Rorate Caeli

The Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham

From the website of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham:


Mgr Andrew Burnham: The Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham

Mgr Andrew Burnham, Assistant to the Ordinary, writes in this month's Portal: 

The Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham is to be published very soon now by Canterbury Press. In a month or two we shall have access to this very handsome publication. It will contain the Ordinariate’s own form of Morning and Evening Prayer, drawn from the Book of Common Prayer, together with the Litany, minor offices for use during the day, and a traditional order for Compline. 

The Coverdale Psalter will be included, as will lectionary tables which closely follow the not as yet well-known, but superb, two-year sequence of Scripture readings devised for the daily Office of the Roman Breviary. There will also be the Ordinariate Calendar and, most notably, a rich anthology of post-biblical readings drawn from the riches of the British spiritual tradition. This anthology complements the Roman Divine Office as well as the Ordinariate Office, for it will be possible to use many of the post-biblical readings for the Office of Readings. 

Evensong and Benediction 

Some will find themselves using the different Office books for different purposes – one for individual prayer and devotion, the other for public worship. Those who want to use the Roman Office books in the morning and the Customary in the evening – or the other way round – will be able to do so without too much difficulty. The particular value of the Customary is that it makes available one of the acknowledged treasures of the Anglican tradition – the public celebration of the Office, and in particular of Evensong. The reform of the Roman Office following the Second Vatican Council sought the development of the public celebration of the Office and, truth to tell, that is a reform yet to be realised. In these early days of the Ordinariates, there have been already many celebrations of Evensong and Benediction and it is intriguing to know not only that this has been in accordance with the Holy Father, Pope Benedict’s wish, but also that it has been his great pleasure, that this should have been so. 

Traditional language 

It is hoped that the Customary will be ecumenically helpful too. There has been a deliberate decision by the Holy See that the Ordinariate’s distinct Use should be predominantly in traditional language. This is not to criticise in any way the modern language translations and compositions of recent Anglican revisions. Rather it is a recognition of the value of the sacral language of the Prayer Book. Members of the Ordinariates in North America and Australia are great devotees of Prayer Book English. Moreover, the 400th anniversary of the 1611 Authorised Version of the Bible (AV) – and the immense popularity still of cathedral Evensong – shows that the British public too are aware of the beauty and importance of a traditional sacred dialect. It is that dialect which the Customary and the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible preserve and make available. 

‘Common Bible’ 

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. 

Our prayer is that the Customary will be a treasury not only for the Ordinariates but for the whole English-speaking world. 

_______________________________

(Rorate note: the Amazon page for this book mentions Msgr. Andrew Burnham and Fr. Aidan Nichols OP as the editors.)


***************


Msgr. Burnham speaks of "a rich anthology of post-biblical readings drawn from the riches of the British spiritual tradition. This anthology complements the Roman Divine Office as well as the Ordinariate Office, for it will be possible to use many of the post-biblical readings for the Office of Readings." It will be interesting to see to what extent the anthology draws from the writings of Anglican writers; Fr. Aidan Nichols OP had mentioned last year that the majority of readings in the anthology will be drawn from them. See last year's post: More on the upcoming liturgy of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.

45 comments:

P.K.T.P. said...

Which R.S.V. is being used here? The original one or the Ignatius Press 2nd edn.? The latter does *not* use sacral English. I note that, for the Mass texts, the Ignatius Press version is now being advanced. If the Mass and Office use sacral English, then so should the lections; otherwise, we have a mismatch. In this time we are celebratring the 400th + anniversary of the A.V. (King James), it should be made optional to use *that* text, vetted if need be, to remove any Protestant colourings. If not, the D.-R. is the best option and not the R.S.V.

P.K.T.P.

Peter said...

The Catholic Church in the 1970s in Britain opted (mistakenly it now seems) for the "dynamic equivalent" Jerusalem Bible.

Well, people will not have to tolerate its dynamic equivalence and sheer banality for much longer.

