Vatican okays NRSV

  • Thread starter Thread starter bauerice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“That this has come is obviously a positive thing, not just for women but for all people,” said feminist theologian Doris Keiser, a lecturer in theology at the University of Alberta’s St. Joseph’s College. “When we’re moving forward in the world and allowing our understanding to open up, everyone benefits.”

It is a positive thing. The Church is not all male, woman have been part of it from the start in many roles. We cannot ignore half the parish because of the language.
 
Out of curiosity, does the Canadian lectionary use Canadian spellings, even though the translation team was headquartered in the US?
 
I think it is important to see what kind of changes were made with the text before any conclusions can be drawn. I am slighlty suspicious of the tone of the article. If there weren’t many changes, then why did it take so long?
 
If the Vatican says it’s okay, shouldn’t we as Roman Catholics, recognize the decision of the Magisterium?
 
Hi Zenas,

That’s unfortunate and very disappointing.

I am most distressed at your distress. Is it not desirable that a translation of the Bible should convey the actual meaning of the original text in a contemporary fashion? When I was a child, the pastor would start his sermons with the words, “My dear brothers”. We would understand that to mean, 'My dear brothers and sisters". But today, if you say, “Brothers” people understand it to mean males only. We should strive to say what we mean.

Verbum
 
Dear Friends,

I want to defend the NRSV a little bit- I too, until very recently, took a very negative view of the NRSV. I have criticized it on this very forum. But I have recently changed my mind.

First, a couple of facts about the NRSV-
  1. The NRSV 1989 is used in the Catechism along with the original RSV of 1952-1971.
  2. The imprimatur for the NRSV Catholic edition granted both in the US and Canada has never been withdrawn.
I do in fact still prefer the original RSV for its beauty of language but recently have softened considerably my stance on the NRSV. I also use the RSV 2nd Catholic edition for leading Bible Studies at our Church. We bought copies of the RSV II for our adult bible study after Liturgy.

I trust the judgment of the Church in allowing the Canadian Roman Catholics to use the NRSV. I do not believe that the Vatican would approve it for use if it was a threat to our faith. I do not think that the Church would use it in the Catechism if they thought it was a completely unsuitable. The original rejection of the NRSV for use in the liturgy did not ban Catholics from using it for personal reading & study.

I posted a comment on my blog about the Vatican accepting the NRSV:

byzantinechristian.blogspot.com/2007/09/nrsv-approved-for-canada-good-now-lets.html

Also- the Canadian NRSV I believe uses the Anglicized text. The NRSV was in use provisionally in Canada until the Vatican approval came this past week.
 
My objection to the use of inclusive language in Bibles like the NRSV is that it is a distortion of the historicity of the text itself.

In accepting inclusive language, readers of the NRSV deviate from the historical accuracy of the text and abandon true accuracy of the original in favor of modernism (particularly speaking, feminism). True the values maintained therein will remain, but the accuracy is lessened. Any lessening of historical accuracy threatens to undermine the clear view of history that the Catholic Church safeguards. Incremental compromises might be made then in view of an unsure remembrance of accurate history.

What next? Inclusive language in the Declaration of Independence?
*
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”* What? Women aren’t created equal to men?!? Change the Declaration!!!
 
PinoyCatholic said:
My objection to the use of inclusive language in Bibles like the NRSV is that it is a distortion of the historicity of the text itself.

In accepting inclusive language, readers of the NRSV deviate from the historical accuracy of the text and abandon true accuracy of the original in favor of modernism (particularly speaking, feminism). True the values maintained therein will remain, but the accuracy is lessened. Any lessening of historical accuracy threatens to undermine the clear view of history that the Catholic Church safeguards. Incremental compromises might be made then in view of an unsure remembrance of accurate history.

What next? Inclusive language in the Declaration of Independence?
*
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”* What? Women aren’t created equal to men?!? Change the Declaration!!!
Click to expand...
Why then don’t you write the Pope and tell him that the CDF is wrong for approving the NRSV?
 
That’s the thing. I can’t.

As a Catholic I am bound to obey the edicts of the Magisterium. I might not like the outcome of this decision, but I am by my belief in the Church’s power to teach truth forced to accept it. My personal feelings count for naught.

Rome might have spoken and the cause has ended. I accept that. I just fear the ripples this stone that has been cast will cause.
 
I understand why people would want inclusive language. However, shouldn’t it be more important to keep the Bible intact? If this can be changed, as good as it may be, will it not open the door to other changes that may not be so welcome?
 
I don’t understand what they were thinking approving this. Look at how language develops over just a few decades (gay used to mean something, now it means something different, same with madam.) That’s why Latin is used in the scientific community, because it does not change. Now we have had faithful translations of the Bible for 2000 years and we want to start adding or changing words because some women are not confident in their humanity? The original text does not contain the words “and sisters.”

As a people we haven’t gotten rid of the word “mankind” and why not? Because everyone knows what that means. We now have dollar coins without “In God We Trust” on them. Welcome to modernism.

I’m not sure that this was an act of the Magisterium. Isn’t that the bishops of the world in union with the Pope? I don’t think that is what was involved in this approval.
 
I agree with the last poster here.

I think someone who knows more about recognitio and exactly what that really means---- should enlighten us.

It does not matter anyway. We are not being forced to use ONLY this version., so it amounts to a storm in a teacup my friends.
 
14er said:
I’m not sure that this was an act of the Magisterium. Isn’t that the bishops of the world in union with the Pope? I don’t think that is what was involved in this approval.
Click to expand...
That’s what I suspect. I don’t think this carries “infallible” weight as it is a matter of practice, not faith or morals.

Does anyone know what role Pope Benedict even had, if any, in this decision?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top