Where do Protestants say we received the Biblical Canon?

[Reuben_J]

So you would then say that the Catholic Church has the correct list and that all the other Churches are in error on this particular issue–and were not similarly guided by the Holy Spirit in their choices?

Yes, I would think so if theirs is different from the one of 360AD list. It was compiled by the Church at that time based on the scriptures being used before that. And remembering that those Church Fathers were closer to the apostles, some being the apostles direct disciples. There should not be interruption to the teaching of the apostles as a much later date of a different canon would suggest.

We can discern the Sprit and that he would not contradict himself. The proposition that the early Church was not the work of the Spirit is less true than that He works in a later church. The Spirit is always with the Church; he is being promised that way.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes, I would think so if theirs is different from the one of 360AD list. It was compiled by the Church at that time based on the scriptures being used before that. And remembering that those Church Fathers were closer to the apostles, some being the apostles direct disciples. There should not be interruption to the teaching of the apostles as a much later date of a different canon would suggest.

We can discern the Sprit and that he would not contradict himself. The proposition that the early Church was not the work of the Spirit is less true than that He works in a later church. The Spirit is always with the Church; he is being promised that way.

OK, fair enough, though as you might guess, we would disagree. From my own perspective, it would make no sense for the Holy Spirit to be actively working in one corner of the world and simultaneously just abandon the rest of the Church on this issue. And I think a number of other Churches other than the Catholic Church have similarly strong claims to their own apostolicity on the biblical canon.

But I’m happy to agree to disagree.

 

[Reuben_J]

OK, fair enough, though as you might guess, we would disagree. From my own perspective, it would make no sense for the Holy Spirit to be actively working in one corner of the world and simultaneously just abandon the rest of the Church on this issue. And I think a number of other Churches other than the Catholic Church have similarly strong claims to their own apostolicity on the biblical canon.

But I’m happy to agree to disagree.

No problem. Thanks for the discussion.

I could only say as much. I do not have much information on the other early churches and what information available on them them is rather limited for me to make any educated comment.

As for the Catholic Church we have the benefit of history and uninterruption of apostolic succession where the Church itself is still standing today. The archive at the Vatican is literally a real delve into the past uninterrupted. That is why it is easier to comment on it with greater certainty. I would be glad if I can get more information on the other early churches and it may help just for knowledge.

God bless.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

No problem. Thanks for the discussion.

I could only say as much. I do not have much information on the other early churches and what information available on them them is rather limited for me to make any educated comment.

As for the Catholic Church we have the benefit of history and uninterruption of apostolic succession where the Church itself is still standing today. The archive at the Vatican is literally a real delve into the past uninterrupted. That is why it is easier to comment on it with greater certainty. I would be glad if I can get more information on the other early churches and it may help just for knowledge.

God bless.

Thanks.

I always suggest Philip Jenkin’s (Penn State) The Lost History of Christianity as a good starting point for a fuller understanding of the Church’s history–one that goes beyond simply what happened in the West.

 

[Reuben_J]

Thanks.

I always suggest Philip Jenkin’s (Penn State) The Lost History of Christianity as a good starting point for a fuller understanding of the Church’s history–one that goes beyond simply what happened in the West.

Thanks. I will take note of that and maybe get a copy.

 

[ahs]

Given that there is no one particular agreed upon manuscript of the Bible and no direct divine revelation about any one manuscript, combination of books or particular edition, yes I think inference about what IS held in common by the churches is probably the best one could do. **To claim something more seems dishonest **to me.

So, since we can’t actually know…we can only infer, it would seem dishonest to you then if I said, for example, that Paul’s Letter to the Romans is the Inspired Word of God?
Or to ask another way the same question…it would seem HONEST to you for me to say that Paul’s Letter to the Romans **might not **be the Inspired Word of God?

 

[ahs]

Thanks. I will take note of that and maybe get a copy.

Philip Hughes also wrote a great history work. His 3-volume set is the History of Christianity and he wrote a mini-version (1-book) for the average Joe called “A Popular History of the Catholic Church”. I don’t think either are still in print, but you can sometimes find them on Amazon or Ebay or the like. I had trouble with just the “popular” version, which was supposed to be an easier read, but the info in it is great. If you are a history nut, you’d probably really enjoy it…and I’d be willing to loan out my copy (if you don’t mind the tape and glue holding it together). But if history is not your forte, you may find it a long and tiring work (as I did)…even though it’s a small book. PM me if you are interested.