From 2014, the lectionary will use the ESV. This version is far superior to the J.B.
It is a much more faithful translation which avoids dynamic equivalence and banalities.

It is currently being amended for use in the Catholic lectionary.

Kudos to the Ordinariate for retaining a stash of the old
R.S.V. This version (also vastly superior to the J.B.) was also approved for lectionary use, but the copyright holders will not allow new copies to be printed. Or something.

It sounds as though the Ordinariate liturgy will be in traditional Prayer Book language. Something to look forward to.

New Catholic said...

Part of this is quite acceptable. The BCP, duly revised and cleaned, is better than the NO and the LOTH...


But this, "riches of the British spiritual tradition," is quite despairing, unless it is limited to texts from Bede to Thomas More and then only from Catholic martyrs, recusants, and converts, including Newman. Otherwise, it is scandalous. Was there ever an official Catholic liturgical text that, in its primary (or typical) text, included passages taken from the works of heretics and apostates? Choral Evensong can be beautiful, but it is not expiation and cleasing of all sins...

P.K.T.P. said...

Dear Peter,

By J.B., do you mean the A.V.? What should be primary is not the accuracy of the translation. The King James Bible and Douay-Rheims are accurate enough, and any problems with them can be explained from the pulpit. What is more important is the place of the A.V. in the English language: it is a formative text and a cultural treasure. In order to transmit the Anglican patrimony and the English culture, the version used should by the King James Bible. Its felicitous passages resonate in the language precisely because they are central to its modern form, and that should be the primary consideration, not the accuracy of the translation. For those who worry overmuch about accuracy, let them look to commentaries. Hearing the lections at Mass is primarily a spiritual activity, not an intellectual one. The version heard in church should be the version which is most beautiful.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. What is the E.S.V.?

Lee Lovelock-Jemmott said...

Having been an Anglican but seen the light of the True Faith, most of this is nothing more than illegitimate pluralism and nothing short of trying to present damaged goods as if they have no damage to them. Of special highlighting is he psalter, and the 'bible' used for the readings. I would not touch either with a ten foot barge pole. I think I would rather have the real deal (Old Roman Liturgy.or Byzantine/Jerusalem Liturgy).

Peter said...

P.K.T.P.,

I am told the Ordinariate retained a stash of the Ignatius Press edition of the R.S.V.

P.K.T.P. said...

N.C.

I don't see anything wrong with including texts from the Caroline divines, for example, as long as there is nothing heretical taken from them. We must take into account the fact that much great thinking was done outside the ambit of papal authority. It does not follow that every word of an Anglican or a Lutheran is anathema, only those which are heretical. The traditional Anglicans come from a fine and very advanced culture, and most of it is compatible with the Catholic Faith. I think that their thelogians, in most cases, can enrich the Faith. Where they err, we cut. After all, we do that even for our own, no?

I do worry, though, about intellectualism, as we have seen these sorts of false arguments in the Latin Church. It is not necessary to use the most accurate Biblical translations for the lections. It is necessary to use texts which are grounded in the culture of the people and resonate with them. I have a Douay-Rheims and a King James Bible at home. I admit to owning other versions but only consult them for special reasons, if, for example, I need to know the most accurate translation. I normally quote the D.-R. because it is beautful. The R.S.V. is not, really. What can the patrimony of Anglicanism be if it does not include the cultural traditions in text and hymnody? I would want to see all modern editions stamped out in use in church.

P.K.T.P.

Peter said...

NC,

I think we are looking here at the language of the Book of Common Prayer, rather than its theology.

I can't see Rome giving its recognitio to any text which has not been suitably amended for Catholic use.

Otherwise, I would agree, it would be scandalous.

Jon said...

Not mentioned in the Portal article, but noted in all the advertisements for The Customary, is the fact that it will most importantly also contain an "interim Order of Mass."

Will it be the English Missal? The BDW? A "tweaked" BCP? The Sarum in Elizabethan English?

