Posted on 10/25/2013 1:32:26 PM PDT by Gamecock
Which simply testifies to your Roman programming.
You were still wrong. You were wrong repeatedly and will continue to be so.
“Meanwhile, it remains that despite your intense effort trying to find technical faults, which avoided the real issue, Catholic sources affirm the NAB is the Bible that was approved the the Bishops for liturgical use in the United States, and even with its revised edition and readings the fact is that Rome sanctioned and sanctions liberal scholarship via the NAB and its notes. Thus the protest against it by some of your own.”
I was and am not, as per Catholic documentation, while your recourse is that if anyone and their documentation disagrees with with vladimir’s assertions, then they must be incompetent.”
Enough said.
“Which simply testifies to your Roman programming.”
No, it’s just a testament to the truth. Your comment, however, clearly tells us about your bigotry.
“I was and am not, as per Catholic documentation, while your recourse is that if anyone and their documentation disagrees with with vladimir’s assertions, then they must be incompetent.”
Actually you’ve been wrong repeatedly. You were wrong about the NAB, the NABRE, notes, who approves what, the actual existence of parishes that do not use the NAB or any variant thereof, and more. You might not like it, but that’s the case. The incompetence is all yours.
Whoa: My only point is that the notion that the Protestants had been picked on first was ridiculous. Some of the violent actions ranged from tragically unjust at worst (Waldensians, as I specifically noted) to politically primitive at best (the Albigensian death cult). But civilization itself was at stake in several cases, and the notion that British cultural genocide is somehow justified by Catholic mistreatment of the Albigensian sodomite death cult is just wierd.
And yes, I do mean “death cult.” The “perfecti” perfected themselves by literally starving themselves TO DEATH. And that was doctrinally necessary. That Foxe’s Book of Martyrs calls these nutjobs orthodox Christians is just simply a matter of Foxe’s rabid temperament.
Dude, i welcome anyone to read the posts and documentation versus your assertions from a man in a mystery church and mystery Bible, who is right in his own eyes. Bye.
“Dude, i welcome anyone to read the posts and documentation versus your assertions from a man in a mystery church and mystery Bible, who is right in his own eyes. Bye.”
I welcome them too. Then they can see how you were wrong about the NAB, what is read in most parishes, the NABRE, the plans for a new lectionary, what is read at my parish, who gives approval for Bibles, the Vatican’s involvement, the fact that notes had been changed in the NABRE, and numerous other errors. I, on the other hand, made no such errors. None.
Dream on. What we have is your attempt to use "your" to refer to your mystery church versus the RCC, and assertions, and contrived contradictions versus what is documented, and what constitutes what Rome teaches, in avoiding the fact that Rome sanctioned and sanctions liberal scholarship in its approved NAB, and revisions.
It even avoids rendering “porneia” “ as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1 ; 6:13 ; 7:2 ; 10:8 ; 2Cor. 12:21 ; Eph. 5:3 ; Gal. 5:19 ; Col. 3:5 ; 1Thes. 4:3 ; but simply has “immorality,” even though in most cases it is in a sexual context. You and the RCC lost. See the Get over it.
“Dream on. What we have is your attempt to use “your” to refer to your mystery church versus the RCC, and assertions, and contrived contradictions versus what is documented, and what constitutes what Rome teaches, in avoiding the fact that Rome sanctioned and sanctions liberal scholarship in its approved NAB, and revisions.”
No, what we have is “you were wrong about the NAB, what is read in most parishes, the NABRE, the plans for a new lectionary, what is read at my parish, who gives approval for Bibles, the Vatican’s involvement, the fact that notes had been changed in the NABRE, and numerous other errors. I, on the other hand, made no such errors. None.” That’s all true. No amount of complaining on your part will change any of that.
“It even avoids rendering “porneia” “ as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1;”
The word used is “immorality” in the NABRE. The NIV uses “sexual immorality”. The context is clear that incest is the problem. The NABRE says: “It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife.” So?
By the way, the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.
By the way, the Ignatius Study Bible, translates the verse the same way as the RSV, but has a footnote about “porneia”.
“6:13 ;”
NABRE: “The body, however, is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body;” Quite frankly it is obvious that sexual immorality is meant. So? Did you know that the paragraph heading there is “Sexual Immorality”? No, apparently not.
By the way, the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.
“7:2 ;”
NABRE: “but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.” Again it is clear sexual immorality is meant. What else could it be after, “Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,””?
By the way, the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.
10:8 ;
“Let us not indulge in immorality as some of them did...” refers to the Hebrews who “rose up to revel”. We know they engaged in sexual immorality, so what’s your point?
By the way, the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.
2Cor. 12:21 ;
Since the phrase used is “impurity, immorality, and licentiousness” the meaning is obvious. The footnote says, “The sexual sins recall 1 Cor 5-7.” So?
By the way, the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.
Eph. 5:3 ;
“Immorality of any impurity...no obscenity or suggestive talk...immoral or impure...” Seems obvious what immorality means if it is repeatedly linked to impurity.
Here the Protestant RSV says: “fornication and all impurity”.
Gal. 5:19 ;
NABRE: “Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness...” The meaning there seems obvious. So?
The Protestant RSV says: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness.”
Col. 3:5 ;
NABRE paragraph heading = “Renunciation of Vice”. Then the very first verse is verse 5: “Put to death, then the parts of you that are earthly, immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and the greed that is idolatry.” Seems obvious what is condemned there.
Protestant RSV says: “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”
1 Thes. 4:3 ;
NABRE paragraph heading = “Holiness in Sexual Conduct”. First verse after that is verse 3: “This is the will of God, your holiness: that you refrain from immorality, 4that each of you know how to acquire a wife for himself in holiness and honor, 5not in lustful passion as do the Gentiles who do not know God; a 6 not to take advantage of or exploit a brother in this matter, for the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you before and solemnly affirmed. 7For God did not call us to impurity but to holiness.” So, “immorality”, “lustful passion”, “impurity”. You really don’t know what is being condemned there?
The Protestant RSV says: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity.”
“but simply has “immorality,” even though in most cases it is in a sexual context. You and the RCC lost. See the Get over it.”
And you completely failed to tell even remotely close to the whole story about how those verses appear in the NABRE. No surprise there.
So, a term that could be translated, and is perhaps best translated as “sexual immorality” is translated as “immorality” within the context of sexual immorality and you’re upset about it?
By now this is a soliloquy by a man who asserts he is right regardless of what documentation may say to the contrary. I stated that the NAB, with revised readings, was the approved Bible, as per Catholic sources, which you tried to make into me saying it was exactly the same as the published version, as if the text was exactly the same, but which not what i said , but that it had revisions. And in so trying, you made the text the issue, which was not what the examples of sanctioned liberalism i used was from, but from the approved commentary. Thus you avoided the real issue of sanctioned liberal scholarship.
