Tuesday, 24 November 2015

THE HOLY BIBLE WAS TRANSLATED INTO “TAMIL LANGUAGE IN 1993” BY THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF TAMILNADU(SOUTH INDIA) IS TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE DECREE “ SCRIPTURARUM THESAURUS” ISSUED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II DATED APRIL 25, 1979. THE TRANSLATED BIBLE IS KNOWN AS ‘ THIRUVIVILIAM”, IT IS DEVIATED FROM THE ORIGINAL BIBLE, DILUTED THE TRUTH AND DISTORTED THE FACTS. HOLY SEE HAVE BLIND EYE ON ALL THESE ERRONEOUS TRANSLATIONS.

IN THE THIRD ASSISTANT CITY CIVIL COURT AT MADRAS
                                        SOUTH INDIA
                                   Original Suit No. 15874  of  1996


1.       G. Alex Benziger,
          18, Pidariyar Koil Lane,
           Madras – 600 001.

2.       Dr. Leonard Vasanth,
          45/15, D-3, Subiksha Apartments,
          Krishnapuram Street,
          Choolaimedu, Madras – 600 094.

3.       J.V. Fernando,
          354/7, Aiswarya Colony,
          Anna Nagar, Madras – 600 040.

4.       D. Joseph Benedict,
          15, 5th Cross Street,
          Krishna Nagar,
          Pammal, Madras – 600 075.                                … Plaintiffs

                                    -Versus-

1.       The Tamil Nadu Catholic  Bishops
          Council  for the Commission  for
          Bible  represented  by its Chairman
          The Archbishop  of Madurai,
          Madurai - 625 008.

2.       Rt. Rev. Dr. M. Arokiasamy,
          Archbishop  of Madurai.
          Archbishop’s House,
          Madurai – 625 008.

3.       The Director,
          Tamil Nadu  Biblical,
          Catechetical and Liturgical Centre,
          Tindivanam  - 604 002.

4.       Arch Diocese of Madras – Mylapore
          Bible Commission,
          15, Rosary  Church  Road,
          Santhome,  Madras – 600 004.                   … Defendants


                          PLAINT  UNDER  ORDER VII RULE 1 OF
                                 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

          The plaintiffs above named submit as follows : -

          1.       i)       The first  plaintiff is  G. Alex Benziger, son of M.S.Gregory, aged about 48 years, Advocate, residing at No.18, Pidariyar Koil Lane, Madras-600 001. He belongs to Broadway, St.Francis Xavier’s  Church as parishioner.

                    ii)      The second  plaintiff is Dr. Leonard Vasanth, son of G. Soosai Marian Fernando,  aged about 48 years,  Research Associate, residing at No.45/15, D-3. Subiksha Apartments, Krishnapuram Street, Choolaimedu, Madras – 600 094. He belongs  to  Kodambakkam St. Fathima’s Church  as Parishioner.

                    iii)     The third plaintiff is J.V. Fernando, son of D.J.Fernando, aged about 68 years, Manager  in a reputed  Company,  residing at No.354/7, Aiswarya Colony,  Anna Nagar, Madras-600 040.  He  belong  to Anna Nagar, St.Luke’s Church as Parishioner.

                    iv)     The fourth  plaintiff is Joseph Benedict,  son of Devasahayam Nadar, aged about  47 years,  residing at No.15, 5th Cross Street, Krishna Nagar, Pammal, Madras – 600 075. He belongs to Pallavaram, St. Francis Xavier’s  Church as Parishioner.

          The address for service of all notices  and processes on the plaintiffs is that of their counsel M/s. K. SHANMUGAKANI and P.PREM KUMAR, 12, Sunkurama Chetty Street,  Madras – 600 001.

          2.       i)       The first defendant  is the Tamil Nadu  Catholic Bishop’s Council  for the Commission   for Bible  represented by its  Chairman, The Archbishop of Madurai, Madurai - 625 008.
                   ii)      The second  defendant  is  Rt. Rev. Dr. M. Arokiasamy father’s name not known to the petitioners, aged about 68 years,  Archbishop  of Madurai  residing  at Archbishop’s  House, Madurai – 625 008.
                   iii)     The third  defendant  is The Tamilnadu  Biblical,  Catechetical  and Liturgical  Centre,  represented  by  its Director  Rev. Fr.V. Mariadasan,  Tindivanam – 604 002.
                   iv)     The fourth  defendant  is the Arch Diocese  of Madras  - Mylapore  Bible Commission  represented by its  Secretary  Dr.S.J. Antonysamy, having  its office at No.15, Rosary Church  Road,  Santhome, Madras – 600 004.

          The address for the service of all notices and processes of court on the  defendants  is as stated above.

          3.       The plaintiffs submit that  they  1 to 4 are members  of the Roman Catholic Church and as Catholics,  they are governed in their faith and  morals by the conditions  laid down under the  code of  Canon Law  Formulated by the Church. In the beginning, God created man out of nothing.  He  gave all freedom with one  condition  to the first  man and woman,  Adam  and Eve that they  should not  eat the forbidden fruit  in the Garden of  Eden. But Satan came to the Garden of Eden, in the form of a serpent and tempted the woman, who along with the man ate the forbidden fruit, against  the command of God. Thus the first Sin of the entire human race was committed which is  inherited by one and all by birth.  God cursed  Satan  and said “I will make you enemies of each other : You and the woman,  your  offspring  and her offspring.  It will crush your head and you will strike its heel” (Gen. 3 : 15). Hence God was to be born as a human being to redeem the fallen mankind. Thus the Incarnation  of God took  place for  the redemption of  mankind  because  of the since  of the whole human race following  the sin  of the first  parents.

          4.       Over and above the teachings of Jesus Christ while in this world for the redemption of Humanity, he established the Catholic Church.  He told his first Apostle Simon :  “I tell you,  you are Peter (rock) and on  this rock I will build  my Church, and the powers  of death  shall not  prevail against it” (the Church) (Math.16:18). He gave the Ruling Authority to Peter. “I will give you the keys the Kingdom of heaven :  whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven :  whatever you loose on earth shall be considered  loosed of in heaven. (Math. 16:19). He also told Peter “Henceforth feed  my lambs” (Jn.21:15-16). The Simon Peter was made the Head  of the Church  that was  established. Starting  from Peter, the Roman Catholic Church  is  being ruled by the Popes in  succession  till date.  The Pope under  his authority  formed Ecclesiastical Districts  (Dioceses) all over the world to be administered  by the Bishops. The  Bishops  in their turn formed the  parishes in their jurisdiction,  to be administered  by the Parish Priests.

          5.       The Pope,  Bishops  and the priests  form the hierarchic  governing  body  of the Church are to live according to the teachings  of Jesus Christ  who spread His message  to their  flock, and teach them  the articles  of faith  of the church as expressed  as the  Dogmas  in creeds so that  the children  of God  (the faithful) lead a holy life  according to their  teachings to attain the eternal kingdom of God after their death. These Popes, Bishops  and Priests are  specially chosen  by God  and consecrated  for this divine service. They have  chosen  this vocation  of spiritual life  duly  relinquishing  their worldly  life.


          6.       The Roman Catholic Church has different rites  of worship” Latin Rite, Syro-Malankara, Syro Malabar, ‘Eastern Rites  and etc.,  The most predominant of these, spread  throughout the world,  is the Latin  Rite. The Code of Canon Law was  promulgated  for the Latin Rites  in the year 1917 which was renewed  in 1983 and released  this formation   of Canon Law which can be  taken  as this “Procedure Code”. There  are  about 14 Ecclesiastical Districts – Dioceses – in Tamil Nadu and all these 14 dioceses follow  the Latin Rite. Hence  the entire Catholic Church  in Tamil Nadu is bound  by the “Code of Canon Law” (hereinafter referred to as Canon). Canon  11 says”.
“Merely ecclesiastical  laws bind  those who  were baptized  in the Catholic Church  or received into it, and who  have a sufficient use  of reason and  unless  the law expressly provides  otherwise, who  have completed seven years of  age”.
The Holy Roman Catholic Church  has  released  the articles  of faith, through  its dogmas, creed  and doctrines  by the Magisterium. As such the members of the Church  have to  accept  the magisterium verbatim  and follow  them.

          7.       Further,  the Canon  Law  defines  the persons  who deny or doubt  certain doctrines of the Church or repudiate  the Christian faith or who refuse to submit  to the Roman Pontiff. Canon 751 states  thus :
“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which   must be believed with  divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning  the  same :  apostacy is the total repudiation of the Christian  faith : schism  is the refusal  of submission  to the Roman  Pontiff  or of communion  with the members of the Church  subject  to him.”
Canon 1364 (i) prescribes  punishment for the above  three categories  of persons. It states :
“with due regard  for can. 194, (1) n. (2), an apostate  from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic  incurs  automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication  and  if  a cleric,  he  can also be punished by the penalties  mentioned  in can. 1336 (1) nn.1.2 and 3.”

8.       Jesus Christ the incarnate Son of God lived a life of purity in His Divine and human natures. He revealed to us the Good News: and finally, he was crucified and had an ignominious death on the cross, to redeem the Humanity from eternal damnation.  On the third day He rose again from the dead. Thus is called the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, a vital doctrine of the Catholic Church as it proves Christ’s divinity. He revealed  himself to his Apostles to confirm  them in their faith  and at the end of 40 days  he  ascended into Heaven  with His Body and soul. The Apostles  later wrote  on his life  and His teachings  in this  world as a revelation to the Humanity  and this text is called  the “Gospel”, - the New Testament” -. The compilation of  earlier  history before  Christ  and what  the Prophets forecasted about him  is handed down  as “Old Testament”. Both these are known as the “Holy Bible” (Sacred Scriptures).

9.       Near  Capernaum Jesus  Christ  went  up to the hill  and preached to the crowd  saying  “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish  the Law or the Prophets.  I have come not to abolish  but  to complete  them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven  and earth  disappear, not  one dot, not  one  little  stroke, shall  disappear from the Law until its purpose  is achieved”. (Mt. 5:17-18). According  to this, the significant  purpose is that the children  of God (the faithful) lead a holy life, following  his teachings to attain their Eternal bliss in the Kingdom  of God after their death.

10.     On 26th January 1564, Pope Pius IV confirmed the following  teaching  of the Church  through his Bull “Benedictus  Deus” in the Council  of Trent  and declared that Scripture  and Tradition  are  the two sources of Divine Revelation, that all the books of the Old and  New Testament are equally inspired by the Holy  Spirit  because  they have  “God” for their author. The scriptures, on matters pertaining to faith and morals cannot  be diluted  or explained against the authoritative  interpretations  of the Church or against  the unanimous consent  of the Fathers of the Church.

11.     In the 4th Century St. Jerome  edited the Bible  in Latin  and it is known  as  Vulgate. It is considered to lack certain  accurate  renderings of  texts  as found  out because  of modern Scientific  Discoveries  and that  it needed  certain emendations. This had to be  done  with all prudence  so as to retain the Truths  revealed,  in  all its fullness  and perfection. Hence Pope Paul VI on 29.11.1965 appointed a Pontifical Commission with world experts  for the New (Vulgate)  edition  of the Holy Bible with Cardinal  Augustin  Bea,  nominated as its President. The work  of the Commission  was to revise all the books of the Sacred Scriptures so that the Church  might be provided  with a Latin  edition  which the progress  of biblical studies  would demand, and which  would above all serve the purposes of sacred liturgy. Thus,  this revised Vulgate Edition that  is  known as New Vulgate was  declared  and promulgated  as authentic by His Holiness Pope John Paul II on  25.4.1979. The Decree, “Scripturarum Thesaurus”  promulgating  it is as follows : -

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
          by which 
the new  Vulgate Edition  of the Holy Bible is 
Declared  and Promulgated  as `Standard’ 
JOHN PAUL BISHOP 
Servant of the Servants of God
for Everlasting Memory.
The treasure  of the Holy  Scriptures, in which  is  contained   God’s message of salvation for man, has  been always  deservedly  held in the highest  esteem,  and safeguarded  with singular  care by the Church. For  St. Augustine  rightly  says “Letters  have come to us from that City whence  we are Pilgrims, letters…………. that  exhort  us how to live in the right  way” (Enarr. In ps.XC., s.2.1 : PL 37, 1159). From the  very beginning  the Church has never failed in providing  the Christians with the  greatest  possible  opportunity  for receiving the word  of God,  especially in sacred Liturgy, in whose  celebration. `Sacred Scripture  is  of utmost  importance’ (Conc.Vat II, Const. Sacros, Conc..n.24).
So the Western Church gave  preference  over  other  editions  to the  edition  usually called the Vulgate, mostly  the work  of the illustrious  doctor St. Jerome,  an edition  “accepted  in the Church by  usage of centuries (Conc.Trid.. Sess.IV :  Enchir.Bibl… n.21). Such  special honour given  to  it is evidenced by the  diligence with  which  its  text  was got ready for critical study and it is through  that edition, which  for the  sake of more  profound  sense  of doctrine  is so far codified by the monks of the Monastery of St. Jerome in the City (Rome), which  was established  for that  purpose by Plus XI Our predecessor  of happy memory. (Const. Apost.Inter  praecipuas, 15 Iun.1933 : A.A.S.XXVI,  1934, pp 85 ss).
In our own age,  Second Vatican  Council confirming  the honour  given  to that edition  called the vulgate  (Const. Dei Verbum n.22),  and aiming at an easier  understanding  of the book of Psalms in the  Liturgy of the Hours, decreed that the work  well begun  of  revising  the Psalms “should  be completed as early  as Possible”. It  shall take into account the style  of Christian  Latin ……… and  the entire  tradition  of the Latin Church.” (Const. Sacros, Conc.n.91). Persuaded by these  considerations our  Predecessor  Paul VI  of  recent  memory, before  the  closing  of the Council, on 29th November 1965,  constituted  a special  Pontifical Commission,  whose work would be to carry out  the  decree  of the same  general  synod, and to revise all the books of sacred Scripture so that the  Church be provided  with a Latin edition which  the progress of biblical studies would demand, and which would  above all serve the purpose of Sacred liturgy. In bringing  out this revision. “Care  has been taken  to keep  the very words  of the old Vulgate  text, where  the texts of the original  have been accurately  rendered.  This has been done in modern editions, brought out according to the critical  method. Where the text of the old Vulgate deviates  from the original texts, or  renders  them  less accurately, it is  emended  with prudence. For this  reason, Christian  biblical Latin style is used. So that proper  respect for  tradition be combined with the legitimate  demands of the critical method, obtaining these  days”.
(Cfr.Alloc.Pauli VI, 23 Dec. 1966; 
A.A.S.LIX, 1967, pp.53 s)
The work  of  revision  has been more  exacting  in the case of some of the Old  Testament Books which  St. Jerome had left unattempted. The  revised  text which appeared  in  separate  volumes between the years  1969 and 1976, is now brought  out in one volume as Standard edition. This  new vulgate  edition  will also be such that  popular  versions  meant  for liturgical and pastoral purposes  be referred to it and in the words  of our  predecessor Paul VI, “it can be considered  a reliable foundation for biblical studies … especially where  access  to libraries meant for specialized  courses  is not  easy  and the  diffusion   of appropriate  studies  rather  difficult.” (Cfr. Alloc.22 Dec.1977 : Cfr… diarium L’ Osservatore  Romano, 23 Dec. 1977, P.1).

