The complete books with all their parts

[Ron_Conte]

Vatican I: “6. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.”

This teaching is being ignored and contradicted by many Scripture scholars today.

The teaching of Vatican I is that all the parts of all the book found in the old Latin Vulgate edition are sacred and canonical. Yet scholars today have deleted very many words, phrases, even whole verses from Scripture (or relegated these to footnotes) even though these are found in the Old Latin Vulgate.

It is not the role of Scripture scholars to decide the canonicity of words, phrases, and verses. If it is in the old Latin Vulgate, then it should be in every translation, version and edition.

“Determining which texts belong to the Church’s canon and which texts are prescribed for the Sacred Liturgy, however, lie outside the area of competence of biblical scholars in general, or of textual critics in particular.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWVULG.HTM

 

[diggerdomer]

Vatican I: “6. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.”

This teaching is being ignored and contradicted by many Scripture scholars today.

The teaching of Vatican I is that all the parts of all the book found in the old Latin Vulgate edition are sacred and canonical. Yet scholars today have deleted very many words, phrases, even whole verses from Scripture (or relegated these to footnotes) even though these are found in the Old Latin Vulgate.

It is not the role of Scripture scholars to decide the canonicity of words, phrases, and verses. If it is in the old Latin Vulgate, then it should be in every translation, version and edition.

“Determining which texts belong to the Church’s canon and which texts are prescribed for the Sacred Liturgy, however, lie outside the area of competence of biblical scholars in general, or of textual critics in particular.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWVULG.HTM

Nonsense.

Of course it’s the Church that decides canonicity.Who says otherwise?

The quotation you provide needs the context of the whole document you refer to, which you failed to provide.

So…what’s your beef?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Many modern-day editions of the Bible have omitted numerous words, phrases, and more than a few whole verses, found in the old Latin Vulgate, in contradiction to this teaching of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council. This is an example of modern scholarship being used to contradict the definitive teaching of the Magisterium.

In effect, these scholars are determining canonicity by these omissions. And the approval for these editions of the Bible, from the temporal authority of the Church, does not constitute a definitive teaching of the Magisterium on canonicity. The Magisterium has already infallibly (in two Councils) determined canonicity not only of the books, but of the parts of the books.

 

[diggerdomer]

Many modern-day editions of the Bible have omitted numerous words, phrases, and more than a few whole verses, found in the old Latin Vulgate, in contradiction to this teaching of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council. This is an example of modern scholarship being used to contradict the definitive teaching of the Magisterium.

In effect, these scholars are determining canonicity by these omissions. And the approval for these editions of the Bible, from the temporal authority of the Church, does not constitute a definitive teaching of the Magisterium on canonicity. The Magisterium has already infallibly (in two Councils) determined canonicity not only of the books, but of the parts of the books.

You reference the first Vatican Council…why not the Second Vatican Council? Are there modern-day editions of the Bible that according to you contradict the teaching of the Church (which of course includes the second Vatican Council)? Or are you just engaging in some academic historical exercise of referring to only past Church teachings and situations?

 

[Jerok]

I find this very interesting Ron.

I’m unfamiliar with the Vatican II documents digger brings up, is there anything in Vatican II that contradicts Vatican 1 regarding the completeness of the Latin Vulgate?

 

[thistle]

Nonsense.

Of course** it’s the Church that decides canonicity**.Who says otherwise?

The quotation you provide needs the context of the whole document you refer to, which you failed to provide.

So…what’s your beef?

Actually that’s what Ron is saying, and he goes on to say that many modern scholars are ignoring this.

 

[Bookcat]

Vatican I: “6. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.”

This teaching is being ignored and contradicted by many Scripture scholars today.

The teaching of Vatican I is that all the parts of all the book found in the old Latin Vulgate edition are sacred and canonical. Yet scholars today have deleted very many words, phrases, even whole verses from Scripture (or relegated these to footnotes) even though these are found in the Old Latin Vulgate.

It is not the role of Scripture scholars to decide the canonicity of words, phrases, and verses. If it is in the old Latin Vulgate, then it should be in every translation, version and edition.

“Determining which texts belong to the Church’s canon and which texts are prescribed for the Sacred Liturgy, however, lie outside the area of competence of biblical scholars in general, or of textual critics in particular.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWVULG.HTM

I can be understandable that someone could understand things this way. but…

This is a misunderstanding of the text…it does not mean what it is asserted here to mean.

“If it is in the old Latin Vulgate, then it should be in every translation, version and edition.”

Such is not the mind of the Catholic Church.

 

[Alan55]

Vatican I: “6. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.”

This teaching is being ignored and contradicted by many Scripture scholars today.

The teaching of Vatican I is that all the parts of all the book found in the old Latin Vulgate edition are sacred and canonical. Yet scholars today have deleted very many words, phrases, even whole verses from Scripture (or relegated these to footnotes) even though these are found in the Old Latin Vulgate.

It is not the role of Scripture scholars to decide the canonicity of words, phrases, and verses. If it is in the old Latin Vulgate, then it should be in every translation, version and edition.

“Determining which texts belong to the Church’s canon and which texts are prescribed for the Sacred Liturgy, however, lie outside the area of competence of biblical scholars in general, or of textual critics in particular.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWVULG.HTM

The Church does not agree with you. Otherwise, it would not have approved various translations of the scriptures into English (NAB, RSV, JB) and other languages that depart from the Vulgate (or, heaven forbid, relegate words, phrases or verses to the footnotes!). I’ll follow the Church’s guidance in this matter rather and I encourage you to do the same.

The fact is that the best scholarship relies not only on the Vulgate but on other ancient manuscripts in order to arrive at the most accurate and reliable translations. Bible scholarship is not frozen in time as of the pronouncements of Vatican I.

 

[thistle]

The Church does not agree with you. Otherwise, it would not have approved various translations of the scriptures into English (NAB, RSV, JB) and other languages that depart from the Vulgate (or, heaven forbid, relegate words, phrases or verses to the footnotes!). I’ll follow the Church’s guidance in this matter rather and I encourage you to do the same.

The fact is that the best scholarship relies not only on the Vulgate but on other ancient manuscripts in order to arrive at the most accurate and reliable translations. Bible scholarship is not frozen in time as of the pronouncements of Vatican I.

Not good to give NAB as an example as that is an example of a bad translation.

What other ancient manuscripts are modern scholars using to do translations?

 

[diggerdomer]

Many modern-day editions of the Bible have omitted numerous words, phrases, and more than a few whole verses, found in the old Latin Vulgate, in contradiction to this teaching of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council. This is an example of modern scholarship being used to contradict the definitive teaching of the Magisterium.

In effect, these scholars are determining canonicity by these omissions. And the approval for these editions of the Bible, from the temporal authority of the Church, does not constitute a definitive teaching of the Magisterium on canonicity. The Magisterium has already infallibly (in two Councils) determined canonicity not only of the books, but of the parts of the books.

Yes, modern scholarship gives us better translations of the Bible.

Better translations of the Bible do not contradict the teachings of the Church (or any Council).

The scholars do not determine canonicity. The Church does.

Similarly, the Church approves translations of the Bible. Not the scholars who propose such translations.

Look on the Vatican web site, or the USCCB (or your own Bishops’ conference)…what version of Scripture do you find there?

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually that’s what Ron is saying, and he goes on to say that many modern scholars are ignoring this.

He says a lot of things that seem to ignore Catholic Church teaching regarding Scripture scholarship and canonicity. He seems (forgive me if I misread him, I hope he’ll correct me if that’s the case) to suggest that one translation of the Bible at one point in human history was perfect and complete, and so all subsequent changes (based on scholarship and Catholic Church approval) are in error.

 

[thistle]

He says a lot of things that seem to ignore Catholic Church teaching regarding Scripture scholarship and canonicity. He seems (forgive me if I misread him, I hope he’ll correct me if that’s the case) to suggest that one translation of the Bible at one point in human history was perfect and complete, and so all subsequent changes (based on scholarship and Catholic Church approval) are in error.

Okay I see. I read what he was saying differently.

My reading of his comments is that he is saying the Vulgate was the official approved Bible of the Church and that it had been translated into Latin using all the available ancient manuscripts at the time. Being the official Bible of the Church it was canonically complete and any subsequent translation into whatever language should not delete/omit any words, phrases or verses which are in the Vulgate or move them to footnotes. If my reading of his comments is correct then I agree with his comments.

 

[Bookcat]

…and any subsequent translation into whatever language should not delete/omit any words, phrases or verses which are in the Vulgate or move them to footnotes. If my reading of his comments is correct then I agree with his comments.

And such would not be the mind of the Church…this is not how the Catholic Church approaches this…he would not be correct in thinking it was…

 

[thistle]

And such would not be the mind of the Church…this is not how the Catholic Church approaches this…he would not be correct in thinking it was…

So you are saying that a modern scholar can simply delete/omit words, phrases and verses from the Vulgate?
How do you come to that view? As you know the mind of the Church please direct me to the Church documents to support your view.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I recall that Ron had posted something about his personal opinions on the matter previously.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that each letter, each word in the Vulgate is part of the canon. Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute, even though the official Vulgate at the time Vatican I contained the comma. Pope John Paul II promulgated a Nova Vulgata that took some of these scholarly opinions into consideration and did not include the comma, among others.

The canon of Scripture is decided by the Magisterium of the Church, not scholars, not you, not I. In this case, the Church has not determined the precision of the canon to the degree hoped for by Ron.

 

[Felix_Nola]

Vatican I: “6. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.”

This teaching is being ignored and contradicted by many Scripture scholars today.

The teaching of Vatican I is that all the parts of all the book found in the old Latin Vulgate edition are sacred and canonical. Yet scholars today have deleted very many words, phrases, even whole verses from Scripture (or relegated these to footnotes) even though these are found in the Old Latin Vulgate.

It is not the role of Scripture scholars to decide the canonicity of words, phrases, and verses. If it is in the old Latin Vulgate, then it should be in every translation, version and edition.

“Determining which texts belong to the Church’s canon and which texts are prescribed for the Sacred Liturgy, however, lie outside the area of competence of biblical scholars in general, or of textual critics in particular.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWVULG.HTM

Ron: would I be right in saying that this is, essentially, why the Church stipulates in Liturgiam Authenticam, that the translation(s) employed in the Lectionary must conform to the text of the Nova Vulgata? I would guess that these omissions that you refer to are primarily in the Deuterocanonical books?

I believe I’m right in saying that the only translation that does currently conform to Liturgiam Authenticam is the Ignatius RSV2CE? (I’ll have to check the new CTS Jerusalem Bible)

By the way, my hat goes off to you for your work on the CPDV - God bless you.