Posted on 10/25/2013 1:32:26 PM PDT by Gamecock
"I defy the pope and all his laws; and, if God spares me, I will one day make the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the pope does!" So said translation pioneer William Tyndale.
Born near Dursley, Gloucestershire, UK, between 1484 and 1496, Tyndale developed a zeal to get the Bible into the hands of the common man—a passion for which he ultimately gave his life.
Educated at Oxford and Cambridge, Tyndale became fluent in at least seven languages. In 1522, the same year Luther translated the New Testament into German, Tyndale was an ordained Catholic priest serving John Walsh of Gloucestershire. It was during this time, when Tyndale was 28 years of age, that he began pouring over Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. The more he studied the more the doctrines of the Reformation became clear. And like a great fire kindled by a lighting strike, so Tyndale’s heart was set ablaze by the doctrines of grace:
By grace . . . we are plucked out of Adam the ground of all evil and graffed in Christ, the root of all goodness. In Christ God loved us, his elect and chosen, before the world began and reserved us unto the knowledge of his Son and of his holy gospel; and when the gospel is preached to us openeth our hearts and giveth us grace to believe, and putteth the spirit of Christ in us: and we know him as our Father most merciful, and consent to the law and love it inwardly in our heart and desire to fulfill it and sorrow because we do not.
Rome’s Opposition to an English Translation
Nearly 200 years earlier, starting in 1382, John Wycliff and his followers (known as Lollards) distributed hand-written English translations of Scripture. The Archbishop of Canterbury responded by having Wycliffe and his writings condemned.
But Rome was not finished. In 1401, Parliament passed a law making heresy a capital offence. Seven years later, the Archbishop of Canterbury made it a crime to “translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue . . . and that no man can read any such book . . . in part or in whole." The sentence was burning. Across Europe, the flames were ignited and the Lollards were all but destroyed. Rome was determined to keep God’s Word out of the people’s hands.
. . . as a boy of 11 watched the burning of a young man in Norwich for possessing the Lord’s Prayer in English . . . John Foxe records . . . seven Lollards burned at Coventry in 1519 for teaching their children the Lord’s Prayer in English.
John Bale (1495-1563)
Rome was not finished with Wycliffe either: 44 years after his death, the pope ordered Wycliffe’s bones exhumed, burned, and his ashes scattered.
Tyndale was truly in great danger.
Tyndale’s End
Fearing for his life, Tyndale fled London for Brussels in 1524 where he continued his translation work for the next 12 years. Tyndale’s time in exile was dreadful, as he describes in a 1531 letter:
. . . my pains . . . my poverty . . . my exile out of mine natural country, and bitter absence from my friends . . . my hunger, my thirst, my cold, the great danger wherewith I am everywhere encompassed, and finally . . . innumerable other hard and sharp fighting’s which I endure.
On the evening of May 21, 1535, Tyndale was betrayed to the authorities by a man he trusted, Henry Philips. For the next 18 months, Tyndale lived a prisoner in Vilvorde Castle, six miles outside of Brussles. The charge was heresy.
The verdict came in August, 1536. He was condemned as a heretic and defrocked as a priest. On or about October 6, 1536, Tyndale was tied to a stake, strangled by an executioner, and then his body burned. He was 42 years old. His last words were, “Lord! Open the King of England’s Eyes!”
Tyndale’s Legacy
Tyndale’s translations were the foundations for Miles Coverdale’s Great Bible (1539) and later for the Geneva Bible (1557). As a matter of fact, about 90% of the Geneva Bible’s New Testement was Tyndale’s work. In addition, the 54 scholars who produced the 1611 Authorized Version (King James) bible relied heavily upon Tyndale’s translations, although they did not give him credit.
Tyndale is also known as a pioneer in the biblical languages. He introduced several words into the English language, such as Jehovah, Passover, scapegoat, and atonement.
It has been asserted that Tyndale's place in history has not yet been sufficiently recognized as a translator of the Scriptures, as an apostle of liberty, and as a chief promoter of the Reformation in England. In all these respects his influence has been singularly under-valued, at least to Protestants.
Now, if you want to criticize my history, the obvious way to go would be to point out that I called Charles V, “Charles III.”
Oops. ;-)
I understand. Again, welcome home.
If you want unity, then prevent any objective examination of evidence and allow research only by the brainwashed, and you have the JWs and N. Korea.
vladimir, you have a reputation for arrogance, and this only adds to it. It is the responsibility fo the poster making such a historical assertion to document it, not those who question it.
Whether I agree or disagree is immaterial since the Church has added and subtracted materials from the index for centuries so your question is meaningless.
It is not meaningless as you either affirm or deny past actions were correct.
First, you mean the “New American Bible” and not the “American Bible”. It amazes me that Protestant anti-Catholics can’t even get the most basic things right.
More arrogance. When i said "your own official American Bible" then i am referring to the only officially approved American Bible approved for liturgical use.
There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.” http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
There have been revisions ot the NAB, including the NABRE but there have not been any announced plans to use the NABRE for the lectionary in the United States. The USCCB announced the approval is for "private use and study" while masses will continue to use a lectionary taken from "an earlier, modified version of the NAB translation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible_Revised_Edition#Completed_Revision_Release_and_Use
This are other stamped bible translations for RCs, but not for liturgical use.
Second, the NAB is issued by the USCCB - which is not an official organization in the hierarchy of the Church and plays little or no role in my faith life. Neither my parish nor my pastor are under the authority of the USCCB
So either you are not American but which still renders the NAB to be your churches official American Bible for liturgical use, or you belong to a different Catholic rite
Third, I think you better check your source. I have the NABRE on my Kindle and the notes for the Tower of Babel (Gen 11) don’t say anything about the story being “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”. It says just “Secondarily, the story explains the diversity of language among peoples of the earth.” Perhaps you’re using the old edition? Since the very first thing I check in your post turns out to be incorrect I see no reason to bother with the rest.
I distinctly said "which teaches or did teach such things" and there is nothing incorrect in this. My source is my own 1970 stamped St Josephs edition copy of the NAB, some of which i have also seen in latter versions. as well, and you can see this is included on the online version here and other things in the Vatican source as GPH showed .. Other RCS have likewise criticized the NAB, such as seen here .
And if you had gone to the linked source, you would have seen that most notes were under "Literary Genres” which was at the beginning of the study version.
i do not know if the current study version of the NABRE says all this, but the older version clearly opposed Moses authorship of much or most of the Pentateuch (Ex. 17:14; Num. 33:2; Dt. 31:9,24-26) by subscribing to the liberal discredited JEDP source theory, with the Yahwist being, " among other things "imaginative" as seen "in the narrative of creation in Genesis (Intro... ), and the NABRE postulates this in its intro to the Pentateuch (http://usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?src=_intros/pentateuch-intro.htm) that such things as the Flood is regarded as a "composite narrative" which "ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood, preserved in the Sumerian flood story." .
Thus Rome teaches things not seen in Scripture or in contrast to it, while on the other hand RCs send us to Rome to understand the Bible, yet both its teachings and its modern view of Scripture send us away from it as the Word of God with its literal historical accounts.
And which add to the evidence that what Rome teaches is often open to interpretation, which censuring us for doing so.
I read the entire post and went to the links. When I was in Roman Catholic HS (10th grade) one semester was the OT studies class. More time was spent trying to explain away the miracles of the OT. For example the teacher spent four days on how the Red Sea crossing was not really the Red Sea but the "Reed Sea." The Israelites escaped through a low marshy point in the Reed Sea and that was why Pharoh could not get his chariots through (got stuck in the mud). We spent another 3 days on the plagues of Egypt going one by one through the 10 plagues where the teacher presented natural phenomena explanations for each plague.
All miracles were "explained away" and not once was it discussed God intervened in the natural world.
What's worse? 11th Grade NT studies. In that class I listened to lectures about how Jesus' miracles could be explained by natural phenomena as well. When I asked about the miracles of Jesus raising people from the dead, we were lectured on resusitation vs. resurrection. When I countered with "Fr. you realize Lazarus was 4 days dead in a tomb when Jesus raised Him..." I was told there was no evidence Lazarus was dead, he may have been in a coma. I kid you not.
Thus the Vatican sanctions an unofficial Bible, issued by an Episcopal Conference, these being permanent institutions, which were called for by V2, and subject to the immediate and absolute authority of the Pope, and which allowed such blatant liberalism and offers it to be read, of which and the current version still subscribes to. Then they wonder why they have sects, schism, and loses multitudes ot evangelicalism.
Did i leave that out? Yes, that was part of the NAB commentary as well. Thus the miracle was really that of an entire army drowning in mud! This is an example of how the Holy Spirit supposedly leads Rome into all Truth.
“vladimir, you have a reputation for arrogance, and this only adds to it.”
I don’t mind being judged arrogant by those who seem to incompetent.
“It is the responsibility fo the poster making such a historical assertion to document it, not those who question it.”
I see no reason to view “responsibility” as defined by bigots like Protestant anti-Catholics.
“More arrogance.”
Nope. Just truth. “New American Bible” is clearly different than “American Bible”.
“When i said “your own official American Bible” then i am referring to the only officially approved American Bible approved for liturgical use.”
No. See, that comment IS exactly what I mean by incompetence. The New American Bible is NOT approved for liturgical use and you never made any mention of liturgical use in the first place. The scripture readings used at Mass are not the same as in the New American Bible. They’re very similar, but not the same. The ones used in Mass are more traditional renderings. This is why this is happening: http://www.adoremus.org/0812BishopsMeetingReport.html
Also, there’s no “your” about it. The New American Bible is NOT and NEVER WILL BE in any manifestation at all the Bible approved for the liturgy at my parish. It can’t be. The New American Bible (and its revisions) all date from 1970 onward. The liturgy at my parish canonically stopped at 1962. There will be no changes in the translations used.
“There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States.”
False. Again, we don’t use it at my parish and never have. Again, we’re back to incompetence and none of that incompetence is mine.
“This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See.”
Nope. As I already told you the two texts are actually different and always have been. If you want to buy a copy of that text in one volume, you have to buy this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001GNWLXO/ref=tmm_other_meta_binding_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&sr=&qid=
“These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God).”
All of which is STILL different than what is read at Mass - any Mass in the United States.
“There have been revisions ot the NAB, including the NABRE but there have not been any announced plans to use the NABRE for the lectionary in the United States.”
False - as shown by the first link I posted above. You’re more than a year out of date. Incompetence.
“This are other stamped bible translations for RCs, but not for liturgical use.”
Again, false. My parish has never used the NAB and never will. Our liturgy is entirely approved by the diocese and Vatican by the way.
“So either you are not American but which still renders the NAB to be your churches official American Bible for liturgical use, or you belong to a different Catholic rite”
Nope. I am an American and the NAB has never been and never will be used at my parish. And yes, I am in what is commonly called the Roman Rite.
“I distinctly said “which teaches or did teach such things” and there is nothing incorrect in this. My source is my own 1970 stamped St Josephs edition copy of the NAB, some of which i have also seen in latter versions. as well, and you can see this is included on the online version here and other things in the Vatican source as GPH showed .. Other RCS have likewise criticized the NAB, such as seen here .”
Your comment is meaningless.
“i do not know if the current study version of the NABRE says all this, but the older version clearly opposed Moses authorship of much or most of the Pentateuch (Ex. 17:14; Num. 33:2; Dt. 31:9,24-26) by subscribing to the liberal discredited JEDP source theory, with the Yahwist being, “ among other things “imaginative” as seen “in the narrative of creation in Genesis (Intro... ), and the NABRE postulates this in its intro to the Pentateuch”
Again, your comment is meaningless. The NAB has nothing to do with me or the faith in itself.
“Thus Rome teaches things not seen in Scripture or in contrast to it, while on the other hand RCs send us to Rome to understand the Bible, yet both its teachings and its modern view of Scripture send us away from it as the Word of God with its literal historical accounts.”
You’re wrong as always. Incompetence.
I don’t think you did leave it out. I only caught a few of your posts.
No. See, that comment IS exactly what I mean by incompetence. The New American Bible is NOT approved for liturgical use and you never made any mention of liturgical use in the first place. The scripture readings used at Mass are not the same as in the New American Bible. They’re very similar, but not the same. They’re very similar, but not the same. The ones used in Mass are more traditional renderings...The New American Bible is NOT and NEVER WILL BE in any manifestation at all the Bible approved for the liturgy at my parish. It can’t be
Rather than your mystery Bible, the New American Bible with revisions is still the New American Bible (like as the KJV is still the KJV in its various editions). That, with its revisions, is the official American Bible for liturgical use (which yes, i should have included), and as i stated i was aware there were while different editions.
Meanwhile, your indignation serves to avoid the issue that Rome sanctioned and sanctioned liberal scholarship, which was my point.
The ones used in Mass are more traditional renderings. This is why this is happening:
Your link says it is a revision, not a new Bible translation.
All of which is STILL different than what is read at Mass - any Mass in the United States.
It is still called the NAB, no matter how much you deny that is the basic name of the Bible used in America for liturgical use.
s I already told you the two texts are actually different and always have been. If you want to buy a copy of that text in one volume, you have to buy this:
Saint Joseph's Liturgical Bible (New American Bible Text) They must be incompetent to say it is the New American Bible Text!
“There have been revisions ot the NAB, including the NABRE but there have not been any announced plans to use the NABRE for the lectionary in the United States.”
False - as shown by the first link I posted above. You’re more than a year out of date. Incompetence.
I see nothing in your first link that confirms the NABRE is now the edition of the NAB that is used here for liturgical use, while again, your charge of incompetence goes to Catholic sources, in this case the Bishops, who state (January 6, 2011): "The NABRE is approved for private use and study. It will not be used for the Mass, which uses an earlier, modified version of the NAB translation."
The liturgy at my parish canonically stopped at 1962.
So we are back to your mystery church, but i am dealing with Rome in America.
Also, there’s no “your” about it.
It is still your church, if not your parish or perhaps rite.
My parish has never used the NAB and never will. Our liturgy is entirely approved by the diocese and Vatican by the way... I am an American and the NAB has never been and never will be used at my parish. And yes, I am in what is commonly called the Roman Rite.
Since even the past versions definitely were the official Bible for liturgical use in America, are you SSPX or what? Or must that remain a mystery?
“I distinctly said “which teaches or did teach such things” and there is nothing incorrect in this.
Your comment is meaningless.
You may wish it were but in reality it is supremely relevant, for the issue that is ignored is that Rome did and does indeed subscribe to liberal scholarship.
subscribing to the liberal discredited JEDP source theory, with the Yahwist being, “ among other things “imaginative” as seen “in the narrative of creation in Genesis (Intro... ), and the NABRE postulates this in its intro to the Pentateuch”
Again, your comment is meaningless. The NAB has nothing to do with me or the faith in itself.
Again, my comment pertains to my main point, and the NABRE also reflects it.
You’re wrong as always. Incompetence.
Rather than wrong as always, i can take you back to past debates and show you that it has been you who has been wrong, but arrogant as most always.
“Rather than your mystery Bible, the New American Bible with revisions is still the New American Bible (like as the KJV is still the KJV in its various editions). That, with its revisions, is the official American Bible for liturgical use (which yes, i should have included), and as i stated i was aware there were while different editions.”
You were still wrong. 1) It is not the “American Bible”. 2) the published NAB is NOT what is read at any Mass anywhere, ever. 3) “your” was the wrong word to say the least since the NAB has never, ever been used at any Mass at my parish and never will be.
“Meanwhile, your indignation serves to avoid the issue that Rome sanctioned and sanctioned liberal scholarship, which was my point.”
And that point - if that is your point - is meaningless. What infallibly defined dogmas or morals of an ordinary infallibility as taught by the Catholic Church have changed since this supposed subscribing to “liberal scholarship” took place? Oh, that’s right none have ever changed. So your point is what? Your point is essentially nothing. Your comment was meaningless. It comes to absolutely nothing.
” Your link says it is a revision, not a new Bible translation.”
I never said it was a new Bible so why are you falsely implying I did?
“It is still called the NAB, no matter how much you deny that is the basic name of the Bible used in America for liturgical use.”
1) No. You made a claim that turned out to be untrue. You apparently didn’t even know that the readings at most Masses were not taken from the NAB but from another text other than any NAB you can actually buy. 2) Not at any liturgy at my parish. You’re wrong as usual.
“Saint Joseph’s Liturgical Bible (New American Bible Text) They must be incompetent to say it is the New American Bible Text!”
That very well might be. I have never doubted that the people at Catholic Book Publishers Inc. are incompetent, for instance. But the only incompetence being addressed here is yours.
“I see nothing in your first link that confirms the NABRE is now the edition of the NAB that is used here for liturgical use,....”
Oh, is that what you’re now claiming you said? That “nothing...confirms the NABRE is ****now**** the edition of the NAB that is used here for liturgical use”? Earlier you claimed this: “but there have not been any ****announced plans**** to use the NABRE for the lectionary in the United States.”
“Announced plans” is - according to you - the same thing as “now”? You were wrong as usual and now you are apparently trying to change the words you used as if that would cover it up. There were announced plans - dating back more than a year ago. I was right. You were wrong.
“So we are back to your mystery church, but i am dealing with Rome in America.”
Perhaps you failed geography in school. You see, Rome, is not in America. Rome is a city in Italy.
“It is still your church, if not your parish or perhaps rite.”
And that would be an issue for you how? With the hundreds of liberal Protestant bibles out there, you’re worried about the 1970 edition of the NAB which you neither read nor study nor use in your sect nor has it ever been used in my parish?
“Since even the past versions definitely were the official Bible for liturgical use in America, are you SSPX or what?”
Or what.
“Or must that remain a mystery?”
Nothing wrong with a mystery.
“You may wish it were but in reality it is supremely relevant, for the issue that is ignored is that Rome did and does indeed subscribe to liberal scholarship.”
And your comment is still meaningless. What infallibly defined dogmas or morals of an ordinary infallibility as taught by the Catholic Church have changed since this supposed subscribing to “liberal scholarship” took place? Oh, that’s right none have ever changed. So your point is what? Your point is essentially nothing. Your comment was meaningless. It comes to absolutely nothing.
“Again, my comment pertains to my main point, and the NABRE also reflects it.”
You have no main point. You’re not saying anything that even remotely matters. Again, what infallibly defined dogmas or morals of an ordinary infallibility as taught by the Catholic Church have changed since this supposed subscribing to “liberal scholarship” took place?
“Rather than wrong as always, i can take you back to past debates and show you that it has been you who has been wrong, but arrogant as most always.”
No, actually you can’t show where I’ve been wrong on a single great issue about the Church or faith. Not even one. I freely admit to typos and sometimes getting a minor fact wrong. In describing ancient heresy I once confused something that was Modalistic with something that was Arian. Certainly a blunder on my part, but a major issues? Never yet. That’s not arrogance. That’s just research. The vast majority of anti-Catholic Protestants seem to eschew even basic research and dwell in sciolism. Your post is proof that won’t change any time soon.
1. It is your official American Bible for liturgy - that needing specification is agreed - even if revised.
2) the published NAB is NOT what is read at any Mass anywhere, ever.
