The language interpretation of Catholicism on the Bible

[MontChevalier]

Hey everybody,

I’ve noticed one thing, in my studies on Catholicism, and I’ve been thinking about what to ask on here, and one particular question popped into my mind. And that was:

Why does Catholicism use Latin as its language of translating the Bible?

I know that the Orthodox and Protestants use Greek.

But why is that? I’ve often wondered what brought forth the choice to use latin. Is Latin more developed than Greek? Or is it that Greek is imperfect? Is it anything with Greek at all? WHAT makes Latin the correct language for it? WHO decided Latin was the best for it? How does someone KNOW it’s right for it? WHEN was this decided?

It’s been on my mind all day, and it’s been now that I’ve managed to get on here and begin to put it into words.

I know that Jesus made Peter into the first pope, but I realize that the language they must’ve been using was Aramaic, not Latin. And it was only with the help of some scribes that the four gospels were completed. Some people state that the Gospels and the epistles were written in Greek, not Latin. Which makes little sense, since the Roman Empire had control of the land and they spoke Latin.

Well, I’d love to see what ya’ll can think of this time.
I’m amazed every time someone speaks here.

-MontChevalier

 

[ProVobis]

A lot of this really isn’t known for sure. Nor the reasons. The only thing known is that at the time of Christ’s death, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic were spoken and written. The earliest books of the New Testament we have were written in Greek but that Greek was a compilation of still earlier (lost) records which could have been written or spoken in a few languages. There was a Vetus Latina, a very early Bible in Latin, but that was displaced by St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. While Greek was predominately the liturgical language in the very early centuries, it wasn’t until Pope Victor, reportedly the first Pope who spoke Latin, that Latin started becoming the predominant liturgical language of the West. Greek and other languages became the predominant languages of the Eastern liturgies. Others could give you a list of those languages.

 

[MarkThompson]

The Bible is in Hebrew and Greek. None of it was written in Latin, a fact of which the Church is well aware. In around the year 390, St. Jerome translated the Bible from its original languages into Latin, an edition called the Vulgate. Previous translations into Latin had been done, although they did not start from the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, but instead a Greek translation of it called the Septuagint. The Vulgate was extremely influential for well over a thousand years after it was completed, since very few people in the west knew Greek or Hebrew.

The Church itself does not declare that only Latin is correct, or that there is anything wrong with Greek. If you want to read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew, feel free. If you want to read it all in Greek, or all in English, feel free to do that too – Catholics translated the Bible into English long before Protestants did. Latin-rite Catholics (what you generally call “Roman Catholics”) traditionally worship in Latin, but Eastern-rite Catholics (who are genuine Catholics subject to the Pope; I’m not talking about Eastern Orthodox) worship in other languages, including Greek. That is just fine, and all part of the overarching “Catholic” tradition.

 

[Salvatore123]

Basically, the primary reason why Latin is the “official” language spoken by the Catholic Church today (and also why scientists continue to use Latin for their terminology as well) is that Latin is essentially a “dead” language.

In other words, because Latin is not spoken on a regular basis by any group of people, the language does not change and the meaning of Latin words now has the same meaning as Latin words spoken centuries ago.

Anyone familiar with any language will realize that languages evolve. “Gay” meant “happy” or “carefree” 100 years ago, whereas that word has been co-opted to mean something entirely different today.

The continued use of Latin by the Church serves to ensure a “constant” regarding meaning and usage.

 

[po18guy]

Basically, the primary reason why Latin is the “official” language spoken by the Catholic Church today (and also why scientists continue to use Latin for their terminology as well) is that Latin is essentially a “dead” language.

In other words, because Latin is not spoken on a regular basis by any group of people, the language does not change and the meaning of Latin words now has the same meaning as Latin words spoken centuries ago.

Anyone familiar with any language will realize that languages evolve. “Gay” meant “happy” or “carefree” 100 years ago, whereas that word has been co-opted to mean something entirely different today.

The continued use of Latin by the Church serves to ensure a “constant” regarding meaning and usage.

As well as being the language of the Roman empire, in which the Church became headquartered. If I’m not mistaken, Latin was the “official” language used to the extent of the Roman empire, which was most of the then-known world. Feel free to correct.

 

[JRKH]

There are a number of good answers above but I’m not sure they actually get to the heart of your question so I’ll take a stab at it…Just remember I’m no scholar…

You are right in that the languages spoken at the time of the events were varied. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin - and possibly others.

But at the time of Christ and much of the early Church growth, the “language of commerce” in that part of the world was Greek. This is no different than today when the language of commerce is English.
Latin at that time had not really “taken hold” in the Eastern parts of the Empire so even the Romans of the time conducted business in Greek.

The OT had been translated from Hebrew to Greek thus creating the “Septuigent”, the version of the OT that was in use by the majority of Jews living outside of Palestine. Likewise, the NT books, most of which were written to Gentiles who may have spoken many dialects but who all had ready access to men who spoke Greek…(remember the “language of commerce”)

As the faith spread further west, and as time went on, Latin became a more predominant language of the people. Thus it was determined to translate the entire Bible from the Hebrew/Greek sources into the “common tongue” which was Latin.
Finally - after the fall of the Empire, and with Latin falling into disuse, the Church retained it for a number of reasons…The fact that so much had already been written in Latin and the fact that, as a dieing/dead language, the meanings of terms would not change are both reasons for retaining latin as the official language of The Church…

This how I unsderstand the evolution of things…I am open to correction on any of this.

Peace
James

 

[MontChevalier]

I want to thank everyone for posting here, and for your time.

But, although many people have managed to answer some of the questions I’ve asked, there is still one question which hasn’t received a satisfactory answer.

Why Latin?

The fact it’s a dead language just doesn’t seem like a good enough answer. Am I alone on this? I’m sure there has to be other answers as to why.

I’m still trying to push as to why, cause it is cause it is, just doesn’t seem right.

What was the original reason used by the Church to make it the official Language of the CC?
Does anyone know?

 

[po18guy]

I want to thank everyone for posting here, and for your time.

But, although many people have managed to answer some of the questions I’ve asked, there is still one question which hasn’t received a satisfactory answer.

Why Latin?

The fact it’s a dead language just doesn’t seem like a good enough answer. Am I alone on this? I’m sure there has to be other answers as to why.

I’m still trying to push as to why, cause it is cause it is, just doesn’t seem right.

What was the original reason used by the Church to make it the official Language of the CC?
Does anyone know?

Can only guess that the answer is found in canon law. Here is a link that provides some explanation.

 

[JM3]

I want to thank everyone for posting here, and for your time.

But, although many people have managed to answer some of the questions I’ve asked, there is still one question which hasn’t received a satisfactory answer.

Why Latin?

The fact it’s a dead language just doesn’t seem like a good enough answer. Am I alone on this? I’m sure there has to be other answers as to why.

I’m still trying to push as to why, cause it is cause it is, just doesn’t seem right.

What was the original reason used by the Church to make it the official Language of the CC?
Does anyone know?

Because it was the vernacular language at the time.

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_lingua-latina_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20061111_gateway-conference_en.html

 

[JM3]

I want to thank everyone for posting here, and for your time.

But, although many people have managed to answer some of the questions I’ve asked, there is still one question which hasn’t received a satisfactory answer.

Why Latin?

The fact it’s a dead language just doesn’t seem like a good enough answer. Am I alone on this? I’m sure there has to be other answers as to why.

I’m still trying to push as to why, cause it is cause it is, just doesn’t seem right.

What was the original reason used by the Church to make it the official Language of the CC?
Does anyone know?

