Posted on 08/07/2012 2:39:20 PM PDT by NYer
You wrote:
“This is not diatribe? (Definition: A speech or discussion bitterly and violently directed against some person or thing. Synonyms: Denunciation, Invective, Tirade) I will let the readers decide.”
Nope, not a diatribe. I posted a sentence - that’s the example you used. It was not a speech. It was not bitter or violent. It was a statement of simple historical truth: “Actually Luther did not respond to a need. Luther deliberately distorted scripture to agree with his theology. His Bible was propaganda.”
All of that is absolutely true, undeniable, and irrefutable. And none of it is a speech, or bitter, or violent. Thus, according to even the definition you used, it was not a diatribe.
“I made no presentation.”
You posted nothing? What you posted was what you were presenting.
“I asked reasonable questions to which you somewhat gave answer, and then pointed out that you were changing the subject - which indeed you did, your denial notwithstanding!”
Your questions had little or nothing to do with the subject at hand, and if I changed the subject, you did nothing less than that too so why would you care about changing the subject?
“It is interesting to note your statement: “I need to present no evidence to correct it since the correction itself shows the (sic: that) your presentation was lacking.” Again, I made no presentation.”
If you presented nothing, then you posted nothing. But you did post something, so you did present something.
“The rest of what you pontificate here, again, I leave to the readers to evaluate the worth thereof.”
Yes, let them evaluate, by all means. Let them see how you’ve apparently read no books whatsoever on the subject, no reputable articles at all.
“Your point stands? I see. Your conception of the Word of God given to men through the apostles and prophets is akin to the Calvinist conception of how Jesus Christ gives Himself to us in the Sacrament, that is, ultimately there is no presence of Jesus Christ, God and Man, in the Sacrament.”
Your comment here makes no sense - which is to be expected.
“It is all symbolic, His plain and clear words being dismissed as nonsense by our superior understanding and wisdom.”
You’re completely wrong, of course, but why would a Protestant let facts get in the way of attacking a Catholic?
“By an analogous logic the effort that went into the Hort-Westcott, Nestle-Aland, and UBS Greek texts of the New Testament, for example, was unnecessary and wasted.”
Wasted, no. But unnecessary? Yes, for the faith. No Christian has ever been saved - and few or any people even brought to a belief in Christ most likely - by Hort-Westcott, Nestle-Aland, and UBS Greek texts of the New Testament. Christianity did not begin with the New Testament being written and it does not hinge upon the production of any 19th or 20th or 21st century edition of the Greek text or lexicon or commentary of the New Testament.
I have nothing against detailed academic work. I have produced such work myself - including detailed translation work. The Benedictines who produced a new Vulgate in the 20th century sifted through so many mss. that their full edition of the Vulgate was something like 1,200 volumes long. And that product, like every other one you listed - Hort-Westcott, Nestle-Aland, and UBS Greek texts of the New Testament - never died on the cross for anyone, never saved anyone, and most likely never even inspired anyone to hold to faith in Christ if he lacked that faith previously. That’s just a fact. Does that bother you? The truth of this doesn’t bother me in the least. Do facts bother you? Was all that effort wasted? No, it served its purpose. Was it necessary? No, not for the faith. Men were saved BEFORE it was produced and men will be saved AFTER and none of them will be saved by it. No academic work ever died on the cross for your sins. No academic work was sent by God to teach, or baptize, or minister to men.
“You appear to be saying that God gave His Word only symbolically,”
That is not only not what I said, it also is not what I appear to have said. Your approach, however, was already expected. It follows a certain pattern used by many Protestants in arguments over historical topics. First, the Protestant anti-Catholic attempts to engage in debate regarding a particular historical topic. It very quickly doesn’t go his way because he has not actually read any books or reputable articles on the subject. Once his sciolism is exposed, he insists his points or questions - which almost always have nothing to do with any substantive argument pertaining to the topic - are really worthwhile somehow anyway. When that fails, which is always the case, the Protestant anti-Catholic will always either resort to, 1) simply making things up out of thin air - things which are, in fact, logically impossible - while claiming all along those things are based squarely on the Catholic’s beliefs, posts, comments, etc., and, or 2) make a mocking attack against the Catholic (taking his ball and crying all the way home, so to speak) before making a parting shot which strongly implies either that the Protestant is a better person, or that everyone should believe him over the Catholic for whatever reason even though he completely failed to make a reasonable and sourced argument of any relevance. This is generally how it goes, again, and again, and again.