It is still the New American Bible with revisions, versus your mystery Bible.
3) “your” was the wrong word to say the least since the NAB has never, ever been used at any Mass at my parish and never will be.
"your" as in your church as referring to Rome and its Bible for liturgical use for America is correct. Even if it never was, then it is contrary to what is documented for American Catholic churches: Again, from Catholic sources
There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.” http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
How many versions of the New American Bible are there? The original version of the New American Bible (NAB) was published in 1970. The translation of the New Testament was revised and published in 1986. The translation of the Book of Psalms (the Psalter) was revised in 1991. A revision of the translation of the Old Testament, including the Psalter, was published in March 2011...[Mass] readings are typically read from a Lectionary, not a Bible, though the Lectionary is taken from the Bible. -http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/faq.cfm
New American Bible with revised New Testament and Psalms: (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1991). This has become the standard American Catholic edition of the Bible. It is the Bible Catholics hear during Sunday Mass readings, and thus a popular choice among Catholics. It is a revision of the New American Bible (1952-70) done with a sensitivity to accurate yet easily understood language that can be used in public worship. - http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0704.asp
The New American Bible (1970) was adopted by the US bishops for use in the Lectionary. However, the revised Lectionary in use in US churches today incorporates RNAB texts, and it required correction before it could be approved for use in the liturgy. - S-http://www.adoremus.org/0705ChoosingBible.html#sthash.PZQf67xs.dpuf
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments confirms Scripture translations for liturgical use. Currently, the Lectionary for Mass approved for use in the United States is based on the 1986 edition of the New American Bible. In addition, the original edition of the Grail Psalms and the 1970 edition of the New American Bible are approved for use in the Liturgy of the Hours. - http://www.askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2010_01JAN/2010JanWhichAreVaticanApproved.cfm
I never said it was a new Bible so why are you falsely implying I did?
Because you deny the NAB is what is used, then it must be another one, new or old. Since you will not give us the name, which Catholic sources say is the NAB, if with revised reading, we must leave you to your mystery Bible.
You made a claim that turned out to be untrue. You apparently didn’t even know that the readings at most Masses were not taken from the NAB but from another text other than any NAB you can actually buy.
Whether you can buy it or not it is still called the NAB. Apparently you didn't even know i documented, "The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language.."
“Saint Joseph’s Liturgical Bible (New American Bible Text) They must be incompetent to say it is the New American Bible Text!”
That very well might be. I have never doubted that the people at Catholic Book Publishers Inc. are incompetent, for instance. But the only incompetence being addressed here is yours.
"Very well might be?" It was from your link! But if anyone and their documentation disagrees with with vladimir's assertions, then they must be incompetent. But posting links without checking them out is not. Arrogance as usual.
Oh, is that what you’re now claiming you said? That “nothing...confirms the NABRE is ****now**** the edition of the NAB that is used here for liturgical use”? Earlier you claimed this: “but there have not been any ****announced plans**** to use the NABRE for the lectionary in the United States.”
It is what you were claiming that is the issue. I was referring to your assertion that the NAB is not used, and supposing that you meant the NABRE is, i said your link does not confirm this, while showing it is the Bishops who say there are not plans to use it for the lectionary in the United States. The fact is that it is still called the NAB even if "the revised Lectionary in use in US churches today incorporates RNAB texts."
There were announced plans - dating back more than a year ago. I was right. You were wrong.
The Bishops of your church were wrong, if they meant no part of the RNAB would be used, while i affirmed the NAB used in Mass contained revisions, but which still is called the NAB.
“So we are back to your mystery church, but i am dealing with Rome in America.”
Perhaps you failed geography in school. You see, Rome, is not in America. Rome is a city in Italy.
Insolence. You know full well what "Rome" refers to, as "Washington says" refers to the US Gov., not the city.
“It is still your church, if not your parish or perhaps rite.”
And that would be an issue for you how? With the hundreds of liberal Protestant bibles out there, you’re worried about the 1970 edition of the NAB which you neither read nor study nor use in your sect nor has it ever been used in my parish?
It is an issue as you defend a particular church, one that asserts it is the one OTC, and i do not. RCs promote Rome as being the only assuredly correct interpreter of Scripture, while i document it has and does sanctions very liberal scholarship. And such liberal notes are in later NAB versions, you can still buy, all properly stamped by Rome.
are you SSPX or what?” “Or must that remain a mystery?”
Or what. Nothing wrong with a mystery.
Not much of a church to boast about when it remains a mystery.
“Meanwhile, your indignation serves to avoid the issue that Rome sanctioned and sanctioned liberal scholarship, which was my point.”
And that point - if that is your point - is meaningless. What infallibly defined dogmas or morals of an ordinary infallibility as taught by the Catholic Church have changed since this supposed subscribing to “liberal scholarship” took place? Oh, that’s right none have ever changed. So your point is what? Your point is essentially nothing. Your comment was meaningless. It comes to absolutely nothing.
Finally we get to the real issue! So only infallibly defined teaching is to relied upon? And how much is that? Do you even have an infallible list of all infallible teachings, and what magisterial level each one falls under, so RCs can know for sure what level of assent is required? It is estimated by at least one RCA that most of what RCs believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly.
If only infallibly defined teaching is to be relied upon then it is contrary to what other RCs argue, and leaves much to be unsure about - the very lack of assurance they criticize us for. The fact is that RCs look to their church as the assured source of truth for far more things than are typically understood as infallible teachings. And RCs frequently point us to Rome as the assured source for things not infallibly defined, and argue extensively for such.
However, while RC lay apologists will demand we use RC sources , esp. if stamped, yet if they disagree with them then those sources are disparaged and it is only infallible teachings that are reliable, all the while disparaging the use of fallible human reasoning, which they must engage in to determine what level each teaching falls under, and to varying degrees its meaning.
“It is still the New American Bible with revisions, versus your mystery Bible.”
Which means you were still wrong in any case.
“”your” as in your church as referring to Rome and its Bible for liturgical use for America is correct.”
And you were still wrong. Too late to change that now.
“Even if it never was, then it is contrary to what is documented for American Catholic churches: Again, from Catholic sources”
Again, false. You were still wrong. Too late to change that now.
“Because you deny the NAB is what is used, then it must be another one, new or old.”
False. You were wrong, again.
“Since you will not give us the name, which Catholic sources say is the NAB, if with revised reading, we must leave you to your mystery Bible.”
That’s fine. You were still wrong, again.
“But if anyone and their documentation disagrees with with vladimir’s assertions, then they must be incompetent.”
Agreed, but no correct documentation actually disagreed with me. You simply disagreed with the truth.
“But posting links without checking them out is not. Arrogance as usual.”
No, just Protestant anti-Catholic incompetence as usual.
“It is what you were claiming that is the issue.”
No. You said - originally - “but there have not been any ****announced plans**** to use the NABRE for the lectionary in the United States.” Now you claim “nothing...confirms the NABRE is ****now**** the edition of the NAB that is used here for liturgical use”. Those are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IDEAS.
“The fact is that it is still called the NAB even if “the revised Lectionary in use in US churches today incorporates RNAB texts.””
Do you mean the NABRE? Because then “RNAB” makes no sense and that won’t change no matter what source you rely on.
“The Bishops of your church were wrong, if they meant no part of the RNAB would be used, while i affirmed the NAB used in Mass contained revisions, but which still is called the NAB.”
You claim the bishops were wrong, but you have made error after error in this thread. Why should I believe you?
“Insolence. You know full well what “Rome” refers to, as “Washington says” refers to the US Gov., not the city.”
Claiming to know what I know is a form of “mind reading” and is banned by the Rel. Mod because it is a form of “making it personal”. And couldn’t I say just as easily: “You know full well it’s called the Catholic Church and not “Rome”?
“It is an issue as you defend a particular church, one that asserts it is the one OTC, and i do not. RCs promote Rome as being the only assuredly correct interpreter of Scripture, while i document it has and does sanctions very liberal scholarship.”
I don’t think that’s what you did. I doubt you even understand the matters involved. As I asked you before - and of course got no response whatsoever - “What infallibly defined dogmas or morals of an ordinary infallibility as taught by the Catholic Church have changed since this supposed subscribing to “liberal scholarship” took place?”
“And such liberal notes are in later NAB versions, you can still buy, all properly stamped by Rome.”
I showed that was not necessarily the case - remember the note on the Tower of Babel? But why let an actual fact get in the way of your false claims?
“Not much of a church to boast about when it remains a mystery.”
Oh, it is something to boast about, I just choose to allow it to remain a mystery.
“Finally we get to the real issue! So only infallibly defined teaching is to relied upon?”
No. And that is not what I said. Once again you completely make up something I never even hinted at.
“And how much is that? Do you even have an infallible list of all infallible teachings, and what magisterial level each one falls under, so RCs can know for sure what level of assent is required?”
No such list is necessary. I certainly do not require one. I know of no Catholic who does.
“It is estimated by at least one RCA that most of what RCs believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly.”
That, of course, is false - and I have no idea what an “RCA” is other than the old TV company.
“If only infallibly defined teaching is to be relied upon then it is contrary to what other RCs argue, and leaves much to be unsure about - the very lack of assurance they criticize us for.”
No. And once again you are saying I said something I never said. Why is it that anti-Catholics so often make things up out of thin air? I did not EVER say “If only infallibly defined teaching is to be relied upon...” I guess Protestant anti-Catholics just can’t help themselves. They have to make things up.
“The fact is that RCs look to their church as the assured source of truth for far more things than are typically understood as infallible teachings. And RCs frequently point us to Rome as the assured source for things not infallibly defined, and argue extensively for such.”
And that would have nothing to do with anything I have said. But why let honesty get in the way of dishonest anti-Catholic ranting, right?
“However, while RC lay apologists will demand we use RC sources , esp. if stamped, yet if they disagree with them then those sources are disparaged and it is only infallible teachings that are reliable, all the while disparaging the use of fallible human reasoning, which they must engage in to determine what level each teaching falls under, and to varying degrees its meaning.”
I have no idea what you mean by “if stamped”. Also, you seem to have no comprehension whatever as to proper handling of sources at all. You seem to think that all sources are of equal value and authority when they are not. You say we disparage “the use of fallible human reasoning” when it reality we only disparage anti-Catholic bigotry which is so very fallible and makes no real use of human reason in the first place. Anti-Catholic errors would be funny if they were not so obviously the product of bigotry and ignorance.
And before that happened, Catholics never burned Protestants because.... [drumroll please...] there weren't any! There were only "heretics." Of course, those heretics believed what Protestants now believe, but hey, they didn't have the name "Protestant" and as everyone knows, marketing is everything. In any event, Protestants are still heretics, so what's the diff?
After all, it's not like the Protestants had any REASON to, how did you so colorfully put it, "massacre every priest, nun, and monk they could get their hands on, slaughtered countless children, seized the seminaries, destroyed every book, window and statue they could find and raze the churches."
No, there was no reason. The Catholics did nothing to enrage the people for, oh, hundreds of years. The way it happened was, well, the people who became Protestants were heretics. And heretics are, well, heretics. So if heretics just go crazy killing people, well, it makes sense, because they're heretics.
m'kay.
Sure... let’s look at those heretics, and you tell me the ones you want to lay claim to.
There was Jan Hus, who was going around proclaiming that it was a matter of Christian doctrine that Christians could not raise an army. He was doing this as the Islamic horde was sweeping across the Byzantine Empire towards his home land. He also taught that Communion in a single specie (i.e., only bread or only wine) was not efficacious, so if you lived among the countryfolk with a single priest, you were going straight to hell.
Oh, and yes, Wycliffe and his Lollards also preached pacificism at a time when it meant unilateral surrender to the Islamic horde. Yes, they preached a few of Luther’s beliefs, such as the notion that priests should marry and you shouldn’t pray for dead people. But they also believed women were biologically incapable of sexual abstinence. Being a single woman meant any man could presume you were having abortions willy-nilly, so immediate marriage was a moral necessity. And no, we’re not talking nuns; we’re talking widows. They also thought all arts and crafts were evil. (All of these are directly from “The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards.) Still, Wycliffe died of natural causes as a Catholic priest, and there was no great persecution of the Lollards, even though Wycliffe was seditious.
There were the Bulgars, from which we get the word, “bugger,” and the Albigensians. They taught that all procreation was evil, but sexual enjoyment, even outside of marriage, was fine. There’s no way of telling what portions of their members were actual sodomites, but I’d say the Catholic presumption that many were was pretty reasonable since they held to the notion that you go to hell if you have vaginal intercourse with anyone, including your wife, but you can go bugger anyone you want and that’s cool. Oh, and the favored ones kept dropping dead, because when you were really spiritual, even food itself polluted the body — but again, sodomy did not, according to them.
The Albigensians, Bulgars and related groups also believed that Satan was the true god, and the God of the Hebrews was the evil one, who spoiled the pristine universe by creating matter.
Then there’s Henry of Lausanne and Peter of Bruys. In many ways their moral doctrines are similar to Baptists. One little problem: to arrive at their doctrines, they declared the entirety of the bible worthless, except the gospels (and, depending on interpretation, the pentateuch.)
How about the Heresy of the Free Spirit? They were antinomian, and also believed that the “spiritually perfected” became gods while on Earth. (Meister Ekchart was accused of holding certain of their heresies, but not their opposition to papal authority, and was distinguished from them.)
I will, however, acknowledge that the Catholic Church’s response to Peter Waldo was unjust and gravely unfortunate. It was not because of his preaching of poverty; he was contemporary to St. Francis, who shared many of his views on poverty and the rejection of worldly power, and who was heralded as one of the greatest Catholic saints and reformers for that. It probably was because he was erroneously and unfairly associated with the Albigensians. Modern Waldensians have certainly absorbed many Protestant doctrines, but it’s hard to know how many were original to the movement.
The Church also opposed the Humiliati and the Ultra-Franciscans, but these were sort of Catholic extremists, not proto-Protestants. There’s also Arnold of Brescia, but he was a political radical, instigating a proto-communist insurrection the government of Rome; he was killed as an insurrectionist, not as a heretic.
Which means you were still wrong in any case.
Rather, as documented, it is still the New American Bible even with revisions, versus your mystery Bible.
“”your” as in your church as referring to Rome and its Bible for liturgical use for America is correct.”
And you were still wrong. Too late to change that now.
Wrong? Amazing. You claim to be a Catholic in the Roman rite (the liturgical rite used in the Diocese of Rome in the Catholic Church), but the church that made the NAB the official Bible for Mass is not your church, while you refuse to tell us what your church is. A mystery church and a mystery Bible.
“Even if it never was, then it is contrary to what is documented for American Catholic churches: Again, from Catholic sources”
Again, false. You were still wrong. Too late to change that now.
Mere assertions. vladimir998 is right against all the Catholic sources that state that the NAB was and is (with revisions) the church for the Roman Catholic church in America. Even if for your church that is not the case.
“Because you deny the NAB is what is used, then it must be another one, new or old.”
False. You were wrong, again.
Rather, what is wrong is that according to you the NAB w/ revisions is not the Bible used for Mass in RC churches in America, but the one used is neither a new one or an old one. Amazing mystery Bible.
“Since you will not give us the name, which Catholic sources say is the NAB, if with revised reading, we must leave you to your mystery Bible.”
That’s fine. You were still wrong, again.
So you blithely dismiss as wrong that the NAB with revisions as being the Bible for RC churches in America, which documented sources attest, but the one used is neither new or old, and is never named. Indeed the RC virus that declares truth by decrees infects her followers!
“But if anyone and their documentation disagrees with with vladimir’s assertions, then they must be incompetent.”
Agreed, Yikes!
but no correct documentation actually disagreed with me. You simply disagreed with the truth.
Of course it cannot be correct, since as like Rome, if anyone and their documentation disagrees with with vladimir’s assertions, then they must be incompetent? Like father like son.
“But posting links without checking them out is not. Arrogance as usual.”
No, just Protestant anti-Catholic incompetence as usual.
In-credible. So you send me to a link which supports saying it is the NAB text and then when shown, you relegate the people at Catholic Book Publishers Inc. to be incompetent, but you cannot be.
“It is what you were claiming that is the issue.”
No. You said - originally - “but there have not been any ****announced plans**** to use the NABRE for the lectionary in the United States.” Now you claim “nothing...confirms the NABRE is ****now**** the edition of the NAB that is used here for liturgical use”. Those are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IDEAS.
You are ignoring the context i referred to. I am quoting RC sources in response to your mystery Bible, which i saw as inferring the NABRE, while documentation states it is the NAB that is approved which uses texts from the NABRE.
“The fact is that it is still called the NAB even if “the revised Lectionary in use in US churches today incorporates RNAB texts.””
Do you mean the NABRE? Because then “RNAB” makes no sense and that won’t change no matter what source you rely on.
The term “RNAB” is used from the very (and only) source you invoked as explaining why there were revisions to the NAB, which i myself had already affirmed!
“The Bishops of your church were wrong, if they meant no part of the RNAB would be used, while i affirmed the NAB used in Mass contained revisions, but which still is called the NAB.”
You claim the bishops were wrong,
No, it is you who claim the the bishops were wrong if you think they meant no part of the RNAB would be used, while i had stated the NAB with revisions is the bible approved for liturgical in American RC churches, which is still the reality, even if the revised Lectionary in use in US churches today incorporates RNAB texts.
but you have made error after error in this thread. Why should I believe you?
By your own admission even documented sources cannot be wright if in contradiction with you on this, but on thread after thread you can charge error after error which i think are in too often your head.
“Insolence. You know full well what “Rome” refers to, as “Washington says” refers to the US Gov., not the city.”
Claiming to know what I know is a form of “mind reading” and is banned by the Rel. Mod because it is a form of “making it personal”. And couldn’t I say just as easily: “You know full well it’s called the Catholic Church and not “Rome”?
Yes it is indeed a form of “mind reading,” like saying "you know 'Washington says' refers to the US Gov" in a political context. If your mind is one that possibly thinks otherwise, i apologize.
“Not much of a church to boast about when it remains a mystery
Oh, it is something to boast about, I just choose to allow it to remain a mystery.
So we have no way of examining your claims. Such secrecy sounds more like the Masons than Scripture.
“It is an issue as you defend a particular church, one that asserts it is the one OTC, and i do not. RCs promote Rome as being the only assuredly correct interpreter of Scripture, while i document it has and does sanction quite liberal scholarship.”
I don’t think that’s what you did. I doubt you even understand the matters involved. As I asked you before - and of course got no response whatsoever - “What infallibly defined dogmas or morals of an ordinary infallibility as taught by the Catholic Church have changed since this supposed subscribing to “liberal scholarship” took place?”
I do indeed understand matters involved, and thus i did respond to your statement, by addressing the inferred premise behind them, which is that infallible teaching is what really matters, while this dispute began as regards what Rome sanctions, even if not infallibly, and her role as a teacher extends far beyond infallible statements.
“And such liberal notes are in later NAB versions, you can still buy, all properly stamped by Rome.”
I showed that was not necessarily the case - remember the note on the Tower of Babel? But why let an actual fact get in the way of your false claims?
