Alister McGrath: The Catholic Response to Luther was Obvious Because It Makes So Much Sense and is So Logical

Here's one compliments of the Catholic Answers Forums. It's another opportunity to explore what reading in context is all about.

Originally Posted by Topper17  This Achielies Heel was built into Lutheranism (and Protestantism) by none other than Martin Luther. 16th century Catholics understood this problem full well: “One Catholic practice to which the reformers took particular exception was that of praying for the dead. To the reformers, this practice rested on a non-biblical foundation (the doctrine of purgatory), and encouraged popular superstition and ecclesiastical exploitation. Their catholic opponents were able to meet this objection, however, by pointing out that the practice of praying for the dead is explicitly mentioned in Scripture, at 2 Maccabees 12:40-46. The reformers, on the other hand, having declared that this book was apocryphal (and hence not part of the Bible), were able to respond that, in their view at least, the practice was not scriptural. This merited the obvious riposte from the Catholic side: that the reformers based on their theology on Scripture, but only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 151-2 We should notice that McGrath calls the Catholic response an ‘obvious riposte’. The reason that the Catholic response was ‘obvious’ is their response makes so much sense and is so logical. Of course they would make that criticism, because it was so obviously reflected the truth. What I find interesting is that Protestants are still denying that the Reformers based their theology on a version of Scripture which had been ‘cleansed’ of those ‘pesky’ books which refuted their theology, like James and 2 Maccabees. Of course, the Reformers said that that was not so, but I would suggest that it is NOT coincidental that 2 Maccabees speaks of praying for the dead and that James refutes Salvation by Faith Alone.

Originally Posted by Topper17  My point is (reinforced by McGrath), that the reformers “excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict [their] theology”, and THEN proclaimed that their theology was ‘Scriptural’. This charge is most applicable to Martin Luther, and thus to the theology which bears his name. This refers directly to my contention that Luther's 'problem' with James had primarily to do with the Apostle being so obviously against Luther's radical teaching of Salvation By Faith Alone.

Topper17 uses McGrath to prove the following:

1) McGrath says the Roman Catholic response to Luther was ‘obvious’ because it "makes so much sense and is so logical."

2) McGrath is saying the Reformers deemed certain books non-canonical in order to reject Roman Catholic teaching.

This section of McGrath's book is available via Google Books. The first thing to notice is the reference given is to pages 151-152. Unless a different edition is being utilized, the quote is actually from page 98.

On page 96, McGrath documents the errors in the Latin Vulgate discovered by the humanists. On page 97, McGrath begins his treatment of Protestantism and the canon. McGrath notes that medieval theologians held Scripture meant= the Latin Vulgate. He then says the Reformers "felt able to call this judgement into question." The Reformers doubts on certain Old Testament books were based first on the fact that some were not found in the Hebrew Bible, but only found "in the Greek and Latin Bibles (such as the Vulgate)." Then, "some of the reformers allowed the apocryphal works were edifying reading" but "there was general agreement that these works could not be used as the basis of doctrine." McGrath's basis for the Reformers then is that the medieval church (and Trent) defined the canon according to the Greek and Latin Bibles while the Reformers defined the Old Testament canon according to the Hebrew Bible. With that basis set up, McGrath then explains the relevance of the canon dispute.

Then comes the quote as used by Topper17.

One Catholic practice to which the reformers took particular exception was that of praying for the dead. To the reformers, this practice rested on a non-biblical foundation (the doctrine of purgatory), and encouraged popular superstition and ecclesiastical exploitation. Their catholic opponents were able to meet this objection, however, by pointing out that the practice of praying for the dead is explicitly mentioned in Scripture, at 2 Maccabees 12:40-46. The reformers, on the other hand, having declared that this book was apocryphal (and hence not part of the Bible), were able to respond that, in their view at least, the practice was not scriptural. This merited the obvious riposte from the Catholic side: that the reformers based on their theology on Scripture, but only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.

McGrath isn't taking one side or the other in this quote, at least in this context. He isn't saying the Roman Catholic response to Luther was "obvious" because it "makes so much sense and is so logical." He's saying that this was the quick and clever reply by the Roman Catholic side. Nor is McGrath conceding the Reformers deemed certain books non-canonical primarily in order to reject Roman Catholic teaching. The entire discussion on pages 97-98 as to the rejection of the apocryphal books was based on criticism of the tradition and errors of the Latin Vulgate.

See the definition of "Vulgate" in McGrath's book on page 274:

The Latin translation of the Bible, mostly deriving from Jerome, upon which medieval theology was largely based. Strictly speaking, "Vulgate" designates Jerome's translation of the Old Testament (except the Psalms, which were taken from the Gallican Psalter), the Apocryphal works (except Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, which were taken from the Old Latin Version), and all the New Testament. The recognition of its many inaccuracies was of fundamental importance to the Reformation. see pp. 94-95.

Addendum

Today, 3:29 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 811 Religion: Reformed

Re: The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  For the benefit of those who are new to the thread I will repost the appropriate and on-topic portion of the McGrath quote: “This merited the obvious riposte from the Catholic side: that the reformers based on their theology on Scripture, but only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 151-2 My point is (reinforced by McGrath), that the reformers “excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict [their] theology”, and THEN proclaimed that their theology was ‘Scriptural’. This charge is most applicable to Martin Luther, and thus to the theology which bears his name. This refers directly to my contention that Luther's 'problem' with James had primarily to do with the Apostle being so obviously against Luther's radical teaching of Salvation By Faith Alone. This section of McGrath's book is available via Google Books. The reference given is to pages 151-152. Unless a different edition is being utilized, the quote is actually from page 98. What I find interesting about the repeated citation from McGrath is that it raises an important methodological question. Why or when should something be cited? In its original context, McGrath isn't intending to make the point Topper17 is making. Rather, he's describing an historical situation and how Catholics responded to Luther. to cite McGrath correctly, one should say: McGrath described the 16th century Catholic response to Luther, and that's my response as well. Why not just simply make the point without citing McGrath? Simply by adding McGrath's name and words out-of-context to a point one is making doesn't give an argument more force. Quoting a book out-of-context actually works against the point being made. Those arguments I find most compelling from those I disagree with are those that present historical research in context and with integrity. Those arguments I find least compelling are those that use quotes in the style of propaganda (information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.) Continue on weary warriors.

More Latin Vulgate Love

The One True Church
by Fr. Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815 - 1890)
Imprimatur: Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York.

"The Catholic has divine faith, and why? Because the Catholic says, "I believe in such and such a thing." Why? "Because the Church teaches me so." And why do you believe the Church? "Because God has commanded me to believe the teaching of the Church. And God has threatened me with damnation, if I do not believe the Church. And we are taught by St. Peter, in his epistle, "No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation [2 Peter 1:20] ... for the unlearned and unstable wrest ... Scriptures ... to their own descruction." [2 Peter 3:16]

That is strong language, my dear people, but that is the language of St. Peter, the head of the Apostles. The unlearned and unstable wrest the Bible to their own damnation! And yet, the Bible is the book of God, the language of inspiration, when we have a true Bible, as we Catholics have, but you Protestants have not.

