Are you allowed to change the translation read in liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomasbradley312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve heard of the New Jerusalem Bible, but never seen any US Catholics using it. The Bibles I grew up with were the Douay, the NAB/ NABRE, and Good News for Modern Man which seemed to be a favorite for CCD and Bible study in the 70s.
 
Fortunately the GIRM allows the priest to choose texts more suited to the particular celebration for masses with special groups based on the best interests of those taking part. Admittedly, in this case I was more thinking of the teachers than the kids who were grateful to me for helping them to avoid having to answer awkward questions afterwards!
 
I can certainly confirm that Henry Wansbrough was a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, but I have no idea whether he was the sole author of that document. My guess is that even if he were, the Church would never admit it! I am sure that he must have had a significant role in it at any rate. His mother was a Jewish convert to Catholicism, he lived in Israel for some time, he speaks modern Hebrew fluently, and he has been prominent in Christian/Jewish dialogue more locally in the UK.

As for the NJB, my understanding is that while Henry Wansbrough is technically credited as “general editor”, he in fact translated all the Hebrew and Greek text himself and had some help with the Aramaic.
 
There is nothing like healthy intercourse to get these issues resolved.
 
Londoner said:
I didn’t know that the New Jerusalem Bible had this restricted use. It’s my favourite translation in fact. I wonder whether any of our non-UK members can shed light on how well known it, and its translator Henry Wansbrough, are outside the UK. I once mentioned the translation and translator to an American Catholic and she had no idea what or whom I was talking about.
Click to expand...
Canada used the Jerusalem Bible translation for its Lectionary before it went to the NRSV and most recently a revised NRSV translation.

The New Jerusalem Bible is the translation I have for my personal Bible. Our family Bible is the NAB because at the time I bought it I knew nothing about the various translations.

You might find this interesting.
http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/revisedlectionary_backgrounder.pdf
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
She said we should use another translation that says something like “went into” instead of “had intercourse”.
Click to expand...
Darryl_B said:
There is nothing like healthy intercourse to get these issues resolved.
Click to expand...
Before the word “intercourse” was adopted as the standard inoffensive term, “conversation” was the euphemism of choice. There is an episode in Josephus’ Antiquities involving Herod the Great’s son Alexander and the palace eunuchs. In the Loeb translation, the eunuchs confess to having “intimate relations” with Alexander: “When Herod asked whether they had had intimate relations with Alexander, they confessed to this but said that they were not aware of any other offence on his part against his father.” But in William Whiston’s translation, published in 1737, the present-day reader may be puzzled to learn that the king suspects his son of engaging in “criminal conversation” with the eunuchs: “There was one told the king that these eunuchs were corrupted by Alexander the king’s son with great sums of money. And when they were asked whether Alexander had had criminal conversation with them, they confessed it, but said they knew of no further mischief of his against his father.”
 
Last edited:
I would expect the priest or deacon to give a short homily explaining certain passages, especially if there are cultural, religious or moral issues that are different today than when the readings were written some 2-3000 years ago. A homily 5-10 sentences long would help a lot of people.

In my opinion, those short homilies are often the ones I remember.
 
I keep a copy and just acquired one for my adult son. It is a very readable translation.
 
It kind of is in the case that the priest or whoever put the lectionary out accidentally put the wrong day or something which has happened to me.
What if the person accidentally opened to the wrong Sunday it is disobedient to change the page to the correct one?
 
All the while, those children are learning how to use condoms and IUDs in school.
 
Last edited:
In this case, it would be fine to do that. Disobedience is what happens when you’ve been given something to obey and you don’t obey it. If a priest exercises a legitimate option on the readings, and you change it on purpose, that is disobedient. But correcting an actual mistake is obviously not.
 
I was responding to a member that took it upon himself to read what he felt like reading. He said nothing about it being turned to the incorrect reading. And then used an emoji to admit he thought it was funny.
 
Yah I was just clarifying because I usually go to the ambo before and look over the lectionary before mass myself. There’s been a few occasions in the past where they accidentally would have it on say year A when it was year B or C so I would correct it.
I was just making sure that wasn’t disobedient.
 
As a former head sacristan I’ll admit to making that error more than a few times—including once at a very well attended Sunday Mass. The mistake was quickly corrected in each instance, and the liturgy continued as if nothing had been amiss. Embarrassing, but not the end of the world. :hugs:
 
I’m sure you’ll be fine! Check the ordo when setting the pages - and check which reading Father wants if there is an option for that day in that cycle, or whether Father wants the long version or the short version.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal1984 said:
Yah I was just clarifying because I usually go to the ambo before and look over the lectionary before mass myself. There’s been a few occasions in the past where they accidentally would have it on say year A when it was year B or C so I would correct it.
I was just making sure that wasn’t disobedient.
Click to expand...
I think there are some times when the readings for any year can be used. So it gets more complicated.
 
Elf01 said:
I think there are some times when the readings for any year can be used. So it gets more complicated.
Click to expand...
@Prodigal1984
This is true. For instance, during Lent when RCIA is a factor, Cycle A can always be used regardless of which year we’re actually “supposed to be” using.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top