How Many Isaiahs Wrote Isaiah?

You keep changing the subject. From “How many Isaiahs” to the deuterocanonicals, to the NAB now to Vehementer Nos?

There is no changing of the subject. The notes in the NAB and the CE were invoked as relevant to Judith and Tobit not warranting inclusion as Scripture, while Vehementer Nos was invoked as relevant to your attempt to dismiss what they say.

And which is relevant to the larger issue of the presumed veracity of Rome, which is the real basis for assurance on the canon for a faithful RC.

Here, Pope Pius X is addressing the nation of France, after it had brought in an anti-Christian, secularist government. He warns them that the State cannot be divorced from Christianity else calamity will befall society. Was he not proven correct?

It is you who is not correct, since you simply cannot restrict the popes statement to that of State being divorced from Christianity - the occasion - for it make no such distinction, but is a basic requirement that is clearly reiterated in other papal statements. Would you like to see them?

The problem with NAB is that it was corrupted by even Church leaders following pop culture and secular ideology... and Rome intervened and set things straight. You attack the Church because the NAB looked to secular culture for biblical exegesis ... until the Pope straightened them out, then attack the Church because the Pope condemned looking to secular culture for moral guidance!

Are you serious? The Pope straightened them out? It was It was a Pope, Pius XII who in 1943 issued an encyclical letter (the Divino afflante Spiritu) in which he encouraged Roman Catholic scholars to make translations of the Bible from the original languages rather than from the Latin Vulgate, and which resulted in "New American Bible," after the necessary approvals from the Bishops and the Vatican, being published under your "watchful" shepherd. Pope Paul VI in 1970; Which for decades now has educated readers with its continuing (in the NABRE) liberalism, such as its aversion to using porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1 ; 6:13 ; 7:2 ; 10:8 ; 2Cor. 12:21 ; Eph. 5:3 ; Gal. 5:19 ; Col. 3:5 ; 1Thes. 4:3 , simply rendering it “immorality” instead, even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.

And then there are other problems such as its general preference for gender-neutral words, etc. in addition to its many (not all) liberal notes. Following the decree of Pope Leo III issued in 1897 (Officiorum ac munerum), that since more harm than good arises if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, then all versions in vernacular languages are wholly prohibited unless they be approved by the apostolic see, or edited under the vigilance of the bishops, with annotations drawn from the holy Fathers of the Church, or from the writings of Catholic doctors.

The 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 1391 includes Catholic writers as such commentators. The revised code of 1983, canon 825 regarding this, simply requires such to be provided with "necessary and sufficient annotations."

Thus Roman Catholic publishers are required to provide explanatory notes in their versions of the Bible. which after almost 50 years even on the Vatican web site teach readers such errors as that the account of the Nephilim in the story of the Flood of Noah (Gn. 6:1-4), was

"apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology," and that the story of the Flood, based on the discredited discredited liberal JEDP theory, is from two sources, which "go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic." The NABRE says the like in your bishops web site, "the text [Gn. 6:1-4) apparently alluding to an old legend," and relies in the same liberal JEDP theory, and concludes "The biblical story ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood.." who occupies the office RCs tell us what we need to look to prevent such problems.

And like the NAB, the NABRE still fosters a non-historical understanding of certain stories which the NT treats as literal historical accounts,such as saying of the book of Jonah, "As to genre, it has been classified in various ways, such as parable or satire" without mentioning the classic (and correct) literal view.

Of course, the NAB study Bible , which is and has been sold and read for decades, goes further Left.

The NABRE (Nihil Obstat; Imprimatur) carries on this liberal tradition, stating such things as

Many of the biblical stories are shaped according to traditional literary or mythic patterns that make their reliability suspect. For example, the common Near Eastern myth popularly known as the conflict myth, one that describes a young warrior-god’s rise to kingship by defeating an old god or force who poses a threat to the order and stability of the world, is transformed by the biblical writers into a literary pattern that shapes the stories of the Exodus, Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, and Saul’s election as king. Many other stories utilize such literary patterns. The traditional motif of the barren mother of an important person, for example, is used in the stories of Sarai and Isaac, Rachel and Joseph, and Hannah and Samuel.

