Sat 25th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Holy See approves Bible for ordinariate liturgy

By on Wednesday, 7 March 2012

The Holy See has approved an edition of the Bible in close keeping with the Anglican tradition for use in the ordinariate’s liturgy.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has published a decree permitting the Revised Standard Version (Second Catholic Edition) of the Holy Bible in ordinariate liturgy, enabling members to use a biblical translation which is more familiar to them.

This Revised Standard Edition of the Holy Bible is closer to the King James Bible rather than the Jerusalem Bible which is a traditionally Catholic translation.

The Holy See has also approved and confirmed the Proper Liturgical Calendar of the Personal Ordinariate, which retains certain celebrations in the Church year that are significant to those from the Anglican tradition. The calendar, while closely reflecting the General Roman Calendar used across the Catholic Church in England and Wales, also makes use of older titles such as “Sundays after Trinity”.

These developments represent the first of the liturgical resources to be approved by the Holy See for former Anglicans who have entered the full communion of the Catholic Church.

Mgr Keith Newton, the Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham, said: “This is very welcome. For the ordinariate to make a distinctive contribution to Catholic life and witness in England and Wales, these liturgical resources are essential. They show – as Pope Benedict has recently said – how traditions (small t) can thrive within the wider Tradition (capital T) of the Catholic Church.”

  • Maccabeus

    The Revised Standard Version is also the version used by the Vatican, in the Catechism of the Church, and in all encyclicals etc. In this sense the Ordinariate will, in biblical terms, be closer to the Vatican than the English catholic church.

  • W Oddie

    With respect, the Jerusalem bible is NOT a “a traditionally Catholic translation”: it is a traditionally ghastly translation: wooden, devoid of grace or beauty and also not exactly accurate, being a translation not from Hebrew and Greek but from the French version of the Jerusalem Bible: In its consistent banality it perfectly suited the now (thank heavens) superseded mistranslation of the Novus Ordo. It is the one thing that really lets down the new missal: it is a real shame that we too didn’t opt for the RSV when the new mass was introduced.

  • Lee

    Why can we not just use either Douay-Rheims or as Latin Rite Catholics, get a Latin translation with English alongside and embrace our vernacular but also, the liturgical language of our rite and language that is more than enough to contain the sacred mysteries without making them defective ???

  • Paul Halsall

    The Jerusalem Bible is much better than the New American Bible used in RC Churches in the US.

    For reading aloud in modern English, I think the much-maligned New English Bible (1970) is excellent.  Monsignor Knox version had its moments also.  The Douay-Rheims-Challoner version, although in some respects superior to the Authorised Version, would now be considered to be based on very inferior manuscript sources to current translations.For study, the New Revised Standard Version is excellent.

  • Robert Williams

    Please note that feast days of persons who died Anglican are NOT included.

  • Church Papist

    Excellent decision. Is there any prospect that the use of the RSV might be extended to the wider English-speaking Catholic Church. The Jerusalem Bible, which was never intended for public proclamation, sits uneasily with the richer and more faithful language of the new Mass translation. No-one with any sensitivity to language and meaning can sit comfortably while the Beatitudes are rendered “Happy are the…”

    I would also appeal for the “reform of the reform” of the Calendar. Remember, it was put in place by the  Consilium which, it its passion for “tidying up” the inheritance of centuries of Christian liturgical practice, gave serious consideration to abolishing Ash Wednesday! The concept of Ordinary Time was a novelty and renders featureless large swathes of the liturgical year. 

  • Paul Halsall

    Btw, although it uses the same notes and assumptions as the French Bible de Jerusalem, the English version was translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.

    The worst thing about it is the use of the name of God as “Yahweh”.

  • Paul Halsall

    Lots of people do not like the RSV because it *deliberately* refused to translate the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. So for example, the reference to “born of a virgin (almah)” in Isaiah is not translated with reference to the NT interepretation.

    Thus we here have a case where conservative Catholics on the CH are applauding a version which was rejected by conservative Christians in the US.

  • Paul Halsall

    No “Charles King and Martyr” then?

  • Nat_ons

    Sad, of course, but true. Thank God for the awesome Benedict XVI and the final truth in all orthodox Catholic ecumenism: the type now unfolding in the truly blessed Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. Unity in diversity in deed not theory.

  • Nat_ons

    What an indictment of the New American Bible. At least the Jerusalem versions were useful scholarly tools, in free-wheeling, free-thinking, free-style translation; the NAB reads rather more like ‘Dick and Dora’ or the Green and Blue infant ‘First Reader Books’. Useful, no doubt, especially in areas where English is a second or third language and reading/ literacy limited to the TV Guide, etc, yet intended only as first steps in learning not the confidence of faith as steps up to the altar in Sacred Liturgy: Introibo Ad Altare Dei .. et al.