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.