Burned at the stake for the Bible

[iBrian]

Thanks for the comments, Thomas - interesting, as it seems there's a very two sided argument here - all of which seems to relate to the issue control of access to the Bible, with the reformists on the one hand claiming there is over-control outside of the RC, while the RC arguing the need for editorial controls within the RC. A much more rich and interesting topic than I expected.

 

[lunamoth]

I can't speak for the Roman Catholic tradition of course, but the current Anglican teaching is that to fully understand the Bible we need to read it in community, not completely off on our own. There is such a tremendous diversity of material in the Bible that you could construct pretty much any religion you want using the Bible in isolation. Yes, we are to read the Bible and pray with it, let it speak to us individually, but we also need to read it together, in groups, and in the context of the Church, and in the context of worship.

 

[juantoo3]

Even the Protestants came to the Catholic English translation (Douay-Rheims) as the basis of their English (King James) version.

Dearest Thomas, this is simply not the case. This is the third time now I have seen you play to this, and twice I have overlooked it. If I may:

Douay-Rheims Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Douay-Rheims Bible, also known as the Rheims-Douai Bible or Douai Bible and abbreviated as D-R, is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English. The New Testament was published in one volume with extensive commentary and notes in 1582. The Old Testament followed in 1609–10 in two volumes, also extensively annotated. The notes took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character. They also offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate. The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which was heavily influencing England. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Counter-Reformation.

Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England.

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

Even in the letters written to the King and to the people by the translators of the KJV (to which I referenced just a short while back in another thread), they do recognize that they referenced other earlier works, but the Douay-Rheims OT was not in existence and the KJV NT was sourced from other documents, predominantly the Textus Receptus. In fact, Gustavus Payne went so far as to claim the Douay Bible was hurried to completion because of the KJV. If you notice, the KJV first printing was 1611, and the first printing Douay was 1610...certainly one or even two years is not enough to establish "the basis of their English (King James) version" on "the Catholic English translation (Douay-Rheims)."

I realize your zealousness for your brand of faith, but I really must highlight this error in defense of my own faith and preferred tradition. The Catholic institution felt threatened, perhaps rightly so, and that is why the Douay Bible was so quickly completed to *compete with* the KJV. It only stands to reason the Catholic position would be to claim something like what you say here about Protestants referencing it in order to help bolster their egos and self-validation.

 

[Joedjr]

Hi,
Seems there is a loose consensus here that the RCC has erred in the past, acknowledged their fault and moved on from this dark spot in history. In James 3:1 we read: Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. How do each role from this time, teacher and student, come under the judgment, that is to come? How much is the student accountable for his actions? Will the excuse "I was only doing what I was told" be enough to get through the narrow gate?
In today's RCC are there some teachings that should not be followed? Will the excuse "I was only doing what I was told" be good enough?
Joe

 

[Quahom1]

Hi,
Seems there is a loose consensus here that the RCC has erred in the past, acknowledged their fault and moved on from this dark spot in history. In James 3:1 we read: Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. How do each role from this time, teacher and student, come under the judgment, that is to come? How much is the student accountable for his actions? Will the excuse "I was only doing what I was told" be enough to get through the narrow gate?
In today's RCC are there some teachings that should not be followed? Will the excuse "I was only doing what I was told" be good enough?
Joe

The church hasn't erred, individuals have. Teaching is not for the feignt of heart. To much that is given to some, so much will be expected from some.

This life is not a popularity contest. It is a time to develop the love within us, to be able to express it regardless of the obstacles confronting us.

Love fears nothing.

 

[iBrian]

The church hasn't erred, individuals have.

If the church is driven by the will of individuals then as they err then so does the church. If the individuals represent the church, then as they err, so does the church.

If the church is not represented by individuals or will, then I presume we are talking about something abstract and immaterial? In which case, we are neither talking about the RCC nor any other denomination?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Juantoo —

Dearest Thomas, this is simply not the case.

My dear friend, there are two sides to every coin!

"The translators of the 1881 ERV NT were frank about the KJV’s use of the Rheims NT. They said in their “Preface” to the New Testament that the text of the KJV “shows evident traces of the influence of a Version not specified in the rules, the Rhemish, made from the Latin Vulgate, but by scholars conversant with the Greek original.” (p. VI). And indeed this influence is pervasive. Dr. J. G. Carleton in his work The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902. 259 pp.) has shown that the KJV has taken some 2,803 readings, besides 140 marginal readings--nearly 3,000 in all--from the Roman Catholic (Rheims) translation of 1582 After a brief but helpful survey of English Bible versions before 1611, Carleton explains his methodology, and then presents his findings in extended lists, meticulously prepared, showing precisely where and how the KJV was influenced in its vocabulary, phraseology and grammar by the Roman Catholic Rheims NT, an influence that literally affects every page of the KJV NT."
Quoted from a Catholic site, but I will check further if you want.

There's a load of other interesting stuff there, too.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

If the church is driven by the will of individuals...

We see it as the Church is something that Christ willed and founded, therefore it is Perfect and Indefectible, and something that man aspires to. The Church endures, She is an ark, we are both the people carried in Her, and the storms that rage about Her ... any fault is ours, not hers.

I would say the Church marks the degree to which human will falls short of what it would and could be. The Church is driven by the Will of Christ, no other ... we didn't decide what She is, He did ... we do not will it, but aspire to it ... usually, badly, but sometimes, gloriously.

then as they err then so does the church. If the individuals represent the church, then as they err, so does the church.

No. Not if the error is willed by the individual, and not by the Church. A bent copper does not render the law invalid. It might make its admin procedure subject to review, but the principle of the law remains inviolate.

If the church is not represented by individuals or will, then I presume we are talking about something abstract and immaterial? In which case, we are neither talking about the RCC nor any other denomination?

No, only if Jesus Himself is abstract and immaterial ... as many assume Him to be ... but we believe He walked and talked, and we have the testimony of those He called.

Christ is His Church ... without Christ, there is no Church, and without the Church, there is no Christ ...

I would argue that the Catholic Church alone is the one who has placed no human, rational, determination or limitation on what is possible for Her founder, according to the Word of Scripture. I would further argue that every other church, whilst child of the one Mother Church, is defective to the degree of human discrimination that altered or revoked the original doctrine.

Now we are not perfect, none of us, so there will always be sin in her members, but in Herself, She is eternally perfected, so that for the seeker, there is no limitation to the spirit of sonship promised of Her founder, rather there are the sacraments that realise, as best we can in this world, the beatitude promised of the next.

The contra argument will always seek to rationalise what the Church is, to reduce it to a philosophical or ethical institution ... and the Catholic will always shake his head ... She is a Mystery.

Thomas

 

[Quahom1]

If the church is driven by the will of individuals then as they err then so does the church. If the individuals represent the church, then as they err, so does the church.

If the church is not represented by individuals or will, then I presume we are talking about something abstract and immaterial? In which case, we are neither talking about the RCC nor any other denomination?

If the Pope, or the cardinals or arch bishops decree things counter to the will of the collective whole of the church, then it is the individuals that err, not the church. The church is "we the people", not he, the pope. Unfortunately the world identifies the RCC with the clergy, who are individuals capable of error, and who's errors can have rippling repercussions across the entirety of the church, as seen by the rest of the world...

That is what I meant to express.

v/r

Q

 

[wil]

If the Pope, or the cardinals or arch bishops decree things counter to the will of the collective whole of the church, then it is the individuals that err, not the church. The church is "we the people", not he, the pope. Unfortunately the world identifies the RCC with the clergy, who are individuals capable of error, and who's errors can have rippling repercussions across the entirety of the church, as seen by the rest of the world...

If the collective whole of the church voted I'd bet a number of things would change. Contraception, divorce rules, abortion rights, married priests, would be quite interesting...

 

[Quahom1]

If the collective whole of the church voted I'd bet a number of things would change. Contraception, divorce rules, abortion rights, married priests, would be quite interesting...

I seriously doubt it Wil. But then, that's a Catholic thing...