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.
No. You said “Bishop of Rome”. You were wrong. It is clear that when you said “Rome” you meant the Vatican
claimed it was “Rome” and the “Bishop of Rome”.
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.
Yet not once did i state the "Bishop of Rome” as giving the approval, which would denote the pope, but that,
the NAB is the Bible that was approved the the Bishops issued by the conference of RC bishops,
The New American Bible (1970) was adopted by the US bishops for use in the Lectionary
The imprimatur and nihil obstat, which are issued by Bishops of Rome!”
I never said any NAB had the the iprimatur and nihil obstat stamp from a pope (or Imprimi potest), and it has been made abundantly evident that the NAB approval and the imprimatur was bishops of the USCCB, and thus it should be clear to you that "Bishops [plural] of Rome" does not mean popes, nor bishops worldwide but bishops of the USCCB.
And as much as RCs object to the use of "Rome" for the RCC, you are not a novice here and must know what is meant by it in context, that of the RCC as it has its headquarters in Rome, and what it allows its representatives to do, esp. its bishops, under its leadership reflects upon it, and what one does effectually conveys what one believes. Stop arguing as if you are ignorant of this.
that of the UCCB approved American Bible,
The UCCB? Do you mean the USCCB?
Again, what is the UCCB here?
Which is it – the UCCB or the USCCB? Pick one.
Likewise how can you plead ignorance here? Sure i copied my own mistake in leaving out the "S", but do you really expect me to believe you do not know what i am referring to, esp as the context makes that clear??? I am not writing a Bible, but it's OK to use "immorality" for porneia since context makes that clear, but you express confusion over UCCB vs. USCCB as to who gave the approval when its abundantly evident it refers to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops!
Nope. There is no “stamp”. Do you know what a “stamp” is? This are some stamps:
This is absurd! This has been explained to you already, as the term "stamps" is used even by RCs here to denote the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (Etym. Latin imprimere, to impress, stamp imprint) Are you that much a novice or feigning ignorance?
“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.
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?
It was and is insolence, unless this is another example of incomprehension, as you made my statements on the imprimatur of the USCCB bishops to mean the Vatican itself, and then try to make that example of insolence to refer to you recognizing that "the Vatican's own web site provides" does mean the Vatican, when that came after my censure of your insolence.
The rest of your post overall expresses more of this misconstruane or incomprehension, feigned or real, and avoids that is a a fact that Rome, the RCC, has and does indeed sanction liberal scholarship with the same stamps your approved for censure of such. You laborious attempts to counter that is the real error, and such flack testifies to being over the target a long time ago.
But you have accomplished wasting my time, but no more. May others be forewarned.
“Your reply is what i meant by insolence.”
Your reply is what I mean by hypocritical “semantic escape” attempts.
You said: “In alleging errors, you must false quote what i said and miscontruse such or write as as if you are a novice. Beginning with your your of me saying “Bishop of Rome:”
And you said: “Yet not once did i state the “Bishop of Rome” as giving the approval, which would denote the pope, but that, the NAB is the Bible that was approved the the Bishops issued by the conference of RC bishops, The New American Bible (1970) was adopted by the US bishops for use in the Lectionary The imprimatur and nihil obstat, which are issued by Bishops of Rome!”
False. Repeatedly you have said “Rome” gave “stamps” to the NAB. Omaha is not “Rome”. American bishops are not “Bishops of Rome”. The only “Bishops of Rome” are the Bishops of Rome and none of them ever gave any “stamps” – postage or otherwise - to the NAB.
“I never said any NAB had the the iprimatur and nihil obstat stamp from a pope (or Imprimi potest),”
You said the NAB had been given “stamps” from “Rome”. Who in “Rome” are you claiming gave these “stamps” to the NAB? Who exactly?
“and it has been made abundantly evident that the NAB approval and the imprimatur was bishops of the USCCB,”
Then why did you keep saying it was “Rome”, and “Bishops of Rome” when it was the USCCB? Why did you repeatedly say “UCCB” come to think of it? Why are your posts filled with so many errors which you repeat over and over again?
“and thus it should be clear to you that “Bishops [plural] of Rome” does not mean popes, nor bishops worldwide but bishops of the USCCB.”
Which makes zero sense – and I simply don’t believe that that was even your belief when you posted it because who would write “Bishops of Rome” for the bishops who happen to be members of the UNITED STATES Conference of Catholic Bishops? Sorry, that is irrational.
Even your own comments bear out this sort of irrationality. You wrote: “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?”
Repeatedly – and I mean repeatedly – you had used the words “stamps” rather than nihil obstat or imprimatur. You used “Rome” instead of the “Vatican” or some other term. You used “Bishops of Rome” – with the “B” in caps no less which means it was a proper noun and thus could only refer to the Bishops of Rome – the popes. Now you’re claiming you meant the USCCB all along? R-I-G-H-T.
“And as much as RCs object to the use of “Rome” for the RCC, you are not a novice here and must know what is meant by it in context,”
You’re comments gainsay context at every turn. When you can make the incredulous claim that “Bishops of Rome” really meant bishops from Omaha, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. context is clearly meaningless in your comments.
