Pope Releases Apostolic Letter on Sacred Scripture

[Vetus Ordo]

Pope Releases Apostolic Letter on Sacred Scripture

In The National Catholic Reporter.



Visitors are pictured in a file photo looking at a Caravaggio painting titled "St. Jerome Writing" during an exhibition at the Galleria Borghese in Rome. Pope Francis released an apostolic letter on the Bible Sept. 30, coinciding with the 1,600th anniversary of Jerome's death.

VATICAN CITY — In an apostolic letter dedicated to Sacred Scripture, Pope Francis said that even today, Christians can learn new things from the countless translations of the Bible that exist. The variety of translations of the Bible in the world today "teaches us that the values and positive forms of every culture represent an enrichment for the whole church," the pope said in his apostolic letter, Scripturae Sacrae Affectus ("Devotion to Sacred Scripture"). "The different ways by which the word of God is proclaimed, understood and experienced in each new translation enrich Scripture itself since, according to the well-known expression of Gregory the Great, Scripture grows with the reader, taking on new accents and new resonance throughout the centuries," he wrote in the letter released by the Vatican Sept. 30.

Earlier in the day, before concluding his weekly general audience, the pope told pilgrims he had signed the document to coincide with the 16th centenary of St. Jerome's death. "May the example of this great doctor and father of the church, who placed the Bible at the center of his life, awaken in us a renewed love for the Sacred Scripture and the desire to live in a personal dialogue with the word of God," he said. The letter itself said that marking the 16th centenary of St. Jerome's death is "a summons to love what Jerome loved, to rediscover his writings and to let ourselves be touched by his robust spirituality, which can be described in essence as a restless and impassioned desire for a greater knowledge of the God who chose to reveal himself." Catholics today, Francis said, must heed "the advice that Jerome unceasingly gave to his contemporaries: 'Read the divine Scriptures constantly; never let the sacred volume fall from your hand.' "

In his apostolic letter, the pope delved into the history of St. Jerome's life and his love of Scripture. His "monumental work" of translating the Old Testament from Hebrew, as well as his commentary on the Psalms and St. Paul's letters, are an example for Catholics today, he said. "As an enterprise carried out within the community and at the service of the community, Jerome's scholarly activity can serve as an example of synodality for us and for our own time," the pope said. "It can also serve as a model for the church's various cultural institutions, called to be 'places where knowledge becomes service, for no genuine and integral human development can occur without a body of knowledge that is the fruit of cooperation and leads to greater cooperation,' " he said, quoting a speech he gave in 2019 to the pontifical academies.

St. Jerome's life and work also highlight the need for true witnesses of Christ who can faithfully interpret Scripture which often seems as if it is " 'sealed,' hermetically closed to interpretation."

"Many, even among practicing Christians, say openly that they are not able to read it, not because of illiteracy, but because they are unprepared for the biblical language, its modes of expression and its ancient cultural traditions," he said. "As a result, the biblical text becomes indecipherable, as if it were written in an unknown alphabet and an esoteric tongue." The pope said that "the richness of Scripture is neglected or minimized by many because they were not afforded a solid grounding in this area," not even from their families, who often seem unable "to introduce their children to the word of the Lord in all its beauty and spiritual power."

Nevertheless, the celebration of the 16th centenary of Jerome's death is a reminder of "the extraordinary missionary vitality" throughout the centuries that has led to the Bible's translation in more than 3,000 languages, Francis said. "To how many missionaries do we owe the invaluable publication of grammars, dictionaries and other linguistic tools that enable greater communication and become vehicles for the missionary aspiration of reaching everyone," Francis said. "We need to support this work and invest in it, helping to overcome limits in communication and lost opportunities for encounter. Much remains to be done. It has been said that without translation there can be no understanding: we would understand neither ourselves nor others," he said.

[Jayne]

Pope Releases Apostolic Letter on Sacred Scripture
VATICAN CITY — In an apostolic letter dedicated to Sacred Scripture, Pope Francis said that even today, Christians can learn new things from the countless translations of the Bible that exist. The variety of translations of the Bible in the world today "teaches us that the values and positive forms of every culture represent an enrichment for the whole church," the pope said in his apostolic letter, Scripturae Sacrae Affectus ("Devotion to Sacred Scripture"). "The different ways by which the word of God is proclaimed, understood and experienced in each new translation enrich Scripture itself since, according to the well-known expression of Gregory the Great, Scripture grows with the reader, taking on new accents and new resonance throughout the centuries," he wrote in the letter released by the Vatican Sept. 30.

