NAB is produced by most liberal Catholic Bible scholars available in cooperation with the Protestants, -- always a bad idea.
A few liberal Protestants, which still would not be an excuse (ask Aaron), and rather than blame being shifted away from Rome, liberalism is well entrenched in Rome even in high places. I know that the NAB is liberal, but it is an official work of Rome, even the properly stamped officially approved Bible for America, and has been for years, and the note remains even in the latest revision (NABRE). Thus if you resort to negating its comments then you impugn the authority of the very Roman Catholic church which you are defending as the supreme teacher.
A serious Catholic should wholly disregard the "catholic" NAB comments.
And because of such thus we get different answers from RCAs as to just what is official teaching depending on what they want to prove. But 1Cor. 3 is not infallibly interpreted, nor does your interpretation have the required “unanimous consent of the fathers.”
The problem with this interpretation is that it makes the particular judgment a non-event: the believer is saved and ... is made wait till the Second Coming to enter heaven and be with the Lord. While this reading is possible, it is not mandated by the text as it is possible that the manifestation to others is delayed but the purification itslef is immediate.
There is no problem with this substantiated reasoning; the problem is with your premise. The Lord knows those who are His, (2Tim. 2:19) and there is no waiting for getting into Heaven now, which believers are already positionally in, (Eph. 2:6; Phil. 3:20) and the clearest texts speak of them being there after death, as shown, or if the resurrection took place in the 1st century the church would be immediately and forever with the Lord. (1Thes,. 4:17) At the first resurrection (Rev 20:6; cf Jn. 5:29a) they will receive glorified bodes, (1Jn. 3:12; 1Cor. 15:51,52; 1Thes. 4:16) and at which time the judgment in 1Cor. 3 takes place when believers receive the promised rewards. (Rev. 11:18; 1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Mt. 25:31; Rev. 11:18; 22:12)
There is both a loss and a gain described in 1 Cor. 3 (vv 8, 15) and in the case of the purgatorial passage according to the Church there is also a loss of the direct passage into sainthood, and a gain of that very sainthood in the end. There is no contradiction between the scripture and the teaching of the Church here.
A loss and gain aspect does not make it the same, and there certainly is a contradiction, as the loss is not that of a delay into sainthood, which is read into the text (and all believers are called saints: Rm. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25,26,31, etc.), and the suffering is that of loss of rewards due to “any man's works” not enduring the fire test, as was demonstrated.
espacially that of holding the damnable Protestant convictions in order to hurt the Catholic Church will..be damned forever.
You must exalt Rome like this, but we consider the source and find that what is damned is your spurious attempts to defend Rome, and that she has become the gates of Hell for many.
There is no such distinction as "workmanship in building the church" opposed to "personal faults which one must be purified from".
I stated that “the loss of rewards in 1Cor. 3 does reflect upon the character of the builder.” Personal faults are manifested in works, just as true faith is manifest by works, and believers are thus judged according to their works as it testifies to their faith or lack thereof. Thus there is a distinction as regards cause and effect, as well as what is burned up which is the flammable works themselves while the precious stones gain a reward. In context, it is manifest that this was ones workmanship in building the church, and the believers were Paul's work, and crown of rejoicing in that day of Christ when the judgment on rewards for believers formally takes place.
When one commits a sin, that is a sin against the entire Church as well as an individual loss, and when one does penance, that builds him individually and also builds up the Chruch as a whole (Col. 1:24). That the passage is not about the clergy only is seen in "every man's work" being underscored in the passage.
I did not restrict it to the clergy, but expressed that believers are building the church directly or indirectly, and which Col. 1:24 supports, as seen in my comments on it above.
>Nowhere does Scripture tell of believers being in a postmortem place of suffering for purifying of faults<
In this passage, 1 Cor 3 verses 13 through 15 in particular we see that post-mortem suffering. Your point seems to be that the souls that go through the purgatorial cleansing are with the Lord already, -- which indeed in a way they are -- so you yourself agree that the suffering and loss described in the passage in focus is occuring following the believer's natural death.
If this was the issue and purgatorial cleansing was defined as i expressed, and awaited the return of the Lord, then there would be no debate, but some basic commonalities do not negate differences, which was what my points addressed
the fire is that which consumes the false building material, which is shown to be the manner of converts one built the church with
No, because in 1 Cor 3:9 every believer is said to be such building. It is therefore he himself being burnt in the cleansing fire, not some disembodied "works" or "materials". You are not following the language of the metaphor through.
It is you who is not following the language of the metaphor correctly, as it is not “buildings,” but “God's building,” and the temple is also collective (“ye” is plural), and it is not every building but the material one builds with that the “fire” reveals. And here you are not following what the fire metaphor does correctly, which is not progressive cleansing one of unwanted personal faults through potentially eons of years, which would reward him with access to glory, but that of revealing what is chaff (wood, hay, stubble), which results in loss of rewards, with one may be saved despite of, if somewhat empty handed.
The Lord does know both who is saved and who is lost before hand, but as the sentencing of the lost is awaits the great white throne judgment, (Rv. 20:11-15) so the giving of rewards awaits the day of Christ, when the Lord gives “reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” (Rv. 11:18)
In this case, both East and West agree on the essentials,that there is a purification after death of those capable of being purified and thus saved...
We also believe in the need for purification as a mark of true faith, but we see in Scripture this being dealt with in this life.
Why I loathe the NAB, by Mad Dawg
The first version was a joke. That was readily seen. So they decided on another version. A friend of mine knows one of the translators. So he went off on him about the description of the repentance of the Prodigal Son.
The text says clearly, “He came to himself.” (And these are given to us as ipsissima verbi, don’t forget.) But the translators in their vain adulation of “Dynamic equivalence” decided to translate is “he came to his SENSES”!!!!!
That’s not translation, that’s mutilation!
Also, Isaiah 55, one of the most generally important and startlingly beautiful passages in all literature, much less in all the Bible. these bozoi have that the Word of God “will not return to me void.” VOID? What in the name of all that’s beautiful is wrong with “empty”?
Don’t get me started....
The Catholic authority is the Catechism, not commentaries to bad translations by Catholic quislings, whose name is legion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites 1 Cor. 3 as biblical support for the purgatory.
III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.606
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."607 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.608 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.609
604 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.
605 Cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15; ⇒ 1 Pet 1:7.
606 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. ⇒ Mt 12:31.
607 ⇒ 2 Macc 12:46.
608 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 856.
609 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41, 5: PG 61, 361; cf. ⇒ Job 1:5.
your interpretation [does not] have the required “unanimous consent of the fathers.”
As I pointed out, it consents with the Catechism; it is an interpretation on which the consensus exists at least in the Western Church. Again, 1 Cor 3 is the answer to the question "where is purgatory taught"? On the consensus with the Orthodox we can work and do work. When I see you converting to authentic Christianity, Eastern or Western we can discuss the patristics on the purgatory as brothers; not at the state you are in.
The Lord knows those who are His, (2Tim. 2:19) and there is no waiting for getting into Heaven now,[etc.]
I don't duisagree with that paragraph. If it ws written to refute something the Church teaches, kindly try again.
the suffering is that of loss of rewards due to “any man's works” not enduring the fire test
Yeah, OK. Since the Church does not style all church goers as saints, but rather sees in sanctification a life long process, the presence of imperfections after death is to the Church a delay in sanctification also. You see a difference because you don't understand Catohlic anthropology.
You must exalt Rome like this
And so must you. The Church is the mother of all Christians.
n context, it is manifest that this was ones workmanship in building the church [...] believers are building the church directly or indirectly, and which Col. 1:24 supports
No becase "every man" is called to be a building himself, which building is tested. It is true that every good work build the Church, and every Protestant effort at exegesis aims to destroy it. This is why one should not collaborate with the Protestants in matters of faith.
If this was the issue and purgatorial cleansing was defined as i expressed, and awaited the return of the Lord, then there would be no debate, but some basic commonalities do not negate differences, which was what my points addressed
Maybe you should list the differences then rather than making verbose posts that mostly speak of things we all agree upon.
(“ye” is plural)
St. Paul writes to more than one person, but he says that "if any man build upon this foundation" and then "every man's work", so the building might be a common one, but it is the person of the builder that is tested.
We also believe in the need for purification as a mark of true faith, but we see in Scripture this being dealt with in this life.
Of course. The purgatorial suffering is for those who for various reasons died while their purification in this life was not complete.
(How shall I represent the loud buzzer noise?)
;-)
Alternatively: What have you been SMOKING!
Protestants deprive themselves of one of the joys of being Catholic, namely: grumbling about our bishops. The whole humorous irony of our "faith" which seems ever to escape our opponents, is that we fervently maintain that God has preserved the Church as the "pillar of truth" in SPITE of, not because of, the bishops and others in authority. We almost enjoy outrages like the NAB, because they remind us that our help is in the Name of the Lord -- as opposed to the USCCB
(IMHO) Because of the Magisterium, the issues raised by the notes and by the execrable translation are due our consideration. We use the blessed thing in our Masses. Why are appropriately subservient to that point.
But just as (and it pains me as a Thomist to say this - kidding) John Paul II of blessed memory said there is no official philosophy of the Church (in Fides et Ratio), so I think we can say there is no official exegesis or technique of "higher criticism" or any such thing of the Church.
IF asked, I have no problem 'sharing' in RCIA some of the methods and conjectures of the "higher criticism," and I have found some things, esp. formgeschichte, to be useful.
But I ALWAYS say firmly, that the Scriptures were discerned by the Church and handed on to us as the crown and jewel and, indeed, canon of all things handed on -- traditions. And however else we read it, we should read it as it is given.
And I think even "dynamically equivalent" scribes and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops cannot dim its light. I do not worry (well, not TOO much) because the Lord fights for me.