newadvent.org/cathen/09019a.htm

Ecclesiastical differs from classical Latin especially by the introduction of new idioms and new words. (In syntax and literary method, Christian writers are not different from other contemporary writers.) These characteristic differences are due to the origin and purpose of ecclesiastical Latin. Originally the Roman people spoke the old tongue of Latium known as prisca latinitas. In the third century B.C. Ennius and a few other writers trained in the school of the Greeks undertook to enrich the language with Greek embellishments. This attempt was encouraged by the cultured classes in Rome, and it was to these classes that henceforth the poets, orators, historians, and literary coteries of Rome addressed themselves. Under the combined influence of this political and intellectual aristocracy was developed that classical Latin which has been preserved for us in greatest purity in the works of Caesar and of Cicero. The mass of the Roman populace in their native ruggedness remained aloof from this hellenizing influence and continued to speak the old tongue. Thus it came to pass that after the third century B.C. there existed side by side in Rome two languages, or rather two idioms: that of the literary circles or hellenists (sermo urbanus) and that of the illiterate (sermo vulgaris) and the more highly the former developed the greater grew the chasm between them. But in spite of all the efforts of the purists, the exigencies of daily life brought the writers of the cultured mode into continual touch with the uneducated populace, and constrained them to understand its speech and make it understand them in turn; so that they were obliged in conversation to employ words and expressions forming part of the vulgar tongue. Hence arose a third idiom, the sermo cotidianus, a medley of the two others, varying in the mixture of its ingredients with the various periods of time and the intelligence of those who used it.

 

[PJM]

=MontChevalier;7574336]I want to thank everyone for posting here, and for your time.

Why Latin?

The fact it’s a dead language just doesn’t seem like a good enough answer. Am I alone on this? I’m sure there has to be other answers as to why.

What was the original reason used by the Church to make it the official Language of the CC?
Does anyone know?

Latin came to be the “Common Language” of the CC because it had become the most “common language” spoken in the “entire world” which had early in the Fourth Century, had been conquered by Constantine.

The Mother of Constantine was a highly educated and committed Catholic. The influence she had on her son permitted, even encouraged the “World-wide” spread of Catholism; which had been forced to go “under-ground” [catacombs], because of the unrelenting Roman siege on the early Church and Christians.

The Original Bible books were written in Hebrew; Greek; Aramaic, and some books in [Old] Latin. Because Constantine spoke Latin, he strongly encouraged this to become the “Common language” of the World, he now controlled.

“382 AD - The Vulgate is an early 5th-century Latin version of the Bible and largely the result of the labors of Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD to make a revision of the Old Latin translations. By the 13th century this revision had come to … be called the versio vulgata, that is, the “commonly used translation”, and ultimately it became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible in the Roman Catholic Church.

400 AD - As Latin was replacing Greek as the main language in the Mediterranean world, and began translating the Bible into Latin. Around AD 400, the church made an official translation of the Bible into Latin known as the “Latin Vulgate .” Christians [Catholics were the ONLY “Christians“ in the World at this time]. And the translating task were astutely kept in the Church and done by various Religious Orders; never done by “the laity” which were even prohibited from private reading of the Bible; until forced to because of The Protestant Revolution,. When Luther made known his willingness, even strong encouragement of private reading and self-interpretation of his “New Bible,” in process of being modified and published; now known as the KING JAMES Bible.

As an effort to lessen the effects of this, and being fully aware that it would lead to false understandings, the church relented from her previous position, and published “Common Language” Bibles for Laity use. …. This is the origin of the Douay-Rheims [English] Bible.

Driven by serious concerns about misunderstanding; the early CC adopted Latin as the common “World-Wide” language to insure open lines of communication throughout the Catholic world, encompassing numerous “common languages.” So until the [PR], all text books, all books of Teaching, the Bible and even most [if not all of] day to day communication within the CC was in the Latin language.”

The Church maintains this practice today; often writing a “Latin-Text” which is then used for other language translations. A GOOD example of this was the 1992 Catechism of the CC.” At Church Councils, and meetings with the Pope; Latin remains the common language.

A very strong effort is being made by Pope Benedict to mandate that ALL priest will have to learn the Latin language, so that they can study the Early Church Fathers, whose writings are in Latin.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[JM3]

When Luther made known his willingness, even strong encouragement of private reading and self-interpretation of his “New Bible,” in process of being modified and published; now known as the KING JAMES Bible.

As an effort to lessen the effects of this, and being fully aware that it would lead to false understandings, the church relented from her previous position, and published “Common Language” Bibles for Laity use. …. This is the origin of the Douay-Rheims [English] Bible.

1. KJV had nothing to do with Luther.

av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

1. Douay-Rheims was published before the KJV. (DR-NT in 1582, DR-OT in 1609-1610)

douaybible.com/DouayHistory/douayhistory.html

 

[YourAverageJoe]

much like today, English is the business language of the world. Today, you really cant do anything lest you learn English. English is taught everywhere. Back then, Latin was the universal Language.

 

[vladimir998]

Hey everybody,

I’ve noticed one thing, in my studies on Catholicism, and I’ve been thinking about what to ask on here, and one particular question popped into my mind. And that was:

Why does Catholicism use Latin as its language of translating the Bible?

I know that the Orthodox and Protestants use Greek.

But why is that? I’ve often wondered what brought forth the choice to use latin. Is Latin more developed than Greek? Or is it that Greek is imperfect? Is it anything with Greek at all? WHAT makes Latin the correct language for it? WHO decided Latin was the best for it? How does someone KNOW it’s right for it? WHEN was this decided?

It’s been on my mind all day, and it’s been now that I’ve managed to get on here and begin to put it into words.

I know that Jesus made Peter into the first pope, but I realize that the language they must’ve been using was Aramaic, not Latin. And it was only with the help of some scribes that the four gospels were completed. Some people state that the Gospels and the epistles were written in Greek, not Latin. Which makes little sense, since the Roman Empire had control of the land and they spoke Latin.

-MontChevalier

Here are the answers to your questions and issues you raise:

1. In the ancient world there were several lingua franca:

In the Holy Land there was Aramaic (a semitic language which was difficult for non-semitic peoples to master).

In much of the Eastern Mediterranean, Greek was used. Greeks had settled much of the area even before Alexander the Great had conquered all of the region.

In the Western Mediterranean people spoke Latin although Greek was also widely known because Greeks had established colonies in what would be modern day Sicily, France, Spain, and because Greek was the great language of philosophy, literature and education for the upper crust.

1. Scriptures were translated into Latin in the early days of Christianity so that western Latin speaking Romans could read them. Everyone knows about St. Jerome’s Vulgate, but they forget that there were Old Vulgate mss. which existed long before the time of St. Jerome.
2. Since the language of most people in the Western world was Latin, it makes perfect sense that the liturgy and Bible would be translated into Latin. Wherever that Roman Church went, Latin and the Latin liturgy and Latin Bible went with it.
3. Once Roman society (the Roman Empire) collapsed, it still made sense to use Latin because it was essentially an impossible task to translate the liturgy and Bible into the numerous barbarian languages. Those languages were changing too quickly, could not give access to the works of the western Early Church Fathers as Latin could, and not been used for centuries for sacred texts as Latin had.
4. Another reason to rely on Latin was that it lingua franca in itself once the Roman Empire collapsed but the Roman Church thrived. If you knew Latin you could go anywhere in the western world and be understood by anyone who was educated. This was trus even in very recent times. I remember reading about a Russian doctor who was able to communicated with a Mexican priest in California in the 1850s or so because he was educated in Latin. I have personally seen Japanese medical journals printed in the 1920s IN LATIN. Why? Because western science - and medicine was a western science in modern times - used many Latin and Greek terms and Latin was understood by most doctors because they had to learn it as part of their high school and university education.
5. Since Latin worked so well for the Catholic Church there was no reason to abandon it. Latin was used everywhere in the Roman Church in the liturgy until the 1960s. Some of us still attend Latin Masses even now. I do. A decade ago I was in Italy and I conversed with a priest using Latin. He had forgotten how to speak it, so he answered in Italian. It worked fine.
6. If you buy a Vatican Vulgate - I bought one on that trip to Italy in 2001 - you will see that the Latin vulgate is really just a translation of the Hebrew and Greek testaments. The reason why Latin is used is that it is still the official language of the Roman Church. The Roman Church has no other universal language but Latin.
7. The use of Latin is making a comeback in the Church among the clergy and faithful. Not only are many priests learning how to say the old and new Masses in Latin, but the faithful are learning to assist at those Masses and many are using Latin in homeschool programs with their children.

 

[NHInsider]

I want to thank everyone for posting here, and for your time.

But, although many people have managed to answer some of the questions I’ve asked, there is still one question which hasn’t received a satisfactory answer.

Why Latin?

The fact it’s a dead language just doesn’t seem like a good enough answer. Am I alone on this? I’m sure there has to be other answers as to why.

I’m still trying to push as to why, cause it is cause it is, just doesn’t seem right.

What was the original reason used by the Church to make it the official Language of the CC?
Does anyone know?

Because at the time Latin was replacing Greek as the common language shared by educated people throughout the (known) world. That fact was a result of the Pax Romana - the long-term stable “world” government established/imposed by the Roman Empire.

It was not a dead language at the time, it was very much alive and vibrant. “Vulgate” means “common.” It was the language that crossed ethnic and geographic barriers. It was the language of the city that was, at the time, the Capital of the World - as well as the Seat (See) of Peter.

Not magic or mystical, just eminently practical.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

As well as being the language of the Roman empire, in which the Church became headquartered. If I’m not mistaken, Latin was the “official” language used to the extent of the Roman empire, which was most of the then-known world. Feel free to correct.

The majority of early Christians were probably Aramaic speakers (of various dialects) and Latin would have been virtually unknown east of the Roman Empire. There was much more to the known world at that time than just the Roman Empire.

 

[JRKH]

The majority of early Christians were probably Aramaic speakers (of various dialects) and Latin would have been virtually unknown east of the Roman Empire. There was much more to the known world at that time than just the Roman Empire.

Actually the most common tongue among the earliest Christians would have been Greek. Greek was the language of commerce in the Eastern Mediteranian, and the language of the Jewish liturgy since most outside of Palistine would have been using the Septuigent OT.

As to the extent of the Roman Empire, certainly there were large areas that were not under Rome, but the Med was called “the Roman sea” for good reason in that the Empire encompassed it for all intents and purposes.

Peace
James

 

[NHInsider]

The majority of early Christians were probably Aramaic speakers (of various dialects)

True.

and Latin would have been virtually unknown east of the Roman Empire. There was much more to the known world at that time than just the Roman Empire.

The issue, of course, being “known by whom?” But, to the point of “East of the Roman Empire”

Actually the most common tongue among the earliest Christians would have been Greek. Greek was the language of commerce in the Eastern Mediteranian, and the language of the Jewish liturgy since most outside of Palistine would have been using the Septuigent OT.

Also true, and not contradictory. Most of the earliest Christians would have been native speakers of Aramaic, but the most common tongue (the language that would have allowed natives of different parts of the far-flung empire of Alexander) would have been Greek. And Greek was the language of trade, long after the Romans took over from the Greeks. “East of the Roman Empire,” along the Silk Road, that would have been useful.

However, to the question of the OP, the question has little to do with the “earliest Christians.” The language of the Bible in the earliest days of the Church was Greek, for all the reasons above. But the question was,

Why does Catholicism use Latin as its language of translating the Bible?

• and that has to do with the supplanting of Greek by Latin as the “common tongue” in the centuries after Jesus, as Roman soldiers, conscripts and merchants spread their native language across their expanding empire. By the time of Jerome, most of the people in the western empire did not understand Greek, while most of those in the east still did, they could get by in Latin, too. So Latin became the language of the Empire, and the language in which people of all kinds of backgrounds could communicate.

 

[patrick457]

Hey everybody,

I’ve noticed one thing, in my studies on Catholicism, and I’ve been thinking about what to ask on here, and one particular question popped into my mind. And that was:

Why does Catholicism use Latin as its language of translating the Bible?

I know that the Orthodox and Protestants use Greek.

But why is that? I’ve often wondered what brought forth the choice to use latin. Is Latin more developed than Greek? Or is it that Greek is imperfect? Is it anything with Greek at all? WHAT makes Latin the correct language for it? WHO decided Latin was the best for it? How does someone KNOW it’s right for it? WHEN was this decided?

It’s been on my mind all day, and it’s been now that I’ve managed to get on here and begin to put it into words.

I know that Jesus made Peter into the first pope, but I realize that the language they must’ve been using was Aramaic, not Latin. And it was only with the help of some scribes that the four gospels were completed. Some people state that the Gospels and the epistles were written in Greek, not Latin. Which makes little sense, since the Roman Empire had control of the land and they spoke Latin.

Well, I’d love to see what ya’ll can think of this time.
I’m amazed every time someone speaks here.

-MontChevalier

For the simple reason that in the western half of the Roman Empire, where the Roman Church is based, Latin is more prevalent than Greek. Very often in the Christian case, what was once the commonly-employed tongue in a particular area becomes the liturgical language of the Churches based there. Hence the reason why the Churches in western Europe used Latin, the Church in Egypt has Coptic, the Byzantine Church has Greek, and Syriac-speaking Churches have…well, Syriac. This also influences the languages Scripture is read in: the Syriacs have the P’shitta, the Greeks have the Septuagint + the Greek NT, the Copts have had versions in the various dialects of Coptic, the western Churches used the old Latin translations and later, the Vulgate.

And for the record: yes, it was once the case - before the publication of Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943, which declared that “the original text … having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern” - that Catholic translations of the Bible were translated from the Vulgate, especially after the Council of Trent (1545–1563) gave it an official capacity as the touchstone of the Biblical canon concerning which parts of books are canonical. That is not to say that Greek or Hebrew were not employed: they were used, if only to clarify the exact meaning of the Latin text.

In fact, before the ‘Reformation’ set in, it was the sole source text for most, if not all, translations in Western Europe - including translations in Old English, as well as the translation made by the ‘morning-star of the Reformation’, John Wycliff! - because it was the ‘commonly-used’ version (as the phrase versio vulgata implies), at a time when only those who were educated and who made the effort had a real good grasp of Greek or Hebrew.

 

[patrick457]

It was not a dead language at the time, it was very much alive and vibrant. “Vulgate” means “common.” It was the language that crossed ethnic and geographic barriers. It was the language of the city that was, at the time, the Capital of the World - as well as the Seat (See) of Peter.

Of course, you do have to remember that the name ‘vulgate’ was only applied to the translation/s made by St. Jerome during the Middle Ages. Before that it never had any real name (St. Jerome never tagged it with one): it was just the Bible. I would now shamelessly quote from another thread of mine:

The term ‘Vulgate’ now means but one thing: the standard authoritative Bible of the Latin Church, prepared mostly by the labors of St. Jerome. But this is not the original use of the word and it was never so used by Jerome himself; indeed, it did not at first refer to a Latin version or translation at all.

In his day, the phrase editio vulgata (a calque from the Greek koine ekdosis, ‘common edition’*) meant only one thing: the Greek Septuagint - or more properly, that edition of the Septuagint + Theodotion in use among Christians. St. Jerome himself used the phrase in this way: “Hoc iuxta Septuaginta interpretes diximus, quorum editio toto orbe vulgata est” (Comm. in Isa. 65:20; ib 30:22) Elsewhere he actually gives the Greek words (of the Septuagint) as found in editione vulgata (Comm. in Osee 7:13).

His contemporary St. Augustine also identifies the expression with the Septuagint (De doctrina Christiana, xvi. 10): “Secundum vulgatam editionem, hoc est interpretum Septuaginta.” The term was next extended to the form in which the Septuagint was at first known to the West—the Old Latin versions, although there does not appear to be any instance in the age of Jerome of the application of the term to the Latin version of the Old Testament without regard to its derivation from the Septuagint or to that of the New Testament, so that St. Jerome usually intended the Septuagint though he quoted it in Latin form.

Vulgata editio, having acquired the meaning of the current or ordinarily used text of Septuagint, was once again extended to mean a corrupt or uncorrected text as opposed to the standard emended Septuagint version of Origen’s Hexapla, and in this sense is used by Jerome as synonymous with antiqua or vetus editio.

• Nope, vulgata editio does not mean that the work is in Vulgar Latin! Vulgata here is not used to mean the ‘vulgar’ tongue (i.e. common speech) but means the ‘current’ or ‘ordinarily used’ text.

It was only very slowly that St. Jerome’s version acquired this name, the phrase editio vulgata being applied to the Septuagint or the Old Latin versions of the Septuagint sometimes down to the Middle Ages, while Jerome’s translation was known in rather general and vague terms such as ‘our edition’ (editio nostra) or ‘our books’ (codices nostri). Friar Roger Bacon (c. 1220–1292) was apparently the first, in the 13th century, to apply the term vulgata with the similar meaning that we do today - though he also used it to refer to the Septuagint/Vetus Latina, as per the old usage - and this became classic through its acceptance by the Council of Trent (“vetus et vulgata editio”).