Few know, but there are literally twice as many pending new Ordinariate parishes in North America than there are presently apostolates of the FSSP. This new liturgy will have a tremendous impact on the Reform of the Reform, and I've always thought it a key component of the Holy Father's vision.

Has anyone out there had a peek at this thing?

Knight of Malta said...

It [RSV] was the first truly ecumenical Bible and brought together the two traditions – the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible and the Protestant Authorised Version.

Lol!

The RSV is the progeny of the KJV--that is all.

GQ Rep said...

I"t was the first truly ecumenical Bible and brought together the two traditions – the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible and the Protestant Authorised Version. "


Because we've lost so much of our own Roman Catholic traditons in favor of ecumenism with Protestants ( to the point that the Roman Catholic Mass with it's "supper table" altars and bare churches now looks and feels totally Protestant), I personally wish that the attitute of the Vatican and the Pope towards Protestants was what it was from the 1900's up until around 1958....that is that though they might be Christians, they were unacceptable to Catholics, and anathema to engage in any real discussions with them..especially liturgical.

They were seen by Catholics back then, as "unbelievers"...but not necessarilly as bad people, or undeserving of Heaven when they died.

They were seen as basically outsiders with whom we had nothing in common religiously. We had the True Faith and tradition, they did not....and that was the end of it.

I wish Catholic thinking would go back to that.

Our parish could by interior design and sometimes for religious expression reasons easilly pass as Presbyterian rather than Catholic.

Sorry, but I resent that more than I can put into print!

Credo In Unum Deum said...

Thanks for that last comment, NC. I have been upset about that for some time. But it seems that the emphasis on the "brethren" part of "separated brethren" leads people to think that Protestantism is just Catholic Lite and not heretical and leading to damnation. "But look at the texts praising God. They are so beautiful! How can they not have been sincere followers of Christ?" Because they rejected His Church by severing themselves from Christ's own Vicar. duh.

Knight of Malta said...

Stay away from the King James, its literary value is overshadowed by its inaccuracy.

Please explore Haydock's Douay-Rheims Bible if you get the chance.

Lee Lovelock-Jemmott said...

@ GQ Rep, I understand you. I call it the false divorce between liturgy and practice and true theological statements of The Church, that is, the malicious and devious forces have knowingly gone about making a split, then trying to move the two factors as far apart as possible. So, even though we know the Catholic Faith is the one true faith, it manifests herself outwardly as if it is not and thus, we as faithful, are forced to work and endure more to prserve and live out The Holy Faith. I long for the days of no bewraying but clear and fundamental faith with no concessions to 'modern day' ecumenism.

Gratias said...

It is surprising how smoothly Anglican Ordinariates have been assembled.

New Catholic said...

Great idea, P.K.T.P. Here's our version of one of the 39 Articles, appropriate for Catholic use:

"XXII. Of Purgatory.
The ------- Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping --- --------- as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is - ---- ----- ------ -------- --- grounded upon -- ------- -- Scripture, --- ------ --------- -- the Word of God."

Matt said...

This sounds like a very wonderful piece to have, but there are two concerns I have. One, that this does not try to eclipse or reduce the Roman Breviary to something dry or uninteresting as the English used in the RB is... uninteresting... or the use of the Customary would create a cultural or ideological war of useage between the two Offices.

The second issue is the concerns New Catholic mentioned regarding the "riches of the British spiritual tradition." Who wrote the works being used? Are they British Roman Catholics, or Protestants who wrote something which happened to have overlapped Catholic doctrine? User beware!

This causes me to recall an article written by the SSPX on the Ordinariate. They are appreciative of their incorporation but also wary of the fact the Ordinariate stated they were not asked to give up anything from their old Anglicanism. This is a cause for concern for the SSPX and perhaps the rest of us.


P.K.T.P. said, "The King James Bible and Douay-Rheims are accurate enough, and any problems with them can be explained from the pulpit."

Wrong. Nothing is ever explained from the pulpit and can't be relied on. A pocket here and there of authentic preaching does not catechising make. Perhaps from back in the day this was so, but today's preaching is like getting accurate news from the media. Yeah, right.

Matt

Peter said...

P.K.T.P,

Sorry for the delay in replying !

I suppose I used too many initials in my earlier comment.

By J.B. I meant the Jerusalem Bible which is of course still used in the novus ordo lectionary.

By E.S.V. I meant the English Standard Version which had its genesis in the New Revised Standard Version, but without the latter's "inclusive" language.

The E.S.V. is streets ahead of the Jerusalem Bible which it will replace in the novus ordo lectionary in a few years time. It was chosen not least because its copyright holders have no objection to its amendment for use as a Catholic lectionary.

At a future date, (I don't know exactly when) we should see a Catholic edition of the E.S.V.

None of which is relevant to the Ordinariate, I know !

Peter

Peter said...

Having read through recent comments, could I (myself a "cradle Catholic" and a taditionalist,) point out that Anglicanorum coetibus is about Anglicans, or Anglo-Catholics, who want to get away from Protestantism, not bring it with them into the Personal Ordinariates. That is not what is meant by the "Anglican patrimony" !

Matthew Rose said...

Peter,

If that is the case, then why do we not hear the prelates and priests of the Ordinariate, or most of the faithful, requesting the Sarum Use in Latin and eschewing all theological accomodation to heresy (a.k.a. Protestantism)? Perhaps I am deaf, but they just seem to be more "conservative" Catholics.

Pulex said...

Caroline divines perhaps are alright for private reading or even inspiration for sermons (as is C. S. Lewis), but not for the official worship of the Church. The liturgy is not only about orthodoxy of this or that particular piece of text, but also about joining the communion of Saints. Therefore, although Catholic scholars often cite Tertullian or Origenes, their writings are not included in the Roman Breviary. Even from approved Catholic authors, only Saints are (apart form a couple of papal documents), not e.g., Lombard, not Suarez, Bossuet, Scheeben or Lacordaire.

Elizabeth said...

My puny two cents, and this from a definite non-expert point of view, but what P.K.T.P. says about the use of the King James Bible seems wrong. It's a Protestant book, period. And the thought of incorporating non-Catholic writings causes me equal concern.

John McFarland said...

Very few of the denizens of those blog concern themselves with the particularities of the Novus Ordo.

Why do you concern yourselves with an amalgam of the Novus Ordo and "right" Anglo-Catholicism?

The British have long been notorious, in matters secular and sacred, for treating things cobbled together the day before yesterday as if they began with The Conqueror, if not King Alfred.

But these folks are going their forebears one better: they are still wrangling over what their traditions will be.

P.K.T.P. said...

Matt:

What I meant is that any lack of clarity in the D.-R., for example, should it affect understanding in a lection at Mass, could be correctly intepreted from a gloss. I rather doubt that such a problem would arise in the first place. Modernists normally try this 'accuracy' argument to get their texts in the door, when their real desire is to replace traditional and poetical and beautiful translations. They use supposed texual inaccuracies merely as a pretext. One can justify making a more accurate translation for use at home or in study, but this is not what should be read publicly in church. The translation, like the music, should have great æsthetic value first. Mass is not primarily an intellectual exercise but a spiritual one.

For starters, the Ignatius Press 2nd edn. of the R.S.V. should not be allowed for use at Anglican Use Masses. It does not advance the Anglican patrimony or culture; it undermines it.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes551 said...

My puny two cents, and this from a definite non-expert point of view, but what P.K.T.P. says about the use of the King James Bible seems wrong. It's a Protestant book, period. And the thought of incorporating non-Catholic writings causes me equal concern.

On the contrary, the Bible is fundamentally a Catholic book. Any accurate, faithful, and beautiful translation of the Bible is therefore a Catholic translation, even if the translators are Protestant, because truth, fidelity, and beauty are Catholic.

It's not a coincidence that the readings in the old Douay Rheims version are often identical or almost identical to the equivalent readings in the King James -- there was a degree of chronological overlap in the production of each version, and the translators consulted each others' work.

Elizabeth said...

Jordanes551, thanks for your reply. As I said, definitely not an expert!

I had never heard your point of view, that the King James version could be considered a Catholic book. My opinion was based solely on others opinions that I've read over the years, that the King James translation was a problem for Catholics to use because of erroneous or misleading wording that could be construed as not holding up certain Catholic doctrines. But as I admit, I've not done the research.

Jack O'Malley said...

This discussion about Bible versions has left me in a quandary. I have a KJV and and an RSV and used to have a Douay that I lent to a relative and never got back. Yet the Douay is online as are the other versions.

Can anyone cite a passage wherein the Catholic interpretation differs substantially, i.e. substantially from the KJV? And if that be so, the historical precedents for such passages' condemnation?

I am in the interim inclined to think this a tempest in a teapot. I will adhere to the glorious English of the KJV, in whose reading, my cup runneth over.

This from a Traditional Irish Catholic.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins says:

"One can justify making a more accurate translation for use at home or in study, but this is not what should be read publicly in church. The translation, like the music, should have great æsthetic value first. Mass is not primarily an intellectual exercise but a spiritual one."

I do not understand how a traditional Catholic can speak of the great aesthetic value in a good sense of a badly translated scriptural text.

How can spiritual beauty be other than the handmaid of truth?

Smith said...

I have heard (but am no expert) that several theological principles distort the KJV translation, including the KJV translators' belief that there was no such thing as the "spiritual senses" (i.e. the soul's sense for God's "sweetness", etc.) such that in their translation of the Psalms they translated most of the references to God's "taste," "touch," "fragrance," etc. as other things like "nearness," "power," "majesty" to avoid giving ground to the medieval tradition of the soul's spiritual sense for God. I am not an expert on this, but if this is the case, it would certainly be a major distortion.

Jordanes551 said...

I had never heard your point of view, that the King James version could be considered a Catholic book.

Well, we couldn't say the KJV is "a Catholic book" -- it does have its translation problems, and doctrinal bias does at times creep into the KJV (that doctrinal bias, however, does not usually present conflicts with Catholic teaching: it is an Anglican/Episcopal bias). But generally speaking it is faithful and accurate, and in those passages it is acceptable for some kind of use by Catholics. Not necessarily liturgical use (I don't think we could go there -- not without the Church reworking the KJV), but one can get good from the KJV -- it needn't be rejected flat-out.

Jordanes551 said...

I have heard (but am no expert) that several theological principles distort the KJV translation, including the KJV translators' belief that there was no such thing as the "spiritual senses" (i.e. the soul's sense for God's "sweetness", etc.) such that in their translation of the Psalms they translated most of the references to God's "taste," "touch," "fragrance," etc. as other things like "nearness," "power," "majesty" to avoid giving ground to the medieval tradition of the soul's spiritual sense for God.

Hmm, that doesn't sound right to me. In point of fact, if you want to understand most of the KJV's translators' choices for how to render Hebrew idiomatic expressions, one of your best guides is to compare the KJV's choice of wording with that of the Latin Vulgate. Often you'll find that the Vulgate's tradition directed the word choices of the KJV. The Vulgate is where we get our biblical references to God's "power" (potens) and "majesty" (maiestas), since St. Jerome and the Vetus Latina translators had chosen those words to render the underlying Hebrew. Anyway, the KJV Psalms have *plenty* of poetic references to spiritual realities using imagery such as taste or savor or odor.

Inquisitor said...

For all of its flaws, the KJV is one of the most poetic and beautiful renditions of the Bible into English ever made. If there are doctrinal issues, the Church should address and modify those problems as needed, so long as they use the principles of literal translation to maintain a Catholic rendering of the Scriptures.

