NRSV at Mass

I just got my advertisement from the CCCB for the new Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities for Canada. Here’s and excerpt: “The revised Lectionary retains the majesty of the NRSV text…” HA! They’re even using improper English in this new translation to avoid using his/her.

Are you suggesting that the NRSV is inferior somehow to the NAB?

I didn’t think the NRSV had gender neutral pronouns. I’m pretty sure it’s faithful to the original, that way.

I would be happy if they switched the Christmas reading back to "Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father" rather than “God-Hero.”

Just my two cents.

This is a revised translation of the NRSV.

The use of the NRSV, with its inclusive language, is prohibited at Mass but it has taken CCCB 15+ years to comply with Rome’s directive.

An example of the new language is the use of ‘their’ to refer to a singular. So we will have things like ‘a parent will discipline their child’ to avoid the use of his/her.

As for the Christmas reading, you might get your wish. I’ll get back to you when I receive my new Lectionary – which it has been decreed we are all to start using at Pentecost.

I didn’t think anything could be inferior to the NAB. :smiley:

James

Interesting…A “revised” Revised.
In the RSV-Catholic Edition,
Isaiah 9:6 says:

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Why not use the RSV CE. I guess that makes to much sense.

The new translation reads:

“For a child has been born for us,
a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders;
and he is named
Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

I’m assuming that “God-Hero” is in the NAB, because it’s certainly not in the NRSV.

The NEW NRSV Lectionary devised under the approval of the CCCB disgust me.

As I had briefly mentioned in another post it’s too bad Rome wasn’t strict enough to keep the meddling minds of the CCCB from making adaptations. I would have liked to have seen the original revision Rome put into the translation before the CCCB got their pesky hands on it.
Once again Rome failed to exercise her powers.

I don’t think that Rome had a translation. Rome just said “NRSV has inclusive language and inappropriate translation so can’t be used at Mass. CCCB, you need to come up with a new Lectionary.” CCCB opted to ‘fix’ the NRSV rather than use a different translation.

I still haven’t figured out why they felt they had to get rid of the Jerusalem translation that they were using before 1992.

// question…which version is worst? nab or nrsv?

The Jerusalem translation was far better, anybody who has qualms about the “inclusive language” and the NRSV can at least admit to that. Even though the CCCB opted to fix the NRSV they still had to get approval from the Vatican overseeing their corrections.

The CCCB didn’t go far enough in making those corrections, and those responsible at the Vatican were not strict enough in assuring inclusive language was completely obliterated from the scripture text. It would seem that modernism and secularism and pluralism run amuck in the hierarchy or at least in some areas.

Like someone doesn’t know their right-hand from their left.

It’s a sad deal that Canadian Catholics have to remain obediently passive for another 25 years before another New Lectionary finds it way in Canadian Catholic churches.

All this mess defies intellectual rational. Sorry to sound like an old wind bag.

And people wonder why with all the liturgical abuses and the lot why it is many Catholics are seeking alternatives…like giving up the Novus Ordo Mass for the Traditional Latin Mass. In essence it creates disharmony, dissentions, disunity.

Is there an easy fix ? Faith and Hope is all we have.

NRSV by far

I think all lectionaries should use the Douay-Rheims. All this dispute about how good or bad one translation is, it is horrendous. The Douay-Rheims is the word for word translation of the Vulgate and the Vulgate was declared free of moral and doctrinal err. That’s enough to make me want to use the Douay

// wow…lol…thanks for the reply…

// you know what, they should…no joke…these bishops really have some bad taste in translations…

I wish what you state here would come into being. Will this happen ?

Maybe when hell freezes over. OK sure it’s a rhetorical answer but just trying to stress a point.

The Douay is **my fav **English translations by a long shot.:thumbsup:

Out of intrest the Original DR corrected in light of the best available Hebrew and Greek and had they had the manuscripts we have today they would have prefered them to the Latin (1582 Preface). The Bishop Challoner DR (now the most common) drew some of its style (not doctrine stuff!) from the King James.

Why English speaking Catholics have inferior Bible translations for Mass is beyond me. I even have reservations about the RSC-CE but that is another story. Can’t the Bishops get together and organise a decent (subjective I know) translation like they’ve been doing with the re-translation of the Roman Missal including the bits we say at Mass.

The story of a Lectionary based upon the NRSV translation for Canada is long and complicated, and is never so simple as many people make it out to be. The main problem was that the Bishops proceeded too hastily in adopting the NRSV as the source of the new Lectionary. The NRSV came out as a translation in 1989, and the new Canadian Sunday Lectionary based on it came out in 1992, followed by the Weekday Lectionary in 1994. Rome was still conducting an evaluation of the doctrinal integrity of the text. In 1995, Rome determined that there were certain deficiencies in the text and stated that as it was the NRSV could not be used as a liturgical text. Canada did obtain permission to use the text until everything could be corrected. Canada and the Holy See began working together to develop a set of standards that would be used to adapt the text of the NRSV so that it would be suitable for liturgical use. Good progress was made, and then in 2001 Liturgiam Authenticam was published which forced a review of the standards. The standards were completed in 2003. Then the CCCB became the long process of review the texts for the Lectionary and applying the adaptations. There were discussion with Rome throughout the process. Finally in 2008, Rome granted recognitio to the revised Sunday Lectionary. This new text, while based on the NRSV, conforms to the requirements of Liturgiam Authenticam. Australia, and Great Britian have recently undertaken a project to produce a new Lectionary based upon the NRSV, and since Canada has already done much of the work and had the result approved by the Holy See, they will largely be using the Canadian work. Now that the Revised Sunday Lectionary has been approved, work on the Lectionary for Ritual Masses is being done, as Canada does not have one of those. One that is done work on the Weekday Lectionary and a Book of the Gospels will be done.

Great info! Thank-you.

I had read on various sites that an Australian Bishop and the editor of the New Jerusalem Bible (I think it was him) were overseeing a universal English lectionary based on the NRSV. It was canned due to copyright restrictions from the NCCC who own the copyright. So I find it interesting that Canada was able to make changes.

The Universal one, unlike the Candadian one, was to remove much invlusive language so that could be why.

Why not put the Nova Vulgata in English, it’s very, very accurate and poetic. If its a little two literal than they could release that and then a more simplified version for the Lectionary could be done. The Church would own the copyright and so could have it the way they wish without any hinderance, well… :smiley:

Canada had permission from when the Lectionary was produced in 1992. You are correct the project hit a stumbling block when NCCC didn’t grant permission to use the NRSV, so from what I understand, they turned to the Canadian edition.

Here is the link relating to it:
ad2000.com.au/articles/2007/decjan2007p3_2691.html

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.