The Rampant Liberalism Of The Nab

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey, first off, I wanna give props to Hananiah with regards to this:

[quote]The Magesterium is still infallible. However the ordinary teaching of America's bishops is not infallible since it contradicts much of what used to be taught, and since their views are not shared by a moral unanimity of the bishops around the world. Even if, as during the Arian heresy, 80% of the worlds bishops become heretics, that will not make their ideas infallible.[/quote]

I live in America and it is [i]definately[/i] true that some of the bishops are super-uber sketchball. I won't name names, but in one diocese in the US, they had an Episcopal service and Catholic mass SIMULTANEOUSLY, just with two alters. That just screams liturgical abuse until you want to die. Anyways, it IS hard to know what is in truly infallible teaching and what isn't, and so looking to the past Popes, Councils, and Saints is absolutely necessary.

Good job Hananiah!

I would also like to comment on your last post as well, particularly the following:

[quote]Did anyone preach Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus at Assisi?[/quote]

Right off the bat, I want to establish that I think that things like the Fatima "ecumenical" service are definately wrong. However, that being said, I think we should all try to remember that sometimes the only way to convert someone is to NOT plunge head first into something as tricky as [i]Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus[/i].

I think of it in relation to my little sister, who is indescribably headstrong, and even bull-headed at times. Everytime we get into an argument, my instinct is to nail her with all the facts, and prove to her that she is wrong. Most of the time I "win" the argument, but she has become so caustic in the process that she won't believe me. My mom, on the other hand, will slowly address the relevant topics, sometimes starting by just letting my sister talk without saying anything in response. Once my sister has said what she wants to say, they will talk, very about one of the easier issues. Way too slowly (I'm very impatient) they begin to approach the issue at hand, and most of the time she will agree. This is because my mom was patient and non-judgemental. Love is definately the way to go, and I support ecumenicism all the way, but Buddha on the Alter (fatima) is neither love, nor ecumenicism, its a sin.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Hananiah]

Bump. I've added a section on the Gospel According to Matthew.

[url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175"]Hananiah Apologetics[/url]

[Hananiah]

Morph, if you're reading, please let me know how what part of the Bible you want to do. My e-mail is hananiah5@yahoo.com

[Hananiah]

My article is now posted on a major Catholic Apologetics website:

[url="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/nab.asp"]The New American Bible: Is it Good for Catholics?[/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

forget it, I don't want to know.

Edited July 7, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Norseman82]

You know, a lot of this debate is really moot, IMHO. As Catholics, we are not sola scriptura, so if we are well grounded in Church teaching (especially the Cathechism), anything in a bible translation that alarms us should cause no harm, beacuse the Church teaching will clarify things.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Jul 7 2004, 12:24 PM'] You know, a lot of this debate is really moot, IMHO. As Catholics, we are not sola scriptura, so if we are well grounded in Church teaching (especially the Cathechism), anything in a bible translation that alarms us should cause no harm, beacuse the Church teaching will clarify things. [/quote]
The Church teaches that the Bible is without error and is to be recieved with reverence and awe. A translation which tells people that it is full of errors is bound to cast doubt on Church teaching and endanger the faith of those who have no training in this particular field of apologetics.

[kroberts777]

I appreciate your crusade to find and correct the parts of the NAB that are contradictory. but for me, I'm just thankful when i hear someones reading [u]any [/u]translation of the bible. If your searching for the fullness of truth in Christ you will find it. If we spent less time bickering over a translation and more time LIVING the truth that we believe, I think we could make a greater impact on all faiths.

[Aloysius]

CMOM, He posted it there didn't he?

[Hananiah]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 7 2004, 12:16 PM'] forget it, I don't want to know. [/quote]
If your question was whether I am a geocentrist, no I am not.

[Aloysius]

i saw her question. it was simply "what site would that be?"

[Hananiah]

Oh, in that case it is Catholic Apologetics International. I assumed people would recognize the URL.

[Chrysologus]

I don't think I would [i]want [/i]my writing on a site that presents geocentrism as a teaching of the Catholic Church.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 27 2004, 04:14 AM'] Since the NAB is so incredibly widely disseminated throughout the American Catholic Church, and since it promotes so many ideas inimical to the Catholic faith, I have felt it necessary to produce a catalogue of its heterodox statements, which contrasts the NAB to the traditional teachings of the Church as well as informs the reader how to refute its charges of error. I have finished Genesis so far. As this is a huge project which I am undertaking, I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you.

