Talk:New Jerusalem Bible

message: It'd be a good idea to write, for each translation of the Bible, if it's in British or American English, and to provide a link to a page giving the list of countries whose bishops conference have approved the use of that version in liturgy, if any.
--Henri de Solages 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Yes something like that would probably resolve this. I have removed the official stuff and included instead a reference to the footnote in  about seeking permission before use business for the meantime. Obviously your solution is much more the muscle because it is precise. However getting that info is hard work it seems. 
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en for Vatican.va reveals nothing on the phrase New Jerusalem Bible which is bad news in that department because Holy See usage on their official Vatican published stuff would mean a lot. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19800416it.html for example uses the JB. However then something sprang to mind. What is the Holy See’s statement on Bibles that have inclusive language. It appears it has rejected Bibles that contain inclusive language and that the various criteria involved is apparently part of some ‘secret norms’ that Bishops are informed about. Nice move isn’t it? Only they know what is wrong with each Bible and which parts are in question. I think finding a Bishop who read the following Vatican statements would know the fate of the NJB in terms of liturgical use. We shouldn't really say it is for liturgical use I feel on the bases of the following statement even though I edited the article to reflect liturigical quality with conditions. I feel that we may need to include inclusive language Bibles are firmly rejected by the Holy See except in special circumstances (as in the NRSV in Canada). 
*I quote “Editor's Note: While not mentioning the term "inclusive language" as such, the Holy See has conclusively rejected the possibility of inclusive language devices for biblical translation. The so-called "secret norms" for translation of biblical texts for use in the liturgy were sent to all bishops two weeks before their June meeting in a confidential packet of documentation on the proposed Lectionary for Mass. (The Vatican norms were published in the July 4, 1997 issue of the National Catholic Reporter.) So I feel maybe the reference we cited here that says the NJB is for liturgical use is in error. There is a major article on it here...  Here IS another link which seems to mention The Vatican Norms.  (CptKirk 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference you've cited again says nothing about the New Jerusalem Bible; it's an inference you're drawing.  The inference may well be right, but we still need all to keep looking for something official that makes this connection.  Meanwhile, our only source so far makes it clear that, in fact, the Bishops hold the power to approve parts of the NJB for Lectionary use (and for all we know may even have granted it in some instance).  I'm not the one who reverted to my last edit (it was from an anonymous IP), but I think that's the right move until we have sources giving more interesting information.  As long as our sources don't mention the NJB & are about general Vatican principles and statements about inclusive language, they belong in a more general article than here (say, an article about Bible translation philosophies).  Note that your article from adoremus.org ends with a section entitled "Conflict Unresolved?"  That's the whole point: this is not a clearly resolved issue, and we've yet to see any definitive result of how the conflict between competing views will be negotiated.  Obviously, it remains possible that either side may move towards compromise, which the "Vatican Norms" seem to allow considerable room for.  Wareh 14:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are excluding here is that official Bibles for liturgical use are stated by the Holy See. The NJB does not have this declairation as (1)there is no official document that states the NJB is for liturgical use. There is one web site that covers it for liturgical use with restrictions. (2)There do not appear to be any instance of the NJB being used in any liturgical works as far as I can tell. (3)The vatican has spoken clearly against inclusive language Bibles. (4)The NRSV is the only inclusive language Bible that has been given a temporary special test run in the Canadian liturgy. (5)Really right now the NJB can only be called a 'Catholic Bible' and really the article should pair back on any Catholic orientation as to its quality. (CptKirk 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some interesting developments

message: Is there any proof that the external link to http://www.catholic.org/bible/ is a legal reproduction of the New Jerusalem Bible. If not, then perhaps the link should be removed.--Frindro (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Jerusalem Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150322195330/http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/booklets.htm to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/booklets.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150724114610/https://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf to http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf
*Added  tag to http://ebaf.edu/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)