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] 5

Author Topic: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete  (Read 6560 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smedley Butler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1334
  • Reputation: +551/-1531
  • Gender: Male
Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
« Reply #45 on: September 19, 2018, 12:38:14 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
    • Why would any Catholic on this board object to their fellow Catholics preferring to use the version of the Douay-Rheims that existed prior to the Protestant Revolt?


    The secular gov suppressed and prosecuted ownership of that Bible for 200 years.


    If you like the old Mass, why would you dislike the old Bible?


    Logged

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #46 on: September 19, 2018, 12:44:09 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Also, IMO the Crisis of Modernism in the Church began with Galileo.

    All the errors since flow from that. 
    Logged

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #47 on: September 19, 2018, 12:59:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on September 19, 2018, 10:39:58 AM
    First of all, the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church approved the Challoner version. Case closed.

    Exactly. There are around 2 centuries worth of popes and bishops telling us that it can be used "without fear or scruple".  What sort of people try to create scruples in the face of that?

    Quote from: Matthew on September 19, 2018, 10:39:58 AM
    Besides, the Challoner revision is slavishly accurate to the original Latin Vulgate. How many of you can argue with me on that? You first have to know Latin.

    This fact bears repeating.  While it is possible to find scholars and experts making critical comments about the Challoner, nobody questions its faithfulness to the Vulgate.  As far as I'm concerned, this faithfulness is the reason for using it in the first place.  I would not expect a normal Catholic layperson to be affected by these scholarly issues.  

    All translations are imperfect from a scholarly perspective, including the Vulgate itself.  That is the nature of translation.  While Cardinal Newman made some negative comments about the Challoner, look at what he said about the original D-R:

    We now come to review the labours of Dr. Challoner, Vicar-Apostolic of the London district, in the middle of last century.

    Before that time the need of a revision of the Rheims and Douay version had been felt and acknowledged. During the greater part of the seventeenth century, indeed, from 1635 till the first years of the eighteenth, the inconvenience was borne of necessity; for no reprint was, during that long time, called for; but when, at length, the old edition was exhausted and a new one required, then the latent dissatisfaction of Catholics with {411} the existing version showed itself, for two translations of the New Testament successively appeared in rivalry of the Rheims, and as substitutes for it. The former of these new translations was that of Dr. Cornelius Nary, in the year 1718; the latter, that of Dr. Witham of Douay. Of these two translators, Dr. Nary was parish-priest of St. Michan's, Dublin; and the version which he published had the approbation of four Irish divines, of Paris and of Dublin. The translator observes of "the Douay Bible and the Rheims Testament," that the "language is so old, the words so obsolete, the orthography so bad, and the translation so literal, that in a number of places it is unintelligible, and all over so grating to the ears of such as are accustomed to speak, in a manner, another language, that most people will not be at the pains of reading them."

    The whole point of reading an English translation of Scripture is to be able to understand it.  The Challoner revision is far superior to the original D-R for this purpose.  The original is of some historical interest, but it is neither more Catholic nor more accurate than the Challoner.  There is absolutely no good reason to suggest that it is a better translation.
    Logged

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #48 on: September 19, 2018, 01:08:08 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Smedley Butler on September 19, 2018, 12:38:14 PM
    Why would any Catholic on this board object to their fellow Catholics preferring to use the version of the Douay-Rheims that existed prior to the Protestant Revolt?


    The secular gov suppressed and prosecuted ownership of that Bible for 200 years.


    If you like the old Mass, why would you dislike the old Bible?
    The Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims is the "old Bible".  It was the accepted replacement for the original D-R for about 200 years, until shortly before Vatican II.  It is a recent novelty to claim that there is something wrong with it.

    The original D-R did not exist prior to the Protestant Revolt.  One of the major reasons for making it was to help the faithful to understand the errors of Protestantism.  This was a major theme in the notes.

