Jerome's Corruptions in the Vulgate

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Jul 24 2005, 12:15 PM']Well, if you were getting married to a woman who had a track record of having her husbands die on their wedding nights before getting the chance to consummate their marriage, wouldn't you be a little hesitant, too?????
[right][snapback]656902[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes indeed. Sarah may have had a serious public health problem. :

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 24 2005, 09:59 AM']Even if the point is proven, it has no point.  I think we all couldn't care less if Jerome errantly translated the Vulgate.  It was not declared free from error by the Church, I don't see why it matters.
[right][snapback]656771[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I have only pointed only three mistranslations. The Tobias nights error affected the Church's teachings on sexuality up until about 1950. The error even made its way into Bernard Haring's "The Law of Christ" used as a textbook by a number of priests. But it was in error.

Jerome's mistranslation of 1 Cor substitutiong "women" for "wives" was used as an argument against the married priesthood.

I don't think we "could care less" if Jeromes' mistranslations and interpolations were used to support errors in Catholic teaching.

[Aloysius]

except they're not errors just because those specific verses don't explicitly support them! they don't oppose them either.

oh why to I keep clicking that "view this post" button??

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 24 2005, 01:42 PM']RESPONSE:

I have only pointed only three mistranslations. The Tobias nights error affected the Church's teachings on sexuality up until about 1950.[/quote]


Who says that specific scene affected the Church's complex teaching on sexuality? And how has it changed since 1950?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 24 2005, 01:42 PM']RESPONSE:

I have only pointed only three mistranslations. The Tobias nights error affected the Church's teachings on sexuality up until about 1950. The error even made its way into Bernard Haring's "The Law of Christ" used as a textbook by a number of priests. But it was in error.

Jerome's mistranslation of 1 Cor  substitutiong "women" for "wives" was used as an argument against the married priesthood.

I don't think we "could care less" if Jeromes' mistranslations and interpolations were used to support errors in Catholic teaching.
[right][snapback]656951[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I could [b]not[/b] care less. That's where you're wrong.

Your "facts" are bogus (you obviously misunderstand the celibacy thing), but beside the point. It doesn't matter if Jerome screwed up or not. His version was not declared free of error, therefore your latest dig against the infallible Magisterium, like all the others, are baseless.

BTW: What are you trying to prove? Are you an atheist? An anti-Catholic?

Edited July 25, 2005 by thedude

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 24 2005, 09:03 PM']I could [b]not[/b] care less.  That's where you're wrong.

Your "facts" are bogus (you obviously misunderstand the celibacy thing), but beside the point.  It doesn't matter if Jerome screwed up or not.  His version was not declared free of error, therefore your latest dig against the infallible Magisterium, like all the others, are baseless.

BTW: What are you trying to prove?  Are you an atheist?  An anti-Catholic?
[right][snapback]657626[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No, I'm Catholic, but not as gullible as many are. What I have stated and clearly demonstrated is that the Douay Rheims version of the Vulgate is not a reliable translation of the Bible, and was altered by changes made for doctrinal considerations.

QED

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 07:20 AM']RESPONSE:

No, I'm Catholic, but not as gullible as many are. What I have stated and clearly demonstrated is that the Douay Rheims version of the Vulgate is not a reliable translation of the Bible, and was altered by changes made for doctrinal considerations.

QED
[right][snapback]657951[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I haven't even looked at your demonstrations and I probably won't. I imagine they've already been answered.

Gullible? You don't know who you're talking to. I was no intellectual pushover in accepting the fullness of Catholic doctrine. I still research every aspect of Church teaching in order to understand why it is what it is. If you think the members of Phatmass are a bunch of Vatican dupes, you are the one who is gullible.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 07:20 AM']RESPONSE:

No, I'm Catholic, but not as gullible as many are. What I have stated and clearly demonstrated is that the Douay Rheims version of the Vulgate is not a reliable translation of the Bible, and was altered by changes made for doctrinal considerations.

