Latin the Only Language

[NHInsider]

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.

Not if the translations in question were written after Trent and Pius XII, obviously. Or should I understand you to say that there can never be an improved translation, no matter what the Church teaches?

Honestly though, if you want to be a literalist Fundamentalist you’re in the wrong Church (which is patently silly since there is only One Church! )

 

[tobinatorstark]

Not if the translations in question were written after Trent and Pius XII, obviously. Or should I understand you to say that there can never be an improved translation, no matter what the Church teaches?

Honestly though, if you want to be a literalist Fundamentalist you’re in the wrong Church (which is patently silly since there is only One Church! )

Any translation can be improved on. Still the fact remains that the Latin Vulgate is the only Bible to be declared err free on moral and doctrinal. I cannot find any documents that state any other Catholic Bible is err free in those aspects. Do I use a translation other than the Vulgate? Yes I do. I use the Douay-Rheims every day and the Ronald Knox NT on a regular basis. I also use the JB, RSV-CE and NAB on a occasional basis.All I am asking for is a document that states another translation was declared err free in moral and doctrine.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Moses’ horns or lack thereof are not a matter of faith and morals.

And the Bible is not a catechism.

No the Bible isn’t a catechism, but I suggest reading the Bible, Baltimore Catechism 3 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Catechisms should be on equal grounds. God transmits his word in 3 ways, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

 

[jimmy]

Any translation can be improved on. Still the fact remains that the Latin Vulgate is the only Bible to be declared err free on moral and doctrinal. I cannot find any documents that state any other Catholic Bible is err free in those aspects. Do I use a translation other than the Vulgate? Yes I do. I use the Douay-Rheims every day and the Ronald Knox NT on a regular basis. I also use the JB, RSV-CE and NAB on a occasional basis.All I am asking for is a document that states another translation was declared err free in moral and doctrine.

Whether it has any blatant errors or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it is a translation and consequently it is less sufficient than the Greek. I would say that the Syriac version is better than the Latin version because it is the language of Christ and consequently it contains a far more accurate perception of the thought. The English is even better than the vulgate because people can understand it. The Latin Vulgate is meaningless any more because no one speaks Latin except for the purpose of reading either Latin Catholic saints writings or for reading the old Latin authors like Cicero. It is irrelevant whether Trent Or Divino Afflante Spiritu supported it or not, it is still a translation.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Whether it has any blatant errors or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it is a translation and consequently it is less sufficient than the Greek. I would say that the Syriac version is better than the Latin version because it is the language of Christ and consequently it contains a far more accurate perception of the thought. The English is even better than the vulgate because people can understand it. The Latin Vulgate is meaningless any more because no one speaks Latin except for the purpose of reading either Latin Catholic saints writings or for reading the old Latin authors like Cicero. It is irrelevant whether Trent Or Divino Afflante Spiritu supported it or not, it is still a translation.

The Latin Vulgate isn’t meaningless since it is official and authentic version the church. Is there a version of the Peshitta approved by the Church??? Non approved versions don’t apply to discussion involving Catholic translations. Although the Peshitta is very accurate and so are Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, let’s keep the discussion to translations approved by the Catholic Church

 

[NHInsider]

No the Bible isn’t a catechism, but I suggest reading the Bible, Baltimore Catechism 3 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Catechisms should be on equal grounds. God transmits his word in 3 ways, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

But no one has ever claimed divine inspiration for the words of the Catechism, even in Latin.

The Catechism on the Scripture:

ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE

I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: “Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men.”

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”.67 “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

So no, I do not think it is proper to regard the Catechism and the Bible as having the same level of authority. Nor does any other Church document have the same status as Scripture. The Bible is unique, as Christ is unique.

 

[jimmy]

The Latin Vulgate isn’t meaningless since it is official and authentic version the church. Is there a version of the Peshitta approved by the Church??? Non approved versions don’t apply to discussion involving Catholic translations. Although the Peshitta is very accurate and so are Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, let’s keep the discussion to translations approved by the Catholic Church

The official version of the scriptures of the Church is the Greek. The value of the Vulgate was in its ability to bring the scriptures to Latin speaking people. The Vulgate is only a translation and it can never be more. It can never become inspired as the Greek is. The Peshitta was approved by the Antiochian Churches and therefore they are approved.

Now if you want to assert that each tradition (those of the Apostolic Churches like Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople are what I am thinking of here) is inspired by God and consequently also the translations of those traditions are inspired that might be a very interesting discussion worth pursuing. But it wouldn’t be inspired because Rome approved of it but because the Holy Spirit guided it in its development. Maybe it could be established that there is a strong association between the tradition and the scriptural tradition and so the translation, even in its translational oddities, has some sense of inspiration. If this were your assertion I would probably agree with you. This perspective would come with a strong Pneumatology.

 

[jimmy]

No the Bible isn’t a catechism, but I suggest reading the Bible, Baltimore Catechism 3 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Catechisms should be on equal grounds. God transmits his word in 3 ways, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

The Scriptures and the Catechism can not be put on the same level. As Pope Benedict once said, scripture is the soul of theology. You can not do theology without it. The Catechism on the other hand holds no such place. But you must interpret scripture within the Tradition of the Church. And in that sense maybe the catechism might be helpful. But so would the sermons of St. Augustine or the Homilies of St. John Chrysostom or the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria or other saints. Reading these saints can give a person the framework through which to interpret the scriptrues. The liturgy holds a special place in the life of the Church and so being familiar with it is necessary for the interpretation of the scriptures. Being acquainted with the faith is necessary for a proper interpretation of the scriptures.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

I have no problem with the Vulgate. Please, stop misreading me or if you’re not sure about something I typed ask me for clarification. Your reading into my comments and thinly veiled accusations are not helpful.

Actually, the question should go to you: what do you have against other translations? I have nothing against he Vulgate or any other translation the Church uses. You, on the other hand, don’t like all the versions the Church uses. Which is fine, you are free to like/dislike any version. The Church uses the NAB and NRSV at Mass, the Church sponsored the original Jerusalem Bible translation effort (primarily the work of the Dominicans), I know many Catholics prefer the RSV vs. newer editions (Ignatius Press has a very popular version I recently was able to get a copy of) and so on…I have no problem with any of the versions you note including the Vulgate.

Go to any Catholic bookstore or website, see what Bibles are available. Open one for yourself if you need to be convinced that they are acceptable to the Church. The burden of proof is not on those of us who accept all the versions the Church uses, but rather on those who would seek to limit or restrict what the Church teaches. You are free to choose what versions are good enough for you. The Church is likewise free to determine what versions are good enough for Catholics in general. The Church does not limit truth to only the Vulgate. Go to Mass. Go to any religious education program or Catholic school. I’m willing to bet they are not using the Vulgate (not that it would be a problem if they did). Are they all wrong? Are Catholics praying and teaching in error because we don’t use the Vulgate in liturgy and approved catechetical programs?

By the way, if the Vulgate is, as you claim, the only true Scripture, what the heck did the Church do for the 400 years or so before St. Jerome?

 

[tobinatorstark]

The official version of the scriptures of the Church is the Greek. The value of the Vulgate was in its ability to bring the scriptures to Latin speaking people. The Vulgate is only a translation and it can never be more. It can never become inspired as the Greek is. The Peshitta was approved by the Antiochian Churches and therefore they are approved.

Now if you want to assert that each tradition (those of the Apostolic Churches like Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople are what I am thinking of here) is inspired by God and consequently also the translations of those traditions are inspired that might be a very interesting discussion worth pursuing. But it wouldn’t be inspired because Rome approved of it but because the Holy Spirit guided it in its development. Maybe it could be established that there is a strong association between the tradition and the scriptural tradition and so the translation, even in its translational oddities, has some sense of inspiration. If this were your assertion I would probably agree with you. This perspective would come with a strong Pneumatology.

If the official version of scriptures is Greek, then why did the Council of Trent and Divino Afflante Spiritu refer to the Vulgate as being the authentic version of scripture. Divino Afflante Spiritu only makes reference to it. I want proof that the another Bible version is err free in doctrinal and moral matters and I want proof that Greek is the official language of the Church and its scriptures. Is that so much to ask is a single document that would state either one of them.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I have no problem with the Vulgate. Please, stop misreading me or if you’re not sure about something I typed ask me for clarification. Your reading into my comments and thinly veiled accusations are not helpful.

Actually, the question should go to you: what do you have against other translations? I have nothing against he Vulgate or any other translation the Church uses. You, on the other hand, don’t like all the versions the Church uses. Which is fine, you are free to like/dislike any version. The Church uses the NAB and NRSV at Mass, the Church sponsored the original Jerusalem Bible translation effort (primarily the work of the Dominicans), I know many Catholics prefer the RSV vs. newer editions (Ignatius Press has a very popular version I recently was able to get a copy of) and so on…I have no problem with any of the versions you note including the Vulgate.

Go to any Catholic bookstore or website, see what Bibles are available. Open one for yourself if you need to be convinced that they are acceptable to the Church. The burden of proof is not on those of us who accept all the versions the Church uses, but rather on those who would seek to limit or restrict what the Church teaches. You are free to choose what versions are good enough for you. The Church is likewise free to determine what versions are good enough for Catholics in general. The Church does not limit truth to only the Vulgate. Go to Mass. Go to any religious education program or Catholic school. I’m willing to bet they are not using the Vulgate (not that it would be a problem if they did). Are they all wrong? Are Catholics praying and teaching in error because we don’t use the Vulgate in liturgy and approved catechetical programs?

By the way, if the Vulgate is, as you claim, the only true Scripture, what the heck did the Church do for the 400 years or so before St. Jerome?

What do I have against modern translations. Hmm. Let’s start with the NAB. Matthew 18:11, relegated to a footnote. No actual scripture. Psalm 23 is completely butchered. Psalms in general butchered. Inclusive Language and controversial footnotes that contradict the Catholic teaching. Luke 1:28. It should be Hail, full of grace. It also eliminated blessed art thou among women at the end of it. The RSV-CE. Matthew 18:11 relagated to footnote. Luke 1:28 omits blessed art thou among women. Jerusalem Bible 1:28 mistranslted, and Matthew 18:11 relegated to a footnote. NJB, borderline heretical. NRSV inclusive language. No, No, NO. The Vulgate is not the only true scripture, it is the authentic and official scripture of the Church as decreed by Council of Trent session IV, for all eternity.

 

[diggerdomer]

. The Vulgate is not the only true scripture, it is the authentic and official scripture of the Church as decreed by Council of Trent session IV, for all eternity.

Then why doesn’t the Church use it at Liturgy?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Then why doesn’t the Church use it at Liturgy?

It’s the only thing used in Liturgy at the Vatican.We are not limited to Latin for liturgy. There is no such teaching that Latin is the only language that is to be used. But if you read Session IV, the Latin Vulgate is considered the Authentic version of the Church and it cannot be replaced as the authentic. I don’t limit myself to English or Latin. I personally would like to have Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek myself. If you look at what Vatican II stands for. It brought vernacular language into the Church because there was a need. It doesn’t undermind the authority that the Vulgate holds or violate any teaching whatsoever.We are still to hold the Vulgate in high regard, but by no means is it the only language to be used. It just however is the authentic version of the Church and the Bible that was declared free of any moral or doctrinal matters. That isn’t to say that there might be copyist error. No other version has that distinction, if it has will someone give me proof and prove me wrong.

 

[jimmy]

If the official version of scriptures is Greek, then why did the Council of Trent and Divino Afflante Spiritu refer to the Vulgate as being the authentic version of scripture. Divino Afflante Spiritu only makes reference to it. I want proof that the another Bible version is err free in doctrinal and moral matters and I want proof that Greek is the official language of the Church and its scriptures. Is that so much to ask is a single document that would state either one of them.

As soon as Rome approved of the literary analysis of the scriptures with literary criticism they assumed the pre-eminence of the Greek text. Read Dei Verbum which approves of literary criticism. Divino Afflante Spiritu also strongly approves of it. Providentisimus Deus, an encycical by P. Leo XIII on the study of scripture quotes Augustine in relation to using the Greek and Hebrew in order to clear up ambiguities in the Latin. “For although the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew is substantially rendered by the vulgate, nevertheless, whereever there may be ambiguity or want of clearness, the “examination of older tongues,” to quote St. Augustine, will be usefull and advantagious [Providentissimus Deus 25].” So if this is the case, then there must be some kind of insufficiency of the Latin in relation to the Greek and Hebrew.

And you mention the Council of Trent and Divino Afflante Spiritu. The thing is that Divino Afflante Spiritu mentions Trents emphasis on the Vulgate but makes the point that this is only for the Latin Church. He says specifically:
And if the Tridentine Synod wished that all should use as “authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts but of the Latin versions that were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which “had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.” 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 this use the Vulgate is also 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. [DAS14]
Further, the fact that a translation is approved for the liturgy is a sign that it doesn’t contain doctrinal or moral errors. The purpose of the approval of the Vulgate was to approve of those scriptures which were to be read in the churches during the liturgy. The Vulgate recieves its authority due to its long use in the Latin Church. That same prestige can not be denied to the Peshitta, or to the Coptic scriptures, and most definitely not to the Greek text.

Or how about the letter of the Pontifical Biblical Commission to the bishops of Italy which said regarding the statement of Trent,
The Council of Trent, wishing to counteract the confusion arising from the new translations into Latin and into the vernacular, at that time, first appearing, wished to sanction for public use in the Western Church the common Latin version that had already been used by the Church herself for centuries. By so doing the Council did not wish in any way to minimize the authority of any of those ancient versions that had been produced in the Eastern Church, most especially of the Septuagint used by the Apostles themselves, nor still less the authority of the original texts. For this reason it opposed the desire of one group of Fathers who wished to make the Vulgate the sole authoritative text to the exclusion of all the others.
All the above quotes are from the book The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Officially Catholic Teachings Edited and Translated by Dean P. Bechard

 

[diggerdomer]

It’s the only thing used in Liturgy at the Vatican.We are not limited to Latin for liturgy. There is no such teaching that Latin is the only language that is to be used. But if you read Session IV, the Latin Vulgate is considered the Authentic version of the Church and it cannot be replaced as the authentic. I don’t limit myself to English or Latin. I personally would like to have Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek myself. If you look at what Vatican II stands for. It brought vernacular language into the Church because there was a need. It doesn’t undermind the authority that the Vulgate holds or violate any teaching whatsoever.We are still to hold the Vulgate in high regard, but by no means is it the only language to be used. It just however is the authentic version of the Church and the Bible that was declared free of any moral or doctrinal matters. That isn’t to say that there might be copyist error. No other version has that distinction, if it has will someone give me proof and prove me wrong.

Ok, sorry not to be more clear. For the 99.99% or more of Catholics who do not worship at the Vatican, why doesn’t the Church use the Vulgate at Liturgy?

I’m not disputing your claim about the Vatican liturgy, though I have no idea whether it’s true or not (despite the fact that it’s irrelevant to my question).

Thank you.

 

[jimmy]

It’s the only thing used in Liturgy at the Vatican.We are not limited to Latin for liturgy. There is no such teaching that Latin is the only language that is to be used. But if you read Session IV, the Latin Vulgate is considered the Authentic version of the Church and it cannot be replaced as the authentic. I don’t limit myself to English or Latin. I personally would like to have Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek myself. If you look at what Vatican II stands for. It brought vernacular language into the Church because there was a need. It doesn’t undermind the authority that the Vulgate holds or violate any teaching whatsoever.We are still to hold the Vulgate in high regard, but by no means is it the only language to be used. It just however is the authentic version of the Church and the Bible that was declared free of any moral or doctrinal matters. That isn’t to say that there might be copyist error. No other version has that distinction, if it has will someone give me proof and prove me wrong.

Trent only defends the Vulgate within the Latin Church and it has its authority in the Latin Church. It has zero authority in the Greek Churches or the Syriac Churches. As was mentioned by the PBC to the bishops of Italy it was in response to the confusion that resulted from translations into Latin. The Greek original still maintains its pre-eminent authority.

 

[tobinatorstark]

As soon as Rome approved of the literary analysis of the scriptures with literary criticism they assumed the pre-eminence of the Greek text. Read Dei Verbum which approves of literary criticism. Divino Afflante Spiritu also strongly approves of it. Providentisimus Deus, an encycical by P. Leo XIII on the study of scripture quotes Augustine in relation to using the Greek and Hebrew in order to clear up ambiguities in the Latin. “For although the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew is substantially rendered by the vulgate, nevertheless, whereever there may be ambiguity or want of clearness, the “examination of older tongues,” to quote St. Augustine, will be usefull and advantagious [Providentissimus Deus 25].” So if this is the case, then there must be some kind of insufficiency of the Latin in relation to the Greek and Hebrew.

And you mention the Council of Trent and Divino Afflante Spiritu. The thing is that Divino Afflante Spiritu mentions Trents emphasis on the Vulgate but makes the point that this is only for the Latin Church. He says specifically:
And if the Tridentine Synod wished that all should use as “authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts but of the Latin versions that were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which “had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.” 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 this use the Vulgate is also 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. [DAS14]
Further, the fact that a translation is approved for the liturgy is a sign that it doesn’t contain doctrinal or moral errors. The purpose of the approval of the Vulgate was to approve of those scriptures which were to be read in the churches during the liturgy. The Vulgate recieves its authority due to its long use in the Latin Church. That same prestige can not be denied to the Peshitta, or to the Coptic scriptures, and most definitely not to the Greek text.

Or how about the letter of the Pontifical Biblical Commission to the bishops of Italy which said regarding the statement of Trent,
The Council of Trent, wishing to counteract the confusion arising from the new translations into Latin and into the vernacular, at that time, first appearing, wished to sanction for public use in the Western Church the common Latin version that had already been used by the Church herself for centuries. By so doing the Council did not wish in any way to minimize the authority of any of those ancient versions that had been produced in the Eastern Church, most especially of the Septuagint used by the Apostles themselves, nor still less the authority of the original texts. For this reason it opposed the desire of one group of Fathers who wished to make the Vulgate the sole authoritative text to the exclusion of all the others.
All the above quotes are from the book The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Officially Catholic Teachings Edited and Translated by Dean P. Bechard

very well researched. I agree that we must not ignore the authority of the original texts. Yes the Septuagint was used by the Apostles. Christ even quoted from books such as the book of Wisdom and the book of Ecclesiasticus. The manuscripts are what they are. But in no way does the Vulgate proclaim to be the sole authoritive texts.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Ok, sorry not to be more clear. For the 99.99% or more of Catholics who do not worship at the Vatican, why doesn’t the Church use the Vulgate at Liturgy?

I’m not disputing your claim about the Vatican liturgy, though I have no idea whether it’s true or not (despite the fact that it’s irrelevant to my question).

Thank you.

Latin isn’t required for liturgy. I am simply stating that the Vulgate is the authentic version of the Church. Not to ignore the original languages, the are very accurate. St. Jerome translated the Vulgate from the original languages. Unfortuently his manuscripts don’t exist anymore. The Bishops committee has the right to decide what they want to hear at liturgy. In case you hadn’t known. Here in the US the NAB is what is used in liturgy, but it was modified as the Pope rejected the revised psalms of 1991

 

[NHInsider]

If the official version of scriptures is Greek, then why did the Council of Trent and Divino Afflante Spiritu refer to the Vulgate as being the authentic version of scripture. Divino Afflante Spiritu only makes reference to it. I want proof that the another Bible version is err free in doctrinal and moral matters and I want proof that Greek is the official language of the Church and its scriptures. Is that so much to ask is a single document that would state either one of them.

Any translation that carries the Nihil Obstat is by definition free of error.

The “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.

If the fact that the Vatican does not use the Vulgate in their official documents is not sufficient “proof” for you, you are effectively in your own authority rejecting the last 60+ years of Catholic teaching because the Church has not issued a document you think they should have issued. How does that not make you a de-facto schismatic?

The absence of something does not prove its opposite, this is commonly accepted logic. Why should the Vatican issue a document they do not believe is necessary just to satisfy you?

 

[diggerdomer]

I am simply stating that the Vulgate is the authentic version of the Church.

No, that is not what you “simply” stated. You claimed that the Vulgate was the ONLY Scripture version free of moral and doctrinal error.

As you put it:

… the Vulgate is err free in moral and doctrinal matters and no other Bible has that distinction.

“no other Bible has that distinction”–that’s what you stated and that’s what so many of us are reacting to as incorrect.