Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old May 24, '07, 12:51 pm
trth_skr trth_skr is offline
 
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Posts: 1,188
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
"He uses the approved RSV translation in this study Bible."

That's not what his website or his Matthew Volume 1 say.
...

And why didn't he get the imprimatur or nihil obstat either?

Here's more of canon law--
I'll try and respond to the circumstances. I am paring down your quotes to make it fit in one message.

My understanding is that Robert did apply for both Vol. I and vol. II. He is still in the process of obtaining imprimatur for Vol. II, but was denied for Vol. I because of the technicality that the Bishop's office felt that they could not grant an imprimatur for a "translation of a translation". Not receiving the imprimatur for a technicality does not mean the work cannot be published. For that reason, Robert moved on, and in subsequent volumes he chose to use the already approved RSV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful ...condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.


Again, Robert applied, and is still applying for imprimaturs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
§2. Bishops, individually or gathered in particular councils or conferences of bishops, ...however, has this duty and right with regard to the entire people of God.



I agree, Bishops have the right to grant imprimaturs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
Can. 824 §1. Unless it is established otherwise, the local ordinary whose permission...the ordinary of the place where the books are published.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post

§2. Those things established regarding books in the canons of this title must be applied to any writings whatsoever which are destined for public distribution, unless it is otherwise evident.
He did apply, and is in the process of applying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.



Clearly the "translation of a translation" is a technicality which does not allow the bishops to deal with the Matthew volume. This puts the book outside their pervue (by their own admission). Clearly Robert's Matthew translation will not be used in liturgy, or taught in schools, but that does not mean we cannot use it for personal study if we choose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members ... with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures ...



Does not apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
Can. 826 §1. The prescripts of ⇒ can. 838 are to be observed concerning liturgical books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post

...
Does not apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
Can. 827 §1. To be published, catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical instruction or their translations require the approval of the local ordinary, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 775, §2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post

§2. Books which regard questions pertaining to sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, ...it subsequently.

Clearly, until such time as the books receive imprimatur, they should not be used in Catholic schools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
§3. It is recommended that books dealing with the matters mentioned in §2, although not used as texts in instruction, as well as writings which especially concern religion or good morals are submitted to the judgment of the local ordinary.



This applies, is a recommendation, and was adhered to. Robert did apply, and is still applying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
§4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.


Same as the school question.

Considering the complete garbage available out there, some even with imprimatur, I do not understand why you are applying such a stringent standard to Robert's solidly orthodox books.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old May 24, '07, 1:04 pm
trth_skr trth_skr is offline
 
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Posts: 1,188
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Quote:
Originally Posted by spauline View Post
I think he's got some good ideas, and I think that on purely one level of meaning, he is OK and good.

I will, however, very much disagree that amillennialism provides the deepest understanding of the Millennium. In my analysis, the Millennium is figurative (as it must be), but practically future, as it is, IMHO, rather the age of peace that will follow the most likely minor chastisement. See my thread in these forums:

Deficiencies with amillennial suppositions

Secondly, I perceive an even deeper and more penetrating analysis of the False Prophet that uses the notion of the devil's plagiarizing of the Sacraments:

The Lamb, the True Logos, and the Second Beast, the False Logos


His analysis of the Seal of God is too vague. I don't see it merely as Baptism, for heretics and schismatics have baptism, but they are not fully protected from spiritual harm in their "forehead", as they can be led PARTIALLY astray in their intellect, seeing as they have not the fullness of truth only to be found in the Catholic Church. Toward that end, I think he's missing some deeper analysis of the trumpets and ecclesiology:

The Seal, the Mark, and Everything In Between

Finally, he doesn't seem to fully probe the depths of the beast as a image of successive ages of sin across all human history, precisely tied to the "evening" or "darkness" of the days of creation, which some ECFs see as imaging seven (eight) successive stages in the Redemption of the World:

The Beast and Historicism

I know this is alot, but really check them out. I promise you won't be disappointed!

scott
Scott:

Sorry for not getting back sooner. I am travelling, and today is the first time since I posted the book review that I have had a chance (or ability) to get on the internet.

