Interesting since the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until after the East-West Schism, and definitely did not exist at the time Christ last walked the Earth.
This article, notably not by a Catholic website, explains it nicely without getting into sectarian disputes and shows that not just Catholics find the KJV to be flawed.
On another note, while I am personally a big fan of the Douay-Rheims because I like the old prose style of writing found in it, I also firmly believe the Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition, or RSVSCE, to be an overall superior and easier to consume translation.
do you know what the problem with that is? And the argument here is as flawed as any other regarding 'errors' in translations that crops up between Protestants and Catholics.
Interesting since the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until after the East-West Schism, and definitely did not exist at the time Christ last walked the Earth.
The Roman Catholic Church has existed since Christ named Peter is rock and gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the powers to Bind and Loose. (Matthew 16:18-19)
Again, we may disagree on just how flawed the KJV is, but it is flawed. That is the point I am making. It is definitely not a worthy translation to be held up above all others like some people seem to think it is.
Also one of the reasons the RSVSCE translation I mentioned above is superior is because the translators working on it have been able to take into account more than just the original Latin Vulgate, looking back at older Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek translations of scripture and considering them all with respect to their historic cultural context.
Interesting since the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until after the East-West Schism, and definitely did not exist at the time Christ last walked the Earth.
Historically, you’re right, Christ didn’t directly establish the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today, as it formalized later. However, Catholics believe their authority comes from apostolic succession, tracing back to Peter, whom they see as the first pope based on Matthew 16:18 "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church".
If you disagree with the Catholic claim to sole authority over scripture, how would you interpret that verse or the early Church’s development?
Also ignores the differences between the Douay-Rheims Version and the King James Version. The Roman Catholic Church is definitely not the sole authority on what it does and does not say.
Where is the account of Hanukkah in the Protestant Bible and why isn't it in there?
Jesus pointedly celebrated it in John 10:22-23.
("Feast of Dedication" is English translation of Hanukkah)
This is only one example of the holes in your Bible, the parts excised by your Bible's editors, Luther and King James.
As a note, Matthew 16:19 is at least as, if not more, important.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
While the notion of being the rock is symbolic and vague enough to be fodder for debate, the giving of the keys and powers to bind and loose is quite explicit. It's rooted in both Hebrew cultural practice and Old Testament scripture. In Kingdoms of the time when the King was away, be it because he was at war, on a pilgrimage, out hunting, or simply on vacation, the Kingdom was run by an administrative officer known as the Steward. Even while the King was home, the Steward performed many administrative duties that the King simply did not have the time to attend to. Traditionally the Keys of the Kingdom are symbol of the office of the Steward. You can see this in the Old Testament if you read Isaiah 22: 15-25 (pay close attention to verse 22).
Isaiah 22: 15-25
15 Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, 18 and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 In that day, says the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.”
In other words, the Pope is the Steward of Christ's Kingdom, and serves as administrative authority here on Earth while Christ is ascended into Heaven. That is the signficance of the Keys and why they have long been used as a symbol of the Church.
The Roman Catholic Church has existed since Christ named Peter is rock and gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the powers to Bind and Loose. (Matthew 16:18-19)
It literally didn't exist as the RCC until after the great schism, and Peter did not at any point name the RCC as his successor. The Nicene Creed itself didn't exist for over three centuries after Christ walked the Earth.
So, you can keep reiterating this if you want, I'm not sure why you think repetition lends you credibility against historicity.
Also one of the reasons the RSVSCE translation I mentioned above is superior is because the translators working on it have been able to take into account more than just the original Latin Vulgate, looking back at older Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek translations of scripture and considering them all with respect to their historic cultural context.
Given that the original KJV was done with Greek and Hebrew manuscripts rather than the plain Latin Vulgate of the DRV, I would think you'd consider it acceptable.
And it's still missing the greater point that the RCC is not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't a 'good translation'. At a minimum the Eastern Orthodox churches have equivalent authority.
It's pretty funny that you'd ask that given that the inclusion of the Filioque was the first 'real' Protestant act within the greater church. Not that I prefer giving direct answers on any of this as I figure I should probably spend more time than I already have in researching all of this stuff, but if we're going to get autistic about it, let's look at a few versions.
DRV 1899 American Edition:
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
New Catholic Bible:
13 Peter’s Confession of Christ’s Divinity. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the Prophets.” 15 “But you,” he said to them, “who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Then Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father. 18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
Now let's look at Acts 10, specifically 27-43 -
New Catholic bible:
27 While they conversed together, they went inside where a large crowd had gathered. 28 Peter said to them, “You are well aware that Jews are forbidden to associate with or visit a Gentile. However, God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean. 29 That is why I came without offering any objection when I was summoned. I would like to know exactly why you sent for me.”
30 Cornelius replied, “Four days ago, at this very hour, three o’clock in the afternoon I was in my house praying when suddenly I saw a man in shining robes standing before me. 31 He said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your almsgiving has not been forgotten by God. 32 Therefore, send to Joppa and ask for Simon, who is also called Peter. He is lodging at the house of Simon the tanner, by the sea.’ 33 And so I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now all of us have assembled here in the presence of God to listen to everything that the Lord has commanded you to say.”
34 Peter’s Speech. Then Peter addressed them: “I now understand how true it is that God has no favorites, 35 but that in every nation all those who fear God and do what is right are acceptable to him. 36 He sent his word to the children of Israel and proclaimed the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is the Lord of all.
37 “You are well aware of what was proclaimed all over Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism of John, 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went around doing good and healing all those who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
39 “We are witnesses to everything he did in the Jewish countryside and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God raised him to life on the third day and allowed him to be seen 41 not by all the people but by witnesses who were chosen by God in advance—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to bear witness that he is the one designated by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the Prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name.”
