Challoner Revision. John Cardinal Newman and Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman in particular were rather critical, preferring the original Douay-Rheims. You can Cardinal Newman’s in-depth critique here:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/douayrheims.html
Also, there is at least one glaring error in the Challoner Revision, in 2 Esdras (aka Nehemias) 3:15:
“And the gate of the fountain, Sellum, the son of Cholhoza, built, lord of the street of Maspha: he built it, and covered it, and set up the doors thereof, and the locks, and the bars, and the walls of the pool of Siloe unto the king’s guard, and unto the steps that go down from the city of David.”
The word “guard” in the above verse should actually be “garden.” Here is the same verse in the Latin Vulgate:
“et portam Fontis aedificavit Sellum filius Choloozai princeps pagi Maspha ipse aedificavit eam et texit et statuit valvas eius et seras et vectes et muros piscinae Siloae in hortum regis et usque ad gradus qui descendunt de civitate David”
Note that it says “in hortum regis” – hortum means garden – not guard!
How did this error come about? The original 1609 Douay reads “unto the king’s garde” – the final “n” was left off because it was the end of the line (such abbreviations were not uncommon in printed books at the time). This was apparently mistakenly rendered as “guard” in later 18th century revisions (by Challoner himself???) and the error stuck for two centuries. It is found in all editions of the Challoner-Douay until 1943, when Benzinger’s “Red Letter Bible” finally corrected it. Even after then, however, the error remained uncorrected in Bibles that were part Confraternity Version and part Douay (AFAIK there never was a Confraternity translation of 2 Esdras/Nehemias since the project was unfortunately scrapped before the translation of the OT was finished)
I know, it’s just one obscure verse. But it’s worrysome to think that Challoner made an error which could have easily been corrected had he consulted the Latin. Which leaves us with the question: To what extent did Bishop Challoner actually use the Vulgate in revising the Douay-Rheims, and to what extent did he simply make cosmetic changes to the English text?
It’s also troubling to consider that the error remained uncorrected for so very long, and is probably still uncorrected in many reprints of the Challoner Revision, as well as online versions such as:
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/16003.htm
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
>>>Show me a bible translation that is more beautiful than the Douay, that has been in print in the last 500 years.
The Challoner Revision was hardly the only English translation of Scripture available prior to the 20th C. Fr. Robert Witham released a NT translation in 1730, two decades before Bishop Challoner. The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the Douay Bible lists the following English translations:
Dr. Carpenter’s New Testament (1783)
Dr. Troy’s Bible (1791)
Dr. Murray’s (1825)
Dr. Denvir’s (1836)
These were all Catholic and bore the Imprimatur, though they were more widely available in Britain/Ireland than the States. Incidentally, the New Testament of the Troy Bible was used for the popular Haydock Bible, so if anyone has reprints of the Haydock they are using a “Challoner-Troy” version!
In the US, Archbishop Francis Kendrick produced his own revision of the Douay-Rheims, which he completed in 1860. The 20th C. would see more new Catholic translations such as:
The Spencer Gospels (translated 1898 but not published until 1937)
Westminster Bible (only the NT and Psalms were completed, IIRC)
Knox Bible (completed in 1955)
and, of course, the Confraternity Version.
Are they more beautiful that the Challoner Revision? Well, the Knox Bible is rather poetic, the Troy NT is comparable to the Challoner Revision, the Westminster Bible is pretty decent, and the Confraternity Version has most of the good points of the Challoner Revision without the achaic language. The rest of them I haven’t read, since many are hard to find. But unless one has looked at them all, I hardly see how someone could claim that the Challoner Revision is the best of the bunch.
The following website contains small portions of some of these translations:
http://douaybible.com/index.htm
In Jesu et Maria,
Dan Hunter,
The Second Vatican Council and documents are a valid part of Church teaching because they have the apporval of the pope like all ecumenical councils. And that is true even if they don’t have your apporval.
APOSTOLIC BRIEF IN SPIRITU SANCTO
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Innocencio,
I’ve got some waterfront property in the Antarctic that I would like to sell you.
God bless you.
Sky, while I can’t speak for Esau, having read his comments for a while, my guess is that the Latin comment was not to look impressive or be elite in any way. Just the opposite actually. I think it was to avoid derailing the discussion.
Mary Kay,
Thank-you for your kindness as usual —
You articulated rightly what my intent was.
Let’s just say if I were to have said what I said in plain English, the discussion on the thread would’ve taken a whole other direction.
Dan,
What do you think about somebody who has stated:
“Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds all other councils, namely the Pope and the council of bishops.”
Do you consider this person a heretic, apostate, or whatever lower form you choose?
At what point do we cross the “hobby-horse” line, again?
Great stuff Rosemarie!
One question: where does one find version other than Chalonner or Haydock DR?
I see one “real” DR available online which is VERY archaic English but purporting to be an actual original translation:
http://www.realdouayrheims.com/
Very unreadable by me.
I’m finding I have to read many Bibles and get information elsewhere. Go through your Bibles and check all the different versions of Gen 3:15, which IMO is key. I’ve even seen arguments by by scholars not agreeing! But by reading all the versions I had and studying I feel I have gotten the Word from this passage despite it not being “present” or “absent” from any one version.
BTW I like the DR Challoner and is my Bible of choice right now.
warren
I shall give you two of the unfortunate parts of Gaudium et Spes. One an glaring omission and one a commision.
I.The document is supposed to deal with the Church in the modern world, but we never see any condemnation of communism mentioned.
During the 1960’s the communist governments were slaughtering millions of innocent human beings as well as enslaving mans body and soul by incarcerating them in the Gulag system.
