"Comma Johanneum"

Started by ts aquinas, April 14, 2013, 02:02:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ts aquinas

It's been awhile since I picked up this issue, but Low Sunday sparked my interest again. What support do we have of this? Some have stated that earlier Latin texts never contained it and only appeared in Spain by the 7th century, not anywhere in the Greek or Aramaic, patristic Fathers never used it in apologetics against those denies the Trinity, etc... The only defense I have come across is a Vulgate Prologue on the Canonical Epistles written by St. Jerome. Opponents say it was a forgery due to the fact it being found in Codex Fuldensis yet the codex itself did not contain the Comma, only this prologue.

Something tells me the answer lies within the untranslated books in the Vatican archives, only six scholars doing the job (or so I was told.) But I haven't heard arguments yet from trads.


Pax

SouthpawLink

ts aquinas,
Have you seen this?

Quote from: DenzingerThe Johannine Comma *

[From the Decree of the Holy Office, January 13, 1897, and the Declaration of the Holy Office, June 2, 1927]

2198 To the question: "Whether it can safely be denied, or at least called intodoubt that the text of St. John in the first epistle, chapter 5, verse 7, is authentic, which read as follows: 'And there are three thatgive testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one?' "---the response was given on January 13, 1897: In the negative. At this response there arose on June 2, 1927, the following declaration, at first given privately by the same Sacred Congregation and afterwards repeated many times, which was made a part of public law in EB n. 121 by authority of the Holy Office itself:

"This decree was passed to check the audacity of private teachers who attributed to themselves the right either of rejecting entirely the authenticity of the Johannine comma, or at least of calling it into question by their own final judgment. But it was not meant at all to prevent Catholic writers from investigating the subject more fully and, after weighing the arguments accurately on both sides, with that and temperance which the gravity of the subject requires, from inclining toward an opinion in opposition to its authenticity, provided they professed that they were ready to abide by the judgment of the Church, to which the duty was delegated by Jesus Christ not only of interpreting Holy Scripture but also of guarding it faithfully."
"Is there no exception to the rule forbidding the administration of the Sacraments to baptized non-Catholics who are in good faith? In the case of those who are in good health, the prohibition is absolute; no dispute on this point is possible in view of the repeated explicit declarations of the Holy Office" (Rev. S. Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. I, sec. 625, p. 322ff.).

Contrast the above with the 1983 CIC, Can. 844 §3 & 4: "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church. . . .  If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church." — The phrase "properly disposed" does not save the canon from error, because the context shows that no conversion is expected on the part of non-Catholics ("manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments" is the sole requirement).

VeraeFidei

I do not have competency in Latin, nor the Vulgate in front of me (though I suppose I could look it up), so is the Johannine Comma in the Vulgate? The Clementine Vulgate was declared infallible by at least one Pope, right? If it is in there, then that would appear to settle the matter, unless I am mistaken.

Othmar

Quote from: VeraeFidei on May 04, 2013, 09:37:34 AM
I do not have competency in Latin, nor the Vulgate in front of me (though I suppose I could look it up), so is the Johannine Comma in the Vulgate? The Clementine Vulgate was declared infallible by at least one Pope, right? If it is in there, then that would appear to settle the matter, unless I am mistaken.
The Comma Johanneum was present in the Vulgate accepted by the Council of Trent. It has been removed in the Nova Vulgata, however.

VeraeFidei

Quote from: Othmar on June 07, 2013, 05:58:20 PM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on May 04, 2013, 09:37:34 AM
I do not have competency in Latin, nor the Vulgate in front of me (though I suppose I could look it up), so is the Johannine Comma in the Vulgate? The Clementine Vulgate was declared infallible by at least one Pope, right? If it is in there, then that would appear to settle the matter, unless I am mistaken.
The Comma Johanneum was present in the Vulgate accepted by the Council of Trent. It has been removed in the Nova Vulgata, however.
:lol: Shocking!

Othmar

Quote from: VeraeFidei on June 08, 2013, 08:24:06 AM
Quote from: Othmar on June 07, 2013, 05:58:20 PM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on May 04, 2013, 09:37:34 AM
I do not have competency in Latin, nor the Vulgate in front of me (though I suppose I could look it up), so is the Johannine Comma in the Vulgate? The Clementine Vulgate was declared infallible by at least one Pope, right? If it is in there, then that would appear to settle the matter, unless I am mistaken.
The Comma Johanneum was present in the Vulgate accepted by the Council of Trent. It has been removed in the Nova Vulgata, however.
:lol: Shocking!
The lack of the Comma, which is somewhat understandable (though not prudent or wise), is probably the least of its problems.  :D

VeraeFidei

Quote from: Othmar on June 08, 2013, 08:59:05 AM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on June 08, 2013, 08:24:06 AM
Quote from: Othmar on June 07, 2013, 05:58:20 PM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on May 04, 2013, 09:37:34 AM
I do not have competency in Latin, nor the Vulgate in front of me (though I suppose I could look it up), so is the Johannine Comma in the Vulgate? The Clementine Vulgate was declared infallible by at least one Pope, right? If it is in there, then that would appear to settle the matter, unless I am mistaken.
The Comma Johanneum was present in the Vulgate accepted by the Council of Trent. It has been removed in the Nova Vulgata, however.
:lol: Shocking!
The lack of the Comma, which is somewhat understandable (though not prudent or wise), is probably the least of its problems.  :D
I don't know that I agree with it being "somewhat understandable," but there are definitely a boatload of issues with the Nova Vulgata!