The devil is in the footnotes...

[QuantaCura]

The footnotes in a Catholic Bible should aid Catholics in understanding how as Catholics we understand it. That's what other Catholic Bibles' footnotes do.

Again, using the example I provided above, the footnote is telling Catholics the Church has interpreted that passage differently than its intended meaning--despite the fact that the same Spirit who inspired the Scriptures confirms the Church in her understanding of them. A Catholic Bible should pit the Spirit against Himself.

I also understand we don't have to accept what the footnotes say, but that is besides the point. People do read them when trying to understand a passage. The footnotes therefore should confirm the Catholic not undermine, otherwise they shouldn't be added in the first place.

 

[BBCath]

The footnotes in a Catholic Bible should aid Catholics in understanding how as Catholics we understand it. That's what other Catholic Bibles' footnotes do.

Again, using the example I provided above, the footnote is telling Catholics the Church has interpreted that passage differently than its intended meaning--despite the fact that the same Spirit who inspired the Scriptures confirms the Church in her understanding of them. A Catholic Bible should pit the Spirit against Himself.

I also understand we don't have to accept what the footnotes say, but that is besides the point. People do read them when trying to understand a passage. The footnotes therefore should confirm the Catholic not undermine, otherwise they shouldn't be added in the first place.

I agree with this. If it's supposed to be a "Catholic bible" it should contain the proper Catholic interpretation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The notes do not contradict Catholic teaching. And I do not think that the Church has issued a "proper interpretation" of every passage in the bible.

 

[MoreCoffee]

NAB: He called a child over, placed it in their midst, and said, Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:2-3

NAB footnote for Matthew 18:3: Become like children: the child is held up as a model for the disciples not because of any supposed innocence of children but because of their complete dependence on, and trust in, their parents. So must the disciples be, in respect to God.

Haydock's notes for Matthew 18:3: You shall not enter, &c. i.e. you shall have no place in my kingdom of glory, in heaven, where none shall find admittance but they that are truly humble. (Witham) --- Our Lord in this and the next chapter teaches us, 1st, To sit down in the lowest place; 2nd, to bear patiently with our neighbor; 3rd, not to scandalize a weak brother; 4th, mildly to correct him when faulty; and 5thly, to forgive him when repentant.

Albert Barnes (A protestant commentator) on Matthew 18:3: And become as little children - Children are, to a great extent, destitute of ambition, pride, and haughtiness They are characteristically humble and teachable. By requiring his disciples to be like them, he did not intend to express any opinion about the native moral character of children, but simply that in these respects they must become like them. They must lay aside their ambitious views and their pride, and be willing to occupy their proper station - a very lowly one. Mark says Mar_9:35 that Jesus, before he placed the little child in the midst of them, told them that "if any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all and servant of all." That is, he shall be the most distinguished Christian who is the most humble, and who is willing to be esteemed least and last of all. To esteem ourselves as God esteems us is humility, and it cannot be degrading to think of ourselves as we are; but pride, or an attempt to be thought of more importance than we are, is foolish, wicked, and degrading.

There really is a fair variety of opinion about the meaning of the phrase " become as little children" so I don't see anything objectionable in the NAB note.

 

[BBCath]

Footnotes are one author's interpretation and analysis of the text. They are not the "end all to be all" of an interpretation and anybody who considers them as such is a lunatic. If you want full analysis, get a commentary of the Book from Scripture.

Then I guess I'm a lunatic.

Think of this coming from my view - as a person in RCIA.

Isn't the NAB a CATHOLIC Bible? It's not just a translation that Catholics just happen to use. To me, that means the notes of the bible are perfectly in line with Catholic teaching - at least according to some of the views on this board.

The footnotes of a bible should not have any author slant - they should be truth and only truth. That's why I agree with QuantaCura's post. The one on purgatory was especially unsettling considering that purgatory is a controversial doctrine anyway - coming from a person in RCIA.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Then I guess I'm a lunatic.

Think of this coming from my view - as a person in RCIA.

Isn't the NAB a CATHOLIC Bible? It's not just a translation that Catholics just happen to use. To me, that means the notes of the bible are perfectly in line with Catholic teaching - at least according to some of the views on this board.

