New Lectionary

[Nick Baty]

Does anyone happen to know if the new Lectionary will be NRSV?
And will psalm refrains come from that or from the new Grail?
(I think this has been answered on here somewhere but *beep* if I can find it.)

PS Must stress that I did not use any sort of bad language at the "beep" point above – it's this *beep* system!

[presbyter]

A new publication of the Lectionary is in preparation. The selection of readings will remain the same but the text will be drawn from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the Grail Psalter. Both of these translations however have to be considered in the light of Liturgiam Authenticam. There is no date yet for the new publication of the Lectionary.

[Nick Baty]

On the grapevine I had heard:
That psalm refrains will also come from Grail – they don't all at the moment and that the new Lectionary would be roughly three years after the new Missal. Both rumours. Was just wondering!

[quaeritor]

Both of these translations however have to be considered in the light of Liturgiam Authenticam.

Now I know what obfuscation really means. What on earth are we ordinary folks supposed to conclude from that meaningless pseudo-statement? Just tell us what your'e actually saying1

Bah!!

Q

[presbyter]

What on earth are we ordinary folks supposed to conclude from that meaningless pseudo-statement? Just tell us what your'e actually saying1

Will this do for a start Q?

37. If the biblical translation from which the Lectionary is composed exhibits readings that differ from those set forth in the Latin liturgical text, it should be borne in mind that the Nova Vulgata Editio is the point of reference as regards the delineation of the canonical text.[32] Thus, in the translation of the deuterocanonical books and wherever else there may exist varying manuscript traditions, the liturgical translation must be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript tradition that the Nova Vulgata has followed. If a previously prepared translation reflects a choice that departs from that which is found in the Nova Vulgata Editio as regards the underlying textual tradition, the order of verses, or similar factors, the discrepancy needs to be remedied in the preparation of any Lectionary so that conformity with the Latin liturgical text may be maintained. In preparing new translations, it would be helpful, though not obligatory, that the numbering of the verses also follow that of the same text as closely as possible.

38. It is often permissible that a variant reading of a verse be used, on the basis of critical editions and upon the recommendation of experts. However, this is not permissible in the case of a liturgical text where such a choice would affect those elements of the passage that are pertinent to its liturgical context, or whenever the principles found elsewhere in this Instruction would otherwise be neglected. For passages where a critical consensus is lacking, particular attention should be given to the choices reflected in the approved Latin text.[33]

39. The delineation of the biblical pericopai is to conform entirely to the Ordo lectionum Missae or to the other approved and confirmed liturgical texts, as the case may be.

40. With due regard for the requirements of sound exegesis, all care is to be taken to ensure that the words of the biblical passages commonly used in catechesis and in popular devotional prayers be maintained. On the other hand, great caution is to be taken to avoid a wording or style that the Catholic faithful would confuse with the manner of speech of non-Catholic ecclesial communities or of other religions, so that such a factor will not cause them confusion or discomfort.

41. The effort should be made to ensure that the translations be conformed to that understanding of biblical passages which has been handed down by liturgical use and by the tradition of the Fathers of the Church, especially as regards very important texts such as the Psalms and the readings used for the principal celebrations of the liturgical year; in these cases the greatest care is to be taken so that the translation express the traditional Christological, typological and spiritual sense, and manifest the unity and the inter-relatedness of the two Testaments.[34] For this reason:

a) it is advantageous to be guided by the Nova Vulgata wherever there is a need to choose, from among various possibilities [of translation], that one which is most suited for expressing the manner in which a text has traditionally been read and received within the Latin liturgical tradition;

b) for the same purpose, other ancient versions of the Sacred Scriptures should also be consulted, such as the Greek version of the Old Testament commonly known as the “Septuagint”, which has been used by the Christian faithful from the earliest days of the Church;[35]

c) in accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.

Finally, translators are strongly encouraged to pay close attention to the history of interpretation that may be drawn from citations of biblical texts in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, and also from those biblical images more frequently found in Christian art and hymnody.

[quaeritor]

Touche, Presbyter (sorry - can't do the accent) - although maybe you are reinforcing my point . . .

37. If the biblical translation from which the Lectionary is composed exhibits readings that differ from those set forth in the Latin liturgical text,

"exhibits readings? - what does that mean?

it should be borne in mind that the Nova Vulgata Editio is the point of reference as regards the delineation of the canonical text.

" . . the delineation of the canonical text" - who writes this stuff?