Again you are seeing errors at will. There is no false claim by yours, for the absence of that note in the NABRE does not change at all the fact that "such liberal notes are in later NAB versions you can still buy, all properly stamped by Rome.” Even the NABRE supports the liberal JEDP theory, ("To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned [Gn.] 6:5-8...") and i am sure i could find more such in that and other RC approved study Bibles.
“Finally we get to the real issue! So only infallibly defined teaching is to relied upon?”
No. And that is not what I said. Once again you completely make up something I never even hinted at.
..And once again you are saying I said something I never said. Why is it that anti-Catholics so often make things up out of thin air? I did not EVER say “If only infallibly defined teaching is to be relied upon...” I guess Protestant anti-Catholics just can’t help themselves. They have to make things up. Vladimir, it not i who brought up infallible teaching, or said Rome violated it, but by you asking if Rome changed any infallible teaching in response to my charge of Rome sanctioning liberal scholarship, then it does indeed infer that that is the only thing you want to defend. If other teaching is to be relied upon, then you should have defended it, not invoke infallible teaching as if that only was what was reliable. Unless that is only what is really reliable.
“And how much is that? Do you even have an infallible list of all infallible teachings, and what magisterial level each one falls under, so RCs can know for sure what level of assent is required?”
No such list is necessary. I certainly do not require one. I know of no Catholic who does.
It may not be a matter of concern to know which level each one falls under thus the kind of assent they require. But what is reliable RC teaching, and the manner the church provides for it is. Some invoke all that is in certain encyclicals and bulls as official RC teaching which others reject parts of them. Then decry the need for interpretation among us.
“It is estimated by at least one RCA that most of what RCs believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly.”
That, of course, is false - and I have no idea what an “RCA” is other than the old TV company.
Apparently. it must be false, if like as re the NAB, if anyone and their documentation disagrees with with vladimir’s assertions on it here, then they must be incompetent. RCA refers to Roman Catholic Apologist. Sorry for assuming.
“If only infallibly defined teaching is to be relied upon then it is contrary to what other RCs argue, and leaves much to be unsure about - the very lack of assurance they criticize us for.”
“The fact is that RCs look to their church as the assured source of truth for far more things than are typically understood as infallible teachings. And RCs frequently point us to Rome as the assured source for things not infallibly defined, and argue extensively for such.”
And that would have nothing to do with anything I have said. But why let honesty get in the way of dishonest anti-Catholic ranting, right?
It is you whose response had avoided what i said, unless only infallible teachings qualifies as what Rome teaches. And if anyone knows how to rant, it is thee.
“However, while RC lay apologists will demand we use RC sources , esp. if stamped, yet if they disagree with them then those sources are disparaged and it is only infallible teachings that are reliable, all the while disparaging the use of fallible human reasoning, which they must engage in to determine what level each teaching falls under, and to varying degrees its meaning.”
I have no idea what you mean by “if stamped”.
So you did not even know what i meant by Rome "giving the stamp" to the commentary, when you first objected to it? Am i really to believe that you did not understand this refers to the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur? If so, i apologize for that as well.
Also, you seem to have no comprehension whatever as to proper handling of sources at all. You seem to think that all sources are of equal value and authority when they are not.
Rather, it is i who understand differences in value and authority, and thus my comments about assent, while it is RCs who will too often authority depending on agreement with them, and it i who labor to provide documentation, and am aware.
You say we disparage “the use of fallible human reasoning” when it reality we only disparage anti-Catholic bigotry which is so very fallible and makes no real use of human reason in the first place.
And you of course, are the superior judge of that. I recently documented the outrageous double standard an RC used in judging what is anti-Catholic bigotry versus anti-Protestant bigotry, and your estimation carries no more weight.
In conclusion, you have well diverted the issue away from your sanction of the Catholic Church refusing to provide a nihil obstat to any material that is contrary to the Catholic faith, while she has and does sanction liberal scholarship with the same. Even if not "infallibly."
And in doing so you have taken too much of my time.
“Rather, as documented, it is still the New American Bible even with revisions, versus your mystery Bible.”
You were still wrong. That is all that matters.
“Wrong? Amazing. You claim to be a Catholic in the Roman rite (the liturgical rite used in the Diocese of Rome in the Catholic Church), …”
No. It is not restricted to the Diocese of Rome. See, this is the sort of mistake that amazes me when an anti-Catholic – who will insist he actually knows what he is talking about – makes it. How could you be so wrong?
“…but the church that made the NAB the official Bible for Mass is not your church, while you refuse to tell us what your church is.”
No. Information about my parish will not be given to you. It’s just that simple. If I attend the Roman Rite I am in the Roman Church. Again, how can you not understand something so simple yet continue to attack the Catholic Church as if you actually know something about it?
“A mystery church and a mystery Bible.”
To you, yes. Deal with it. I have seen how mentally unstable Protestant anti-Catholics are. I see no reason to possibly endanger the people at my parish.
“Mere assertions. vladimir998 is right against all the Catholic sources that state that the NAB was and is (with revisions) the church for the Roman Catholic church in America.”
The “church for the Roman Catholic church in America”? You’re not even making sense.
“Even if for your church that is not the case.”
What? Again, you’re not making sense.
“Rather, what is wrong is that according to you the NAB w/ revisions is not the Bible used for Mass in RC churches in America, but the one used is neither a new one or an old one. Amazing mystery Bible.”
No mystery about – except for you. I already gave you enough information that you should be able to figure it out. Alas, you don’t (apparently) know enough to figure it out. Too bad.
“So you blithely dismiss as wrong that the NAB with revisions as being the Bible for RC churches in America, which documented sources attest, but the one used is neither new or old, and is never named. Indeed the RC virus that declares truth by decrees infects her followers!”
There is no “Bible for RC churches in America”. Parishes can buy whatever Bible they want.
“ Yikes!”
It’s simply true.
“Of course it cannot be correct, since as like Rome, if anyone and their documentation disagrees with with vladimir’s assertions, then they must be incompetent? Like father like son.”
No, truth like truth. You’ve been wrong from the start and not getting it right all along.
“In-credible. So you send me to a link which supports saying it is the NAB text and then when shown, you relegate the people at Catholic Book Publishers Inc. to be incompetent, but you cannot be.”
It is most definitely the case that there are incompetent people at Catholic Book Publishers. Anyone who has ever worked with them knows that is the case.
You have made repeated errors and will continue to do so.
