The King James Bible

Peter Karl T. Perkins wrote in the comments section the following:

The King James Bible is the single most important text in the English language. It has had more influence than any other. Its felicitous expressions are unmatched. They are what has made English what it is, with all its beauties and faults. It not only reflects that culture and patrimony; it has formed it. I find it hard to imagine parallels to this removal. An abolition of this sort effectively divorces the liturgy of the ordinariates from the very font of the culture and patrimony they claim to conserve. Words fail on this occasion, and it is precisely the failure of words that is the subject here.


When ordinary people from every walk of life attend the Mass or Office they are not there to reflect on precise meanings from ancient texts. Their attendance connects them to an entire ethos and worldview. In a flash, it's gone.

I agree with PKTP in this, but it is not a deal-breaker for me as far as the Ordinariate is concerned.  I still hope, however, that reason will prevail and this most precious foundation of English-speaking civilization will be preserved in the Ordinariates, even if, as someone else suggested, it is preserved as a kind of Extraordinary Form, that might include the English Missal and so on.

For how many, I wonder, if the fact that it is not so far allowed in our Ordinariate readings a deal-breaker?  For those who have not joined the Catholic Church, what does this signal to you?  Absorption?  For those who are already Catholic, is this one of the reasons you have decided not to join?

If you could advise Msgr. Burnham and the international liturgy committee what would you tell them?  If most of the folks in the Ordinariate want the King James Bible, let's let them know.  If most don't really care, well, then we'll know.


Author: Deborah Gyapong

Deborah Gyapong is a member of the Sodality of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary ( in Ottawa, a former parish of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (Traditional Anglican Communion) whose members were received individually and corporately into the Roman Catholic Church on April 15, 2012 by Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast at St. Patrick’s Basilica. Under the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, the community will celebrate an approved Anglican Use liturgy and hopes to soon join with other sodalities across Canada to form the Canadian Deanery of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter under Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson, Ordinary. As we wait for our priest(s) to be ordained as Catholic priests, God willing, Archbishop Prendergast will provide priests to celebrate our Sunday Eucharist according to the Anglican Use. Deborah is a journalist who covers religion and politics in Canada’s national capital, writing primarily for Roman Catholic newspapers since 2004. Her novel The Defilers, published in 2006, was not a best seller, alas. She spent 17 years at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in news and current affairs, including 12 years as a television producer.

88 thoughts on “The King James Bible”

  1. Many of the Anglicans coming in from outside the continuing church were already using the RSV or its successor (no comment). I grew up using the RSV (along with occasional uses of the KJV) in my childhood parish. From an aesthetic perspective, it is superior to the New American Bible, though I am not qualified enough to opine on their respective merits otherwise. I would hope that the RSV is not a dealbreaker for many.

    1. Guess!
      It is the the not being allowed to use it that annoys me. "Don't worry your little head about it; we'll tell you what's good for you." That attitude is patronizing and infantilizing.

  2. Just a brief note:

    I was not suggesting that this should be a deal-breaker in the sense that incomers should not come or stay in, or should scurry off to a Latin Mass or to a Byzantine or Armenian Divine Liturgy, for instance. But if the King James is central to your patrimony, and you want to keep it, let your pastors know. Here is what the 1983 Code of Canons says, "Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spirituial needs, and their wishes, to the pastors of the Church" (Canon 212, §2). Why do I get the feeling that this insisence on the Catholic R.S.V. in non-sacral English is not coming from the rank and file? Are outraged parishioners rising up to demand the abolition of the King James Bible and its replacement? Those who seem to want this point to accuracy of translation, as if Mass were an intellectual rather than a spiritual enterprise steeped in culture. Would they also replace the Altar with a blackboard? They seem to be looking for a classroom, not a church.


    1. Peter, Perhaps some context to your request for the KJV would be good for the rest of the readers of this blog. Remember Archbishop De Noia's request to his fellow Dominicans to say a Litany of Dominican Saints?. Over at Rorate Caeli, on July 7, you stated:"The lack of sacral English in this litany points to the problem. I don't want to be picky, only honest: I would absolutely refuse to pray a litany which did not use Latin or sacral English. I say NO to it. Archbishop Di Noia, who seems to be a fairly conservative man, has a perspective which is fundamentally at odds with that of traditionalists." What is problematic Peter is your refusal to pray unless it is in "sacral English," such as found in the KJV.

      1. Dear Mr. McAuley:

        Another poster over there translated the text into sacral English and I simply used that one. Some years ago, I did a private study of the use of sacral English in Roman use. To make it brief, its abandonment occurred mostly from 1955 to 1965. Most Latins raised before about 1970 grew up with all the vernacular prayers in sacral English. The change was part of the sixties revolution and the revolution in the Catholic Church. So I don't associate sacral English with Anglicanism: all my old prayer manuals have it and have it exclusively. Presumably for copyright reasons the spiritual acts remained in sacral English (e.g. Act of Hope) until the late 1960s or later, depending on the edn. used. The attempt to remove it from the English Ave has so far only been partially successful, and more traditional Latins would never even dream of referring to our Lady as 'you' in that prayer. To be absolutely honest, I find the change to be extremely disturbing and troubling.

        1. Peter,

          As a fellow Latin who has a large collection of pre-1971 Brevaries and Missals, and taking the starting point of Dom Cabrol's work around 1920, I disagree that most Pre-1970s liturgical translations were in sacral English. One need merely review the 1950 Benziger Roman Breviary in English The only Breviary that remotely comes close, post 1940, is the 1949 Monastic Diurnal of St. John's Abbey. (still in print today) And, what is sacral English? If it is a matter of using Thees and thous, certainly the St. Andrews Missal of 1945 fulfills this, but the Sunday Mass Book of 1967 of the Liturgical Press would not. An elevated English Language, such as used in the 1963-64 Liturgical Press Breviary (and used in the new Baronius version) and that of the New Roman Missa (Novus Ordo) in English should be sufficient.

          But, to refuse to pray in communion with your brothers and sisters who use a more vulgar English is simply silly. Your position comes across as "I cannot pray with you, because you use "spirit" instead of "ghost" for the Third Person of the Trinity." If you prayed the Office of Prime and said the Martyrology using the version published by Preserving Christian Publications (and sold by the Tradtionalist Angelus Press), you would note that Canon O'Connell's translation is not in sacral English. If we took your position to its logical end, those of us who prefer the older books, but say them in non sacral English would be stuck waiting for a translation into sacral English. While I have no hesitation agreeing that the proper use of "thees" and "thous" is uplifting, I am not going to refuse to pray with those of my brothers and sisters in Christ who do not use sacral English.