 

[Cranch]

So I think there are two distinct issues here. The first is whether a book should or should not be included in the Bible. On this issue, there has historically been broad agreement on most books, but certain books have been accepted by some churches and not by others. I think that for those books which everyone clearly accepts, one could infer that those are inspired. As for the others, I’d say there is much less certainty–simply because there is no consensus and direct revelation on the matter.

I used the book of Jeremiah above as a case in point. The Greek texts of Jeremiah and the Hebrew texts are pretty radically different–to the point where one is more than 10% longer than the other. The verses at some places are also in a different order. So even once you’ve decided that Jeremiah as a book should be part of the Bible, you still have to ask: “Which Jeremiah?” There is no revelatory guidance–only traditions–and they vary.

The second issue you asked me about was infallibility, which I think of as quite a bit different from a work being inspired. Simply because a particular writing is “useful for instruction” doesn’t mean it’s absolutely perfect. Even if all Christians could agree on which books should be in the Bible, which they don’t, we still wouldn’t know which manuscript to point to and say “this one’s infallible.” And if you can’t do that, then any assertion of infallibility seems totally illogical to me.

There is absolute certainty as to the identity of Sacred Scriptures. The canon (unchanged for 1600 years) has been defined by the Catholic Church founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit, in which resides the fullness of truth:

120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.

The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.

The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).

Disagreement with the Catholic Church regarding the canon is no different than any other issue of contention another church (or a person) might have with the Catholic Church. Consensus doen’t enter into it. For example, it is worth noting that the books of the Deuterocanon are regarded in the Orthodox Church as canonical but of lesser authority than the rest of the bible. This is not the Catholic view which awards them equal authority with the rest of Scripture. For what it’s worth, ALL the books appearing in the Orthodox bible which are missing from the Catholic canon are considered by the Orthodox to be in this same category (although the Greek church omits the Prayer of Manasseh and adds 4 Maccabees in an appendix).

As to the specific content of Scripture, this to has been addressed by the Church, the only authoritative interpreter of the Word of God (CCC 85). While the Church encourages biblical scholarship and also translations utilizing the original languages, the following concerning the Scriptures in Latin remains authoritative:

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.—4th Session, Council of Trent

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So, since we can’t actually know…we can only infer, it would seem dishonest to you then if I said, for example, that Paul’s Letter to the Romans is the Inspired Word of God?

I think as sort of a shorthand, I think it’s an honest statement. Paul doesn’t claim his own work is the Word of God, but through continuous authoritative use by the Churches throughout history with (as far as I know) no questions regarding its validity for that purpose, we can infer in a general way that it’s the Word of God. However, we’d still have to keep in mind that there are many “Romanses” floating around; so if/when you’d get down to talking about specific words or phrases, some qualifications could need to be made depending on the circumstances.

Or to ask another way the same question…it would seem HONEST to you for me to say that Paul’s Letter to the Romans **might not **be the Inspired Word of God?

This seems to me to be a dangerous statement given the general acceptance of Romans throughout history. I think if you had said “the book of Hebrews” this would be a more interesting question.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

As to the specific content of Scripture, this to has been addressed by the Church, the only authoritative interpreter of the Word of God (CCC 85). While the Church encourages biblical scholarship and also translations utilizing the original languages, the following concerning the Scriptures in Latin remains authoritative:

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.—4th Session, Council of Trent

So you would say that whatever the Vulgate looked like at the time of Trent would be THE inspired, defined words of Scripture? Would you say that whatever copy the Council is referring to is also infallible (just curious). Also, would, say, the Nova Vulgata be considered by Catholics somehow less inspired than the Vulgate of Trent? Again, honestly curious.

I’m also curious what the necessity of Divino Afflante Spiritu would be after the Church had already received the authoritative version of Scripture. Why even bother with the original languages if the Tridentine Vulgate is the authoritative manuscript? Why would anyone want to revise it? Seems like Catholics biblical scholars would want to devote their time to studying the Vulgate?

 

[ahs]

So, since we can’t actually know…we can only infer, it would seem dishonest to you then if I said, for example, that Paul’s Letter to the Romans is the Inspired Word of God?

I think as sort of a shorthand, I think it’s an honest statement. Paul doesn’t claim his own work is the Word of God, but through continuous authoritative use by the Churches throughout history with (as far as I know) no questions regarding its validity for that purpose, we can infer in a general way that it’s the Word of God. However, we’d still have to keep in mind that there are many “Romanses” floating around; so if/when you’d get down to talking about specific words or phrases, some qualifications could need to be made depending on the circumstances.

