Why are the NABRE footnotes approved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pmitch72402
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand your obedience to what is likely a very tiny, possibly progressive, activist segment of US bishops. I understand that. Not a problem. But, they are not magisterial in this capacity. They can be wrong and, based on relative mountains of evidence, I believe they were indeed wrong. At lest imprudent.

Still, God judges them and I.

Q: Why does the NAB/RE contain information and teaching not seen before in Christian history, and not seen in any other translation in any other language? (except those few who have also adopted the NAB?

i.e. that parts of at least one Gospel were possibly fabricated - at least inserted into the text? That we really have no idea who wrote Matthew, etc .etc. etc.?

Q2: Why the NAB/RE was not acceptable for use in the liturgy until it was mandated to be modified? And why we are still fed the “defective” edition? Why, why, why?

Why indeed.
 
Last edited:
I was told by a Scripture experts that the miracle of the loaves and fishes was really about sharing. After awhile Jesus won’t be God, he’ll just be some nice dude who went around encouraging people to be nice and all those miracles will be explained away.
 
Last edited:
I like the New Community Bible (Catholic Edition) for notes and readability. It gets a bad rap sometimes but here are it’s notes for Matthew 16:21-27…

Jesus Predicts His Death (16:21-27)

Who could accept that Jesus would ultimately be defeated? Yet to defeat the power of the devil there is no other way but through self-sacrifice.

Get behind me, Satan! (16:23): When Peter stands in front of Jesus to block the way to the cross, Jesus recognises by his words the same spirit that tempted him in the desert. And Jesus calls him Satan, meaning tempter. Let Peter get behind Jesus and follow him as is proper for a disciple.
 
po18guy said:
I understand your obedience to what is likely a very tiny, possibly progressive, activist segment of US bishops. I understand that. Not a problem. But, they are not magisterial in this capacity. They can be wrong and, based on relative mountains of evidence, I believe they were indeed wrong. At lest imprudent.
Click to expand...
I do not see any reason for thinking the Subcommittee was “ a very tiny, possibly progressive, activist segment of US bishops.” I am sure Cardinal Rigali would be surprised to be described that way.

Whether the translation was “magisterial” depends on what you mean by that. I suspect some bishops disagree with you and consider the provision of a translation of Scripture as a primary part of their job. That it is regulated by canon law is part of that.

Probably some of the notes are wrong. The bishops have done their best to provide informative and helpful notes. but mistakes happen no matter how hard we try, and in a set of notes as large as these, there are likely some mistakes.

If you think something is wrong, I encourage you to reread it, study it, and try to learn from it. There may be issues you are not seeing, and what you think is central may actually be peripheral.
 
po18guy said:
that parts of at least one Gospel were possibly fabricated - at least inserted into the text?
Click to expand...
St Luke tells us he has several written accounts that he wants to present in an orderly fashion. That certainly suggests “fabrication” and insertions. It is hardly a new idea.

The NABRE is not approved for liturgical use. We still use the 1970 version in the Lectionary. They (the US bishops and their collaborators) hope to have a new revision by 2025 that can be used for a new Lectionary.
 
I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
Click to expand...
fabricate - Invent Create It seems Luke’s own writing contradicts the idea of fabrication ( Lie. Falsehood) as he says that it is accurate. If there is fabrication which is a lie, than there is no certainty of the teaching.
 
po18guy said:
I note that the NAB and RE coincide with the largest exodus from the faith in 2,000 years.

Cause or effect? Does it matter?
Click to expand...
Or neither. As has been done to death here, the exodus was caused by a multitude of factors, not all of which involved any sort of misdeeds by the Church. It seems highly unlikely that the NAB/RE footnotes were a major contributor.
 
If that is what is meant by fabricate, I agree that it should not be used of St Luke’s Gospel. He did not lie, but faithfully retold the story of Jesus using all of his considerable gifts. His poetic genius captured the beauty of the meeeting between Elizabeth and Mary, faithfully portraying their love and support for one another.

Did Mary compose the Magnificat, using the Hebrew poetry of Hannah’s song for her son Samuel? Did someone else compose it? I do not know, but St Luke put it into its final form as a part of the story of Elizabeth and Mary meeting as two pregnant women hoping for the birth of their mighty sons. It expresses the event so perfectly, it is wrong to suggest it is not true.
 
