Author Topic: Any Definitive Traditional Catholic Bibles? (Read 3175 times)

fast777 · « **on:** March 02, 2014, 11:48:32 AM »

back in 2003 I was looking for a modern copy of the Douay Rheims 1582 Bible that had been retyped in a readable font that was complete with all annotations & notes.

Now the only 2 bibles that I find interesting is the Dr. Von Peters retype. Is this the only option?

I have purchased the Dumbarton Oaks Latin Vulgate that is very nice,but they used the Challoner edition for the english translation. Although St. Jerome's vulgate in latin is on the opposite page,which is very good.

With hundreds of bibles printed and available I find it odd that there seems to be little interest in making a faithful reproduction of the 1582 DR Bible.

p.s. The Knox,Haydock and Challoner do not cut the mustard with me.

soulguard · « **Reply #1 on:** March 02, 2014, 12:31:49 PM »

I proudly use the Douay Rheims printed by St Benedict press. It is complete with footnotes which are 100% orthodox.

AgnesRoma · « **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2014, 12:59:31 PM »

one Bible we like are Navarre Bible, it has good commentary.
for example , there are verse protestant people tell us , not to judge.
but, OUR Catholic bible explain it very well, what it is.

Navarre example copy page link
1st-Corinthians-chap-6--verse-1-9----Navarre.png

other good commentary bible is Ignatius ( same chapter and verse in Ignatius)
1st-Corinthians-chap-6--verse-1-9---Ignatius

LoverOfTradition · « **Reply #3 on:** March 02, 2014, 01:10:33 PM »

Quote from: soulguard

I proudly use the Douay Rheims printed by St Benedict press. It is complete with footnotes which are 100% orthodox.

So do I. I believe the Douay Rheims is the Bible every traditional Catholic should use.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** March 02, 2014, 01:10:46 PM »

Quote from: fast777

back in 2003 I was looking for a modern copy of the Douay Rheims 1582 Bible that had been retyped in a readable font that was complete with all annotations & notes.

Now the only 2 bibles that I find interesting is the Dr. Von Peters retype. Is this the only option?

I have purchased the Dumbarton Oaks Latin Vulgate that is very nice,but they used the Challoner edition for the english translation. Although St. Jerome's vulgate in latin is on the opposite page,which is very good.

With hundreds of bibles printed and available I find it odd that there seems to be little interest in making a faithful reproduction of the 1582 DR Bible.

p.s. The Knox,Haydock and Challoner do not cut the mustard with me.

I know you have to be more "trad" than 99% of trads, but the Douay-Rheims (Challoner) should cut the mustard. It's a faithful, literal translation of the vulgate.

I know, you're smarter/holier/more educated than Bishop Challoner. You're not just trad, you're SUPER-trad.

Sorry to pick on you, but this kind of stuff really annoys me about some trads.

A little (but sincere) prayer to end this post:

"O God, please end this crisis soon, before we end up with as many sects are we have Traditional Catholics. Kyrie Eleison!"

fast777 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 02, 2014, 01:26:02 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: fast777
back in 2003 I was looking for a modern copy of the Douay Rheims 1582 Bible that had been retyped in a readable font that was complete with all annotations & notes.

Now the only 2 bibles that I find interesting is the Dr. Von Peters retype. Is this the only option?

I have purchased the Dumbarton Oaks Latin Vulgate that is very nice,but they used the Challoner edition for the english translation. Although St. Jerome's vulgate in latin is on the opposite page,which is very good.

With hundreds of bibles printed and available I find it odd that there seems to be little interest in making a faithful reproduction of the 1582 DR Bible.

p.s. The Knox,Haydock and Challoner do not cut the mustard with me.

I know you have to be more "trad" than 99% of trads, but the Douay-Rheims (Challoner) should cut the mustard. It's a faithful, literal translation of the vulgate.

I know, you're smarter/holier/more educated than Bishop Challoner. You're not just trad, you're SUPER-trad.

Sorry to pick on you, but this kind of stuff really annoys me about some trads.

A little (but sincere) prayer to end this post:

"O God, please end this crisis soon, before we end up with as many sects are we have Traditional Catholics. Kyrie Eleison!"

With all do respect Matthew....the reason I want the Bible to include all the original notes and annotations is because these were done by the great doctors of the Church and pointed out all the heresies by then Luther and the Protestants of the time.

Does it matter that one word has been substituted for another? Not really...but when "Christ" has been replaced with "annoited" that bugs me. If you think I deserve your scolding so be it.....I could care less.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** March 02, 2014, 01:57:05 PM »

Here's the thread where this was discussed before:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=3361&min=10&num=5

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** March 02, 2014, 01:59:47 PM »

Quote from: fast777

With all do respect Matthew....the reason I want the Bible to include all the original notes and annotations is because these were done by the great doctors of the Church and pointed out all the heresies by then Luther and the Protestants of the time.