The communist government attempted to destroy Christianity by killing priests, stealing churches and Church property and making it illiegal to worship at divine service.
Gaudium et Spes and in fact Vatican II in general never called out communism by name.
Oh yes — and we all know how much John Paul II actually LOVED Communism!
What rubbish!
Esau,
You have completely missed the point.
The document Gaudium et Spes does not mention Communism or condemn this horrendous evil, not once.
That fact is damaging.
I am not denying that the Second Vatican Council was convened validly.
I am stating, and this is not news, that although the Holy Ghost protected the Council from heresy, He is not gaurenteed to protect a Council from making mistakes and the Second Vatican Council made a number of them.
See ambiguities.
Esau by the by when can we duke it out?
My offer still stands, or are ya still chicken.
I can’t wait for your frustrated reply in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS.
ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY!
Maybe a good 3 or 4 rounds of Marcus of Queensbury will shake out the nerves.
God bless you.
Again, what do you think about a person who’s stated:
“Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds all other councils, namely the Pope and the council of bishops.”
Would you classify him as a heretic, apostate, etc.?
Simple question —
Dan,
You seem to believe that the statement
is inconsistent with the statement:
Your mistake in that regard is due to reading the former out of context. Vatican II affirms that God is the proper end of all creatures, including man, so you can’t properly read this statement in Gaudium et Spes to be stating that God did not make man for Himself.
It is, rather, stating man’s position relative to the rest of creation, and relative to other men. No man, created in the image and likeness of God, may be used as an object by another man or by any other creature.
While one can quibble with particular wording in a particular document, I think the Bishops are entitled to assume that their words will, at least, be read charitably.
Again, and obviously, Cardinal Ratzinger was stating that one cannot deny that the Second Vatican Council was a validly called council and it would be heretical to believe otherwise.
Just as Trent was a validly called council or Constantinople I.
This does not take away from the fact that mistakes have been made at validly called councils. Vatican II was not immune to ambiguities and flaws.
Also Constantinople II comes to mind.
See the Three chapters condemnation.
Cardinal Ratzinger is now the Holy Father and he has changed for the better in his teaching , because of the Clementian Grace.
Cardinal Ratzinger was a Catholic.
Pope Benedict continues to be a Catholic.
Your sweet though.
Cutie.
Dan said: Secondly a glaring mistake of commission was made by Gaudium et Spes when the document stated:
“Man is the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake” [24]
This is not what the Church has always taught.
She has always taught that:”The Lord hath made all things for Himself” [Prov. 16]
First of all, here is the paragraph from which that statement was made:
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, “that all may be one. . . as we are one” (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God’s sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.(2)
Secondly, just because God has made all things for Himself — as Gaudium et Spes affirms, even quoting St. Augustine’s famous words from his Confessions — that doesn’t mean that, of all things that God has made for Himself, man is not the one thing that God also made for itself. Otherwise why didn’t the Logos decide to hypostatically unite Himself to the nature of dogs or cats or snails or mosquitos? You’re thinking like an either/or Protestant instead of a both/and Catholic, Dan. We can be BOTH made for God’s sake AND made for our own sake. They’re not mutually exclusive.
I’m only a third of the way through Spe Salvi, but so far the section Jimmy cited has been the most profound for me. Benedict actually uses the term embryo to describe faith. The analogy he depicts of faith as an embryo of the eternal life in Christ which we hope for, just as a human embryo is a complete but not yet visible human being is mind-blowing (at least for me). I’ve never seen this type relationship between faith and hope before. Pope Benedict has given us a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith to ponder this Advent season.
And as Pat noted it completely demolishes the Protestant idea of faith as conviction in one’s individual interpretation of revelation.
“Hey who wants to bring up the gifts with me???”
Hey, Dan! I’ll take ’em up with you.
What an honor to carry what will become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divnity of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ What a privelege!
Thanks for the invitation!
Jordan,
You can speak for yourself, but I was created for the sake of God, not for my own sake.
I am not owed anything, except maybe eternal damnation.
My own sake is sin.
Gods sake is Justice.
Deo Gratias.
Esquire has explained it correctly. God made man with a dignity that means man is an end in itself, not a means to an end the way all other creatures are. If Dan is correct, then that means humans are no better and no different than the food we put on our dinner tables or the gasoline we put in our cars. If man is not the only creature on earth that God willed for its own sake, then what’s wrong with sacrificing embryonic human beings for research purposes? What wrong with abortion, or contraception, or fornication, or chattel slavery, or genocide?
Douay all the way. What other version gives you Douay’s versions of:
Exodus 34:29-30; 34:35
🙂
Seriously though, the Vulgate, which is where those gems ultimately come from, is not a perfect text either. Get over it. Lets not forget that we have Tradition and the Magisterium. I’m sick of bibliolotry. So was C.S. Lewis.
Rosemarie: Thanks for the information, it was an interesting read.
On a side note, after hearing Peter Kreeft talk about the Knox version and looking at some versions on-line, I’d love to get my hands on a copy of it. Anybody have idea where I can buy a copy of it?
Dan,
That God created you for your own sake does not mean that He owes you anything.
Again, you’re reading it out of context to mean something that it clearly does not mean.
Jordan,
After the angels we are the highest created beings since we possess free will and an intellect.
This does not take away from the fact that “our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee, O Lord”.
God gave man dominion over the plants and animals so as to support man in his striving to know, love and serve God in this world and to be happy with Him in the next.
Man was created for the sole purpose of using our free wills to chose God over ourslves so returning to the Almighty we might give Him honor and glory for eternity.
A creature cannot give a creature honor and glory.
