Catholics who read Protestant Bibles

[porthos11]

Porthos wrote: No sob. We have the NRSV instead​

Yeah, huh? Well, the N.R.S.V. is flawed, as the N.A.B. is, but the N.R.S.V. has a far more felicitous style, so at least grating less on the ear when publicly read, than the clangy-bangy oo-oo-oogly, ear-raping N.A.B. does so. However, it would be far better, if one persists in refusing to revert, with profit, to the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, :thumbsup:1969 Confraternity, or to the :thumbsup:Confraternity-Douay, to follow the Vatican`s example in using the R.S.V.-C.E. (or, even better, the R.S.V.-C.E.2).

Well, admittedly, the only major issue I have with the NRSV is the inclusive language, and the corrections mandated by the Holy See pretty much lay those to rest as far as the lectionary goes so yes, I would grant that point. Once that sticking point is out of the way, the NRSV sounds really good.

As for the RSV, I do get to hear it if I hear the Anglican Use Mass (the Ignatius Press RSV Lectionary is the sole approved Sunday Lectionary for the Ordinariate), so I count myself lucky there. Normally, I attend the Extraordinary Form Latin Mass, so I hear the English in the Douay (not my favourite).

As for ear-grating on the NAB’s part, I would admit to a bit, especially “God-hero” and “‘Abraham!’ ‘Ready!’ he replied.”

 

[patrick457]

Well, admittedly, the only major issue I have with the NRSV is the inclusive language, and the corrections mandated by the Holy See pretty much lay those to rest as far as the lectionary goes so yes, I would grant that point. Once that sticking point is out of the way, the NRSV sounds really good.

As for the RSV, I do get to hear it if I hear the Anglican Use Mass (the Ignatius Press RSV Lectionary is the sole approved Sunday Lectionary for the Ordinariate), so I count myself lucky there. Normally, I attend the Extraordinary Form Latin Mass, so I hear the English in the Douay (not my favourite).

As for ear-grating on the NAB’s part, I would admit to a bit, especially “God-hero” and “‘Abraham!’ ‘Ready!’ he replied.”

Still, at least it’s better than the New World Translation - aside from the “the Word was a god” stuff, you also have gems like:

At that time, therefore, Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him with a purple outer garment; and they began coming up to him and saying: “Good day, you King of the Jews!” …] Accordingly Jesus came outside, wearing the thorny crown and the purple outer garment. And he said to them: “Look! The man!” However, when the chief priests and the officers saw him, they shouted, saying: “Impale [him]! Impale [him]!”

“Good day”…? :ehh: :hypno:

 

[porthos11]

Still, at least it’s better than the New World Translation - aside from the “the Word was a god” stuff, you also have gems like:

At that time, therefore, Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him with a purple outer garment; and they began coming up to him and saying: “Good day, you King of the Jews!” …] Accordingly Jesus came outside, wearing the thorny crown and the purple outer garment. And he said to them: “Look! The man!” However, when the chief priests and the officers saw him, they shouted, saying: “Impale [him]! Impale [him]!”

“Good day”…? :ehh: :hypno:

“Impale”?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Porthos wrote: As for the RSV, I do get to hear it if I hear the Anglican Use Mass (the Ignatius Press RSV Lectionary is the sole approved Sunday Lectionary for the Ordinariate), so I count myself lucky there. Normally, I attend the Extraordinary Form Latin Mass, so I hear the English in the Douay (not my favourite).​

Oh, dude, you are so, so lucky! Not just to hear the R.S.V.-C.E. (or is it C.E.2, which Ignatius also publishes?) instead of the N.A.B. or the N.R.S.V.-C.E. I had been Anglican, then Lutheran (and actually, Lutheranism was the faith of my family when I was a small child – then we drifted!). The Lutheran English liturgy (i.e. as L.C.M.S. and W.E.L.S. have it in The Lutheran Hymnal (1941), which still is in use in many places) is very close to the Book of Common Prayer, but with more of the Propers included from the pre-Reformation Catholic liturgy that the B.C.P. stripped away (though the English Missal of Anglicanism brought them back in) and with a clunkier Lutheran centre to the Mass around and about the words of instutition, which the Anglican B.C.P. handles so much better. The Ordinariate could appeal to many Lutherans, as well as Protestant Episcopalians and other Anglicans.

Alas, in the small, remote city where I live there is not any possibility at all of an Ordinariate parish. Too small, too overrun by liberal clergy, too French.

Anyway, KNOW HOW LUCKY YOU ARE!

