Catholic Church is at Fault

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

There are copies of these manuscripts from 1511-1605. Each year, a new edition was printed in a new typeface and had to be proof-read against the original document in the Vatican (ad exemplar Romanum diligenter recognitum) to prevent just such a ‘mistake’.

Nobody caught it? Through at least 94 proof-readings and at least 94 years of circulation through Rome, Lyons, Venice, Paris, Basel, and Antwerp nobody caught it?

I hope you will forgive me for having some doubts as to the ‘official Vatican answer’ to this ‘typo’

262

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
There are copies of these manuscripts from 1511-1605. Each year, a new edition was printed in a new typeface and had to be proof-read against the original document in the Vatican (ad exemplar Romanum diligenter recognitum) to prevent just such a ‘mistake’.

Nobody caught it? Through at least 94 proof-readings and at least 94 years of circulation through Rome, Lyons, Venice, Paris, Basel, and Antwerp nobody caught it?

I hope you will forgive me for having some doubts as to the ‘official Vatican answer’ to this ‘typo’[/quote]

You’re translation is wrong. The facts you have presented are wrong. Forgive me if I give no credence to the baseless witch hunt in which you are engaging. Like I said, translating it the way you did, or somebody did, doesn’t even make a sensible statement.

Like I siad, if you have a problem with the Church, at least have a problem with things it actually says and stands for.

Nobody “caught” it because what you think it says is not what it says. I am no latin expert, but I can fumble my way through it to a certain degree and in no way does it say what you want it to say.
The pope isn’t and has never been refered to as ‘God’ that’s just flat stupid.

263

Pat… dude… you cannot even ‘fumble’ through it… you plugged it into the Google translator.

dominum = master or lord
Deum = God
nostrum = our
papam = pope

There is no comma. Therefore, the direct translation has to be “master God our pope” or “lord God our pope”

Your Google translation:

[quote]Believing the Lord our God, the pope said the decrees, as founders of this, so far as he could not decide, would be considered a heretic.[/quote]This makes sense to you?

264

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Pat… dude… you cannot even ‘fumble’ through it… you plugged it into the Google translator.

dominum = master or lord
Deum = God
nostrum = our
papam = pope

There is no comma. Therefore, the direct translation has to be “master God our pope” or “lord God our pope”

Your Google translation:

Oh my goodness, JP, WHO CARES?! This is the best you’ve got?! Seriously, this should be embarrassing for you, more embarrassing even than your ridiculous attacks on Paul. At least I can UNDERSTAND your attacks on Paul, but your enmity for Catholicism is ludicrous! The Reformers disagreements with the Catholic church were based ENTIRELY on their reading of Paul; once you take Paul out of the equation, who cares?

And you don’t even know Latin! All you know is what another website told you.

You think THIS, a typo in a document that only a handful of people in history have ever read, PROVES that Catholicism is evil? THAT’S your best argument?! There are so many more likely explanations that the one you’re alluding to is ridiculous by comparison!

Did you even THINK about the fact that “dominus deus” and its other forms are an EXTREMELY COMMON collocation (i.e., juxtaposition of words) in the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible used by the Catholic church? Did you even THINK about the fact that a scribe or even several scribes could have accidentally inserted the word deum simply because he/they were so used to seeing the “dominus” and “deus” conjoined? Did you even note that there were versions (like the 1508 version) that did NOT have “deum” in them? Did you even THINK about the fact that scribes were proofreading these texts BEFORE the advent of computer technology, so they couldn’t do a word search and had to read these texts themselves? Did you even THINK about the fact that scribes are NOTORIOUSLY BAD PROOFREADERS?!

You want to talk about problems of textual criticism, how about you look at the gospels? Fortunately, we can catch 99.9% of them, but scribes made all kinds of mistakes when they copied the gospels, EVEN IN THE OLDEST COPIES WE HAVE.

The reality is that you just hate authority. And your hatred for authority of any sort is absolutely pathetic.

265

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Pat… dude… you cannot even ‘fumble’ through it… you plugged it into the Google translator.

dominum = master or lord
Deum = God
nostrum = our
papam = pope

There is no comma. Therefore, the direct translation has to be “master God our pope” or “lord God our pope”

Your Google translation:

You do realize that the adjective, descriptors of any kind come after the noun in romance languages? You do know that right?
For instance, deum nostrum = Our Lord, or Our God. Not God our…

Oh, let’s translate it in english in the order it was written in latin:
‘believing but master God our pope embalmed said decree and this, so no able establish as set heretic voted’

Hmmm, so if you absolutely massacre latin grammar, you can get it to say “master God our Pope”…LOL!

