Jerome's Corruptions in the Vulgate

[Paladin D]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='Jul 26 2005, 11:00 AM']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.
[/quote]



Keep that in mind, [b]Littleles[/b]. The Pope himself can declare that the moon is made out of coagulated milk, but he would still be wrong. You fail to recognize the use of infallibility and that of an opinion.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='Jul 26 2005, 10:00 AM']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

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I thought I had alread supplied these. However, changes in doctrine DO NOT require "official papal document." Very few definitions of doctrine are papal in origin. No doubt you've heard of ecimenical councils and infallibility by way of the universal ordinary magisterium.

Still, if it will keep you happy, there are these: One signed by Pope Pius IX and the other by Pope John Paul II. I guess that makes them "official papal documents."

The Holy Office in 1866

In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution. It responded that:

"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." [Instruction 20, June 1866]

Changed to this:

Veritatis splendor#80:

" Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object".131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, SLAVERY, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".132

In short, in 1866 slavery was not contrary to the "divine and natural law."
Now it's "incapable of being ordered" regardless of the circumstances (or intrinsically disordered). See also CCC2414. Slavery is a sin against the 7th commandment.

Incidently, the Papacy favored the American South during the American Civil War. Perhaps we might do a thread on the history of that affiliation.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 26 2005, 10:53 AM']Keep that in mind, [b]Littleles[/b].  The Pope himself can declare that the moon is made out of coagulated milk, but he would still be wrong.  You fail to recognize the use of infallibility and that of an opinion.
[right][snapback]659551[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You are aware of the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium which is different from any ex cathedra statement, aren't you?

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine INFALLIBLY whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” Lumen Gentium § 25d."

In short, what the bishops have taught at all times and in all places is infallibly taught. At least, that is the claim.

[qfnol31]

You forgot definitively (surely).

Oh, and it must be on faith and morals.

Edited July 26, 2005 by qfnol31

[LittleLes]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='Jul 26 2005, 10:00 AM']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

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Here' s another "official papal document" we were discussing.

Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on November 1, 1745.

"The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious. "

Does the Church still teach that charging interest still a sin?????

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

If anyone wishes to know the truth about the Church and its teachings on usury, read this article:
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=646"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=646[/url]

Otherwise, ignore LittleLes' misunderstanding of Church teaching and of what usury actually is.

[Aloysius]

I was going to say "wrong thread" until I noticed LittleLes was just putting it in this thread too. I implore everyone to ignore any post of his (do not even respond) that is not about the topic at hand. Jerome's Curruptions in the Vulgate, let everything else on any topic from either side be STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD.

The Usury thread is busseling, I am on the verge of either LittleLes ignoring all my points or perhaps (dare I hope she has such integrity?) conceding to me that there is no change in the teaching on this one issue.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 26 2005, 03:46 PM']If anyone wishes to know the truth about the Church and its teachings on usury, read this article:
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=646"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=646[/url]

Otherwise, ignore LittleLes' misunderstanding of Church teaching and of what usury actually is.
[right][snapback]660050[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Doesn't that apologetics site build its arguement on the claim that the nature of money has changed? I've heard that one before. In essence it is admitting that the Church's teaching has changed because of changed conditions are recognized.

But might this same reasoning be applied to other moral teachings?

In essence this is an admission that morality, even scripturally based morality, is only relative and subject to change when conditions change. Its a fine rationale for the acceptance of birth control!

But it is not denied that for most of her history, the Church has taught that the charging of any interest is sinful. But no longer.

[Aloysius]

what, did you say something LittleLes? Oh, you think Jerome currupted the Bible so that it says now: "Doesn't that apologetics site build its arguement on the claim that the nature of money has changed? I've heard that one before. In essence it is admitting that the Church's teaching has changed because of changed conditions are recognized. But might this same reasoning be applied to other moral teachings? In essence this is an admission that morality, even scripturally based morality, is only relative and subject to change when conditions change. Its a fine rationale for the acceptance of birth control! wink.gif But it is not denied that for most of her history, the Church has taught that the charging of any interest is sinful. But no longer."

sorry, Jerome never put that specific statment into the Bible.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 26 2005, 04:06 PM']I was going to say "wrong thread" until I noticed LittleLes was just putting it in this thread too.  I implore everyone to ignore any post of his (do not even respond) that is not about the topic at hand.  Jerome's Curruptions in the Vulgate, let everything else on any topic from either side be STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD.

The Usury thread is busseling, I am on the verge of either LittleLes ignoring all my points or perhaps (dare I hope she has such integrity?) conceding to me that there is no change in the teaching on this one issue.
[right][snapback]660068[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Once again you prove to be in error! I don't think that you (dare hope she has such integrity). Once again you misunderstand the terms being used.

"She" is a "he". See how you keep making mistakes by misinterpretation! :


And I'm still afraid that the Church, until about 1700 A.D. when it changed its moral teaching on interest, condemned all charging of interest as sinful. Of course, now the Vatican is into banking!

[Aloysius]

"And I'm still afraid that the Church, until about 1700 A.D. when it changed its moral teaching on interest, condemned all charging of interest as sinful. Of course, now the Vatican is into banking!" nope, that's not in Jerome's vulgate either. Jerome didn't even know if there would be a year 1700 AD let alone would he have said anything about it in his translation of scripture.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 26 2005, 04:23 PM']what, did you say something LittleLes?  Oh, you think Jerome currupted the Bible so that it says now: "Doesn't that apologetics site build its arguement on the claim that the nature of money has changed? I've heard that one before. In essence it is admitting that the Church's teaching has changed because of changed conditions are recognized. But might this same reasoning be applied to other moral teachings? In essence this is an admission that morality, even scripturally based morality, is only relative and subject to change when conditions change. Its a fine rationale for the acceptance of birth control! wink.gif But it is not denied that for most of her history, the Church has taught that the charging of any interest is sinful. But no longer." 

sorry, Jerome never put that specific statment into the Bible.
[right][snapback]660098[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I'm not sure what connection you are making between usury and Jerome's bible, but it's always interesting to try to follow your line of reasoning .

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

"People should know when they're conquered."
Quintus, [i]Gladiator[/i]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jul 26 2005, 11:59 AM']You forgot definitively (surely). 

Oh, and it must be on faith and morals. 
[right][snapback]659638[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Nope. A "definitive" teqching would have to do with the extrordinary magisterium. Not with the ordinary universal magisterium. They don't solemnly define stuff.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 05:06 PM']RESPONSE:

Nope. A "definitive" teqching would have to do with the extrordinary magisterium. Not with the ordinary universal magisterium. They don't solemnly define stuff.
[right][snapback]660157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's a blunder. Ask the Pope. A great many definitive doctrines come by way of the ordinary magisterium.