What do Traditionalists think of the Nova Vulgata?

I ask this question as a new convert who has come to believe that the Douay Rheims Haydock is about as good as one can get in a current English Translation of the Bible.

Do most Traditionalists believe that the Nova Vulgata is a more faithful version of the Vulgate than previous versions of the Vulgate?

Would most Traditionalists be in favor of an accurate English Translation of the Nova Vulgata or a more accurate English translation of any of the Vulgate versions so that English speaking people could have a better Bible in the vernacular?


Would most Traditionalists advocate that a person learn Latin to get a more accurate sense of what the bible teaches?

I’m not hear to grind an axe–I truely don’t klnow the answers to these questions–but since I don’t know Latin I would like to have as accurate a Bible as possible in English.

Is it OK to desire such a thing?

Do Traditionalists think that it is good or bad to read from the Nova Vulgata?

I’d be careful with who the answer is coming from because there can be a bias, or someone jumping to a conclusion about it whithout having any real grasp or knowledge of what the changes are. It is best to make sure that you get an answer from a traditional Catholic who is perhaps a Latin scholar or at least has read from both of them and has much experience with the language as well as using it liturgically and studying Theology…a good traditional priest would probably be best.
There really is no benefit for the majority of “Traditionalists” to have the Nova Vulgata because the Clemintine (Jerome) Vulgate is the one that is used for the Latin rite Liturgy prior to 1962.
I don’t know why they decided to “update” the vulgate or what brought fourth the desire.
From the little else I know, and how it was explained by my Latin professor, the St. Jerome translation is better (to have) because it is used by the great Theologians and gives better insight into how they (and the Church) thought, understood and how St. Jerome knew scripture. Also, it helps to use the same version that St. Thomas Aquinas and others used so that it coincides with his/their writings.
The problem I’ve seen with new translations of anything whether Religious/Secular and whether it be Latin, Greek, English, French etc., is that the further the translator(s) is/are away from the source, the more of the meaning is lost. Even if there are highly competent scholars, it will not be the same as it was since through the years meanings are lost even if the definition is the same since it is not “first hand” knowledge/useage. Even among Spanish speakers I know, they have the same meanings in the definition, but depending on if they are Spainish, Mexican, Puerto Rican etc., the emphasis and implications can be a lot different or used differently. Sometimes there are also multiple meanings to the same words that are used depending on mood or other factors.

I’m no scholar, but that is just how I know it to be…:thumbsup:

What percentage of Traditionalist Catholics read the Bible in Latin?

The Sixto-Clementine, as it is properly called, was not published until 1598, I believe; it couldn’t possibly have been used by St Thomas Aquinas, who lived a few hundred years earlier.

And while almost all the great (Western) theologians used “the Vulgate”, we can’t be sure just which manuscript(s) of the Vulgate were available to them in their respective times/places.

This is not to take away from the Vulgate; just to clarify that the Sixto-Clementine per se was not around forever.

It’s quite true that all of the Catholic “greats” may have used different copies of the Vulgate with slight differences, but at the same time I think (and don’t quote me on this) that the Sixto-Clementine revision would have been one intended to correct the Vulgate through manuscript comparison and text criticism of other Vulgates, whereas the Nova Vulgata is more of a “new Latin translation” using modern text critical and translation methods. That’s just my hunch.

I was under the same impression, with the caveat that the Nova Vulgata was “corrected” according to the “original” Greek.

You’re probably right, but often I just spout out “Aquinas” as my “default Theologian” which I should change that habit, but I was in a hurry. :stuck_out_tongue:
Basically, though, I can see (and have been told there is) an advantage to having Jerome’s Vulgate translation if one is a Theology student because it may, be the best overall between any other older manuscripts. Therefore it is probably best for studying the classical Theologians.

I’m still not sure what was the intent behind modernizing the Latin Vulgate to get the Nova Vulgata. Since Latin is not a spoken language (outside of the church in Rome on a general basis), it doesn’t (or rarely should) develop. Maybe over time they have found new meanings to words, I’m not really sure…Is it used in the Liturgy?

The New Vulgate is most likely good and I think it may have been dubbed the “official” bible of the Church, but I don’t know for sure why or of it was.
It really is best though to get the opinion of someone orthodox and who knows the Greek and Latin because there are some people that are “radically traditional” and not just “traditional” to the point where they don’t accept anything new because they are so afraid of it being “in error” as they are that close minded.
I am starting to find that the apoligist Robert Sungenis is becoming much more balances yet holds a very good orthodox view of things. Of course, no Apologist is perfect, but I do think he is one of the better ones and knows Latin, Greek and I think even Hebrew.

mtr, you and Andreas are both correct on these points.

The Nova Vulgata is the norm by which any vernacular translations of liturgically employed Scripture are supposed to be measured.

What would really be nice would be if some Traditionalist Catholic biblical scholars would translate the Nova Vulgata into English so it would be accurate and not messed up like many Inclusive Language modern translations.

Would there be such a thing as a Traditionalist Catholic biblical Scholar who would be interested in such a project or would all Traditionalist Catholic biblical scholars only be interested in Latin?