Does it matter that one word has been substituted for another? Not really...but when "Christ" has been replaced with "annoited" that bugs me. If you think I deserve your scolding so be it.....I could care less.

With all "do" respect, I think you need to learn a bit more before you form a strong opinion about something.

The commentary by the Doctors of the Church against protestantism, etc. that you speak of is equally in the Challoner revision.

And Christus means precisely "annointed".

Incidentally, what passages are you talking about? I'm familiar with Scripture (having read the entire book a few times). The word "Christ" comes up quite a few times.

http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=christ&b=drb

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Anyhow, here is what I think of it:

Quote from: Matthew a few years ago

Regarding the original Douay-Rheims version vs. the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims --
(This is partially aimed at Gladius, who contributed to this thread a few years ago)

I just looked in my Douay-Rheims (TAN edition from the 80's/90's), and right there on the front page is an approbation from His Eminence James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. Dated September 1, 1899.

For those who do not know, he was a valid Cardinal of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. He probably knew more about Scripture, Latin, Greek, Theology, Philosophy, etc. than anyone who has graced CathInfo. Yes, that includes Gladius, Matthew and Raoul.

(The TAN edition is a photo-reproduction of this version)

So it would seem that the true Catholic Church approves of the Challoner version. Indeed, it is a most excellent Bible to nourish the Faith of Catholics, providing them with a good, faithful translation of sacred Scripture.

If it's good enough for the (pre-Vatican II) Catholic Church founded by Christ and preserved by the Holy Ghost, it's good enough for me. Who am I to say, "I don't know...do you have anything better?"

Roma Locuta est. Causa Finita est.

"Rome has spoken; the case is closed."

Anyone who says otherwise is a purist and/or elitist who wants to be stuck up and feel superior about their choice of Scripture translation. In almost every category of life, you have a few individuals who wish to sit atop the pyramid, looking down at practically everyone. The Mass, Scripture, approval of Catholic priests, devotions, lifestyle, you name it.

fast777 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 02, 2014, 02:28:41 PM »

I titled this thread.....

Any Definitive Traditional Catholic Bibles?

de·fin·i·tive adjective di-ˈfi-nə-tiv

: not able to be argued about or changed : final and settled

: complete, accurate, and considered to be the best of its kind

I'll be charitable and say we disagree.

Sigismund · « **Reply #9 on:** March 02, 2014, 09:28:15 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: fast777
back in 2003 I was looking for a modern copy of the Douay Rheims 1582 Bible that had been retyped in a readable font that was complete with all annotations & notes.

Now the only 2 bibles that I find interesting is the Dr. Von Peters retype. Is this the only option?

I have purchased the Dumbarton Oaks Latin Vulgate that is very nice,but they used the Challoner edition for the english translation. Although St. Jerome's vulgate in latin is on the opposite page,which is very good.

With hundreds of bibles printed and available I find it odd that there seems to be little interest in making a faithful reproduction of the 1582 DR Bible.

p.s. The Knox,Haydock and Challoner do not cut the mustard with me.

I know you have to be more "trad" than 99% of trads, but the Douay-Rheims (Challoner) should cut the mustard. It's a faithful, literal translation of the vulgate.

I know, you're smarter/holier/more educated than Bishop Challoner. You're not just trad, you're SUPER-trad.

Sorry to pick on you, but this kind of stuff really annoys me about some trads.

A little (but sincere) prayer to end this post:

"O God, please end this crisis soon, before we end up with as many sects are we have Traditional Catholics. Kyrie Eleison!"

I am sorry, but if the Haydock is not acceptable to you, then the problem is definitely with you. You are one arrogant dude. Or really ignorant. Or both. They are hardly mutually exclusive, after all.

Lighthouse · « **Reply #10 on:** March 02, 2014, 09:39:12 PM »

Quote

With all "do" respect, I think you need to learn a bit more before you form a strong opinion about something.

Not only that. He "could care less" so he apparently retains some modicuм
of concern.

I'm always surprised when a person challenged by his own language is an expert in others.

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** March 02, 2014, 11:17:26 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: fast777
back in 2003 I was looking for a modern copy of the Douay Rheims 1582 Bible that had been retyped in a readable font that was complete with all annotations & notes.

Now the only 2 bibles that I find interesting is the Dr. Von Peters retype. Is this the only option?

I have purchased the Dumbarton Oaks Latin Vulgate that is very nice,but they used the Challoner edition for the english translation. Although St. Jerome's vulgate in latin is on the opposite page,which is very good.