The fact remains that Rome sanctioned liberal scholarship with the same stamp that you approved for censoring false teaching. You cannot deny that no matter how much you focus on to trying to find some technical error in my statements. And trying to argue the stamps came from the Bishops and the Pope or the Vatican - which publishes the NAB on its own web site - is absurd. These are bishops, and if their approval of these notes was wrong, it impugns the integrity of their overseers who are sppsd to protect the flock from false teaching, but such sanction of liberal scholarship continues.
As for the NABRE, as said, the Bishops did not announce plans for this being used for the lectionary, but the info i have stats that the Lectionary is based on the New American Bible, with revisions. The Bishops said in 2011, "Even if the bishops decide they want to use the NABRE in the liturgy, it won’t happen any time soon." And your chosen documentation site did not state it was being used but said the NAB was, incorporating texts from the RNAB, which term you said made no sense, but it was your source, while your other chosen source also said it was the NAB text, which source you thus dismissed as incompetent. But your choice of sources was not.
As for denying plans for a new lectionary, or the notes being changed in the NABRE, or the Vatican’s involvement excuse, and "numerous other errors," who knows what you see or construe here also, but it remains the Rome has sanctioned liberalism via the approved NAB, and continues to do so.
the RSV - and I mean the Protestant version - says simply “immorality”.....
As for your damage control here, what exactly do you think you are proving by invoking another poor translation choice? I can provided many Prot translations that do not used simply “immorality” for "porneia?" The issue is that NABRE is not faithful to what the word denotes, but simply renders it nondescript immorality.
Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mark 7:21; John 8:41, Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25, Rom. 1:29, 1Co. 5:1 (2), 1Co. 6:13, 18, 1Co. 7:2, 2Co. 12:21, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:3, Col. 3:5, 1Th. 4:3, Rev. 9:21 (2), Rev. 14:8; 17:2; 17:4; 18:3; 19:2
A word which can be translated "immoral" is "akathartos," as in "unclean person" in Eph. 5:5, both general terms meaning the same thing.
And you completely failed to tell even remotely close to the whole story about how those verses appear in the NABRE. No surprise there.
This is your defense? Desperately trying to find fault with me again because i only took the time to provide live links to the verses so they could be looked up, and not more of the entire chapter? Are you still on dial up? Par for your seemingly compulsive blaming recourse in avoiding what impugns Rome. However, not only was the text easily examinable in context (use mouse and right click), but a good translation is word for word, and does not use an ambiguous general term for a word which denotes a specific type of sin.
As a Traditional type RC, i would expect you to join some of your comrades in denouncing this. But here you must defend the NABRE.
“By now this is a soliloquy by a man who asserts he is right regardless of what documentation may say to the contrary. I stated that the NAB, with revised readings, was the approved Bible, as per Catholic sources, which you tried to make into me saying it was exactly the same as the published version, as if the text was exactly the same, but which not what i said , but that it had revisions. And in so trying, you made the text the issue, which was not what the examples of sanctioned liberalism i used was from, but from the approved commentary. Thus you avoided the real issue of sanctioned liberal scholarship.”
So, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”?
“The fact remains that Rome sanctioned liberal scholarship with the same stamp that you approved for censoring false teaching.”
False. 1) The “liberal scholarship” you are complaining about does not appear in the liturgy. The liturgy is approved by the Church. 2) Notes in a Bible are approved within the country which publishes the Bible unless there is some sort of odd circumstance. Look inside a copy of The African Bible (1999). It uses the 1991 NAB text. That’s right, an African Bible that uses a New American text. Then look at the imprimatur and nihil obstat – because it has different notes than any NAB. What do you see?
Nihil Obstat – Fr. Pelin T. D’Souza (censor)
Imprimatur – John Njue (a Kenyan bishop).
No Vatican official was involved.
“You cannot deny that no matter how much you focus on to trying to find some technical error in my statements. And trying to argue the stamps came from the Bishops and the Pope or the Vatican - which publishes the NAB on its own web site - is absurd.”
As I just showed you, a Bible with a whole new set of notes – different from any NAB in existence – was given a nihil obstat and imprimatur by local Kenyan clergy. No Vatican officials were involved as far as I can tell.
“These are bishops, and if their approval of these notes was wrong, it impugns the integrity of their overseers who are sppsd to protect the flock from false teaching, but such sanction of liberal scholarship continues.”
An error by a single bishop, or even a number of bishops, in no way “impugns the integrity” of the Church. We don’t rely on just a single bishop or on a handful of bishops. Also, as I already noted to you, the description of the Tower of Babel which you were so vexed about – even though it has nothing to do with your sect and is not in your Bible – has been changed. So why are you upset?
“As for the NABRE, as said, the Bishops did not announce plans for this being used for the lectionary,…”
Again, I posted to you the announcement of Cardinal Dolan. Just a year or two ago he announced that the NABRE OT and a revised NAB NT will be the basis for a new lectionary and in fact a new Bible which people would actually be able to purchase.
“… but the info i have stats that the Lectionary is based on the New American Bible, with revisions. The Bishops said in 2011, “Even if the bishops decide they want to use the NABRE in the liturgy, it won’t happen any time soon.””
Announced plans is not the same thing as “now” or “soon”. Earlier you wrote as is “announced plans” was the same thing as “now”. Now you are writing as if it the same thing as “soon”.
“And your chosen documentation site did not state it was being used but said the NAB was, incorporating texts from the RNAB, which term you said made no sense, but it was your source, while your other chosen source also said it was the NAB text, which source you thus dismissed as incompetent. But your choice of sources was not.”
And I was still right on all counts. First, it will not be the NAB that will be used – for the NABRE is here. The NAB NT will be revised and no longer be the NAB 1970 nor the NAB 1986. Second, there is no such thing as the RNAB for one immediately has to ask which NAB is the RNAB? Is it the 1986 or the 1991? Wouldn’t that have to be RNAB 1986 and RNAB (2) 1991? And yes, the source on that score was incompetent. And yes, my choice of that source was not. All I needed to show was that there was an announcement out there - one you apparently knew nothing about – to show who was really incompetent. I succeeded easily.
“As for denying plans for a new lectionary, or the notes being changed in the NABRE, or the Vatican’s involvement excuse, and “numerous other errors,” who knows what you see or construe here also, but it remains the Rome has sanctioned liberalism via the approved NAB, and continues to do so.”
You have yet to show any evidence of that either. Seriously, do you have any at all?
“As for your damage control here,…”
There was no damage to control. Your attempt to. . . well, I have no idea what you were really attempting to do because, as usual, you accomplished nothing no matter what the attempt was about. If you want to complain about the translation of the NAB or NABRE or the Protestant RSV, okay, fine, do so, but why would it matter to you what Catholics read? Also, since all the verses in question are clearly rooted in the context of “sexual immorality” you seem to have no point at all.
“…what exactly do you think you are proving by invoking another poor translation choice?”
Whether or not you consider it to be a poor translation choice is immaterial. Who cares if you do? Also, again, the context in each passage you cited makes it clear that sexual immorality was the point. And, when the NAB 1986 NT is revised, I would not be surprised if the translation is changed. Why don’t you do something constructive and write the translators a letter about it if you care so much about it?
“I can provided many Prot translations that do not used simply “immorality” for “porneia?” The issue is that NABRE is not faithful to what the word denotes, but simply renders it nondescript immorality.”
Always in the context of sexual immorality. Again, you keep avoiding that point.
“A word which can be translated “immoral” is “akathartos,” as in “unclean person” in Eph. 5:5, both general terms meaning the same thing.”
And yet porneia in each and every verse you posted about it is clearly in the context of sexual immorality. So your comments are – as usual – meaningless. Again, write the translators a letter. I’m sure they already got one about this from Monsignor Pope in 2010 anyway!
“This is your defense?”
That you failed again? Sure. Why not? It’s true.
“Desperately trying to find fault with me again because i only took the time to provide live links to the verses so they could be looked up, and not more of the entire chapter?”
Nope. I said nothing about you providing only live links to specific verses. I pointed out that you said nothing about the fact that all the verses involved are clearly in the context of sexual immorality.
“Are you still on dial up?”
You sure seem to be.
“Par for your seemingly compulsive blaming recourse in avoiding what impugns Rome.”
Except nothing here impugns “Rome” or the Vatican or the Church.
“However, not only was the text easily examinable in context (use mouse and right click), but a good translation is word for word, and does not use an ambiguous general term for a word which denotes a specific type of sin.”
If it was so easy to examine the verses in context maybe you should have. If you had you would have noticed how all of the verses in context were clearly about sexual immorality. You would have seen that some of the verses even came immediately after Chapter Headings like “Sexual Immorality”. Now, if you really think those verses should be translated as “sexual immorality”, great. But so what? That’s just your opinion and says nothing about the texts in question since all of the verses were clearly in the context of sexual immorality.
“As a Traditional type RC, i would expect you to join some of your comrades in denouncing this. But here you must defend the NABRE.”
And again, you’re wrong. I’m all for translating “porneia” as “sexual immorality”. What I am not for is a Protestant anti-Catholic – or anyone else - pretending that the context for each of those verses doesn’t make it clear that it’s about what it is: sexual immorality. I have several problems with the NAB and its various editions and revisions. I, in fact, am probably harder on the text and its notes, than you are. What I am not for is falsely claiming that the notes were approved by “Rome” or the Vatican when it was actually done right here in the U.S.A. – just as I already showed was done with the New African Bible in Kenya. So, I can criticize the fact that the word “siesta” was used in the NAB (2 Sam 11:2), but what I won’t do is pretend that its use was sanctioned by “Rome” to pave the way for illegal immigrants from south of the border or some such nonsense. I think I do know someone here, however, who would pretend that was the case.
No, this is just another of your many contrived charges of falsehood, I never said it was part of the liturgy - you are the one who resorted to that in trying to charge me with falsehood. I said it was sanctioned by the stamps given to the NAB, the approved Bible with its later modifications. Then later you
As I just showed you, a Bible with a whole new set of notes – different from any NAB in existence – was given a nihil obstat and imprimatur by local Kenyan clergy. No Vatican officials were involved as far as I can tell. ...An error by a single bishop, or even a number of bishops, in no way “impugns the integrity” of the Church.
That is another false polemic, as it does indeed impugn the integrity of Rome, as they are the overseers of such and allowed their sanction, and there is no record of any censure of these Bishops for such notes, and instead, the Vatican itself supplies them!
the description of the Tower of Babel which you were so vexed about – even though it has nothing to do with your sect and is not in your Bible – has been changed. So why are you upset?
You are the one who seems to be worked into a lather, salivating to find an error. And one of your contrived charges of errors was to say i was incorrect in charging this Tower of Babel note to the NAB, yet as i pointed out, what i said was "teaches or did teach such things via the NAB, which "such things" still are taught.
Again, I posted to you the announcement of Cardinal Dolan. Just a year or two ago he announced that the NABRE OT and a revised NAB NT will be the basis for a new lectionary and in fact a new Bible which people would actually be able to purchase.
"As said" refers to what the conference of Bishops said, and as for your link that has plans for future use of the NABRE, i said that this did not show that it was being used. That it might be is irrelevant, unless the Scripture readings themselves show liberal scholarship, not simply in approved notes.
I was still right on all counts. First, it will not be the NAB that will be used
"Still right?" The issue is not what will be used, but that of the approved NAB, with modifications, and its stamped notes. A revised lectionary based on any edition of the NAB still leaves the NAB to be the approved Bible.
Second, there is no such thing as the RNAB..yes, the source on that score was incompetent.
As with the other one, bot being the only two sites you used for documentation.
to show who was really incompetent. I succeeded easily.
All I needed to show was that there was an announcement out there
Rather, you needed to show that the New American Bible is not approved for liturgical use, even by revised readings based on any edition of it, and that instead another Bible was approved, and all you did is show a future use of the NABRE was expected. I chose to believe Catholic sources which state that the NAB is the approved text, with revised lectionary readings.
If you were technically arguing that the NAB is not the approved Bible for use in the lectionary, even if the readings are based upon an edition of the NAB, then i could allow that with proof, but that does not change at all the fact that liberal scholarship was and is sanctioned by Rome, even as by the stamps of the bishops, which was my point.
There was no damage to control.
Agreed, as it was attempted DC, which again was in vain.
why would it matter to you what Catholics read?
Irrelevant, but it testifies to you having long ago lost the issue while trying to find errors.
My exchange with you began with my challenging your "freely given" permission as being an undocumented assertion, which you refused to provide aside from mentioning some Cardinal, a discredited 19th century historian (you told me to do research, so i did), while i provided more (mostly Catholic) documentation of the restrictive nature of gaining permission, requiring permission from the pope or the Sacred Congregation of the Index.
You then affirmed RC refusal to give an imprimatur or nihil obstat to anything that is contrary to the Catholic faith, to which i asked if you concurred with Rome giving the same sanction liberal schlarship, which i went on to document via the stamped NAB with its notes. And more recent editions with some of the same.
