It's on their own web pages.
But they've never examined it.
Even though in the "history" of this particular ecclesiastical community..."glosses" themselves have a history all their own, which includes numbers of their own (the RCC) faithful having persecuted even unto death, those who had the wrong margin notes in their bibles, particularly when those same people had other materials in their possession at the same time -- like Lutheran "books". I can trot out an account of an auto de' fe of representatives of the RCC, in conjunction with past secular government having put to the torch, burned to death a "Lutheran bookbinder", if you'd like.
The King James translation was hated, and once widely suppressed by the RCC ...much due to what was written in it's notes of introduction, before that translation went on to have the significant impact on Western culture that it did. But Romanists were (and still are, many of them) against it -- while not having "officially" approved any other English translation??? WOW. After all these centuries. But then again, English is the language of those hated Anglicans, who though may be accepted when they surrender and convert, are still without access to officially (Vatican) supported scripture translation, in those persons native tongue. Too vulgar is it?
Wycliff that 'morning star of the Reformation' was right. Your own words, vladi, (in fact, your own overall approach, displayed consistently if not relentlessly on these pages) vindicate that man, to this day.
But it's all ok now since, in this instance, due to there not being any "official" English language scripture translations (after all these centuries, the "Vatican" hasn't gotten around to it yet) or if there is, it all hinges now upon whether or not there is "any" evidence that the Vatican has even examined the text, translation, or even the notes or introductions of the NAB.
Just wow. One has to produce evidence to you that the "Vatican" even reads what "it" put up on it's own web pages, with this including (or is it more limited to?) this being in regards to English language translation of scripture.
G_P_H, I think you have shown by now, that what is on the Vatican pages as to scripture itself in the English language, is about as close to "official" as any is going to "get".
After that could be assented to, perhaps then some conversation as to the use of parable, could proceed.
It's too bad that even if it could proceed, it would be only under condition of having had to accept a form of double-talk, even as the conversation itself transpires in English language.
I guess the Anglicans who convert, if they do not know Latin already, can learn it. I mean...we all know that was the original "holy language", of Christ and the Apostles...right?
Excellent, as well as all of your posts; same for GPH.
“I can trot out an account of an auto de’ fe of representatives of the RCC”
An auto de’ fe? What’s an auto de’ fe? It’s what you oughtn’t to do but you do anyway!