Do Catholics wish that he Bible had never be translated from the Latin?

Question

If it never had been translated, then there never would had been a Protestant Reformation (most likely) and we would all be believing the Pope because we wouldn't be educated enough to understand the Latin.

dewcoons: Check your history. The majority of people could NOT read Latin, that is why they had to go to church so the preist could tell them what to believe.

From http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66

In 382 the pope, Damasus, commissions Jerome to provide a definitive Latin version. In his monastery at Bethlehem, tended by aristocratic virgins, the saint produces the Vulgate. This eventually becomes established as the Bible of the whole western church until the Reformation.
The intention of St Jerome, translating into Latin the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, was that ordinary Christians of the Roman empire should be able to read the word of God. 'Ignorance of the scriptures', he wrote, 'is ignorance of Christ'.

Gradually this perception is altered. After the collapse of the western empire, the people of Christian Europe speak varieties of German, French, Anglo-Saxon, Italian or Spanish. The text of Jerome's Vulgate is understood only by the learned, most of whom are priests.

They prefer to corner the source of Christian truth, keeping for themselves the privilege of interpreting it for the people. Translation into vulgar tongues is discouraged.




gra







There are exceptions. In the late 8th century Charlemagne commissions translation of parts of the Bible for the use of his missionaries in the drive to convert pagan Germans. In the 9th century the Greek brothers Cyril and Methodius, sent from Constantinople to Moravia at royal request, translate the Gospels and parts of the Old Testament into Slavonic.

These are missionary endeavours, promoted by rulers as an act of government when pagan Europe is being brought into the Christian fold. In the later fully Christian centuries there is no equivalent need to provide the holy texts in vernacular form. Any such impulse is now a radical demand on behalf of ordinary Christians against the church hierarchy.

They prefer to corner the source of Christian truth, keeping for themselves the privilege of interpreting it for the people. Translation into vulgar tongues is discouraged.
There are exceptions. In the late 8th century Charlemagne commissions translation of parts of the Bible for the use of his missionaries in the drive to convert pagan Germans. In the 9th century the Greek brothers Cyril and Methodius, sent from Constantinople to Moravia at royal request, translate the Gospels and parts of the Old Testament into Slavonic.

These are missionary endeavours, promoted by rulers as an act of government when pagan Europe is being brought into the Christian fold. In the later fully Christian centuries there is no equivalent need to provide the holy texts in vernacular form. Any such impulse is now a radical demand on behalf of ordinary Christians against the church hierarchy.

The strongest medieval demand for vernacular texts comes in France from a heretical sect, the Cathars. The suppression of the Cathars is complete by the mid-13th century. But in the following century the same demand surfaces within mainstream western Christianity.

John Wycliffe and his followers produce full English versions of the Old and New Testament in the late 14th century. At the same period the Czechs have their own vernacular Bible, subsequently much improved by John Huss.
These translations are part of the radical impulse for reform within the church. Indeed the issue of vernacular Bibles becomes one of the contentious themes of the Reformation.
By the 16th century the view is gaining ground that a personal knowledge of scripture is precisely what ordinary people most need for their own spiritual good.

By the 16th century the view is gaining ground that a personal knowledge of scripture is precisely what ordinary people most need for their own spiritual good. Erasmus, though he himself translates the New Testament only from Greek into Latin, expresses in his preface of 1516 the wish that the holy text should be in every language - so that even Scots and Irishmen might read it.
Soon after the publication of Luther's New Testament an English scholar, William Tyndale, is studying in Wittenberg - where he probably matriculates in May 1524. Tyndale begins a translation of the New Testament from Greek into English. His version is printed at Worms in 1526 in 3000 copies. When they reach England, the bishop of London seizes every copy that his agents can lay their hands on.

The offending texts are burnt at St Paul's Cross, a gathering place in the precincts of the cathedral. So effective are the bishop's methods that today only two copies of the original 3000 survive.

The Bible in vernacular languages, a central demand of the Protestant Reformation, subsequently becomes the main weapon in the armoury of Protestant missionaries. Spreading around the world, along with the traders and administrators of the expanding European empires of the 19th century, these missionaries encounter more and more languages into which the holy text can be usefully translated.

Please excuse the duplication. I hope this enlightens some of you.

Answer 1

This is silly. But okay, I'll play.

Translation into the vernacular was inevitable, and a positive thing. But the Reformation wasn't brought about because suddenly everyone could read the Bible, either (Luther was well able to read Latin). There was a rather large gap between the first availability of the Bible in English, French, German, etc. and the common folk being able to afford their own copy; printed material remained prohibitively expensive for quite some time.

As for the mysteries of Latin, as late as the 1960s it was still being routinely taught in Catholic high schools. If the Bible had never been translated, the industrial age and the accompanying surge in public literacy would have ensured that we all learned that language anyway.

In any event, the Protestant Reformation would likely have occurred regardless. So no, I don't wish the Bible had never been translated on that basis or any other.

Next silly premise?

Answer 2

To correct you in your ignorance of biblical history.

1) The Bible was translated into Latin in the first place because it was the Vernacular of the day when it was first translated. Martin Luther's reformation had nothing to do with the further translations since he still used a Bible that wasn't translated, he only removed the books that condemmed him and his thought of never being good enough to be saved.
2) When it was in Latin, those who truly wanted to know scripture would read it and understand whether or not it was a religious person.
3) Thirdly the Bible is still studies today in it's original Greek and Hebrew by theologians all over the world, and they had to learn the language as well and if interested in really reading what the Bible says, that is the language you would need to learn and not use any translated version since in translation it is not exact with the original text.
4) Catholics are more than what you or any other person makes us out to be, because we have the real presence of Christ in our Liturgy, Scripture, Eucharist and the People, where else can anyone make that statement.
God bless and I pray you learned something from this Catholic, even though I truly believe that is not your intention.

Answer 3

Latin was and is the language of the Church but it must be understood that it was the Catholic Church that first translated the bible into vernacular languages and not the Protestants. Heresies are nothing new to His Church and the Church had been fighting against heresies long before the heresies introduced by the Reformation, many of which were and are just representations by the father of lies to a modern society. What role the translations had is a point of debate but there is no doubt that the heresies to follow , foremost of which is the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura, has confused the truth once delivered to all through His Church. The Bible was never written and Canonized by the Church to be interpreted outside of the authority of the Church that Christ established. Obviously the result has not been of understanding but has opened the door to Satan to create confusion among the faithful. Obviously the fact that there are over 30,000 different denominations as the result of the Reformation , each with a different version of the "truth", proves that proper understanding is not the result of the language it is written in but instead the result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in His Church.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 4

That's ridiculous. We Catholics, do not read the Bible in Latin. If it weren't for the dedication of the Catholic Monks...there would have been no Bible to translate. The monks spent years painstakingly handwriting copies of the Bible. A recent comparison of these ancient copies to the original texts proves them to be extremely accurate copies.

At the time you are referring to MOST people could not read. Having a Bible would have done them no good anyway. At the invention of the printing press the need to read became more of a push. Things were being printed and people wanted to know what they said. At this time, Martin Luther was also proclaiming himself alone the interpreter of scripture and therefore wanted to get his copy of the Bible out. He had copies of his Bible WITH 7 BOOKS TAKEN OUT that HE did not agree with, distributed to the common people. These Bibles were seen as heretical and dangerous to the Christian faithful. They were burned. It is a sin to remove any books from sacred scripture and yet he did and you all continue to follow him to this day.

Answer 5

listen , you would not have a holy bible, were it not for the catholic church. If reformers chose to remove vital books out of the bible, thats there unholy choose, but if I were informed of this as you now are, I would run and buy me a true bible with all the books from a good catholic sourse, as these bibles are not sold as versions in the dollar stores. Catholics consider the bible as a very holy book.

Answer 6

Even if the Bible had remained in Latin, the invention at that same time of the printing press would have made the Latin Bible common enough and cheap enough that anyone who wanted to could (and would) have read it. At that time the majority of people, at least in Europe, who were educated, could read Latin.

Answer 7

The ancient scribblings that were collected and made into the bible were in Greek , Latin , Hebrew , and Ameraic .
At the time of the reformation , anyone who was considered at all educated spoke those languages , and more.
Lady Jane Gray spoke Latin, Greek , Hebrew , German , French , Spanish , and Italian in addition to her own English . They chopped off her head when she was sixteen .

Answer 8

Depending on which religion you refer to, no Bible was written in Latin. The old testament was written in Hebrew and arametic. The new testament was written in Greek. The Qoran was written in Arabic.

Answer 9

I don't think so... Lay Christians hardly read the Bible! If they do they just go poaching around where convenient to boost their low self esteem...

Answer 10

Rubbish friend,you would not have a Bible if not for the Catholic church,the reformation would have happened sometime as satan planned it and the reformers implemented it.