M
Manfred
Guest
Some excerpts from Divino Afflante Spiritu:
Did, indeed, “all know” that use of the Vulgate applied “only to the Latin Church”? If so, how?
If the Vulgate current at the time of this encyclical (1843) was deemed “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals”, such that “it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching”, then what exactly does “corroboration and confirmation of this … doctrine by the original texts” really mean?
Does the constant contrasting of the “original language” texts with the Latin Vulgate make anyone else want to throw his/her hands up?
Anyone care to speculate what Pius XII would think if he saw some of our modern English versions?
- … ought we to explain the original text which, 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…
- Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate.
- 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.
- 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.
Did, indeed, “all know” that use of the Vulgate applied “only to the Latin Church”? If so, how?
If the Vulgate current at the time of this encyclical (1843) was deemed “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals”, such that “it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching”, then what exactly does “corroboration and confirmation of this … doctrine by the original texts” really mean?
Does the constant contrasting of the “original language” texts with the Latin Vulgate make anyone else want to throw his/her hands up?
Anyone care to speculate what Pius XII would think if he saw some of our modern English versions?
