In which case, the irony is that the King James Bible, now the favourite of fundamentalist Protestants, was actually commissioned for an Anglican church was more Catholic than Protestant or Puritan.
- Status
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Porthos wrote: In which case, the irony is that the King James Bible, now the favourite of fundamentalist Protestants, was actually commissioned for an Anglican church was more Catholic than Protestant or Puritan.
Yes, indeed, Porthos!
It can seem a bit incongruous to those of us who had been Anglican earlier in life that Roman Catholics get so worked up over the supposed hyper-Protestantism of the Authorised “King James” Bible (A.V.), when we know just how much the A.V. put the kibosh on the truly sectarian versions which had preceded it! The sectaries of today love it, of course, but so do Anglicans, for whom above all it was intended, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutherans aplently, who are far from the sentiments and beliefs of the sectaries (Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Campbellites, and assorted other religious low life) who cling to it, but who mutilate it by leaving out in their editions the A.V.`s Apocrypha and some of its other rather Catholic original features. (Fortunately, there always have been truly Anglican editions of it. too, available in print.)Well, it looks like the King James will become entrenched to a degree in Catholic worship now that the Ordinariates are here. While we’ll probably never see a Lectionary (understandable enough), I believe the Summary of the Law and the Comfortable Words are KJV. I’m not sure though if the Introit, Offertory and Communion are KJV or Coverdale (since they’re mostly Psalms).Porthos wrote: In which case, the irony is that the King James Bible, now the favourite of fundamentalist Protestants, was actually commissioned for an Anglican church was more Catholic than Protestant or Puritan.
Yes, indeed, Porthos!
And at St. John the Evangelist in Calgary, Rome has in the interim permitted the retention of the KJV readings from the English Missal at weekday Low Mass for the time being (and not on Sundays; RSV only) for practical reasons (a separate Lectionary is not feasible at Low Mass). This will likely change when Rome approves the new Missal, but still.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Porthos wrote: *Well, it looks like the King James will become entrenched to a degree in Catholic worship now that the Ordinariates are here. While we’ll probably never see a Lectionary (understandable enough), I believe the Summary of the Law and the Comfortable Words are KJV. I’m not sure though if the Introit, Offertory and Communion are KJV or Coverdale (since they’re mostly Psalms).
Actually, concerning the Psalter, keep in mind that the Psalter in the 1928 U.S. Book of Common Prayer itself is a revision of Coverdale, as is, even a bit more so, the Psalter in the Canadian 1962 B.C.P. It is the English 1662 (and previous) B.C.P. Psalter(s), canticles, and other Coverdale readings in the 1662 (and prior) Anglican liturgy which truly are untamered Coverdale.
And at St. John the Evangelist in Calgary, Rome has in the interim permitted the retention of the KJV readings from the English Missal at weekday Low Mass for the time being (and not on Sundays; RSV only) for practical reasons (a separate Lectionary is not feasible at Low Mass). This will likely change when Rome approves the new Missal, but still. *
This is all very sane and sensible. If there are “cold feet” about so legitimising the A.V. (K.J.V.) Bible, then the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, which is so close (thanks to the saintly Roman Catholic Bp. Richard Challoner) to the A.V. could be used. It would sound very familiar to former Anglicans due to this similarity.Actually, concerning the Psalter, keep in mind that the Psalter in the 1928 U.S. Book of Common Prayer itself is a revision of Coverdale, as is, even a bit more so, the Psalter in the Canadian 1962 B.C.P. It is the English 1662 (and previous) B.C.P. Psalter(s), canticles, and other Coverdale readings in the 1662 (and prior) Anglican liturgy which truly are untamered Coverdale.
I don’t hold out hope for the Douay for use in liturgy, as it’s translated from the Latin, not the original languages. As the Ordinariates are part of the Latin church, Liturgiam authenticam applies, which means Rome will likely withdraw permission to use the KJV Lectionary at Low Mass when the Missal is issued, in favour of the RSV (at this point, I speculate; I have no inside information or anything like that). Liturgiam authenticam requires lectionary texts to be translated out of the original languages, which the Douay does not meet.