          1. I agree…. But for the reason that people don't know any better. I would not demand that, for example, Hispanic Catholics who don't understand or speak English to suddenly understand Shakespearean/Tudor version. And then be scandalized at their lack of understanding.

            I think it's the same for Latins common in the RC, Novus Ordo Churches. It's not their fault, I don't think. And this is a great opportunity for those who actually care to be presented an opportunity for more sacred liturgy and language. This is not to say we ought to beat up the product of the Spirit of Vatican 2. Their only fault, probably, is lack of appreciation for proper reverence and understanding of older Mass forms.

            Long Live Tradition. Long Live the Ordinariates.

          2. Mr. McAuley:

            I also have a large collection and I disagree with you completely except that you have changed my claim. I did not write pre-1970; I claimed pre-1955. Most of the changes from sacral English came in stages between 1955 and 1965.

            I have parayer manuals handed down to me from the 1860s on. They all use sacral English to the early 1950s, and many to the mid 1960s.


            1. Three quick examples from my shelves (and I could cite quite a few):

              My 1955 diurnal, my 1914 Little Office of our Lady, my prayer manual of 1900. But I have a huge collection of handmissals. Must I go through them one by one for you? I did a careful study of this some years ago. Nearly everything from before 1955 is in sacral English. There is also oral testimony from relatives, not to mention that I grew up entirely with all formulaic English prayers in sacral form–and so did everyone else I knew.

              Most of the handmissals and other texts made the transition from 1955 to 1965. I'll stick with the claim.


            2. Peter, I think you have a couple of things confused. First, you are confusing liturgical texts with devotional texts. When Msgr. Burnham is determining what scripture to use, he is doing so in the context of the liturgy, not devotional material.

              Second, In regard to devotional texts, you are correct, they were for the most part what you would call sacral English until the era of 1955-65.

              Third, in regards to Liturgical texts, as found in hand missals and breviaries, the change begins in the late 1920s under the aegis of the Liturgical Movement. All you have to do is read issues of Oratre Fratres from 1925 through 1950 to see it, look at pamphlets of the Catholic Worker Movement, the Catholic Rural movement, or Gerald Ellard S.J.'s book Christian Life and Worship first published in 1933, which provides a non-sacral translation of the mass within it. Again, you ignore the mass of historic evidence that lies outside of your own personal library.

              Fourth citing anecdotal evidence is nice, but I can in turn bring my own families anecdotal evidence and come out with a different result. And, of course, your relaying your family members oral testimony is hearsay. Your hand missals, therefore, make a better argument for you than any oral testimony you could provide.

              Fifth, you berate me for citing to 1971, but it was you who set the perameters by stating “Most Latins raised before about 1970 grew up with all the vernacular prayers in sacral English.”

              Please refrain from being so patronizing, Peter — is it really in the best spirit of charity to refuse to pray for the regularization of the SSPX with the litany that was in English you did not approve of? Tell you what, I will read Vespers for the Feast of St. Anne tonight from the nice non-sacral English of the 1950 Benziger Breviary, remembering your intentions. In turn, kindly pull out one of your devotional books and say the office for Father Phillips and Msgr Burnham.

              God bless Debra and Christian and all who work to maintain this blog.

  3. KJV …does language trump doctrine? As a Bible , its preface condemns "Popish persons", and its text is peppered with heretical translation of key texts.The KJV removed the deutero-canonical books, and designated them apochrypha.

    What is wrong with the Rheims-Douai? A bible, the KJV translators used!

    1. I have heard about these "heretical translations of key texts" all my life and would enjoy looking at some examples.

  4. The RSV is not a deakbreajer for me, but agree that the loss of the KJV is a severe blow to our patrimony. After all, the RSV will soon be outdated, to be replaced by the next of many versiions yet to come. The KJV, on the other hand, will still be read 500 years from now. I know I'll be using it in private devotions no matter what is prescribed for public prayer..

  5. I would like there to be a fully traditional rite, with KJV, Cranmer, and the Anglo-Catholic approximations of the Tridentine liturgy available.

    The new version of the Novus Ordo is not too bad, and improved by the RSV. Those who prefer modern rites in the Ordinariates can use that.

    But if the traditional is not codified, it will be lost forever.

  6. Whatever Lectionary is to be used, it has to comply with the translation principles in "Liturgiam authenticam". Since the Ignatius RSV has already been approved by Rome on that score — it is used in several countries in Africa and in the Antilles — it was an understandable choice.

  7. Humm.. I would have thought that RSV is like KJV, like twins. The question is, are they fraternal twins, or are we working to make them identical twins, differing only at the minutiae and how they work in the external world?

    What exactly is our end objective, a perfect preservation of things that are left behind, imperfections and all, or to grow a whole new tree from the same genetic material?

    All these folks who want to "Preserve" things as their chief purpose for joining the Ordinariates… I'm starting to suspect that they should maybe join an historical society or something…

    The Catholic Church is dynamic, rather than stuck in the past. I'm guessing that the Anglican Patrimony is not limited to something that can be re-enacted with actors or be put in a museum, which is a good thing, or else the Holy Father would never have made Anglicanorum Coetibus…

    Also, if it's the issue of antiquity, why stop at KJV? Why not go all the way to Wycliffe, or even the Latin Vulgate? But the point is that something will be kept alive and growing, rather than in stasis, isn't it?

    I'm trying to be careful that I personally don't fall into the trap of anachronism disguising as tradition; it can be a fine, blurry line between the two.

    I'd like to consider myself a traditionalist- it doesn't mean I want to replicate exactly how things were 500 or 2,000 years ago, because I don't think that's entirely possible; the Church is eternal and dynamic, not secular and destined to be fossilized.

    I seem to contradict myself; a while ago, I said that I saw the Ordinariates as a place for a sapling to be preserved if its parent tree becomes endangered. I think I wanted to say that saplings have to grow, and it's not exactly the same sort of carbon-copy of the old tree, or any of its ancient, fossilized predecessors.

    1. The King James Bible is the single most important text the Anglican patrimony can bring to the Church Universal, and it is the very heart of that patrimony. You cannot have new shoots if you cut down the tree, Aaron's rod notwithstanding.

      On doctrine, I believe that there is out there a Catholic King James in which all the Protestant colourings were corrected by reference to the Douay-Rheims. It was one of those endless Biblical projects whch became forgotten over the decades. The point is that a new Lectionary could be taken from such a text. If Rome wants to wait for such corrections to be entered, the Douay-Rheims could be used in the interim. To introduce a Lectionary readings in non-sacral form is nothing less than a direct assalut on the literary tradition of usage in that patrimony. This is just another way to destroy tradition, and the good Fr. Philips is scurrying about trying to buy up all the copies of the wrong text. He reminds me of those Christian criminals of popular humour: the wait until a neighbour goes on vacation and then break into his house not to steal anything but to paint it for free. They are Christian caped crusaders. The problem is that the paint every room in the wrong colour.

      If there is to be bits and pieces from Bugnini's New Mass (acc. to Bishop Peter Elliott) and no King James, what is left of the Anglican patrimony in the ordinariates? What do they become if they don't preserve anything? We have a Roman Church which is overrun with busy little bees who run about making endless changes. Whoever wants that can have it in great supply. I would like to see a DISTINCT ordinariate with a liturgy that reflects the real art from Anglican tradition and not just the will of the incomers own budding Bugninis. It should be steeped in tradition, not in the compositions of 'brilliant liturgists' from Forward in Faith. Nobody out there is attached to what might be in the mind of Msgr. Burnham or Bishop Elliott. People–including non-Anglicans of English stock–are attached to the felicitous expressions of the King James Bible. You'd dump that for these letter editions? R.S.V., Catholic R.S.V., N.A.B., N.R.S.V., S.U.V., oh, I'm sorry, that's the sports utility version.


      1. Peter,

        Your modernist buddy who advocated the reform of the TLM, H.A. Reinhold advocated the KJV! Read his The Dynamics of Liturgy, 1961 (Pre-Vatican II!). But, Liturgically, what is more important the KJV or the Book of Common Prayer? I daresay that a Catholized BOCP is of more importance.

      2. Mr. Perkins, you may think I am "scurrying about" in securing the RSV lectionary, but I would remind you that you were not in the conference room at the Vatican offices in 1983 when I expended every ounce of energy possible to preserve whatever I could from our Anglican patrimony. Mine was rather a lone voice with a larger number of the committee members dedicated to getting rid of as much as possible. The mere fact that the BDW exists is a near-miracle.

        I fought hard to have the KJV included as an approved version of scripture for use in the Pastoral Provision, but the mere suggestion was hooted down by such luminaries as the first Msgr. Marini, and others. The decision was going overwhelmingly in the direction of the NAB, until I suggested the RSV as a possible compromise. Don't think for a moment I was happy about it, but it was the best that could be achieved at the time. It was a matter of securing "something" as opposed to "nothing," and I suppose the Monday-morning quarterbacking is to be expected. As I said, you weren't there, and I could only do my best.

        I have made my views abundantly clear about the need to revise the BDW, and I have not been shy about saying that I hoped it would be in the direction of the English or Anglican Missal, along with the version of scripture most beloved by those of us who value our patrimony.

        I raised my voice as strongly as I could in 1983, and have continued to do so during subsequent years, until the present time in which I have no influence on what is happening in Ordinariate liturgical matters.

        To show where my heart is, I still use the KJV and the Coverdale Psalms for my own daily Offices.

        1. It is valuable to hear directly from Fr. P. What a great pity that he is not at the centre of activity in devising a new Ordinariate liturgy.

          1. BISHOP Coverdale's remains have now been translated to an Anglican Church where the English Missal (pre 1955 versions only) is used for High Mass on Sunday. He doesn't appear to kick up a fuss.

            His English translation of the Roman Canon is by far the best.

        2. I very much appreciate what you write, Fr. Phillips, and I have acknowledged this more than once on these blogs, as you must know. But you are replacing a R.S.V. in sacral English (1st edn.) with one in non-sacral (2nd edn. of Ignatius Press). Now, I know that the 1st edn. is no longer in print but this seems to be a retrograde step, no?

          The first Marini is gone and conditions in 2012 are not what they were from 1980 to 1983. I wonder if this subject may be raised again. The Pope himself (and he should still count for something, pace the Vatican bureaucrats) said in the Preamble to A.C. that the Anglican patrimony should be preserved. It is the whole reason the ordinariates are to be formed. Nothing could be more central to that patrimony than the King James Bible (A.V.). So I implore you to do somehing in the new cmte. on the Book of Divine Worship instead of buying up the wrong text so that all the ordinariate priests get used to it.


          1. Mr. Perkins….how do I say this…any contribution I might be able to make is no longer welcome — and I might add that if we don't have copies of the Ignatius RSV lectionary available to us, our alternative will be that which is used in the other Catholic parishes. That's simply the way it is at this time. I certainly hope for a change, but I'm not in a position to bring about a change for the better.

            1. Dear Father Christopher, What on earth has happened? Why is your contribution no longer welcome? There was a time when the US Ordinariate was spelt P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S, and it wasn't such a bad time.

            2. It wasn't such a bad time? It was an awesome time — a time of hope and excitement about the wonderful future of the US Ordinariate and the preservation of the Anglican Patrimony. Fr. Phillips really can't say more, but there will come a time, perhaps not too far off, when the sickening story of the birth of the American Ordinariate may be openly told and the wicked acts of wolves in sheep's clothing will be exposed.

            3. To reply to Mr. Campbell as well as to Fr. Phillips, none of this surprises me and, no, I don't intend to get into questions about what happened. I can only say 'Welcome to the Latin Church' and 'you have my prayers'. What I have seen over the decades in the Latin Church has not always been pleasant, like the elderly on their deathbeds asking for the Traditional Latin forms of the last Rites and being denied. Some would say that you have jumped from the frying pan into the fire; but I would have to say that our Blessed Lord means to make us suffer and sacrifice in union with Him for the greater glory.

              In regard to the desacralised 2nd edn. of the R.S.V., I would hope that, as an interim measure, the ordinariate people could apply to use the Confraternity edn. of the Douay-Rheims. It is approved for use from the pulpit in English repetition of the lections at the Traditional Latin Mass. So there's your precedent right there. Then could come a new new new King James Version – Catholic Edn. Were they to object to the sacral wording, you can always point to the approval of the D.-R. I've just referred to.

              If we can't bring this is all at once, let it come in stages. But let it come.


      3. Mr. Perkins.

        I remember a lecture from either a Catholic scholar or a prelate about the nature of numerous translations of the Bible. One of the things I recall is the notion that there are many sorts of "specializations" each translation is made for.

        I also remember that the Vatican approved a sort of "Multipurpose" edition of a translation. I have forgotten the address of the link where I heard it from… It may be from Rome Reports.

      4. The King James Bible is the single most important text the Anglican patrimony
        It is also the most important text in English litgerature. If the Church forbids it, so much the worse for it.

      5. As a cradle Catholic, I would be the first to concede that the KJV surpasses in literary quality any other English translation, past or present. In the few passages where the KJV is inaccurately translated or inexact, I think minor corrections could be made based on the Novus Vulgata, keeping the language and syntax in use at the time the KJV was translated.

