RSV Lectionary by Ignatius Press

[peregrinus_sg]

Has anyone reviewed a copy of the RSV Lectionary (Volume 2) published by Ignatius Press? In particular, I’m looking for information on the printing, quality, readability and layout of the Lectionary.

Thank you and God bless.

 

[benedictgal]

Has anyone reviewed a copy of the RSV Lectionary (Volume 2) published by Ignatius Press? In particular, I’m looking for information on the printing, quality, readability and layout of the Lectionary.

Thank you and God bless.

I haven’t, but, having read their RSV-CE 2nd edition, in my opinion, it is much better than the Revised New American Bible which is the basis for the United States lectionary. The language is far superior and it doesn’t include the inclusive language mess that we have to face every Sunday.

 

[porthos11]

Unfortunately, the Lectionary is not approved for use in the United States. In fact, only one Episcopal Conference (to my knowledge) has approved it for use at Mass.

Perhaps you can raise enough racket to the USCCB to at least approve this new Lectionary for use, alongside their beloved NAB Lectionary. Perhaps with their approval, our own Conference will follow suit.

 

[benedictgal]

Unfortunately, the Lectionary is not approved for use in the United States. In fact, only one Episcopal Conference (to my knowledge) has approved it for use at Mass.

Perhaps you can raise enough racket to the USCCB to at least approve this new Lectionary for use, alongside their beloved NAB Lectionary. Perhaps with their approval, our own Conference will follow suit.

The temperature will go down to 0-degrees farenheit in South Texas before that will happen. Remember, they own the copyrights to the NAB and they are not likely to let go of that cash cow any time soon.

 

[Phemie]

The temperature will go down to 0-degrees farenheit in South Texas before that will happen. Remember, they own the copyrights to the NAB and they are not likely to let go of that cash cow any time soon.

But realistically, how many lectionaries do they sell each year vs. Bibles? Would using another translation for the Lectionary really affect Bible sales – even I own a NAB ‘family’ Bible and I’m in Canada where we don’t use that translation for anything else. That said, in Canada we will soon have a Lectionary which will contain a translation not found in any Bible that’s on the market today. Wonder if they will compile a NNRSV (Newer New Revised Standard Version) or AFLNRSV (Approved For Lectionary New Revised Standard Version)?

 

[benedictgal]

But realistically, how many lectionaries do they sell each year vs. Bibles? Would using another translation for the Lectionary really affect Bible sales – even I own a NAB ‘family’ Bible and I’m in Canada where we don’t use that translation for anything else. That said, in Canada we will soon have a Lectionary which will contain a translation not found in any Bible that’s on the market today. Wonder if they will compile a NNRSV (Newer New Revised Standard Version) or AFLNRSV (Approved For Lectionary New Revised Standard Version)?

The problem is that since the lectionary comes from the USCCB, they are, naturally, going to approve the form that uses their copyrighted Bible translation. It’s what we here in the States call a “monopoly”.

 

[Paten]

The problem is that since the lectionary comes from the USCCB, they are, naturally, going to approve the form that uses their copyrighted Bible translation. It’s what we here in the States call a “monopoly”.

No, it’s not due solely to a “monopoly.” There are other factors.

Until fairly recently lectionaries based on the NAS1970, RSVCE and the Jerusalem Bible (maybe the DRV too?) were allowed in the USA. If someone had wanted to read along in their missalette, they would have required more than one based on where they were attending Mass on any given Sunday. That gets expensive and confusing.

There was also tension and confusion at local levels due to allowing different versions. I remember well that one visiting priest processed-in carrying his own copy of the Gospel reading for the day from RSVCE because the pastor only “allowed” the NAS1970. When it came time to proclaim the Gospel, he placed the Evangeliary aside and read from his own page. It was rather odd and it raised questions – not necessarily good ones either.

Also, how are we qualified to suggest which versions are to be used or not used. While I like the RSVCE for certain things, my preference at the Mass would easily be the Jerusalem Bible or the Knox Bible – but that’s just me.

I also don’t believe that most think the RSVCE is intrinsically “better” than the RNAB. Yes the RSVCE gets a great deal of exposure and mention on EWTN, and it is a fine translation, but it’s certainly not necessarily “better” – particularly when used in the context of a Mass. If it were not for EWTN and Ignatius Press the RESVCE would be fairly obscure to most Catholics. In fact it probably is even with their ongoing promotion of this version.

Yes there is a vociferous group that feels they know which translation is “better” for the Mass, but they are not the arbiters of that decision. The Church is.

 

[porthos11]

No, it’s not due solely to a “monopoly.” There are other factors.

Until fairly recently lectionaries based on the NAS1970, RSVCE and the Jerusalem Bible (maybe the DRV too?) were allowed in the USA. If someone had wanted to read along in their missalette, they would have required more than one based on where they were attending Mass on any given Sunday. That gets expensive and confusing.

There was also tension and confusion at local levels due to allowing different versions. I remember well that one visiting priest processed-in carrying his own copy of the Gospel reading for the day from RSVCE because the pastor only “allowed” the NAS1970. When it came time to proclaim the Gospel, he placed the Evangeliary aside and read from his own page. It was rather odd and it raised questions – not necessarily good ones either.

Also, how are we qualified to suggest which versions are to be used or not used. While I like the RSVCE for certain things, my preference at the Mass would easily be the Jerusalem Bible or the Knox Bible – but that’s just me.

I also don’t believe that most think the RSVCE is intrinsically “better” than the RNAB. Yes the RSVCE gets a great deal of exposure and mention on EWTN, and it is a fine translation, but it’s certainly not necessarily “better” – particularly when used in the context of a Mass. If it were not for EWTN and Ignatius Press the RESVCE would be fairly obscure to most Catholics. In fact it probably is even with their ongoing promotion of this version.

Yes there is a vociferous group that feels they know which translation is “better” for the Mass, but they are not the arbiters of that decision. The Church is.

Right, and the Church has said that the NAB is not suitable for use at Mass without revisions. That’s why the US has the anomalous situation of its lectionary not matching any published Bible.

The Ignatius RSV-2CE Lectionary, on the other hand, has been found sufficiently compliant with Liturgiam Authenticam by the CDW itself, the author of that same document.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes there is a vociferous group that feels they know which translation is “better” for the Mass, but they are not the arbiters of that decision. The Church is.

Paten, you’ve obviously not read what Rev. Richard John Neuhaus has to say. He makes a very good argument against the NAB and the RNAB, for that matter.

The problems begin with the very first verse of the Bible. In the English tradition, solidly grounded in the Hebrew as well as in Jerome’s Latin translation, Genesis 1 begins with the majestic words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Here is what the NAB offers us: “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters”. Compare that with the English tradition, followed almost exactly by Douay-Rheims: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters”. Apart from the NAB’s deaf ear to poetry and theological suggestiveness, the very first words of the very first verse of the Bible raise a question of no little importance. Note the difference between “In the beginning God created …” and “In the beginning, when God created…”

As a lector, I find that the language of the US lectionary lacks the beauty and the formality of the RSV-CE. Furthermore, the epistles are not written in readable English. For example, this past Sunday’s epistle was the longest one sentence reading I’ve had to read. At least the Spanish version (Mexican lectionary) breaks the sentence so that it makes intelligible sense.

And yes, it is the Church’s decision. That is why the Holy See issued a document called Liturgicam Authenticam which calls for an authentic and proper translation of sacred texts. But, as Fr. Neuhaus writes:

The imposition of this embarrassingly third-rate translation is made definite by a provision of the otherwise welcome 2001 instruction from Rome’s congregation for worship, Liturgiam authenticam. The instruction says that “in order that the faithful may be able to commit to memory at least the more important texts of the Sacred Scriptures and be formed by them … there should exist only one approved translation, which will be employed in all parts of the various liturgical books”. The American bishops, alas, chose the NAB. Had they chosen a more worthy translation, there would have been a fierce uproar from the guild of Catholic biblical scholars who perpetrated the NAB. In addition, there is a thoroughly misplaced proprietorial pride in this being a Catholic translation: It may not be very good, but it is ours.

The result is a loss keenly appreciated by those who grew up with what literary critic Alan Jacobs describes as “a shared language, of particular words and phrases that resonated in the common ear – words and phrases whose meanings could be tested, considered, deployed, and redeployed in an infinitely varied set of contexts”.

From what I understand, the lectionary is now going through a third revision. Hopefully, the bishops will be able to finally see the light and realize that the NAB that they’ve given us is not a translation worthy for proclamaiton in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I still believe (and there is sufficient evidence for this) that the USCCB, because they hold the copyrights to the NAB, are not going to quickly give up their cash cow. But, maybe the Holy See will prevail upon them to do so.

