Arrrgh! Only 1 page, and I just can't take it any more!
https://archive.org/details/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma
This is the oldest version of the [Providentissimus Deus] encyclical I have found.
Quite a novel idea--one might even call it
modernist--that an encyclical that was
promulgated 1
1/
4 centuries ago (1893) by Pope Leo XIII could legitimately exist in multiple
versions!Translated by Roy J Deferrari The quote:
"..the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not intend to teach these things (...) as being of no profit to salvation..."
Now, look at the Vatican's modern-day version:
"...Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (...) things in no way profitable unto salvation.
So while arguing the merits of a single sentence in each of 2 translations, you actually displayed the
chutzpah to
remove words (i.e., with
ellipsis notation, altho' I added the red color herein) from the
middle of the compound phrases that were so important that you presented them in
C.I.'s
extra-bold type!?
This subtle deceptive change of adding words (the version on the Vatican website) imparts a different meaning to the text.
Why should a reader trust your comparison, when you've overtly
removed words that might be crucial to the meaning of each sentence?
Oh, it matters, because one quote comes from an encyclical, and the other is from St. Augustine. The encyclical takes precedence.
Your assertion about "
precedence" does
not officially apply when both docuмents are in a
vernacular language, e.g., English.
All the more reason for people to take care to go to antiquity for reliable sources.
Antiquity!? Whoa! You have access to
manuscripts in the Vatican Archives!? The
movable-type printing press wasn't invented until
ca. 1450, and was not widely in use until after
ca. 1500. How much
modern English do you expect to find back in whatever "
antiquity" it is that you recommend?