    2. Ionnes:

      Preservationists are not immobilists: the King James is 'alive' for me even though it is not from my religious culture. It is central to our literary culture as well. Those who do not want to preserve their liturgical culture already have a place: its called the territorial parishes of the Latin Church. Let them go there. They will find great variety: there's something for everyone. If you like a boring Mass to help lull you to sleep, there's one over at St. Jude. If you want clowns and ladies dancing in leotards, go to St. Paul. If you want the excitement of seeing the Celebrant arrive at the sanctuary on a motorcycle, that's dynamic, and you can get it at Holy Cross. They have everything but tradition. I am only suggesting that tradition be respected in a structure designed to perpetuate it.


      1. Mr. Perkins.

        Please, don't even joke about the liturgical abuses in the Latin Church. I live in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and I am a Filipino. The sort of masses they have in some of the churches are hard to tolerate, but I just consider it as a form of asceticism; after all, it's not about the misguided people, or even the sinners, but about Our Lord's Sacrifice and the Eucharist. It gets very depressing, because I take some pride in my native people and in our country, the most Catholic in East Asia, surrounded by Muslims and Atheists. So for me to wonder about the future of the Church in the Philippines and among my fellow Filipinos of the diaspora, I am very worried when I see the sort of masses they attend. We put our trust in our parish priests, and it gets depressing when the parish priests either allow liturgical abuse and even has a hand in them. This is why I do not get involved in the parish life; they are usually dominated by homosexuals (Or just the really, really, really flamboyant) who choreograph said dances and old women who want to be in the sanctuary as a pseudo-priest. (I am powerless to do anything about it, and can only pray that someone does something about the state of the Church.)

        I am very much aware of the sorts of liturgical abuses in the Latin Churches. Furthermore, if I try to say anything about it, I may be alienated and labeled as ignorant, intolerant (Of the "wonderful multicultural community"), a racist, a bigot- and I'm afraid that if I did try to say anything else in defense of Tradition, I may misrepresent it and ruin any work done towards its preservation and growth.

        This is why I support the Ordinariates, and TLM. I'd like to see the Anglican Patrimony in action as the Ordinariates grow and flourish. I agree, that despite its Protestant origins, the King James Bible is very influential, culturally speaking. This may be the link that will help in Re-Evangelizing the West. I don't find anything objectionable in it, other than the "Apocrypha" business, as well as the anti-Catholic/pope statements in the Preface. As for the "Virgin/Young Woman" or "KJV vs. D-R/RSV/etc." issue, it seems more in the realm of biblical scholars to debate over rather than a simple layman who just wants to figure out what's going on and help in any way he can.

        1. Well, I can only say that, were it not for the faith of Filippinos and Filippinas in my Diocese, you would need a magnifying glass to find worshippers in the cathedral on a Sunday morning. Thank God for those good people. But as you note, it is also hard to find a reverent Mass. We have the T.L.M. every Sunday here, an Anglican Use Mass, and the Ukrainian Byzantine Divine Liturgy. Two N.O. parishes also have passable Masses, at least compared to the others.


        2. …the "Apocrypha" business…
          Every C of E church is obliged to have a complete Bible on the lectern.

  8. "when men say Morning and Evening Prayer privately, they may say the same in any language that they themselves do understand." (Book of Common Prayer of 1662: Concerning the service of the Church) But for public worship, Anglican patrimony surely gives heavy weight to intelligibility (hence the protest against "a tongue not understanded of the people" in Article XXIV) and to expository preaching. So while I do favour a sacral language (because hardly any of the Scriptures were written in "ordinary" language), I also value accuracy and intelligibility. It seems to me that Catholic authority is choosing the least bad compromise actually available.

  9. I know little about the Americas but, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the King James Bible has not been read publically on a general basis for many years. There is even variety in cathedral worship. The RSV is used by most for private reading and study purpoes. I possess a copy of the King James Bible but whever I read it it gives me a headache. It astonishes me that this palpably Protestant translation should be promoted by a reactionary Roman Catholic,even one as idiosyncratic as the dreaded PKTP.

    1. There are many churches in England where the KJV is still used. John's comment may be true in urban areas but not in the countryside. Where a modern version is used, RSV may have been popular in the 1960s, but now NIV and Good News Bibles predominate.

    2. Mr B reminds one of Cardinal Manning: a convert afflicted with Ultramontanitis. But it was Newman who had the enduring influence.

      1. I suspect those with Ultramontanitis are just trying hard to please! This is actually somewhat amusing for this cradle Catholic. But also endearing, because a lot of us cradle Catholics have fallen away and have somewhat died inside.

        So it brings a smile to my face when new Catholic converts are very eager.

    3. Rubbish. I know of a dozen churches within a 5 mile radius where it is used every Sunday at both Communion and Evensong.

  10. The KJV is more Latinate than succeeding English translations, except probably the Challoner editions of the Douai-Rheims Bible. But Bp Challoner rigorously cross checked the Douai Rheims with the KJV as a base text. He recognized the KJV's readability compared to the densely Latinate Douai-Rheims original.

    The current debate now in Ordinariate circles probably based on the standard of Thomas More and Stephen Gardiner on translation. They argued that the Latin preserved the original meaning of the words more precisely and that they should be Anglicised. Somehow the KJV achieved this while maintaining readability and creating a new stylistic form in English literature. It is for this reason that Anglicans and a lot of English speaking Protestants hold the KJV in high esteem. The Douai Rheims consequently enriched the translation of the KJV in what was very polemical times.

    IMHO, it is the weight of history that must be recognized why the KJV should have ecclesial recognition in the Ordinariates. Of course the Church can authorize the use of other English translations as she authorizes numerous translations in other vernaculars. Catholics have the liberty to choose which version they want. I grew up on the RSV but our Family Bible is KJV and during the events that mark the life of any family, births, christenings, weddings and funerals, it was the KJV that we opened the covers.

    And for Anglophone Roman Catholics who have forgotten what Latin is all about, the KJV is a nice start to recover what has been lost and renew this in the 21st century. But this doesn't mean we are preserving that as a museum exhibit, we are actually cultivating a garden as what John XXIII said.

    1. And that's a good thing! What some of us traditionalist Roman Catholics are worried about, especially those who don't know any of the historical context behind its creation and the current views held by people like Ordinariate Catholics, is any subtle things in KJV that would be considered questionable in its translation, and the exclusion of Deuterocanonical books, because it's considered to be a "Protestant Bible" and we have constantly had to contend with individuals who insist that the KJV is the "One, True Version" totally disregarding, say, the Vulgate. I personally would like to have KJV to be "Rehabilitated" at least in the eyes of traditional Roman Catholics but to what extent, and how will it be rehabilitated? Is KJV just a stepping-stone towards the original Latin Vulgate, or is the RSV the actual working "Vulgate" in the Liturgy of practical Anglophone non-Roman Catholics? (Maybe this is the summary of the discussions in Ordinariate circles?)

      1. I note that the Anglicans have the Deuterocanonical books in some of their King James Bibles as a separate secion in the back. They are there, even if not in most editions, and there were appointed for readings in the prayerbooks. I know this because I found a table of readings for the Canadian prayerbook in our local library long ago.

        As for the fear of heresy, again, the editor of the King James was a Catholic, and the passages which might be mildly troubling have been noted over the centuries. You don't through away a cathedral just because three or four pillars need repair.


        1. Whilst it is very diffiucult to buy a KJV with the apocrypha included, this is nothing to do with the KJV which included all 88 books when published. I have a 1636 edition which included all books. A later one has the apoc in smaller type; it is I suspect the 1768 edition (in those dark Hanoverian days) currently published which misses out large chunks of the scriptures.

      2. …the exclusion of Deuterocanonical books…
        They are not excluded; look in any C of E church or lectionary.
        In the complete Bibles I have seen these books are between the Old and New Testaments.

  11. Ioannis,
    I can not decide from your sentence structure whether you believe that the KJV ddoes not include the Deuterocanonical Books or whether you believe that some who "don't know the historical context…" believe these books are not included.
    In any case, let us be clear, the KJV includes the Deuterocanonical Books albeit in a separate section called "Apocrypha". The publication of the KJV without these books (to satisfy Calvinists, Baptists, and others) is often referred to by Anglo-catholics as the "Partly Bible" in contrast to the "Wholly Bible"

  12. Sorry, about my sentence structure. It is a result of a combination of lack of sleep and confusion. I am not entirely knowledgeable about the history of the KJV, making me one of the ignorant. (I honestly don't know how many Roman Catholics know or care about the KJV, or even care. It wouldn't hurt to know a thing or two about it, though!)

    What I do know, is that some books in the KJV are considered Apocrypha. Now, I'm not a biblical scholar, so I'm not really in a position to defend the Deuterocanonicals, but I at least know the difference between the words "Deuterocanonical" and "Apocrypha"- It may be problematic if members of Catholic Church would use a Bible that considers some books apocryphal, while everyone else consider them deuterocanonical, regardless of whether or not Ordinariate folks would like a "Wholly Bible" rather than a "Partly Bible" publication for use…

    In my opinion, since some may recognize the limitations of the King James, and they'd also read some of the Catholic, doctrinally-sound Bibles, I don’t see why they can’t continue to use the King James Version of the Bible.

    1. I also apologise for some typos. This computer box is slow to enter text and makes editing difficult. For longer posts, I am considering using Word and just copying and pasting.


  13. A simple solution to this problem: Reprint the King James with the books of the Apocrypha put in their appropriate places in the Old Testament. Replace the introductory matter with a new Preface written by one of our Ordinaries. Add footnotes where advisable to explain the text in accordance with Catholic Doctrine.

    1. Not so easy in England. The Authorised Version is protected by perpetual copyright so you can't tinker with it.

      1. Maybe this is why I keep remembering a comment from this blog saying that the Ordinariates will be much more meaningful outside of the UK. Seems to me that Protestantism is entrenched there that British Catholics seem to struggle not only from the secularized culture but from the pro-Protestant laws.

      2. Dean Canon Gray:

        I would imagine that a Lectionary could simply give leave to read directly from a King James Bible and then make notes or small alterations in exceptional cases. It would be permissible under copyright law to quote short passages which had been amended, and the others would not be quoted at all but only the references given. So it would not require a reproduction of the King James Bible texts. Where there's a will, there's a way. The liberals have a will, which is to destroy anything beautiful. As for neo-conservatives in the Catholic Church, they can hardly wait to show that the product of their scholarship is superior to what the fathers have bequeated. As our civilisation crumbles, this no longer amuses any of us, I'm sure.


      3. Mr Gray, but we could request copyright permission to print a lectionary with the text of the AV. Outside the UK, the AV is no longer under copyright, so in the US this should be no problem.

  14. To make a suggestion to the ones in charge of these matters? Write into the rules that anyone presuming to serve as Lector in a public service of worship learn English. I attend a Ordinary Form parish in which Africans, teenage girls with braces, women, children, idiots and anyone else who staggers in is allowed to read the Bible at Mass. It is largely unintelligible and mangled. It matters not what version is in use.
    Why can't people learn how to read and speak?
    I have no idea what version of the Bible is in use here in Canada in the RCC, I don;t care. I have no idea what version of the Psalter is in use either, the whole thing is a charade, a sham, a joke. It is a Church of illiterates, even the priests stumble and halt and omit whole sentences and phrases. My God. Just read the bloody words off the page!

    1. In the case of the T.L.M., there are five or six translations allowed by Rome for re-reading of the lections at the pulpit. There is the Confraternity edition (Douay-Rheims) and all the others. All the others–they are the problem. They should not exist. But they do. They do.


    2. Well, Dom. It may dismay you, but us idiots comprise a large majority of the Church. Which may be the reason why Vatican II masses are such a norm, even when it ends up in liturgical abuse. Remember, whenever you see the large crowds in St. Peter's Basilica, 90% of those are idiots- they're not theologians, not some biblical expert, not a member of some intellectual elite.

      Perhaps, rather than castigating us idiots, you can work towards educating us, even if we hate what we hear; just because we don't like it doesn't mean we don't need it. And so, it becomes your sacred duty to teach, as Jesus taught- because if you are a confirmed Catholic, it is your duty to participate in this task, along with the task of saving souls. If you think you are better than us, then you must help us become as good as you, rather than leaving us in the dark. That's what Jesus Christ did, and so that's what we must do to each other, to help each other go to Christ.

      The people who suffer from this lack of love and charity are those who strive to overcome ignorance lukewarmness and deepen their relationship with God.

      You know, the parish I attend in Los Angeles (In the middle of pro-homosexual, pro-contraceptive, pro-abortion, liberal, Neo-Sodom/Gomorrah country) The priests are not perfect; some of the priests say some questionable things and even the parishioners, yours truly included, are not necessarily epitomes of Catholic life- an old man thinks he can sing along when he shouldn't, and people say "And also with you" rather than "And with your/thy spirit" and the sermons can get banal and sometimes nothing more than platitudes that are just forgettable.

      But I love my parish, even if I find some things objectionable because they need the sort of love that will eventually show an example of tradition and proper worship rather than looking down on them and not attending at all, leaving them helpless and without any example. Even if I am not as perfect as, say, those who know the Liturgy of Saint James back-to-back, or those who have memorized the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, I make an effort to love my neighbor through example with how the Novus Ordo Mass can be celebrated piously and with reverence to Jesus Christ who is present in the Mass.

