Unlike the earlier humanist drafts that desired to expand on the fifth Lateran councilвЂ™s decree regarding the education of the clergy (to have the clergy become competent in the original languages), the final decree issued at the fourth session remained silent about studying the original languages or vernacular translations. The fierce debates illustrate the genuine concern for scriptural reform, as well as the politico-religious constraints the council faced in addressing humanist studies. With such distinguished Catholic scholars disagreeing among themselves and the ambiguous status of Greek manuscripts, it is understandable why the council was not anxious to abandon the traditional Vulgate or to emphasize the importance of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. However, Martin Dorpius (1485вЂ“1525) and Juan GinГ©s de SepГєlveda (1490вЂ“1573), among other scholars, argued that ErasmusвЂ™s Greek manuscripts were corrupt and therefore could not be trusted to correct the traditional Vulgate. Desiderius Erasmus (1466вЂ“1536), following Augustine of Hippo (354вЂ“430), held that one should always consult the original Greek or Hebrew when translating into the Latin or vernacular. 6 Rather than risk an international incident and see the council permanently dissolve, the fathers chose to remain silent on the use of vernacular Bibles and allow bishops and local universities the freedom to continue their own traditions or to study the issue more closely.ДЄnother source of confusion regarding translations was the integrity of the Greek manuscripts available at the time. 5 The fathers had to walk carefully in regard to the vernacular since siding with one side necessarily meant upsetting the other. For example, in some countries, like Spain and England, they were prohibited (at least in principle), while in other regions, like the Italian peninsula and German-speaking lands, their reading was allowed and even encouraged. Regarding the problem of vernacular translations, important differences existed among the council fathers. 4 While some of these objectives would be accomplished after the council, the ambitious aims of the early, humanist-minded drafts were quickly tempered by national politics and the Scholastic arguments of Domingo de Soto (1494вЂ“1560), amongst others. These included that different versions of the Bible were causing confusion, that linguistic and theological experts should produce a corrected Latin translation more вЂњin line with JeromeвЂ™s Vulgate but improving it where necessary,вЂќ that вЂњnorms of interpretationвЂќ should be given that are вЂњconformed to the sensus catholicus,вЂќ that restrictions on printing Bibles were needed, that if vernacular versions were to be allowed they вЂњmust first be examined to ensure their fidelity to the corrected Latin Bible,вЂќ and that вЂњmore stringent norms on qualifications for preachers and on the content of their sermonsвЂќ should be given by the council. 3 When the topic of scriptural reform arose in the general congregation of March 1, 1546, a number of concerns were addressed. The council fathers at Trent emphasized three particular areas of reform related to scripture during the fourth and fifth sessions held in 1546: the interpretation of scripture, the editing and printing of scripture, and the proclamation of scripture in the liturgy. 2 However, a closer examination of Trent and its reception reveals a different story. Unfortunately, TrentвЂ™s limited decree has led many contemporary scholars to believe that early modern Catholic exegesis abandoned humanist studies and retreated to the Vulgate and Scholastic theology. In regards to biblical studies, it was TrentвЂ™s decree on the Vulgate and its relative silence on the use of Hebrew and Greek that influenced the SocietyвЂ™s approach to scripture. Like much of the orderвЂ™s early life, the Council of Trent played a large role in the formation and mission of the Society of Jesus.

Diccionario teologico antes del fin