Talk:Vox in Rama

Latin translation of the substantive part of the work

Hello!

I am quite new to Wikipedia and this is only the second article that I have written for it! I hope that it is okay. I hope that it is well referenced and that it is of some use as it seems that loads of people are searching for the text of Vox in Rama and cannot find it, other than in the original Latin or a poor German translation.

I managed to find three copies of Vox in Rama (ed. K. Rodenberg, M.G.H., Epistolae saeculi XIII, I (Merlin, 1883), no. pp. 537, pp. 423-5.)) as published in Germany as photocopies. They are in the original Latin and I couldn’t find a translation online. I have therefore translated it myself. I speak Latin fluently and specalise in Canon law. Nonetheless, I don’t know if I have broken any rules by using it for this article. I hope not, but, if I have done, please feel to delete it. :o( --October1625 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My translation for reference

[ The bull begins with the incept and introduction from Pope Gregory, who condemns the heresy and goes on to describe the cult and its practices. ]

The following rites of this pestilence are carried out: When any novice is to be received among them and enters the sect of the damned for the first time, the shape of a certain frog [or toad] appears to him. Some kiss this creature on the hind quarters and some on the mouth, they receive the tongue and saliva of the beast inside their mouths. Sometimes it appears unduly large, and sometimes equivalent to a goose or a duck, and sometimes it even assumes the size of an oven. At length, when the novice has come forward, [he] is met by a man of wondrous pallor, who has black eyes and is so emaciated [and] thin that since his flesh has been wasted, seems to have remaining only skin drawn over [his] bone. The novice kisses him and feels cold, [like] ice, and after the kiss the memory of the [C]atholic faith totally disappears from his heart. Afterwards, they sit down to a meal and when they have arisen from it, the certain statue, which is usual in a sect of this kind, a black cat descends backwards, with its tail erect. First the novice, next the master, then each one of the order who are worthy and perfect, kiss the cat on its buttocks. Then each [returns] to his place and, speaking certain responses, they incline their heads toward to cat. “Forgive us!” says the master, and the one next to him repeats this, a third responding [says], “We know, master!” A fourth says: “And we must obey.”

When this has been done, they [put] out the candles, and turn to the practice of the most disgusting lechery. [They] make no distinction between strangers and family. Moreover, if by chance those of the male [sex] exceed the number of women, surrendering to their passions, [...] men engage with depravity with men. Woman change their natural function making this itself worthy of blame among themselves. [When] thse most abnormal sins have been completed, and the candles have been lit again and each has resumed his [place], from a dark corner of the assembly a certain man come[s], from the loins upward, shining like the sun. His lower part is shaggy like a cat.

[ Here a dialogue, similar to the one above, ensues between the master and the creature. The bull then goes on to describe crimes committed against the Eucharist: ]

They even receive the body of the Lord every year at Easter from the hand of the priest, and, carrying it in their mouths home, they throw it into the latrine in contempt of the Saviour.

[ A summary of the cults beliefs regarding the coming of Satan and the overthrow of God on the Day of Judgement follows. The bull continues with a summary of their beliefs in the eyes of the church: ]

They acknowledge all acts which are not pleasing [to the] Lord, and instead do what he hates.

[ The bull then concludes with more condemnations and a command to the relevant authorities to stop the practice. ]

--October1625 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Latin Original

Can be found here, in the public domain. A google search of Rachel plorat videlicet pia mater ecclesia turns up more hits. Rwflammang (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Jeremiah, but Matthaeus

The quotation in the beginning is found in Mattaeus 2,18 in the New Testament, so it seems not to come from Jeremiah. The New Vulgata text of Matthaeus 2,18 is as follows: "Vox in Rama audita est, ploratus et ululatus multus: Rachel plorans filios suos, et noluit consolari, quia non sunt." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.115.143.156 (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Rwflammang (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Not such a good point. The verse appears in Jeremiah 31, 15. "Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not." Matthew is simply quoting Jeremiah. METRANGOLO1 (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Does not sound like a Papal Bull

