Is the Vulgate a 'Divinely Inspired' Translation? Is the Douay-Rheims its Faithful English Counterpart?

I have already thought about the possibility of the Vulgate being divinely inspired, and I think I have come up with some genuine evidence for it. First, note Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus on the matter of Scripture: "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.' Not only does Leo XIII [along with Trent and Vatican I] declare that the Latin Vulgate is perfect, but they also declare it to be the only stated reception of sacred and canonical Scripture. Moreover, the Vulgate was declared to "be held as authentic" by the Catholic Church by the Council of Trent: "Moreover, this 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."

Second, see Pius XII's 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). Moreover, in Divino Afflante Spiritu (#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."" Pius XII declares multiple things here:

1. The authority of the Vulgate is perfect, and free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.
2. An examination of textual variants will corroborate and confirm the Vulgate.
3. He also states outright that the original texts make the authority of the Vulgate clear and evident.

This last point is important, as to say that the original texts make the authority of the Vulgate clear, Pius is coagulating the Vulgate's authority with that of Providentissimus Deus: "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." I don't think it would be far-fetched to consider the Vulgate to be divinely inspired, as Providentissimus Deus states that the Vulgate is the incarnation of the Scriptures' "truth;" he said: "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."

Note that prior, he stated that the only valid interpretation of scripture was the "ancient Latin Vulgate," and thus, by saying the "interpretation of Scripture is without error," it would be logical that the Vulgate is indeed without error in any way; and in implying that the Vulgate is the incarnation of the truth of the Scriptures ("truth cannot contradict truth"), he also implies that the Holy Ghost employed St. Jerome as His instrument to provide the Vulgate to the Church [at least, the Holy Spirit guided the Church into the actualization of the Vulgate]. In regards to Doctrine, the Church infallibly dictates what the Canon of Scripture is, and [by nature of infallibility] does this with the grace of the Holy Spirit; note then that all books that were declared Canon by the Church were originally translated through St. Jerome, thus constituting that Jerome's work was not infallible in itself, but constitutes perfection. Moreover, if we are to consider things such as the words of Jesus from the cross in Luke: "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do," [while our earlier texts don't have that line, we consider it to be] a divinely inspired addition, then Jerome's changes and translation decisions constitute divinely inspired changes.

Thirdly, St. Jerome [who you all recognize as a saint] compiled the Vulgate from sources no longer in existence, and with its acceptance as being infallible (“No one [may] dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it”) and perfect (“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals”), it would be a violation of the Catholic Faith to recognize any source except the Vulgate. Moreover, the Vulgate also supersedes the Hebrew and Greek, as in regards to ECNS ('extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,' i.e., no salvation outside the Church), if the Catholic [and Orthodox Church ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia] Church is the One, True, Church; and because the Greek and Hebrew were written by individuals who did not pertain to Catholic principles, we cannot trust these translations to provide the fullness of the Magisterial Appeal, though they are not entirely out of the picture for use. I'll stop there, but I will quote the Rt. Rev. Henry Graham's 'Where We Got the Bible': “…At a single leap we thus arrive at that great work, completed by the greatest scholar of his day, who had access to manuscripts and authorities that have now perished, and who, living so near the days of the Apostles, and, as it were, close to the very fountain-head, was able to produce a copy of the inspired writings which, for correctness, can never be equaled.” The Vulgate is superior to Hebrew and Greek for these reasons.

For greater proof, look to Luke 1:28: "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." The Greek word Χαῖρε (chaire) is synonymous with our archaic English word “hail.” It incidentally carries with it a certain 'royal' connotation we associate with the word “hail” in English, as seen by its only other usage in the rest of the New Testament, in reference to Christ’s being a “king," see John 19:3: "And they came up to him and said, Hail [Χαῖρε], King of the Jews! And they struck him with their hands (cf. Mk 15:18; Mt 27:29 [Mt 26:49])." The Greek word κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitōmenē, translated 'full of grace;' 'highly favored' etc.) is the word of contention here as regards translation differences. It is difficult to render a single Greek word so rich in meaning (grammatically) into an equivalent word in English; in fact, that is arguably impossible (without being a very ugly translation). To make matters worse, κεχαριτωμένη is titular, meaning it is actually used as a title for Mary: Gabriel doesn't say, 'Hail, Mary! You are highly favored/full of grace,' He gives Mary a title: “Hail, κεχαριτωμένη!” This is reflected by the Vulgate, which states "...et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus..." Note that most translations do not coagulate with this reality [Note, the incorrect translation for Χαῖρε will be blue, and the translation for κεχαριτωμένη will be red, any correct translation for Χαῖρε or κεχαριτωμένη will be purple]:

The New International Version (NIV): The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

English Standard Version (ESV): And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

King James Version (KJV 1900): And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

New Living Translation (NLT): Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!”

New Century Version (NCV): The angel came to her and said, “Greetings! The Lord has blessed you and is with you.”

American Standard Version (ASV): And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee.

1890 Darby Bible (DARBY): And the angel came in to her, and said, Hail, thou favoured one! the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou amongst women.

GOD’S WORD Translation (GW): When the angel entered her home, he greeted her and said, “You are favored by the Lord! The Lord is with you.”

The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB): And the angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you.”

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

The Lexham English Bible (LEB): And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

New International Reader’s Version (1998) (NIrV): The angel greeted her and said, “The Lord has given you special favor. He is with you.”

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (NASB95): And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

We can see here that only the Vulgate correctly annotates Luke 1:28, and is the basis for the Rosary prayer: "Ave María, grátia plena, Dóminus tecum. Benedícta tu in muliéribus, et benedíctus fructus ventris tui, Iesus..." The translation of Luke 1:28 MUST match with the Rosary prayer, as confirmed in the Pope St. Pius V's 1569 papal bull Consueverunt Romani Pontifices: "Prompted by their example, and, as is piously believed, by the Holy Ghost, the inspired Blessed founder of the Order of Friars Preachers, (whose institutes and rule we ourselves expressly professed when we were in minor orders)..." [...] "And so Dominic looked to that simple way of praying and beseeching God, accessible to all and wholly pious, which is called the Rosary, or Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in which the same most Blessed Virgin is venerated by the angelic greeting repeated one hundred and fifty times, that is, according to the number of the Davidic Psalter, and by the Lord’s Prayer with each decade." [...] "Interposed with these prayers are certain meditations showing forth the entire life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, thus completing the method of prayer devised by the by the Fathers of the Holy Roman Church. This same method St. Dominic propagated, and it was, spread by the Friars of Blessed Dominic, namely, of the aforementioned Order, and accepted by not a few of the people. Christ’s faithful, inflamed by these prayers, began immediately to be changed into new men."

We see that St. Dominic was inspired by Our Lady to propagate the Rosary into its fullest form, which was originally devised by the Holy Fathers. We also see that the prayer given in the Rosary is the same as what was said to Our Lady. Thus, through the inspiration of Our Lady, St. Dominic could not error on the Latin of the prayer, thus forming an infallible test for Luke 1:28. Note also: "For she by her seed has crushed the head of the twisted serpent, and has alone destroyed all heresies, and by the blessed fruit of her womb has saved a world condemned by the fall of our first parent." Pius also stated that "Christ’s faithful, inflamed by these prayers, began immediately to be changed into new men," showing that the Rosary prayer, in Latin, illuminates and actualizes the faith. Therefore, if Luke 1:28 is not fully in coagulation with the Rosary prayer of Luke 1:28, Our Lady is not given adequate power and authority; thus, a certain illumination of the faith is lacking in translations that do not match the Rosary. My point is that only the Vulgate matches this prayer exactly, and was USED by Our Lady to propagate the Rosary, which Pius calls "the same" as the angelic greeting given in Luke 1:28 [Mary, who gave Dominic the wisdom to propagate the Rosary, would obviously know the correct formulation of the salutation She was given]. We see, then, that Our Lady quotes from the Vulgate, and thus has a confirmation of its perfection via Our Lady Herself.

(1/3, [2nd Part in Thread])

Douay-Rheims​

I want to specify, first, that the Vulgate was declared to "be held as authentic" by the Catholic Church by the Council of Trent, as stated prior: "Moreover, this 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." The Douay-Rheims project began in the 1560s, with the Rheims New Testament published in 1582 using the Leuven Vulgate [as this was almost a decade prior to the promulgation of the Clementine Vulgate in 1593]. The Rheims New Testament translators were working from pre-Clementine Leuven Vulgate, which qualified a Vulgate edition "now in circulation" (cf. Trent's declaration). There is an important note to make in regard to the timeframe of the composition of the Douay-Rheims. In 1592, Clement VIII had all copies of the Sixtine Vulgate recalled, with St. Robert Bellarmine & Clementine VIII correcting six thousand errors in the Sixtine Vulgate, ascribing them to being 'press errors.' It was "proved to be so defective that it was withdrawn" (Jaroslav Pelikan. "1: Sacred Philology," 1996, p. 14). It was issued through the bull Cum Sacrorum which asserted that every subsequent edition must be assimilated to this one, that no word of the text may be changed and that variant readings may not be printed in the margin: "We command therefore all and every one, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Churches and localities, even regular Prelates, to see to it that the letters before them are observed inviolably by all in their respective Churches and jurisdictions."

