Where does one find the "OFFICIAL" biblical interpretation of the Catholic Church?

[mtr01]

jpy15026:

If you want to see another “key” word that the Protestants had to change ,read Mat 6:11 in the Douay Rheims (The Lord’s Prayer) drbo.org/

Mat 6: 11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

“Supersubstantial bread”… In St. Luke the same word is rendered daily bread. It is understood of the bread of life, which we receive in the Blessed Sacrament

Here’s another from Matthew (Mat 3:2):

Douay:

And saying:** Do penance**: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

RSV:

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

NAB:

(and) saying, “Repent, 3 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

KJV:

And saying,** Repent ye**: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

NIV:

and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

It’s interesting. In my Haydock Douay-Rheims, the note concerning “do penance” states that the Protestant translations changed the common meaning of the Greek and substituted “repent”, thus changing the meaning of John’s message that we were not only to change our hearts and turn to God, but to atone for our past sins through penance. It seems this Protestant influence has also crept into Catholic translations (actually all occurances of “do penance” in my Douay are rendered as “repent” in my NAB and RSV-CE).

 

[jpy15026]

Another protestant change in their Scriptures is Gen 3:15 in reference to Our Mother,The Blessed Virgin Mary.

---

Douay Rheims Gen 3:15

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

15 “She shall crush”… Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.

Genesis 3:15 (NAB)
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

Genesis 3:15 (KJV)
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Genesis 3:15 (RSV)
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

Genesis 3:15 (1901 ASV)
15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

mtr01:

Here’s another from Matthew (Mat 3:2):

Douay:

RSV:

NAB:

KJV:

NIV:

It’s interesting. In my Haydock Douay-Rheims, the note concerning “do penance” states that the Protestant translations changed the common meaning of the Greek and substituted “repent”, thus changing the meaning of John’s message that we were not only to change our hearts and turn to God, but to atone for our past sins through penance. It seems this Protestant influence has also crept into Catholic translations (actually all occurances of “do penance” in my Douay are rendered as “repent” in my NAB and RSV-CE).

 

[The_Cub]

You’re questions and the related responses are a bit confusing. You ask about the official Biblical interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. You should start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the topical discussions have respective footnotes that will direct you to the applicable source i.e. Holy Scripture, the teachings of the Fathers, pronouncements of the Magisterium.

CCC – Electronic Search

http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/index.cfm

CCC - Topical

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

The answers that you have received seem to address which “translations” of the Bible that are ‘official’. **There is only one Bible……that is the Latin Vulgate **as defined by Pope St. Damasus I, and compiled and translated by St. Jerome during the end of the 4th century.

The Douay-Rheims; NAB, RSV-CE, are English translations stemming from the Vulgate. For a list of English translations that are acceptable for use at Holy Mass (and there are only a few) see the “Ask the Experts” section of EWTN.

www.EWTN.com

Hope that helps

Cubster

 

[deborah1313]

Being an adult convert, most of my Bible study was done in the King James Version aka KJV.

I presently use the New St. Joseph’s Edition. Our parish handed out pocket-size versions of it to all the Catechumens and Candidates this year at the Rite of Acceptance.

I do not like, nor do I recommend the New Jerusalem Bible.

deborah 1313:wave:

 

[romano]

## The CCC gives a few theological principles relating to the Church’s doctrine and use of the Bible - what it does not give, because it is not designed to give it, is a commentary on the text of the Bible.

It is no more a Bible commentary than a history of the Church, an introduction to Church law, an introduction to the study of the liturgy, or any thing else “Churchy” - except for being a catechism. That is all. It makes incidental remarks about other subjects - that does not mean that it is designed as a guide or introduction to them. It does not replace any of them - it is not intended to.

The thing is to read the Pope’s account of what it is intended to be - then we won’t expect it to do or to be what he and the 700 other bishops who produced it did not intend it to do or be ##

You took the words out of my mouth!