Ut Prosim
Dan said: You can speak for yourself, but I was created for the sake of God, not for my own sake.
No, Dan, you are not just an object to be used by God and then thrown away when of no more use or interest to Him. You’re a person whom He loves and for whom He died, so you might not feel His Justice.
You can’t have been made for God’s sake unless you were also made for your own sake. God isn’t interested in an eternal, loving relationship with just some mammal or reptile or plant — He desires a relatioship with a person named Dan Hunter, which is why, for your own sake, you are called to become the Dan Hunter you were made to be.
Dan said: After the angels we are the highest created beings since we possess free will and an intellect.
For a little while. But as St. Paul says in Hebrews, we were created with a much higher destiny. “For to which of the angels did He say, ‘You are My Son, this day I have become Your Father’?”
A creature cannot give a creature honor and glory.
We are all creatures, are we not? And isn’t the human nature of Jesus also a creature? Isn’t Jesus both Creator and creature? Therefore, when we creatures give Jesus honor and glory, creatures give a creature honor and glory.
It’s all there in Psalm 8 and Heb. 1-2, Dan — man is the only creature on earth that God willed for itself. The Incarnation makes that absolutely clear.
Dan, the commission one is the more straight forward. As Jordan said, think of it as a both/and rather than an either/or.
Another version of Proverbs 16:4 (ahem, Jimmy, even the NAB has its uses) reads The Lord has made everything for his own purpose
from Gaudium et Spes: for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God’s sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself
They’re both true. God has indeed made everything for His own purpose (Proverbs), but He’s only made man in His own image, which is how I read “God willed for itself.”
I can well believe that Cardinal Mindzsenty would want communism mentioned specifically, but that doesn’t mean it was ignored. Sometimes specifics are described in very general terms.
Thanks for bringing up Gaudium et Spes. I want to re-read it (not to mention brushing up on my Latin spelling check).
Inocencio, thanks for the link to then Cardinal Ratzinger’s piece. Yet something else for my reading list.
Italics Off!
oops, that must’ve been me
No Jordan,
The Human nature of Christ was not created.
To believe this is heresy.
His Human Nature was never created.
St Chrysostom teaches that since the power of the Holy Ghost was hypostatically imbued into the Stella Maris the reality of the Second Person, who existed from all eternity, needed not the creative substance of the Godhead when taking on the human nature at the Incarnation.
Also, Jordan, the Angelic Doctor teaches that even in the Beatific vision mankind will not fully comprehend the Most Blessed Trinity, neither do the angels that always behold His face, but they have a greater understanding of it since their trial was greater than ours.
Ut Prosim
I obviously missed an entire exchange while looking up passages. Esau thanks for getting rid of my italics. I cross posted with you, so the next person who tries italics may have an interesting result.
Dan, I think you are misreading that line. There’s a distinction, which I probably did not make clear, between each creature serving a purpose for God and man set apart as a special creation. (Why can’t ideas come out as clearly as they are in my head?)
jrg,
Sorry no offense but I’d rather take the gifts up with Mary Kay.
She’s prettier.
Dominus Vobiscum.
Esau Off!
Did it work! 🙂
Dan – Et cum spiritu tuo.
No offense taken.
Mary Kay’s also smarter. 🙂
Dan, your 10:49 posts explains it.
(testing italics)
God gave man dominion over the plants and animals so as to support man in his striving to know, love and serve God in this world and to be happy with Him in the next.
Man was created for the sole purpose of using our free wills to chose God over ourslves so returning to the Almighty we might give Him honor and glory for eternity.
A creature cannot give a creature honor and glory
God’s purpose for creating plants and animals was to support man to know, love and serve God. Since God in His love wanted to create a creature to who would know, love and serve Him and man is that creature, that’s why GS says God willed man to be that creature that knows, loves and serves Him.
Esau, thanks again.
JRG, I’m not sure if I’ve met you yet, but I like the way you think ;^)
Dan claimed: The Human nature of Christ was not created.
To believe this is heresy.
His Human Nature was never created.
Then that means his human nature has always existed, which means mankind has always existed and was never created. So, you are now denying that God created man.
The Church teaches that Christ’s human soul is the most perfect of all created spirits. If His human soul is created, how could his human nature be uncreated? In your attempt to find doctrinal error in Gaudium et Spes, you are now saying things that are contrary to the Faith.
Human nature consists of the soul, body, intellect, and will of the man. Christ had (and has) all of those things, and all of those things are created. If any of those things were uncreated and/or eternally preexistent, then Christ did not have a true human nature, which means He is not True God and True Man, which denies the Incarnation and our Redemption.
And your thinking also Dan :^) I should probalby read everything before posting.
In his denial that Christ’s human nature was created, he is probably misremembering what St. Thomas Aquinas and others have taught, that Christ is not a created being. St. Thomas wrote:
But in Christ there is no other hypostasis or person save that of God’s Word, and this person is uncreated as is clear from the foregoing. Therefore, one cannot say without qualification: “Christ is a creature,” although one may say it with an addition, so as to say a creature “so far as man” or “in His human nature.”
But according to Dan, we can’t even add those qualifications, because his statement — that it is heretical to say that “the human nature of Christ was created” — would rule out the statement that “Christ is a creature in His human nature.” So, according to Dan, in this matter St. Thomas was a heretic.
Hey, Mary Kay!
¡Mucho gusto!
Gotta run for now. Everybody – enjoy the rest of your day!
Mary Kay,
We miss you over on “What does the prayer really say.”
Where have you been.
I like the way you think to.
Via con Dios
Mary Kay,
We miss you over on “What does the prayer really say.”
Where have you been.
