Next, Atkin argues semantics, saying, "There was a time when the Vulgate could be described as an “official” translation of Scripture for the Latin rite of the Church, but not the whole Church." This is a rejection of the tradition, which is denounced in the Second Degree of the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent: "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one,
relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,
hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries,
and be punished with the penalties by law established." (4th Ses., April 8, 1546)
Clearly, it states that the Church "hath held and doth hold" forever that the interpretation relayed in the council therein is authoritative, and those who are contrary to the authoritative legislation that the Church has [and always will] hold the Vulgate to be superior to Greek and Hebrew are not only against the holy mother Church, but anathema per the first decree. Atkins, by speaking contrary to the Vulgate as the authoritative text of the Church, is by the understanding of the Council writing something that detracts from the Vulgate and libel against it. This is condemned: "...by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and twisted to all sorts of profane uses,
to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt,
and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God,
be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment."
Second, Atkins also states that Pius XII's
Divino Afflante Spiritu (#21) allows other translations to supersede the Vulgate; this is plainly false; the Church’s teaching on the authority of the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible does not prohibit the use of original biblical languages and an examination of textual variants
to confirm the Vulgate, as stated in
Divino Afflante Spiritu (#22): “
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…” (Pope Pius XII,
Divino Afflante Spiritu #22, Sept. 30, 1943).
Pius states that the authority of the Vulgate is not being questioned, and an examination of textual variants will corroborate and confirm the Vulgate. Not only this, he out-and-out states that the original texts make the authority of the Vulgate clear and evident. Moreover, Pius doesn't directly state to forgo the Vulgate in using other source texts, but he adds on to the previous declaration [through the conjunction 'nor'] that Trent does not condemn the usage of other texts for the confirmation of the Vulgate, but, again, the original texts make the authority of the Vulgate clear and evident. Pius himself says in #21: "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." Clearly, the Vulgate is inerrant, and it is preferrable to all other source texts: "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.""
I think what many misunderstand is that the Douay-Rheims is NOT a typical translation where the translator rearranges the words and meanings, but a 'slavish' [i.e., an exact translation without liberties from the Latin into English]. The reader thereby has an exact understanding of what the original Latin says, rather than interpretations and interpolations. This is different than what Pius is speaking on, as Pius is speaking on the matter of translations using the Vulgate as its source text above others, and not a direct translation of the Vulgate itself, which only the Douay-Rheims can purport.
Indeed. I don’t know of another language as expressive or nuanced as Greek. For example, consider the depth of meaning in just two words, both of which are of extreme importance to Christianity, Logos and Prosopon. There is an enormous loss of context when we translate these as Word and Person - it is an accurate translation, but it feels inadequate.
If you look at the Latin (and original Greek) of the New Testament, it's very simple Greek, with simple syntax and vocabulary. St. Jerome maintained this same spirit with the Vulgate rendering. Our Lord taught in a very simple manner, He never taught like St. Paul tried once at the Athenian agora to produce a great work of oratory (like a Cicero or Demosthenes). Thus, regardless of the Latin vs Greek vocabulary, the Vulgate sticks its ground in my view.
Lastly, I wanted to quote Pope Leo XIII's
Providentissimus Deus on the matter of Scripture: "In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible,
let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with,
every effort should be made to remove it.
Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned;
truth cannot contradict truth,
and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself;
and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being." This is very important, as Leo says that if the interpretation of Scripture is without error, then there is no reason to correct it or do any such thing with it, because truth cannot contradict truth.
He also says this: "These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and
in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because,
having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author." Hence,
because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write -- He was so present to them -- that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers." He quotes the First Vatican Council, stating that the "Books of the Old and New Testament" in the ancient Latin Vulgate are to be received as sacred. And thus, 'because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author.'
If, as stated by Trent and Vatican I, that the Latin Vulgate is not only perfect, but the only stated reception of sacred and canonical Scripture, then, per Leo XIII [and Pius XII, who issued
Divino Afflante Spiritu in commemoration of
Providentissimus Deus] sacred scripture cannot be re-translated, as there is no error to correct. Moreover, because the Douay-Rheims is the only direct translation of the Vulgate itself, rather than a translation using the Vulgate as its source text above others, it carries that authoritative right on itself, therefore saying that there is no reason to either reject the Douay-Rheims or to make a translation contrary to the Douay-Rheims, as truth cannot contradict truth.
(2/2)
adfontesjournal.com
; I personally don't see much use of Scripture not directly translated from the Vulgate and [by proxy] the Douay-Rheims. But I will never tell you you are wrong, we have different preferences based on our acceptance of different Councils!
www.catholic.com
