Posted on 08/18/2012 9:13:06 PM PDT by Salvation
the Douay-Rheims translation of Scripture “is a word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate (compiled by St. Jerome from the original Hebrew and Greek under Pope St. Damasus), which is the official translation of the Catholic Church (the Vulgate has been universally used in the Latin Rite for over 1,600 years).”
Once again this finds contradiction, as,
There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for [liturgical] use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.” http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
And in fact the DRB does not even appear on the Bishop’s list of approved translations,(http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations) though that does not mean RCs cannot use it.
the Douay-Rheims translation of Scripture “is a word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate
his is not so, unless you have the 1609, which presents its own problems due to the issues with the Vulgate:
• Catholic Answers: The Douay-Rheims currently on the market is also not the original, 1609 version. It is technically called the "Douay-Challoner" version because it is a revision of the Douay-Rheims done in the mid-eighteenth century by Bishop Richard Challoner [who corrected it according to the Clementine edition of the Vulgate]. He also consulted early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that the Douay Bible currently on the market is not simply a translation of the Vulgate (which many of its advocates do not realize). — http://www.catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide (with official stamps)
Also from Catholic Answers, which states, among other criticisms of the Douay only sect,
• ...as Pius XII pointed out (DAS 20), this does not mean that the Vulgate always reflects accurately what is in the original texts. Sometimes it doesn't...
Even then, the Douay is not simply a translation of Jerome's original. There is no pure edition of the Vulgate available, any more than there is a single, pure edition of the original Greek and Hebrew. When the Douay was translated, there were a number of editions of the Vulgate that differed from each other in varying degrees.
Furthermore, the editions of the Douay now in circulation are the Douay-Challoner version (or even more properly, revisions of the Douay-Challoner version), which has been corrected in light of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that it is not a pure translation of the Vulgate.
Challoner's revisions were extensive — more than Douay-Rheims Onlyists commonly admit. They were not limited to updating spelling and punctuation. Regarding the extent of the revisions, Bernard Ward notes, "The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they 'almost amounted to a new translation.' So also, Cardinal "Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published'" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910 ed.,s.v., "Douay Bible").
Free Of Protestant Bias?
While translator bias is a fact to be contended with, Douay-Rheims Onlyists often accuse contemporary translations of being tainted by Protestant translations.
But there's another side to that story. Just as the original Douay came to influence the KJV, the KJV itself came to influence the Douay. Ward notes: "In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized [i.e., King James] Version."
— 2002 by Catholic Answers, Inc.; http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=45541857&CFTOKEN=30609021
Moreover, while Trent did establish the Vulgate as the official Bible for that time, it did not specify which edition, nor elevate it above the original language manuscripts (though some disagree). The lack of uniformity among Vulgate editions and problems with that translation resulted in the embarrassing Sistine Vulgate.
Correction of its many errors resulted in the first edition of the Clementine Vulgate (official version till 1979) which was presented as a Sixtine edition (with a preface in which Bellarmine charitably attributed the problem of the previous version to being that of copyist errors, rather than being the fault of Sixtus). In 1592, Pope Clement VIII published this revised edition of the Vulgate, referred to as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. He moved three books, 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses (commonly found in medieval MSS of the Vulgate, immediately after 2Chronicles, and not found in the canon of the Council of Trent) from the Old Testament into an appendix "lest they utterly perish" (ne prorsus interirent). — (http://sacredbible.org/vulgate1861/scans/817-Apocrypha.jpg)
Also of interest,
In the spring of 1907 the public press announced that Pius X had determined to begin preparations for a critical revision of the Latin Bible... In spite of the care which during forty years had been bestowed upon the text of the present authentic edition issued by Clement VIII, in 1592, it had been recognized from the first that the text would have to be revised some day, and that in some ways this Clementine revision was inferior to the Sixtine version of 1590, which it had hastily superseded. — Catholic Encyclopedia>Revision of Vulgate; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15515b.htm
In addition, Vulgate manuscripts included prologues that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical (Prologues of Saint Jerome, Latin text )
Concerning which see this and linked threads.
All Christians know what "the Eucharist" is - virtually all celebrate it in some form...
So begins 8,000+ words which provides another example of the plethora of promotions of often prolix papist propaganda practiced by her parishioners here, though such have been often dealt with already. Perhaps it earns an indulgence.
Christ was not speaking in a metaphor or allegory here. Otherwise, why did he say at the Last Supper, "This is my Body." "This is my Blood."
Or “drink this cup.” Likewise David was literally speaking when he said, “is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it,” in referring to the water his mighty men sacrificially obtained. (2Sam. 23:15-17) And in many other like examples, shown here in examination of this doctrine (and here on 1Cor. 11), to which little should need to be added.
Yet this is not necessarily a salvific issue unless one believes that no one can actually have no life in them unless they believe the elements are the real body and blood of the Lord as per Rome, versus “living” as Christ explained. (Jn. 6:57,63; 4:34; Mt. 4:4) In which case Protestants cannot be saved (and no one else before they received the elements), in contradiction to Vatican Two, which some Catholics here seem to reject, at least in part.
I wasn't "talking" about you specifically, but the fact that there are several Catholics that repeatedly post threads that seem to deliberately provoke those they lump into one basket and call "Protestants". As you should know by now, the topic of this thread - the Eucharist and the supposed superiority of the Roman Catholic Church above ALL Christian denominations - has been hashed and rehashed on the Religion Forum for YEARS. It never seems to do anything more than cause flame wars and the outcome is anger, distrust, DISunity and resentment. If Catholics were sincerely concerned about the salvation of all, they would spend far more time and efforts on preaching the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and less about faith in the Roman Catholic Church.
So, no, I wasn't speaking about you specifically, but as it is commonly said, if the shoe fits, wear it.
HT to Steelfish for the ping!
Check the date it was put out in "2009".
Jesus explained it quite well in John 6:63, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life." John 6:60, "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" Those who prefer unfathomable mystery will choose to believe the literal. Those that believe God's explaination have no need for, nor desire to embrace unfathomable mystery over the simple truth given them by God in the flesh. Notice that He spoke to them to feed them; He did not hack off some flesh to have the disciples pass it around the crowd for them to eat.
"There are big difference between "the" flesh and "this" flesh or "my" flesh."
Just like this word, that word, the other word and God's words. I'll take God's words in His simple explanation over the Church's unfathomable mystery. Flesh is flesh and counts for nothing more than nourishment for the body, regardless of whose flesh it is. The concepts and values God taught are nourishment for one's mind. The bread of life is composed of concepts and values, not fingers and toes. Metaphor is a hard teaching, who can accept it?
And then Justin goes on to say that they take communion to those who are not able to be there physically.
I do that every Sunday and so do many others in the Catholic Church.
We take Jesus to our fellow believers who are not able to be with us.
What an honor we have.
The "Jews" knew Jesus could NOT have been speaking of literal eating and drinking of human flesh and blood because this was FORBIDDEN for observant Jews to do as God commanded in the Old Testament. If you recall, James and the other elders even reiterated to the Gentile Christians that the rules for them meant:
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. (Acts 21:25)
That is why Christians know that Jesus had to have meant a spiritual eating and drinking of his flesh and blood as remembered in the observance of the Last Supper, called the Eucharist celebration - the thanksgiving for what Christ has done for us - giving his life for our redemption so that all those who believe on Him, DO receive Him and become one with the Body of Christ.
As to the "Christians of 35,000 denominations (and counting)" canard, I would have thought that had been refuted enough times by now here, that no one would be inane enough to toss it out. Apparently not.
Peace be with you
“John 6:63 is the explanation of the difference. Flesh is flesh and counts for nothing, regardless of which flesh “this” refers to. The things of the Spirit are all that matters, they are the words He has spoken and that which gives life.”
Jesus used a lot of material objects to describe Himself—He said, “I am the Light.” “I am the Door.” “I am the Shepherd.”
But He never said, “That light is Me.” “That door is Me.” “That shepherd is Me.”
However, He did say, “That Bread is Me. That Wine is Me.”
Of course hosts will look the same and have the same characteristics. It’s called a mystery.
You either believe Christ or you think he is a liar.
Your choice.
I believe completely that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, Truly Present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, because Jesus SAID SO, in the Bible.
Unless you believe that Jesus the Christ is a liar.
With all due respect, any attempt to determine what the "jews knew" is purely conjecture. All we have is the Scriptural evidence that something He said was a big enough problem to them to cause them to reject Jesus; ("...many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. - John 6:66) Perhaps you proof actually proves the opposite.
Peace be with you
This is excellent! Thanks so much. I know people who have been converted simply by reading and re-reading John 6.
;-)
The purpose of a mystery is to cause folks to find a solution. All mysteries have a solution. God provided the soluiton in John 6:63, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life."
"You either believe Christ or you think he is a liar. Your choice.
John 6:63 contains Christ's clear explanation, that is consistent with all else that's written. The Church clearly contradicts what God said on the matter in John 6:63, and they are the one's I choose not to believe.
"I believe completely that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, Truly Present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, because Jesus SAID SO, in the Bible.
Fine.
"Unless you believe that Jesus the Christ is a liar."
I have no problem with what God said, only with what the Church claims that He said. They are wrong, as God pointed out in John 6:63. I beleive God not the Church.
The Jews knew they could not drink blood. All their meat needed to be well done — no rare steaks for them. LOL!
We weren’t there, but it is obvious, by the reaction of the Jews and what they said that they knew Jesus was speaking literally about drinking his Blood and earing his Body/flesh.
Why did he say it seven times in this one section, verses 57-68 then?
Amen! May God bless you in your ministry to the homebound.
It is an honor.
So often I am thanked for bringing the Eucharist to them. Please . . . this is an honor for me.
I am thankful for the giving and I know I am not ever truly worthy.
We learn true humility in our wonderful Church.
I thank God every day that He made me Catholic.
Jesus, Who Means What He Says
Pastor's Column
20th Sunday Ordinary Time
August 19, 2012
The words of Jesus Christ in John chapter 6 are just as scandalous to hear today as they were when Jesus first said them 2000 years ago. Jesus, of course, uses many metaphors when describing himself, among them: I am "The Son of Man," "The Light of the World," "The Way the Truth and the Life," “The Vine” and "The Door.”
But when Jesus said, “I am the Bread of Life," he was not just using another metaphor. He really meant what he said. To emphasize this, he repeats himself seven times, each time more emphatic than the last. Seven is the divine number: in the Bible, this number stands for perfection. Here are seven of the most scandalous phrases (from John chapter 6) that Jesus ever said:
“The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
"I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”
"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."
"Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me."
"Whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
When we receive communion at Mass, we are not receiving a metaphor, although it may be convenient to think so. If this really is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, then how great is the importance of what I am doing when I receive the Body and Blood of Christ! What does it mean to consume Jesus Christ? For one thing, it means that Jesus Christ, the maker of all things, who is on an order being far beyond anything we can imagine, is inviting us to his table as a friend, something unimaginable to us now. With what holiness should we receive him? Each time I receive communion, let me tell Jesus that I love him; let me tell Jesus I'm sorry for my sins; if I have a serious sin, let me go to confession first; and having received him, let me go out and allow him to change my world, beginning with my own heart.
Father Gary
He is the Son of Man; that's not metaphor.
""The Light of the World," "The Way the Truth and the Life," “The Vine” and "The Door.”
All refer to His concepts and values, which He came in person to teach.
"“I am the Bread of Life,"
Metaphor. It refers to the exact same concepts and values as the above metaphors refer to. See John 6:63 wherein God explains it.
"But when Jesus said, “I am the Bread of Life," he was not just using another metaphor. He really meant what he said. What does it mean to consume Jesus Christ? For one thing, it means that Jesus Christ, the maker of all things, who is on an order being far beyond anything we can imagine, is inviting us to his table as a friend, something unimaginable to us now."
That's just sad Father Gary.
With the same due respect, go back and reread the comment that mine was addressing. That is why I began mine with "the Jews...". But, yes, let's look at that passage in John 6 and see when and what Jesus had specifically said that caused many of his disciples to turn back. Beginning at John 6:53ff:
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)
So, it appears that the disciples found Jesus' words a "hard saying" -as any observant Jew WOULD have considering the ban on the drinking of blood - but they actually stuck around a bit more, didn't they? Jesus proceeds to tell them more. That, I propose is why they left following him. Many problems with interpretation can be avoided if we follow through on the thought being presented rather than stopping at a point and conjecturing. It should be patently obvious that Jesus did NOT rip off a piece of his flesh and have them pass it around nor did he drain a cup of his precious blood to be sipped at by those who stayed, but he said quite clearly that HE was the real, true Bread of Life and it HAD to be a spiritual connotation. It is the SPIRIT that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The blood that our Savior shed on the cross for our sins is the complete propitiation for sin. It is FOREVER perfecting those who are made holy through it - and it is received by faith, belief. That's what Peter said to Him, "We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God." not, "Hey, rip off some of that flesh so we can be saved!" I get the idea that Peter knew what Jesus meant.
The very elements that Catholics consume in the Eucharist are NOT literally changed - no matter how much protest and insistence is made that they are. They REMAIN and retain the same properties that they started out as and the only change is the spiritual perception of the ones partaking. If there is no "miracle" of these elements being visibly changed every time they are "consecrated", then why is a Catholic Eucharistic celebration any more holy or efficacious than that of another Christian group that observes the remembrance celebration? That is really the point. A Catholic who "receives" the communion wafer is no more sanctified than someone else who has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and participates in his own church's communion service, remembering the body and blood of Christ given for his salvation. I think there is a real problem with some Catholics who use this issue to convert and convince those who don't know what Scripture says and to make it an issue of "believe US or call Jesus a liar", really goes TOO far. Those who persist in provoking this argument are not doing it for the cause of love or unity in Christ.
I sincerely wish you peace, as well.
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.