FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Is Vulgate translation infallible?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
?
Good question, but it might be better to word it this way: does the Church's infallibility guarantee that the Vulgate is a true and accurate translation of the written word of God?

The Church's infallibility guarantees that the entire deposit of faith will be continuously transmitted without error.  It seems to me, this would necessitate preserving the Scriptures in their integrity.  If the Church's typical translation of the Bible was defective so that it led to the corruption of the deposit of faith, the Church could not be said be preserved from error. 

So in as much as the whole Church accepts a particular translation or the Pope or a Council binds the Church to accept it, a translation would at least not have any substantial errors that could corrupt the Church's faith.  I don't think this would necessarily mean the translation itself is perfect or irreformable (the accuracy of a translation is a somewhat fluid concept with most translations falling along a spectrum of literal to dynamic renderings), but that any style choices, translation errors, typos, inclusion of things that might have crept in that were not in the original manuscripts, etc., etc. would not be of a kind to corrupt the deposit of faith in the whole Church.

To me, it seems therefore that both the old and the new Vulgates are guaranteed in the above sense by the Church (the old Vulgate by the judgment of the Council of Trent, the new by the Constitution Scripturarum Thesaurus of Pope St. John Paul II, and both by their acceptance by the Church).
Okay, I was asking because in Vulgate Matthew 19:9 says "dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur". Now I know very little Latin but it seems to me that the bolded word would mean the same as English 'fornication', and not the Greek 'porneia'. So it would seem it's not infallible in every single word, as you said.
(10-04-2014, 06:25 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, I was asking because in Vulgate Matthew 19:9 says "dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur". Now I know very little Latin but it seems to me that the bolded word would mean the same as English 'fornication', and not the Greek 'porneia'. So it would seem it's not infallible in every single word, as you said.

"Fornicatio" means "whoredom," according to Lewis & Short, so it would be the equivalent of "porneia" ("pornē" is Greek for "prostitute").  In English it just means sex between two people not married to each other, which would include adultery, though I often encounter it in distinction to adultery, where "fornication" is sex between two unmarried people, and "adultery" is sex between two people, at least one of whom is married to someone else.
Well, it seems that fornication and porneia are cognates (they are descended from the same stem, at least they look so). But I think I've heard somewhere that here 'porneia' was used to denote unlawful unions such as incest for instance. Because if it were otherwise - and in this case it meant whoredom - wouldn't it mean that if a married woman becomes a prostitute and has sex with men other than her husband, this husband is then allowed to divorce and remarry? And I don't think it is so.
(10-06-2014, 01:15 PM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Well, it seems that fornication and porneia are cognates (they are descended from the same stem, at least they look so). But I think I've heard somewhere that here 'porneia' was used to denote unlawful unions such as incest for instance. Because if it were otherwise - and in this case it meant whoredom - wouldn't it mean that if a married woman becomes a prostitute and has sex with men other than her husband, this husband is then allowed to divorce and remarry? And I don't think it is so.

In the basic meaning, it means "whoredom," but in the NT and early Christian usage in general (see the entry in BDAG), it has a secondary meaning of "participation in prohibited degrees of marriage," and they give the references to the two places in Matthew where our Lord discusses divorce (5:32 and 19:9). The real difficulty in the interpretation is that the word is used both generically and specifically, and lacking a clear indication to which is meant, there's always a bit of wiggle room. I guess that's why the authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures isn't left up to each individual!
This manual of dogmatic theology gives an extensive explanation of the passage under discussion (sorry, I am unable to copy and paste the passage at the moment):

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhel...l_2_9.html
(10-19-2014, 11:10 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]This manual of dogmatic theology gives an extensive explanation of the passage under discussion (sorry, I am unable to copy and paste the passage at the moment):

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhel...l_2_9.html

"There is a well-known passage of Holy Scripture which objection, is commonly quoted in favour of divorce: "Whosoever," says our Lord, "shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" (Matt. xix. 9). Catholic interpreters usually explain this difficult text by referring to Mark x. 11, 12; Luke xvi. 18; and I Cor. vii. 39, where divorce is absolutely forbidden. They hold, therefore, that the apparent exception given in St. Matthew must be explained so as not to clash with the absolute rule given in the other Evangelists and St. Paul. There is, however, much difference of opinion as to the exact meaning of the text. Some writers lay stress on the word (in Greek), which they take to mean fornication, and not adultery (which is a different Greek word). Hence, according to them, the sense is: Whosoever shall put away his wife, except she be a wife of fornication, i.e. a mere concubine, etc. Others, likewise insisting that fornication is meant, hold that our Lord, speaking to Jews, told them that it was lawful for them to put away a wife who was found guilty of having sinned before marriage, because among them marriage with a virgin was alone looked upon as valid. Afterwards, when speaking to the disciples about marriage as it was to be among Christians, He forbade divorce under any circumstances. The common interpretation, however, allows that our Lord meant by (Greek), [meaning] adultery, and that He spoke not merely of marriage under the Mosaic law; but it considers that He spoke not of divorce properly so-called, but of perpetual separation. The meaning would therefore be: Whosoever shall refuse to live with his wife altogether --which he may not do, except if she has committed adultery -- himself commits adultery, i.e. becomes responsible for adultery on the part of his wife by exposing her to the danger of living with another. This interpretation may seem forced, but it may be proved from the context, and it has great patristic authority in its favour. The Pharisees asked our Lord whether it was lawful to put away one's wife. Our Lord answered that it was not lawful. They objected that Moses allowed it. Our Lord replied that Moses did so on account of the hardness of their heart, but that in the beginning it was not lawful. He then laid down the new law, restoring the primitive indissolubility. Now, if He allowed divorce, He would not have restored the primitive perfection of marriage, wherein what God had joined together no man could put asunder. Moreover, in the Sermon on the Mount our Lord had said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery" (Matt. v. 32). Some ancient authorities read, "Maketh her an adulteress" (in xix. 9, as well as here). That is to say, exposes her to the danger of adultery, and so becomes responsible for her sin. It should be noted, too, that our Lord does not say, "Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, except it be for fornication, committeth adultery," but "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication," etc. And that both in v. 32 and xix. 9 He says absolutely, "He that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery." The following passages from three of the greatest Fathers will show that they held the unlawfulness of divorce, even in case of adultery. "As long as the husband is alive, even though he be an adulterer, or sodomite, or covered with crimes, and be deserted by his wife for these enormities, he is still her husband, and she may not take another. It was not on his own authority that the Apostle so decreed, but, Christ speaking in him, he followed Christ's words, Who saith in the Gospel, 'Whosoever putteth away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress; and whosoever shall take her that is put away, is an adulterer.' Note the words, 'Whosoever hath taken her that is put away is an adulterer.' Whether she puts her husband away, or is put away by her husband, whoso shall take her is an adulterer" (St. Jerome, Ep., 55). St. Augustine deals expressly with the question of divorce in two books, De Conjugiis Adulterinis. Pollentius, to whom the books were addressed, was of opinion that adultery was a lawful excuse for divorce. He asked why, if our Lord meant that divorce was never lawful, He did not say so simply. The Saint answered that our Lord wished to condemn the graver sin of divorce where there was no adultery, without, however, excusing divorce in the case of adultery. The words given in Mark x. II, 12, and Luke xvi. 18, condemn both cases absolutely. St. John Chrysostom, in his sermon "On the Bill of Divorce," insists strongly on indissolubility even in the case of adultery. "A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; and, therefore, even though he gives her a bill of divorce, even though she leaves the house and goes to another, she is bound by the law, and is an adulteress. ... If [divorce] were good, [God] would not have made one man and one woman, but would have made two women for the one Adam, if He willed one to be put away and the other to be taken. But by the very formation [of our first parents] He made the law which I am now writing about. And what law is that? Let every man keep for ever that wife who first fell to his lot. This law is more ancient than the law of the bill of divorce," etc.(nn. i, 2).

The passages quoted from the Fathers in favour of divorce are for the most part either mere repetitions of our Lord's words, as recorded by St. Matthew, and therefore capable of the same interpretation; or else are ambiguous, and may be understood to refer to separation rather than divorce. Civil laws favouring divorce, even when enacted by Christian princes, are of no weight as theological arguments. "
From Dom Bernard Orchard's (O.S.B.) A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture:

"Sense of the (Council of Trent's Session IV*) Decree--The decree is not concerned with the original texts or the various non-Latin versions but only with Latin editions of the sacred text.  It does not judge or condemn any of these but prefers the Vulgate to the others and declares it the official Bible of the Latin Church.  The essential requisite of an official Bible at all times and especially at the time of the decree was freedom from doctrinal error.  The preference accorded to the Vulgate was based therefore not on its critical but on its doctrinal accuracy.  Its long use and approbation in the Infallible Church guaranteed its substantial conformity with the original texts and its definite authority in matters of faith and morals.  It was therefore declared authentic or authoritative in the sense that its testimony in doctrinal matters can never be legitimately rejected.  Its accuracy in other respects is neither asserted nor implied.  In his recent Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu Pius XII stresses the fact that the decree applies only to the Latin Church and the public use of the Scriptures and that it in no way diminishes the authority and value of the original texts in corroborating, confirming and elucidating Catholic doctrine (cf. AAS 33 (1943) 309)" (E. Power, S.J., The Languages, Texts and Versions of the Bible, sec. 29b, p. 33).


* There's a typo in the text, as it mistakenly refers to Session VI, not IV.
dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur".
I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. "

This is what gives the original interpretation of what Jesus was saying in this discourse. What he means is that with the exception of those who were living in illicit unions it was forbidden by the Law of God to put away your spouse and marry another. In other words if there is an illicit union, popularly known as "living in sin" that union should be ended and the person should get married. However once a marriage is entered into then it is indisoluble. It cannot be ended eexcept with the death of one of the spouses.