Contradicitons and so forth

  • Thread starter Thread starter SempirVeritas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SempirVeritas

Guest
Okay, what is the official, dogmatic position of the church on infallibility of scripture…

can the Gospels for instance disagree on events/order, times dates, etc…? basically I dont care what an individual says, I want to know what the church says so please reference the basis for your answer please.
 
To get you started, here is a paragraph from the Online Catholic Encyclopedia on Biblical Exegesis:
No error in Scripture
Click to expand...
Since God is the principal Author of Sacred Scripture, it can contain no error, no self-contradiction, nothing contrary to scientific or historical truth. The Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” is most explicit in its statement of this prerogative of the Bible: “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 coexist 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.” The Fathers agree with this teaching almost unanimously; we may refer the reader to St. Jerome (In Nah., I, iv), St. Irenæus (C. hær., II, xxviii), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VII.16), St. Augustine (Reply to Faustus II.2; cf. “In Ps. cxviii”, serm. xxxi, 5; “Ad Hier.”, ep. lxxxii, 2, 22; “Ad Oros. c. Prisc.”, xi), St. Gregory the Great (Præf. in Job, n. 2). The great African Doctor suggests a simple and radical remedy against apparent errors in the Bible: “Either my codex is wrong, or the translator has blundered, or I do not understand.”
Click to expand...
 
I prefer the word “indefectable” to “infallible”.

The Bible does not fail to do in what it sets out to do, though our understanding may change.

For example, there is a verse in Leviticus that says that bats are birds and rabbits chew cud.

Neither are true.

But the point God was trying to get across was, “Don’t eat bats! They’re nasty!”

As for rabbits, I’ve been given to understand there’s a lagomorph that inhabits arid areas that spread disease.

Again, this was a simple hygenic rule for simple people.
 
bpbasilphx said:
I prefer the word “indefectable” to “infallible”.

The Bible does not fail to do in what it sets out to do, though our understanding may change.

For example, there is a verse in Leviticus that says that bats are birds and rabbits chew cud.

Neither are true.

But the point God was trying to get across was, “Don’t eat bats! They’re nasty!”

As for rabbits, I’ve been given to understand there’s a lagomorph that inhabits arid areas that spread disease.

Again, this was a simple hygenic rule for simple people.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the Ratzinger “Note”, which includes a passage on inerrancy, affirms it: there is no error in the Bible. Here is a link & a relevant passage:​

  1. The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.” The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.11
These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.12

[gap]
  1. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.
To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas21 and Marian dogmas;22 the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace;23 the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist24 and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration;25 the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;26 the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff;27 the doctrine on the existence of original sin;28 the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death;29 the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts;30 the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.31

==========

Your lagomorph (sounds like an alien) may just satisfy the demands of the dogma of inerrancy - it may be possible to rely on Leo XIII’s observation that the Bible “does not teach us the inner constitutions of things”, but describes them according to appearances. According to Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) this rule can’t be applied to history (which seems a bit arbitrary, but there it is.)

I much prefer your idea to the dogma 🙂 - your idea doesn’t require all manner of contortions. Apologetic attempts to shore up the total inerrancy of the Bible would make Houdini envious. The bishops of England, Wales, & Scotland have denied total inerrancy in a teaching document. Rome has apparently not reacted. I’ll go with them: the dogma can’t be that important, if Rome does nothing when two Bishops’ Conferences deny it in a teaching document:

14. The truth of Scripture

The Scriptures themselves proclaim that they are inspired by God, that God is their author, and that they were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Just as the prophets were inspired by the Spirit of God to proclaim the word, so too ‘all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness’ (2 Timothy 3:16). On the basis of usage and acceptance in the Church, it was gradually determined which books were to be regarded as inspired. These books were to be listed as Holy Scripture and became ‘canonical’, fundamental to the rule of faith. The decision about which books to include in the canon of Scripture reflected the faith of the whole people. The books thus declared canonical and inspired by the Spirit of God contain ‘the truth which God wished to be set down in the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation’ (Dei Verbum 11). It is important to note this teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the truth of Scripture is to be found in all that is written down ‘for the sake of our salvation’. We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.

[http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Scripture/GoS.pdf (http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Scripture/GoS.pdf)

Merchandise here:
**[Emphasis mine] **It is possible they are not denying the total inerrancy of the Bible - there is some ambiguity here. Ambiguity is a bad sign 😊
 
Dictation of scripture is a big fundamentalist belief-inspiration and dictation are very different.Encyclicals and writings on scripture should be taken in totality and not as separate entities.Each document relies on the document before and expands on that document.Divino Spiritu Afflante really addresses this and interprets it, as Dei Verbum does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top