Mary Kay’s been with the Extra-Extraordinary Form — Me!
So, lay off your dirty hands on me gal, fellas!
+J.M.J+
Warren and DJ: You’re welcome 🙂
You both asked about purchasing the older Catholic versions. Many are out of print, so you can check out used book stores, maybe through abebooks.com, alibris.com or half.com. (I was very pleased to find an old Bible containing the Westminster version at my parish rummage sale this summer).
A paperback version of the Knox Bible New Testament is in print; ISBN = 0872432297. So it should be available through major retailers such as Amazon.com If you prefer a hardcover or the entire Bible, however, used book stores would again be the way to go.
Warren wrote:
>>>I see one “real” DR available online which is VERY archaic English but purporting to be an actual original translation (snip)
That’s the original DR with the antiquated spelling cleaned up. It’s still a bit hard to read but AFAIK it’s the only copy of the original DR currently in print.
In Jesu et Maria,
Dear Rosemarie,
I like the Knox bible, as well as many other translations, each for different reasons. I don’t own a copy of the Knox bible and I think it is out of print.
Would you or anyone happen to know if the Knox version ever had its copyright renewed under the old (pre-Sonny Bono) copyright laws. If it were not, than that copy would be in the public domain, as far as I understand, and someone could scan it in and post it to the internet.
If this is the case, would anyone, please…
P. S. How does one make a pouting, pleading face with emoticons?
The Chicken
Dear Rosemarie,
I like the Knox bible, as well as many other translations, each for different reasons. I don’t own a copy of the Knox bible and I think it is out of print.
Would you or anyone happen to know if the Knox version ever had its copyright renewed under the old (pre-Sonny Bono) copyright laws. If it were not, than that copy would be in the public domain, as far as I understand, and someone could scan it in and post it to the internet.
If this is the case, would anyone, please…
P. S. How does one make a pouting, pleading face with emoticons?
The Chicken
Dear Rosemarie,
I like the Knox bible, as well as many other translations, each for different reasons. I don’t own a copy of the Knox bible and I think it is out of print.
Would you or anyone happen to know if the Knox version ever had its copyright renewed under the old (pre-Sonny Bono) copyright laws. If it were not, than that copy would be in the public domain, as far as I understand, and someone could scan it in and post it to the internet.
If this is the case, would anyone, please…
P. S. How does one make a pouting, pleading face with emoticons?
The Chicken
+J.M.J+
As I wrote above, the New Testament of the Knox Bible was recently reprinted by Templegate Publishers. Here are some online stores selling it:
http://www.allbookstores.com/book/compare/0872432297
IIRC, this translation was originally published mainly in the UK, so I don’t think the Sonny Bono laws apply to it. According to the Wikipedia, the rights for the Knox Bible belong to the Diocese of Westminster in the UK.
It also says that Baronius Press (the same company that produces lovely new typset editions of the Challoner Revision) got permission from the Diocese to reprint it and “is currently in the process of producing a new complete edition of the Monsignor Knox’s translation.” Let’s hope they complete that project soon!
In Jesu et Maria,
Dear Rosemarie,
Thanks.
The Chicken
I wonder if one can get the permission to host an on-line version of it easily?
Jimmy,
You zeroed in on the same thing I did; where has an encyclical ever stated that a bishops’ conference has made an error in a translation of Holy Scripture? I found this rather profound, and, hopefully, a presage of things to come.
I can’t wait for the encyclical on Faith!
Hey, honest question here – I’ve been reading the Bible seriously from cover to cover for the first time in my life, and what a blessing from God it has been.
However, I’m reading the NAB, and finding absolutely nothing wrong with it. So, am I being drawn into some horrible satanic conspiracy or something? Can anyone who isn’t holier than thou give me an actual reason why I should just stop reading the Bible unless it’s the perfect translation?
As someone who is trying to do the right thing, I find all this stupid nitpicking terribly annoying and distracting from my attempt to read God’s word. Is this REALLY necessary to bash all but our own little pet translations?
Jarnor23,
I understand where you are coming from. The Douay-Rheims Bible is not the end all and be all of biblical translations. Those who use the RSV Catholic Edition won’t be damned for that. However, I don’t think Jimmy is unreasonable to prefer to a closer translation of the original text.
Jarnor23,
I have often heard it said that the best translation is the one you actually read. So don’t stop reading the NAB. I would recommend you ignore the footnotes and have a good Catholic commentary handy.
Are you using the Read the Bible and Catechism in one year pamphlet [warning pdf link] from the Coming Home Network?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Yeah, the footnotes are a seriously mixed bag. Sometimes helpful, other times seriously “well duh” moments, other times are an “oh… really?” moment.
But this is far and away better than the reader’s guide in the version of the Bible I got. Those I read after the material itself and with a HEAVY grain of salt. While insights can sometimes be gleaned, more often than not there is a strong smell of agenda there.
I have a feeling I may reread parts of the Bible in RSV later. Would anyone be able to illustrate though how some NAB verses are not correct? According to the information I’ve found they implement actual Biblical historical information that was new and more correct than old translations, including verifying parts of Sirach with recently discovered Hebrew texts of it. Is this not the case?
Would anyone be able to illustrate though how some NAB verses are not correct?
Well, I ain’t a Biblical scholar, so I can’t help you concerning that.
Dear Janor23,
A Bible translation is just that: a translation. Optimally, (and in some ideal universe, far, far away), one should read Scripture in the original languages. Since this is not really easy, except for the specialist, one must have access to translations.
What constitutes a good translation? As someone who has had to deal with complex matters of translating from one language to another, the decision is not always easy to make. It is not always possible to do a one-to-one translation of words, because sometimes it can take a whole paragraph just to explain the original context of a word and later generations tend to lose the context, thus making commentaries necessary.
