Bible being inspired and inerrant

[laylow]

Well, if you’re anything like me, you’ll come to the realization that if the truth exists, it does so objectively. I can disagree with it and be objectively wrong. Moreover, if it exists, it did so before my birth and will persist after my death.

The conclusion that I draw is “Who cares what I think? So what can I best defend objectively?”

In my view, that’s the ancient Churches; Catholic, EO and OO. As I hold Chalcedon to be a valid council, that leaves Catholic and EO. As such, I hold Eastern Orthodox Christians as brothers-in-Christ.

I ultimately went Catholic because the episcopate+executive leadership model is consistent with the entire history of “God’s People” and ultimately works better. You can use scripture to argue it either way, but I think the texts are better at supporting the papacy. Patriarchs effectively had Adam’s heir, the Jews had the High Priest, we have the Papacy.

If so, I’d wager that your consideration has been somewhat superficial. For every dogmatic pronouncement from pope, council, whatever, there is an ocean of literature on what was being debated, why, and what the Church ultimately decided (with the Spirit’s guidance, of course ) and why it was the optimal solution.

You will need to make some axiomatic decisions concerning religion that you can’t prove. Maybe support, but can’t indubitably prove. “Was Jesus God?” is such a decision.

Regardless how you choose, I wish you well. Just be sure to spend as much time actually trying to do good for yourself and others as you do studying - the theologian’s ultimate challenge.

I guess I see issue with humans telling me that something is for sure the truth. What if they are wrong? For example, what if the doctrine of Hell is wrong? God may become upset that people claim him as so evil to allow for people to be tortured for all eternity? I know I would be upset if accused of something to that degree, how do we know God wouldn’t be? Does that mean the Church shouldn’t teach anything? Of course not. But claiming to be infallible is a huge claim. Claiming that your teachings are inspired by the Holy Spirit is a major thing. Would attending that Church be proclaiming that to be truth to the individual? Riding the fence and claiming I can’t possibly know that seems much safer and more logical.

My life situation doesn’t allow me to do that much good for people.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I think that is the biggest problem most unbelievers have. If he can intervene, why doesn’t he more? Why does he allow disease, something he clearly could decide to get rid of.

Ah, the problem of evil! Another of Bart’s books, “God’s Problem.” Feel free to read my long review on Amazon. Bart spends most of his book knocking down straw men–men doing evil acts. But he doesn’t mention original sin until something like p. 67. It should be on page 1.

But you are still stuck with natural evils (disasters, sickness). There is no answer, although you could certainly argue that sickness entered the world through original sin. Some people (mistakenly, in my opinion) will talk about “God’s plan” or something. But we do not know the mind of God, and we certainly don’t know the details of “God’s plan”–whatever that is. So why is there pain and suffering because of natural evils? We don’t know, and we have no way of finding out. We can speculate, but that’s just speculation.

This was one of the major (if not the only) reasons Bart became an atheist. He couldn’t answer the question of why God permits evil. I guess Bart never read Isaiah 55:8: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” I’ve said this many times in this forum, so I’ll say it again. It amazes me how anyone can say “I don’t understand evil / the Trinity / infallibility / whatever” so I just can’t believe it. And then in the next breath they will say “I can’t understand quantum physics / string theory / genetics / whatever” and be perfectly content to believe that.

It seems to me to be the height of hubris to say to yourself “I should be able to understand the nature of God.” Really?

Bart (harkening back to his Evangelical days) insists on an “active” God, a God who intervenes constantly in the world. Aunt Martha prays for a new Cadillac, and God delivers one to her door. Billy Bob is interviewed after the tornado misses his trailer and says “It was the hand of God that saved us” – never mind that the tornado killed all of his next door neighbors. You see this all the time. It’s nonsense. Although yes, God could intervene in the world in a direct, active way, He simply doesn’t. (Which is not to say God has not intervened in an active way at all, ever.) Why not? Think about it for a minute–why would God intervene? Because he made a mistake somewhere along the line and wants to correct it? Nope. Because he all of a sudden had a better idea? Nope. Because Aunt Martha prayed for a new Cadillac? Nope–since God is outside of time and space, he would know from the beginning of time that Aunt Martha would pray for a Cadillac, and any response to that prayer would be programed in from the beginning of creation. God works indirectly, through natural laws (which he created, of course).