The problem that leaps to my mind is that many translations are by heretics, done in a way to support their heresies.  The Council of Trent declared that the Vulgate is the only translation without doctrinal error.  (Until relatively recently, Catholic translations in the vernacular made a point of being consistent with the Vulgate.  Now Catholic translations use modern linguistic principles of translation.) 

How is the Church going to be "enriched" by these heresies?     

This sort of thing is why I don't argue with Sedevacantists anymore.

[Fleur-de-Lys]

No translation, no matter how well-intentioned or how skillfully done, can ever fully capture the original. That is especially problematic when dealing with something as important as Sacred Scripture. The great variety among vernacular translations should be a cause for concern, not celebration. But hey, what else can you really expect from this pope?

[aquinas138]

No translation, no matter how well-intentioned or how skillfully done, can ever fully capture the original. That is especially problematic when dealing with something as important as Sacred Scripture. The great variety among vernacular translations should be a cause for concern, not celebration. But hey, what else can you really expect from this pope?

The problem with Scripture, though, is that we do not have the original. The textual tradition of the Hebrew OT is varied. The textual tradition of the Greek of the NT is varied. There is no one Septuagint. There is no one Vulgate. Every ancient version has variation in its text. The best we can have is a text considered authoritative, which would imply no doctrinal errors. The Church declared the Vulgate to be so, and so the Roman Church should use the Vulgate. I think the best solution is that the ancient churches use their ancient versions: Vulgate, Septuagint, Peshitta, etc.

[Jayne]

Here are passages from the Council of Trent, 4th Session, http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm in contrast to the above:

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

[Fleur-de-Lys]

Trent goes on to say:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

Even more important than having an authoritative text is having the Church as the final authority in interpreting Sacred Scripture. The difficulties inherent in translating and transmitting texts only underscore the need for this.

[trentcath]

I didn't even know about this, nor have I read it, and honestly it doesn't seem like I'm missing much  Even if we accept the argument above that illiterate or ignorant people don't understand certain translations, the solution is to educate or explain it to them (for example, with the use of a good bible commentary) not to twist the language into "modern" or "idiot" speak so that they can understand it. Moreover, no matter how much you dumb the language down there will always be things one will not understand, parables, metaphors, prophecies and prophetic foreshadowing's in the old testament etc... It's not like the saints have written thousands of commentaries on sacred scripture just for the sake of it, the text really is that deep. Honestly, I look forward to the day we white smoke blows from the chimney of the Vatican, although I fear we will just get an even more useless pope 

[Prayerful]

Well Francis made more sense and was less heretical than usual. At this rate, he'll be Catholic in ten years.

[Vetus Ordo]

No translation, no matter how well-intentioned or how skillfully done, can ever fully capture the original. That is especially problematic when dealing with something as important as Sacred Scripture. The great variety among vernacular translations should be a cause for concern, not celebration. But hey, what else can you really expect from this pope?

The problem with Scripture, though, is that we do not have the original. The textual tradition of the Hebrew OT is varied. The textual tradition of the Greek of the NT is varied. There is no one Septuagint. There is no one Vulgate. Every ancient version has variation in its text. The best we can have is a text considered authoritative, which would imply no doctrinal errors. The Church declared the Vulgate to be so, and so the Roman Church should use the Vulgate. I think the best solution is that the ancient churches use their ancient versions: Vulgate, Septuagint, Peshitta, etc.

The textual tradition of the Bible is a complicated matter. The oldest surviving manuscripts of the NT are from the 4th century. We also have some earlier fragments, I believe.

Most of the original text can only be guessed at from what we have and what the Fathers of the Church quoted in their day. The best the Church can hope for is to provide authoritative versions of the texts. The Vulgate is one of them but there's no reason to think modern translations per se can't be as authoritative.

[trentcath]

Well Francis made more sense and was less heretical than usual. At this rate, he'll be Catholic in ten years.

[Jayne]

Well Francis made more sense and was less heretical than usual. At this rate, he'll be Catholic in ten years.

On the surface it may have come across as Catholic, but it strongly implied false ecumenism, as I said in my first post. Also, I found another problem when I read the entire thing and not just the excerpts in the article. See:  http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20200930_scripturae-sacrae-affectus.html

In this way, "sacred Scripture became a sort of 'immense lexicon' (Paul Claudel) and 'iconographic atlas' (Marc Chagall), from which both Christian culture and art could draw".[42] Literature, art and even popular language have continually been shaped by Jerome's translation of the Bible, leaving us great treasures of beauty and devotion. 