      Of course, if they start saying "Muhammad is the greatest, and Jesus agrees!" at the pulpit or start having naked people in the sanctuary, and desecrating the altar, I'd leave, no questions.

  15. I concede that Canon Gray and others have made a legitimate point in regard to copyright protecion in the U.K. Another legitimate argument is that the C.D.W., like all dicasteries, moves one step per decade. They will not approve a 'Protestant' King James until they have searched every phrase for the whiff of heresy.

    I suggest, then, the following plan:

    1. An absolute ban on the use of any version in non-sacral English, including the Ignatius Press 2nd edn. of the R.S.V. Conversational English militates against the Anglican patrimony. That is true despite its use in various places. It's form breaks a unity in expression which enshrines Sacred text in a recognisable way and in a liturgical context.

    2. In the interim, the Confraternity edn. of the Douay-Rheims Bible, already approved for use in translations from the pulpit read at the Traditional Latin Mass (where this is done: I oppose any such readings, of course), could be approved for an ordinariate lectionary.

    3. Meanwhile, it would not take long for a cmte. of the ordinariates to emend the King James for use in a lectionary in Australia, Canada and the Republic to the south of Canada. Of course, it might take the C.D.W. some time to approve such a version. It takes those people three or four days to sneeze and a month to tie their own shoes.


    1. An absolute ban on the use of any version in non-sacral English, including the Ignatius Press 2nd edn. of the R.S.V. Conversational English militates against the Anglican patrimony. That is true despite its use in various places. It's form breaks a unity in expression which enshrines Sacred text in a recognisable way and in a liturgical context.
      Most Anglicans in the EPUSA don't use "sacral" English of any kind. Only 17% of CofE parishes do. That's what the CDW notices and the Ordinariate will be no exception.

  16. I remember that blessed Canadian Evangelical Anglican the Rev. John Pearce telling me how he loved the KJV. However, when he was in the Royal Canadian Navy during WW II the traditional English C of E chaplain used the RSV with the Prayer Book.
    When questioned by Ensign J. Pearce, the chaplain said that he had grown up on the RSV (that was in the 1940s) and the chaplain in his 50s. The RSV has been in widespread use in the C of E for a century amongst Anglo-Catholics and others. How can it be a deal breaker?

    1. Who said it was a deal breaker? I came in to the Church individually and attend a slightly-better-than-normal Novus Ordo parish mass with relative equanimity.

      The Ordinariate, however, has the opportunity to create the best possible option and to bring to the Church as many treasures as it can. For those who care about sacral English, the Anglican heritage, and continuity with tradition (and, for many of us, uninterrupted practice while we were Anglican) the Authorized Version is an extremely important element. It should at least be a preferred option.

    2. That would have been the 1st edn. of the R.S.V.–in sacral English. The 2nd edn. is recent.


    3. Peregrinus, Toronto on July 25, 2012 at 12:37 pm said:
      "…. when he was in the Royal Canadian Navy during WW II the traditional English C of E chaplain used the RSV with the Prayer Book.
      ……… The RSV has been in widespread use in the C of E for a century amongst Anglo-Catholics and others. "

      Quite impossible. The RSV didn't exist in WWII. The New Testament was first published in 1946, and the Old Testament in 1952. Are you confusing the RSV, Revised Standard Version, with the RV -the Revised Version, which came out in 1881-1885?

      1. Thank you Robert. I stand corrected. John Perrce was no doubt referring to the RV – the first revision of the KJV in wide use in the UK since the 1880s.

        The point, however, remains. By the time of JP in the late 1940s several generations of clergy and laity had used texts other than the KJV for liturgical readings in the C of E and Anglican Communion generally, the RSV being the one current at the time JP was ordained and much more widely used, in England at any rate, than the KJV according to JP.

  17. Peregrinus, to mandate the use of the RSV is not only to outlaw an important part of Patrimony, but an important part of ourselves. That's all we're saying. People ought to do some more huffing and puffing.

    1. If it's not compulsory, it's forbidden. Aren't we grown-up enough to steer between? (Answer: evidently not.)

    2. Most Anglican parishes have continued to use both the KJV and the RSV. The well known KJV lections continue to be used e.g. at Advent/Christmas Lessons and Carol Services and on various occasions through the year.

      The RSV and its predecessor the RV have been and continue to be used widely since the 19th century. Surely these have both embodied the Anglican patrimony in its developed form (Newman's sense). The late Fr. John Neuhaus, the great essayist and former Lutheran Catholic priest, used to promote the RSV as the alternative to what he considered the dreaded New American Bible (NAB).

      Unlike the infelicitous NAB and the NRSV with its interpolations, revisions and outright editing the RSV has been considered by most scholars to be the most faithful translation of the Greek texts into English. Why would the RSV not continue to be used in the Ordinariates?

      Use of both KJV and RSV is the current practice in the UK and in the AU parishes in the USA e.g. Our Lady of the Atonement, San Antonio (which both uses and distributes the RSV lectionary). That is patrimony — why would the use of both these treasures not continue with permission?

    3. Surely to mandate the use of the RSV does not preclude the use of other texts on occasion. The Coverdale psalms are sung in a number of conservative RC parishes as one priest told me this past weekend. Why can't it be so for the KJV-CE which many request.

  18. Even the RSV had to be scrubbed up a little and become the RSV-CE before it was approved for Catholic use. Considering how many modified versions of the KJV have been published lately (New King James Version, 21st Century King James Version, Millennium King James version, Modern King James Version, King James III) I don't think anyone would be shocked by the appearance of a KJV-CE. And if they published a list of all the modifications, then we stubborn old folks could pencil in the changes in our old beloved Bibles and not have to buy new ones.

  19. The KJV is a deal-breaker for me. Any attempt to insert a modern translation would have me out of there in a heartbeat.

    1. I don't quite understand! The RSV has already been approved by the Vatican for Ordinariate use. The KJV(-CE) would have to be approved as an alternative.

  20. Liturgical worship in the Catholic Church, including lectionary readings, cannot use unapproved Scriptural translations. There are several approved translations available which could serve the purposes of the Ordinariate. The KJV / AV is not one of them, and as others have commented, developing an approved Catholic edition of the KJV would be a considerable scholarly and literary undertaking which would take many years to get ecclesiastical approval. (Not to mention that Catholic translations are supposed to be based on the Neo-Vulgate, not the Textus Receptus used as the basis the KJV.) The Ordinariates have thus chosen to use the RSV-CE, which has already been in use in some jurisdictions, and this seems like a wise move to me. But if there is really a strong objection to it and a desire for something that has an older more sacral feel to it, then why not petition for approval to use the Douay-Rheims or Confraternity versions? As much as I admire the literary merit of the KJV, I don't think the Ordinariates are in a position to undertake the decade or more long effort it would take to get a revised version composed and approved and need to have an approved version to use for lectionary purposes in the meantime.

