/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>632756

Just learn Latin. I learned greek.

The idea is that languages have different nuances to similar words. So translations always alter its meaning.

>hurr only da Pope and priests do you hate the poor

Just the brainlets. Look at the absolute filth of heresies that have spring up from non traditional bibles. Some people just don't have what it takes nor do they wish to study hard to fully grasp the word of God.

We don't let the unlearned build bridges, so why should they build communities centered around the word of God? Which is more valuable than any bridge?

>>632763

>So translations always alter its meaning.

No, the Bible records languages people spoke and wrote them in a different language. Like the Egyptians didn't speak Hebrew and the Jews at the time of Christ didn't only speak in Greek and on the day of pentecost the apostles spoke the word kf God to people in their native language, so then you're just saying the Bible's wrong.

>>632770

But it is not God who translated from Latin to Lithuanian or English. Unless you think you're in the same level of God.

You're argument is that it is either 100% not translated or that we should have no standard at all. Absolutely retarded.

Can you not think except in black and white?

The greek and latin standards are great. Greek has more than 6 words for love I can remember. Probably more. Most translations into English lower that to two or three. Even one, depending on how retarded it is.

Do you claim they'd have the same level of error? Give me a break. Some languages are better than others and therefore there must be a standard.

Whats the point of having Latin Mass where 99% dont understand?

I don't dislike it. Also the historical reason for this was to prevent major heresies forming, which was a big issue back in the day. Someone who could read the Bible, but was not learned in theology and didn't know the official interpretations could very easily misinterpret most of it and then spread his possibly dangerous and fundamentally untrue ideas to other people. So some charismatic person could deceive vast amounts of uneducated peasants. From what I know the Catholic Church opposed translated Bibles mostly for this reason.

Nowadays that's not a problem, practically everyone can read and has acces to a library, a catholic priest who must adhere to certain standards and catholic websites on the internet, so it's hard to get something wrong unless you deliberately want to.

>>632756

Because Latin sounds much cooler than those mudshark dialects.

>>632756

>do some of you catholics dislike

Yes, some dislike the vernacular, but I often find that those people forget that the Latin version was the vernacular of its day and not the original language. Feel free to ignore Roman LARPers.

>support Priest only

Same as any organization of over a billion people. It's hard to know why some people do things. On this board it tends to be a loud minority of deus vulters who think that if they try hard enough, they can magically turn back time to the days of crusades and pre-protestant reform movements.

It's best to smile and nod and move on. They're not worth engaging.

>>632789

I agree, just listen to a Latin hymn (Salve Regina is my favorite) or a Gregorian Chant and you can hear the beauty. https://youtu.be/1B91RUv2lI8

Catholic Christians have always translated Biblical texts into the vernacular (e.g., Bede's translation of the Gospel of John into Anglo-Saxon during the eighth century). However, the making accessible of the entire Bible to common people is, even to this day, a tricky business, as the Protestant Reformation demonstrated. When everyone is his own guide and rule for interpretation of obscure passages, endless fracturing and doctrinal disagreements ensue, as we see with post-Reformation denominations. The book of Isaiah is a good example, for its entire writing, history and context is priestly in nature – so how is a peasant supposed to comprehend it when his entire world is totally outside that of a priest's? Or Revelations, for that matter, which is a deeply mysterious and symbolic text. It is like giving your mother a nuclear reactor – only with our comprehension of Scripture the risks are spiritual, not physical.

>>632780

>Whats the point of having Latin Mass where 99% dont understand?

>Whats the point of giving someone medicine if they dont understand how it chemically functions?

If you can't understand what good does it do?

>>632819

Latin is easy to learn.

[-]

The Bible was not written in Latin. Greek, Hebrew and Arabic.

What about call no man Father?

