King James Version and the Ordinariate
June 20, 2012 29 Comments
The Ordinariate (the body existing within the Catholic Church which retains elements of Anglican liturgical uses and generally serves as an attempt to bring Anglican traditions into full Communion with the Church) is introducing its Customary (a sort of truncated Book of Common Prayer) shortly (see news item 1 June here).
Excellent -and mine’s already on order! But I do worry about the apparent use of the Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible in the Customary rather than the King James Version. At least, I take it from the following (link as above) that the daily readings of scripture will be from the RSV rather than the KJV:
Thus, whenever the Customary quotes extensively from the Bible, it is the RSV that it uses.
Certainly, it is the RSV rather than the KJV that is authorized for use by the Vatican:
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has published a Decree permitting the use of the Revised Standard Version(Second Catholic Edition) for liturgical use in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.
This edition of the Holy Bible allows those Catholics originally from the Anglican tradition, to worship using a version of scripture which is familiar to them. It also promotes the English Bible tradition and recent efforts to renew Catholic liturgy with more accurate translations.
Now, in many ways, I can quite understand this decision. Anyone attending Anglican services such as Evensong will recognize that whilst the liturgy may be in the Tudor English of the Book of Common Prayer, the Bible readings are usually from the RSV. So inasmuch as the Ordinariate exists to Catholicize present day Anglicanism, it makes sense to reproduce this pattern. Moreover, there is no doubt that the RSV is a more accurate translation than the KJV. So, on grounds of accuracy and current use, going for the RSV seems to make sense. But…
One of the things that fascinates me about the Ordinariate is its historical and cultural importance. There is something quite striking about the fact that there now exists within the Roman Catholic Church a body that has emerged from the Reformation and now returned. And given the way that the English Reformation created that cultural juggernaut that is the English language and English literature, the embracing of the sources of that juggernaut in the Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would be of huge symbolic importance.
Quite apart from the symbolism involved, there is something utterly seductive in the language of the KJV. I feel it which is why, normally, I use the Daily Office from the Book of Hours website which uses the Office from the Book of Divine Worship (an existing Catholic version of the Book of Common Prayer) with readings from the KJV. Others feel it including Richard Dawkins. This sense of the beauty of language and of the importance of that beauty in liturgy is surely very much in line with Benedict’s understanding of the Church. I certainly wouldn’t argue that the KJV should be the only version available for use in the Ordinariate, but to miss the chance to bring it into the Catholic fold and, in essence, to rebaptize it as fully part of our Catholic heritage strikes me as a lost opportunity.
I’m not involved in any way with the thinking behind the scenes in the Ordinariate, so I don’t know to what extent any thought has been given to the place of the KJV in its life. Reading the article by Monsignor Burnham in June’s Portal (the magazine of the Ordinariate), I suspect that there has been some discussion which explains the (to my mind, rather defensive) following:
Why the RSV and not the King James Bible? The answer lies in the subtle development of the English Bible tradition. For accuracy’s sake, twentieth century students began to rely on the Revised Version of 1881-1894. Meanwhile the Revised Standard Version of 1946-1957 was becoming established and, in 1966, was accepted by Catholics and Protestants as a ‘Common Bible’. It was the first truly ecumenical Bible and brought together the two traditions – the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible and the Protestant Authorised Version. Thus, whenever the Customary quotes extensively from the Bible, it is the RSV that it uses. The Catholic Church in the 1970s in Britain opted (mistakenly as it now seems) for the ‘dynamic equivalent’ Jerusalem Bible translation. That version greatly helped public understanding of the Scriptures, but, like the Mass translation of the same period, was based on a theory of translation that is of great value in paraphrasing and communicating the meaning of, for example, modern literature written in other languages, but no longer thought appropriate for representing sacred texts written in ancient languages.
Although this does explain why not the Jerusalem Bible (and I quite agree with this decision), it doesn’t really explain why not the KJV. Reading the Anglo-Catholic website on this issue of language, there’s clearly a desire among other former Anglicans for a Catholic reception of the KJV.
So, come on! Let’s grab back the King James Bible and get King Jamie burling in his grave…
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Here here! Especially since God Himself wrote certain lines in the original KJV. Psalm 23, John 3:16-17, and Luke 2.
Well, maybe I just particularly like those because they happen to be the ones I memorized as a child…
Indeed the AV or the King James Bible is never going to be fully “rebaptized” for the Roman Catholic Church! The RSV is going to be as close as one will get! And with this the 35o years of the BCP itself, written and done by the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, himself Protestant and Martyr at the hands of “Rome”, we simply must continue in remembrance & reflection!
And indeed, “a sort of truncated Book of Common Prayer”? Ugh!
Thank God for the Anglican Prayer Book Society!
And of course its 39 Articles – now that’s a wonderful piece of ecumenism isn’t it. The Church of England in its official messages does not use such intemperate language. I guess what I am saying that you have to pick and choose what to use from the BCP.
Can’t you put a sock in it? I wonder how many aka’s yuo have.
Troll!
@Joseph: Ya just might want to do some research on the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, before you start shoot’in from the hip! Simply the Thirty-Nine Articles were drawn up in 1563, in relation to the then Anglican doctrine in relation to the controversies of the English Reformation. And anyone who reads the Articles can see the relation of Calvinist doctrine, in regard to the Roman Catholic doctrines, at least somewhat. It is really an English Reformation document (but note as I have said in the past here, the Irish Articles 1615 also). Btw, this is “my” ground mate!
*Note before there were the ‘Ten Articles in 1536′, which were closer to the political alliance with the German Lutheran princes. Then of course during the reign of Edward VI in 1552, the Forty-Two Articles were written with the Archbishop Cranmer. And here we see the real rise of the Calvinist thought in the English Church. But of course it wasn’t till Elizabeth I, and the re-establishment of the separate CoE the Thirty-Nine Articles were made a “Convocation” of the Church in 1563. Later the Articles were finalized in 1571, and the lasting BCP. Just a bit of history! And note again, this is “our” 35o years of the BCP!
So, yes, there is some “intemperate” or absolute biblical-theological language somewhat in the Anglican Articles! Want to hear some?
What do you mean. It’s obviously got under your skin so one can only assume that it’s a fairly accurate statement. If you disagree why don’t you debate it rather than inflame the situation by inane comments. PS no other AKAs (NB no apostrophe needed!)
I thought WE were having some dialogue? Joseph and I. Though of course we disagree, mostly!
But still some form of dialogue.
Fr Robert
Its not you but Fr Chadwick I was having a go at! Obviously posted in the wrong place. But the 39 Articles are a difficult thing for the CoE in the 21st century and all I was saying that to accept the BCP in its entirety is just not an ecumenical nicety
@Joseph: No that was fine, I was somewhat speaking tongue-in-cheek. Not sure why Fr. Chadwick is so touchy? But the battles Anglican do get wary, sometimes. And I would agree somewhat about the BCP, but we cannot remove the offensive of the Cross and too the offensive of Christ Himself, if we are going to be true to God in Christ! The true Gospel must always be an offensive to sin and self.
I think it’s a pity that one of our best bits of patrimony is just being cut off at the start. Fact is, few churches would even use it (few do now), but simply not to allow it at all effectively discards it. The Jerusalem Bible did NOT make the Scriptures more easily understood by ANYONE, and moreover can lay claim to neither beauty nor accuracy. Further, the KJV is a translation of the Textus Receptus. Now, my understanding is that so is the Vulgate. This clinical ‘accuracy’ isn’t required by the official RC Bible. Oh, and my understanding is that the 30 Articles aren’t part of the BCP, even though they find themselves published at the back of it.
Of course the Vulgate is a Latin Text. And the Textus Receptus (Latin for “received text”), was is/a Greek Text.
With the BCP, real adherence to the Articles was made a legal requirement by the English Parliament in 1571. (Again under Queen Elizabeth I, whose reign the Thirty-Nine Articles were passed.) And still today for Anglican clergy in the CoE are still required to state that the Articles are “agreeable to the Word of God”. This is at ordination, but technically with many it has been somewhat relaxed. However, we still should see and understand the great impact of the Articles on Anglican thought, doctrine and practice, in Anglican history. And The Prayer book (BCP) included the Thirty-Nine Articles since 1662 to now, 350 years! However, we should see too that the doctrine of Anglicanism is one of “Reformed Catholicism”, i.e. here is where we get the idea of a “via media” (middle path), a church that is both “catholic” and “reformed”.
Sadly, here is a type of general loosening of the Articles, and from an Anglican and dated in 1924. So the movement away from the Thirty-Nine Articles has been quite alive and long, especially with the Tractarians. No wonder the Anglican Communion has lost its way! Speaking at least for myself, I see the Thirty-Nine Articles as closely biblical and creedal. Btw, note the Lambeth Quadrilateral, which uses Articles VI, VIII, XXV, and XXXVI in its broad fundamental Anglican identity.
“We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, ‘without which there is no salvation;’ nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us. Some of them are the very same as contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within proper lists of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths which are proposed by the Church of England as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed.” (London: Mowbray, 1924, etc.)
Yes, but I understand that the Vulgate is based on the Textus Receptus (as opposed to the Septuagint).
I don’t believe the Vulgate follows the Greek Text “itself” of the TR at all!
To Fr. Robert June 20, 2012 at 21:35
I’m not touchy about anything. I just enjoy a little troll-baiting from time to time. Anyway, I have other things to do.
I get ya, I too ran into a “troll” yesterday, a charismatic one (female), who called me all kinds of bad names, because I was an Anglican, and as she stated ‘wore an evil collar’!
I mean, save the fact that you turned your back on Roman Catholicism and are considered an apostate.
No one chooses their parents, and there is no universal law telling us we are entitled to the good, the best, and the ideal ones on Earth. God gave you parents, honor them; God gave you a Church, honor it.
Also: Do you really think that you’re not going to encounter unpleasant things like being called a bad name? Jesus was humiliated, and His death was bloody, all for you. All I can say is that we ought to follow Jesus Christ and suffer the same indignities and pain, to the DEATH, while following what He preached and offer our sufferings to Him. I myself am ignorant, proud and impatient, which is why we need God. He knows I cannot rid my ignorance, pride, and impatience by my own efforts.
@Ioannes:
First, I don’t quite know who’s got your “spirit” today or tonight? But, you need to stow it mate! And both of my parents are before the Lord! And I do honor my Church and conscience in God’s truth & revelation! Btw, have you ever honored your elders? You might try it sometime! And I just bet I am older than you are!
Now, as to “apostate”, you better tread lightly here, it seems many so-called “Catholics” like you want to play God here, and guess what, you are not deity!
Btw Ioannes, you sort of stepped into it badly tonight! I hope ya learned something?
Btw, were you ever in the military? I just bet not!
I grew up in those distant times when one heard first the readings in the Vulgate and then maybe a crib would be provided from the Douai-Rheims Bible or Monsignor Ronald Knox’s translation.
But once one accepts that the profanum vulgus will not understand the Vulgate, then the issue becomes what kind of English will they understand. I fear that for all the KJV’s beauty as literature, the vulgus have need of something more easily comprehensible. The RSV-CE may be the best of what is on offer, but how long will it be before it too with be only comprehensible with difficulty by much of the younger generaltion.
I was looking at a study the other day which reported that the active vocabulary of the average London reader of the best selling “Red Top” national newspaper was only 2,000 words, the most used of which was a present particple beginning with the letter “f” used adjectivally. Such a limited vocabulary is to be contrasted with the Oxford University Press conclusion that an active vocabularly of circa 7,000 words is necessary to achieve 90% comprehension of ordinary English speech.
There are Bibles in many languages and the West Indies Bible Society has recently produced a Jamaican patois rendering in which the Annunciation story starts thus:-
“De angel go to Mary and say to ‘er, me have news we going to make you well ‘appy. God really, really, bless you and him a walk with you all de time.”
How long might it be before readings in the Queen’s English in our inner cities will perforce have to be followed by a version in the patois of our streets?
Indeed Mourad, one of our greatest enemies in this now culture of postmodernity, is “ignorance”! The dumbing down of our youth in the West is quite amazing! Sure they are somewhat “tech” savy, but their word knowledge and vocabulary, not to mention their lack of history is again, just amazing! And their not really “dumb”, just ignorant! I grew-up reading, we read “Books” in my day! I got as a gift, (my 7th or 8th birthday?) a huge English Dictionary, with over 3,350 pages, with even some color plates. I still have it, and it is now worth almost 200 pounds! Dustjacket and mylar cover. Its still mint, and I use it, still!