But, my dearly beloved Protestant friends, do not be offended at me for saying that. Your own most learned preachers and bishops tell you that. Some have written whole volumes in order to prove that the English translation, which you have, is a very faulty and false translation.

Now, therefore, I say that the true Bible is what the Catholics have, the Latin Vulgate. And the most learned among the Protestants themselves have agreed that the Latin Vulgate Bible, which the Catholic Church always makes use of, is the best in existence. And therefore, as you may have perceived, when I preach I give the text in Latin, because the Latin text of the Vulgate is the best extant."

Calvin, Romans 1:4, and the Vulgate

This is a follow-up to my earlier entry, Augustine, Romans 1:4, and the Vulgate. A commenter over at the Called to Communion blog responded to this earlier entry. There are three specific areas I'd like to address.

1. The New Vulgate
First a word of thanks for his pointing out The New Vulgate available on the Vatican’s website. It was uplifting to notice this Vulgate no longer uses the incorrect word praedestinatus, but rather uses constitutus (it's the difference between predestinated and appointed). I'm still uncertain as to when this correction actually occurred. It wouldn't surprise me if Rome actually kept this error in the text as late as 1971 (the integrity of the Biblical text hasn't typically been a pressing concern in Romanism). For over four decades following Trent, little Vulgate correcting was done, and even the current corrected Vulgate has problems. David King points out:

Another instance is a corruption of Jerome's translation of Genesis 3:15b in the Vulgate. With regard to the phrase, 'He shall bruise your head,' Jerome correctly translated the Hebrew masculine pronoun (he) with the Latin masculine pronoun ipse (he). Yet, in later versions of the Vulgate, the masculine pronoun ipse (he) was corrupted by various copyists to read ipsa (she). Commenting on this corruption Calvin wrote:

This passage affords too clear a proof of the great ignorance, dullness, and carelessness, which have prevailed among all the learned men of the Papacy. The feminine gender has crept in instead of the masculine or neuter. There has been none among them who would consult the Hebrew or Greek codices, or who would even compare the Latin copies with each other. Therefore, by a common error, this most corrupt reading has been received. Then, a profane exposition of it has been invented, by applying to the mother of Christ what is said concerning her seed.

Today, the officially approved edition of the Vulgate by Rome, the Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacororum Editio, translates the Hebrew masculine pronoun (he) with the Latin neuter pronoun ipsum (it), which seems to be a compromise between the masculine pronoun ipse and the feminine ipsa. But the text remains incorrect compared to the accuracy of Jerome's original translation. Moreover, the corruption appears in the Roman Catholic English translation of the Douay-Rheims Bible, which reads, 'she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel' (Gen 3:15b). This demonstrates how one corrupted translation (the Vulgate) is perpetuated in another translation (Douay-Rheims) when there is a refusal to be corrected by recourse to proper textual evidence. Although modern day Roman Catholic scholars have identified this corruption in the Latin Vulgate, it has been ignored by Mariologists who seize upon it as proof of Mary's cooperation with her seed in the crushing of the head of the serpent. [Holy Scripture, The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. 1 (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 2001), p. 159] 

2. Whose Interpretation is the Correct Romanist Interpretation?
Ignored was my question as to why the private interpretation of Augustine on Romans 1:4 becomes that which correctly interprets the Biblical text (leaving aside the obvious conundrum Augustine based his interpretation on a mistranslated text). Origen, for instance, offers quite a different interpretation. It appears  (at least with this CTC commenter) to be left up to the individual as how this mistranslated verse is to be interpreted. One would think a Romanist would want to go deeper into history and rely on the older interpretation of Origen. The hosting blog CTC has no problem relying on Origen when it needs to.  They quote Origen approvingly here and here. The gentleman commenting on the CTC blog chose that interpretation which harmonized with Romanism, but on what basis? It is indeed within the realm of possibility that another CTC commenter could just as easily refer to Origen and conclude: the Vulgate, with its scribal errors, did say things which contradicted the faith of Romanism.


3. The Integrity of John Calvin
John Calvin certainly wasn't immaculately conceived, nor did he live a sinless life. On the other hand, it would be wrong to attribute a wilful sin without sufficient proof. The CTC commenter says, "Calvin tried to pretend that praedestinatus was opposed to the faith and would becloud the world in darkness." He says Calvin was aware of Augustine's view on Romans 1:4, and that Calvin didn't mention it is "concerning enough." It is indeed true, Calvin cites from De praedestinatione sanctorum throughout his career. I would agree with the CTC commenter that Augustine certainly was not at a loss to offer an explanation for the mistranslated praedestinatus in Romans 1:4, and Augustine was probably not familiar with the Greek.

One thing for certain about Calvin is his high regard for Augustine and his familiarity with De praedestinatione sanctorum. It indeed is curious as to why Calvin left out Augustine's comment on Romans 1:4 at this spot in his Antidote to Trent.  Anthony N.S. Lane has pointed out Calvin didn't always have access to good libraries, and also had time constraints which governed his writing ability. These could indeed be factors as to why Augustine's opinion was left out by Calvin.  

Was Calvin though "pretending"?  Before attributing such unscrupulous polemics to Calvin's Antidote to Trent, perhaps we should consider whether Calvin may have rather had contemporary Vulgate exegetes in mind when he stated "Those not acquainted with Greek are at a loss to explain this term." On the other hand, I would assume some of those contemporaries of Calvin offering an exegesis of the Vulgate on Romans 1:4 would have been acquainted with Augustine on this and simply followed him (or Aquinas). It would appear to me though, Calvin probably is referring to contemporary exegetes. One need only consider his repeated disdain for Vulgate supporters throughout his treatise.

More Thoughts on Rome and Perspicuity

A few more thoughts.

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.

Augustine, Romans 1:4, and the Vulgate

A comment contributor on Called to Communion brought up an interesting section from Augustine (on Romans 1:4) in response my blog entry, The Vulgate Blues. In this entry I provided two comments (Calvin and Whitaker) on the problems with the Vulgate's translations of Romans 1:4.

The Vulgate translated a section of του ορισθεντος υιου θεου εν δυναμει κατα πνευμα αγιωσυνης εξ αναστασεως νεκρων ιησου χριστου του κυριου ημων as as "the predestinated Son of God" (qui praedestinatus est Filius Dei in virtute secundum Spiritum sanctificationis ex resurrectione mortuorum Iesu Christi Domini nostri).

