I've heard a lot of bad things said about the NAB, especially its footnotes, but I know this is the version used in Mass (can there be any higher endorsement of the text than reading it in the Liturgy of the Word?), it carries an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, and was approved for publication by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. All of this seems to suggest that the NABRE should be the safest most orthodox English language Bible in the world for Catholics...but then there are some very troubling footnotes. Consider this article by Jimmy Akin and the footnote he cites from Matt. 16:21-23 (emphasis mine):
This first prediction of the passion follows Mk 8:31–33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (Mt 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Mt 17:22–23; 20:17–19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Mt 26:29).
I'm sorry, what?
Also, what's up with the contradiction between the CCC and footnote for 1 Cor. 3:!5
...although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment (cf. 1 Cor 3:17), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere (cf. 1 Cor 5:5; 11:32 [discipline]). The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.
Vs. CCC 1031:
The tradition of the Church by reference to certain texts of Scripture speaks of a cleansing fire (cf 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7)
And these are by no means the only problematic footnotes in the NAB. So my question for you is this:
1. Is the NAB a danger to faith, or is it a little on the liberal side but still firmly within the scope of Catholic orthodoxy and faithfulness to the Magistrum?
2. If you answered "yes, it's dangerous", why does the USCCB permit this version to be even on the approved list, much less the exclusive version used as Mass.Furthermore do you consider its Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat to be erroneous?
3. If you feel it is safe, even if you personally disagree with it sometimes, please explain.