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.
Yes. exactly. I wrote up and discarded such direct comparisons previous, even while also considering re-posting the exact sentences used, side by side.
It does boil down to "that book" & "them", for that is the variance, that is being put forth as some sort of nefarious deed.