I was gonna pm you but you are not hooked up.I want to thank you for the information you have provided. I would be interested in what you would have to write on your class notes. Your post made me consider that it might be correct but like you I am not a fan of the NAB.
Its what I honestly think of it.
But, yeah - it comes to us from the American College of Bishops, and those are the ones who had a big hand in getting our Catholic Church in America where it is today.
Yes, and I donât think I will be reading any more of their Bible commentaries.As I said, the italicized words are NOT my words. They are the words of an apologist on THIS site. Click on the link and you will see. Therefore, I donât think your question/comment is contemporaneous. I think you would have to address it to the author of the words I quoted.
I am not as âassistant professor,â I am an âassociate professor.â I HAVE assistants.
I really never heard the phrase âtheological thrustâ before. It would very odd to me if the whole Bible didnât have a âtheological thrust!â John write a very high Christology, Mark wrote a very low one, and Luke and Matthew in between.Mainstream scripture scholarship thinks the transmission of infallible scripture is messy⌠I can agree with this statement - it sounds par for the course! But unlike you (assuming from what you say here) - I do think that this notion detracts* very much* from the Churchâs tradition of authorship.
So Johnâs community was âat oddsâ with Peterâs - with the head of the Church. Do you have any of the historical and scriptural evidence that such theologians base such assumptions on?
I wonder how such theologians describe the Apostle Johnâs âtheological thrustâ?
I am editing to add my husbands comment, who studied Biblical theology and sat Bible and church history exams in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. So I guess that makes him a âtheologianâ, too, along with the rest of his classmates⌠He comments that âThe church has always said that John is MORE INTERESTED in theology than the other gospel writers are. That doesnât mean he disagrees with the other gospel writers. He takes interest in a different aspect.â He also points out that âNothing John says he seems to be condemning anyoneâs errors. He is not speaking of other Christian teachers, in, for example, the way that Jesus distinguishes himself from the Pharisees. He does not define himself against anyone he disagrees with. He just isnât doing that.â
Sounds like whats in my Bible.
So, Clem, I think it you are talking about John as a man influenced by his disagreements with other Christians, you are taking about a different gospel. (The mainstream secular one, maybe.)
I donât see how ANYONE could say what Clem learned in a Bible study class, from a Msgr., is âclaptrap,â ESPECIALLY when that person does NOT even know what it is!
Absolutely!
Arenât all these modern day discussions on authorship moot? We do not know for sure, but the Church for whatever reason has decided that these are true and fair accounts of the faith REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE AUTHORS ARE NAMED OR NOT. They can all be anonymous and the authority of the Church to claim them as inspired will not change a bit. Another book may have all the right âcredentialsâ but fail to meet the true and fair test. My point being, the Church has ascertained on the truth of these books and directed its members to use it. There is no Standard Operating Procedure process flow to determine the inspiration of the books. We are just guided by the HS and that is that. The books that didnât make the cut, became less popular etc I just attribute it to the work of the HS. Some Protestants think they have it down to a SOP but forgot it is pure plagiarism. Even the contents page matched, line by line exact sequence.
I donât think itâs old fashioned, but I do think itâs right. The books are part of the biblical canon for a good reason. It doesnât matter who the author(s) are.
Oops. My post made it sound like the Church agreed that John wrote the Gospel when the American Bishops must believe he didnât since they approved of the NAB, they are part of the teaching of the Church. It disputes the idea that the Church believes John wrote the gospel.
You remind me of a time when I wanted to attend a more traditional mass. After the mass I was let down, because of the lack of participation that we now have in mass. I do go to Latin masses occasionally but I wouldnât want to go back to them. I find todays mass beautiful. Any mass with the Eucharist is awesome in my opinion.âŚ
Which also left me feeling terrible - *why *do we use words in our Masses that, in comparison, are almost *ugly? *Why, when we have the beautiful words of the Anglican Rite, which was the original, long-cherished English-language Catholic riteâŚ
Okay. I guess this is more important.I am sorry you are so unhappy with the Mass.I never was a fan of NAB, and my husband even less - he cannot stand it.