For the first-time reader, I would suggest that the central point should be this (others may disagree): does the Bible you wish to read conform to the mind of the Church? If so, then the only important distinction between this and another Bible that conforms to the mind of the Church is stylistic (which may sometimes be important).
For example: the NIV (New International Version), which is in favor in some Evangelical circles, translates 2Th 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Footnote:
Or traditions
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
The RSV:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
The Greek word translated as, traditions or teachings in the above translations is paradosis , which one
website defines as:
1. giving up, giving over
1. the act of giving up
2. the surrender of cities
2. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
1. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
2. of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence
The NIV uses teachings , possibly, because if they used the more correct sense of oral tradition , it might appear to support the Catholic sense of Tradition.
My point is that one must be careful of theologically-biased translations. If one reads the Bible with the mind of the Church, one should not be led astray by less than optimal translation choices. The rest is just a matter of taste.
The Chicken
Here is a post that Jimmy did on the subject.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
The NIV uses teachings , possibly, because if they used the more correct sense of oral tradition , it might appear to support the Catholic sense of Tradition.
My copy of the NIV notes “Or traditions” in addition to “teachings.”
I also find, “A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture” Most Rev. Bishop Justus Knecht D.D.
a most excellent and informative commentary.
It is published by Tan Books.
His Excellency was the bishop of the Archdiocese of Freiburg Germany. The commentary has a 1923 Imprimatur by Dr. Mutz Vicar General Freiburg.
God bless you.
I’m curious — anyone know anything about the Revised English Version? I have a copy of the Oxford Study Bible leftover from my college days (I took a course called “The Bible As Literature”, and this was the Bible we were required to have for the class). Is it as good as the RSV?
Spe Salve is awesome 🙂
Viva Pope Benedict XVI
Viva TAN books.
Dear
Fred,
The quote I provided had the footnote in it. Many people do not read the footnotes or think that the footnote is the alternate, less preferred reading. That is not true in this case.
JoAnna,
The Revised English Version is an interesting read. The prose is very lively and fresh. It has very good footnotes.
The Oxford Study Bible is based on the RSV translation, if I recall correctly.
The Chicken
“We are convinced the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible is the best, most accurate, safest English translation that one can use. The Douay-Rheims is a careful word for word translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible, the official Bible of the Church, and the Latin Vulgate is a careful word-for-word translation of the original languages. Therefore the great accuracy of the Douay-Rheims. We have observed that the other English translations of Scripture, when they try to render difficult passages, will translate “meanings” rather than words, Thus, in these “translations one gets the translators interpretations of the meaning of Scripture. Hence the many differences that exist in the modern translations and the general absence of impact from the Word of God when reading from them-an impact experienced reading the Douay-Rheims”
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, at an address of the Archdiocese of New York Episcopal Conference on the importance of English translations of Sacred Scripture in the United States. January 10 1973
So…Mosis DID have horns then?
Speaking of correct interpretations – which is correct in Genesis 3:15?
Douay-Rheims (D-R) says “she” will crush the serpent’s head, and the Revised Standard Version (RSV) says that “he” will.
The New American Bible (NAB) also has “he” as do Protestant Bibles, though the King James Version (KJV) has “it” rather than “he” or “she.” To my knowledge, only the D-R has “she.”
This passage is the first mention of a Savior in Scripture, so the interpretation (ergo meaning) of the passage is quite important.
Anyone know about why these are different. Both are part of the Word of God, and are therefore correct – but why are they so different – and is either “more correct” than the other?
– – –
Douay-Rheims – Genesis 3:14-15
14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
RSV:
[14] The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all cattle,
and above all wild animals;
upon your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
[15] I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
+J.M.J+
Dan, where did you find that quote?
I’ve been Googling and found an almost identical paragraph used as a blurb on a page selling a copy of the Challoner Revision:
http://www.tldm.org/tldmstore/DouayRheimsBible.B1.htm
Yet they* do not attribute the words to Archbishop Sheen. Seems strange, since a rousing endorsement like that from such a famous and beloved figure would surely be quite a selling point, don’t you think.
Nor can I find those words attributed to him anywhere else online. Similar (yet variant) paragraphs occur on the following pages:
https://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/616/keywords/douay/
http://www.discountcatholicstore.com/catholic_bibles.htm
Yet none of them cite Sheen as the source. They all look like simple descriptions of the book for sale.
Also, if this is an authentic quote, why is the Archbishop speaking in first person plural? I can’t help but be suspicious. Could you please provide your source?
Of course, even if that is an authentic quote from the late Archbishop, that’s still just his personal opinion.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie
*BTW, the page happens to be run by followers of the condemned Bayside apparitions. So the link I posted above should not be construed as an endorsement of everything on that site.
I don’t know Latin – but here’s the original Latin Vulgate:
3:14 et ait Dominus Deus ad serpentem quia fecisti hoc maledictus es inter omnia animantia et bestias terrae super pectus tuum gradieris et terram comedes cunctis diebus vitae tuae
3:15 inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius
– – –
Where does the “she,” “he,” or “it” come from in 3:15?
I want a copy of the bible in Evlish. I think his languages are why Tolkien was placed on this earth..
Here’s Genesis 1. 🙂
Or a portion of the gospel of Matthew in the not so much evil as misunderstood pdf format here.
Actually, if you’re willing to have more pdfs, here’s Genesis 1 and 2.
jrg,
Here is the latin and commentary from newadvent.org.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Wow – that was quick!
Thanks, Inocencio!
