Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: fatimarevelation23 on May 23, 2020, 09:27:22 PM
-
I have heard about a movement very similar to the KJV Only movement in protestantism but it's Douay-Rheims Onlyism and I read that some traditionalists are this way where the Douay Rheims Bible is to them the best bible to read. I do know a lot about bad bible translations. But, my main question is why is this not a huge movement? Why is information on this movement scarce? And what advice can anyone give me on why the Douay-Rheims Bible is considered so important in traditionalist catholicism. I would love to hear because the Douay Rheims Bible is a beautiful bible and I would love to learn more about it and more about the Douay Rheims Onlyism movement while at the same time I am wondering why this isn't that big of a movement and if there is any more info I could gather.
(https://mariancatechist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Douay-RheimsBibleB1-500x500.jpg)
-
I have heard about a movement very similar to the KJV Only movement in protestantism but it's Douay-Rheims Onlyism ...But, my main question is why is this not a huge movement? Why is information on this movement scarce?
There's no such "movement", that is why it is not a "huge movement". New to tradition people have a lot to learn and the first advice given to them is basic, like use the St. Joseph Baltimore catechism written before the Novus Ordo, use the Douay-Rheims Bible, wear a Brown Scapular, do the rosary every day.....
That is all it is.
Now, my advise is not to just get any Douay-Rheims bible, but to get only one bible; The Haydock Douay-Rheims, which is a bible that is about 1/2 bible, 1/2 explanations of the bible by Church Fathers Doctors, Saints and trustworthy Catholic priests before modernism. If there was a movement, it should be to Haydock Douay-Rheims Onlyism.
-
Is the Douay-Rheims printed by St. Benedict Press and TAN books a Challoner revision?
-
There's no such "movement", that is why it is not a "huge movement". New to tradition people have a lot to learn and the first advice given to them is basic, like use the St. Joseph Baltimore catechism written before the Novus Ordo, use the Douay-Rheims Bible, wear a Brown Scapular, do the rosary every day.....
That is all it is.
Now, my advise is not to just get any Douay-Rheims bible, but to get only one bible; The Haydock Douay-Rheims, which is a bible that is about 1/2 bible, 1/2 explanations of the bible by Church Fathers Doctors, Saints and trustworthy Catholic priests before modernism. If there was a movement, it should be to Haydock Douay-Rheims Onlyism.
Link to the Haydock Bible (https://web.archive.org/web/20160422023253/http://haydock1859.tripod.com/) online.
-
Is the Douay-Rheims printed by St. Benedict Press and TAN books a Challoner revision?
Yes.
-
If you haven't read this book, you should. It shows the errors and inaccuracies of the other English translations, which totally spoil the original sense (meaning) of Scripture in certain key passages.
Douay-Rheims all the way.
"What Bible Should You Read" by Thomas A. Nelson.
-
I own two Catholic Bibles, but thinking about it, I think it is best if us laymen did not read Bibles. Sacred Scripture is too far above us and difficult to understand, especially the Old Testament. There should be books of approved stories from the Bible chosen by priests for the laity to read, and perhaps people could read selected parts of the Gospels and the Psalms. But the Bible is not for everyone. Just as the Mass is in Latin and difficult for the laymen to understand and is a mystery, so should the Bible be in a sacred language, difficult to understand and a mystery.
A layman reading the Bible is like a person staring at the sun. Only eagles can stare at the sun without going blind.
-
There's no such "movement", that is why it is not a "huge movement". New to tradition people have a lot to learn and the first advice given to them is basic, like use the St. Joseph Baltimore catechism written before the Novus Ordo, use the Douay-Rheims Bible, wear a Brown Scapular, do the rosary every day.....
That is all it is.
Now, my advise is not to just get any Douay-Rheims bible, but to get only one bible; The Haydock Douay-Rheims, which is a bible that is about 1/2 bible, 1/2 explanations of the bible by Church Fathers Doctors, Saints and trustworthy Catholic priests before modernism. If there was a movement, it should be to Haydock Douay-Rheims Onlyism.
