That "Canadian" lectionary again.

For quite a few years now, bishops have sought to impose on the English-speaking Church of North America lectionaries based on recently created versions of the Bible that are not faithful to the word of God as such was written by its original inspired authors. One of these versions, known as the new revised standard version (nrsv) (such a traitorously unfaithful version is not entitled to the dignity of an acronym in upper case letters), is the one at present being inflicted on the faithful in Canada. The version is actually not a translation at all, as it is simply a rewriting or rather paraphrasing of the perfectly orthodox Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV). The paraphrasing seeks to promote concepts which are hardly Catholic, being inconsistent with the faith that has been handed down to us by Holy Mother Church.

In the summer of 1995, in an effort to prevail on the bishops to see sense in this matter, the Holy Father arranged for the publication of Norms for the Translation of Biblical Texts for Use in the Liturgy. Out of discreet respect for the feelings of the misguided bishops, it was decided that the content of these norms be kept secret for a while at least. They consist of rules which are based on such straightforward commonsense that it was not publicized that it had become necessary to explain them to bishops, who after all are supposed to have had sufficient training in these matters. At last in the summer of 1997 the content of the norms was released to the general body of the faithful. (See C.I., Sept. '97, p. 6).

The mind boggled on learning that the poor overworked Holy Father had felt obliged to remind bishops in the first norm that "The Church must always seek to convey accurately the texts she has inherited from the biblical, liturgical, and patristic tradition and instruct the faithful in their proper meaning." No wonder the bishops had sought to keep the contents of the obviously imperative norms secret as long as possible. Their eventually being made public must have occasioned them much embarrassment.

The rest of the norms are just as obviously necessary. The second reads in part, "The first principle with respect to biblical texts is that of fidelity, maximum possible fidelity to the word of the text. . . . . every concept in the original text should be translated in its context."

Some other sections of the norms read as follows:

"The natural gender of personae (persons) in the Bible, including the human author of various texts where evident, must not be changed (that is, concealed or made neuter) insofar as this is possible in the receptor language;"

"There shall be no systematic substitution (that is, changing) of the masculine pronoun or possessive adjective to refer to God in correspondence to the original text;"

"Thus, the word man in English should as a rule translate `adam and anthropos (Hebrew and Greek words for man) since there is no one synonym which effectively conveys the play between the individual, the collectivity and the unity of the human family so important, for example, to expression of Christian doctrine and anthropology."

As will be evident to the careful reader or listener, all these norms are being violated, but it is particularly the last mentioned one which so flagrantly has been abused by the composers of the nrsv. These abuses have caused much pain to the laity and surely much concern to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not to mention the Holy Father. The readings that grate on our ears each time we go to Mass, of themselves make it painfully clear that they cry out for removal.

Recent history

We have been assured that some time in the (indefinite) future our bishops intend to conform themselves to the will of Pope John Paul the Great in the matter of a lectionary, but only when the Pope's will has been confirmed by some anonymous committee. This tepid assurance of possible eventual obedience makes one wonder why that estimable virtue has not been practised these past five years. Obedience is not too difficult, after all, especially for those who have vowed themselves to follow that evangelical counsel. The history of the Canadian lectionary since 1992 does not truly inspire sanguine hopes that obedience will be anything but further postponed and if ever realized, grudging at best. The sad story, as best one can determine, is pretty much as follows.

The Canadian lectionary, based on the nrsv, was approved admittedly in 1992, but only by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). Now that body had not, and still does not have, the authority to do so under canon law, without, as Canon 838(3) requires, the prior review of the Holy See, which in this case was not sought. Thus approval by the proper authority never took place. A six-year-old boy may attempt to give his five-year-old brother permission to swim from a beach forbidden by their parents, but such permission has no effect. It is wholly invalid, as was the CCCB approval of the lectionary.

Admittedly, the nrsv translation of the Bible was approved, as Bible, at one time by the overworked Congregation for Divine Worship, who mistakenly were placing too much trust in the American bishops who had sent it to Rome for approval. However, when the Catechism of the Catholic Church was being translated into English, the horrors of the nrsv were at last made evident to the Holy Father's officials at the Roman Curia. Accordingly, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith intervened to rule that the nrsv Bible was never to be used in either catechetics or liturgy. Apparently one is allowed to read it in private, but only with great caution. That was more than three years ago, in the fall of 1994.

The ruling in effect banned further use of the Canadian nrsv lectionary. Instead of humbly and obediently acceding to that clearly expressed wish of the Holy Father, the CCCB decided it had a right of appeal. To whom one can appeal a ruling of Christ's Vicar on earth is not really clear, unless it be to our Blessed Lord Himself.

Faced with this intransigence, what could our long suffering Holy Father do but grant a temporary permission for the continued use of the condemned lectionary; given too that the missalettes for 1995 had already been printed. He was of course expecting obedience in 1996. But no, that was not forthcoming in 1996, nor in 1997, nor even in 1998. It is a fair bet that condemned nrsv missalettes for 1999 are being prepared for the printer already.