Calvin says of ορισθεντος (horizō) "There is no difficulty in the Greek word, which means 'declared'." He insists, "only things which do not yet exist are predestinated; whereas Christ is the eternal Son of God." Whitaker mentions a number of people familiar with the Greek that confirm the word means similar to what Calvin suggests (Chrysostom,Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Faber, Cajetan). I would add the testimony of Origen,

Let no one think that we are reading more into this text than the meaning permits. For although in Latin translations one normally finds the word predestined here, the true reading is designated and not predestined. For designated applies to someone who already exists, wheras predestined is only applicable to someone who does not yet exist, like those whom the apostle said: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined. Those who do not yet exisit may be foreknown and predestined, but he who is and who always exists is not predestined but designated. These things are said by us concerning those who speak blasphemously about the only begotten Son of God and ignoring the differences between designated and predestined think that Christ is to be numbered among those who were predestined before they existed. But he was never predestined to be the Son, because he always was and is the Son, just as the Father has always been the Father... 

The CTC blog entry Calvin, Trent, and the Vulgate includes the following assertion: "The Vulgate, even with the scribal errors, said nothing which contradicted the faith." According to the Vulgate's rendering of Romans 1:4 though, If Calvin is correct, Christ being predestinated here leads to grave doctrinal error.

Now let's bring Augustine into it. The CTC commenter responded by saying of the Vulgate's rendering of Romans 1:4,

Saint Augustine... eagerly explained how it is not opposed to the Catholic faith for this verse of Scripture to be rendered this way... Augustine was actually happy to have this particular translation [the Latin Vulgate] for use in his controversy with the Pelagians. John Calvin was familiar with this work from Augustine, and evidently even alludes to it in his Antidote... And yet Calvin still claimed that "[t]hose not acquainted with Greek are at a loss to explain this term." Ironically, Augustine takes the position directly opposite the suggestion of James’ post: “Accordingly, whoever denies predestination of the Son of God, denies that He was also Himself the Son of man” (Tractate 105 on the Gospel of John, 8). According to these prophetic words from Augustine, it was Calvin himself who was contradicting the faith when he tried to criticize the Vulgate on this point. And in his complaint that Trent would cause the world to be unable to “see the light presented to them,” Calvin himself was left blind to what Augustine had referred to as “the most illustrious light of predestination.” What amazing mercy from God to ward off the criticisms of John Calvin so far in advance, to the very words!

I'm not sure how it follows that "Calvin himself who was contradicting the faith when he tried to criticize the Vulgate on this point" if the Vulgate word in question is in error. I will grant though, contrary to Calvin,  Augustine (and Aquinas) were not at a loss to explain praedestinatus in Romans 1:4.

That being referred to from Augustine can be found here. In essence, Augustine argues the "man" Christ Jesus was predestined ("the Lord of glory Himself was predestinated in so far as the man was made the Son of God"). Aquinas likewise follows Augustine (see also the Haydock Commentary). I grant this is a clever solution, but similarly clever heretical people could argue the verse as Origen suggests- verse 3 refers to Christ's humanity; verse 4 to his predestinated deity. We'll be a waiting a long time for Rome to dogmatically settle the infallible interpretation of a mistranslated word in the Vulgate, if they even have the power to rule infallibly on a mistranslated word.

ορισθεντος does appear to be a problematic word. Calvin's Commentary on Romans 1:4 contains the following footnote:

While The CTC commenter notes Augustine was "happy" to use the Vulgate here to refute the Pelagians, I would simply question if the means justify the end. Is refuting an opponent using a faulty translation a proper way to argue for Christ's Church? I don't intend to be anachronistic. I strongly doubt Augustine had any idea about ορισθεντος.

On the other hand, I checked a number of versions of the Vulgate. Of all the versions I checked, the text still uses praedestinatus in Romans 1:4 ( the Douay-Rheims Bible likewise uses "predestinated"). If the Vulgate has been corrected, I'd really like to find the corrected version that doesn't use praedestinatus. If the word was chosen to remain, I'd like to know why.
I'm not aware of any dogmatic statement as to the correct translation of this verse. There's no dogmatic statement as to why the Douay-Rheims says "predestinated" and the NAB uses "established." Those are two very different words, making the verse say different things. One has to be wrong.

The bottom line is that if a Romanist wants to maintain "The Vulgate, even with the scribal errors, said nothing which contradicted the faith," in Romans 1:4, they appear to be forced to rely on the private interpretation of Augustine on a mistranslated word. They need to explain also why another private interpretation concluding the opposite of Augustine's is in error.  

Addendum #1
In his Romans Commentary Joseph Fitzmyer uses “established (or appointed) as the Son of God (though not in a Messianic sense) with power,” so Jesus is by virtue of his resurrection now endowed with power to energize believers (pp. 234-236). In his Introduction to the New Testament, Raymond Brown uses "designated" (p. 565).

Addendum #2
The revised Vulgate on Romans 1:4 can be found here. The verse now reads, " qui constitutus est Filius Dei in virtute secundum Spiritum sanctificationis ex resurrectione mortuorum, Iesu Christo Domino nostro."

The Douay-Rheims Bible

In an earlier post, James included a quote from Whitaker:

"Certain English popish divines, who have taken up their abode in the seminary of Rheims, some years since translated the new Testament into the English tongue, not from the Greek text, but from the old Latin Vulgate. In order to persuade us of the wisdom and prudence of this proceeding, they produce in their preface ten reasons to prove that this Latin Vulgate edition is to be followed in all things rather than the Greek (p.141)."

Here's a little background on the Douay-Rheims bible from Wiki:

The Douay–Rheims Bible...is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English undertaken by members of the English College, Douai in the service of the Catholic Church. The New Testament was published in Reims (France) in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament, which was published by the University of Douai, followed nearly thirty years later in two volumes; the first volume (Genesis to Job) in 1609, the second (Psalms to 2 Machabees plus the apocrypha of the Clementine Vulgate) in 1610. Marginal notes took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character. They also offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate. The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which up till then had ovewhelmingly dominated Elizabethan religion and academic debate. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Counter-Reformation.

While doing some research for my last post I came across the 1989 Preface to the Douay Rheims which quotes from the 1582 version:

Sometimes the question is raised: Why translate from a translation (the Latin Vulgate) rather than from the original Greek and Hebrew? This question was also raised in the 16th century when the Douay-Rheims translators (Fr. Gregory Martin and his assistants) first published the Rheims New Testament. They gave ten reasons, ending up by stating that the Latin Vulgate "is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree." (Preface to the Rheims New Testament, 1582). They state that the Vulgate is "more pure than the Hebrew or Greek now extant" and that "the same Latin hath bene barre better conserved from corruption." (Preface to the Douay Old Testament, 1609).

(I believe that last phrase is suppose to read "the same Latin hath been far better conserved from corruption" based on the source below.)

I also came across an older version of the Douay-Rheims which includes what seems to be the original preface. If you go to page iv you will find the "ten reasons" that Whitaker referred to in the quote above. The preface is actually an interesting read. In addition to the love professed for the Vulgate, the Rheims authors seem to be conflicted at producing a vernacular version which every layperson could read (pg. iv):

(click to enlarge)

Part of the Old Testament preface can be found in Documents of the English Reformation starting on page 401. It's an interesting read also.

My Thoughts on the Vulgate and Trent

James asked to me to post on the comment I left on his post Called to Communion, the Vulgate, and Calvin and since I haven't posted anything substantial in awhile I really wanted to try. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to provide extensive quotes to support my assertions so I have given this post the appropriate title of "My Thoughts..." as I am not an expert in this area but I have done some reading on the subject, specifically rereading some relevant material after James' excellent post.

Here is part of my original comment on James' post which I will try to elaborate on:

I am confused by the post at CTC.

I agree, it seems like the author has not taken the time to understand the time period when Calvin wrote his treatise and the confusion in Catholic circles at that time as to how to interpret the decree.

In briefly looking back through Jedin's two works on the Council (based on the Council diairies, tracts, letters, etc), Rome's response to the Vulgate decree published in 1546 had similar concerns to Calvin and interpreted the language of the decree as discouraging the use other texts. There was also confusion as to what Vulgate was being to referred to as there was more than one "Vulgate" in circulation. Also, within and outside the council there was debate as to whether the Vulgate(s) in use were authored by Jerome. So the decree was not as perspicuous as the CTC author seems to imply, and I think that was intentional on the part of the Council (b/c of all the disagreements around the issue).

In addition, the CTC author asserts "the council provides a way to achieve this reform in decreeing that a “thorough revision” of the Latin Bible is to be made" and yet there is no talk of a revision in the decree. A revision was discussed in the Council but it's inclusion into the final decree was purposely omitted.

...From the comments it appears that the CTC author has read one of Jedin's books so I am surprised by his conclusions. If anything, reading Jedin's work shows how much disagreement there was around the Vulgate and translation into vernacular languages as well as pushback from Rome - hardly authoritative nor consistent.

Here is the thing. I don't believe anything in the post at Called to Communion (CTC) is completely inaccurate, I just don't think it captures the "fullness of the truth". The author is telling a different version of a somewhat common tale of a Protestant convert to Roman Catholicism - "I thought that the Roman Catholic Church was this terrible organization that hated the bible but I found out She actually loves scripture and has preserved and declared them to us". In this particular story Calvin was partially blamed for perpetuating the idea that the Council of Trent had outlawed the use of scripture in the original languages by declaring the Vulgate authentic.

But here is where the CTC really missed the mark for me. When I read through material around some of the discussions during the Council of Trent's fourth session, I see a wide variety of strong opinions with no clear consensus. I see some politics and some reactionary behavior. I see some bishops who sound quite Protestant which by the way, doesn't help the "Luther was a novelty and a complete rebel" motto of some RCs today. What I do not see, which I think the CTC article portrays, is an authoritative meeting of the Roman Catholic hierarchy making clear and concise declarations of what the Church has always believed.

In both the Council of Trent and Papal Legate at The Council of Trent, Cardinal Seripando by Roman Catholic historian Hubert Jedin, some of the discussions during the Council around the Vulgate are covered as well as discussions around bibles in the vernacular. The Council of Trent had the opportunity to declare the bible in the original languages as authentic but chose not to (James covered this). They also chose not to acknowledge the known errors in the Vulgate although discussed (perhaps to avoid Protestant ridicule) and avoided the issue of vernacular bibles because the initial discussions were so heated and complicated since some countries had prohibitions against vernacular bibles already in place. These varying opinions and heated discussions ended in a decree that is a bit anemic because in the end it needed to pass a majority vote. Such a general decree leaves itself open to a wide variety of interpretations.

In fact, in reading through Jedin's chapters on this subject I was quite surprised to see that Rome (all decree drafts were sent to Rome for comment and approval) also had trouble interpreting the Council's decree regarding the Vulgate.

(click to enlarge)

- The Council of Trent by Hubert Jedin, pg. 94-95

The legates did respond to the criticism from Rome explaining their intentions however the decree was never revised. You have to wonder though - if Rome had trouble understanding the intent of the decree can you really blame Calvin or anyone else? In fact, an incidence many years later only further confuses the issue but that will have to be the subject of another post.

In the interest of post length let me get back to my overarching thought which is that history is not always the friend of RCism that some RCs seem to think. In reading the proceedings of the Council of Trent during the fourth session what I see is a bit of a mess. A bible edition with known errors is declared authentic with no mention of the errors, the exact nature of "the Vulgate" is unclear, and the authorship of the Vulgate is disputed. And that was just the stuff they could agree on.

Let me include a quote I used previously from Owen Chadwick's Catholicism and History concerning the publishing of the Council of Trent diaries after being locked in the Vatican Secret Archives for 300 years:

“Massarelli reported what was said. He recorded the differences of opinion, the follies as well as the wisdom of the speakers, the unedifying as well as the edifying. If Massarelli's diaries were published, the decisions of the Council of Trent, sacred in so many minds, would no longer appear the unchallenged expression of a common Catholic mind, but the end of hard-fought debates over nuances of expression. Only the result had authority, not the course of events or utterances which led to the result. The upholders of Pallavicino maintained that to publish Massarelli could do nothing but weaken the authority of the canons of Trent, as well as the official history by Pallavicino. This was particularly true of the early debates on scripture and tradition, the authority of scripture, and its canon. In the cold light of finality, the formulas look rigid against Protestants. Seen as the end of a long debate with differing opinions, the formulas have more nuance, more flexibility, than any Protestant hitherto supposed. The examining commission particularly objected to the minutes which Theiner proposed to publish, and had already in proof, of the debate on the canon of holy scripture. Thus the Dominican Father Tosa, lately an enthusiast, became the main speaker on the commission of enquiry, that to publish was dangerous, or harmful to the Church. He said emphatically that to print these minutes could hand weapons to Protestantism to attack the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent.”

If you are courting RCism then maybe you somehow overlook these issues. But this is not the unified authority that Catholic epologists have told me for years that I need to have certainty and avoid the Protestant chaos.

The non-Perspicuity of Trent on the Latin Vulgate

ht: Joey Henry

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. II (pp. 107-108)

The fourth point of difference concerns the authority due to the Latin Vulgate. On this subject the Council of Trent (Sess. 4), says: “Synodus considerans non parum utilitatis accedere posse Ecclesiæ Dei, si ex omnibus Latinis editionibus quæ circumferentur, sacrorum librorum, quænam pro authentica habenda sit, innotescat: statuit et declarat, ut hæc ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quæ longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa Ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, prædicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur et nemo illam rejicere quovis prætextu audeat vel præsumat.” The meaning of this decree is a matter of dispute among Romanists themselves. Some of the more modern and liberal of their theologians say that the Council simply intended to determine which among several Latin versions was to be used in the service of the Church. They contend that it was not meant to forbid appeal to the original Scriptures, or to place the Vulgate on a par with them in authority. The earlier and stricter Romanists take the ground that the Synod did intend to forbid an appeal to the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, and to make the Vulgate the ultimate authority. The language of the Council seems to favor this interpretation. The Vulgate was to be used not only for the ordinary purposes of public instruction, but in all theological discussions, and in all works of exegesis.