Alright awesome. I don't own a Haydock Douay-Rheims Bible. I will have to read into that! I saw online that Haydock had some of the best commentaries on the bible.
-
Link to the Haydock Bible (https://web.archive.org/web/20160422023253/http://haydock1859.tripod.com/) online.
Thank you!
-
If you haven't read this book, you should. It shows the errors and inaccuracies of the other English translations, which totally spoil the original sense (meaning) of Scripture in certain key passages.
Douay-Rheims all the way.
"What Bible Should You Read" by Thomas A. Nelson.
Thank you Matthew. I have never heard of this book. I will read that book. I love to read stuff like this.
-
The Haydock and Challoner revisions are great, but the ORIGINAL Douay Rheims Bible which preceded them is in a class by itself.
It is hard to come by, but someone was selling the original 3-vol set last week in a thread called “Thinning Out My Library.”
It contains a publisher’s introduction listing all the differences compared to the Challoner and Haydock revisions which came hundreds of years later.
The original contains annotated margin notes and end notes, and they are particularly brutal against the Protestant heresies (which this Bible was intended to combat).
The only drawback is that to the modern reader, the old English spellings and alphabet take a bit of getting used to, and the typeset can be light in places, but it is the prototype and original DEFINITIVE Douay Rheims Bible, and all other versions are later modifications of it (some say better, some say worse).
-
The Haydock and Challoner revisions are great, but the ORIGINAL Douay Rheims Bible which preceded them is in a class by itself.
It is hard to come by, but someone was selling the original 3-vol set last week in a thread called “Thinning Out My Library.”
It contains a publisher’s introduction listing all the differences compared to the Challoner and Haydock revisions which came hundreds of years later.
The original contains annotated margin notes and end notes, and they are particularly brutal against the Protestant heresies (which this Bible was intended to combat).
The only drawback is that to the modern reader, the old English spellings and alphabet take a bit of getting used to, and the typeset can be light in places, but it is the prototype and original DEFINITIVE Douay Rheims Bible, and all other versions are later modifications of it (some say better, some say worse).
I suppose I should have mentioned that this is the only authentic Douay Rheims Bible (every other Bible calling itself the Douay Rheims is but an approximation of it).
Per the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Although the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52 . . .
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 verse remains as it was originally published.' In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version [King James]. . ."
See the full CE article to explain more, which is brief, but very interesting: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm)
-
Thanks for the information Sean. Here is a link to the 1610 DR bible online:
https://archive.org/details/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/page/n5/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/page/n5/mode/2up)
-
Here is the Haydock bible:
https://archive.org/details/hallfamilybible1883hall/page/n47/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/hallfamilybible1883hall/page/n47/mode/2up)
-
I own two Catholic Bibles, but thinking about it, I think it is best if us laymen did not read Bibles. Sacred Scripture is too far above us and difficult to understand, especially the Old Testament. There should be books of approved stories from the Bible chosen by priests for the laity to read, and perhaps people could read selected parts of the Gospels and the Psalms.
Very well said Dr. Matto, that is why I have a Haydock DR bible, it is 50% scripture and 50% explanations by the Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, good priests. I do not think I have ever read much more that a 1/2 page of scripture from a regular bible, it just goes in one ear and out the other. Why ponder about scripture when I have Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, good priests to explain it to me in the Haydock DR bible?
-
Very well said Dr. Matto, that is why I have a Haydock DR bible, it is 50% scripture and 50% explanations by the Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, good priests. I do not think I have ever read much more that a 1/2 page of scripture from a regular bible, it just goes in one ear and out the other. Why ponder about scripture when I have Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, good priests to explain it to me in the Haydock DR bible?
https://www.amazon.com/Haydock-Douay-Rheims-Catholic-Bible-George/dp/1622920589 (https://www.amazon.com/Haydock-Douay-Rheims-Catholic-Bible-George/dp/1622920589)
I want to buy one of these so bad! Could anyone find me one though that is cheaper?
