Adulterated Bible presented to Catholics and others

The Logos edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible is described in the Catholic Encyclopedia as being grossly corrupted:

“Although the Bibles in use at the present day [1908] by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52 . . . He brought out three editions of the New Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament in 1750. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they “almost amounted to a new translation”. So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, “To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.” In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the [Anglican] Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages . . .”²

²Bernard Ward, The Catholic Encyclopedia, page 140.

This fact is problematic in that many Catholics, including myself, are of the opinion that this perversion is a great loss to present day Christians, as described by Gary Giuffre in his article (excerpt follows):

"Numerous commentaries on Sacred Scripture, which were published in the original 1582 Douay-Rheims New Testament, specifically and clearly describe the plight of the Church, the papacy, and the Mass in the last days. From those writings it is clearly evident that the Church Fathers of past centuries foresaw the future takeover of the Vatican by the forces of Antichrist, the overthrow of the Pope, and the abolition of the Holy Mass in the latter days."

"Scripture Scholars, Ancient and Modern"; From: “The Plot Against The Pope; Coup dé’tat in the Conclave – 1958” ; Copyright 1989 - 2006, by Gary Giuffré. Downloaded at: http://www.cardinalsiriandtheplotagainstthepope.com/scripture_scholars.htm

In fairness to traditional, orthodox, Catholic patrons of Verbum, this information should be provided them attached to this Edition. Additionally, a copy of the uncorrupted text of the Douay-Rheims Bible--again: described as such--is indicated if Logos-Verbum is to present an honest product to its Catholic patrons, and to other interested patrons.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Matthew

My Logos copy mentions the dates of 1582 for the New Testament and 1609 for the Old Testament, both of which are prior to the revisions you mention by Bishop Challoner from 1749 to 1752. Are there are specific examples you have of where you believe the Logos version is not what it should be?

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930714#Comment_930714

Douay Rheims or Challoner version

OK how to you tell which version you have of the Douay-Rheims

To test if it is the 1609 / 1582 Version see: [[These versions were printed as three volumes]]

Gen 1:5 that made one day not just one day

Psa 1:1 gone not walked

Mat 2:1 Sages not wise men and Herod the King not king Herod

Gen 1: OT Part 1
5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day. Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version

(5) And he called the light, Day, and the darkness, Night: and there was evening & morning, that made one day. Reading of 1609 Version

Psa 1:1 OT Part 2
Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence: Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version

(1) BLESSED (a) is the man, that hath not gone in the counsel of the impious, & hath (b) not stood in the way of sinners, and hath (d) not sit in the chair of pestilence: reading of 1609 Version

NT
Mat 2:1 When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version

Mat 2:1 (1) WHEN JESUS therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda in the days of Herod the King, behold, there came Sages from the East to Jerusalem, reading of 1582 Version

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930726#Comment_930726

The Holy Bible Translated from the Latin Vulgate [[Titled as Douay Rheims in Logos ]]
The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. (2009). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Listed as:
The Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay, a.d. 1609
and
The New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims, a.d. 1582

Search for Challoner come up empty but it includes the Challoner edits!

Read the Logos Overview:

For five centuries, the Douay-Rheims Bible has remained one of the standard English Bible translations for Roman Catholics around the world. As the first and most enduring translation of the Latin Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims was translated at the end of the sixteenth century at the initiative of Gregory Martin. It quickly rose in popularity among English Catholics—becoming an essential part of Catholic identity during the English Counter-Reformation—and has been reprinted hundreds of times in the centuries that followed.

Logos is pleased to offer the version of the Douay-Rheims Bible revised by Richard Challoner, which eliminated archaic words and English Latinisms, and made the Bible more accessible to English-speaking Catholics. This revision, first published in America in 1790, has undergone numerous reprintings throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century, making it the most widely-used and bestselling English translation of the Vulgate.

David Ames

In fairness to traditional, orthodox, Catholic patrons of Verbum, this information should be provided them attached to this Edition. Additionally, a copy of the uncorrupted text of the Douay-Rheims Bible--again: described as such--is indicated if Logos-Verbum is to present an honest product to its Catholic patrons, and to other interested patrons.

There are versions of a modern English transliteration available on the internet.
They are pirated copies of a work by a Dr. William G. von Peters

There is also available a PDF version of the original that does not have a text layer [[can not copy and paste the text]] that shows the letter 's' as looking like the letter 'f' and other old English items. [[the site that I got that from is no longer available]]

And Yes, it would have been nice if the text referred to Bishop Challoner. But that version was used by the Catholic church for some time without a name that identified it as a changed version.

And except for the work by Dr. William von Peters there does not seem to be an eCopy of the original text [[and as the original is in Old English no one else wants to go to the effort]] and he updated the spellings of words and other [as far as I have investigated] minor changes.

Maybe Faithlife could contact Dr. Peters???

David Ames

https://www.logos.com/product/33543/kenricks-translation-of-the-vulgate-with-commentary

What do you know about this work? Challoner version or Original???

Matthew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930736#Comment_930736

David, if I am following you correctly, then it seems the metadata needs updated by Faithlife to indicate (1) that it is a revised edition and (2) the date of the particular revision used for creating the Logos edition. Does this sound right?

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930736#Comment_930736

https://www.logos.com/product/33543/kenricks-translation-of-the-vulgate-with-commentary

What do you know about this work? Challoner version or Original???

from what I can tell it is his own revision starting with DR1752. Although it only states he started with the DR.

-dan

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930746#Comment_930746

Yes the KJV should really be updated too from 1900 edition to 1900 edition of the 1769 update of the 1611 translation. Butt most people assume the kjv they use is 1611. Most Catholics may be the same with the DR although the printed copy I own clearly states chancellor revision. Technically I am not sure this copy in Logos should not be used by any catholic since it is missing the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, which I thought were required (although not finding it on most catholic sites with the DR either so perhaps it is less important than I thought.

The original DR was often ignored with many RC reading only the KJV which is why revision was made This is is from Wikipedia:

Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible employed a densely Latinate vocabulary, making it extremely difficult to read the text in places. Consequently, this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions of 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate deuterocanonical), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Subsequent editions of the Challoner revision, of which there have been very many, reproduce his Old Testament of 1750 with very few changes. Challoner's New Testament was, however, extensively revised by Bernard MacMahon in a series of Dublin editions from 1783 to 1810. These Dublin versions are the source of some Challoner bibles printed in the United States in the 19th century. Subsequent editions of the Challoner Bible printed in England most often follow Challoner's earlier New Testament texts of 1749 and 1750, as do most 20th-century printings and on-line versions of the Douay–Rheims bible circulating on the internet.