“to whit: Since the autographs are not extant the concrete words of God never quite attained reality.”
False. That is an inference not made or intended by this author but apparently invented out of whole cloth by you.
“That is almost Gnostic in its ultimate unreality. On the other hand, Christians have had to deal with Gnosticism in its many manifestations for a very long time. It makes me wonder a little about the christological assumptions under which you labor.”
Oh, and there we go. The Protestant anti-Catholic, apparently unable to actually make an argument against what I actually wrote - about Luther and Bible translations in the Middle Ages - now has to imply I hold “christological assumptions” which are some how wrong. As someone I know once said, if this were a racist incident, and the Protestant anti-Catholic were the racist, this is when he would call me “boy” and accuse me of whistling at his wife.
“So, you are truth driven? Was this insight given you from heaven (do you have an autograph of the certification you received?) or did you just conclude it on the basis of your own insight?”
Wow. I said the Protestant anti-Catholic resorts to mocking, and there it is. It’s always this way. This is all they know.
“It is quite convenient in a discussion to assume the position not only of a participant, but also of the referee and the judge. I guess you are more formidable a personage than I could have imagined. So, I guess we are all forced - and I mean forced! - to agree that you have succeeded in all respects. Again, I will let the readers draw their own conclusions.”
And again, I was right. This went as it always seems to go when a Protestant anti-Catholic enters the fray without, apparently, having actually done any research on the subject at hand. Sciolism, making things up out of thin air, false claims and accusations, mocking the Catholic for things he actually does not do, believe, nor hold, and then the Protestant anti-Catholic takes his ball and cries all the way home.
But we might note that reformers like Wycliffe were burned at the stake for translating it into the common language (English). This was a terrible policy and a terrible occurrence.Wow, if the claim was true it would have been horrific, but thankfully - like most anti-Catholic diatribes this is a fact free screed. It makes the rest of the claims by this poster suspect, like:
I did not visit an anti-Catholic website.Well, where did you get this falsehood then, a pro-Catholic website? And then there is this claim:
I have even seen posters at my public library, “Banned Books,” and the Bible has been listed on them as banned by the RC church.Wow, what scholarship, posters about "banned books"! Did it ever occur to you that the Bible has sometimes been banned by secular authorities? Maybe that is what the poster was warning about?
vladimir, you do snark well. I am impressed.
You also assume much that is not in evidence, and much about people that you don’t know.
You had said earlier: “Actually Luther did not respond to a need. Luther deliberately distorted scripture to agree with his theology. His Bible was propaganda.”
And now have added in regard to the above: “All of that is absolutely true, undeniable, and irrefutable.”
Since, in your opinion, this is all mute - which of course I deny - there is little point in talking to one whose mind is not only made up, but whose ears are closed.
Help me out here because I have read the article several times to see if I missed what you are seeing.
What exactly is the frontal assault on Protestants you read in that article?
There is one mention of Luther in which there is nothing said other than that he was a contemporary of St. Cajetan and was likewise troubled by the worldliness and decadence of some in the Church.
In the entire article, there is not one mention of Protestants or protestantism.
As to defending poor put upon Catholics....
Offer truthful information in the debate and there will be no need to defend anyone or anything from calumny.
You wrote:
“vladimir, you do snark well. I am impressed.”
Take your ball...
“You also assume much that is not in evidence, and much about people that you don’t know.”
Feel free to refute anything I said about “people”. (crickets)
“You had said earlier: “Actually Luther did not respond to a need. Luther deliberately distorted scripture to agree with his theology. His Bible was propaganda.””
All true.
“And now have added in regard to the above: “All of that is absolutely true, undeniable, and irrefutable.””
That’s true too.
“Since, in your opinion, this is all mute - which of course I deny - there is little point in talking to one whose mind is not only made up, but whose ears are closed.”
You “deny”, but can’t even make an argument. When you can explain how Luther could say that he wanted to “make Moses so German that no one would suspect he was a Jew” you let me know how Luther was not distorting scripture to agree with his theology. You let me know.
Natural Law. OK. I can see, perhaps, where you are unclear on what I said. Since you and I are coming from two very different backgrounds it is to be expected. And, no, I am not making any judgment as to the quality of either one.
Let me put it this way: The eternal God has entered into His creation by word, deed, and, finally, forever after in the person of Jesus Christ, who is God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father and also born of the Virgin Mary. His entry is a reality in all cases. What I have tried to determine - not very well, apparently - from the Catholics on this thread is their understanding of what the Holy Scriptures are.