IMO, Anglican Use Catholics should use the KJV of the Bible liturgically. It is the KJV, not the RSV that is the patrimony of the Anglican use. The KJV's beautiful English captures the love of God in such beautiful poetry which is inseparably ingrained into the cultures of the English speaking world. The Church should take advantage of that patrimony to evangelize, and make the KJV part of her own heritage, so long as it is properly amended for Catholic use.

Matamoros said...

The more one hears the argumentation being used in favour of Anglican Ordinariate practices the more one is thankful that its membership is far smaller than the Latin Rite ever was in England, even during the worst times of persecution against REAL English religious tradition. I am happy that this concession will never become the means for mass integration of English people into the Church. England is part of the Latin West.

Credo In Unum Deum said...

My understanding is that the original KJV was a Catholic Bible which included the Deuterocanonicals. But I knew more about this when I was a new convert from Protestantism and was gathering evidence all the time, so I may be misremembering.

Jordanes551 said...

The KJV did (and properly does) include the deuterocanonicals, but it was translated by Protestants in order to create an official Bible for the Anglican sect. Non-Anglican Protestants liked it so much, though, that they began to use it too -- and they very early on began to produce illegal editions of the KJV lacking the deuterocanonical books. Eventually the international Bible Societies in the early 1800s decided that only truncated KJVs, lacking the deuterocanonicals, would be circulated -- and in time the fundamentalist "KJV-Only" types came to believe that the KJV had never ever contained those "other" books.

Discovering a volume of the KJV "Apocrypha" was an important catalyst leading a friend of mine to start down the road that brought him into the Catholic Church. He went to his minister and showed it to him, asking, "What is this?" His minister answered, "It's nothing. Just throw it away." (This friend eventually would sponsor me when I converted to the Faith -- and he is now a priest.)

Elizabeth said...

Jordanes551: I appreciate your comments on the topic of Catholics using the KJV. Is it possible to buy a KJV nowadays that does include all 73 books? If so, where?

Elizabeth

New Catholic said...

Yes, it is, Elizabeth: just look for an "Authorized (King James) Version with Apocrypha" in any search engine or major online bookstore and you will find it.

Marty Jude said...

An interesting article, but leaves concerns re the BCP, biblical translations and what exactly 'they' deem to be the 'riches of the British spititual tradition'.

Also, "The particular value of the Customary is that it makes available one of the acknowledged treasures of the Anglican tradition – the public celebration of the Office, and in particular of Evensong. The reform of the Roman Office following the Second Vatican Council sought the development of the public celebration of the Office and, truth to tell, that is a reform yet to be realised. In these early days of the Ordinariates, there have been already many celebrations of Evensong and Benediction..."

...Anyone would think we never had, pre Vat II [or indeed not currently in SSPX churches], public celebrations of the Office, i.e. Vespers and Benediction, Matins, and Tenebrae etc. Not to mention Holy Hours and other Truly Catholic Devotions that have by-and-large been discarded...!

Marty Jude said...

Peter said...
"Having read through recent comments, could I (myself a "cradle Catholic" and a taditionalist,) point out that Anglicanorum coetibus is about Anglicans, or Anglo-Catholics, who want to get away from Protestantism, not bring it with them into the Personal Ordinariates. That is not what is meant by the "Anglican patrimony" !".

Seems to me, as with the wholesale 'conversions' from CofE to Antiochian Orthodox [amongst other Partiarchates] had their principal concerns/'reasons' of saying goodbye to female 'priests' and gay 'priests' etc. Rarely 'real' conversions - mention these topics and they spit flames of hatred. Says it all.

My concerns are that they will 'infect' The Church [on top of the Vat II 'fruits']...and just wait for one of their future bishops, to be elected Pope...!!!

Elizabeth said...

New Catholic, thanks. I've ordered myself one, from the Cambridge University Press. It was a tough choice between the Paragraph version and a Reference version. In the end, I went with the Reference ~ and looking forward to it.

New Catholic said...

Remember, it must include the Deuterocanonicals (that is, the "Apocrypha") - when it is not clear that it includes the "Apocrypha", do not buy it.

Elizabeth said...