-dan

PS:Did find this but probably should ad notes to include it.

With revisions and footnotes (in the text in italics) by Bishop Richard Challoner, 1749-52,
Taken from a hardcopy of the 1899 Edition by the John Murphy Company
IMPRIMATUR: James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899.

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930729#Comment_930729

Read the Logos Overview:

For five centuries, the Douay-Rheims Bible has remained one of the standard English Bible translations for Roman Catholics around the world. As the first and most enduring translation of the Latin Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims was translated at the end of the sixteenth century at the initiative of Gregory Martin. It quickly rose in popularity among English Catholics—becoming an essential part of Catholic identity during the English Counter-Reformation—and has been reprinted hundreds of times in the centuries that followed.

Logos is pleased to offer the version of the Douay-Rheims Bible revised by Richard Challoner, which eliminated archaic words and English Latinisms, and made the Bible more accessible to English-speaking Catholics. This revision, first published in America in 1790, has undergone numerous reprintings throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century, making it the most widely-used and bestselling English translation of the Vulgate.

That's the pop-up to which I am able to evaluate my Logos D-R library copy. It is precisely the bastardized text lambasted by the Catholic Encyclopedia. It is missing the commentary of the Pre-Challoner text(s) which includes the prophecies of the Early Church Fathers specifically addressed by Guiffre et al.

The very confusion and dissimulation by others (Matthew) in the few non-specific replies thus far confirm the anti-Catholic bias of the Logo community.

Yet here:

DOUAY 1610 OLD TESTAMENT ON PDF. 2,872 pages total. Photographic reprint of Rome’s original Old Testament Bible in English (printed in the old style typesetting in which the letter “s” reads like the letter “f”). This is not “Challoner.” This is the authentic and original Counter-Reformation Douay Old Testament Bible, first published in 1610, one year before the authorized King James version was printed. Digital pdf. text file on CD. $39.95

RHEIMS 1633 NEW TESTAMENT ON PDF. This is the 4th and final edition of the authentic Rheims New Testament printed at Rouen in 1633, with the Counter-Reformation margin notes by Richard Bristow, which were eliminated by Challoner in the 1700s. Challoner then issued a dumbed-down version which today is still erroneously called the “Rheims.” Ours is a photographic reprint of the original Rheims New Testament in English (in the old style typesetting in which the letter “s” reads like the letter “f”). Pdf. file on CD. $39.95

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwg8nmLrvOTjemZ6cU5Dc2hjQ0U/view

Michael Hoffman, Jr., a non-Catholic and history critic, seems to have no difficulty providing the unadulterated text? Why isn't Logos able to be as honest, forthright, and discriminating as Mr. Hoffman?

Gregory Lynne

...Not that I expect a single subscriber to Logos or Verbum to give heed to the following, it is from a Verbum source itself (nonetheless):

1630 [DS 2771] … Indeed, you are aware that from the first ages called Christian, it has been the peculiar artifice of heretics that, repudiating the traditional Word of God, and rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, they either falsify the Scriptures at hand, or alter the explanation of the meaning. In short, you are not ignorant of how much diligence and wisdom is needed to translate faithfully into another tongue the words of the Lord; so that, surely, nothing could happen more easily than that in the versions of these Scriptures, multiplied by the Biblical societies, very grave errors creep in from the imprudence of deceit of so many translators; further, the very multitude and variety of those versions conceal these errors for a long time to the destruction of many. However, it is of little or no interest at all to these societies whether the men likely to read these Bibles translated into the vulgar tongue, fall into some errors rather than others, provided they grow accustomed little by little to claiming free judgment for themselves with regard to the sense of the Scriptures, and also to despising the divine tradition of the Fathers which has been guarded by the teaching of the Catholic Church, and to repudiating the teaching office itself of the Church.
1631 Toward this end those same Biblical associates do not cease to slander the Church and this Holy See of PETER, as if it were attempting for these many centuries to keep the faithful people from a knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures; although, on the other hand, there are extant many very illuminating documents of remarkable learning which the Supreme Pontiffs and other Catholic bishops under their leadership, have used in these more recent times, that Catholic peoples might be educated more exactly according to the written and traditional word of God.
1632 [DS 2772] Among those rules, which have been written by the Fathers chosen by the Council of Trent and approved by Pius IV2 … and set in the front part of the Index of prohibited books, in the general sanction of the statutes one reads that Bibles published in a vulgar tongue were not permitted to anyone, except to those to whom the reading of them was judged to be beneficial for the increase of their faith and piety. To this same rule, limited immediately by a new caution because of the persistent deceits of heretics, this declaration was at length appended by the authority of Benedict XIV, that permission is granted for reading vernacular versions which have been approved by the Apostolic See, or have been edited with annotations drawn from the Holy Fathers of the Church or from learned Catholic men.… All the aforesaid Biblical societies, condemned a short time ago by our predecessors, we again condemn with Apostolic authority.
1633 Hence, let it be known to everyone that all those will be guilty of a very grave fault in the eyes of God and of the Church who persume to enroll in any one of these societies, or to adapt their work to them or to favor them in any way whatsoever.

DENZINGER, H. – RAHNER, K. (ed.), The sources of Catholic dogma (St. Louis, MO 1954) 409-410.

Gregory Lynne

Researching my account at Logos, I purchased the following 11/19/2012:

Douay-Rheims Bible (DRA)

By / Faithlife / 1899

Runs on Windows, Mac, and mobile.

You own this Product

In searching the Logos book catalog, I found no other versions of the Pre-Challoner Douay-Rheims available.

My argument(s) stand...

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930764#Comment_930764

Gregory,

It seems entirely fair to:

Ask for clarification about which text a particular resource represents;
Suggest that the marketing materials and labeling be revised to clarify which version of the text it is; and
Ask that another (older) version of the text be made available as well.

But let's not forget that the Challoner version was done by a Catholic bishop. Sure, you believe the translation is seriously flawed. You may be right. You're convinced that the older Douay-Rheims is more reliable. That may very well be true. But it seems a bit far-fetched to suggest that some sort of anti-Catholic bias is implied by any of this.

EastTN

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930790#Comment_930790

Ask that another (older) version of the text be made available as well.

