“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.
“That is exactly what you did. I substantiated the sanctioned liberal scholarship in your official American Bible,”
You never substantiated it as you claim. You insisted – until even your last post or two – that it was “sanctioned” by “Rome” even claiming it was the “Bishop of Rome” who had given a “stamp” to it – all of which proved to be completely false. This is how you started that ridiculous and false series of claims: “Then you disagree with Rome now allowing readership of materials it once forbade, while giving the stamp the commentary in your own official American Bible…” And as I demonstrated that is simply not simply the case. There is no “stamp” from “Rome”. You made it up. You based it on nothing. You never substantiated it. You failed utterly.
“…and in response to your censure for not saying “New” as in “New American” (which my source link would have told you),”
I pointed out that you couldn’t even get the name of the Bible right. It was true – you couldn’t.
“ i clarified what was meant for EWTN, that of the UCCB approved American Bible,”
The UCCB? Do you mean the USCCB?
“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,”
1) What local bishop are you even talking about? Do you even understand the terms you use? And the fact that you are now saying “local bishop” must mean you are tacitly admitting that your earlier claim about the “Bishop of Rome” having given it a “stamp” was false just as I said it was. Thanks.
2) Again, what is the UCCB? Do you even understand the terms you use?
3) In post #174 I posted this in response to your comments:
Begin paste:
You: “Then you disagree with Rome now allowing readership of materials it once forbade,”
Me: Whether I agree or disagree is immaterial since the Church has added and subtracted materials from the index for centuries so your question is meaningless.
You: “...while giving the stamp the commentary in your own official American Bible which teaches or did teach such things as ,”
Me: First, you mean the “New American Bible” and not the “American Bible”. It amazes me that Protestant anti-Catholics can’t even get the most basic things right. Second, the NAB is issued by the USCCB - which is not an official organization in the hierarchy of the Church and plays little or no role in my faith life. Neither my parish nor my pastor are under the authority of the USCCB. Third, I think you better check your source. I have the NABRE on my Kindle and the notes for the Tower of Babel (Gen 11) don’t say anything about the story being “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”. It says just “Secondarily, the story explains the diversity of language among peoples of the earth.” Perhaps you’re using the old edition? Since the very first thing I check in your post turns out to be incorrect I see no reason to bother with the rest.
End paste
Thus, I only brought up my parish and my pastor in relation to your errors concerning who issued the NAB or NABRE and your use of “your” in regard to the “American Bible”. It was clear that there was no reason to believe you had any idea of what you were talking about.
“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.”
Again, what is the UCCB here? Also, you’re now admitting that it was the USCCB (UCCB?) who “approved” the Bible while before you clearly claimed it was “Rome” and even the “Bishop of Rome”. So, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” now has morphed into “What we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed.” Great.
“ and incorporation of the NABRE is likely a decade or more away.”
Doesn’t change the fact that you falsely claimed there was no announcement about a new lectionary which would incorporate the NABRE. You did. And you were wrong.
“And i showed that the NAB was the UCCB approved Bible meaning with revisions for the lectionary, which are based upon it.”
Which is it – the UCCB or the USCCB? Pick one.
“Denial again; the NAB, with its notes, was/is clearly stamped,”
Nope. There is no “stamp”. Do you know what a “stamp” is? This are some stamps:
http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/541545/USPS-Four-Flags-FOREVER-Postage-Stamps/?Channel=Google&mr:trackingCode=A4A28B20-E2A5-E211-9C7C-BC305BF82162&mr:referralID=NA&mr:adType=pla&mr:ad=34419654596&mr:keyword=&mr:match=&mr:filter=41428843009&cm_mmc=Mercent-_-Googlepla-_-Office_Supplies+Mailing_Shipping_Envelopes-_-541545
I have at least half a dozen NABs of various types and not a single one of them has either one of those “stamps”. And, to remind you again, you claimed it was “stamped” by “Rome” and even the “Bishop of Rome” and both claims were completely false. No “stamp” at all. And no “stamp” at all from “Rome” or the “Bishop of Rome”. None.
“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.”
1) I posted all the names you would find next to the “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur” in any NAB or NABRE. So, now you are proving that you were wrong earlier when you falsely claimed it was “Rome” or the “Bishop of Rome”. Neither Hartdegen nor Hickey are either “Rome” or the “Bishop of Rome”. Thanks for proving me right yet again.
2) Again, what is the “UCCB”? What is that?
“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.”
What carries no wait and provides no assurances to your claims is that you are now admitting it was the USCCB and U.S. bishops who approved the NAB and NABRE while you earlier were completely in error and claimed it was “Rome” and the “Bishop of Rome”. You were COMPLETELY WRONG in those claims. That alone – something which you held to in post after post casts doubt on many of your other claims. If you can’t be trusted to get something so basic right, then you can’t be trusted in general.
“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.”
So you claim – but your claims can’t be taken seriously. You have been wrong too many times on too many issues. Also, there is a hint of hypocrisy in these sorts of comments from Protestant anti-Catholics. When “Rome” cracks down and mandates that people do something there are accusations of totalitarianism and calls for freedom from “Rome”. When “Rome” doesn’t crack down to the invented liking of the anti-Catholic, then there are accusations of “negligence”. This hypocrisy escapes the lax circumspection of Protestant anti-Catholics.
“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.”
Your conclusion is your own. And you apparently forgot to include the sentence that came before it: ““Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English.” So, it shouldn’t be called history and it shouldn’t be called myth they say. Don’t like it? Too bad. I’m not a big fan of it either. Too bad. You know what I don’t do? I don’t pretend that “Rome” wrote that intro. I don’t pretend that the “Bishop of Rome” “stamped” it. I’m not making things up about it. Someone here is, but it isn’t me. You want to take a wild guess as to who is making those things up?
“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.”
Again, you don’t like it? Too bad. I’m not a big fan either. What I don’t do is pretend that “Rome” wrote that intro. I don’t pretend that the “Bishop of Rome” “stamped” it. I’m not making things up about it. Someone here is, but it isn’t me. You want to take a wild guess as to who is making those things up?
“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.”
Again, you don’t like it? Too bad. I’m not a big fan either. But, once again, I don’t do is pretend that “Rome” wrote that intro. I don’t pretend that the “Bishop of Rome” “stamped” it. I’m not making things up about it. Someone here is, but it isn’t me. You want to take a wild guess as to who is making those things up?
“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”
No. You said “Bishop of Rome”. You were wrong. It is clear that when you said “Rome” you meant the Vatican – and clearly the Vatican had nothing official to do with the translation and approval of the NAB or NABRE. Nothing. That is why you failed – time after time – when I asked for you to provide any evidence at all to your claim that it was “Rome” who approved it.
“And him only?”
No, but he is the one who admitted to it and there have only been 5 popes in the “last 50 years”. Some popes are better than others. Some popes – hundreds of years ago – were lousy. In the end, God protects the Church anyway.
“Of course it seems you support the Spanish inquisitions and all its means.”
No. I support the original cause of the Spanish Inquisition – to root out people who were pretending to be Christians so that they could advance in society. I have no problem with that. The H.U.A.C. did that when dealing with communists in the 50s. I have no problem with that in itself either. That doesn’t mean I approve of “means” employed by the Spanish inquisitors. At least 6 popes complained to the Spanish Inquisition about its activities, “means” and so forth. There were obviously abuses of power. I still no reason to through the baby out with the bath water.
“The Vatican’s own site providing liberal revisionism does not reflect upon them as overseers?”
No, not really since all the Vatican did was post what the USCCB approved so that Americans would have an approved Bible online to access. If you don’t like the fact that it was posted online, too bad.
“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.””
No. There is no proof of a “stamp” from “Rome” or the “Bishop of Rome” at that site or any other anywhere in the world in the regard you mention. I went back to the blog in question. The blog post has 999 words exactly. I used word search and found 0 mentionings of “stamps”. Zero. Zero uses of the word “stamped”. There were zero uses of the word “Rome”. Zero. Although Pope Paul VI is mentioned he is mentioned for an apostolic blessing and not for any “stamp” of any kind. Imprimaturs and nihil obstats are mentioned. None of them are from any “Bishop of Rome” or “Rome”. You are clearly wrong. You seem to be doubling down on an objective error on your part. No “stamps” – postage or otherwise – are mentioned in that blog post. None.
“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.”
Sorry, but this “stamps” nonsense on your part is exactly that – nonsense. If it is an imprimatur or nihil obstat you’re talking about, then actually use the correct terms. If you’re actually trying to make an argument, it helps to use the terms which are actually representative of the things recognized and understood. For someone to use a term that make him sound like he doesn’t have a clue as to what he is talking about is simply not a way to make an argument. It naturally will lead any reader who does know what he is talking about to conclude, “This guy is clueless.”
“Engaging in semantics will not work.”
Asking for proof is not semantics. You have UTTERLY failed to show any proof at all to your claim that there were “stamps” given to the notes of the NAB or the NAB itself by “Rome” or the “Bishop of Rome” – which is what you claimed.
“Books of the sacred Scriptures may not be published unless they are approved by the Apostolic See or the Episcopal Conference.”
And, as I DEMONSTRATED, every single nihil obstat or imprimatur that every NAB or NABRE in existence in this world is from a bishop in the USCCB, a priest who works in an American diocese, and in one case from the Archbishop of Westminster for one particular article. That’s it. None – not a single one – came from a “Bishop of Rome” or “Rome”. Not even one.
“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.”