Now, please note, I am not at this point asking what role they play in faith. I am not setting them against the teaching and preaching of the church. I am not saying that such teaching and preaching is either unneeded or ineffective. Of course that is not true. Nor am I making any assertions at this point about the superiority or inferiority of Scripture versus Tradition. Nor am I at this point talking about the primacy of any particular form of God’s word, whether spoken by Himself as at Sinai, spoken through an angel (or a donkey for that matter), rendered in written form, or spoken and taught by the human voice.
However, God chose to speak to man in time and space. He chose also not only to speak to man, but caused certain men to record His words. To do so the words had to be given man in human language, particular languages, languages which are known and understandable. This was, of course, due to our limitations, not His. So, if God deemed His words important enough to be recorded and regarded by man as His words, must we not first have some understanding of what is His written word? And only then can we begin to ask what role that written word plays in the establishment and maintenance of the teaching of His truth.
The analogy I used was in regard to the person of Christ. Just as God’s becoming man necessitated His becoming a particular man - there is no other way to be human - just so God’s causing His word to be recorded, written, necessitated its recording/writing in a particular language. For the Old Testament He chose as His people the descendants of Abraham, in turn and time, the Hebrews, the Israelites, the Jews, respectively, each of these terms meaning something a little different from the others. The language of these people was what we call Hebrew and, later, Aramaic. The written word of God we have today as translated into any particular language is always to be understood in the light of the language in which it was initially given, since the choice of the words, as of the language itself, was God’s alone. The same would be true of the New Testament, recorded in Greek.
I am simply asking what is your understanding of the relationship of the written word in the languages it was originally given and preserved for us to the written word in translation, whichever language that may be. To put it another way - and more specifically - irrespective of the quality of Jerome’s translation, does not primacy have to be given to the languages from which Jerome translated? And, again, I am drawing no conclusions about the role of tradition at this point.
I know that is a long question, but I am trying to understand the Catholic mind on this matter.
Well, vladimir998, I see that I invited you a little too softly to just put our verbal exchange (I’ll let you characterize it) to bed. Hereafter I will do so - or, to put it your way, I will take my ball and go home.
I will, however, make one observation. Your hatred for Martin Luther is so strong that I think you incapable of even trying to read and understand him. No, I am not saying that intellectually you are not able. I am quite sure you are. But hate does strange and powerful things to people.
If you would like to have the last word, be my guest.
Peace to you.
OK, I think I understand (and for the record I do like Dickens too.) I think your argument reinforces Church doctrine with respect to a Magisterium. What constitutional scholars call original intent is paramount in the Catholic interpretation of Scripture. It is maintained through the collective consensus of the Episcopacy derived from the Traditions and guided by an active Holy Spirit today exactly like it was beginning in the first century.
What we reject is the notion that Scripture is self-interpreting or that every believer with the indwelling Holy Spirit is capable of inerrant interpretation.
ph
You wrote:
“Well, vladimir998, I see that I invited you a little too softly to just put our verbal exchange (I’ll let you characterize it) to bed. Hereafter I will do so - or, to put it your way, I will take my ball and go home.”
That’s always how this was going to end anyway.
“I will, however, make one observation. Your hatred for Martin Luther is so strong that I think you incapable of even trying to read and understand him.”
Actually I am familar with all of his works. Read through them all - all 50 or so volumes in translation. I didn’t want to spend the time reading the Weimar edition. I got so familiar with his works and their location on in the library that I memorized the call number (”BR 330 .E5 1955 fl” or something like that).
“No, I am not saying that intellectually you are not able. I am quite sure you are. But hate does strange and powerful things to people.”
I don’t hate the man. I freely admit I hate his lies, distortions, duplicity, support of bigamy, cutting books from the Bible, attacks on God’s Church, encouragement of rebellion and theft, schism, and vow breaking. I pity the man.
“If you would like to have the last word, be my guest.”
I think history will have the last word. Since you apparently don’t know much about that, it’s just as well.
And I recall many years ago a very heated thread right here on the Religion Forum where certain Orthodox posters were angry and taking it out on Catholic posters that so many of their icons were lost, as I recall in the Crusades at Constantinople. If any of them survive, they should be returned IMHO.
Likewise, if the United States became a Christian theocracy, concluding that Buddhist statues were idols being worshiped against the law, I'd rather the statutes be gathered up and sent back to India or wherever Buddhists live.