DRV 1899 American Edition:
27 And talking with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
28 And he said to them: You know how abominable it is for a man that is a Jew, to keep company or to come unto one of another nation: but God hath shewed to me, to call no man common or unclean.
29 For which cause, making no doubt, I came when I was sent for. I ask, therefore, for what cause you have sent for me?
30 And Cornelius said: Four days ago, unto this hour, I was praying in my house, at the ninth hour, and behold a man stood before me in white apparel, and said:
31 Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thy alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
32 Send therefore to Joppe, and call hither Simon, who is surnamed Peter: he lodgeth in the house of Simon a tanner, by the sea side.
33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee: and thou hast done well in coming. Now therefore all we are present in thy sight, to hear all things whatsoever are commanded thee by the Lord.
34 And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons.
35 But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him.
36 God sent the word to the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all.)
37 You know the word which hath been published through all Judea: for it began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached,
38 Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree.
40 Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest,
41 Not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he arose again from the dead;
42 And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead.
43 To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition:
27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered; 28 and he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me.”
30 And Cornelius said, “Four days ago, about this hour, I was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house; and behold, a man stood before me in bright apparel, 31 saying, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God. 32 Send therefore to Joppa and ask for Simon who is called Peter; he is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the seaside.’ 33 So I sent to you at once, and you have been kind enough to come. Now therefore we are all here present in the sight of God, to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.”
Gentiles Hear the Good News
34 And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), 37 the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses to all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; 40 but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; 41 not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
Now, I'll be the first to admit God has a habit of speaking truth that has multiple simultaneous valid meanings, but I'm not reading into that line in Matthew 16:18 that it is about much other than the simple fact that Peter was a monumentally important facet of the church - as in, the church that existed hundreds of years without a major schism prior to the Roman Catholic inclusion of the Filioque seemingly as an aggressive assertion of a title of being first among equals as more than merely being among equals - blossoming into the wider world by including gentiles.
He was the rock upon which that church was built, he was a major component of it being spread among gentiles. Pretty straightforward.
In other words, the Pope is the Steward of Christ's Kingdom, and serves as administrative authority here on Earth while Christ is ascended into Heaven. That is the signficance of the Keys and why they have long been used as a symbol of the Church.
Buddy, I'm out to read every version I can. I'm going to purchase a DRV, was hoping to find one in large print but I'll have to make do I guess. Don't start making asinine assumptions just because I don't allow the claim that the RCC is the sole authority on the bible to go uncontested.
Edit: I should add, I'm not even closed off to the idea of being a Catholic, if I find someday that I appreciate the specifics of Catholicism more than Protestantism or Orthodoxy. But the RCC being the sole arbiter of 'truthiness' isn't something I'd buy even if I were to convert to Catholicism.
It literally didn't exist as the RCC until after the great schism, and Peter did not at any point name the RCC as his successor. The Nicene Creed itself didn't exist for over three centuries after Christ walked the Earth.
As @Frick Marisa said, the Church has developed over time but we root our authority in apostolic succession which has stood since Peter. That is why we have the right to make developments like the Nicene Creed and the concept of a Bible.
Not really, I have other things to do today and an autistic slapfight over the specific flaws of the KJV simply isn't on my schedule. Besides you already elected to exclude the discussion of missing books which is a substantial element.
Notice how I very explicitly did not hold up the DRV as anything more than a personal preference. In my opinion the RSVSCE is the best translation available today, but I am sure in the course of time even better translations will arise.
Given that the original KJV was done with Greek and Hebrew manuscripts rather than the plain Latin Vulgate of the DRV, I would think you'd consider it acceptable.
The KJV is hampered heavily by the fact that is was forged in the heat of the reformation. While its translators did look at older manuscripts they did so through they eyes of 16th century protestants and it shows. Just like how the original Latin Vulgate was made largely by Saint Jerome, a 4th Century Roman from Dalmatia, and it shows.
I've noticed that people tend to think that authority on scripture means you got it right one time ages ago and thats the end of it, but that's not how it works. The true nature of the Church's Authority on Scripture (as well as in general) is that it bestows the right to develop and improve understanding over time.
And it's still missing the greater point that the RCC is not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't a 'good translation'. At a minimum the Eastern Orthodox churches have equivalent authority.
Yes, it is. The Eastern Orthodox may have retained valid sacraments but they did not retain authority on scripture. I am not sure why you are preoccupied with their interepretation of the Great Schism and the Filioque, let alone why you assume it is in anyway correct, but ultimately it was their failure to submit to the authority of apostolic succession that caused the Schism. If you look at the historical context of it the Filioque controversy itself was more of symptom of the real issue. The real issue is the simple fact that 1000 years ago it was very hard to reliably communicate over long distances. Messages sent could take months or even years to arrive, let alone be replied to.
Have you ever received a text where you weren't sure how to read the tone of it? Imagine that but without the ability to clear it up instantly, and then add in the crossing of language and cultural barriers to the mix. I suspect that if they had the capability of discussing things more directly and thoroughly at the time of the Filioque then it would not have become the issue it is considered to be today.
Furthermore if you look at the Filioque itself the actual controversy is frankly stupid. How can any of us mortals really know for sure whether the Holy Spirit flows from the Father and the Son, or From the Father through the Son, etc. We are seeing God as if through a dim mirror (1 Corinthians 13:12), and such a specific determination is at best an educated guess and the fact that it is pointed to as the sole reason for the Great Schism is exceedingly narrow minded. It was just the straw the broke the camels back, which was largely strained by the aforementioned historic reality of long distance communication.
we root our authority in apostolic succession which has stood since Peter. That is why we have the right to make developments like the Nicene Creed and the concept of a Bible.