Which Douay-Rheim edition(s) are desired ? (some later editions revert back to earlier translation choices)

Tracts: Theological and Ecclesiastical includes => https://ref.ly/logosres/tractstheoecc?ref=Page.p+357

Such is the history of the Rheims and Douay Bible, of which there have been two editions of the Old Testament, 1609–10 and 1635, and eight (including the New York Protestant reprint) of the New, 1582, 1600, 1621, 1633, 1738, 1788, 1816–1818, and 1834. This version comes to us on the authority of certain divines of the Cathedral and College of Rheims and of the University of Douay, confirmed by the subsequent indirect recognition of English, Scotch, and Irish bishops, and by its general reception by the faithful. It never has had any episcopal imprimatur, much less has it received any formal Approbation from the Holy See.

Newman, J. H. (1874). Tracts: theological and ecclesiastical (p. 364). London: Basil Montagu Pickering.

Keep Smiling [:)]

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930806#Comment_930806

Ask that another (older) version of the text be made available as well.

Which Douay-Rheim edition(s) are desired ? (some later editions revert back to earlier translation choices)

I have no idea - it's really not my issue. But that seemed to be the original poster's core concern. He's convinced that the Challoner version is corrupt, and would prefer one that predates it.

Jan Krohn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930823#Comment_930823

Yet another conspiracy theory?

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930764#Comment_930764

In searching the Logos book catalog, I found no other versions of the Pre-Challoner Douay-Rheims available.

Which Douay-Rheim edition(s) are desired ? (some later editions revert back to earlier translation choices)

Concur Logos.com => https://www.logos.com/products/search?q=Douay+Rheims&pageSize=30 currently only offers the 1790 DRA Bible. Also, Community Pricing does not have any other edition(s).

Keep Smiling [:)]

Ken McGuire

So D-R has been edited over the centuries. Yes, the exact edition in Logos could be (should be?) clearer. Unfortunately this is not unusual for Bible Translations in Logos. Faithlife is getting clearer about this. They have been pretty clear that the KJV's they offer are not an attempt at 1611, but are rather later editions. Luther 1545 is not really 16th century, but rather a 19th century transcription of it.

I suspect - but have not investigated - that this is generally an issue. Various standards have changed over the centuries, it it has been a common practice to update standard editions of the Bible into modern orthography, spelling, etc.

Getting into the original poster. Who has the authority to say what is the standard? From what this Lutheran understands, in Roman Catholicism they have significant administrative structures to look after this. As a Lutheran, I would agree that they are accountable to Scripture. To a large extent they agree - at least that is how I understand JP2's statement that he didn't have the authority to ordain women. But this administrative structure has not had a problem with the Douay Rheims editions the faithful used for over a century - which because it was used by so many is at the very least of historical significance.

Robert M. Warren

Here's an interesting D-R factoid / conjecture.

I was looking at John Wesley's NT notes, specifically Romans 8, and found this note on Romans 8:29:

29. Whom he foreknew he also predestinated, conformable to the image of his Son—Here the apostle declares, who those are whom he foreknew and predestinated to glory, namely, those who are conformable to the image of his Son. This is the mark of those who are foreknown and will be glorified, 2 Tim. 2:9; Phil. 3:10, 21.

Wesley, J. (1818). Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (Fourth American Edition, p. 396). New York: J. Soule and T. Mason.

Where in the world did JW come up with conformable? In the Preface he says he made "here and there a small alteration" from the "common English translation", by which I think he means the KJV (correction, please). In the 92 English bibles I have in Logos, (a number of which would have been available to him), all of them (unless I overlooked) had either conformed or something that conveys that sense, except...except the D-R:

29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son: that he might be the Firstborn amongst many brethren.

The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. (2009). (Ro 8:29). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

I speculate that in his zeal to find a rendering that didn't sound so Reform-ey, he resorted to this stinker, and then proceeded to fill up conformable with what he wanted it to mean.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930860#Comment_930860

I have a PDF allegedly of the Old English 1582 version - there in Rm 8:29 it has the word 'conformable'.

What I do not have is a dictionary of English from 1582.

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930823#Comment_930823

I apologize for adding to the apparent historical confusion which already exists. My original--and remaining--zeal to obtain a copy of (what seems to be a Phantom) text Gary Guiffre describes in his online article:

"Now, it should be noted that in most cases, what passes today as the “Douay-Rheims Bible” is nothing more than the corrupted and truncated Challoner version, which is almost completely devoid of the comprehensive annotations of the Douay Fathers. The Douay commentaries, which were based largely upon the writings of the early Church Fathers, were expurgated by Challoner, for the sake of reducing the size and cost of Bibles distributed to the faithful. But this greatly diminished the value of later editions of the Catholic Bible that were to follow. For, virtually all versions printed from 1800 to the present day are lacking the exhaustive explanations of key biblical passages, which had been included (with the scripture texts) by the Douay Fathers to assist the English-speaking faithful in defending the Catholic religion. The notations in 19th and 20th century editions of the “Catholic” Bible are woefully deficient in content, and the ideas expressed therein differ significantly from the learned opinions of the church fathers found in earlier editions. This is especially true regarding the prophetic works found in both the Old Testament and New Testament." http://www.cardinalsiriandtheplotagainstthepope.com/scripture_scholars.htm

has no Imprimatur or Church approbation--nor does his "Phantom" either? While Guiffre seems to possess the Phantom text to which he compares all other current Douay-Rheims translations--he mentions not where one may obtain/consult the "Phantom D-R"?

Matthew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931039#Comment_931039

I would be interested in such a text for the availability of the notes it contained. Off topic, but would also be interested in Faithlife making available the text of Erasmus and his annotations, the Complutensian Polyglot, the 1611 KJV with its notes, and multiple other older texts. Faithlife has put out a significant number of older Bibles within the last two years or so, but there is still a ways to go to make all the historically significant texts available.

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930845#Comment_930845

So D-R has been edited over the centuries. Yes, the exact edition in Logos could be (should be?) clearer...I suspect - but have not investigated - that this is generally an issue.

Which is precisely "Why?" the Catholic Church instituted various means for clarifying approved and condemned texts for its followers. I cited Denzinger 1630-1633 to that effect in an earlier post.

Various standards have changed over the centuries, it it has been a common practice to update standard editions of the Bible into modern orthography, spelling, etc.

Consistently, the Catholic Church has upheld St. Jerome's Vulgate. As for its subsequent approved Bibles, I

would turn to my copy of this Book by Graham but I can't find it currently.

Who has the authority to say what is the standard? From what this Lutheran understands, in Roman Catholicism they have significant administrative structures to look after this.

Well, the Roman Catholic Church has been in Eclipse since 1958 when anti-pope Roncalli was [sic] "elected". Nothing since then is "official" coming out of Rome. (simplified version for non-Catholics.)