The Blessed Mother crushes the head of the serpent since by Her Fiat the One who defeats evil is born into the world.
The Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix with the Second Person.
Ut Prosim.
“The Blessed Mother is Co-Redemptrix with the Second Person.”
Thanks, Dan. Has the Church officially proclaimed that Mary is Co-Redemptrix?
I’ve heard the arguments for and understand the reasoning why this would be, but I also have read the arguments why this would not be the case.
Both seem valid – but only one is true.
Has this been officially proclaimed by the Church yet and therefore required for belief?
p.s. what does “Ut Prosim” mean?
I’m not well-versed in Latin.
jrg,
Ut Prosim means:”That I may be of use”
The Holy Father Pope John Paul II On March 31,1985 as part of the Angelus prayer said: “May Mary, our Protectress, the Co-Redemptrix to whom we offer our prayer with great outpouring make our desire generously correspond to the desire of the Redeemer”
It would make sense that She is the Co-Redemptrix since She fully participated in the Suffering and death of Her Son, albeit in an unbloody manner.
God Bless you
Thanks, Dan!
If I remember correctly, the Church hasn’t dogmatically proclaimed this, but it wouldn’t surprise me if She did in around 2050 – 100 years after the Assumption was domatically proclaimed.
That follows the sequence of the Holy Spirit’s guidance, showing us Mary’s role in our redemtion – first with her Immaculate Conception (1850s), her Assumption (1950s), and then possibly her Co-Redemption (2050s?).
Of course, I could be wrong.
+J.M.J+
I know many Bible scholars discount it, but it rather makes sense to me that Our Lady crushes Satan’s head. There are two women in the Old Testament who, like Mary, are called “blessed among women”: Jael (Judges 5:24) and Judith (Judith 13:18-20). Both are Old Testament types of the Holy Virgin – humble women whom God blessed by giving them victory over evil and the acclaim of His people. Jael triumphed by driving a spike into the head of the enemy captain Sisera, and Judith triumphed by decapitating Holophernes.
Note that both these women gain victory by striking a blow to the head of the enemy. Is it not fitting, then, that She who is truly Blessed among Women would crush the head of a much greater enemy? Yeah, it’s probably not conclusive proof, but it’s food for thought.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie: Very interesting. My wife will find that interesting as well. Of course, now I fear for my head while I sleep, but interesting nonetheless.
Rosemarie:
Note that both these women gain victory by striking a blow to the head of the enemy. Is it not fitting, then, that She who is truly Blessed among Women would crush the head of a much greater enemy? Yeah, it’s probably not conclusive proof, but it’s food for thought.
Why wouldn’t this be considered such a proof?
The very heart of Scripture Study (in particular, even Protestant bible study) is, in fact, based on such notions of Typology:
For example, the bread and wine offered by Melchizadek is a “type”, a shadow, of the Bread and Wine, the Body and Blood, offered by Our Lord, Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
There are several other examples such as those from the Church Fathers themselves (e.g., Mary as the New Eve, etc.).
St. Paul actually teaches regarding typology in the New Testament.
Here are some notes on that:
There are several words used in the Greek New Testament to denote what we have just defined as a type. First, there is the term tupos (the basis of our English word “type”).
Though this word is variously employed in the New Testament, it is certainly used in our present sense in Romans 5:14 where Paul declares that Adam “is a figure (tupos) of him that was to come”, i.e., Christ.
Second, there is the word skia, rendered “shadow.” In Colossians 2:17, certain elements of the Mosaic system are said to be “a shadow of the things to come” (cf. Heb. 8:5; 10:1).
Third, there is the term hupodeigma, translated “copy,” and used in conjunction with
“shadow” in Hebrews 8:5 (cf. Heb. 9:23).
Fourth, the Greek word parabole (compare our English, “parable”) is found in Hebrews 9:9, where certain elements of the tabernacle are “a figure for the present time” (cf. Heb. 11:19).
Finally, one should note the use of antitupon, rendered “figure” (KJV) or “pattern” (ASV) in Hebrews 9:24, and “like figure” (KJV) or “true likeness” (ASV) in I Peter 3:21. This word, as used in the New Testament, denotes “that which corresponds to” the type; it is the reality which fulfills the prophetic picture.
When I give advice to people who want to do serious Bible study and have enough money, I tell them to make sure that they have at least one Bible from the Jerome tradition (Douai-Rhem, etc.) and the Erasmus tradition (KJV, RSV, etc.).
Jerome had access to older (although fewer) manuscripts that have been lost. Erasmus had access to many fragments of the Greek. Put together, they form a more complete set of information. As to the She/He controversy: we do not have the manuscripts that Jerome based his translations on, so we cannot judge which translation is correct. There is historical evidence for either.
Not to change the subject too much, but since most people typing here have computers, there is very good free Bible software available for all three common operating systems (Windows, Mac and Linux). E-sword, the Sword project, Theophilous, and ISA (Interlinear Search) are all available. One may load up to twenty different translations, including the original Hebrew and Greek as well as Strong’s concordance and other aids. Is anyone interested in links? Does anyone want to discuss their experiences with Bible software (for computer or palm pilot)?
The Chicken
jrg,
The Church holds many beliefs that have not been “dogmatically proclaimed” in the same fashion that the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception have. In fact, it holds no other dogmas that have been proposed in the same fashion, and we should be careful not to demand similar proclamations before we offer the requisite assent. (Not to say you’re demanding that; just trying to clarify.)
In addition to the exercise of the extraordinary magisterium through (1) ex cathedra papal announcements (eg, the Assumption/Immaculate Conception) or (2) universal episcopal pronouncements (eg, conciliar definitions), the Magisterium also teaches faith and morals infallibly through ordinary universal episcopal teaching (what the bishops agree on and teach in communion with the Pope).
