Does ANYONE like the NABRE?

[Bible_Reader]

In 1546, at the Council of Trent…

I submit that the above language decrees, as “official”, not only the listing of the books of the bible, but the wording as well, and goes on to state that the Clementine Vulgate (to which this pronouncement was directed) was to be used in confirming dogmas of the Church.

Salvatore, since the papal coronation of Pope Sixtus V was in 1585, and the papal coronation of Pope Clement VIII was in 1592, could you please explain to me how the 1546 (4th Session) of the Trent Council – which met four decades earlier – could have declared the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate to be the “official Vulgate”?

At the very best, all it could have done was to request the pope to prepare an accurate Vulgate.

And Divino Afflante Spiritu suggests that this did not happen in the sixteenth century “owing to the difficulties of the times and other obstacles,” and uses that same authority to clearly declare that translations should be made from original languages (not Latin) directly into vernacular languages.

Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate. It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council received a commission, which they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of the Holy Church of God. If this desire could not then be fully realized owing to the difficulties of the times and other obstacles, at present it can, We earnestly hope, be more perfectly and entirely fulfilled by the united efforts of Catholic scholars.

 

[rotlex]

Salvatore123,

Thanks for that! Very informative!

 

[Salvatore123]

Bible Reader,

My bad - I meant to say that Trent declared as official, the texts that had been derived from Jerome’s Vulgate, that would later SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR the Clementine Vulgate.

I have been up all night so I apologize for the mistake. I am not making excuses - and I certainly did not intentionally mis-state something.

 

[Salvatore123]

Bible Reader,

This post should have preceded my last. I was trying to respond to one while composing another and lost track.

1. If your interpretation of Liturgiam Authenticam is correct, why the flurry by the CBA to write such a letter to the USCCB basically “begging” them to NOT let Liturgiam Authenticam “control” their work? If L.A. was not binding, as you say, for translation purposes, they had no need to write the USCCB at all - they could have simply continued their translation work and adhered to their own standards.
2. When you said that I “do [not] appear to understand the meaning of editio typica”, you go on to quote (again) from an article written for The Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

You say that editio typica deals with guidelines for reprinting the text of the 1979 Nova Vulgata, as though that is the ONLY thing it deals with.

What you omit is the question that was posed, and the context in which it was posed:

“What is the meaning of editio typica here?”

Reading the article, one can see that the author was attempting to make a point about the L.A. encyclical and was trying to discern the meaning of editio typica with regard to the encyclical! - not as to the meaning of the phrase editio typica in general.

1. The phrase editio typica has always been used to denote an official document or text or book.

a. The publisher of the hardback second edition (which was issued to correct several errors present in the first edition) of the CCC, refers to Pope John Paul II as "approving and promulgating the official Latin text, the editio typica in his 1997 apostolic letter, Laetamur Magnopere.

b. Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia - Revised Edition, editio typica is defined/described as: “Official version”. editio typica is the original, authoritative and legally binding text of an ecclesiastical document. Only the editio typica of a document carries the weight of law, and all translations of the same (where they are permitted) must be in conformity with the original text and receive the prior approval of the author of the document."

I can cite many more instances of where editio typica means or refers to “official text”, but I think the above should suffice.

1. You seem to argue that the Catholic Church does not currently have an “official” biblical text. By “official”, I mean one that must be consulted when translating verses into another language or to ensure compliance with sound doctrine as previously defined and promulgated by the Church.

Again, I disagree.

a. Without an “official” text, be it an ecclessiastical document or sacred scripture, it would be impossible to resolve a dispute such as one involving grammar or syntax if one did not have a “go to text” as the foundation or basis. As No. 23 of L.A. states: “In the translation of texts of ecclesiastical composition, while it is useful with the assistance of historical and other scientific tools to consult a source that may have been discovered for the same text, nevertheless* it is always the text of the Latin editio typica itself that is to be translated*.”

Clearly, the encyclical’s authors realized the importance of having ONE document/translation to which everyone could consult for study or resolution of a dispute in the future.

b. With regard to Trent, I fail to see how one can seriously contend that the following statement does not give official sanction to the Vulgate as it existed at the time the statement was made: “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

The above quote is no mere approval of just a canon of books. It is a mandate that the canon be accepted as read and contained in the Latin vulgate edition!

c. You clearly state that the Nova Vulgata is not the Catholic Church’s “official text” for sacred scriptures.

Do you claim that prior to the Nova Vulgata, the Clementine Vulgata was also not the “official text” of sacred scripture of the Catholic Church?

1. Finally, I was already familiar with the article you cited in which a priest at a Catholic college “attacks” the authority of the Nova Vulgata.

Yet, if you closely read the entire article, he “betrays” what many see the L.A. encyclical as doing: deferring to the Nova Vulgata as authoritative for sacred scripture translations. Consider the framing of his argument:

“The purpose of this note is to subject to critical scrutiny the claim that the Nova Vulgata is an authority for translators. We will seek to demonstrate two points: (1) there are no grounds for asserting that Nova Vulgata is authoritative for translators of the Bible for liturgy; (2) Liturgiam authenticam seems to assume that the Nova Vulgata is an editio typica for biblical translations.”

Even HE acknowledges that L.A. apparently takes for granted that the Nova Vulgata should be considered the “official text” of sacred scripture for biblical translations. If he did not think that either L.A. makes that exact statement, or that scholars have interpreted L.A. as reaching that conclusion, why waste time debating a supposedly non-existant conclusion?

cont’d

 

[Salvatore123]

cont’d from previous post

In closing (and I again apologize for going somewhat astray and debating whether the Catholic Church currently has an “official” biblical text), I noted that you said earlier: “Nova Vulgata is the not the Church’s official text – it is only the Church’s current Latin translation of Scripture. Nova Vulgata has no more “authority” than any other approved translation – the authority lies in the original language texts.”

Knowing that you have followed most of my posts in this part of the CAF - Sacred Scripture - you can probably guess what my response to your above statement would be:

“What original language texts?”

We know the OT was probably composed almost entirely in ancient Hebrew. And we know the NT was probably composed almost entirely in Greek, except for the Gospel of Matthew (which some claim may have been originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew).

But assuming we know for certain the base-language for each biblical book, to what do we refer to as authoritative texts? I have spent the better part of 2 weeks debating the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14 in three separate but almost identical threads, with good arguments presented on both sides, yet we still have not reached a consensus.

I respectfully submit that if the Church does not authoritatively “decree” an official biblical text for use in resolving disputes involving magisterial teaching and doctrine (which I contend was done with at least the Clementine Vulgate), to which text does the Church turn to resolve such disputes?

 

[Bible_Reader]

“What original language texts?”

We know the OT was probably composed almost entirely in ancient Hebrew. And we know the NT was probably composed almost entirely in Greek, except for the Gospel of Matthew (which some claim may have been originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew).

But assuming we know for certain the base-language for each biblical book, to what do we refer to as authoritative texts? I have spent the better part of 2 weeks debating the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14 in three separate but almost identical threads, with good arguments presented on both sides, yet we still have not reached a consensus.

I respectfully submit that if the Church does not authoritatively “decree” an official biblical text for use in resolving disputes involving magisterial teaching and doctrine (which I contend was done with at least the Clementine Vulgate), to which text does the Church turn to resolve such disputes?

The determination of original language textual basis is the subject of text criticism. It is not easy, and involves a lot of scholarly discussion.

But for Isa 7:14, we have a clear scholarly consensus (which is quite a different thing than having a consensus on Catholic Answers Forums). In the major Catholic translations, RSV, NRSV, NABRE, and NJB, the scholarly consensus is that the almah means “young woman.”

 

[Bible_Reader]

Salvatore – before I write anything further, I wanted to let you know that I very much appreciate that you are working all-nighters, and that I pray that God may soon allow you to accomplish all of your work, so you can return to study of Scripture!