>>632756

>Why do some of you catholics support that only Priest (and higher) should only be allowed to read Bible

That's not actually true. When I was made catechumen, the Priest gave me a Bible for free, for personal study. Back in the day, before the printing press, it was hard to copy books, especially ones as long as the Bible. You had to do it by hand, it would often take upwards of a year for one Bible, and it would be very expensive to hire calligraphers and scribes to copy the book for that amount of time. It wasn't like today where we just scribble things down and can write pages in a few hours, we're talking about perfectly sized, perfectly legible, and perfectly accurate copies of the text. These things take time. As a result, they didn't want to risk the scriptures being destroyed by accident and having to do the whole thing all over again, so instead only Priests would read from the scriptures. Plus, it was all in Latin anyway and most laity weren't familiar with Latin. Those that were would occasionally have access to the scriptures, if they worked with and assisted the Priest, but your average Joe wouldn't. As a result, when Martin Luther came around and translated the Bible into German with the aid of the printing press, people started to think that the Church was hiding Bibles from laity so they couldn't read them, because your average layman wasn't familiar with the time, effort, and money it took to make a Bible from hand.

That's one of the big reasons why scriptures are read during Mass. In the Tridentine Mass, the whole New Testament is read in one year. The whole thing. In the Mass of Pope Paul VI, the whole Bible is read every three years.

>>632761

>Novus Ordo dictates that mass be celebrated in the native language

No it doesn't. The New Mass can, and is, celebrated in Latin. It just depends on the diocese and parish as to whether or not they want to offer it in Latin.

>Vatican II

>Heresies

You either submit to the authority and teaching of the Church and believe in the Holy Spirit's guidance and protection thereof, or you aren't a Catholic. Anyone who says otherwise is a protestant in denial.

>"Trententine Latin Mass"

You spelled it incorrectly. It's Tridentine Mass.

>>632756

>Why do some of you catholics support that only Priest (and higher) should only be allowed to read Bible

Per canon law, if a deacon is present, he's the one who proclaims the gospel, not the priest. Lectors for the old testament and epistles are almost all laity.

>latin vs. Vernacular

The vulgate is a vernacular (NT is written in greek), and in the modern age, using and knowing latin keeps us in the mindset that we're one church instead of a church of anglos or slavs or nips or whatever.

>>632780

>>632819

Mass in Latin was done because the Mass is not done for us, it's done for God. Plus, it took a lot of time and money to translate the Mass rubrics and prayers into the vernacular, before the printing press, and after the press few thought it was worth translating because, again, it's addressed to God, not you. It's prayer, and it gives us an allotted amount of time to either follow along in a Missal or spend the time in personal prayer. Plus, the homily is done in English, and the purpose of that is to give translation of the scripture readings of the day in a way the laymen would understand, at the time, and allow the Priest to relate it to our live so we may learn from them, a practice still done to this day. It saved money, time, effort, and resources. It was efficient.

>>632831

>What about call no man Father?

What do you call your dad? What Jesus meant wasn't don't *literally* never call somebody "father", He meant never say that someone is God, because they're not. Fr. Priestman isn't God.

>>632831

>What about call no man Father?

Paul calls himself father in 1 corinthians 4 and implies people should think of him as such.

>>632839

>t. nuCatholic

So if the Vatican made a new dogma that abortion is okay would you submit to it?

What makes you think God will grant salvation to the jews that believe Jesus is boiling in hell in a vat of excrement? What makes you think God will grant salvation to heretics that think Jesus is satan's brother (among others)?

Its blantly contradictory to past teachings of the Church. NuCatholics like you are destorying the Chruch and driving people twords Orthodoxy and Protestants.

>>632763

>>632784

>>632806

>people shouldn't have a bible they can understand because then they'll believd it instead of the pope

This is what you're saying

>>632851

>So if the Vatican made a new dogma that abortion is okay would you submit to it?

If you wouldn't you're not a Roman Catholic

>>632807

>Whats the point of giving someone medicine if they dont understand how it chemically functions?

If one loves God without know who God is then he doesn't love the true God but the god of the individual imagination.

>>632806

>>632852

Recently I read a Biblical commentary written by a gnostic at some point before the 10th Century. It was a commentary on the Gospel of John.