 

[porthos11]

Porthos wrote: As for the RSV, I do get to hear it if I hear the Anglican Use Mass (the Ignatius Press RSV Lectionary is the sole approved Sunday Lectionary for the Ordinariate), so I count myself lucky there. Normally, I attend the Extraordinary Form Latin Mass, so I hear the English in the Douay (not my favourite).​

Oh, dude, you are so, so lucky! Not just to hear the R.S.V.-C.E. (or is it C.E.2, which Ignatius also publishes?) instead of the N.A.B. or the N.R.S.V.-C.E. I had been Anglican, then Lutheran (and actually, Lutheranism was the faith of my family when I was a small child – then we drifted!). The Lutheran English liturgy (i.e. as L.C.M.S. and W.E.L.S. have it in The Lutheran Hymnal (1941), which still is in use in many places) is very close to the Book of Common Prayer, but with more of the Propers included from the pre-Reformation Catholic liturgy that the B.C.P. stripped away (though the English Missal of Anglicanism brought them back in) and with a clunkier Lutheran centre to the Mass around and about the words of instutition, which the Anglican B.C.P. handles so much better. The Ordinariate could appeal to many Lutherans, as well as Protestant Episcopalians and other Anglicans.

Alas, in the small, remote city where I live there is not any possibility at all of an Ordinariate parish. Too small, too overrun by liberal clergy, too French.

Anyway, KNOW HOW LUCKY YOU ARE!

It’s the RSV-2CE, with the icon design. And yes, I’m blessed and fortunate to have an FSSP Extraordinary Form, the Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy and now the Anglican Use.

Further, you mention the English Missal. St. John in Calgary has interim approval to use the English Missal (not the Book of Divine Worship) with mandated amendments by the Holy See, until the Ordinariate Mass is finalized and granted recognitio by Rome. Among the required corrections are the Words of Institution (to more closely match the English of the Ordinary Form) and the Sunday Lectionary (to match the 3-year cycle of the Ordinary Form). But because of Anglicanism’s historic use and love of the King James Version, it only made sense to use a translation in the KJV line, hence, the RSV. It uses the 2CE as that’s the only Catholic RSV in lectionary form.

I believe, though (although I may turn out to be wrong), that when the Customary of our Lady of Walsingham is released, it will permit the use of either RSV Catholic Edition, first or second.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Porthos wrote: *It’s the RSV-2CE, with the icon design. And yes, I’m blessed and fortunate to have an FSSP Extraordinary Form, the Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy and now the Anglican Use.

Further, you mention the English Missal. St. John in Calgary has interim approval to use the English Missal (not the Book of Divine Worship) with mandated amendments by the Holy See, until the Ordinariate Mass is finalized and granted recognitio by Rome. Among the required corrections are the Words of Institution (to more closely match the English of the Ordinary Form) and the Sunday Lectionary (to match the 3-year cycle of the Ordinary Form). But because of Anglicanism’s historic use and love of the King James Version, it only made sense to use a translation in the KJV line, hence, the RSV. It uses the 2CE as that’s the only Catholic RSV in lectionary form.

I believe, though (although I may turn out to be wrong), that when the Customary of our Lady of Walsingham is released, it will permit the use of either RSV Catholic Edition, first or second.*​

These are all good things! I am pleased that it is the R.V.S.-C.E.2 , rather than the original R.S.V.-C.E., that the Ordinariate uses; the C.E.2 finally cleaned up some problems in the R.S.V. Old Testament, making it more acceptable, and the style is better and more consistent, too. That said, I still much prefer the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version of the Bible over either of those forms (or any others) of the R.S.V.

In earlier years, I used to hear the English Missal at Mass in Anglo-Catholic parishes of the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada. I like it and have owned a copy of of the English Missal for most of my life. I own the Anglican Service Book and, I think (though I would have to check to be sure) the Book of Divine Worship, both of which provide beautiful liturgies far superior to the Novus Ordo, which I dislike, suffering, mostly in silence, over its prevalence and its liturgically inferior texts. (That is, the N.O. is inferior to the Missale Romanum of 1962 and to the other worship forms that we have mentioned.) I would assist at Mass more readily and more often if the N.O. were booted out and the Traditional Latin Mass restored; more than once a week, gritting the teeth during it, is just too much of the N.O.

 

[bmonk]

Have those commentators who object to the language of certain versions as being too rough or unpleasant to hear ever examined the original Greek texts? Mark’s version of the Gospel is very rough, John tends to repeat words over and over as he circles around the point, while Paul is often very convoluted and elliptical–my Greek teacher liked to say that Paul was at times so elliptical that he left out the main point!

