Catholic Public Domain Bible

[pups4ever]

Hey, I was wondering if anyone had read the Catholic Public Domain Version (CPDV) Bible. It is a new translation of the Latin Vulgate that was done by one guy. It was not overseen or approved by the Vatican, so it’s not an “official” Catholic translation. I was just wondering what people on here thought of it. I had seen that many were mentioning how they would love to see a new translation of the Vulgate, and that is what this is.

The website for it is www.sacredbible.org

 

[Luke65]

I haven’t seen any comments on it yet, but Ron Conte sure did a lot of pro bono work on it! He’s a member here, maybe he’ll see this thread. Or you can try to PM him, or you can find his website. I’ll be interested to see any comments too. Thanks for this thread, and thanks Ron!

 

[3some]

If it is not approved by the Church, I would not accept it as Catholic any more than I do the King James which I think is also based on the Douay (English translation of the Vulgate).
I don’t know that there is anything wrong with reading it with an awareness that it is not translated in accord with papl encyclicals or Council decrees.

 

[sezanus]

I think it is better translation than many catholic bibles…if you know your selfs, what the bible about than you will know best catholic bible is duay rheims, this bible translated from duay rheims…[compare the verses with modernized bibles]…sorry that only oneman did all these…40 scholars failed to do…i recommended to all catholics should read it…{one of the verses it says mary prayer luke 1 :28 hail full of grace the lord is with you bless are you among women…

 

[Ron_Conte]

I don’t know that there is anything wrong with reading it with an awareness that it is not translated in accord with papl encyclicals or Council decrees.

The CPDV was translated in accord with the Vatican norms for Bible translation written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. The OT was translated in the light of the NT, and both Testaments were translated in the light of Catholic teaching, including all of the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[3some]

Hi Ron
My post was based on pups4ever statement that the CPDV was “not overseen or approved by the Vatican, so it’s not an “official” Catholic translation”

 

[tobinatorstark]

Ron’s translation is great. I commend him greatly on his work. I am also a member of his forum as well. It’s not every day that some takes enthusiasm to translate the Bible. I still encourage Mr. Conte to at least attempt to seek approval for his wonderful translation.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Hi Ron
My post was based on pups4ever statement that the CPDV was “not overseen or approved by the Vatican, so it’s not an “official” Catholic translation”

The vast majority of Catholic translations were not ‘overseen by the Vatican’. This includes the original 1970 NAB, which was rejected for use in the Mass by the Holy See, as well as the NRSV, used in the Mass in Canada despite the opposition of Pope John Paul II.

Pope Sixtus V personally oversaw and participated in the work of the Sixtus V Latin Vulgate, and he approved it and tried to establish it as the definitive Latin translation. But the work was not accepted by scholars and the faithful, and subsequently Pope Clement VIII made a new edition which was accepted and used by the Church for hundreds of years.

The current list of approved English translations of the Bible, approved by the USCCB, includes many editions that were translated in direct contradiction to the Vatican norms for Bible translation.

The idea that certain translations are better because they are ‘approved’ or are ‘official’ is a false idea.

The Pope and the Bishops exercise the Magisterium as well as the temporal authority of the Church, but they are usually not directly involved in translating Scripture. Even when Bishop Challoner and his associates translated the Bible, Challoner did so, not as an act of the Magisterium, but as a Bible translator like any Bible translator.

Ultimately, the sensus fidelium has a substantial role in determining which translations are good, and which are useful for one purpose versus another.

 

[3some]

My final thread on the topic. There isn’t anything you have said that changes my previous posts. I am pretty knowledgable of the scriptural exegesis that has evolved over the years and don’t find it pertient to my comments

 

[Omyo12]

The vast majority of Catholic translations were not ‘overseen by the Vatican’. This includes the original 1970 NAB, which was rejected for use in the Mass by the Holy See, as well as the NRSV, used in the Mass in Canada despite the opposition of Pope John Paul II…
snip

Eh, ignore 3some… (what kinda name is that anyways, I’m surprised it was approved )

3some:

I am pretty knowledgable of the scriptural exegesis

coming from a person who thinks the KJV was based on the Douay-Rheims :clapping:

I’ve read your work and its great and faithful.
I also love how you have scans and text of multiple editions of the Clementine Vulgate!

 

[Jay3gsm]

I’m not a Scripture scholar, but I do have an interest in different Bible translations. I downloaded the CPD version and I have a query. Please don’t let this degenerate into an argument, mine is just a query.

In the DR Bible, Luke 13:3 says to do penance, all other Bibles I’ve read, and also this CPD version, say to repent.

I’ve always been curious as to why the DR is the only translation (that I know of) that translates 13:3 as do penance. Anyone?

 

[SaltySirena]

both Testaments were translated in the light of Catholic teaching,

I am a faithful Catholic, but this bothers me.

I don’t want a translation that is slanted to favor Catholicism. I want a translation that is as close to the original meaning of the writer as possible. I would rather the Church have to say, “oops, we screwed up on something,” than to have the meaning of Scripture changed to fit what we want it to say. The inspired authors used the words they did for a reason. They were communicating certain ideas and events… words mean things. I want to know what the original words meant and what the author really said, and any Church should conform itself to that… not the other way around.

Please explain, if I have the wrong idea.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I’m not a Scripture scholar, but I do have an interest in different Bible translations. I downloaded the CPD version and I have a query. Please don’t let this degenerate into an argument, mine is just a query.

In the DR Bible, Luke 13:3 says to do penance, all other Bibles I’ve read, and also this CPD version, say to repent.

I’ve always been curious as to why the DR is the only translation (that I know of) that translates 13:3 as do penance. Anyone?

{13:3} Non, dico vobis: sed nisi **pœnitentiam **habueritis, omnes similiter peribitis.
{13:3} No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you will all perish similarly.

The DR is translating more literally from the Latin, which does say penance, but it is penance in the broader sense, repentance being one of the acts of penance. Similarly, the Sacrament of Confession is also called the Sacrament of Penance (broader sense again).

 

[Ron_Conte]

I am a faithful Catholic, but this bothers me.

I don’t want a translation that is slanted to favor Catholicism. I want a translation that is as close to the original meaning of the writer as possible. I would rather the Church have to say, “oops, we screwed up on something,” than to have the meaning of Scripture changed to fit what we want it to say. The inspired authors used the words they did for a reason. They were communicating certain ideas and events… words mean things. I want to know what the original words meant and what the author really said, and any Church should conform itself to that… not the other way around.

Please explain, if I have the wrong idea.

The norms for Bible translation state:

Above all, translations must be faithful to the sense of Sacred Scripture understood as a unity and totality, which finds its center in Christ, the Son of God incarnate (cf. Dei Verbum III and IV), as confessed in the Creeds of the Church.

6/2. For example, where the New Testament or the Church’s tradition have interpreted certain texts of the Old Testament in a Christological fashion, special care should be observed in the translation of these texts so that a Christological meaning is not precluded.

bible-researcher.com/vatican-norms.html

These norms were promulgated and most probably written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

Most of the recent translations of the Bible, approved by the USCCB, were translated in contradiction to these norms.

The CPDV was translated in accord with these norms.

 

[nuntym]

:clapping: Bravo! I love it! I’m gonna save it in my celphone

Ron, any plans of getting a “Imprimi Potest,” "Nihil Obstat,"and “Imprimatur”? Heck, why not send it for approval for use in the Mass, even! And oh, it would be SWEET if you could make an online version that cross-references with Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary

 

[pups4ever]

:clapping: Bravo! I love it! I’m gonna save it in my celphone And oh, it would be SWEET if you could make an online version that cross-references with Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary

Well, since Mr. Conte released it into the public domain, there is nothing to stop you (or me, or anyone else for that matter) from doing it. You could make your own footnotes, or even change around a few of his words (or completely paraphrase the entire thing). That’s the beauty of the public domain, it belongs to everybody. Thank you, Mr. Conte, for not only doing all the work required for producing a translation, but for giving it to the world by foregoing any copyright you could have had on it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron, any plans of getting a “Imprimi Potest,” "Nihil Obstat,"and “Imprimatur”? Heck, why not send it for approval for use in the Mass, even! And oh, it would be SWEET if you could make an online version that cross-references with Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary

Someone used the CPDV to make a kindle book version with commentary from various sources, available at amazon.com.

The imprimi potest is only for books written by religious, so that would not apply.

The new canon law (since 1983) does not permit submission of a Bible version to the local Bishop for the nihil obstat and imprimatur (which would apply for theology books). The Bishops’ Conference now has the task of giving approval (and there is no need for a nihil obstat under this process). But the USCCB only approves of Bible versions that are translated contrary to Vatican norms, so I will not submit it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Ron Conte: Just curious–if you did submit the CPDV to the bishop’s conference for approval what do you think they would say if they rejected it?

Do you think there is any chance that they would approve it?

Do you think there are bishop’s conferences in other English speaking nations of the world other than the United States that might approve it?

If the CPDV was translated into languages other than English or there any other places in the world where it might be approved?

Are the bishop’s conferences the ONLY authority that could approve it?

Would the Congreagation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Congreagation for Divine Worship or the Holy See itself have the authority to approve it or do only Bishop Conferences have the right to approve it?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Ron Conte: Just curious–if you did submit the CPDV to the bishop’s conference for approval what do you think they would say if they rejected it?

Do you think there is any chance that they would approve it?

Do you think there are bishop’s conferences in other English speaking nations of the world other than the United States that might approve it?

If the CPDV was translated into languages other than English or there any other places in the world where it might be approved?

Are the bishop’s conferences the ONLY authority that could approve it?

Would the Congreagation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Congreagation for Divine Worship or the Holy See itself have the authority to approve it or do only Bishop Conferences have the right to approve it?

I am curious as well on this. You did such a wonderful job and to not get credit for your work would be detrimental

 

[Omyo12]

I am curious as well on this. You did such a wonderful job and to not get credit for your work would be detrimental

I think if they reject it it’ll be on the basis that it’s translated from the Clementine Vulgate and not the Hebrew/Greek text or official Nova Vulgata. Or maybe on the basis that it doesn’t conform to modern scholarship…

However, I don’t see why they wouldn’t approve it to be used by Catholics. The CPDV is very faithful to the faith.