G
Garyjohn2
Guest
So, when questioning whether Bishops rigorously research translations and notes in a Bible before approval, and whether we should trust our Bishops, the best answer is that the American Bishops don’t care?
WHY DO "inspired" Catholics criticized the commentaries of the New American Bible?
- Status
G
Garyjohn2
Guest
Why would the Vatican disapprove of this translation, but the American Bishops approve?
How can the American Bishops judgments be so different than the Vatican?
Doesn’t the Vatican have something to say about this?
Should we still trust the Bishops?
These aren’t leading questions…I’m just wondering. None of this makes any sense!
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
You may agree or disagree with the bishops. Spreading and promoting distrust of our bishops is a form of contempt for Catholicism and will be consequenced. This is a serious violation of charity.
K
Kyrby_Caluna
Guest
I find it illogical for “faithful” Catholics to trust the opinion of Mother Angelica than the recommendation of the Bishops to love and use the NAB. Did God gave Mother Angelica the authority to be more superior than the Bishops? Is she more reliable than the Bishops? To defend the Catholic Church is to defend the Bishops. Why? Because where the Bishop is, there let the multitude be for where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.
K
Kyrby_Caluna
Guest
Regarding the Vatican. The Vatican only has a problem with the NAB because it is UNFIT to be used in the Liturgy. So there is a modified version of the NAB as used in the Liturgy. Why? Because the Vatican has the AUTHORITY when it comes to the liturgy. But when it comes to which Bible translations are good for PRIVATE (not liturgical) study, devotion, or reading, the Bishops were given that authority directly from Christ for the Bishops are NOT the representatives of the Pope. The Bishops has the primacy in their own jurisdictions in UNION with the Pope. So the Bishops recommended the NAB and Paul VI gave his blessing for the NAB. And it is UNFIT for Catholics to criticize the Bishops. Recommending Bible translations to be used are the Bishops’ authority. We (laity) don’t have that authority. And we don’t have any right to malign the USCCB. We are the Catholic Church so we are bound to submit ourselves to the Bishops.
K
Kyrby_Caluna
Guest
I am a Filipino, and I also submit myself to the CBCP. I just find it hard why American Catholics are criticizing their bishops about a Bible translation. They must respect the Bishops because the Bishops were given the authority for Bible translations. If they continue to malign the USCCB, it’s better for them to be their own bishops, and leave the Catholic Church.
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
The USCCB, and that would apply to the CBCP and other bishops’ conferences, does not have an actual authority. The individual bishops have authority over their diocese, of course, but as a collective, they do not actually rule a whole country.
Much of the commentary in the NAB is Modernist. For example,
NAB:
Much of the commentary in the NAB is Modernist. For example,
NAB:
This is solidly Modernist and implicitly denies the Holy Ghost as author of Scripture in favor of the idea that religion arises from an interior sense. There are other comments throughout the translation that are dubious but this just hits you as soon as you open it and sets the tone for how they treat the Bible based on the “historical-critical method”, that is, treating the Bible like a human work rather than a Divine one.
K
Kyrby_Caluna
Guest
Some “inspired” Catholics will say that the greatest FAULT of the NAB is this… and that one… oh this one also… and there’s more. Hey! Who gave you the authority to determine the faults? God gave the bishops the authority to determine heresy and orthodoxy. It’s not about you. It’s about Christ promise to be faithful in leading the Church through the ministry of the Bishops. So you think you are more Spirit-filled and inspired than the Bishops? You can be the next Martin Luther or John Calvin then, right? Unless you humble yourself and accept that God gave the Bishops the authority on these matters than you. And then trust God. Not your head. Amen.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It’s in the nature of translations. No translation is perfect. You put 10 different scholars to work and you will get 10 different translations and maybe a consensus. One needs only accept the Bible which the Church has deemed its standard and that is the Vulgate. One can criticize or question translations in a scholarly way without disrespecting or criticizing their bishops. Their work does have pastoral value and is legitimate.
C
Corki
Guest
It was disapproved for use at Mass primarily due to the inclusive language. That doesn’t mean the Vatican disapproved the translation itself for personal reading or even for other public worship.
The Vatican and the Bishops have a long history of disagreeing on the specifics of translations. That’s why it’s taken over a decade to get the new translation for the Mass that we will see this Advent.
It’s not a matter of trust. There are several “approved” translations of the Bible. The Vatican, and especially Pope Benedict XVI, has been critical of the over-dependence by some Biblical scholars on the historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture. The forward of the Pope’s book, Jesus of Nazareth (II) is a good read on the topic.