A faithful translation will not always be smooth and poetic–because the original text is not always smooth and poetic.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Bmonk wrote: Have those commentators who object to the language of certain versions as being too rough or unpleasant to hear ever examined the original Greek texts? Mark’s version of the Gospel is very rough, John tends to repeat words over and over as he circles around the point, while Paul is often very convoluted and elliptical–my Greek teacher liked to say that Paul was at times so elliptical that he left out the main point!

A faithful translation will not always be smooth and poetic–because the original text is not always smooth and poetic.​

This is inappropriate reasoning (and I have read it elsewhere). Conveying the Greek stylistic infelicities of the sacred writers over into English would be appropriate for an interlinear or other slavishly literal rendering made for certain purposes of close study (and any such sort of rendering is doomed to be gauche, albeit useful for limited purposes), but not for a translation for nornal personal or public reading. One can offer, as seemly and suitable, to God the best that English (or any other vernacular language) has to offer with sacrificing meaning or resorting to a coarse style. What you propose is an exercise in linguistic and stylistic savagery that is not necessary to inflict upon readers of English for any sufficient reason.

If that perverse kind of thing is what you wish to read in English, however, there is a multitude of barbarous sounding translations and paraphrases from which to choose, with no guilt incurred to you. Don`t expect, however, most Bible readers to share your enthusiasm for the like of them! If you like them, go ahead, but cut any real or budding puritanical insistence on them.

 

[Phadraig]

First, let’s address “Anathema, then, means another theme”. I can find no Catholic source to support such a claim, not even in the Greek entomology of the word. However, the dictionary definition is supported by A Catholic Dictionary, Modern Catholic Dictionary, and The Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as newavent.org, oce.catholic.com and catholic.com, in particularly, definition 3 without the use of the word curse.

In 1983, the Code of Canon law was revised. Part of that revision was Canon 6, which abrogated “any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code”. However, it did not abrogate decrees from any council.

As for “Section X”, I would have to presume that the writer is referring to Rule X in the “Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books Drawn Up By The Fathers Chosen By The Council Of Trent And Approved By Pope Pius”. This Rule concerns the printing of books, which is a separate matter from the use of them. Rule II specifically addresses the use of books by the heresiarchs, which is “absolutely forbidden”. As this Rule is a decree from an Ecumenical Council, it has not been abrogated by Canon 6.

Session VI deals with the subject of justification and thus is not applicable to this discussion. It might make a good thread, however.

 

[Phadraig]

As to the un-Catholic nature of some of the posts, such as “I wished you had linked to the document yourself, but since your careless”, I guess I merely expected adults to do what I expect my 25, 17, 15, 14, 13, 10, 9, and 8 year old children, as well as my 19 year old foster child to do: their homework. But Alas, I guess I expect too much; except in one case. Thank you Russ of Tokyo for quoting the Catechism correctly.

As to the poetic nature of the original text of the King James Version, that poetry truly exists only in English, just as the poetry of the Qur’an only exists in Arabic. External beauty does not make it truth.

I’ll go to Session V of the Council of Trent, only because I believe it speaks to questioning the Council’s decrees and questioning the validity of the Magisterium and its teachings. Original Sin is the sin of Adam. Adam was defiled by the sin of disobedience. Can we truly follow the 4th Commandment and Honor The Father if we disobey Holy Mother Church?

I leave you with that thought as I am taking the advice of St. Paul in Titus 3:8 – 11.
As a former United States Marine and a Roman Catholic, I bid you
Semper Fidelis and Christe Eleison.

Phadraig

 

[Huiou_Theou]

First, let’s address “Anathema, then, means another theme”. I can find no Catholic source to support such a claim, not even in the Greek entomology of the word. However, the dictionary definition is supported by A Catholic Dictionary, Modern Catholic Dictionary, and The Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as newavent.org, oce.catholic.com and catholic.com, in particularly, definition 3 without the use of the word curse.

I study Greek… It’s trivial to find examples of “ana”, and “thema”, as separate words for the etymology. Look up “ana” phora (to carry again), or “ana” stasia (to stand again = resurrection.) etc. That’s enough to show the meaning of “ana”.

Theme is already known in English as “theme”… so, if you can’t figure out the etymology – you’re not trying very hard.

Absence of proof is not proof of incorrectness.