[Mr. Guiffre has been seriously maligned by various internet writers, to what effect is true I cannot assert. I have no knowledge of the man or his doings other than what is posted online. I mention this only because I wish to deflect any connection with him.] I only make reference to his own reference to Cardinal Newman's dismissals of Challoner's D-R text. I respect Cardinal Newman and wish that it were simple to get to the Phantom (original) D-R texts to which both Cardinal Newman (?and Guiffre) and Challoner had access to.

This seems a matter which Verbum should address, if only for those of us who claim fealty to the "One, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic" Christian Church.

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930790#Comment_930790

Gregory,

It seems entirely fair to:

Ask for clarification about which text a particular resource represents;

Suggest that the marketing materials and labeling be revised to clarify which version of the text it is; and

Ask that another (older) version of the text be made available as well.

Thank you; agreed on all points.

But let's not forget that the Challoner version was done by a Catholic bishop.

§ l Both Rheims and Douay were provided with lengthy prefaces, both of which are at pains to defend three main contentions: (1) That the Catholic Church has never forbidden vernacular versions—indeed many had appeared during the previous 300 years—but that she had expressly forbidden the use of heretical versions (‘no other books in the world being so pernicious’), and always required the approval of lawful authority.

POPE, H., “The History of the Rheims-Douay Version”, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (ed. B. ORCHARD – E. F. SUTCLIFFE) (Toronto;New York;Edinburgh 1953) 35.

Sure, you believe the translation is seriously flawed. You may be right. You're convinced that the older Douay-Rheims is more reliable. That may very well be true. But it seems a bit far-fetched to suggest that some sort of anti-Catholic bias is implied by any of this.

Actually, it's not "far-fetched" at all. The history of the Catholic Church is one of schism, heresy, and apostasy from it's very beginnings with Judas, as all Christians should know. (For the third time) I make reference to Denzinger 1630-1633 to that effect in an earlier post.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931048#Comment_931048

Well, the Roman Catholic Church has been in Eclipse since 1958 when anti-pope Roncalli was [sic] "elected". Nothing since then is "official" coming out of Rome. (simplified version for non-Catholics.)

I think a discussion of this Minority Report would be outside the bounds of our forum rules.

Consistently, the Catholic Church has upheld St. Jerome's Vulgate. As for its subsequent approved Bibles, I

would turn to my copy of this Book by Graham but I can't find it currently.

Look here: https://www.logos.com/product/53183/where-we-got-the-bible-our-debt-to-the-catholic-church

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931051#Comment_931051

NB.Mick:

I'm not trying to discuss the Eclipse, only to clarify that the issue I began--Cardinal Newman's assertion that the Challoner D-R is a 'new text'--seems clouded in mystery, confusion, history, and contention. Secondly, to express regret that the original notes which accompanied the original Rheims NT seem to have been "lost". Specifically--and ironically to your point ("this Minority Report")--those original "Notes" or "Commentary" accompanying the original D-R were predictive of the very Eclipse to which i allude. Therein your point remains equally obscured.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931048#Comment_931048

Consistently, the Catholic Church has upheld St. Jerome's Vulgate.

In name yes. In text, well - that text has evolved as well. The Clementine Vulgate that came out of Trent does have some differences from what evidently St. Jerome translated...

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931061#Comment_931061

The catholic churches move away from the vulgate stated in 1943

In 1943 His Holiness Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino afflante spiritu, which encouraged Scripture scholars to translate the Scriptures from the original languages. He wrote: “We ought to explain the original text which was written by the inspired author himself and has more authority and greater weight than any, even the very best, translation whether ancient or modern. This can be done all the more easily and fruitfully if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.” --New American Bible, Revised Edition (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011).

-dan

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931039#Comment_931039

"Now, it should be noted that in most cases, what passes today as the “Douay-Rheims Bible” is nothing more than the corrupted and truncated Challoner version, which is almost completely devoid of the comprehensive annotations of the Douay Fathers. The Douay commentaries, which were based largely upon the writings of the early Church Fathers, were expurgated by Challoner, for the sake of reducing the size and cost of Bibles distributed to the faithful. But this greatly diminished the value of later editions of the Catholic Bible that were to follow. For, virtually all versions printed from 1800 to the present day are lacking the exhaustive explanations of key biblical passages, which had been included (with the scripture texts) by the Douay Fathers to assist the English-speaking faithful in defending the Catholic religion. The notations in 19th and 20th century editions of the “Catholic” Bible are woefully deficient in content, and the ideas expressed therein differ significantly from the learned opinions of the church fathers found in earlier editions. This is especially true regarding the prophetic works found in both the Old Testament and New Testament." http://www.cardinalsiriandtheplotagainstthepope.com/scripture_scholars.htm

I'm really struggling to understand the problem here. The core issue, at least as described by this quote and the associated web page, appears to be the Douay commentaries. Taken at face value, this paragraph essentially says that the older version was a study bible with extensive notes. Challoner decided - for whatever reason - that including the extra study material made it too big and expensive. And that's the beef that's described here:

"... virtually all versions printed from 1800 to the present day are lacking the exhaustive explanations ... notations in 19th and 20th century editions of the “Catholic” Bible are woefully deficient in content, ... "

There's also disagreement about the views expressed in the notes of 19th and 20th editions:

"...The notations in 19th and 20th century editions ...the ideas expressed therein differ significantly from the learned opinions of the church fathers found in earlier editions..."

Challoner died, I believe, in 1781. Are the notes that are under dispute here even in the Challoner version in Logos? Based on an admittedly quick look at the resource, I'm not seeing them.

It appears to me, at least, that the primary complaint here is that the Logos version isn't a study Bible that expresses a particular view of Bible prophecies. It could well be that many Verbum users would find a version with the full set of original notes much more valuable. But selling a resource that just has the text of Scripture hardly constitutes adulterating or corrupting the Bible.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931049#Comment_931049

But let's not forget that the Challoner version was done by a Catholic bishop.

§ l Both Rheims and Douay were provided with lengthy prefaces, both of which are at pains to defend three main contentions: (1) That the Catholic Church has never forbidden vernacular versions—indeed many had appeared during the previous 300 years—but that she had expressly forbidden the use of heretical versions (‘no other books in the world being so pernicious’), and always required the approval of lawful authority.

POPE, H., “The History of the Rheims-Douay Version”, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (ed. B. ORCHARD – E. F. SUTCLIFFE) (Toronto;New York;Edinburgh 1953) 35.

So, just to be clear here, you're arguing that this is a "heretical version"? Are you suggesting that Bishop Challoner was a heretic? Was he ever condemned as such?