I will take a look at your ideas. I am going to download them for later reading. I am not against speculative theology, and it appears that you are in fact stating that your view is different (though I am sure you feel consistent with) from the traditional Catholic view. As you appear to have spent a lot of time studying the Apocalypse, I would appreciate you stating for the benefit of others that (regardless of whether you think it is correct or not) that the general view used by Robert as the basis of his book (i.e., the amillenial, or millenium as the Church age) is the predominat Catholic view since at least Augustine, and in fact this view has considerable support from the Church.

Thanks, and God Bless,

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old May 24, '07, 1:48 pm
Augustine22 Augustine22 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Posts: 95
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Mark Wyatt--

"Considering the complete garbage available out there, some even with imprimatur, I do not understand why you are applying such a stringent standard to Robert's solidly orthodox books."

Not to be a jerk, but if even garbage can get an imprimatur then why is Sungenis having a hard time getting one?

And there's obviously a diff between a regular book and a translation of the Scriptures. The Church is very protetctive about that. You can understand that can't you? I can.

And the idea that someone can do a translation and publish it before getting permission sounds past sketchy to me and I don't know much about canon law.

Canon 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.


No offense, but what your making sounds like an argument I would expect from someone like a Fr. McBrien.


"Clearly the "translation of a translation" is a technicality which does not allow the bishops to deal with the Matthew volume. This puts the book outside their pervue (by their own admission)."


What? Sungenis said he was going back to the original languages. And he said he was using the Latin Vulgate, too. He even wrote that Greek manuscripts were being looked at to come up with the best translation.

The Douay used the Latin Vulgate so its a translation of a translation, too. And even that got official approval. What your writing doesn't make any sense to me.


Who is the bishop who said this is outside their pervue?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old May 24, '07, 1:56 pm
lumengentleman lumengentleman is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2006
Posts: 48
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

These are three of my favorite statements from Mark's recent explosion of posts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr View Post
In CASB 2, he did not say that "it does not refer to Israel". He just did not say that it does
Now that's the kind of spin control we've come to expect from the CAI crowd! Good to have you back, Mark!

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr View Post
Where are you leading with this Jacob? Are you leading to a Hahnian type interpretation of Apocalypse whereby the entire Apocalypse is interpreted as occuring in the past, ending with the destruction of the Temple (except all of a sudden chapter 20 pertains to the end of the world with nothing in between)?
Red herring, and since I said nothing about whether or not I personally disagreed with Bob's view, it's irrelevant. This is not about which of the two views he's advocating is correct, one in CASB1 and one in CASB 2, it's about the fact that he's advocating two views. In the same series. On the same subject. In the space of a couple of years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr View Post
Is is possible that his view shifted when he actually studied the Apocalypse and researched it?
I have to wonder sometimes if Bob knows the kind of PR work his shills are doing for him. Statements like the above actually make Bob look really bad. Yes, Mark, it is entirely possible that, when Bob "actually" got around to studying the issues, after he'd written a CASB volume that partially addresses those issues, he changed his mind.

In fact, it's not only possible. It's probable. He changes his mind with the changing of the wind (witness his recent about-face on the SSPX issues).

But seriously, Mark, you should stop making those kinds of defenses for Bob - people are going to think that you're my sock puppet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr View Post
Robert is not writing a Time-Life series. He is not writing all the books, having them edited by editors to make them completely consistent, etc. There could be some shift in his views as he does the detailed research necassary to produce the quality work he produces.
And again, I say, that's a really, really poor defense. Basically you're arguing that, because this isn't a "Time-Life series," consistency is not that big of an issue. As Bob gets around to doing his "detailed research", he should be allowed to change his views as he's writing the series - is that right?

Here's an idea: maybe Bob should do his "detailed research" before he takes it upon himself to start teaching others!

Looking at this situation, I think I might have a pretty good idea why his bishop won't give him an imprimatur ... and it has little to do with translations.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old May 24, '07, 2:11 pm
trth_skr trth_skr is offline
 
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Posts: 1,188
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
Mark Wyatt--

...
"Clearly the "translation of a translation" is a technicality which does not allow the bishops to deal with the Matthew volume. This puts the book outside their pervue (by their own admission)."


What? Sungenis said he was going back to the original languages. And he said he was using the Latin Vulgate, too. He even wrote that Greek manuscripts were being looked at to come up with the best translation.

The Douay used the Latin Vulgate so its a translation of a translation, too. And even that got official approval. What your writing doesn't make any sense to me.


Who is the bishop who said this is outside their pervue?
Your analysis sounds equally sound, but this is what the Bishop said. I do not know who the bishop was.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old May 24, '07, 2:21 pm
Augustine22 Augustine22 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Posts: 95
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

I'm really not trying to be mean here but how do you know this is what the bishop said if you don't even know which bishop said it?


And what about the first part of my post? I don't know if you meant that you agreed what I wrote there made sense, too or just the part at the bottom you quoted.

Agree? Disagree?


(You) "Considering the complete garbage available out there, some even with imprimatur, I do not understand why you are applying such a stringent standard to Robert's solidly orthodox books."

(Me) Not to be a jerk, but if even garbage can get an imprimatur then why is Sungenis having a hard time getting one?

And there's obviously a diff between a regular book and a translation of the Scriptures. The Church is very protetctive about that. You can understand that can't you? I can.

And the idea that someone can do a translation and publish it before getting permission sounds past sketchy to me and I don't know much about canon law.

Canon 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

No offense, but what your making sounds like an argument I would expect from someone like a Fr. McBrien.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old May 24, '07, 2:27 pm
trth_skr trth_skr is offline
 
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Posts: 1,188
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
In CASB 2, he did not say that "it does not refer to Israel". He just did not say that it does


Quote:
Originally Posted by lumengentleman View Post
Now that's the kind of spin control we've come to expect from the CAI crowd! Good to have you back, Mark!
No, Jacob, you are the one with twisted logic. Shall we examine it? (answer- yes we shall):

You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lumengentleman
Here is Bob, circa 2006-2007, in CASB 2:


Quote:
... there are two kinds of apocalyptic language. The first speaks of the effects upon the sun and the moon, while the second of the effects upon the sun, the moon and stars. Whenever the stars are involved in the cataclysm, we can be rather certain that the text is describing the physical end of the world.
Got that? When the stars are involved, we're talking about the end of the world - and not, as the first quote said, about the "demise of Israel."

Now let's ask the Bob Sungenis who wrote CASB 1 what he thinks:


Quote:
"Many of the references to the darkening of the sun, stars and moon are used as figures of judgment upon Israel (Is 5:30; 24:23, 34:4, Jl 2:10, 3:15), although each can be understood as literally fulfilled at the end of time when the universe will be destroyed. The complete destruction is denoted by the specific inclusion of the stars being obliterated (Is 13:10; Jl 2:10, 3:15, :l 21:25; Ac 27:20; Ap 6:13)"
Notice what passages he references as examples of "figures of judgment upon Israel"?

And notice what passages he references as examples of "complete destruction"?

In both cases, he refers to Joel 2:10 and 3:15, so apparently verses that have the "specific inclusion of the stars being obliterated" (ie. Jl 2:10, 3:15) can also be understood "as figures of judgment upon Israel."

At least, that is, if you're reading CASB 1. If you're reading CASB 2, it's a different story.
To summarize, you say that in Volume 2 (Apocalypse) he says that the stars indicate the end of the world. You later claim that he says that it does not indicate a judgement of Israel. Where does it claim that Jacob? It does not it simply says that [in the context of the Apocalypse] it is to be interpreted as the end of the world. This does not exclude it being interpreted as a judgement of Israel in other passages of Scripture. You took this quote from a book on the Apocalypse.

You then show that in Volume I (Matthew) he says that it is interpreted as a judgement against Israel, and in general can be interperted as the end of the world. Consistent.

So in both volumes he says it can be interpreted as the end of the world. In Volume II, where perhaps he did not feel the "judgement against Israel" statement fit, he chose and presented the interpretation he thought correct (end of the world). He discusses the relation of Apocalypse to many OT prophecies and ideas throughout the book. If you have not read it, I suggest you do.

Don't presume to know his thoughts. This is a prefectly reasonable possibility.

I will let my arguments on the other points stand. I am now going to press you to answer the hard questions, rather then get mired in your silly little traps. Let's see if you have any brains behind the mouth.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old May 24, '07, 2:37 pm
trth_skr trth_skr is offline
 
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Posts: 1,188
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Jacob:

Let me get back to my questions to you. I answered yours. You disagreed and expressed your opinion, so I will let it stand where it is. Now, please answer my questions to you. Let me summarize them:

1. Have you read Vol. II (Apocalypse)?

2. Do you agree or disaree with the CONTENT of the book?

3. Do you have anything to say about the interpretations laid out in the book?

4. Where are you leading with this Jacob? Are you leading to a Hahnian type interpretation of Apocalypse whereby the entire Apocalypse is interpreted as occuring in the past, ending with the destruction of the Temple (except all of a sudden chapter 20 pertains to the end of the world with nothing in between)?

5. Do you recognize or accept that at least since Augustine that the traditional and supported view is the amillenial whereby the entire Apocalypse starts with the Cross and ends with the second coming, including everything in between?

6. Do you accept, at least as possible that the the beast(s) are currently acting in the world sending false messages and "deceiving the nations"?

7. I...am convinced that he [Robert Sungenis] put forth the correct basic interpretation that the Church holds and has held [amillenial- Apocalypse occurs in the Church age (cross-present- end of world)]. It was an eye opener for me, as all these new fad type interpretations are being circulated as authoritative. I have nothing against specualtive theology, but the problem is that they are being sold to the public as the Church's view, when in fact they really are not. Do you have anything to say on that bigger issue?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old May 24, '07, 2:44 pm
trth_skr trth_skr is offline
 
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Posts: 1,188
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
I'm really not trying to be mean here but how do you know this is what the bishop said if you don't even know which bishop said it?
This is what Robert told me. It could either be his bishop or the bishop in the parish which published the book (Queenship). I do not know who either are offhand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
And what about the first part of my post? I don't know if you meant that you agreed what I wrote there made sense, too or just the part at the bottom you quoted.

Agree? Disagree?
Not really a agree/disagree question. I will answer below.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
(You) "Considering the complete garbage available out there, some even with imprimatur, I do not understand why you are applying such a stringent standard to Robert's solidly orthodox books."

(Me) Not to be a jerk, but if even garbage can get an imprimatur then why is Sungenis having a hard time getting one?
Apparently the technicality of a "translation of a translation" is what stopped the particular bishop in question. We will see what happens with volumes II and III. This can easily take 6 months to a year or more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
And there's obviously a diff between a regular book and a translation of the Scriptures. The Church is very protetctive about that. You can understand that can't you? I can.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
And the idea that someone can do a translation and publish it before getting permission sounds past sketchy to me and I don't know much about canon law.

Canon 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.
I am not a canon lawyer either. This is obviously part of the reason he switched to the RSV, it is already approved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
No offense, but what your making sounds like an argument I would expect from someone like a Fr. McBrien.
Don't know anything about him.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old May 24, '07, 10:59 pm
pacislander4lif pacislander4lif is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 2007
Posts: 94
Religion: Roman Catholic
Send a message via AIM to pacislander4lif
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr View Post
Jacob:

I have read The Apocalypse fo St. John cover to cover. It is based on the RSV. I do have the Matthew Study Bible also and have read parts of it. It is the "updated" Douay Rheims.

As to 'why the change', here are some comments from Laurence Gonzaga, CAI's Media Technician:

"The choice for RSV was purely for the sake of seeking Imprimaturs... That is, his use of the DR in Vol 1 was not the DR really, he revised it, and that's why it failed to get the Imprimatur. Thus, using the RSV made it easier since the translation already had the Imprimatur."

I heard about the change a while ago in the Q&A's, but was not sure exactly why he made the change.

Unfortunately the description you are reading about the updated DR is in the ad titled "1 down [i.e., Matthew], 12 more to go!! ". In fact this was true when he started and finished the Matthew study bible, but is not true now after finishing the Apocalypse and Romans / James (in publication). He needs to update his site.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
*** I didnt write that comment on Mark's blog within my capacity as a representative of CAI, afterall I am not an "apologist" for CAI-- but I made a comment based on what I read... Below is my latest response on Mark's blog, with the explanation from Bob...

I don't "field questions" btw, as an "apologist" for CAI or for Bob Sungenis, since that would be outside of my lowly role as "media technician" :-)... I am simply repeating what I myself have read from Bob's own words... I'd appreciate it if people wouldnt question my ability to comment on these issues, and be reasonably accurate for that matter, in spite of my own limited knowledge of the issues. It's not like I am writing theology books or anything, since I don't have any degrees in that field. Let me quote Bob himself:

"When I applied for the Imprimatur for the Matthew volume, the USCCB determined that my modifications to the DR were a "translation of a translation" and not a true translation, and therefore, I could not get the specific Imprimatur for a "translation." That being the case, I could not get the Matthew volume to the censor librorum for review of its apologetics material, since the "translation" was not first approved. So instead of going through all that rigamarole again, I'm just going to use a translation already approved. Someday, however, we are going to submit a revised DR translation of the whole Bible, and we are working on that now" (Sungenis, Question 73, Nov. 2006)
__________________
www.xanga.com/pacislander4life
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old May 24, '07, 11:34 pm
spauline's Avatar
spauline spauline is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2004
Posts: 4,705
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr View Post
Scott:

Sorry for not getting back sooner. I am travelling, and today is the first time since I posted the book review that I have had a chance (or ability) to get on the internet.

I will take a look at your ideas. I am going to download them for later reading. I am not against speculative theology, and it appears that you are in fact stating that your view is different (though I am sure you feel consistent with) from the traditional Catholic view. As you appear to have spent a lot of time studying the Apocalypse, I would appreciate you stating for the benefit of others that (regardless of whether you think it is correct or not) that the general view used by Robert as the basis of his book (i.e., the amillenial, or millenium as the Church age) is the predominat Catholic view since at least Augustine, and in fact this view has considerable support from the Church.

Thanks, and God Bless,

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Dear Mark,

Thank you for responding. Yes, I should admit that Augustine's second solution, otherwise known as amill, has been the tendency of Catholic thought for the most part since him. But let me emphasize that I don't deny it one layer of meaning, I'm just suggesting a deeper meaning of the Millennium as the age of peace, a veritable imperfect rest that is more practical than the whole age of the Church . But also note, I view the book as a type of symbolic expression of the entire process of salvation history as it completes in the Church age. So I'm not contesting that part. But anyway, bon appetit with my stuff. I think you will like it, or at least hope you do!

Blessings to you, Mark!
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old May 25, '07, 7:43 am
Augustine22 Augustine22 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Posts: 95
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Something's still not making any sense to me. Why would anyone publish something before getting the imprimatur if they are looking for it? You want the imprimatur printed right in the book for people to see and it can't be in the book if you don't get it until after its printed and published.

And the translation of a translation thing still doesn't make any sense to me either. The Douay is a translation of the Latin translation, right? And it needed and got the imprimatur.

Sungenis said he was going back to the Greek and the Vulgate to give the best translation. So it's a translation into English.