The Eastern Orthodox may have retained valid sacraments but they did not retain authority on scripture. I am not sure why you are preoccupied with their interepretation of the Great Schism and the Filioque, let alone why you assume it is in anyway correct, but ultimately it was their failure to submit to the authority of apostolic succession that caused the Schism. If you look at the historical context of it the Filioque controversy itself was more of symptom of the real issue. The real issue is the simple fact that 1000 years ago it was very hard to reliably communicate over long distances. Messages sent could take months or even years to arrive, let alone be replied to.
Have you ever received a text where you weren't sure how to read the tone of it? Imagine that but without the ability to clear it up instantly, and then add in the crossing of language and cultural barriers to the mix. I suspect that if they had the capability of discussing things more directly and thoroughly at the time of the Filioque then it would have become the issue it is considered to be today.
Two things. Firstly, there's no reason to believe Catholics or Orthodox over one another as far as the events are concerned, and secondly that's irrelevant to the larger point that neither are 'above' the other given they were unified as one church with the Roman church being first among equals. Even if you're going to try to play autistic games of "who actually inherited the proper title" it's rather goofy considering "the church" didn't exist as a singular authoritative body until the Nicene Creed was created. For hundreds of years this concept of apostolic succession and who's 'correct', or what even being a Christian 'meant' was hazy.
But, yes, the original church that had all of that authority no longer existed the moment it split into two equally valid churches.
Furthermore if you look at the Filioque itself the actual controversy is frankly stupid. How can any of us mortals really know for sure whether the Holy Spirit flows from the Father and the Son, or From the Father through the Son, etc. We are seeing God as if through a dim mirror (1 Corinthians 13:12), and such a specific determination is at best an educated guess and the fact that it is pointed to as the sole reason for the Great Schism is exceedingly narrow minded. It was just the straw the broke the camels back, which was largely strained by the aforementioned historic reality of long distance communication.
I mean, I agree with you, but do realize you're strengthening my point that it was a needless schism caused by the inclusion of an unnecessary statement almost certainly made as a power-move by an entity that wanted to test its actual authoritative power. It's not like they were unaware of the 'weird text problem' they had in their era.
Which, again, caused a clusterfuck that split the church. Which is... ironic to say the least given where it lead the newly formed entity on down through the ages to now.
I get that this all seems to be very intimidating to people who've spent less time thinking about it perhaps but I'm not really even considering myself a Protestant at this point. I'm waiting until I've done more investigative and contemplative work before committing to any one denomination other than 'Christian'. Hence wanting to read various versions.
Fair enough. I personally like the online version of the DRV as much as the KJV I have. I wanted a print copy of the DRV but for some reason Catholics seem to be anti-easy reading. I'll probably read that version next after I get through with the DRV/KJV.
The KJV is hampered heavily by the fact that is was forged in the heat of the reformation. While its translators did look at older manuscripts they did so through they eyes of 16th century protestants and it shows. Just like how the original Latin Vulgate was made largely by Saint Jerome, a 4th Century Roman from Dalmatia, and it shows.
I've noticed that people tend to think that authority on scripture means you got it right one time ages ago and thats the end of it, but that's not how it works. The true nature of the Church's Authority on Scripture (as well as in general) is that it bestows the right to develop and improve understanding over time.
I mean, I like and agree with your opinion RE: KJV and other versions if we're talking solely differentials but, being really really autistic about it this boils down to 'you should just learn Latin, Greek, and Hebrew and read the originals' on a long enough arc of autistic sperging about version differences.
The authority thing is still not true though for reasons above. The entire premise is based on the faulty logic that somehow one of the two churches that formed from what effectively was the destruction of the church they split from, is more authoritative 'because reasons' than the other. There is literally - literally - no reason for anyone to give the Catholic version of the story priority nor trust over the Orthodox version other than preference.
This is from someone who isn't biased in any direction.
Now, I'll be the first to admit God has a habit of speaking truth that has multiple simultaneous valid meanings, but I'm not reading into that line in Matthew 16:18 that it is about much other than the simple fact that Peter was a monumentally important facet of the church - as in, the church that existed hundreds of years without a major schism prior to the Roman Catholic inclusion of the Filioque seemingly as an aggressive assertion of a title of being first among equals as more than merely being among equals - blossoming into the wider world by including gentiles.
He was the rock upon which that church was built, he was a major component of it being spread among gentiles. Pretty straightforward.
I see how you view Peter as a key figure in Matthew 16:18, but I think it goes deeper than being a “monumentally important facet” of the Church. Jesus says, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. The Greek word for Peter, Petros, means “rock,” directly tying him to the foundation of the Church. Jesus doesn’t call him a mere component but the rock.
Then, He gives Peter the “keys of the kingdom” , a symbol of supreme authority rooted in Isaiah, where the keyholder governs with divine backing.
To me, this isn’t just symbolic, it shows Jesus trusting Peter to lead His Church with real authority to guide and make decisions.”, it’s Christ establishing Peter as the chief steward of His Church, with binding and loosing authority that’s unique. You’re right about Acts 10 showing Peter’s role in reaching Gentiles, but I think it shows more than Peter spreading the Gospel, it highlights his leadership. When he baptizes Cornelius after that vision, he’s guiding the whole Church’s mission, acting as the "rock" Jesus chose, not just a messenger.
I get your point about the Filioque being the "first real Protestant act", but it does not capture the full historical context.
The Filioque, added to the Creed in the West to affirm the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son, was a theological clarification rooted in Augustine and earlier Latin fathers. It wasn’t a power grab but a defense of Trinitarian orthodoxy. The East-West Schism of 1054 had complex causes, cultural, political, and linguistic, it wasn't just the Filioque. Blaming the split on Rome oversimplifies it. The Catholic Church sought unity, as seen in councils like Florence (1439), where East and West temporarily reconciled. The East’s rejection of Rome’s primacy, not the Filioque, was the deeper issue.
You said the early Church was egalitarian for centuries before Rome’s “assertion” of authority. This is false. By 96, Clement of Rome, Peter’s successor, wrote to Corinth, intervening in their disputes with authority recognized across the Church (1 Clement). Ignatius of Antioch stressed the bishop’s role in Church unity, and Irenaeus declared Rome’s Church as the standard of truth, due to its “preeminent authority” from Peter and Paul. The early Church wasn’t a loose collective, it had a hierarchical structure with Rome at its head, long before the schism.
The appeal to scripture’s “multiple valid meanings” undermines your own case. If Peter’s role is open to any interpretation, why trust your reading over the Church’s, which has safeguarded the deposit of faith for 2,000 years? Christ promised His Church would be guided into all truth (John 16:13) and prevail against hell’s gates (Matt. 16:18 ). The Catholic Church, with its unbroken line from Peter, fulfills that promise. No other church can claim this continuity or authority.
The Catholic Church isn’t just one option among many, it’s the Church Christ founded, with Peter as its rock and the popes as his successors. Its authority over scripture and doctrine isn’t a later invention but a divine mandate, proven by scripture, tradition, and history.
I see why you view Peter as a key figure in Matthew 16:18, but I think it goes deeper than being a “monumentally important facet” of the Church. Jesus says, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. The Greek word for Peter, Petros, means “rock,” directly tying him to the foundation of the Church. Jesus doesn’t call him a mere component but the rock.
Then, He gives Peter the “keys of the kingdom” , a symbol of supreme authority rooted in Isaiah, where the keyholder governs with divine backing.
To me, this isn’t just symbolic, it shows Jesus trusting Peter to lead His Church with real authority to guide and make decisions.”, it’s Christ establishing Peter as the chief steward of His Church, with binding and loosing authority that’s unique. You’re right about Acts 10 showing Peter’s role in reaching Gentiles, but I think it shows more than Peter spreading the Gospel, it highlights his leadership. When he baptizes Cornelius after that vision, he’s guiding the whole Church’s mission, acting as the "rock" Jesus chose, not just a messenger.
Okay so where does it actually name the RCC as his successor or give the church under him this authority? The one that didn't exist, the moment it split into two.
I get your point about the Filioque being the "first real Protestant act", but it does not capture the full historical context.
The Filioque, added to the Creed in the West to affirm the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son, was a theological clarification rooted in Augustine and earlier Latin fathers. It wasn’t a power grab but a defense of Trinitarian orthodoxy. The East-West Schism of 1054 had complex causes, cultural, political, and linguistic, not just the Filioque. Blaming the split on Rome oversimplifies it. The Catholic Church sought unity, as seen in councils like Florence (1439), where East and West temporarily reconciled. The East’s rejection of Rome’s primacy, not the Filioque, was the deeper issue.
It's not really a 'defense of Trinitarian Orthodoxy' if you're making a statement about the procession of the spirit.
The rejection of Rome's primacy was about the Filioque, so I'm not really getting why you think it's valid to cleave that from the issue. And I'm not 'blaming the split on Rome' insomuch as pointing out that it was a major assertion of the 'power' of the Roman seat's authority that both sides agree was divisive. The Orthodoxy side of things easily could've yielded, I'm not saying they're not equally responsible; in fact that's the reason I'm saying they're 'equal' in their validity. They're both at fault.
You said the early Church was egalitarian for centuries before Rome’s “assertion” of authority. This is false. By 96, Clement of Rome, Peter’s successor, wrote to Corinth, intervening in their disputes with authority recognized across the Church (1 Clement). Ignatius of Antioch stressed the bishop’s role in Church unity, and Irenaeus declared Rome’s Church as the standard of truth, due to its “preeminent authority” from Peter and Paul. The early Church wasn’t a loose collective, it had a hierarchical structure with Rome at its head, long before the schism.
Okay, going to look more into that. But given what I've seen so far, I'm not going to be entirely enthused nor surprised to dig into this only to find out that it's some form of, again, extreme reach of logic as regards an older iteration of Christianity.
And yes, I am aware that there were heresies prior to the Nicene Creed. That doesn't change the validity of what I said, the 'church' as an authoritative, centralized body in the sense that it was groups of people set up in the post Nicene era, each with regional dominion, from what I've learned thus far was not a 'thing'. There were vying groups of churches as things were still settling to eventually form the groups that would come together to form the Nicene Creed. The very fact that it's an ecumenical council is what I'm getting at, if that makes sense.
For a difference perhaps not quite equivalent but still in the ballpark of accurate, we're talking pre and post antebellum U.S. as regards states vs federal power. More federated but still loosely controlled vs enshrined and empowered central authority. The Nicene Creed is a very visible demarcation between the two eras. Again, from what I've read on the topic thus far.
It's not an appeal to anything and I'm not pointing at scripture. I was saying quite literally that God often seems to say multiple things at once when speaking, specifically God. Not scripture. God, when speaking, in scripture. Since I needed to make that clear.
I never said it was. My 'interpretation' is a logical and straightforward reading of the events that took place. It doesn't take a herculean leap in logic that somehow twists itself via pretzel magic into 'the modern Roman Catholic Church is the arbiter of what is and isn't valid biblical interpretation'. Which is again, strange, given that it didn't exist as an entity until after the schism. It literally could not have as the entity it split from was destroyed by the act of the split.
Not sure what's so confusing about this, the church that existed that the RCC claims to be a continuance of was destroyed by the very act that birthed the RCC as a distinct entity in the first place. It's also for what it's worth the same reason Orthodoxy cannot claim primacy in the same vein with any more or less validity. At this stage it's argumentation that relies on preference.
Two denominations splitting from one ur-denomination renders the prior ur-denomination defunct, as its primary characteristic was the union of the two now-distinct denominations. There's no 'continuance'.
They're not the only church that claims this so, not really sure what you're on about. And again I'm not really seeing anywhere listed where the Roman Catholic Church specifically is listed as the successor to Peter. That is, the entity that emerged from the great schism.
Edit: One thing I don't really understand is this sticking point. Them both being equally valid doesn't invalidate one or the other, so this fixation on being "The One Church™" has never really made sense to me even before I began researching the history of all of this stuff. The Roman Catholic church isn't somehow 'not a real church' if this point is acknowledged.
This is what I mean by a preocupation with the Orthodox view of events.
The Filioque was not an unnecessary statement or a power move. It was added to rebuke a heresy that was prevalent in the west and needed to be addressed. Part of the issue is that the heresy in question was not present in the East so they did not appreciate the necessity of the Filioque in that regard, hence why they call it what you call it instead of what it is.
They are not equally valid. The line of apostolic succession is embodied by the office of the Pope. He is the Steward. The Orthodox church has no Pope, and has suffered its own subsequent Schisms since the original. Hence why there's the Russion Orthodox Church, Ukranian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, and so on.
Over here in Catholicism we may have different Rites, with Latin being the most prevalent, but they are all united in communion with the Holy See, and under the authority of the Pope.
You repeatedly show bias towards the Orthodox interpretation, whether you do so intentionally or consciously is unknown but the bias is clear to anyone with eyes to see it.
Unfortunately I really do not have the time to properly get into this discussion today, I have prior obligations to attend to and I would prefer not to cheapen this discussion with hastily written replies. I encourage you to go back and read my post about Matthew 16:19 and the significance of the Keys.
In short, the notion that the Great Schism destroyed one Church and formed two is false. The Catholic Church is, in terms of authority and succession, the same Church that has existed since the beginning. The Orthodox Church is the one that split off of it because they refused to submit to right and proper authority. The specifics of that dispute are insignificant next to that immutable fact. What the Orthodox Church founders should have done instead of Schism is submit to the authority of the Pope and bring up concerns over specifics like the Filioque at the next council. That is how things are supposed to be done. It is much easier to reassess specifics at a council than it is to mend a schism.
That’s a misread of history. The Roman Catholic Church didn’t “split” into a new entity in 1054; it’s the same Church centered in Rome since Peter, its first bishop. The East-West Schism saw the Eastern churches break communion with Rome, but the Catholic Church retained its structure, papacy, and tradition. Early sources like Irenaeus confirm Rome’s Church, founded by Peter and Paul, held “preeminent authority” (Against Heresies 3.3.2). To me, the Catholic Church is the unbroken continuation of Christ’s Church, not a post-schism creation.
Okay so where does it actually name the RCC as his successor or give the church under him this authority? The one that didn't exist, the moment it split into two.
Scripture doesn’t need to name the “Roman Catholic Church” explicitly, it’s implied through Peter’s role. The “keys” (echoing Isaiah 22:22) signify leadership authority. Early Christians understood this as passing to Peter’s successors in Rome, like Linus and Clement, listed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.3.3). The RCC didn’t “split into two” in 1054, it continued as the Church of Peter’s see, while the East rejected that authority. That’s clear continuity, not a new church.
It's not really a 'defense of Trinitarian Orthodoxy' if you're making a statement about the procession of the spirit.
The rejection of Rome's primacy was about the Filioque, so I'm not really getting why you think it's valid to cleave that from the issue. And I'm not 'blaming the split on Rome' insomuch as pointing out that it was a major assertion of the 'power' of the Roman seat's authority that both sides agree was divisive. The Orthodoxy side of things easily could've yielded, I'm not saying they're not equally responsible; in fact that's the reason I'm saying they're 'equal' in their validity. They're both at fault.
You’re right that both sides share blame for the schism. But calling the Filioque a “power assertion” misses its theological root. The Filioque, affirming the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, was grounded in Latin fathers like Augustine and Ambrose to clarify the Trinity’s unity against heresies like Arianism. It was a defense of orthodoxy, not just a statement about procession. The East’s objection wasn’t mainly the doctrine but Rome’s authority to add it to the Creed. That’s where primacy comes in, Rome, as Peter’s see, had the right to clarify doctrine.
And the schism’s causes were complex: cultural divides, language barriers, and political tensions like Charlemagne’s crowning in 800. The Filioque was a flashpoint, but the East’s rejection of papal authority, seen in Rome’s role at councils like Chalcedon (451) was the deeper issue.
Okay, going to look more into that. But given what I've seen so far, I'm not going to be entirely enthused nor surprised to dig into this only to find out that it's some form of, again, extreme reach of logic as regards an older iteration of Christianity.
And yes, I am aware that there were heresies prior to the Nicene Creed. That doesn't change the validity of what I said, the 'church' as an authoritative, centralized body in the sense that it was groups of people set up in the post Nicene era, each with regional dominion, from what I've learned thus far was not a 'thing'. There were vying groups of churches as things were still settling to eventually form the groups that would come together to form the Nicene Creed. The very fact that it's an ecumenical council is what I'm getting at, if that makes sense.