John Eck on the Superiority of the Vulgate?

Here's one I'd love to track down:

When Eck himself, in a futile attempt to displace Luther's translation of the Bible, issued a German translation of the Vulgate, he stated expressly in his introduction that his was "from ancient times the one sung, read, used, and accepted by the Holy Latin Church, so that one need not concern himself how the text reads in Hebrew, Greek, or Chaldean" [Willem Jan Kooiman, Luther and the Bible (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961), p.78].

Eck was one of the leading Roman Catholic theologians of the sixteenth century, yet the majority of his writings remain in obscurity (I do though own one book by Eck, put out by.... a Protestant!). Perhaps maybe someone knows where to find Eck's introduction to his German translation of the Bible?

Addendum (ht: Carrie)

The Vulgate Blues

Here's another Called to Communion tidbit on the textual errors in the Latin Vulgate:

A reader might wonder how the Church could determine whether the text lacked errors pertaining to faith and morals. The Church determined this in the same way that she partially confirmed that she was receiving the correct books from God in the canon: by comparing the contents of those books to that which had been received by the other mode of revelation’s transmission, namely, Sacred Tradition. In this way, Tradition and Scripture purify and clarify each other’s transmission of the deposit of faith. The Vulgate, even with the scribal errors, said nothing which contradicted the faith. It was an adequate translation of Scripture even if its reading of this or that verse needed updating. This is a great benefit of the Catholic teaching concerning the unity of Scripture and Tradition, such that even if one part of Scripture is unclear due to manuscript variants, we will not lose anything essential to the Faith because of the transmission of the same Faith through Tradition.

Calvin:

In the first chapter of the Romans the translator calls Christ “the predestinated Son of God.” Those not acquainted with Greek are at a loss to explain this term, because, properly speaking, only things which do not yet exist are predestinated; whereas Christ is the eternal Son of God. There is no difficulty in the Greek word, which means “declared.” I have given one example. It were needless labor to give others. In one word, were this edict of the Council sanctioned, the simple effect would be, that the Fathers of Trent would make the world look with their eyes open, and yet not see the light presented to them.

Whitaker:

The Latin Vulgate Version Only Controversy

A few days ago I posted some excerpts from William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture. One of the major arguments during his time period was over what exactly constituted the authentic text of Scripture. Whitaker states, "Our adversaries determine that the authentic scripture consists not in the Hebrew and Greek originals, but in the Vulgate Latin version. We, on the contrary side, say that the authentic and divinely-inspired scripture is not this Latin, but the Hebrew edition of the old Testament, and the Greek of the new."

Whitaker then states actual Roman Catholic arguments as espoused by Bellarmine in favor of the Vulgate Latin being the actual authentic text of the Scriptures: "He proposes his First argument in this form: For nearly a thousand years, that is, from the time of Gregory the Great, the whole Latin church hath made use of this Latin edition alone" (p. 135). Bellarmine goes on to make a number of arguments in favor of the Latin text, all responded to by Whitaker.

One of the arguments from Bellarmine that Whitaker examined bears a striking resembelance to today's "King James Only" controversy. Consider the following:

"The Third argument is this: The Hebrews had the authentic scripture in their own language, and the Greeks in theirs; that is, the old Testament in the Septuagint version, and the new Testament in the original. Therefore it is fit that the Latin church also should have the authentic scripture in its own language."

Whitaker responds,

I answer, first, by requiring to know in what sense it is that he makes the Septuagint version authentic. Is it in the same sense in which they make their Latin text authentic? If so, I deny its authenticity. For Augustine, who allowed most to the authority of the Septuagint version, yet thought that it should be corrected by the originals. But the papists contend that their Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried by the text of the originals. Now in this sense no translation ever was, or could be, authentic. For translations of scripture are always to be brought back to the originals of scripture, received if they agree with those originals, and corrected if they do not. That scripture only, which the prophets, apostles, and evangelists wrote by inspiration of God, is in every way credible on its own account and authentic. Besides, if the Septuagint was formerly authentic, how did it become not authentic? At least in the Psalms it must continue authentic still, since they derive their Latin version of that book from no other source than the Greek of the Septuagint. Even in the other books too it must still be authentic, since it is plain from the commentaries of the Greek writers that it is the same now as it was formerly.

Secondly, I would fain know how this argument is consequential,—God willed his word and authentic scripture to be written in Hebrew and Greek; therefore also in Latin. The authentic originals of the scripture of the old Testament are extant in Hebrew, of the new in Greek. It no more follows from this that the Latin church ought to esteem its Latin version authentic, than that the French, or Italian, or Armenian churches should esteem their vernacular versions authentic. If he grant that each church should necessarily have authentic versions of its own, what are we to do if these versions should (as they easily may) disagree? Can they be all authentic, and yet disagree amongst themselves? But if he will not assign authentic versions to all churches, upon what grounds will he determine that a necessity, which he grants to exist in the Latin church, hath no place in others? Cannot the churches of the Greeks at the present day claim their version likewise as authentic?

Thirdly, I know not with what truth they call theirs the Latin church. For it does not now speak Latin, nor does any one among them understand Latin without learning that language from a master. Formerly it was, and was called, the Latin church. Now it is not Latin, and therefore cannot truly be so called, except upon the plea that, though not Latin, it absurdly uses a Latin religious service.

Called to Communion, the Vulgate, and Calvin

One of the latest blog entries from Called to Communion (CTC) is entitled Calvin, Trent, and the Vulgate: Misinterpreting the Fourth Session. The writer explains the "Reformed" popularly portray Trent as "enshrining the Vulgate" at the expense of Biblical linguistic research. Note the following excerpts:

Excerpt 1: When I first began to take interest in theology, and in Reformed theology in particular, during college, I learned the story of how the Catholic Church closed herself off to serious study of the Holy Bible at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The act in question is the Council's enshrining the Vulgate, Jerome's Latin translation of Bible, in its first decree, which was adopted during the fourth session on April 8th, 1546... That the Catholic Church did such a thing only confirmed my predilection for the Reformed tradition.

Excerpt 2: Trent made it the official version in an astounding act of arrogance, locking her faithful up in the prison of ignorance about the Scriptures and thus about Christ. I believed this story as did several of my friends.

