Talk:Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

Merger

I _really_ think this should be merged with the main article on the RSV. I don't see the need for a separate article. iHoshie 05:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This bible is really quite distinct from the RSV. You'll find alot of Catholics to disagree with you Carolynparrishfan 00:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since this "debate" seems to be over, I'm removing the "merge" template. Carolynparrishfan 21:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for clarification

In the article as it is, one does not clearly see the difference between RSV-CE and NRSV-CE. It should also become clearer in the header that RSV-CE is the Catholic bible.--Robin.rueth 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the Catholic Bible is the Neo Vulgata, and the official English-language Catholic Bible is the New American Bible (see the Vatican website for both), despite the constant claims by so-called "traditionalists" of its "rejection".

The notion of the Catholic bible is complex like many things in the Church. Here's my outline:

1. First would be the earliest manuscripts in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, or Greek which the Church acknowledges as authentic.
2. Then would be the authorized translation of then in language of the Roman Rite (Latin). This is the Nova Vulgata. The unsigned commenter above used the Greek modifier "Neo" for a Latin word. This translation has been updated since the time of St. Jerome as new manuscripts are found. The latest revision is discussed on the Vatican web site
3. Then next would come liturgical use translations. These are approved by liturgical committees of bishops, the national conferences of bishops, and finally the Congregation for Divine Worship.
4. Then next would come the translations given an Imprimatur by bishops.
5. Finally would come any translation which includes the deutero-canonical books which complete the Catholic canon. patsw 00:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Catholics did not add books

The wording previously implied that in the RSV-CE Books were added by the Catholics. Things like this fuel a common Protestant misconception that Catholics added books to the Bible to support thier beliefs. While it may be debatable if these books are inspired or not, these books were later subtracted, not added by the Catholics. We are talking about books in the Old Testement that would have been included in the text that Jesus knew and used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.145.193 (talk • contribs)

Strictly speaking, they were added to the Hebrew Bible in some versions of the LXX. They are not, as far as I know, to be found in the Jewish canon; therefore most Protestants reject them as being uninspired. Similarly, doctrines that are primarily or exclusively supported in these works are usually rejected by Protestants. (Note, however, that, as with other issues concerning the Bible, the story is more complex if the matter is examined in greater detail.) 108.246.205.134 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Revisitng the merge issue

Both this article and the corresponding section in Revised Standard Version are a jumbled mess, and frankly I'm a little loathe to propse a merge that I couldn't actually accomplish. But I just don't see how this article can be justified as anything but as section(s) in the main RSV article. It doesn't even appear to be a single thing. Mangoe 11:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why can't they copyleft bibles?

Lawyers for the New Living Translation and Amplified bibles in particular are hounding the web just like the RIAA. Unlike music though, isn't the word of god supposed to be spread freely? Why not a copyleft license such as the GFDL (GNU Free doucmentation license) or the CC-by-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike). The copyleft is very important. It prevents proprietarization of derivitative works (including shell-wrapping if the copyleft is strong like the GNU-GPL)

Every modern translation seems to need lots of permission and even royalties to give away free copies (only digital copies - .txt .pdf .doc - can be manufactured cheaply by individuals). And the ones who are translating for charity rather than money are going public domain. Copyleft is the way to go. Lest you will find another big business modding your translation a bit and selling it with full-restrictions copyright. Copyleft gurantees the entire recipient downline to be able to copy and spread the gospel freely.--GreatInca 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

liturgical use in the us

I believe the NAB in the official lectionary is the only version approved for the US (this is the version on the USCCB web site, for example). Can someone please find an authoritative citation allowing the RSV-CE? Explicitly disallowing the NRSV does not imply the RSV is approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.145.62 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the Website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/bible/liturgy/index.cfm):

"Since May 19, 2002, the revised Lectionary, based on the New American Bible is the only English-language Lectionary that may be used at Mass in the dioceses of the United States, except for the current Lectionary for Masses with Children which remains in use.

The 1970 edition of the New American Bible is used in the Scripture readings and canticles of the Liturgy of the Hours (except the Benedictus, Magnificat, and Nunc dimittis.)"

However, the RSV Catholic Second Edition may become adopted for Ordinariate Use liturgies in the Personal Ordinariates for Catholics formerly from the Anglican Communion. The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham states on its website (http://www.ordinariate.org.uk/liturgy-anglican-use):

"The sole Lectionary authorised for use in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham is the Revised Standard Version, Catholic 2nd Edition."

The websites of the Personal Ordinariates of the Chair of St. Peter (U.S. & Canada) and Our Lady of the Southern Cross (Australia) do not specify. However, given that all three are in the process of adopting common worship texts for Ordinariate Use throughout the world, it seems likely they will adopt, and have approved, the convention in the U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckybucky (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The RSV-CE Today

This section of the wikipedia page:

"However Catholics who wish to remain in communion with the Catholic Church need to understand that the NRSV was revised and became the NRSV-CE due to the formers use of "inclusive language." The NRSV-CE (1989) is an adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV. Although the NRSV was used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the NRSV (non-CE) was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language in some unacceptable places. With this exception, like the predecessor RSV, it is a good formal equivalent translation (i.e. literal, but literary)."

This implies a difference in the translation between the NRSV and the NRSV-CE. The preface to NRSV-CE states that other than inclusion of the deuterocanonical Esther and parts of Daniel, there was no change to the translation (from the 1989 NRSV). The inclusive language remains, this article should no imply that it does not. including quotes from the preface to the NRSV-CE could help that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.17.95 (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hello, I have an RSV-CE and I believe that this article's chart of differences between the Catholic Edition and the original Revised Standard Version comes directly from the RSV-CE appendix and violates copyright laws. I think some of the information may be presented without reproducing the exact chart, but I wanted to mention this here before just deleting that section. LovesMacs (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)