Even though I and him read the same text we came to completely different conclusions about the nature of God, what Jesus says in the gospel, what Word refers to, creation and so forth.

Yet we read the same text.

Why am I rambling about this?

Because the Bible is a difficult text to interpret properly. There are is a lot of nuance and meaning and historical context that will be lost by a lay reader, like both me and the gnostic were.

This is why having the priesthood exclusively interpret the Bible is important. As laypeople we cannot hope to truly understand it and may fall into grave error and heresy like that of the gnostics.

This is why, at least in my opinion, the full Bible devoid of context and commentary should not be published in the vernacular.

>>632756

I'm not Catholic, I'm Orthodox, but I think the thing problem they had with it was that people would then read the scriptures on their own and draw their own heretical conclusions because they were unlearned in history and didn't understand the cultural context of Jesus's teachings. In a sense the translation of the Bible into various other languages is what shattered Christendom into a million different denominations or at least contributed to it.

>>632803

>>632789

>We're totally not LARPing guise!

>>632852

literally the first sentence of my post says that I don't agree with it

>>632915

(68bf03)

It all comes down to few points.

Firstly, it comes to money. Before Printing Press was made Bibles were expensive as their weight in gold or even more. So only Church and Nobles had enough money to own Bibles. But that does not mean that there was Biblical illiterace for we have point two:

Sermons and "poor man bibles" aka Icons. Durring masses Bible was read and explained in churches full of stained glass and paintings that showed salvation history for common men, who couldn't even read in the first place.

Thridly, there were Bibles in common tounge. There are such Bibles in English, Polish, German etc etc. All made in approbate and by the Church. Problem is when somone without authority to do so make such Bible and "corrects" it. Such was case with Albigens who made hertical Bibles that would make NWT look like champion of Orthodoxy. So for the love God's most holy word such abominations shoul be rightly destroyed.

Fourthly, you should not read the Bible without proper and sound cathesis before that. Before you read the Bible you whould alredy know basic dogmas like "God is Triune" or "Christ died for our sins". Without it you would end up like Mormons, JW, Onness Pentacostals, Herchurch or whatever new happens everyday. Sadly common folk do not take their studies seriously and stops at basics.

There are more probably but it's enough I think.

>>632851

>t. nuCatholic

Pride is a very dangerous sin, have some humility.

>So if the Vatican made a new dogma that abortion is okay would you submit to it?

They won't, because God has promised that He won't allow for His Church to fall into heresy. Even if they tried, God would prevent them.

>What makes you think God will grant salvation to the jews that believe Jesus is boiling in hell in a vat of excrement? What makes you think God will grant salvation to heretics that think Jesus is satan's brother (among others)?

Invincible ignorance, in the precise area that one is in such a way ignorant about, prevents from an actual sin - this is the actual traditional teaching, see:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06642a.htm

>Its blantly contradictory to past teachings of the Church. NuCatholics like you are destorying the Chruch and driving people twords Orthodoxy and Protestants.

Because encouraging schism doesn't? Again, learn some humility and look deeper at this traditional Catholic doctrine, preferably consulting actual sources (many are now in public domain and you should easily be able to find them) about the issues you want to know more about - I'm talking about genuine research about what the Church has actually said, not cherrypicking a few quotes out of context.

>>632861

>written by a gnostic

See, this is where the problem came from.

>Even though I and him read the same text we came to completely different conclusions about the nature of God, what Jesus says in the gospel, what Word refers to, creation and so forth.

There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that it is 100% fully impossible to treat the Gospel of John fairly and come away from it with Gnostic conclusions. The reason the Gnostic commentator came to Gnostic conclusions is because he was a Gnostic, and read his Gnostic beliefs into the book.

>Because the Bible is a difficult text to interpret properly

If God gave us the bible to teach us, and it is not clear, He failed (I'm sure you will attempt to mount the defense that the problem is with us and our inability to properly interpret the bible, not with God, however this point is moot. To set out to do something and not succeed is the very definition of failure, regardless of why they failed). This raises the question, why is God less articulate than His creatures? Where did they get this ability to communicate ideas from?

