A Reader Asks: "Does the Vulgate Bible Contain Errors?"
From: Manuel
Dear TRADITIO Fathers:
I just learned that there is a problem with a verse from the Vulgate Bible (1 Kings 6:19). One editor says that there is a discrepancy in sources about the number killed. However, the Council of Trent says that the Vulgate Bible does not contain errors and is wholly inspired by God. I wonder how to apply this definition to the above mentioned issues.
The TRADITIO Fathers Reply:
You have misquoted the Council of Trent. The dogma on the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture pertains only to the content of questions of faith and morals, not to the accuracy of the text in matters not relevant to those teachings. The Fathers of the Council of Trent were some of the most brilliant men in the history of the Church, who were quite conversant with the science known as textual criticism. To them, the three Sacred Languages (Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) were like native languages. Modern scholars have lost that fluency.
The phenomenon that you are talking about was well known to them. Textual variations in numbers are particularly common because in ancient languages numbers were usually represented by letters and diacritical marks (remember Roman numerals?), which are quite easy to misinterpret. Whatever the correct number is in the passage to which you are referring, you can be confident it has no significance whatsoever on Catholic doctrinal and moral teaching and that Sacred Scripture is inspired by God.
But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. 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.
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus
Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the
Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed:
#11) Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error. St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane
"The dogma on the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture pertains only to the content of questions of faith and morals, not to the accuracy of the text in matters not relevant to those teachings."
Interesting reply from Traditio. The reply reflects the Conciliar Modernist teaching that is virtually universal in the Conciliar sect.
I have a question
Are these Fathers (or Father?) sedevacantists? Are they even real Priests? I'm just wondering. I don't think it says who they are on their website.
… Fathers,
The question to you concerned the Vulgate which is the normative text. …
They (he) also seem to reject the apparitions and even the miracle of Fatima, and they ridicule and criticize and denigrate this apparition for some reason.
I have only read a few commentaries on Fatima but the little i read was enough to see how they really don't seem to like this apparition, which i don't understand.
I have a question
Are these Fathers (or Father?) sedevacantists? Are they even real Priests? I'm just wondering. I don't think it says who they are on their website.
Marie Auxiliadora, you got a typical answer from Traditio.
Sometimes they can be even cruel. I once asked them a question & they not only twisted my words, but posted phrases completely different than what I'd written to make me look like a fool. I agree with Neil & Emitte Lucem Tuam. Read & deal with them at your own peril. They can get ugly.
Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora… Fathers,
The question to you concerned the Vulgate which is the normative text. …
This is the nub of the problem, Marie. Your husband is mistaken in describing the Vulgate as the normative text. The only texts that Holy Mother Church recognizes as inspired by God and hence inerrant are the Hebrew and Greek originals of the Old and New Testaments, respectively. Were the Vulgate normative, it would not have undergone a dozen or more revisions at the insistence and with the full support of then-reigning popes. Jerome himself revised it at least thrice that I know of.
Biblical scholarship is a deep pool. Wading in it is dangerous, despite the frequently yielded-to temptation to do so evident on this site and many others, and drownings are frequent.
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema...... Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.
Council of Trent, Session IV
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 errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author.
Vatican Council I
The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that 'the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.' ... When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus ... justly and rightly condemned these errors. Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu
You are misreading the passages from the docuмents you cite, and you are also substituting several of those docuмents' terms—specifically, "sacred" and "canonical"—for terms for which they cannot be substituted—specifically, "inspired" and "inerrant"—without doing violence to the meaning of all four words.
You also continue to overlook that the Church itself has called for the revision of the Vulgate about a dozen times since its initial approval 1,600 years ago. I think that once you see that it is impossible to square what you are asserting with this plain fact, you will also see that in this instance, however right or wrong Traditio's site moderator may be on other matters, he and your husband are arguing at cross-purposes on this one.
Or else you won't. Either way, I've said all I have to say.
Haven't you heard?
Now that there is no pope, the Traditio "Fathers" are infallible. :rolleyes:
Why are traditio's dates always so far advanced? They've had "November" commentary since yesterday, when it was a few days away. (Heh, it's not November even NOW).
Why are traditio's dates always so far advanced? They've had "November" commentary since yesterday, when it was a few days away. (Heh, it's not November even NOW).
I suspect [Traditio] started that so as to give a few days grace period in the event that no new posts could be made for a day or more, and then they can simply make new posts on the next day that's empty. [....] The overall effect, however, is that it represents an ongoing lie, and they are not averse to having consistent falsehood on the site, as this is just that, a falsehood. So while it might be convenient, it is not true, and it therefore works against them in the end. But they must not see it that way, so then they don't think that truth is important, apparently.
