Vatican's view on Douay-Rheims?

[Jack_245814]

So I’ve found my way back to the Church after a long time away, and want to get more into theology. Specifically, I’m going to read all of the Christian works I can get my hands on, in chronological order. This is to get a sense of how Church theology has evolved over the years, and to just get a better understanding of the faith of my forefathers, which some fought and died for.

Basically what this entails is that I’ll be reading the Bible, then the Ante-Nicene fathers, the works in the Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, all the ecumenical councils, the Post-Nicene fathers, the scholastics, heck even Protestant theologians when I get that far. I understand that this will take many years, but I’m a scholarly person by nature and I really love studying this stuff; the philosophical and theological depth of the Church was one of the main factors in drawing me back. I’m also studying Latin at college, in the hopes that I may one day read these documents in their original language (well I know some were in Greek but you get my meaning ).

I am particularly attracted to the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible, Challoner revision. I’m not a traditionalist (though I am a conservative Catholic), and I accept entirely the teachings of Vatican II, and the Ignatius Press version of the bible. However, I would be lying if I said I didn’t prefer the more archaic tone of Douay-Rheims. It might not be the most accurate to the oldest texts we have access to, I just love the language, and I love that Doctrine and Tradition are somewhat intertwined.

Basically my question is this: is the Douay-Rheims still blessed with the Church’s favor, or has it been totally repudiated for more modern translations? I understand that it is no longer the bible commonly used by most churches or theologians, but I’m just a layman trying to better understand his religion, and I love the Douay translation.

Thanks for the help all!

 

[puzzleannie]

it is an approved translation, and acceptable for any Catholic for private study and devotion, but is no longer approved for liturgical use in any English-speaking country that I am aware of.

 

[Jack_245814]

it is an approved translation, and acceptable for any Catholic for private study and devotion, but is no longer approved for liturgical use in any English-speaking country that I am aware of.

Thank you so much!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

My Orthodox priest, before the “The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World” came out (a translation of the Bible of the Apostles, the Septuagint), recommended that one read the Psalms out of the Douay Rheims, as it was the only good translation of the Septuagint Psalms: the Latin Church rejected Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew and stuck with the Vetus Latina, which was translated from the Septuagint.

I’d say why don’t you read the Orthdox theologians, if you are going to read the Protestants, but then you said you were reading the Ecumenical Councils, etc.

I’m going to bypass the comment about “Latin originals.”

I like the mix of tradition in the Douay too, which is why I usually use it here (except when addressing Protestants). And I think it will still be around when the modern translations are dated.

And yes, I’ve seen a lot of Traditionalists using it, with imprematur.

 

[Jack_245814]

My Orthodox priest, before the “The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World” came out (a translation of the Bible of the Apostles, the Septuagint), recommended that one read the Psalms out of the Douay Rheims, as it was the only good translation of the Septuagint Psalms: the Latin Church rejected Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew and stuck with the Vetus Latina, which was translated from the Septuagint.

I’d say why don’t you read the Orthdox theologians, if you are going to read the Protestants, but then you said you were reading the Ecumenical Councils, etc.

I’m going to bypass the comment about “Latin originals.”

I like the mix of tradition in the Douay too, which is why I usually use it here (except when addressing Protestants). And I think it will still be around when the modern translations are dated.

And yes, I’ve seen a lot of Traditionalists using it, with imprematur.

You’re absolutely right, I should try to read the Eastern Orthodox theologians as well. Sorry, they’re easily forgotten here in the states, especially south of the Mason-Dixie line >.<

Also I’m really sorry if I said anything ignorant, I’m very very new to this and I still have a lot to learn. What were you going to say about “Latin originals?” Just curious, I’d profit from any piece of knowledge or opinion you have on the matter, promise I won’t get offended . That comment was meant to apply to the Western Church (since, afaik, they were the ones that wrote in Latin after an early point in Church History); lots of Greek Fathers revered by Roman Catholics as well of course, and the early popes wrote in Greek, and I think there are even some documents/books written in Syriac and other languages too.

 

[Mattjolley]

So I’ve found my way back to the Church after a long time away, and want to get more into theology. Specifically, I’m going to read all of the Christian works I can get my hands on, in chronological order. This is to get a sense of how Church theology has evolved over the years, and to just get a better understanding of the faith of my forefathers, which some fought and died for.

