I want to purchase a Bible. Specifically, I want to purchase a Catholic Bible, but as I am not Catholic, I am not sure what the preferred translation is. Pointers?66 responses total.
Douay-Rheims.
This response has been erased.
Isn't there a latin edition which is still the preferred edition?
This response has been erased.
http://www.justcatholic.com is running a special on Bibles!
You worry me, Jamie
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
autographed by who? You realise it is a compilation of various works... If you want a catholic bible, it is really easy... so to the bookstore... any bookstore... and look in the bible section... look for the one that says Catholic Bible... The New American Catholic Bible is really good for study. Or you may want to get a "student" or "study" bible. Your other option is to find the closest catholic shop, and ask them to recommend one for your use. I have a catholic bible that is supposed to be a direct translation from hebrew... it is 1889, and interesting... not as kewl as my german bible... If you want to know about missals and prayer books, which are just as interesting.. email me.
A friend of mine who grew up Catholic told me that in some Catholic
churches, you're not 'allowed' to read it; it has to be taught to you
in church ("spoon fed" was the word she used). Is this true?
This response has been erased.
10: Maybe a holdover from the middle-ages tradition that the Bible had to be in Latin, thus avoiding any corruption of meaning by translating it into English (giggle giggle snort snort because of course all the disciples and prophets were spekaing in Latin) and only the priest could read Latin, thus necessitating that all Bible lessons go through the priest. Although, come to think of it, I believe it's part of Catholic dogma that all communication with God must go through the priest/cardinal/pope because they're closer to God. Catholic dogma is awfully dogmatic. I noticed a BBC article today on the Catholic church and its insistence that since HIV virus particles are smaller than sperm, the virus can penetrate the condom (it can't) and therefore condoms don't protect against HIV (when used properly, they do.) Obviously educated and informed people wouldn't believe this patently false propaganda, but it can and probably will do real harm among less-informed populations. <set drift = off again>
I'll second the recommendation of the Jerusalem Bible. I'm about as far as you can get from being a religious person and have no idea (nor do I care much) how authentically "Catholic" the Jerusalem Bible is, but I do read the Bible now and then for cultural enrichment purposes, and of all the modern translations I've looked at, the Jerusalem Bible struck me as the best-written. (I'd have to say my favorite translation is still King James, but that's not endorsed by the Catholic church for obvious reasons...)
Certainly Katie has seized upon one of the key differences between Catholic ideology and Protestant ideology. Remember that for the first 1400 or so years of the Christian faith, the idea that the average Christian would read the Bible herself was simply not imaginable. Literacy was rare, and books were handwritten -- incredibly valuable objects. In the Catholic system of things, everything flows from the top down: from God through the Pope and the church hierarchy down to the local priest. So yeah, the idea developed that only trained minds should read the Word of God directly, lest they form heretical independent ideas. And this idea conformed to the available technology, for over a thousand years. The Protestant revolution required the invention of the printing press, which was necessary before the idea that everyone should read the Word of God themselves could take hold. Disclaimer: I was raised Protestant, Lutheran. Many of the early people who translated the Bible into local languages were punished, often executed, for heresy.
Actually, a lot of the old dogma has changed. You don't have to talk with God through a priest, you are now encourage to read and study the bible (I go to a study class every Wednesday), and there have been a few more changes in the American Catholic traditions just recently within the last years or so. Europe has been following this new papal decree that I cannot remember what it is called other than calling it the GERM. It is nice having a father is is going through the catholic deaconate program, and a few closely priestly friends.
This response has been erased.
Wasn't there this Abbott Hoffman who wrote "Steal This Bible!"? ;-)
re #10:
> A friend of mine who grew up Catholic told me that in some Catholic
> churches, you're not 'allowed' to read it; it has to be taught to you
> in church ("spoon fed" was the word she used). Is this true?
If this was ever actually true (I doubt that it was officially prohibited,
though for many hundreds of years the Church certainly didn't make it
easy for the laity to read and intrepret the bible for themselves..) it
certainly isn't official Catholic doctrine any longer, nor has it ever
been in my lifetime. The Church has such a long history I won't rule it
out but I can't guess how far back you'd have to go to find an official
policy against laity reading the bible.
It's hard to say with certainty whether your friend was mistaken about
the policy she though existed in "some Catholic churches" or whether she
was familiar with some wacky backwater that considered itself Catholic
but operated at odds with the rest of the Church (because despite the
Church's insistence that it is one single universal church there can be
quite a wide variation from place to place) but the policy she describes
is pretty much directly at odds with the direction the Church took in
the twentieth century and some high-profile changes it made to get the
laity more directly involved in the practice and interpretation of the
religion, particularly the abandonment of the Latin Mass and many of
the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
re #12:
> Although, come to think of it, I believe it's part of Catholic dogma
> that all communication with God must go through the priest/cardinal/pope
> because they're closer to God.