Among the handful of Bibles I’m familiar with, the footnotes I find most useful are those in the original (1966) Jerusalem Bible. The two footnotes to this passage in Matthew read as follows:

[k] Jesus has just elicited from his disciples the first explicit profession of faith in him as Messiah. At this crucial moment he tells them for the first time of his coming Passion: he is not only the glorious Messiah, he is also the suffering servant. Within the next few days this teaching method will be pursued in a similar situation: the glorious transfiguration will be followed by an injunction to silence and a prediction of passion, 17:1-12. It is Christ’s way of bracing the disciples’ faith for the approaching crisis of death and resurrection.

By blocking the Messiah’s appointed way, Peter becomes an “obstacle”.
 
Last edited:
That is indeed what fabricate means. I agree with you totally with Mary. Jesus told us a pattern of Prayer to follow. I would think Mary would do the same and follow a pattern. When she conveyed the event, because I believe that it came from her, she would have remembered it. I don’t believe it would have been the only time she prayed it.
 
That is precisely the problem with so-called “modernism.” It tends to disregard sacred tradition and to minimize the supernatural aspects of the faith (which aspect is NOT supernatural?). Some of the priests who were taught decades ago have become bishops. The error follows them.
 
“Necessary” yes! “Sufficient”? . . .

The USCCB is strongly suspect/known to have a certain percentage of activists in it, both clerical and lay.

Do you suppose they just sit there and nod their heads?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And, what of the Holy Spirit? “He will remind you of everything I have taught you” and “lead you into all truth.” H/C textual exegesis looks primarily if not solely on the words and tries to determine if they are credible and believable. From that method came the nonsense regarding the “miracle of sharing” the loves and fishes.

Modernism (i.e. historical-critical method) moves to suppress both tradition and the supernatural, i.e. the Holy Spirit. The elephant in the H-C living room is that the entire text is supernaturally inspired - yet they attempt to reduce it natural, human levels and sources. No thank you!

Pope Benedict XVI wrote of the H-C method and noted that it had some pluses, but also cautioned against the excesses that it invariably leads to.

Oh, and to Dovekin: Luke’s mention of many accounts being written was clearly - clearly - a reference to prior authors, NOT him applying editorial license to fabricate a Jerusalem Times “best seller” Exerpted from the Rev. Gerge Leo Haydock commentary on the prologue to Luke:
" His gospel, therefore, he wrote as he heard it; but the Acts of the Apostles, from his own observations; and both, as some believe, about the same time in which his history of the Acts finishes, towards the year of Christ 63. But the received opinion now is, that S. Luke wrote his gospel in Achaia, in the year 53, ten years previously to his writing of the Acts, purposely to counteract the fabulous relations concerning Jesus Christ, which several persons had endeavoured to palm upon the world.
Click to expand...
Good grief.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know what set you off. I didn’t say that the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire Mary. You used the word fabricate which means to make up. I don’t believe any of Scripture is fabricated. to quote you
Good Grief
 
I am misunderstood once again. Was not accusing you of anything. Sorry if that’s what it seemed like.
 
Look here, I did not start this. A completely legitimate question was asked by the OP as the notes in the NAB are very unusual, striking even others as introducing novelty into Christian thought.

Then, “someone” arrived and started beating the NAB, bishop this, bishop that drum and we must all fall in line or we’re idiots.

That’s the “good grief”

If you are a modernist or progressive, simply be honest and admit it - full disclosure if you will.
 
It shocked me as it was out of character for you. Perhaps the misunderstanding is on both sides.
 
My bad. I did not read your comments in context.

There is a certain member here who immediately jumps on any and all criticism of the NAB and whomever is responsible for the footnotes. I might be insane, but I perceive that said anonymous person intimates that we are somehow less enlightened if we question it or reject it.

Not that this person is of that bent, but I note that such marginalizing attitudes and language are a prime weapon of progressives and modernists. I would hope that if anyone falls into that group, they would be honest enough to admit it.
 
Thank you. I have always admired your post. It did surprise me and I felt you had not understood my post or maybe the post was worded poorly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top