Does the Bible have errors in it?

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

By “baptism of heretics,” I mean the baptisms administered by heretics. If the matter, form, and intent of the Sacrament are valid, despite the heresy or infidelity of the minister, then the baptism IS efficacisous toward remittance of sin and conveyance of sanctifying grace *ex opere operato. *

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

See more here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sacraments

“Ex opere operato”, i.e. by virtue of the action, means that the efficacy of the action of the sacraments does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God as expressed by Christ’s institution and promise. …

The definition of the Council of Trent, that the sacraments “contain the grace which they signify”, that they “confer grace ex opere operato” (Sess. VII, can.6, 8) …

For administering Baptism validly no special ordination is required. Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, provided that he use the proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form, with the intention of doing what the Church does (Decr. pro Armen., Denzinger-Bannwart, 696). …

In adults, for the valid reception of any sacrament except the Eucharist, it is necessary that they have the intention of receiving it. The sacraments impose obligations and confer grace: Christ does not wish to impose those obligations or confer grace without the consent of man.

It seems the above excerpt presumes that valid reception confers grace. To what measure? That depends. I agree that the recipient may recieve differing gifts of the Holy Spirit, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Spirit distributes to everyone as he wills, and according to each one’s own disposition and cooperation. However, every valid baptism remits all sin and sanctifies the soul, even the valid baptisms of pagans and heretics.

And according to Dr. Ludig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *

“The validity and the efficacy of the Sacrament is independent of the minister’s orthodoxy and state of grace.” (Ott, pg. 342)

 

[Kevin_Walker]

I agree that the Roman Catholic church has not done a good job of keeping parishioners within their religion, but I feel that is from poor management and not from any short-comings on doctrine.

The teachings of the Roman Catholic church are correct. But I have witnessed over the past thirty years some very sloppy management and decision making driving away and alienating parishioners here in Boston.

Personally I could never see myself as a Protestant or anything else. Yet I am unafraid of criticizing even a Bishop on management policies and some really blatantly dumb decisions, NOT on Roman Catholic interpretation of scripture, which I feel is true and accurate.

The bottom line, the bar needs to be raised again on the quality of individuals allowed into the priesthood.
Led Zeppelin75:

That’s because people are getting more skeptical. Instead of just blind trust they now are seeing things the way they are. The Catholic Church has NOT done a good job trying to keep people in their religion. Their doctrines on mortal sins, hell, purgatory, ect are not for the everyday person to graspe. If you’re a Catholic, why not hope the Morman Church is correct, you’ll have a better chance of getting to heaven than in your present religion with mortal sins! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gifMost Caholics actually believe they will go to hell when they die, and that’s not a very healthy way to live your one and only life.

 

[Malachi4U]

Kevin Walker:

I agree that the Roman Catholic church has not done a good job of keeping parishioners within their religion, but I feel that is from poor management and not from any short-comings on doctrine.

Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church to spread His Gopsel (verbal teachings). No where did Jesus give anybody the authority or mission to force ignorent or misslead people from leaving His body, His Catholic Church. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink!

faith must be freely accepted. If some Catholics turn their back on their Faith, the Faith Jesus established, like I did once, so be it. Thank God the truth is out there and I found it and came home from the Baptist free for all Buffet Line back to His Catholic body.

The teachings of the Roman Catholic church are correct. But I have witnessed over the past thirty years some very sloppy management and decision making driving away and alienating parishioners here in Boston.

The Church is perfect but the sinners in it are not!

If you need hope of the furure just watch EWTN, or Bishop Shean repeats. Catholics can do it right on teaching but some will allways do it poorly. Jesus promised to be with His Church till the end of time so the Catholic Church will survive with Jesus in it. Never worry, He is in our Church.

Personally I could never see myself as a Protestant or anything else. Yet I am unafraid of criticizing even a Bishop on management policies and some really blatantly dumb decisions, NOT on Roman Catholic interpretation of scripture, which I feel is true and accurate.

The bottom line, the bar needs to be raised again on the quality of individuals allowed into the priesthood.

Here, here!

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

RSiscoe,

By “baptism of heretics,” I mean the baptisms administered by heretics. If the matter, form, and intent of the Sacrament are valid, despite the heresy or infidelity of the minister, then the baptism IS efficacisous toward remittance of sin and conveyance of sanctifying grace *ex opere operato. *

Gotcha. I thought you were speaking of a heretic receiving baptism. You are right: a heretic can baptize validly.

Dave:

It seems the above excerpt presumes that valid reception confers grace. To what measure? That depends. I agree that the recipient may recieve differing gifts of the Holy Spirit, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Spirit distributes to everyone as he wills, and according to each one’s own disposition and cooperation. However, every valid baptism remits all sin and sanctifies the soul, even the valid baptisms of pagans and heretics.

I found a portion of the Summa that discusses this. There is another sections that goes into more detail, but I wasn’t able to locate it. St. Thomas taught that a heretic can be validly baptized (receive the character), but that he will not receive sanctifying grace. If you think about it, it make perfect sense. If a heretic received sanctifying grace, it would mean that a heretic (a person with no faith) could be a member of the body of Christ: obviously, that is not possible.

**Whether faith is required on the part of the one baptized?:

**Objection 1. It seems that faith is required on the part of the one baptized. For the sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ. But Christ, in giving the form of Baptism, makes faith to precede Baptism (Mk. 16:16): “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.” Therefore it seems that without faith there can be no sacrament of Baptism.

Objection 2. Further, nothing useless is done in the sacraments of the Church. But according to the Church’s ritual, the man who comes to be baptized is asked concerning his faith: “Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty?” Therefore it seems that faith is required for Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, the intention of receiving the sacrament is required for Baptism. But this cannot be without right faith, since Baptism is the sacrament of right faith: for thereby men “are incorporated in Christ,” as Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i); and this cannot be without right faith, according to Eph. 3:17: “That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts.” Therefore it seems that a man who has not right faith cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism.

Objection 4. Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we have shown in the II-II, 10, 3]. But those who remain in sin should not be baptized: therefore neither should those who remain in unbelief.

On the contrary, Gregory writing to the bishop Quiricus says: “We have learned from the ancient tradition of the Fathers that when heretics, baptized in the name of the Trinity, come back to Holy Church, they are to be welcomed to her bosom, either with the anointing of chrism, or the imposition of hands, or the mere profession of faith.” But such would not be the case if faith were necessary for a man to receive Baptism.

I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (63, 6; 66, 9) Baptism produces a twofold effect in the soul, viz. the character and grace. Therefore in two ways may a thing be necessary for Baptism. First, as something without which grace, which is the ultimate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus right faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears from Rm. 3:22, the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, because without it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted And thus right faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who baptizes: provided the other conditions are fulfilled which are essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, but by the power of God.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord is speaking there of Baptism as bringing us to salvation by giving us sanctifying grace: which of course cannot be without right faith: wherefore He says pointedly: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.”

Reply to Objection 2. The Church’s intention in Baptizing men is that they may be cleansed from sin, according to Is. 27:9: “This is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away.” And therefore, as far as she is concerned, she does not intend to give Baptism save to those who have right faith, without which there is no remission of sins. And for this reason she asks those who come to be baptized whether they believe. If, on the contrary, anyone, without right faith, receive Baptism outside the Church, he does not receive it unto salvation. Hence Augustine says (De Baptism. contr. Donat. iv): “From the Church being compared to Paradise we learn that men can receive her Baptism even outside her fold, but that elsewhere none can receive or keep the salvation of the blessed.”

Reply to Objection 3. Even he who has not right faith on other points, can have right faith about the sacrament of Baptism: and so he is not hindered from having the intention of receiving that sacrament. Yet even if he think not aright concerning this sacrament, it is enough, for the receiving of the sacrament, that he should have a general intention of receiving Baptism, according as Christ instituted, and as the Church bestows it.

Reply to Objection 4. Just as the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred on a man who is unwilling to give up his other sins, so neither should it be given to one who is unwilling to renounce his unbelief. Yet each receives the sacrament if it be conferred on him, though not unto salvation.

END

There is another section where he deals more directly with the question of the effects of baptism for heretics (those without faith). He says that a heretic can receive a valid baptism, but he will only receive the character, and not the grace of the sacrament. The baptism is valid, but it does him no good unless he renounces his heresy.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

Thanks for the Summa reference. I’ll have to study this in more detail.

BTW, sorry for mixing your post up with GottleofGeer’s. You must have read my post and thought I’d gone absolutely mad.

 

[RSiscoe]

I just wanted to bring this post back to the top, since many quotes found in this thread will clearly refute the errors of Fr. Raymond Brown, who denies that the Bible is infallible “in all its parts” including science and history.

Pope Leo XIII: "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it – this system cannot be tolerated. 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. These are the words of the last: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.”[57] Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author… (Providentissimus Deus).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

RSiscoe:
I just wanted to bring this post back to the top, since many quotes found in this thread will clearly refute the errors of Fr. Raymond Brown, who denies that the Bible is infallible “in all its parts” including science and history.

Pope Leo XIII: "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it – this system cannot be tolerated. **

**## It may be a mistaken approach; but at least it is on the right lines. **

---

If the Bible was inerrant in science, it was uselessly so; as this inerrancy did little if anything to advance the sciences - which only really took off perhaps 400 years ago at most.