Not to the best of my knowledge, and totally at odds with my experience
in the Catholic Church, though perhaps it bears some resemblance to the
pre-Reformation Church of 500 years ago. But frankly this sounds like
the same grade of information about Catholicism that I'd expect from a
Jack Chick tract.
Not a Catholic Bible, but the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha might meet the need. It's an edition of the Revised Standard Version, and so does not carry the imprimatur, but it should have all the books found in the Septuagint.
An "approved" Catholic bible will have a little three or four letter abbreviation in the front. I can't remember what the letters are, but my mom said it's one way to distinguish a "Pope-approved" bible from the others.
Actually, you may also want to look for the IMPRIMATUR (approval) which will be on one of the first pages with the copyright info.
That's it! They abbreviate that sometimes. :) I knew it had an "i" in it. Thanks.
I've always liked the NIV Bible, but I don't know how the Catholic church feels about it. Also, Jack Chick calls it the Devil's Bible, and I consider Jack Chick hating something a good sign. ;>
re 18: Actually, the source for the #12 quote was the PHS humanities class, which indeed dealt with Catholicism primarily before the Protestant revolution. I took the class some 9-10 years ago, hence the vagueness, but am quite sure that this was a long-standing church policy. I am pleased to hear that it is no longer the case. Why is such an extensive papl hierarchy still in place, if the original function has been dropped and Catholics are now encouraged to think and worship for themselves? (Who is Jack Chick?)
Jack Chick is the author of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of really nasty little evangelical Christian comic-book-style pamphlets which you used to see everywhere, left in little stacks in phone booths and hotel lobbies and so on. Google on JACK CHICK for vast amounts of commentary, satire, and even an official site.
This response has been erased.
If you're trying to get people to think favorably of something, France probably isn't the best country to compare it to. ;>
This response has been erased.
The reasons I would have for taking catholicism to task (assuming I ever bothered to do so) would be less concerned with centuries-old discontinued practices and more concerned with head-in-the-sand current issues, such as the "condoms don't prevent HIV transmission" stance mentioned previously and the widespread practice of ignoring/permitting/abetting child molestation by priests, which was exposed just a year or two ago.
This response has been erased.
<tries to bite lip, but misses> It may be accidental that they're spreading propaganda with 0.1% truth to it? Sorry. Couldn't resist. They were claiming, as a blanket statement, that condoms do not prevent HIV transmission. No qualifications to it at all. I'm not sure I've ever even seen a sheepskin condom for sale; I don't think they make up a significant percentage of those available, although this may be different in less-developed countries. I think they're made of sheep intestine, anyway. In fact, I'm a little grossed out at the literal thought of a sheepskin condom. Mmmm. Woolly.
you prefer ribbed instead? we should all remember this? <<sorta sorry, but not really>>
This response has been erased.
Let us know what Bible you get.
RE#26 -- Do you have a URL for that Ron Jeremy/Jack Chick thing?
I guess it's true that catholics are encouraged to read the bible on their own now, however... It is still the official position of that church that to *understand* the bible, you must have divine guidance through the revelations given to the catholic church. So, while you are allowed to read the bible, you are strongly discouraged from actually forming your own opinion on it.
This response has been erased.
I stand corrected, cross. Apparently I hallucinated the first 20 years of my life.
<giggles at #38> I think #36 is a pretty standard approach in many churches. They've settled on their interpretation of the Bible; they want you to go along with them and not rock the boat with actual thought. Hence my general disillusionment with organized religion. Faith in God is one thing; faith in someone that read the Bible x hundred years ago and declared an arbitrary and absolute interpretation of it is another thing entirely. I was really surprised to read the Bible for the first time (specifically the Old Testament) and see how different it was from church-recommended lifestyles. In particular, I've always been puzzled as to why the Catholic church puts so much emphasis on Mary, who all things considered was a fairly minor player in the New Testament.
They had to in order to make a big point of the "Virgin Birth".
I guess there's a lot of anti-religious bigotry on Grex.
re 41: I don't often find myself strongly disagreeing with you, jep, but in this case absolutely. According to webster: big*ot*ry: 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them. My opinions (and flem's, and likely most of those stated here) are based on a lifetime of personal experience and serious consideration of the issues involved. They are not obstinate or unreasoning; they are however well- grounded. Hopefully, so are the pro-religious views. There is disagreement, as exists in any worthwhile discussion, and it is not surprising that a few volleys online fail to reverse long-held opinions. I don't think any of this can be characterized as intolerance.
re resp:42: Sorry, Lynne, but I think there's unusual zeal for hatred of religion here on Grex. I think that attitude is unreasoning, narrow minded and intolerant.
Now jep, what about that m-net item you've refused to link to policy?
The difference, jep, is that while many of us on Grex who reject religion also support the rights of others to hold religious beliefs we think are idiotic, bigotry has no place in it for such tolerance of other beliefs. That is a major difference between religious and non-religious political movements in this country as well: the religious movements tend to want to make laws which require everyone to be subjected to their religious beliefs, while the non-religious tend to want to make laws which only prohibit the religious from subjecting the non-religious to religious beliefs.