 

[laylow]

Ah, the problem of evil! Another of Bart’s books, “God’s Problem.” Feel free to read my long review on Amazon. Bart spends most of his book knocking down straw men–men doing evil acts. But he doesn’t mention original sin until something like p. 67. It should be on page 1.

But you are still stuck with natural evils (disasters, sickness). There is no answer, although you could certainly argue that sickness entered the world through original sin. Some people (mistakenly, in my opinion) will talk about “God’s plan” or something. But we do not know the mind of God, and we certainly don’t know the details of “God’s plan”–whatever that is. So why is there pain and suffering because of natural evils? We don’t know, and we have no way of finding out. We can speculate, but that’s just speculation.

This was one of the major (if not the only) reasons Bart became an atheist. He couldn’t answer the question of why God permits evil. I guess Bart never read Isaiah 55:8: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” I’ve said this many times in this forum, so I’ll say it again. It amazes me how anyone can say “I don’t understand evil / the Trinity / infallibility / whatever” so I just can’t believe it. And then in the next breath they will say “I can’t understand quantum physics / string theory / genetics / whatever” and be perfectly content to believe that.

It seems to me to be the height of hubris to say to yourself “I should be able to understand the nature of God.” Really?

Bart (harkening back to his Evangelical days) insists on an “active” God, a God who intervenes constantly in the world. Aunt Martha prays for a new Cadillac, and God delivers one to her door. Billy Bob is interviewed after the tornado misses his trailer and says “It was the hand of God that saved us” – never mind that the tornado killed all of his next door neighbors. You see this all the time. It’s nonsense. Although yes, God could intervene in the world in a direct, active way, He simply doesn’t. (Which is not to say God has not intervened in an active way at all, ever.) Why not? Think about it for a minute–why would God intervene? Because he made a mistake somewhere along the line and wants to correct it? Nope. Because he all of a sudden had a better idea? Nope. Because Aunt Martha prayed for a new Cadillac? Nope–since God is outside of time and space, he would know from the beginning of time that Aunt Martha would pray for a Cadillac, and any response to that prayer would be programed in from the beginning of creation.

But you can use that for anything you don’t understand, so why have a Church and why have a dogma? Just say, we can’t understand God, why do we try to, just live life and see what happens.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So the Church conveniently teaches that it is our interpretation that you can trust, we are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Well I thought the Bible writers were, now it’s the Church?

There’s a lot of well, you need to look at it like this and you need to interpret that…blah blah

What if the Church and it’s leaders have been lying all along about being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Is that then blasphemous?

Ah, conspiracy theories! You’ve read too much Dan Brown (and yes, Bart wrote a book about that, too).

Inspiration: At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came down to each of the Apostles. Were they inspired? Certainly. Does that mean the Holy Spirit inspired them to eat lamb instead of fish on Tuesday? Of course not. Is inspiration limited to only the writers of scripture? Certainly not. Possibly God is inspiriting me as I write this. Who knows?

Don’t believe any of this? No problem–you’re an atheist. Some of my best friends are atheists! They can be perfectly good, moral people, and of course it’s Church doctrine that they can also go to Heaven.

Why can’t I prove to you the existence of God in the same way I can prove that 2 + 2 = 4? Because that would eliminate free will. We believe that God gave man free will. Anything that would “prove” the existence of God, the infallibility of the Pope, the inspiration of Church councils, etc. would negate free will. You can’t “will” yourself to not believe that 2 + 2 = 4. God can give you all sorts of reasons, but ultimately, as Kierkegaard said, it’s a leap of faith. If you don’t want to make the leap, no one can make you or convince you. It’s up to you.

 

[rabbitdonkey]

No. As man and wife. Now I suppose some rogue priest could refuse communion with the excuse of “giving scandal,” but that wouldn’t be the official position of the church.

“…the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so.”