It does include the Apocrypha. Both the Paragraph and Reference editions. I think they're new-ish, maybe 2011.

They did say on their website that it's somewhat unusual to find the KJV with the Apocrypha, and they're pleased to offer it...They also went into a bit of background info about the King James Version originally included it, but after a couple of centuries, it went out of favor.

I'm glad this topic on Rorate Caeli came up (for me); you learn something new every day.

Mar said...

After many years of considering the KJV an "innocent" text of the Bible I came across a well-written article that put a convincing case against that text. It pointed out that the deficiencies and distortions to be found there are sufficient to mislead the faithful
- this despite the beauty of its English language - and therefore should be avoided by all Catholics who value their faith. Unfortunately the reference to that particular article has been deeply archived and I can't lay my hands on it at present.

However, a consideration of two examples of differences between the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible and the King James Version Protestant Bible is sufficient to confirm that the concerns catholics have regarding the latter text are quite valid.

The Douay-Rheims reading for Luke 2:14 is as follows:
"Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will."
The King James Version reading for the same is as follows:
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

There is a big difference between the catholic perception of peace to men of good will, which essentially means no good will - no peace, and the corresponding protestant perception of peace and good will toward men, embracing all men, regardless of the disposition of their hearts. Taken to its logical conclusion the first type of peace is the one that only Christ can give and which needs a receptive heart that is conformed to Him. Similarly the second type of peace is one which men try to achieve by their own means, without necessarily any reference to God or to the integrity of their own hearts.

Even more significant is Matthew 6:13 which concerns the Our Father and so turns upon the very words of Our Lord - not just to those of mere angels.

The Douay-Rheims reading is as follows:
"And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen."
The parallel King James Version reading is as follows:
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

Straightaway it can be seen that the protestant reading imputes words to Jesus which He did not say. That is no small matter. Besides, catholic Bible scholars have from very ancient times held that the doxology (i.e. for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever) first appeared as a gloss on the original text and then found its way into some manuscripts through error.

It is highly significant that in modern times this doxology found its way into the Novus Ordo Mass. That this happened through the agency of Cardinal Bugnini's handful of protestant advisors cannot be discounted as the most likely case scenario.

Aunt Raven said...

I urge withholding judgement of the new Customary until we have seen it. It has as one of its editors Fr Aidan Nichols, OP, who strikes me as being as holy as he is scholarly and articulate, (I have personally met him). Despite the apprehensions voiced in many comments, I trust Fr Nichols will not allow anything contrary to Catholic scriptural teaching in this book. He has fine literary taste as an editor as well as a writer.

Please remember that the Customary, whilst approved, is subject, as the American BDW is, to improvement or emendation in future editions after a prudential period of pastoral use.

The British Ordinariate has the right to have a customary differing from that in the USA (and visa versa). Analogously, I have for many years stylistically preferred the graceful Catholic "Morning and Evening Prayer" in use in the UK and the Commonwealth over the American equivalent.

Christopher McAvoy said...

The search for authentic anglican catholicism has reached an interesting stage.

I can be counted as another who sees this latest customary as a heterodox book masquerading as orthodox, in that it matches formally no edition historically used in england before the reformation and is largely therefore protestant in origin of arrangment and ethos. Despite retaining many elements of authentic catholic usuage it is incomplete and deeply tarnished by competeing protestant elements.

Dr. William Renwick already has the complete Temporale of the Sarum use Roman office as it was in 1534 up online for free.

http://www.sarum-chant.ca/

He is gradually creating an english edition which precisely matches the latin english, except in that hymns will be metrical paraphrased instead of literal translation.

He is making both a scholarly and performance edition. performance uses the 17th c King James Bible and Coverdale psalms.

But the scholarly uses the Douay Rheims Bible and Psalms instead . Both with the same music, though some music being scriptural will probably vary slightly in words.

This will eventually rectify these problems and be a God send to the Ordinariate and many Western rite Orthodox Churches .

May the true faith prevail !