P
PaulJason
Guest
From the link above…
This is a date and statement I have seen all over the place. Can anyone give documented evidence to back it up?
Or maybe where this idea is coming from?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
This is a date and statement I have seen all over the place. Can anyone give documented evidence to back it up?
Or maybe where this idea is coming from?
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I’ve heard various reasons as to why this was the case. Mostly because unauthorized translations were pretty bad (case in point: Luther’s translation added words to scripture to support his beliefs in sola Fide), so the literate people could see connections between the Mass and scripture, because it’s easier to make copies of the Bible if you only have one version you need to reproduce, etc.
Though often, the people who cite this fact assume some malicious intent, i.e. that the Church wanted to prevent people from reading scripture. This is the opposite of the case. Almost all literate people could read Latin in the Middle Ages. The proliferation of Latin only declined when German became the lingua franca in the late 1700s.
Though often, the people who cite this fact assume some malicious intent, i.e. that the Church wanted to prevent people from reading scripture. This is the opposite of the case. Almost all literate people could read Latin in the Middle Ages. The proliferation of Latin only declined when German became the lingua franca in the late 1700s.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
The link you provided is not Catholic and may not have Catholic material documented correctlyFrom the link above…
This is a date and statement I have seen all over the place. Can anyone give documented evidence to back it up?
Or maybe where this idea is coming from?
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Catholic Bible scholars have always studied and used the Bible in languages other than Latin. For example, there are Greek manuscripts from every time period. Also, the Catholic Churches in the East have always used languages other than Latin (Greek, Aramaic, etc.) They possessed and used the Scriptures in their own languages, including during the Mass.
The Latin Scriptural tradition has a special place in the Church, as the Council of Trent taught, because of constant and widespread useage. But other languages and Scriptural traditions also have important places.
The Latin Scriptural tradition has a special place in the Church, as the Council of Trent taught, because of constant and widespread useage. But other languages and Scriptural traditions also have important places.
J
Jehuty_X
Guest
// seriously, i would like to know what corruption and inaccuracy (as stated on that website and by some people) does the latin vulgate have?
G
Godfollower
Guest
You need to know about a book by Loraine Boetner, Roman Catholicism. Boetner was a Protestant apologist who wrote this book for the purpose of attacking the validity of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, his method of argumentation relied heavily on – to put it charitably – demonstrably incorrect accusations and fundamentally inaccurate descriptions of Catholic doctrine (e.g., he claims that the Council of Valencia forbade the Bible to laymen in 1229, even though there was no such council; he claims that the Mass is a “re-Crucifixion” of Christ; etc.).
One of his allegations is that the Church “imposed” the Latin language in 600 A.D. His point was apparently to make his readers think that the Church was hiding the liturgy from the common people (you know, because Latin is hard). The problem with that claim, of course, is that Latin was widely spoken in Europe at the time, so holding the liturgy in Latin would not have prevented the people from understanding it.
A similar argument is often made that, in Europe during the Middle Ages, the Bible was only kept in Latin. Although I believe that factual statement to be false, it would not matter if it were true: Protestants who make this complaint apparently always forget that, in Europe during the Middle Ages, everyone who could read their own language could also read Latin.
The thing is, Boetner’s “scholarship” has been disproven time and time again. But certain anti-Catholic apologists keep printing and disseminating it, even though they clearly know by now that its claims are false. So Catholics keep encountering these comments over and over again and having to refute them over and over again.
One of his allegations is that the Church “imposed” the Latin language in 600 A.D. His point was apparently to make his readers think that the Church was hiding the liturgy from the common people (you know, because Latin is hard). The problem with that claim, of course, is that Latin was widely spoken in Europe at the time, so holding the liturgy in Latin would not have prevented the people from understanding it.
A similar argument is often made that, in Europe during the Middle Ages, the Bible was only kept in Latin. Although I believe that factual statement to be false, it would not matter if it were true: Protestants who make this complaint apparently always forget that, in Europe during the Middle Ages, everyone who could read their own language could also read Latin.
The thing is, Boetner’s “scholarship” has been disproven time and time again. But certain anti-Catholic apologists keep printing and disseminating it, even though they clearly know by now that its claims are false. So Catholics keep encountering these comments over and over again and having to refute them over and over again.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
ok, but was do those claims of yours have to do with the accuracy, validity, or truthfulness of the referenced sources?The link you provided is not Catholic and may not have Catholic material documented correctly
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The most obvious and famous example I know of is translating Exodus to say that Moses’ face “had horns” rather than “shone.” This error has been preserved through the centuries in art.// seriously, i would like to know what corruption and inaccuracy (as stated on that website and by some people) does the latin vulgate have?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
You need to know about a book by Loraine Boetner, Roman Catholicism. Boetner was a Protestant apologist who wrote this book for the purpose of attacking the validity of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, his method of argumentation relied heavily on – to put it charitably – demonstrably incorrect accusations and fundamentally inaccurate descriptions of Catholic doctrine (e.g., he claims that the Council of Valencia forbade the Bible to laymen in 1229, even though there was no such council; he claims that the Mass is a “re-Crucifixion” of Christ; etc.).
One of his allegations is that the Church “imposed” the Latin language in 600 A.D. His point was apparently to make his readers think that the Church was hiding the liturgy from the common people (you know, because Latin is hard). The problem with that claim, of course, is that Latin was widely spoken in Europe at the time, so holding the liturgy in Latin would not have prevented the people from understanding it.
A similar argument is often made that, in Europe during the Middle Ages, the Bible was only kept in Latin. Although I believe that factual statement to be false, it would not matter if it were true: Protestants who make this complaint apparently always forget that, in Europe during the Middle Ages, everyone who could read their own language could also read Latin.
The thing is, Boetner’s “scholarship” has been disproven time and time again. But certain anti-Catholic apologists keep printing and disseminating it, even though they clearly know by now that its claims are false. So Catholics keep encountering these comments over and over again and having to refute them over and over again.
Boettner’s source may have been this book, from 1854:
or that on which it relies - see footnote on p. 104
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
The Council of Trent will agree with me on the accuracy of the Vulgate and so does the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII. It was under his direction that led to the newer translation while still respecting the only err free in moral and doctrinal matters, the Latin Vulgate. You can look at these documents on the Vatican’s website to check out its accuracy. You’ll want session IV for the Council of Trent documents. Why rely on a Protestant source for your information on the accuracy of the Vulgate???ok, but was do those claims of yours have to do with the accuracy, validity, or truthfulness of the referenced sources?
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
The Council of Trent begs to differ and so does Divino Afflante SpirituThe most obvious and famous example I know of is translating Exodus to say that Moses’ face “had horns” rather than “shone.” This error has been preserved through the centuries in art.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Begs to differ with what? Sorry, not sure I understand. Thanks.The Council of Trent begs to differ and so does Divino Afflante Spiritu
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Then read the Council of Trent documents from session IV and read Divino Afflante Spiritu. They are both on the Vatican’s website. You will see that the Vulgate is err free in moral and doctrinal matters and no other Bible has that distinction. That proves its accuracy. Don’t deny it.Begs to differ with what? Sorry, not sure I understand. Thanks.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I never said the Vulgate was in error regarding morals or doctrine. You’re either reading something into what I said or referring to someone else.Then read the Council of Trent documents from session IV and read Divino Afflante Spiritu. They are both on the Vatican’s website. You will see that the Vulgate is err free in moral and doctrinal matters and no other Bible has that distinction. That proves its accuracy. Don’t deny it.
The documents you refer to* do not *say that no other Bible is free from moral/doctrinal error. That’s simply not what the Church teaches.
The Council of Trent session documents are widely available online but I don’t think they’re on the Vatican web site (if anyone knows differently and can provide a link that would help).
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Show me a document where another Bible is err free in doctrinal and moral matters. YOU can’t. Both documents talk about that the Vulgate being the only err free Bible in doctrinal and moral matters. If there was another (which there is not) these documents would have included them at the time they were written.I never said the Vulgate was in error regarding morals or doctrine. You’re either reading something into what I said or referring to someone else.
The documents you refer to* do not *say that no other Bible is free from moral/doctrinal error. That’s simply not what the Church teaches.
The Council of Trent session documents are widely available online but I don’t think they’re on the Vatican web site (if anyone knows differently and can provide a link that would help).
Maybe you missed this when reading Divino Afflante Spiritu
Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No, I didn’t miss it. It does not say the Vulgate is the ONLY Bible free of error, just that the Vulgate is free from moral and doctrinal error. Please, read again what you yourself highlighted. The word “only” is conspicuously absent. As Pius XII wrote. Again, if you have a source that says what you claim, please share it.Show me a document where another Bible is err free in doctrinal and moral matters. YOU can’t. Both documents talk about that the Vulgate being the only err free Bible in doctrinal and moral matters. If there was another (which there is not) these documents would have included them at the time they were written.
Maybe you missed this when reading Divino Afflante Spiritu
Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.
If you would read all of DAS, you will note that Pius XII acknowledges that there are other valid translations, true translations, not in Latin. There are plenty of Catholics for whom Latin never was the language used, and yet they have valid Scriptures. Please, read all of what Pius XII wrote.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Oops–and meant to add–for those Catholics who never used Latin and still don’t their Scripture translations are of course free from moral and doctrinal error.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Yes there are other valid translations in other languages. The Douay-Rheims is one of them and so was the Confraternity. The Ronald Knox was next in line, but not yet complete. The purpose DAS was to encourage to translate from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. No other Bible is mentioned of being err free. You have not shown me where another Bible is err free in moral and doctrinal err.No, I didn’t miss it. It does not say the Vulgate is the ONLY Bible free of error, just that the Vulgate is free from moral and doctrinal error. Please, read again what you yourself highlighted. The word “only” is conspicuously absent. As Pius XII wrote. Again, if you have a source that says what you claim, please share it.
If you would read all of DAS, you will note that Pius XII acknowledges that there are other valid translations, true translations, not in Latin. There are plenty of Catholics for whom Latin never was the language used, and yet they have valid Scriptures. Please, read all of what Pius XII wrote.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
No they are not. They have an approval from a Bishops committee, Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur signifying that they are acceptable to read for Catholics. What is your problem with the Vulgate anyway??? Is it not good enough for you?? I can tell you why the NAB, JB, RSV-CE, NRSV, NJB are not good enough for me.Oops–and meant to add–for those Catholics who never used Latin and still don’t their Scripture translations are of course free from moral and doctrinal error.
N
NHInsider
Guest
Moses’ horns or lack thereof are not a matter of faith and morals.The Council of Trent begs to differ and so does Divino Afflante Spiritu
And the Bible is not a catechism.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.