Many thanks for this!

This is very apropos to a conversation held at the SSG board [ When will there be a new lectionary? ] several months ago, and backs up statements made by myself and others.

This is TREMENDOUS news from the USCCB Secretariat of Divine worship (SEE ABOVE) for the Vatican II Hymnal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNRZU6Td-Cw

Will there ever be the sanity to abandon the disastrous NAB project and adopt the RSV, so that we can recover a sacral register in our scriptural readings and stick with a version that truly resonates with centuries of history? The more we continually tamper with how Scripture sounds, the less anyone can ever remember anything that was read (especially with the 2 and 3 year reading cycles). This, among many other things, was what drove me from the OF to the EF.

The problem that I have with the NAB is its ambiguity in some of the readings. Here is what I wrote some time back:

http://benedictgal-lexorandilexcredendi.blogspot.com/2010/11/after-tackling-roman-missal-should.html

May +Fr. Richard John Neuhaus intercede on our behalf!!

Thank you, Chuck. The one who really opened my eyes to the whole situation was the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. After reading his piece in the Adoremus Bulletin, I decided to do a side-by-side study.

This also begs the question about Liturgiam Authenticam. Didn't LA call for the conformity of all of our liturgical books? Should this not have included the Lectionary?

Liam, Liturgiam Authenticam states that Latin Vulgate should be used for the Lectionary, if I read this section right:

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.

42. While caution is advisable lest the historical context of the biblical passages be obscured, the translator should also bear in mind that the word of God proclaimed in the Liturgy is not simply an historical document. For the biblical text treats not only of the great persons and events of the Old and New Testaments, but also of the mysteries of salvation, and thus refers to the faithful of the present age and to their lives. While always maintaining due regard for the norm of fidelity to the original text, one should strive, whenever there is a choice to be made between different ways of translating a term, to make those choices that will enable the hearer to recognize himself and the dimensions of his own life as vividly as possible in the persons and events found in the text.

43. Modes of speech by which heavenly realities and actions are depicted in human form, or designated by means of limited, concrete terminology as happens quite frequently in biblical language (i.e., anthropomorphisms) often maintain their full force only if translated somewhat literally, as in the case of words in the Nova Vulgata Editio such as ambulare, brachium, digitus, manus, or vultus [Dei], as well as caro, cornu, os, semen, and visitare. Thus it is best that such terms not be explained or interpreted by more abstract or general vernacular expressions. As regards certain terms, such as those translated in the Nova Vulgata as anima and spiritus, the principles mentioned in above nn. 40-41 should be observed. Therefore, one should avoid replacing these terms by a personal pronoun or a more abstract term, except when this is strictly necessary in a given case. It should be borne in mind that a literal translation of terms which may initially sound odd in a vernacular language may for this very reason provoke inquisitiveness in the hearer and provide an occasion for catechesis.

44. In order for a translation to be more easily proclaimed, it is necessary that any expression be avoided which is confusing or ambiguous when heard, such that the hearer would fail to grasp its meaning.

45. Apart from that which is set forth in the Ordo lectionum Missae, the following norms are to be observed in the preparation of a Lectionary of biblical readings in a vernacular language:

a) Passages of Sacred Scripture contained in the Praenotanda of the Ordo lectionum Missae are to conform completely to the translation of the same passages as they occur within the Lectionary.

b) Likewise the titles, expressing the theme of the readings and placed at the head of them, are to retain the wording of the readings themselves, wherever such a correspondence exists in the Ordo lectionum Missae.

c) Finally, the words prescribed by the Ordo lectionum Missae for the beginning of the reading, called the incipits, are to follow as closely as possible the wording of the vernacular biblical version from which the readings are generally taken, refraining from following other translations. As regards those parts of the incipits that are not part of the biblical text itself, these are to be translated exactly from the Latin when preparing Lectionaries, unless the Conference of Bishops shall have sought and obtained the prior consent of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments authorizing a different procedure for introducing the readings.

However, Liam, No. 24 is mostly in general terms:

24. Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin, as regards the texts of ecclesiastical composition, or the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture. 24

Furthermore, in the preparation of these translations for liturgical use, the Nova Vulgata Editio, promulgated by the Apostolic See, is normally to be consulted as an auxiliary tool, in a manner described elsewhere in this Instruction, in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy.

======
What I quoted in my previous post specifically treats the matter of the Lectionary.

Liam, just because there has been no word about the necessity of such, that does not mean that the need does not exist. It does.

In the section pertaining to the Lectionary, LA did not merely call the NV a "reference point".

With all due respect, Liam, I do not think that I am overinterpreting it anymore. There are some who might "underinterpret" LA.

Did somebody say that the NV should be translated into the vernacular? I must have missed that.

Liturgiam authenticam doesn't call for it.

I listen to the NAB readings at mass. Then I go home, get out RSV 2nd edition and the Orthodox Study Bible based on the Septuagint, to compare with the NAB readings. If I want to check even more, I have the good old Douay. I have never been that impressed with the NAB. Its chief purpose seems to be generating income for the USCCB.

Perhaps this should be the topic of another thread, but what exactly is it that the USCCB (or any other national bishops' conference) actually does? Reading some of the transcripts, particularly when they were debating the (Thanks be to God) Now-current Translation of the Missal, it seemed like the whole thing was a bad parody of Yes, (Prime) Minister.

I guess what I was getting at, and please forgive my rambling, I have had to compose these comments in between hospital visits and breaks at work (I have been up since about 4:30AM), was that I was reading Liam's posts as regarding the NV as not that essential to the translation of the Lectionary.

What I was trying to say, now that I hope to have my bearings straight, somewhat, is that the NV is the point of reference in translating the Lectionary. If we are already using the NV, if I read LA correctly, as the reference point in translating the antiphons, should we not also use the NV when working on a new Lectionary?

My point is that the language used in the NAB, and even, to a certain extent, the (new) Jersusalem Bible used in the UK Lectionary, don't seem to jibe with the more formal one now used in the revised Roman Missal. It is my understanding that the the England-Wales Conference will be working on a revised Lectionary that is drawn from the NRSV.

I think that the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, whom I quoted in my length blog piece, certainly makes more sense than I do at the moment.

The USCCB is rather dependent on revenue from using the NAB.

Yes, I've also heard this.