“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.
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.