[url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/NAB.htm"]The Rampant Liberalism of the NAB[/url] [/quote]
I use the NAB. I also use the Douay-Rhiems.

I see nothing wrong with the NAB. The NAB came directly from the oldest versions of the original languages.

The Vatican approves it.

I accept it.

Don't get tied up in translations, look at the lessons taught. Our Church cannot be wrong. The NAB is approved.

Who here is wiser than the Church?

It is very dangerous to use the bible alone without guidence from our Church, the group established by Christ.

Nothing in the NAB contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 7 2004, 05:43 PM'] I use the NAB. I also use the Douay-Rhiems.

I see nothing wrong with the NAB. The NAB came directly from the oldest versions of the original languages.

The Vatican approves it.

I accept it.

Don't get tied up in translations, look at the lessons taught. Our Church cannot be wrong. The NAB is approved.

Who here is wiser than the Church?

It is very dangerous to use the bible alone without guidence from our Church, the group established by Christ.

Nothing in the NAB contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches.

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
In viewing the link quoted above, I found a gross error in the beginning of the page.


[quote]This is the position which all Catholics are bound by the Magesterium to expound and defend. [b]In its original manuscripts the Bible is free from error in absolutely every respect.[/b] It contains no contradictions, no historical inaccuracies, and no scientific errors. [/quote]


"In its original manuscripts the Bible is free from error in absolutely every respect." is grossly wrong.

The Church teaches that the bible is free from error in its teaching, NOT every respect.

If that were so, it would mean that Christ was not God... for...
1. God cannot be wrong.
2. If Christ was God, He cannot be wrong.
3. Christ stated that the mustard seed was the smallest seed.
4. The mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed.

Was Chrsit wrong? - No.
Is the bible teaching error? - No.

It is the principle of the teaching that is free from error.


I'll read more when I have time.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[conservativecatholic]

I like the New American Bible; however, the Douay-Rheims Bible is much more beautifully written.

[P3chrmd]

Hi Conservative Catholic,

I agree that the NAB is NOT AS BAD as everyone seems to be making it out to be! The study notes are what is mostly liberal...not the translation itself!

But I prefer The Jerusalem Bible over any other!

[Hananiah]

[quote]I see nothing wrong with the NAB. The NAB came directly from the oldest versions of the original languages.[/quote]
That's all well and good but so far I have found three occasions whereupon the NAB deliberately mistranslates Scripture in order to create errors. The footnotes also charge Scripture with egregious errors and contradictions ad nauseum. Read the whole article, and follow along with your NAB Bible.

[quote]The Vatican approves it.

I accept it.

Don't get tied up in translations, look at the lessons taught. Our Church cannot be wrong. The NAB is approved.

Who here is wiser than the Church?[/quote]
No one. That is why you are bound to accept the decrees of the ordinary and universal Mageterium and the extraordinary Magesterium which I quote near the top of my essay. The NAB has bishops behind it, yes. It even has a modest nod from Pope Paul VI. However it blatantly contradicts the solemn and binding decrees of every Pope between Leo XIII and Pius XII. [i]Part[/i] of the ordinary Magesterium can be wrong. As we learn from the Arian heresy 80% of the world's bishops can be wrong. But the ordinary and universal and extraordinary Magesterium is infallible. Either the Bible is free from error in every respect, or the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ. If there is one error in the Bible Mary might as well have had 10 children with Joseph as far as the authority of the Catholic Church is concerned.

[quote]Nothing in the NAB contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches.[/quote]
It most certainly does. And I have proven it.

Edited July 8, 2004 by Hananiah

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 7 2004, 03:53 PM'] The Church teaches that the bible is free from error in its teaching, NOT every respect. [/quote]
Let's see who is right.

[quote]Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus: "[b]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[/b]... 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 [b]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. [i]This is the ancient and unchanging Faith of the Church.[/i][/b]"

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 [b]every one, free from every error.[/b]"

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

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

Pius XII, Humani Generis, Condemned proposition: "[I]mmunity 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, [b]they have God for their Author.[/b]"[/quote]
Can God make mistakes, Ironmonk? If God wrote the Bible, and the Bible has one error, it would mean that God has made a mistake.

[quote]If that were so, it would mean that Christ was not God... for...
1.  God cannot be wrong.
2.  If Christ was God, He cannot be wrong.
3.  Christ stated that the mustard seed was the smallest seed.
4.  The mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed.[/quote]
You're being as pedantic as an atheist. Jesus is referencing the fact that the mustard seed was the smallest seed which his audience would have known about.

[cmotherofpirl]

Are you a literalist?