    While the Challoner notes continued to address Protestant errors, this revision was made during the Enlightenment so it could respond to those errors too.
    Logged

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #49 on: September 19, 2018, 01:09:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!4
    • Quote from: Jaynek on September 18, 2018, 12:15:45 PM
    So they try to convince Catholics that there is something wrong with other versions while making a profit selling the one that they claim is the only good one.  This is not a disinterested source of information.

    Why trust this group that has a clear conflict of interest over the bishops and popes who approved the Challoner and Hadock editions of the Douay Rheims Bible?
    You don't trust the bishops and popes that approved the Douay-Rheims Bible prior to the 1752 Challoner version??
    Logged

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31167
    • Reputation: +27088/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #50 on: September 19, 2018, 01:14:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Smedley Butler on September 19, 2018, 01:09:02 PM
    You don't trust the bishops and popes that approved the Douay-Rheims Bible prior to the 1752 Challoner version??
    That's backwards.
    Of course we trust those popes. We're not saying there's anything wrong with the original Douay. We're just saying it's outdated and has been updated and superseded by the Challoner version, which is at least as good.
    You're the one saying there's something defective about the Challoner.
    You're suppose to trust the bishops and popes that promoted the Challoner revision. This is 2018.
    Logged
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #51 on: September 19, 2018, 01:15:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Carissima on September 19, 2018, 11:52:17 AM
    I was surprised to find this in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909
    It states:

       "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]. . ."
    Funny how this isn't addressed at all.  One need ask himself why?  If the Challoner version isn't quite as accurate having come under the microscope of a very early Catholic Encyclopedia as well as good bishops, and because the Challoner is more closely associated with the KJV, why eschew the original?  Notice that one complaint of those who reviewed Challoner said about the original Douay, "and the translation (is) so literal"  As if that were a terrible thing! We all agree that the Challoner is approved, that it works for Catholics, but it also has some problems.  Why do people try to prevent others from knowing that?  
    Logged

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #52 on: September 19, 2018, 01:17:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Jaynek on September 19, 2018, 01:08:08 PM
    The Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims is the "old Bible".  It was the accepted replacement for the original D-R for about 200 years, until shortly before Vatican II.  It is a recent novelty to claim that there is something wrong with it.

    The original D-R did not exist prior to the Protestant Revolt. 
    Totally incorrect.
    From Wiki:
    "Challoner produced a version which, while still called the Douay-Rheims, was little like it..."
    I'm sticking with the 1582/1610 Douay-Rheims not the 1752 Challoner Bible, and I couldn't care less if you Call me Mr. Peanut.
    In fact, that's Gen. Peanut to you. ;)
    Logged

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #53 on: September 19, 2018, 01:18:49 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Smedley Butler on September 19, 2018, 01:09:02 PM
    You don't trust the bishops and popes that approved the Douay-Rheims Bible prior to the 1752 Challoner version??
    It was an excellent translation for the time at which it was written.  Both the English language and the challenges facing Catholics changed over time.  
    Logged

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31167
    • Reputation: +27088/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #54 on: September 19, 2018, 01:19:59 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Smedley Butler on September 19, 2018, 12:44:09 PM
    Also, IMO the Crisis of Modernism in the Church began with Galileo.

    All the errors since flow from that.

    Well that's a fine ivory tower academic discussion, as well as a fine "opinion" to have. But opinions are like _____. Everyone has one, and they stink.

    But in the practical, if you refused to attend Mass at *any* Catholic parish in 1950 and missed a Sunday Mass because of your belief in some kind of "crisis" you would be in mortal sin and in danger of hell fire.

    So you can call it a precursor to the crisis, a brewing problem, or a general arc of decline (Bishop Williamson drew this on his whiteboard many times) but it's still completely different from the Crisis in the Church (note the capital letters) which BEGAN with Vatican II and necessitated every Catholic to stay aloof from what the world knows as "The Catholic Church" lest they lose their Faith and be contaminated by Modernism. The Crisis in the Church (proper name) necessitated the Traditional movement, which began right after Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass.