In the meantime, the American bishops had properly requested permission for their similarly faulty lectionary based on the revised New American Bible. When that was naturally not forthcoming, they continued in holy obedience and did not attempt to use that lectionary. Some American pastors to their eternal shame then started using the Canadian nrsv lectionary. As indicated above, in the summer of 1995, Rome issued norms for the translation of the Bible. In June of 1997, the American bishops, in meeting assembled, at last agreed to conform to those norms, but only after much bickering amongst themselves. The Canadian bishops have yet to do so, for reasons only they know.

For all of five years now, the poor laity in this country have been forced at Mass to listen, in disobedience to the Holy Father, to a translation that he has banned and condemned. To insist, as some do, that Canadians may continue to use the condemned lectionary is to gloss over the fact that only temporary permission was obtained from the Holy Father all of four years ago, and by duress at that, quite contrary to his clearly expressed wish. In some Canadian parishes at least, pastors concerned for the faith of their flocks are using readings from approved translations such as Knox, Jerusalem, Douay-Rheims, and RSV--and may God bless them for such holy obedience. Throughout the same five years the American laity have been read to from approved lectionaries. It would seem that in this aggrieved country we shall have readings from a condemned lectionary for years into the future. It is not meet, nor fair, nor just, nor reasonable for us to be so scourged by this abuse of authority.

Is it really too much to ask that our bishops submit to the clearly expressed wishes of the Holy Father? They have resisted these wishes in the matter of a lectionary by resorting to one delaying tactic after another. It does not take over two years for obedient bishops to apply simple norms of translation. Disobedient bishops take that much time and even longer.

Condemnation is merited

The Americans have all along obeyed, albeit grudgingly one must admit. Let one not imagine that the Canadian lectionary does not merit the condemnation it has properly received from Rome. For instance, another of the above-mentioned norms reads, "where the New Testament or the Church's tradition have interpreted certain texts of the Old Testament in a Christological fashion, special care should be observed in the translation of these texts so that a Christological meaning is not precluded."

The nrsv makes not the slightest effort to follow this norm. In fact it gives every indication of having striven to do the very opposite. A case in point is what the laity had read to them in English-speaking churches in Canada on the Feast of Saints Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael on September 28, 1997. The words were sacrilegious to say the least. One was forced against one's will, and that of the Holy Father too, to listen to the words of the Prophet Daniel quasi Filius hominis (one like a Son of man) translated as "one like a human being." The nrsv claims that these words are a translation when in truth they are nothing of the sort. What Saint Jerome was translating, when composing our Vulgate around the year 400, was the Aramaic bar nasha which is like the Hebrew ben adam and which translates literally as "Son of Man." In this context the expression "Son of Man" signifies a man who is mysteriously more than human. The Jerusalem, RSV, and New American version all read "one like a son of man." In Knox we have "that was yet a son of man" and in Douay one finds "as it were the son of man." These are all faithful translations of the Vulgate version as it was approved by the Council of Trent. Sound biblical scholarship has always recognized the Messiah as the one designated by Daniel when using the title "Son of Man," and very properly too, as that is precisely what Our Blessed Lord called himself.

The application of the evocative and yet intelligible phrase "one like a son of man" to Christ Our Lord is obscured in the lame and ideologically motivated attempt at translation--"one like a human being." One hopes that in a hundred years, when the history of our age comes to be written, this whole episode will rate only a cautionary footnote detailing the cloying eagerness of supposedly serious and educated men to please and flatter the vain spirits of the age. It would be entirely laughable, did it not verge on blasphemy and sacrilege. The "Son of Man" is Christ Our Lord; this is one of His titles, communicating to us one aspect of the infinite riches of His being. The Old Testament foreshadows this Christ, sometimes obscurely, sometimes more plainly; the New Testament reveals that the Lord of Glory, Son of God and truly God, became man, the Son of Man, and lived among us for our salvation. These are precious documents and we tamper with their words and phrases at the risk of losing contact with the holy realities they signify. No wonder the Holy Father banned the use of the Canadian lectionary in 1994.

To be concerned in a matter of grave disrespect to Our Divine Redeemer is hardly to make a mountain out of a molehill, as some dare to suggest. Our Holy Father does not consider the thing a molehill, as is obvious from his continuing efforts to protect the Canadian faithful from the machinations of the hierarchy who seek to continue imposing on us the evils of the nrsv lectionary.

Saint Jerome, holy translator of the Vulgate, pray for us. We stand in such dire need of any prayers you may deign to offer Divine Providence on our behalf.

Joseph Pope holds an honorary doctorate from the University of St. Michael's College, awarded to him because of the noteworthy collection of medieval manuscripts which he assembled and donated to the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. He has a keen interest in the present state of the Church, especially its liturgy; a previous article of his on the medieval origins of the Roman lectionary was published in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review.