What is used in the liturgy is often the best evidence for the third type of infallible teaching identified above.
+J.M.J+
Esau writes:
>>>Why wouldn’t this be considered such a proof?
What I mean is: I’m not sure that argument could conclusively prove that the “She” reading of Genesis 3:15 is the correct one. At least not to some scholars’ satisfaction.
In Jesu et Maria,
The Masked Chicken please give us (me) the link!!
And regarding Gen 3:15 polemic here’s a link:
http://www.catholicapologetics.net/gen315.htm
Thanks, beng!
The link doesn’t work. « MODx Parse Error »
Dear Beng,
For some reason, typepad will not let me post the links to the Bible software. Could someone give some idea as to why that might be the case?
The Chicken
+J.M.J+
I found the Gen 3:15 page on the Internet Archive. This snipped url should work:
http://snipurl.com/gen315
In Jesu et Maria,
“As someone who is trying to do the right thing, I find all this stupid nitpicking terribly annoying and distracting from my attempt to read God’s word. Is this REALLY necessary to bash all but our own little pet translations?”
Hey, this is a time honored Catholic tradition (small t)! We are like a family. A tiny bit dysfunctional but what family isn’t a bit. Read the Bible that is easiest to understand for you. Sometimes we concentrate on the value of each flower while we miss the beauty of the garde(n)!
“As someone who is trying to do the right thing, I find all this stupid nitpicking terribly annoying and distracting from my attempt to read God’s word. Is this REALLY necessary to bash all but our own little pet translations?”
Hey, this is a time honored Catholic tradition (small t)! We are like a family. A tiny bit dysfunctional but what family isn’t a bit. Read the Bible that is easiest to understand for you. Sometimes we concentrate on the value of each flower while we miss the beauty of the garde(n)!
The Masked Chicken:
In regard to the Sword project, their engine doesn’t handle the Deuterocanon. And I doubt many of the other open source projects do, aside from Vulsearch of course. I like Vulsearch to a degree, but have found it a bit buggy at times in regard to the interface. Plus, now I’m only ever on a Mac, and Vulsearch is Windows based (.Net specifically, though there’s an older non .Net version.)
I’ve actually taken it upon myself to try and get the Sword engine working with the Deuterocanon. I haven’t really done anything yet. At least a good number of the Sword folks are ecumenical as well. That, or they’re not telling me they’re not ecumenical…
There are issues that the Sword engine doesn’t yet handle such as dynamic versification as well (not all Bibles are versed the same way.)
On both the Mac and Windows, I like the Java based software over the versions written for the systems. Though a rewrite for the Mac is in the wings. Haven’t used Gnomesword nor Bibletime(for KDE) but the Linux versions are under active development and supposedly pretty nice.
I don’t personally have any experience with any other projects that are our there.
Link to Vulsearch: here
Link to Crosswire (Sword): here
Gots to love the Pope. Basically wipes out all that stuff about faith being personal (although that’s a piece of the puzzle). With our hope being in the Cross, basically wipes out some of the Protestant Reformers. I love our German Pope.
While the Pope may have not quoted Vatican II, he did use the 2nd edition of the Catechism.
Deo Gratias for our Pope and may God Bless him with health and humility.
And I love the comment at the end, which just proves one thing that we already knew. Bishop’s Conferences aren’t under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Dear DJ,
Thanks for posting the links for the Sword Project and Vulsearch. I agree that the last version of Vulsearch was a bit buggy the last time I tried it. One can either find copies of the Deuterocanonicals on-line and then import them into e-Sword or the Sword Project, or e-Sword (for Windows or Mac) does have the deuterocanonicals.
The Sword Project is making headway, although it is not as easy to use as I would like to see.
If one has Windows, the best free software I have found is e-Sword (http://www.e-sword.net/), by far. It is also available for Mac. although it is not as easy to use.
The Interlinear Scripture Analyzer (http://www.scripture4all.org/) is a must-have for anyone who wants to look at the original languages (for Windows).
Theophilos is another program similar to e-Sword, which allows one to add modules that contain text from other sources.
If you have never looked at the Christian Classics Etheral Library (CCEL), it contains many public-domain Catholic and Protestant authors (be careful of external links – there may be badware, according to Google). One can download 37 volumes of the Church Fathers, etc. I don’t want to put a link, because typepad might reject it. Just Google, CCEL and the site will come up.
Finally, for historical papal encyclicals, the site, http://www.papalencyclicals.net can’t be beat.
Apparently, typepad considers The Chicken to be a spammer and keeps asking me to type in an anti-spam word. Don’t they know that Chicken and spam do not go well together 🙂
The Chicken
Chicken:
Couldn’t find a version of e-sword for the Mac on their website.
The reason I talked about the Sword project is that I’m working with a group that’s trying to produce open source Catholic software and our first mission is to get Sword up and running with the Deuterocanon, though the Java front end isn’t really a front end as it handles the Sword modules itself. We’ve even gotten permission to distribute the Catechism as a Sword module (though our module has a few bugs, we’ve got to get them fixed…) So I’ve been looking at it for a while.
That and its open source. Not that I’m some sort of wacky commie nutso who’s trying to push open source on everyone, but that fact gives me the opportunity to modify the code. 🙂
CCEL is nice, but if you want to download the texts, you have to create an account and they ask you to contribute after something like 5 downloads. That doesn’t mean they stop you, they completely let you keep downloading, but you feel really bad if you do. Well, I do at least.
