Question about the Psalter in the Liturgy of the Hours

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cranch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cranch

Guest
I am thinking about getting this 4-volume LOTH. I am hoping someone who owns this set (1999 date) can tell me the copyright info for the Psalms. Amazon’s “look inside” feature takes you to an older 1975 version. That version uses the 1970 NAB for scripture readings but an older English Psalter from 1963 for the Psalms. I’m assuming this 1999 LOTH uses the revised NAB, but I’m hoping it still uses a different Psalter because I really don’t like the NAB 1991 revised Psalms.

I’ve PM’d a couple of people who I thought owned this set but haven’t heard back. Can anyone provide this info? Thanks!
 
Cranch said:
I am thinking about getting this 4-volume LOTH. I am hoping someone who owns this set (1999 date) can tell me the copyright info for the Psalms. Amazon’s “look inside” feature takes you to an older 1975 version. That version uses the 1970 NAB for scripture readings but an older English Psalter from 1963 for the Psalms. I’m assuming this 1999 LOTH uses the revised NAB, but I’m hoping it still uses a different Psalter because I really don’t like the NAB 1991 revised Psalms.

I’ve PM’d a couple of people who I thought owned this set but haven’t heard back. Can anyone provide this info? Thanks!
Click to expand...
The 4-volume LOTH is still the 1975 edition. The Psalms are from the 1963 Grail Translation. The Canticles and Scriptural readings are from the 1970 NAB.

The 1991 Psalms were rejected outright by Rome for any liturgical use.
 
porthos11 said:
The 4-volume LOTH is still the 1975 edition. The Psalms are from the 1963 Grail Translation. The Canticles and Scriptural readings are from the 1970 NAB.

The 1991 Psalms were rejected outright by Rome for any liturgical use.
Click to expand...
porthos11 - Thank you for responding. What then is signified by the July 1999 date under “Product Details” on the Amazon page? Does yours show that date?
 
porthos11 said:
It’s probably just the printing date; can’t be too sure.
Click to expand...
Does that mean yours is not the 1999 printing? Before I lay out that kind of cash, I would like to confirm what you said earlier applies to that printing! 🙂
 
Cranch said:
Does that mean yours is not the 1999 printing? Before I lay out that kind of cash, I would like to confirm what you said earlier applies to that printing! 🙂
Click to expand...
I ordered the same stuff from the same place, except I got the simulated leather, not the genuine one.

But yes, I can guarantee you it contains the same translations: 1963 Grail, 1970 NAB. The Liturgy of the Hours has not been revised in English translation. No other approved edition exists for the United States.
 
porthos11 said:
I ordered the same stuff from the same place, except I got the simulated leather, not the genuine one.

But yes, I can guarantee you it contains the same translations: 1963 Grail, 1970 NAB. The Liturgy of the Hours has not been revised in English translation. No other approved edition exists for the United States.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your help, porthos11. I appreciate it! 👍
 
porthos11 said:
No other approved edition exists for the United States.
Click to expand...
Are there any other editions that are approved outside of the United States? I do not like the NAB, so I would be interested in a non-NAB based edition, possibly an English or Australian edition.
 
lak611 said:
Are there any other editions that are approved outside of the United States? I do not like the NAB, so I would be interested in a non-NAB based edition, possibly an English or Australian edition.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the NAB that is used in this version of the LOTH’s is the same as the latest publicasions of the NAB, which I agree, aren’t so good. I have a NAB and the LOTH from Catholic Publishing CO, and the LOTH is good. The NAB is not.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I don’t think the NAB that is used in this version of the LOTH’s is the same as the latest publicasions of the NAB, which I agree, aren’t so good. I have a NAB and the LOTH from Catholic Publishing CO, and the LOTH is good. The NAB is not.

Jim
Click to expand...
I do not like the NAB or the RNAB. I would prefer to get a version of LOTH that has no part of the NAB or RNAB in it at all.
 
lak611 said:
I do not like the NAB or the RNAB. I would prefer to get a version of LOTH that has no part of the NAB or RNAB in it at all.
Click to expand...
How do you hand the Mass? From what I understand, most of the liturgical text in the USA, use the NAB.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
How do you hand the Mass? From what I understand, most of the liturgical text in the USA, use the NAB.

Jim
Click to expand...
I’m hoping that eventually a different translation will be used for the Mass. For my private Bible reading and devotions, I do not use the NAB since I don’t have to.
 
lak611 said:
Are there any other editions that are approved outside of the United States? I do not like the NAB, so I would be interested in a non-NAB based edition, possibly an English or Australian edition.
Click to expand...
Yes. There is one other English edition, approved for use in the UK, Australia, and other Commonwealth countries (some double-approve this and the US edition). It’s called “Divine Office” and comes in three volumes instead of four, but is as complete as the 4-volume.

It uses the same 1963 Grail for the Psalms, so US users will find the psalms identical (except for Ps 95). The readings are primarily (that is, mostly) from the RSV, but some readings also use the Jerusalem Bible, the Knox Version, and the Good News Bible.

It’s not approved for use in the US. I guess one can use it privately, but not in common.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I don’t think the NAB that is used in this version of the LOTH’s is the same as the latest publicasions of the NAB, which I agree, aren’t so good. I have a NAB and the LOTH from Catholic Publishing CO, and the LOTH is good. The NAB is not.

Jim
Click to expand...
It isn’t. The NAB text used in the LOTH is still the 1970 edition, which had a more dynamic-equivalence NT translation. It uses no inclusive language.

(the exception is Shorter Christian Prayer, which used the 1986 NT).
 
porthos11 said:
(the exception is Shorter Christian Prayer, which used the 1986 NT).
Click to expand...
That is interesting. Any idea why and only there? I wonder if it was produced before there was much fallout from the 1986 NT.
 
porthos11 said:
Yes. There is one other English edition, approved for use in the UK, Australia, and other Commonwealth countries (some double-approve this and the US edition). It’s called “Divine Office” and comes in three volumes instead of four, but is as complete as the 4-volume.

It uses the same 1963 Grail for the Psalms, so US users will find the psalms identical (except for Ps 95). The readings are primarily (that is, mostly) from the RSV, but some readings also use the Jerusalem Bible, the Knox Version, and the Good News Bible.

It’s not approved for use in the US. I guess one can use it privately, but not in common.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That’s the one I will look for since I do not like the NAB.
 
Cranch said:
That is interesting. Any idea why and only there? I wonder if it was produced before there was much fallout from the 1986 NT.
Click to expand...
Shorter Christian Prayer is a newer production, released more than a decade after Christian Prayer.

It is, however, approved.
 
lak611 said:
Thanks. That’s the one I will look for since I do not like the NAB.
Click to expand...
I think that should be okay, but I warn you, it isn’t easy to find, and is more expensive.

If I were in your place, though, I would stick with the US edition simply because it is the only approved edition for your place, and it doesn’t feel right to me to be going against what the local Church has lawfully promulgated. The NAB isn’t also my favorite translation, but my intention is to pray the Prayer of the Church, and my own preferences take a back seat to the letter (not just spirit) of the law. It’s a good practice in obedience for me.

Some would say that the UK edition is fine for private use, and it probably is. My opinion only, but I tend to think that if it isn’t approved by the local episcopal conference, then it’s only devotional prayer, not liturgical.
 
Does the LOTH contain the 23rd Psalm? I have the one-volume LOTH, and prayed it for a year (a few years ago). As I recall, there were 2 popular psalms missing: Psalm 23 and another one (perhaps the one Jesus prayed a portion of while on the Cross).
 
If you think you’ll ever be praying with other people, you probably want the same US edition they’ll have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top