The Rampant Liberalism Of The Nab

[Paladin D]

One thing I don't understand is this. If the [b]NAB[/b] is a horrible version, why does the American Catholic Church use it?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I found a book from TAN Books called [u][url="http://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/614/category_id/9/"]Which Bible Should You Read?[/url][/u] by Thomas A. Nelson. It compares varius versions of the Bible in English, with the D-R coming out on top.

[Chrysologus]

I am aware of no heretical statements within the NAB's footnotes. No doubt those who accuse them do so because they incorrectly believe that the Bible is infallible in matters of history, something the Catholic Church has never solemnly declared and which no modern Catholic theologians teach. The Bible is indeed infallible in matters of [i]faith and morals[/i]. The NAB footnotes frequently point out the Bible's internal, factual contradictions which fundamentalists (including Catholic fundamentalists like the ones who seem to be taking over this forum) ignore by a sheer act of blind faith. Anyway, the NAB, by all accounts, is a very scholarly translation with very useful footnotes, which is, no doubt, why the American hierarchy has chosen to use it.

I'm sure it's safe to say that the the Latin Vulgate contains no mistranslations so grievious that the text becomes heretical, but it nevertheless remains true that the Vulgate, having relied on early medieval scholarship, is severely lacking by modern standards. And given the problems inherent in using translations of translations, using any English Bible based on the Vulgate seems rather foolish indeed.

[cmotherofpirl]

The "inclusive " version has footnotes and articles that leave much to be desired.
Last I checked the Latin Vulgate is the offical translation of the Catholic Church.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Jun 29 2004, 04:19 PM'] Which NAB translation are you referring to, the 1970 CCD version or the 1987 one with inclusive language? [/quote]
I am using the newest one. However, the inclusive language is by far not its biggest problem.

[cmotherofpirl]

I am annoyed by the NT articles.

[Chrysologus]

cmotherofpirl, are there any specifics you could show me that you think "leave much to be desired"? Obviously they aren't perfect, but I highly, highly doubt there is anything in them worth riling against as Hananiah is doing.

My NAB (Old Testament text copyright 1970, New Testament 1986, Psalms 1991) doesn't use inclusive language...nor does the version used at mass, so I'm not sure what you're referring to in that matter. It's moot, though, as the Catholic Church has not, to my knowledge, spoken against inclusive language, nor would I. In fact, I support gender-inclusive language. The fact is that language evolves and, like it or not, male terms are no longer generally accepted as gender neutral. A dogged insistence on retaining them will lead to nothing good, and probably to a lot of bad. Christianity must continue to engage the world in which we live if it is to win new souls to the Lord.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Chrysologus' date='Jun 29 2004, 10:04 PM'] I am aware of no heretical statements within the NAB's footnotes. No doubt those who accuse them do so because they incorrectly believe that the Bible is infallible in matters of history, something the Catholic Church has never solemnly declared [/quote]
I address this view in the paper to which I linked at the top of this thread.

[quote]I would like to begin by giving the reader some background on the Catholic Church's perennial teaching on inspiration and inerrancy. I will let the Popes and Councils speak for themselves.

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus: "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred... For all the books which the Church receives as Sacred and Canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not True. This is the ancient and unchanging Faith of the Church."

Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sani, Condemned proposition: "Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error."

Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus: "He also teaches that the divine inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture without distinction, and that no error could occur in the inspired text."

Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu: "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred."

Pius XII, Humani Generis, Condemned proposition: "Immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters."

Vatican Council I, Sess. III, cap. ii, DE REV: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the Decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as Sacred and Canonical. And the Church holds them as Sacred and Canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her Authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their Author."

So we see that the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is completely immune from error. Now, some Catholics use the statement in Vatican II's Dei Verbum that the Bible "teaches without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" as support for the position that the Bible is only immune from error within a certain limited domain. However, this phrase admits of two possible interpretations: (1) the Bible is immune from error in everything it says, and everything it says God wanted there for the sake of our salvation, and (2) The Bible is immune from error in so far as it teaches about salvation, but can err when it treats of other topics. Obviously, the former interpretation harmonizes Vatican II with the larger body of Catholic Tradition, whereas the latter sets the two in opposition. Thus all faithful Catholics should adopt the former. Finally, if even that is not enough to convince the die-hard fans of Fr. Raymond Brown, the Council Fathers let it be known how they intended this phrase to be interpreted by referencing in its footnote various writings of St. Augustine, all of which endorse the total inerrancy of Scripture.