The biblical writers’ use of traditional literary and mythic patterns to tell their stories of Israel calls into question not only the narrative of the events but also the historical value of many details of the stories. This particular style of the biblical writers does not necessarily mean that no actual events lie beneath the narrative, but at the very least it indicates that the presentation of such events has been shaped to conform to a traditional interpretive framework...

The story of the Israelites’ ancestors in Genesis is composed of numerous, originally independent folk tales.... some aspects of the story [of Exodus] cannot be historical." Likewise Job is a "reworked folktale."

Thus rather than Rome setting things straight, it was Rome who made things crooked, and has not made things straight. The NAB has had 4 revisions, yet show us how the revisions, including how the NABRE "sets things straight," including (speaking about "straight") not calling fornication just that, and the preference for gender-neutral language being the rule except where the use of gender-neutral language would create awkward phrasing.

A RC reviewer says of the NABRE:

Instead, with the NABRE, the U.S. Bishops have used inclusive language more extensively than ever before. Masculine references are obscured or neutered. But of course all feminine references are retained. The use of the Biblical phrase ‘sons of Israel’, indicating the Israelites as a group led by men, which is thoroughly attested to in manuscripts, is utterly rejected. References using the term ‘man’ and to mankind using the term ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ are also rephrased. The only exception seems to be in the Psalms, which allows some traditional phrasings, such as ‘Blessed is the man’ and ‘the son of man’. However, even the Psalms have substantial use of inclusive language in many places.

The 2010 NABRE has some revisions to the Old Testament and contains the 1986 New Testament, a fresh translation from the Greek text, but the revision of the Psalms (from the 1986 Revised NAB) was required for liturgical use (at Mass in the Dioceses of the United States and the Philippines), because of the extensive application of gender-neutral language in the 1986 text. And as described, old problems still remain in all NAB versions.

The USCCB, under the Pope, yet sanctions the NAB for RCs to read, as well as the NABRE, while revision of the New Testament of the New American Bible Revised Edition is only expected to be done around the year 2025, enabling a single version to be used for individual prayer, catechesis and liturgy. Which pertains to a confused state of affairs . .

Thus rather than Rome and the pope straightening things out, it was Rome under pope that we see things that need straightening out, and which continue! Yet rather than ascertaining the validity of what church teaching is, RCs tell us we need to submit to Rome, which they manifest they are bound to defend even to the point of repulsive intellectual suicide. The pope straightening things out? No thanks. He and they need to be straightened out

I’d like to stick to theology here, but if you want to talk about historical errors like the 1st-edition NAB, thank God there was an authority to correct the notes of the bible

It is a sad delusion to think your problems are only with a 1st-edition NAB, and that such do not remain. Apparently, if you think there is an authority to correct the notes of the bible then when the NAB was published and remains even on the Vatican web site (2002 version) with its required sanctioned but often erroneous liberal notes and other issues seen in the 1970 NAB, which the NABRE also has, along with its study helps, then that superintending authority,

A, Was not around;

B. Did not care;

C. Was negligent.

Take your pick.

Of course, the first-edition King James Bible, in which God commanded, “Thou shall commit murder,” etc.,

Hand copyist and printing errors in the 16th c. are hardly comparable to 1970 actual choices in translation and notes.

so it’s not like Protestants have never fixed heretical bibles.

But it’s like Rome has not fixed its liberal bible.

No, the encyclopedia is not Church-sanctioned. At best, you could say that the local bishop ruled that it contained no obvious heresy by allowing its publication with a note of “Nihil Obstat” (no objection).

Of course it is Church-sanctioned, not only implicitly by its uncensored use as "the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered," but by its official continued Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, which are official declarations that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error. And although marginalized today, yet they go back to the days of the Inquisition and the ‘Index of Prohibited Books,’ and are apparatus instrumental in fulfilling the magisterium's commission to protect the flock.

Canon law places significant weight on such approval:

The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the “objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their “okay” if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: “Title IV: The Means of Social Communication,” 822-832)

Cannot law also 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.” 9 825 §1) — http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM; http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM

Thus you cannot marginalize the NAB (which required assent by the Vatican) or the CE without marginalizing the sanction given to them by Rome, and in any case you impugn the very claim of Rome to be a diligent watchful faithful shepherd.

. And for 90 years, it rested in near utter obscurity, until it was published on the internet since its copyright had lapsed. Thereafter. Protestant apologetics turned it into something it never was: the defining word of Catholic belief Well well, RCs boast of their claimed intellectual superiority, and complain about uneducated attacks on their faith, and demand RC sources, and even invoke the CE in defense, since the CCC is not going to get into much depth of supply the comprehensive scope needed in apologetics, and the CE is an self-evident apologetical work. But when quoted as a scholarly source of Catholic history which is contrary to preferred RC propaganda, then it is attacked or marginalized.

If you doubt its obscurity, note that there were no subsequent editions.

Since the volumes took 5 years to produce ( 1907 to 1912), these were not paper back sales, though a first supplement was published in 1922, and a second supplement in nine loose-leaf sections was published by The Gilmary Society between 1950 and 1958

And the encyclopedia was later updated under the auspices of The Catholic University of America and a 17-volume New Catholic Encyclopedia was first published in 1967, and then in 2002. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia

Even if I do not agree with it on many things, i see it as a profound undertaking, and unmatched extensive overall faithful resource on Catholic teaching, and using it as such is superior to the typical RC telling me their version of what RC history and belief is.

>> It is you who is not correct, since you simply cannot restrict the popes statement to that of State being divorced from Christianity - the occasion - for it make no such distinction, but is a basic requirement that is clearly reiterated in other papal statements. Would you like to see them? <<

Of course I’m not saying the Pope’s comments are heretical in some other context, but I’m merely explaining why the accent is on a given syllable. The church calls for obedience, not a suspension of reason, as you seem to be saying it does.

At the same time, it also calls for the supremacy of conscience, which does not mean that someone can do whatever they feel like doing, as liberals deliberately deceitfully interpret it. Supremacy of conscience calls for a well-formed conscience, which does mean submission to episcopal authorities unless you can reasonably assert that you know better than the bishop.

Also, the Church that outside of moral doctrine (i.e., the impermissability of abortion), voters in a democracy shall act as they deem prudent, owing to the Church leaders the obedience to morality but not to such matters as economic theory.

Neither prudential judgment nor supremacy of conscience (properly understood) are in any way new doctrine, nor were they opposed by the Pope Pius X, even though his proof-texted comments regarding the madly anti-Christian French state plainly emphasized the need for obedience to the Church in a situation where the secular government proposed the complete abolition of the Church.

>> Are you serious? The Pope straightened them out? :non: It was It was a Pope, Pius XII who in 1943 issued an encyclical letter (the Divino afflante Spiritu) in which he encouraged Roman Catholic scholars to make translations of the Bible from the original languages rather than from the Latin Vulgate, and which resulted in “New American Bible,” after the necessary approvals from the Bishops and the Vatican, being published under your “watchful” shepherd. <<

Are YOU serious??? Since when does an encouragement to translate from the original language rather than the Vulgate validate heresy?

