As far as I can determine, the last edition translated into English is the 1954 30th edition (updated in 1957 with corrections and released as the 31st edition) the latest revision, including the one referenced in the Catechism, is in Latin. The recently published Loreto 1954 edition has a concordance in the front that enables you to look up CCC citations in the 1954 edition. Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma follows the first scheme, The CCC follows the second.
The editions from 1957 and before (D, DB, DR) use one numbering scheme for its paragraphs, while post-1957 editions use a different one.
You will see citations to it in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and a slew of other works that reference or detail the teaching of the Catholic Church.Ĭitations to The Denzinger from other works can be a bit tricky given the numerous editions but there are four main abbreviations used:ĭ - Denzinger, the versions edited by Denzinger himself from 1854ĭB - Denzinger-Banwart, the editions updated by Clemens Banwart up to 1921ĭR - Denzinger-Rahner, updated by Karl Rahner up to 1954 (there is a 1957 31st edition with corrigenda)ĭS - Denzinger-Schonmetzer, updated by Adolph Schönmetzer up to 1965 "First published in 1854, "The Denzinger" has undergone numerous updates, revisions, and additions, and is an indispensable resource for the Catholic. More on Rahner's involvement with the Denzinger (though this reviewer denies that Rahner did much modernizing): I am wondering if my memory is faulty, and the updating occurred after the 1957 Rahner editions? The full text of this Bull of Sixtus IV doesn't seem to exist online except in the Denzinger that Rahner fooled with, and there is precious little, anywhere on the internet, about Peter Martinez of Osma.
You would think the pope would have been a little more specific if that were the case, so this seems unlikely, but I can't find any more information about this online. I'm wondering if Peter had a disagreement with the pope about the correct way to restore the calendar (this being before the 10 days were suppressed from October in the 1500s), and that's all the pope was talking about when he condemned Peter Martinez's assertion that the Church of Rome could err. He did get involved in the debate about how to reform the calendar and how to calculate the date of Easter each year, according to a paper I found about him: But why would he remove that condemnation? You would think he would want that in there if he thought the powers of Rome (however you define them) were going to start teaching error soon, no?Īnd I have been searching the internet for more about this Peter Martinez of Osma. Interesting, thank you! I suspected something as much.
0 kommentar(er)
