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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Was the Denzinger tampered with?  (Read 3494 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46264
  • Reputation: +27216/-5037
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2020, 07:06:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #16 on: February 04, 2020, 10:01:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I read that in 1965 the Denzinger were updated to include canons that justified ecuмenism with the
    Protestants and non-Catholic sects inline with Vatican 2.   The canons that condemned ecuмenism were removed.
    Trouble is ecuмenism has always been condemned by the church and I would avoid like the plaque the 1965
    and newer versions of the Denzinger.
    Logged

    Offline Hermenegild

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 595
    • Reputation: +162/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #17 on: April 03, 2020, 10:21:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Yeti on February 04, 2020, 05:11:17 PM
    .
    Yes, thank you, I saw that. But I'm curious why it was omitted? And what does this proposition mean that the Church of the city of Rome cannot err? Then what is Vatican 2?
    Bumping this...
    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3763
    • Reputation: +2802/-257
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #18 on: April 04, 2020, 07:17:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • There is nothing new in churchmen altering the records when it suits them. How about this:  In the same Denzinger's The Sources of Catholic Dogma (400-1950) there are recorded in detail 35 decrees issued by the Holy Office from 1602 to 1949: 

    So, what was the Holy Office of 1616? Well in the wake of the Protestant rebellion, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) set up various congregations to assist the popes in their task of safeguarding the apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up in 1542. The function of this body was specifically to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith, to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines by way of the censorship of books etc., but most of all to combat heresy at the highest level.

    Now history records that in 1616, the same Holy Office issued decrees that defined a heresy, but these are not recorded among the 35. When did they disappear, in 1835 when they did a U-turn and hid the heresy because it was embarrising for them. There is, as the Bible says, nothing new under the sun that has not gone before.
    Logged

    Offline Papa Pius V

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 119
    • Reputation: +39/-129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #19 on: February 03, 2021, 06:04:47 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • The Denzinger was not tampered with. While the apostate modernist Karl Rahner edited some editions, the removal of 730 predates his editing of it.

    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." The old Denzinger and the more recent revisions all use the Bull of Sixtus IV as the source of the condemnation of Peter de Osma. This is the error of the old Denzinger which was corrected by later revisions. The old Denzinger attributed the condemnation of proposition VII to the Sixtus IV's Bull which in reality did not confirm the error of this proposition by the original assembly condemning Peter de Osma. Therefore it was rightfully removed from recent editions of the Denzinger for this reason because it cannot be attributed to Sixtus IV like the rest of the condemned propositions of Peter de Osma. 
    Logged

    Offline UrbanHermit

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 1
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #20 on: August 26, 2021, 07:24:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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
    • *****
    • Posts: 12464
    • Reputation: +8255/-1572
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #21 on: August 26, 2021, 12:22:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 971
    • Reputation: +401/-63
    • Gender: Male
    • Ollo vae
      • Patristics
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #22 on: August 26, 2021, 12:29:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged
    O Fortuna
    Velut luna

    Offline Hermes

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 971
    • Reputation: +401/-63
    • Gender: Male
    • Ollo vae
      • Patristics
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #23 on: August 26, 2021, 01:15:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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
    O Fortuna
    Velut luna

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14645
    • Reputation: +6032/-903
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #24 on: August 26, 2021, 02:13:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Carissima

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 782
    • Reputation: +569/-229
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #25 on: August 26, 2021, 02:50:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Possibly the Douay too. 

    http://realdouayrheims.com/
    Logged

    Offline Hermes

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 971
    • Reputation: +401/-63
    • Gender: Male
    • Ollo vae
      • Patristics
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #26 on: August 26, 2021, 04:53:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on August 26, 2021, 02:13:05 PM
    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

    God commands us to be just. Not all modernists are intellectually dishonest in so far as their analyses of history and objective reality are concerned.

    Rahner was a heretic, he died as such(as far as we know), and is now being severely judged; there is no doubt. Nonetheless he was a scholar and an academic. I have not seen anything in his writings, from a purely factual basis, that leads me to conclude that he actively suppressed or tampered with information in his editing or writing.
    Logged
    O Fortuna
    Velut luna

    Offline Hermes

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 971
    • Reputation: +401/-63
    • Gender: Male
    • Ollo vae
      • Patristics
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #27 on: August 26, 2021, 04:55:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Carissima on August 26, 2021, 02:50:57 PM
    Possibly the Douay too.

    http://realdouayrheims.com/

    Please don’t spread misinformation. There is nothing wrong with the Douay Rheims Bible revised by Bishop Challoner.

    https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm
    Logged
    O Fortuna
    Velut luna

    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1866
    • Reputation: +759/-1166
    • Gender: Male
    • sedem ablata
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #28 on: August 26, 2021, 05:06:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Hermes on August 26, 2021, 04:55:46 PM
    Please don’t spread misinformation. There is nothing wrong with the Douay Rheims Bible revised by Bishop Challoner.

    https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm

    Not defending realdouayrheims nor newadvent.org/cathen, but the latter doesn't debunk the critique of the former.

    Logged
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline Carissima

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 782
    • Reputation: +569/-229
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was the Denzinger tampered with?
    « Reply #29 on: August 26, 2021, 05:07:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Hermes on August 26, 2021, 04:55:46 PM
    Please don’t spread misinformation. There is nothing wrong with the Douay Rheims Bible revised by Bishop Challoner.

    https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm
    It is not misinformation I’ve known this for sometime. Do you have proof to the contrary? Have you even investigated this topic yet? 
    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
    « previous next »