-
Well, it's more by a process of elimination that DR remains. So many of the other English translations have errors in them (many of which also imply theological errors).
I like parts of the Knox Bible.
My big issue with Douay Rheims is the archaic language and complex sentence structure ... by today's standards anyway. That's just because it's so old. This makes it difficult for younger children to read and understand. If you look at the Latin (and original Greek) of the New Testament, it's very simple Greek, with simple syntax and vocabulary. St. Jerome maintained this same spirit with the Vulgate rendering. Our Lord taught in a very simple manner. He never taught like St. Paul tried once at the Athenian agora to produce a great work of oratory (like a Cicero or Demosthenes). Of course, Our Lord COULD have made these great orators look like idiots if He had chosen to. While other priests in his day liked to spin eloquent oratory, St. John Vianney spoke very simply and would bring the entire congregation to tears by the end of each sermon.
I had at one point begun my own English translation that would be accessible to children, but I did not make much progress before I realized that I would not have the time to complete it before my own children were fully grown :laugh1:.
I do believe that the Douay-Rheims could use a little bit of updating in general, even for adults ... but it has to be done by someone with the Catholic faith.
-
Well, it's more by a process of elimination that DR remains. So many of the other English translations have errors in them (many of which also imply theological errors).
I like parts of the Knox Bible.
My big issue with Douay Rheims is the archaic language and complex sentence structure ... by today's standards anyway. That's just because it's so old. This makes it difficult for younger children to read and understand. If you look at the Latin (and original Greek) of the New Testament, it's very simple Greek, with simple syntax and vocabulary. St. Jerome maintained this same spirit with the Vulgate rendering. Our Lord taught in a very simple manner. He never taught like St. Paul tried once at the Athenian agora to produce a great work of oratory (like a Cicero or Demosthenes). Of course, Our Lord COULD have made these great orators look like idiots if He had chosen to. While other priests in his day liked to spin eloquent oratory, St. John Vianney spoke very simply and would bring the entire congregation to tears by the end of each sermon.
I had at one point begun my own English translation that would be accessible to children, but I did not make much progress before I realized that I would not have the time to complete it before my own children were fully grown :laugh1:.
I do believe that the Douay-Rheims could use a little bit of updating in general, even for adults ... but it has to be done by someone with the Catholic faith.
What languages are you fluent or proficient in again (written, not spoken)?
-
What languages are you fluent or proficient in again (written, not spoken)?
Ancient Greek (written only), Latin (mostly written, but some spoken ... though it's been a while), Hungarian, and of course English.
I used to be able to read German, French, Spanish, and Italian just at a grade-school level (and cobble together a few spoken sentences) ... but it's been over 20 years since I last used those, so I'd be just hacking through it at this point. Latin actually made Italian, Spanish, and (to a lesser extent) French pretty easy to pick up. German was its own animal. I also took a couple semesters of Biblical Hebrew (with Father Mitch Pacwa at Loyola U. Chicago) and could read the Hebrew Old Testament armed with a dictionary, but that's extremely rusty now ... and I'd have to re-learn this.
-
Now, my advise is not to just get any Douay-Rheims bible, but to get only one bible; The Haydock Douay-Rheims, which is a bible that is about 1/2 bible, 1/2 explanations of the bible by Church Fathers Doctors, Saints and trustworthy Catholic priests before modernism. If there was a movement, it should be to Haydock Douay-Rheims Onlyism.
Thank you. Will do.
-
Very well said Dr. Matto, that is why I have a Haydock DR bible, it is 50% scripture and 50% explanations by the Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, good priests. I do not think I have ever read much more that a 1/2 page of scripture from a regular bible, it just goes in one ear and out the other. Why ponder about scripture when I have Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, good priests to explain it to me in the Haydock DR bible?
Yes, for me, the Haydock Bible is the best of them all, and having read it cover to cover only one time a long time ago, I disagree with Matto and recommend undertaking a reading of it in it's entirety, at least one time.
