How/why was the NRSV approved for use by Catholics?

[Manfred]

To the best of my knowledge its the original Jerusalem.

According to Colin Donavan on the EWTN web site, the NJB has not been approved for lectionary use in any English-speaking nation. Too bad, because its use of inclusive langauge is more restrained that that of either the RNAB or the NRSV.

And, no, the parallel between a bible version’s being “mildly inclusive” with a woman’s being “a little bit pregnant” is unwarranted.

 

[puzzleannie]

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.
. . .

As to why the RSV-CE was no longer suitable? Simple answer: gender-exclusive. More probable answer: some of the RSV-CE texts, especially the OT, around since the early 1950s, could have used some revising.

do you know for a fact this is why the Canadian bishops made their decision, do you have a citation for the documents explaining their decision, which is what OP is asking for, or is this also your best guess. I suggest that until someone can provide that documentation, they are merely speculating, not answer the OP question, so they should sit this one out.

 

[Manfred]

do you know for a fact this is why the Canadian bishops made their decision, do you have a citation for the documents explaining their decision, which is what OP is asking for, or is this also your best guess. I suggest that until someone can provide that documentation, they are merely speculating, not answer the OP question, so they should sit this one out.

puzzleannie,

FYI

adoremus.org/396-ScripConfus.html

 

[didymus]

Was this new version forced on the Canadian bishops? There’s no evidence. I believe they just wanted an update of the RSV-CE they HAD been using. Should they have run their lectionary it by Rome first? Absolutely! Should they have “ceased and desisted” when so ordered by Rome? Of course. Why they did not is what we all want to hear.

Speaking of Canada is that the Quebecois (and the French, for all I know) use a translation called la Bible Liturgique which exists only in lectionary form and not as a Bible.

Maybe one way to cut the knot would be for Rome to commission a similar English translation of Scripture for use in the lectionary and other liturgy.

 

[lak611]

Speaking of Canada is that the Quebecois (and the French, for all I know) use a translation called la Bible Liturgique which exists only in lectionary form and not as a Bible.

What was this translated from if it did not come from a Bible?

 

[lak611]

Speaking of Canada is that the Quebecois (and the French, for all I know) use a translation called la Bible Liturgique which exists only in lectionary form and not as a Bible.

Do you know why the French Canadians rejected the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible since both of those were originally in French?

 

[didymus]

What was this translated from if it did not come from a Bible?

My understanding is that la Bible Liturgique is a complete translation of the Scriptures but that it has never been published as a Bible, only in the Lectionary, missals, &c.

Do you know why the French Canadians rejected the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible since both of those were originally in French?

No idea. Any Quebecois here, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the official French-Canadian Bible is la Traduction Oecumenique des Ecritures, the Ecumenical Translation of the Scriptures. It’s similar to the RSV in that Jewish, Catholic and Protestant scholars all collaborated on it.

Found it!
Bible de la Liturgie

Vous trouverez sur ce site les traductions françaises de la Bible (ancien et nouveau testament ) utilisées par l’Eglise catholique pour la messe, les sacrements et la liturgie des heures.

You will find on the site the French translations of the the Bible (Old and New Testaments) used by the Catholic Church for Mass, the Sacraments and the Liturgy of the Hours.

I have no idea why it says translations, plural. Maybe a typo.

 

[puzzleannie]

puzzleannie,

FYI

adoremus.org/396-ScripConfus.html

since this article was posted, JB and RSV are no longer acceptable for the US lectionary, and if you have a link to why, I’d love to read it it, because that decision is inexplicable, also since, then I understand Living in Christ now has a US distributor and uses NAB, but have not seen a new one so I can’t say for sure. The article does not give the reasoning behind the Canadian bishop’s action, tempting as it is to speculate.

 

[lak611]

since this article was posted, JB and RSV are no longer acceptable for the US lectionary, and if you have a link to why, I’d love to read it it, because that decision is inexplicable, also since, then I understand Living in Christ now has a US distributor and uses NAB, but have not seen a new one so I can’t say for sure. The article does not give the reasoning behind the Canadian bishop’s action, tempting as it is to speculate.

I don’t know about Canada. I would speculate that in the US, the NAB is used since it is the product of the USCCB.

 

[Spirithound]

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!.

As an Orthodox, how would you know about the blandness or not of the Tridentine, or Novus Ordo?
I’m certainly not a liberal, but it seems to me that gender-inclusive language better captures the gender-neutrality of the original. Also, check out Paul’s apologia before the council. In the NRSV, it says brothers and fathers. Clearly the translators are not pushing the feminist agenda, because they are working to translate accurately.

 

[childofmary1143]

The only rich person lay person I know of, who is well known, and cares for Roman Catholic tradition, is Mel Gibson.

I am so sick of hearing how great of a Catholic Mel Gibson is. Mel Gibson is a schismatic heretic who speaks with a fork tongue. I watched Mel years back publicly criticize Pope John Paul 2 for being a liberal and state that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. Yet Mel goes around and scandalizes Catholics with his lusty trash filled movies. Mel is a hypocrite and doesn’t give a damn about Catholic tradition.

It isn’t slander for me to say this as all of these can be proved and the truth is NEVER slanderous.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

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.

Mel Gibson is a schismatic. The only rich person (billionaire philanthropist) I know of in full communion with the Catholic Church is Tom Monaghan, the founder of Dominos Pizza.%between%

 

[lak611]

My thread is about the NRSV Bible. Please start a new thread if you wish to debate Mel Gibson.

 

[childofmary1143]

My thread is about the NRSV Bible. Please start a new thread if you wish to debate Mel Gibson.

I apologise but I only brought it up as bkovacs mentioned it.

 

[lak611]

I apologise but I only brought it up as bkovacs mentioned it.

Ok. I just don’t want my thread derailed or closed by the moderators.

 

[JackQ]

Why all this fuss about us poor Canadians? You should probably be asking why the NRSV was used in the english translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

Anyway, what exactly is the problem with saying “brothers and sisters” instead of “brethren”? Is some of the meaning lost?

What I object to primarily in the NRSV is the sanitizing of the “son of man” language in the Old Testament. That does change the meaning, because it obscures Jesus’s application of the term to himself.

 

[Manfred]

do you have any evidence whatever for this remarkable allegation?

Regarding the statement re the involvement of the bishops in the NRSV lectionary (bold print mine):

The decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to withdraw permission to use the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] of the bible in both liturgical celebrations and catechetical publications came as a surprise to many Christians in the English speaking world, both Catholic and Protestant. One would think that detailed and convincing reasons would be given for a decision that creates problems not only within the Catholic church **in **the United States and Canada (where the bishops have several million dollars invested in a four volume version of the revised Roman Lectionary, three volumes of which have been printed to date), but also within the community of biblical scholars who generally agree that the NRSV is one of the most faithful and literal translations of the bible.

For the rest of the story, see

domcentral.org/LIBRARY/roman.htm

Caution: some of you may want to take your blood-pressure meds first.

 

[lak611]

Regarding the statement re the involvement of the bishops in the NRSV lectionary (bold print mine):

The decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to withdraw permission to use the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] of the bible in both liturgical celebrations and catechetical publications came as a surprise to many Christians in the English speaking world, both Catholic and Protestant. One would think that detailed and convincing reasons would be given for a decision that creates problems not only within the Catholic church **in **the United States and Canada (where the bishops have several million dollars invested in a four volume version of the revised Roman Lectionary, three volumes of which have been printed to date), but also within the community of biblical scholars who generally agree that the NRSV is one of the most faithful and literal translations of the bible.

For the rest of the story, see

domcentral.org/LIBRARY/roman.htm

Caution: some of you may want to take your blood-pressure meds first.

Sounds like the US Bishops are dragging their feet on this issue so the Canadian churches will not need to purchase new lectionaries for a while.

 

[Manfred]

Sounds like the US Bishops are dragging their feet on this issue so the Canadian churches will not need to purchase new lectionaries for a while.

No, I didn’t get that impression from that article.

I understood it that the US bishops wanted their beloved RNAB for the lectionary and that they truly believed that Rome would go along with its pervasive inclusive language.

For those who still don’t get this - the US and Canadian bishops wanted a “pastorally-efective” gender-inclusive translation to be the basis for any new lectionary. From links I’ve posted to certain articles, the bishops and those who purport to speak for them as much as admit this.

 

[lak611]

No, I didn’t get that impression from that article.

I understood it that the US bishops wanted their beloved RNAB for the lectionary and that they truly believed that Rome would go along with its pervasive inclusive language.

For those who still don’t get this - the US and Canadian bishops wanted a “pastorally-efective” gender-inclusive translation to be the basis for any new lectionary. From links I’ve posted to certain articles, the bishops and those who purport to speak for them as much as admit this.

I got the impression that the Canadian bishops like the inclusive language NRSV, whilst the US bishops like the inclusive language NAB; so, therefore, both are dragging their feet on a new translation to stall Rome, which wants a proper non-inclusive language lectionary.