Or to ask another way the same question…it would seem HONEST to you for me to say that Paul’s Letter to the Romans **might not **be the Inspired Word of God?

This seems to me to be a dangerous statement given the general acceptance of Romans throughout history. I think if you had said “the book of Hebrews” this would be a more interesting question.

I think it is dangerous as well, but it is a logical consequence, to my understadning, to what you have propossed. If all we can do is infer that a book in the Bible might be the Inspired Word of God, then it is a logical reality that Paul’s Letter to the Romans (whichever of, or all of, the translations you want to look at) might not be the Inspired Word of God.

Let me ask you in this way…do you believe Paul’s Letter to the Romans (whichever of, or all of, or any given of, etc… the various versions) is the Inspired Word of God? And on whose authority do you accept it?

 

[livingwordunity]

We do assert a divinely inspired text. It’s just we don’t necessarily say the list of 73 books we use is divinely inspired.

What you said is not what is taught by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that every book in the canon of Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired. If it were not it would not have been included in the canon. Did you mean to say that translations of the Bible aren’t necessarily divinely inspired?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Let me ask you in this way…do you believe Paul’s Letter to the Romans (whichever of, or all of, or any given of, etc… the various versions) is the Inspired Word of God? And on whose authority do you accept it?

Without getting into some definition of what “inspired” means, sure–absolutely. I would accept it because it’s been used authoritatively and consistently by all of the Churches and has been considered a component of every canon of Scripture that I know of. (Not that it would influence my thinking, but even Marcion accepted Romans.) That’s a stellar track record.

 

[Reuben_J]

Philip Hughes also wrote a great history work. His 3-volume set is the History of Christianity and he wrote a mini-version (1-book) for the average Joe called “A Popular History of the Catholic Church”. I don’t think either are still in print, but you can sometimes find them on Amazon or Ebay or the like. I had trouble with just the “popular” version, which was supposed to be an easier read, but the info in it is great. If you are a history nut, you’d probably really enjoy it…and I’d be willing to loan out my copy (if you don’t mind the tape and glue holding it together). But if history is not your forte, you may find it a long and tiring work (as I did)…even though it’s a small book. PM me if you are interested.

Thanks for the recommendation, ahs. I will take note. Love History but not much of a reader myself. Used to be though, a bit.

I am still browsing through Philip Jenkins Lost History of Christianity. Though not a Catholic himself, he speaks much for Catholics in his many books like the new anti-Catholic and on the issue of pedophile among the clergy.

 

[ahs]

Without getting into some definition of what “inspired” means, sure–absolutely. I would accept it because it’s been used authoritatively and consistently by all of the Churches and has been considered a component of every canon of Scripture that I know of. (Not that it would influence my thinking, but even Marcion accepted Romans.) That’s a stellar track record.

So, you accept it on the authority of tradition?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So, you accept it on the authority of tradition?

Yes, sure. On the tradition of the entire church–in this sense, similar in concept to the Council of Nicaea.

 

[Cranch]

So you would say that whatever the Vulgate looked like at the time of Trent would be THE inspired, defined words of Scripture? Would you say that whatever copy the Council is referring to is also infallible (just curious). Also, would, say, the Nova Vulgata be considered by Catholics somehow less inspired than the Vulgate of Trent? Again, honestly curious.

The work of the Sacred Authors to put down in writing—under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—the Word of God may rightly be called inspired. As far as I know, none of that original work of their pens still exists. Everything we have now is a transcription or translation. As it was entrusted to do, the Catholic Church has preserved the Word of God faithfully both in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. (CCC 81) Therefore it is incorrect to speak of a less- or more-inspired translation of Scripture but only a less- or more-accurate and subsequently faithful translation. The decree from Trent declares the authenticity of the Vulgate “out of all the Latin editions” and therefore not to be rejected. The lack of a similar decree regarding the Nova Vulgata is not to be taken as some sort of argument from silence for a lesser status. On the contrary as stated in Liturgiam authenticam 41 concerning scripture translation for liturgical use:
It is advantageous to be guided by the Nova Vulgata wherever there is a need to choose, from among various possibilities [of translation], that one which is most suited for expressing the manner in which a text has traditionally been read and received within the Latin liturgical tradition.