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931109#Comment_931109

I'm really struggling to understand the problem here. The core issue, at least as described by this quote and the associated web page, appears to be the Douay commentaries. Taken at face value, this paragraph essentially says that the older version was a study bible with extensive notes. Challoner decided - for whatever reason - that including the extra study material made it too big and expensive. And that's the beef that's described here:

Yes, the orginal notes were “lost” and often the Haydock’s notes are printed there in
https://www.logos.com/product/26955/haydocks-catholic-bible-commentary
I do not know if the notes were dropped because of cost or doctrine but the original notes are very Jesuit and very extensive.

Challoner died, I believe, in 1781. Are the notes that are under dispute here even in the Challoner version in Logos? Based on an admittedly quick look at the resource, I'm not seeing them.

No, the notes are not in the Logos version or in any other Challoner version.
Many critics of Challoner thought that he made the D-R more like the KJV

It appears to me, at least, that the primary complaint here is that the Logos version isn't a study Bible that expresses a particular view of Bible prophecies. It could well be that many Verbum users would find a version with the full set of original notes much more valuable. But selling a resource that just has the text of Scripture hardly constitutes adulterating or corrupting the Bible.

See the “KJV Only Controversy” as to if different versions are seen as “adulterating or corrupting the Bible”

Also the term "heretical version" is in the view of the beholder.

What was “lost”? How about this defense of “tradition”

Gen 1:1
1. In the beginning.] Holy Moyses telleth what was done in the beginning of the world, and so forward even till his own time, writing above two thousand and four hundred years after the beginning. all which being incomprehensible by human wit or discourse, he knew partly by Revelations from God, for he had the gift of Prophecy in most excellent sort: partly by Traditions from his elders, who learned of their fathers For until that time the Church had only Traditions of such things, as were revealed to special men, Whereby we see the great authority of Traditions, before there were Scriptures. And since Scriptures were written they are also necessary, for three special reasons. First for that we are only assured by Tradition of the Church, that those Books are in deed holy Scriptures, which are so accounted, and not by the Scripture itself, for that were to prove the same by the same, until we be assured of some part, that proveth some other parts. And this made St. Augustine to say plainly, that he could not believe the Gospel, except the Church told him which is the Gospel. Secondly holy Scriptures being once known to be the word of God, and so of most eminent authority of all writings in the world, as St. Augustine, St. Jerome, & all other Fathers agree, yet for the true understanding of the same, both the Scripture itself, and the ancient Fathers remit us to the Church, namely to those in the Church, that are appointed by Gods ordinance, in the high place that he hath chosen. Which were the High Priests in the old Testament, as appeareth: Deut. 17. Mat. 23. Joan. 11. And in the new Testament, St. Peter and his Successors for whom Christ prayed that his faith should not fail: and therefore commanded him to confirm his brethren Luc. 22. Thirdly for things not expressed in particular in holy Scripture, the Scripture and (a) Fathers do likewise remit us to Traditions, and to the judgment and testimony of the Church. Christ saying to his Apostles: he that hearth you hearth me. The Apostles doubted not to say: It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us. And St. Paul willed the Thessalonians to hold the traditions, which they had learned, whether it were by word, or by his Epistle. [[sample from the Dr. William (G) von Peters, Ph.D. transliteration]]

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931048#Comment_931048

Consistently, the Catholic Church has upheld St. Jerome's Vulgate. As for its subsequent approved Bibles, I (...) would turn to my copy of this Book by Graham but I can't find it currently.

Graham says:

We may feel justly proud of our Douai Bible. We need not declare it to be perfect in all respects, either in regard to its English style or its employment of words from foreign languages; we need not feel the less affection or admiration for it though we should suggest the possibility of revision and improvement in some particulars - it has, indeed, been re-edited and revised ere now especially by Bishop Challoner. But when all is said and done, it is a noble version with a noble history; true, honest, scholarly, faithful to the original.

This sounds a lot like Graham is referring to the original D-R in the first sentence, but to the updated one (which resembles the Logos edition) in his last sentence.

At least there is no critique whatsoever against Challoner's revision in particular or the possibility/necessity of revisions in general: Graham does not employ something like a KJV-only-position to the "unaltered D-R". Graham is very much against faulty, partisan translations (like some of the reformers' editions were in his opinion), but other than that tries to prove that the Roman Catholic Church is not an enemy of bibles in the hand of laymen, even bibles in the vernacular, and never has been.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931149#Comment_931149

I'm really struggling to understand the problem here. The core issue, at least as described by this quote and the associated web page, appears to be the Douay commentaries. Taken at face value, this paragraph essentially says that the older version was a study bible with extensive notes. Challoner decided - for whatever reason - that including the extra study material made it too big and expensive. And that's the beef that's described here:

Yes, the orginal notes were “lost” and often the Haydock’s notes are printed there in
https://www.logos.com/product/26955/haydocks-catholic-bible-commentary
I do not know if the notes were dropped because of cost or doctrine but the original notes are very Jesuit and very extensive.

Challoner died, I believe, in 1781. Are the notes that are under dispute here even in the Challoner version in Logos? Based on an admittedly quick look at the resource, I'm not seeing them.

No, the notes are not in the Logos version or in any other Challoner version.
Many critics of Challoner thought that he made the D-R more like the KJV

It appears to me, at least, that the primary complaint here is that the Logos version isn't a study Bible that expresses a particular view of Bible prophecies. It could well be that many Verbum users would find a version with the full set of original notes much more valuable. But selling a resource that just has the text of Scripture hardly constitutes adulterating or corrupting the Bible.

See the “KJV Only Controversy” as to if different versions are seen as “adulterating or corrupting the Bible”

Also the term "heretical version" is in the view of the beholder.

What was “lost”? How about this defense of “tradition” ...

David, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you about anything. My only real point is this. I took a close second look at the quotation supplied by the original poster (and the associated link) to support his assertion that the Verbum resource was corrupted - and was very surprised to find that they don't seem to criticize Challoner's text. Instead, they criticize his choice to omit the extensive commentary included in earlier D-R versions.

That's very different from there being a problem with the text itself. I've seen some sources that say Challoner did bring it closer to the KJV, but that's not the complaint raised by the material the original poster pointed us to.