The Taliban destroyed the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, which were carved into a hillside. In my view, if their presence in the land offended them so, they should have figured some way to move the structure block by block and give it to people who still cherish them.
OK. So, would it be fair to say that, for the purposes of establishing, maintaining, and defending Catholic doctrine, it does not really make a difference whether one utilizes Jerome’s Vulgate or something like Erasmus’ Greek Textus Receptus (or any of its more complete critical editions today, e.g., Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, UBS)? If that is not a fair characterization, please tell me how to state it more fairly from the Catholic point of view.
On the matter of “what constitutional scholars call original intent” I think we will have to agree to disagree. Generally speaking, in order to establish “original intent” in regard to the U.S. Constitution one takes what is written at face value and then, if there are questions of meaning due to the passage of time or use and meaning of terms, the contemporaneous writings of the Constitution’s authors are consulted, especially those that directly concern that matters in question, as in, for example, the Federalist Papers. This manner of procedure is not unlike - quite unsurprisingly - the Reformation (personally, I do not like that term) practice of thinking that consulting the original Author as the best interpreter of His own word is the way to sure understanding of intent. In other words, for example, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison or John Jay is the best and most authoritative commentator on what Hamilton, Madison or Jay had a part in writing in the Constitution.
As is typical so many times on these threads when some simply MUST resort to denigration, sneering one-up-manship and superiority, we have access to documentation that certainly can be called Unbiased. All of the things you accuse Luther of doing - things that you use to justify your continued attacks on all non-Catholics that DARE to challenge Roman Catholicism - can be viewed in a manner that demonstrates the duplicity of the Catholic Church and clarifies the views of reformers such as Luther.
You claim Luther:
lied - like what for example?
distorted - what did he distort?
duplicitous - about what?
supported bigamy - not anymore than Pope Clement VII did (see http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=bigamy
cut books from the Bible - already talked about this - he didn't
attacked God’s Church - he attacked the decrepit mess Rome had made of the Church
encouraged rebellion and theft, schism, and vow breaking - like where?
You boast that you have read "all" Luther's works and are quite familiar with him. You toss out these invectives against him but fail to place these accusations in context, if true at all, and conveniently leave out facts that show your own bias and duplicity. I'm not a Lutheran, but I am a former Roman Catholic who left after coming to the knowledge of the truth concerning salvation by grace through faith apart from works - a MAJOR part of the Reformation that I thank God HE allowed to happen. Though it was not the first one it was certainly the most productive and millions of people were and still are being saved as a result. A great book available online on Google is Sermons on the Creed of Pope Pius IV by John Nash Griffin. Very informative about the times surrounding the Reformation and the condition of the Church at that time.
We have already discussed the Canon of Scripture on this thread and others recently, though it is an ongoing topic that never seems to be settled no matter how many facts are presented. Now if anyone is REALLY interested in something more than polemics and out-of-context quotes and positions of the man, there are numerous sites to go to to get a true and unbiased look at the man, Luther. A few I suggest that speak to the Roman Catholic perspective, good and bad, are: http://tquid.sharpens.org/catlut1.htm and http://tquid.sharpens.org/catlut2.htm
Rather than condemn all "Protestants" as "Anti-Catholic Protestant liars" who dare participate on these threads, why not get out of the middle ages and talk about right now, today? We could go on and on with recriminations about who did what to whom and when, but why? What is the benefit of that? Can we not discuss in a respectful and loving manner the doctrines that divide us? Cannot iron sharpen iron or must it always be nastiness over issues none of us can go back and do anything about? Doesn't it get tiresome after awhile? Is this how fellow Christians are supposed to talk to each other? I expect to be pounded now - though I hope I am wrong - but at least I said what I feel needed to be said. Free Republic's Religion Forum is too good of a place to be turned into a battlefield all the time. We have REAL battles to fight this election year.
You wrote:
“lied - like what for example?”
About his obedience to the pope. About his never having seen a Bible. About his stories about the devil. About his translating the New Testament on his own.
“distorted - what did he distort?”
Romans 3:28.
“duplicitous - about what?”
Look at what he lied about.
“supported bigamy - not anymore than Pope Clement VII did (see http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=bigamy";
That doesn’t change the fact that he did it, and that he tried to keep it hidden.
“cut books from the Bible - already talked about this - he didn’t”
He did. He published his NT in an unpaginated appendix to show he considered the books uncanonical.
