Substitute "Vatican II sect" for "Catholic Church", and your points would have more merit (as the NAB was promulgated in 1970). For is it any surprise that a religion which proclaims non-Catholic sects can be used as means of salvation would advocate for translations of Holy Writ that are tainted by liberal and Modernist thought?
If your argument is that the magisterial stewards of Scripture are the sure and supreme authority on what it consists of and means then you have just nuked the NT church.
How so?
Then they should not have followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
As the stewards and authorities of the Old Testament, they more than anyone else had no excuse for not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. Yet Christ did not come to abolish, but to fulfill, did He not? To whom much is given, much is expected; if those who merely heard the Scriptures were able to recognize Christ as the Messiah - through not only His knowledge and teaching, but also His many miracles and His claims of divinity (implicit or otherwise) - then those who actually could read the Scriptures should have known better. Yet they did not (or were purposefully blind, or purposefully let their conceits rule the day instead of devotion to God), and thus were condemned quite venomously by our Lord.
And note that the body of wholly inspired writings that had been established by the time of Christ, and thus so often appealed to, "(such as "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27) were not established due to any infallible conciliar decree, and their establishment was essentially die to the unique heavenly qualities and attestation, while likely have somewhat different versions.
And yet, historically speaking, questions about the canonicity of certain texts appeared to have been the focus of much debate, even centuries after the last of the OT Prophets passed away:
If you're going by the record of the Talmud, then according to this article, "much of the Tanakh was compiled by the men of the Great Assembly (Anshei K'nesset HaGedolah), a task completed in 450 BCE, and it has remained unchanged ever since." That sounds a lot like some kind of council to me. Of course, there are scholars who disagree with this, it would seem.
Strictly speaking of the Old Testament portions of Scripture, to assert that the Jewish canon was set by the time of Christ is at least a matter of debate, as per the first link: "There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE),[5] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.[6]"
And which party has produced the most accessible dictionaries and classic extensive commentaries which explains such things?...If so, then why has evangelical faith has produced the most accessible dictionaries and classic extensive commentaries, which overall are in agreement on the main issues at the least?
I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not disparaging or discouraging the use of commentaries, concordances, or other such study tools. In fact, I believe that they can be highly efficacious to one's understanding of Scripture (for there are many who have a deeper knowledge of the Bible than you or I).
I was simply pointing out what seemed to be a contradictory message: throughout this thread, my notion of saying that there is a higher authority regarding the interpretation of Scriptures than myself was lambasted, and that my comprehension must be lacking to say such a thing. If that mentality is true - that one's own knowledge is sufficient to rightly interpret the Scriptures, so long as you profess to be guided by the Holy Spirit - then the very existence of Scriptural commentaries is superfluous and an exercise in vanity.
After all, if your interpretation and analysis of Scripture warrants being its own separate commentary, then it is implicitly arguing for its own superiority over those interpretations that aren't in a commentary.
And in Catholicism there is even more varied beliefs than among "Bible Christians," who are the group most unified is core beliefs, much more than Catholics. Whom Rome manifestly counts as members in life and in death, from proabortion, prohomosexuality public figures to cultic TradCaths.
Of the modern Vatican II sect, this is true, which is part of the thrust of sedevacantism:
The current counterfeit religion masquerading as Catholicism lacks substantial unity, on this you and I can agree.
Substitute "Vatican II sect" for "Catholic Church", and your points would have more merit (as the NAB was promulgated in 1970). For is it any surprise that a religion which proclaims non-Catholic sects can be used as means of salvation would advocate for translations of Holy Writ that are tainted by liberal and Modernist thought? But unless you are going to operate like an evangelical, in the sense that the laity ascertain the veracity of church teaching based upon their own judgment of what historical church teaching says (for us that is the wholly inspired Scriptures, while for TradCaths it is what premodern pope and council say the word of God teaches), rather than trusting "the Living Magisterium" to clarify it.
As per much historical papal teaching:
'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources )
If your argument is that the magisterial stewards of Scripture are the sure and supreme authority on what it consists of and means then you have just nuked the NT church.
How so?
It was obvious, for as said, those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
Thus if the magisterial stewards of Scripture are the sure and supreme authority on what it consists of and means then 1st century souls "should not have followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected," yet which the common people judged to be of God, as they did concerning John.
As the stewards and authorities of the Old Testament, they more than anyone else had no excuse for not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. Yet Christ did not come to abolish, but to fulfill, did He not? To whom much is given, much is expected; if those who merely heard the Scriptures were able to recognize Christ as the Messiah - through not only His knowledge and teaching, but also His many miracles and His claims of divinity (implicit or otherwise) - then those who actually could read the Scriptures should have known better. Yet they did not (or were purposefully blind, or purposefully let their conceits rule the day instead of devotion to God), and thus were condemned quite venomously by our Lord.
Which charge is laid upon your church based upon her claims, yet rather than being consistent with what the NT church manifestly believed, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
And yet, historically speaking, questions about the canonicity of certain texts appeared to have been the focus of much debate, even centuries after the last of the OT Prophets passed away: If you're going by the record of the Talmud, then according to this article, "much of the Tanakh was compiled by the men of the Great Assembly (Anshei K'nesset HaGedolah), a task completed in 450 BCE, and it has remained unchanged ever since." That sounds a lot like some kind of council to me. Of course, there are scholars who disagree with this, it would seem.
And RCs claim that the canon of Scripture was settled in the 4th century, yet in reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
But regardless of scholastic debate about the status 2,000 years ago, it is rather obvious that as said, there was a body of wholly inspired writings that had been established by the time of Christ, as seen by "Scripture/it is written..." often being appealed to, plus the searching of them exhorted and exampled. As in the case of our Biblical canon, certain books would become more solidified as belonging in the canon, yet that there was a body of wholly inspired writings that had been established as authoritative is undeniable. Even if Rome asserts one cannot discover the contents of Holy Writ apart from faith in her which must tell us.
If you're going by the record of the Talmud, t
No, we certainly are not going to go by the Talmud.
I was simply pointing out what seemed to be a contradictory message: throughout this thread, my notion of saying that there is a higher authority regarding the interpretation of Scriptures than myself was lambasted, and that my comprehension must be lacking to say such a thing. If that mentality is true - that one's own knowledge is sufficient to rightly interpret the Scriptures, so long as you profess to be guided by the Holy Spirit - then the very existence of Scriptural commentaries is superfluous and an exercise in vanity.
Context. Some the same parties whom you see as dismissing commentaries as superfluous and an exercise in vanity can also be seen posting what commentaries state, or discussing them. For as with "ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things..." (1 John 2:27) the context is that of the claim that one needs some sort of infallible or elite teacher in order to know what Scripture consists of and means, with what these non-inspired men say being supreme, versus Scripture itself.
And in Catholicism there is even more varied beliefs than among "Bible Christians," who are the group most unified is core beliefs, much more than Catholics. Whom Rome manifestly counts as members in life and in death, from proabortion, prohomosexuality public figures to cultic TradCaths.
Of the modern Vatican II sect, this is true, which is part of the thrust of sedevacantism:
That is some chart! But incomplete. What one poster wryly commented fits here,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” - Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html like the wryly
All and all, despite you being a schismatic in the eyes of official Rome, as before, you have actually provided an argument against becoming a Catholic, regardless of which sect.
May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)