Any one see this awful newsweek article?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ppcpilot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t quite understand why the 2 priests in the article would talk the way that they do…
Click to expand...
Because they’re Catholics.

Find me a Catholic priest who actually believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and then I’d be shocked!

(Okay, I’m exagerrating, but not by much.)
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Because they’re Catholics.

Find me a Catholic priest who actually believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and then I’d be shocked!

(Okay, I’m exagerrating, but not by much.)
Click to expand...
The liberal media seeks out people like this – I recall a newsprogram showing a “Mass” performed in dance by “female priests.” Not one word to say that these women were NOT performing a Mass, nor any mention of the theological position on the ordination of women. The media gave the impression that if enough “Catholics” want the Church to change, it will change.

I can find you plenty of perfectly orthodox priests (albeit in some dioceses, there might be a lot of heretical priests.)
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Find me a Catholic priest who actually believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and then I’d be shocked!
Click to expand...
What, you want Catholic priests to be fundamentalists? Biblical inerrancy is one of those rare false doctrines that is not just false on the basis of Church teaching, but false on objective, demonstrable grounds. That doesn’t change the fact that Scripture is the infallible, true, and holy Word of God.
 
Did I miss something? Please elaborate. How can inerrancy be a false doctrine? How can something that is infallible, true and the holy word of God be errant. This is a huge can of worms. If something contains errors, it can not be infallible. The word of God or the scriptures are God speaking to us, therefore it can not ever have errors. THe canon was selected based on inspiration, how could it ever have errors.
From the Chatechism of the Catholic Church
The inspired books teach the truth. "**Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72 **
 
What, you want Catholic priests to be fundamentalists? Biblical inerrancy is one of those rare false doctrines that is not just false on the basis of Church teaching, but false on objective, demonstrable grounds. That doesn’t change the fact that Scripture is the infallible, true, and holy Word of God.
Click to expand...
Documentation, please?

It is Catholic dogma that the Scriptures are absolutely without error, i.e. inerrant. This is not the same as affirming a radical Fundamentalism.

Get your facts straight.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Documentation, please?

It is Catholic dogma that the Scriptures are absolutely without error, i.e. inerrant. This is not the same as affirming a radical Fundamentalism.

Get your facts straight.
Click to expand...
Well, I believe I mispoke as to *terms *(I misused the terms “inerrant” and “infallible” - Catholic theological terms being so precise, whenever I screw up and use the wrong one, my foot goes straight into my mouth), so let me rephrase my point and point to the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, para. 11-12 and Providentissimus Deus, para. 18 for backup - that the Bible is inerrant, inspired by God, teaching without error what God wanted us to know for salvation. That does not mean we must take it literally - 7-day creation, historical Augustinian census, symbolic geneologies - as long as the inerrant truth being taught is acknowledged. Reading the notes in the Gospels in the NAB could destroy someone’s faith if they held to the need for literal historical accuracy - that is the danger I see.

I read your earlier post advocating “inerrancy” and substituted “literalism” in my head. Apologies for the confusion.
 
Apology accepted.

However, you’re still wrong.

Yes, there is metaphor, poetry, and allegory in Scripture.

However, the genealogies and the census are not among these. They are presented as real events, and s oare to be taken as such.

Many (most?) of the NAB footnotes are heretical, from a Catholic standpoint. The fact that it has an Imprimimatur does not negate this.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
However, the genealogies and the census are not among these. They are presented as real events, and so are to be taken as such.
Click to expand...
I simply can’t accept that as a matter of fact. Luke & Matthew disagree on the number of ancestors and on the names. I also disagree that the geneologies were intended to be taken as real events - Matthew’s symbolism (dividing into 3 even groups of 14) is incredibly plain - even though I’m not sure exactly what the symbol was communicating, not being a 1st century Jew. The fleeing of the Holy Family into Egypt in Matthew likewise appears to be a symbol - such an obvious Exodus parallel that it still makes sense 2000 years later. Luke is more likely to have attempted to give a purely factual account, so I have no problem saying that if Luke was, indeed, trying to give a factual account (which it appears he was), he did not err in doing so. But without Rome speaking on the subject of Luke’s intentions, I really can’t say.

