Using different Psalm translation for Liturgy of the Hours

[DaveBj]

What bothers me about the “official” LOTH are the obvious errors in translation. For example, at one point (I don’t have the exact page numbers in front of me) Psalm 110:2 reads, “The Lord will yield from Zion your sceptor of power,” and at another point it reads, "The Lord will wield from . . . " Which one was it supposed to be? And neither captures the meaning of the original: “Matteh 'uzkha yishlakh Adonai miTsiyon = The rod of your strength will the Lord send from Zion.” In another passage from the LOTH Psalm 45:4b reads, “Take aim with your bow in your dread right hand.” In the first place, the only people I’ve ever seen practicing archery with the bow in the right hand were the Pandorans (in the movie Avatar). In the second place, neither the Hebrew original, nor the Septuagint, nor the Vulgate say anything about a bow; the Hebrew reads, “Thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things,” and the Greek and the Latin are similar.

Obviously when I’m chanting the office with the monks at St. Bernard’s Monastery, I read what’s in the book in front of me. However, when I’m by myself, I’m really more interested in quoting Sacred Scripture accurately.

 

[porthos11]

What bothers me about the “official” LOTH are the obvious errors in translation. For example, at one point (I don’t have the exact page numbers in front of me) Psalm 110:2 reads, “The Lord will yield from Zion your sceptor of power,” and at another point it reads, "The Lord will wield from . . . " Which one was it supposed to be? And neither captures the meaning of the original: “Matteh 'uzkha yishlakh Adonai miTsiyon = The rod of your strength will the Lord send from Zion.” In another passage from the LOTH Psalm 45:4b reads, “Take aim with your bow in your dread right hand.” In the first place, the only people I’ve ever seen practicing archery with the bow in the right hand were the Pandorans (in the movie Avatar). In the second place, neither the Hebrew original, nor the Septuagint, nor the Vulgate say anything about a bow; the Hebrew reads, “Thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things,” and the Greek and the Latin are similar.

Obviously when I’m chanting the office with the monks at St. Bernard’s Monastery, I read what’s in the book in front of me. However, when I’m by myself, I’m really more interested in quoting Sacred Scripture accurately.

The “yield” part is a typographical error in Volume IV for Sunday, Week III. All other renditions in the Liturgy of the Hours and Christian Prayer read “wield.”

As for the accuracy, sure one can agree that there are areas for improvement or parts where the translation can be difficult if the text is obscure or has suffered corruption. I myself have major issues with the Collects and the Te Deum. Psalm 118’s phrasing of many common expressions grates badly on me every time Sunday Weeks II and IV rolls around. But that does not matter. When one prays the Liturgy of the Hours, he does so to participate in the prayer of the Church and uses the texts currently promulgated. I am impatiently waiting for the retranslation of the Liturgy of the Hours, but till then, I will use the official text the Church gave me. I prefer the RSV over the NAB but I will not read the RSV when praying the Hours. I will not even use the much better Collects of the Roman Missal.

 

[jwinch2]

To my understanding, the RSV-CE is used by the Vatican in the CCC and other documents when needing to have an English translation of the Bible. Is the Church in America not praying with the rest of the Church because we are using the NAB?

The entire universal Church is using a translation of some sort from the original texts. If using a different one is the problem, than those praying in French are not praying with those who use Spanish who are not praying with those who use Japanese, etc. which is ludicrous. If you are praying the psalms and are doing so in the same schedule, then you are praying with the Church. No language translates perfectly into another, so the entire Church is using slightly different words when praying the Divine Office depending on where they are at in the world.

To the OP, if you are more edified by praying with the RSV-2CE and are following the same schedule as the universal Church, then you are indeed praying with the Church. Based upon your post, it does not seem like you chose the RSV-2CE from a spirit of disobedience so I cannot see any reason that what you are doing would be a problem. I am hardly a scholar on the Divine Office, but simple logic tells me that you should be fine.

 

[porthos11]

The idea that because one is using a different English translation then others in America you are not praying with the whole Church is wrong. To my understanding, the RSV-CE is used by the Vatican in the CCC and other documents when needing to have an English translation of the Bible. Is the Church in America not praying with the rest of the Church because we are using the NAB? Hardly

The Holy See (not the Vatican) does use the RSV (not the RSV-CE) for its doctrinal documents, but I don’t see how this is relevant as doctrinal documents are not used for liturgical purposes.

