I’m not saying that I can declare that the RSV-CE is contrary to doctrine–I may know that it is–that doesn’t mean that I have the authority to magisterially declare that it is.
Take “In the presence of Christ” for an example. That translation is not “contrary” to the doctrine of priests acting IN PERSONNA CHRISTI.
It is not supportive either.
The fact that it is not “contrary” does not mean that it is accurate–it may be true without necessarily conveying the “Fullness of Truth”.
Which would mean that it could pass muster regarding the Imprimatur or the Nihil Obstat without being more accurate than “In the person of Christ” or containing the Fullness of Truth that the translation “In the person of Christ” would convey.
The devil knows that the best way to tell a lie is to tell only part of the truth!
Part of the truth is not necessarily a lie and is good enough for ecclesiastical approval while still being able to further the devil’s aims.
What do you think a poll of the USCCB would show if each bishop was asked whether “In the presence of Christ” or “In the person of Christ” were the best translation?
I have no doubt that the vast majority of US Catholic bishops would say “In the person of Christ”.
The least common denominator might not be opposed to the truth and bishops would not necessarily be doing wrong in approving such a translation–that does not equate to the translation being more accurate or more doctrinally accurate!
The Vulgate DOES equate to being doctrinally accurate because the Ecumenical Council of Trent guided by the Holy Spirit has TAUGHT us so!
So what am I saying: I’m saying that reading translations such as the RSV-CE which has some level of ecclesiastical approval is not a bad thing if one is knowledgeable of other translations and knows the truth of the Catholic faith and what it has taught.
If those things are not true the uninformed are not served as well by the RSV-CE as they are by translations that do not depart from the Vulgate which does not err in terms of doctrine.
By giving eccleasiastical bodies instead of individual bishops the power of approval means that there has been a stifling of Catholic biblical translations.
I’m sure that was not its intent but practically speaking that has been the effect.
What do you think the chances are of getting approval for a new Catholic bible translation other than the NAB or other translation previously approved nowadays when the USCCB is so intimately wedded to the NAB?
That does not mean that more Catholic translations aren’t needed or that the ones approved so far are an endorsement of accuracy in all particular passages by the USCCB.
Course you won’t hear that from proponents of the translations we now have.
By relegating the Douay Rheims Challoner to the trash bin of archaic language obsolescence and acting as if the Confraternity Version never existed the proponents of the currently approved translations are able to further their agendas of the translations that have been approved.
I don’t buy the proposition that because the liturgy comes from the translations that are currently approved that that means those translations are more accurate than translations that derive from the Vulgate–especially in regards to doctrinal matters.
I in no way say that the USCCB doesn’t have the authority to approve bible translations
I in every way say that any prior “approvals” are not tatamount to accuracy endorsement in all scriptural instances.
To buy that proposition or try to sell that proposition would not be to love the Lord with all my mind.
My mind says that the RSV-CE even with its changes still reflects Protestant bias.
And I believe that as a good Catholic I should let people know of that bias at forums such as these.
Having said all of that there are many great things about the RSV-CE–doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church in the Fullness of Truth is less than that taught by the Vulgate!