“You are ignoring the context i referred to. I am quoting RC sources in response to your mystery Bible, which i saw as inferring the NABRE, while documentation states it is the NAB that is approved which uses texts from the NABRE.”
You were wrong in any case. Your claim of “ignoring the context” is rubbish. I told you the truth from the beginning. I made no mistake. You have made error after error.
“The term “RNAB” is used from the very (and only) source you invoked as explaining why there were revisions to the NAB, which i myself had already affirmed!”
No, I cited a text that showed there was already a process in order to produce a new series of readings for the Mass – something which you denied.
“No, it is you who claim the the bishops were wrong if you think they meant no part of the RNAB would be used, while i had stated the NAB with revisions is the bible approved for liturgical in American RC churches, which is still the reality, even if the revised Lectionary in use in US churches today incorporates RNAB texts.”
And you were still wrong from the beginning.
“By your own admission even documented sources cannot be wright if in contradiction with you on this, but on thread after thread you can charge error after error which i think are in too often your head.”
Cannot be “wright”? Correct, they cannot be “wright”.
“Yes it is indeed a form of “mind reading,” like saying “you know ‘Washington says’ refers to the US Gov” in a political context. If your mind is one that possibly thinks otherwise, i apologize.”
Try for accuracy in your posting. It is what is lacking throughout your posts.
“So we have no way of examining your claims.”
About my parish, correct. I see no reason to expose my parish to the possible depredations of an anti-Catholic. Far too many have proven themselves to be mentally unstable.
“Such secrecy sounds more like the Masons than Scripture.”
Nope. Even in scripture secrecy was used – morally – by believers. I see no reason, when dealing with an anti-Catholic – since so many have proven themselves to be mentally unstable – to divulge the name of my parish. Don’t like it? Tough.
“I do indeed understand matters involved, and thus i did respond to your statement, by addressing the inferred premise behind them, which is that infallible teaching is what really matters, while this dispute began as regards what Rome sanctions, even if not infallibly, and her role as a teacher extends far beyond infallible statements.”
And you were still wrong. You apparently have no understanding about the Church as a teacher, the USCCB in its standing within the Church, infallibility , etc.
“Again you are seeing errors at will.”
Because you post so many.
“There is no false claim by yours, for the absence of that note in the NABRE does not change at all the fact that “such liberal notes are in later NAB versions you can still buy, all properly stamped by Rome.” Even the NABRE supports the liberal JEDP theory, (”To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned [Gn.] 6:5-8...”) and i am sure i could find more such in that and other RC approved study Bibles.”
Actually, not really. You might find some things like that in the New Jerusalem, but perhaps not in the Ignatius. The problem is that you were still wrong from the start and continue to be wrong and that won’t change.
“Vladimir, it not i who brought up infallible teaching, or said Rome violated it, but by you asking if Rome changed any infallible teaching in response to my charge of Rome sanctioning liberal scholarship, then it does indeed infer that that is the only thing you want to defend.”
False. It simply pointed out the error of your posts. You were wrong from the beginning and continue to be.
“If other teaching is to be relied upon, then you should have defended it, not invoke infallible teaching as if that only was what was reliable.”
I did not “invoke infallible teaching as if that only was what was reliable.” Again, you are just plain wrong.
“Unless that is only what is really reliable.”
Again, you are just plain wrong.
“It may not be a matter of concern to know which level each one falls under thus the kind of assent they require. But what is reliable RC teaching, and the manner the church provides for it is.”
Yet your posts show you to be wrong yet again.
“Some invoke all that is in certain encyclicals and bulls as official RC teaching which others reject parts of them. Then decry the need for interpretation among us.”
And all of them are still more right more often than you have been thus far. It’s as if you set out to get little or nothing right. Is that your plan?
“Apparently. it must be false, if like as re the NAB, if anyone and their documentation disagrees with with vladimir’s assertions on it here, then they must be incompetent.”
That’s certainly a good start and add this as well. If the poster is daniel1212 you can guarantee that little posted by him will be correct.
“RCA refers to Roman Catholic Apologist. Sorry for assuming.”
Yet another error on your part.
“It is you whose response had avoided what i said, unless only infallible teachings qualifies as what Rome teaches.”
You still can’t get it right. Incredible.
“And if anyone knows how to rant, it is thee.”
No, most certainly you.
“So you did not even know what i meant by Rome “giving the stamp” to the commentary, when you first objected to it?”
No, not really. It just seems to be yet another thing you made up out of thin air.
“Am i really to believe that you did not understand this refers to the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur?”
Oh, yet another error on your part. Look inside any NAB or NABRE. See the nihil obstat and imprimatur? Neither came from “Rome” or the Pope, or the Vatican. Both came from representatives of the USCCB or an American diocese. None came from “Rome” or the Pope or the Vatican.
“If so, i apologize for that as well.”
You should apologize since you were wrong as usual. No nihil obstat or imprimatur came from “Rome”. I cannot get over how many mistakes you’ve made.
“Rather, it is i who understand differences in value and authority, and thus my comments about assent, while it is RCs who will too often authority depending on agreement with them, and it i who labor to provide documentation, and am aware.”
What? “while it is RCs who will too often authority depending on agreement with them, and it i who labor to provide documentation, and am aware.” Your writing is so unaware that I can’t tell what you’re trying to say.
“And you of course, are the superior judge of that.”
Between the two of us? Most definitely.
“I recently documented the outrageous double standard an RC used in judging what is anti-Catholic bigotry versus anti-Protestant bigotry, and your estimation carries no more weight.”
No, it does in the absolute sense, but to you, no it won’t. The problem is that you make so many mistakes, in post after post, that you can’t even see the obvious.
“In conclusion, you have well diverted the issue away from your sanction of the Catholic Church refusing to provide a nihil obstat to any material that is contrary to the Catholic faith, while she has and does sanction liberal scholarship with the same. Even if not “infallibly.””
And you failed to get things right from the beginning. You have no apparent understanding about Church authority, the hierarchy of Church structure, how approval of a Bible actually happens, recent Church history, scripture study, Church teachings, infallibility, what a nihil obstat is and where it comes from, what an imprimatur is and where it comes from, etc. Your errors are so numerous, so pervasive, and so profoundly bad, that I can no longer keep track of them.
“And in doing so you have taken too much of my time.”
Your errors have taken p my time as well, and I have every reason to believe mine is far more precious than yours.
Vlad you were taken to school by Daniel1212. Quit while you are way behind.
You would think after 2000 years of infallible history they could finally decide on one Bible version and know who is writing their commentaries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.