T
TheMese
Guest
What version of the Psalms do Americans use in the liturgy. On the Vatican website’s NAB I notice that there are no Psalms published: I presume because of the Inclusive Language controversy.
Thanks
Thanks
For Mass, the Psalms are from the 1970 New American Bible. They’re pretty good actually.What version of the Psalms do Americans use in the liturgy. On the Vatican website’s NAB I notice that there are no Psalms published: I presume because of the Inclusive Language controversy.
Thanks
If they do that, then I very much hope they back-port it into a new Bible. The NRSV, if not for its excessive use of inclusive language, would be an excellent translation. So far, only the RSV-2CE has both a Bible and Lectionary that match each other exactly.Thanks. I really like the NAB which I bought on vacation. However, I was reading their Psalms (1991) last night and they were horrible.
We use the Grail version in the U.K. at Mass. I understand that a U.K. lectionary replacement is being worked on: the NRSV with the gender inclusiveness removed.
What bothers me is that the USCCB SHOULD have posted the 1970 Psalms on the Vatican web site, especially since the Vatican rejected the 1991 revision in its entirety for liturgical (and, perhaps, by extension, any other) use. I mean, how stupid is that to have 72 of the 73 books of a particular version of the bible on the Vatican site, with the Book of Psalms being the one book absent?For Mass, the Psalms are from the 1970 New American Bible. They’re pretty good actually.
The presently available editions of the NAB have a revised book of Psalms dating back to 1991. It is a terrible translation with excessive use of inclusive language, such that Rome disapproved its use for the liturgy, and that explains why the link is dead on the Vatican web site (they’re actually still there, except that you need to know the actual URL).
The Liturgy of the Hours uses the 1963 Grail psalms.
What bothers me is that the USCCB SHOULD have posted the 1970 Psalms on the Vatican web site, especially since the Vatican rejected the 1991 revision in its entirety for liturgical (and, perhaps, by extension, any other) use. I mean, how stupid is that to have 72 of the 73 books of a particular version of the bible on the Vatican site, with the Book of Psalms being the one book absent?![]()