So do have you ever like taken a foreign language, or do you only speak 'merican?

Oh this is the worst attempt I have seen… I am still cracking up. This reminds me of playing records backwards to listen for secret messages…

You are wasting my time. I can’t take you seriously at all…

266

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Pat… dude… you cannot even ‘fumble’ through it… you plugged it into the Google translator.

dominum = master or lord
Deum = God
nostrum = our
papam = pope

There is no comma. Therefore, the direct translation has to be “master God our pope” or “lord God our pope”

Your Google translation:

Oh my goodness, JP, WHO CARES?! This is the best you’ve got?! Seriously, this should be embarrassing for you, more embarrassing even than your ridiculous attacks on Paul. At least I can UNDERSTAND your attacks on Paul, but your enmity for Catholicism is ludicrous! The Reformers disagreements with the Catholic church were based ENTIRELY on their reading of Paul; once you take Paul out of the equation, who cares?

And you don’t even know Latin! All you know is what another website told you.

You think THIS, a typo in a document that only a handful of people in history have ever read, PROVES that Catholicism is evil? THAT’S your best argument?! There are so many more likely explanations that the one you’re alluding to is ridiculous by comparison!

Did you even THINK about the fact that “dominus deus” and its other forms are an EXTREMELY COMMON collocation (i.e., juxtaposition of words) in the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible used by the Catholic church? Did you even THINK about the fact that a scribe or even several scribes could have accidentally inserted the word deum simply because he/they were so used to seeing the “dominus” and “deus” conjoined? Did you even note that there were versions (like the 1508 version) that did NOT have “deum” in them? Did you even THINK about the fact that scribes were proofreading these texts BEFORE the advent of computer technology, so they couldn’t do a word search and had to read these texts themselves? Did you even THINK about the fact that scribes are NOTORIOUSLY BAD PROOFREADERS?!

You want to talk about problems of textual criticism, how about you look at the gospels? Fortunately, we can catch 99.9% of them, but scribes made all kinds of mistakes when they copied the gospels, EVEN IN THE OLDEST COPIES WE HAVE.

The reality is that you just hate authority. And your hatred for authority of any sort is absolutely pathetic. [/quote]

In the old church, they used to pray “The Father Our”

267

[quote]pat wrote:

You do realize that the adjective, descriptors of any kind come after the noun in romance languages? You do know that right? [/quote]

That would be why my original quote said “But to believe that our Lord God the Pope”.

And please don’t try and tell me that my understanding of linguistics is laughable when you are the one that ran Latin through the Google translator and expected it to come out correctly in English.

It was not my translation, anyway. It’s a translation from a credible source.

268

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You do realize that the adjective, descriptors of any kind come after the noun in romance languages? You do know that right? [/quote]

That would be why my original quote said “But to believe that our Lord God the Pope”.

And please don’t try and tell me that my understanding of linguistics is laughable when you are the one that ran Latin through the Google translator and expected it to come out correctly in English.

It was not my translation, anyway. It’s a translation from a credible source.

[/quote]

JP, your repeated and incessant use of internet sources raises serious questions about your capacity to recognize a “credible” source.

269

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You do realize that the adjective, descriptors of any kind come after the noun in romance languages? You do know that right? [/quote]

That would be why my original quote said “But to believe that our Lord God the Pope”.

And please don’t try and tell me that my understanding of linguistics is laughable when you are the one that ran Latin through the Google translator and expected it to come out correctly in English.

It was not my translation, anyway. It’s a translation from a credible source.

[/quote]

What credible source?

270

Same as I posted above.

271

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You do realize that the adjective, descriptors of any kind come after the noun in romance languages? You do know that right? [/quote]

That would be why my original quote said “But to believe that our Lord God the Pope”.

And please don’t try and tell me that my understanding of linguistics is laughable when you are the one that ran Latin through the Google translator and expected it to come out correctly in English.

It was not my translation, anyway. It’s a translation from a credible source.

[/quote]

JP, your repeated and incessant use of internet sources raises serious questions about your capacity to recognize a “credible” source.[/quote]
Kinda difficult to make a point on the internet without using internet links as a source.

272

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Same as I posted above.

A guy who’s really,really bad at Latin? OK. You got any neutral sources?? Scholarly analysis from people who don’t have a bone to pick?

The translation is incorrect, period. The grammar structures of romance languanges are different than Germanic. You cannot translate latin, spanish, french, italian in word order into English. It doesn’t work that way. The deum nostrum is ‘our God’ not ‘God our’.
It’s a hack job. It doesn’t say what you wish it would.

Like I said, take on actual, real facts. The Pope has never, ever, ever, ever been referred to as God. It’s a ridiculous, silly and petty attack, with no basis in fact.,

273

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Like I said, take on actual, real facts. The Pope has never, ever, ever, ever been referred to as God. It’s a ridiculous, silly and petty attack, with no basis in fact., [/quote]Look JP. There are literally dozens of areas in which the church of Rome is vulnerable to legitimate attack. I have spent a LOT of time studying Catholicism and still haven’t found nearly all of them. WHY would you pick something that hands my dear ol buddy Pat a club like this one does. He’s actually right. No official statement of that church has ever declared diety upon the pope. What’s ironic is that some of the soundest and most conclusive refutation of Roman Catholicism is found in the writings of, you guessed it, PAUL the apostle. Who you somehow believe is the fulfillment of ancient prophecies of apostasy and deception.

274

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Same as I posted above.

A guy who’s really,really bad at Latin? OK. You got any neutral sources?? Scholarly analysis from people who don’t have a bone to pick?

The translation is incorrect, period. The grammar structures of romance languanges are different than Germanic. You cannot translate latin, spanish, french, italian in word order into English. It doesn’t work that way. The deum nostrum is ‘our God’ not ‘God our’.
It’s a hack job. It doesn’t say what you wish it would.

Like I said, take on actual, real facts. The Pope has never, ever, ever, ever been referred to as God. It’s a ridiculous, silly and petty attack, with no basis in fact., [/quote]
It was written by a Catholic and lauded by other Catholics. The author was also a Harvard graduate.

I have already addressed your other points.

Besides which, even if you remove ‘Deum’ from it, it still says “our lord the pope”. Which is still wrong according to the words of Christ.

Are you even capable of admitting that the RCC has ever been wrong about anything?

275

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Same as I posted above.

A guy who’s really,really bad at Latin? OK. You got any neutral sources?? Scholarly analysis from people who don’t have a bone to pick?

The translation is incorrect, period. The grammar structures of romance languanges are different than Germanic. You cannot translate latin, spanish, french, italian in word order into English. It doesn’t work that way. The deum nostrum is ‘our God’ not ‘God our’.
It’s a hack job. It doesn’t say what you wish it would.

Like I said, take on actual, real facts. The Pope has never, ever, ever, ever been referred to as God. It’s a ridiculous, silly and petty attack, with no basis in fact., [/quote]
It was written by a Catholic and lauded by other Catholics. The author was also a Harvard graduate.

I have already addressed your other points.

Besides which, even if you remove ‘Deum’ from it, it still says “our lord the pope”. Which is still wrong according to the words of Christ.

Are you even capable of admitting that the RCC has ever been wrong about anything?[/quote]

Nothing you have presented. It’s ALL false. It’s complete crap.

276

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Hate to open a can of worms but this one’s a doozy and I’m interested in responses. Amongst other things, am I correct in that prior to Vat II the Vatican laid territorial claim to Jerusalem? Am I correct in that the current position of the Vatican is that Jerusalem should become an international city under the governance of an organisation like the United Nations?[/quote]

I’ve read the VII documents, and I don’t believe that is a possibility in either schools of thought.

277

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" Jesusà disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleÃ?s teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã???Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
[/quote]
The are not “our father” they are clergy and by definition, servants. It’s huge difference between the clergy and the Pharisees. Perhaps a little history of who and what the pharisees were at the time of Jesus would help you understand the difference. Also perhaps a little understanding of the Holy Orders would help too. [/quote]
I beg your pardon, but the Vatican itself would seem to disagree with you

[/quote]
Man, you’re reaching. That which you posted means nothing of what you imply.[/quote]
So you don’t accept the pope as The Holy Father? Or are you disputing that the Vatican regards him as such?
[/quote]

Huh? What are you on about now. Yes, he is referred to as ‘Holy Father’ it’s a title, as well as is pope. [/quote]
He was actually referred to as “Lord God the Pope” in the original Catholic encyclopedia.