Thus in the light of your advocation of the stamps to censure false teaching, the fact that Rome sanctions false teaching by it is a matter to me.
Also, since all the verses in question are clearly rooted in the context of “sexual immorality” you seem to have no point at all.
Are you serious or a liberal? When God names specific sins so should we, rather than 10 just commandments not to be "immoral." You want to justify using an ambiguous (as re what manner of immorality) term for a specific sin, and the fact that these are in the context of sexual immorality confirms that. ~
Why don’t you do something constructive and write the translators a letter about it if you care so much about it?
Typical deflection tactic. Maybe i will ask the Bishops.
The rest of your post is reiterated sophistry. Rome sanctions liberalism via its staff, and its own site provided it. You can deal with it.
13. The Gospels A remarkable fact is that for a long time Christians misunderstood the literary genre of the four Gospels. Until recently they thought that the Gospel writers wanted to present us with a biography of Jesus. After much research, Bible scholars agree that the Gospel writers wanted to write catechisms or digests of Christian teaching concerning the risen Lord Jesus... The writers took [oral traditions] and frequently even remolded and refashioned them to bring out the lesson they wanted to teach... In the conflict stories of the Gospels it is usually Jesus who is in conflict with His opponents... Was Jesus involved in these conversations? Did He answer exactly as related in the Bible? It is not certain... Bible scholars tell us that a horoscope of the expected Messiah circulated during the time of Jesus' birth. Astrologers (wise men from the East) were watching the sky for the appearance of the Messiah's star. King Herod, superstitious and upset by these people, killing children of two years and under, is extremely probable... People leaving Bethlehem to escape the massacre, is equally probable. This would be the historical background to this tradition. The rest is interpretation... Since we do not possess a biography of Jesus, it is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to him are written exactly as He spoke them. True, the Gospels are based on sound historical facts as related by eyewitnesses, but both deeds and words of Jesus are offered to us in the framework of theological interpretation... Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus... Remember the golden rule: keep historical facts distinct from their theological interpretation. [14]
“No, this is just another of your many contrived charges of falsehood, I never said it was part of the liturgy…”
Yu went on and on about how it was the Bible used at Mass. What would be the point of that?
“… - you are the one who resorted to that in trying to charge me with falsehood.”
No, I just corrected label your activity.
“I said it was sanctioned by the stamps given to the NAB, the approved Bible with its later modifications.”
And you were wrong about that of course. There was no “stamp” at all, but even if we use your vocabulary, there was no “stamp” from “Rome”. So, not only were you wrong, as is usual, but you were wrong in how you even discussed your error.
“Then later you…That is another false polemic, as it does indeed impugn the integrity of Rome, as they are the overseers of such and allowed their sanction, and there is no record of any censure of these Bishops for such notes, and instead, the Vatican itself supplies them!”
You have yet to show that “Rome” even examined the text. Again, the “sanction” is all from the U.S.A. There is no proof of any other sanction.
“You are the one who seems to be worked into a lather, salivating to find an error.”
I don’t salivate over your errors – there are so many I might drown. And, you brought all of this up.
“And one of your contrived charges of errors was to say i was incorrect in charging this Tower of Babel note to the NAB, yet as i pointed out, what i said was “teaches or did teach such things via the NAB, which “such things” still are taught.”
Your error essentially remains unchanged – the NABRE is the approved text now not the NAB. And no note – none at all – appears in the liturgy in any case. And no note was given any “stamp” by “Rome”.
“As said” refers to what the conference of Bishops said, and as for your link that has plans for future use of the NABRE, i said that this did not show that it was being used. That it might be is irrelevant, unless the Scripture readings themselves show liberal scholarship, not simply in approved notes.”
I was still right and you were still wrong. I never claimed the NABRE was the text used. I did say – and you incorrectly decided – that there was no announcement that the NABRE text would be used for a lectionary when that is the case as announced an posted by me days ago already.
“”Still right?””
Yes.
“ The issue is not what will be used, but that of the approved NAB, with modifications, and its stamped notes.”
False. You claimed there was no announcement that the NABRE text would be used for a future lectionary. That was your mistake. Second, no notes are “stamped” by “Rome” so you were wrong on that score as well.
“A revised lectionary based on any edition of the NAB still leaves the NAB to be the approved Bible.”
What it doesn’t leave is that the NABRE text would be used for a future lectionary or that no notes in any NAB are “stamped” by “Rome”.
“As with the other one, bot being the only two sites you used for documentation.”
What? Can you form a sentence that makes sense?
“Rather, you needed to show that the New American Bible is not approved for liturgical use,”
It isn’t. Even you have admitted that it isn’t. If I walk into a store and buy an NAB (and I mean any of the NABs – 1970,1986, 1991, NABRE) it will not be the same as what is read at Mass. Thus, none of them can be approved for liturgical use for if they were then they most likely would be used – especially the NABRE – already.
“even by revised readings based on any edition of it, and that instead another Bible was approved, and all you did is show a future use of the NABRE was expected.”
No. That is not what I did. Can you even pay attention? And if I noted that the NABRE will be used for the new lectionary how is that wrong when that is in fact exactly what has been announced?
“I chose to believe Catholic sources which state that the NAB is the approved text, with revised lectionary readings.”
Oh, so it ISN’T the NAB. Exactly. It’s something you cannot buy in any store as a Bible like other Bibles. And those revisions were insisted on by the Vatican – which you keep trying to attack for supposedly approving notes you don’t like when the Vatican is not the authority which does so anyway – as I showed in spades with the New African Bible.
“If you were technically arguing that the NAB is not the approved Bible for use in the lectionary, even if the readings are based upon an edition of the NAB, then i could allow that with proof, but that does not change at all the fact that liberal scholarship was and is sanctioned by Rome, even as by the stamps of the bishops, which was my point.”
And you’re still wrong. Again, what proof do you have that the NAB’s notes were ever approved by “Rome”? None. You have nothing. Why do you assume that is the case “Rome” “stamps” “liberal scholarship” when I bet you would never even consider the fact that the NABRE changes to notes were completed in about 2000? In other words, I have every reason to believe that the resurgence in traditional Bible scholarship among Catholics was urged forward by the Vatican under popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict – the two popes who insisted on the revision of the liturgy in English to agree with the Latin original.
“Agreed, as it was attempted DC, which again was in vain.”
There was no damage to control and no attempt to control that which did not exist.
“Irrelevant, but it testifies to you having long ago lost the issue while trying to find errors.”
No, I think it shows how Protestant anti-Catholics develop unhealthy obsessions in their twilight, black helicopter world.
“My exchange with you began with my challenging your “freely given” permission as being an undocumented assertion, which you refused to provide aside from mentioning some Cardinal, a discredited 19th century historian…”
He is not discredited.