G
Gregory_I
Guest
If no one would have criticized their bishops, the Catholic church would have become heretical long ago. THe church has often had heretical bishops, and often lay people and the occasional priest are what stand between the church and heresy, at least on the local level, or on the majority level.
Doesn’t anyone remember Arianism? 80% of the bishops were heretics; either Arians or Semi-Arians, Eunomians. It’s called defending the faith:
And we must not simply guard the faith against blatant heresies, but against TENDENCIES in thought that run COUNTER to the will of the Ordinary Magisterium (HUMANI GENERIS!) and TEND toward heresy. Satan isn’t interested in blatant heresy much these days, he’d much rather have the slippery slope slop we call theology nowadays; that’s perfectly sufficient to ruin the salvation of the majority, effective two, since whole MASSES of people slide right into it without ever thinking.
I am not saying the USCCB is heretical. I am saying the majority of our theologians are not faithful to the ordinary magisterium.
For example, most theologians say that the church needs to acclimate to modern times and express herself in modern terms and do away with scholastic nuance. ERROR!!! THis idea (which was really the entire basis of the second vatican council) was condemned by POpe Pius Xii in HUmani Generis: Virtually the entire encyclical is about why THIS IS WRONG.
It’s funny what happens when you learn to distinguish between the ordinary magisterium and the slop of modern theology. The lines become drawn in the sand pretty quick.
Doesn’t anyone remember Arianism? 80% of the bishops were heretics; either Arians or Semi-Arians, Eunomians. It’s called defending the faith:
And we must not simply guard the faith against blatant heresies, but against TENDENCIES in thought that run COUNTER to the will of the Ordinary Magisterium (HUMANI GENERIS!) and TEND toward heresy. Satan isn’t interested in blatant heresy much these days, he’d much rather have the slippery slope slop we call theology nowadays; that’s perfectly sufficient to ruin the salvation of the majority, effective two, since whole MASSES of people slide right into it without ever thinking.
I am not saying the USCCB is heretical. I am saying the majority of our theologians are not faithful to the ordinary magisterium.
For example, most theologians say that the church needs to acclimate to modern times and express herself in modern terms and do away with scholastic nuance. ERROR!!! THis idea (which was really the entire basis of the second vatican council) was condemned by POpe Pius Xii in HUmani Generis: Virtually the entire encyclical is about why THIS IS WRONG.
It’s funny what happens when you learn to distinguish between the ordinary magisterium and the slop of modern theology. The lines become drawn in the sand pretty quick.
P
pataburd
Guest
K_C,
We Catholics have the Catechisms, papal encyclicals, council documents, writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors, etc., to safeguard us and keep us on orthodox paths for both reading and interpreting. (And we must be ever vigilant, lest we ourselves fall into presumption and error.)
Read St. Paul’s admonition to the Ephesian church right before he embarks for Jerusalem (he addresses the bishops):
Acts 20:28-30 (D-R)
Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them [emphasis added].
Next, it may be worthwhile to note that every major heresy that has assailed the Church was begun by a cleric. Recall that Martin Luther was a priest. During the height of Arianism–originated by an Egyptian priest–a majority of bishops supported this heresy (re: St. Jerome’s famous quote from 359: “the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian”).
St. Pius X, in* Pascendi Dominici Gregis*, prophetically warned that modernist attacks would be waged from within the Church herself, by scholars, theologians and–yes–even the clergy.
My bishop, for example, has used diocesan monies to purchase and dispense syringes for local drug addicts; he publicly administers Holy Communion to a prominent state politician who openly supports abortion and boldly advances same-sex “marriage” legislation; the bishop also promotes a formation program whose “litmus test” requires that those entering into diocesan ministry support positions essentially inimical to Church teaching. (I have read some of the textbooks used for the formation program, which cite definitively heterodox teaching).
Others and myself have also repeatedly written and/or called the chancery to express our concern about chronic liturgical abuse in our parishes, but have been repeatedly stone-walled. In some instances we are told flatly that such practices will not change because that’s just the way the bishop has elected to do them.
These are the bald facts, and they are plain for everyone in my diocese to see; some issues have even attracted regional and national media attention. My acknowledging the facts for what they are and expressing deep and–believe me–prayerful concern, makes me neither overly critical nor uncharitable.
Please understand: I am not being hyper-critical or malicious toward our bishops, or fomenting distrust. Rather, I am simply trying to be realistic and sober in light of Scripture, Church history, Her magisterial teaching and my own experience. We must pray daily, fervently for our bishops and priests, but when we see bishops and priests acting in complicity with evil we must address such actions candidly, in the Truth of Jesus Christ. A failure on the part of the laity to do either constitutes a genuine failure in charity.
Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, Pray for Us!
Cordially,
PAB
P
pataburd
Guest
J_123,
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen also favored the (original) Jerusalem Bible. : )
Cordially,
Patrick
G
Garyjohn2
Guest
Well, I appreciate everyone’s comments and perspectives on this, and I learned a few things. Thanks!
In the end, we should trust our bishops. This Bible is ok for private use, and we shouldn’t worry about it too much. Even if it seems not ok or dangerous to some, we should still trust the Bishops, because they are the shepherds. We can get different Bible’s for private use if we don’t like this one.
Also, I don’t see anything terribly modernist about the quote in a past post, regarding the Pentatauch introduction. There is nothing in that quote that states or implies the bible is not divinely inspired. Conversely, since the front of the books says “Holy Bible,” the assumption is that it is divinely inspired. Nothing in that quote refutes that assumption, in my mind. The Bible DOES have a historical context, and there is nothing wrong with taking about that as well! Maybe some people are reading too much into it.
Anyways, I have a NAB and a RSCV-2e (or whatever the initials are). I especially like the introductions to the different books in the NAB because they give some historical context…and in the case of the NT books, Gospels and Epistles, it give approximate dates for their writings. I find this helpful for apologetics and personal study.
But, in the end, we should trust our Bishops. Though they are not perfect, they have much more education and training in ancient languages and scripture than the vast majority of us. Add to that the influence of the Holy Spirit on their leadership, and I think we have good cause to trust, even if we aren’t so sure.
In the end, we should trust our bishops. This Bible is ok for private use, and we shouldn’t worry about it too much. Even if it seems not ok or dangerous to some, we should still trust the Bishops, because they are the shepherds. We can get different Bible’s for private use if we don’t like this one.
Also, I don’t see anything terribly modernist about the quote in a past post, regarding the Pentatauch introduction. There is nothing in that quote that states or implies the bible is not divinely inspired. Conversely, since the front of the books says “Holy Bible,” the assumption is that it is divinely inspired. Nothing in that quote refutes that assumption, in my mind. The Bible DOES have a historical context, and there is nothing wrong with taking about that as well! Maybe some people are reading too much into it.
Anyways, I have a NAB and a RSCV-2e (or whatever the initials are). I especially like the introductions to the different books in the NAB because they give some historical context…and in the case of the NT books, Gospels and Epistles, it give approximate dates for their writings. I find this helpful for apologetics and personal study.
But, in the end, we should trust our Bishops. Though they are not perfect, they have much more education and training in ancient languages and scripture than the vast majority of us. Add to that the influence of the Holy Spirit on their leadership, and I think we have good cause to trust, even if we aren’t so sure.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Precisely. As far as I know, the bishops have not said the other translations are wrong.
R
rben20
Guest
Thank you!
Great insight. Some forget that the Bishops are human and make mistakes. We can use our mind. The USCCB has no outright power in and of itself.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Yes we should definetly trust our bishops, which is why I use my nab-re as my primary bible. But sometimes I question the footnotes, especially in the Gospels when they say that Matthew and Luke were based off of Mark and that Jesus didn’t say somethings when its in red because its a red letter bibleWell, I appreciate everyone’s comments and perspectives on this, and I learned a few things. Thanks!
In the end, we should trust our bishops. This Bible is ok for private use, and we shouldn’t worry about it too much. Even if it seems not ok or dangerous to some, we should still trust the Bishops, because they are the shepherds. We can get different Bible’s for private use if we don’t like this one.
Also, I don’t see anything terribly modernist about the quote in a past post, regarding the Pentatauch introduction. There is nothing in that quote that states or implies the bible is not divinely inspired. Conversely, since the front of the books says “Holy Bible,” the assumption is that it is divinely inspired. Nothing in that quote refutes that assumption, in my mind. The Bible DOES have a historical context, and there is nothing wrong with taking about that as well! Maybe some people are reading too much into it.
Anyways, I have a NAB and a RSCV-2e (or whatever the initials are). I especially like the introductions to the different books in the NAB because they give some historical context…and in the case of the NT books, Gospels and Epistles, it give approximate dates for their writings. I find this helpful for apologetics and personal study.
But, in the end, we should trust our Bishops. Though they are not perfect, they have much more education and training in ancient languages and scripture than the vast majority of us. Add to that the influence of the Holy Spirit on their leadership, and I think we have good cause to trust, even if we aren’t so sure.
