USCCB and the RSV CE

  • Thread starter Thread starter bkovacs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bkovacs

Guest
I wonder why the USCCB doesn’t put two and two together and just use the RSV CE (1st Ed) as the official biblical text for the new translation of the Mass. Versus using the unpopular NAB. The RSV CE has all the elements that both Rome and American Catholics are looking for. The NAB and it’s inclusive language and constant lengthy revisions assures that the translation they will hear at Mass is not what they will read at home. Benedict Press just released a beautiful version of the RSV CE, as well as Oxford University Press, and Ignatius Press also still carries the RSV CE. I read somewhere that this is the translation that Pope Benedict XVI prefers for accuracy. Seems dumb founded to use the NAB any more. Your thoughts.
 
RSV CE might be better…but as for “inclusive” language, isn’t it sort of the priest’s job to define what the Scripture is saying during the homily?

One thing that frustrates me is when a part of a passage is optional (for reasons of being “inclusive” or for lack of a better word, modern) and the priest opts out of it. A few months ago, I was lectoring, and the passage was from Ephesians, where Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands, but that part was optional and the priest said, “don’t read it.”

God says it, we should listen to it, the priest should tell us how, I guess

not trying to rant 🙂 I could just stand for a little more backbone in the Catholics in my diocese. It’s getting better…we got a new priest recently and he’s awesome!
 
I agree totally! I now prepare the Mass Readings on my site using the RSV-CE. It is a better translation, and one of the best on the market.
 
The RSV-CE is already approved by the Holy See for the Anglican Use. It’s just a small step from there to full liberation!
 
bkovacs said:
I wonder why the USCCB doesn’t put two and two together and just use the RSV CE (1st Ed) as the official biblical text for the new translation of the Mass. Versus using the unpopular NAB. . . …
Click to expand...
I think the USCCB has the copyright on the NAB, but not oon the RSV-CE. Of course they wouldn’t let consideration of who gets the royalties affect their decisions. 😉
 
I wish the Catholic Book Publishing Company would either close up shop or be bought up by TAN. For a company that probably does way more business than most Catholic companies do. Their Bibles look as though they were released in the early seventies. Same bland black and white illustrations. Old looking color illustrations for their “Deluxe” Bibles. And the non-approved NAB with all the liberal revisions. Come on when will they release any Summorum Pontificum products. They used to have nice ones in the past. And the USCCB thinks of them highly. I wonder how they will market the Revised NAB.
 
WhitSunday said:
…One thing that frustrates me is when a part of a passage is optional (for reasons of being “inclusive” or for lack of a better word, modern) and the priest opts out of it.
Click to expand...
I thought the optional portions of scripture readings were in place primarily for passage length considerations. Do other considerations really come into play?

rocketrob
 
Why not Douay Rheims if we’re going to bother making any such change? 😃
 
Which RSV CE ought to be used then? Ignatius Press has two versions. Surely they both have pros and cons. Like the first titles Mary as Highly favored and the second calls her more precisely as I understand it,Full of Grace.
 
OP clearly indicated 1st edition, which lacks the inclusive language found in the 2nd edition.
 
crazzeto said:
OP clearly indicated 1st edition, which lacks the inclusive language found in the 2nd edition.
Click to expand...
You may be thinking of the **NRSV **rather than the RSV-CE, 2nd Ed. The NRSV is notorious for it’s inclusive language.
 
Fidelis said:
You may be thinking of the **NRSV **rather than the RSV-CE, 2nd Ed. The NRSV is notorious for it’s inclusive language.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak from personal experience, since my only real RSV experience is via the CCC… However Collan Donavin in particular (EWTN, Open Line) has specifically cited 2nd edition RSV-CE having inclusive language.
 
crazzeto said:
I can’t speak from personal experience, since my only real RSV experience is via the CCC… However Collan Donavin in particular (EWTN, Open Line) has specifically cited 2nd edition RSV-CE having inclusive language.
Click to expand...
I can speak from personal experience that I have not encountered any inclusive language in the RSV-2CE. In fact, Ignatius Press makes it clear that they have not used this language in this edition. As I’ve used it more and more, I find that it usually follows the Douay-Rheims ‘flavor’ on passages much more so than any other ‘modern’ translation. After initial skepticism when it first came out, I’ve come to really like the RSV-2CE.

If you have specifics on where inclusive language is used in the RSV-2CE, it would be interesting to have them posted. Like a previous poster, I think there is confusion occuring between the NRSV-CE (‘New’ RSV) and the RSV-2CE (RSV Second Edition…which is also a ‘newer’ edition).

rocketrob
 
+Mother Angelica of EWTN frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . in modern translations via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . .

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . purportedly word for word . . . from the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Church’s Official Bible. Bishop Challoner’s edition phrases it to make it more reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation is largely the result of the **Holy Spirit’s **inspiration and annointing of the labors of the blessed St. Jerome . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Latin Vulgate Translation
was **
*“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” ***
With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html . . . you can’t go wrong with this Bible . . .

Below are comments from the **Eternal Word Television Network’s ** ewtn.com website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today.

:bible1: Douai-Rheims [Douay-Rheims]. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai.​

**The renown teaching priest Father John Corapi ** endorses and highly recommends the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE.

:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE).Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …**​

According to the Catholic Company’s review of the RSV-CE2 edition: **“The RSV, second Catholic edition **… uses standard (non-feminist) English and is in conformity with the Church’s translation guidelines found in the Vatican document, Liturgiam Authenticam.”

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful not to request the NEW RSV-CE . . . which is being heavily promoted nowadays and contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******​

NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991). It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
​
. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​
 
You kid yourself if you think that the RSV CE is “popular” versus the NAB with the vast majority of Catholics in the pew. That is strictly an issue for the VERY small percentage of us that hang out on Catholic message boards. Us freaks don’t hold the tiller.
 
The RSV-CE does read well and has some of the strong wording of the DR. The NAB seems to have shorter sentences and the occasional poor choice of wording. There are some words in the NAB that are not commonly used, which make it difficult to understand. The NAB has been popular for a long time in the US, so it has a strong hold. I would be in favor of a shift to the use of the RSV-CE. 👍
 
rocketrob said:
I can speak from personal experience that I have not encountered any inclusive language in the RSV-2CE. In fact, Ignatius Press makes it clear that they have not used this language in this edition. As I’ve used it more and more, I find that it usually follows the Douay-Rheims ‘flavor’ on passages much more so than any other ‘modern’ translation. After initial skepticism when it first came out, I’ve come to really like the RSV-2CE.

If you have specifics on where inclusive language is used in the RSV-2CE, it would be interesting to have them posted. Like a previous poster, I think there is confusion occuring between the NRSV-CE (‘New’ RSV) and the RSV-2CE (RSV Second Edition…which is also a ‘newer’ edition).

rocketrob
Click to expand...
👍
 
How long has the NAB been in use during mass?

What was the one used before the NAB?

Will we really ever see the rsv ce(2nd edition or 1st) in mass?

thank you!
🙂
 
+*“The [Lectionary] text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes MANDATED by the Holy See where the NAB text used … vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.” *- EWTN.com

“NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991). It was due to the use of vertical inclusive language (re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See REJECTED this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States.” - EWTN.com

The concrete rigorous norms established by the Holy See regarding maintaining some purity in :bible1: Biblical translations used in the Holy Mass are listed at the link below . . .

:compcoff: Link: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFNORMS.HTM

. . . all for Jesus+​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top