“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.