Sungenis wrote:

"The CASB gives you an updated version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, the most accurate and authoritative Catholic translation available. The CASB replaces some archaic 16th century words with more precise words. The grammar and syntax of the original Greek and Hebrew are analyzed in conjunction with the Latin Vulgate for the most accurate translation."

http://www.catholicintl.com/products/books/casb.html

and

"great care has been taken in producing the CASB translation...Both scholar and layman can trust that what is presented in the CASB is a faithful representation of what appears in the original languages"

"The CASB endeaovrs to bring out even more accurately the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew text underlying the Latin Vulgate."



Canon law doesn't look very confusing to me--

Canon 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.


And it doesn't given an answer why his next one on the Apocolyspe doesn't have the imprimatur either. He used a version of the english bible that's been aproved before so there should be no reason for not getting the imprimatur unless theres a problem with what Sungenis wrote in his book.

The idea that he published his book first and then hopes to get the imprimatur later doesn't make any sense to me.

But if you are fine with all of that I guess that's your business.

Last edited by Augustine22; May 25, '07 at 8:00 am.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old May 25, '07, 9:55 am
pacislander4lif pacislander4lif is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 2007
Posts: 94
Religion: Roman Catholic
Send a message via AIM to pacislander4lif
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
And the translation of a translation thing still doesn't make any sense to me either. The Douay is a translation of the Latin translation, right? And it needed and got the imprimatur.
Did they employ Imprimaturs in the 16th century?
__________________
www.xanga.com/pacislander4life
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old May 25, '07, 10:00 am
pacislander4lif pacislander4lif is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 2007
Posts: 94
Religion: Roman Catholic
Send a message via AIM to pacislander4lif
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine22 View Post
And it doesn't given an answer why his next one on the Apocolyspe doesn't have the imprimatur either. He used a version of the english bible that's been aproved before so there should be no reason for not getting the imprimatur unless theres a problem with what Sungenis wrote in his book.

The idea that he published his book first and then hopes to get the imprimatur later doesn't make any sense to me.

But if you are fine with all of that I guess that's your business.
Why is this Imprimatur business such a big deal? Thera re many heretical books which have Imprimaturs... And there are also commentaries without Imprimaturs...

I think CAI should revise their page on the CASB to avoid any confusion about changing from DR-Revision to RSV...

I will talk to Bob about it later...

Laurence
CAI
__________________
www.xanga.com/pacislander4life
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old May 25, '07, 10:35 am
Augustine22 Augustine22 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Posts: 95
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacislander4lif View Post
Did they employ Imprimaturs in the 16th century?

I don't know about the orgininal way back when. My Douay right in front of me has the imprimatur. If everything is so loose and unimportant with versions and needing imprimaturs why would this one have it?

My Douay is an updated version, too. It's kind of a translation of a translation, too, like Sungenis wrote.

But its got the imprimatur. But your saying you can't get an imprimatur of a translation of a translation.

And my Haydock version of the Douay even has the imprimatur.

This isn't making any sense to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pacislander4lif View Post
Why is this Imprimatur business such a big deal? Thera re many heretical books which have Imprimaturs... And there are also commentaries without Imprimaturs...
Like I said before, if its so easy to get one why is Sungenis having a hard time getting one? He tried and hasn't gotten it.

You say he's still waiting and trying but that doesn't make sense to me. Why would you publish a book and then try to get the imprimatur later? You want people to see it in the book so they know.

And the Canon law says that he should get it. So he was right to go for it.

But he hasn't gotten it. The answers don't add up to me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Robert Sungenis vs John Lane Jared Silvey Apologetics 17 May 19, '09 4:28 pm
Looking for a book/study guide/interpretation of the Apocalypse of St. John bennysan Sacred Scripture 51 Oct 14, '07 10:41 pm
APOCALYPSE XII : 7 thru' 17,Where are they? Exporter Sacred Scripture 2 Dec 12, '04 5:11 pm




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6652CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
6278Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: hazcompat
5221Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4631Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4332Poems and Reflections
Last by: Purgatory Pete
4055OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3295For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2831Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: Jeannie52
2449SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.