The objection that scripture's meaning cannot be discerned, like all objections to scriptural authority, necessarily compromises either the divine origin of scripture or the divine character of God.

>There are is a lot of nuance and meaning and historical context that will be lost by a lay reader

Well duh, this is true of every work of antiquity, it requires study and dedication to understand fully. The problem is that by lay you don't mean unlearned and that it could be understood with ease if they put in sufficient effort and care, you mean by it someone who isn't a priest, and that it can only be understood by someone who has been zapped with the magic power to see the secret meaning (ironically, this is an incredibly Gnostic view of scripture, since they believed nobody could understand their texts and achieve gnosis except those who had received a pneumatic nature).

>As laypeople we cannot hope to truly understand it and may fall into grave error and heresy like that of the gnostics.

Nobody would have any problem understanding it if they treated it with the same respect I now treat your own words with, and put in the simple effort of knowing the historical context (most of which is provided in scripture itself) and reading through all scripture multiple times. The reason people fall into heresy from reading the bible is because they only believe the parts of the bible they like.

>>632928

>They won't, because God has promised that He won't allow for His Church to fall into heresy. Even if they tried, God would prevent them.

This is a meaningless response because it doesn't actually answer the question or deal with the scenario. Can you acknowledge and consider a scenario without believing it will happen? Don't tell me this wouldn't happen, tell me what you would do if it did.

Is there a good argument/reason for why the preference for Latin rather than Greek in Catholicism?

>>632960

All the church writings for 2000 years are in Latin. All the church Fathers, Aquinas, Bonaventure etc etc are all in Latin to this day. Greek is only useful for the New Testament, that's it. There are a very limited number of words that you need to know, basically just what is in the New Testament that's it. As for learning Latin, there is and endless amount of church literature and study in Latin, far far more than what is in Greek (again just the NT, not even the OT). If you want to know Koine Greek you can just to read the NT, however I mean there is so much interpretation of it written in Latin that if you had to only pick one to learn it would be much better to learn Latin.

Also I don't imagine it would take very long to learn the amount of Koine Greek you need in order to read the New Testament. You really don't need to learn that much considering there is a fixed and short corpus that you'll ever be reading in that language. If you're learning Latin you'd want to learn it better because there are so many works written in Latin.

>>632869

I'm baptist and I agree with this; ideally it would and has worked if there was no corruption. Makes sense, but with false teachers in the church(every denomination, no one is safe), you must have had a safeguard that the>>632926

>>632926

I agree with that

>“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

1 corth 2:14

A person should be saved(however you want to define it) before they read the bible.

>>632958

>If God gave us the bible to teach us

God didn't give us (everyone) the Bible, he gave us the church. The church wrote the bible for herself, to be used for herself in the way she specified. Jesus didn't write the bible and say hey here is my manual for you guys, read it and come to whatever conclusion you want, neither is it ever said that the bible is supposed to be clear and easy to understand. This is why protestanism is idiotic. The Bible is fine as long as you learn it from within the Church, which is the pillar of truth, not the bible alone.

>>632973

>God didn't give us (everyone) the Bible, he gave us the church

No, we are the church, and He gave us the bible to be the voice of the Holy Spirit guiding the people of God through their days in this world.

>The church wrote the bible for herself, to be used for herself in the way she specified

No. The bible is a work of God, produced by God for His purpose. When the apostles and prophets took pen to paper, it was because God had something to say at that time and place.

>Jesus didn't write the bible and say hey here is my manual for you guys, read it and come to whatever conclusion you want

And as what I've already said should show, that's a strawman that nobody actually believes.

>neither is it ever said that the bible is supposed to be clear and easy to understand

Didn't claim the bible says that, try to read my actual argument.

>This is why protestanism is idiotic.

