Bible Versions for Liturgical Use

[japscarousel]

Can a priest, under his own discretion, use the Douay Rheims, Confraternity version or the RSV-CE2 for the use in the holy mass? Or are we to read only the NAB during the Mass?

 

[Phemie]

Can a priest, under his own discretion, use the Douay Rheims, Confraternity version or the RSV-CE2 for the use in the holy mass? Or are we to read only the NAB during the Mass?

The lectionary used must be the one approved by one’s national Conference of Bishops. In the US, that’s the NAB, in Canada, it’s a revised NRSV; other English conferences use the Jerusalem translation.

 

[drforjc]

The lectionary used must be the one approved by one’s national Conference of Bishops. In the US, that’s the NAB, in Canada, it’s a revised NRSV; other English conferences use the Jerusalem translation.

Teensy little correction: In the US the Lectionary is a modified version of the NAB that you can’t find in complete Bible form.

 

[Jesus_123]

+From EWTN.com . . .

Bible Versions and Commentaries

Liturgical Use in United States

There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn. [See note on inclusive language]

4.3 NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991).** It was due to the use of vertical inclusive language (re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text** as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States.

Inclusive Language

The common practice of English historically has been to use male nouns and pronouns (man, mankind, he) when referring collectively to human beings, regardless of sex. In recent decades some feminists have claimed that this is offensive to them, as it represents a “patriarchal worldview” in which men are superior to women. …

Whether in the secular arena or in the Church, almost no resistance has been offered to this forced development of language, and few are even aware of what is at stake, seeing it only as a matter of fairness to women. Thankfully, the** Holy See** has resisted the tide and clearly drawn the lines between what is an acceptable use of inclusive language and what is unacceptable. Acceptable use would include those collective expressions for human beings which today a speaker or author would be expected to use, such as “ladies and gentleman” or “brothers and sisters”. It is unlikely that any one would use “brothers” or “brethren” for a mixed audience today. Thus, there is nothing wrong in principle to this kind of horizontal inclusive language.

What is unacceptable to the Magisterium, however, is the use of inclusive language in collective terms for human beings which have an anthropological significance, or, in terms for God or Christ (vertical inclusive language). The collective term man, for example, is both a philosophically and theologically appropriate term for the human race. Just as there is a certain precedence within the Trinity, by which the Father is God, the Son is God by generation and the Holy Spirit is God by spiration, Sacred Scripture reveals that an image of this Trinity of equal Persons in God is reflected in the creation of woman from man. Adam (which means man) is a man, Eve is a man (since she shares his nature), and each of their descendants is a man. This expresses equality, NOT inequality, as feminists claim. Whatever injustices men have perpetrated on women through the millennia, Adam’s sin is the cause, not God and His wise created design.

So, human nature is called man or mankind, and each human person is a man, just as the divine nature is called God and all Three Persons are God. (The sexual distinction is expressed as male and female, though man and woman also does so. Even these contain implicitly the evidence of the origins of woman from man in the economy of creation.)

(continued on website)​

:compcoff: Link: ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm#inclusive

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Dear Lord+
. . . thank you Dear Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[Jesus_123]

+NORMS FOR THE TRANSLATION
OF BIBLICAL TEXTS
FOR USE IN THE LITURGY

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1995

In 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued “secret norms” to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (of the United States) to guide their revision of the Lectionary used at Mass. Prior to this time the Congregation had rejected two versions of Scripture (the New Revised Standard Version and the Revised New American Bible) for use in the Liturgy, owing to the unacceptable use of inclusive language. These norms remained “secret,” even from most bishops, until just prior to the June 1997 meeting of the bishops’ conference. This meeting approved, by subsequent mail ballot, a version of the Lectionary agreed upon by a working committee of Vatican officials and US bishops in March 1997. This Lectionary conforms to the previously issued Norms. Having been approved by the entire Conference it will now be sent to Rome for final confirmation.]

1. The Church must always seek to convey accurately in translation the texts she has inherited from the biblical, liturgical, and patristic tradition and instruct the faithful in their proper meaning.
2. The first principle with respect to biblical texts is that of fidelity, maximum possible fidelity to the words of the text. Biblical translations should be faithful to the original language and to the internal truth of the inspired text, in such a way as to respect the language used by the human author in order to be understood by his intended reader. Every concept in the original text should be translated in its context. Above all, translations must be faithful to the sense of Sacred Scripture understood as a unity and totality, which finds its center in Christ, the Son of God incarnate (cf. “Dei Verbum” III and IV), as confessed in the Creeds of the Church.
3. The translation of Scripture should faithfully reflect the Word of God in the original human languages. It must be listened to in its time-conditioned, at times even inelegant mode of human expression without “correction” or “improvement” in service of modern sensitivities.
   a) In liturgical translations or readings where the text is very uncertain or in which the meaning is very much disputed, the translation should be made with due regard to the Neo-Vulgate.
   b) If explanations are deemed to be pastorally necessary or appropriate, they should be given in editorial notes, commentaries, homilies, etc.