The footnotes of a bible should not have any author slant - they should be truth and only truth. That's why I agree with QuantaCura's post. The one on purgatory was especially unsettling considering that purgatory is a controversial doctrine anyway - coming from a person in RCIA.

The footnotes are approved by the USCCB and I think that they are scholarly consensus notes produced by the translation committees. I don't see anything objectionable in them. Some Catholics want the Douay Rheims bible and notes from former times when people took a far more literalistic view of scripture interpretation. I guess they have something close to what they want in the Ignatius Study New Testament. No skin off my nose, people are free to like or dislike as they please, but the NAB is not some wicked conspiracy against the Catholic faith, it is a USCCB controlled translation intended to meet the needs of USA Catholics.

 

[FullyMT]

Then I guess I'm a lunatic.

Think of this coming from my view - as a person in RCIA.

Isn't the NAB a CATHOLIC Bible? It's not just a translation that Catholics just happen to use. To me, that means the notes of the bible are perfectly in line with Catholic teaching - at least according to some of the views on this board.

The footnotes of a bible should not have any author slant - they should be truth and only truth. That's why I agree with QuantaCura's post. The one on purgatory was especially unsettling considering that purgatory is a controversial doctrine anyway - coming from a person in RCIA.

The reality is that a Bible's footnotes cannot contain every interpretation. It could not be contained. If you want fully-inclusive interpretations, you would have to look at an exegetical book fore each book. An imprimatur does not mean it says everything, just that there is nothing objectionable.
The footnote QC is posting does not say that Purgatory does not exist, just that Paul probably was not intending to make a reference to purgatory. The footnote does NOT say it cannot be interpreted to mean that.

 

[Chany]

The reality is that a Bible's footnotes cannot contain every interpretation. It could not be contained. If you want fully-inclusive interpretations, you would have to look at an exegetical book fore each book. An imprimatur does not mean it says everything, just that there is nothing objectionable.
The footnote QC is posting does not say that Purgatory does not exist, just that Paul probably was not intending to make a reference to purgatory. The footnote does NOT say it cannot be interpreted to mean that.

However, the problem is if Paul did not intend it, it cannot be used to defend purgatory.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If anyone wants the BEST footnotes with spiritual quotes and direction straight from the Fathers of the Church themselves, read the Orthodox Study Bible....rocks

 

[FullyMT]

However, the problem is if Paul did not intend it, it cannot be used to defend purgatory.

I would disagree. The Evangelists interpreted Jesus as fulfillment of prophecies which many considered already fulfilled or as non-prophetic. There are biblical warrants for purgatory outside of the passage from Corinthians, which to me reads more as something which could explain the process rather than the existence (the strongest Biblical warrant is, I think, the use of Maccabees).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Footnotes are one author's interpretation and analysis of the text. They are not the "end all to be all" of an interpretation and anybody who considers them as such is a lunatic. If you want full analysis, get a commentary of the Book from Scripture.
His fourth issue misses the point entirely. A young child is very dependent on their parents. We are called to have child-like faith, that is, complete dependence on God. Look at Jesus' relationship with the Father, you will see complete reliance.

Very true. The footnotes are not infallible, and they can be read or not. It's very different then the footnotes of the Catechism. The Church does not give a nihil obstat or imprimatur for the footnotes. Even footnotes like those in the Ignatius Editions is not vouched for.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then I guess I'm a lunatic.

Think of this coming from my view - as a person in RCIA.

Isn't the NAB a CATHOLIC Bible? It's not just a translation that Catholics just happen to use. To me, that means the notes of the bible are perfectly in line with Catholic teaching - at least according to some of the views on this board.

The footnotes of a bible should not have any author slant - they should be truth and only truth. That's why I agree with QuantaCura's post. The one on purgatory was especially unsettling considering that purgatory is a controversial doctrine anyway - coming from a person in RCIA.

The Bible translation is given the nihil obstat and imprimatur, but that says nothing of the notes.
But remember this...One interpretation of a scripture passage does not necessarily rule out another interpretation. This is why Protestants who think that Jesus called himself Rock in Matt 16:18 are not wrong. But it is also true that Jesus called Simon Rock and changed his name and his life.
The Church uses scripture to back up doctrine.
Don't let fallible humans deter your faith, my friend.

