Deliver us from Bad Bible notes

Before we get started, please read my previous article, here; The New Jerusalem, and, hey, remember, I wrote a book; Elisabeth and the other man (paperback), Elisabeth and the other man (ebook)

I was reading my Jerusalem Bible (something I rarely do) for this; The book that Christians need to know to deal with Islam and I found a note that I find to be quite problematic in Matthew 28:19. I don't use the Jerusalem Bible very often for reading, so, I am going to have to find some of the copyright information, later.
But, the text itself says “Go therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.
Okay, translation is fine.
What's a problem is the notes.
“This formula is perhaps a reflection of the liturgical usage of the writer's own time”.
The weird thing is, is that I went to Acts in my Jerusalem Bible (which Acts 2:38), which I maintain is not a baptismal formula, and there's no note in this Bible explaining it. It seems to me that the footnote was written by some one who already came to the conclusion that Jesus's name baptism was somehow the original baptismal code. Of course, there's evidence for the Trinitarian formula was in use during the patristic period. (Necessity of Baptism).
Anyway, to give you what the Jerusalem Bible says in Acts 2:38, let's go ahead and do 38-39.
“What must we do brothers?” “You must repent”, Peter answered, “and every one of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise that will be made is for you and for your children and all those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God will call to himself”.
Again, the translation is more wordy than it needs to be, but, fine. But, there's no hyper critical footnote on it.
So, let's go to the New American Bible Revised Edition. (NABRE). This one is more problematic because the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) own the copyright on it.
Although, I have noticed that the footnotes on the specific edition of the NABRE I have isn't has bad, it still has a problematic footnote on 1 Corinthians 3:15
“But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; but only as through fire”.
Okay, but, when a Catholic Bible says, in a footnote on “will be saved”.
“Although Paul can envision harsh punishment (1 Cor 3:17), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere [discipline]), the text of 1 Cor. 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this”.
Where does it not envisage this?
So, the traditional view of this verse is wrong because a footnote says so?
It's worth noting that the Church actually doesn't claim that Purgatory is a literal fire (I don't think of it that way, CCC 1031, also, please look in the notes of that, the CCC uses the very text in defense of Purgatory that the NABRE is telling me not to)!
Also, I actually think Matthew 5:21-26 is a better argument for Purgatory. But, again, I don't see anything in the form of a “this verse doesn't say what it says”, in the footnotes for that.
But, when something has an Imprimatur, it should actually teach, you know, Catholicism.
If an Anti-Catholic, like say, James White or Mike Gendron, sees a footnote in a Bible that's owned by the USCCB, that tells him that that verse doesn't support Purgatory, he's going to use it against Catholics.
So, with that said, Bibles used; NABRE © 2010. CCD. All rights reserved.
From The Jerusalem Bible © 1966 by Darton Longman & Todd Ltd and Doubleday and Company Ltd.