If a previously prepared translation reflects a choice that departs from that which is found in the Nova Vulgata Editio as regards the underlying textual tradition, the order of verses, or similar factors,

- do they know what "factor" actually means? - or is it just a suitably pretentious phrase to chuck in to baffle the unlearned?

39. The delineation of the biblical pericopai is to conform entirely to the Ordo lectionum Missae or to the other approved and confirmed liturgical texts, as the case may be.

The "biblical pericopal" eh! - there's just no arguing with that! (Even the spell checker gave in!)

I could go on - at some length! - I'll accept that "Liturgiam Authenticam" may be fairly regarded as a technical text for those who know the arcane meanings they have ascribed to words which we ordinary folk mistakenly believe to mean something else, (that doesn't include "pericopal", by the way) but since it is readily obtainable "off the shelf" by the man in the street (or pew) and frequently referred to as a source with which he should be familiar it would be nice if it was vaguely comprehensible.

Grumpily

Q

[nazard]

This is surely heading towards a problem in getting copyright holders to agree to a mangled version of their text being used?

[festivaltrumpet]

This is surely heading towards a problem in getting copyright holders to agree to a mangled version of their text being used?

Rumours have recently been heard which imply that the problem Nazard describes has been encountered already and the NRSV lectionary project is stalled. The rumours remain unverified.

[Southern Comfort]

Touche, Presbyter (sorry - can't do the accent)

Alt-130 on a PC gives é

[Southern Comfort]

On the grapevine I had heard:
That psalm refrains will also come from Grail – they don't all at the moment and that the new Lectionary would be roughly three years after the new Missal. Both rumours. Was just wondering!

(a) Nick, you are wrong: the present refrains do come from the Grail, when they are taken from the psalm itself or another psalm (the vast majority). When they are not psalmic, they come from the Jerusalem Bible.

(b) Yes, the future refrains will also come from the revised Grail, assuming that this is approved for use. There seems to be some doubt about this, as some bishops apparently feel the revision is not true to the spirit of the original.

(c) We are told that the revised Lectionary could be available at the beginning of the next Year A cycle but one — i.e. Advent 2016. There is tremendous amount of editorial work to do on it.

This is surely heading towards a problem in getting copyright holders to agree to a mangled version of their text being used?

Rumours have recently been heard which imply that the problem Nazard describes has been encountered already and the NRSV lectionary project is stalled. The rumours remain unverified.

Most of the problems are in the psalter, which in fact we would not be using, which makes the hold-up more than somewhat irritating. Why Rome can't just approve NRSV minus the psalter is beyond human comprehension.

The grapevine says that the 314 modifications introduced in the "final" revised Grail by the CDW mostly concern punctuation and the word "righteous". For some reason Rome didn't like this word and substituted "just" throughout. This gave rise, at one point, to "just and just" instead of "righteous and just", though there is no sign of this now in the published text. The word "righteous" still occurs just once in the text [Ps 105(106): 31].

[Nick Baty]

When they are not psalmic, they come from the Jerusalem Bible.

Dear SC, this is roughly what I meant but the scotch was kicking in!

[presbyter]

Yes, the future refrains will also come from the revised Grail, assuming that this is approved for use.

More work for the Permission to Publish Panel then. I wonder how much latitude will be allowed regarding modification/adaptation of texts. Will we be forced to sing "Preserve me, God......" rather than the eminently sensible and flowing "Keep me safe, O God......", for example? "Preserve" has too many meanings in English, in my opinion, for the Psalmist's intention to be immediately obvious to the faithful.

I wonder if we will be allowed to repeat a refrain, where the original is brief, so that repetition will reinforce the meaning of the text? (See example above, if you know the setting.)

(One notes the use of "Keep me safe" in the new translation of the Missal - celebrant's reception of Communion)

[presbyter]

Why Rome can't just approve NRSV minus the psalter is beyond human comprehension.

Is there not a debate going on about inclusive language? Or has this matter been resolved?

[presbyter]

Am I correct in assuming that there is no Roman Catholic dimension within the group of copyright holders of the text of the NRSV?

The New Revised Standard Version, copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

http://www.ncccusa.org/members/

[Nick Baty]

I wonder how much latitude will be allowed regarding modification/adaptation of texts.

Even now, aren't we supposed to use just authorised translations. And yet where would we be without settings like Walker's "Teach me, O God" and Farrell's "My soul is thirsting"? Might we end up in the position of not being able to use these within the Liturgy of the Word but able to use them post-communion? Still, all this conjecturing is making my head hurt.