Because the ones who have power in the Roman Catholic Church are liberal theologians. Those who are rich, invest allot of money in getting these translations out. And the Bishops who approve of these translations are liberal as well, and are in good standing with these publishers. These are the same people who hate the Tridentine Mass, conservative translations like the Douay-Rheims, and RSV-SCE. Hence why you will never have the same Church that was as devout as it was to true Roman Catholic teaching years ago. The only rich person lay person I know of, who is well known, and cares for Roman Catholic tradition, is Mel Gibson. But your liberal theologians and Bishops, who have any say in the church thought The Passion of the Christ was too over exaggerated.
Well I could understand the NAB being favoured in the USA because the USCCB were involved in that translation. I do not see any connection with the bishops and publishers involving the NRSV. That was published by the National Council of Churches, the same organization that published the RSV. National Council of Churches is a Protestant organization, and the Catholic Church does not belong to it. The Catholic Church did adapt the RSV, and it is a translation that most Catholics approve of. Did the Catholic Church just decide to adapt the NRSV for use as was done previously with the RSV? Was there a reason for the Canadian bishops choosing the NRSV over the NAB for the lectionary?
CCC 2476 False witness and perjury. When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness. When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused. They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of judicial decisions.
do you have any evidence whatever for this remarkable allegation?
Do you know anything about the history behind the Canadian bishops’ approval of the translation?
Inclusive Language, like the “REVISED” NAB, hence liberalism!.
We also would like to know why the Canadian bishops chose the NRSV over the NAB, or why they felt the RSV was no longer suitable.
I would venture a guess that the Canadian bishops knew the US bishops were preparing their own RNAB-based lectionary and had problems with Rome already because of the Psalms in that version. Of course, the US bishops, to their credit, I must add, still felt their new lectionary was not merely a revision of what had previously been approved, viz, the NAB of 1970. The RNAB was a genuine revision and required Vatican approval.
FYI, those parts of the CCC that were based on the more inclusive parts of the NRSV, especially where dogma was misrepresented, had to be replaced - at Rome’s insistence - by the earlier RSV (non-inclusive).
I agree that NRSV is bland. I just don’t understand what all the fuss is about. There are much bigger issues in the church to tackle than which version of the Bible we use.
Actually, the Bible translation used for the Catechism is for the most part the RSV, not the NRSV.
You sound like a liberal!. The NRSV, like the Novus Ordo Mass. Bland!!. Give me back the Tridentine Mass and Douay Rheims or RSV-SCE. Now were talking Roman Catholic!.
Are you using the original Jerusalem Bible currently or the New Jerusalem Bible?
To the best of my knowledge its the original Jerusalem.