Vatican Website's Bible page

[rfournier103]

The link to the NAB on the Vatican’s website mistakenly lists Acts as being part of the Gospel (vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM). Is there any way they can be notified so they may correct this? I just like to see the Church get it right as often as possible, and I am CERTAIN this was just a minor mistake. I know how much of a sticklet for details His Holiness is, and I think he would be the first one to want this corrected.

 

[edward_george]

The link to the NAB on the Vatican’s website mistakenly lists Acts as being part of the Gospel (vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM). Is there any way they can be notified so they may correct this? I just like to see the Church get it right as often as possible, and I am CERTAIN this was just a minor mistake. I know how much of a sticklet for details His Holiness is, and I think he would be the first one to want this corrected.

It’s probably just listed that way because Acts doesn’t fit in anywhere else, and it’s technically the second part of Luke. And I’m not sure what you mean by the Holy Father being a stickler for detail, and even if he were majorly to be called such, I highly doubt he’d have the time to review every single thing on the Vatican website. There are others in charge of that.

-ACEGC

 

[Verbum]

Hi rfournier,

This is not a mere misprint. In the intro to the Gospels, vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV8.HTM

last paragraph, it is stated that Luke intended Acts to be the second part of an integrated work. There is the good news as given by Jesus and then the good news as spread by the apostles. (gospel means good news)

By the way, this bible is the revised version of the Catholic New American Bible, and this classification and the intros were written by the American authors.

Verbu

 

[Evan]

In my new testament, in the intro to Acts, it says some ancient authors referred to the Acts of the Apostles as the Gospel of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Joe_5859]

It also lists “Revelation” under the “Catholic Letters”.

Edward George is probably right, though. It’s just because Acts (and Revelation) don’t really fit in any other group.

I’m more concerned about the fact that they still have the first edition of the English translation of the Catechism.

Also, I should have been keeping track of all the typos I’ve found in various footnotes.

 

[rfournier103]

It’s probably just listed that way because Acts doesn’t fit in anywhere else, and it’s technically the second part of Luke. And I’m not sure what you mean by the Holy Father being a stickler for detail, and even if he were majorly to be called such, I highly doubt he’d have the time to review every single thing on the Vatican website. There are others in charge of that.

-ACEGC

What I meant by the Holy Father being a stickler for detail, is that he has made efforts to have the Liturgy updated with the proper translations and such. It was meant as a compliment to the pope. His words and actions do not strike me as those of a careless or sloppy man. I also doubt he would have time for such mundane things as review of the website.

I know that when we hear the Gospel at mass, we hear Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I have never ever heard Acts as being part of the Gospel. I LOVE Acts, but I also understand it’s place in the order of things. That is all I was trying to say…