EDIT: some versions of it read “Lord the Pope”[/quote]

What Catholic encyclopedia?

278

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve heard a bit here and there about this, but never really paid attention. I think it was in reference to the “holy sites”

[/quote]

It’s predicated on protection of the holy sites and equal access. The process they advocate is that the United Nations declare Jerusalem an international city. Ergo, a United Nations invasion of Jerusalem followed by occupation by international U.N. ‘peacekeepers’ and administrators.

Further, that pre-Vat II the Vatican’s position had been that Jerusalem was in essence occupied by its inhabitants and that it was sovereign territory of the Vatican.

If you truly believe with conviction that Jerusalem is the territory of the church I could at least understand that position. But to advocate the UN administer it as an international city?

[/quote]

Got any references? I tried looking this stuff up and I couldn’t find a thing on it. Lot’s of anti-Catholic propaganda, but nothing real. Everybody has tried territorial claims on Jerusalem at one point or another. There are sites there that are property of the church, but not the whole damn place. There is an interest in keeping the city open and accessible for all people. After all, it’s the intersection of the 3 biggest religions on Earth.
In short, I have found no credible evidence to this claim. At least not since the Crusades. [/quote]

(Reuters) - The Vatican hailed the United Nations’ implicit recognition of a Palestinian state on Thursday and called for an internationally guaranteed special status for Jerusalem…it also said it was a “propitious occasion” to recall a “common position” on Jerusalem expressed by the Vatican and the Palestine Liberation Organisation when the two sides signed a basic agreement on their bilateral relations in 2000.

Thursday’s statement called for “an internationally guaranteed special statute” for Jerusalem…

Agreement of Principles Between the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Holy See calls for “a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute to be achieved through negotiation and agreement to establish the national, legitimate, and inalienable rights and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to ensure peace and security for all peoples of the region on the basis of international law and UN resolutions, including the relevant Security Council resolutions, on the basis of justice and equality.”

It also states “that an equitable solution for the issue of Jerusalem, based on international resolutions, is fundamental for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, and that any unilateral decisions and actions altering the special character and legal status of Jerusalem are morally and legally unacceptable.” This historic agreement “calls for a special status for Jerusalem, internationally guaranteed.”[/quote]

A building did all this?

279

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I posted my sources. Please post yours. That is not what it says. “dominum deum nostrum papam” means “our lord god the pope” or “lord god our pope”.

YOU added that first comma in your translation. It is not in the original manuscript I posted. Even if you put the words in the same order as you did, it still reads “lord our god the pope”.

An e-mail was sent to the Vatican library’s reference service, and they say it was a “huge mistake”; that the word ‘deum’ was not supposed to be in there (and that it was only found in one manuscript, even though there are different copies from different areas with dates ranging from 1511-1605).

Huge mistake indeed, equating the pope with God and ‘missing it’ for almost a hundred years. One would expect better from the ‘infallible’.[/quote]

  1. Catholic Encyclopedia is not doctrine, it is an encyclopedia. Though there is an expectance of truthfulness and a low tolerance of errors, if an encyclopedia is wrong it is on account of individual error however that may have come to be.

  2. Encyclopedia writers are not infallible. Only the Bishop of Rome, and those Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome are considered infallible, but only when in certain circumstances.

280

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Like I said, take on actual, real facts. The Pope has never, ever, ever, ever been referred to as God. It’s a ridiculous, silly and petty attack, with no basis in fact., [/quote]Look JP. There are literally dozens of areas in which the church of Rome is vulnerable to legitimate attack. I have spent a LOT of time studying Catholicism and still haven’t found nearly all of them. WHY would you pick something that hands my dear ol buddy Pat a club like this one does. He’s actually right. No official statement of that church has ever declared diety upon the pope. What’s ironic is that some of the soundest and most conclusive refutation of Roman Catholicism is found in the writings of, you guessed it, PAUL the apostle. Who you somehow believe is the fulfillment of ancient prophecies of apostasy and deception.
[/quote]

He he is Peter’s disciple, a Roman Citizen, died in Rome, &c. Very Roman and Catholic, I can understand his worries.