My point with all of this is essentially that while the priests in the article may be right or wrong, nothing they say contradicts anything from Rome - they do not seem to be questioning doctrine (or inerrancy), but whether the passages in question should be interpreted as symbolic or literal.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Many (most?) of the NAB footnotes are heretical, from a Catholic standpoint. The fact that it has an Imprimimatur does not negate this.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting, and something I would like to look into more deeply. Could you cite an example or two of what you mean?
Thanks in advance,
Paul
 
I simply can’t accept that as a matter of fact. Luke & Matthew disagree on the number of ancestors and on the names.
Click to expand...
And this apparent discrepancy has been discussed, and reasons for this adduced, thousands of years ago. Do some research in this. Luke and Matthew do not contradict each other.
The fleeing of the Holy Family into Egypt in Matthew likewise appears to be a symbol - such an obvious Exodus parallel that it still makes sense 2000 years later.
Click to expand...
Why should we not also assume that this is an historical occurrence, as Christians have always believed for 2000 years?
My point with all of this is essentially that while the priests in the article may be right or wrong, nothing they say contradicts anything from Rome - they do not seem to be questioning doctrine (or inerrancy), but whether the passages in question should be interpreted as symbolic or literal.
Click to expand...
But the Church does teach that all the Gospels relate true history, and so we need to interpret these events as such unless we have explicit reason to hold otherwise.

Otherwise, Scripture could say just about anything erroneous and it could be defended as being “metaphorical” or “symbolic.” It makes Biblical inerrancy a very circular doctrine.
 
there is another post floating around hear asking about the Jesus Seminar and John Dominic Crossan. Follow the links at the bottom the newsweek article in the original post, and you will learn all you need to know about this modern heresy.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
And this apparent discrepancy has been discussed, and reasons for this adduced, thousands of years ago. Do some research in this. Luke and Matthew do not contradict each other.
Click to expand...
The only explanation I’ve ever seen (a very cursory Google search seems to back this up) is that one of the geneologies was for Joseph, the other for Mary. Luke 3:23 and Matthew 1:16 seem to clearly negate this explanation. If you know of another, I’ll gladly listen.
Why should we not also assume that this is an historical occurrence, as Christians have always believed for 2000 years?
Click to expand...
We should assume it, unless history demonstrates otherwise - there is nothing wrong with looking into history to see if this actually occured, and there is nothing wrong with believing that the evidence indicates that it is symbolic.
But the Church does teach that all the Gospels relate true history, and so we need to interpret these events as such unless we have explicit reason to hold otherwise.
Click to expand...
I agree that the Scripture accurately conveys what Jesus did and taught, and I agree that the Church teaches that this is so. I do not see how it logically follows that every detail of every gospel is presumptively historical fact when the Church further acknowleges that the Gospel writers (DC 19) were “reducing some [things] to a synthesis [or] explaining some things in view of the situation of their Churches.” The second part, especially, is relevant considering Matthew’s goals - it seems far more logical to presume certain elements in Matthew are symbolic, communicating in familiar elements to the Jewish Christians that Jesus was and is the Messiah without necessarily intending factual accuracy.
Otherwise, Scripture could say just about anything erroneous and it could be defended as being “metaphorical” or “symbolic.” It makes Biblical inerrancy a very circular doctrine.
Click to expand...
Not circular, but non-falsifiable. So what? This is part of what allows doctrine to grow and develop. We look at a statement like “There is no salvation apart from submission to the Roman Pontiff” and, while maintaining its absolute truthfulness, have developed in our understanding of “submission” to acknowledge the theological possibility that those outside of the RCC may, indeed, be granted the grace of salvation. We aren’t looking for “loopholes” in doctrine - we seek to understand out doctrines more fully. Doctrinal ambiguities such as this are a good thing - althoug they can be abused, they also allow the Church to be led by the Holy Spirit.
 
40.png
asquared:
there is another post floating around hear asking about the Jesus Seminar and John Dominic Crossan. Follow the links at the bottom the newsweek article in the original post, and you will learn all you need to know about this modern heresy.
Click to expand...
Yes, I made a post to that thread yesterday. Same old same old…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top