 

[romano]

jpy15026:

If you want to see another “key” word that the Protestants had to change ,read Mat 6:11 in the Douay Rheims (The Lord’s Prayer) drbo.org/

Mat 6: 11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

• “Supersubstantial bread”… In St. Luke the same word is rendered daily bread. It is understood of the bread of life, which we receive in the Blessed Sacrament*

“Supersubstantial” is straight out of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate:

PANEM NOSTRUM SUPERSUBSTANTIALEM DA NOBIS HODIE

An interesting instance of Jerome’s superiority because he was working with earlier and better manuscripts?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

romano:

You took the words out of my mouth!

Frustrating, isn’t it ​

 

[romano]

[snip]
A bible that footnoted every discussion of every point, word, definition, or source would be so mammoth as to be unusable. The example is the Talmud, the centuries of rabbinical argument, disputation, exhortation, interpretation of the law, preserved and studied to this day by Orthodox students of Jewish law and scripture. . . .

For anyone who may be interested, you can downlaod the complete text of the Soncino Babylonian Talmud with related materials at:

come-and-hear.com/index-2.html

You should check it out. It’s a real eye-opener.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

“Supersubstantial” is straight out of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate:

PANEM NOSTRUM SUPERSUBSTANTIALEM DA NOBIS HODIE

An interesting instance of Jerome’s superiority because he was working with earlier and better manuscripts?

Not necessarily…“supersubstantialem” is a rendering of Greek “epiousion”, which means “daily”, as in the phrase, “Ergazomai ton epiousion” - “I am working for my daily bread”.​

I wonder what MSS he was working with…?

That Talmud site - TY v. much ##

 

[romano]

[snip]

The answers that you have received seem to address which “translations” of the Bible that are ‘official’. **There is only one Bible……that is the Latin Vulgate **as defined by Pope St. Damasus I, and compiled and translated by St. Jerome during the end of the 4th century.

So far as I can gather, the Clementina edition of Jerome (Biblia
Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam) was the official Latin text of the
Catholic Church from 1502 to 1979. The New Vulgate (Bibliorum Sacrorum
nova vulgata editio) has now replaced the Clementina as the official
Latin text of the Catholic Church.

You’ll find a very full and interesting review of these (from which
my comments were filched) at Amazon:

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/3438053039/qid=1107399786/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7263732-1539835?v=glance&s=books

 

[romano]

## Not necessarily…“supersubstantialem” is a rendering of Greek “epiousion”, which means “daily”, as in the phrase, “Ergazomai ton epiousion” - “I am working for my daily bread”.

Duh? So how does “daily” become “supersubstantial” in Jerome?
‘Supersubstantialis’ means ‘Necessary for sustenance.’ To my untutored
mind it seems a logical deduction that, whatever was in the Greek ms.
Jerome was working with, it couldn’t have been “epiousion.” Could it?

Yours with Lytel Latine and Lesse Greke

 

[jpy15026]

Complete footnote in my Haydock D.R.
*VER. 11. Our supersubstantial bread. So it is at present in the Latin text: yet the same Greek word in S. Luke, is translated daily bread, as we say it in our Lord’s prayer, and as it was used to be said in the second or third age, as we find by Tertullian and S. Cyprian. Perhaps the Latin word, supersubstantialis, may bear the same sense as daily bread, or bread that we daily stand in need of; for it need not be taken for supernatural bread, but for bread which is daily added, to maintain and support the substance of our bodies. Wi.–In S. Luke the same word is rendered daily bread. It is understood of the bread of life, which we receive in the blessed sacrament. Ch.–It is also understood of the supernatural support of the grace of God, and especially of the bread of life received in the blessed eucharist A.–As we are only to pray for our daily bread, we are not to be over solicitous for the morrow, nor for the things of this earth, but being satisfied with what is necessary, turn all our thoughts to the joys of heaven. Chry. hom. xx. *

This is my whole point ,These were (and still is) our Catholic understandings \ teachings of our Catholic Faith from scripture that you absolutly will not find in any other bible footnotes but the Douay Rheims "Catholic Bible " that was used by the Catholic Church to instruct Catholics in the *Catholic *Faith “before” the Protestant versions were published to “protest” against *Catholic *beliefs and teachings.This is a real treasure that has existed for Centurys that we Catholics seemed to have ignored and I for one am just Blown Away with this Precious diamond of Scripture that I found.
Check my Post of The Haydock footnotes on Jesus’ 40 Days in the Desert ,It really brings home the reason we Catholics celebrate Lent each year,find this in any other version of the Bible.
Sorry if I’m ranting but but the more I read my Haydock Douay Rheims ,the more excited I get about my Catholic Faith.

