“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.
“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.