“(you told me to do research, so i did),”
If you really did the research, you would be able to post his name rather than refer to him as “some Cardinal”.
“while i provided more (mostly Catholic) documentation of the restrictive nature of gaining permission, requiring permission from the pope or the Sacred Congregation of the Index.”
And again, that was not the case for the time period we were actually discussing. There was no Index yet, for instance. And no permission was needed from the pope. In those places or times before Tyndale’s day in which needed permission was needed it was granted – and freely so – by the ordinary. No pope ever needed to get involved and there was no Index yet. 1408 England is a long way off from 1550s Trent or the Vatican.
“You then affirmed RC refusal to give an imprimatur or nihil obstat to anything that is contrary to the Catholic faith,”
I affirmed that I thought it bizarre that anyone would expect ANY religious group to approve something that is against the faith as taught by that group. The specific example I used was the various Lutheran sects. You, not surprisingly never gave a direct response to that point. And yes, I absolutely affirm the Church’s right to censure publications about the faith produced by Catholics. I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever and only a bizarrely odd person could possibly oppose a religious organization for exercising such discipline among its members.
“ to which i asked if you concurred with Rome giving the same sanction liberal schlarship, which i went on to document via the stamped NAB with its notes. And more recent editions with some of the same.”
And I pointed out to you that you have yet to offer a single scrap of evidence that “Rome” ever “stamped” even a single not in any NAB or any revision thereof. I even posted for you what is written inside the New African Bible (1999) – which uses an NAB text but has completely new and different notes from any NAB or NABRE ever published. The nihil obstat and imprimatur were both from Kenyan clergy. There was no evidence that anyone from “Rome” was in any way involved. And you have completely ignored that point. You probably will continue to do so too because it clearly works against your false claims.
“Thus in the light of your advocation of the stamps to censure false teaching, the fact that Rome sanctions false teaching by it is a matter to me.”
Except that isn’t what is happening – as I showed with the New African Bible. You can keep claiming otherwise, of course. You can also claim the moon is made of cheese too.
“Are you serious or a liberal?”
I’m very serious and not a liberal in the least. The context of each verse is clear. Thus, your claim of “liberal scholarship” simply doesn’t amount to much of anything.
“When God names specific sins so should we, rather than 10 just commandments not to be “immoral.””
And as I said, I am all for changing the translation. I believe Bibles should be literal even if to the point of obscurity. Obscurities can be explained in well written and concise footnotes. The point, however, is still the same. The translators of some Bibles – such as the RSV – chose not to translate it to your or my complete satisfaction in that regard. So what? That is true of EVERY Bible. The NIV says “teaching” instead of “tradition” for pardosis on a couple of occasions. Now, at least they admit it in footnotes, but why do that if not to deliberately hide the all-too-Catholic meaning of the verses? But you aren’t focusing on that obvious and deliberate error at all. Nope. Instead you’re focused on a Bible you don’t even use, and isn’t used by anyone in your own sect. Bizarre. Now, supplanting “teaching” for “tradition” sure seems to be much more egregious than “immorality” for “sexual immorality” – especially when there is so much obvious context about the sexual immorality.
“You want to justify using an ambiguous (as re what manner of immorality) term for a specific sin, and the fact that these are in the context of sexual immorality confirms that.”
If there is so much context – including the not unique use of chapter headings like “Sexual Immorality” – then there is little or no ambiguity.
“Typical deflection tactic. Maybe i will ask the Bishops.”
You do that. I’m sure you have them all on speed dial, right?
“The rest of your post is reiterated sophistry.”
Kettle meet Pot. Pot meet Kettle.
“Rome sanctions liberalism via its staff, and its own site provided it. You can deal with it.”
You have yet to provide any proof that “Rome” sanctioned any note in any NAB.
Indeed, and a source that substantiates that is another RC http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-american-bible-st-joseph-edition.html
That was in response to you going on and one in technically making that the issue.
There was no “stamp” at all,
Pure denial; the NAB, with its notes, was/is clearly stamped.
As another RC site affirms
I would like to draw your attention to the St. Joseph Edition of the New American Bible. I'm sure you've seen this one before. The parish at which I worked for a time had hundreds of them in the parish center.
Inside the cover are three imprimaturs, two nihil obstats, and an apostolic blessing from Pope Paul VI. Quite impressive. And then you read the introduction, called How to Read Your Bible. Ben Douglass and Jacob Michael aptly refer to this section as How Not to Read Your Bible in their article... - http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-american-bible-st-joseph-edition.html
You have yet to show that “Rome” even examined the text.
Incredible. So Rome allows its Bishops to do what they want in denying RC teaching and it does not reflect upon them as overseers. Nor does the Vatican's own site providing liberal revisionism.
you incorrectly decided – that there was no announcement that the NABRE text would be used for a lectionary
Rather, it provided the UCCB statement that it had no plans to do so, and that your site did not say it was being used.
As with the other one, bot being the only two sites you used for documentation.
What? Can you form a sentence that makes sense?
That refers to you stating the "the source on that score was incompetent," to which i respond, as with the other one (you labeled incompetent), [b]oth being the only two sites you used for documentation.
It isn’t. Even you have admitted that it isn’t. If I walk into a store and buy an NAB (and I mean any of the NABs – 1970,1986, 1991, NABRE) it will not be the same as what is read at Mass. Thus, none of them can be approved for liturgical use for if they were then they most likely would be used – especially the NABRE – already.
It did not say it was the same as in the readings, or specify which edition (and the NABRE is an edition ) but that the NAB was the approved Bible with revisions for the lectionary. Which was right after your objection i stated from http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm that this approval meant the text of the NAB with revised Psalms and New Testament, with some changes mandated by the Holy See. I later provided other statements that the readings are "based on the NAB," (which the NABRE is as it is a revision) and that a "revision of the translation of the Old Testament, including the Psalter, was published in March 2011 of it."
And you’re still wrong. Again, what proof do you have that the NAB’s notes were ever approved by “Rome”?
What proof!? The imprimatur and nihil obstat, which are issued by Bishops of Rome! And which notes the Vatican's own site provides .
Why do you assume that is the case “Rome” “stamps” “liberal scholarship” when I bet you would never even consider the fact that the NABRE changes to notes were completed in about 2000?
Why do i assume? Because despite your refusal to acknowledge it, Rome did and does stamps liberal scholarship, as seen by the use of the stamps, which use you affirmed to combat false teaching! And which the Vatican's own site provides! And by continued subscription to liberal scholarship.
There was no damage to control and no attempt to control that which did not exist.
By wishful denials. If you really did the research, you would be able to post his name rather than refer to him as “some Cardinal”.
He is not discredited.
Vlad, seriously(!), first you invoke the last name of a 19th century Cardinal for substantiating your assertion, then refuse to provide anything at all from him that offers evidence, telling me to do research, but when i looked him up and both linked to your post in which you named him and provided a link to references on him being discredited, your response is to simply deny it and impugn me for not providing his name? Again, you take your mouse and left click on the link! Talk about "unreasonable men"! (2Thes. 3:2)
And again, that was not the case for the time period we were actually discussing....1408 England is a long way off from 1550s Trent or the Vatican.
Wrong, as rather than the past period when no permission was required, you were responding to GPH who stated reading was "limited to the permission of the church," and thus you stated "permission was clearly freely given." Later you likened this gaining of permission to getting a drivers license, which here is a process with two tests, but regardless of your meaning, the time period was post 1408 England.
“You then affirmed RC refusal to give an imprimatur or nihil obstat to anything that is contrary to the Catholic faith,”
I affirmed that I thought it bizarre that anyone would expect ANY religious group to approve something that is against the faith as taught by that group.
Disapproval is not the same as keeping it from the people and punishing possession it, yet i do agree with disapproval, but i do not simply disagree with the Rome's judgment in some cases as to what is contrary to faith, but that reading the Bible itself should require permission under the premise that it is dangerous to do so. As as well with her using temporal power to deal with theological dissidents (papal sanction of torture and death to those she considers heretics). Even if you may disagree.
And I pointed out to you that you have yet to offer a single scrap of evidence that “Rome” ever “stamped” even a single not in any NAB or any revision thereof.
By refusing to allow that the sanction of "Rome" represents what she does via her staff, which includes the Bishops, and what she provides. Certainly there are different levels of authority, but the Vatican is responsible for overseeing its staff, and has not responded by censuring the Bishops for these notes, but provides such liberal scholarship on its own site.
The context of each verse is clear. Thus, your claim of “liberal scholarship” simply doesn’t amount to much of anything.
That again is simply denial. And some of your fellow traditionalists also censure it.
You have yet to provide any proof that “Rome” sanctioned any note in any NAB.
More denial based on refusal to allow Rome responsibility for what its staff does, but continued allowance of sanction of false teaching, and even providing it on its own site. Yet as James says, "I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18)
“That was in response to you going on and one in technically making that the issue.”
I never made that the issue. You did. I merely pointed out your errors.
“Pure denial; the NAB, with its notes, was/is clearly stamped.”
Again, false. First, there is no “stamp” at all – of any kind whatsoever. Second, neither the nihil obtstat nor the imprimatur is from “Rome”.
“As another RC site affirms”
The “RC affirms” exactly nothing about any “stamp” from “Rome”. It doesn’t claim that the nihil obstat nor the imprimatur is from “Rome” or any pope or the Vatican or any Church council. Those are the facts.
“Incredible. So Rome allows its Bishops to do what they want in denying RC teaching and it does not reflect upon them as overseers.”
Sadly, there is too little discipline exercised by popes over the last 50 years. John Paul II admitted he was probably a poor disciplinarian – which I think was undeniably the case.
“Nor does the Vatican’s own site providing liberal revisionism.”
I don’t know what you’re saying there since there seems to be a word or two missing from your sentence.
“That refers to you stating the “the source on that score was incompetent,” to which i respond, as with the other one (you labeled incompetent), [b]oth being the only two sites you used for documentation.”
They were accurate in the details for which I posted them – completely unlike your use of sources. Take, for instance, the source you posted today – the Unam Sanctum blog. It doesn’t say anything about “stamps” or “Rome” giving a nihil obstat or imprimatur.
“It did not say it was the same as in the readings, or specify which edition (and the NABRE is an edition ) but that the NAB was the approved Bible with revisions for the lectionary.”
Which was right after your objection i stated from http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm that this approval meant the text of the NAB with revised Psalms and New Testament, with some changes mandated by the Holy See. I later provided other statements that the readings are “based on the NAB,” (which the NABRE is as it is a revision) and that a “revision of the translation of the Old Testament, including the Psalter, was published in March 2011 of it.”
And you’re still wrong. Again, what proof do you have that the NAB’s notes were ever approved by “Rome”?
“What proof!? The imprimatur and nihil obstat, which are issued by Bishops of Rome!”
Post them. There are none.
Look in any NAB – any addition – and you’ll see the following names in various editions over the years: Hartdegen (not a bishop), O’Boyle (Archbishop of Washington, DC), Tranter (not a bishop), Heenan (Archbishop of Westminster), Pilarczyk (bishop and president of USCCB), Hickey (Archbishop of Washington), Gutgsell & Peter (not bishops), Sheehan (Bishop of Omaha), Clack (not a bishop), Boland (Bishop of Savannah), George (Archbishop of Chicago). Not a single one of those men is a Bishop of Rome. Not a single one. Cardinal George even points out in the latest edition – the NABRE – that the Bible is issued by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (which is an American institution) and that the translation was approved by the Administrative Committee of the USCCB. And that he HIMSELF as head of the USCCB is permitting it for “private use and study”. No Bishop of Rome figured into any of the approvals, imprimaturs, or nihil obstats in any official way whatsoever.
“And which notes the Vatican’s own site provides .”
And still you cannot provide a single example of where anything in any NAB went through any Vatican imprimatur or nihil obstat at all. None.
“Why do i assume? Because despite your refusal to acknowledge it, Rome did and does stamps liberal scholarship, as seen by the use of the stamps, which use you affirmed to combat false teaching!”
Show me where in any NAB you find a single “stamp” of “liberal scholarship” from “Rome”. Can you? No, you will fail. I own at least six or seven NABs and NABREs and not a single one of them has any “stamp” from ANYONE in “Rome” let alone a single pope or Church council. Not one. Time to put up or shut up daniel. Name the person from “Rome” who you falsely claim gave the “stamp” to “liberal scholarship” as you keep claiming happened. Name him.
“And which the Vatican’s own site provides! And by continued subscription to liberal scholarship.”
Nope.
“Vlad, seriously(!), first you invoke the last name of a 19th century Cardinal for substantiating your assertion, then refuse to provide anything at all from him that offers evidence, telling me to do research, but when i looked him up and both linked to your post in which you named him and provided a link to references on him being discredited, your response is to simply deny it and impugn me for not providing his name?”
No. I merely pointed out that I have no reason to believe you did any real research about what he researched if you can’t even name him. Are you unable to handle that criticism?
“Wrong, as rather than the past period when no permission was required, you were responding to GPH who stated reading was “limited to the permission of the church,””
And, overall, that is false. Only in specific times and places – because of heresy – was any permission needed in regard to Bible making, copying. Before 1408 in England no permission was needed by anyone. After 1408 permission was rather freely given. There was also a problem with Cathar heretics in Southern France/Northern Spain so there were restrictions there too in the 13th century. That leaves what – almost all of Europe – with no restrictions ever in the Middle Ages. None.
“and thus you stated “permission was clearly freely given.”
Later you likened this gaining of permission to getting a drivers license, which here is a process with two tests, but regardless of your meaning, the time period was post 1408 England.”
And permission was freely given.
“Disapproval is not the same as keeping it from the people and punishing possession it, yet i do agree with disapproval, but i do not simply disagree with the Rome’s judgment in some cases as to what is contrary to faith, but that reading the Bible itself should require permission under the premise that it is dangerous to do so.”
And that was not the case. Reading the scriptures was never apparently a problem. Apparently the only restrictions were on the production of translations and possessing them without a license – and again that was only in a couple of places and only because of heresy.
“As as well with her using temporal power to deal with theological dissidents (papal sanction of torture and death to those she considers heretics). Even if you may disagree.”
They were not mere “theological dissidents”. They were heretics. In an age when people were put to death for rick burning should it surprise you so much that men could be put to death for destroying souls with heresy?
“By refusing to allow that the sanction of “Rome” represents what she does via her staff, which includes the Bishops, and what she provides.”
No. Again, not a single Bishop of Rome was involved with the NAB. It amazes me how you insist the Church should exercise discipline of a very intrusive kind on small issues (translating “porneia” as “sexual immorality” rather than “immorality”) but condemn the Church for not allowing complete freedom on other matters (i.e. “keeping it from the people and punishing possession it”). Get over yourself.
“Certainly there are different levels of authority, but the Vatican is responsible for overseeing its staff, and has not responded by censuring the Bishops for these notes, but provides such liberal scholarship on its own site.”
And how exactly is that your problem? The NIV has a distorted translation in 2 Thess 2:15 translating the word as “teachings” instead of “traditions”. And you’re doing what about that? Oh, that’s right, nothing.
“That again is simply denial.”
Nope. Again, the context in each verse is clear. Read them for yourself – especially the ones with chapter headings like “Sexual Immorality” and then tell me how the context is NOT clear.
“And some of your fellow traditionalists also censure it.”
I understand. That doesn’t change the fact that the context is still clear. That also doesn’t change the fact that some Protestant Bibles have the same translation in many of those verses.
“More denial based on refusal to allow Rome responsibility for what its staff does,”
Name the “staffer” from “Rome” in question. What will happen is that everyone you can name will actually turn out to be from places like Chicago and not “Rome”!
“but continued allowance of sanction of false teaching,”
Again, as I showed you with the Tower of Babel, the NABRE doesn’t even have the notes that the NAB once did. And “Rome” has nothing to do with it in any case.
“and even providing it on its own site. Yet as James says, “I will shew thee my faith by my works.” (James 2:18)”
And you have certainly shown yours – and it isn’t good.
And yes, I do mean “death cult.” The “perfecti” perfected themselves by literally starving themselves TO DEATH. And that was doctrinally necessary.
Yes, the Cathars were indeed "politically primitive" compared to the Catholics. History proves that - The Catholics not only exterminated every man, woman and child Cathar, literally millions of people, but continued their cold-blooded massacres for over forty years to get the job done, and they also now lay claim to being the "official" source for Cathar beliefs. Now THAT is political sophisitication!
And then, literally drenched in blood of millions, what do the Catholics still call the Cathars? A "death cult"?
Good God.
Even if you are right about the "perfecti" starving themselves (and you're not, it was only used in extreme old age, illness or injury), the perfecti were a vanishingly small minority of the Cathars. Literally hundreds, versus millions of believers.
So, the Catholics generationally exterminated millions of Cathars to SAVE them. Yep. And to SAVE civilization, no less.
I find your shamelessness beyond ugly - it is anethema before God.
I am done here - brag about your blood feast without me.
But you're implying that the Albigensian Crusade somehow wiped out millions of people, which is absurd.
Also, the Albi were dealt harshly with a militaristic, rahter than missionary, response precisely because they doctrinally denied the authority of any government whatsoever. On the other hand, the local lords became fabulously wealthy: they stole all church properties, they refused all tribute, and the prefecti convinced all their peasants that food, drink, art, music, and nearly all sensory pleasures were evil, so there was much money to collect. (Albi was also fabulously wealthy in natural resoources.)
Once the Spanish and French had defeated the lords getting rich of the Albi, the Dominicans were very quickly able to convert the locals back to Christianity (although an undercurrent of hostility to the Romans for calling in mercenaries who turned out so ruthless remained).
“That was in response to you going on and one in technically making that the issue.”
I never made that the issue. You did. I merely pointed out your errors.
That is exactly what you did. I substantiated the sanctioned liberal scholarship in your official American Bible, and in response to your censure for not saying "New" as in "New American" (which my source link would have told you), i clarified what was meant for EWTN, that of the UCCB approved American Bible, and with revised readings used for the Lectionary.
While it was the fact that a Catholic Bible, with the UCCB approval and local bishop's imprimatur, sanctioned liberal scholarship (and that such is still seen in later versions) was what mattered, you chose to make the issue that the NAB was never used at your particular church, and that was is read in Mass now is not exactly the same as the NAB, as if lectionary readings based on a revised edition of the NAB contradicted it being the UCCB approved Bible, from which revisions are made.
And the USCCB states that at present the Lectionary based on the NAB with Revised NT is the only approved English text of the Lectionary for use in the latin-rite Dioceses of the US, and incorporation of the NABRE is likely a decade or more away. (Mary Elizabeth Sperry )
And i showed that the NAB was the UCCB approved Bible meaning with revisions for the lectionary, which are based upon it.
“Pure denial; the NAB, with its notes, was/is clearly stamped.”
Again, false. First, there is no “stamp” at all – of any kind whatsoever. Second, neither the nihil obtstat nor the imprimatur is from “Rome”.
Denial again; the NAB, with its notes, was/is clearly stamped, as my older copy is, and as even RC sources attest for later ones. The 2011 NABRE carries the Nihil Obstat from Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M., L.S.S. Censor Deputatus, and the Imprimatur from James A. Hickey, S.T.D., J.C.D. Archbishop of Washington, August 27, 1986. And the Revised Old Testament is authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc.and approved by the UCCB, as required by canon 825 §1 of the Code of Canon Law.
Whether or not these come from the local diocese's scholar-censor and bishop or higher, the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur given for a reason, and have a history going way back to the Index, and are meaningless if they carry no weight and provide no assurance from the RCC.
