I know there have been a few threads on this in the past, but I'm looking for some answers. I'm wondering what the faults are with this translation. I've searched all over EWTN, and the only answer they seem to provide is that this translations is not in agreement with some Catholic doctrine. Problem is, I can't find how or where.

The typical KJV that you buy in a store does not have the complete Bible. If you purchase a 1611 edition it will have the Deuterocanonical books (Protestants call them Apocrypha) sectioned off in the middle. Most stores do not carry the 1611 on hand, but are usually quite willing to order it for you.

It is a sort of reader's digest condensed version. I find the language to be beautiful and still prefer it for reading the psalms.

That isn't the problem that Catholics have with the translation.

The problems are the same as the problems that they had with Tyndale, and the complaints go back to Saint Thomas More.

The problems:

1. It avoids the use of the word 'Church' in favor of 'community'
2. It avoids the use of the word 'priest' or 'bishop' in favor euphemisms like 'elder'
3. It says 'repent' rather than 'do penance'
4. It says 'highly favored one' instead of 'full of grace'

In short, in many key places it is biased in favor of Protestantism

Now, it doesn't have these problems to the extent that Tyndale does....but they are still there nonetheless.

The Authorized Version was produced by a government agency in support of Protestant English government policies. The administration of James was interested in slapping the Puritans with one hand and the Catholics with the other, while advancing the interests of the governmentally established Anglican church. Thus, choices are made to reflect this. One sees a slap at the Puritans with the rendering of Peter's words about Judas in Acts as "His bishopric let another take", while Catholics receive a slap in the mistranslation of Matthew 6:7 as "use not vain repetitions", when the Greek (which actually means to babble, or prattle, or stutter, or prate, or chatter, or to talk on and on at great length about the same subject as Protestant preachers are in fact fond of doing in extempore prayer!) does not really say that at all.

Please note that nowhere did I say this was the only reason why Catholics do not like the KJV version. However to say it's NOT a reason is incorrect.
Many Catholics that think this is a MAJOR problem with the KJV.

I agree with Custos.

GKC

Me too.
It was so eye opening to me (and comforting) to understand the Greek of "use not vain repetitions".

As does the NAB

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke1.htm#v26

Luke 1:28
And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."

The KJV includes the 'apocrypha' and the translation is actually decent..,...it is only since 1833 that it became common for Protestants to exclude these books entirely, and even this is gradually being reversed as they are being re-inserted into many popular Protestant editions, and there is a resurgence of interest in these books by evangelicals.

I spent half my childhood, all my teenage years, and until I was 22 in and out of my father's Christian book store. I was managing it until I left for England with my dh. I know my protestant Bibles.
Like I said, KJV does not generally come with the Deuterocanonical books. That does not mean a person can't find one, but it's not common to find them on bookstore shelves. The most common, hand held book ( of the Bible) that has it is the 1611 edition.
I did a quick search on Amazon for a KJV Bible. The only one in the first four pages that had the books was a Kindle edition. There were none that a typical protestant would carry.

This is because....

WHO tends to buy the KJV?
KJV Onlyists and fundamentalists on the one hand and scholars and historians of the English language on the other.

The scholars and historians interested in the KJV aren't going to go to the local 'Christian Book Store' to get a copy, they will go to Oxford University Press or a similar academic publisher where editions of the full KJV are easy to obtain and plentiful.

Uuhhhmmm, so why were you taking issues with my post? I did say "typical" and "generally". Frankly, scholars and historians aren't a typical person on the street.
You make my head hurt, Doom.
I like ya, but aaggghhhh!
So glad to of had this chat today. I shall look forward to the next one.

I have the New Jerusalem Bible (which Mother Angelica uses) and it says "so highly favoured"

Because you suggested that the reason for Catholic opposition or criticism of the KJV has something to with the Deuterocanon....it doesen't, it has to do with disagreements about issues of translation and bias.

Ok, Doom, last time.

NOWHERE did I say it was the only reason that Catholics do not like the KJV.

It IS true that many Catholics do not like the KJV because it typically does not have the Deuterocanonical books within it. This does not keep the same Catholics for disliking it for other reasons. Nor does it keep other Catholics from disliking it for other reasons.

I took the op's question to heart as a Catholic and thus answered as a Catholic and for other Catholics that have discussed this with me.
If the original poster only wanted to know why the Church dislikes the version, then I offer my apology to him.

What did Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman think about King James Bible?

It is not even a reason AT ALL. The opposition of the Catholic Church to the KJV has nothing to do with the deuterocanon.

Also, in John 1:42, the KJV has "which is interpreted 'little stone' ".

I advise one and all to follow my simple rule of thumb. If Luke 1:28 does not translate as "full of grace", then the translation should not be used.

Ironically though, one of the reasons behind the KJV was to combat the more Protestant versions such as the Geneva Bible. The KJV, which is so embraced by fundies, was intended to stress the episcopal nature of the church and obedience to authority.