- Status
C
catharina
Guest
That being your position, you are what kind of “Catholic?”
P
pnewton
Guest
This is a unique point of view, at least for this place. I do not see how any useful exchange can take place in the area of moral theology until at least a common basis for authority is established. It is hard to arrive at a consensus on truth when we can not even agree with the basics. I would recommend that the apologetics forum would be a more suitable area to hash out unbelief in scripture and in the Church.
B
bilop
Guest
Les, I’m not.
I don’t believe that burning heretics is against the will of the Spirit.
I think it’s a bad idea, now, and at most points in time. But , there are conceivable circumstances where it would be necessary.
See how easy that is. Reading comprhension is great!
God bless
T
TMC
Guest
OK, thanks for putting that out there. Anyone who has read my posts here knows that I have some issues of my own with Church teachings. I am wondering, do you still consider yourself Catholic? Do you believe in Apostolic Succession, even if you don’t buy that the Sucesssion confers infalliblity? I have found that some Catholics remain Catholic because they believe that this is the Church Christ founded, even if they don’t believe a whole lot else.
Would you accept that Scripture is the best that those people writing it could do in their attempt to reflect what God was trying to communicate? Some people stumble on divinely inspired because so much of American culture is influenced by Protestant and fundamental viewpoints that divinely inspired gets bent all out of whack. Or do you think that some of it has nothing to do with God at all?
N
Newbie2
Guest
What about converts?
Hmmmm. Well, that says a lot, about where you’re coming from, doesn’t it? :whacky:
Infallible teachings aren’t infallible?
Good idea to look up what infallible, in terms of the Church, means. Then maybe you can explain what you mean better, because what you wrote makes no sense to me.Scripture isn’t divinely inspired?
Let’s have a go at that one…
Nowhere, and I issue a challenge to find credible evidence to the contrary, does the RC Church or any other credible Protestant church believe that errors and apparent contradictions present in Scripture negate its divine inspiration.
You apparently either don’t realize or don’t know what Divine Inspiration means, in terms of Scripture. Very human authors, redactors and translators have made historical, syntax, grammatical and other such errors in bringing us our present-day Scripture. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is divinely inspired.
In terms of contradictions, yes, they are present. This too has nothing to do with divine inspiration. If the Almightly wanted to do so, he could have inspired Scripture to be comic book-easy to read and understand. As it turns out, it appears that he requires a bit of work on our part to study and attempt to understand what he intends to reveal to us.
L
Little_Les
Guest
A somewhat literate and nongullible one. I admit errors when they are proven. I’m not a “true believer” who believes everything I’m told by the institutional Church.
For example
Error, is incompatible with inspiration.
“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 co-exist with inspiration, that 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. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Providentissimus deus)
However,
Mark 2:25-26:
“ He said to them, “Have you never read what David did 15 when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry?
How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?” (NAB)
1 Sam 21:2-4
“David went to Ahimelech, the priest of Nob, who came trembling to meet him and asked, “Why are you alone? Is there no one with you?”
David answered the priest: “The king gave me a commission and told me to let no one know anything about the business on which he sent me or the commission he gave me. For that reason I have arranged a meeting place with my men. Now what have you on hand? Give me five loaves, or whatever you can find.” (NAB)
Wrong priest. This was Abiathar’s father. According to the Church then, this scripture isn’t “inspired.”
L
Little_Les
Guest
This is true. One can’t argue with those whose belief system requires that they reject the facts no matter how fully proven.
We call these people “True Believers”, a description taken from Eric Hoffer’s book of the same name, if I recall correctly.
L
Little_Les
Guest
No You are in error then. Exsurge dominus does not admit of exceptions to the will of God.
L
Little_Les
Guest
Fr. Andrew Greely, a sociologist by profession as well as a Jesuit, wrote an interesting book in the 1990’s titles "The Catholic Myth: the Beliefs of American Catholics.
He makes the key point based on his surveys that most Catholics remain Catholic because they like it, ie, their parents were Catholic, their friends are Catholic, etc.
It is not because they have rationally examined the belief system which few Catholics ever do, as Greely says.
“Would you accept that Scripture is the best that those people writing it could do in their attempt to reflect what God was trying to communicate?”
No. This is specifically contrary to Catholic doctrine.
"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 co-exist with inspiration, that 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. "(Providentissimus)
Scripture is suppose to be dictated by the Holy Spirit, not created by human authors.
Or the Catechism of the Catholic Church
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”
L
Little_Les
Guest
What about converts?
Scripture isn’t divinely inspired?
Let’s have a go at that one…
Nowhere, and I issue a challenge to find credible evidence to the contrary, does the RC Church or any other credible Protestant church believe that errors and apparent contradictions present in Scripture negate its divine inspiration.
