USCCB Bible online

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike1w
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
those monks copying scripture before the printing press included no footnotes, yet the faith survived by prayerful reflection and good preaching of our priests.
Joe Schmoe laity didn’t read the Bible back in the days of monks copying Scripture. If you were reading a Bible, you likely went through some form of formal education which would probably include classes on Scripture. This also didn’t stop St. Thomas Aquinas from compiling the Catena Aurea, a very excellent commentary on the Gospels taken from the ECFs.
 
Joe Schmoe laity didn’t read the Bible back in the days of monks copying Scripture.
LOL…But if Joe Schmoe today cannot discern the difference between footnotes and scripture, he has greater cognitive issues to contend with…The NABRE and USCCB are fine, acceptable, and Church approved translations.
 
Last edited:
But Joe Schmoe today, if is so gullible to not know the difference between footnotes and scripture has other issues to contend with…Then NABRE and USCCB are fine, acceptable, and Church approved translations.
Considering the state of the laity today, I am concerned that he might. Either way, the NABRE and USCCB are one and the same.
 
Considering the state of the laity today, I am concerned that he might.
That state being? Are you not part of the laity today, and do you feel you are brighter than the others, and what are you doing to help those who are spiritually inferior?
 
That state being?
They’re not well catechized. I’ve been on this forum since before I was initiated into to the Church, and the kind of questions we get on here on a regular basis concerns me.
Are you not part of the laity today, and do you feel you are brighter than the others
Am I a lay person? Yes. Brighter? No. Well-informed on Catholicism? I’d say I’m more well-informed than your average Catholic.
what are you doing to help those who are spiritually inferior?
Spiritual inferiority has nothing to do on it. But for one, I answer questions on here. When I was in college a few years ago, I gave talks in the apologetics group at my college and lead a group at RCIA. I’m also in formation as a lay Dominican because I care deeply about spreading the truths of Catholicism. These days I can’t do much since my parish has groups that are friendlier to the schedules of retirees instead of myself, who has a job.
 
Last edited:
Just don’t read the notes and introductions.
 
Last edited:
So for the nabre, I guess I’ll just read the text and ignore the footnotes, etc…
 
So for the nabre, I guess I’ll just read the text and ignore the footnotes, etc…
Don’t be afraid of the footnotes…don’t be afraid of any commentary whether from Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, or theologians…they are all helpful by being thought provoking, but unless they contradict what has been decisively spoken on by the Magisterium, they are no more (OR NO LESS) harmful…Commentary and footnotes are not inspired, only the Sacred Scripture is.
 
I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t think we can ever say with certainty that a translation has absolutely no errors.
 
Sorry. Free from error in faith and morals as declared by Pius XII.

The Council of Trent declared that his translation of the Scriptures into Latin is the standard translation for all Catholics:

“Moreover, the same Holy Council . . . ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputatious, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and so no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546).
 
OK, but that same declaration (in modern language) applies to the NABRE, else the USCCB wouldn’t publish it.
 
As far as I understand, it’s only the old vulgate that has this status. Fr. Hardon and other priests I’ve listened to have said the guarantee doesn’t apply to modern translations, even ones he used in his classes that had an imprimatur. Considering the introductions they allowed to be published with it and the fact that they remove things that are in the vulgate, I have to agree with Fr. Hardon.
 
Last edited:
I read your post basically as an Imprimatur, which all of the Bibles on the USCCB approved list have.
 
I shouldn’t have said modern translations. It’s any translation. It has a unique status.
 
by virtue of this Letter we declare the New Vulgate edition of the Holy Bible as “typical” and we promulgate it to be used especially in the sacred Liturgy but also as suitable for other things, as we have said.

Finally we decree that this Constitution of ours be firm and forever efficacious and be scrupulously observed by all concerned, notwithstanding any obstacles whatsoever.
John Paul II SCRIPTURARUM THESAURUS
This establishes the Nova Vulgata as the replacement for the Clementine Vulgate, and indeed, for whatever Vulgate referred to by the Council of Trent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top