Studied medieval history, systematic law and legal system. Studied Classical and Medieval Latin as well. This appears to be the work of someone who lacked knowledge of law and history. Remember that Gregory was a lawyer and much of interpretation of law and legislation is based on his methodology. The work (Vox in Rama) lacks credibility because it lacks a certain quality of language and delivery of all other Papal Bulls I have examined including . I cannot find any evidence whatsoever of such a bull being published. I have attempted to research this but everything seems to point to a single source Witchcraft in the Middle Ages by Jeff Russell. This seems at most to be a case of someone making up something to add support a claim and everyone repeating the narrative. Anyone who claims that they have a complete text of this Bull is either being hoodwinked or is a charlatan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.197.99 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. How exactly did Russell convince Mansi to publish this text in Sacrorium Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Tomus Vigesimus Tertius in Venice in 1779? This work is available at Google books. I have seen it and read it. You can too if you follow the link I gave above, but perhaps that would make you hoodwinked or a charlatan. Rwflammang (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote most of this article and everything you see in there is referenced, most of which you can get online now (thank goodness). When I first wrote it, I agree that one found it very difficult to substantiate the authenticity as the only book I had was the original from 1799. It appears in far too many sources (ancient and modern) to say that Russell invented it all. I think the article is pretty balanced when it comes to the question if it was written as a bull or entered into the canon later. --Alex (a.k.a. October1625) (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I don't know of any serious discussion on the authenticity of this bull. It's mentioned and analyzed in so many modern studies (not just Lambert, but also Brunn, Hergemöller, Tremp and many others). Discussions on the origin of the bull focuse on the question, whether it was actually written under the auspice of papal office or somewhere in western Germany as a part of that anti-heretical hunt led by Konrad von Marburg. As Uwe Brunn has stated, it's more probable that it's closely related to Konrad and perhaps also to Caesarius of Heisterbach (his tractatus on Lucifer-worshipping heretics looks very similar to Vox in Rama, as do some narratives in his Dialogus Mircaculorum). So perhaps it was originally an anti-heretical polemic text and formal rhetoric figuras of a papal bull were added secondarily. It sounds very plausible to me. Post scriptum: Cat worship is perhaps an older theme, it appears in Paul of Chartres' Vetus Agano from the 11th century, although the word used there is "bestiola" ("little beast") and not specifically "catus". But the connections are obvious. Plus I believe ethymology of the word "cathar" from "catus" is perhaps a little bit older than Vox in Rama. But I'm not sure about that. Frantisek Novotny (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sanctorum conciliorum et decretorum collectio nova by Philippe Labbé dated 1748, has a copy of Vox. Found it by searching google books for the text: episcopus servus servorum Dei "vox in rama." "Episcopus servus servorum Dei" is from the article on Papal bulls. --Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I know of the manuscripts from Basel (Universitätsbibliothek Basel Cod. B X 14, fol. Xv-XIIIv.). Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller edited it in his book "Krötenkuss und Schwarzer Kater" in full lenght, and a few other editions exist which I did not yet read. Really, no serious historian disputes the authenticity of this bull. Frantisek Novotny (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If it was written in western Germany, wouldn't that make it inauthentic (as a papal bull - though not in the sense of a modern forgery)? Vultur~enwiki (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Latin version of this article?

it appears that there is no corresponding version of this article in Latin Wikipedia. Whereas, besides French, German, and Portuguese, there are versions of this article here in Wikipedia also in Arabic, Turkish, and Tagalog. But not in Latin. And that seems very odd. (Or what am I missing?) Toddcs (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Translation of the Jeremiah verse

The translation of the Jeremiah verse given at the end of the article, "Thus saith the LORD: A voice was heard in Ramah," is difficult to defend. Given that under the Mem of "nishma`" in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text there is a qamatz, not a patah, the meaning is not past tense but present tense, i.e., "A voice is heard." The Jewish Publication Society translation (JPS 1917) that can be found at mechon-mamre.org corroborates this. Toddcs (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)