Just found papalencyclicals.net the other day. Awesome site. Do you know if the translations of those encyclicals as well as the council texts are in the public domain? I may want to start making them into Sword modules. 🙂
And correct me if I’m wrong, but I think ‘mechanically separated chicken’ is on the ingredients list for Spam..
While we’re at it, I just found this on Zenit.
Warm greetings in the True Christmas Spirit!
I hope all is well, you seem very knowledgeable. I read through your blogs–very sharp indeed! Do you have a Doctorate in Divinity or Philosophy?
Anyhow, I was wondering if you could give some priceless advice. I am thinking of buying some good old Catholic theology books for some family members and loved ones, and well, I recently received an advertisement for this very interesting book called “Communicatio in Sacris: The Roman Catholic Church against Intercommunion of non-Catholics” by Mr. William J. DeTucci.
I was wondering if you have seen any book review on this book? I could not find anything on the author. It seems the book talks about the Role of Vatican II in the Modern World and how some Traditionalists have resisted many of the Modernistic teachings of Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, and the New Mass, as opposed to the old Latin Tridentine Mass. However, I also recently read Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio ( http://www.vatican.va), which seems to be give the Liberty of “Open Communion” to so-called Traditional Catholic Groups who dissent from Vatican II, i.e. Marcel Lefebvre’s SSPX, Mark Pivarunas’ CMRI, Clarence Kelly’s SSPV, Br. Michael Dimond’s Most Holy Family Monastery, the various Saint Benedict Centers, Jason Spadafore’s Raphael Society, Patrick Taylor’s Society of the Virgin Mary, and so many other Independent Bishops at Large)–all who promote Intercommunion Latin Mass Ritual, of course! I think the Spirit of Vatican II is really being recognized now by many of the Traditionalists who once followed Bishop Lefebvre in resisting Vatican II Conciliar Reforms, but since the Motu Proprio Latin Mass Ecumenism has been widely promoted and it has been “well received” by many of these same various Traditionalists Sects and also by many Liberal Bi-Ritual Bishops who offer both the Latin Mass and Ecumenical Modern Liturgies.
However, breaking the rule of judging a book by its cover, and only peaking its table of contents, it seems to me this book is an itchy reaction to this Neo-Ecumenism that both Greek and Latin Churches have been involved with. Not sure if you have read the book, or know of some theologian who has written a review? Here is the link to the contents that I browsed:
http://www.lulu.com/content/1431544
and also here:
http://www.vladcatholic.com
I would most greatly appreciate any book review that you or a theologian has done. This book seems to have positive merit in as much it claims to be “a Compendium of Roman Catholic Doctrine on the subject of Intercommunion with non-Catholics. This book produces the overwhelming theological consensus for the Dogmatic Teaching condemning Intercommunion with non-Catholics, putting together a treasury of Sacred Scriptures, Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Theologians, and Popes who have written on the matter.”
However, I just wanted to verify that before I make my last minute shopping for this Christmas & New Year Season.
May God bless you all!
Kind regards,
Patty
Dear DJ,
From Wikipedia:
The labeled ingredients in the Classic variety of Spam are: chopped pork shoulder meat with ham meat added, salt, water, sugar, and sodium nitrite to help “keep its color”…
Varieties of Spam vary by region and include…Spam Lite (containing pork and chicken)…
You wrote:
And correct me if I’m wrong, but I think ‘mechanically separated chicken’ is on the ingredients list for Spam..
Mechanically separated chicken…(shudder). I wonder what is mechanically separated to make computer spam?
The Chicken
Dear DJ,
Regarding the papalencyclicals.net site, even though the encyclicals themselves are in the public domain (until recently, all Vatican documents were released in the public domain, as far as I know), the specific setting used by the site, would be protected by copyright laws, unless the author has released it to the public domain or some other license.
Looking at the site, further, I found that the author has permission from Petersnet to use the encyclicals. If you want to use them in the Sword Project, you could get permission from them. Written permission (fax/letter and not simply an e-mail permission) is best from the standpoint of copyright, especially if you add them to a computer program.
The Chicken
re: Mechanically Separated Chicken..
Well, I remember reading that on the ingredients list on something in highscool. Thought it was Spam.
Dear DJ,
The port of e-sword to the Mac is called MacSword. It is very beta-ish.
The Chicken
Chicken, if you’re talking about http://www.macsword.com, that’s using the Sword engine.
That’s the version that’s basically abandoned and is currently being rewritten from scratch. I’ve yet to decide if I want to get involved on that project or not.
Here is a helpful reference from the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy. The text below is from CatholicCulture.org
This web site was launched by the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy and allows researchers to access Bible verses with exegesis from doctors of the Church or cross reference liturgical texts with commentaries from Church Fathers. The site offers six categories in nine languages. It also gives the option of downloading the site’s content.
The nine translations of the Bible, including Hebrew and Greek, can be read side-by-side, as can the Eastern and Latin Codes of Canon Law.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
THANKS SO MUCH FOR THAT LINK!!!!
The NAB as a translation is lacking. one of many examples from Isaiah 44:6
Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (1917);
“Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides Me there is no God.”
Douay-Rheims Bible;
“Thus saith the LORD the king of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.”
Revised Standard Version;
“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”
Finally, the NAB;
“Thus says the LORD, Israel’s King and redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; there is no God but me.”
The first three examples seem to imply (at the least)a distinction between the LORD, King of Israel and “his” redeemer, the LORD of hosts. The NAB fails to do this and is, as was mentioned, “squishy”.
Guess what, if your Bible is too large to carry around, you might try this . The whole Old Testament smaller than a pinhead.
The Chicken
Try again:
Old Testament printed smaller than the head of a pin
The Chicken