>> Which for decades now has educated readers with its continuing (in the NABRE) liberalism, such as its aversion to using porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1 ; 6:13 ; 7:2 ; 10:8 ; 2Cor. 12:21 ; Eph. 5:3 ; Gal. 5:19 ; Col. 3:5 ; 1Thes. 4:3 , simply rendering it “immorality” instead, even though in most cases it is in a sexual context. <<

Again, are you serious? 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13 and 7:2 are plainly subheaded in such a way as to make very clear that the morality being discussed was of a sexual nature. Yet 1 Cor 10:8 demonstrates precisely why this word is not translated specifically as “sexual immorality,” since its alludes to Numbers 25:1-9, where although the Israelites were described as “prostituting” themselves by taking Moabite women, the specific sin which caused their deaths was the idolatry. The later verses you cite all refer to impurity, which any Catholic understands to mean sexual sins.

>> And then there are other problems such as its general preference for gender-neutral words, etc. <<

The NAB does not use gender-neutral words in a heretical way, such as referring to God the Parent, or the Parent, the Child and the Holy Spirit. Words like “Man,” “Mankind,” “Brotherhood,” etc., once were gender-neutral. Your very complaint implicitly acknowledges that they are no longer gender-neutral. Thus, using gender-neutral terms is a fitting modern translation, as much as I wish the Church would not surrender to pop culture the notion that “Man” is gender-specific, due to its use in the creed, etc. Yet, as you acknowledge, where “Man” can be understood to prophetically refer to Christ in any way, the gender-specific words remain.

“How should a modern religiously minded person read the Pentateuch? First, readers have before them the most significant thing, the text of the Pentateuch. IT IS ACCURATE PRESERVED AND REASONABLY WELL UNDERSTOOD, and capable of touching audiences of every age. Take and read! “

(I will note that the traditional view, that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch, is self-contradicting, since it has Moses relating in the past tense his own death. I prefer the notion that the first four books were written by Moses or someone acting under his authority, and that Deuteronomy is a later work, a notion contained in the Latin name which offends Moses-only-wrote-it Jews.)

Bad scholarship is not heresy!

Surely you must require that one follow his conscience above all, but not in public dissent from "The Church," and not without negative consequences from from Rome which maintains the right to discipline the same, regardless of sincerity, and which otherwise results in the problem of disunity seen today in Catholicism today.

Which "reasonably assert that you know better than the bishop" is just what the liberals you want to disallow, claim. Which traditionally was countered by requiring implicit, wide cultic submission (and punishing of persistent dissent, even if sincere). To, be brief, the faithful broadly are,

"to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

Rather than ascertaining the validity of church teaching by examination of the warrant for it, as must be allowed for conversion, or the magisterial level each teaching falls under, the faithful are traditionally exhorted as below,

Once he does so [enters the Roman church], he has no further use for his reason [as regards warrant for obedience/submission to teaching]. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door.

“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit...

Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

"The use of private judgment, on the other hand, in the sense of an inquiry into the 'motives of credibility,' and a study of the evidences for the Faith, to enable you to find out which is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ -- this is permissible, and not only permissible, but strictly necessary for all outside the Fold who wish to save their souls. But mark well: having once found the true Church, private judgment of this kind ceases; having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation?

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”

“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”

“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?" —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

Thus the teaching office of the church is presented as being the faithful shepherd which warrants implicit obedience, not just to just infallible teachings or matters which touch the faith but to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. And if Rome cannot be trusted to provides a faithful document of even her officially sanctioned translations of the Bible, and with without seriously misleading commentary, than what can she be trusted to provide?! And you think the ongoing attempts to straighten out the mess that the NAB is somehow fosters this? The NAB with its liberal historical revisionism notes are still on the Vatican web site, while the NABRE carries on some of this, and certainly the study Bible does.

Actually economic theory relates to social teaching, and The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:

80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

And it is quite well evidenced that the popes Laudato encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).

As shown, the statement at issue in Vehementer Nos is not simply speaking about "the need for obedience to the Church in a situation where the secular government proposed the complete abolition of the Church," contrary to your specious restriction to that, but that "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors" is reiterating the basic requirement for this in general.

