As I shared in my previous post, the CTC post on Trent and the Vulgate left me generally confused. I think TF has done a good job of flushing out some of the inconsistencies and rose-colored viewpoints in a line-by-line matter in his epic post (seriously, does that guy sleep?). James did a good job of showing another common issue in these types of matters which is taking an anachronistic view of Roman Catholic thought in history.
I'd like to share two minor points.
Trent Never Decreed a Revision
A thanks to TF for clarifying why the CTC article was under the illusion that Trent had ordered a thorough revision of the Vulgate. In multiple sources with English translations of the fourth session decree I could not find "shall be printed after a thorough revision" and overviews of the Council proceedings specifically stated that the need for a revision was was not included in the decree. TF determined a bad translation of the original decree was likely to be blamed for the misquote on the CTC article.
This is worth pointing out as the CTC article highlights the decreeing of a revision as one of three things we should "see" in this decree in a positive light. But a call for a revision was not included in the decree. While many council members and Roman officials wanted to see a revision of the erroneous Vulgate there was concern by the Council over appearances:
"...the legates, in their letters of 24 and a6 April, took the defence of the Vulgate decree which was the object of such violent controversy. It had been the unanimous intention of the Council to declare that the Latin Bible in use in the Roman Church and covered by her teaching authority, was reliable, notwithstanding the fact that in many places it differed from the Hebrew and Greek texts, besides exhibiting faults of style. The authors of the decree were well aware of these blemishes, though these are often exaggerated; but in view of the Roman Church's freedom from error, they were unwilling to placard them publicly. Hence they had had in mind a revision carried out in silence, and such a revision they had been authorised by the Council to pray the Pope to permit." Jedin, Council of Trent, pg. 96
DAS and Biblical Scholarship
The CTC article called on the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, written almost 400 years after Trent, to support his interpretation of Trent. I had to wonder though, if Trent's decrees were so perspicuous then why did Divino Afflante Spiritu need to state the obvious? In looking for the catalyst for the writing of Divino Afflante Spiritu I came across this article from 1993 that I found interesting:
"Attacks on biblical scholars continued during the papacy of Pius XI (1922-39) and the early years of the pontificate of Pius XII (1939-58). The immediate background to Divino Afflante Spiritu was a series of anonymous and pseudonymous pamphlets to Italian bishops attacking biblical studies. On Aug. 20, 1941, the Pontifical Biblical Commission responded with a letter to the Italian hierarchy that anticipated many of the statements of the encyclical....The recommendations of Divino Afflante Spiritu sound almost commonplace today. Against the background of the anti-modernist ethos that dominated the Roman Curia from the turn of the century, its conclusions are revolutionary."
If you read the rest of that article you will see that Rome's history with biblical scholarship has certainly been rocky. That more modern history of Rome and the bible is good to remember.