Neil Obstat
Reputation: 3281
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 3,857
|
| Marlelar said: | A couple of posts mentioned changes to the NT, I haven't heard about these revisions, could someone please update me?
Mar |
I saw that too, but I'm not exactly sure what it's referring to. However, there have
been a whole series of tinkerings going on with the Scriptures.
Our most reliable reference point is the Latin Vulgate. It was the only version of
Scripture in existence for Roman Catholics from the 5th century through Trent
(where it was dubbed "error free,") and up to Pope Pius XII. A lot of Catholics think of
Pope Pius XII as "squeaky clean," but there are several marks against him. I would
not include his treatment of the Jews as a mark against him. But he did allow the
revision of the Psalms, with the excuse of reforming the Breviary, or Divine Office.
I would say that was a bad thing. Not so much in what it did to the Psalms, but in
what it did to Tradition. The Psalms should not be touched. Period. He did other
things that are marks against him, like he hired Annibale Bugnini to a position of
authority where he could change the liturgy. He also tampered with the prayers of
Holy Week and Good Friday, which were the most ancient rites in the Roman Rite.
Then he allowed the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass. There's nothing
wrong with St. Joseph, but there's a lot wrong with touching the Canon of the
Canonized Roman Rite. It should never be changed, in any way whatsoever. Adding
St. Joseph to the Canon was a "trial baloon" to see if they could get away with it. If
Catholics the world over had protested, they would have been forced to remove
St. Joseph, and then we would not have had the "progress" that kept coming after
that.
But regarding the New Testament, There has been a revised Latin Vulgate in use in
the Vatican and various other parts of the Roman Church for the past 15 years, give
or take: it's called the New Vulgate. At least they were honest enough to put the
word "New" in the title!
All throughout these past few centuries, the most reliable English translation of the
Latin Vulgate has been the Douay-Rheims version. It has a few minor
inconveniences, like "shew" in place of "show" (the pronunciation and meaning is
identical but the spelling changed in the 19th century), and some other verb
conjugations, mostly involving the second person familiar case, like hath, givest,
doth, comest, saith (pronounced "SETH" not "say-eth"), and pronouns like thee,
thou, thine, thy, and so on. But we ought to realize that these special nuances of
the older style of English gives a more accurate sense of the Latin, and helps us
to preserve the sacred sense of Scripture. It is only our pride and our Modernist
inclination that prefers not to "offend our ear" by having to bother with a slightly
different dialect.
However, all that being said, it would not surprise me one iota, if there is
something in the works to render an even more "modern" translation of Scripture.
For the Modernists, it's always change. Change itself is a virtue, to them. A thing
only has "life" if it is moving to them, like when you kick a body lying on the
ground to see if it's alive. If it MOVES, like blinks or twitches or flinches, then it
has life. If it does not move, then it has no life. This stupid principle is transferred
by them in their synthesis of heresies, to the "life of the Church," by which
standard they proclaim that the Church only has life if the Church is changing. And
using this lie, this deception, this intellectual heresy and theological GARBAGE,
they say that Scripture is only alive and "meaningful," if it is changing. Thus they
endeavor to change it.
To that, I answer, we need no more than the words of Jesus, Our Lord Himself,
when He speaks of this very thing, saying: "Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away" (Mk xiii. 31).
|
|
| Posted Jul 15, 2012, 11:44 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