Now, I have my Grandmother’s Douay-Rheims, as well as the RSV-CE 2nd edition and the Jerusalem Bible. While I love the English of the DR, I enjoy the RSV-CE 2nd edition over the Jerusalem Bible. However, all three are superior to the NAB. In fact, I sometimes have to refer to my RSV-CE 2nd edition when I do my lector preparations because of those elongated sentences. The language is also far superior. You wouldn’t want to trample on Shakespeare, now would you? Why then, would you want a lectionary that is not an accurate translation of the Word of God?

 

[Paten]

Paten, you’ve obviously not read what Rev. Richard John Neuhaus has to say. He makes a very good argument against the NAB and the RNAB, for that matter.

Gifted priest or not, that is one man’s opinion. A man with a VERY decided if not skewed viewpoint. It makes me shake my head in disbelief to think the Holy See would force the use of an “inferior” translation in the USA due to copyright royalties or that any Catholic would actually buy that story. Talk about a low opinion of the US Bishops and the Holy See! IF that were actually allowed to be the case (thank God it is not) the Church would be highly suspect in everything it says and does! All bets would be off if they Church is actually doing what you and the good father suggest it is!

As a lector, I find that the language of the US lectionary lacks the beauty and the formality of the RSV-CE. Furthermore, the epistles are not written in readable English. For example, this past Sunday’s epistle was the longest one sentence reading I’ve had to read. At least the Spanish version (Mexican lectionary) breaks the sentence so that it makes intelligible sense.

Actually you are a reader, not a lector.
In any event, SO? The RSVCE lacks the beauty and “formality” the Knox Bible (and the KJV for that matter) yet none are approved.

And yes, it is the Church’s decision. That is why the Holy See issued a document called Liturgicam Authenticam which calls for an authentic and proper translation of sacred texts. But, as Fr. Neuhaus writes:

Fr. Neuhaus ain’t the Church.

From what I understand, the lectionary is now going through a third revision. Hopefully, the bishops will be able to finally see the light and realize that the NAB that they’ve given us is not a translation worthy for proclamaiton in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I still believe (and there is sufficient evidence for this) that the USCCB, because they hold the copyrights to the NAB, are not going to quickly give up their cash cow. But, maybe the Holy See will prevail upon them to do so.

So? See above. If Fr. Neuhaus’ emboldened comments are correct – if the Church could actually do such a thing, just ponder the ramifications and the absolute lack of credibility it would have – with anyone. Also imagine the large number of bishops that would publically (and loudly) ignore the USCCB’s decree on which version to use. Your really think your bishop would allow the message of the daily readings to suffer because he and his fellow bishops wanted to profit from a copyright? I don’t think mine would.

If I believed that sorta garbage, I would deeply question the Catholic Christian faith.

Now, I have my Grandmother’s Douay-Rheims, as well as the RSV-CE 2nd edition and the Jerusalem Bible. While I love the English of the DR, I enjoy the RSV-CE 2nd edition over the Jerusalem Bible. However, all three are superior to the NAB. In fact, I sometimes have to refer to my RSV-CE 2nd edition when I do my lector preparations because of those elongated sentences. The language is also far superior. You wouldn’t want to trample on Shakespeare, now would you? Why then, would you want a lectionary that is not an accurate translation of the Word of God?

So says YOU. Thankfully it’s not your call. Your Shakespeare analogy just made Diet Coke shoot out of my nose – the KJV is largely the basis for the RSVCE and from a pure language standpoint most linguists would say the RSV already trampled on the FAR more gorgeous language of the KJV.

While you practice your readings as a reader, you might also want to ponder one thing. The “Word of God” is Jesus Christ. The “word of God” is the Bible.

 

[Paten]

Right, and the Church has said that the NAB is not suitable for use at Mass without revisions. That’s why the US has the anomalous situation of its lectionary not matching any published Bible.

The Ignatius RSV-2CE Lectionary, on the other hand, has been found sufficiently compliant with Liturgiam Authenticam by the CDW itself, the author of that same document.

Sure it does. It matches the 1970 version of the NAB

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I haven’t, but, having read their RSV-CE 2nd edition, in my opinion, it is much better than the Revised New American Bible which is the basis for the United States lectionary. The language is far superior and it doesn’t include the inclusive language mess that we have to face every Sunday.

Actually the inclusive language is a strength in those lectionaries. Our society today is beyond the old patriarchal one of the past and needs to reflect the present and everyone in the pews.

 

[benedictgal]

Gifted priest or not, that is one man’s opinion. A man with a VERY decided if not skewed viewpoint. It makes me shake my head in disbelief to think the Holy See would force the use of an “inferior” translation in the USA due to copyright royalties or that any Catholic would actually buy that story. Talk about a low opinion of the US Bishops and the Holy See! IF that were actually allowed to be the case (thank God it is not) the Church would be highly suspect in everything it says and does! All bets would be off if they Church is actually doing what you and the good father suggest it is!

Fr. Neuhaus ain’t the Church.

Your really think your bishop would allow the message of the daily readings to suffer because he and his fellow bishops wanted to profit from a copyright? I don’t think mine would.

Actually, he would. This is not to denigrate my ordinary; however, there are some serious issues in my diocese that would lead me to answer you in the affirmative.

Yes, Jesus is the Eternal Word of the Father. He is the last Word uttered by the Father. However, your sarcastic tone doesn’t necessarily make your point. Inasmuch as you defend the NAB translation that we currently have, it is interesting to note that not even the Holy See uses this version when it issues its Papal Mass worship aids. I know; I have several of them and the translations don’t match the U.S. lectionary, thank God.

Now, as far as the USCCB is concerned, they don’t have such a great track record with things. This past fall, they had an excellent opportunity to finally straighten out the muddy waters of sacred music (or the lack thereof) in this country. However, they did not take much of a stance, despite the fact that Liturgicam Authenticam had mandated that the bishops conferences set forth sacred music under the guidelines of this document. This is also the same document that was collectively ignored when they put forth their second translation of the lectionary.

Fr. Neuhaus does make this observation regarding the current translation:

“In the beginning God”. Homilies and theological reflections beyond numbering have pondered and probed those four words. It is God and God alone who is in the beginning; He is the source and acting subject of all that follows. If we do not get that right, we will not get right all that follows. Very different is the NAB’s rendering, “In the beginning, when God”. Here there is no invitation to ponder and probe what and who is meant by God. The knowledge is taken for granted; the reader’s attention is immediately turned from the acting subject to His actions. “In the beginning was the Act”. That is not, from the beginning, how Christians have understood the matter. The writer of the fourth Gospel begins with, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The great student of the fourth Gospel, C.K. Barrett, writes, “John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true, the book is blasphemous”. That, says Barrett, is the significance of the tie to Genesis 1, “In the beginning God …”

From the apostolic and patristic eras up through magisterial and theological writings of the present day, the parallel between Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 has been the source of the most profound reflections. God who was in the beginning is now revealed in Jesus the Christ who is God. The great Augustine, writing in the fifth century, insists upon the parallel wording. As in the beginning is God, so in the beginning is the Word who is God. Here he is preaching against the Arian heresy which claimed that the Son is not truly God but was created as an agent for creating the world. No, insists Augustine: As in the beginning God, so in the beginning the Word. That parallel, so crucial to the entire gospel story, is quite thoroughly obscured by the NAB. From the beginning, the NAB introduces unwarranted novelties that not only further erode what remains of a common biblical vocabulary but are often blithely indifferent to the Church’s tradition of theological reflection.

I wouldn’t be so quick to discount Fr. Neuhaus’s opinion. He may not be the Church, but he does have a very impressive background. Inasmuch as you may not agree with his arguments, I would encourage you to read the whole article with an open mind. Here is the link:

adoremus.org/0306BibleTranslations.html

I challenge you to look at the RNAB and compare it to the RSV-CE 2nd edition, the Douay-Rheims and even the first edition of the Jerusalem Bible. There are other examples, especially one regarding Abraham’s wife, Sarah. However, I am afraid that the references might be censored.

 

[porthos11]

Sure it does. It matches the 1970 version of the NAB

Nope. In 2002, the USCCB approved a new Lectionary based on the 1986 New Testament and 1991 Psalms. Rome had to force some changes into the New Testament, and rejected the 1991 Psalms outright.

Since the 1970 New American Bible is no longer in print, the US Lectionary matches no presently published Bible.

 

[porthos11]

Actually the inclusive language is a strength in those lectionaries. Our society today is beyond the old patriarchal one of the past and needs to reflect the present and everyone in the pews.

But the Bible was written in the times of the old patriarchal system, and to force inclusive language into it does violence to the history, language, and culture of the manuscripts.

Besides that, forcing inclusive language also causes severe theological difficulties in many places.

The best thing to do is translate the texts as they are. Inclusive language leaves the realm of translation and moves to interpretation.

 

[benedictgal]

But the Bible was written in the times of the old patriarchal system, and to force inclusive language into it does violence to the history, language, and culture of the manuscripts.

Besides that, forcing inclusive language also causes severe theological difficulties in many places.

The best thing to do is translate the texts as they are. Inclusive language leaves the realm of translation and moves to interpretation.

That is so true, especially when these so-called inclusive language translations make God the Father gender-neutral, especially in the psalms. Plus, can you imagine losing the beauty of the call of Peter, Andew, James and John? They were fishermen and Jesus calls them and tells them that they would no longer be fishermen, but, fishers of men. Can you imagine how downright silly it would be to say that they would no longer be fishermen, but, fishers of people? It loses the rich play on words.

 

[Manfred]

Sure it does. It matches the 1970 version of the NAB

No, there is NO version of the NAB/RNAB on the market today that matches the US Lectionary. What you said was true up until the RNAB was introduced, circa 1998.

 

[Manfred]

Actually the inclusive language is a strength in those lectionaries. Our society today is beyond the old patriarchal one of the past and needs to reflect the present and everyone in the pews.

“And be not conformed to this world: but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good and the acceptable and the perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

If I were to say what I was thinking I’d probably get banned.

 

[Manfred]

That is so true, especially when these so-called inclusive language translations make God the Father gender-neutral, especially in the psalms. Plus, can you imagine losing the beauty of the call of Peter, Andew, James and John? They were fishermen and Jesus calls them and tells them that they would no longer be fishermen, but, fishers of men. Can you imagine how downright silly it would be to say that they would no longer be fishermen, but, fishers of people? It loses the rich play on words.

One of our parish priests did change the word from “men” to “people” in his reading of the Gospel on Monday Jan 14.

But, hey, he was being “pastorally effective”.

Since that Monday was a snow stormy day, my wife was one of three attendees at Mass and the only female present. She visibly rolled her eyes in disgust when she heard “fishers of people”.

 

[Manfred]

Gifted priest or not, that is one man’s opinion. A man with a VERY decided if not skewed viewpoint. It makes me shake my head in disbelief to think the Holy See would force the use of an “inferior” translation in the USA due to copyright royalties or that any Catholic would actually buy that story. Talk about a low opinion of the US Bishops and the Holy See! IF that were actually allowed to be the case (thank God it is not) the Church would be highly suspect in everything it says and does! All bets would be off if they Church is actually doing what you and the good father suggest it is!

The Holy See didn’t force anything on us; the US bishops pushed their beloved RNAB through for Vatican approval, and reluctantly made some token changes so as not to tick off anybody in CDW. I’m a “reader”, too, and the RNAB still sounds lyrically low. I also practice my readings with the Douay-Rheims; if I can read that expressively and meaningfully, then the RNAB is easy.

The RSVCE lacks the beauty and “formality” the Knox Bible (and the KJV for that matter) yet none are approved.

And this is whose fault? The RSV-CE WAS approved at one time; the bishops withdrew their approval when they foisted their beloved RNAB on us.

So? See above. If Fr. Neuhaus’ emboldened comments are correct – if the Church could actually do such a thing, just ponder the ramifications and the absolute lack of credibility it would have – with anyone. Also imagine the large number of bishops that would publically (and loudly) ignore the USCCB’s decree on which version to use. Your really think your bishop would allow the message of the daily readings to suffer because he and his fellow bishops wanted to profit from a copyright?

Of course not; they just believe that the RNAB is better than all other versions.

Thankfully it’s not your call. Your Shakespeare analogy just made Diet Coke shoot out of my nose – the KJV is largely the basis for the RSVCE and from a pure language standpoint most linguists would say the RSV already trampled on the FAR more gorgeous language of the KJV.

Would that it were benedictgal’s call or mine, for the RNAB would be banned and you’d be listening to the Douay-Rheims if it were.