Basically what this entails is that I’ll be reading the Bible, then the Ante-Nicene fathers, the works in the Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, all the ecumenical councils, the Post-Nicene fathers, the scholastics, heck even Protestant theologians when I get that far. I understand that this will take many years, but I’m a scholarly person by nature and I really love studying this stuff; the philosophical and theological depth of the Church was one of the main factors in drawing me back. I’m also studying Latin at college, in the hopes that I may one day read these documents in their original language (well I know some were in Greek but you get my meaning ).

I am particularly attracted to the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible, Challoner revision. I’m not a traditionalist (though I am a conservative Catholic), and I accept entirely the teachings of Vatican II, and the Ignatius Press version of the bible. However, I would be lying if I said I didn’t prefer the more archaic tone of Douay-Rheims. It might not be the most accurate to the oldest texts we have access to, I just love the language, and I love that Doctrine and Tradition are somewhat intertwined.

Basically my question is this: is the Douay-Rheims still blessed with the Church’s favor, or has it been totally repudiated for more modern translations? I understand that it is no longer the bible commonly used by most churches or theologians, but I’m just a layman trying to better understand his religion, and I love the Douay translation.

Thanks for the help all!

After the Encyclical ‘Divino Afflante Spiritu’, translations were encouraged to be based on the original languages rather than directly from the Vulgate. So translations such as the Douay Rheims and the Ronald Knox translation were seen as somewhat outdated.

However, its still nice to have translations from the Vulgate for those of us who cannot read latin The Challenor and Knox Bibles are a reminder of the Church’s values, at least in the light of the modernist NRSV and NAB which can often throw us from the path of faith with their questionable renderings and inclusive language. Challenor’s Footnotes in the Douay certainly don’t err from Catholic Doctrine, I have read many complaints here about the NAB’s footnotes but never any of Challenor’s!

I’m not saying I am against modern translations, I love the Original Jerusalem Bible, and the RSV Catholic Editions, but I do have a soft spot for the archaic stylings of the Douay from time to time and will often pick it up when I fancy something different than the Jerusalem or RSV.

 

[Mattjolley]

My Orthodox priest, before the “The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World” came out (a translation of the Bible of the Apostles, the Septuagint), recommended that one read the Psalms out of the Douay Rheims, as it was the only good translation of the Septuagint Psalms: the Latin Church rejected Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew and stuck with the Vetus Latina, which was translated from the Septuagint.

I’d say why don’t you read the Orthdox theologians, if you are going to read the Protestants, but then you said you were reading the Ecumenical Councils, etc.

I’m going to bypass the comment about “Latin originals.”

I like the mix of tradition in the Douay too, which is why I usually use it here (except when addressing Protestants). And I think it will still be around when the modern translations are dated.

And yes, I’ve seen a lot of Traditionalists using it, with imprematur.

So the Psalms from the Douay Rheims, translated from the Vulgate, were not those of Jerome? But another translation of the Psalms? I thought the Vulgate was all Jerome’s work. I’m obviously not clued up on the facts!

 

[tobinatorstark]

I too love the Douay-Rheims!!! I wish Bibles were based on the Vulgate instead of what they are calling “original texts” To me the NAB, JB and the RSV-CE do not get it done, especially the RSV-CE, it is a horrible translation in my opinion. I don’t like the JB psalms either. Congrats in reverting to the Catholic faith and to your upcoming studies.

 

[Mattjolley]

Theres a new version of the jerusalem bible, the CTS New Catholi Bible, that uses the grail psalms. Much better!

 

[jfoges]

You’re absolutely right, I should try to read the Eastern Orthodox theologians as well. Sorry, they’re easily forgotten here in the states, especially south of the Mason-Dixie line >.<
QUOTE]

Isn’t it the Mason-Dixon line? not Dixie? By the way, I think you are really wasting your time by trying to read all these documents. Why don’t you just study contemporary theology which will gve you an overview of the development of dogma.

 

[quasimodo]

I’m also studying Latin at college, in the hopes that I may one day read these documents in their original language (well I know some were in Greek but you get my meaning ).

nothing in the bible was written originally in Latin.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You’re absolutely right, I should try to read the Eastern Orthodox theologians as well. Sorry, they’re easily forgotten here in the states, especially south of the Mason-Dixie line >.<

You’d be surprised. The times are a’changing.

Also I’m really sorry if I said anything ignorant,
Don’t worry you didn’t. Any inaccuracy was filled with sincerity.

I’m very very new to this and I still have a lot to learn. What were you going to say about “Latin originals?” Just curious, I’d profit from any piece of knowledge or opinion you have on the matter, promise I won’t get offended .

The comment was more tongue in cheek, since you already admitted you know that some were in Greek. Others are not so knowlegible: I haven’t had some who argue that Jesus spoke in Latin.

That comment was meant to apply to the Western Church (since, afaik, they were the ones that wrote in Latin after an early point in Church History); lots of Greek Fathers revered by Roman Catholics as well of course, and the early popes wrote in Greek, and I think there are even some documents/books written in Syriac and other languages too.

There you go again, showing your grasp of the facts. Again, others are not so knowlegible.
(btw, I know I misspelled knowlegible, but I don’t like the spell check on this ).
Btw, some Greek works, for instance parts of St. Iranaeus of Lyons, survive only in Latin.
And btw, Eastern as I am, I’ve learned Latin.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So the Psalms from the Douay Rheims, translated from the Vulgate, were not those of Jerome? But another translation of the Psalms? I thought the Vulgate was all Jerome’s work. I’m obviously not clued up on the facts!

Pope St. Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to revise the Vetus Latina, but he decided to retranslate it from Hebrew, and not the Septuagint which not only the Christians but the early Jews used (the Letter of Aristeas shows that the Hebrews before Christ thought the LXX a divine text. The Talmud says that the LXX is how Japheth lives in Shem’s tents). Only when the rabbis thought of how to stem the hemoraging that they insisted on the Hebrew (the Masoretic text, which the Protestants use, came a few centuries after Jerome, and is not identical to the text Jerome used). It is under Damasus that the Latim mass was promulgated: up to that time it had been in Greek (Kyria eleison is a vestige), and he of course needed a lectionary.

The Latin Church, however, did not canonize Jerome’s deviation from the LXX. The liturgy, outside of the lectionary, kept its Vetus Latina forms. Psalms was a special case: in the Church any candidate for any order of ordination had to memorize the Psalms in their entirety. The scribes who copied the Vulgate copied the Vetus Latina for the Psalter. Jerome’s translation of the Psalms survives in few manuscripts.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I too love the Douay-Rheims!!! I wish Bibles were based on the Vulgate instead of what they are calling “original texts”

They are just repeating St. Jerome’s mistake in prefering a Hebrew text of the rabbis to the Septuagint of the Apostles.

To me the NAB, JB and the RSV-CE do not get it done, especially the RSV-CE, it is a horrible translation in my opinion. I don’t like the JB psalms either. Congrats in reverting to the Catholic faith and to your upcoming studies.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Jack_245814;4132369:

You’re absolutely right, I should try to read the Eastern Orthodox theologians as well. Sorry, they’re easily forgotten here in the states, especially south of the Mason-Dixie line >.<
QUOTE]

Isn’t it the Mason-Dixon line? not Dixie? By the way, I think you are really wasting your time by trying to read all these documents. Why don’t you just study contemporary theology which will gve you an overview of the development of dogma.

Why should he drink what others have skimmed off the surface when he can drink from the depths from the font of Living Waters. The nonsense that comes out of the seminaries today can’t compare. Read the Martyrdom of Polycarp (it will make you weep) rather than a study of the rise of the cult of martyrs.

 

[Jack_245814]

Isn’t it the Mason-Dixon line? not Dixie? By the way, I think you are really wasting your time by trying to read all these documents. Why don’t you just study contemporary theology which will gve you an overview of the development of dogma.

Yes that is what I meant; sleep-deprivation is no fun, and causes me to make embarrassing slips in language like that.

I don’t consider it a waste of time; I’m not saying that it’ll help me be more pious or anything, it’s just plain interesting.

nothing in the bible was written originally in Latin.

Of course not! I was speaking here of the old (though not the oldest) works of Church theology, like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, etc. etc.