www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy News Regarding the New Translation of the Divine Liturgy

Sorry, but there are too many items under the rubric of "inclusive language" to make a general statement. Those who do are making a mistake.

I disagree, for example, with some who have asserted here that "brothers and sisters" instead of "brethren" before the Epistle is an "error". (To the best of my knowledge Rome has not condemned such usage.) On the other hand, I certainly hold the opinion that it is a mistake to avoid "man" which has such splendid overtones by having both a generic and an individual meaning. Whether or not this mistake rises to the level of grave "error", I leave to people more learned.

In fairness to Nicholas, it should be noted that the above referenced article was written in 1997; and so, it does not reflect the position of Rome since the time of the publication in 2001 of the instruction "Liturgiam Authenticam."

Dear Father Deacon,

With respect to your position, the fact that the "National Catholic Reporter" is pushing "inclusive" exclusive language, makes me even more uncomfortable with it.

Not my favorite magazine.

Nick

Fair point djs!

But I still maintain that this is a minefield we don't really need to enter at all. Leave that battle to others.

It is wise knowing what battlefields aren't worth entering at all.

Leave the debate about "inclusive" exclusivity to others, and keep our Liturgy free from this terrible controversy and debate. Bringing this divisiveness into our Liturgy and prayer is asking for it!

Nick

That is a fair point, as well.

"In fairness to Nicholas, it should be noted that the above referenced article was written in 1997; and so, it does not reflect the position of Rome since the time of the publication in 2001 of the instruction "Liturgiam Authenticam.""

The article may be from 1997 but the principles cited are still relevant even after Liturgiam Authenticum as the Corrected Revised NAB Lectionary proves. This Lectionary was corrected based on LA's principles yet still containes some inclusive language. Rome does make allowance for some horizontal inclusive language.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I disagree. The article does not take into account the provisions of LA.

A temporary concession towards correction is not uncommon, and hopefully a future revised NAB Lectionary will completely eliminate the horizontal inclusivity. Judging from the current Pontiff's liturgical statements, that may well happen in his pontificate.
FDD

I agree.

Indeed!

Benedict has written very clearly about this (as Cardinal Ratzinger). I hope there is even more guidance about the Liturgy and Liturgical language from him in the near future.

Nick

Fr. Deacon Randolph,

"A temporary concession towards correction is not uncommon, and hopefully a future revised NAB Lectionary will completely eliminate the horizontal inclusivity. Judging from the current Pontiff's liturgical statements, that may well happen in his pontificate."


But the Corrected RNAB Lectionary is not a temporary concession as was Canada's use of an uncorrected NRSV Lectionary. The Corrected RNAB Lectionary was sent back and forth to Rome until a compromise was reached that both the USCCB and Rome could live with. There was nothing temporary about the approbation given this Lectionary. In fact as this version was approved approbation was taken away from using the Jerusalem Bible and RSV-CE Bible Lectionaries, which up to that time had been legal, if not much used alternatives to the NAB Lectionary.

Of course the Pope could revoke approbation to all of the above and mandate a return to the Confraternity Version or the Challoner Revised Douay-Rheims for that matter. However, I doubt very much that is going to happen.

I would note that Ignatius Press just printed the RSV-CE second edition as a two volume Lectionary so perhaps they have advance knowledge that the RSV-CE will be an allowable Lectionary option in the fututre or perhaps they are just helping out the conscientious objectors who refuse to use the old or new NAB Lectionary.

Fr. Deacon Lance

That's not quite accurate. Our local Roman Archdiocese still allows the RSV-CE, as does Lincoln and some other dioceses/archdioceses. I don't think the lack of a specific timeframe of approbation on the NAB is definitive proof that it may not be a transitional concessionary text.

I do think the second edition CE publication from Ignatius is an advance sign of the return of the RSV, or so I hear from our local Latin chancery.
FDD

The issue is certainly a complex one.

Rome gave approval for the Corrected RNAB (aka �RRNAB�) for use in the Lectionary of the Latin Church but it specifically denied approval for the USCCB to print the RRNAB as a full Bible. What that portends for the future is anyone�s guess.

I have read several accounts suggesting that a significant block of bishops are petitioning the Vatican to remove the rule that there be a uniform version of the Holy Scriptures for the Lectionary. If this happens the Lectionary based on the RSV-CE will again become allowed. This seems very likely because 1) the Vatican insisted that the RSV-CE and not the RRNAB (or RNAB or NAB) be used for Scripture quotes in the Catholic Catechism, 2) the RSV-CE is the approved standard for every other English speaking country except Canada (which uses the NRSV) and 3) we have a new pope who has spoken at great length about the need for accuracy in translations. A return to the RSV-CE for the Lectionary would be a step away from the dynamic equivalence experiment and towards accurate translation for the Latin Church. Also, as we have discussed in other threads, there are those who are advocating the preparation of a new Lectionary based on the English Standard Version (ESV). The ESV is an excellent update of RSV. I recently purchased a copy and am using it for my daily Scripture readings (instead of the RSV-CE). I find it extremely attractive.