It was due to this indisputable fact that the Council of Trent, in its decree Insuper, affirmed the "authentic" character of the Vulgate, thus attesting to its use in the Church through the centuries and bearing witness to its value as a tool for the purpose of study, preaching and public disputation

This sounds like he is saying that the authentic character of the Vulgate is due to its cultural influence. Rather than speak of its role in preserving sound doctrine, he speaks of art and literature.  This may be subtle, but it is seriously problematic.

[aquinas138]

No translation, no matter how well-intentioned or how skillfully done, can ever fully capture the original. That is especially problematic when dealing with something as important as Sacred Scripture. The great variety among vernacular translations should be a cause for concern, not celebration. But hey, what else can you really expect from this pope?

The problem with Scripture, though, is that we do not have the original. The textual tradition of the Hebrew OT is varied. The textual tradition of the Greek of the NT is varied. There is no one Septuagint. There is no one Vulgate. Every ancient version has variation in its text. The best we can have is a text considered authoritative, which would imply no doctrinal errors. The Church declared the Vulgate to be so, and so the Roman Church should use the Vulgate. I think the best solution is that the ancient churches use their ancient versions: Vulgate, Septuagint, Peshitta, etc.

The textual tradition of the Bible is a complicated matter. The oldest surviving manuscripts of the NT are from the 4th century. We also have some earlier fragments, I believe.

Most of the original text can only be guessed at from what we have and what the Fathers of the Church quoted in their day. The best the Church can hope for is to provide authoritative versions of the texts. The Vulgate is one of them but there's no reason to think modern translations per se can't be as authoritative.

I would basically agree. I favor the various churches keeping their ancient versions for liturgical use, but everyone should actually read and study everything, ancient and modern. The ancients were better, in my opinion, at the scriptures being part of their "spiritual breathing," so to speak, and the spirituality of the various traditions are profoundly shaped by their version of the Bible, but modern scholarship has access to much more information than the ancients could have dreamed of.

[Santantonio]

No translation, no matter how well-intentioned or how skillfully done, can ever fully capture the original. That is especially problematic when dealing with something as important as Sacred Scripture. The great variety among vernacular translations should be a cause for concern, not celebration. But hey, what else can you really expect from this pope?

If that were true, the Gospel of Matthew itself would be 'problematic', but it's not. Your point of view is not a Catholic one, but rather it is a Judaic one. I say Judaic because it was exclusively the reactionary rabbis, those who espoused the idiotic and suicidal rebellions against Roman rule that caused their own utter destruction - who refused to accept Hellenisation. This was also, later a root cause of the Protestant rebelion, as Luther refused to include the Alexandrian Canon in his scaled-down version of Scripture.

[The Theosist]

Yeah, those stupid Jews should have just accepted Roman paganisation and Greek philosophy. And they should have done it way back when in the time of those stupid Maccabees.

Is is now traddie to adopt the words of revolutionary leftism, like "reactionary"?

[Prayerful]

Well Francis made more sense and was less heretical than usual. At this rate, he'll be Catholic in ten years.

On the surface it may have come across as Catholic, but it strongly implied false ecumenism, as I said in my first post. Also, I found another problem when I read the entire thing and not just the excerpts in the article. See:  http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20200930_scripturae-sacrae-affectus.html

In this way, "sacred Scripture became a sort of 'immense lexicon' (Paul Claudel) and 'iconographic atlas' (Marc Chagall), from which both Christian culture and art could draw".[42] Literature, art and even popular language have continually been shaped by Jerome's translation of the Bible, leaving us great treasures of beauty and devotion. 

It was due to this indisputable fact that the Council of Trent, in its decree Insuper, affirmed the "authentic" character of the Vulgate, thus attesting to its use in the Church through the centuries and bearing witness to its value as a tool for the purpose of study, preaching and public disputation

This sounds like he is saying that the authentic character of the Vulgate is due to its cultural influence. Rather than speak of its role in preserving sound doctrine, he speaks of art and literature.  This may be subtle, but it is seriously problematic.

I strongly underline 'less heretical than usual.' The occasion of the letter could have given to some genuinely Catholic thought on the role of the Vulgate, but after recounting St Jerome's life, it just represents Trent as saying the Vulgate is 'really important,' which is pointless as it's important to Protestants even given its key role on resolving the biblical canon. Perhaps that's what Francis is saying by implication. It isn't Fratelli Tutti nonsensical, but SCRIPTURAE SACRAE AFFECTUS is so lacking any substance in spite of all its nice words on St Jerome. Still it is clear in a way, which makes it likely the work of some Vatican official to which Francis gave his impatient signature, while he shakes down bishops over the phone to refill the missing 20 mil.