Let me ask this: do most of the bishops of tthe USCCB feel as though that they’re so wedded to the NAB that to allow or pursue any other new translation of the bible would be tatamount to them admitting error in regards to the NAB?
It’s only human nature, right? But obsequium religiosum, right, right?
I don’t see it that way and I would hope that they don’t see it that way either.
I think the problem is that there is too much diversity in the views of the English speaking clergy to get anything done on it quickly. The process is moving in the right direction, but way slowly. Things like Liturgiam Authenticam, Ratio Translationis, ICPEL, the new revision work on the English missal are all relative steps in the right direction for various reasons, but liberal bishops like Trautman hold back progress, and a lot of work has to be done to get out of the hole that liberal translation practices dug for the American Church in the past few decades.
What I don’t get is this; when the Holy See kept rejecting their inclusive language agenda–why didn’t some bishops in the US call for a completely new start on the whole enterprise?
They have already put in so much time and effort, I would guess. All the paper pushing would have to be done all over again to get us to where we are now.
And wouldn’t the liturgy and the Bible have more credibilty if Catholics from all English speaking nations agreed on one text?
Possibly. I mean, there are differences in the English language from one place to another, but at least it would be nice if they agreed upon one base text in English that would be modified only sparingly for specific locales’ English differences.
Look–I criticize the RSV-CE for still being too Protestant but it has many virtues when compared against the Jerusalem Bible and the NAB.
You are preaching to the choir here.
I don’t like settling for the Douay Rheims with all its faults just because all the other choices are worse.
It wouldn’t be allowed even if you wanted to. The translations have to be from the original languages, but also correspond to the Vulgate, and apparently the other way around doesn’t work.
Barring a better 3d edition of the RSV the Confraternity New Testament with the Old Testament from the Douay with perhaps the English from Latin translation of the Psalms is as modern as I could endorse because it would have the fewest errors.
You are starting to sound like the Sedevacantists, not that I disagree.
Though, obviously, much more it takes, than that, to be one of them, in reality. The difference is, the people in this thread accept Vatican II, and they think a solution can still be made, through progress on making the English translations more accurate and traditional. The Sedevacantists, I think, have given up, already.
I believe some of the people who post here could improve the RSV, the Douay Rheims, the Jerusalem Bible, or the Confraternity Bible to the point that all could be great translations.
Me, too.
Where oh where are the Catholic biblical scholars that could give us a genuine Catholic Bible and where are the bishops who could make such a translation perfectly match the liturgy?
They don’t hang out here, do they?
My prayer is that some future pope will take the name Jerome!
I smiled.
Am I wrong or is it true that most English Catholic countries around the world other than the US are revising their liturgies to reflect the Jerusalem Bible and not the RSV?
Um, well, depending on how the ICPEL copyright issue with the NRSV plays out, they may have to revert back to the Jerusalem Bible. Yes, you are right that most of them are using it, currently. See this page for info on the status of the Lectionary prior to the organization of the ICPEL:
usccb.org/liturgy/page1.shtml
Why do they prefer the Jerusalem Bible over the RSV?
I think it has to do with the fact that they (the British) produced the Jerusalem Bible, and all the other British-connected Catholic areas decided to follow suit.
