Skip to comments.
Radio Replies First Volume - Protestants and the Bible
Celledoor.com ^
| 1938
| Fathers Rumble & Carty
Posted on 07/14/2009 7:45:58 AM PDT by GonzoII
Protestants and the Bible
559. In any case you have to admit that Protestants have more love for Scripture than Catholics. We owe the rediscovery of the Bible chiefly to the early Protestants.
I deny absolutely that Protestants love Scripture more than Catholics. Nor was the Bible ever re-discovered. Through all the centuries it had been carefully transcribed and preserved in Catholic monasteries, and was there already for Luther and others to broadcast.
560. To whom am I indebted for my English Bible?
You are indebted to many collaborators. Between 1525 and 1536 William Tindale translated into English various Greek and Latin copies of the Bible which had been made by Catholic monks, copies which could be traced back to the original Scriptures. Cromwell was not satisfied with Tindale's translation, so commissioned Miles Coverdale to make a new one. Coverdale used and perfected to some extent Tindale's version, and published the "Great Bible" in 1539. Not satisfied with this, a committee of Anglican Bishops revised it, and in 1568 published what is known as the "Bishops' Bible." This was also faulty, and King James 1st of England ordered a new revision. Taking as their basis the Bishops' Bible, a committee oi 47 revisers whose names are not known produced what is known as the "Authorized Version" in 1611. In 1881 a new revised version was published, correcting some 5,000 mistakes in the Authorized Version. Further revision of this "Revised Version" is being demanded.
Thus you owe your English Bible to many unknown revisers, the Bishops of 1568, Miles Coverdale 1539, Tindale 1525, Monastic copyists through the ages, and thence to the originals.
561. Have Catholics a true copy of the Bible as used by Protestants?
Protestants have not a true copy. Their copy contains many mistranslations and omits complete Books. The Catholic Church provides a substantially true copy or version in English for her own subjects.
562. You speak of mistranslations. Do you accuse the Protestant translators of grossly infamous conduct in tampering with the text?
I do. Dixon, in his Introduction to Scripture says, "That the early Protestant translations were full of gross errors no unprejudiced Protestant will now deny, and that these errors were willful, Ward, in his Errata, satisfactorily proves." Bishop Ellicott, in his book, "Considerations on the Revision of the English Version," says that the translation "yields erroneous doctrinal inferences not to be drawn from the original." Blunt, in his "Key to the Knowledge and Use of the Bible," says, "The characters of the translators were not such as to command the respect of men." Robert Gell, chaplain to Archbishop Abbott, one of the revising committee, wrote of the discussions, "Truth was often outvoted. Dogmatic interests were in some cases allowed to bias the translation. The Calvinism of one party, the prelatic views of another, were both represented at the expense of accuracy."
563. What books are omitted from the Protestant Version?
Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two Books of Machabees, and the various sections of other Books.
564. Is not the Douay Version a poorer rendering into English than the Protestant Version, apart from its Romish viewpoint?
The Douay Version has not a "Romish" viewpoint in the sense of having been deliberately accommodated to Catholic teaching. It is a substantially true Version which, because true, necessarily indicates the Catholic Church as the true Church. For that is the truth of Scripture. From a literary point of view, it is a less beautiful translation than that of the Authorized Version. But why? Merely because it is a more exact translation. When a foreign language, classical or modern, is translated into English, the more one clings to the text, the less purely literary beauty one attains in the new language. To obtain a more beautiful rendering one must translate more freely, thus more or less forfeiting the exact sense of the original. But in the matter of God's Word, we want, not so much literary beauty, but just what God intended. And for that, the Douay Version far surpasses the Authorized Version, despite its rather awkward literary structure at times. Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: catholic; radiorepliesvolone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Historical Context of "Radio Replies"
By markomalley
If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.
It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.
And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.
A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.
Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.
The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
1
posted on
07/14/2009 7:45:58 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
To: All
Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.
"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days. My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."
Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.
In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:
"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."
"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."
"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."
Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty
I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour, from St. Paul, Minnesota.
I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."
I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.
It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.
The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.
To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.
Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.
"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."
Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.
Source: www.catholicauthors.com
2
posted on
07/14/2009 7:46:20 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex
Radio Replies Ping
FReep-mail me to get on or off
“The Radio Replies Ping-List”
ON / OFF
3
posted on
07/14/2009 7:47:05 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: All
4
posted on
07/14/2009 7:48:38 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
To whom am I indebted for my English Bible?God.
5
posted on
07/14/2009 8:00:47 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: GonzoII
Interesting post. For today’s discussions and answers on Catholicism I recommend Relevant Radio. It is based in the mid-west and available on-line, if you don’t have a station in your area. RR programming is varied and includes Q & A sessions about the Catholic Faith at various times in the day and various days of the week. Go to Relevantradio.com for a schedule.
I listen to RR in the car when the news gets just too heavy, and I particularly like to listen when I’m mowing my lawn which is several acres in depth and breadth. I have a set of noise blocking headphones that incorporates a radio (Stanley at your hardware store) and I just slap them on, tune in, and away I go. I do believe that I do a better job on the lawn when listening to RR.
To: afraidfortherepublic
7
posted on
07/14/2009 8:06:41 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: MEGoody; GonzoII
To whom am I indebted for my English Bible? God.
Amen ! Brother. And all the Jews, all of which believed in the Messiah, who penned it.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
8
posted on
07/14/2009 8:18:08 AM PDT
by
Uri’el-2012
(Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
To: GonzoII
****This was also faulty, and King James 1st of England ordered a new revision. Taking as their basis the Bishops’ Bible, a committee oi 47 revisers whose names are not known produced what is known as the “Authorized Version” in 1611. ****
NOT KNOWN!?