My POV comes mostly from my gut reaction to it, that I just cannot shake. A contributing factor is that when I compare scripture versions of favorite verses or chapters, the NAB comes up disfavored more often than most. Which makes me wonder about the inspiration of the translators.
Then there is my husbandâs view, having studied scripture in various original languages. He has a long-held and continuing interest word origin and meaning, and from this viewpoint, when we attend a regular Mass at our nice local parish, which of course uses the Diocesan directed NAB, he says it* hurts his ears*.:frighten:
Some Sundays for us its Latin Mass, which is lovely - but only a few of the prayers have I learned so far (I am not fast with this. Not all of us learn a second language easily!). He, instead, can follow all of it, and I see the peace he gets from it.:heaven:
After reading this thread and what it says in NAB commentary, I am even MORE convinced of my dis-favor of the NAB.
Where we used to live my husband and I had an opportunity to attend an Anglican Rite Mass a few times. I went with no expectations - just mildly curious. I was in shock at how uplifting the English language in Mass can be. It was heavenly! This was such a completely unexpected finding! And I found myself longing to participate in Mass with those words again. When we were able to go back, occasionally, I would find myself all morning anticipating reaching for the missal and the prayer book in the pew, and finding those prayers and hymns that would would recite or sing as a congregation. Those words were like gold treasure! Yes - the Anglican Rite is surely one of the gold treasures of our Church.
Which also left me feeling terrible - *why *do we use words in our Masses that, in comparison, are almost *ugly? *Why, when we have the beautiful words of the Anglican Rite, which was the original, long-cherished English-language Catholic rite. Those words came from great, devout, English-speaking Catholics who refined them to perfect beauty over the centuries! And then they were preserved so carefully after the reformation - probably from guilt of leaving Rome. Or, the evil ones who prowl through the world seeking the ruin of souls, since they had their way, separating them from the flock, let them be now, going to work wrecking havoc on our Mass instead. So I asked my husband why we donât use this rite, and he said âexactlyâ â he always wondered the same thing!
A favorite author of mine is a convert, Sheldon VanAuken, and I always wondered why he retained his true love for his little Anglican/Episcopal church, still attending it (as well as Mass) after he converted. After my first Anglican Rite Mass, I understood. The language is* true worship.*
So, my husband and I both prefer the original (complete) King James, and of course the old reliable DouayâRheims Bible. (And I do NOT understand why we donât use that at Mass)
Yes, so when we have these *much better *translations, I have to wonder, why the NAB? Well, its a âgiftâ (really âcommandâ - right?) from the College of American Bishops. Who also have a bit to do with the state of the Catholic Church in America today and these past decadesâŚ
And to add insult to injury, after every Sunday Mass, instead of the beautiful (and much needed, in our time) St. Michael prayer, that gives such peace to the soul when recited, we are all asked to look at the paper glued to the back of our missal and drone in one voice an unwieldy, uninspiring, poorly written âprayer for vocationsâ before we can leave.
Not really an associate professor is between an assistant professor and a professor at least in the United States.
To answer in your own words:
You response? You actually quoted THAT ENTIRE POST in your #269, responding only with this:
Are you ever unhappy with any Masses?
I feel as you do, Clem. Iâm extremely happy with Mass - in Latin, English, or French, or in the language of whatever country Iâve been in when I traveled so much. Absolutely no complaints!
Oh, you asked me what theologians I look up to.To answer in your own words:
The âtheological thrustâ words are NOT my words. They are the words of Clem. Read the original post #257 and you will see. Therefore, I donât think your question/comment is appropriate. I think you would have to address it to the author of the words.
However, more importantly, anyone can see that the choice of wording âtheological thrustâ] is a VERY moot point in both my post and in Clems post, and therefore I cannot see how it can possibly be a point worth making.
Read and you will see.
I see a pattern here in how you respond to othersâ posts in this thread. It seems you make no acknowledgment of the main points - effectively DISMISSING them - and respond instead to small, irrelevant side points. :sad_yes:
Am I right?
Here is a further example to clarify:
When you dismissed my references to theological greats like Most, Hardon and Hahn as theologians who support MY beliefs, I responded thus (post #256):
You response? You actually quoted THAT ENTIRE POST in your #269, responding only with this: