That is not completely correct. The Church recognizes that vernacular languages evolve and that within those languages there are variances and nuances based upon region, class, ethnicity, etc. It is for this reason that the Church continually revises Bible translations; not because the initial "original intent" is thought to have changed, but because they way it is expressed or interpreted within the vernacular language has changed.
This is the reason the Church uses Latin as its official language. Latin, being a dead language, is used as the baseline by the Church and the common language to which all vernacular translations of Scripture and Church documents are tied. It is timeless no longer evolving or having the variations of vernacular languages.
Lastly, the Church maintains a Magisterium to provide inerrant clarity and clarification to all matters of doctrine and dogma.
Peace be with you
Natural Law, thank you for the thought you gave to your reply. It helps me better understand the Catholic mind. I especially appreciate your description of Latin, as a dead language, being used as a “baseline.”
I will not pretend that I fully agree with you ... you know I don’t, or that I agree with the Catholic position. But I do appreciate your helpful reply.
If you are willing to go a step further. Would that mean then that the reason the Catholic Church saw no need to replace Jerome’s Latin translation for so long time (and would tend thereafter to translate into the vernacular Bibles based on the Vulgate, e.g., the Douay-Rheims, rather than on the preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts), and in a very sense still is of such a mind?
Again, I am asking this for the sake of clarity, because I think non-Catholics have a very difficult time grasping where Catholics are coming from on this matter.
Peace.