I find the Roman Catechism is easier to read and understand than the newer Catechism.It is more direct,to the point in everything.
Much of the newer Catechism is not as dirct and black and white.

+J.M.J+
I don't think we're necessarily beating a dead caribou when we answer a man's questions.
>>>So, getting back to the rest of the post above-why the need to change and have these changes not caused a horrible loss of faith?
>>>translation of the bible
Because languages change over time and a translation made 200-250 years ago may become incomprehensible to the masses over time. Granted, the NAB is inferior an problematic but it isn't the only 20th C. English translation Catholics have: Knox Bible, Confraternity Version, RSV-2CE, Jerusalem Bible (Mother Angelica loved this one, IIRC), Christian Community Bible, etc. And those are just English translations; I'm sure there are good translations in other languages as well.
Besides, not many Catholic laypeople actually read the Bible at the time the DR stood almost alone. Granted, the popes encouraged it with indulgences, but teaching nuns often discouraged it by telling kids, "You'll get confused." I have this on good authority from my mother and many other people who were told exactly that back in the day.
>>>rite of the Mass
A complex topic, but it had its roots in the "liturgical renewal" movement which began even before the Council.
>>>code of canon law
Now why should the Code of Canon Law remain static? The Church can change her policies and disciplines, and as such changes occur the Code of Canon Law should
change to reflect that.
>>>catechism
How quickly we forget that the new Catechism was intended to kick in the teeth of Amchurch!
Prior to 1993, the "spirit of V-II" crowd wasn't exactly heeding the Catechism of the Council of Trent, now was it? In fact, they were acting like every Church dogma and moral teaching was up for grabs. If anyone would've objected, "But the Roman Catechism says..." they would have laughed at him patronizingly and said, "Oh, that's preconciliar, we don't believe in that anymore! Stop trying to turn back the clock...yada, yada, yada."
So the Vatican produced an official, postconciliar document restating Catholic dogma and moral teaching in order to delegitimize such dissent. Have you forgotten how the Modernists howled when the new Catechism was released? How they tried to dissuade the average Joe Catholic from reading it by claiming, "It's only for the bishops - not you unwashed laity! Listen to us instead!"
No, I don't believe the Catechism caused a "horrible loss of faith" at all. If anything it helped deflate Modernism by informing the laity of authentic Church teaching! It gave us a powerful weapon to weild against liberalism.
>>>set of practices and customs of the Church
Again, practices and customs can change. It is articles of faith that remain. If you want a church that remains completely static and never changes at all in any way, the Catholic Church is not it.
In Jesu et Maria,

Esau, your question implies that you are expecting a rational response. Does your experience tell you that you are likely to get one?
Sorry, bill912; sometimes, I think I put too much faith in miracles! ;^)

Esau, your question implies that you are expecting a rational response. Does your experience tell you that you are likely to get one?

How many America chaplains died on the Bataan death march?
HUH????
What does this have to do with anything? ? ?

+J.M.J+
>>>The DR was declared at the Council of Trent to be the authorized text of scripture for the Catholic church(snip)
Gee, how did I miss that statement from John?
The Council of Trent ran from 1545 to 1563 - the DR wasn't even available yet (its first installment, the Rheims NT, was released in 1582, nearly two decades after Trent closed). John must be thinking of the Latin Vulgate, which Trent affirmed as authoritative. True, the DR is an English translation of the Vulgate, but no English translation has ever been declared as authoritative for the whole Catholic Church. So the statement is inaccurate.
>>>which of course along with everything else, was disregarded after the Council.
As we've seen, it was Pius XII who first allowed Catholic scholars to look at Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture (along with the Vulgate, not excluding it) back in 1943. So you can't pin that one on Vatican II.
In Jesu et Maria,

How many America chaplains died on the Bataan death march?

Corrigendum:
JOHN:
With your comments:
"You cant defend your ICEL 4x retranslated Politically correct NAB in a shorter post"
"...it was not until 1582 that a Catholic NT appeared in the VERNACULAR and this was at Rheims where a group of persecuted Catholics had taken refuge."
Clearly, you did not read the article I posted at all nor do you actually read anything that others have posted for you that directly address your poor arguments.
(Of course, the best way for you to convince yourself that these arguments you put up aren't so poor is by refusing to read anything with sound evidence that could actually topple them!
Ignorance is bliss, eh?)
Is your reading problem that bad?
If you want, I can send you an mp3 of our posts so that you can, at the very least, "hear" what we've said. Maybe that way, you will finally grasp the points people have been trying to make, assuming that your hearing is not as bad as your reading.
I mean, come on! Read what you just wrote here:
The DR was declared at the Council of Trent to be the authorized text of scripture for the Catholic church, which of course along with everything else, was disregarded after the Council.
In your very statement here, you do realize that it wasn't only Vatican II that you were putting down, right?

off

JOHN:
With your comments:
"You cant defend your ICEL 4x retranslated Politically correct NAB in a shorter post"
"...it was not until 1582 that a Catholic NT appeared in the VERNACULAR and this was at Rheims where a group of persecuted Catholics had taken refuge."
Clearly, you did not read the article I posted at all nor do you refuse to read anything that others have told you.
Is your reading problem that bad?
If you want, I can send you an mp3 of our posts so that you can, at the very least, "hear" what we've said. Maybe that way, you will finally grasp the points people have been trying to make, assuming that your hearing is not as bad as your reading.
I mean, come on! Read what you just wrote here:
The DR was declared at the Council of Trent to be the authorized text of scripture for the Catholic church, which of course along with everything else, was disregarded after the Council.
In your very statement here, you do realize that it wasn't only Vatican II that you put down, right?

Esau, Yeah, all that is very interesting, but remember, Jimmy wrote that POST VII, and is therefore slanted and cannot be trusted.
:)

THANKS MONICA ;^) for the advice!
Remember: anything post-VII is "evil", even if it happens to be the Church guided by the Holy Spirit! It's all "evil"! ;^)

Thanks, Rosemarie for the above.
God bless you in your patient efforts in trying to help out John.
Truly, this is like a work of mercy in itself!

You cant defend your ICEL 4x retranslated Politically correct NAB in a shorter post?
JOHN:
Where was I defending the NAB????
The point of the whole article was the Douay-Rheims!
NOTHING in it recommended the NAB or even mentioned it!
I DON'T EVEN LIKE OR USE THE NAB!
EVEN JIMMY AKIN DOESN'T RECOMMEND IT AND USUALLY RECOMMENDS THE RSV-CE!
Again, you resort to distractions from the main point as a means of avoiding to refute the issue at hand when presented with substantial evidence!
What a poor sport you truly are!

+J.M.J+
Two more points:
1. You accuse me of splitting hairs, but I'm just telling you what Cardinals Newman and Wiseman said, so I guess it's they who were splitting hairs, in your opinion. So don't blame me - they said the Challoner revision was "Protestant" first.
2. BTW, one of the 20th C. retranslations of the Bible, the Confraternity Version, was started because, back in 1943, Pope Pius XII recommended in Divino Afflante Spiritu that Catholic scholars begin to use the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture rather than the Vulgate alone. IOW, the modern retranslation of the Bible began BEFORE Vatican II.
In Jesu et Maria,

+J.M.J+
You're missing the point, John. Here you are trashing "retranslations of the Bible" when the very Bible you own is itself a "retranslation" - and it's not just "a word here and there" but entire phrases lifted wholesale from the KJV in some places (such as Hebrews 1:1-3).
Some prominent Catholics of the past, such as Cardinals Newman and Wiseman, were just as critical of Challoner's "Douay" as you are about newer translations. Were they wrong and you right? I'm sure you accept Cardinal Ottoviani's criticism of the early draft of the Pauline Mass, so why not accept Cardinals Newman and Wiseman's assessment of the Bible translation you own and use?
In Jesu et Maria,

With further thought on the DR-is that it was not until 1582 that a Catholic NT appeared in the VERNACULAR and this was at Rheims where a group of persecuted Catholics had taken refuge. The main purpose of the DR was to COUNTER again note COUNTER the Wycliff and Tyndale erroneous Protestant/Anglican versions floating around and to PROTECT the faith. The DR was declared at the Council of Trent to be the authorized text of scripture for the Catholic church, which of course along with everything else, was disregarded after the Council. If one takes time to look at the DR bible, words that had no correct English translation were LEFT in with a footnote as to what it POSSIBLY meant-unlike today where a group of liberal scholars and theologians put in their interpretations. The DR was so hated that the Queen of England ordered every copy to be destroyed. The DR contains 7 books that the Protestants ommitted, and you trying to split a few hairs on a word here or there only makes your point an empty bucket as one can not even compare what butchery the ICEL and these other so called groups have done to the Mass and Bible that we as Catholics are supposed to take as the Word of God and Mass of the Apostles-not the word of Bugnini, the ICEL or some commissions.
I unlike many admit that I am sure something crept in a word here or there over the past 500 years that did not come from the original translations which were again done by PERSECUTED Catholics-who had no reason or desire to even slant the translation to the Protestants who were killing them-unlike the "Spirit of Vatican II" version of the NAB which after 40 years and over 4 tries still cant get it right

+J.M.J+
John, I didn't say a thing about the NAB (which I don't care for, BTW, so why should I "defend" it?). Did you even read what I wrote?
The only "cut and paste" I did was the transcription of the beginning of St. John's Gospel. I debated whether I should post it but in the end decided it might be okay because it's not too long (then again, I do have a large monitor screen set at a high resolution, so maybe I misjudged how it might look to those with a smaller screen. Sorry if it was too long!).
Even so, that post is still only 436 words long, while the two I posted afterwards are 106 and 263 words long respectively. Even Esau's post is only 1854 words long (and he duly apologized for the length, inviting Jimmy to remove it if he wishes).
So what's this nonsense about "10,000 words"? All four of those posts put together are only about 1/4 of that number, and they were posted by different people! But I guess it's easier to critcize others than engage their arguments.
In Jesu et Maria,

Esau and Rosemarie
I thought cut and paste jobs were forbidden?
Your posts are about 10,000 words! You cant defend your ICEL 4x retranslated Politically correct NAB in a shorter post?

Esau, Yeah, all that is very interesting, but remember, Jimmy wrote that POST VII, and is therefore slanted and cannot be trusted.
:)

+J.M.J+
>>>By the way, how'd you get your hands on an Original Douay-Rhiems???
St Anthony's Bookstore used to sell them a few years back (they weren't cheap, either - $150.00 a set). I just searched their inventory on Abebooks.com and they don't appear to have anymore in stock. They were printed by a very ultratraditionalist publisher which evidently ceased publising them a few years ago. Now they're rarer than those proverbial "hen's teeth."
However, a guy named Dr. William von Peters is selling a "cleaned up" version of the original Douay Rheims. He updated the spelling so it's easier for us moderns to read. Mind you, it's also not cheap - a 4 volume hard copy will set you back approx $114.00 before shipping (I've actually considered trying to sell my three-volume set on eBay and use the money to get the full "cleaned up" version, because the one I have is awfully hard to read!)
However, I'm not certain of the canon law minutiae re. an individual Catholic publishing a translation of the Bible that doesn't have an Imprimatur. It's apparently not allowed, so this guy may be violating canon law. Granted, the original Douay-Rheims had Church approval back in the 17th C., which I doubt has ever been revoked. However, this guy's version (transliteration?) is still a bit different from the original and so may need to be vetted by proper Church authorities before he can licitly sell it as a "Catholic translation". Not to certain on that point, but I think that may be the case.
In Jesu et Maria,

+J.M.J+
You're right, Publius. I figured there might be a special ALT character for the archaic long s, but didn't bother to try to find one because I didn't want to keep typing in an ALT character (which might not even show up at times because of some quirk in the computer). So I just used the "f" since it's very similar.
Now that I look closer, I don't even see the ſ on the page I just linked! Would you happen to know its ALT code? I see that Alt 159 produces a similar symbol, ƒ, but is it the same?
In Jesu et Maria,

Publius:
You familiar with this type of English?
Have any resources you could recommend?
Thanks!

Actually, in the font displayed on the page, there's no bar at all. In the font used in the comment field it appears as an "f" with the right side of the cross bar missing.

I assume when Rosemarie quoted the Douay as have an "f" wherever a non-final "s" should be, she meant the archaic "s", i.e., "ſ" (note that the horizontal bar is only on the left side).

Rosemarie,
The English looks almost similar to that in a book I'm reading by More!
By the way, how'd you get your hands on an Original Douay-Rhiems???

+J.M.J+
John, I own a copy of the ORIGINAL 1609 Douay-Rheims; it is three volumes long and consists of copious footnotes and commentary. I also own a few copies of the same Challoner Revision that you own. Yes, the latter do say exactly what you posted, but they are not the ORIGINAL 1609 Douay-Rheims! It's confusing, yeah, but it's true!
Here is the Beginning of the Gospel of St. JOhn in the Original 1609 Douay-Rheims:
IN THE beginning vvas the WORD, and the WORD vvas vvith God, and God vvas the WORD. 2 This vvas in the beginning vvith God. 3 Al things vvere made by him: and vvithout him vvas made nothing. That vvhich vvas made 4 in him vvas life, and the life vvas the light of men. 5 And the light fhineth in darkeneffe, and the darkeneffe did not comprehend it. 6 There vvas a man fent from God, vvhofe name vvas Iohn. 7 This man came for teftimonie, to giue teftimonie of the light, that al might beleeue through him. 8 He vvas not the light, but to giue teftimonie of the light. 9 It vvas the true light, that lighteneth euery man that commeth into this vvorld. 10 He vvas in the vvorld, and the vvorld vvas made by him, and the vvorld knevv him not. 11 He came into his ovvne, and his ovvn receiued him not. 12 But as many as receiued him, he gaue them povver to be made the fonnes of God, to thofe that beleeue in his name. 13 Vvho not of bloud, nor of the vvill of the flefh, nor of the vvill of man, but of God are borne. 14 AND THE VVORD VVAS MADE FLESH, and dvvelt in vs, (and vve have the glorie of him, glorie as it vvere of the only-begotten of the Father,) ful of grace and veritie. 15 Iohn giueth teftimonie of him, and crieth faying, This vvas he of vvhom I fpake: He that fhal come after me, is made before me: becaufe he vvas before me. 16 And of his fulness all vve haue receiued, and grace for grace. 17 For the lavv vvas giuen by Moyfes; grace and veritie vvas made by IESUS Chrift.
The following url (though Protestant and so a bit biased) gives an accurate side-by-side comparison of the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the original Rheims, the KJV and the Challoner revision:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/challoner.html
If you compare your own copy of the "Douay," I'm sure you'll find that it is the Challoner revision, not the original Douay-Rheims.
In Jesu et Maria,

John,
Catholic Encyclopedia, which by the way when I referenced, Esau and Inocencio said this was not an accptable reference
Please at least try to be honest, your comment is untrue and you know it. I never said the Catholic Encyclopedia is an unacceptable source. I asked you to provide a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article or other website you were quoting instead:
1. copying and pasting large amounts of text
2. pretending it was your thoughts
And if I need to I will go back and find my comment and prove your are again being insincere at best and deceitful at worst.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

The title page of my Douay-Rheims reads the same as what was quoted above. In between "first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582" and Cardinal Gibbons' aproval, mine reads: "The whole revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by BISHOP RICHARD CHALLONER, A.D. 1749-1752."

So I just pulled my DR Bible and it says
The Holy Bible
Translated from the Latin Vulgate
Diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek and other Editions in Divers Languages
The Old Testament
First published by the English College at Douay AD 1609
And
The New Testament
First Published by the English College at Rheims AD 1582
Published with the Approval of
His Emmincence James Cardinal Gibbons
MY GOODNESS! ! !
Here, allow me to help you:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp
(JIMMY, Please remove if this is too much -- which I think it is. Sorry about that, I just wanted to at least present it in front of John should he decide to skip the link I provided.)
Uncomfortable Facts about the Douay-Rheims
By Jimmy Akin
Following the forced conversion of England to Protestantism and the subsequent persecution and martyrdom of Catholics in that country, many Englishmen fled to the Continent. The expatriates felt the need for a new English translation of Scripture. Consequently, an edition of the New Testament was prepared and released in 1582 at Rheims, France, and an edition of the Old Testament was prepared and released in 1609 at the French town of Douay. The resulting fusion became known as the Douay-Rheims.
The original translation was based on the Latin Vulgate. However, it was revised from 1749–1752 by Bishop Richard Challoner, who corrected it according to the Clementine edition of the Vulgate (published by Clement VIII in 1592, after the Rheims New Testament) and the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. He also updated the spelling, vocabulary, and sentence structure. Today, all Douay-Rheims Bibles in print are actually the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version.
The Douay remained the standard version for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century. It is apologetically significant in dealing with two groups: anti-Catholics who deny the existence of vernacular translations before the King James Version (KJV) and certain Catholic Traditionalists who insist on using only the Douay. For both groups there are uncomfortable facts about the Douay.
King James Not the First
Many anti-Catholics accuse the Church of having hidden Scripture from the faithful by refusing to translate them into the vernacular tongue.
The Douay-Rheims provides a particularly telling counterexample. It was completed in 1609, making it older than the KJV, which was not published until 1611. The fact that the Rheims New Testament was published in 1582 meant that it appeared almost thirty years before the KJV New Testament.
Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators’s preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. "We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full" ("The Translators to the Reader," King James Version, 1611 ed.).
But while the King James translators rejected some specific translations in the Douay, they emulated others. It is commonly acknowledged that, in preparing the KJV, the translators made use of the Douay New Testament and adopted many of its readings in preference to those of other English editions. The KJV in many places thus bears a Douay "slant" absent from prior translations.
Both the Douay and the KJV served as virtually the only Bible many English speakers used for centuries, and both in Protestant Fundamentalism and in certain parts of Catholic Traditionalism an insistence has arisen that only one translation—the group’s traditional one—may be used. Protestants who insist on using the KJV are often called "King James Onlyists," and one may call the parallel phenomenon "Douay-Rheims Onlyism."
Douay-Rheims "Onlyism"?
Douay-Rheims Onlyists have not gone to some of the extremes of King James Onlyists. For example, they do not claim, as do some King James Onlyists, that their preferred translation was made under divine inspiration. However, they do often parallel King James Onlyists in arguing the superiority of their preferred translation due to the manuscript tradition on which it is based. King James Onlyists frequently argue that the KJV is superior because it is based on the Textus Receptus tradition, and Douay-Rheims Onlyists often argue for the Douay’s superiority from the fact that it is based on the Vulgate.
They argue that the Vulgate is superior on four grounds: (1) It is the official Bible of the Catholic Church; (2) it has been declared free of moral or theological error, (3) Jerome had access to manuscripts that we do not have today, and (4) he was a stupendous translator.
The first point is not true. There was a time when the Vulgate could be described as an "official" translation of Scripture for the Latin rite of the Church, but not the whole Church. It also never superseded the original language versions in authority (a point Pius XII made in Divino Afflante Spiritu21). But while the Vulgate in its latest edition—the "Neo-Vulgate" promulgated by John Paul II—has a privileged position based on its use in ecclesiastical documents, the law has changed such that there is no "official" translation of Scripture for the Latin rite.
The second point is true—ecclesiastical documents have acknowleged that the Vulgate is free of doctrinal and moral error. However, not containing doctrinal and moral error is not the same thing as being a perfect translation. In fact, it isn’t even the same thing as being a good translation. If someone utters the Spanish sentence " La manzana es verde" and I translate that as "The apple is red," then I have in not committed a moral or theological error, but I have committed a translation error (verde means green, not red).
In the same way, as Pius XII pointed out (DAS 20), this does not mean that the Vulgate always reflects accurately what is in the original texts. Sometimes it doesn’t.
The third point is true—Jerome did have manuscripts that we don’t have today—but this is misleading. He also lacked manuscripts that we do have, and he lacked the critical apparatus we have for sorting through textual variants.
One scholar, however brilliant, working in an age when textual criticism was still embryonic, was not as good as today’s community of scholars who are able to critically cross-examine each other’s work in an age in which the rules of textual criticism have been worked out much better. Further, no matter how many manuscripts Jerome had access to, it was not the thousands used by biblical scholars today.
Ronald Knox puts the manuscript point wryly when he writes, "You cannot, I think, be tied down to the statement that Saul was one year old when he came to the throne, merely because that is the construction which the Vulgate has put on an obviously defective Hebrew original" (Trials of a Translator, 29).
Finally, Jerome did not even translate certain books of the Vulgate; he simply incorporated extant Latin translations. Consequently, John Paul II notes that the Neo-Vulgate revision "was quite demanding in certain books of the Old Testament which Saint Jerome did not touch" (Scripturarum Thesaurus). These books scarcely provide an illustration of definitive textual criticism.
The fourth point—that Jerome was a stupendous translator—is true, especially for his era. He also had the advantage of being much closer to the time the biblical dialects were spoken, though koina Greek (the dialect the New Testament is written in) already had evolved into a new dialect before his birth.
But to his disadvantage, Jerome learned these languages in a time before dictionaries and foreign language grammars had been invented. As a result, if a translator didn’t know a rare or unusual word or grammatical form, he couldn’t look it up. No matter how good a translator is, the worthiness of his work will be proportionate to how much he exerts himself—and sometimes Jerome did not exert himself very much. For example, he translated the book of Tobit in a single night.
Recently, I read one Douay-Rheims Onlyist booklet that actually praised this as a demonstration of Jerome’s linguistic prowess. One can only say that this demonstrates a lack of familiarity with how translation works. Nobody trying to do a careful job of translating a book of Scripture will rough out a translation in a single night and leave it at that.
The Church owes an enormous debt to Jerome for the Vulgate, but one must not fail to acknowledge that it—like all translations—fails to capture perfectly the sense of the original. Sometimes this is due to the limitations of the language he’s translating into (Latin), and sometimes it’s due to translator error.
The Vulgate in English?
Douay-Rheims Onlyists often represent the Douay as the only English translation of the Vulgate. It’s not. Ronald Knox’s translation of the Bible is also based on the Vulgate.
Even then, the Douay is not simply a translation of Jerome’s original. There is no pure edition of the Vulgate available, any more than there is a single, pure edition of the original Greek and Hebrew. When the Douay was translated, there were a number of editions of the Vulgate that differed from each other in varying degrees.
Furthermore, the editions of the Douay now in circulation are the Douay-Challoner version (or even more properly, revisions of the Douay-Challoner version), which has been corrected in light of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that it is not a pure translation of the Vulgate.
Challoner’s revisions were extensive—more than Douay-Rheims Onlyists commonly admit. They were not limited to updating spelling and punctuation. Regarding the extent of the revisions, Bernard Ward notes, "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 sense remains as it was originally published’" (Catholic Encyclopedia 1910 ed., s.v., "Douay Bible").
Free of Protestant Bias?
While translator bias is a fact to be contended with, Douay-Rheims Onlyists often accuse contemporary translations of being tainted by Protestant translations.
But there’s another side to that story. Just as the original Douay came to influence the KJV, the KJV itself came to influence the Douay. Ward notes: "In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized [i.e., King James] Version."
The fact is that Bible versions on both sides of the confessional divide influence each other. This is because serious translators don’t read only works done by one side. Sometimes the other guys come up with a way of better capturing what’s written in the original language, and when that happens the serious translator wants to know about it, not to hide his head in the sand.
All of this is not to say that the Douay-Rheims is a bad translation, or that it is not to be read, or that individuals may not prefer using it to other translations. It is only to indicate that the Douay-Rheims ought not be put on a pedestal.

...from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which by the way when I referenced, Esau and Inocencio said this was not an accptable reference
I never said this!
You're the one who has made it so by your 'liberal' use of the label "liberal" in the other thread!
Thus, considering that the content in the Catholic Encyclopedia actually goes against what you 'believe', you unnecessarily discard it after actually learning it contradicts your very arguments!
Again, miracles can happen if you simply R-E-A-D!

Rosemarie wrote with her "Catholic Encyclopedia as her reference"
" Well, as long as I'm talking to you, you mentioned "The retranslation of the bible" as a change that you don't understand. Did you know that the "Douay-Rheims" most of us know (the one sold by TAN and Baronius Press) is not the REAL Douay-Rheims of 1609? It is a thorough revision of that translation, based in part on the Protestant King James Version, done by Bishop Richard Challoner in the mid-18th C.? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
So I just pulled my DR Bible and it says
The Holy Bible
Translated from the Latin Vulgate
Diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek and other Editions in Divers Languages
The Old Testament
First published by the English College at Douay AD 1609
And
The New Testament
First Published by the English College at Rheims AD 1582
Published with the Approval of
His Emmincence James Cardinal Gibbons
I see nothing of what you said
Lets compare that to the New American Bible, which right from the Vatican website, says"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV7.HTM
"The New Testament of The New American Bible, a fresh translation from the Greek text, was first published in complete form in 1970, together with the Old Testament translation that had been completed the previous year. Portions of the New Testament had appeared earlier, in somewhat different form, in the provisional Mass lectionary of 1964 and in the Lectionary for Mass of 1970.
Since 1970 many different printings of the New Testament have been issued by a number of publishers, both separately and in complete bibles, and the text has become widely known both in the United States and in other English-speaking countries. ....Accordingly, it was decided in 1978 to proceed with a thorough revision of the New Testament to reflect advances in scholarship and to satisfy needs identified through pastoral experience.
For this purpose a steering committee was formed to plan, organize,.... Guidelines were drawn up and collaborators selected in 1978 and early 1979, and November of 1980 was established as the deadline for manuscripts. From December 1980 through September 1986 the editoral board met a total of fifty times and carefully reviewed and revised all the material .........
The threefold purpose of the translation that was expressed in the preface to the first edition has been maintained in the revision: to provide a version suitable for liturgical proclamation, for private reading, and for purposes of study. Special attention has been given to the first of these purposes, since oral proclamation demands special qualities in a translation, and experience had provided insights and suggestions that could lead to improvement in this area. Efforts have also been made, however, to facilitate devotional reading by providing suitable notes and introductory materials, and to assist the student by achieving greater accuracy and consistency in the translation and supplying more abundant information in the introductions and notes.
The primary aim of the revision is to produce a version as accurate and faithful to the meaning of the Greek original as is possible for a translation.....An especially sensitive problem today is the question of discrimination in language. In recent years there has been much discussion about allegations of anti-Jewish expressions in the New Testament and of language that discriminates against various minorities. Above all, however, the question of discrimination against women affects the largest number of people and arouses the greatest degree of interest and concern. At present there is little agreement about these problems or about the best way to deal with them. In all these areas the present translation attempts to display a sensitivity appropriate to the present state of the questions under discussion, which are not yet resolved and in regard to which it is impossible to please everyone, since intelligent and sincere participants in the debate hold mutually contradictory views.
So you are actually going to try and compare something from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which by the way when I referenced, Esau and Inocencio said this was not an accptable reference, to the Vatican website, a 4x over politically correct retranslation of the bible-compared to the DR bible? Forget it, lets all wake up and smell the coffee
Even the Vatican admits it retranslated the bible to be less offensive to Jews and to be more appealing to the modern times, compromising the faith once again to be accepted. Is nothing not sacred any more?

+J.M.J+
>>>Thank you-Inocencio, Rosemarie (I think they are one and the same)
Umm, you've brought up this silly charge once before, John, and we've both corrected you. But true to form, you didn't listen. Why am I not surprised?
>>>and Esau would probably wish I was dead and silenced by Jimmy-
I don't wish you dead. I didn't even address you in this thread - I addressed Dan's Dad. Are you trying to bait me or something?
(Unless maybe you ARE Dan's Dad after all!)
Well, as long as I'm talking to you, you mentioned "The retranslation of the bible" as a change that you don't understand. Did you know that the "Douay-Rheims" most of us know (the one sold by TAN and Baronius Press) is not the REAL Douay-Rheims of 1609? It is a thorough revision of that translation, based in part on the Protestant King James Version, done by Bishop Richard Challoner in the mid-18th C.? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century 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.... 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 sense remains as it was originally published". In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages."
The late Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman also accused the Challoner revision of being Protestant. You see, every time the word "Dominus" occurs in the Vulgate, the *original* 1609 Douay-Rheims Bible rendered it "Our Lord" rather than "the Lord" (even the Magnificat begins with the words "My soule doth magnifie our Lord"). The English-speaking Catholic translators did this because, back then, "the Lord" was considered a Protestant expression! It was traditional among English-speaking Catholics to always refer to God and Christ as "Our Lord".
Now, when Bishop Challoner made his revision, he changed each occurance of "our Lord" to "the Lord", to make it more like the Protestant King James Version. Over time this crept into popular use in the praying of the Hail Mary, so that we now say "the Lord is with thee" rather than the age-old phrase: "Our Lord is with thee". Cardinal Wiseman was highly critical of this change; here is what he had to say (early 19th C,):
"In the Ave Maria, Catholics have always, till lately, been accustomed to say "Our Lord is with thee;" as it is in that version, and as it was always used in England, even before that translation was made. But, in conformity with the change of the text, we have observed of late a tendency to introduce into the prayer a similar variation, and to say "The Lord is with thee:" a change which we strongly depreciate, as stiff, cantish, destructive of the unction which the prayer breathes, and of that union which the pronoun inspires between its reciter and Her who is addressed. We have no hesitation in saying, that this difference, trifling as many will consider it, expresses strongly the different spirits of our, and other, religions. It never has been the custom of the Catholic Church to say, "the Redeemer, the Saviour, the Lord, The Virgin;" "Redemptor noster, Dominus noster," and so "Our Savior, our Lord, our Lady," are the terms sanctioned; and, therefore, consecrated by Catholic usage since the time of the Fathers. We own it grates our ears, and jars upon our feelings, to hear the former essentially un-Catholic forms used by preachers and writers; they want affection; they are insipid, formal; they remind us of Geneva caps, and smack of predestination." (Essays on Various Subjects, I, 76; circa 1855)
"Geneva caps, and... predestination!" Wow! Now, I would make the healthy assumption that His Emminence Cardinal Wiseman was slightly more erudite on matters of the translation of Sacred Scripture than you or I are. So who knew that the "Douay Rheims" used widely by English-speaking Catholics prior to 1941 was actually a quasi-Protestant retranslation of the Bible!
Why did Bishop Challoner feel the need to retranslate the Bible 250 years ago?
In Jesu et Maria,

Dan's Dad,
Implicitly repudiates does not mean to make invalid.
What it does mean is it tends to make the attempt to contradict a thing in itself without actually making concrete what it sets out to do.
What dictionary did you get that defintion from? And your definition doesn't mean invalid? Ok if you say so.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John,
So, getting back to the rest of the post above-why the need to change
Because the Church guided by the Holy Spirit decided it was best. Do you think you know better than God?
Please, please answer my question.
and have these changes not caused a horrible loss of faith?
No. Those who had such little faith that they believed the Church was not guided by the Holy Spirit during Vatican II didn't have much faith to lose.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John,
Let us not compare what took place in the 1st century when these Apostles were basically "Jesus Jews" and were not even looking to form a new church.
You have no idea of Church history or teaching. So when I call you ignorant I am being truthful not name calling.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

...for some reason they cant seem to present sound doctrine as to why the above has been changed...
PLEASE GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS THREADS AND R-E-A-D!
When a person only repeats the same thing over and over again, while not listening to their opponent's argument; certainly, how can any such 'sound doctrine' be presented in the first place to him who refuses to even consider (to actually read) that evidence being presented to him!

Esau
I am just going to ignore your personal attacks as I have only placed posts and have not, like you and Inocencio continue to throw names around
And Dans Dad I agree, for some reason they cant seem to present sound doctrine as to why the above has been changed but only pick a little blurb like "Communion in the Hand" which was stopped for a very good reason-Our Lords's body was being abused and if one knows church history,Our Lords body in the early church Our Lord's body was actually taken home and kept in wood boxes, until one day, one "abuser" had his box go on fire. This was then stopped and all eucharists were then distributed on the tongue and consumed immediately. This was strenghtened even further when the Protestants placed it from hand to hand, much like Catholics do today in the NO mass (much less from unconsecrated hands no less!) to deny the real presence of Christ.
One just needs to look at what took place last year when our Lords body was sold on e-bay from the Mass of a Pope no less! The priest as part of his ordination (probably removed from the rite as much of everything else has been) is to protect the sanctity of Our Lord. Instead he is handed over to many who are in grave sin or have evil intentions as thsoe in the group ACT UP! did some years back at St Patricks and threw them on the steps outside for all to see, no different than what the pharisies did some 2000 years back when our Lord was handed over to his death.
Let us not compare what took place in the 1st century when these Apostles were basically "Jesus Jews" and were not even looking to form a new church.
So, getting back to the rest of the post above-why the need to change and have these changes not caused a horrible loss of faith?
translation of the bible
rite of the Mass
code of canon law
catechism
set of practices and customs of the Church

Remember sticks and stones...
If this refers to my dictionary comment, please understand that I wonder if John does not read the comments of others or if he has a reading comprehension problem.
Don't worry, Inocencio.
I thought the same thing as well in past threads, and, at the time, I did not bring it up to him out of spite but rather out of charity since I know folks who have such difficulties, and could need some assistance in handling new information accordingly; which is why, like you, I was even willing to help him to such extent.
I wouldn't mind this being the situation at all in John's case since it would explain greatly why he's failed to comprehend any of the information presented to him in the past by all of us, and why he was unable to respond to them accordingly; thus, his failure to refute them.

Innocencio,
Implicitly repudiates does not mean to make invalid.What it does mean is it tends to make the attempt to contradict a thing in itself without actually making concrete what it sets out to do.
No demonstrative effort was made to invalidate the Pauline Mass,we have Our Saviors promise of this.What did happen whas an unfortunate effort to make the Mass,for some reason more palatable to the protestant liking, as well as an appeal to the younger generation.
How about Lex Orandi,Lex Credendi.The liturgy should be as reverant and awesome as possible.Even when the Novus Ordo is well executed,as in EWTN mass's,it still does not present that stupendously awesome level of visible worship we see and participate in,in the older rites.

Dan's Dad,
There is no reason,unless it makes one feel superior, to insult someone,with your "hobby horse",fun.
Hobby horse is Jimmy's term and this is at least the third time I have given John a link to Jimmy's specific post and he keeps claiming to not know what I mean.
Please permit John to speak his conscience without thwacking everything he says
I answer what he says directly and he still accuses me of not answering. Please define "thwacking".
Let Mr. Akin remove his postings if need be,but give leeway to others idea's.
I will gladly give leeway to others ideas and comments. But Jimmy has warned John twice about violating the "hobby horse" rule.
Remember sticks and stones...
If this refers to my dictionary comment, please understand that I wonder if John does not read the comments of others or if he has a reading comprehension problem.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

But go ahead keep repeating the lie long enough and you will convince yourself it is true.
Good point, Inocencio!
In fact, anti-Catholic Protestants have done it through the ages and have believed thus since concerning the vile nature of the Catholic Church and its Pope, who is none other than the Anti-Christ!
Now, John, who is the 'Protestant' here?

Innocencio,
There is no reason,unless it makes one feel superior, to insult someone,with your "hobby horse",fun.
Please permit John to speak his conscience without thwacking everything he says.No matter what is said.
Let Mr. Akin remove his postings if need be,but give leeway to others idea's.
Remember sticks and stones...

Dan's Dad,
The Intervention levelled it's charges against the new rite of Mass as well as the 1969 General Instruction.
And Pope Paul VI, as I pointed out earlier, answered these charges because he is the one with the authority to do so.
You seem to keep going back and forth on your opinion of the Pauline Rite. Do you consider it valid or does it "implicitly repudiates Catholic teaching on the Sacrificial character of the Mass,on the role of the priest,on transubstantiation"?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John,
I dont quite know what a hobby horse is
Then please click this link and read slowly and keep a dictionary handy for the big words.
I only ask if the church and her teachings were and are exactly in line with past teachings and Apostolic intent, why was the following changed
You pretend as though there has only been one:
translation of the bible
rite of the Mass
code of canon law
catechism
set of practices and customs of the Church
You reveal your ignorance of history and the teachings of the Church.
Changing both form and Matter off ALL of the sacraments
ONLY the Church has the right to decide this and not you.
Inocencio, Rosemarie (I think they are one and the same)
I would not call this thinking since we have both said it is not true and we do not know each other than seeing each others comments on this blog. But go ahead keep repeating the lie long enough and you will convince yourself it is true. It will still be a lie even though you "declare" it to be true.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Rosemarie,
The Head of The Holy Office,Cardinal Ottoviani,and Cardinal Bacco were commenting on the Novus Ordoe Missae of 1969,since the letter from them was dated from 1969.
Some,though,have claimed that Cardinal Ottoviani in a 17,Feb. 1970 letter,"retracted",his position on the New Order of the Mass.
There is however,a large body of circumstantial evidence which indicates that,if the Cardinal did indeed sign the letter,his signature was obtained fraudulently.The circumstantial evidence all points to the Cardinal's secretary,Msgr.Gilberto Agostoni,as the culprit.Msgr Agostoni,who played an important role in formulating the Ordo Missae,which the Intervention so strongly condemned,had the motive and the opportunity to do the deed.
The Intervention levelled it's charges against the new rite of Mass as well as the 1969 General Instruction.
The General Instruction,as the Intervention pointed out,presents a theology of the Mass which implicitly repudiates Catholic teaching on the Sacrificial character of the Mass,on the role of the priest,on transubstantiation,and many other points.
God Bless all on The Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Mother.

JOHN:
" introduding communion in the hand" "What we have now is as close to a Protestant service as one can get."
Yes, the Apostles were also 'Protestants' since they received the Lord in the Eucharist with their very bare hands!
"But where are the mass Protestant coversions?"
Uhhhh... Ever heard of the program called "The Journey Home" with Marcus Grodi and the Coming Home Network????
"When was the last time you saw someone genuflect when they passed the center aisle. "
Just last Sunday when I was at Church, in fact!
"...adhere to the mass that was handed down from the centuries."
Read the Catholic Encyclopedia, for goodness sakes (which you, yourself, proclaim to even honor)!

JOHN:
Inocencio, Rosemarie (I think they are one and the same)
Just like I think you, JV, Dad's Dad, and Dan Hunter are all the same!

You courageously (and anonymously) pointed out that Jimmy has in the past defended the use of "for all" in the Eucharistic prayer. SURELY you understand that this does not mean that he thinks it is the best translation or is the one he would personally prefer?
Thanks, Tim J.!
That was the best way to put it!

Michael
Thank you-Inocencio, Rosemarie (I think they are one and the same) and Esau would probably wish I was dead and silenced by Jimmy-but I only ask simple questions and HAVE to keep repeating them as they are ignored-as what I have simply posed above.
Michael:
If you want to be fair and balanced, please go back to the previous threads where all these things were discussed at length by various folks; not only I, Inocencio or Rosemarie, but many others as well.
I am not going to recount all the information presented in those and have them re-listed here once again for the nth time when even doing so would only fall upon deaf ears all over again!

So, "History Unveiled"
Do you imagine that you are the only one who has read "Mass Confusion"?
You courageously (and anonymously) pointed out that Jimmy has in the past defended the use of "for all" in the Eucharistic prayer. SURELY you understand that this does not mean that he thinks it is the best translation or is the one he would personally prefer?
Nowhere does Jimmy claim that "for all" is the superior translation, but only does his job in pointing out that the translation falls well within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy. It is certainly nothing worthy of protest or schism.
You only caught Jimmy being reasonable again... but reason is scandalous to some, I suppose.