QUOTE]
Begin with Providentissimus deus:
““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 co-exist with inspiration, that 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.”
If it contains error, it cannot be inspired.
How about Vatican II’s Dei Verbum?
"Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED as teaching solidly, faithfully and WITHOUT ERROR that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.
Therefore if it contains error, it isn’t inspired.
See also:Spiritus Paracletus, Dinino Afflante Spiritu,Humani Generis , etc.
I’ve already given examples of infallible teachings now recognized as in error.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
During the Inquisition, heretics were rarely burned, given the sheer number of heretics that were around. I doubt if it would even be 1% of the total number of heretics that the Church would have been able to burn that in fact were burned. In fact, historical records show that it was a frequent occurence that persons on trial for civil crimes would intentionally utter heresy in court so as that they would be turned over to the Inquisition, because the Church courts were far more merciful to heretics than were state courts to criminals. The vast, vast majority of those convicted of heresy were let off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist or even warning.
The point relative to the current argument is that the Church never really did go around burning or otherwise killing all heretics, or even 1% of them, so it is somply impossible to assert that She taught that it was the positive command of God that heretics be burned. That position has absolutely no merit whatsoever given the evidence.
On the other hand, their is all but overwhelming evidence that Exsurge Domine meant that it was heretical to condemn as objectively evil the practice of burning heretics. First, the Church did burn heretics sometimes even if She did not the vast majority of the time, and so the practice of the Church was that it was not objectively evil to burn heretics, but it was not always required either. Second, the Church on other occassions used terminology such as “against the Will of the Spirit” to refer simply to those things which were objectively evil and therefore prohibited by Divine Law.
Third is something that hasn’t really been addressed in detail. When a Pope condemns errors such as those condemned in Exsurge Domine, the items which are condemned are in the original words of the individual who has put them forth. What this means is that at some point, some heretic (perhaps Martin Luther), because he or she was in danger of being burned, or some other person who simply did not want heretics to be burned, said “it is against the Will of the Spirit that heretics be burned.”
Really take a moment to think about this. The Church condemns propositions only when they are put forth by someone, and it is done in the own words of the person putting it forth. Thus, when Leo X condemned this proposition, he did so because somebody said “it is against the Will of the Spirit that heretics be burned.” This means that the person was claiming that heretics can’t ever be burned, because it violates God’s Will. The Pope condemned this because it doesn’t necesarrily violate God’s Will. The proposition that God always Wills heretics to be burned never even came into play. It was never under discussion. The idea was never at issue at all. What Leo X wrote couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with saying that God desires all heretics to be burned, because the concept wasn’t on the table. All that was on the table was the idea that God never wants heretics burned, which the Pope rejected.
Little Les, I will tell you that it is not against my will that we continue to discuss this further.
That means that I am not opposed to it. But it doesn’t mean I want to discuss this further. I’d be just as happy - in fact moreso - if you came to understand what we are trying to say and accepted it.
Now to me, what I just said makes absolutely perfect sense. Why can’t you see the very same meaning in the very same words of the papal bull?
Don’t just go ahead and click the reply button - think about it first. Read the post over again. Take 2 minutes to think about this. Then, if you want, go ahead and reply.
God bless!
L
Little_Les
Guest
In the case of a contradiction, one or the other (or sometimes both) of the propositions is in error. Error is incompatible with “inspiration” attested to by many Catholic teachingns, some of which have been quoted or cited above.What about converts?
In terms of contradictions, yes, they are present. This too has nothing to do with divine inspiration. If the Almightly wanted to do so, he could have inspired Scripture to be comic book-easy to read and understand. As it turns out, it appears that he requires a bit of work on our part to study and attempt to understand what he intends to reveal to us.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Little Les, I really want to have a good, fair discussion about this, but you keep giving the indication in your posts that you haven’t actually read the things others are saying to you.
For example, I pointed out that the case you cited was not genocide because the entire race of Midianites was not at ny point under attack. The article which I cited goes in to this in great detail as well. However, you went on to refer to “genocide” in your reply.
Now if you want to ask if “God’s WIll” was a rationalization for “murder,” or “war,” or something like that, that would be a perfectly fair question. But to return to genocide - a very emotionally charged word - after having been shown that the word simply doesn’t apply forces one to wonder whether or not you aren’t just trying to be inflammatory rathe than actual trying to discuss the issues.
I am overwhelmingly sorry to even bring this up if you really are sincere here. Please forgive me if I have done you any wrong.
Moving forward, I will simply comment that you are misunderstanding what happened with the virgins being taken by the soldiers. The article explains this as well. I will summarize it very, very briefly:
This entire attack was the result of the Midianite women committing grave evil against the Israelites by means of seducing them to sexual intercourse. The women that were guilty of this were punished with death - capital punishment. The virgins, however, were innocent of this crime, for by virtue of their being virgins they could not possibly have had sex with the Israelites, so they were not killed.
