Vatican okays NRSV

  • Thread starter Thread starter bauerice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Friends,

Perhaps the recognition of the NRSV is not a magesterial teaching, but I have enough faith in the Church that they would not lead us astray.

Also, I think there is a question of obedience, here too.
 
MarcoPolo said:
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?
Click to expand...
None. It was the work of Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Catholic bishops in Canada.

I don’t think the NRSV is that bad compared to the New American Bible. If I had to pick I pick the NRSV over the NAB.
 
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...
To the writers of the Declaration, the word “men” had a pretty specific meaning, and it didn’t include women, slaves were equal to 3/5 of a ‘man’ and Native Americans also were excluded. I don’t think that means that we should re-write the original document, but we have amended the founding documents of the US to promote equality.

So, the question I have with inclusive language in the Bible is: Do we think the origianl documents were meant to be inclusive, and we are just updating the language to reflect that, or were the original documents referring specifically to men (as was the Declaration) and we are altering history by changing them?
 
MarcoPolo said:
Your article blames Pope Benedict for this. Other posters have said he was not involved in this particular decision. Which is it?
Click to expand...
While the article from “Catholic Register” does appear to “credit” BenXVI with this, the blog poster shines some light on Cardinal Levada, who is no stranger to, and is an advocate of, inclusive language. Only now he’s in a more dangerous position than merely Archbishop of a major diocese in Oregon.
 
"MarcoPolo:
Does anyone know what role Pope Benedict even had, if any, in this decision?
Click to expand...
Mannyfit75 said:
None. It was the work of Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Catholic bishops in Canada.
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking. Consider first, CDW approved the text years ago. It was CDF under Ratzinger which objected. So this is a subject with which Benedict is certainly familiar. Second, Benedict put his buddy Levada in charge of CDF, having worked with him for many years at CDF. So Benedict is well aware of Levada’s views on CDF issues, particularly this one. Levada presumably has the support of the pope in most of his decisions, and Benedict knows which issues he doesn’t trust Levada on, and needs to stay involved with. Third, because this began as an interdicastery disagreement between CDF and CDW, any resolution is certainly going to be OK’d by the pope.

I’m really mystified how anyone can claim Benedict is ignorant or disagrees on any part of this decision.
 
Digitonomy said:
I’m really mystified how anyone can claim Benedict is ignorant or disagrees on any part of this decision.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with that statement.

A couple of points:
  1. Let us not be ignorant here. Do you really think the Pope has no idea that this altered NRSV translation has been approved? Give me a break! Of course he does, and I am quite sure that he probably gave it the OK himself. Let us not forget that the bishops of the UK were going to work on a similar project, a revised NRSV, but I believe that project had to be cancelled due to disagreements with the NRSV committee. (Not 100% sure on how that ended.)
  2. In regards to inclusive language…I think it needs to be said that there needs to be a more nuanced way of looking at this. Clearly the Vatican has accepted some forms of inclusive language. This is clear in the current US lectionary, which is approved, as well as the fact that the Vatican website includes the NAB translation as the English Bibles that one can search online: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM What is interesting is the fact that the NAB '91 Psalms is not on the website. Thus one could argue that the NAB NT is an acceptable form of inclusive language, while the NAB Psalms '91 is not according to the Vatican.
Those who say all inclusive language is from Satan I think go way too overboard, just as those who argue for translations that go way too far in the way of inclusive language, like the NAB Psalms '91 and at times the NRSV.
 
Maybe they think that the NRSV holds some practical purpose. Just because they allow it to be used doesn’t mean that they think that there aren’t better translations. I just don’t get why they are letting it be used in Canada as part of the Lectionary, as is. I might be forgetting something, but were there actually any textual changes made to the NRSV for the Canadian Lectionary?
 
Inclusive language has given us the likes of:

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise of glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s Church.

…slippery slope…
 
Philothea53 said:
Inclusive language has given us the likes of:

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise of glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s Church.

…slippery slope…
Click to expand...
I have heard this many times and never heard anything wrong with it.:confused:
 
Why can’t Catholics have a translation with language as beautiful as that in the older KJVs?
Actually no one is holding anyones head under water till they buy an NRSV, now are they? We are fortunate to be able to select a version that inspires us. Some Catholics even use one of those paraphrased “Bibles.” Ugh! I would take an NRSV over one of those any day of the week. 🙂
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
I have heard this many times and never heard anything wrong with it.:confused:
Click to expand...
Because suddenly we no longer say: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the Praise and Glory of His name for our good and the good of all His Church.”

We always said “Him” when speaking of God, whether God the Father or the triune God. We never differentiated.
 
Philothea53 said:
Inclusive language has given us the likes of:

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise of glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s Church.

…slippery slope…
Click to expand...
Its not so much a slippery slope, but rather the people failing to pronounce the words which the text actually says. That is more a discipline problem than a problem with the current text.
 
mccorm45 said:
Its not so much a slippery slope, but rather the people failing to pronounce the words which the text actually says. That is more a discipline problem than a problem with the current text.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a huge problem. One that was exacerbated in my Parish by a Priest who insisted on saying it this way. He was rather progressive.
 
Philothea53 said:
Yes, that is a huge problem. One that was exacerbated in my Parish by a Priest who insisted on saying it this way. He was rather progressive.
Click to expand...
Philothea53 said:
Because suddenly we no longer say: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the Praise and Glory of His name for our good and the good of all His Church.”

We always said “Him” when speaking of God, whether God the Father or the triune God. We never differentiated.
Click to expand...
I don’t get the problem. Do you think it sounds funny/bad? Do you think God prefers to be referred to in the masculine? Does God have gender?
 
athansor said:
I don’t get the problem. Do you think it sounds funny/bad? Do you think God prefers to be referred to in the masculine? Does God have gender?
Click to expand...
“Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis, ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui, ad utilitatem quoque nostram, totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae.”

The Latin says “HIS Name”, “HIS Holy Church”. And THAT’s how it should be rendered in English!!! :mad:
 
I can understand people wanting the best and most accurate translation of the original language, and I can understand that using gender neutral language sometimes sounds awkward.

What I don’t understand is why all the ire? It may sound a bit strange if a parish priest says God’s Church instead of His Church, or begins a reading with brothers and sisters in Christ, instead of brothers in Christ, but is it wrong in the sense of being blasphemous? Are we missing a big part of God’s message if we don’t think of him as a man, or if we think that the early epistles were meant to address both male and female members of the congregation?
 
Zenas said:
That’s unfortunate and very disappointing.
Click to expand...
Since Canada is closer to the E.C. in its laws, traditional biblical language runs the risk of offending against non-descrimination legislation. Soon, the descendants of Peter and Paul will also be in prison. As in everything else, prayer is called for.

Christ’s peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top