Quote from: StCeciliasGirl (Oct 30, 2013, 9:51 pm)Why are traditio's dates always so far advanced? They've had "November" commentary since yesterday, when it was a few days away. (Heh, it's not November even NOW).
A reasonable & fair question. But first, an excerpted response from elsewhere that's neither:Quote from: Neil Obstat (Oct 30, 2013, 1:58 am)I suspect [Traditio] started that so as to give a few days grace period in the event that no new posts could be made for a day or more, and then they can simply make new posts on the next day that's empty. [....] The overall effect, however, is that it represents an ongoing lie, and they are not averse to having consistent falsehood on the site, as this is just that, a falsehood. So while it might be convenient, it is not true, and it therefore works against them in the end. But they must not see it that way, so then they don't think that truth is important, apparently.
I'm astonished at the lack of charity--if not overt hostility--in the unwarranted assumptions and commentary by 'Neil Obstat'. I disagree completely.
That's not to suggest that I've been satisfied with every on-line interaction that I've had with the "Traditio Fathers". I've received some exasperatingly dismissive answers to inquiries that I carefully crafted, getting quickly to the point (unlike in many discussion forums), and appending supporting information as end-notes.
Nowadays, assuming that the "Traditio Fathers" are ecclesiastical insiders who really have the experience that they claim--having been mature enough during Vatican II to evaluate its modernist developments--they might be getting far into, um, their senior years, and might be displaying the same elderly frailities that can be so frustrating in interactions with other people of comparable seniority. That might also account for the typos and cut-&-paste failures (e.g.: "All Souls Day", now fixed, since last night, to not be a "Holyday of Obligation"). But I'm just speculating. In more-traditional times, I suspect that those sorts of things were contributing factors in eventual decisions by bishops to retire their diocesan clergy.
As for the issue of dates on Traditio postings, my assumption has long been that their dates were deliberately advanced (so as) to provide liturgical details in advance. Or as helpful reminders of what's coming liturgically in the next few days.
Would anyone here seriously argue that traditional priests, other religious, sacristans, and the faithful have not been largely abandoned as the result of the assimilation of Catholic-supporting services by the Novus Ordo, especially Catholic publishers? No more Tridentine-traditional Missale Romanums in print, no more new-year's traditional liturgical calendars nor Ordoss being printed.
I assume that the SSPX took care of its own, annually devising and distributing Ordos for the calendars following the revision by John XXIII (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 15 augusti 1960).
Be that as it may, I suspect that for many independent traditional Catholic chapels/churches, Traditio is an important liturgical information resource.
For priests whose ordination predated the 1960 & 1962 changes, their effect was to scuttle liturgical expertise acquired over many years. Among other things, the calendars following the 1960 revision expressed dignity a.k.a. rank of feasts &c. in a new style, ironically using roman numerals, i.e.: I--IV As good as your questions and others of this type are, A.Dicax, they are
- . That seems, to this layman, to be a more logical & straightforward system than the fully traditional earlier system in which dignity seemed overly complicated, exemplified by semidouble (1/2 × 2 = 1) that was different from simple (= 1?), and double-major that was inferior to double of 2nd class (despite maior being the greater of the comparative pair of adjectives). It's my impression that the earlier system was based on terminology that applied more directly to reading the Divine Office than to devising annual liturgical calendars (but I claim no direct evidence).
Here are a couple of fresh examples of issues that do arise in trying to correctly observe the traditional Catholic liturgical year: In 2013, the Feast of the Annunciation (March 25) fell on what might be called "Palm Monday". That traditionally required its celebration to be moved out of Holy Week, and past Easter Week, to the first available unprivileged date, thus to April 8. Also in 2013, what about the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (December 8), which falls on the 2nd Sunday of Advent? Consider that some Sundays of Advent and Lent are traditionally privileged. Should the sacristan decorate the altar & sanctuary with Advent "violet", or festal white? Should the altar & sanctuary be decorated with flowers for the Marian feast, or be devoid of them on account of the Sunday of Advent? If flowers will be present, they'll need to be arranged in advance. What should the church bulletin announce to the faithful about what day they're obligated to observe the holyday? Will it be translated to the following Monday? Do you think it'd be a good idea for a bulletin editor to wait for an embargoed-until-Sunday morning announcement by Traditio, not revealing until then what liturgy applies to Masses for that same day?
Note #: Logic seems to require a V rank for mere commemoration, and an extra rank, perhaps a not-necessarily-numeric X, to indicate "blown away (this liturgical year), but do try again next year", e.g.: the popular St. Anthony of Padua, his fixed-feast at June 13, but ranked only 'double' or III, quashed in 2011 by falling on the Tuesday within the traditionally privileged Octave of Pentecost. Bummer.
One of the few really great things that comes out of Traditio is their world-wide Traditional Mass directory. :applause: