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.
“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.