With hundreds of bibles printed and available I find it odd that there seems to be little interest in making a faithful reproduction of the 1582 DR Bible.

p.s. The Knox,Haydock and Challoner do not cut the mustard with me.

I know you have to be more "trad" than 99% of trads, but the Douay-Rheims (Challoner) should cut the mustard. It's a faithful, literal translation of the vulgate.

I know, you're smarter/holier/more educated than Bishop Challoner. You're not just trad, you're SUPER-trad.

Sorry to pick on you, but this kind of stuff really annoys me about some trads.

A little (but sincere) prayer to end this post:

"O God, please end this crisis soon, before we end up with as many sects are we have Traditional Catholics. Kyrie Eleison!"

I am sorry, but if the Haydock is not acceptable to you, then the problem is definitely with you. You are one arrogant dude. Or really ignorant. Or both. They are hardly mutually exclusive, after all.

The way you quoted this, it looks like you're talking to me.

You are probably talking to fast777.

I have nothing against the Haydock -- it's the Douay Rheims (Challoner) with even more good Catholic commentary. I have one myself.

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2014, 11:24:25 PM »

Quote from: fast777

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/douayrheims.html

Quote

"Then Moses sung," for "Then sang Moses." For "song," "canticle;"
...
for "fill the appetite," "satisfy the appetite;" for the inverted sentence "his blood will I require," "I will require his blood."

Um...nitpicking much?

Canticle is just a Latin-derived word for "song".

Yeah, I know, that Challoner was practically starting a new religion by changing phrases like "Then sang Moses" to "Then Moses sung".

The heresy just oozes out of every verse. Burn that heretical trash. I want and need the real Scriptures to nourish my soul!

:rolleyes:

(In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. Nitpicking like this just BEGS for such sarcasm.)

The devil is certainly having a field day dividing Trads over the silliest of things.

Here's what I want to know -- those of you that "prefer" the 1500's Douay Rheims -- what do you think of the Challoner revision, or those who use it? Do you consider it to be part of the blur of Scripture "interpretations" or unfaithful translations of Scripture like the RSV, NAB, etc.?

If so, you demonstrate your sectarian nature and leanings.

Anyhow, long story short I DO know Latin and I can tell you the Challoner revision of D-R is as good as it gets. It doesn't get any better, unless you want to learn Latin and read the Vulgate yourself. I suppose that's always the best choice.

I'd be willing to bet that most (but not all) of the "elite" that stick with the 1500's D-R don't even know much Latin. They just like being elite.

Preferring that version is one thing. Grumbling about or casting slurs on the Challoner revision is another.

Sigismund · « **Reply #13 on:** March 03, 2014, 07:10:28 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: fast777
back in 2003 I was looking for a modern copy of the Douay Rheims 1582 Bible that had been retyped in a readable font that was complete with all annotations & notes.

Now the only 2 bibles that I find interesting is the Dr. Von Peters retype. Is this the only option?

I have purchased the Dumbarton Oaks Latin Vulgate that is very nice,but they used the Challoner edition for the english translation. Although St. Jerome's vulgate in latin is on the opposite page,which is very good.

With hundreds of bibles printed and available I find it odd that there seems to be little interest in making a faithful reproduction of the 1582 DR Bible.

p.s. The Knox,Haydock and Challoner do not cut the mustard with me.

I know you have to be more "trad" than 99% of trads, but the Douay-Rheims (Challoner) should cut the mustard. It's a faithful, literal translation of the vulgate.

I know, you're smarter/holier/more educated than Bishop Challoner. You're not just trad, you're SUPER-trad.

Sorry to pick on you, but this kind of stuff really annoys me about some trads.

A little (but sincere) prayer to end this post:

"O God, please end this crisis soon, before we end up with as many sects are we have Traditional Catholics. Kyrie Eleison!"

I am sorry, but if the Haydock is not acceptable to you, then the problem is definitely with you. You are one arrogant dude. Or really ignorant. Or both. They are hardly mutually exclusive, after all.

The way you quoted this, it looks like you're talking to me.

You are probably talking to fast777.

I have nothing against the Haydock -- it's the Douay Rheims (Challoner) with even more good Catholic commentary. I have one myself.

Indeed I was talking to fast777. I am very sorry it appeared otherwise. It appears that we completely agree on this issue.

PG · « **Reply #14 on:** March 03, 2014, 10:40:38 PM »

Fast777 - you are not alone. I want to re-visit why Mike Hoffman attacks the challoner vulgate translation that I use. I like it and use it, but I am interested and open to this topic.

Mike Hoffman sells the original one I think you are interested in with an old school english translation, but it is expensive, and I think that he is out of stock.

revisionisthistory.com is his site.