This is the position which all Catholics are bound by the Magesterium to expound and defend. In its original manuscripts the Bible is free from error in absolutely every respect. It contains no contradictions, no historical inaccuracies, and no scientific errors. (Of course, the Bible is not a science textbook, and thus it quite often employs scientifically imprecise, phenomenological language (i.e. sunrise, sunset), however this is not tantamount to error. Even modern theoretical physicists speak of sunrise and sunset, and not too many of them are Tychonians; still fewer are Platonists.) In sum, to use the words of Pope St. Clement, the Scriptures are perfect.[/quote]

[quote]and which no modern Catholic theologians teach.[/quote]
I know of several. Here is the list of contributors to a forthcoming book defending the Catholic dogma of total biblical innerancy. Fr. Michael Kelly (Ph.D.); Fr. Paul Driscoll (Ph.D.) Fr. Brian Harrison (S.T.D.); Fr. John McCarthy (S.T.D.); Ms Maria Cirurgiao, Ph.D.; Dr. Arthur Sippo; Mr. Sal Ciresi, M.A.; Mr. David Palm, M.A.; Mr. Desmond Birch, M.A.; Mr. Robert Sungenis, M.A. (Ph.D. cd). Fr. Echert of EWTN teaches this dogma as well, as does Catholic apologistand Scripture scholar Gerry Matatics.

[quote]The Bible is indeed infallible in matters of [i]faith and morals[/i]. [/quote]
This proposition has been declared heretical by numerous Popes in solemn decrees. While these statements may not be ex cathedra, they meet all of the criteria of [i]Lumen Gentium §25[/i] for infallibility by virtue of the ordinaryand universal magesterium. See above. This idea is heresy.

[quote]The NAB footnotes frequently point out the Bible's internal, factual contradictions which fundamentalists (including Catholic fundamentalists like the ones who seem to be taking over this forum) ignore by a sheer act of blind faith.[/quote]
If you read my study you will notice that I do not ignore the alleged contradictions but tackle them head on and reconcile them. Some of the contradictions in the NAB don't even exist in the original Hebrew and in faithful translations; the translators put them there. There is nothing blind about my adherence to the Tradition of the Catholic Church regarding Biblical inerrancy.

[quote]I'm sure it's safe to say that the the Latin Vulgate contains no mistranslations so grievious that the text becomes heretical, but it nevertheless remains true that the Vulgate, having relied on early medieval scholarship, is severely lacking by modern standards.[/quote]
The Vulgate is based on patristic scholarship, not medieval scholarship. St. Jerome would have had access to manuscripts far older than those extant today and also known many people who spoke Koine Greek as their native language as well as Jewish rabbis who knew Hebrew better than anyone knows it today. I'm sure that the Vulgate is in some ways more accurate than even the earliest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in existence today. That having been said, I'm also sure that the oldest Greek in Hebrew manuscripts extant today are in many respects closer to the original autographs than the Vulgate. If I were to do a translation today I would take the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin all into account in my textual criticism. Incidentally, this is what Robert Sungenis is doing in his [i]Catholic Apologetics Study Bible[/i].

Edited June 30, 2004 by Hananiah

[MorphRC]

They fixing the dangerous footnotes, as far as I know, not the translation, the translation is fine to me minus Luke 1:28, which has been rendered for prots, the footnotes are what kill ya, they destroy any faith you had in the manuscripts.

[MorphRC]

there*

[amarkich]

Beautiful refutation, Hananiah. I was going to reply until I saw yours. Mine would not have been nearly as good God bless.

Adam

[Chrysologus]

Okay, I'll admit it: Your papal quotations shook me up. So I looked into it more and you're right: Popes, saints, and theologians, that is, the magisterium, often used to say the Bible was totally inerrant. But, you know what, the Church also used to teach that:

Only baptized Catholics can be saved.
Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by law.
The pope has temporal authority over the whole world.
Charging interest on a loan is gravely sinful.
The Jews are guilty of killing Christ.
Ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue are evil.

There are probably other false doctrines that I could add to this list. What it comes down to is the fact that the Church doesn't always teach definitively, or dogmatically. Consequently, some teachings have changed throughout the centuries as theology has progressed. Not all Catholic doctrine is infallible.

That's the best I can do for now. If this seems somehow illogical, I'm not surprised, because I'm not even sure I believe it myself. Maybe I've been living in denial...

[MorphRC]

Some teachings have changed from early times...hmmm

[P3chrmd]

The inclusive language really bothers me!

"Humans do not live by bread alone"

I only read The Jerusalem Bible....but....all the other ones without inclusive language are good...just not as good for me

RSV-CE, Duay

what other Catholic translations do not use inclusive language other that the JB, RSV-CE, and the DR bible???

(The NRSV has to be the WORST for inclusive language!!! The New Jerusalem isn't as bad...i actually own a NJB....but I rarely use it..just because of the inclusive language)

[MorphRC]

Can you give me an example of what you mean from the bible. I still dont get it :S

[P3chrmd]

hey Morph...I tried to explain it on the Open Mic Phorum...under the "Which Bible Should I Buy" thread!