Is it OK for a Traditionalist to be in favor of a more accurate Vulgate?

Would it be OK to use the Nova Vulgata in TLM or would the readings have to come from 1962 missals?


Does this not apply only to the “ordinary” form of the Latin rite Mass, i.e., the Novus Ordo Missae, in accordance with Liturgiam Authenticam?

As for the “extra-ordinary” form, aka the TLM, the intent is to use the texts from the 1962 Missale Romanum, which, of course, was a whole 17 years prior to the promulgation of the Nova Vulgata.

Let’s hope that co-mingling of the two rites does NOT become a reality. :highprayer:

I would not read the Nova Vulgata because the ones who intended to write this, was to obviously translate certain parts that were iffy on orthodoxy/protestantism for example on the. Angelic Salutation they changed it, Fr. Ambrose already tried to establsih the Nova Vulgata as infalible to us Catholic’s but it is not. THERE is absolutely no need to read it it is just some “modern scholars thing” they are just simply trying to take make the church look like if it had some errors in the previous one but it doesnt, because the old code canon law and the church said that all translations made “vulgate i.e” are infallible under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost so there is no need to try to translate that which has no error. It is just the modernist trying to humanize the church to what is what God would say in the modern Bible rather then what did God mean for all time? (Vulgate) if anyone has more questions I can give you some SUper lengthy excerpts of the Vulgate and all of that goody stuff.

That’s a good point. Up until Summorum Pontificum there was basically no use of vernacular in the TLM (although apparently there was permission from the PCED), so it didn’t occur to me that one might be using translations with the '62 books. You’re right, then, that my comment applies only to translations of the ordinary form so far as we know - but the permission in the motu proprio for vernacular readings has raised lots of questions and we’ll have to see what range of options is eventually decided upon (especially as some consider this permission to use even the new Lectionary).

Speaking of Lectionaries: look what has received the recognitio for Canada.


Thank you, Cardinal Levada. NOT!

If it’s good enough for St. Jerome, it’s good enough for me. Besides, the church never mandated, or ever really advocated that the laity learned Latin. It was expected that priests learned latin in part so as to be able to read the scriptures, and then explain them to his flock.

Amen to that. We are the sheep and the church is the sheperd, but it does help to know Latin though alot. Imagine the TLM being for you like it is in the vernacular, that would be the most precious thing. The beauty of that Mass fully understood in its original language. PRAISE BE GOD!

At least as far back as Pope St. Pius X there were thoughts of revision the Clementine Vulgate.

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on “Vulgate:”

New Vulgate. At the close of the Second Vatican Council, on Nov. 29, 1965, Pope Paul VI established the Pontifical Commission for the Neo-Vulgate, ‘‘an edition made desirable by the progress of biblical studies and the necessity of giving the Church and the world a new and authoritative text of Holy Scripture.’’ (Paul VI in L’Ossservatore Romano, Dec. 8, 1977). Paul VI did not intend a new Latin translation but rather a restoration of St. Jerome’s Vulgate, corrected in light of the ‘‘healthy critical requirements of our times.’’ A team of exegetes and textual critics, working for just over 12 years, corrected the text on the basis of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts witnesses, supplemented by comparison with recent critical editions (including that of R. Weber, Stuttgart, 1969). The New Testament of the New Vulgate was published in three volumes in 1970–71 and the Old Testament in four volumes in 1976–77. Although the work came to a close in 1977 under Paul VI, it was Pope John Paul II, on April 25, 1979, who formally decreed and promulgated the new edition in an apostolic constitution Scripturarum Thesaurus (The Treasury of Scriptures). The New Vulgate would be the editio typica, the normative edition of the Church, serving as the text for liturgical books and official documents. The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship first incorporated the psalms of the New Vulgate into the Liturgy of the Hours in 1971; the New Vulgate again served as the editio typica for the Liturgy of the Hours in 1985. In 1983 the New Vulgate supplied the Latin text for the Greek-Latin bilingual edition of Nestle-Aland’s New Testament (Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, ed. 26. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1983). The New Vulgate’s status as the editio typica for the Church had thus been established; it is presupposed by the recent church document Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) which advises that Sacred Scriptures for liturgical use follow the Church’s approved translation.

The problem is the Nova Vulgata is not a correction/revision of the Vulgate. It is a new translation and there are some big differences.

  1. Some Old Testament books have had their names changed. Kings I and II are now “Samuel I & II” and Kings III & IV have been changed to I & II.

  2. The Judaized Masoretic text influences the text, especially in the book of Isaias. Chapter 53 for example in the LXX and Vulgate reads Who has believed our report? While in the Nova Vulgata it is who has believed what we have heard? Also see Daniel 9. While the Vulgate used Hebrew text, this text was much more accurate than the Masoretic, as well as being very close with the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls. These Hebrew manuscripts however are no longer extant.

  3. In the New Testament, the Comma Johannem (1 John 5:7) has been removed. This is very serious as the Council of Trent declared ALL parts of ALL the books to be inspired and infallible. The Comma Johannem is of course included. Also this removes the clearest proof of the Trinity, while this passage does not always appear in the Greek Manuscripts, it always appears in the Latin Manuscripts.

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