This is not Francis or some liberal cardinal or bishop. This is Cardinal Ratzinger, 1994, speaking officially in the name of the Vatican.

the full quote:
In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. (…)

In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.

so it seems he is just saying a certain aproach suggested not he neceasailty agrees with it and later he says

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).
also
The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable,

 

[Erikaspirit16]

It was changed for the US bishops , in other places it is still in force.

And Spain was always exempted because of its victory at Lepanto in 1571. But that’s my point–which I think you agree with–the Church can make whatever laws it wants.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I guess I see issue with humans telling me that something is for sure the truth. What if they are wrong? For example, what if the doctrine of Hell is wrong? God may become upset that people claim him as so evil to allow for people to be tortured for all eternity? I know I would be upset if accused of something to that degree, how do we know God wouldn’t be? Does that mean the Church shouldn’t teach anything? Of course not. But claiming to be infallible is a huge claim. Claiming that your teachings are inspired by the Holy Spirit is a major thing. Would attending that Church be proclaiming that to be truth to the individual? Riding the fence and claiming I can’t possibly know that seems much safer and more logical.

My life situation doesn’t allow me to do that much good for people.

As I said in another post, it comes down to faith. No one can “prove” that Hell exists or that the Church is inspired, or any of your other issues. “Riding the fence” = agnosticism. That’s certainly a popular position.

But I think you (and a lot of others) have a misguided impression. Again, you’re looking at the surface (in a previous post I talked about refining doctrines) and not delving into what the Church actually teaches. Let’s take “Hell” since you brought it up. Precisely what is “Hell”? Is it a pit of eternal fire? Maybe. Is it simply separation from God? Maybe. Is it that you–soul and all–will be destroyed completely? Maybe. There are small libraries of books written on the subject. Does the Church insist that you believe one particular definition? No.

And then there is the issue of what causes you to go to Hell…the absence of sanctifying grace? What’s that, exactly? A mortal sin? How do you define that? This forum is filled with people asking if this, that, or the other is a mortal sin (hint: if you have to ask, it isn’t).

As with every other subject, when you start asking questions and digging into the subject, it not black and white. It’s in between. To say that you are Catholic simply means that you agree with the core doctrines (Nicene Creed) and the Church’s overall authority. It does not mean that you agree with everything or that all Catholics believe exactly the same thing. Some Catholics believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Are they Catholics? Certainly. Other Catholics (like me) believe those other Catholics are sadly mistaken. Am I a Catholic? Certainly. It’s just like belonging to a political party–there’s enough “truth” there to say you belong to one and not another, but it doesn’t mean you hold exactly the same positions as the party leadership or other members.

 

[rabbitdonkey]

the full quote:
In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. (…)

In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.

so it seems he is just saying a certain aproach suggested not he neceasailty agrees with it and later he says

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).
also
The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable,

I think those living as brother and sigser can recieve if the parish priest decides thete is no scandal and if they are living in the same place for a legitimate reason If the Parish priest decides
Read more on this to fibd out

 

[Erikaspirit16]

the full quote:
In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. (…)

In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.

so it seems he is just saying a certain aproach suggested not he neceasailty agrees with it and later he says

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).
also
The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable,

We are wandering off topic, but perhaps this is helpful to Laylow–we are both Catholics, and we disagree (apparently). I’ve used this analogy before, so I’ll trot it out yet again.

The city government must pass some sort of a law about what drivers need to do at a red light. One faction says “Every driver has to stop at a red light.” Another faction says “Ah, wait a minute, there can be exceptions! What if it’s 3 AM and no other cars are in sight? What if a husband is driving his pregnant wife to the hospital?” And so on. This is the same situation the Church is faced with. Francis and his supporters wanted the law about divorce to include all the possible exceptions. Muller (and me!) said, “No. That would lead to chaos and confusion. We need to make a clear law. If there are exceptions, the police and the courts (in the case of the red light analogy – i.e., individuals, priests, bishops) can sort those out later.”

So I agree with you: a divorced and re-married Catholic cannot receive communion unless they have gotten an annulment and have been officially married in the Church. That’s the rule. I agree. On the other hand…there are all sorts of situations I can think of where that law might not apply to a particular individual. And in those cases, the individual can receive communion with a clear conscience. And, as Francis said, “Who am I to judge?”

 

[laylow]

As I said in another post, it comes down to faith. No one can “prove” that Hell exists or that the Church is inspired, or any of your other issues. “Riding the fence” = agnosticism. That’s certainly a popular position.

But I think you (and a lot of others) have a misguided impression. Again, you’re looking at the surface (in a previous post I talked about refining doctrines) and not delving into what the Church actually teaches. Let’s take “Hell” since you brought it up. Precisely what is “Hell”? Is it a pit of eternal fire? Maybe. Is it simply separation from God? Maybe. Is it that you–soul and all–will be destroyed completely? Maybe. There are small libraries of books written on the subject. Does the Church insist that you believe one particular definition? No.

Doctrines are important. Slavery was and still is justified because it’s in the Bible. Homosexuals, who already are disadvantaged in our society, have been denied things because of doctrine. A person with a terminal illness who’s life has sucked for a long time if not for their whole life, who feels life is too unbearable to continue is denied a clean, certain way to end their misery because of doctrines. I could go on.

And then there is the issue of what causes you to go to Hell…the absence of sanctifying grace? What’s that, exactly? A mortal sin? How do you define that? This forum is filled with people asking if this, that, or the other is a mortal sin (hint: if you have to ask, it isn’t).

I disagree entirely. The first question really is, what is sin in the first place? Is it causing harm to others? It is said that if it’s against God’s will it’s a sin? If the doctrine is wrong, then how do we know his will?
There are plenty of examples: Masturbation? It’s natural and has determined to be healthy for people. It doesn’t hurt anyone else. I would argue whether it is sin at all, but mortal no less?! Homosexuals having sex, questionable, hurts no one. Someone who ends their life because it is so unbearable. Ok, you can definitely say that hurts others. But others are hurt when you die in a car accident or of cancer. Who’s sin is it then? Is it a sin to die of cancer? Oh it’s Adam and Eve’s sin. Well, that just doesn’t cover it for me.

As with every other subject, when you start asking questions and digging into the subject, it not black and white. It’s in between. To say that you are Catholic simply means that you agree with the core doctrines (Nicene Creed) and the Church’s overall authority. It does not mean that you agree with everything or that all Catholics believe exactly the same thing. Some Catholics believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Are they Catholics? Certainly. Other Catholics (like me) believe those other Catholics are sadly mistaken. Am I a Catholic? Certainly. It’s just like belonging to a political party–there’s enough “truth” there to say you belong to one and not another, but it doesn’t mean you hold exactly the same positions as the party leadership or other members.

Many think that if you just live a good life, pray, go to the church, do good things for others, you are in. It’s easy to think this when relatively unchallenged, but it’s not like that for many unfortunate in the world.

I think you will see lots of disagreement about this. Many if not most hardcore Catholics say if you don’t believe and do everything they teach, then you are not Catholic.

 

[Vonsalza]

I guess I see issue with humans telling me that something is for sure the truth.

I would have the same issue.

God may become upset…

We don’t consider our God to be variable. Neither is his truth - a la dogma.

But claiming to be infallible is a huge claim.

The pronouncement is infallible, not the man. He’s just the only man capable of making such a pronouncement. It’s rare, as it hasn’t occurred in my lifetime. Those who can remember the last time would be about 70 and older. Most popes never exercise the authority.

And it’s not that huge. You seem happy to give such authority to the biblical writers, no?

He infallibly speaks in the same divine context they wrote.

Claiming that your teachings are inspired by the Holy Spirit is a major thing.

Purpose built; it’s why the Church even exists as a teaching authority to all Christendom.

Riding the fence and claiming I can’t possibly know that seems much safer and more logical.

I don’t claim to know for certain, but I don’t find that logically necessitates fence-riding. I can’t know for sure if I’m going to encounter peril or not when I go boating. Doesn’t stop me.

My life situation doesn’t allow me to do that much good for people.

There are endless ways you can do good for other people that don’t cost any money and don’t require loads of time. But true, the most rewarding efforts often do as they genuinely require sacrifice on your part.

 

[STT]

Isn’t Bible a book of laws too? Why the verse should be poetic? We don’t write laws in a poetic way instead write it in a way that everybody can understand it and agree upon it.

 

[laylow]

I would have the same issue.

We don’t consider our God to be variable. Neither is his truth - a la dogma.

The pronouncement is infallible, not the man. He’s just the only man capable of making such a pronouncement. It’s rare, as it hasn’t occurred in my lifetime. Those who can remember the last time would be about 70 and older. Most popes never exercise the authority.

And it’s not that huge. You seem happy to give such authority to the biblical writers, no?

No. If the original was preserved, I would have seen that as an act of God and would have been much more convinced. As is, I’m pretty convinced that it’s not.

He infallibly speaks in the same divine context they wrote.

The pronouncement came from man, I didn’t hear it from God.

Purpose built; it’s why the Church even exists as a teaching authority to all Christendom.

eh

I don’t claim to know for certain, but I don’t find that logically necessitates fence-riding. I can’t know for sure if I’m going to encounter peril or not when I go boating. Doesn’t stop me.

Why would the Catholic Church be concerned about me following their doctrines if they’re not worried about someone following anything other than the truth? They must think it’s bad to follow the wrong thing.

There are endless ways you can do good for other people that don’t cost any money and don’t require loads of time. But true, the most rewarding efforts often do as they genuinely require sacrifice on your part.

More complicated, but I feel I sacrifice a lot every single day.

 

[Vonsalza]

The pronouncement is infallible, not the man. He’s just the only man capable of making such a pronouncement. It’s rare, as it hasn’t occurred in my lifetime. Those who can remember the last time would be about 70 and older. Most popes never exercise the authority.

Amen!

No. If the original was preserved, I would have seen that as an act of God and would have been much more convinced. As is, I’m pretty convinced that it’s not.

Your choice. I’m rather convinced to the contrary. Again, when the oldest manuscript of a given text is 300AD and we find one 300BC (referring to an OT text, obviously), your theory would suggest some very substantial drift would have occurred. We’re just not seeing that.

The pronouncement came from man, I didn’t hear it from God.

This might be the crux issue. Where on Earth (or anywhere else) did you get the idea that God owes you a personally addressed delivery with every revelation? You have some hotline to the creator that I’m not aware of?

eh

Why would the Catholic Church be concerned about me following their doctrines if they’re not worried about someone following anything other than the truth? They must think it’s bad to follow the wrong thing.

Yes, false prophets (conflicting even among themselves) abound, all claiming personal revelation. This alone is proof-sufficient for it being a non-functioning methodology.

 

[Vonsalza]

Isn’t Bible a book of laws too? Why the verse should be poetic? We don’t write laws in a poetic way instead write it in a way that everybody can understand it and agree upon it.

The bible is a collection of scores of different texts with different aims. These texts obviously require different interpretive lenses. Obviously.

 

[laylow]

Amen!

Your choice. I’m rather convinced to the contrary. Again, when the oldest manuscript of a given text is 300AD and we find one 300BC (referring to an OT text, obviously), your theory would suggest some very substantial drift would have occurred. We’re just not seeing that.

I’m keeping an open mind towards it.

This might be the crux issue. Where on Earth (or anywhere else) did you get the idea that God owes you a personally addressed delivery with every revelation? You have some hotline to the creator that I’m not aware of?

Well, then who did hear it and how can I know that I trust that s/he heard it correctly is conveying it correctly?!

Yes, false prophets (conflicting even among themselves) abound, all claiming personal revelation. This alone is proof-sufficient for it being a non-functioning methodology.

How do we know the leaders ideas that were chosen at the Council of Nicaea weren’t false?

 

[STT]

The bible is a collection of scores of different texts with different aims. These texts obviously require different interpretive lenses. Obviously.