All of which means that the RC is to determine what magisterial level each teaching falls under, and thus what degree of assent is required, as well as explore the scope of meaning in such teachings, or they are to simply trust and submit to what Rome provides, including her translations of the Bible and sanctioned notes for decades and beyond, trusting their local pastors and up to the pope in basically whatever they publicly teach. Of courses RCs do not overall do this, but dissent from parts of papal bulls and encyclicals and other teachings,and even V2, but all of which are manifestly considered members by Rome in life and in death, which thus interprets her teaching on dissent and membership. (James 2:18)

Are YOU serious??? Since when does an encouragement to translate from the original language rather than the Vulgate validate heresy? No: once again it is >Are YOU serious??? For the issue here is faith in Rome and the pope to provide faithful leadership, with the basis for assurance on the canon itself resting upon the premise of the veracity of Rome, which theologically imagines one cannot even discover the contents of Scripture apart from faith (implicitly) in her. Thus your specious assertion that "Rome intervened and set things straight" and "the Pope straightened them out," when in reality it was Rome under the superintendence of the pope that we have decades of a seriously faulty official Bible and its notes, which is even on the Vatican web site, and with the latest but not last version yet failing to correct both the translation and sanctioned notes and helps. Which is a result of popes trusting Catholic scholarship with the task of translation from the original languages, which broadly denigrated fundamentalists who contend against the liberal historical revisionism of such promoted scholarship.

Which is a flailing desperate attempt at damage control. Only 1 Cor. 5:1 (incest) and 6:13 have a subheading denoting sexual immorality, but there is simply no excuse for not translating the words porneia, porneuo, pornos as to fornication/fornicators. For the fact is that the Holy Spirit knows what words to use, and porneia, porneuo and pornos do not simply mean "immorality" or immoral persons:

"porneia, noun: Unchasity, prostitution, fornication, immorality

Used in Matthew 5:32; 15:19: 19:9; Mark 7:21; John 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Romans 1:29; I Corinthians 5:1; 6:13; 6:18; 7:2; II Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; I Thessalonians 4:3; Revelation 2:21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2

Classical Greek: Porneia, which is relatively rare in classical Green (Moulton-Milligan), originally stood for "prostitution" (cf. porne, "prostitute"). In other, later contexts it denotes "unchasity, illicit sexual relations" of any kind ("fornication" is a somewhat archaic but common translation). Metaphorically, especially in Biblical writings, porneia means idolatry [spiritual fornication].

Septuagint Usage: Various forms of the stem zanah ("illicit intercourse") are rendered by porneia in the Septuagint where two uses predominate. Literally, porneia means "prostitution, illicit intercourse, habitual sexual immorality." Metaphorically, porneia stands for religious idolatry . ...

New Testament Usage: The New Testament continues the metaphoric understand in some texts. Revelation, in particular, uses the imagery of licentious sexual behavior (porneia) as a figure of religious idolatry. ... Literal uses of porneia include a reference in Jesus' teaching on divorce. Porneia ("habitual sexual immorality"; illicit sex; cf. moicheia, "adultery") is the sole justifiable cause for divorce (Matthew 19:9; cf 5:32). Porneia is closely related to moicheia (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21); both come from the heart. ...

References: Strong 4202, Bauer 693, Moulton-Milligan 529, Kittel 6:579-95, Liddell-Scott 1450, Colin Brown 1:496-97,499-501.

porneuo, verb: To prostitute, commit sexual immorality.

Used in I Corinthians 6:18; 10:8; Revelation 2:14, 20; 17:2; 18:3, 9.

pornos , noun: Fornicator, immoral person.

Used in I Corinthians 5:9-11; 6:9; Ephesians 5:5; I Timothy 1:10; Hebrews 12:16; 13:4; Revelation 21:8; 22:15 (http://www.christianlibrary.org/authors/Jeffrey_W_Hamilton/LVanswers/2008/06-19c.html)

And fornication is how the Douay-Rheims Bible translates it in such places as 1 Co. 10:8, ("fornicemur" in the Vulgate).