BIOGRAPHIES OF THE
KING JAMES VERSION TRANSLATORS
I. The First Westminister Company—translated the historical books, beginning with Genesis and ending with the Second Book of Kings.
Dr. Lancelot Andrews
Dr. John Overall
Dr. Hadrian Saravia
Dr. Richard Clarke, Dr. John Laifield, Dr. Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffry King, Richard Thompson
Dr. William Bedwell
II. The Cambridge Company—translated Chronicles to the end of the Song of Songs.
Edward Lively, Dr. John Richardson, Dr. Lawrence Chaderton
Francis Dillingham, Dr. Roger Andrews, Thomas Harrison, Dr. Robert Spaulding, Dr. Andrew Bing
III. The Oxford Company—translated beginning of Isaiah to the end of the Old Testament.
Dr. John Harding, Dr. John Reynolds
Dr. Thomas Holland, Dr. Richard Kilby
Dr. Miles Smith, Dr. Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough
IV. The Second Oxford Company—translated the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine.
Dr. Thomas Ravis, Dr. George Abbot
Dr. Richard Eedes, Dr. Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile
Dr. John Peryn, Dr. Ralph Ravens, Dr. John Harmar
V. The Fifth Company of Translators at Westminster—translated all of the Epistles of the New Testament
Dr. William Barlow, Dr. John Spencer, Dr. Roger Fenton, Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, [Thomas(?)] Sanderson
VI. The Sixth Company of Translators at Cambridge translated the apocryphal books.
Dr. John Duport, Dr. William Brainthwaite, Dr. Jeremiah Radcliffe
Dr. Samuel Ward
Dr. Andrew Downes, John Bois
Dr. John Ward, Dr. John Aglionby, Dr. Leonard Hutten
Dr. Thomas Bilson, Dr. Richard Bancroft
9
posted on
07/14/2009 10:43:20 AM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
To: UriÂ’el-2012
God and the Jews “penned” the English Bible?
10
posted on
07/14/2009 10:46:49 AM PDT
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: GonzoII
***Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two Books of Machabees, and the various sections of other Books. ****
The original 1611 KJV had all these in it. They were removed later by others, but not by the first translators of the 1611.
You can still get these in a separate printing.
11
posted on
07/14/2009 10:48:16 AM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
To: GonzoII
***You are indebted to many collaborators. Between 1525 and 1536 William Tindale translated into English various Greek and Latin copies of the Bible which had been made by Catholic monks, copies which could be traced back to the original Scriptures. Cromwell was not satisfied with Tindale’s translation, so commissioned Miles Coverdale to make a new one. Coverdale used and perfected to some extent Tindale’s version, and published the “Great Bible” in 1539. Not satisfied with this, a committee of Anglican Bishops revised it, and in 1568 published what is known as the “Bishops’ Bible.” This was also faulty, and King James 1st of England ordered a new revision.***
From the translator to the Reader 1611 KJV preface
...
• 2 Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,..... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.
12
posted on
07/14/2009 10:57:50 AM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
You can still get these in a separate printing.
—
I’m glad to hear that but sad to say they’ve lost Scriptural authority among Protestants.
13
posted on
07/14/2009 11:23:43 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
NOT KNOWN!?
—
Were they known and listed in the 1611 edition?
14
posted on
07/14/2009 11:26:30 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
Were they known and listed in the 1611 edition?
Did they have to be when there are so many books that list them?
http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0059.htm
The Learned Men
The Translators of the Authorised Version of the Holy Bible in English A.D. 1611
15
posted on
07/14/2009 11:40:13 AM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
To: GonzoII
“560. To whom am I indebted for my English Bible?”
You are indebted to the Church who steadfastly preserved the bible for 1500 years.
The translators of the Authorized edition themselves acknowledge the fact that Wycliffe didn’t produce the first english bible, like Luther didn’t produce the first german bible. And the first book ever printed was, guess what, the Bible at the command and by the expense of the Church.
You won’t find the english versions predating the reformation because when Henry VIII ordered the looting and burning of the churches and monasteries they were destroyed.
16
posted on
07/14/2009 11:42:43 AM PDT
by
lucias_clay
(Its times like this I'm glad I'm a whig.)
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Did they have to be when there are so many books that list them?
—
If that be the case than an oversight must be attributed to the the two Fathers.
Nonetheless they are still good reading.
17
posted on
07/14/2009 11:47:41 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: lucias_clay
“You won’t find the english versions predating the reformation because when Henry VIII ordered the looting and burning of the churches and monasteries they were destroyed.”
You won’t find them because the people who produced them were killed by the Roman Church for it. Producing and distributing an English (or any other vernacular) Scripture was tantamount to high witchcraft, heresy and apostacy and worthy of a hideous death at the stake.
18
posted on
07/14/2009 11:53:48 AM PDT
by
bobjam
To: GonzoII
It must take an incredible amount of hubris, or purposeful ignorance of history, for a Roman theologian to look at an English language Bible and thank the Roman Church for its existence.
Should we thank George Wallace for the ending of segregation?
19
posted on
07/14/2009 11:57:30 AM PDT
by
bobjam
To: bobjam
It must take an incredible amount of hubris, or purposeful ignorance of history, for a Roman theologian to look at an English language Bible and thank the Roman Church for its existence.
—
No, it’s just plain historical fact. No Catholic Church no Bible in any language.
20
posted on
07/14/2009 12:06:09 PM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