Coming from someone who said all the writings of the Church for 2,000 years excluding the New Testament are in Latin.

>>632839

>Point to case by case observations about how new doctrine goes against older doctrine

>You're wrong bible says that wouldn't happen

>but that doesn't even actually answer the question

>HAVE SOME HUMILITY

Tradcaths are top quality as always.

>>633004

You can easily find a bunch of cherrypicked quotes to support pretty much any conspiracy theory, and indeed, this is one of the most popular ways their proponents use to spread such theories.

Such lists will usually quickly crumble apart when you look at the context and sources of said quotes, because the essence of cherrypicking is to find some sentences that isolated sound like they support your theory, even if what the relevant author says in full context is quite different.

For this reason, I redirect the anon who posts about the supposed Vatican II heresies to study the traditional teachings on relevant topics in more depth and context first, and argue second.

>>632831

Ackshually, gospel of Mark may have been originally written in Latin for the Romans and Jesus and Pontius Pilate spoke Latin to each other thus Latin is in the bible. The bible being composed initially by oral tradition was not wholly Greek but predominantly Aramaic, containing Hebrew, Greek and latin

Imagine being as brainlet as this prot

>>633038

Don't you winnie the pooh call His name as an excuse for you lack of study.

Absolutely disrespectful.

>>632852

Are you so prideful you can't admit some learned man might know about a text than what your first reading tells you?

>>634176

>Are you so prideful you can't admit some learned man might know about a text than what your first reading tells you?

But that's not what you're saying, is it. There is a world of difference between saying that someone who has studied scripture vigorously will understand it better than someone picking it up for the first time, and saying that nobody can understand it except the bishop of Rome due not to study but because of intervention of the Holy Spirit.

I think all Bibles should be printed in the old languages so it’s harder for (((someone))) to mistranslate the text into some dumb heresy normies will parrot for decades. If you want to read the Bible just learn Latin or Greek. Both are easy to learn in the internet era.

>>634185

Don't project your black and white thinking at me.

Of course, someone who reads the bible once will understand it at some level but lifelong dedicated church fathers who have read countless interpretations frok many authors in distinct eras will have a better understanding than the example before.

You wouldn't support a bible written in ebonics, since it is obviously a degeneration of a higher language: English.

So why, for example, do you support a bible written in Spanish, since it is also a degeneration of a higher language: Latin.

We both think the same, I just have a higher standard.

And I think so should you, unless you're fine with an ebonics bible once it becomes more widespread in american society and hits the threshold of becoming a "national" language.

>>632807

congratulations. You just wrote one of the most retarded posts in history of this imageboard

>>632861

>This is why having the priesthood exclusively interpret the Bible is important. As laypeople we cannot hope to truly understand it and may fall into grave error and heresy like that of the gnostics.

Most heresies began by clergymen. First recorded Christian heresy, Nicolaism was begun by a clergymen.

>>634406

De Ebonics bible

>In de beagining, Gawd kreated de haven and de earff.

>and de earff wuz wiffout form…

>>634403

>Don't project your black and white thinking at me

You can't be serious. It's Roman Catholics who are always looking at everything black and white where either you believe in an infallible pope or that churches don't matter and anyone can make up whatever they want.

>who have read countless interpretations frok many authors in distinct eras

Very few parts of the bible have countless interpretations or even major difference in interpretation between eras, but all studying these interpretations would be is studying countless errors. What one should do is study the text with the rigour that all ancient texts demand, form their own understanding of its meaning (by attempting to discern authorial intent, so as to not insert meaning) and then perhaps at this point glance at those countless interpretations, and only the ones which seem remotely plausible be examined to see how they fit with the text.

>>634406

>You wouldn't support a bible written in ebonics

I would if the people who speak ebonics exclusively could read

>So why, for example, do you support a bible written in Spanish, since it is also a degeneration of a higher language: Latin.

Latin is dead and Spanish is not. By this logic we ought not to have a bible except in the language of Babel, since all languages are ultimately degenerations from that.