Fr. Wathen gave an excellent sermon on this subject; The Bible and the Missa (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfkzfkkjsjb2f8t/The-Bible-And-The-Missal-207%2010%2013%2085.mp3?dl=0)l, which I found enlightening.
-
Fr. Wathen gave an excellent sermon on this subject; The Bible and the Missa (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfkzfkkjsjb2f8t/The-Bible-And-The-Missal-207%2010%2013%2085.mp3?dl=0)l, which I found enlightening.
That was a great sermon. I loved it!
-
I have read many of the Bibles to me the Douay Rheims is the most accurate with an explanation the bottom. Mother of Our Savior also sells Douay Rheims Bibles. A great read is Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Providentissimus Deus On Sacred Scripture. If you want a printed copy go to the Catholic Research Institute. Many of the Encyclicals have been changed by the Vatican to Modern versions extremely distorted.
-
And what advice can anyone give me on why the Douay-Rheims Bible is considered so important in traditionalist catholicism.
The main thing that makes the D-R Bible important is its fidelity to the Latin Vulgate. This was one its deliberate translation principles. The Vulgate was explicitly mentioned at the Council of Trent (session IV):
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
More recent Bible translations are based on secular translation principles. These, unlike fidelity to the Vulgate, do nothing to prevent translations that promote theological errors.
I am not a Douay-Rheims onlyist. I sometimes use a more readable translation (New International version, Catholic, 2nd edition) for casual reading. But for studying or more in-depth reading, I recommend the D-R, especially for people who don't read Latin and can't use the Vulgate directly.
-
If I could only have one Bible, I would choose the D-R (Knox would be second, as it also follows the Vulgate, in most cases). But I would prefer to use the D-R as my principal Bible and reference other translations to shed additional light on certain verses. One must understand that ANY translation reflects, to some degree, the mind and choices of the translator. And with translations from ancient languages into modern languages, that problem is magnified significantly.
Ideally, one would learn Ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek and Ecclesiastical Latin to some degree. Even a rudimentary introduction to those languages would serve to humble you and help you to understand that the meanings of many Biblical words and phrases are intentionally manifold, metaphorical, analogical, allegorical, and not simply literal. I recommend a website like Biblehub.com to seek additional information on the Hebrew and Greek words used in some passages, to understand the range of meanings that they contain.
For me the D-R is the best Bible not necessarily because of the "translation" but rather because the Vulgate is a more reliable ancient source for the base texts. I will give one example from the Book of Tobias, Chapter 6.
Here is the D-R version (which uses the Vulgate as its source):
14 Then Tobias answered, and said: I hear that she hath been given to seven husbands, and they all died: moreover I have heard, that a devil killed them. 15 Now I am afraid, lest the same thing should happen to me also: and whereas I am the only child of my parents, I should bring down their old age with sorrow to hell. 16 Then the angel Raphael said to him: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. 17 For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power. 18 But thou when thou shalt take her, go into the chamber, and for three days keep thyself continent from her, and give thyself to nothing else but to prayers with her. 19 And on that night lay the liver of the fish on the fire, and the devil shall be driven away. 20 But the second night thou shalt be admitted into the society of the holy Patriarchs. 21 And the third night thou shalt obtain a blessing that sound children may be born of you. 22 And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.