Bibles that include commentary and study notes can be very, very helpful. I own several. But to suggest that an edition of the Bible is somehow fundamentally flawed - much less "heretical" - because it doesn't include my preferred commentary just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931178#Comment_931178

§ h II The Original Rheims (1582) and Douay (1609–10)—The task was entrusted to Gregory Martin, an illustrious scholar of St John’s, Oxford, who had been compelled to flee to Douay in 1570. Dr William Allen, later Cardinal, and at the time President of Douay, was also an Oxford man (Oriel), who had had to leave Oxford in 1561. The two others who were concerned were Richard Bristow and William Reynolds, both Oxford men (Exeter and New) and converts. The Douay Diary for 1578 has the entry: ‘On Oct. 16 or thereabouts Mr Martin started translating the Bible into English in the hope of thus providing an antidote to the corrupt heretical versions which have been so long a misery to nearly everybody in our own land. With a view to the speedy production of what will, we trust, prove an exceedingly useful work, he will translate two chapters a day; while to secure its exactitude, Drs Allen and Bristow will read them carefully and, if need be, make any corrections which prudence may demand’. Four years later (March 1582): ‘This month the final touches were given to the English version of the New Testament’ (Records of the English Catholics [=Douay Diaries I & II], pp 145, 186, in Latin). It is not now certain what share the others had beyond revision: the translation is entirely Martin’s, Bristow perhaps wrote the notes (though he died already in 1581), Allen had worked in Rome on the preparation of the Sixtine Vulgate, and Reynolds it was who came in 1583 to write a refutation of the attacks upon Martin’s work. It is very important to emphasize that these men were the very flower of Oxford scholarship, most learned men, and (as Dr Worthington put it in the Preface to Douay) ‘well known to the world, to have been excellent in the tongues, sincere men, and great divines’, for these facts have been obscured by the obloquy that was poured on them from England at the time, and by the oblivion into which they fell in later years. If their version is considered to lack literary grace, it must be realized that this was done of set purpose.

§ i The NT was published at Rheims in 1582 at a cost of 1,500 crowns, 1,000 of which had been collected by Fr Persons. The title page runs: The New Testament of Jesus Christ, translated faithfully into English, out of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred with the Greek and other editions in divers languages. With the Arguments of books and chapters, Annotations and other necessary helps for the better understanding of the text, and specially for the discovery of the corruptions of divers late translations, and for clearing the controversies in religion of these days. In the English College of Rhemes … Printed at Rhemes, by John Fogny, 1582. § j The publication of the NT provoked an immediate storm of abuse from the Protestants. William Fulke of Cambridge had already in 1583 written a tract against one of Martin’s on the corruption of Scripture by Protestants; in 1583 William Whitaker attacked Martin’s version, and similar attacks were launched by Thomas Bilson in 1585 and by George Wither and Edmund Bulkeley in 1588. In 1589 Fulke returned to the fray and published the Rheims text in parallel with the Bishops’ Bible (at that time the official version of the Church of England), with the object of indicating the errors of Rheims, although this edition and its three reprints probably served to bring the Rheims version to the notice of many who might not otherwise have seen it, among whom were probably the framers of the Authorized Version itself.

POPE, H., “The History of the Rheims-Douay Version”, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (ed. B. ORCHARD – E. F. SUTCLIFFE) (Toronto;New York;Edinburgh 1953) 35.

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931325#Comment_931325

I don't have information on the pedigree of Cardinal Newman who called the Challoner text "a new translation" vs. the Rheims NT of 1582 of Martin/Allen/Bristow/and Reynolds.

H. Pope (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture; Orchard & Sutcliffe; 1953) referred to the comments attendant to the 1582 Rheims to be more of rebuttals to errors introduced by unauthorized publishers in England, from whence the four mentioned were in exile.

A series of notes was added, designed to answer the theological arguments of the Reformers; these were prepared by Allen, assisted by Bristowe and Worthington.

To requote Cardinal Wiseman:

To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.

What is "missing" by not having the Rheims 1582 NT is a series of historically-substantive Notes including a rigorous, approved Catholic English translation estranged from whatever Challoner created.

Whatever the "explanations" are for the disappearance of the Rheims 1582 NT AND ITS NOTES: As a lay-Catholic, I am not authorized to hold public discussions of the contents thereof. However, I certainly would benefit (as would other Catholic Verbum/Logos patrons) by having its contents to read privately.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931327#Comment_931327

Whatever the "explanations" are for the disappearance of the Rheims 1582 NT AND ITS NOTES: As a lay-Catholic, I am not authorized to hold public discussions of the contents thereof. However, I certainly would benefit (as would other Catholic Verbum/Logos patrons) by having its contents to read privately.

A Friend of ours just would not read the Bible. We bought her a 4 volume set of a printed transliterated version of the 1582 NT and the 1609 OT.

She is working of reading it cover to cover. The PDF version is a 12 Meg file. The notes are to the left and right of the bible text. It is in Old English.

It will be VERY expensive. And will NOT have many customers. Expect a price of $150. [[or more - that is what we paid Lulu for the paper copy]]

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931348#Comment_931348

Thanks for the info about Lulu's text. As for your friend: Do you mind sharing how they arrived at such an aversion to reading Holy Scripture yet succumbed when you provided them with the original English vernacular translations with Notes? It would seem they had experienced some VERY CONVINCING ARGUMENTS from somewhere?

I've spent most of my adult life questioning and eventually undressing the liberalisms and modernisms I've been exposed to/absorbed/been taught by post-1958 Simulacrum clergy...and from the dominant Protestantized American/Hollywood culture. SOMETHING BIG must have convinced your friend to avoid adulterated translations of Holy Writ? No?

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931439#Comment_931439

8816.1582 Rheims NT.rtf

Well! So it hasn't been "lost" after all! "Thank you!" David Ames for finally providing me the Scriptural reference I've been looking for! If only Verbum would perform "an examination of conscience" and determine that this Original vernacular Rheims New Testament WITH NOTES is worth including in THEIR BASIC VERBUM PACKAGE of materials...(is that asking for "too much"?)

[An aside: I learned that many of my Prussian ancestors were bilingual in Latin. They would have been able to read Holy Scripture in the centuries-old Latin Vulgate edition approved by the Church. They wouldn't have needed any vernacular translation--such as the "Challoner" described by Cardinals Newman and Wiseman as a "new edition".]

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931348#Comment_931348

Here's a free version, "No Thanks!" to Verbum or to Logos:

https://ia601609.us.archive.org/28/items/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible.pdf

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931439#Comment_931439

Thanks for the info about Lulu's text. As for your friend: Do you mind sharing how they arrived at such an aversion to reading Holy Scripture yet succumbed when you provided them with the original English vernacular translations with Notes? It would seem they had experienced some VERY CONVINCING ARGUMENTS from somewhere?