For a difference perhaps not quite equivalent but still in the ballpark of accurate, we're talking pre and post antebellum U.S. as regards states vs federal power. More federated but still loosely controlled vs enshrined and empowered central authority. The Nicene Creed is a very visible demarcation between the two eras. Again, from what I've read on the topic thus far.
I respect that you’re open to digging deeper! Still, your view of an egalitarian, pre-Nicene Church doesn’t match the evidence. The early Church wasn’t a loose federation of “vying groups.” By 96, Clement of Rome, Peter’s successor, wrote to Corinth, settling their disputes with recognized authority (1 Clement). Ignatius of Antioch (110) stressed bishops as central to unity, especially Rome’s (Letter to the Romans). Irenaeus (180) called Rome the standard of truth due to Peter and Paul (Against Heresies 3.3.2). This shows a hierarchy with Rome at the top, pre-Nicene. Your U.S. analogy, pre- vs. post-antebellum, falls short: councils like Nicaea (325) didn’t create central authority but built on it, with Rome’s bishop, like Pope Sylvester’s legates, playing a key role. The Catholic Church’s structure, rooted in Peter, was clear from the start, not a post-Nicene invention.
It's not an appeal to anything and I'm not pointing at scripture. I was saying quite literally that God often seems to say multiple things at once when speaking, specifically God. Not scripture. God, when speaking, in scripture. Since I needed to make that clear.
Thanks for the clarification, but that still muddies the waters. In Matthew 16:18, God (through Jesus) says Peter is the “rock” and gives him the “keys.” If those words can have multiple meanings, why trust your reading over the Church’s, which has interpreted them for 2,000 years? Catholics see this as a clear mandate for Peter’s leadership, passed to his successors. The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), safeguards that truth. To me, your “straightforward” take, Peter as just a missionary figure, misses his foundational role, confirmed by early Christians like Irenaeus, who tied Rome’s authority to Peter.
I never said it was. My 'interpretation' is a logical and straightforward reading of the events that took place. It doesn't take a herculean leap in logic that somehow twists itself via pretzel magic into 'the modern Roman Catholic Church is the arbiter of what is and isn't valid biblical interpretation'. Which is again, strange, given that it didn't exist as an entity until after the schism. It literally could not have as the entity it split from was destroyed by the act of the split.
The Catholic Church didn’t emerge post-schism, it’s the same Church of Peter’s see, continuing from Christ’s founding in Matthew 16:18. The schism didn’t “destroy” the original Church, the East broke away, but Rome’s Church, with its papal succession, endured. Early records, like Eusebius’ Church History (325), list Rome’s bishops from Peter onward. Your reading of Peter’s role as merely a missionary skips the “keys” and their clear implication of authority (Matt. 16:19). To me, it’s not a leap to see the Catholic Church, led by Peter’s successors, as Christ’s appointed arbiter of scripture, backed by scripture and tradition.
They're not the only church that claims this so, not really sure what you're on about. And again I'm not really seeing anywhere listed where the Roman Catholic Church specifically is listed as the successor to Peter. That is, the entity that emerged from the great schism.
Other churches may claim succession, but they can’t match the Catholic Church’s unbroken line from Peter. Scripture (Matt. 16:18–19) makes Peter the “rock” with the “keys,” and history shows his successors in Rome, Linus, Clement, and beyond, leading the Church. The Orthodox reject papal primacy, but early councils like Chalcedon (451) deferred to Pope Leo’s authority.
You really should include 19 as well, but if you're going to focus on 18 then at least include the significance of Peter's name. Lest we forget that Peter was born Simon, and he was given the name Peter by Our Lord. Peter, or Petros, sometimes written as "Cephas," is akin in translation to the word for rock or stone.
When Christ bestowed the man born Simon with the name Peter he was foreshadowing his future significance.
Interesting since the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until after the East-West Schism, and definitely did not exist at the time Christ last walked the Earth.
"Matthew produced his Gospel in written form among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and founding the Church."
St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1, Section 1 (A.D. 180)
Matthaeus igitur in Hebraeis, ipsorum lingua, scripturam edidit evangelii, cum Petrus et Paulus Romae evangelizarent et fundarent ecclesiam. Source
"But since it would be a very long task in a volume like this to list the lines of succession of all the churches, we refute all those who, in whatever manner, whether from self-pleasing, vainglory, or blindness and perverse judgment, gather in ways they ought not. We do this by pointing to the tradition that comes from the apostles, which is possessed by the greatest, most ancient, and universally known Church, the Church founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul. We also point to the faith proclaimed to mankind, a faith that has come down to our own time through the successions of its bishops.
For with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, it is a necessity that every Church must align, that is, the faithful from everywhere, because in it, the tradition that comes from the apostles has always been preserved by those who are from everywhere."
St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, Section 2 (A.D. 180)
"Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximae et antiquissimae et omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romae fundatae et constitutae Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab apostolis Traditionem, et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes, confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo, vel per sibi placentia, vel vanam gloriam, vel per caecitatem et malam sententiam, praeterquam oportet
Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis Traditio." Source
"Where was Marcion then, the Pontic shipmaster and Stoic enthusiast? Where was Valentinus, the follower of Platonic teachings? It’s well established that they weren’t around all that long ago, roughly during the reign of Antoninus, and that they initially believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church in Rome under the blessed Bishop Eleutherius. But because of their relentless, troublesome curiosity, which even led them to shun their brothers, they were repeatedly expelled. Marcion, along with the two hundred sesterces he had donated to the Church, was finally banished for good, and they spread the poison of their teachings."
Tertullian of Carthage - Prescription Against Heretics, 30 (c. A.D. 200)
Ubi tunc Marcion, ponticus nauclerus, stoicae studiosus? Ubi Valentinus platonicae sectator? Nam constat illos, neque adeo olim fuisse, Antonini fere principatu, et in catholicae primo doctrinam credidisse apud Ecclesiam romanensem, sub episcopatu Eleutherii benedicti, donec ob inquietam semper eorum curiositatem, qua fratres quoque vitabant semel et iterum ejecti, Marcion quidem cum ducentis sestertiis quae Ecclesiae intulerat, novissime in perpetuum discidium relegati , venena doctrinarum suarum disseminaverunt. Source
'If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity you have pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighboring bishops, and asserts that he has fresh matter in his defense, a new bishop not be settled in his see unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision"
COUNCIL OF SARDICA - Canon 4 (c.A.D. 342)]. "II. The Chair of Peter proves that the first endowment of the Church belongs to the Catholics, not the Donatists.
So then, we have established that the one true Catholic Church is the one that is spread throughout the whole world. Now we must list its endowments and determine where its five distinctive gifts, which you, Parmenian, have claimed are six, are to be found.
The first among these endowments is the Chair (cathedra). Unless a bishop sits in this Chair, he cannot possess the second endowment, which is the "angel" [the bishop himself, as the messenger of the Church]. We must therefore see who sat in the Chair first, and where.
If you don’t know, then learn. If you already know, then be ashamed. You can’t plead ignorance on this point, which means you must know the truth. And to sin knowingly is a grave offense, for the ignorant are sometimes pardoned.
Therefore, you cannot deny that you know the episcopal Chair was first established for Peter in the city of Rome. In it sat Peter, the head of all the Apostles, which is why he was also called Cephas ["the Rock"]. It was in this one Chair that unity was to be preserved by all, so that the other Apostles would not each set up and defend their own individual chairs. Consequently, anyone who would set up a second chair against this unique one would be a schismatic and a sinner.
III. The Succession of the Bishops of Rome.
So, it was Peter who first occupied this unique Chair, which is the first of the Church's endowments.
He was succeeded by Linus,
Linus was succeeded by Clement,
Clement by Anacletus,
Anacletus by Evaristus,
Evaristus by Alexander,
Alexander by Sixtus,
Sixtus by Telesphorus,
Telesphorus by Hyginus,
Hyginus by Anicetus,
Anicetus by Pius,
Pius by Soter,
Soter by Eleutherius,
Eleutherius by Victor,
Victor by Zephyrinus,
Zephyrinus by Callixtus,
Callixtus by Urban,
Urban by Pontian,
Pontian by Anterus,
Anterus by Fabian,
Fabian by Cornelius,
Cornelius by Lucius,
Lucius by Stephen,
Stephen by Sixtus,
Sixtus by Dionysius,
Dionysius by Felix,
Felix by Eutychian,
Eutychian by Caius,
Caius by Marcellinus,
Marcellinus by Marcellus,
Marcellus by Eusebius,
Eusebius by Miltiades,
Miltiades by Sylvester,
Sylvester by Mark,
Mark by Julius,
Julius by Liberius,
Liberius by Damasus,
and Damasus was succeeded by Siricius, who is our colleague today.
Through him, the whole world is in harmony with us, joined in a single fellowship of communion by the exchange of official letters.
Now it’s your turn. Recount the origin of your chair, you who wish to claim the holy Church for yourselves."
St. Optatus of Milevis - A Treatise Against the Donatist Parmenian, Book II, Section 2 (c. A.D. 367)
Sancti Optati Milevitani Episcopi
Contra Parmenianum Donatistam, Liber II
II. Cathedram, primam Ecclesiae dotem, Catholicorum esse, non Donatistarum, probat ex Cathedra Petri.
Ergo probavimus eam esse Ecclesiam catholicam, quae est in toto terrarum orbe diffusa. Ejus jam commemoranda sunt ornamenta: et videndum ubi sint quinque dotes, quas tu sex esse dixisti: inter quas cathedra est prima, ubi nisi sederit episcopus, conjungi altera dos non potest qui est angelus. Videndum est quis et ubi prior cathedram sederit. Si ignoras, disce; si nosti, erubesce. Ignorantia tibi adscribi non potest: restat ergo ut noveris. Scientem errare peccatum est; nam ignorantibus nonnumquam solet ignosci.
Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Roma Petro primo Cathedram episcopalem esse collatam, in qua sederit omnium Apostolorum caput Petrus; unde et Cephas appellatus est: in qua una cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur, ne ceteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent, ut jam schismaticus et peccator esset, qui contra singularem cathedram alteram collocaret.
III. Successio Romanorum episcoporum.
Ergo cathedram unicam, quae est prima de dotibus, sedit prior Petrus: cui successit Linus, Lino successit Clemens, Clementi Anacletus, Anacleto Evaristus, Evaristo Alexander, Alexandro Sixtus, Sixto Telesphorus, Telesphoro Iginus, Igino Anicetus, Aniceto Pius, Pio Soter, Soteri Eleutherius, Eleutherio Victor, Victori Zephirinus, Zephirino Calixtus, Calixto Urbanus, Urbano Pontianus, Pontiano Anterus, Antero Fabianus, Fabiano Cornelius, Cornelio Lucius, Lucio Stephanus, Stephano Sixtus, Sixto Dionysius, Dionysio Felix, Felici Eutychianus, Eutychiano Caius, Caio Marcellinus, Marcellino Marcellus, Marcello Eusebius, Eusebio Miltiades, Miltiadi Sylvester, Sylvestro Marcus, Marco Julius, Julio Liberius, Liberio Damasus, Damaso Siricius, hodie qui noster est socius: cum quo nobiscum totus orbis commercio formatarum, in una communionis societate concordat. Vestrae cathedrae vos originem reddite, qui vobis vultis sanctam Ecclesiam vindicare. Source
"Philip, a presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said:
"There is no doubt in, fact, it has been known in every age, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race. To him was given the power of loosing and binding sins. To this very day and forever, he lives and exercises judgment in his successors."
COUNCIL OF EPHESUS - Session 3 (A.D. 431)
Philippus, presbyter et legatus apostolicae sedis, dixit: Nulli dubium, immo saeculis omnibus notum est, quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus, apostolorum princeps et caput, fideique columna et Ecclesiae Catholicae fundamentum, a Domino nostro Iesu Christo, Salvatore humani generis ac Redemptore, claves regni accepit, solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est: qui ad hoc usque tempus et semper in suis successoribus vivit et iudicium exercet. Source
You said the early Church was egalitarian for centuries before Rome’s “assertion” of authority. This is false. By 96, Clement of Rome, Peter’s successor, wrote to Corinth, intervening in their disputes with authority recognized across the Church (1 Clement).
Clements letter was likely written between the death of Nero (68 AD) and the destruction of the Temple (70 AD). Clement refers to ongoing sacrifices occurring at the Temple (destroyed in 70) and refers to Peter and Paul's martyrdom as having been a recent occurrence (which would be an odd thing to do after 30 years). Despite the previous consensus, which was reached solely because of when the Catholic Church historically dated Clement's place and time as Bishop of Rome, I believe most are starting to come around to the earlier dating. Even you own man Pope Benedict XVI came out in favor of the earlier dating.
So, it was Peter who first occupied this unique Chair, which is the first of the Church's endowments.
He was succeeded by Linus,
Linus was succeeded by Clement,
Clement by Anacletus,
Tertullian (~200 AD) lists Clement as the second Bishop of Rome. Given the arguments I made above for an earlier dating of his letter Clement as Bishop of Rome II seems more likely than the order the Catholic Church holds today.
Given that the original KJV was done with Greek and Hebrew manuscripts rather than the plain Latin Vulgate of the DRV, I would think you'd consider it acceptable.
While it does indeed incorporate Hebrew and Greek manuscripts the KJV is actually an updated version of an earlier English Bible known as the Bishops Bible. Regardless as @Preacher ✝ alluded to a lot of new advancements and discoveries have come out of the previous 400 years, additionally methods of translation have improved in the previous 400 years.
While it is acceptable for leading people to Christ we've had so many new advancements I think most of Christianity will find it time to move on into the ESV/NIV/NRSV era.
Outside of the fact it was cultivate for your preferred denomination's apologetics, what advantages does the RSVSCE have over say the ESV/NIV and the scholars preferred NRSV?
All the main Bible translations have some inherit problems I admit. the ESV was written by people who signed a pledge affirming Biblical infallibility, while I certainly support Biblical infallibility, I recognize forcing your translators to take such a position incurs bias. The NRSV goes for "Gender inclusive" language which sometimes affects the meaning of prophecies and make sentences unusually clunky. With that said you can certainly see how one could be suspicious of the claim the Bible created specifically for use in your denomination is superior, that's not to say it's bad for flawed or anything, but superior is a demonstrible claim that it is number #1.
Outside of the fact it was cultivate for your preferred denomination's apologetics, what advantages does the RSVSCE have over say the ESV/NIV and the scholars preferred NRSV?
Well having read plenty of different translations the RSVSCE reads well. The NASBRE feels too plain, the ESV/NIV is somewhere in the middle of the two, and the NRSV has the gender nonsense issue.
Perhaps if I thought on it longer I'd find better words but for now the best I can say is that the RSVSCE feels good to read and conveys itself clearly while still having the air of scripture.
If the fact that it was cultivated for Catholics bothers you I suspect the plain Revised Standard Version would be the next best alternative. Certainly better than the NRSV and its gender nonsense.
That's OK, I didn't mean to insinuate Catholics writing it creates a problem, certainly the Jesuits have some of the most eminent ancient language scholars I know of. It's a fine translation (except for the odd footnote or two), I was just a bit dubious of the claim: "my preferred denomination's translation is objectively the best compared to all others," as you can imagine.
The NIV, ESV, and even Catholic RSVSCE were all translated by knowledge scholars in their respective languages, in the case of the NIV and ESV almost all members of the initial translation teams were tenured professors either in Old Testament or New Testament studies, some were department chairs, so while each has it's own small problems they're all fine translations.
I bring this up to poke a bit of fun at the Jehovah's Witnesses. They have their own Bible translation, the New World Translation, which was written by an (originally anonymous) group of 5 men of whom, it was later revealed only one had any Greek or Hebrew training (he had two years at the University of Cincinatti). So as far as single denomination only translations things the bar can be quite low for some.
That's a fair point but for what it's worth the most widely used Bible amongst Catholics is the NAB or NABRE (sometimes called NASBRE if you're me and can't remember whether the word Standard is in the name of the translation or not).
I'm pretty sure they use the NABRE at my Church's Mass, but to be honest I'm usually too focused on all the other aspects of Mass to pick out the differences.
Also a not insignificant part of why I like the RSVSCE is that it was used for the Ascension Great Adventure Bible, a feature of Bible in a Year with Fr. Mike Schmitz. It is also used in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.
The appeal to scripture’s “multiple valid meanings” undermines your own case. If Peter’s role is open to any interpretation, why trust your reading over the Church’s, which has safeguarded the deposit of faith for 2,000 years?
AGAIN!