I’m also curious what the necessity of Divino Afflante Spiritu would be after the Church had already received the authoritative version of Scripture. Why even bother with the original languages if the Tridentine Vulgate is the authoritative manuscript? Why would anyone want to revise it? Seems like Catholics biblical scholars would want to devote their time to studying the Vulgate?

The answers to these questions can be found threaded throughout the encyclical itself. Pius XII begins by quoting approvingly the same Decree from Trent I cited. Divino Afflante Spiritu was written to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Providentissimus Deus in which Leo XIII affirmed the truth of all of Scripture against those who according to Pius “ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals.” Leo “justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” After approvingly noting advances in Holy Land archeology, Pius writes:

Moreover ancient codices of the Sacred Books have been found and edited with discerning thoroughness; the exegesis of the Fathers of the Church has been more widely and thoroughly examined; in fine the manner of speaking, relating and writing in use among the ancients is made clear by innumerable examples. All these advantages which, not without a special design of Divine Providence, our age has acquired, are as it were an invitation and inducement to interpreters of the Sacred Literature to make diligent use of this light, so abundantly given, to penetrate more deeply, explain more clearly and expound more lucidly the Divine Oracles. And again:
In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.
A final excerpt:
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. It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council received a commission, which they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of the Holy Church of God. If this desire could not then be fully realized owing to the difficulties of the times and other obstacles, at present it can, We earnestly hope, be more perfectly and entirely fulfilled by the united efforts of Catholic scholars.

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.

 

[ahs]

Recalling that we are discussing with the understadning that the Bible is a colelction of book, letters, etc…and not some single work…

So, does this mean that you believe that any given book in the Christian Bible might not actually be the Inspired Word of God?

So I think there are two distinct issues here. The first is whether a book should or should not be included in the Bible. **On this issue, there has historically been broad agreement on most books, but certain books have been accepted by some churches and not by others. I think that for those books which everyone clearly accepts, one could infer that those are inspired. ** As for the others, I’d say there is much less certainty–simply because there is no consensus and direct revelation on the matter…

Are you saying that, while one can infer that a particular book in the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, which is done by popular concensus, one cannot not actually know whether or not it is the Inspired Word of God?

Given that there is no one particular agreed upon manuscript of the Bible and no direct divine revelation about any one manuscript, combination of books or particular edition, yes I think **inference about what IS held in common by the churches is probably the best one could do. To claim something more seems dishonest **to me.

So, since we can’t actually know…we can only infer, it would seem dishonest to you then if I said, for example, that Paul’s Letter to the Romans is the Inspired Word of God?

I think as sort of a shorthand, I think it’s an honest statement. Paul doesn’t claim his own work is the Word of God, but through continuous authoritative use by the Churches throughout history with (as far as I know) no questions regarding its validity for that purpose, we can infer in a general way that it’s the Word of God. However, we’d still have to keep in mind that there are many “Romanses” floating around; so if/when you’d get down to talking about specific words or phrases, some qualifications could need to be made depending on the circumstances…

Or to ask another way the same question…it would seem HONEST to you for me to say that Paul’s Letter to the Romans **might not **be the Inspired Word of God?

This seems to me to be a dangerous statement given the general acceptance of Romans throughout history. I think if you had said “the book of Hebrews” this would be a more interesting question.

I think it is dangerous as well, but it is a logical consequence, to my understadning, to what you have propossed. If all we can do is infer that a book in the Bible might be the Inspired Word of God, then it is a logical reality that Paul’s Letter to the Romans (whichever of, or all of, the translations you want to look at) might not be the Inspired Word of God.

Let me ask you in this way…do you believe Paul’s Letter to the Romans (whichever of, or all of, or any given of, etc… the various versions) is the Inspired Word of God? And on whose authority do you accept it?

Without getting into some definition of what “inspired” means, sure–absolutely. I would accept it because it’s been used authoritatively and consistently by all of the Churches and has been considered a component of every canon of Scripture that I know of. (Not that it would influence my thinking, but even Marcion accepted Romans.) That’s a stellar track record.

So, you accept it on the authority of tradition?

Originally Posted by Dave Noonan
Yes, sure. On the tradition of the entire church–in this sense, similar in concept to the Council of Nicaea.