“attacked God’s Church - he attacked the decrepit mess Rome had made of the Church”
Nope. He encouraged princes to seize Church property. He lived in a stolen religious house so he personally benefited.
“encouraged rebellion and theft, schism, and vow breaking - like where?”
Like the Protestant Revolution. That was rebellion. He encouraged the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order to violate his vows and seize control of Prussia ans turn it into a personal possession. That’s rebellion and theft right there. Luther’s sect is clearly an act of schism. Luther broke his own vows and encouraged others to do the same.
“You boast that you have read “all” Luther’s works and are quite familiar with him. You toss out these invectives against him but fail to place these accusations in context, if true at all, and conveniently leave out facts that show your own bias and duplicity.”
False, I left out no necessary context. Anyone can read the works fo Luther. Anyone can read about his life and realize he had issues to say the least. Ever read Rix? I bet not.
“Rather than condemn all “Protestants” as “Anti-Catholic Protestant liars” who dare participate on these threads, why not get out of the middle ages and talk about right now, today?”
First, I never did what you accuse me of - I do not condemn all Protestants. I do not condemn all Protestants as anti-Catholics. But leave it to a Protestant anti-Catholic to claim I said something I never said. Incredibly you make this claim in a thread in which you demand examples from me. Okay, show me where I “condemn all “Protestants” as “Anti-Catholic Protestant liars”. Can you show that? No, you can’t. The closest you can come to what you’re claiming in this thread is 121 where I say “Protestant” two or three times but always clarify that with “Protestant anti-Catholic”. By the way, everything I said in 121 is clearly true and you’re proving it now.
Second, as a Church historian, probably the only one in this entire thread, I have every right and reason to “not get out of the middle ages”. It’s what I study. Why shouldn’t I participate in threads about it? Also, Protestant mythology is highly but falsely developed concerning the Middle Ages and the Protestant Revolution. Such Protestant distortions about history have always interesed me and are increasingly interesting other historians. Far too often Protestants here at FR offer one of two options: 1) distortions of the past, 2) encouragement of abandoning study of the past because it supposedly doesn’t help people in the present. I reject both of those options.
“We could go on and on with recriminations about who did what to whom and when, but why?”
For heretics and schismatics of the past recriminations are necessary when they have been built up into heroes.
“What is the benefit of that?
The benefit is that it is truthful, honest, fair and just. Heretics and schismatics should be exposed.
“Can we not discuss in a respectful and loving manner the doctrines that divide us?”
I discuss Protestant heresies honestly. Nothing more is needed.
“Cannot iron sharpen iron or must it always be nastiness over issues none of us can go back and do anything about?”
What it must be is honest.
“Doesn’t it get tiresome after awhile?”
I never tire of honest statements about the history of the Church.
“Is this how fellow Christians are supposed to talk to each other? I expect to be pounded now - though I hope I am wrong - but at least I said what I feel needed to be said.”
I think the problem is the apparent hypocrisy of your statements. On August 5th, for instance, when you were debating in a thread called “The Primacy of Peter” you said things such as:
“What I find even MORE interesting is the wool so many Catholics willingly allow to be pulled over their eyes so that they can continue to believe that myth.” You said this right before you posted a long quote from an anti-Catholic website that discussed the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals.
Gee, doesn’t that sound like you’re posting about “issues none of us can go back and do anything about”?
How about when you say, “But the historical record gives a very different picture.” Is that talking about “issues none of us can go back and do anything about”? Yeah, it is. And yet you’re talking about it. Hypocrisy, isn’t it? Such hyporcrisy is common among Protestant anti-Catholics. What is so shocking is the apparent hubris that comes through. How can a Protestant anti-Catholic blame someone for supposedly dwelling on “issues none of us can go back and do anything about” while rather routinely doing it himself AND NOT SEE THAT PROBLEM?
“Free Republic’s Religion Forum is too good of a place to be turned into a battlefield all the time. We have REAL battles to fight this election year.”
And yet, as I just showed, you’re neck deep in that battle at times. If you find the battle so desultory get out of it, and ease your conscience if it is so stricken. You could just post as you say others whould post, no?
JVett, the entire history of the persecution, torture and murder of Protestants is being denied on this thread. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is being called a a lie. Luther is accused of leaving the Catholic church (he was excommunicated and given an essential death sentence) I call that a frontal assault.
No, narses, the RC church during it history banned the translation and distribution of the Bible. It punished people, some with death, for doing so. Also, reading the Bible without permission from the RC church was forbidden.
It no longer does so, and I am happy to acknowledge that. I don’t think any Catholics I know would oppose Bible reading now. But to ignore its history is wrong.
Some “defenders of the church,” so-called (a “church” that burns people for Bible publishing, preaching salvation by faith, denying the insane doctrine of indulgences, etc. is not worthy of the title) on this thread reject documentaries, especially if they air on PBS, wiki isn’t ok, biographies are false, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is apparently all a lie, the poster at the library can’t be mentioned. . . there is no history at all that is apparently acceptable, unless it denies the gross murders perpetrated under “church” order and sanction.
Here’s from encyclopedia.com, no doubt to be dismissed as yet another impeachable source:
“Luther’s publication of three treatises in 1520 that called for revolutionary changes in late medieval German political, social, and religious life led to a papal bull excommunicating him in 1521; Luther publicly burnt the bull along with a copy of canon law and was called to the Diet of Worms for the purpose of recanting his teachings. He refused and was placed under the ban of the empire, which designated him an “outlaw” whom anyone could kill without legally committing murder.”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Martin_Luther.aspx#2
The history of Martin Luther, good and bad, is not a matter of debate. The denial on this thread is mind boggling. When I posted the information about Martin Luther I did so for the benefit of a few who may not have been familiar with it. Not to engage with people who simply deny history because it makes them uncomfortable.
As for my mistake between Tyndale and Wycliffe I already admitted it, it was an error. It was Tyndale, who:
” After months of imprisonment and many theological disputations he was condemned in August 1536 for persistence in heresy, and in October he was strangled to death and his body publicly cremated.”
Wycliffe, rather, enjoyed his bone burning after he was dug up from his grave, a fact which one poster on this thread finds praiseworthy!
Wow, what scholarship. Find an encyclopedia and read it. I don’t care which one you use. These facts are not in dispute.
"No, he preached Donatist type doctrines. Calvinists would reject many of his doctrines.
Wycliffe taught that there was no free will. He believed and taught predestination and "all things are ordained by God". That is the foundation of Calvinism.
Donatism is something else and it does not detract in any way from the predestination he taught, which is the foundation of Calvinist doctrine.
That is not completely correct. The Church recognizes that vernacular languages evolve and that within those languages there are variances and nuances based upon region, class, ethnicity, etc. It is for this reason that the Church continually revises Bible translations; not because the initial "original intent" is thought to have changed, but because they way it is expressed or interpreted within the vernacular language has changed.
This is the reason the Church uses Latin as its official language. Latin, being a dead language, is used as the baseline by the Church and the common language to which all vernacular translations of Scripture and Church documents are tied. It is timeless no longer evolving or having the variations of vernacular languages.
Lastly, the Church maintains a Magisterium to provide inerrant clarity and clarification to all matters of doctrine and dogma.
Peace be with you
Natural Law, thank you for the thought you gave to your reply. It helps me better understand the Catholic mind. I especially appreciate your description of Latin, as a dead language, being used as a “baseline.”
I will not pretend that I fully agree with you ... you know I don’t, or that I agree with the Catholic position. But I do appreciate your helpful reply.
If you are willing to go a step further. Would that mean then that the reason the Catholic Church saw no need to replace Jerome’s Latin translation for so long time (and would tend thereafter to translate into the vernacular Bibles based on the Vulgate, e.g., the Douay-Rheims, rather than on the preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts), and in a very sense still is of such a mind?
Again, I am asking this for the sake of clarity, because I think non-Catholics have a very difficult time grasping where Catholics are coming from on this matter.
Peace.
I will take this as far as you want to take it, within my capabilities. Please remember that I do not speak for the Church, but only as a Catholic who has done a significant amount of study in this area.
I think the Catholic position is based upon Scripture being but one component of the Revealed Word and infallible interpretation is entrusted to the Magisterium which is guided by the Holy Spirit and facilitated by relying on the accompanying Tradition. It was this same Magitserium that formed the Canon of Scripture from the Sacred Tradition.
A good analogy is the baseball term "chin music". To those who love the game like I do chin music has a very specific meaning; it is a high inside fast ball intended to move a batter back off the plate. It is more than an a threat, it is a warning. An English professor in Oxford, a so-called expert in the language, reading an American newspaper might surmise that it is a musical term or have something to do with the noise one's whiskers make when scratched. A "magisterium" of baseball players and fans would soon correct his misinterpretation.
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.