Here is "the same" passage from the "Catholic" New American Bible (which uses questionable sources):
14 But Tobiah said to Raphael in reply, “Brother Azariah, I have heard that she has already been given in marriage to seven husbands, and that they have died in the bridal chamber. On the very night they approached her, they would die. I have also heard it said that it was a demon that killed them. 15 So now I too am afraid of this demon, because it is in love with her and does not harm her; but it kills any man who wishes to come close to her. I am my father’s only child. If I should die, I would bring the life of my father and mother down to their grave in sorrow over me; they have no other son to bury them!” 16 Raphael said to him: “Do you not remember your father’s commands? He ordered you to marry a woman from your own ancestral family. Now listen to me, brother; do not worry about that demon. Take Sarah. I know that tonight she will be given to you as your wife! 17 When you go into the bridal chamber, take some of the fish’s liver and the heart, and place them on the embers intended for incense, and an odor will be given off. 18 As soon as the demon smells the odor, it will flee and never again show itself near her. Then when you are about to have intercourse with her, both of you must first get up to pray. Beg the Lord of heaven that mercy and protection be granted you. Do not be afraid, for she was set apart for you before the world existed. You will save her, and she will go with you. And I assume that you will have children by her, and they will be like brothers for you. So do not worry.” When Tobiah heard Raphael’s words that she was his kinswoman, and of the lineage of his ancestral house, he loved her deeply, and his heart was truly set on her.
Which of these two passages sound more like traditional Catholic teaching about lust? The Vulgate source clearly shows that lust and impatience in sɛҳuąƖ matters can cause harm. The NAB sources tell you to perform a few superstitious rituals and say a few empty prayers. With the Vulgate, the demon is internal, inside the spiritual battlefield of the person's soul. With the NAB, the demon is something external, outside of the people mysteriously causing death. The Vulgate source contains practical advice regarding continence, fasting, and prayer. The NAB sources create a silly fairy-tale of no practical use.
-
Which of these two passages sound more like traditional Catholic teaching about lust? The Vulgate source clearly shows that lust and impatience in sɛҳuąƖ matters can cause harm. The NAB sources tell you to perform a few superstitious rituals and say a few empty prayers. With the Vulgate, the demon is internal, inside the spiritual battlefield of the person's soul. With the NAB, the demon is something external, outside of the people mysteriously causing death. The Vulgate source contains practical advice regarding continence, fasting, and prayer. The NAB sources create a silly fairy-tale of no practical use.
The NAB is a scary bible. I was forced to read it at the catholic school I attended years ago. This bible was translated by Catholic scholars collaborating with other christian denominations. It is ecuмenical trash. How? Because the Episcopal Church approves the NAB. The Episcopal Church also has ordained women priests and bishops since 1974. They allowed gαys to be ordained in 1994 paving the way for their first gαy bishop to be ordained in 2003 and by 2009, they passed a resolution saying that anybody and anyone no matter what their sɛҳuąƖ orientation or gender identity is can be a priest or bishop. They have also been marrying gαy people since 2015 and expanded that rule to all dioceses of the Episcopal Church in 2018. They also support a woman's right to kill her baby.
As for the NAB Bible, in 1991, The Book of Psalms in the NAB was amended to incorporate "gender-neutral language". It was so bad that the Holy See rejected it for liturgical use. It even got revised a hundred times after that. But, the Holy See and the Ad Hoc Committee had issues with it. It wasn't until 2011 when anyone came to an agreement of a revision of this bible whether it be the first, second, third, fourth, or any other version of this bible. There is a reason to this day why there have been no plans to put this bible in lectionaries in America. The NAB is so dumbed down and watered down. It is not accurate to the greek or hebrew. A lot of the footnotes suck and some are even considered toxic. It questions the authenticity of books in it's introduction. It questions a lot. It doubts a lot too. It has even rejected St. Peter as the author of 2nd Peter before. It's not the worst bible translation ever made. But, it sure is politically correct garbage. Please read the Douay-Rheims Bible. Like I said earlier, The NAB bible is ecuмenical trash.
-
As for the NAB Bible, in 1991, The Book of Psalms in the NAB was amended to incorporate "gender-neutral language".
The use of "gender-neutral language" is essentially evil. It is a deliberate imposition of leftist ideology on the Word of God. Even for casual reading, I wouldn't touch any translation that uses it. This is why I specified using the 2nd Catholic edition of the NIV, because other editions may have "gender-neutral language." It is obviously an advantage of the D-R that it does not contain any of this nonsense and was made even before anyone could even imagine such foolishness.