A good friend of mine who is a Roman Catholic priest constantly complains about the new RRNAB Lectionary. It seems not only did they really screw up the language and flow but they shortened a lot of the readings. In some of the cases of shortening they leave out verses that are needed to provide context. He said it was apparent from the start because he kept the old RSV-CE Lectionary in his study for homily preparation and then used the new RRNAB Lectionary for proclamation at Liturgy. He found the very verses he wanted to preach about missing from the reading. Now he compares both, and if there is a huge difference he uses the reading from the RSV-CE Lectionary. Apparently, a lot of RC priests are doing the same. Last November I did the readings at my Uncle�s funeral (RC). The priest directed me to read from the �paste-in� sheets and not from the book itself. I only noticed that the �paste-in� readings were longer but afterwards he told me that the �paste-in� sheets were from the old book using the RSV-CE.

The Latin Church is clearly moving away from the experiments in both the dynamic equivalence style of transltation and the gender-inclusive style of language. We should learn from their experiences and the wisdom of Liturgiam Authenticam and not introduce those battles into our Church. I pray that our bishops reject the Revised Liturgy and send it back to committee to make sure it is literally accurate to the 1942 Sluzhebnik published by the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

From the folks at EWTN:

Lectionary for the United States. The Lectionary that was in use in the United States for three decades until 2002 took its texts from the New American Bible, the translation approved by the bishops in 1970 to replace the Confraternity Edition of the Douai-Rheims Bible. In the 1980s it was decided to revise this translation, both to restore some traditional phrasing and to include inclusive language. Toward that end a Revised New Testament was completed in 1986 and Revised Psalms in 1991. In 1992 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (then called the National Conference of Catholic Bishops) approved and sent to Rome a new Sunday Lectionary using the Revised NAB New Testament and Psalms.

In 1994 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith informed the Congregation for Divine Worship that the new Lectionary could not be confirmed for use in the liturgy because of inclusive language references to God, the Persons of the Trinity and man, where this term has an anthropological and theological significance. Working with the American Bishops these Roman Congregations produced a Revised NAB Lectionary without the problematic terms. The use of the Sunday and Feast Day edition of this new lectionary began in 1998. The weekday volumes came out in 2002. As of Pentecost 2002, the only approved Lectionary for the United States is this revised NAB Lectionary.

The Inclusive Language Issue. During the process of revising the lectionary some in the Church wanted to use feminine terms for God ("vertical" inclusive language). The US Bishops rejected this, but did agree to the use of "horizontal" inclusive language, that is, to replace masculine nouns and pronouns referring to human individuals generically (man, brother, he, him), or, to the human race collectively (man, mankind), with more inclusive terms. The Holy See, however, rejected most inclusive language, especially where the references had philosophical and theological significance. Examples of such texts are Psalm 1, where "happy the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked" was translated "happy the one," or Psalm 22, where "I am worm and no man" was rendered "I am a worm and no mortal." Such uses of man have deep anthropological significance with respect to Adam (man) and messianic significance referring prophetically to Christ (the New Adam and Son of Man).
What Rome has permitted is some mild inclusive language in cases where a mixed group of individuals (as opposed to an all male group like the apostles) is meant. Language is convention, and where in the past it was convention to say brethren or brothers in speaking to a mixed group the convention today would be ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters or some other inclusive set of words.

There is much in the new Lectionary for which to be thankful. Familiar expressions such as "full of grace" have returned and on the whole the translation appears to be an improvement over the previous one. However, at the present time there is no Bible which exactly corresponds with the Lectionary since it is a line by line revision of the Mass readings from the revised edition of the New American Bible submitted by the Bishops to Rome.

Liturgical Use in United States

There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn. [See note on inclusive language]

Fr. Deacon Randolph,

Some still use the JB and RSV-CE Lectionaries but in defiance of the wishes of the USSCB. I wonder what the power of the local bishop is in this matter according to Latin canons?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Admin,

I don't think the lack of a Corrected RNAB Bible is because of Rome but becasue of the USCCB. They were mad Rome made them change the text for Lectionary and have no desire to follow suit with a Bible.

As for other English speaking counties it is the JB that is the standard Lectionary text for almost all of them including Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and India, which also allows the RSV-CE. Canada used to use the RSV.

Fr. Deacon Lance