Posted on 04/13/2012 4:35:34 PM PDT by stpio
Maybe this is the "May 31st" that the 5th Marian Dogma will be proclaimed? We'll see. Pray for the Holy Father.
Remember, co-...means with.
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/
~ ~ ~
message to Maria of Divine Mercy (Ireland))
Virgin Mary: The time for me to crush the serpent is drawing nearer
Friday, April 13th, 2012 @ 05:57 pm
I am your beloved Mother, Queen of the Earth. I am the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus who came in the flesh.
My child, the time for the triumph of My Immaculate Heart is close.
The time for me to crush the serpent is drawing nearer. But until the day when Satan and his demons are cast into the wilderness, much confusion will erupt on earth.
For believers in my Son, it will be a time of torment. They will be pulled into two different directions by the Catholic Church.
One half will believe, out of duty, the need to follow the False Prophet, the Pope who will follow Pope Benedict XVI
He, the beast, is dressed like a lamb but is not from my Father, God the Most High, and will fool poor souls including priests, bishops and cardinals.
Many will follow him and believe him to be sent by God to rule over His Church on earth.
Sadly, many souls will follow his teachings which will be insulting to My Father.
Others, filled with the Holy Spirit and given the graces of discernment because of their humble souls, will know instantly, that an imposter sits in the Church in Rome.
The new FALSE pope is already scheming, even before he ascends to the throne of the Seat of Peter, to denounce the teachings of my Son. Then he will denounce me, the Blessed Mother of God, and ridicule my role as Co-Redemptrix.
My child, your role is going to become even harder than before. For many of my children are very confused. The insults you face every day, the torments you endure on behalf of my Son, will increase.
Never be afraid to tell the world [u]the truth[/u] my child.
You are being made stronger as a result of the physical and mental suffering you accept on behalf of my Son in order to save souls.
Every effort, especially by one division in the Catholic Church, will be made to dismiss my messages given to you.
Your obedience and loyalty to me and my beloved Son will be tested as never before. This may lead you to pull away but, should this happen, it will not last long.
Pray, my child, for all of God’s children who, through no fault of their own, are being pulled into the final battle for souls.
All of this must come to pass for it is contained in my Father’s Book.
All the angels in Heaven protect you, my child, in this somewhat lonely mission.
Always remember how important prayer is.
Pray, pray, pray for without prayer, especially the recital of my Holy Rosary, Satan can pull you away from the Holy Word of my Precious Son.
Remember also the importance of fasting for it keeps the deceiver at bay.
Without regular prayer, my children, will find it hard to remain close to my Son.
Never fear the future children for once you remain close to my Son you will be protected
And given the necessary graces to prepare your souls and those of your families for the New Era of Peace foretold so long ago.
Your beloved Mother
Queen of the Earth
Mother of Salvation
Catholic apologist John Salza answers the Question...
Who is the woman in Revelation 12?
Q: - Dear John Salza, I have a question about Rev. 12:1-2. In scripture catholic website about the blessed virgin mary, you talk about the woman being Mary, but it also symbolizes Israel and the church. In the New American Standard, (which I was reading during adoration!) it refers to Gen 37:9 - Joseph telling this dream to his brothers (you probably already know it), thus symbolizing Israel being the stars and moon. My question is how do you say to a protestant, or a new catholic (such as myself), that it refers to 3 things at once. Is the main focus on Mary, the church, or Israel? Do you have any more insight about this subject? I look forward to a response. Thank you very much. God Bless you.
A: J. Salza - John, thank you for your email. First, if you are reading the New American Bible, I must advise you that some of the translations and footnote explanations are quite problematic. They are infected with liberal ideology and in many cases are even heretical. It is truly a shame that the US bishops approved this Bible for publication. You should set it aside and instead use the Douay-Rheims translation, or the RSV-CE.
Regarding Rev. 12, remember that the Apocalypse (or Book of Revelation) is apocalyptic literature unique to the first century. Thus, it is full of symbolism which has multiple meanings. Therefore, it is common for one symbol to represent more than one thing. The woman clothed with the sun is the Virgin Mary, and so the verse should be principally interpreted as such. This is demonstrated by Rev. 12:17, where the devil goes to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who bear testimony to Jesus. This makes Mary the mother of all Christians.
Since Mary is the mother of the Church, we can say that the woman, on a secondary level, represents the Church, which is the New Israel. This is why John writes about her pangs of travail, which are symbolic for those who are being formed in the Church of Jesus Christ. So, this literature provides us multiple meanings, but there is generally a PRINCIPLE meaning and a SECONDARY meaning; in this case, the woman is the Blessed Virgin Mary, the same “woman” who God said would crush the head of the serpent in Gen. 3:15. Because she is such a danger to satan, satan tried to kill her even after the Savior was born (Rev. 12:13).
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
What I have been reading of Daniel1212's posts is he's trying to get across the perspective that stpio is the one who is doing the bloviating by insisting "bias" is the reason why others are not agreeing with him. When Daniel repeatedly tried to explain why he referenced Catholic sources - to show stpio was not reinforced by the hierarchy of Roman Catholicism to his claims - he got more of the same. I see Daniel's explanation about the point of why he would use such sources as a kindness rather than a self-assured debater whipping up on a newbie.
Rather than present yourself as the arbiter of what is or is not a debate vs. argument, why not weigh in on the topic of conversation?
I do not wish to participate in any debate or contest. If we fail to find and serve the truth there are no winners.
But you'll come on the thread and castigate the non-Catholic for something that he really was right about?
Putting aside the thread topic about some "prophet" prognosticating about the demise of half of the Roman Catholic Church "faithful" in the maybe near future, do you at least agree with Daniel's point that the thread originator does NOT have the official sanctions to buttress his interpretation of the identity of the "woman" in Revelation 12? That really WAS Daniel's main point, you know.
You expect everyone to bow down to what "John Salza" says is the truth? Is he part of the hierarchy of the Magesterium? Is he a Bishop? Does he have the authority to criticize the American Bishops who approved the NAB? How is John Salza any more an authority on what is the truth than any other Christian? How is what John Salza says about Revelation 12 any more true than church Fathers Hippolytus, Methodius, Victorinus and others? They did not agree with John Salza.
Have you forgotten that the Old Testament and especially Genesis was originally written in HEBREW? Jerome was NOT fluent in Hebrew when he began his translation into Latin. Shouldn't the Hebrew version of Genesis 3:15 be correct? You have already been shown that the pronoun "she" is NOT used. So why do you insist that "she shall crush your head" is the only correct translation and accuse those who disagree with you of heresy? That's an awfully big swath you must paint to include even church fathers and prominent RC theologians into that category.
I suspect that the main reason you hold so tightly to your preferred version of Genesis 3:15 is so you can segue into the false assertion that Revelation 12 is ALSO speaking of Mary. You would again be bumping heads with others of your religious persuasion and even the magesterium who have NOT come down on an either/or decision for that section just as they have failed to provide any semblance of an exhaustive commentary for the Bible. After 2000 years, even!
If you would like to read a well-researched essay on that chapter of Revelation and see how it ties into the entire body of prophetic Scripture, please read http://www.biblrytr.com/revelation11.htm. Or, not. Just reserve your condemnations of heresy to those actual dogmas your church has officially defined. All else is personal/private interpretations...you know, what you guys always accuse "us" of doing.
“You expect everyone to bow down to what “John Salza” says is the truth? Is he part of the hierarchy of the Magesterium? Is he a Bishop? Does he have the authority to criticize the American Bishops who approved the NAB?”
~ ~ ~
boatbums, you don’t bow down to any authority. Protestantism is inconsistent in belief, everyone is their own authority. You are talking out of two sides of your mouth brother. In your next quote you are mocking Catholic authority. Which is it?
~ ~ ~
“You would again be bumping heads with others of your religious persuasion and even the magesterium who have NOT come down on an either/or decision for that section just as they have failed to provide any semblance of an exhaustive commentary for the Bible. After 2000 years, even!”
“Have you forgotten that the Old Testament and especially Genesis was originally written in HEBREW? Jerome was NOT fluent in Hebrew when he began his translation into Latin. Shouldn’t the Hebrew version of Genesis 3:15 be correct? You have already been shown that the pronoun “she” is NOT used.”
~ ~ ~
St. Jerome got it WRONG? Okay, what part of Scripture is correct? King James and his fellas corrected Jerome twelve centuries later, I don’t think so.
If non-Catholic Christians showed a devotion for Mary or honored her as Our Lord desires, we could discuss, it is the complete opposite. Can’t you see, you’re in the same boat as the serpent, the evil one hated the thought a human person would be a part of our Redemption. You can change though, speak to Mary in prayer. She is your mother too.
Two examples of Protestant changes posted showed “He shall” and “It shall”, no way, that’s not feminine. The KJV’s
Rev 3:15 is drastically changed. You find changes as Salza said even in some modern Catholic Bibles. Go with the original, if you can’t read Latin, you will have look at the English translation of the Latin Vulgate. http://www.drbo.org/
verse and footnote ~
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
[15] She shall crush: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.
The denominational status of Daniel had nothing to do with my comments. I only took exception to framing the discussion or argument as a debate.
"do you at least agree with Daniel's point that the thread originator does NOT have the official sanctions to buttress his interpretation of the identity of the "woman" in Revelation 12?
This underscores my point about this being a classical argument and not a debate. I am not going to get into scoring a debate or even acknowledging that there are winners or losers. Far better theologians than anyone in this forum have argued this point ad naseum and yet there is no consensus.
I will say that appeals to authority are dangerous argument tactics for all sides, especially when the question regards a higher authority. Nor can reason be completely relied on in these arguments.
Faith requires we trust in the authority of God as the cause of our belief even when it presents us with difficulties. As Blessed John Henry Newman said; “Faith is not a conclusion from premises, but an act of the will following on the conviction that to believe is a duty”. Intellect, education, and reason can assist, but they cannot substitute for faith. We ultimately must choose to believe.
This is where we all as Christians need to look to the cross. Saint Paul tells us in his epistles that the Cross was seen as a scandal to the Jews and as folly to the Greeks. It was an insult and repulsive to the Romans. To Archbishop Fulton Sheen the cross was an absurdity. “It is the vertical symbol of life contradicted by the horizontal symbol of death.” The Archbishop then completed his thought with the essence of Catholicism and Christianity when he went on to say; “It is absurd until Jesus is superimposed upon it.”
Christianity requires that, in faith, we hold a number of opposing ideas at the same time; God and Man, Mother and Virgin, Sacrament and Sacrifice, Sinner and Saint, death and eternal life, mystery and reason, the secular and the spiritual, faith and understanding, rationalism and fideism, free will and submission. Without Faith these contradictions form an absurdity. For too many these absurdities form an obstacle to conversion and remain absurdities until we superimpose Jesus upon them.
It is how we attempt to reconcile these absurdities that causes us to splinter and scatter. All of the Christian heresies and the denominational differences have arisen from this challenge. The challenge to us is not to "win" any debate but to find and share God's truth without acting contrary to His truth.
“Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” – John 20:30
Jesus also addresses others as "woman" in the Gospels. Special meaning....?
His last words, He used “woman” in addressing His mother from the Cross.
Really?
John 20:15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away."
And Mary Magdalene?
Mary is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15 and in Revelation, Chapter 12.
And who or what is the "woman" in Revelation 17?
Jesus does not address His mother as 'the' "woman". Rather, as "woman" as he more frequently addresses more women as He does throughout His ministry.
“Putting aside the thread topic about some “prophet” prognosticating about the demise of half of the Roman Catholic Church “faithful” in the maybe near future, do you at least agree with Daniel’s point that the thread originator does NOT have the official sanctions to buttress his interpretation of the identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12? That really WAS Daniel’s main point, you know.”
~ ~ ~
God knows what is going to happen, in His love He’s trying to tell you in prophecy through the words of Mary. Some Catholics will reject the 5th Marian Dogma when it is proclaimed, what do you imagine Protestants will do? You can change, it’s a sign of maturity to change when you discover something new about a subject that you previously rejected.
A child could identify the “woman” it’s not hard. Rev 12:13 ....he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:
St. Ephrem’s quote, Mary is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15. He said this in the 4th century and the protest to reject Mary is the “woman” in Gen 3:15 came in the 16th century.
And in a hymn of St. Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373) we find, “The Lord hath spoken it: Satan is cast out of heaven. And Mary has trodden on him who struck at the heel of Eve. And blessed be He, who by His birth has destroyed the foe!” (17) Elsewhere, St. Ephrem explains that “Because the serpent had struck Eve with his claw, the foot of Mary bruised him”
Catechism of the Catholic Church
410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall.304 This passage in Genesis is called the
Protoevangelium (”first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, OF A BATTLE BETWEEN THE SERPENT AND THE WOMAN, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.
411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 FURTHERMORE, MANY FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH HAVE SEEN THE WOMAN ANNOUNCED IN THE PROTOEVANGEIUM AS MARY, THE
MOTHER OF CHRIST, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306
304 Cf. Gen 3:9,15.
305 Cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19-20
306 Cf. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus: DS 2803; Council of Trent: DS 1573.
This is why no will discuss Revelation 12:13 or reply to why Our Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman.”
“Jesus does not address His mother as ‘the’ “woman”. Rather, as “woman” as he more frequently addresses more women as He does throughout His ministry.”
~ ~ ~
OLD REGGIE,
First, I didn’t put THE in quotes, I put woman in quotes.
I have to repeat it again, you don’t have to give quotes
of where Our Lord called someone else “woman.” The OP
and the discussion is about when Our Lord addressed His
mother as “woman.”
No where in Scripture does a son call his mother “woman.”
Our Lord is teaching you, from the Old Covenant, who
the “woman” is...
Protestants reject Mary, so they object and say no.
It was the reformers (revolters) who did this, you don’t
have to. Satan did the same, it’s been revealed.
My interest is in pointing out your selected use of "facts" and the liberties taken to buttress your far from unanimous interpretation.
For example:
CCC
411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 FURTHERMORE, MANY FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH HAVE SEEN THE WOMAN ANNOUNCED IN THE PROTOEVANGEIUM AS MARY, THE MOTHER OF CHRIST, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306
"...FURTHERMORE, MANY FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH HAVE SEEN THE WOMAN ANNOUNCED IN THE PROTOEVANGEIUM AS MARY, THE MOTHER OF CHRIST..."
This is proof of nothing but a feeble attempt on your part to declare your private interpretation as fact or even official teaching of the Catholic Church.
...My interest is in pointing out your selected use of “facts” and the liberties taken to buttress your far from unanimous interpretation.
For example:
CCC
411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 FURTHERMORE, MANY FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH HAVE SEEN THE WOMAN ANNOUNCED IN THE PROTOEVANGEIUM AS MARY, THE MOTHER OF CHRIST, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306
“...FURTHERMORE, MANY FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH HAVE SEEN THE WOMAN ANNOUNCED IN THE PROTOEVANGEIUM AS MARY, THE MOTHER OF CHRIST...”
This is proof of nothing but a feeble attempt on your part to declare your private interpretation as fact or even official teaching of the Catholic Church.
~ ~ ~
What?? It’s in CAPS in the Catechism.
REGGIE, just remember the prophecy and our discussion when the 5th Marian dogma is proclaimed and especially, when the Great Warning happens. Mary is a major part of God’s redemptive plan. God wants everyone to recognize the fact. Lucifer said no to Mary, don’t you. Change instead.
Sadly, Mary is a big block for our brothers and sisters.
One reason... She can’t appear to Protestants, only if God allows by an exception made because you all profess heresy. She will after the Great Warning.
Protestants do not recognize the authority of the Church
on anything but when they are shown the Truth in their authority, their “Bible Alone” with Our Lord’s words in the Gospel and prefigured in the Old Testament they protest by asking, show me where your Church says this...
I give proof, a 4th century saint, St. Ephrem and Church teaching, that’s what the Catechism is for and now you reject it.
REGGIE, just remember the prophecy and our discussion when the 5th Marian dogma is proclaimed and especially, when the Great Warning happens. Mary is a major part of God’s redemptive plan. God wants everyone to recognize the fact. Lucifer said no to Mary, don’t you. Change instead.
Enjoy your stay in the MARIAN CHURCH
BTW, I am not Protestant.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - Hamlet Act 3, scene 2
This is why no will discuss Revelation 12:13 or reply to why Our Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman.”
“Jesus does not address His mother as ‘the’ “woman”. Rather, as “woman” as he more frequently addresses more women as He does throughout His ministry.”
~ ~ ~
OLD REGGIE,
First, I didn’t put THE in quotes, I put woman in quotes.
I have to repeat it again, you don’t have to give quotes
of where Our Lord called someone else “woman.” The OP
and the discussion is about when Our Lord addressed His
mother as “woman.”
No where in Scripture does a son call his mother “woman.”
Our Lord is teaching you, from the Old Covenant, who
the “woman” is...
Protestants reject Mary, so they object and say no.
It was the reformers (revolters) who did this, you don’t
have to. Satan did the same, it’s been revealed.
____________________
Protest and then run away, you never replied to the above because you can’t.
I am going with “many” of the Church Fathers and the saints, they were closer to Christ. You choose to reject Mary and follow adulterous King James and his fellas, his translators.
Again, the devil could not handle God would ask Mary,
a mere human to help in mankind’s redemption.
You’re doing the same. Don’t listen any longer to heretics. You didn’t come with their heresies and denials.
You have NO idea what I do or do not esteem as my authority. You are NOT a mind reader so please stop pretending to be. For the record, the Word of God is THE authority given BY God for just that reason. The Bible is not some kind of secret handshake, coded and nebulous document but the divinely inspired, God-breathed truth recorded for us in a form that could be preserved and was preserved even to our day. The Roman Catholic Church, had they really been given that task, would have made sure it was stored away in a secret vault in the Vatican somewhere and NO ONE would have the blessing of reading it for themselves with God the Holy Spirit illuminating the truths therein to their hearts. The Catholic Church had much to lose with the common man having access to Scriptures and that is why they forbid its reading until fairly recently. They even went so far as to pursue the murder of those who had copies or who endeavored to translate it into the languages of the people (i.e., John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, Tyndale and others). I obey Holy Scripture because it is from God and not men who claim to be equal in authority to it.
You continue to sidestep the point of these comments. Will you admit that YOUR interpretation of the woman in Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12 is your own personal belief and that you do not have the backing of the authority YOU claim? The Roman Catholic magesterium is certainly NOT my authority, but I am not the one claiming it is.
St. Jerome got it WRONG? Okay, what part of Scripture is correct? King James and his fellas corrected Jerome twelve centuries later, I don’t think so.
Yes, Jerome was wrong in this part and we have the Hebrew version with which to KNOW that. The Vulgate, if you are familiar, is "a late 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible. It was largely the work of St. Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of the old Latin translations. By the 13th century this revision had come to be called the versio vulgata, that is, the "commonly used translation",[1] and ultimately it became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible in the Roman Catholic Church. Its widespread adoption led to the eclipse of earlier Latin translations, which are collectively referred to as the Vetus Latina." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate. It was NOT, contrary to mistaken belief, entirely the work of Jerome. From the same source above, these are additional facts about the Vulgate:
The Latin Biblical texts in use before the Latin Vulgate are usually referred to collectively as the Vetus Latina, or "Old Latin Bible", or occasionally the "Old Latin Vulgate". (Here "Old Latin" means that they are older than the Vulgate and written in Latin, not that they are written in Old Latin. Likewise the Latin Vulgate was so named because it was the Latin counterpart to the Greek Vulgate; it was not written in Vulgar Latin.) The translations in the Vetus Latina had accumulated piecemeal over a century or more; they were not translated by a single person or institution, nor uniformly edited. The individual books varied in quality of translation and style, and different manuscripts witness wide variations in readings. Jerome, in his preface to the Vulgate gospels, commented that there were "as many [translations] as there are manuscripts". The Old Testament books of the Vetus Latina were translated from the Greek Septuagint, not from the Hebrew.
Over the course of the Middle Ages, the Vulgate had succumbed to the inevitable changes wrought by human error in the countless copies made of the text in monasteries across Europe. From its earliest days, readings from the Old Latin were introduced. Marginal notes were erroneously interpolated into the text. No one copy was the same as any other[dubious – discuss] as scribes added, removed, misspelled, or miscorrected verses in the Latin Bible.
Alcuin of York oversaw efforts to make an improved Vulgate, which he presented to Charlemagne in 801; although he concentrated mainly on correcting inconsistencies of grammar and orthography, many of which were in the original text. More scholarly attempts were made by Theodulphus, Bishop of Orléans (787?–821); Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury (1070–1089); Stephen Harding, Abbot of Cîteaux (1109–1134); and Deacon Nicolaus Maniacoria (about the beginning of the 13th century). The University of Paris, the Dominicans, and the Franciscans following Roger Bacon assembled lists of correctoria; approved readings where variants had been noted. Many of the readings that were recommended were later found to be interpolations, or survivals of the Old Latin text, since medieval correctors commonly sought to adjust the Vulgate text into consistency with bible quotations found in Early Church Fathers.
Though the advent of printing greatly reduced the potential of human error and increased the consistency and uniformity of the text, the earliest editions of the Vulgate merely reproduced the manuscripts that were readily available to the publishers. Of the hundreds of early editions, the most notable today is Mazarin edition published by Johann Gutenberg and Johann Fust in 1455, famous for its beauty and antiquity. In 1504 the first Vulgate with variant readings was published in Paris. One of the texts of the Complutensian Polyglot was an edition of the Vulgate made from ancient manuscripts and corrected to agree with the Greek.
Erasmus published an edition corrected to agree better with the Greek and Hebrew in 1516. Other corrected editions were published by Xanthus Pagninus in 1518, Cardinal Cajetan, Augustinus Steuchius in 1529, Abbot Isidorus Clarius (Venice, 1542), and others. In 1528, Robertus Stephanus published the first of a series of critical editions, which formed the basis of the later Sistine and Clementine editions. The critical edition of John Hentenius of Louvain followed in 1547.[33]
In 1550, Stephanus fled to Geneva where in 1555 he issued his final critical edition of the Vulgate, which was the first complete Bible with full chapter and verse divisions, and which became the standard Biblical reference text for late 16th century Reformed theology.
After the Reformation, when the Catholic Church strove to counter the attacks and refute the doctrines of Protestantism, the Vulgate was reaffirmed in the Council of Trent as the sole, authorized Latin text of the Bible. To fulfill this declaration, the council commissioned the pope to make a standard text of the Vulgate out of the countless editions produced during the Renaissance and manuscripts produced during the Middle Ages. The actual first manifestation of this authorized text did not appear until 1590. It was sponsored by Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) and known as the Sistine Vulgate. It was based on the edition of Robertus Stephanus corrected to agree with the Greek, but it was hurried into print and suffered from many printing errors.
The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church until 1979, when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated.
The foundational text of most of the Nova Vulgata's Old Testament is the critical edition done by the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome under Pope St. Pius X.[44] The foundational text of the books of Tobit and Judith are from manuscripts of the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate. The New Testament was based on the 1969 edition of the Stuttgart Vulgate. All of these base texts were revised to accord with the modern critical editions in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.[51] There are also a number of changes where the modern scholars felt that Jerome had failed to grasp the meaning of the original languages, or had rendered it obscurely.
The Nova Vulgata has not been widely embraced by conservative Catholics, many of whom see it as being in some verses of the Old Testament a new translation rather than a revision of Jerome's work. Also, some of its readings sound unfamiliar to those who are accustomed to the Clementine.
In 2001, the Vatican released the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, establishing the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for all translations of the liturgy of the Roman rite into the vernacular from the original languages, "in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy".
Uh...shouldn’t that be, “I thinks”, Miss Chambers? ;o)
Affirmations of the Belief that Jesus Will Crush satan:
“the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1st John 3:8).
“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14).
“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death’” (Revelation 12:10-11).
Justin Martyr wrote, “Christ is born of the Virgin, in order that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed.”
Pope-Saint Leo the Great wrote, “at the beginning of the world [God], foretold the remedy his love had prepared for the restoration of us mortals, giving notice to the serpent that the offspring of the woman would come and, by his power, crush its baneful head as it was raised to strike.”
The following Bibles also read he and his for Genesis 3:15:
The Septuagint
The Living Bible-Paraphrased
Genesis-Translated and Commentary by Robert Alter
The Holy Bible an American Translation
The Living Bible
Authorized King James Version
New King James Version
Revised Standard Version
New Revised Standard Version
The Answer-New Century Version
The Revised Berkeley Version in Modern English
New International Version
Holy Bible Contemporary English Version
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
The Book
Complete Jewish Bible
Robert Young’s Literal Translation
J.N. Darby Translation
American Standard Version
Hebrew Names Version
The alternative readings are as follows:
The Torah-The Five Books of Moses-A New Translation of the Holy Scripture According to the Traditional (Masoretic) Hebrew Text has “offspring” instead of “seed” and “they-their” instead of “he-his.”
The Bible in Living English has “issue” instead of “seed” and “it-its” instead of “he-his.”
New English Bible has “brood” instead of “seed” and “they-their” instead of “he-his.”
Good News Bible Today’s English Version has “offspring” instead of “seed” and “her offspring-their” instead of “he-his” the footnote on the word “their” states, “their; or his.”
Noah Webster Version has “it-his” instead of “he-his.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.