QED
[right][snapback]657951[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Denying most of the tenets of the faith, yet still a Catholic. That is amazing.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 25 2005, 12:18 PM']Denying most of the tenets of the faith, yet still a Catholic.  That is amazing.
[right][snapback]658276[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

As with a growing number of Catholics, even clergy, I deny the former erroneous tenets of the faith.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 07:24 PM']RESPONSE:

As with a growing number of Catholics, even clergy, I deny the former erroneous tenets of the faith.
[right][snapback]659024[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's rather hypocritical, no? So you profess to believe that the Catholic Church is true, and the Church Christ founded 2,000 years ago, but think he was joking when he said the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Why the heck would you wish to associate yourself with a Church that you believe is lying? The fact of the matter is, you claim to belong to an institution that insists she is True... that insists she alone is the Church of the one true God, and insists she alone has the authority to teach the Truth that Jesus Christ left with the apostles. Why in the world do you want to claim to be a part of a Church that makes this claim and yet, according to you, teaches erroneously?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 10:24 PM']RESPONSE:

As with a growing number of Catholics, even clergy, I deny the former erroneous tenets of the faith.
[right][snapback]659024[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Holy carp on burnt multigrain toast, that's like a dolphin wanting to hump a shark!



=============Commercial break====================


Computer: $899.99 .
Internet cable connection: $30 dollars per month.
Being Catholic but denying many tenets of the faith on a Catholic forum: [b]Priceless.[/b]


There are somethings money can't buy, but with everything else, there's Mastercard.



=============End of Commercial break===============

[LittleLes]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='Jul 25 2005, 09:40 PM']That's rather hypocritical, no? So you profess to believe that the Catholic Church is true, and the Church Christ founded 2,000 years ago, but think he was joking when he said the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Why the heck would you wish to associate yourself with a Church that you believe is lying? The fact of the matter is, you claim to belong to an institution that insists she is True... that insists she alone is the Church of the one true God, and insists she alone has the authority to teach the Truth that Jesus Christ left with the apostles. Why in the world do you want to claim to be a part of a Church that makes this claim and yet, according to you, teaches erroneously?
[right][snapback]659044[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The Catholic Church that was founded 2000 years ago is hardly the Catholic Church that exists today.

There has been a considerable amount of error in its teachings mush of which - but not all - has now been corrected. You may have noticed that we no longer burn people at the stake for not maintaining the "party line."

I don't think many people take the "true believer's" prolemic seriously any more. Too much can be shown to have been in error and has changed.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 06:11 AM']RESPONSE:

The Catholic Church that was founded 2000 years ago is hardly the Catholic Church that exists today.

There has been a considerable amount of error in its teachings mush of which - but not all - has now been corrected. You may have noticed that we no longer burn people at the stake for not maintaining the "party line."

I don't think  many people take the "true believer's" prolemic seriously any more. Too much can be shown to have been in error and has changed. 
[right][snapback]659323[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Since when are protestants (I presume you are) bothered by changing doctrine and error? Not that the Church has such things. and yes, it is an honest question.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 26 2005, 06:23 AM']Since when are protestants (I presume you are) bothered by changing doctrine and error? Not that the Church has such things.  and yes, it is an honest question.
[right][snapback]659326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Nope! Catholic. Just no longer gullible.

And we've been examining the reversals in Catholic teaching on the prohibition of charging interest for money loaned and the moral legitimacy of slavery on another thread. Both were originally claimed to have divine and natural law basis.

But then these teachings were reversed.

These are two of the best known, but there are many more!

[zunshynn]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 07:44 AM']RESPONSE:

Nope! Catholic. Just no longer gullible.

And we've been examining the reversals in Catholic teaching on the prohibition of charging interest for money loaned and the moral legitimacy of slavery on another thread.  Both were originally claimed to have divine  and natural law basis.

But then these teachings were reversed.

These are two of the best known, but there are many more!
[right][snapback]659443[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If you are going to make claims of these "changes in doctrine," I want official papal documents declaring one stance, and an official papal document declaring a different stance. Just because *some* (and I emphasize some because there were substantial numbers of Catholics that were adamantly) Catholics--even, quite possibly, clergy supported slavery does not mean that it reflects Church teaching on the matter. The pope himself could "support" slavery... it doesn't mean he is capable of teaching us that it is acceptable. A

nd anyway--think about this... we're talking about slavery... which was in the South.... where Catholics have certainly not been a majority.... where most slaveholders were protestant. The Catholics were in the north... where slavery was being fought (although, I'll admit, for shady reasons) Anyway, if you aren't talking about slavery in the United States, but another example, I apologize. But, regardless, you need to substantiate these claims with papal documents to prove your point.