Okay, so we can look to the tradition of the Church as a sure means of knowing (the only means of knowing? ) that a book in the Bible (Romans, in this case) is the Inspired Word of God. Why then were the additional verses of Esther, and all of Tobit and Judith, 1&2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, additional verses of Daniel, rejected by Protestants/Reformers in the 16th century? These were in every Canon of Scripture of all the Churches listed in that link you provided, with the soel exception of 1&2 Macc not being in the Ethiopian Canon.
Going by what you have presented, these should all be in the protestants’/reformers’ Bibles…because there was a consensus on them in the vast majority (or ALL if you exclept Ethiopia) the Christian Churches…up to the 16th century.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Recalling that we are discussing with the understadning that the Bible is a colelction of book, letters, etc…and not some single work…

Okay, so we can look to the tradition of the Church as a sure means of knowing (the only means of knowing? ) that a book in the Bible (Romans, in this case) is the Inspired Word of God. Why then were the additional verses of Esther, and all of Tobit and Judith, 1&2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, additional verses of Daniel, rejected by Protestants/Reformers in the 16th century? These were in every Canon of Scripture of all the Churches listed in that link you provided, with the soel exception of 1&2 Macc not being in the Ethiopian Canon.
Going by what you have presented, these should all be in the protestants’/reformers’ Bibles…because there was a consensus on them in the vast majority (or ALL if you exclept Ethiopia) the Christian Churches…up to the 16th century.

So the whole reason the Deuterocanon is even referred to AS the Deuterocanon is because their acceptance has been controversial at times in church history. Unlike Romans, your example above, they don’t have a “clean record,” so to speak. But yes in some way, shape or form, they should definitely be included under the heading “Christian Scripture” or “The Bible” with the caveat that their case for being “inspired” (again, leaving that definition open) is less clear. This is why Luther, just as an example, includes these texts in his translation of the Bible into German.

Again, we are speaking at the level of the canon. There are at least three versions of the book of Tobit that we know of. Which is the inspired one?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The work of the Sacred Authors to put down in writing—under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—the Word of God may rightly be called inspired. As far as I know, none of that original work of their pens still exists. Everything we have now is a transcription or translation.

So you would say then that the original writings were inspired but not later copies? Since none of the originals are available for inspection, this is what Christian fundamentalists often use as an “out” for problems related to inspiration and textual variants. Even though no one has ever testified to having seen the originals, these texts are the ones imagined to have been inspired. If you have ever written anything and think about the human process of writing, even the whole idea of “an original” itself is a bit cloudy, at least to me.

And I thought you said that the Tridentine Vulgate was THE authoritative manuscript? Since there are obvious differences between the Tridentine Vulgate and the original Vulgate (thus the need for editions like the Nova Vulgata) to say nothing of differences between the Latin translation and the Hebrew and Greek texts, it seems to me that you can’t have everything be inspired if they all differ from each other. Either you have an inspired translation (along the lines of the way Greek Orthodox think about the Septuagint or maybe in the way a “King James only” Christian thinks about the King James Version) or you have a theoretical inspired original, or you have to rethink what you mean by inspiration.

As it was entrusted to do, the Catholic Church has preserved the Word of God faithfully both in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. (CCC 81)

Sorry, but considering that there are thousands and thousands of textual variants, this seems like a gross overstatement to me. And what about the significant textual variants that already existed before the time of Christ and before the Church even came on the scene? Say, in Jeremiah, which I’ve already mentioned, or in Samuel?

I’m not saying these are necessarily anyone’s fault–it’s just human nature. We make mistakes. Lots of mistakes.

In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.

Yes, textual criticism is good. I would say its potential is limited, but it’s definitely something that should be done. Textual criticism can in some, maybe even in many cases, bring one back to something that more closely approximates the original. But sometimes the traditions are just simply different and the best textual criticism can do is point that out.

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.

Yes, I would definitely disagree with that. You can’t have your cake and eat it too; it’s either Trent or the originals or something else OR you have to admit the limitations of being able to know what is or is not inspired.

It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council received a commission, which they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of the Holy Church of God. If this desire could not then be fully realized owing to the difficulties of the times and other obstacles, at present it can, We earnestly hope, be more perfectly and entirely fulfilled by the united efforts of Catholic scholars.

Hmmm. Yes, you should definitely ask yourself why the Catholic Church has never actually followed through and prepared a critical edition of the Latin, Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible. It’s not like enough time hasn’t elapsed since Pius XII or that they lack the resources to do so.

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.

Sorry, but to a non-Catholic, this just reads like an elaborate dance around the fact that the Tridentine Vulgate doesn’t agree with other editions of the Vulgate, nor with the Hebrew or Greek texts.