4/l. The natural gender of “personae” in the Bible, including the human author of various texts where evident, must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/2. The grammatical gender of God, pagan deities, and angels according to the original texts must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/3. In fidelity to the inspired Word of God, the traditional biblical usage for naming the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to be retained.

4/4. Similarly, in keeping with the Church’s tradition, the feminine and neuter pronouns are not to be used to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit.

4/5. There shall be no systematic substitution of the masculine pronoun or possessive adjective to refer to God in correspondence to the original text.

4/6. Kinship terms that are clearly gender specific, as indicated by the context, should be respected in translation.

1. Grammatical number and person of the original texts ordinarily should be maintained.

6/1. Translation should strive to preserve the connotations as well as the denotations of words or expressions in the original and thus not preclude possible layers of meaning.

6/2. For example, where the New Testament or the Church’s tradition have interpreted certain texts of the Old Testament in a Christological fashion, special care should be observed in the translation of these texts so that a Christological meaning is not precluded.

6/3. Thus, the word “man” in English should as a rule translate 'adam and anthropos (ανθρωποσ), since there is no one synonym which effectively conveys the play between the individual, the collectivity and the unity of the human family so important, for example, to expression of Christian doctrine and anthropology.

[Adoremus Bulletin, III, No. 5, July/August 1997]

:coffeecomp: Link: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFNORMS.HTM

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Dear Lord+
. . . thank you dear Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you dear Holy Mother Church​

 

[Phemie]

Teensy little correction: In the US the Lectionary is a modified version of the NAB that you can’t find in complete Bible form.

That’s the same situation as the Lectionary in Canada: modified NRSV not found as a complete Bible.

 

[bkovacs]

This applies to the Novus Ordo Mass. In the Extra-Ordinary Form of the Mass, usually the Douay Rheims is recited.

 

[drforjc]

This applies to the Novus Ordo Mass. In the Extra-Ordinary Form of the Mass, usually the Douay Rheims is recited.

Yes, this is true… but the last sentence of the OP’s first post implied that he or she had the OF in mind

 

[Moscati]

This applies to the Novus Ordo Mass. In the Extra-Ordinary Form of the Mass, usually the Douay Rheims is recited.

Is it? I hadn’t noticed that the readings in English at the EF Mass were different. I sometimes end up going to both the OF and EF on the same day, and I could have sworn they were the same.

That’s an interesting question, actually–shouldn’t there be a standard translation for the readings in English for the EF too? Is that something that would be covered under the 1962 missal? Now I’m curious.

 

[ravenonthecross]

It is the Douay-Rheims as it is the Clementine Latin Vulgate that is used for the Latin in the Tridentine Mass. The Douay-Rheims is merely the most accurate and literal of it.

 

[cathguy]

The lectionary used must be the one approved by one’s national Conference of Bishops. In the US, that’s the NAB, in Canada, it’s a revised NRSV; other English conferences use the Jerusalem translation.

Yes but…

In the E.F. I have never heard the NAB used to give the reading in English. Only the Douay.

I believe the Douay is still approved for liturgical use.

The use of the NRSV in Canada is a scandal. It is a) a protestant translation, and b) is rife with inclusive language.

 

[cathguy]

Is it? I hadn’t noticed that the readings in English at the EF Mass were different. I sometimes end up going to both the OF and EF on the same day, and I could have sworn they were the same.

That’s an interesting question, actually–shouldn’t there be a standard translation for the readings in English for the EF too? Is that something that would be covered under the 1962 missal? Now I’m curious.

I can’t imagine them saying that we cannot use the Douay in the Extraordinary Form Masses.

A note here:

The Priest sometimes gives the readings in English from the Douay as a courtesy before the homily. When the first solemn extraordinary form Mass was given by the FSSP on EWTN that is what was done.

It is part of the homily, not part of the Mass, so my guess is that the priest can use whatever translation is approved for Catholic use. It is really part of the homily after all.

The readings themselves are in Latin and come from the Vulgate, and that will not change, unless at some point they mandate the new Vulgate. I don’t see this occurring.

 

[Phemie]

The use of the NRSV in Canada is a scandal. It is a) a protestant translation, and b) is rife with inclusive language.

It is now the ‘revised’ NRSV which has removed much of the inclusive language and which was accepted by Rome in 2008.

 

[cathguy]

It is now the ‘revised’ NRSV which has removed much of the inclusive language and which was accepted by Rome in 2008.

Wow… am I behind!!

Thanks for the clarification. That is “good news!” (urgh… couldn’t resist the pun…)

 

[Moscati]

I can’t imagine them saying that we cannot use the Douay in the Extraordinary Form Masses.

A note here:

The Priest sometimes gives the readings in English from the Douay as a courtesy before the homily. When the first solemn extraordinary form Mass was given by the FSSP on EWTN that is what was done.

It is part of the homily, not part of the Mass, so my guess is that the priest can use whatever translation is approved for Catholic use. It is really part of the homily after all.

The readings themselves are in Latin and come from the Vulgate, and that will not change, unless at some point they mandate the new Vulgate. I don’t see this occurring.

I see. That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

 

[Malleus_01]

The Tridentine Latin Mass uses the Latin Vulgate of St Jerome.