Hath The Church Erred?

[Pax]

Thank you Mtr01. Those are great references.

I would also add that the Church at the time of Trent had 14 complete printed editions of the Catholic Bible in German. Parallel with this in time were 11 Italian translations, 10 French, 2 Bohemian, 1 Flemish, and 1 Russian. There were also old English translations such as those translated by Aelfric, Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury from 994 to1005, who had translated the 1st seven books and the Book of Job into old English. Between 721 and 901, various writers (i.e. Bede, Eadfrith, Alcuin, and King Alfred are believed to have translated parts or all of the bible into ‘‘Old English.’’

All of these translations had the blessing of the Catholic Church. I would think that this should temper, at least to some degree, the view that Trent’s statements should be taken in such an absolute and strict sense. Basically, Trent is saying that the Vulgate is the official version of the Church and that competing non-Catholic versions were not acceptable.

If Trent was meaning anything more rigid than this, I find it hard to understand how they would have published the first modern English Translation, the Douay Rheims NT in 1582 or its OT counterpart in 1610. I feel comfortable with the situation and see no real problem. Admittedly, I did not participate in the Council so I do not know what was going on inside the heads of those that were there. While there may be some thorough historical data on all of this, I haven’t read it and really can’t comment further. Perhaps others can join in with additional data.

 

[RBushlow]

ferdgoodfellow:

convincing argument in favor of sola scriptura is that the popes and councils have erred and contradicted themselves and thus proven themselves fallible.

How does an argument for sola scripture indicate that people cannot error? Also, I assume that you do understand that papal infallibility is only in matters of faith and morals when spoken ex-cathedra.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Mornin’ Mtr and Pax,

I think you’ve helped me zero in on the key issue here: Did Trent define the Vulgate as impeccable or without error? Upon reflection, this does seem to be a stretch, as you say, for these reasons:

1. Context of Prot Reformation and all that is entails
2. The fact that numerous other approved translations existed in vernacular languages.
3. Also, putting ourselves in the mind of a person at the time, we know that folks did not think that the Vulgate was as good as the originals which were lost. It was “authentic” but not inerrant. Authentic in the sense of “the best we got” and what we will use teaching, preaching, etc.

Mindful of the very fallible and human process that led to the Vulgate as it existed then, it does seem pretty doubtful that Trent would intend to say that the LV is impeccable and the translation for all time. This is esp. true in view of the fact that the LV was itself a translation from copies of copies…

I guess what I am starting to sense is the Trent was issuing more of disciplinary canon rather than doctrinal one?

Have a blessed Lord’s Day

Cordially,

Ferd

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

RBushlow:

How does an argument for sola scripture indicate that people cannot error? Also, I assume that you do understand that papal infallibility is only in matters of faith and morals when spoken ex-cathedra.

Hey RB,

Infallibility is also attributed to the dogmatic statements (canons) of Trent. These can’t be wrong. That’s why we have to take seriously allegations that the teachings of Trent have been reversed. If it could be so proven, then all us Catlicks are in a bad spot. Really no better off than, say, da Luderans. Then all we would be left with in Christianity is a bunch of competing traditions, all fallible and with no unique claims for truth and authority.

Cordially,

Ferd

 

[Robin_L.in_TX]

All this stuff about 1 John and authenticity sounds really erudite, but looking at the argument of authenticity in historical context…

Seems to me the council didn’t want Luther adding words and ripping books out of the Bible. I’m a new student to apologetics and Scripture study and am sure I just miss the importance of commas and such, especially in view of the fact that when John wrote, there were no chapter headings. Does anyone know if the koine Greek, (Did John write the original in Greek?) makes use of commas?

Also, don’t forget that St. Jerome had many extant copies of the Scriptures in various languages that he referred to in making his translations…

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX

 

[CANman]

ferdgoodfellow:

Hey Pax,

Let’s look at this part from Trent again:

"Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. "

What does it mean to be “held as authentic?” Genuine? Genuine means the real thing. Kind of suggest to me that the Council regarded the translation to be without error, which we know wasn’t the case. e.g. 1 John 5:7

Ferd

I think we are reading far too much into this quote. we are “Straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel.”

Look at the quote again. It says that since the Vulgate was has been in use for so long, we must accept it as an authoritative translation. Since this period of time saw so many ‘other’ translations with many errors, I would think the council was trying to reassure the faithful of the faithfulness of the Vulgate. The fact that there are errors in it is beside the point of what I believe the Council was saying.
They were not saying that in the future better translations could arise, but in thier day and age the Vulgate was THE authoritative Bible.
We must remember that Church documents MUST be read with the mind of the Church, not our own.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The problem is that of looking at the Latin Vulgate through Protestant viewpoint as to what “authentic” means. When attempting to exegete Catholic councilar decrees, they ought to interpret Catholic documents as a Catholic would.

To a Catholic, the Latin Vulgate is juridically authentic, not critically authentic. The Church has never declared any manuscript to be critically authentic, that is, exactly as it would appear in the original Scripture manuscripts if they were extant. Instead the Church declared that the Latin Vulgate was authentic, but juridically so. That is, with the aid of Sacred Tradition and as interpreted by the Holy Catholic Church, the Latin Vulgate is truly to be understood as the inspired and inerrant word of God, with all its parts (eg. its version of Daniel, its version of Esther, etc.)

Protestant scholars understand the difference, even if your Protestant antagonists don’t. I had an online discussion with a Calvinist PhD and he quickly understood the difference between juridic and critical authenticity. Why? Because they have to deal with the same problem. They may declare, for instance, the KJV to be authentically called the Holy Bible, affirming that it is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. However, they also know that there are thousands of manuscripts, not one of them is the original, and so they know that not one version extant is critically authentic. They understand they have to place some trust in translators, redactors, and copyists of Sacred Scripture, in if they favor a set of manuscripts over another (eg. Masoretic vs. Septuagint). Textual criticism, in other words, is a fairly “soft” science that amounts to a lot of educated guessing.

 

[trogiah]

ferdgoodfellow:

Hey RB,

Infallibility is also attributed to the dogmatic statements (canons) of Trent. These can’t be wrong. That’s why we have to take seriously allegations that the teachings of Trent have been reversed. If it could be so proven, then all us Catlicks are in a bad spot. Really no better off than, say, da Luderans. Then all we would be left with in Christianity is a bunch of competing traditions, all fallible and with no unique claims for truth and authority.

Cordially,

Ferd

I contend that perhaps we really wouldn’t be so bad off as you suggest if we considered the possibility of errors in the Council of Trent, or other Church teachings.

As long as we have an abiding belief in Christianity that Christ is the promised Messiah, the Son of the Living God, (I can’t imagine any Christian denomination denying that and keeping any credibility in the world) Then we still have a great treasure.

The basic teachings of Jesus - which reflect or sometimes clarify the Ten Commandments, are univerally accepted. If people followed them, regardless of what tradition they called their own, the world would be a beautiful place.

I was raised Catholic and have never felt an inclination to leave. Not because I believe all Popes and Councils, in their most solemn moments, are absolutely and unquestionably right, but because the bishop of Rome has, I believe, inherited the chair of Peter.

Peter wasn’t always right. (he was most wrong just after Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom. In the Scriptures immediately after that event Jesus is calling Peter a Satan.)

But Jesus must have felt that the Church on Earth needed a human leader, because he didn’t take the keys back.

I believe the tradition of the Catholic Church can be a great source of strength and stability - especially in the raising of children, but in the end, following that tradition is not as important as following the example of Jesus.

Two great recent popes have stated regarding the many different denominations of Christianity, “That which seperates us believers in Christ is far less than what unites us.”

I believe this to be true.

(I see the irony of quoting popes to justy the proposition that believing what popes teach is not the most important thing. Honestly I put the quote in because I firmly believe it is true)

My main point is this - We can be very good Christians and Catholics, comfortable in our faith and our traditions, without having to prove that Popes and Church Councils have never made a mistake - even in their most solemn of teachings.

peace,

-Jim

 

[CANman]

trogiah:

Peter wasn’t always right. (he was most wrong just after Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom. In the Scriptures immediately after that event Jesus is calling Peter a Satan.)

-Jim

I think this is a common misconseption. Jesus did not give Peter the keys here, but later in John 21 when he is told to feed all of Jesus’ sheep… Jesus still had much more time on earth. He is the ultimate key holder. Peter holds them in His absence.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

itsjustdave1988:

The problem is that of looking at the Latin Vulgate through Protestant viewpoint as to what “authentic” means. When attempting to exegete Catholic councilar decrees, they ought to interpret Catholic documents as a Catholic would.

My Prot correspendents are highly suspicious of this argument. They find it too self-serving and too much like folks are re-interpreting in ways they find convenient after the fact. I think the only way to make a convincing argument along these lines would be to show that the Church had a history of understanding things in a certain way at that time.

To a Catholic, the Latin Vulgate is juridically authentic, not critically authentic. The Church has never declared any manuscript to be critically authentic, that is, exactly as it would appear in the original Scripture manuscripts if they were extant. Instead the Church declared that the Latin Vulgate was authentic, but juridically so. That is, with the aid of Sacred Tradition and as interpreted by the Holy Catholic Church, the Latin Vulgate is truly to be understood as the inspired and inerrant word of God, with all its parts (eg. its version of Daniel, its version of Esther, etc.)

Protestant scholars understand the difference, even if your Protestant antagonists don’t. I had an online discussion with a Calvinist PhD and he quickly understood the difference between juridic and critical authenticity. Why? Because they have to deal with the same problem. They may declare, for instance, the KJV to be authentically called the Holy Bible, affirming that it is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. However, they also know that there are thousands of manuscripts, not one of them is the original, and so they know that not one version extant is critically authentic. They understand they have to place some trust in translators, redactors, and copyists of Sacred Scripture, in if they favor a set of manuscripts over another (eg. Masoretic vs. Septuagint). Textual criticism, in other words, is a fairly “soft” science that amounts to a lot of educated guessing.

I think this makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

Cordially,

ferd