As far as Catholic Dictionaries/Encyclopedia’s go… those aren’t formal teaching documents from the Vatican. Much of which has the name “Catholic” on it isn’t very trustworthy. eg: And I’ll note, the site you are on --CAF-- has its own version of the Catholic Encyclopedia, specifically because of mis-trust issues with newadvent.org; Another one of those protestant influence issues, I suppose…

 

[TrinityKnot]

I’ll just add my little opinion here because I myself go to a nondenominational protestant high school where I have a bible class and use an NIV bible nearly every day:

Yes, I’d argue there is a significant difference. The NIV version is missing several books a Catholic bible would have such as Wisdom or Maccabees. When I do personal reading on my own time, I use my Catholic bible which is the NAB translation.

Personally, the protestant’s version DOES kind of bother me because they did tailor it to fit their own beliefs and basically disregarded tons of years of discernment and councils that the Catholic church put into organizing the original Bible. I remember on one test my freshman year I was asked “What are the names of the angels that appear in the Bible?” I put “Michael, Gabriel and Raphael” and when grading, she marked me off for “Raphael” and put a question mark haha. Because the book of Tobit isn’t in their version.

Just like how the protestants are missing out because they don’t have the sacraments, they are also missing out because they don’t have the complete bible. It’s a bummer; many of my protestant friends are so well versed and absolutely love the bible. I’m sure they’d like the other “missing” books, too.

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

That’s a real shame about Raphael getting dissed like that! I feel bad for you! I didn’t know about Raphael until I converted as a middle aged adult (and finally enjoyed the book of Tobit) so I can’t really be too harsh on your teacher.

 

[TrinityKnot]

That’s a real shame about Raphael getting dissed like that! I feel bad for you! I didn’t know about Raphael until I converted as a middle aged adult (and finally enjoyed the book of Tobit) so I can’t really be too harsh on your teacher.

Yeah, Raphael is awesome! He was our patron saint when my church group traveled to WYD last year. And the book of Tobit is one of my favorites. Yeah, she doesn’t know any better- but when it comes to the Bible, she knows her stuff! (as a protestant) I’ll give her that much.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it true that the word “Hell” is not in the NAB?

 

[SwissGuard25]

Yeah I avoid the King James Bible because it was created by the Kind of England as an act of defiance against the Church.

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

Is it true that the word “Hell” is not in the NAB?

Hell, no.

Oops, that didn’t come out right…

I checked the New Testament where Hell appears in the RSV-CE but the NAB has the transliteration Gehenna instead of the translation Hell.

My search was not exhaustive, only limited to the New Testament where Hell appears in the RSV-CE

 

[patrick457]

Hell, no.

Oops, that didn’t come out right…

I checked the New Testament where Hell appears in the RSV-CE but the NAB has the transliteration Gehenna instead of the translation Hell.

My search was not exhaustive, only limited to the New Testament where Hell appears in the RSV-CE

Personally, I’m not as bothered with the whole Hell issue. In fact, I’d rather that they keep words like Hades or Gehenna in there. But I’m also the same person who advocates preserving the historical present tenses of Mark’s gospel (“He says…”) and the passive “He has been raised” where they appear instead of turning it into “He said” or “He is risen.” IMHO we have all been too influenced by the language of earlier Bible versions (like the KJV); I don’t see why we can’t break the mold.

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

That sounds a lot like Young’s Literal Translation. It’s very refreshing.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Swiss Guard wrote: *Yeah I avoid the King James Bible because it was created by the Kind of England as an act of defiance against the Church. *​

Swissy, if you really reject the Authorised “King James” Version of the Bible (A.V.) on the grounds of historical background, at least do so for suchlike reasons which really reflect what happened in the Church of England! The Bible in English, in one form or another, was already a well established phenomenon by the time of King James I.

You probably have the rebellion of Henry VIII against the Church at Rome in mind. Henry actually hated the Bible in English. He burned translators at the stake; he stuck to the Latin Vulgate, for cats sake! It was not till the time of Henry VIIIs successor, the “boy king” Edward VI, that the monarchy encouraged English Bibles; there were several translations that had the sanction of the Church of England well before the A.V. appeared, that masterpiece, for its part, being commissioned by King James I of England (who also ruled simulaneously as James VI of Scotland).

So the Bible in English was not an immediate issue when the Reformation began in England. If James I (VI) opposed any Bible, it was the Geneva Bible which the Puritans (more radical Protestants than most Anglicans were) had prepared and which this particular king wished to see superceded by the version which he launched!