          In  bygone days  the Church thought that the old Vulgate  edition  was enough,  and that with it the Christian  people  could be sufficiently  instructed  in the word of God. What the old Vulgate did, now  this  New Vulgate  edition  can do better. So, this work which  Paul VI Ardently desired, but could not see  completed, which  John Paul I followed  with eager interest  John Paul I had  decided to send the  Pentateuch  books  revised by the aforesaid Pontifical Commission as a gift to the prelates who were  to assemble in the City Puebla, and  which we  ourselves  together  with many from  the Catholic  world have been  much waiting  for, is now  in print  and we present  it to the Church with pleasure. Such  being  the case,  we, by virtue of this document,  declare  and promulgate  the NEW VULGATE edition  of the Holy Bible  as the “Standard” one to be used especially in Liturgy, and also,  as we have said,  suited to other  purposes.

Finally it is our  will  that this constitution   of  Ours be always valid and effective,  and observed  scrupulously  by all concerned, nothing contrary having any force whatever.
Given  in Rome, at St. Peter’s  on April, 25th  the feast  of St. Mark,  the  Evangelist, in the year 1979, the first of Our Pontificate.
JOANNES PAULUS PP. II.

Thus,  the authorized new  version of the  Vulgate  Bible  was published  authoritatively  with necessary emendations  by the  Committee of the International Experts  authorized by the Holy See (Pope)  and released by the God-given authority of the Pope – the successor  of St. Peter. The above  promulgation  has the papal seal of  Authority, which  is  nothing but the dictate  of the Church  that  is to be obeyed and complied with  by every  member  of the Catholic  Church. This New Vulgate  Bible, thus   promulgated  by the Pope, stands  as on today, as the only  authentic  and  authoritative  Book of the Sacred Scriptures  of the Roman  Catholic Church. Accordingly  the New  Vulgate is directed to be used for the  purposes,  especially in Liturgy  of the Holy Mass called the celebration  of the Eucharist which is  the most Supreme  Holy Sacrament  of the Church.

          12.     The plaintiffs submit that the second  respondent  who is  also presiding the office  of the first  defendant, in collusion  with the other  defendants  had translated the Holy Bible  on 26.11.1995 with blasphemies, profane languages, errors, commissions, omissions, defects and contrary  to the truth  and the third respondent had  published  the same and introduced  it as “jpUtptpypak;” “Thiruviviliam” (hereinafter  called  as `Common Bible’) on 26.11.1995 and circulated  for the use  of the Lay Catholics  of Tamil Nadu as well as for  use in the liturgy – which  is totally contrary  to the Decree named “Scripturarum Thesaurus”  dated 25.4.1979 of His Holiness  Pope John Paul  II as stated above : Hence the Common  Bible  now made by the  defendants  is  totally invalid, as  its translation  is not in accordance  with the  authoritative  New Vulgate.

13.       The  Plaintiffs  respectfully  submit that as  for the Guidelines for Inter-confessional co-operation  in translating the Bible, they were  issued by the so-called  Vatican Secretariat for promoting Christian  Unit on 16.11.1987. The Plaintiffs  respectfully  submit that  they are not prescriptive  and they cannot go against  the Pope’s  promulgation of New Vulgate  as  typical edition. It may be given  detailed guidelines  as to how the Common Bible  is to be prepared  with the  help  of the separated  brethren  for the common  was  by the members of the Roman Catholic  Church  and the  members  of the other denominations  of Christianity. But  they remain only Guidelines and nothing  more : it is certainly  neither  a promulgation nor a mandatory  order  or any document  authoritatively  issued  by the Holy see through  the Supreme Pontiff,  the Pope. Whereas  there  is a mandatory  document `Sripturarum Thesaurus’ where with the new Vulgate  Bible  was declared  and promulgated  as an authoritative one under the above named  Papal promulgation dated  25.4.1979 with the  definite  prescription   requiring  the use of it in the liturgy. There  is a Canon Law by which  every Roman Catholic  is bound legally in respect  of faith  and moral. “In section  825(2) it allows only the  faithful  to translate  the Bible  with the help  of the separated brethren. As such nobody has  a right to out wit the lay  Catholics  by imposing  on them  the Common Bible,  making use of the  so called  guidelines issued by the Vatican Secretariat. Here it  should be stated that it is absolutely  against  the Papal  decree dated 25.4.1979 i.e., “Praesertim in sacra Liturgia Utendam” ie.,  ‘The  New Vulgate edition  of the Holy  Bible  as the Standard  one is to be used especially in Liturgy”. So it is illegal  to have the reading from the Common Bible in the Liturgy of the Holy  Mass or any other Catholic  Worship. Hence  the introduction  of the Common Bible in the liturgy is against  the  prescription of the Pope. It proves disobedience  to the Pope and hence  is illegal.

14.     The plaintiffs  submit  that  the  Code of Canon Law  that was updated  in the year  1983 for the use in the Church  (Latin Rite)  states in its  Section 825 (2)
“With the permission of the Episcopal Conference,  catholic  members  of Christ’s, faithful, in cooperation  with  separated  brethren,  may  prepare and  public versions  of the Scriptures, with appropriate explanatory  notes”.
According to this section  of the canon, the Church  intends  that the catholic  laymen with the separated brethren  may prepare and publish the Bible Texts. It is because the Church does not  want to be  directly  involved  in this experimental  test. The permission  thus given  to the lay people in the canon is that any translation  must be compared  to the authorized New  Vulgate  by the Hierarchy  of the Church  and checked  before  according a permission  to print Sacred Books  so that the holiness and accuracy  shall not be lost. Further  the above canon  prescribes  appropriate  explanatory  notes” (except  in the case of measurements) have  not been given  in this Common Bible  to  explain  some of the difficult  passages  to  make them clear and  to  make avail  their authoritative,  explanation  of the Church to  the readers  as had been so far given in the Catholic Bible. As such the Common Bible has not been introduced in accordance with the above Canon Law. Hence the Common Bible is against the said Canon Law and it is illegal.

          15.     The plaintiffs further  submit that  the Second Vatican  Council’s  Document  “Dei Verbum-22” dated 18.11.1965 is referred by the  respondents  with a distorted  meaning  so as to side – track  the whole  issue  and  to mislead the Catholic laymen, from the truth  of it. The documents reads as :
“But since the word  of God must be readily  available  at all times, the Church, with motherly concern,  sees to it that  suitable and correct  translations  are made into  various languages, especially  from the original  texts  of the sacred  books.” (Dei Verbum 22).
This Clause applies to the motherly concern of the Church, whose spiritual and administrative head is the Holy Father, the Pope who has the duty, responsibility and the Supreme Authority in the Church even with  regard to the Vatican documents and their instructions  and there is nobody who can superseded his authority  in taking  any alternate decision  or action on this matter. In response to the above Vatican document,  Pope Paul VI  on behalf  of the  Church  with “the motherly concern” appointed a commission of world experts  who started working  on the New Vulgate Bible  without  any delay. When the work of this New Vulgate Bible was over, His  successor  Pope John Paul II, in his Papal Authority promulgated the new Edition  of the Vulgate  with his decisive prescriptions as to how this has to be used. The timely  action of the two popes only indicates how “the Church  with motherly concern  same to it” that  her children are provided with correct  translation  of the Sacred Scriptures. The specific  pronouncement  of the Vatican  Council that the “Church is taking  care of” does not mean that  it gives the right to anybody to  translate the Bible  to suit their purpose  or to ignore  any directives or action of the future popes to fulfill their obligation  with regard  to the translation  and publication  of Sacred Scriptures. Further Vatican II states, :
“If it should happen that, when  the opportunity  presents itself and the authorities of the Church agree, these translations  are made in a joint effort  with the separated  brethren, they  may be used by all Christians,” (Dei Verbum.22).
This statement is very clear in every word of it.  But, the existing situation  in India is not suitable  for or warranting the translation  of the Bible  by such  joint  efforts. The expression, “suitability of situation” does not mean that the translation  of the Bible  is to be done by the separated brethren. Vatican  Council has just said that   this can be done in  a joint  effort with the separated  brethren.” But  the common translation  caused to be done practically by them (separated brethren) has reversed our faith, so much so the “Ever  virginity of the  Blessed Mother Mary” and  “the Infallibility of the Pope” the “Transubstantiation” etc., stand  almost denied to us  and it is not therefore  justified. Further, the Bible  thus translated  with the `separated brethren’ for the use of the faithful  of the Catholic Church, should be equally accepted  by them as indicated in the `Dei Verbum 22’ with the  words… “may be used by all Christians”. But the  fact is that no other  Christian denomination has accepted it. The  obvious  conclusion is that  the translation has been  done with the sole motive of deleting  most of the articles  of faith taught by the Catholic  Church  and which  have never been  accepted  by the separated  brethren.

          16.     The last clause  of the “Dei Verbum 22” save that,  “they may be used by all Christians” does  not at all indicate  or go to mean that  this should be made use of in the Catholic Liturgy,  where there is a declared prescription  of the Pope  to use the New Vulgate in the  Catholic  Liturgy. This  is more  specifically  so because the liturgy of the mass is not  a common  worship  for all the denominations  of  Christians  but  is specifically confined  to the Catholics who believe  in “Transubstantiation” and “the Real Presence  of Christ  in the Holy Eucharist” in which  not only they (the other denominations) do not  believe  but this faith is an anathema for them. In fact this is one of the signs to  identify a Protestant  denomination and distinguish  it from the Catholic Church. As said earlier the New Vulgate  promulgated  through the Pope’s Encyclical letter `Scripturarum Thesaurus’ has  a definite  clause that the New Vulgate  is to be used in the Sacred Liturgy of the Mass, - “praesertim in scare Liturgia utendam – i.e.  the New Vulgate edition of the Holy  Bible  as  the Standard one is to be used especially in Liturgy” as ordered  by the Pope  on 25.4.1979 ;  and as such any instruction  stated to have been issued by the Vatican  Council  in 1965, regarding  the translation  of the Common Bible  cannot hold good as  a legitimate document  authorizing the permission to overlook  or to go against  the Papal decree dated 25.4.1979.

          17.     The first sentence of Section 22 of the same Vatican document namely `Dei Verbum 22’ states:
Access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful. For this reason  the Church, from the  very beginning made her, own  the ancient translation  of the Old Testament  called the “Septuagint”  : she  honours  also the other Eastern translations, and the Latin translations,  especially  that which is called the Vulgate”.
The clause  specifically  mentioning  that the Greek Edition  of “Septuagint” and which  the  Catholic  Church  has traditionally  taken  as her possession  has been totally ignored by the  defendants  when they fixed the canons  of the Sacred Scriptures  wrongly  referring to `the “Dei Verbum No.22”. The new  edition  of the Common Bible  that has been produced  without giving  any importance to the Traditional  Greek  Edition  (Septuagint)  is totally against  the orders  of the Vatican Council II  and hence  the Common Bible  is  not valid.

          18.     The plaintiffs  submit that  the defendants  have committed sacrilegious  act by translating the Holy Bible with lapses, commissions and omissions  and distorted the truth, thereby  making the Holy Bible  unholy and have invalidated  the same. The defendants  made incorrect and irrelevant  translations of the Holy Bible  in 1995. They have purposely done it to suit their  whims and fancies  contrary  to the  revealed Truth. This newly translated  version  has  distorted the Catholic Faith and has denied the true message of God that was  received by the Church  and transmitted to the faithful  as well as to the plaintiffs  through the Teaching  Authority  of the Church  viz.,  the Magisterium of the Holy See,  at Vatican. As such  the defendants  have  destroyed the  religious  feelings of the plaintiffs  by denying the true message of the “Sacred Scriptures” of the Lord  the Almighty  God that it is to  be meticulously obeyed  and followed. And thus the respondents  have denied us to our “right  to freedom of conscience”  which is guaranteed  to the plaintiffs  under Article 25(i) of the Constitution  of India.

          19.     The plaintiffs  respectfully submit here that  Archbishop  Arokiaswamy  of Madurai, the second  defendant  herein has given  a specific  declaration  under his  seal of Authority  in the Holy Bible of 1.1.1986,  as : “_y E]Yf;F xj;jpUf;fpwJ” (Concordat  cum originali – i.e. is in agreement with  the  original  texts) whereas   in the Common Bible of 1995, the very same person,  Archbishop  Arokiaswamy  has not given any such declaration  ; but  only  a limited declaration  has been given viz., “mr;rplyhk;” (Imprimature – may be printed). As such in the absence  of the declaration, “_y E]Yf;F xj;jpUf;fpwJ” it can  be logically  asserted  in the sense of probity  that the Common Bible  is not strictly  a translation   of the original Bible but merely  an unauthorized  interpretation  of it, and so  it  remains  bad in law.

          20.     The Plaintiffs further submit that there are countless irreconcilable mistake in the translation of Common Bible : Truths  are denied : Doctrines  of faith  are deviated  or distorted : Traditional  teachings  of the Church  stand totally confused ;  there  is divergence  and aberration  almost in every verse of the new translated  texts. In short, it may be said that a fabricated  and polluted version  of the Common Bible  is since thrusted on  the innocent laymen of the Catholic Church in the place of the well founded authentic original  Bible. A few  examples  of  distortions  are as follows :
(A)    Many  of the lines and even sentences  of the texts have been  dropped in the new  version  of the “Common Bible” and  it is not explained why they  are dropped (Probably they  know  the fact that by suppressing  facts, more  harm can be done then by telling a lie). We  are not able to understand  why,  and for whose `benefit, they were dropped  for no  reasons. For  examples :
i)
Mathew 25:1
:
Decem  virginibus
 “gj;J fd;dpah;”




ii)
Mark, 12: 40
:
et ostentant prolixas orationes
“ghh;itf;nfh ePz;l brgk;bra;fpwhh;fs;”




iii)
Luke . 11:50-51
:
Effusus est a constitutione mundi a sanguine Abel  usque ad  sanguinem Zachariae
“cyfk; njhd;wpaJ Kjy; rpe;jg;gl;l Mngy; Kjy; rf;fhpah!; ,uj;jk; tiu”




iv)
John. 9:15
:
Illem autem  dixit eis : Lutum posuit super  oculos meos, et lavi et video.”
 “mtndh mth;fsplk; vd; fz;fspd; nky;  nrw;iwj; jltpdhh; ngha;f;fGtpndd; ,g;nghJ ghh;f;fpnwd; vd;whd;;”




vi)
John. 18: 18
:
erat autem  cum  eis et Petrus  stans et calefaciens se. “,uhag;gUk; mth;fnshL epd;W Fsph; fha;e;J bfhz;oUe;jhh;”

and etc.,  Jesus Christ  told his disciples, “I tell you  solemnly, till heaven  and earth  disappear, not one dot,  not one little  stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose  is achieved, (Mathew 5:18)”. But the  defendants  acted  against  these words  of Jesus Christ and have introduced  the half-baked Common  Bible. Hence  it is unbiblical and not valid.

          (B)     Md;kh (soul) being  translated as thH;t[ (life) (Mt. 16:26); rkhjhdk;  (peace)  as ek;gpf;if  (Lk.24:36) ;brgk; (Prayer) as  ,iwntz;ly; (requisition) (Lk.11:1) ;  kzKwpt[ (divorce) as kztpyf;F (separation) (Mt.19:7) ; tpRthrk;(faith) as  ek;gpf;if  (hope) (Jn.20:27) ; rkhjhdg; gyp  (Sacrifice of Peace) as el;g[wt[g; gyp  (sacrifice  of cordial relationship) Levi.9:22; ghpRj;j ,lk; (holy place) as J]a Tlk; (pure hall or clean hall) (Levi. 21:11). By such  distortions,  the  defendants  have created a lot of confusion  in our mind : and we stand totally shocked by the misleading  versions  of the “Common  Bible” as such the Common Bible  has  become polluted  and invalid.

(C)     The defendants state in the preface of the Common Bible that proper  respectful terms  are used for persons  such as “neha[w;nwhh;/ cly; CdKw;nwhh;  bry;thf;fw;w gzpahsh;/ bgz;oh;”; (Mt. 1:42/ Lt.17:35 :  Lt.8:27) etc., etc., But  this standard  of  respect  and regard  is denied to the Lord Jesus  Christ  as well as to Blessed virgin  the Mother  of God. For example :
i)       “,njh fUt[w;wpUf;Fk; me;j ,sk; bgz; Xh; Mz; kfitg; bgw;bwLg;ghs;” (Vrh. 7: 14)
ii)      “caph;j;bjHr; bra;gtDk;/ thH;t[ jUgtDk; ehnd” (nahthd; 11: 25)
iii)     “vd; md;ghh;e;j kfd; ePna/ cd; bghUl;L” (khw;F 1:11; Y]f; 3:21) etc.
By this, it is clearly  noted that the defendants  have projected  the Common Bible  with the bad intention  of  denigrating   Jesus Christ  and Blessed Mother Mary and therefore  it is made invalid. 

D.      The defendants  have introduced  in the Common Bible, very  mediocre words  of layman colloquial  blasphemous  language  totally  devoid  of any spirituality,  reverence or holiness  which are sacred  texts  demand and  which were so  far expressed  respectfully  to denote  the unique  respect  we the creatures  owe to God the Almighty ; and this is nothing short of absolute  heresy.


For example :

Catholic Bible                                            Common Bible

i)       Mt.8:2         -        Domine
                                      Mz;ltnu                 :       Iah

ii)      Mk. 7:28     -        Domine, etiam
                                      Mkhk;  Mz;ltnu     :      Mk; Iah

iii)     Lk.20 :43    -        Dixit Dominus
                                      Domino meo
                                      Mz;lth;  vd;                     :      Mz;lth; vd;
                                      Mz;lthplk;                    jiythplk;

and etc., By such  colloquial expressions, the defendants,  have put us and other ordinary catholic laymen,  in  utter  state  of confusion as to the knowledge  of the Supremacy of the Lord  as the Creator  and Saviour  and our duty  to worship  him. They have also denied us of the word of God. Hence the Common Bible is made invalid.

E.      The word soul is translated in vague, uncertain and confusing terms in contradiction to the explicit teaching of the Church with proper word of  expression  for precise meaning. For example :
Catholic Bible                                            Common Bible

i)
Mt:11:29
-
Animabus
Md;khtpw;F
:
cs;sj;jpw;F
ii)
Mt:22:37
-
In tota anima tua
KG Md;khnthLk;
:
thH;it ,He;jhy;
iii)
Lk.10:27
-
Diliges Dominum Deum tuum  ex toto corde tuo et ex tata anima tua et ex omnibus viribus tuis et ex omni mente tua
cd; KG ,Ujaj;njhLk; cd; KG Md;khnthLk; KG Mw;wnyhLk;  KG kdnjhLk;
:
cd; KG ,jaj;njhLk; KG cs;sj;njhLk;
iv)
Lk.21:19
-
Animas vestras
c';fs; Md;khf;fis  kPl;Lf;bfhs;tPh;fs;
:
c';fs; thH;itf; fhj;Jf;bfhs;S';fs;
v)
Jg.5:21
-
Incede, anima mea fortiter
Vd; Md;khnt typnahiu kpjpj;Jj; js;S
:
vd; capnu  typika[ld;  gPL eilnghL
vi)
Heb.13:17
-
Pervigilant pro animabus vestris
c';fs; Md;k eydpy; tpHpg;gha;  ,Uf;fpd;wdh;
:
c';;fs; eydpy; tpHpg;gha; ,Uf;fpwhh;fs;


and etc. Thus the lay people  are deceived  and put  into confusion. The expression “;c';fs; thH;itf; fhj;Jf; bfhs;S';fs;” is one generally pertaining  to secular life ;  hence it should be noted that an extra care is taken, in a tricky manner, by the defendants to project  the revised text  of the Common Bible  in a more secular  line much  against  the spirituality of it. It further goes to indicate  that with such  secular  meaning, it seems to teach that life ends  with this world  and the faith  about  the soul going for its Eternal  reward  is totally denied to us by  the defendants  who unfortunately happen  to be the Churchmen  who should repeatedly remind  us of Eternal life at the end of this life  on earth  and of our duty to aspire for the after life of bliss in the Kingdom of God. Jesus  Christ  said, “For anyone who wants  to save his life  will lost it : but any one who loses his life  for my sake, and for the sake of gospel, will save it (Mark.8:35). The Common Bible  is projected much against  these above  quoted words  of the Lord Jesus  Christ and hence it is invalid.

          F.      The defendants making  a mockery  of the words  of God, have brought  in sacrilegious  expressions  in the Common Bible. By this, the very sacredness  and holiness  of the Bible is destroyed. For  example :

i)       At the time when Jesus Christ  was exorcising  the devil from a man, the devil asks Him. “vd; fhhpaj;jpy; Vd; jiyapLfpwPh;”
(Quid Mihi et tibi”) This is translated  in a profane language  as
“ckf;F ,';F vd;d ntiy” (khw;.5:7)
ii)                Lord Jesus Christ  in his sermon to the people warns  them as
“,g;nghJ jpUg;jpaha; ,Ug;gth;fns c';fSf;F  Inah nfL ”
(”Vae vobis qui Saturati  estis nunc”)
and this  is translated  as”
“,g;nghJ cz;L bfhGj;jpUg;nghnu”      (Y]f; 6 : 25)
iii)              The appearance  of the Angel who first  announced the Resurrection  of Jesus  Christ, is introduced  as
“btz;zhil mzpe;J tyg;gf;fj;jpy; mkh;e;jpUe;j  ,is"id”
which  is again profanely translated as "bjh';fy; Mil mzpe;jpUe;j ,is"h; xUth;"             ( khw;. 16 : 15)

The terms  of expression  refer to the habit  or cassock  work  by the priests. The bad  intention  to denigrate  it  has wounded the spiritual faith  of the  plaintiffs  on it  and as such it is a mockery not only  of the clerical  habit but also of the words  of God. Hence this  Common Bibile is anti-Roman  Catholic  and  is made  invalid.

          G.      The plaintiff  further submit that the Common  Bible has spoiled  the Traditional  faith on the Divinity of the Lord Jesus  Christ  as authoritatively  taught  by the Church. The sample reference  in the Bible are :
          i)       Mathew 17: 23.
                   “et tertio die resurget” : New Vulgate.
“_d;whk; ehs; cah;j;bjGthh;”
“_d;whk; ehs; capUld; vGg;gg;gLthh;” - Common Bile
Resurrection means that Christ, on the third  day of His death  has  resurrected by  Himself giving  life to His Dead body  by His own inherent  divine power. But the  text” “capUld; vGg;gg;gLthh;”  “goes  to mean that somebody has made Him come with life. Probably that try to give the  explanation  that God the Father  made Him resurrect : then  it goes  to imply  that Jesus Christ  is not God  with all His Divinity, that  is against  the faith  on the mystery  of “Holy Trinity”.
ii)                John.  6:69.
“tu  es sanctus  Dei – “            New Vulgate
“ePnu flt[spd; ghpRj;jh; ”
“ePnu flt[Sf;F mh;g;gzkhdth;” Common Bible
The text ePnu flt[spd;  ghpRj;jh; “Implies  that Jesus Christ  is the Second  Person  of the Holy Trinity. But the text  of the new translation
“ePnu flt[Sf;F  mh;g;gzkhdth;” has not only removed the title  `Son  of God  to Jesus but is a very cheap  and distorted  interpretation,  specifically  made by the Defence  to deny Divinity  to Jesus Christ.  Here also  the expression “Jesus  Christ is God” is deleted. Hence  it teaches  an error  to the Catholic faith. As such  the  translation  is illegal, invalid  and erroneous.
iii)              John. 10 : 30
Ego et pater Unum Sumus – New Vulgate
ehDk; je;ija[k;  xd;nw  ehDk; je;ija[k; xd;whapUf;fpnwhk; : Common Bible
“My father and I are one” means that Jesus Christ and the Father are substantially  one (co-substantial  and Co-equal) Jesus Christ  being the second  person of the Holy Trinity (The father,  The son  and The Holy Spirit) which is revealed  as the greatest mystery of the Church.  Whereas the present distorted  text - `The father and I are together  is again  a cheap interpretation of the original  text specifically  meant  to  denigrate the Divinity of Jesus  Christ. This Cheap  interpretation goes to mean  something  similar to this :  `My  brother and I are living  together with our families in  one house as a Joint family  and we may separate  at  any  time when  misunderstanding  props in between us’. Thus every effort has been made to dilute, shadow and deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ.  Similar efforts are identified in quite many places in the Common Bible (eg.Mt.26:32 : Lk.9:22 ; 26:6. Jn 2:22 : 8:54). Hence  the Common  Bible thus  translated  without any basic  discipline, or fidelity  to the  authentic  typical  version  of  the Church  to uphold the Truth  is against  the teachings of the Church  on this  solemn faith and hence  is invalid.

          H)      The  plaintiffs  respectfully  submit that every effort  is also deliberately  taken by the defendants in the translation  of the Common Bible  to destroy the glory  and sublimity  of Holy  Mother Mary, again  to suit  the taste  of the separated  brethren to whom Mother  Mary  is an anathema. Here below a few excerpts are reproduced wherein texts on the Blessed Virgin Mary are profanely interpreted in the Common Bible, contrary to the authentic Vulgate edition.
i)                   Isaiah.  7: 14
Propter hoc  dabit Dominus  Ipse vobis
                   Signum, Ecce Virgo concipiet et
pariet filium
“Mjyhy; Mz;lth;jhnk c';fSf;Fnfhh;
milahsk; jUthh; ; ,njh  fd;dpg;
bgz; fUj;jh';fp xU kfidg;
bgw;bwLg;ghs;" 
… New Vulgate

                   “Mjyhy; Mz;lth;jhnk  c';fSf;F 
                   Xh; milahsj;ij mUs;thh;. ,njh
                    fUt[w;wpUf;Fk; me;j  ,sk;bgz;
                    Xh; Mz; kfitg; bgw;bwLg;ghs;"      … Common Bible
It is not possible in the world  for a woman to bear  a child while remaining a virgin  that is without  union  with a man. Hence  a virgin giving birth to a son was given  as a sign by God, through  prophet Isaiah  and St. Mathew writes that this prophesy of Isaiah was fulfilled in Mary bringing forth  a male child while  remaining  a Virgin. It was possible,  of  course through  the special grace of God and with the power of the Holy  Spirit  (God - the third person of Holy Trinity). This is the meaning  given to the particular  verse in the New  Vulgate  Bible . But  the reading  in the Common Bible  as  "fUt[w;wpUf;Fk; me;j ,sk;bgz; " tries  to explain  away a common and every  day  event of any woman who is bearing and giving  birth to her first child. In general, any pregnant woman may give  birth to  a male child as her first born. Hence,  through their blasphemous  translation, the  respondent  have brought  a sacrilege  on the Virginity  of the Blessed Mother  Mary by shadowing  the God – given sign  of `virgin  giving birth  to a son which  is applied  to the Holy Mother Mary  in the New Testament  by St.Mathew. By  dropping the expression  of `Virgin’ in the Common Bible,  the respondents have  heretically  tried to challenge  the doctrinal  faith  of the Catholic  church  expressed in every Creed of the Church viz.  “He  was born  of the Virgin Mary” (ex Maria Virgine), and hence  the Common Bible is made invalid.
ii)                luke. 1 : 28
“Ave  gratia plena”
“mUs; epiwe;jtnu”                           … New Vulgate
“mUs; kpfg; bgw;wtnu ”                  … Common Bible
Because  the Blessed Virgin Mary is full of grace,  she is able to dispense  grace to those  who go to her for her succour. This is  the  teaching   of the Church. But the reading  of the Common Bible  stands  opposed  to this faith, by its indication that Mary is not endowed  with  that much  grace as to dispense  it to others. This  was  the  teaching  of the heretic, Martin  Luther. To confirm, this, 1et  us be permitted to quote E.A.Nida, an English  Philosopher  from his book “Towards a Science  of  Translating” on page 28 he states. “One passage which became an issue  for all Protestant  Reformation  translators is Luke 1:28, where the Vulgate rendering  of plena gratia  “full  of grace” (a key passage for those  who  claim  that Mary is able  to  dispense  grace), is obviously  an inaccurate  translation  of the Greek Participle  ‘Kekharitomene’. Luther therefore rejected the earlier  German rendering  of voll Gnaden (based on the Vulgate)  and used holdselige,  a very close  parallel to Greek. This same problem was an issue for Tynadale  in English   and for Reina and Valeva  in Spanish”. Thus  this  heresy is introduced  in the Common  Bible  purposely to profane the glory of the Blessed  Mother Mary.
iii)              Luke, 1 : 34
“Quomodo fiet istud, quoniam
virum non Cognosco”.
“,J v';'dk; MFk; ehndh
fztid mwpnand”                     .... New Vulgate
“,U vg;go epfGk; 
ehd; fd;dp Mapw;nw”                     …. Common Bible
At the time of  the Annunciation  of the incarnation  of  Jesus Christ, the Blessed Mother Mary was already  bound by her marriage bond.  But as per  the custom  of the Jewish  Community  she had not gone yet to  her husband's house and she was yet to be taken by him. Only there,  she like any other  woman of the community had the liberty  to get conceived or not. In spite  of it, she puts  the question ",J  v';'dk; MFk;" as  though  there is an obstruction  to it. The rendering in the Common Bible is against the text that says  with all clarity. "ehndh fztid mwpnand"  Further  the verb  in Latin  "Cognosco" is in the general  present tense  expressing habit and denoting  the past, present and future  tenses. As St. Augustin says that her question implies her pious vow to virginity. But as then the Jewish Customs did not yet allow it,  she  meant  to  say with all explicitness  that since  she had  made  a vow to God  that she  would ever remain  without  knowing  her husband  (carnally) how it  could happen.  She had agreed to the marriage with a mean who would safeguard her virginity. In the Catholic Translation, the vow of virginity of Mary is well brought out to denote all the three periods of time-past, present and future, but  not  in the Common translation. Since  the  wordings “fd;dp Mapw;nw” denotes  that Mary was a virgin at that  particular  period of time and does not express her  determination  to ever remain a virgin as  taught by  the Church. Here the question arises  how  an original  text  can give  way for two substantially different  translations. The conclusion  is that the new  one is not  a translation but a distortion of the original  text. It is hence observed  that the ever – virginity of the Holy Mother  Mary  is laid down to be questioned  in the new  blasphemous  translation  of the Common Bible  and therefore  it is unacceptable and illegal.

          I)       The plaintiffs submit that they are  at a loss  to understand, why  at  all irrelevant changes  in the texts  were made on the supremacy  of the Pope in the  Church  and the Papal Infallibility. The Biblical reference  is Mathew 16:18-19. “Et ego dico tibi : Tues Petrus, et  Super hanc petram aedificab Ecclesiam mean ;  portae inferi non praevalebunt  adversum eam. Tibi dabo claves regni  caelorum ;  et quodcumque  ligaveros  super terram, erit  ligatum in caelis, et quodcumque Solveris Super  terram,  erit solutum  in caelis.”




(New Vulgate)
Common Bible
“ cd; bgah; ghiw. ,e;jg; ghiwapd; nky; vd; jpUr;rigiaf; fl;Lntd; eufj;jpd; thapy;fs; mjd;nky; btw;wpf;bfhs;sh/ thdfj;jpd; jpwt[nfhy;fis cdf;Ff; bfhLg;ngd;. vbjy;yhk; kz;zfj;jpy;  fl;Lthnah mbjy;yhk; tpz;zfj;jpYk; fl;lg;gl;ljhfnt  ,Uf;Fk;.  vbjy;yhk;  kz;zfj;jpy; eP mtpH;g;ghnah mbjy;yhk;  tpz;zfj;jpYk;  mtpH;f;fg; gl;ljhfnt  ,Uf;Fk; ”
“ cd; bgah; ngJU. ,e;jg; ghiwapd; nky; vd; jpUr;rigiaf; fl;Lntd;.  ghjhsj;jpd; thapy;fs; mjd; nky; btw;wpf;bfhs;sh tpz;zurpd; jpwt[ nfhy;fis  ehd; cd;dplk;  jUntd;. kz;Qyfpy; eP jilbra;tJ tpz;QyfpYk; jilbra;ag;gLk;. kz;Qyfpy; eP mDkjpg;gJ  tpz;QyfpYk;  mDkjpf;fg;gLk;”.

the text  “vbjy;yhk; kz;zfj;jpy;  fl;Lthnah” whatever  you bind  on earth” goes specifically  to define the  establishment  of the Church  on earth  with its full  Ruling  Authority  to bind others by laws. But the  defendants  have  dropped this expression in the Common Bible. Further,  the  text "vbjy;yhk; kz;zfj;jpy; eP mtpH;g;ghnah" confirms  our faith  on the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope  in the Church. Such an important text is since changed to an expression of confused words in the Common Bible to suit the taste of the separated brethren for whom Pope's Supremacy is an anathema. Thus the translation of the Common Bible is made quite contrary to the promulgation of the Doctrine on the “Infallibility of the Pope” defined in the I Vatican Council (in 1869- 70).  Thus the common Bible is against the Teaching authority of the Church and hence invalid.

          J)       There are contradictions on the weights and measurements  from text  to text  in the Common Bible. For example,  in the  vz;zpf;if  7:14 ; tpLjiyg;gazk; 3:13 ; nytpah; 27: 14 it is stated that   1 brf;nfy; is  equivalent  to 11½ grams,  whereas  in the  same Common Bible in . 1 kf;fngah; 10: 42 ; bjhlf;f E]y; 24: 22 ; ____  the  text reads  as that  1 brf;nfy;  is equivalent  to 12 grams. Further  tpLjiyg; gazk;  38: 28 goes to  say that 1775brf;nfy; is  20 kilo grams and in 2 rhKnty; 14:26 it is stated that  200 brf;nfy; is  equal to 2 Kilo Grams as seen in the Common Bible. In these latter texts,  it  can be seen that 1 brf;nfy;  is neither  11½  grams  nor 12 grams and hence stands  contradicted. The Common Bible  with such diversifications  and contradictions  is much against  the truth  and hence invalid.

          k)      It may be further  noted that 1 kilogram  is  equivalent  to  1. 47 kpdhf;fs;  in  bebfkpah 7:71 : 1  kilo gram is  1. 46 kpdhf;fs;; in v!;uh 2: 69 and 1 kilo gram  is 1½  kpdhf;fs;  in 1 murh; 10: 17. Such  irresponsible  translations are found in the Common Bible. It further  proves that there  was  no uniformity among  the different  translations. Hence  the Common Bible with confusing  translations  made by half  learned people is invalid.

          l)       The lay catholics have been so far reading  the `word of God’ from the Holy Bible  without  any confusion  whatsoever   of its meaning, that  helped  them  build up their faith ensuring  the  redemption   of their soul. But with the coming of the Common  Bible  the plaintiffs  herein  as well as  other faithful stand  totally confused of their faith  and feel unassured  of  their  salvation. For example :

1.       rpy Kf;fpaky;yhj  ifbaGj;Jg; gofspy;  fhzg;gLfpwJ.
2.       rpy Kf;fpa  ifbaGj;Jg; gofspy;  fhzg;gLfpwJ.
3.       gy ifbaGj;Jg; gofspy;  fhzg;gLfpwJ.
4.       rpy Rtofspy; kl;Lk; fhzg;gLfpwJ.
5.       rpy Kf;fpa  ifbaGj;Jg; gofspy; fhzg;gltpy;iy.
6.       gy Kf;fpa  ifbaGj;Jg;gofspy;  fhzg;gltpy;iy.
Similar confused  texts  go to show that the  translators  have not  based their  work on any authoritative or authentic  text particularly  the one prescribed by the teaching  authority  (Magisterium)  of the Church  viz.,  the  New Vulgate. Such texts  in  the Common Bible have created every doubt  in our mind about  our  traditional  faith. We are in an utter dilemma as to which are the texts that can bring out our real faith / who is in” possession of that text/which   one is the really valid text. All these factors have created in our mind, sufficient confusion as they are contrary to the original Bible, of the Church viz., the New Vulgate and hence the Common Bible is illegal, invalid and unacceptable.

          M)     It would  be easy to understand  the Historic value of the ancient  period  with all its reality,  environment, culture, habit  and economy. It is  possible  only when we read  certain descriptions  in the original  terms for example – of weight, measure, distance,  of honesty and of manners, pertaining  to that period of the History  preserved with reverence. But on the contrary, the respondents have  introduced  the present –day-terms of weight,  distance grams (Jn.12:3 etc., ),  Kilometer  (Lk.24:13) etc., also  in term of present  day manners and habits. This has been prepared  without  any norms or ethics, but  with an intention of diluting  the sense of reality of the Historical facts but giving the impression  as if of a myth  with fictitious persons, rather than the expression  of actual words  to bring out the veritable nature  of the historical  happenings. This is antagonistic  to the Church’s  way of expressing the historical  facts and hence the Common Bible   is illegal.

          21.     The plaintiffs further submits that Archbishop  Arokiaswamy the second  defendant herein, in collusion with the other Bishops  of Tamil Nadu, is wantonly  in a planned manner acting with a heretic intention  of diverting  the lay Catholics and the plaintiffs  from  the teachings  of the Holy See by  misleading  them  and by creating  confusion  in their minds about the `Truth’ as  taught by the Mother Church. Here are some of his  willful acts  and deeds  reported only to prove the  allegation.

          a)       A picture  of Mary, Mother or Christ, exhibited in an abominable  manner, was  printed in 1978 in a book with the title “Growing  Together in Love in God’s  Family” published  under the administrative  control  of the Archbishop Arockiaswamy  (then Bishop of Kottar)  and  was released. A few Catholic  laymen took objection  to it and preferred an O.S.No.6827 of 1978 in  the V Asst. City Civil Court, Madras,  condemning  the sacrilegious  action of Archbishop Arockiaswamy against  Holy Mary.

b)      In 1985, there  was  an article  published  in the monthly  journal  “ bjd; xyp” (Then Oli) in which  Mary, Mother  of Christ  was described  in  damaging  words. The owner  of the said publication  was Archbishop  Arokiaswamy the second  defendant  herein. Some lay people  taking objection  to it, submitted a memorandum before the Government  of Tamil Nadu seeking sanction for prosecution of Archbishop  Arokiaswamy and others under Section  196 Cr.P.C. Later  a case was filed  against  him on this matter in the High Court of Madras in W.P.No.13473 of 1988.


c)       The plaintiffs  have also filed  an Original Suit No.9269 of 1995 in the IV Asst. City Civil Court, Madras challenging  deviations  from Catholic  teachings  as introduced  in Missal 1993 in which  Archbishop  Arockiasamy  is the fourth  defendant.  The plaintiffs have also filed an I.A.No.16932 of 1996 for an interim injunction  restraining  the Catholic  Bishops  of Tamil Nadu  including  Archbishop Arockiasamy the  second respondent herein  and their priests from using  the Missal 1993 in any of the Roman Catholic churches.  It is now pending  before  the Hon'ble Court.

d)      The Churchmen  under the leadership of Archbishop   Arockiaswamy  (as President of the Tamil Nadu  Bishop's  Council) have  introduced  the Common Bible  with  the bad intention of destroying  the sacredness  of the Holy Bible with an ulterior  motive and  extraneous  purpose. This  common Bible is published by changing  many parts  of the  vital texts, in a very cunning  manner.  When Archbishop  Arokiasamy  was  the then Bishop of Kottar (Nagercoil) holding  the ownership  of the said monthly journal `Then Oli (bjd;xyp), there  was an  article  published   in its October  1985 issue - first  page under the  heading "tis fu';fSf;F tpLjiy tH';f iggpspd; gFjpfis khw;wp vGjth" this article  concluded (on  page 4) as :
 “tptpypaj;jpy; bgz; moikj;jdj;ij  epahag;gLj;Jk; gFjpfs; jpUk;gj; jpUk;g  ek;kpy; Mz; Kjd;ik  th;f;f  kdepiyia  cUthf;Fk;  vd;why; thU';fs; midtUk; ,ize;J iggpspd; gFjpfis khw;wp vGJnthk;.”
Thus  Archbishop Arokiaswamy the second  defendant  herein has systematically and strategically  planned it ahead even  in 1985 to change the texts  of Bible  and proceeded in this  planned manner  to introduce  the Common Bible with  such and many deviations. The second  defendant  is  also holding  the office  of the President  of the first  defendant  and with  the collusion of the other Bishops  members of the first defendant  he had  completed  their sacrilegious  act. This Common Bible  is thus contradictory to the Holy Mother Church's  teachings  and her teachings of the Truth  and hence it is illegal.
         
          22.     The plaintiffs further submit that the chaotic action  of the defendants  have  created the situation   wherein the plaintiffs - lay  catholics are  constrained  to safeguard  the catholic  faith. According  to the canon 229(i) the plaintiffs are duty bound to safeguard themselves from the cunningly  manipulated deeds and  act of the defendants. The canon 229(i) states :
"Lay people  have the duty  and the right  to  acquire  the knowledge  of Christian teaching  which is  appropriate  to each one's capacity  and condition,  so that they may be able to live according  to this teaching  to proclaim it and if necessary  to  defend it, and may be capable of playing  their part in the  exercise of the apostolate".
By this law it has become the primary duty of the plaintiffs to protect the Church. Based on this duty, the plaintiffs have sent a notice to the defendants  on  24.6.1996 and they have  responded in their reply dated 1.7.1996. The defendants in their said reply admitted all those commissions and omissions  committed  by them. In pursuance of that  the plaintiffs  issued  their  rejoinder  dated 2.8.1996 calling   upon the  defendants  to  set right  the unholy and sacrilegious  acts, commissions  and omissions  lapses committed by the defendants  and to  tender  unconditional  apology  to  the faithful  catholic  community  through a  publication in a daily  and to withdraw  all those  defective, invalid publication  of the said  Common Bible.  The defendants  received  the said  rejoinder  and have  issued their further reply  dated 15.8.1996 with evasive  answers. Hence this suit.

          23.     The  cause of action arose  at Madras  within  the jurisdiction   of this Hon'ble Court, when the  defendants  translated  the Holy Bible  blasphemies,  profanes, errors, commissions and omissions etc, defects, lapses contrary  to the New Vulgate Decree  named "Scripturarum Thesaurus" dated  25.4.1979 and thrusting the invalid  Bible  and  introduced  by the defendants  for all purpose  especially in Liturgy  of the Holy Mass, calling  it as Common Bible on 26.11.1995 with the approval  of the first  defendant  and circulated the  same  for the use of the lay Catholics  of Tamilnadu  as well as  for use in the Liturgy  and the third defendant  who  is the publisher  Fourth defendant  was selling the said Common Bible and the plaintiffs  purchased  the said common Bible on 8.7.1996 and 16.10.1996 from the fourth  defendant  and on  reading  the same came to know the sacrilegious  act committed  by the defendants.  They had  issued a notice on 24.6.1996  and the defendants  received  the same and issued a reply dated 1.7.1996 admitting  the sacrilegious act committee by them and the plaintiff issued their rejoinder  dated 2.8.1996 calling  upon the defendants  to restore the sacredness  to the Holy Bible  and to heal and wounded faith of the lay Catholics particularly  the  plaintiffs  herein and to  stop further circulation  of the said defective  invalid bible  and to withdraw  the circulated  defective, invalid Common Bible, and the defendants  received  the same and  issued their  further reply  dated 15.8.1996, giving  evasive  reply refused to do  so and subsequently.

The Plaintiffs therefore  pray  the Judgment  and  Decree against  the  defendants :
a.       For a declaration  that the second  defendant  had incurred  automatic  (latae sententiae) excommunication from the Roman Catholic  Church   according  to Canon  1364 and 751 of the code of Canon Law 1983 as  he  has committed heresy,  schism and apostasy ;

b.       For a declaration  that the Holy Bible  translated  by the  defendants  into jpUtptpypak;(Thiruviviliam)  on 26.11.1995 is invalid, improper, incorrect,  unbiblical,  contrary  to the Decree dated  25.4.1979 namely “Scripturarum Thesaurus” by  His Holiness  Pope John Paul II :

c.       For a permanent  injunction  restraining  the defendants  their subordinates,  officer, men or agents  from using, selling , circulating or using in the liturgy or dealing in any manner  with “jpUtptpypak;” (Thiruiviliam) popularly  known  as  Common Bible  which is translated  version  of the Holy Bible released on 26.11.995;

d.       For a mandatory injunction  directing  the defendants  to recall  the  “jpUtptpypak;” (Thiruiviliam) the translated and circulated  on and from  26.11.1995 from all the Roman Catholic  Churches, especially from liturgy :

e.       For a permanent  injunction  restraining  the second  defendant  from interfering  with or dealing  or discharging  the functions of the Archbishop of the Catholic Church :

f.       For a mandatory  injunction  directing  the defendants  to tender  their  unconditional  apology  in anyone of the local Tamil Newspaper for their  sacrilegious  act of translating  the Holy Bible  with all defects, lapses,  omissions  and making  it unbiblical  and unholy.

g.       To give  the costs  of the suit ;

h.       To pass such  further or other orders as this Hon’ble  Court may deem fit and proper  in the circumstances  of this case and thus render justice.

          Dated at Madras on this the        day of  September, 1996.


                                                                                   Plaintiffs

No comments:

Post a Comment