I never really cared about translation troubles. Even in Eusebius of Cesarea's book it was clear some hardwork was involved, priests travelling around getting old manuscripts, interviewing old guys, trying to do their best... And submiting their work to the supervision and final decision of the bishops. The Church not only wrote the books and decided the canon, it also kept working on keeping the versions. And that before the Vulgate (no need to call it Old, the new one is the Neo- )

what is important:
- it is good enough, close enough to the original text nobody will ever touch again...
- because nothing really relevant is based on a single passage of the bible which might be wrong. 
Protestants can take important stuff from a few passages (see the pentecostals... sometimes it looks they banged their heads on the bible, read the first versicle they found, and forked a new church over it - that is the logical consequence of sola scriptura), or try to win arguments with  a machine gun of biblical passages.
Catholics have the tradition and magistery to suport the interpretation to make sure it does not come from a misinterpreted isolated idea from the text. 

if our faith depended on perfect texts, then nobody ever had any faith. 
Even before the vulgate, versioning stuff was hard. Even in apostolic times, each book or epistle took time to spread. Local bishops had to decide to read it on masses - that was the first litmus test. copy them, send them to other places. Versioning troubles started soon, as eusebius show. For a long time, not every place had the same books.