he NAB is the official Bible of the U.S. Conference of Bishops
Hopefully, not for long. However, I am not an American Catholic, I am Catholic who is also an American (naturalized, in my case).
Which in practical terms means?? Catholics can read that and other Bibles, in contrast to much of her history, but I do not think Rome would allow your condition to forsake the use of the NAB in Mass if you were a priest. But this is just one more thing which Catholics take issue with their church about, partly for legitimate reasons. The NAB impugns upon the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and Catholics themselves have complained that it relegates numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, among other denials, along with other problems and gender inclusive language.
The USCCB owns the copyright for the NAB and the RNAB, and a Catholic podcast Lectionary even got a quick "cease and desist" letter for violating copyright However, their Bible text had to be amended for the lectionary because the Vatican rejected it for Mass no one in authority seems inclined to incorporate these same emendations back into the RNAB.
Also, the NAB footnotes assert alleged contradictions in Scripture, and Catholics are divided on whether the Vatican Two statement in Dei Verbum, which was the result of a behind-the-scenes debate at Vatican II about inerrancy, and states that the Bible “teaches without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" supports the position that the Bible is only immune from error within a certain limited domain, which at least one frequent Roman Catholic poster here seems to think, if that, versus what Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus states. Of course, there is also disagreement as to whether all encyclicals are infallible, or how much therein is. Also debated is whether the Bible teaches geocentrism.
saved in one day, as the 3k souls at Pentecost
When a Protestant says "saved" he often implies that the work of faith has been complete in that person. Do you imply that?
If you mean a faith that is alone, having no fruit, and no growth in grace, then that is a superficial, if convenient, understanding, and you should have know my answer by now. If you mean that at that moment the person is washed, sanctified and justified, (1Cor. 6:11) accepted in the Beloved, (Eph. 1:6) spiritually baptized into body of Christ, (1Cor. 12:13), and translated into the the kingdom of God and made to sit together in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6) and would go to be with the Lord that day if he died, but who is to become more and more practically what he is positionally, to one toward completeness, yes.
Well put.
Matter of fact, long time ago I was a lector and the priest told me to use a Canadian lectionary because that was based on the translation he liked better. I don’t remember which was which. The Tridentine Rite uses Jerome’s Latin translation. But your larger point is valid, that in practical terms NAB is today a part of Novus Ordo in America and everything else is exceptional. This situation is not perfect, as the NAB is a flawed translation, as you point out. The supposedly “Catholic” commentary to the NAB is actually worse that the translation itself.
Looking on the bright side, traditionalism of many kinds is rising in America and worldwide. I think all these concessions to Protestantism that Vatican II attempted to institute will be swept to the ash heap of history soon, along with the dynamic translations, clown masses, and the Protestantized church space. The English translation of the Mass rubrics itself, for example, has been brought in line with the Latin original, much to the protest of the liberal wing of the American episcopacy; it is going in effect next liturgical year (fall of 2011). Things are looking very good going forward.
Second, what translation is used at Mass is less important to the formation of a Catholic than what translation to use in a Protestant setting for the formation of Protestants, because a Catholic does not get his knowledge of Christ from the naked text of the scripture. The scripture read at Mass is properly contextualized by the Old Testament, Epistle and the Gospel readings, and the Psalm, heard as a group; the homily ordinarily (there are exceptions) is centered on the three readings. So the Catholic faithful gets the correct picture from the medium of the Church. I heard many homilies where the priest would explain where the translation falls short and point out what the original really says. That is his job, to deliver the Good News accurately.
there is also disagreement …
Of course there is. We are a living church.
If you mean that at that moment the person is washed, sanctified and justified, (1Cor. 6:11) accepted in the Beloved, (Eph. 1:6) spiritually baptized into body of Christ, (1Cor. 12:13), and translated into the the kingdom of God and made to sit together in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6) and would go to be with the Lord that day if he died, but who is to become more and more practically what he is positionally, to one toward completeness, yes.
The Gospel actually says that these souls were baptized and added to the Church” (Acts 2:41), but you said “saved”. So you understand that at baptism the work of justification begins rather than ends. That is important, again, because most Protestants hold to the once-saved-always-saved view in some form; they consider themselves “saved” in the past tense. Once again, your meaning is good and Catholic but your language is Protestant and obscures the meaning.