romano:

Duh? So how does “daily” become “supersubstantial” in Jerome?
‘Supersubstantialis’ means ‘Necessary for sustenance.’ To my untutored
mind it seems a logical deduction that, whatever was in the Greek ms.
Jerome was working with, it couldn’t have been “epiousion.” Could it?

Yours with Lytel Latine and Lesse Greke

 

[mtr01]

On “supersubstantial” bread from the Catechism:

[2837](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2837.htm’) “Daily” (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of "this day,"128 to confirm us in trust “without reservation.” Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence.129 Taken literally (epi-ousios: “super-essential”), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the “medicine of immortality,” without which we have no life within us.130 Finally in this connection, its heavenly meaning is evident: “this day” is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day. [emphasis mine]

Perhaps St. Jerome was more on target than he is given credit for…

 

[romano]

[snip]
This is my whole point ,These were (and still is) our Catholic understandings \ teachings of our Catholic Faith from scripture that you absolutly will not find in any other bible footnotes but the Douay Rheims "Catholic Bible " that was used by the Catholic Church to instruct Catholics in the *Catholic *Faith “before” the Protestant versions were published to “protest” against *Catholic *beliefs and teachings.This is a real treasure that has existed for Centurys that we Catholics seemed to have ignored and I for one am just Blown Away with this Precious diamond of Scripture that I found. . . . Sorry if I’m ranting but but the more I read my Haydock Douay Rheims ,the more excited I get about my Catholic Faith.

Dang! You are of course right. And wouldn’t you know it, the Haydock was
the one place I neglected to check.

As penance for my appalling oversight I’ve typed up a fairly full
description of a 19th century Haydock I acquired only recently
and placed it in your Haydock\Lent thread. But now I’ve finished
admiring its binding I can see i’m going to have to crack those notes!

Many thanks.

 

[romano]

mtr01:

On “supersubstantial” bread from the Catechism:

Perhaps St. Jerome was more on target than he is given credit for…

Dang! The CCC. Another I forgot to check. Many thanks. I’m learning a lot here.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

romano:

Duh? So how does “daily” become “supersubstantial” in Jerome?
‘Supersubstantialis’ means ‘Necessary for sustenance.’ To my untutored
mind it seems a logical deduction that, whatever was in the Greek ms.
Jerome was working with, it couldn’t have been “epiousion.” Could it?

Yours with Lytel Latine and Lesse Greke

Because epiousion is the word which is behind both the Latin supersubstantialis and the English “daily”. A better Latin translation would be diurnalis, or something of the kind.​

Epiousion is what the Greek says , in Matthew at least.

“Supersubstantial” (and that sort of thing) owes more to Christian interpretation of the text than to the meaning of the Koine Greek in which the Gospel is written. Translation has to be of what the text means - not of what later generations take it to mean - otherwise we end up importing our ideas into the text, instead of heeding what it actually saying. Which is illogical ##

 

[Erich]

jpy15026:

Sorry if I’m ranting but but the more I read my Haydock Douay Rheims ,the more excited I get about my Catholic Faith.

I don’t have a Haydock DRV, just a “regular” DRV which I bought when I saw it at my local used book store. (True to stereotypical form, this Bible was still in its original box, uninscribed, and without any bookmarked pages or hand-written notes in the margins… in other words, practically unopened… clearly a Catholic Bible! I forgot to listen for whether or not the spine cracked when I opened it… kinda made me wonder how this particular Bible ended up in a “used” book store! )

I know that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name (e.g. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, etc.), and of course I also know that the authors of the sacred texts weren’t the ones to add the verse numberings as we know them today.

But, I was surprised to find that whole entire psalms are numbered differently in the Douay-Rhiems and the NAB! In particular, Ps. 25 in my NAB showed up as Ps. 24 in my DRV (the two translations got “out of sync” around Ps. 9-10, and seemed to alternate between “out of sync” and “in sync” the rest of the time).

What other discrepancies are there between the Douay-Rhiems and other translations that it would be helpful to know about?

 

[romano]

## Because epiousion is the word which is behind both the Latin supersubstantialis and the English “daily”. A better Latin translation would be diurnalis, or something of the kind.

Epiousion is what the Greek says , in Matthew at least.

“Supersubstantial” (and that sort of thing) owes more to Christian interpretation of the text than to the meaning of the Koine Greek in which the Gospel is written. Translation has to be of what the text means - not of what later generations take it to mean - otherwise we end up importing our ideas into the text, instead of heeding what it actually saying. Which is illogical ##

True, but what you are overlooking is that most words don’t have a
single, clear, unambiguous meaning; words take their meaning from
context (e.g. he ran a mile; he ran for office).

EPIOUSION is translated by Jerome in Luke 11.3 as QUOTIDIANUM (daily)
and in Matthew 6.11 as SUPERSUBSTANTIALIS (sustaining). Because he
translates the word in two different ways, it hardly follows that he
must be ‘importing his own ideas into the text.’ Try translating the
word ‘ran’ as employed above from English into any other language and you’d almost
certainly end up having to use two very different words.

Western civilization was founded on the Vulgate. It is the present
pagan chaos that is founded in casuistry. My vote goes to Jerome.

 

[romano]

[snip]
If you want to see another “key” word that the Protestants had to change. . . .

I’m fascinated by this subject of the difference between the Douay-Rheims and the protestant translations and have been looking at another.

For Apocalypse 22.14 the Douay-Confraternity reads: “BLESSED ARE THEY
WHO WASH THEIR ROBES THAT THEY MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE TREE OF LIFE.”
But isn’t this a somewhat meaningless statement? We all wash our
clothes! How can a visit to the laundromat give us “the right to the
tree of life”? This verse is incomplete and no competent writer would
allow it to stand because it raises a question in the reader’s mind that
it doesn’t answer: Wash their clothes in what?

Turning to what we are told is the 1582 RHEIMS NT we find something that
makes much more sense: “BLESSED ARE THEY THAT WASH THEIR ROBES IN THE
BLOOD OF THE LAMB: that they may have a right to the tree of life.”

This, besides being powerful, is far more effective because it carries
us back instantly to Apocalypse 22.1: “And he showed me a river of the
water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God AND
OF THE LAMB.”

The only problem is that the words “IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB” do not
appear in the original 1582 Rheims! That’s right. In Samuel Bagster’s
HEXAPLA - a parallel edition of six early English translations of the
Bible - the original 1582 Rheims reads: “BLESSED ARE THEY THAT WASH
THEIR STOLES : THAT THEIR POWER MAY BE IN THE TREE OF LIFE.” And the
words do not appear in Tyndale (1534), Cranmer (1539), Geneva (1557), or
the KJV (1611) either.

They occur, oddly enough, only in Wycliffe (1380): “BLESSID BE THEI THAT
WAISCHEN HER STOOLIS : IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMBE THAT THE POWER OF HE BE
IN THE TREE OF LIIF.” Their source is Jerome’s Vulgate: “BEATI, QUI
LAVANT STOLAS SUAS IN SANGUINE AGNI.”

I’m left wondering just why these beautiful words about the lamb - words
which are vital to complete the sense of 22:14 - were not in the
original 1582 Rheims; how they got into our modern editions of what we
are told is the 1582 Rheims; and why they were removed from the modern
Douay-Confraternity.

 

[jpy15026]

romano:

I’m fascinated by this subject of the difference between the Douay-Rheims and the protestant translations and have been looking at another.

Haydock Douay Rheims:
22:14. Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life and may enter in by the gates into the city

Footnote :
*VER. 14. That they may have a right or power to eat of the tree of life. A right grounded on the promises of God and his graces.

** I also checked the verse in my ‘Challoner’ Douay Rheims and it is exactly the same.