Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10

Author Topic: Was the Denzinger tampered with?  (Read 4735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline UrbanHermit

Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2021, 07:24:27 AM »
Quote from: Papa Pius V on February 03, 2021, 06:04:47 PM
The reason why #730 was removed was due to the fact that the errors of Peter de Osma were first condemned by an assembly of Divines and Canon Lawyers convoked by the Archbishop of Toledo in 1479. One of the propositions of Peter de Osma that was condemned was "Ecclesia urbis Romae errare potest."

However Pope Sixtus IV in his Bull Licet Ea confirmed the decisions of the assembly while leaving out proposition VII "Ecclesia urbis Romae errare potest."
Very interesting, thank you for this. Do you by any chance have a source of this, or just perhaps can point me to where you read that Pope Sixtus IV confirmed the decision of the assembly but left out the said proposition?
Logged

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2021, 12:22:29 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 30, 2020, 06:56:17 PM
More on Rahner's involvement with the Denzinger (though this reviewer denies that Rahner did much modernizing): I am wondering if my memory is faulty, and the updating occurred after the 1957 Rahner editions?



"First published in 1854, "The Denzinger" has undergone numerous updates, revisions, and additions, and is an indispensable resource for the Catholic. You will see citations to it in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma[/font][/color],The Catechism of the Catholic Church[/font][/color], and a slew of other works that reference or detail the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Citations to The Denzinger from other works can be a bit tricky given the numerous editions but there are four main abbreviations used:

D - Denzinger, the versions edited by Denzinger himself from 1854
DB - Denzinger-Banwart, the editions updated by Clemens Banwart up to 1921
DR - Denzinger-Rahner, updated by Karl Rahner up to 1954 (there is a 1957 31st edition with corrigenda)
DS - Denzinger-Schonmetzer, updated by Adolph Schönmetzer up to 1965

The editions from 1957 and before (D, DB, DR) use one numbering scheme for its paragraphs, while post-1957 editions use a different one. Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma follows the first scheme, The CCC follows the second. The recently published Loreto 1954 edition has a concordance in the front that enables you to look up CCC citations in the 1954 edition. As far as I can determine, the last edition translated into English is the 1954 30th edition (updated in 1957 with corrections and released as the 31st edition); the latest revision, including the one referenced in the Catechism, is in Latin. Other recent editions are available in Spanish, French, and Italian.

Speaking of the 1954 edition (the 30th), which is the one most sellers seem to be offering and the subject of this review, the name Karl Rahner may have jumped off the page as the reviser. Yes, it's *that* Karl Rahner: one of the founders of the Nouvelle Théologie and a major force in Vatican II updating a work by a pioneer of Positive Theology. The involvement of Rahner on The Denzinger seems to have raised some question about whether he (Rahner) chose to include some docuмents that are not wholly representative of Church Teaching. The question is somewhat plausible - specifically because one or two entries left me scratching my head, and generally because it is acknowledged that not every docuмent ever written by a Pope or Council is considered by the Church to be de fide, "of the faith"; and, lastly, it's important that all teachings are placed in their proper context. So it's possible that someone could gather pieces and excerpts which support a particular agenda to the exclusion of others that might put the subject matter in a different light. In my humble, unlearned opinion, I don't think the criticism that there is widespread bias in Rahner's editing is valid."

Valuable. Thank you for that.

It is a side issue, but worth mentioning that archive.org is being censored. ***

*** https://www.cathinfo.com/computers-and-technology/archival-censorship/msg769831/?topicseen#msg769831z
Logged

Offline Hermes

Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2021, 12:29:50 PM »
Logged

Offline Hermes

Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2021, 01:15:59 PM »
An important matter to observe which hasn’t been discussed thus far is if the goal was to “tamper” with the Denzinger, who would be stupid enough to omit the number of the proposition condemned instead of just editing the numbering system altogether as to give the illusion that it never existed in the first place?

Going from #729 to #731 is obviously going to raise some eyebrows.

No, Rahner as much as he was a modernist still had intellectual honesty such as can be seen by his other works where he affirms (as an exercise of the historian) EENS historically as the Church taught it, confirms V2 being a departure from previous magisterium, etc.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2021, 02:13:05 PM »
Quote from: Hermes on August 26, 2021, 01:15:59 PM
An important matter to observe which hasn’t been discussed thus far is if the goal was to “tamper” with the Denzinger, who would be stupid enough to omit the number of the proposition condemned instead of just editing the numbering system altogether as to give the illusion that it never existed in the first place?

Going from #729 to #731 is obviously going to raise some eyebrows.

No, Rahner as much as he was a modernist still had intellectual honesty such as can be seen by his other works where he affirms (as an exercise of the historian) EENS historically as the Church taught it, confirms V2 being a departure from previous magisterium, etc.
The Modernist crooks don't care if anyone notices that they eliminated a proposition here and there. They do what they want and have done what they want since V2 - being in charge means that they answer only to each other. Anyone who wants to present any opposition is met with a complete non-acknowledgement of their existence, that's the method they've used to deal with nearly all oppositions since V2. Rahner was a crook too, what you think is intellectual honesty has diabolical motives.  

As Pope St. Pius X explains....

"Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance." - Pascendi

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
« previous next »