I do not know what caused her to avoid the Scriptures. She is a very good friend of my wife. On occasion they talked about me and my Scripture Studies. But my wife is more spiritual then I am. She is Catholic but we are not. But we always respected her religion. But she was not reading the Bible. Then when we “went out of our way” to get her the most Catholic of English Bibles that I could find. And suggested that she read it. How could she resist. She took one of the four volumes that make up the set to her priest. Her priest’s remark about us was “Wow, they belong to that church and they gave you this? Wow.” He also recommended that she read it. There are times to Evangelize and there are times not to. We were only the straw. [[as in the straw that broke the camel’s back]]

When she asked where to start I told her to make note of the weekly Scripture readings at Mass. Then at home to find them and read also what was just before and just after to get a feel for what was going on.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931441#Comment_931441

Here's a free version, ...

https://ia601609.us.archive.org/28/items/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible.pdf

Archive PDF is scanned images of Old English text with notes, which needs digital conversion for use in Verbum and Logos. If Faithlife chooses to digitize Bible and Notes, suspect PDF would be read by different people and manually typed followed by comparison, which has better accuracy than digital conversion tools. An option for Faithlife is Community Pricing, which allows users to bid (verify user demand would cover digitization costs).

Created suggestion thread => Suggestion 1610 Douay OT 1582 Rheims NT Bible & Notes

Keep Smiling [:)]

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931453#Comment_931453

These Texts are already ready to be incorporated into Logos and Verbum collections:

"Dr. William G. von Peters has transliterated the Texts into modern English".

They are available in .pdf formats. Perhaps now Logos and Verbum will provide their patrons the opportunity to "credit" their adulterated Challoner D-R texts toward purchasing the REAL Douay Rheims Bible?

http://www.realdouayrheims.com/

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931482#Comment_931482

Perhaps now Logos and Verbum will provide their patrons the opportunity to "credit" their adulterated Challoner D-R texts toward purchasing the REAL Douay Rheims Bible?

Many Bibles offered by Faithlife are $ 9.99 => https://www.logos.com/products/search?Resource+Type=Bibles&pageSize=60 that includes Douay-Rheims Bible (DRA) (with lower price per resource when Bible is included in a bundle, collection, or package).

Noted web site by Dr. William G von Peters has substantially higher price for download and CD for his transliteration of Old English into Modern script, which has some letter changes and spelling: e.g. Dovvay => Douay

These Texts are already ready to be incorporated into Logos and Verbum collections:

Faithlife Bible resources have verse map tagging, which would not be in PDF files (digital text needs conversion for Bible resource use). Logos wiki has => Bible Verse Maps

Keep Smiling [:)]

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931450#Comment_931450

I do not know what caused her to avoid the Scriptures. She is a very good friend of my wife. On occasion they talked about me and my Scripture Studies. But my wife is more spiritual then I am. She is Catholic but we are not. But we always respected her religion. But she was not reading the Bible. Then when we “went out of our way” to get her the most Catholic of English Bibles that I could find. And suggested that she read it. How could she resist. She took one of the four volumes that make up the set to her priest. Her priest’s remark about us was “Wow, they belong to that church and they gave you this? Wow.” He also recommended that she read it. There are times to Evangelize and there are times not to. We were only the straw. [[as in the straw that broke the camel’s back]]

When she asked where to start I told her to make note of the weekly Scripture readings at Mass. Then at home to find them and read also what was just before and just after to get a feel for what was going on.

David, thank you for sharing that story. It's a great example. You and your wife showed a remarkable degree of wisdom and sensitivity.

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931450#Comment_931450

Thanks for the info about Lulu's text. As for your friend: Do you mind sharing how they arrived at such an aversion to reading Holy Scripture yet succumbed when you provided them with the original English vernacular translations with Notes?

I do not know what caused her to avoid the Scriptures. Her priest’s remark about us was “Wow, they belong to that church and they gave you this? Wow.” He also recommended that she read it.

I'm still waiting for von Peters to respond to my email inquiring about purchasing without using PayPal (supports Planned Parenthood/abortion/selling baby parts for profit.) Apparently von Peters is a Naturopath and sells his transliterated products online alongside his "treatment" options. He also lectures in Russia and is licensed in Australia.

As for your friend--if the Notes accompanying the Texts are as powerful as Mr. Guiffre alluded to (my original quote), she will soon be telling her [sic] (Novus Ordo CINO) "priest" that HE should be reading his own copy ASAP. Apparently Mr. Guiffre thought that the Notes portrayed the current status of the imposture of Faith preached by the Early Church Fathers to occur in the End Times (as occurring NOW). (I wouldn't know from the Text or Notes; I downloaded the free archive.org copy but find it difficult to maneuver/read. Hence my desire to compare it to/obtain one of von Peters' transliterations.)

**For anyone interested in exactly WHAT the Early Church Fathers taught about the End Times, archive.org has a free copy of Cardinal Manning's excellent summary thereof in Four Lectures:

Henry Edward Manning, D.D., The Present Crisis Of The Holy See Tested By Prophesy: Four Lectures (London: Burns and Lambert, 1861), https://archive.org/details/ThePresentCrisisOfTheHolySee.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931804#Comment_931804

For anyone interested in exactly WHAT the Early Church Fathers taught about the End Times, ...

Faithlife offers many Early Church Father resources => https://www.logos.com/products/search?q=Early+Church+Fathers&pageSize=60 OR => https://verbum.com/search?query=Early+Church+Fathers

Thankful can search Early Church Fathers using Logos OR Verbum:

eschatology OR (end NEAR times)

Keep Smiling [:)]

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931847#Comment_931847

For anyone interested in exactly WHAT the Early Church Fathers taught about the End Times, ...

Faithlife offers many Early Church Father resources => https://www.logos.com/products/search?q=Early+Church+Fathers&pageSize=60 OR => https://verbum.com/search?query=Early+Church+Fathers

Thankful can search Early Church Fathers using Logos OR Verbum:

Actually KS4J: (Sadly) "Not so."

As Christians we are bound (1) to Holy Mother Church's interpretations of Sacred Scripture AND (2) "the unanimous agreement of the (Church) Fathers."

1788 [DS 3007] [The interpretation of Sacred Scripture]. But, since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.

DENZINGER, H. – RAHNER, K. (ed.), The sources of Catholic dogma (St. Louis, MO 1954) 444.

While searching as you suggest may surface individual tracts of the Fathers, it will not encapsulate (necessarily) "the unanimous agreement of the Fathers" as we are bound to believe.

Moreover, absent the Notes attached to the Authentic-and-Original-and-True Douay Rheims translations (1582/1609), the ADULTERATED CHALLONER TEXT which Faithlife

SUBSTITUTES as an IMPOSTURED D-R

leaves true students of the Faith MISSING a verifiable, additional SOURCE DOCUMENT!

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931855#Comment_931855

As Christians we are bound (1) to Holy Mother Church's interpretations of Sacred Scripture AND (2) "the unanimous agreement of the (Church) Fathers."

Thankful for Faithlife creating => http://christiandiscourse.com for theological discussions. These forums primarily focus on using Bible Study apps and applications by Faithlife Corporation along with suggesting resources. Thankful for many friendly forum discussions: have learned a lot plus have a lot to learn.

Observation: Truth transcends time. Thankful for my name being written in God's Book of Life plus a personal spiritual relationship with God that provides many reasons to Keep Smiling 4 Jesus [:D]

Product description => Douay-Rheims Bible (DRA) includes:

Logos is pleased to offer the version of the Douay-Rheims Bible revised by Richard Challoner, which eliminated archaic words and English Latinisms, and made the Bible more accessible to English-speaking Catholics. This revision, first published in America in 1790, has undergone numerous reprintings throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century, making it the most widely-used and bestselling English translation of the Vulgate.

Thankful for a bestselling English translation for use in Logos and Verbum. Thankful for hundreds of Bibles and Bible Notes also usable in Logos and Verbum while dreaming of more. Thankful digital resources are not people in my living room due to passionate disagreements.

Catholic Bible Blog review in Aug 2017 => http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2017/08/the-real-douay-rheims-bible-review-and.html includes:

For example, the annotation for Romans 3:22 refers to the Calvinist commentary on it as "wicked and vain." Most of you are aware that by the time of the Challoner revision, much of that style of annotation was eliminated from the text.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931868#Comment_931868

As Christians we are bound (1) to Holy Mother Church's interpretations of Sacred Scripture AND (2) "the unanimous agreement of the (Church) Fathers."

Thankful for Faithlife creating => http://christiandiscourse.com for theological discussions. These forums primarily focus on using Bible Study apps and applications by Faithlife Corporation along with suggesting resources. Thankful for many friendly forum discussions: have learned a lot plus have a lot to learn.

Observation: Truth transcends time. Thankful for my name being written in God's Book of Life plus a personal spiritual relationship with God that provides many reasons to Keep Smiling 4 Jesus

Product description => Douay-Rheims Bible (DRA) includes:

Logos is pleased to offer the version of the Douay-Rheims Bible revised by Richard Challoner, which eliminated archaic words and English Latinisms, and made the Bible more accessible to English-speaking Catholics. This revision, first published in America in 1790, has undergone numerous reprintings throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century, making it the most widely-used and bestselling English translation of the Vulgate.

Thankful for a bestselling English translation for use in Logos and Verbum. Thankful for hundreds of Bibles and Bible Notes also usable in Logos and Verbum while dreaming of more. Thankful digital resources are not people in my living room due to passionate disagreements.

Catholic Bible Blog review in Aug 2017 => http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2017/08/the-real-douay-rheims-bible-review-and.html includes:

For example, the annotation for Romans 3:22 refers to the Calvinist commentary on it as "wicked and vain." Most of you are aware that by the time of the Challoner revision, much of that style of annotation was eliminated from the text.

Keep Smiling

Well said KM4J ! I think its fine for someone to argue that they would very much like a resource not currently available within Logos, but this thread goes much further than that. The very godly souls that periodically would like to argue in favour of "King James Only" on this site would (I believe) have been given far less leeway before being referred to the Christian discourse site. As for the comments about 'holy mother church' and its pretended authority, I had best say nothing lest I give offense. Keep well Paul

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931953#Comment_931953

I suspect the latitude may have been due to the novelty of this position. In no way meaning to belittle or take sides this is the first I had heard of it. His position is obviously in opposition to todays RCC hierarchy I would be interested in this work, that said I am not sure it will ever see the light of day having a limited mark and likely despite being a public domain work being a fairly pricey item to get (not just grabbing a bunch of reprints but the need to go through and update the text from elizabethan standards that make it hard to read with lettering we no longer use. I am never sure in the older translations he have if something is a typo or left for historical reasons like 1 IUdge not, that ye be not judged. Geneva Bible (Geneva: Rovland Hall, 1560), Mt 7:1.

-dan

Gregory Lynne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/932030#Comment_932030

Links to von Peters' transliteration of the 1582 NT and 1609 OT Douay-Rheims English have been cited. The doc spent a decade of his life away from wife and (8) children meticulously ciphering the original text as accurately as he was able to do. I read in his bio?/an article? that he considers this labor a "charitable work of mercy" (toward the common good).

Nonetheless, the worker is worth his labor and Logos could be (equally) so charitable as to reach some reasonable deal with von Peters so his labors could BOTH be put into the wider distribution of readers AND so the good doc could reap some return on the time stolen from his labors, family, and domestic bliss! (Win-Win?) Meanwhile, Logos could also "earn" some "gold stars" for finally releasing a TRUE version of the English Douay Rheims Bible--after all these years of hiding behind the Challoner version (as if it were "good enough for any Catholic.")

From this Catholic's point-of-view: I've been saddled with a Douay-Rheims IMITATION BIBLE which is lacking its original zeal according to two respected Cardinals (Newman and Wiseman) AND is lacking Allens' (?) NOTES relating to the translation/apologetics deemed relevant/necessary for the (English-speaking) laity and as topical (approved Commentary) instruction in the Faith of the Ages.

As my Prussian relatives had no need of such a Bible--many knew Latin as a second language--I suspect they could read the Vulgate well-enough in their day. Unfortunately, the Protestantized Challoner version of 1899 is HARDLY the English Catholic Douay Rheims of historical record. [I care not the opinions of those who belittle and sidestep Cardinals Newman's and Wiseman's opinions.]

Logos has left me/other Catholics without the CENTRAL and MOST VALUABLE BOOK of our Christian Faith Tradition in its oldest, English, Catholic Edition for the common layperson!

[Masonic indifferentism/ecumenism may form the backbone of Logos' mentality?] A "good-enough" D-R leaves me suspect of what changes were made that disturbed Cardinals Newman and Wiseman?

Had I known I was purchasing a falsely-promoted, Challoner [sic] "Douay-Rheims" from Logos--along with my Verbum collection, I likely would have passed and spent my monies elsewhere.

Electronic transliteration of Sacred Books and of Sacred Traditions changes nought, if done according to the One, True, Catholic, Apostolic Faith. Dr. von Peters sensed such when he abandoned his Protestant seminary studies, a truth that seems "lost" to many who have replied to this thread.