  21. For those of us of a certain age, the KJV of the Bible is part of our literary culture as are the texts of the BCP, the plays and sonnets of Willam Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe et al. But the Church has also to minister to the majority and in the UK today the readership of the largest circulation national newspaper has an average active vocabularly of circa 2,000 words, the most common of which is a participle beginning with the letter "f" used adjectivally in every other, if not every, sentence.

    I also note what Father Phillips said above about his experiences with the the Roman dicasteries when texts for the Pastoral Provision were under consideration. I am entirely unsurprised and I expect that much the same battles are now being fought as proposed texts for the Ordinarariates (all of rhem) are being developed. Historically the role of the dicasteries in question has been to ensure that all texts are "orthodox" and their gut reaction to a text written or edited by a "protestant heretic" is to sniff at it for the whiff of sulphur. 500 years of schism (and, yes, heresy) are not put aside lightly. Then there is the issue of "quis custoiet ipsos custodes". Only now are have some of the excesses of "dynamic translation" been reversed with the happy result of the "reform of the reform" resulting in a new ordinary form for Holy Mass which is (to my mind) a vast improvement.

    But much as I respect the place of the KJV as a work of literature, I would be unhappy with its use in any Catholic Church. The 500 years of the persecution of Catholics in England are not to be put aside lightly.

  22. To reply to Mr. McAuley:

    No, I am referring to liturgical texts and not only to devoltional texts. I have a huge store of handmissals, breviaries and diurnals: they all use the sacral forms. A friend of mine here actually collects such texts and probably has over 200 of them: liturgical or sacral English was definitely the norm until the 1960s.


  23. Late to the party (and it's not really my party, since I continue in communion with the See of Canterbury), may I be permitted three observations?

    1) Full disclosure: Like Fr. Phillips, I pray the Office daily using the Coverdale/Great Bible translation of the psalter and the Authorized Version of the Bible (1662 BCP with 1922 Revised Lectionary bound in, supplemented with Office hymns from the English Hymnal). That means that I read "the greater part" of this translation through every year (and the New Testament twice). It's not an easy translation (Paul's thought is especially complicated, in both Greek and English), but it rewards the reader's efforts. And it is, after all, English: all the hard words will be found in any good dictionary. It's the only version of the Bible that gives me chills when I read certain passages (like Elijah taken up in the whirlwind, which was assigned for the Office a couple of days ago). In other words, I love it.

    2) In reading the comments here, I am very surprised by how little many people seem to know about the AV's text and history and about English versions of the Bible generally. I would commend to readers' attention David Norton's excellent Textual History of the King James Bible, not to mention his recent edition of the whole Bible in which he restores the text as closely as possible to what the translators intended, but with modernized spelling and punctuation, and an attractive paragraphed, single-column layout. The old canards about "heretical renderings" stem from objections to the translators' recourse to the original languages, complaints rendered moot by the 1943 encyclical Divino afflante spiritu. King James's translators did not always come up with solutions that would satisfy modern textual scholars, but they could claim manuscript support for the readings and renderings they chose, often relying on the ancient versions, like the Septuagint (David Norton has identified one passage that must rely on Targum Jonathan, for instance). Nowadays, biblical scholars criticize the AV precisely when it follows the Septuagint or the Vulgate (Isaiah 7:14 being the locus classicus, along with the "Johannine comma"), which should hardly disqualify it from use in Catholic worship. As for the relegation of some texts to a section labelled "Apocrypha," the The Oxford Annotated RSV of 1965 received an Imprimatur in this form — and St. Jerome would have approved, too. I am puzzled by the claim that the 1966 Catholic Edition of the RSV uses "sacral language". Its vocabulary is entirely "modern," except for a curious decision to retain the archaic second person singular pronoun in only those passages where human speech is addressed to the Deity.

    3) As someone for whom the announcement of Anglicanorum coetibus was an occasion of conviction and prolonged self-examination, and who has watched the development of the Ordinariates with the interest of someone who feels in some sense personally invested, let me say in closing that should the Catholic Church fail to approve the liturgical use of the Authorized Version, without bowdlerizations, in the Ordinariates, that action will say with eloquent clarity that the "Anglican Patrimony" of which Anglicanorum coetibus will find in the Ordinariates no continuing city, and that therefore neither will people like me. It's a "deal breaker," not because other translations are unacceptable or pastorally inappropriate (I listen profitably to the NRSV in my pew every Sunday — just like Canadian Roman Catholics), but because it's a litmus test for whether the Apostolic Constitution means what is seems to say. And if its intended meaning has been stifled by defensive diocesan bishops or blinkered curial officials, then, well, that speaks eloquently too.

  24. hmmmm, a discussion with PKTP in "another place" was interesting enough that I felt the need to track him down elsewhere, to comment on his responses to me (comments are closed in the original discussion thread).

    I hope that's OK !!!


    PKTP :

    (generally speaking, you made some very good points, interesting ones in any case, and your position is clearly defendable)

    On the King James issue, ages ago, some Catholics went through all the passages one by one to mark those which had some Protestant colourings. It would be a simple matter to emend them with reference to the Douay-Rheims. Outside England, at least, copyright laws would not prevent this.

    No, it would be no "simple matter" at all — if it had been, don't you think someone wouldn't have already done it ?

    There are SEVERAL problems with the KJV from the Catholic perspective, NOT just issues with Protestantisms in the text.

    First, the translation itself, whilst its English is superb, is not a very good one. It is replete with errors and mistakes and misreadings of the original texts ; which is of course quite normal for a 17th century vernacular Bible, but not par for the course from the contemporary point of view.

    The quality of the translation qua translation, in terms of faithfulness to meanings that is, is inferior to that of the Latin Vulgate.

    The Holy See could not possibly approve, in the 21st century, the use of a Bible adapted from the KJV that did not address and correct the great number of problems in the text, but the very process of doing so would necessarily result in a Bible text not resembling the KJV anyway.

    What seems to be emerging here is a pretext for excluding the Roman Mass, which is the source from which Anglicanism came liturgically and historically. Oh, our Masses should be in sacral English. But then those in the English Ordinariate are almost always using the Novus Ordo in the most recent edition, and those in the American Ordinariate may be using the Novus Ordo or an Anglican Use which has non-sacral lections and throws into the trashbin the single greatest literary monument in the English tongue. What a complete disaster.

    First, let me (respectfully) disagree with your characterisation of the KJV as "the single greatest literary monument in the English tongue" — there may be just a handful (if that) of literary works that I would, personally, consider as greater than the KJV in terms of literary quality, but in my personal opinion they are in fact superior — and besides, from a more religious and Christian point of view : as a Bible, I do not find the KJV to be a good one.

    And really, one need look no further than all those weird Protestant sects, including the Biblical literalist and creationist ones, that have sprung up like mushrooms on the basis of too much misplaced reverence given to this translation of the Bible !!!

    The KJV is, as a translation, what is known as a belle infidèle — but of course, the Church clearly cannot accept a translation having so many different problems attached to it.

    I do OTOH share your suspicion that the hierarchy of the US Ordinariate is using this as an excuse to at least discourage the Extraordinary Form, and in fact I actually voiced that suspicion myself in the original discussion thread.

    But I do think we need to be a little more cautious before throwing blame or condemnations hither or yonder.

    The Ordinariates are still in VERY early days, and neither their liturgies nor their Bibliology have properly stabilised yet. Their very Order of Mass is a Work In Progress. They have not a single Bishop from among their own ranks, and even such other fundamental questions as will married Anglo-Catholic deacons be acceptable as candidates for the clergy, or the broader place of Anglo-Catholic Evangelisation and Catechism within the broader Catholic sphere, have yet to be fully answered.

    These are new Catholic Orders, and as such there are some novelties and adaptations that will need to be introduced, and inevitably some mistakes are going to be made along the road.

    I note that the 1983 Book of Divine Worship, which is the book for the Anglican Use, follows an American Prayerbook. However, it is not the classic version of 1928 but the modernistic one of 1979. I pray that Msgr. Steenson will seek to fix this for America and return to the 1928 one.

    More likely it will end up being a 2014 or 2017 one or whatever future date, and a book specifically created for the Ordinariates. (that some other Anglicans will inevitably end up using too)

    This project is starting to look more and more like the Novus Ordo conversion of the Anglican patrimony instead of its preservation. In such a context, Msgr. Steenson wants to ban the Traditional Latin Mass. Does that, by the way, include a ban in the future on the T.L.M. in sacral English, which some Anglo-Catholics have used IN THEIR PATRIMONY since the time of the Oxford Movement?

    I think this is an exaggeration — as somebody rather pointedly remarked, some TLM Masses are in fact taking place within the US Ordinariate itself.

    Again — Summorum Pontificum and the subsequent instruction from the Holy See that all Seminarians must learn how to give the TLM is also still in very early days, and nobody can expect those priests who have been provided with no TLM training whatsoever, including obviously these converts from Anglicanism whose congregations have not been using Latin for *centuries*, to suddenly be providing the Old Mass.

    Things will slowly change over the course of this generation, as more and more young priests will be ordained who know how to give the TLM, including all Ordinariate priests who will also be obliged to learn that Mass, and as the Ordinariates gradually settle the basics of their Catholic existence.

    It would be unreasonable to expect that all of this necessary work, and time needed to do that work, should just appear instantly ex nihilo.

  25. I couldn't read ALL of the above, so forgive me if some of these points have already been made. I feel PKTP made a VERY convincing case, yet I also agree with Deborah that it is not proper that this should be any kind of deal-breaker.

    The point that I would like to make as a Catholic since 1995, and an Anglican since birth, or the Birth of Christening, there is such a thing, anciently even, of the Catholic hierarchy of truths. We cannot allow that we should refuse to, in the Orthodox Church Vespers words, bend the neck in humble (look at our sins!) submission to our ecclesial elders, yes most especially to the popes who fulfill the role of St Peter himself.

    As you gentlemen and ladies well know, the Catholic hierarchy of truths posits the Catechism as presented by the Magisterium, and within it the Compendium of the Catechism, with the Apostles and the Nicene Creed – those are the highest of the Catholic hierarchy of truths, along with the most apostolic adherence to the kerygma, the announcement of the Good News of the terms of the Covenant, you might say, by the which we can be saved.

    Those are the highest things because they were the most fought for against the heretics, the false teachers that Holy Church has successfully contended, though not without the cost of much suffering, torture, and martyrdom. Surely then, as one progresses in our Catechism, we then are presented with the teachings of how to be good disciples with a filial love for our Bishops, our Metropolitans, our Patriarchs, but most especially the Holy Father the Successor to St Peter. For these reasons we should certainly believe that we are called to join with the Mother Church which is the 'rock-foundation' on which Christ's Church is built. Especially we are called to join her when we see her fulsome, powerful and divine "Teaching Authority." With St Peter was promised the keys of the earthly government of Christ's Holy Church. And we recently have been particularly blessed with saintly popes such as John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and now Pope Francis. How could we stay away? Like Peter said, "Lord, to whom could we go? Thou only hast the words of eternal life!"

    Finally as Deborah said, we can bring our affection for the KJV Bible. I want to say that I love it more than anyone, having devoted most of my adult life to Bible study. I truly believe there is nothing heretical about it from cover to cover, nor is there anything that would justify the Reformation's unfortunate schism. After all, it was used by the great divines of Carolingian times, as well as the time of the Oxford Movement. I have come to see that in the RSV are definite and grievous modernisms pertaining to Our Blessed Mother Mary and her virginity.
    Throughout there is a tone of modernism because modernists worked on it with much glee! Therefore one should argue that the KJV, which simply and grammatically corrected the awkwardness of the Douay-Rheims version in the flowing beauty and awesome fear of God that goes with, I believe, greater Hebrew & Greek scholars who were deeper Christians than in modern times. Many conservative and orthodox teachers have shown that the KJV is usually more accurate than the RSV, which is why the American evangelicals used the KJV and their own 1890's American Standard Version founded upon it and basically ignored with suspicion the making and publication of the RSV. We must also realize in joining the Catholic Church that Bible study is at a "premium." The Pontifical Biblical Institute (PBI) has been a rotten branch that should be cut off like one cutting off the hand that sins: it is modernist in the theological sense, not "modern" in scientific scholarship.

    Therefore orthodox joiners to the Catholic Church are doing Holy Church a great favour if they "contend for the faith of the apostles" who trembled at the Word preached and written by one another, recognizing that the Spirit of God was at work, governing Holy Church by a strict adherence to the Apostles orthodox teaching , and especially St Peter's 'confirmation' of the same, for instance at the Council of Jerusalem. St Peter even then was the official mouthpiece of Holy Church.

    Archbishop Fulton J Sheen said it is a DUTY of the laity to remind the clergy of THEIR duties, not in an intransigent demeanor but one that trembles at the sacredness of their office, even if one will often find that they have bought into many errors of the modernists, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the study of Sacred Scripture.

    God bless you , my beloved,

    Monk Chanan

Leave a Reply