On the 22nd of March 2012, The
Southern Cross published, as its “Letter Of The Week”, no less, a letter from
two lecturers of St Augustine College in South Africa. The letter was titled,
though I am not sure if the writers or the editor chose this title, “Are We Using The Right Bible?”
The above letter criticises the decision to
use the RSV and not the NRSV translation of the Bible in the new lectionary in South
Africa. They proceed to give all kinds of reasons and make all kinds of
statements about why the NRSV trumps the RSV. All of which are, to say the
very least, complete and utter nonsense. I would have hoped that, as lecturers
of this theological college, they would be better informed.
As if they haven’t done enough, they then
proceed to end their letter with this statement; “The decision to go with the RSV, rather than the NRSV, can only further
the suspicion that behind the entire exercise of the new missal (including the
rejection of the 1998 ICEL translation) was the attempt to ensure that
inclusive language is kept far away from the Catholic Church, and that women
are never directly addressed by the word of God.” Again, what complete and
utter nonsense! I wonder if these two writers also believe the Vatican is
complicit with the US government in keeping secret the existence of UFO’s?
When one considers the above statement by
these two, one can begin to understand why the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
felt the need to authorise a document that reminds theologians that they must
submit to the truth proclaimed by the Magisterium! (See more here)
Cardinal Napier has now written a letter in
response to the above letter, which has been published in this week’s copy of
The Southern Cross. (11 Aril 2012) Cardinal Napier’s letter, sadly, has not
received the same pride of place as the above-mentioned letter and was relegated to the ‘ordinary’ letters that do not deserve being classified
as “Letter Of The Week” by the editor.
I really would think that if one of our
bishops writes to The Southern Cross, especially in response to this nonsense from
these learned people of St Augustine’s College, that it would receive pride of
place as the “Letter Of the Week” in our Catholic newspaper. Oh well, what do I
know?
The editor of the Southern Cross has asked me to remove the Cardinal's letter as I am apparently infringing on the copyrights of The Southern Cross by displaying it. This was not my intention and I apologize for doing so. I will however strongly advise that you read the Cardinal's letter. You will it under letters to the editor in the April 11, 2012 issue of the newspaper.
Concerning the RSV versus NRSV letter by Fr Szypula and Sr
Coyle (March 21), a visit to websites on this topic will lead one to question
those who are questioning the decision of the Holy See to opt for the 1971
edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible rather than the earlier
1952 edition or the New Revised Standard Version. An interesting observation by
one of the researchers is that at least one of the translators working on the
New Revised Standard Version expressed surprise at finding “inclusive language”
in the NRSV text where it had not been there when the text last passed through
the hands of the translators. Is that translator implying that the text was
“doctored” or “emasculated” post factum? Two serious talking points on one of
the websites focused on: (i) the NRSV text of Isaiah which states that “the
young woman is with child”, as if something has already happened; as compared
with the RSV text which talks about something still to happen: “the virgin will
conceive and bear a son.” (ii) the NRSV text of John 7:39 which states: “For as
yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” By contrast the
RSV reads: “For as yet the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not
yet glorified.” The latter has grave consequences for the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity! So, while the NRSV maybe more accurate, is it better liturgy and for
theology? If you are interested google “RSV versus NRSV”. At least a dozen
sites will come up — all most informative!
Cardinal Wilfrid Napier
OFM,
Archbishop of Durban
Letter from: The Southern Cross; Letters to Editor; April 11, 2012
Letter from: The Southern Cross; Letters to Editor; April 11, 2012
Well what can we say about the Southern Cross? It always seems to be trumping with the wrong cards! Jokers wild and shooting itself in the foot when it loses the game!
ReplyDeleteI have always wondered why they have still not been kicked into touch! Is it because somebody wishes to undermine the Catholic Faith and the Faithful?
OK! You have been asked to remove the Cardinal's letter i.e hide the truth away!
ReplyDeleteNow, certainly, it is not infringing upon the copyright, when one relates what the Cardinal expressed.
He said that the reason for the Church promoting the RSV version as opposed to the NRSV version is that the NRSV version (promoted by the Southern Cross) ACTUALLY promotes a scriptrure interpretation which contrary to Church doctrine, which is not in the spirit of the Liturgy.
Does the Southern Cross not want your readers to know that it is promoting dissent by fostering the the NRSV version?
By asking you to withdraw the Cardinal's letter, I would say, that the Southern Cross has fired the second shot in its own foot!