“In 1467 Innocent VIII decreed that all books must be submitted to the local Church authorities for examination and permission before being issued for general reading… The license to publish was to be printed in each book… A similar decree was issued by Leo X at the Fifth Lateran Council on May 4, 1515, and addressed to the entire world. It is the first general decree of supervisory censorship that was universally accepted” (Burke 1952 p. 6-7). Soon after this the Index was created. — http://capping.slis.ualberta.ca/cap07/CeraSchachter/precursors.html
Can. 825 §1. states, Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM
§2 With the permission of the Episcopal Conference, catholic members of Christ's faithful, in cooperation with separated brethren, may prepare and publish versions of the Scriptures, with appropriate explanatory notes.
Moreover,
"The faithful entrusted to the pastoral care of a particular Bishop are required to accept his judgement given in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a religious assent of soul." - JP2, Motu Proprio; http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2apost.htm
Furthermore, if these stamps do not apply to the notes, which is not made clear, then it still amounts to negligence on the part of Rome for allowing such to this day.
The preface to the Boook of Genesis in the aforementioned NABRE tells us such things as that describing Gn. 2-11 as history is misleading, "for its suggests the events really took place." From this we can conclude that Peter was referring to a mere story, not history, in condemning those scoffers who were ignorant the flood and its judgment.
The preface instead tells is that the plot of Gn. 2-11 was borrowed from "stories attested in Mesopotamian literature of the second and early first millennia," despite the distinctions . And that the authors of Genesis adapted the pagan creation-flood story in accord with their views of God and humanity."
And as said, it also supports liberal revisionism of the JEDP theory which has the Pentateuch being the work of various editors and redactors extending to the 6th century BC making it relevant to their generation.
Thus in its preface to the book of Joshua, it teaches that the whole of Deuteronomic history was influenced by the Fall of the Northern Kingdom in 721-22 BC, and thus it should not be read so much as imparting information about how Israel took over the land of Canaan, but about how Israel is to avoid losing the land. Stephen for one held a literal view. (Acts 7)
The “RC affirms” exactly nothing about any “stamp” from “Rome”. It doesn’t claim that the nihil obstat nor the imprimatur is from “Rome” or any pope or the Vatican or any Church council. Those are the facts.
More denial. "Rome" represents the RCC, and what is taught by it, under its governorship in Rome, and what it sanctions by its bishops, etc. or fails to censure reflects upon its faith and is what it effectually teaches
“Incredible. So Rome allows its Bishops to do what they want in denying RC teaching and it does not reflect upon them as overseers.”
Sadly, there is too little discipline exercised by popes over the last 50 years. John Paul II admitted he was probably a poor disciplinarian – which I think was undeniably the case.
And him only? Of course it seems you support the Spanish inquisitions and all its means.
“So Rome allows its Bishops to do what they want in denying RC teaching and it does not reflect upon them as overseers. Nor does the Vatican’s own site providing liberal revisionism.”
I don’t know what you’re saying there since there seems to be a word or two missing from your sentence.
The Vatican’s own site providing liberal revisionism does not reflect upon them as overseers?
They were accurate in the details for which I posted them – completely unlike your use of sources. Take, for instance, the source you posted today – the Unam Sanctum blog. It doesn’t say anything about “stamps” or “Rome” giving a nihil obstat or imprimatur.
More assertions from one who asserts his assertions are right even if documentation contradicts him, and which again is the case, as the Unam Sanctum blog does indeed attests to the “stamps.” And do not try again to say you do not know what "stamps" represent here, which were referred to from the beginning, as you already did try and it was explained to you what they meant, the imprimatur and nihil obstat.
And you’re still wrong. Again, what proof do you have that the NAB’s notes were ever approved by “Rome”?
Engaging in semantics will not work. Books of the sacred Scriptures may not be published unless they are approved by the Apostolic See or the Episcopal Conference. And an approved Bible issued by the conference of RC bishops, with the stamps of the local ordinary, provides assurance to RCs that they that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. This was Rome's idea, not some publishers. And relegating historical accounts to being fables and folk tales is a problem.
Not a single one of those men is a Bishop of Rome.
“What proof!? The imprimatur and nihil obstat, which are issued by Bishops of Rome!”
Post them. There are none.
Once again this is an semantical escape. Do you really think i was referring to popes?! The imprimaturs were by bishops of Rome, as in bishops of the RCC!
“And which notes the Vatican’s own site provides .”
And still you cannot provide a single example of where anything in any NAB went through any Vatican imprimatur or nihil obstat at all. None.
Besides the insolence of making this to mean the Vatican itself, the Vatican providing these notes via its website is in addition to the NAB having the imprimatur of the bishops, whose judgment RCs are to trust.
Show me where in any NAB you find a single “stamp” of “liberal scholarship” from “Rome”. Can you?
Enough with your game. Show me that none have the imprimatur of a Bishop of Rome (RCC) as that is what i obviously referred to. Put up or shut up
No. I merely pointed out that I have no reason to believe you did any real research about what he researched if you can’t even name him. Are you unable to handle that criticism?
What a tactic! You ignore the link to where you name him, and ignore the link to him being discredited, in criticism of your unsubstantiated assertion, and then attack me as if i am the one who cannot handle criticism! Again, par for your diversionary course.
And permission was freely given.
"So freely given" meaning it turns out, that it was indeed quite restricted.
Apparently the only restrictions were on the production of translations and possessing them without a license
"Only" is another minimization of the restriction, and of course it was on the production of translations, as the Bible was not written in their common tongue. What is apparent is that the restrictions were on even the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors.
Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp)
The NIV has a distorted translation in 2 Thess 2:15 translating the word as “teachings” instead of “traditions”. And you’re doing what about that?
Is that a Catholic approved Bible? No, and while i reject that "dynamic" paraphrase also, invoking that this is more diversion, as the issue was and is not the integrity of Bible translations by the promoting of Rome as the supreme and only trustworthy teacher and watchman of truth, which extends far more than to infallible teachings. Thus the need for the stamps, which was the issue in the first place.
Nope. Again, the context in each verse is clear. Read them for yourself – especially the ones with chapter headings
Which affirms what i just said. Rather than a RC seeing the actual specific word "fornication" to define what is specifically being condemned, the RC is to look to the heading of the interpreters, the same ones is seems to provide the notes turning the Flood, etc, into non-historical events adopted pagans.
Again, as I showed you with the Tower of Babel, the NABRE doesn’t even have the notes that the NAB once did.
And again you avoid what i showed you, that my censure referred to what was taught, as well such things as still are, and which the NABRE includes.
And this is taking way too much of my time on this dead thread, so i intend to move on.
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.