[MorphRC]

[quote name='P3chrmd' date='Jun 30 2004, 06:24 PM'] hey Morph...I tried to explain it on the Open Mic Phorum...under the "Which Bible Should I Buy" thread! [/quote]
Saw it Thx!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jun 28 2004, 12:28 PM']
:haha: With the people I hang out with...it wouldn't shock me. Words like preternatural are not exactly uncommon... :haha:  [/quote]
I use the word [i]preternatural[/i], because it is a technical theological term sanctioned by the Church's tradition. I wish more people would use that word, and use it correctly when they do.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Chrysologus' date='Jun 30 2004, 03:25 AM']
Okay, I'll admit it: Your papal quotations shook me up. So I looked into it more and you're right: Popes, saints, and theologians, that is, the magisterium, often used to say the Bible was totally inerrant. But, you know what, the Church also used to teach that:

Only baptized Catholics can be saved.
Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by law.
The pope has temporal authority over the whole world.
Charging interest on a loan is gravely sinful.
The Jews are guilty of killing Christ.
Ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue are evil.

There are probably other false doctrines that I could add to this list. What it comes down to is the fact that the Church doesn't always teach definitively, or dogmatically. Consequently, some teachings have changed throughout the centuries as theology has progressed. Not all Catholic doctrine is infallible.

That's the best I can do for now. If this seems somehow illogical, I'm not surprised, because I'm not even sure I believe it myself. Maybe I've been living in denial... [/quote]


False doctrines? Some of these have never been doctrines. And you misrepresent the facts. Doctrines (and dogma) do not change. There is a certain legitimate development of doctrine, but it does not involve any substantial or essential change. There have been theological opinions change, even ones many in the Church held to be true, but this does not signify a change in doctrine.

Let's take a look at your list:
The first: "Only baptized Catholics can be saved."

While I have no intention of starting a debate on this issue let me just say that all but one (Lactantius) of the Church Fathers believed in some form of baptism of desire as did Augustine, as did Aquinas, as did Blessed Pius IX. I'll just leave it at that.

Second: "Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by law."

While it is certainly true that the state has the duty to acknowledge and protect true religion, the Church has never demanded that all other religions must be always and everywhere illegal. I can give you many examples of the Church admonishing heads of state for excessively harsh treatment of heretics or Jews.

Third: "The pope has temporal authority over the whole world."

You would have to define your terms here. I'll save my response.

Fourth: "Charging interest on a loan is gravely sinful."

This would require more time than I have to do it credit. Let this suffice, this was never a solemnly defined teaching of the Church. To the best of my knowledge it was a moral judgment based on the circumstances at the time. The modern economy bares no resemblance to the glorious guild economy of the middle ages and even less to that in existence before the middle ages.

Fifth: "The Jews are guilty of killing Christ."

I wrote an entire paper on this once. Did the Jews kill Christ? The answer is yes (historically speaking). Of course the Romans helped. But we all played our part didn't we? The Church has always held this to be true and still does. However, I imagine that you are talking about collective guilt. This is all I will say to this for now. The Jews reject Christ. That tenet forms the basis of their religion and has ever since the Jamnian Council. To reject Christ (knowingly) is to be guilty of His death. We do it every time we sin. They do it as a matter of principle.

Lastly: "Ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue are evil."

Again I have no intention of starting a debate. Let me just say this: any inter-religious dialogue that gives the appearance of religious indifferentism is contrary to Catholic teaching.

ALL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE IS INFALLIBLE!

Edited June 30, 2004 by popestpiusx

[Chrysologus]

"Christ left to Peter not only the universal Church, but the whole world to govern."
- Innocent III

Here is a pope teaching that he is king of the world. But we don't believe this anymore. He was not teaching infallibly. Likewise, the more recent popes who riled against biblical "modernism" (which is to say, looking at the Bible with both faith [i]and [/i]reason instead of faith alone) were also not teaching infallibly. I'm sure the same is true of the Church's fierce condemnations of usury that lasted throughout the Middle Ages. That's what the whole point of my list was.

Also, I think your statement about Jews and Christ is highly suspicious, though it does sound very much like what Catholics used to believe (which doesn't surprise me since your s/n indicates you may be a traditionalist). In any case, the Church [i]now [/i]believes that "neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion....[T]he Jews should be not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this view followed from holy Scripture" (Vatican II, [i]Nostra aetate[/i]).

Your statement about ecumenism is highly ambigious. It's well known that the Church now fully supports ecumenism, yet less than 100 years ago it condemned it as something which Catholics could never participate in. But again, my point is not to condemn the Church but to show that some Catholic doctrines (not solemnly defined dogmas) change. The doctrine of total biblical inerrancy is not contained in the Bible itself, and contradicts the Bible as the Bible clearly contains numerous internal historical contradictions or inaccuracies, which mind-bending apologetics cannot believably answer. The phrase "death by a thousand qualifications" comes to mind.

While the Church frequently speaks out against heretical tides of thought within her ranks (support for abortion, religious indifferentism, priestesses, etc.), it has, since Vatican II, done absolutely [i]nothing [/i]to stop historical biblical criticism, and has seemingly encouraged it numerous times (in the NAB, for instance). To me, this is all the indication I need to believe that the doctrine of total biblical inerrancy, like so many other false doctrines before it, has fallen to the wayside in light of the Church's ever-increasing understanding of the faith, thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who is with us always and guides us into all truth.