So say you, but your opinion doesn’t matter. Deliberately mistranslating words in the NIV should concern you more than what any Catholic Bible – or its notes – says. Hypocrisy is an ugly – and very Protestant – thing apparently. And don’t forget: ““Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English.”
“Once again this is an semantical escape.”
Really? Okay, let’s look at what you wrote that I was responding to: “What proof!? The imprimatur and nihil obstat, which are issued by Bishops of Rome!” So, you make a very specific assertion there. You are claiming that the imprimatur and nihil obstat – you actually use the real terms rather than your mythical “stamps” – were given by popes, by “Bishops of Rome”. Okay, the NAB came out in 1970. From then, until 2011 when the NABRE came out, there were exactly four popes, four “Bishops of Rome”. These are there names: Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Now, which one of those “Bishops of Rome” EVER gave a nihil obstat or imprimatur to the New American Bible or New American Bible Revised Edition? Which one? If you cannot name one of those popes – and remember I have every common edition of the NAB and NABRE – as having given a nihil obstat or imprimatur to one of those Bibles, you are simply flat out wrong. It has nothing to do with semantics. It has everything to do with what YOU claimed: “The imprimatur and nihil obstat, which are issued by Bishops of Rome!”
“Do you really think i was referring to popes?!”
Of course! Popes are the “Bishops of Rome”. No one else is.
“The imprimaturs were by bishops of Rome, as in bishops of the RCC!”
Nope. And it is amazing that you resort to semantics of an outrageous kind after denouncing a “semantical escape” that I never took. For you to claim that a bishop in Omaha is a “Bishops of Rome” is bizarre and clearly a “semantical escape” of the worst kind. I would think a person would be embarrassed making such an outrageous “semantical escape” but I bet that isn’t the case.
“Besides the insolence of making this to mean the Vatican itself…”
Insolence? Are you sure you know what that word means? You’re actually claiming that when you say “And which notes the Vatican’s own site provides” and I take that word “Vatican” to actually refer to the “Vatican” it’s insolence on my part? Really? So, if you say “Buick”, and I take it to mean “Buick” you would claim that to be insolence on my part? That’s hysterically funny! Seriously, that is one of the most bizarre claims I have ever heard from a Protestant anti-Catholic in my entire life.
“…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.”
Did you say something? Sorry, I’m still trying to recover from my shock over you claiming that “Vatican” doesn’t mean “Vatican” when you write it. Since your words – by your own admission now – don’t actually mean what they are universally known to convey I’m not even sure how to proceed. Maybe you should try a new communications medium. How about you try finger paints since words are apparently meaningless in your usage?
“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”
I already posted all the names of those men who gave an imprimatur or nihil obstat to each and every NAB or NABRE ever produced. Not a single one of those people listed is a Bishop of Rome. Not a single one. You tried a “semantic escape” but it has failed. Not one Bishop of Rome ever gave the NAB or NABRE an imprimatur or nihil obstat. There were also no “stamps” – no postage stamps, no green stamps, no food stamps. None.
But let’s roll the video tape and see what happened just in case any Protestant anti-Catholic decides to claim “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” shall we?:
Hartdegen (not a bishop)
O’Boyle (Archbishop of Washington, DC – which no rational person confuses with Rome)
Tranter (not a bishop)
Heenan (Archbishop of Westminster – which no rational person confuses with Rome)
Pilarczyk (Archbishop of Cincinnati - which no rational person confuses with Rome)
Hickey (Archbishop of Washington - which no rational person confuses with Rome)
Gutgsell & Peter (not bishops)
Sheehan (Archbishop of Omaha - which no rational person confuses with Rome)
Clack (not a bishop)
Boland (Bishop of Savannah - which no rational person confuses with Rome)
George (Archbishop of Chicago which no rational person confuses with Rome).
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. Number of “semantic escapes” used = ZERO.
“Is that a Catholic approved Bible?”
It is no more Catholic than you. That’s the point. If you’re a Protestant why are you upset about Catholic Bibles you don’t like – so much so that you make up things out of thin air about them – but you won’t take a stand against a deliberate mistranslation made by your fellow Protestants in a Protestant Bible? Hypocrisy.
“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.”
Actually none of that was the issue. That wasn’t what the thread was about and you introduced this whole bizarre anti-NAB nonsense - you and you alone did that – in post #169. It’s all you.
“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.”
And there you go contradicting yourself. Earlier you were insistent that the translation should be “sexual immorality” but now you’re saying it should be “fornication”. Gee, is this another “semantic escape” on your part?
“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.”
First of all, you have no censure to speak of. All you have to offer is “semantic escape”.
“And this is taking way too much of my time on this dead thread, so i intend to move on.”
Yes, make your more-than-semantic-escape now! When you run into a “Bishops of Rome” let me know. When you actually come across an imprimatur or nihil obstat from a “Bishops of Rome” in the NAB or NABRE let me know. When you actually find a “stamps” in the NAB or NABRE let me know.
