THE HOLY BIBLE WAS TRANSLATED INTO “TAMIL LANGUAGE IN 1995” 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
Comments
Post a Comment