This response has been erased.
re 45: Exactly. I don't subscribe to organized religion myself, and I enjoy discussing and/or arguing about the subject. But I fully support your right, and every other person's right, to worship at a Lutheran, Methodist, or Catholic church, a Jewish synagogue, a Muslim mosque, at the Church of the Big Green Potato with Little Purple Spots. Or wherever else you want to worship. I also support my right to disagree with these religions, and to talk about why. Apparently, jep does not support my right to hold and discuss different opinions than his--in my estimation, this makes him something of a bigot.
"Apparently, jep does not support my right to hold and discuss different opinions than his" Wow. Did I tell you to shut up and keep it to yourself, and not notice, or something? A comment like that... it really doesn't seem like I'm the one shutting off conversation.
re #46: I can't speak for a majority of american catholic churches/priests, but in the church I grew up in, there was a strong message that thinking about the bible for yourself was frowned upon. Nobody said that you couldn't do it, that it was a sin oranything like that, just that you were likely to come to incorrect conclusions if you did not base your biblical studies on the official catholic interpretation, and therefore it was better not to study independently. I wish I had access to some actual quotations; the best I can do is paraphrase, like this: "Because of Catholic doctrine, you don't have to struggle with interpretation of scripture, because the Church provides the correct answers for you." It was very much a case of "you can have any color you want, so long as it's black."
This response has been erased.
Allow me to add that this was explained to me as being official catholic doctrine. There, now you can accuse me of making blanket statements, we can move on to that particular flame war. Here, let me get you started: So, I'm not allowed to attempt to make generalizations *based on my own personal experience*? On what, pray tell, am I supposed to be base my generalizations? The word of some self-professed "expert" on the internet, whose main qualifications seem to be the fact that he calls the opinions of people who disagree with him "nonsense"?
This response has been erased.
Re #51: You're supposed to only base your generalizations on what cross says. Duh.
I don't think flem was generalizing, as he was careful to point out that he was speaking of his own experience. I will say that my experience in the Catholic parishes I grew up in was different than flem's -- either that or we're just talking about different degrees of latitude in interpretation. I pretty much agree that allowable personal interpretation of scripture among Catholics is bounded by some core tenets of the faith, I'm just not sure that that's what flem is talking about.
i think people take comments made by other people about their own particular experiences and respond to them as if the original comment WAS a gross generalization about everybody, and this happens with far greater frequency than actual gross generalizations being made on the basis of personal experience, at least for most people posting on Grex. There ARE some who post as if their particular limited experience was representative.
This response has been erased.
At least we know what flem's generalization (if any) is based on, so folks can decide on their own how much weight to give it. Can't say that about everybody's generalizations. :)
Where *do* you go if you want to find out what Official Catholic Policy is on a particular issue? We've already established that asking a local parish isn't reliable.
This response has been erased.
For those who reject my formulation in resp:14, how do *you* characterize the difference between Catholic and Protestant ideology?
I'm also somewhat puzzled by jep's resp:41 "I guess there's a lot of anti-religious bigotry on Grex." since what I see here is a fairly neutral attempt to discuss doctrines and ideologies, in a fairly non-attacking way.
re #58: In 2000 or so the church put out a big fat book that was the "revised catholic catechism" or something like that. I would bet that would be a good spot to start looking for official answers. I spent 5 mins googling yesterday about this, but all the relevant stuff I found was too deeply buried in theological jargon and official doublethink, and I got bored.
In fairness, while I think that a larger-than-normal proportion of grexers are somewhat condescending or hostile toward organized religion, this has been a pretty balanced discussion.
I generally stay out of religious discussions, but my time for being silent is over. In general, I don't like organized religion because of the verbal masturbation of the qualities of the deities that any one with the holy book of the religion can think about for themselves. Also, I have had my share of intolerance - generally against Christianity - because when I tried Christianity I was physically abused in my church at Sunday School, and after I had left Christianity I had to go to a Fundamentalist Christian Missionary school for my last semester of High School. I have calmed down since then and only aim my hate at particular "religious" individuals or groups. Also, I was ordained in the Church of Spiritual Humanism in September. I joined because I saw the lack of reason that had erupted since 9/11. Do I agree with everything I read in my Officiate's Manual? No. In fact I think one of the contributors is a major asshole. Am I a counter-missionary? In a way, I guess. Personally, I don't buy the "only one right way" mentality, I instead believe in the "everybody is right, in their own way" view. I have friends and relatives of many beliefs, and we generally get on just fine, sometimes with a bit of bickering, but generally that gets resolved with out hurt feelings.
re resp:31 --- I have seen sheepskin condoms for sale. No, I don't remember where or when, although for some reason I think the package was black.
just don't use them with veg. whores. disrespectful. they'll still do you, though.
You have several choices: