Questions About Douay-Rheims Version


For My Traditional Brothers and Sisters Only,

-Friends is Douay-Rheims the Most Faithful Translation of the Latin Vulgate of the Bible in English?

-There is a recent version of the Douay-Rheims which is the Challoner revision. Question is this version still faithful to the Latin Vulgate?

-Is Douay-Rheims version still a Roman Catholic Approved version of the Bible up to date because according to here: it is not found on the list?

-Are there Modern Versions of Douay-Rheims that only changes Archaic English to Modern English? (Please don’t answer NAB or GNB and Must be Catholic Approved.)

-Lastly for you Friend as a Traditional Catholic, which Bible Version is best for a Traditional Catholic?

Thank You in Advance.


Yes, of course.


Proof Please, Friend.


If you are looking at USCCB translations listed at this webpage, , it specifically states that the versions listed are those translations after 1983. Prior accepted versions continue to be accepted, as stated in the last italicized paragraph of that webpage.


Thanks Sir John_Martin. Confirmed.


It would be interesting to see someone define what “Most Faithful Translation” actually means. I have seen this matter treated a number of times, and putting aside “dynamic equivalence” there is still a lot of room for discussion.


Most say that the most faithful translation refers to that which best puts the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew into English. RSV is often lauded for this effort, and personally I like it for that reason because I also read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.

However the Vulgate does something different as does the Douay-Rheims in translating The Vulgate; out of possible translations St Jerome seemed to always choose the ones that align with Catholic teaching. Thus he chose, “Do Penance and believe the gospel,” rather than, “Repent and believe the gospel.” Also, “Full of grace,” rather than, “Favored one.”

Many translations are possible, but the Bible is a Catholic book, and is correctly translated by Catholics who know their Doctrine and know why they have the Bible as the Catholic book, and that the authors were also faithful Catholics. It is actually true that a Catholic named Luke wanted us to know that Mary was “full of grace”, not simply that God liked her.


So are you saying that the translation of charachitome (karachitime - whatever) is more correctly translated “full of grace” than it is “most favored one”?

And while we are at it (in reference to another thread), what did Luke mean by the “sixth month”?

Sorry, have no clue how to get my keyboard to type Greek.


As a Traditional Catholic , for all Catholics are by their very nature traditional for all we have as Catholics comes via Tradition , I like the 1966 version of the Jerusalem Bible .


I like my pre V 2 Douay Rheims Bible .


Yes because it indicates full indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the actuality of the Virtue that is practiced because of this.

On another thread I wrote this:
In Sirach is found:

οὐκ ἰδοὺ λόγος ὑπὲρ δόμα ἀγαθόν καὶ ἀμφότερα παρὰ ἀνδρὶ κεχαριτωμένῳ

You do not see, a word is over a good gift? (better than a good gift)
And (better yet), is that both are encountered in the presence of a person filled of grace.

Being “full of Grace” means a person does all his doings “virtuously”, as “acts of virtue”, as “acts of faith, hope, and love”, whether in word or deed.
Interesting: Mary was just like that definition of a grace filled person in both her words and her actions.

It is only in the Protestant era when grace began to be seen as a “frame of mind within God” rather than the Universally known understanding of Grace as a real given gift that is now contained within the recipient; it is contained for use in living the virtues joyfully, and singing, “My soul magnifies the LORD!” That cannot be sung as a statement of reality within a person except that a person is full, infused, of Grace.

Jerome had to render it as the Church knew it to be with Mary. Many possible alternatives to linguists, yet only one of them posited by Sacred Tradition.
We are “quoting” Gabriel in our Prayer of the Rosary; we are quoting literally from Luke’s writing; we are not in error in that quotation as if we did not understand Greek.

As to how a person would say “Full of Grace” in Greek, translating the other way around, I thought I might try Google Translate (to modern greek of course).
I entered “Gracefilled woman” in English, and what came out in Greek?.. χαριτωμένη γυναίκα. (Charitomene Gynaika)
Same participle as some translators would nowadays say means, “favored woman”, when the “tradition” of the person who created the original phrase (myself) intended “Gracefillled Woman”.
So, when Luke translated Mary’s Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek, he chose the perfect participle, but same word.

John Martin


It is a sequence of events beginning in verse 24 to 26 before Gabriel begins talking to Mary.

24. After these days, his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained in seclusion…


26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to a town in Galilee called Nazareth

John Martin


Thanks for explaining that. This means John was only about 6 months older than Jesus. I somehow always imagined him to be more like 5 or so years older, as a lot of traditional artwork depicts them that way at the baptism of Jesus.


The Douay-Rheims-Challoner revisions were made using the Clementine edition of the Vulgate (1592). The Nova Vulgata was promulgated in 1969 by St. Pope John Paul II.


All that living rough in the wilderness and eating locusts probably aged John.

He was still in his womb when pregnant Mary visited her cousin, pregnant Elizabeth.
John the Baptist “leapt in (Elizabeth’s) womb” when she saw Mary, who was herself pregnant with Jesus. So yes, John was only about 6 months older than Jesus.


Ahch! It helps to read a bit more, doesn’t it? Missed that entirely.


It has been way too long since I took Greek. I can leave it to others as to whether Jerome was inserting theology as it had developed by his time, as opposed to a more literal translation of the word. It seems that both may be used without violence to the text and I will not be choosing which bible I read based on that. But interesting point.


Actually, the books were chosen because they were in use by and in line with the living tradition as to their understanding. It could be said that Luke “was chosen” BECAUSE he was saying that “Mary was full of Grace.”
Luke indeed was never chosen as Scripture by some miracle of seeing it as a Word from Above, and then after that miracle translated in as literal a way as possible. It was chosen by the Church because they ALREADY KNEW that it said “Full of Grace.” And they already knew that “Do Penance” was the Latin meaning of metanoia.
Literal Translation, or optional translation, is a fairly recent invention that ignores Inspired Tradition.
The words are transmitted as intelligible symbols on paper, but the meaning comes to us via a living line of people inspired - the tradition.


Good luck finding the Douay Rheims without the challoner revision. If you want a more modern translation of the Latin vulgate try the Knox version that baronius press puts out. It’s really nice


I am not so sure that it ignores tradition. Another meaning to metanoia is “to turn around”; as to sin, one needs to do penance; one also needs to turn away from sin.It does not seem to me that if one is told one must “turn around” as to sin, that by saying that one is denying the need for penance or minimizing it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit