RSV Lectionary by Ignatius Press

[Paten]

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.

OH! So the Holy See approved a “translation not worthy for proclamation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” so as not to tick anybody off in the CDW? Is that right? Is that how things work?

The Church would deliberately allow compromising the means in which the Gospel message is communicated to the faithful at Mass “so as not to tick anybody off in the CDW?” Good grief, if that was really true/possible, why stick with the Catholic Church? Any Church that would allow that couldn’t be the one mentioned in Matthew 16:18-19. No way.

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?

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

Oh? And their opinion just happens not to match your own personal opinion? Again, so?

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.

It’s not your call – thanks be to God.

The RSVCE is a fine version. Sadly however I think too many the personal tastes of EWTN pundits when it comes to Bible versions and lose sight of the fact that the NAB was approved for liturgical use in the USA by the Church. That’s right, the Catholic Church.

 

[porthos11]

OH! So the Holy See approved a “translation not worthy for proclamation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” so as not to tick anybody off in the CDW? Is that right? Is that how things work?

Again, read: The Holy See REJECTED the 1986 NAB until the USCCB applied the required changes to the Lectionary. Moreover, it rejected the ENTIRE book of Psalms.

Hence, the Lectionary does not match any published Bible, and if that’s not an anomaly, I don’t know what is.

 

[Paten]

Again, read: The Holy See REJECTED the 1986 NAB until the USCCB applied the required changes to the Lectionary. Moreover, it rejected the ENTIRE book of Psalms.

Hence, the Lectionary does not match any published Bible, and if that’s not an anomaly, I don’t know what is.

Hold on one moment. The 1970 version of the NAB had LONG been approved for Mass. If some of you are talking specifically about one revision of the NAB then that’s one thing. To categorically denounce the NAB is something altogether different.

While I well aware the RSVCE is a fine version, I also flatly reject that it’s intrinsically “better” than the NAB. Further I reject the nonsense that the only reason the NAB is the single version allowed for use in the USA is due to copyright royalties.

If I have to pick being guided by either my own ego and EWTN pundits or the Teaching Magisterium of the Church, I’ll pick the bishops every time…

 

[porthos11]

Hold on one moment. The 1970 version of the NAB had LONG been approved for Mass. If some of you are talking specifically about one revision of the NAB then that’s one thing. To categorically denounce the NAB is something altogether different.

The 1970 NAB is no longer approved for use at Mass. It was withdrawn along with the permission for the JB and RSV back in 2002. The only Lectionary now in use in the US is that based on the 1986 Revised NAB, although the Old Testament is the same. The 1970 NAB with the 1970 Psalms and 1970 New Testament are no longer in print. It’s the 1986 New Testament that was required to be revised, and the 1991 Psalms rejected outright.

If I have to pick being guided by either my own ego and EWTN pundits or the Teaching Magisterium of the Church, I’ll pick the bishops every time…

There is a difference between liking and obeying. I and many others here obey the bishops with their approved translation, regardless of the motive behind it. That does not mean we have to like it. The NAB is a good translation, but it doesn’t possess the beauty of the translations in the KJV tradition.

I, for example, cannot stand, “and he shall be called Wonder-Counselor, GOD-HERO (!!! ), Father-forever, Prince of Peace” as opposed to “Wonder Counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

But that’s the way the kookie krumbles.

 

[puzzleannie]

in this context of lectionary debate in general may I ask you good people what English translations were approved for reading the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular during TLM in the years before the NO, when it was allowed and encouraged? in the US? in England? in Canada? Would that (those) translations be permissible today for liturgical use? When and if the readings are proclaimed the second time in English in the EF, what translation is used? thanks, O wise ones.

 

[benedictgal]

in this context of lectionary debate in general may I ask you good people what English translations were approved for reading the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular during TLM in the years before the NO, when it was allowed and encouraged? in the US? in England? in Canada? Would that (those) translations be permissible today for liturgical use? When and if the readings are proclaimed the second time in English in the EF, what translation is used? thanks, O wise ones.

I used to own a Fr. Lasance (sp?) TLM missal and, if I remember, it might be the Douay-Rheims version. The language sounds about right. When my 1962 missal comes in, I’ll be able to tell you with better accuracy.

 

[Manfred]

in this context of lectionary debate in general may I ask you good people what English translations were approved for reading the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular during TLM in the years before the NO, when it was allowed and encouraged? in the US? in England? in Canada? Would that (those) translations be permissible today for liturgical use? When and if the readings are proclaimed the second time in English in the EF, what translation is used? thanks, O wise ones.

The Douay-Rheims, by and large, was used until the Confraternity NT came along in 1941; this was the case for the USA.

Great Britain, as I understood it, went with the Knox version, and it may have been only the NT at that.