As regards this, "Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them that committed fornication: and there fell in one day three and twenty thousand," (DRB) liberals also try to relegate the sin here to being idolatry, that the fornication was only wrong in that context. However, Paul is not simply warning against formal idolatry, but that which preceded and led to idolatry, since the account begins with, "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. (Numbers 25:1-2)

Thus, as with Solomon, the inducement to idolatry flowed from the specific sin of fornication, and thus simply rendering "porneuō" as "immorality" is wrong, and your attempt to rescue the NAB lands both of you in the water.

Thus as said, what Vehementer Nos required goes beyond the immediate context, and likewise as relates to the canon, the basis for assurance on the canon rests upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, and the overall veracity of Rome. Which theologically imagines one cannot even discover the contents of Scripture apart from faith (implicitly) in her.

The later verses you cite all refer to impurity, which any Catholic understands to mean sexual sins.

Really? Not, besides your your already demonstrating a lack of understanding, and that the Holy Spirit uses two different words for fornication and uncleanness, simply rendering the words for fornication/fornicator as "immorality" or "immoral persons" among the many occurrences of the words for them (Matthew 5:32 Matthew 15:19 Matthew 19:9 Mark 7:21 John 8:41 Acts 15:20 Acts 15:29 Acts 21:25 Romans 1:29 1 Corinthians 5:1 1 Corinthians 5:9 1 Corinthians 5:10 1 Corinthians 5:11 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Corinthians 6:13 1 Corinthians 6:18 1 Corinthians 7:2 1 Corinthians 10:8 2 Corinthians 12:21 Galatians 5:19 Ephesians 5:3 Colossians 3:5 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Hebrews 12:16 Jude 7 Revelation 2:14 Revelation 2:20 Revelation 2:21 Revelation 9:21 Revelation 14:8 Revelation 17:2 Revelation 17:4 Revelation 18:3 Revelation 18:9 Revelation 19:2 1 Co. 5:9 1 Co. 5:10 1 Co. 5:11 1 Co. 6:9 Heb. 2:16) goes beyond what was listed. .

I would have to examine whether the charges of one of your own are true, while in one case at least while "Christ is the head of every man," yet "the husband is the head of his wife," (1Co 11:3, NABRE) rather than specifying the man, which is consistent with not simply husbands being in leadership in this chapter and the next, versus allowing for single females to be in such, having no male headship, rather than the positional functional distinctions btwn genders being upheld.

As for the J-E-P-D nonsense, I find it absurd scholarship, like you do. I wish there were no mention of it in the NAB. But you leave out the summation, and in doing so completely turn on its head the conclusion of the essay: “How should a modern religiously minded person read the Pentateuch? First, readers have before them the most significant thing, the text of the Pentateuch. IT IS ACCURATE PRESERVED AND REASONABLY WELL UNDERSTOOD, and capable of touching audiences of every age. Take and read! “

Rather than nuking the J-E-P-D nonsense which is one of the things your pope did not "fix," "ACCURATELY PRESERVED" only refers to the the Pentateuch and is at beast a "weasel word" which can mean the work of the competing post-exilic parties of the J-E-P-D theory was "ACCURATELY PRESERVED," versus "accurately recording" what it describes, which is not what it says, and which other statements deny.

Which is another specious argument, since as with letters of Paul which were dictated by him, and can have personal words of the amanuensis at the end, such as in Romans 16:22, without taking away from the proper authorship of the document .

Bad scholarship is not heresy!

Actually it can be and is. For one, teaching that stories which Scripture presents and treats as literal historical accounts are "fables" or "folk tales" or "myths," is heresy, all provided under the superintendence of your magisterium, which RCs would have us look to as the basis for assurance of doctrine, rather than ascertaining the validity of Truth claims based upon the most reliable basis for them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.