And along ignorance, is the egalitarian notion that “All religions are the same.” And further that “Everyone is the same” but then the same people would claim later that “Everyone is different.” We live in confusing times, because the spirit of the times says that everything is a dull, muddy gray, and everyone is “right” in their own ways. How are we going to get anything done, if everyone “does their own thing” especially in the Church? The logical step towards this postmodern, diabolical heresy is the extension of the Magisterium to the individual human being, and finally to the confession that “one does not need God to be good.” and all other sorts of vile blasphemies. I’ve had this debate, but more accurately called a quarrel, with an atheist. Let me say, Fr. Robert, that I’d rather have a prolonged argument with you than with an atheist- at least I am rest assured that we speak the same God-believing language. On the atheist side, they are so incoherent that even people like Richard Dawkins contrive something like “Christian Atheism” which is another word for disingenuity. Of course, if any Christian would call that a tenable position, maybe they should leave Christianity all together.
The King james version is heretical…….it relegates the deutero canonical books apochrypha. It renders Protestant bias in some of its verses…..like stone for Cephas.
Even the preface denounces the Catholics
The RSV is so much better. The Church will never approve the KJV.
I guess you missed that the RSV, as the RV (which I have too, 1884 OT…188o NT, 1885 full RV English Bible, Oxford), is in the family of the KJV! I have a 1898 RV Bible (Oxford) with Revised Marginal References. And note, see even the NRSV preface, by Bruce Metager, 1989. And there is a Catholic Edition of the NRSV (Anglicized), Oxford with the Imprimatur, 1991.(I have it also!) And we should note too that many Aussie Roman Catholics are using the ESV these days!
But, I agree, the RCC will never “approve” the KJV!
The Preface is only a Preface. The Deuterocanonical books are at least in it. And for those who refer to comprehensibility–try seriously understand how ‘Gaudete in Domino semper’ gets to be ‘I want you to be happy’ (Jerusalem). The bit about the KJV not being comprehensible is a furphy. Scripture isn’t comprehensible by itself. That’s what preaching is for.
Sorry, but how much of our patrimony are we allowed to have? I came away from a talk by Bp Elliott–whom I still regard as a friend of the Ordinariates and of Anglicans generally–with the distinct impression that all that would be left of our patrimony was the music of Palestrina and Bruckner–yup, of all the composers there ever were, they were the ones he chose to mention–and that all we were really bringing was a little aesthetic dressing.
Btw Sandra: I am just one that is not ready to give up the spiritual freedom of being ‘In Christ’, that I have seen, experienced, and even “theologically” enjoy in the history & place of Anglicanism! Not even the liberals can extinguish this blessing!
I think the RSV-CE is a very acceptable version of Scripture for liturgical use, and am glad that the Ordinariates have adopted it. But if there is a desire to have a version with more hieratic language, why not the Douai-Rheims? The Douai-Rheims is really the Douai-Rheims-Challoner, as Bishop Challoner extensively revised it in the eighteenth century, and most of his thousands of revisions brought the language closer to that of the AV. Indeed, Bishop Challoner’s revisions may be one of the first examples of bringing the Anglican patrimony into the Catholic Church!
Indeed the “Douai-Rheims-Challoner” sought to ride on the wave of the KJV for the British. The KJV simply and profoundly captured the “English” mind for centuries! The great providence of God surely!
Btw, I like the RSV-CE myself! I have a few older RSV-CE NT’s (somewwhere?), and even the RSV, Ignatius Press, Second Catholic Edition, (brown leather, printed by Thomas Nelson, 2006) and the same in the Ignatius RSV Catholic Bible, Large Print (black leather, printed by Oxford, 2008). Did I mention The Navarre Bible, NT, RSV? Yeah got that too! And just recently got (was given, from my younger Roman Catholic priest and fellow hospital chaplain friend and colleague), the NT RSV of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. So I am RSV-CE covered!