Appendix in Sixto Clementine Vulgate and early Douay Rheims Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Onthisrock84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Onthisrock84

Guest
I recently bought from Baronius Press a side by side English and Latin Douay Rheims Bible and Clementine Vulgate which was propagated in 1598 following the Council of Trent when the Vulgate was reformed from Pope Sixtus flawed Vulgate and reformed as the Clementine Vulgate and is an official Vulgate of the Church along with the Novus Vulgata. Interestingly in 1598 Pope Clement included three texts " lest they perish entirely " which had been included in the Old Testament in the Vulgate however were not reaffirmed at the Council of Trent in an appendix of the Vulgate following the Old Testament. These three texts are 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. However today they are more known by the names 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. The reason is that in the Vulgate and Douay Rheims Bible Ezra and Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras. They were originally put in an appendix to the Douay Rheims without the extensive annotations given to the Canonical Books. Following the Challoner Revision in 1750 they were included yet since then have not been retained and have thus been forgotten by many Catholics although the Church does use these three texts in Liturgy.
Appendixes in Bibles isn’t something unheard of. The Greek Bible includes 4 Maccabees as an appendix.
The earliest English Bibles did include them including the 1611 KJV which is proof they were part of the Vulgate in itself. The Prayer of Manasseh followed 2 Chronicles and 3 and 4 Esdras followed 1 and 2 Esdras. Although not Canon in the Catholic Church ( I believe they are in some Orthodox Churches), I believe our Bibles should once again include them as an appendix as in outside the Canon of Scripture yet worthy to be read. I have actually met some who prefer the NRSV w Deuterocanonical Books opposed to the NRSV-CE because they do include them and note they are in an appendix to the Latin Vulgate.

That is just my opinion and thought it would be something to maybe have dialogue on.
God bless.

http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/bible/appendix.html

http://dudamobile.marianland.com/?url=http://www.marianland.com/loreto2/vulgnt.html#2567

http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Books_of_the_Latin_Vulgate
 
Last edited:
Onthisrock84 said:
the Church does use these three texts in Liturgy.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the interesting post. Regarding your question for discussion I agree with you and Pope Clement.

Where in Liturgy are the texts used? Smart Catholics may know, but I don’t.

And even if the texts were not in Liturgy I would still want to follow Pope Clement… and you!! 🙂
 
Last edited:
Here is a good article. However this only pertains to the Extraordinary Form. In the Ordinary Form, 4 Esdras is cited on the second Sunday of Easter or Divine Mercy Sunday as the second option for the entrance antiphon:
4 Esdras 2: 36-37 Receive the joy of your glory, giving thanks to God,
who has called you into the heavenly kingdom, alleluia.

It is also cited in some common of martyrs and masses for the dead as an introit and communion antiphon.

Entrance Antiphon
cf 4 Esdr 2:34-35
Eternal rest grant to them, O Lord,
and let perpetual light shine upon them.

The Prayer of Manasseh is cited in the Liturgy of the Hours on the 14th Sunday of Ordinary Time in the first reading of office of readings as a Responsory along with Psalm 51.

Responsory
Prayer of Manasseh 9-10; Ps 51:3-4
℟. My sins are more in number than the sands of the sea. My transgressions abound, and I am not worthy to look up and gaze at the height of heaven because of the number of my wrongdoings, because I have provoked your wrath.* I have done what is evil in your sight.
℣. My offences, truly I know them; my sin is always before me. Against you, you alone, have I sinned.* I have done what is evil in your sight.

I’m not sure 3 Esdras is cited in the novus ordo.

Here’s the article.

 
Amazing. Super article. Thank you. There’s so much depth in the Liturgical texts. And their histories are more interesting than any mystery novel. In “preserve or remove” issues I tend to be in the preserve camp. In the case of these texts, having them in an appendix would be useful to me.

Thanks for your good work in laying all of this out in this forum. It is a valuable contribution to the online Catholic community.
 
Of course. If you want a cheap Bible that includes them try the NRSV w Deuterocanonical Books opposed to the NRSV-CE. It also says it it they are in an appendix to the Latin Vulgate.
 
And yah people tend to not realize it but liturgy is very important and really every part of it whether mass or liturgy of the hours is based on scripture. It’s funny when the heretics say we don’t read the bible but really the church revolves on scriptural texts.
 
I came to the Catholic Church through first being an Evangelical Christian in a good independent church in the Reformed Tradition. It was a excellent place to learn scripture. And they actually had a good opinion of the Catholic Church, LOL I think they were well informed on Catholic theology. All of them were good students of the Word. But you are correct, my life as a Catholic is immersed in more scripture than it ever was while a Protestant. Daily Mass, the Liturgy of the Hours, and Lectio Divina. When is a Catholic not getting ready for, engaged in, or finishing a participation in scripture in its most beautiful settings.
 
I agree with the preserve opposed to remove as well. These books were in the Vulgate and have history in the Church. I’m not sure why they took them out. Maybe some were confused and thought since they were included it meant they were canonical? I think not though. If it said not received yet are good for reading it would be just like a protestant bible that includes what they call the apocrypha. Interestingly protestants do include these three with the other deuterocanonical books the Church does accept at the same level.
 
Originally the 1611 KJV included all of them. Scroll down on the link. It was puritanism that really drove it to being removed entirely. And a note on the NRSV w Deuterocanonical Books. It is somewhat a common bible. It includes also Psalm 151 and 3 and 4 Maccabees because the Orthodox hold those to be worthy to be read. The first 2 are canon the latter is in an appendix. Interestingly it seems like it’s always " why do Catholics have more books than Protestants " but Orthodox tend to have more than Catholics. It varies on the Church. The Protestant Canon has 66 books. The Church with the largest Canon in the world is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. They have 81 books including the books of Enoch and Jubilees.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/
 
Last edited:
Onthisrock84 said:
The Protestant Canon has 66 books. The Church with the largest Canon in the world is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. They have 81 books including the books of Enoch and Jubilees.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I wish the divided Church could be united again.
 
That would be really something. In theory I suppose the Eastern Orthodox would have the best shot at communion again. I’m not sure they would have to change anything about what they are currently doing now except admit to the infallibility of the bishop of Rome. The rest, even filioque I don’t think would be a stumbling block. However with that said I personally think it’s Catholics who want reunification more than the Orthodox. I am not sure if it is just me but I feel like many Orthodox are quite defiant of the Church and some other stumbling blocks that have happened since the schism which was in 1054 officially but really began earlier and didn’t finish probably until 1204 when the Venicians sacked Constantinople. Orthodox for example don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary so that would be a difficulty.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know however why the Council of Trent reaffirmed all of the texts in the Vulgate however did not reaffirm these three and relegated it to an appendix? Just curious if there’s some doctrinal issue at hand in them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top