. But most are good. Sorry for rambling. But trust the Bishops!
S
SouthpawLink
Guest
We shouldn’t trust our bishops’ biblical commentaries when they contradict the explicit teaching of the Magisterium. Stating that Jesus never predicted the destruction of the temple or that St. Paul didn’t have Purgatory in mind in 1 Corinthians 3 contradicts the unanimous consent of the Fathers, which all of us are obliged to obey (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. IV). The bishops are the guardians of the deposit of faith, not masters over it. If and when one of them clearly contradicts Church teaching, we are not to listen to him.Well, I appreciate everyone’s comments and perspectives on this, and I learned a few things. Thanks!
In the end, we should trust our bishops. This Bible is ok for private use, and we shouldn’t worry about it too much. Even if it seems not ok or dangerous to some, we should still trust the Bishops, because they are the shepherds. We can get different Bible’s for private use if we don’t like this one.
Also, I don’t see anything terribly modernist about the quote in a past post, regarding the Pentatauch introduction. There is nothing in that quote that states or implies the bible is not divinely inspired. Conversely, since the front of the books says “Holy Bible,” the assumption is that it is divinely inspired. Nothing in that quote refutes that assumption, in my mind. The Bible DOES have a historical context, and there is nothing wrong with taking about that as well! Maybe some people are reading too much into it.
Anyways, I have a NAB and a RSCV-2e (or whatever the initials are). I especially like the introductions to the different books in the NAB because they give some historical context…and in the case of the NT books, Gospels and Epistles, it give approximate dates for their writings. I find this helpful for apologetics and personal study.
But, in the end, we should trust our Bishops. Though they are not perfect, they have much more education and training in ancient languages and scripture than the vast majority of us. Add to that the influence of the Holy Spirit on their leadership, and I think we have good cause to trust, even if we aren’t so sure.
What good is a catechism if whatever Bishop X says goes? If bishops can contradict the Catechism and we’re expected to obey their teachings, then the Catholic Faith itself becomes a play thing, the contents of which are decided on the whim of a bishop. Thankfully, this is not how the Catholic Faith works. The Catholic Faith isn’t exactly quantum physics or a kind of gnosticism which is only available or perceptible to a select few. On the contrary, the Catechism states that the faithful have “the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (n. 890). Even the very learned can – and have in the past – err. As it was pointed out earlier in the thread, most heresies have started with learned priests or bishops.
Several introductions in the NAB contradict the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission of the early 20th century, which were authentic acts of the Magisterium. Pope St. Pius X said we were to respect and assent to them (under pain of sin). What gives today’s bishops the right to contradict previous magisterial teaching?
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10prasc.htm
G
Garyjohn2
Guest
I think what you are saying makes sense. However, if it seems like a Bishop is contradicting the wider church, I think we should assume we are reading that particular note wrong, or that it could have been worded a bit better, or that the overseeing Bishops just interpretting that note differently than we are…not that the Bishop is defying Rome and no longer worthy of trust. I have yet to see any blatant contradictions in the NAB notes…but I have much to learn too!
S
SouthpawLink
Guest
Thank you.I think what you are saying makes sense. However, if it seems like a Bishop is contradicting the wider church, I think we should assume we are reading that particular note wrong, or that it could have been worded a bit better, or that the overseeing Bishops just interpretting that note differently than we are…not that the Bishop is defying Rome and no longer worthy of trust. I have yet to see any blatant contradictions in the NAB notes…but I have much to learn too!
Regarding some of the NAB’s errors and/or omissions, see:
Mark 6:3 (“Mark may have understood ‘brothers’ literally,” which implies that the Catholic doctrine on Mary’s perpetual virginity may be wrong.)
Matthew 12:31 - No mention of Purgatory, despite several Fathers’ commentary on this verse (cf. St. Gregory the Great). See also the NAB’s rejection of 1 Corinthians 3 as an allusion to Purgatory, despite the commentary of many Fathers and theologians (cf. Origen).
John 6 - Where’s the reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
“Jesus didn’t really predict the destruction of the Temple” (cf. Introduction to St. Matthew). - This contradicts Lamentabili Sane, nn. 14 and 29. See especially the PBC decision of 19 June 1911 (Denz. 2050).
“St. Matthew didn’t write his own gospel; the author of St. Mark’s gospel is unknown; current evidence doesn’t support St. John’s authorship of his own gospel;” etc. - All of these introductory notes completely contradict the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. See here: catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma22.php
- Status