goldenchild17 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 "One thing that you should know is that the Catholic church made an official statement that ONLY the vulgate with the apocrypha was the word of God. That all other translations were not. (hmmm.... what happened to that decision? Guess they were wrong). . . . It is found in the fourth session of the Council of Trent. Also, the fifth paragraph in [url="http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/CouncilTrent.html"]this website[/url] denotes it. It isn't where I initially got the information from, but I ran a quick "yahoo" when you disagreed and the first document I came to said this." What section of fourth session of Trent deals with the Vulgate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I've been looking for 30 mins now and I can't find any statement where the Church said the Vulgate was the only inspired Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Not sure if this will help ---------------------------------------------------- DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS 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 years, 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. 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; [Page 20] 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. And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned. Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and [Page 21] 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. [url="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html"]http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiatLux1860 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Am I mistaken in thinking that when that website says, [quote name='Council of Trent article']"The Council believed that both the Bible and the traditions of the church were the Word of God, but the Protestants believed that only the Bible was the true Word of God. Also, the Council held the belief that only the traditional Catholic Bible, called the Vulgate, was right and official, and thus, they rejected all other versions. This did not go over very well with those of other denominations," [/quote] it is referring to the correctness of the Catholic versus the Protestant bible, not necessarily the correctness of the Vulgate edition specifically versus another Catholic translation like, say, the NAB. After all, are not the other Catholic versions just various translations of the same source from which the Vulgate was translated? And if they all came from the same place and contain the same things without any grave translation errors, then they should be ok, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 The Council of Trent reaffirmed the books that belonged in the Canon of Scripture. You gotta remember that during this time some of the books had been removed already by Luther and in a few other Protestant Bibles. The reason that Trent would say that the Vulgate was the only true inspired Bible is because of the time that they were in. They were restating that the Vulgate is the true and complete canon of Scripture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 the Vulgate was declared by the Council of Trent to be completely free from error, in that as Catholics we can trust that everything in the vulgate can be taken as the inspired word of God. It did not say in negation that other versions were uninspired, merely that all the erroneous translations out there (that really had agenda-filled errors placed by currupt translators) should be banned. we can still trust in the Vulgate as having no error even if it may be slightly different than the manuscripts we have today (remember, St. Jerome had older manuscripts available ot him than we do and we don't have any original copies) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 24 2005, 12:45 PM']the Vulgate was declared by the Council of Trent to be completely free from error, in that as Catholics we can trust that everything in the vulgate can be taken as the inspired word of God. It did not say in negation that other versions were uninspired, merely that all the erroneous translations out there (that really had agenda-filled errors placed by currupt translators) should be banned. we can still trust in the Vulgate as having no error even if it may be slightly different than the manuscripts we have today (remember, St. Jerome had older manuscripts available ot him than we do and we don't have any original copies) [right][snapback]656876[/snapback][/right] [/quote] DIdn't the Council of Trent recommend changes be made and eventually that request was fulfilled in the Clementine Vulgate? The "free from error" quote comes from a 1943 document from Pope Pius XII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 The Vulgate is DOCTRINALLY and MORALLY free of error (for example, "saved by faith" is not changed to "saved by faith alone"). That doesn't mean it's TEXTUALLY free of error. Thus, it is untrue to say "as Catholics we can trust that everything in the vulgate can be taken as the inspired word of God." The Vulgate is not "inspired", except insofar as it authentically reproduces the original words of the Sacred Authors. It is just one source for Bible scholars, albeit a venerable and priveleged one. [quote]"But that the Synod of Trent wished the Vulgate to be the Latin version `which all should use as authentic,' applies, as all know, to the Latin Church only, and to the public use of Scripture, and does not diminish the authority and force of the early texts. For at that time no consideration was being given to early texts, but to the Latin versions which were being circulated at that time, among which the Council decreed that that version was rightly to be preferred which was approved by the long use of so many centuries within the Church." --Pope Pius XII[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 [quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 24 2005, 12:51 AM']"One thing that you should know is that the Catholic church made an official statement that ONLY the vulgate with the apocrypha was the word of God. That all other translations were not. (hmmm.... what happened to that decision? Guess they were wrong). . . . It is found in the fourth session of the Council of Trent. Also, the fifth paragraph in [url="http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/CouncilTrent.html"]this website[/url] denotes it. It isn't where I initially got the information from, but I ran a quick "yahoo" when you disagreed and the first document I came to said this." What section of fourth session of Trent deals with the Vulgate? [right][snapback]656517[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The fact is that there were many versions in various languages that were approved by the Church for use. German, swiss, French, etc. The Vulgate was considered the official version however. This did not mean the others were not allowed. The text from Trent does not bear out his point. In fact if read objectively it only speaks of the authority of the vulgate. That it cannot be rejected. It does not denounce other Bibles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Oh, I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seven77 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Its Latin to me---or should i say its Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic translated into Latin, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 "One thing that you should know is that the Catholic church made an official statement that ONLY the vulgate with the apocrypha was the word of God. That all other translations were not. (hmmm.... what happened to that decision? Guess they were wrong).. . .It is found in the fourth session of the Council of Trent.Also, the fifth paragraph in this website denotes it. It isn't where I initially got the information from, but I ran a quick "yahoo" when you disagreed and the first document I came to said this."What section of fourth session of Trent deals with the Vulgate? Basically Trent tried to fight protestant errors in doctrine and in erroneous translations of Scripture. Many questions are clearer keeping that in mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now