Official Catholic Translation?

[omahahomeschool]

Hello,

In his article “Uncomfortable Facts about the Douay-Rheims,” Mr. Akin states that “while the Vulgate in its latest edition—the ‘Neo-Vulgate’ promulgated by John Paul II—has a privileged position based on its use in ecclesiastical documents, the law has changed such that there is no ‘official’ translation of Scripture for the Latin rite.”

Which law was this and when was it changed?
How does this jibe with Scripturarum Thesaurus, in which John Paul declared the “New Vulgate edition of the Holy Bible as “typical” and we promulgate it to be used especially in the sacred Liturgy but also as suitable for other things, as we have said.”

I would request that respondents include references to Church documents in their answers. I find non-authoritative information unhelpful.

Thanks for any help that you can give me.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I always thought the Vulgate was the official translation (in Latin), and all others in the vernacular had to be (somewhat) based off of that, and were the “official” in those countries (like the NAB(RE) for U.S, etc.).

I am interested in a good response.

 

[ZDHayden]

Perchance he means that the Nova Vulgata is not as widely used as previously within the Mass? that is the only thing I can think of. The Nova Vulgata was designed as a (re)new(ed) standard to a (re)new(ed) Latin Mass, but when the vernacular was permitted in the Mass, the Nova Vulgata became less influential than it would otherwise have been.

From all that I have read, the Nova Vulgata is the the official Bible. Akin’s claim is an odd one - he is the only person I know of who makes the claim that there is no official Bible.

Almost every other Catholic who cares about it acknowledges it as the official Bible - what the argument among these people amounts to is “is the NV a good translation?”

 

[JM3]

Which law was this and when was it changed?

The law: americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent4.htm

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session IV - Celebrated on the eighth day of April, 1546 under Pope Paul III

Decree Concerning The Edition And Use Of The Sacred Books

Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.

Explanation by Pope Pius XII

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12DIVIN.HTM

DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU
Encyclical of Pope Pius XII Promulgated On September 30, 1943

1. 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, which 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 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.

1. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents – nay rather today it almost demands – either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

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.

Understanding James Akin.

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404fea1.asp

Most of the Douay-Rheims copies now on the market are also not from the 1609 version. What is often found in stores is the “Douay-Challoner” version, so called because it is a revision of the Douay-Rheims done in the eighteenth century by Bishop Richard Challoner. He updated the Douay-Rheims by removing archaic spellings (for example, “bloud” became “blood”), and he consulted Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that the Douay-Rheims Bible found in most book stores is not a straight translation of the Vulgate–something many of its advocates do not realize.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19790425_scripturarum-thesaurus_en.html

These things being so, by virtue of this Letter we declare the New Vulgate edition of the Holy Bible as “typical” and we promulgate it to be used especially in the sacred Liturgy but also as suitable for other things, as we have said.

In conclusion, Akin is correct. There is no ‘official’ translation in english.

 

[ZDHayden]

In conclusion, Akin is correct. There is no ‘official’ translation in english.

Ok, so in ENGLISH is the issue, not that the Nova Vulgata is somehow not official, am I understanding this correctly?

 

[JM3]

Ok, so in ENGLISH is the issue, not that the Nova Vulgata is somehow not official, am I understanding this correctly?

Yes.

For 32 years now, we have not had a translation in english of the ‘official’ Nova Volgata from the Holy See.

 

[omahahomeschool]

JM3,

Thanks so much for your extremely thorough and well documented response. And so prompt! Unfortunately, it has left me with more questions than answers. I hope you won’t mind if I ask for more of your time.

As I read his article, Akin was not addressing an English translation but the Neo-Vulgate itself: “While the Vulgate in its latest edition—the ‘Neo-Vulgate’ promulgated by John Paul II—has a privileged position based on its use in ecclesiastical documents, the law has changed such that there is no ‘official’ translation of Scripture for the Latin rite.” Akin seems to be making the point that there is no official translation of Scripture for the entire Latin rite, not just the English-speaking world.

You cite the Council of Trent as making the law that the Vulgate is the official Catholic text. I don’t see how Divino Afflante Spiritu or Dei Verbum could apply to Mr. Akin’s statement that “the law has changed such that there is no ‘official’ translation of Scripture for the Latin rite." Divino Afflante Spiritu seems to re-affirm the Vulgate’s status (“this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents…”) while emphasizing the importance of the original texts.
Dei Verbum again notes the Vulgate’s special position, stating that the Church “has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate.” In encouraging other translations, the document implies no loss of status by the Vulgate.

I was wondering if perhaps John Paul’s use of the word “typical” in Scripturarum Thesaurus is to be understood differently from “official.” After all, his words seem to endorse the Neo-Vulgate, rather than authorize it: “We promulgate it to be used especially in the sacred Liturgy but also as suitable for other things, as we have said."

Again, many thanks for your previous reply.

 

[JM3]

I was wondering if perhaps John Paul’s use of the word “typical” in Scripturarum Thesaurus is to be understood differently from “official.” After all, his words seem to endorse the Neo-Vulgate, rather than authorize it: “We promulgate it to be used especially in the sacred Liturgy but also as suitable for other things, as we have said."

Typical is Official, as stated here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_comunicato-stampa_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS

FIFTH INSTRUCTION
“FOR THE RIGHT IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY
OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
(Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 36)

Liturgiam authenticam

Using Other Texts as Aids

The usefulness of consulting ancient source texts is acknowledged and encouraged, though it is noted that the text of the editio typica, the official modern Latin edition, is always the point of departure for the translation. When the Latin text employs certain words from other ancient languages (e.g., alleluia, Amen, or Kyrie eleison), such terms may be retained in their original languages. Liturgical translations are to be made only from the editio typica of the Latin and never from other translations in turn. The Neo-Vulgate, the current Catholic version of the Latin Bible, should be employed as an auxiliary tool in preparing biblical translations for use in the Liturgy.

If Akin is stating that the Nova Volgata is not the official latin translation of scripture for the latin rite, then this document says he is incorrect.

You could ask him. biblechristiansociety.com/contact

 

[JM3]

You might get a faster response here,

jimmyakin.org/contact.html