But in other places, you have bemoaned that in Catholicism, seemingly unlike almost any other religion, we have one translation that we are allowed to use in liturgy and another translation that we are allowed to use in study.

And now you see why that is. Liturgium Authenticum regulates liturgical translation. Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum regulate Scriptural translation. And they have different standards and it is not easy to see how they could be harmonized.

For example, you mention that Nova Vulgata has not been translated into English, which as far as I know is correct. Suppose it were translated. Then that translation from the Latin would clearly run into problems with Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum. Further, since *Nova Vulgata *appears not to be a very good translation (caveat: I have only read portions of Nova Vulgata and not the entire text), if it were translated, the English translation would likely attract scholarly scorn.
The bottom line is that the Bishops give us an authorized English translation, the NABRE, and they also give us a mandatory English Lectionary, but those two do not match and are not allowed to match.

 

[Salvatore123]

Bible Reader,

How about we did what I proposed long ago (and repeatedly ever since)?

The Catholic Church commissions a bible based on Codex Sinaiticus (containing the oldest complete NT in Greek on record), Codex Vaticanus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If need be, throw in several other codices or fragments from different periods, but that pretty much say the same thing, to ensure as close to accuracy as possible.

I think the following formula would work: oldest texts, original languages (sometimes), compilation of verses where all consulted texts agree, use of biblical scholars whose only goal is accuracy - no other agenda.

For those areas where lapses in verses are apparent, consult the Douay Rheims as per the Dumbarton Oaks project.

HEAVILY footnote those areas where disagreement exists on major points (such as the infamous “almah” vs. “parthenos” debate over Isaiah 7:14) to explain the disagreement and discuss the “sides”.

I would then bet good money that one will be hard pressed to produce a bible that one could legitimately call more accurate than such a bible.

Difficult to do? I would say yes. Long time? Probably. Costly? Absolutely.

But we are the Catholic Church, and it is the Catholic Church to whom Christ/Holy Spirit/God entrusted their teachings, both written and by tradition. Who better equipped to undertake such a task?

And a far more important question (at least to me): what better use could the time, money, and labor be spent when the goal is producing the most accurate rendition of God’s Holy Words?

 

[brianmichael]

i have a better idea. Purchase the douay-rheims. It’s awesome!

dr > nabre

 

[Bible_Reader]

That is not far from what the tÉcole Biblique et Archéologique Française is doing with BEST project (= La Bible en ses Traditions = the Bible in its Traditions) is doing.

Look at bibest.org/

There are some sample passages in English and even more in French.

I realize that this is not exactly what you want, but it is a start. It will also take decades to realize.

In the meanwhile, you may find these translations helpful:

New English Translation of the Septuagint

Dead Sea Scroll Bible

Alternatively, you can study Greek and Hebrew (it really is not that hard!) and study the originals!

As I said, I know this is not exactly what you wanted. However, if you can find donors, I’m sure you can find scholars who would be willing to help you with your planned translation! Don’t count on it from the USCCB, though – the USCCB is claiming most of the royalties from the NAB and NABRE – previously they want to the CBA to help support projects.

 

[Salvatore123]

Bible Reader,

Thanks for the link - it looks interesting and promising.

I already own the other two

And thanks for participating in my threads - I appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[praxising]

I would then bet good money that one will be hard pressed to produce a bible that one could legitimately call more accurate than such a bible.

But, while the sources are most accurate, there is no guarantee the translation would be any better. All translations are tainted by the knowledge of the translators, who, by education, are already familiar with the extant translations. That is: they believe they already know what it says. So, a translation that might differ in a significant way from what has already been done, and which may be more accurate, will be cast aside for the more accepted, traditional, translation.

The other issue is:

The Catholic Church commissions a bible based on Codex Sinaiticus (containing the oldest complete NT in Greek on record), Codex Vaticanus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If need be, throw in several other codices or fragments from different periods, but that pretty much say the same thing, to ensure as close to accuracy as possible.

There are older sources for portions of Scripture. What if they don’t say the same thing as one of the Great Codexes? The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus are amazing in that they are exceptionally unusual collections of the whole of the Canon between covers. But it doesn’t make them more or most accurate for any reason.

What you want would be a great feat of scholarship, but it wouldn’t necessarily be better or more useful or enlightening theologically.

 

[buffalo]

Look what I found: Eerily familiar…

Sacred Scripture page 33

…When the Jewish Talmud, or explanation of Jewish law, was compiled (between
the third and sixth centuries), it re-stated what the Jamnia Sanhedrin had decided.
The Septuagint Canon was dropped. Also, a new translation into Greek was
produced. Why a new translation? In order to ensure acceptance of the Palestinian
Canon and avoid such embarrassing passages as Isaiah’s prophecy that the Messiah would be conceived by a virgin. The Greek translation produced by the Jews at the end of the first century, A.D., read “conceived by a young woman.”

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

johnbres,

You ask a good question, and one that is often misinterpreted or taken for granted by many.

Divino Afflante Spiritu and Liturgium Authenticam do NOT mandate that all translations of the bible be made of "original manuscripts".

The reason for this is quite simple: they no longer exist, and have not existed for thousands of years.

The two encyclicals I cited above require that translations be based on original languages of the various biblical books: ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Now, here are the “catches”:

1. As far as we know, even St. Jerome did not have “original manuscripts” when he began his Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome was instructed by Pope Damasus I to produce a single bible by translating the “Old Latin Bible” or "Old Latin Texts. By the time of Jerome, Latin had supplanted Greek as the most commonly spoken language. So, most manuscripts available to people, including Jerome, were written in Latin. The problem is that not all of them were identical.
2. It is “nice” to say, “use original languages as the basis for your vernacular translation”. But that original language is only as good as the manuscript being used for the translation. I can have a Latin translation of Isaiah and an ancient Hebrew translation of Isaiah. Just because we know that Isaiah was originally composed in ancient Hebrew does NOT necessarily mean that any given Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah is, by default, better than a Latin translation.

I have always thought that Jerome - despite the fact that he produced a bible in Latin - probably produced the most accurate bible (both OT and NT) that ever existed, considering how close in time he was to the NT texts and he was 2000+ years closer in time to the OT texts. “Closer in time” does not automatically equal “better”, but it certainly is a big factor.

1. I apologize for repeating myself so often, but the question keeps coming up: my humble proposal for an accurate bible would be to consult two codices: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (which contains the oldest complete NT known to exist), and then the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the recent announcement of the “lead plates” that were discovered by a Bedoin that appears to bear an imprinted picture of Christ, along with some biblical script, one could consult all of these sources and put together a pretty darned good manuscript that I think anyone would be hard pressed to claim is inaccurate.

P.S. the biggest fault I have with bibles such as the NAB, NABRE, and even the RSV and RSV CE, is that they merely state that they consulted “original languages”, but I never see listed the NAMES of the texts they referred to as their bases for the translations.

I think that is pretty important . . .

I know this is an old post… maybe someone else will find it in a search, as I did, and benefit from continued comments…

I want to point out that the last statement above is not quite correct. Most (not all) modern translations do in fact tell you which texts were used to compile the English translation. In fact, the RSV is vague, saying it starts with the ASV, which was a revision of the KJV, and consults other texts here and there. Such translations as the NKJV and HCSB provide footnotes explaining many renderings with comments like “older manuscripts say…” or “majority of later texts have…”

I would say, in this regard the NABRE is superior. In countless verses, it provides a footnote specifically telling the reader from where the rendering comes, in other words, masoretic verses Dead Sea scrolls, or majority Greek text verses traditional Latin or codex vaticanus, etc.

Just sayin… doesn’t make it the best translation or aything but if source notes are your thing, it’s got 'em.

Be blessed.

 

[eyesoftheworld]

The way the NABRE translates Isa. 7:14 is just terrible and not only is the translation terrible at that point, it’s poorly composed English:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel. *

Isaiah 7:14

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman[a]** shall conceive and bear[c] a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el.[d]
Footnotes:

Isaiah 7:14 Or virgin
7.14 young woman: The Hebrew word ‘almah is not more explicit. The Greek translates this as parthenos, “virgin,” and may be regarded as a witness to later Jewish tradition as to the meaning of the prophecy. The virginal conception is, of course, unequivocally stated in the Gospel where this prophecy is quoted (Mt 1.23; cf. also Lk 1.35).
Isaiah 7:14 Or is with child and shall bear
Isaiah 7:14 That is God is with us**

 

[ddgarcianj]

Am i in the minority on this? But as far as i know, the NABRE is the only Catholic Bible, translated primarily by Catholics, for Catholics, from the original languages (not translated from the Vulgate or French nor translated by Protestants and ‘turned into’ a Catholic Bible).

How can we, as laypeople, be so arrogant as to say we know better than our Church who gave us the NABRE? It doesn’t matter if it’s ‘perfect’. No translation ever will be. So why not just REST in our Church’s desicisions and OBEY our Church and read OUR BIBLE?

Besided the few examples that i see people barking about over and over again all read basically the same way in the RSVCE, the NRSV, and the JB. So why all this fretting???

i know i will probably get flamed for this, but i just don’t understand the venom towards the Bible given to us by OUR Church…

 

[mccorm45]

Am i in the minority on this? But as far as i know, the NABRE is the only Catholic Bible, translated primarily by Catholics, for Catholics, from the original languages (not translated from the Vulgate or French nor translated by Protestants and ‘turned into’ a Catholic Bible).

How can we, as laypeople, be so arrogant as to say we know better than our Church who gave us the NABRE? It doesn’t matter if it’s ‘perfect’. No translation ever will be. So why not just REST in our Church’s desicisions and OBEY our Church and read OUR BIBLE?

Besided the few examples that i see people barking about over and over again all read basically the same way in the RSVCE, the NRSV, and the JB. So why all this fretting???

i know i will probably get flamed for this, but i just don’t understand the venom towards the Bible given to us by OUR Church…

 

[CalCatholic]

Am i in the minority on this? But as far as i know, the NABRE is the only Catholic Bible, translated primarily by Catholics, for Catholics, from the original languages (not translated from the Vulgate or French nor translated by Protestants and ‘turned into’ a Catholic Bible).

How can we, as laypeople, be so arrogant as to say we know better than our Church who gave us the NABRE? It doesn’t matter if it’s ‘perfect’. No translation ever will be. So why not just REST in our Church’s desicisions and OBEY our Church and read OUR BIBLE?

Besided the few examples that i see people barking about over and over again all read basically the same way in the RSVCE, the NRSV, and the JB. So why all this fretting???

i know i will probably get flamed for this, but i just don’t understand the venom towards the Bible given to us by OUR Church…

I like the NABRE, and use it every day! There are a few of us on this forum who have this view, those who don’t like it are just louder!

 

[po18guy]

Am i in the minority on this? But as far as i know, the NABRE is the only Catholic Bible, translated primarily by Catholics, for Catholics, from the original languages (not translated from the Vulgate or French nor translated by Protestants and ‘turned into’ a Catholic Bible).

How can we, as laypeople, be so arrogant as to say we know better than our Church who gave us the NABRE? It doesn’t matter if it’s ‘perfect’. No translation ever will be. So why not just REST in our Church’s desicisions and OBEY our Church and read OUR BIBLE?

Besided the few examples that i see people barking about over and over again all read basically the same way in the RSVCE, the NRSV, and the JB. So why all this fretting???

i know i will probably get flamed for this, but i just don’t understand the venom towards the Bible given to us by OUR Church…

I know that, as Catholics, we are bound to obedience. BUT, this does in no way remove our responsibility to exercise prudential judgment.

As a translation the NAB/RE is OK. The translation will not lead you away from the Catholic Church, but neither will it lead others TO the Catholic Church. Jimmy Akin, who lives the scriptures, calls it a “squishy translation.” I call it the Pillsbury Doughboy of bibles.

Mary is no longer full of grace. Actually, she is less blessed than in some protestant bibles.
Hell no! Gehenna? What is that, and how does today’s Catholic relate to a valley near Jerusalem where fires burnt? Is “hell” really that offensive or frightening to use in print?
Paul apparently no longer has the authority to forgive sin in the person of Christ, but only in His presence. What about outside of His presence?
I no longer read at an 8th grade level.

Fact: the NAB was done with the substantial involvement of secular theologians. Based on the fruits of their labors, it appears that some of them were/are modernist secular theologians. A Presbyterian pastor was even consulted! IMO, a King James Version is far better for demonstrating Catholic doctrine.

Those notes…

They intimate, in at least one instance, that portions of the NT are simply fabricated - that the NT is a wonderful literary work and edifying to read, but just might not be completely true as it is written.

While the USCCB profits from NAB/RE sales as an “approved” (and it is) version, no Catholic bible that has ever been approved (Douay-Rheims, Jerusalem, Confraternity, Knox etc.) has ever been “de-approved.” All are just as valid as ever.

The NAB had to be modified before it was acceptable for liturgical use. We cannot buy that version. Why is this?

I examine the NAB/RE from a spiritual as well as a textual aspect. In that regard, I find it wanting.

A challenge: look at the notes and book introductions in a D-R or Confraternity bible. They are clear, compelling and confidence inspiring. Many of the notes in the NAB/RE are quite the opposite. That sometimes stark difference causes me to wonder if God changed in 1970.

Now, the scathing replies…

 

[mccorm45]

I know that, as Catholics, we are bound to obedience. BUT, this does in no way remove our responsibility to exercise prudential judgment.

As a translation the NAB/RE is OK. The translation will not lead you away from the Catholic Church, but neither will it lead others TO the Catholic Church. Jimmy Akin, who lives the scriptures, calls it a “squishy translation.” I call it the Pillsbury Doughboy of bibles.

Mary is no longer full of grace. Actually, she is less blessed than in some protestant bibles.
Hell no! Gehenna? What is that, and how does today’s Catholic relate to a valley near Jerusalem where fires burnt? Is “hell” really that offensive or frightening to use in print?
Paul apparently no longer has the authority to forgive sin in the person of Christ, but only in His presence. What about outside of His presence?
I no longer read at an 8th grade level.

Fact: the NAB was done with the substantial involvement of secular theologians. Based on the fruits of their labors, it appears that some of them were/are modernist secular theologians. A Presbyterian pastor was even consulted! IMO, a King James Version is far better for demonstrating Catholic doctrine.

Those notes…

They intimate, in at least one instance, that portions of the NT are simply fabricated - that the NT is a wonderful literary work and edifying to read, but just might not be completely true as it is written.

While the USCCB profits from NAB/RE sales as an “approved” (and it is) version, no Catholic bible that has ever been approved (Douay-Rheims, Jerusalem, Confraternity, Knox etc.) has ever been “de-approved.” All are just as valid as ever.

The NAB had to be modified before it was acceptable for liturgical use. We cannot buy that version. Why is this?

I examine the NAB/RE from a spiritual as well as a textual aspect. In that regard, I find it wanting.

A challenge: look at the notes and book introductions in a D-R or Confraternity bible. They are clear, compelling and confidence inspiring. Many of the notes in the NAB/RE are quite the opposite. That sometimes stark difference caused me to wonder of God had somehow changed in 1970.

Now, the scathing replies…

No scathing replies, I just disagree with most of your critiques. I feel the most reckless of them is: “Fact: the NAB was done with the substantial involvement of secular theologians. Based on the fruits of their labors, it appears that some of them were/are modernist secular theologians. A Presbyterian pastor was even consulted! IMO, a King James Version is far better for demonstrating Catholic doctrine.” Would you like to show “facts” to back up that assertion? In particular the secular theologians that you speak of.

And in regards to having a Protestant as part of the translating team, your issue is with the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum:

1. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.** And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.**