Only Vulgate Translations Allowed?

[Geremia]

On January 13, 1941, Rev. William H. McClellan, S.J., Woodstock College, Md., wrote

that Catholic versions of the Scriptures in modern tongues are commonly taken from the Vulgate, and must be so if destined to any public use. For example, the English version of the Gospel which is read at every Sunday’s Mass must be translated from the Vulgate, and not directly from the Greek.

Is this true? Why can translations like the New American Bible, not taken from the Vulgate, be used at Catholic masses in the U.S., for example?

 

[bullfrog654]

the only way i understand it is this -

though one may fall from grace i believe as an example that italy set a dinner plate for its enemy germany in ww2 because of such lost pillars of faith as the spear of destiny. the vatican had more then it tells.

i presume jesus taught to love thy enemy but to love them you also have to understand them. perhaps i seek to understand and recognise and help that similar to the book the cross and the switch blade using any bible as gods blade of truth that i believe is basically the sword of truth the theif in the night uses

i follow this path through scripture however im not prepared to argue with the church

 

[Nita]

On January 13, 1941, Rev. William H. McClellan, S.J., Woodstock College, Md., wroteIs this true? Why can translations like the New American Bible, not taken from the Vulgate, be used at Catholic masses in the U.S., for example?

Please note the date of the statement - “1941”. Perhaps that was the regulation at the time. (I don’t know for sure one way or the other.) But those sorts of regulations can change - they are not infallible doctrinal decrees. If it was a regulation in 1941, it was changed subsequently.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Such things change all the time.

 

[tobinatorstark]

On January 13, 1941, Rev. William H. McClellan, S.J., Woodstock College, Md., wroteIs this true? Why can translations like the New American Bible, not taken from the Vulgate, be used at Catholic masses in the U.S., for example?

You are under minding Pope Pius XII’s encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu” which called for the use of the original languages. That didn’t mean that the Vulgate cannot be used to translate a Bible nor does it mean that before hand that all Bible translations should be translated from the Vulgate either. The Vulgate has changed itself. The Nova Vulgata isn’t the same as the Clementine Vulgate and editions before hand. I disagree with the Nova Vulgata in Luke 1:28 and agree with the Clementine rather on this verse. In my opinion the modern versions after the release of the Knox Translation (Bibles include RSV-CE, 2CE, NRSV, NAB, JB, NJB and Nova Vulgata) are a bit on the liberal side of the spectrum. Of course there will be at least one person who says I should read the modern Bibles and that they are more accurate than Douay-Rheims, Confraternity Edition, Ronald Knox Translation and the Clementine Vulgate. The best translation that you can get that wasn’t translated from the Vulgate is the RSV-CE. I read the Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims everyday and get the most out of it, but it doesn’t mean that a Bible can’t use Greek or Hebrew or even Aramaic if the translator so chooses for its base for translating

 

[diggerdomer]

On January 13, 1941, Rev. William H. McClellan, S.J., Woodstock College, Md., wroteIs this true? Why can translations like the New American Bible, not taken from the Vulgate, be used at Catholic masses in the U.S., for example?

In 1941 it may have been ttrue. I can’t say for sure as I was not born yet.,

What’s true today is taught by the Church, today. Don’t worry too much about older citations when they are considered apart from contemporary authoritative Church teachin.