    In other words, if a "crisis" doesn't necessitate aloofness, it isn't much of a true crisis. But anyone who stayed away from the "official" Catholic Church before 1965 was merely a schismatic and an apostate, if not a heretic.

    P.S.
    Since time machines are metaphysically impossible for creatures to have, the talk about being in 1950 is a bit superfluous.
    HOWEVER, if you right here today, current year, reject any dogmas (Immaculate Conception? Assumption?), papal bulls, legitimate Councils (Vatican I?), canonizations, popes, etc. which happened before 1960 then you are also a schismatic. Long story short, the Church was functional until then, and you have to submit to any legitimate authority of the Church.
    Logged
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #55 on: September 19, 2018, 01:23:28 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • From Wiki:

    "..
    Challoner's revisions borrowed heavily from the King James Version...
    "
    Logged

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #56 on: September 19, 2018, 01:29:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: happenby on September 19, 2018, 01:15:40 PM
    Funny how this isn't addressed at all.  One need ask himself why?  If the Challoner version isn't quite as accurate having come under the microscope of a very early Catholic Encyclopedia as well as good bishops, and because the Challoner is more closely associated with the KJV, why eschew the original?  Notice that one complaint of those who reviewed Challoner said about the original Douay, "and the translation (is) so literal"  As if that were a terrible thing! We all agree that the Challoner is approved, that it works for Catholics, but it also has some problems.  Why do people try to prevent others from knowing that?  
    Being overly literal is a bad thing.  A translation can be literal to a point that interferes with the comprehensibility of the result.

    For example, look at the first sentence of the Bible:
     in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram

    A completely literal translation is: "In beginning created God heaven and earth."  This is bad English.
    Logged

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #57 on: September 19, 2018, 01:29:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Jaynek on September 19, 2018, 01:18:49 PM
    It was an excellent translation for the time at which it was written.  Both the English language and the challenges facing Catholics changed over time.  
    Change of circuмstances and/or modern language is no excuse, otherwise, communion for the divorced and remarried, which stands on this principle, is perfectly fine.  Moderns always cite "change" for the purpose of changing what is Catholic. 
    Besides, no one is saying the Challoner isn't acceptable.  Just that there are even more precise versions which reflect the original more perfectly.  As an aside, some notable Catholics of good authority actually believe the differences between the two are even more dramatic than that.  This reminds me of the Novus Ordo argument, that there's no need to go back to TLM and there is nothing wrong with the New Mass because bishops approved it.  <sigh>    
    Logged

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31167
    • Reputation: +27088/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #58 on: September 19, 2018, 01:30:28 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Smedley Butler on September 19, 2018, 01:23:28 PM
    From Wiki:

    "..
    Challoner's revisions borrowed heavily from the King James Version...
    "

    Who gives a rat's behind?  Unless they also borrowed its protestant heresy-inspired mis-translations, I couldn't care less.

    The King James version isn't all bad; and yes you can quote me on that. It just so happens that the King James was a beautiful work of English literature. So if they borrowed certain English turns-of-phrase, that would be completely acceptable for a Catholic bible. As long as the translation is still faithful to the Vulgate, it's fine.

    Seriously, do you think the King James bible reads like a Superman comic or something, with similar content? There are only some problematic issues with certain parts of that translation.

    Guess how conservative the Anglican church was back when the King James translation was made? I'll give you a hint: they didn't have female bishops yet.

    By your argument I have to give up the Rosary, because Annibale Bugnini said the Rosary a few times, and he was a Freemason. He probably made the Sign of the Cross on multiple occasions -- we Catholics gotta ditch that habit as well. Because we don't want to "borrow from Annibale Bugnini's habits."

    You know what expression comes to mind?
    "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."
    Logged
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Douay-Rheims Bible is obsolete
    « Reply #59 on: September 19, 2018, 01:34:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
    • We already know how much Jaynek hates the literal Bible because it would force her to drop many of her erroneous beliefs. 

    Talk about beating a dead horse.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
    « previous next »