“that of the RCC as it has its headquarters in Rome, and what it allows its representatives to do, esp. its bishops, under its leadership reflects upon it, and what one does effectually conveys what one believes. Stop arguing as if you are ignorant of this.”
The ignorance is not mine – it’s yours. If you mean the USCCB, then don’t say “UCCB”. If you mean the USCCB, then don’t say “Rome”. If you mean the USCCB, then don’t say “Bishops of Rome”. I have never heard of anyone, anywhere, ever saying “Bishops of Rome” means the USCCB. The very idea makes no sense.
“Likewise how can you plead ignorance here?”
The ignorance that is causing the problem is not mine. I simply can’t trust or rely on anything you post because you make so many mistakes. You say “UCCB” is the “USCCB” – not just once or twice but a number of times. You claim, ridiculously, that the USCCB are “Bishops of Rome” when everyone knows there is only one Bishop of Rome and that is the pope. You repeatedly used the word “stamps” as if that meant something when it did not.
“Sure i copied my own mistake in leaving out the “S”, but do you really expect me to believe you do not know what i am referring to, esp as the context makes that clear???”
Your comments are so filled with errors that there is no way to understand what you mean. What person who wants to discuss the USCCB claims to describe them as “Bishops of Rome” after repeatedly talking about “Rome” and clearly meaning the pope and the Vatican? Seriously, your comments are filled with errors.
“I am not writing a Bible, but it’s OK to use “immorality” for porneia since context makes that clear, but you express confusion over UCCB vs. USCCB as to who gave the approval when its abundantly evident it refers to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops!”
It’s not clear from your comments. Again, when someone writes “Bishops of Rome” and then later claims that that means the USCCB – after referring to “Rome” many times – it’s all clear as mud. To use your own analogy: It’s clear in the NAB that pornei in the verses you cited means “sexual immorality” from the context – especially when the chapter heading immediately before its use says “Sexual Immorality”. Thus, if you used a section heading such as “Bishops of Rome means all Catholic Bishops in the USCCB” then it would be clear what you meant. It would still be stupid to refer to USCCB bishops as Bishops of Rome since none of them are, but it would be clear what you meant.
“This is absurd! This has been explained to you already, as the term “stamps” is used even by RCs here to denote the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (Etym. Latin imprimere, to impress, stamp imprint) Are you that much a novice or feigning ignorance?”
Your writing is so vague, so bizarre in its inventive use of incorrect terms for universally known things, that it had to be pointed out. If you mean imprimatur and nihil obstat, then say so. If you want to claim the NAB is approved by the USCCB, be my guest. But claiming it was “stamped” by “Rome” when no such “stamp” exists and no one in “Rome” and no “Bishops of Rome” gave it, ruins any chance you might have had to build an argument. Now, all you can do is damage control and claim you always meant “USCCB” when you said “UCCB” repeatedly or “Bishops of Rome” (even though none of them are Bishops of Rome).
The next series of comments I’m going to label so that anyone reading this can see exactly what I mean about your bizarre attempts at “semantic escape” (and that was your term don’t forget):
You wrote: “And which notes the Vatican’s own site provides .”
My response: 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.
Your comment: 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.
My response: 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?
And now your latest comment: “It was and is insolence,”
Again, are you sure you know what that word means? How EXACTLY is it insolent for anyone to actually believe you mean “Vatican” when you say “Vatican”? Maybe I just should conclude you never mean anything you say, right? After all when you say “Bishops of Rome” you don’t actually mean it, right?
“unless this is another example of incomprehension, as you made my statements on the imprimatur of the USCCB bishops to mean the Vatican itself, and then try to make that example of insolence to refer to you recognizing that “the Vatican’s own web site provides” does mean the Vatican, when that came after my censure of your insolence.”
That’s hilarious. That has to be one of the most bizarrely contorted examples of who-knows-what that I have seen posted by a Protestant anti-Catholic. And you can “censure” my supposed “insolence” until the cows come home. It won’t change the fact that you are actually try to convince people that you always meant “USCCB” when you said “Bishops of Rome” and now “Vatican” apparently doesn’t really mean “Vatican”.
“The rest of your post overall expresses more of this misconstruane or incomprehension, feigned or real, and avoids that is a a fact that Rome, the RCC, has and does indeed sanction liberal scholarship with the same stamps your approved for censure of such.”
Except that it never happened. “Rome” never provided any “stamp” to any note in the NAB. The USCCB, American bishops, some priests, and an Archbishop of Westminster provided every last one of the nihil obstats and imprimaturs provided to each and every NAB and NABRE ever published.
“You laborious attempts to counter that is the real error, and such flack testifies to being over the target a long time ago.”
I don’t think you could find the target if someone led you to it by hand. “Bishops of Rome”, for instance, means Bishops of Rome and not bishops from Omaha!
“But you have accomplished wasting my time, but no more. May others be forewarned.”
I’ve wasted your time? Amazing. Think of all the nonsense you posted – repeatedly – that was simply incorrect about “Bishops of Rome” who weren’t and you’ll know whose time was wasted.