Latin Vulgate Only?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dsully
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dsully

Guest
Hello,

I am an RCIA candidate. At my last meeting, someone said something to the effect that the Latin Vulgate translation is the official Scripture of the Catholic Church. The way he phrased it, it sounded like he was saying that the Catholic Church teaches that the Latin Vulgate translation is inspired in a way that other translations are not, much in the way that some Protestants will claim that the King James Version has special authority. Is this truly a Catholic teaching? From what I can read online, it looks like the Church may have held this view at one time (in the Council of Trent era), but do they still hold it?

Thanks,

Dan
 
As an RCIA instructor, I highly recommend the Vulgate.

May God the Father watch over you, may Christ the Lord strengthen you, and may the Holy Ghost be upon you †

FYI - a short introduction to Saint Jerome

saints.sqpn.com/saint-jerome/
 
It is not a Catholic teaching. At best the Vulgate was the “official” source for the Latin liturgy. This does not mean the translation itself was considered inspired, merely that it was sufficiently free of deficiencies for the church’s purposes. For consistency, other translations would not have been allowed.

Only the original Greek and Hebrew autographs (originally authored documents) are considered inspired.
 
The church says of the Vulgate in the fourth session of council of Trent:

Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of the Sacred Books said:
"Moreover, this 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"
Click to expand...

Meaning, not that it is more or differently inspired, only that it is tried and true and cannot be rejected by the faithful. It still holds pride of place as “the” catholic bible, and I personally prefer it and translations based on it to the modern versions.
 
The Latin Vulgate is the official Bible of the Catholic Church.

I’m not sure what implications that has in terms of authority over other translations.
 
dsully said:
Hello,

I am an RCIA candidate. At my last meeting, someone said something to the effect that the Latin Vulgate translation is the official Scripture of the Catholic Church. The way he phrased it, it sounded like he was saying that the Catholic Church teaches that the Latin Vulgate translation is inspired in a way that other translations are not, much in the way that some Protestants will claim that the King James Version has special authority. Is this truly a Catholic teaching? From what I can read online, it looks like the Church may have held this view at one time (in the Council of Trent era), but do they still hold it?

Thanks,

Dan
Click to expand...
That is an interesting question. You are correct. But two things to keep in mind. One of the posts above said that the English translation used in Mass is an acceptible translation. That is correct. Whatever translations the Church approves of can be regarded as Inspired. That means that the Word of God in the Old Testament and New are rendered accurately and reliably as far as the Truth is concerned and there are no errors of doctrine present. There are several, at least a dozen approved English texts. The same for most other languages.

What does " Official Bible " mean then. It means that when Biblical commentary is being written or other special Theological or Liturgical tasks are being done at the request of the Pope or when official documents are being prepared by the various offices of the Vatican and a Biblical reference is needed, then the Official Vulgate is to be regarded as the preferred text. I know the Pope made that request a few years ago when it was decided to update the prayers for the Mass.
👍
 
The Church is very much for biblical scholarship and accuracy in both original texts and in translation.

From that point then I would believe that while the Church would hold the Vulgate in great reverence, it would not claim it to be the definitive text.
 
triumphguy said:
The Church is very much for biblical scholarship and accuracy in both original texts and in translation.

From that point then I would believe that while the Church would hold the Vulgate in great reverence, it would not claim it to be the definitive text.
Click to expand...
As I said the current official bible is a MODIFIED version of the Vulgate. The new edition is quite accurate from what I understand.
 
dsully said:
Hello,

I am an RCIA candidate. At my last meeting, someone said something to the effect that the Latin Vulgate translation is the official Scripture of the Catholic Church. The way he phrased it, it sounded like he was saying that the Catholic Church teaches that the Latin Vulgate translation is inspired in a way that other translations are not, much in the way that some Protestants will claim that the King James Version has special authority. Is this truly a Catholic teaching? From what I can read online, it looks like the Church may have held this view at one time (in the Council of Trent era), but do they still hold it?

Thanks,

Dan
Click to expand...
e

I love the Latin Vulgate but I dont recommend only the Vulgate. Take in account what others have said. I do recommend the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims also one may want to consider the Ignatius Bible
 
Hi dsully,

The Council of Trent did not pronounce on the quality of the translation. It merely affirmed that the Vulgate could not be challenged on a doctrinal basis. In other words, even if a sentence is wrongly translated, it is doctrinally correct. This is because it has long been used by the Church who has Christ’s guarantee that She cannot go wrong on doctrine.

The proof that the Vulgate is not as sacrosanct as some would have it, is that the Church has published a new Vulgate (Nova Vulgata) based on the original one but corrected on the basis of the latest biblical science.

Does this answer your question?

Verbum
 
Verbum said:
Hi dsully,

The Council of Trent did not pronounce on the quality of the translation. It merely affirmed that the Vulgate could not be challenged on a doctrinal basis. In other words, even if a sentence is wrongly translated, it is doctrinally correct. This is because it has long been used by the Church who has Christ’s guarantee that She cannot go wrong on doctrine.

The proof that the Vulgate is not as sacrosanct as some would have it, is that the Church has published a new Vulgate (Nova Vulgata) based on the original one but corrected on the basis of the latest biblical science.

Does this answer your question?

Verbum
Click to expand...
I already said all that…
 
Yes, I would say that my question has basically been answered. Thank you all for your contributions. Of course, feel free to discuss the topic more if you’d like.
 
dsully said:
Hello,

I am an RCIA candidate. At my last meeting, someone said something to the effect that the Latin Vulgate translation is the official Scripture of the Catholic Church. The way he phrased it, it sounded like he was saying that the Catholic Church teaches that the Latin Vulgate translation is inspired in a way that other translations are not, much in the way that some Protestants will claim that the King James Version has special authority. Is this truly a Catholic teaching? From what I can read online, it looks like the Church may have held this view at one time (in the Council of Trent era), but do they still hold it?

Thanks,

Dan
Click to expand...
Not true. The Vulgate is an archaic translation. The NAB is used in Mass. The RSV is a fine version for reading and it’s the one I recommend.
 
Hi Inego,

I already said all that…

You’re not accusing me of plagiarism… are you?🙂

In my answers, I address directly the person asking the question and I try to pay attention to the question and the point of view of the questionner. I also open the door to more discussions by asking a reaction from the questionner. Often , I summarize what has been said by others to give the questionner a palatable package to digest. It is only the second time in 15 years of forum discussions that I have been criticized. I’m sorry if I seemed to invade your territory.
 
I’ll let you two work that one out…but I guess it’s no big deal to me to have the same posted information twice. If anything it confirms the answer.

I hope this hasn’t caused an argument or anything…

Maybe we should just consider the post closed?
 
Verbum said:
Hi Inego,

I already said all that…

You’re not accusing me of plagiarism… are you?🙂

In my answers, I address directly the person asking the question and I try to pay attention to the question and the point of view of the questionner. I also open the door to more discussions by asking a reaction from the questionner. Often , I summarize what has been said by others to give the questionner a palatable package to digest. It is only the second time in 15 years of forum discussions that I have been criticized. I’m sorry if I seemed to invade your territory.
Click to expand...
No problem; I just wanted to move my post count from 666.😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top