 

[BBCath]

The Bible translation is given the nihil obstat and imprimatur, but that says nothing of the notes.
But remember this...One interpretation of a scripture passage does not necessarily rule out another interpretation. This is why Protestants who think that Jesus called himself Rock in Matt 16:18 are not wrong. But it is also true that Jesus called Simon Rock and changed his name and his life.
The Church uses scripture to back up doctrine.
Don't let fallible humans deter your faith, my friend.

So you're saying don't use bible notes as commentary.

I understand now.

It's just confusing to somone new in the faith.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So you're saying don't use bible notes as commentary.

I understand now.

It's just confusing to someone new in the faith.

It might be helpful for you to discuss the NAB footnotes with your RICA coordinator or with your catechist. It is exactly the sort of question that an RCIA candidate or catechumen ought to ask during RCIA because it airs an issue you are facing.

By the way, the New American Bible Revised Edition including its footnotes is copyright 2010 by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine which is a committee of the USA Conference of Catholic Bishops. The members of the Translation committees are included in the back pages of the edition I have here on my desk - it is ISBN 978-0-529-06811-8 published by Catholic World Press.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Anybody know when the St. Ignatius Study Bible Old Testament will be coming out, and whether they'll be publishing the Old and New Testaments together at any point?

 

[Memento Mori]

So you're saying don't use bible notes as commentary.

I understand now.

It's just confusing to somone new in the faith.

It is confusing. Unfortunately right now there is a crisis of faith in the Church, and you can't trust everything that claims to be Catholic to teach you the true faith. Even in your RCIA class they might tell you wrong things. You know, one of my Catholic theology professors, a very orthodox and intelligent guy, was under the impression that purgatory is a theological opinion (like limbo) that could be accepted or rejected until I showed him that it is an infallibly defined doctrine of the Church (he was glad to be corrected, thankfully - he really is a cool prof). Even a brilliant man like him can have wrong ideas about the faith.

Frustrating as it may be to see this confusion, this is the time God has chosen for you and me to be part of His Church. It's a high calling to be faithful Catholics in a faithless age, but He is always with us. He hasn't left us in the dark.

As you study this beautiful faith of ours, I would suggest the following as a "hierarchy of guides":

1) Magisterium: the Catechism, ecumenical council documents, papal encyclicals, etc.
2) Declared saints and their teachings
3) Trustworthy sources of teaching: Audio Sancto Sermons, TAN Books, EWTN, and more (these sources are not 100% perfect, but they sincerely try to be very faithful to 1 and 2 and 99.9999% of the time they are)

The perfect, reliable guide, and the standard by which we can judge everything else we're taught, is the Catechism, papal teaching, and documents of the Church, but these can be a little much to start with. My next recommendation are the catechisms and doctrinal books produced by saints, such as The Little Catechism of the Holy Cure of Ars and Catechism of St. Pius X.

There are so many other good resources out there too. PM me, BBCath, if you'd like more. I'm afraid I might have gone off on too much of a tangent as it is.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So you're saying don't use bible notes as commentary.

I understand now.

It's just confusing to somone new in the faith.

What I am saying is that you can use them to assist you, but they are not inspired or infallible.

What I would do is to develop a "Catholic" nose. Learn your faith, based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and if something contradicts or doesn't smell right, question it with an authority-a spiritual director or your pastor.

Never be afraid to ask questions.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It might be helpful for you to discuss the NAB footnotes with your RICA coordinator or with your catechist. It is exactly the sort of question that an RCIA candidate or catechumen ought to ask during RCIA because it airs an issue you are facing.

By the way, the New American Bible Revised Edition including its footnotes is copyright 2010 by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine which is a committee of the USA Conference of Catholic Bishops. The members of the Translation committees are included in the back pages of the edition I have here on my desk - it is ISBN 978-0-529-06811-8 published by Catholic World Press.

Copyright only means that someone has dominion over the words in the work.

Translation was of the Bible text. No translation of footnotes.

All I'm saying is that footnotes are not inspired or infallible. You are free to take them or leave them. In fact, some of Jerome's footnotes are looked upon with raised eyebrows...