Really? The Council of Trent issued its canons and decrees in modern English?
What you published were modern "Protestant friendly" editorials. There were 25 declarations, three Bulls and a closing oration, all issued in Latin. No one has sought to identify the document cited or give the original Latin for reference. That, my FRiend, is distortion.
Peace be with you
Explain why Fordham University would publish "Protestant friendly" editorials or translations of the Trent documents. While you're at it, explain why the documents from Trent read the same even at http://guides.lib.cua.edu/content.php?pid=199298&sid=1666818, which includes the Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books Drawn Up By The Fathers Chosen By The Council Of Trent And Approved By Pope Pius[1] http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENTBKS.HTM. The Rule IV under discussion, is translated here as:
Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.
The underlined sentence, if you notice, is worded the same in the EWTN.COM link as the Fordham University link stated by Iscool, BlueDragon and myself. The wording Persevero used, though not verbatim, expressed nothing different than what is translated here ('that book' vs. 'them') and the "book" his quote spoke of most certainly DOES include the Bible (Sacred Books) in the mention of "unapproved" vernacular translations. The statement was not distorted but this rebuke DOES fall into the realm of "quibbling" and smacks of hypersensitivity to anything that can possibly shine a negative light on Roman Catholicism even 500 years ago.
But you say;
The original Latin, for reference...which you didn't bother to bring either...Riiigghht.
that would be all too fall down rolling on the floor hysterically funny for it's ridiculousness, if the claim apparently str-ree-ched for wasn't so PATHETIC.
As to issue of "original Latin" there can also be found this;
"The original acts and debates of the council, as prepared by its general secretary, Bishop Angelo Massarelli, in six large folio volumes, are deposited in the Vatican Library and remained there unpublished for more than 300 years and were brought to light, though only in part, by Augustin Theiner, priest of the oratory (d. 1874), in Acta genuina sancti et oecumenici Concilii Tridentini nunc primum integre edita (2 vols., Leipzig, 1874)."
If you wish to dispute the information provided in this thread, bring something more than innuendo and baseless arguments by assertion.
Like I said, a lotta background noise...
Like I said, a lotta background noise...