However, the Douay Old Testament was completed in 1609, almost 15 years after the promulgation of the Clementine Vulgate in 1593. Again, this would indicate, logically, that the Douay Old Testament would use the Clementine Vulgate as its authoritative edition. However, by the time the Old Testament was completed, the translators had been working in exile for decades, and their textual methods suggest continuity with earlier sources rather than a switch to the newly promulgated Clementine text. We see evidence of this with the Challoner Bible (a so-called "Douay-Rheims" translation which we will speak on later), as it began its translation process well after Cum Sacrorum, and thus used the Clementine Vulgate as its type. Moreover, while Cum Sacrorum mandated conformity to the Clementine text for Latin editions, this directive did not directly apply to vernacular translations like the Douay-Rheims. The fact that the Douay-Rheims did not use the Clementine Vulgate specifically is not an issue, as Sixtus V's commission of the Sixtine Vulgate worked on the basis of the 1583 edition by Franciscus Lucas Brugensis of the Leuven Vulgate. This Sixtine Vulgate, based on the Leuven Vulgate, became the Clementine Vulgate due to the reasons mentioned earlier. Thus, the Douay-Rheims used the predecessor to the Clementine Vulgate (the Leuven Vulgate) as its type, reflecting the declaration of Trent that it was authentic. Note that the text of the Sixtine Vulgate has some differences with the text of the Leuven Vulgate, such as 43 changes made to the Book of Genesis chapters 40–50 compared to the editions of the Leuven Vulgate. Of these 43 corrections, 31 are of purely orthographic significance; and of those 31, six concern proper nouns.


The Douay-Rheims retains not only the congruency with the Declaration of Trent, but also with Cum Sacrorum. Thus, there is no reason to deny the Douay-Rheims Bible as authentic and inerrant, as it was based not only on a Vulgate that was declared authentic by the Council of Trent, but that specific Vulgate was later used to craft the Clementine Vulgate, which declares Cum Sacrorum to be the authoritative text for future Church use. We can say with scholarly backing that the Douay-Rheims is the perfect English translation, as it comes from an authentic Vulgate edition that became the basis for the official, inerrant text for the Church.

(2/3 [3rd Part in Thread])

Other "Douay-Rheims"​

There are many translations claiming to be the "revised Douay-Rheims," some include:

• Challoner's 18th Century Revision
• Haydock's Notes on the Bible

Let me begin with Challoner's 18th-century revision. To begin, I wouldn't go as far as to say it's NOT a Douay, rather that it is a spiritually abridged Douay; meaning, you will not receive the same spiritual growth from a Challoner than the 1609 Douay. The Challoner is really a non sequitur [i.e. a statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it], because of its use of the KJV as its source text rather than solely using the Vulgate; this is directly condemned in the precafe of the to the Douay-Rheims, and thus speaks to the same effect: “Now since Luther and his followers have pretended that the Catholic Roman faith and doctrine should be contrary to God’s written word, and that the Scriptures were not suffered in vulgar languages, lest the people should see the truth, and withal these new masters corruptly turning the Scriptures into diverse tongues, as might best serve their own opinions, against this false suggestion and practice, Catholic pastors have, for one especial remedy, set forth true and sincere translations in most languages of the Latin Church.” Bp. Challoner's work, though titled The Douay-Rheims, was allowed to circulate in England and its colonies because it used the KJV as its source text. The real Douay-Rheims—the original and true-to-life version—vanished, to be found only in museums and literary collections. To that degree, the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 A.D. states: “Although the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52 . . . The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they almost amounted to a new translation. So, also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, ‘To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.’ In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version [King James]. . .”

The same issue exists with the “Haydock Douay-Rheims Bible,” as it is another Challoner variation. The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia under the subject “Haydock, George Leo” has this to say concerning the “Haydock Bible” now being erroneously sold as the Douay-Rheims: "Father Haydock’s chief publication was a new edition of the English translation of the Latin Vulgate first published at Reims in 1582, and at Douai in 1609; Bishop Challoner’s text of 1750 was the basis of the work, but in the New Testament Dr. Troy’s edition of 1794 is largely followed. The notes are partly original, partly selected from other writers, those on the New Testament not having been compiled by Father Haydock. The edition appeared in Manchester, 1812- 14; Dublin, 1812-13; Edinburgh and Dublin, 1845-8; New York, 1852-6." The "Troy Edition" Newman is referencing is defined in the July, 1859 “Rambler” article entitled “The History of the Text of the Rheims and Douay Version of Holy Scripture.” Wherein he states: "§3. Dr. Troy’s Bible: “…The revisor was the Rev. Bernard Macmahon, a Dublin priest, who published his first edition in 1783, in 12mo, with the formal approbation of his Archbishop, Dr. Carpenter. There is reason for supposing that it professed to be a continuation of Dr. Challoner’s labours & eight years afterwards, in 1791, the same clergyman was selected by Dr. Troy, his then Archbishop, to superintend an edition…We doubt …whether he is further from the Protestant version than Dr. Challoner.”" Finally, Newman in his July 1859 “Rambler” article, stated: “We must not conclude this enumeration of revisions and reprints of the Rheims and Douay, … which were published … without direct episcopal sanction… This is Haydock’s Bible…[T]he respective publishers, were printers; but the editor and annotator employed by the former was his own brother, who was a priest, the Rev. George Haydock, to whom the edition owes its celebrity.” So, we can clearly see:

1. Challoner's work is an approximation of the KJV,
2. Haydock's Douay-Rheims is a Challoner-based KJV translation,
3. But not only is it the Challoner version, but the New Testament is largely the Troy version of 1794,
4. The notes for the New Testament are NOT his notes.
5. It was not given direct episcopal sanction like Challoner or Troy.

Here are a few of the many examples that clearly illustrate the fact that Challoner's work is an approximation of the KJV:

KJV removed 'christus' and its parsings from: I K. 2:10; 2:35; 12:3; 12:5; 16:6; II K. 22:51; II Par. 6:42; Ps. 2:2; 17:51; 19:7; 83:10; 88:39; 88:52; 131:10; 131:17; Is. 45:1; Lam. 4:20; Hab. 3:13; Acts 4:33; 10:48; 28:31; Rom. 3:26;4: 24; 8:35; 10:17; I Cor. 2:1; 4:16; 5:5; II Cor. 5:15; 11:4; Gal. 4:31; Eph. 5:21; 5:29; Col. 3:15; 3:17; I Thes. 4:17; Heb. 10:19; 13:20; I Pet. 3:15; Jude 24, 25; Apocalypse 11:15-19.

Here is a comparison of nine different Bible versions:


It appears as if they do not have the same meanings in the verse, as it gives them up for more interpretation in some editions, while those of the Vulgate state it is a prophecy for Christ specifically. Therefore, only the 1609 Douay-Rheims fully actualizes the Vulgate, and thus provides the greatest spiritual health to those who read it. In conclusion [and as I said prior], there is no reason to deny the Vulgate is a divinely revealed, inerrant, and perfect text, with the Douay-Rheims Bible, it's only faithful slavish' [i.e., an exact translation without liberties from the Latin into English where he reader thereby has an exact understanding of what the original Latin says, rather than interpretations and interpolations], being authentic and infallible, as it was based not only on a Vulgate that was declared authentic by the Council of Trent, but that specific Vulgate was later used to craft the Clementine Vulgate, which declares Cum Sacrorum to be the authoritative text for future Church use. We can say with scholarly backing that the 1609 Douay-Rheims is the perfect English translation, just as the Vulgate is the perfect, God-breathed text that is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts and will always be considered the official, perfect, inerrant text for the Church.

What do you think?

(3/3)

jamiec said:

The Douay-Reims was anything but infallible.

Click to expand...

That was my bad, I meant "inerrant."

jamiec said:

The Douay-Reims was anything but infallible. Catholic attempts to make out that it, or the more recent English Challoner Bible which is often confused with it, or the Latin Vulgate, are free of all error or are infallible, are nothing more than the Catholic equivalent of Protestant KJV-onlyism. There is no such thing as an infallible or inerrant Bible, or translation of it; and there never has been.

Click to expand...

The Douay-Rheims, being a slavish of the Vulgate, only inplicates itself in the innerance of the text, rather than the infallibility, as the Church cannot hold [and cannot use] a Scripture that contradicts its teaching. Note Thomas Worthington, DD, whom was responsible for many of the annotations for the 1609 and 1610 volumes, who states in the preface of the Douay-Rheims: "we have again conferred this English translation and conformed it to the most perfect Latin Edition" (See Bernard Orchard, "A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture." Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1951, Page 36).

As such, the Douay-Rheims is the only slavish that, by its nature of being a slavish, reflects absolutely to Catholic dogma that has and will be exist (such as the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception).

jamiec said:

As for the authority of the Vulgate, that has nothing to do with its text, and everything to do with its authenticity as the Bible used by the Latin Rite.

Click to expand...

The Vulgate is shown to be infallible through its properties, being the only Bible that does not contradict the dogmas of the Church in one way or another. Moreover, in the situations such as the giving of the Rosary to St. Dominic, the only translation being referred to as the originator of the phrase (that is thus made infallible) is from the Vulgate, implicating it in being infallible by its property of being the safeguard and origin of infallible statements.

I would suggest also checking out my thread Genesis 3:15 Invalidates All Non-Vulgate Translations (and Exalts the Douay-Rheims) for more information on how the only translation left (after weeding out other translations for errors) is the 1609 Douay-Rheims. God bless!