Opinion: The speaker reads the Trump Bible, while Pope Leo uses the King James Version, which teaches love, compassion, and acceptance, writes John Casey.
Uh…no he doesn’t. I know the point the that Johnson doesn’t care about the Bible, only blowing Trump, but Catholics have a list of approved translations (linking here to the US Council of Catholic Bishops because Leo was a member before becoming Pope), and KJV isn’t on it. King James VI & I is the one who commissioned it, and was notably not Catholic. KJV is like…the English Protestant translation…
This is legitimately the first time I’ve heard the Catholics don’t accept the KJV. Was there ever a period where they did, or is it that the Catholics never got over the fact that an Anglican king commissioned the translation and have always rejected it?
The basis of the issue had much to do with vernacular translations themselves. The practice of using various vernaculars overall meant different sermons, parables, lessons, etc. Fundamentally this meant churches were not considered in communion if they weren’t using Latin, and especially not if they weren’t using a Church approved Bible.
So ultimately a monarch, the English king, specifically commissioning a vernacular Bible, was acting in direct defiance to the church and throwing fuel into that fire.
I don’t think the Catholic church ever ‘accepted’ or ‘approved’ that version, or would.
My background is protestant, so I think of the transition to a bible in the vernacular as a triumph of individualism and literacy, but I just sort of assumed eventually the Catholics got around to approving a bunch of bibles in living languages, and the kjv made the list. I don’t have a lot of respect for the kjv as a faithful reproduction of the source material, but I do think of it as an aesthetically pleasing work in its own right, so I’m mildly surprised, I suppose — I don’t think of any Christian sect as being particularly exacting about the accuracy of their translation, but I see a lot of them being in favor of documents that are difficult for the layperson to understand, which the kjv certainly is.
I mean they sort of did. The church never wavered from ‘approved list only’ but the vernacular question of teachings definitely lightened up. However, that also didn’t prevent or undo centuries of bloodshed and misery. It’s all very ‘proper channels for that’ to arrive at the same conclusions anyway.
Nope, Catholics used Latin at the time and it’s also just not a great English translation, also they don’t have exactly the same books. Though apparently in 2020 someone published a catholic variant of the kjv
I’ve never been able to find a good answer to that question. I know there some differences in what exactly gets included (see the deuterocanonical books/apocrypha), so I don’t think that it’s ever been accepted, but I can’t give a real source there.
Uh…no he doesn’t. I know the point the that Johnson doesn’t care about the Bible, only blowing Trump, but Catholics have a list of approved translations (linking here to the US Council of Catholic Bishops because Leo was a member before becoming Pope), and KJV isn’t on it. King James VI & I is the one who commissioned it, and was notably not Catholic. KJV is like…the English Protestant translation…
This is legitimately the first time I’ve heard the Catholics don’t accept the KJV. Was there ever a period where they did, or is it that the Catholics never got over the fact that an Anglican king commissioned the translation and have always rejected it?
The basis of the issue had much to do with vernacular translations themselves. The practice of using various vernaculars overall meant different sermons, parables, lessons, etc. Fundamentally this meant churches were not considered in communion if they weren’t using Latin, and especially not if they weren’t using a Church approved Bible.
So ultimately a monarch, the English king, specifically commissioning a vernacular Bible, was acting in direct defiance to the church and throwing fuel into that fire.
I don’t think the Catholic church ever ‘accepted’ or ‘approved’ that version, or would.
My background is protestant, so I think of the transition to a bible in the vernacular as a triumph of individualism and literacy, but I just sort of assumed eventually the Catholics got around to approving a bunch of bibles in living languages, and the kjv made the list. I don’t have a lot of respect for the kjv as a faithful reproduction of the source material, but I do think of it as an aesthetically pleasing work in its own right, so I’m mildly surprised, I suppose — I don’t think of any Christian sect as being particularly exacting about the accuracy of their translation, but I see a lot of them being in favor of documents that are difficult for the layperson to understand, which the kjv certainly is.
I mean they sort of did. The church never wavered from ‘approved list only’ but the vernacular question of teachings definitely lightened up. However, that also didn’t prevent or undo centuries of bloodshed and misery. It’s all very ‘proper channels for that’ to arrive at the same conclusions anyway.
Nope, Catholics used Latin at the time and it’s also just not a great English translation, also they don’t have exactly the same books. Though apparently in 2020 someone published a catholic variant of the kjv
I’ve never been able to find a good answer to that question. I know there some differences in what exactly gets included (see the deuterocanonical books/apocrypha), so I don’t think that it’s ever been accepted, but I can’t give a real source there.