Rather, they were taken into the homes of the Israelites and cared for, essentially as daughters. That’s not some terrible crime, that’s justice and charity!
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The quotation from Veritatis splendor, which cites Guadium et spes, says that slavery is intrinsically immoral, but what does that mean?
As you pointed out, there are two different kinds of slavery, chattle slavery, and the variety of slavery which has historically been more prevelant.
Now the Church has always condemned chattle slavery, yet has always recognized the moral permissibility of other sorts depending on circumstances.
The two documents mentioned above were both written in the latter part of the 20th century, by which time the word “slavery” had come to refer exclusively to chattle slavery. We don’t call those other things, like indentured servitude, slavery any longer. One has to read these documents according to the era in which they were written, as one must read anything according to the era in which it was written.
I cannot read a newspaper article from 2006 which says that “gay rights” were under discussion and interpret it to refer to a disccusion about the right to be jovial, because the word “gay” almost never is used to refer to joviality any longer.
It’s the same thing with the Church documents. When I read Guadium et spes, I have to read it in the context of having been composed in the late 1960s, when the usage of the term "slavery’ to denote indentured servitude or other such practices was completely archaic. It would be a terrible anachronism to do so.
As you pointed out, there are two different kinds of slavery, chattle slavery, and the variety of slavery which has historically been more prevelant.
Now the Church has always condemned chattle slavery, yet has always recognized the moral permissibility of other sorts depending on circumstances.
The two documents mentioned above were both written in the latter part of the 20th century, by which time the word “slavery” had come to refer exclusively to chattle slavery. We don’t call those other things, like indentured servitude, slavery any longer. One has to read these documents according to the era in which they were written, as one must read anything according to the era in which it was written.
I cannot read a newspaper article from 2006 which says that “gay rights” were under discussion and interpret it to refer to a disccusion about the right to be jovial, because the word “gay” almost never is used to refer to joviality any longer.
It’s the same thing with the Church documents. When I read Guadium et spes, I have to read it in the context of having been composed in the late 1960s, when the usage of the term "slavery’ to denote indentured servitude or other such practices was completely archaic. It would be a terrible anachronism to do so.
B
bilop
Guest
WHAT!? You think that evrything that happens is the positive will of God!?
You really need to brush up on free will and the difference between the active and permissive will of God.
Exsurges Dominus states that if you believe that the execution of heretics is ALWAYS against the will of God then you are excommunicated.
Nothing more, nothing less.
God Bless
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
1 Samuel doesn’t say that David went to the high priest, just to the priest. There is no contradiction in saying that David went to see the priest Ahimelech during the time that Abiathar was the high priest, especially given that time periods in the Jewish calendar were identified based on who was high priest.
P
pnewton
Guest
Are you familiar with the fallacy of begging the question? No one is rejecting facts or truth, just because they do not agree with you. It is the conclusions that are rejected. I will give two examples. The first is this thread. It is based on a papal bull which is no longer in effect, but has, in fact, been rendered obsolete by subsequent canon law.
You claim there are contradictions in the Bible. For 2000 years unbelievers have sought to find these contradictions with no demonstrable results. I am familiar with the biggies and the number one fallacy is failure to account for the genre, context or audience. Most of the contradictions deal with historical problems because history written as interpretative is viewed through the lens of a 20th century rationalist.
T
TMC
Guest
I think you misapprehend the Church’s teachings on inspiration, and I find it curious that you say you disagree with the Church on this point, but point to the Church’s teachings to “prove” me wrong. I am happy to discuss further with you what your problems are with the Church’s teachings and how to fit within the Church when you have the doubts you have expressed, but I am beginning to wonder if that is your goal. So I will leave you be for a bit and invest my time elsewhere. Hope you find your path.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Newbie2;2959268:
Without error in terms of “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”. Yes. What’s your point?What about converts?
Scripture isn’t divinely inspired?
Let’s have a go at that one…
Nowhere, and I issue a challenge to find credible evidence to the contrary, does the RC Church or any other credible Protestant church believe that errors and apparent contradictions present in Scripture negate its divine inspiration.
QUOTE]
Begin with Providentissimus deus:
““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 co-exist with inspiration, that 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.”
If it contains error, it cannot be inspired.
How about Vatican II’s Dei Verbum?
"Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED as teaching solidly, faithfully and WITHOUT ERROR that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.
Therefore if it contains error, it isn’t inspired.
See also:Spiritus Paracletus, Dinino Afflante Spiritu,Humani Generis , etc.
I’ve already given examples of infallible teachings now recognized as in error.
Are you referring to historical errors? Give us an example of where scripture is “in error” in regard to truths relevant for the sake of salvation.
You’re changing the definitions to fit your assertions.
- Status