The entire universal Church is using a translation of some sort from the original texts. If using a different one is the problem, than those praying in French are not praying with those who use Spanish who are not praying with those who use Japanese, etc. which is ludicrous.

Incorrect reasoning. They are all participating for as long as they’re using the properly approved editions.

If you are praying the psalms and are doing so in the same schedule, then you are praying with the Church. No language translates perfectly into another, so the entire Church is using slightly different words when praying the Divine Office depending on where they are at in the world.

Again, for as long as each edition is approved by the proper ecclesiastical authority and the Holy See. If your argument is to hold, then the concordat cum originali means nothing, and that’s not acceptable.

To the OP, if you are more edified by praying with the RSV-2CE and are following the same schedule as the universal Church, then you are indeed praying with the Church.

No he’s not. Sorry.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

The idea that because one is using a different English translation then others in America you are not praying with the whole Church is wrong. To my understanding, the RSV-CE is used by the Vatican in the CCC and other documents when needing to have an English translation of the Bible. Is the Church in America not praying with the rest of the Church because we are using the NAB? Hardly

If you went to Mass and the parish used the RSV-CE for the readings rather than the NAB, would you still say they were praying with the universal Church? Or would you think they were doing their own thing and weren’t using the liturgy that the Church has promulgated?

 

[jwinch2]

If you went to Mass and the parish used the RSV-CE for the readings rather than the NAB, would you still say they were praying with the universal Church? Or would you think they were doing their own thing and weren’t using the liturgy that the Church has promulgated?

No, because that would be disobedience to the directives of the Church through the local conference of Bishops. As non-religious and a non-cleric, the OP is under none of those obligations and did not choose the particular translation he did from a spirit of disobedience, but from a desire to edify himself through the memorization of the psalms.

 

[porthos11]

No, because that would be disobedience to the directives of the Church through the local conference of Bishops. As non-religious and a non-cleric, the OP is under none of those obligations and did not choose the particular translation he did from a spirit of disobedience, but from a desire to edify himself through the memorization of the psalms.

Which is fine and praiseworthy as the memorization of scripture is a worthy endeavour.

But edifying oneself through the memorization of the psalms is not the same is joining in the public prayer of the Church. Of course for laity, one cannot lay the charge of disobedience where no obligation is imposed, but one can still differentiate between private and public prayer and it depends on one’s intention. If one wants to pray the public prayer of the Church (even if alone), one must use the official translation, whatever its flaws, or any other approved edition otherwise, one prays devotionally.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

If using unapproved translations in the LOTH separates one from the public prayer of the Church, does using unapproved translations in the mass do the same?

 

[jwinch2]

Which is fine and praiseworthy as the memorization of scripture is a worthy endeavour.

But edifying oneself through the memorization of the psalms is not the same is joining in the public prayer of the Church. Of course for laity, one cannot lay the charge of disobedience where no obligation is imposed, but one can still differentiate between private and public prayer and it depends on one’s intention. If one wants to pray the public prayer of the Church (even if alone), one must use the official translation, whatever its flaws, or any other approved edition otherwise, one prays devotionally.

While the NRSV and others were removed, I do not believe that the RSV-CE has been taken off of the approved list for liturgical use in the United States. While it is not the official translation, I believe it is approved for liturgical use. In addition, according to what I have read at least, the Anglican Ordinariate has received approval for use of the RSV-2CE from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. It is my understanding that many of the Angican Use communities who came in under the Pastoral Provision have been using an RSV-2CE based lectionary for some time now. Fr. Phillips from Our Lady of Atonement Parish in San Antonio writes about it on his blog on occasion.

 

[porthos11]

While the NRSV and others were removed, I do not believe that the RSV-CE has been taken off of the approved list for liturgical use in the United States. While it is not the official translation, I believe it is approved for liturgical use. In addition, according to what I have read at least, the Anglican Ordinariate has received approval for use of the RSV-2CE from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. It is my understanding that many of the Angican Use communities who came in under the Pastoral Provision have been using an RSV-2CE based lectionary for some time now. Fr. Phillips from Our Lady of Atonement Parish in San Antonio writes about it on his blog on occasion.