That is a good attempt. But how many pages Bible is? It doesn’t seems enough big to fill human ignorance.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

the full quote:
In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. (…)

In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.

so it seems he is just saying a certain aproach suggested not he neceasailty agrees with it and later he says

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).
also
The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable,

As for laylow, good luck to him, but you cannot cure invincible ignorance. It’s like debating with a Muslim (which laylow may well be–same arguments). You can’t debate someone who denies your basic premise (it’s like trying to prove the law of gravity to someone who doesn’t believe the universe exists at all because he believes it’s all in his head, a la The Matrix). So I’ve said what I have to say, and I’m gracefully bowing out.

---

As for our side issue, Ratzinger, marriage, divorce, etc. let me add one other item. Ratzinger (whom I adore, by the way) had more to say about this four years later, in 1998, where he responded to various criticisms of his original 1994 article. You can read it in full here, on the Vatican web site no less: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

Here is section 3c of his 1998 letter, in full:

“c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.”

So. As to the question of whether it would be possible (not the rule, just possible) for a married Catholic to divorce, re-marry without an annulment, and then take communion with a clear conscience, I think Ratzinger sums it up quite well, as he always does (all the points are direct quotations):

1. mistakes occur in marriage cases
2. some marriage tribunals take an excessive amount of time
3. once in a while they [marriage tribunals] conclude with questionable decisions
4. the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset [internal form = individual conscience, basically, although a canon lawyer could probably quibble]
5. new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process [ah, but what is “truth”? And how do you “verify” it in the judicial process?]
6. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. [this is perhaps the key point. Where authorities disagree…]

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2 of my response to you…

Aside from all that, there is the question of a “valid marriage,” which necessitates “belief” of both parties. “belief” is another of those rather vague terms that are left undefined. Belief in what? What if one party doesn’t believe the Pope in infallible? Is it a valid marriage? You could substitute a large variety of “beliefs” which large numbers of Catholics do not believe in. According to a recent Pew poll, only 40% of Catholics actually believe in transubstantiation. So the other 60% are entering into non-valid Catholic marriages, right? According to the letter of the law, they are. Legalism can come back and bite you when you least expect it.

Not to mention the always popular condition of a “valid marriage”: “they freely give their consent”…who of us is truly free? Not just a philosophical question but a very practical one. You have genetic dispositions, social pressure from family and friends, psychological issues, etc. I think upon sober reflection, most people would conclude that no one is truly free. No one. So can anyone then enter a “valid marriage” or is it some sort of Platonic ideal?

In sum, there is plenty of wiggle room. As I said, it’s not black and white. The more you take a look at any issue–like this one–the fuzzier and grayer it gets. Those who deny that (several have attacked me in this thread and claim that every issue is just black and white) simply are showing they have not thought about the issue enough or done enough research.

I really have nothing else to say on the issue, so have at me. I won’t respond! Over and out.

 

[laylow]

As for laylow, good luck to him, but you cannot cure invincible ignorance. It’s like debating with a Muslim (which laylow may well be–same arguments). You can’t debate someone who denies your basic premise (it’s like trying to prove the law of gravity to someone who doesn’t believe the universe exists at all because he believes it’s all in his head, a la The Matrix). So I’ve said what I have to say, and I’m gracefully bowing out.

---

As for our side issue, Ratzinger, marriage, divorce, etc. let me add one other item. Ratzinger (whom I adore, by the way) had more to say about this four years later, in 1998, where he responded to various criticisms of his original 1994 article. You can read it in full here, on the Vatican web site no less: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

Here is section 3c of his 1998 letter, in full:

“c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.”

So. As to the question of whether it would be possible (not the rule, just possible) for a married Catholic to divorce, re-marry without an annulment, and then take communion with a clear conscience, I think Ratzinger sums it up quite well, as he always does (all the points are direct quotations):

1. mistakes occur in marriage cases
2. some marriage tribunals take an excessive amount of time
3. once in a while they [marriage tribunals] conclude with questionable decisions
4. the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset [internal form = individual conscience, basically, although a canon lawyer could probably quibble]
5. new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process [ah, but what is “truth”? And how do you “verify” it in the judicial process?]
6. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. [this is perhaps the key point. Where authorities disagree…]

???