Excerpt 3: Everyone knew that the Vulgate had acquired errors that provided purportedly divine authorization for the Catholic view of justification, Purgatory, the penitential system, the veneration of Mary and the saints, and spurious sacraments such as confirmation and marriage. Trent made it the official version in an astounding act of arrogance, locking her faithful up in the prison of ignorance about the Scriptures and thus about Christ. I believed this story as did several of my friends.

The basic thrust of complaint is that Reformed Protestants say Trent's Vulgate decision was done in order to promote ignorance. Who exactly taught this? Which college taught this? Was it a Reformed college? The CTC blogger doesn't say, but does go on to locate the ultimate Reformed culprit, John Calvin:

The problem is that this story is a myth. It is a myth like the myth that the Catholic Church officially opposed the translation of Sacred Scripture into other vernacular languages in itself. When I was seeking Protestant sources and arguments to keep me from converting to Catholicism, I found that this misinterpretation came down to me from the very pen of John Calvin.

So it was none other than John Calvin that probably popularized the "myth" that Romanism officially authorized an inferior Latin translation of the Bible to be her "official" translation to keep her people ignorant.  CTC later states, "According to Calvin, Trent swept away the need for studying Greek and Hebrew in marking the Vulgate as the authentic text of the Church." According to CTC, the truth is that the decree of Trent "was above all aimed at standardizing the Latin text of the Bible for the Church, especially the Latin Rite." Trent's decree had nothing to do with keeping the Roman church ignorant. Rather, Trent simply wanted to standardize the Latin text.

It is quite true that there were problems with the Latin manuscripts during this period of history. William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture outlines this problem succinctly (see the discussion beginning on page 128). However, the notion that John Calvin perpetuated a Reformed (or Reformation) "myth" is not the case. Nor do I think CTC understands Calvin's actual arguments or the actual issues surrounding the Vulgate during this time period. 

CTC quotes Calvin's Antidote to the Council of Trent (1547). Henry Beveridge notes, "It is believed to be the earliest publication in which the proceedings of that body were fully and systematically reviewed." Calvin's introduction is dated November 21,1547. Take notice that it was only a short time previous (April 8, 1546) that Trent's Insuper decree stated:

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.

John Steinmueller explains that this decree is commonly held to be a disciplinary Decree based upon the dogmatic fact that the Vulgate conforms substantially with the originals, and therefore contains no errors in faith and morals (John Steinmueller, S.T.D., S.Scr.L., A Companion to Scripture Studies (New York: Wagner, 1941), Volume I, General Introduction to the Bible, p. 186, n.13). When Trent picked the Old Latin Vulgate, she meant business. It appears in Trent's collective mind, the old Vulgate was at least faithful enough to serve the church as her official Bible. John Calvin died in 1564.  The actual revised Vulgate appeared in 1590. Therefore, throughout John Calvin's entire life, an inferior Bible translation was indeed the standard for Roman Catholicism. The Insuper decree is dated 1547. So it was actually 43 years later in which a new edition of the Vulgate came out, and even that translation was a mess (including an interesting subterfuge / cover up perpetuated by Bellarmine and Gregory XIV). The first Calvin quote utilized by CTC states:

But as the Hebrew or Greek original often serves to expose their ignorance in quoting Scripture, to check their presumption, and so keep down their thrasonic boasting, they ingeniously meet this difficulty also by determining that the Vulgate translation only is to be held authentic. Farewell, then, to those who have spent much time and labor in the study of languages, that they might search for the genuine sense of Scripture at the fountainhead!

According to CTC, here Calvin went beyond what Trent said: "Trent nowhere forbids the use of the original languages." There are though a few things that should jump out from this Calvin quote. The first is "Hebrew or Greek original" and secondly, "the Vulgate translation only is to be held authentic" and thirdly, the relationship of these two statements. Calvin's concern here is to protect the actual text of the Bible: the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. That is, if one wants to declare what the authentic text is, look no further than the Bible written its original tongue. But shouldn't it go without saying that the Hebrew and Greek texts are the authentic text of Scripture? Shouldn't it be assumed Trent held that the Hebrew and Greek were included among the authentic text? Actually, no. In David King's book Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (Battle Ground: Christian Resources inc., 2001),  there is a fairly detailed discussion on Rome and the Latin Vulgate (pp. 162-169). Speaking on the proceedings at Trent, King states,

Cardinal Pacheco demanded that all other versions excepting the Vulgate be condemned, but this was largely rejected by the Tridentine Council. Cardinal Pole requested that the 'Hebrew and Greek originals' be included among the authentic text. This request was likewise rejected (p.162).

In laying out the points of Trent, Calvin states in the Antidote, "Thirdly, repudiating all other versions whatsoever, they retain the Vulgate only, and order it to be authentic." He later goes on to state, "What! are they not ashamed to make the Vulgate version of the New Testament authoritative, while the writings of Valla, Faber, and Erasmus, which are in everybody's hands, demonstrate with the finger, even to children, that it is vitiated in innumerable places?" Calvin's concern is that Trent picked a severely handicapped and inferior translation as the official Bible of the church. The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin points out, "Calvin was furthermore disappointed that instead of going to the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible, it chose the Latin Vulgate as the authoritative version."

William Whitaker also provides an interesting look at this period in history verifying Calvin's concern. One of the major arguments during this time period was over what exactly constituted the authentic text of Scripture. Whitaker states, "Our adversaries determine that the authentic scripture consists not in the Hebrew and Greek originals, but in the Vulgate Latin version. We, on the contrary side, say that the authentic and divinely-inspired scripture is not this Latin, but the Hebrew edition of the old Testament, and the Greek of the new." Whitaker then states actual Roman Catholic arguments as espoused by Bellarmine in favor of the Vulgate Latin being the actual authentic text of the Scriptures: "He proposes his First argument in this form: For nearly a thousand years, that is, from the time of Gregory the Great, the whole Latin church hath made use of this Latin edition alone" (p. 135). Bellarmine goes on to make a number of arguments in favor of the Latin text, all responded to by Whitaker.  Whitaker also documents that it simply wasn't Bellarmine arguing for the Latin Vulgate:

Certain English popish divines, who have taken up their abode in the seminary of Rheims, some years since translated the new Testament into the English tongue, not from the Greek text, but from the old Latin Vulgate. In order to persuade us of the wisdom and prudence of this proceeding, they produce in their preface ten reasons to prove that this Latin Vulgate edition is to be followed in all things rather than the Greek (p.141).

These "popish divines" went on to argue that "The sacred council of Trent, for these and many other very weighty reasons, hath defined this alone of all Latin translations to be authentic" (p.143). Whitaker raises some interesting objections, noting that even at the time Trent spoke, what she said was open to interpretation:

I answer: In the first place, that Tridentine Synod hath no authority with us. Secondly, What right had it to define this? Thirdly, It hath proposed no grounds of this decree, except this only, -that that edition had been for a long time received in the church; which reason, at least, every one must perceive to be unworthy of such great divines. Fourthly, I desire to know whether the council of Trent only commanded this Latin edition to be considered the authentic one amongst Latin editions, or determined it to be absolutely authentic? For if it only preferred this one to other Latin translations, that could be no reason to justify the Rhemists in not making their version of the new Testament from the Greek; since the council of Trent prefers this, not to the Greek edition, but to other Latin translations. Do they, then, make both this Latin and that Greek edition authentic, or this Latin only? Indeed, they express themselves in such a manner as not to deny the authenticity of the Greek, while nevertheless they really hold no edition of either old or new Testament authentic, save this Latin Vulgate only. This is the judgment of these Rhemists who have translated the new Testament from the Latin; and this the Jesuits defend most strenuously, maintaining that, where the Latin differs from the Greek or Hebrew, we should hold by the Latin rather than the Greek or Hebrew copies. And it is certain that this is now the received opinion of the papists (p.143).

So one of the main arguments during this time period was: what exactly constituted the authentic text of the Bible? Whitaker's entire discussion is a worthy read. I wonder if the CTC author even had this basic text during the years he claims to have been "Reformed." When dealing with history Roman Catholic converts are often prone to look down from their current perspective and chastise someone (like John Calvin) without at least trying to understand what informed his perspective in the first place. There is indeed "myth" going on here, but it isn't from Calvin's hand. Rather, I think CTC has missed Calvin's main concern and also engaged in a bit of anachronism.

Words mean things (1)

In a recent blog article by the economist Gary Becker, entitled “The Behavior of Catholics and Contraceptive Use,” Becker, an old guy, used the words “rhythm method” and predictably, a Roman Catholic commented that “rhythm method” has been supplanted by “natural family planning” (NFP). I’m guessing that the Roman Catholics who read this are knowledgeable to know the difference between these two terms.

I don’t plan to get into a discussion of those things; but it is interesting that Roman Catholics who would take offense over a usage like this one are oblivious to the misuse of much more serious language (the language of Scripture) when used by their own denomination.

In the comments to my previous post, this quickly became evident. So I want to address “TheDen,” a Roman Catholic writer who finds my work “amusing.” He says, “Reading this blog does not make me want to leave the Church but rather to cleave to her ever the more strongly.” Meanwhile, I think he has said a few things that need to be addressed.

“TheDen” said: Your goal is not to steer people to the Truth. Your goal is to claim that the Church is wrong. Your mission is not to evangelize and lead people to Christ but rather to tear apart and rent asunder. This is shameful.

On the contrary, we do quite extensively point out truths and falsehoods here. We make all kinds of fine distinctions that many people seem not to understand. But if people have falsely become “cleaved” to the Roman church the way a broken bone heals wrongly, then sometimes the better thing to do is to re-break the bone so it can heal properly.

“TheDen” said: As you have pointed out, the Roman Church has not fallen. It has not eroded (albeit some people in it have been and may still be corrupt). The beauty of the Church is that it protects the message of Jesus Christ as it was given to her by Christ Himself. Not a reinvention of Christ by using His Scripture but the actual message that Christ gave.

What I said was, “Roman Catholics ask us all the time, “when did the Roman church fall?” It was not necessarily a “fall,” but more like an erosion. Constant erosion, at greater and lesser rates of erosion. But it was an erosion of the Gospel message. It was the erosion of the core apostolic message, at the expense of the constant aggrandization of the bishops of Rome, and the constant aggrandization of Rome itself.” This is not at all the happy situation you have posited.

“When you say “the actual message that Christ gave,” the actual message that He gave was from the Scriptures. Generations of “oral tradition” had caused the Scriptures to become widely misunderstood; Christ did not give a new message; he reiterated the old message:

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

In fact, the Roman church did not “protect” the message of Christ but allowed it to be changed and corrupted over time, just in the manner I described, by making its own self greater and making Christ the lesser.

“TheDen” said: Marriage is not a sacrament because of Ephesians 5. Marriage precedes Christ and He elevates it to a sacrament (per Mark 10:9). There are numerous passages that point to the importance of marriage in God’s plan. To believe that marriage is a sacrament only because of the word sacramentum in Ephesians 5 is ignorance of Scripture and Christ’s teachings.

Let’s look at that process of “making a sacrament”, according to Rome:

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

“What did Moses command you?” he replied.

They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

This is something that, for “TheDen”, qualifies as “elevation to a sacrament”. But in reality, Jesus was reiterating the Scriptures, while clarifying in the face of the way that some “oral traditions” had obscured them. Is the whole Sermon on the Mount elevating things to sacraments?

A Foundational ‘Sacrament’ Built on and Reinforced by a Mistranslation

“TheDen” said: Penance: The Vulgate does not say "Do Penance" it says, “Poenitentiam” which means “Repent” which also means “do penance.” It is not referring to the Sacrament of Penance and it is not a mistranslation.

Actually, “TheDen,” you omitted a very important little word, and in fact, by adding that word, Jerome did change the sense of the entire passage. Here’s a link to A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament with an introduction by G.C. Richards who lists, on page 16, some of the same effects on the text that McGrath noted. Specifically, the words paenitentiam agere which “inevitably suggested ‘acts’ and that it no doubt led to the development of the penitential system, by which ‘penance’ became something [to be] done.”

He gives other examples that you can read for yourself, and the inevitable conclusion is: “thus the language of the Vulgate affected in no small degree the life of the Church”.

Diarmaid MacCulloch in his History of the Reformation also summarizes the effects of the Latin Vulgate on the church:

An examination of the New Testament [of Jerome’s mistranslations in the Vulgate] had even more profound consequences [than his mistranslations of the Old Testament]: Jerome had chosen certain Latin words in his translation of the original Greek, which formed a rather shaky foundation for very considerable theological constructions by the later Western Church.

It was not simply that Jerome gave misleading impressions of the Greek text: the mere fact that for a thousand years the Latin Church had based its authority on a translation [with many errors in it] was significant when scholars heard for the first time the unmediated urgency of the angular street-Greek poured out by … Paul of Tarsus as he wrestled with the problem of how Jesus represented God. The struggle sounded so much less decorous in the original than in Latin: the shock was bound to stir up new movements in the Church and suggest that it was not so authoritative or normative an interpreter of Scripture as it claimed.(82-83)

Again, regarding the translation of “metanoiea”:

Most notorious was Erasmus's retranslation of Gospel passages (especially Matthew 3.2 [and and also 4:17]) where John the Baptist [and Jesus] is presented in the Greek as crying out to his listeners in the wilderness: “metanoeite”. Jerome had translated this as “poenitentiam agite,” “do penance”, and the medieval Church had pointed to the Baptist’s cry as biblical support for its theology of the sacrament of penance. Erasmus said that what John had told his listeners to do was to come to their senses, or repent, and he translated the command into Latin as “resipiscite.” Much turned on one word.(99-100)

Craig Keener has provided an excellent study of what the word “repentance” meant in the New Testament-era literature, and says (primary source references omitted):

“Repentance” in the Gospels recalls not the “change of mind” earlier etymological interpreters sometimes supposed, but the biblical concept of “turning” or “returning” to God (Is 31:6; 45:22; 55:7; Jer 3:7, 10, 14, 22; 4:1; 8:5; 18:11; 24:7; 25:5; 26:3; 35:15; 36:7; 44:5; Lam 3:40; Ezek 13:22; 14:6; 18:23, 30; 33:9, 11; Hos 11:5; 12:6; 14:1-2; Joel 2:12-13; Zech 1:3-4; Mal 3:6).

[I’ve listed all these Scriptural citations to show that the idea of “repentance” espoused here did have a great deal of consistency through the OT.]

The idea of repentance as returning to God was pervasive in early Judaism but foreign to Greek religion. Sages extolled repentance, some later rabbis even claiming its preexistence or its association with the Messiah’s mission. It is efficacious, though in rabbinic tradition it merely suspends judgment until the Day of Atonement may remove it (and beyond a certain limit it is not efficacious for the person who premeditates sin in hopes of repenting afterward [Sounds a lot like Roman Catholics who think it’s ok to sin, because you can then just go to confession]).

Yet John’s call is more radical; his “repentance” refers not to a regular turning from sin after a specific act, but to a once-for-all repentance, the kind of turning from an old way of life to a new that Judaism associated with Gentiles converting to Judaism, here in view of the impending day of judgment (cf. MT 4:17; 11:20; 12:41; Acts 17:30-31; Rom 2:4). His call to repentance recalls a familiar summons in the biblical prophets. In various ways John warns his hearers against depending on the special privileges of their heritage. Craig Keener (“The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary” Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge, UK, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ©2009, pg 120)

Since this is already long I’ll break here and pick up some of the other comments in another post.

Rome has always set itself and its own aggrandization above the cause of Christ

I’m following on from my last installment on the history of the early [i.e., late fourth century] papacy.

Remember this citation as evidence that the early papacy [and for the papacy, note that “early” here is in the sixth century] had some sort of “divine institution.”

Testimony from the Early Fathers:
In 517 the Eastern bishops assented to and signed the formula of Pope Hormisdas, which states in part: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church” [Matt. 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.’ (qtd in This Rock, October 1998).

In the comments from that last thread, the discussion turned to Pope Damasus (366-384 AD). At question was my appellation “the murderer Pope Damasus,” but as I said there, I’ll stand by that appellation. J.N.D. Kelly (“Oxford Dictionary of the Popes”) notes that Damasus hired the mob [and note both the nomenclature and the location], which “savagely attacked the Ursinians”, [followers of Ursinus, a rival of Damasus’s] and killing 137 people in the process.

“Pope St. Damasus,” of course, is officially a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church. He personifies the legacy, which we see today, that any amount of lying or criminal activity can be excused if it is done in the name of Mother Rome.

Since the mid third century there had been a growing assimilation of Christian and secular culture. It is already in evidence long before Constantine with the art of the Christian burial sites round the city, the catacombs. With the imperial adoption of Christianity, this process accelerated. In Damasus’ Rome, wealthy Christians gave each other gifts in which Christian symbols went alongside images of Venus, nereids and sea-monsters, and representations of pagan-style wedding-processions.

This Romanisation of the Church was not all a matter of worldiness, however. The bishops of the imperial capital had to confront the Roman character of their city and their see. They set about finding a religious dimension to that Romanitias which would have profound implications for the nature of the papacy. Pope Damasus in particular took this task to heart. He set himself to interpret Rome’s past in the light not of paganism, but of Christianity. He would Latinise the Church, and Christianise Latin. He appointed as his secretary the greatest Latin scholar of the day, the Dalmatian presbyter Jerome, and commissioned him to turn the crude dog-Latin of the Bible versions [currently] used in the church into something more urbane and polished. Jerome’s work was never completed, but the Vulgate Bible, as it came to be called, rendered the scriptures of ancient Israel and the early Church into an idiom which Romans could recognize as their own. The covenant legislation of the ancient tribes was now cast in the language of the Roman law-courts [emphasis added], and Jerome’s version of the promises to Peter used familiar Roman legal words for binding and loosing -- ligare and solver -- which underlined the legal character of the Pope’s unique claims. (Eamon Duffy, “Saints and Sinners, A History of the Popes, New Haven and London, Yale Nota Bene, Yale University Press ©1997 and 2001, pgs 38-39)

It should be noted that this “Latinization” was one of the things that the Reformation worked to undo. It was the focus of the motto, ”ad fontes” [“To the sources.”] As Alister McGrath has noted in his “Introduction to Christian Theology,” “the Vulgate translation of several major New Testament texts could not be justified.” Nevertheless, he said, “a number of medieval church practices and beliefs were based upon these texts.” So in addition to some of the forgeries and works of fiction upon which the papacy aggrandized itself, Roman doctrines themselves were founded upon or expanded with translation errors. These included:

Ephesians 5:31-32: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. The Vulgate translation inserted the word “sacramentum” here, where the Greek word is mysterion. Erasmus pointed out that this Greek word simply meant “mystery.” The Ephesians passage had no reference whatsoever to marriage being a “sacrament.” Nevertheless, medieval theologians justified the inclusion of marriage on the list of sacraments, in good part, because of this mistranslation.

Matthew 4:17: From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” The Vulgate mistranslated the word “repent” as “do penance.” As McGrath noted, “this translation suggested that the coming of the kingdom of heaven had a direct connection with the sacrament of penance. Erasmus, following Valla, pointed out” the correct translation. “In other words, where the Vulgate seemed to refer to an outward practice (the sacrament of penance), Erasmus insisted that the reference was to an inward attitude, that of “being repentant.”

Luke 1:28: The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” The Vulgate translated the Greek for “highly favored” as “full of grace,” implying that Mary was somehow a reservoir of grace to be dispensed. Erasmus pointed this out as well. “Mary was one who had found God’s favor,” as McGrath notes. Not that she was one who could bestow grace upon others.

Six centuries later, after the east/west split, at which time anyone who was likely to protest was out of the picture, Pope Gregory VII asserted, “That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.” But it erred in the mistranslation of those very Scriptures. It sullied “the catholic religion” with its own efforts to glorify Rome.

Roman Catholics ask us all the time, “when did the Roman church fall?” It was not necessarily a “fall,” but more like an erosion. Constant erosion, at greater and lesser rates of erosion. But it was an erosion of the Gospel message, at the expense of the constant aggrandization of the bishops of Rome, and the constant aggrandization of Rome itself.