The Summary of the Law and the Comfortable Words, being part of the Ordinary of the Mass, may just need recognitio and remain intact from the KJV. And rumour has it that Rome is on the verge of approving the Coverdale Psalter for the Customary. That’s only grapevine stuff though so I won’t really believe it until I see it.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Porthos wrote: I don’t hold out hope for the Douay for use in liturgy, as it’s translated from the Latin, not the original languages. As the Ordinariates are part of the Latin church, Liturgiam authenticam applies, which means Rome will likely withdraw permission to use the KJV Lectionary at Low Mass when the Missal is issued, in favour of the RSV (at this point, I speculate; I have no inside information or anything like that). Liturgiam authenticam requires lectionary texts to be translated out of the original languages, which the Douay does not meet.
I love Coverdale’s translation. So often it out-excels even the glorious A.V. (K.J.V.) Bible in beauty. Whatever the question of study at office and at home, Coverdale is marvellous for worship; it truly is a liturgically very apt version, whether in B.C.P. England (1662), B.C.P. U.S. 1928, or B.C.P. Canada (1959/1962) form. I like the 1962 Canadian form of it less than the other three and it is the Canadian form that, unhappily, makes the more alterations to Coverdale. A lot of glorious musical Psalmody and musical Canticles will profit from keeping Coverdale alive in the Ordinariate!
By the way, the Comfortable words are Coverdale, not A.V., though this is clearer in the English 1662 and U.S. 1928 B.C.P.s (and hence in Anglican Missals) than in the Canadian 1962 B.C.P.
The Summary of the Law and the Comfortable Words, being part of the Ordinary of the Mass, may just need recognitio and remain intact from the KJV. And rumour has it that Rome is on the verge of approving the Coverdale Psalter for the Customary. That’s only grapevine stuff though so I won’t really believe it until I see it.
Not to worry! Any of these ways that you mention will turn out well. I am so glad, however, that the R.S.V.-C.E.2 went the extra mile in addressing some of the worst of those remaining glaring problems in the R.S.V. Old Testament.I love Coverdale’s translation. So often it out-excels even the glorious A.V. (K.J.V.) Bible in beauty. Whatever the question of study at office and at home, Coverdale is marvellous for worship; it truly is a liturgically very apt version, whether in B.C.P. England (1662), B.C.P. U.S. 1928, or B.C.P. Canada (1959/1962) form. I like the 1962 Canadian form of it less than the other three and it is the Canadian form that, unhappily, makes the more alterations to Coverdale. A lot of glorious musical Psalmody and musical Canticles will profit from keeping Coverdale alive in the Ordinariate!
By the way, the Comfortable words are Coverdale, not A.V., though this is clearer in the English 1662 and U.S. 1928 B.C.P.s (and hence in Anglican Missals) than in the Canadian 1962 B.C.P.
Oh, thanks for the clarification on the Comfortable Words; I wouldn’t really have known as I have no King James, Coverdale, or English Missal on me.
As for the RSV, I hold both Catholic Editions in high esteem so I have no issues with one edition over the other for use in Liturgy. I’m just glad the Ordinariate made its first inroads in Calgary, so now I have the Extraordinary Form and the English Missal available and fully Catholic. For me both liturgies are testaments to the Catholic Church’s ability to preserve its heritage and yet take what’s good and beautiful even from Protestantism and add them to her treasures.
R
Russ_of_Tokyo
Guest
I used to chant the Coverdale Psalter for Morning and Evening Prayer every day but abandoned it when I became a Catholic. Perhaps I should go back to it…
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Porthos and Russ wrote: *Porthos: Oh, thanks for the clarification on the Comfortable Words; I wouldn’t really have known as I have no King James, Coverdale, or English Missal on me. As for the RSV, I hold both Catholic Editions in high esteem so I have no issues with one edition over the other for use in Liturgy. I’m just glad the Ordinariate made its first inroads in Calgary, so now I have the Extraordinary Form and the English Missal available and fully Catholic. For me both liturgies are testaments to the Catholic Church’s ability to preserve its heritage and yet take what’s good and beautiful even from Protestantism and add them to her treasures. *
On the other hand, the unmetrical fit of the texts of the 1965
and 1969/1970 (Novus Ordo) 
make singing the English or French of those liturgies to the Latin chants impossible; the translators of the 1965 and 1969 (Novus Ordo) editions of the Missale Romanum in English did not care one whit about the old chants, so that they did not provide texts of such musical utility, which has had the catastropic consequence of causing them to fall from regualar use in the Western Rite. The Anglican Missal, now adopted and adapted in the Ordinariate is by far the best Western Rite liturgy in use and conforms largely to the wonderful 1962 Missale Romanum rather than to its lacklustre 1969/1970 successor.
Both editions of the R.S.V. for Catholic use are much better than other “modern English” Bibles, aside from the 1969 Confraternity Bible (1969 O.T., 1941 N.T.) and Confraternity-Douay versions (mixed Douay-Challoner and Confraternity O.T., 1941 Confraternity N.T.), which remain the best translations of the 20th and 21st centuries, but I still would assert that the R.S.V.-C.E.2 is just that much superior and more fully Catholic than the R.S.V.-C.E.1.
Russ: I used to chant the Coverdale Psalter for Morning and Evening Prayer every day but abandoned it when I became a Catholic. Perhaps I should go back to it.
There is a liturgically and musically important reason to stick to the English of Coverdale and of Cranmer, namely that these Anglican liturgists, like Luther in German, in translating from the Latin, retained the metrical scansion of the Latin texts, thus fitting their English and German to the music of the Gregorian chants like a glove. It is true that the accents of their Tudor English and High German do not always fall in the same place as in the Latin texts, but since the classic Gregorian chant music is musically unaccented, the metrical fit works wherever the accent might happen to fall in Latin.On the other hand, the unmetrical fit of the texts of the 1965
and 1969/1970 (Novus Ordo) make singing the English or French of those liturgies to the Latin chants impossible; the translators of the 1965 and 1969 (Novus Ordo) editions of the Missale Romanum in English did not care one whit about the old chants, so that they did not provide texts of such musical utility, which has had the catastropic consequence of causing them to fall from regualar use in the Western Rite. The Anglican Missal, now adopted and adapted in the Ordinariate is by far the best Western Rite liturgy in use and conforms largely to the wonderful 1962 Missale Romanum rather than to its lacklustre 1969/1970 successor.Both editions of the R.S.V. for Catholic use are much better than other “modern English” Bibles, aside from the 1969 Confraternity Bible (1969 O.T., 1941 N.T.) and Confraternity-Douay versions (mixed Douay-Challoner and Confraternity O.T., 1941 Confraternity N.T.), which remain the best translations of the 20th and 21st centuries, but I still would assert that the R.S.V.-C.E.2 is just that much superior and more fully Catholic than the R.S.V.-C.E.1.
R
Russ_of_Tokyo
Guest
Yep, that’s the one I’ve been using for my Psalm chanting lately, the RSV-CE, compact edition.
I will admit that the RSV-2CE blue “pocket” New Testament and Psalms has a wonderful single column layout for the Psalms, actually the best I’ve found in a modern Catholic Bible. So readable! Can’t say as much for the double column New Testament in that edition though. If someone ever published the entire RSV-2CE Bible in that single column layout, it would be like a wonderful dream.
I will admit that the RSV-2CE blue “pocket” New Testament and Psalms has a wonderful single column layout for the Psalms, actually the best I’ve found in a modern Catholic Bible. So readable! Can’t say as much for the double column New Testament in that edition though. If someone ever published the entire RSV-2CE Bible in that single column layout, it would be like a wonderful dream.
E
EricBr
Guest
I think it is okay to use a Protestant bible, and long as the message can still be understood in the correct way. Therefore, it would be good to also have a good understanding of the Catholic bible as well.
The reason that I sometimes listen to a Protestant bible is because it is the only free audio bible that I can find on the internet. So, since I have already studied the Catholic bible many times (and still study it), I find the free Protestant audio bible to be very interesting and also very similar to the Catholic bible.
audiobible.com/bible/bible.htm
:knight2:
The reason that I sometimes listen to a Protestant bible is because it is the only free audio bible that I can find on the internet. So, since I have already studied the Catholic bible many times (and still study it), I find the free Protestant audio bible to be very interesting and also very similar to the Catholic bible.
audiobible.com/bible/bible.htm
:knight2:
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Eric wrote: The reason that I sometimes listen to a Protestant Bible is because it is the only free audio bible that I can find on the internet. So, since I have already studied the Catholic Bible many times (and still study it), I find the free Protestant audio bible to be very interesting and also very similar to the Catholic Bible.
I poked around on Google and found that there are several auido recordings available (and some WWW sites offering free access to it) of the complete Catholic Bible in, variously, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner
and R.S.V. Catholic versions. You might want to try looking for these!
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I know it would never happen but sometimes I wish that if a Catholic edition of a translation could not be made–like say the NASB or NIV for example–
that the Holy See for each Protestant translation would cite each and every verse where those translations were DOCTRINALY wrong or less than the Fullness of Truth in areas of faith and morals–not insignificant details.
That way the average Catholic would know where in those translations that they were indeed biased–and not biased according to any particular person’s tastes–I have verses that bother me in Protestant translations–others of you out there might have different verses–
but BIASED according to the Holy See.
I believe that if that were the case that Catholic translations would get better and the average Catholic would know their faith better.
But of course I know nothing like that will ever happen and I’m sure the devil is glad that such a thing will never happen.
that the Holy See for each Protestant translation would cite each and every verse where those translations were DOCTRINALY wrong or less than the Fullness of Truth in areas of faith and morals–not insignificant details.
That way the average Catholic would know where in those translations that they were indeed biased–and not biased according to any particular person’s tastes–I have verses that bother me in Protestant translations–others of you out there might have different verses–
but BIASED according to the Holy See.
I believe that if that were the case that Catholic translations would get better and the average Catholic would know their faith better.
But of course I know nothing like that will ever happen and I’m sure the devil is glad that such a thing will never happen.
R
Russ_of_Tokyo
Guest
Ah yes, audio Bibles are a different story! I listen to the audio Bible every evening as I wash the dishes. We have a nice RSV-CE audio New Testament, but until last year there when the DR audio Bible was finally finished, there was apparently no Catholic Old Testament available and I had to listen to the NIV, NASB or KJV (I have all three in audio form).
Even Japan with its small number of Japanese Bible versions has a an entire Catholic audio Bible.
Regarding a document of problem areas in the NASB and NIV I had been searching and hoping for just such a list but all I found was a polemic web site that focused on ONE glaring problem verse in the NASB.
Even Japan with its small number of Japanese Bible versions has a an entire Catholic audio Bible.
Regarding a document of problem areas in the NASB and NIV I had been searching and hoping for just such a list but all I found was a polemic web site that focused on ONE glaring problem verse in the NASB.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Jerry Jet and Russ wrote: Jerry Jet: I wish … that the Holy See for each Protestant translation would cite each and every verse where those translations were DOCTRINALY wrong or less than the Fullness of Truth in areas of faith and morals – not [merely] insignificant details.
to train them and let them loose to assail the Bible bookstores and warehouses of North American cities and towns to chew to shreds copies of the said versions (and only those) held in their stocks!
Russ: Regarding a document of problem areas in the NASB and NIV I had been searching and hoping for just such a list but all I found was a polemic web site that focused on ONE glaring problem verse in the NASB.
Such a list, encompassing all of the important sectarian versions (as most of these are, rather than truly Protestant) is something devoutly to be wished for! :thumbsup:This would be booklength if adequately done. Then Russ could go to Ohio and round up a posse of raccoons to train them and let them loose to assail the Bible bookstores and warehouses of North American cities and towns to chew to shreds copies of the said versions (and only those) held in their stocks!
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Jerry Jet and Russ wrote: Jerry Jet: I wish … that the Holy See for each Protestant translation would cite each and every verse where those translations were DOCTRINALY wrong or less than the Fullness of Truth in areas of faith and morals – not [merely] insignificant details.
Russ: Regarding a document of problem areas in the NASB and NIV I had been searching and hoping for just such a list but all I found was a polemic web site that focused on ONE glaring problem verse in the NASB.
Such a list, encompassing all of the important sectarian versions (as most of these are, rather than truly Protestant) is something devoutly to be wished for! :thumbsup:This would be booklength if adequately done. Then Russ could go to Ohio and round up a posse of raccoons
dooooooohhh!
Rocky raccoon walked into the room, only to find Gideon’s bible…
But the racoon inquisition aside; I do wonder why such a work hasn’t been published.
I too, wish for such a thing and have for some time. I have to do a substantial amount of work to read through mainstream bibles and compare all texts for variations in meaning; it’s impossible for me to do all of them given my life & attention issues…
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Huiou wrote: *dooooooohhh!
Rocky [R]accoon walked into the room, only to find [a] Gideon’s Bible.
Tell Rocky that it is okay with you and Russ to eat that Gideon`s Bible. The Gideons mostly print and distribute the New American Standard Version, sometimes the New Berkeley Version, both of which are translations of the sectaries. Go get it, Rocky! Paw it over and apart! Chew it!
Good Rocky! Good raccoon!
Rocky [R]accoon walked into the room, only to find [a] Gideon’s Bible.
But [let] the racoon inquisition [begin]!*
I took some liberties (in the square brackets) to make things clear to our comrades, the coons.Tell Rocky that it is okay with you and Russ to eat that Gideon`s Bible. The Gideons mostly print and distribute the New American Standard Version,
sometimes the New Berkeley Version, both of which are translations of the sectaries. Go get it, Rocky! Paw it over and apart! Chew it!Good Rocky!
Good raccoon!
R
Russ_of_Tokyo
Guest
Oh yeah, that’s right, mine wasn’t the first story of a raccoon encountering a Bible. Back in Ohio I used to see lots of raccoon prints in the snow. Now in Japan I’ve found monkey prints instead! I wonder what Bible the monkeys would prefer to eat?
A few years ago son received a Gideon Bible (New Testament) from Gideons who were standing outside the gate after school. He said he saw many of his friends throw their Bibles away in the street like garbage. I admire the Gideons’ boldness and goals to get the scriptures into the hands of every Japanese so I won’t criticize their choice of Protestant evangelical Bible versions. Japan has generally two modern MAIN Bible versions, the one used by Catholics and mainline Protestant denominations (and is therefore the best selling Japanese Bible) and the evangelical Protestant version. Yep, the one my son received was the evangelical Protestant version. Too bad since I hear the other version reads better in more natural Japanese. My own reading skills are not high enough to discern a difference in naturalness.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Russ wrote: I admire the Gideons’ boldness and goals to get the scriptures into the hands of every Japanese so I won’t criticize their choice of Protestant evangelical Bible versions.
Of course, Russ, you are right there! I just got a bit carried away with the fever of ´coonmania that has bust out upon us on this Catholic Answers forum. Here in Québec the Gideons, oops, Les Gédéons, distribute Bibles in French (and in other languages, as they do in many countries where there are minorities to evangelise).I only feel a bit of repulsion when I come across the Good News-type translations that some of the various Bible-distributing parachurch ministries hand out. Good News/Gute Nachricht/Bonnes nouvelles/etc. Bibles, New Testaments, and Scripture portions are not deserving of such zeal to promote them.
Being in such a wooded part of Québec, where the forrestry industry thrives when lumber prices are good (which is not just now), I see lots and lots of wildlife, even within the city itself of Rouyn-Noranda, which has many heavily wooded stretches right in the midst of the city. The li`l critters like raccoons and skunks (and bigger ones like bear, moose, wolf, etc.) abound here. We all live peaceably together (well, maybe not during the hunting season, a big thing here, and which draws in a lot of gun-totin´ strangers) and we use our Bibles, Missals, and hymnals variously for spiritual or alimentary nourishment, depending on human and other mammalian species.
R
Russ_of_Tokyo
Guest
Well the Bible that raccoon ate was a Good News Bible and I’m sure it was good news to him since he ate it up.
I take full responsibility for coon-mania here. Perhaps that raccoon is lurking on these forums and will mend his ways. As for hunting adversely affecting human-animal relations, that is also the case in America where so many people are fighting for the right to “arm bears” (Hmm, maybe I have that backwards…).
A recent movie on the Gospel of John used the Bible without modification for its script, and that Bible was the Good News Bible (a.k.a. Today’s English Version, TEV) so I was able to follow the movie on DVD with my Bible open since I have a Japanese-English double column New testament with the English being the Good News Bible. It does make for a natural movie script and is helpful for those who are learning English as a second language. We native English speakers have better options, though…
I take full responsibility for coon-mania here. Perhaps that raccoon is lurking on these forums and will mend his ways. As for hunting adversely affecting human-animal relations, that is also the case in America where so many people are fighting for the right to “arm bears” (Hmm, maybe I have that backwards…).
A recent movie on the Gospel of John used the Bible without modification for its script, and that Bible was the Good News Bible (a.k.a. Today’s English Version, TEV) so I was able to follow the movie on DVD with my Bible open since I have a Japanese-English double column New testament with the English being the Good News Bible. It does make for a natural movie script and is helpful for those who are learning English as a second language. We native English speakers have better options, though…
- Status