Of course one looks for meaning, but one still should translate honestly what is written, and if the meaning is obscure, write a commentary. It would have been fine for a Protestant to translate "in the person of Christ" and then explain in the commentary that the inspired author meant something else. It would be silly but honest. To simply substitute words to fit a preconceived theology is dishonest.
How would you know that is a mistranslation just from reading that Scripture in the Douay Bible?
You shouldn't just read the Douay (or any other) Bible. You should read the Bible in the company of the Church with the mind of the Church. Today, especially, there is ample apparatus available for the curious reader on the Internet. On this issue, for example, one should ask: how did the readers of the passage in the early Church understand it, -- did they think St.Paul decides to forgive by himself and calls on Christ to witness it ("in the presence of Christ"), or did they think that St. Paul acts on authority of Christ as if Christ Himself is doing it ("in the person of Christ"? Which interpretation would better agree with other scripture, the relevant scripture being, of course, John 20:21-23?
You would find, for example, these commentaries by St. John Chrysostom. In his Homily 4 on Second Corinthians he discusses how and to waht extent did Paul share his authority with the local Church in Corinth, and then adds:
Did he for men's sake pardon? No; for on this account he added, “In the person of Christ.” What is “in the person of Christ?” Either he means according to [the will of] God, or unto the glory of Christ.
One the authority of priests St. John Chrysostom had a lot to say in Homily 86 on the Gospel of John:
As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ invests them with the same power.[...]
Let us then do all we can to have the Holy Spirit with ourselves, and let us treat with much honor those into whose hands its operation has been committed. For great is the dignity of the priests. “Whosesoever sins,” it says, “ye remit, they are remitted unto them”; wherefore also Paul says, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” Hebrews 13:17 And hold them very exceedingly in honor; for thou indeed carest about your own affairs, and if you order them well, you give no account for others, but the priest even if he rightly order his own life, if he have not an anxious care for yours, yea and that of all those around him, will depart with the wicked into hell; and often when not betrayed by his own conduct, he perishes by yours, if he have not rightly performed all his part. Knowing therefore the greatness of the danger, give them a large share of your goodwill; which Paul also implied when he said, “For they watch for your souls,” and not simply so, but, “as they that shall give account.” Hebrews 13:17 They ought therefore to receive great attention from you; but if you join with the rest in trampling upon them, then neither shall your affairs be in a good condition. For while the steersman continues in good courage, the crew also will be in safety; but if he be tired out by their reviling him and showing ill-will against him, he cannot watch equally well, or retain his skill, and without intending it, throws them into ten thousand mischiefs. And so too the priest, if he enjoy honor from you, will be able well to order your affairs; but if you throw them into despondency, you weaken their hands, and render them, as well as yourselves, an easy prey to the waves, although they be very courageous.
“Translate honestly what is is written” by whom? Paul? Then what did he write that can be honestly translated? He wrote in Greek, “prosopos”, which literally means, “face”.
What does “in the face of Christ” mean? So they looked at how the word was used by Greeks and realized “prosopos”, “face”, meant in front of the person, the individual named was there in person, witnessing the event. for that reason the translators of works like the AV did not translate “prosopos as “face”.
But what they translate has become archaic in use and a word better giving the meaning of “prosopos” is called for, “presence”.
I gave you a similar example in the word “shambles” which is how the Av translates Paul's “makello”. Yes, but what is a shambles? a wreck? devastation? Should a modern day translator or reader simply accept that which is written?
No! in all cases since “makello”, “shambles”, simply means a butcher shop, a meat market to most of us. (1 Cor. 10:25)
And in neither case is it theology but linguistics and the changing use of English words.
“Today, especially, there is ample apparatus available for the curious reader on the Internet.”
And on the Internet you will scholarly sources quoted like Thayer’s Lexicon (and others) as well Strong's Concordance, both of which I pointed out to you.
” On this issue, for example, one should ask: how did the readers of the passage in the early Church understand it, — did they think St.Paul decides to forgive by himself and calls on Christ to witness it (”in the presence of Christ”), or did they think that St. Paul acts on authority of Christ as if Christ Himself is doing it (”in the person of Christ”? Which interpretation would better agree with other scripture, the relevant scripture being, of course, John 20:21-23?”
Quite so and how do know what meaning was attached to the word “prosopos”, “face” except by the context in which it was used by those early Greek speakers and writers.
An example is Luke's use of “prosopoy” at Acts 5:41 where it is translated as “presence” (AV)
How would Paul's readers and listeners understand the word, “prosopos” when he used it? First literally as “face” but in the context as “presence”.
To take an everyday example in another language of the same practice, “vaya con dios” literally means, “Go with God”, but when used in context of a farewell is usually translated “goodbye” or something similar.
John 20:23.” Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained”.
In 2 Cor. 2:10 Paul was not discussing or referring to his authority to forgive sins but was referring to the Corinthians forgiving a man ousted for immorality who then repents and is accepted back into the congregation. Paul will follow their lead, since they have forgiven him Paul will too.
And why does Paul do this? “..for your sakes” in Christ's presence, face, Christ being there in person.
Unfortunately there is no official, inspired magisterium commentary of the entire scriptures. Most of what one finds on the internet is simply one man's own personal interpretation of the scripture, not an official magisterium one .