For the purposes of the Ordinary Form Lectionary, all previous permissions have been revoked and only the NAB lectionary is now permitted for use at Mass in the United States. For Canada, only the NRSV Lectionary is permitted for use.

For the Anglican Ordinariate, this is correct, the RSV-2CE is permitted (and from my understanding, is the sole option). For the purposes of the Divine Office, one has the option of the first or second editions of the RSV-CE.

None of this has any bearing on the Liturgy of the Hours, which still uses the Grail Psalms and the 1970 NAB for both Canada and the United States.

 

[DaveBj]

The “yield” part is a typographical error in Volume IV for Sunday, Week III. All other renditions in the Liturgy of the Hours and Christian Prayer read "wield."

As for the accuracy, sure one can agree that there are areas for improvement or parts where the translation can be difficult if the text is obscure or has suffered corruption. I myself have major issues with the Collects and the Te Deum. Psalm 118’s phrasing of many common expressions grates badly on me every time Sunday Weeks II and IV rolls around. But that does not matter. When one prays the Liturgy of the Hours, he does so to participate in the prayer of the Church and uses the texts currently promulgated. I am impatiently waiting for the retranslation of the Liturgy of the Hours, but till then, I will use the official text the Church gave me. I prefer the RSV over the NAB but I will not read the RSV when praying the Hours. I will not even use the much better Collects of the Roman Missal.

All other renditions read “wield?” Not hardly. The error is in my single-volume Christian prayer, and I saw it in yesterday’s morning prayer on-line at the divineoffice.com site.

As regards “praying in unison with the Church,” (however that is phrased), I am more interested in praying to the father, in words and phrases that don’t jar my ear for the English language. Yes, I know that puts me out of step with a lot of my fellow Catholics. That probably makes it a good thing that they can’t hear me.

 

[porthos11]

All other renditions read “wield?” Not hardly. The error is in my single-volume Christian prayer, and I saw it in yesterday’s morning prayer on-line at the divineoffice.com site.

As for Christian Prayer, it doesn’t exist in my edition, so I may have a more recent printing that corrects the error.

As regards “praying in unison with the Church,” (however that is phrased),

It’s “praying with the Church”; i.e. offering the Church’s official prayer vs. private devotional prayer.

I am more interested in praying to the father, in words and phrases that don’t jar my ear for the English language. Yes, I know that puts me out of step with a lot of my fellow Catholics. That probably makes it a good thing that they can’t hear me.

And that’s fair, because you’re making your intention clear that you wish to pray privately and devotionally in your own selected words or texts. Every Christian has always been free to do that and is not a bad thing. I do something similar myself; once I’ve finished the Liturgy of the Hours, if I read the readings for the day, I grab my RSV-CE Bible and read from there rather than from my hand missal. The RSV-CE is not approved for liturgical use in Canada but that’s not an issue as I’m now performing a private devotional act so I have no need to use the official texts.

As Ora said many times in the past, when one prays the Liturgy, it’s never about me or what I want or prefer.

 

[Digitonomy]

If you went to Mass and the parish used the RSV-CE for the readings rather than the NAB, would you still say they were praying with the universal Church? Or would you think they were doing their own thing and weren’t using the liturgy that the Church has promulgated?

Joe Kelley:

If using unapproved translations in the LOTH separates one from the public prayer of the Church, does using unapproved translations in the mass do the same?

I think these are important questions, and my view is that a priest celebrating a mass using an unapproved translation, and his congregation, are participating in the public prayer of the Church, just illicitly. I don’t think translation of readings into the vernacular was always as rigidly regulated as it is today. Missionaries simply did their best to translate sacred scripture into the local tongue.

The Church becoming more picky about such things suggests to me that it frowns more on the use of unapproved translations. However, I disagree that those celebrating the mass are suddenly not participating in the public prayer of the Church, when they are doing exactly what they did before.

 

[UberrimaeFidei]

Regarding the application “The Divine Office” ($20.00 subscription):
The translation used in this audio version of the Office is the NAB, but there is a problem with the presentation.

 The Divine Office is primarily a communal prayer and the psalm verses are to rotate from one group to the other, as we see in all monasteries and convents. However this application uses only two people in the rotation of verses, almost a private prayer, really, rather than a prayer of the Church. Unfortunately the two voices are always the same, which makes for a tiresome and stale recital, especially if the voices tend to put on a dramatic facade. The evening prayer this evening had only one female voice which recited all the psalms and Magnificat alone, which is unheard of in the Divine Office. Perhaps there’s an ego in play here, but in any case it’s unpleasant.

There must be some group out there, perhaps a monastic community, a seminary, or Catholic college, that can record the Office as it was meant to prayed – a truly communal prayer.

 

[OraLabora]

The current LOTH was actually designed with both private and public/community recitation in mind, in particular for diocesan clergy. although it retains many monastic elements it considered the reality I diocesan clergy for which the 1960 breviary was not particularly well suited. A bonus is that this made it more suitable for the laity as well.

However it probably seems incongruous to have it simply read through on audio media.

Religious communities could help but their communal prayer might not always fit. They will have their own calendar and for the monastic orders, indeed their own breviary, often with the psalms spread over a much shorter time, 2 and often 1 week.

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

If I want to pray with the Church, then my only option is to pray the Liturgy of the Hours in Japanese which is the only approved edition here. But Japanese is difficult and even though I understand the meaning of the words, my prayer time tends to be shallow. If I want to pray the Liturgy of the Hours sincerely from the heart in English which is my mother tongue, then I must resign myself to praying it as a private devotion but not the Prayer of the Church. Almost makes me wish I stayed in Ohio.

Is there still any advantage for someone like me to pray the English Liturgy of the Hours, or am I just as well off reading through the Psalms and praying the Canticles from my RSV-CE since both options are private devotions?

 

[Marysann]

I pray the LOTH using the British edition even though I am an American. I prefer it. I hope that this is still considered praying with the mind of the Church. This edition is not approved for use in the US, but is approved for many other English-speaking countries. I first purchased it in the Vatican bookstore. The Vatican bookstore does not carry the American edition of the LOTH. I can’t imagine that they would steer their customers wrong!

 

[peregrinus_sg]

If I want to pray with the Church, then my only option is to pray the Liturgy of the Hours in Japanese which is the only approved edition here. But Japanese is difficult and even though I understand the meaning of the words, my prayer time tends to be shallow. If I want to pray the Liturgy of the Hours sincerely from the heart in English which is my mother tongue, then I must resign myself to praying it as a private devotion but not the Prayer of the Church. Almost makes me wish I stayed in Ohio.

Is there still any advantage for someone like me to pray the English Liturgy of the Hours, or am I just as well off reading through the Psalms and praying the Canticles from my RSV-CE since both options are private devotions?

I assume you are in Japan? In such a case, if the Japanese Bishops have not determined any English translation as the official translation of Liturgia Horarum in their territory, then you can use any duly approved English translation of the Liturgia Horarum legitimately. So if the Bishops of the territory have only ruled on which Japanese edition is to be used, you may happily use the US Liturgy of the Hours, or the UK Divine Office, or even the African Liturgy of the Hours and still fulfil any canonical obligation to pray the Office. But if the Japanese Bishops have specified that English speakers in their territory must use a specific translation, then you cannot choose any other edition in English.

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

I assume you are in Japan? In such a case, if the Japanese Bishops have not determined any English translation as the official translation of Liturgia Horarum in their territory, then you can use any duly approved English translation of the Liturgia Horarum legitimately. So if the Bishops of the territory have only ruled on which Japanese edition is to be used, you may happily use the US Liturgy of the Hours, or the UK Divine Office, or even the African Liturgy of the Hours and still fulfil any canonical obligation to pray the Office. But if the Japanese Bishops have specified that English speakers in their territory must use a specific translation, then you cannot choose any other edition in English.

Wow, this is big news which I have never heard before. So in other words, assuming the bishops in Japan have only addressed the issue of official Japanese edition, then I can pray any one of the approved English translations and still officially be praying the Liturgy, the Prayer of the Church (as long as I’m doing it in Japan)?

Is there any documentation of this that I can read on the internet?