Regarding the original Douay-Rheims version vs. the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims --
(This is partially aimed at Gladius, who contributed to this thread a few years ago)
I just looked in my Douay-Rheims (TAN edition from the 80's/90's), and right there on the front page is an approbation from His Eminence James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. Dated September 1, 1899.
For those who do not know, he was a valid Cardinal of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. He probably knew more about Scripture, Latin, Greek, Theology, Philosophy, etc. than anyone who has graced CathInfo. Yes, that includes Gladius, Matthew and Raoul.
(The TAN edition is a photo-reproduction of this version)
So it would seem that the true Catholic Church approves of the Challoner version. Indeed, it is a most excellent Bible to nourish the Faith of Catholics, providing them with a good, faithful translation of sacred Scripture.
If it's good enough for the (pre-Vatican II) Catholic Church founded by Christ and preserved by the Holy Ghost, it's good enough for me. Who am I to say, "I don't know...do you have anything better?"
Roma Locuta est. Causa Finita est.
"Rome has spoken; the case is closed."
Anyone who says otherwise is a purist and/or elitist who wants to be stuck up and feel superior about their choice of Scripture translation. In almost every category of life, you have a few individuals who wish to sit atop the pyramid, looking down at practically everyone. The Mass, Scripture, approval of Catholic priests, devotions, lifestyle, you name it.