“Oh, a priest, theologians, Church fathers, Church doctors, Holy Saints, and much much more.”
I’d suggest skipping those and simply using a decent commentary that includes discussions of the original language and the historical setting. Theologians will argue over almost anything. The Church Fathers were all over the place. In one writing they would say one thing, and in another say another - with the same person writing! Church doctors and Holy Saints were interested in preserving Catholic theology, and cheerfully would do so at the expense of the word of God.
The New Testament knows of two types of human priests - Jewish priests, offering blood and other sacrifices, and every Christian, offering sacrifices of obedience, thankfulness, etc. There were no priests in the New Testament in the Christian Church. Someone who is a priest is, by definition, someone who does not accept the authority of the Word of God over his own theology - so why consult him to find out what the word says, when he doesn’t CARE about what it says?
That was why Wycliffe was so dangerous to the Roman Catholic Church. By getting the word of God into the hands of believers, he allowed the believers to discover they had been lied to about what God wants of them. That is also why they attacked Tyndale, and attacked Luther, and why they still attack the KJV - because letting people read the Word of God leaves the Roman Catholic Church with no foundation.
A church who wants people to “do penance” instead of repent is not interested in the Word of God.
I would suggest you both read what Erasmus and the Vulgate said in Romans.
It is rather interesting.
Defending the Vulgate is difficult to do. It is, and was, a botched translation. There is a reason St Augustine, (and others) hated it. They had much better translations than it floating around.
Jerome had a noble goal however. He wanted a Bible in the language of the common people. However, his sources were not the best, and his ego was rather huge.