---

It would have been unmeaning to its earlier readers - it would have been dehumanised, and would not have spoken to those to whom it was addressed. ##

**

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. These are the words of the last: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.”[57]

Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author… (Providentissimus Deus**).****

**## The Pope might have explained what he meant by “error”. There is no error where there is no untrue assertion - and interpretation governs what is said to be asserted. Change the interpretation - and the identity of specific assertions changes. Which affects the specific details of what the texts assert or do not assert. Which means inerrancy varies according as the concept of inerrancy is applicable to a text or not. **

---

**Take the age of Shem. Genesis asserts that he lived 600 years. So, on the Pope’s reasoning, that must be believed. Why ? Why is it so important, that it must be believed ? It may be very reprehensible to suggest that Shem did not live to that age - but how can denying it stop one being a Catholic ? If such a denial is heresy (since it entails denying the inerrancy of the Bible, to do which, must be heresy, because the denial of a dogma - which is what the inerrancy of the Bible is said to be - is heresy); it follows that one is no longer a member of the CC. **

---

**However, one can be a pimp or a murderer or a racketeer or a terrorist or a host of unpleasant things, and still be Catholic. Therefore, it is supposedly - by such reasoning - worse to deny the age of Shem, than to murder or rape. **

---

**IOW: exploit girls for years, and stay a Catholic; deny the age of an OT worthy, and cease to be a Catholic. **

---

This makes no sense. So it would also have helped a great deal if he had explained why inerrancy is so important that it must be believed. ##

 

[BibleReader]

I thought I posted in this enormous, unmanageable thread, but WordSearch says that I did not.

Here is what appears to be a very pure error in the Bible…

“The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.” Acts 9:7.

“My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.” Acts 22:9.

One of those statements is in error.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BibleReader:

I thought I posted in this enormous, unmanageable thread, but WordSearch says that I did not.

Here is what appears to be a very pure error in the Bible…

“The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.” Acts 9:7.

“My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.” Acts 22:9.

One of those statements is in error.

I wrote this elsewhere:​

A good answer I found in a Protestant book pointed out that the word for “voice” in the the Greek in the two passages is phone - and that it can also mean “sound” - there seems to be a pun on the ambiguity.

AFAIK this solution has the virtue of being the simplest and of raising no problems.

IMO, we are also meant to see a link to the Baptism of Jesus - something similar happened there. And there is also probably a link with Isaiah 6:

Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

IOW, perhaps there is a bit of theology here: some hear a sound but not a voice - still less the Voice of Christ or His Father. In fact, ISTM there is a ton of theology here
Especially if Isaiah 6 was considered by St. Paul to be an OT appearance of Christ.

There is also probably a backward glance at Genesis 11 and Pentecost (Acts 2), Mark 4, and Joel 2; and a forward glance at the ministry of St. Paul himself ##

 

[vern_humphrey]

Allow me to point out that the Inspired Writer of Acts is Luke. He wasn’t there. He is simply reporting what the witnesses said.

It is not uncommon to have witnesses differ in their stories – but that doesn’t mean the person who wrote their statements down erred.

 

[Dai]

First, what is understood as scientific fact today may, and is often disproven tomorrow. Darwin’s theory of natural selection for example, is now being hacked to pieces by the discovery of DNA.

Second, some of the greatest scientist living today are devout Catholics. If science is sufficient in punching holes in the Bible, why do these learned men remain in the church?

If you wish to study science, learn from great scientists; not from atheist websites.

 

[Loser]

Dai:

First, what is understood as scientific fact today may, and is often disproven tomorrow. Darwin’s theory of natural selection for example, is now being hacked to pieces by the discovery of DNA…

Yeah, the ToE has progressed significantly since Darwin. But what happens when a theory is disproven? It’s replaced with MORE SCIENCE. Materialistic science of course!

Dai:

Second, some of the greatest scientist living today are devout Catholics. If science is sufficient in punching holes in the Bible, why do these learned men remain in the church?.

This is simply untrue. Most of the highest accredited scientists are atheists:

gsreport.com/articles/art000068.html

Dai:

If you wish to study science, learn from great scientists; not from atheist websites.

Define “atheist.” I sure don’t see scientific websites give answers by looking towards supernatural sources. Rather, they do it by explaining it the NATURAL way. Tell me, what is the fundamental difference between an “atheist” and a “naturalist”? I could easliy transmute my label as an “atheist” into scientific materialist and philosophical naturalist without changing any of my views whatsoever. This, I believe, would be the stances of most, if not all, scientists.

Aaah, well good to be back here after a little more than 2/3’s of a year.

 

[Loser]

You’ve gotta be kidding me! Someone edited my OP for the sole intention of removing my link. Looks like someone doesn’t want you to see another person’s perspective.

 

[jhardee]

Led Zeppelin75:

There are obviously errors and contradictions in the bible. Just look at:

There’s a long list of errors. I know the Church teaches the bible is the infallable Word of God. But what do yuo believe about the bible?

If you are saying the Bible has contradictions, you sir are calling God a liar. If I were you i would repent of this blasphemy. Contradictions that is the Koran.

 

[TOME]

I think if we look for the bible to be something other than Salvation History, then we first miss the meaning of Revelation and how the Bible is the infalliable word of God.

The Bible is and should primarily be understood as God’s Revelation, that is God revealing Himself, His Nature and His activity in and through out Human History effecting our redemption.

God’s activity in human history in general and the history of the Jewish people in particular, in order to bring about our Salvation, salvation was needed because of the first Man’s rejection of God’s will and the effect of that Original Sin through out Human History.This, in my opinion is the truth found in Genesis (eg. Genesis reveals to us Who God is - Creator, His Will for all things created, this includes human relationship with God, fellow man and the created world. The nature of sin and why we sinned and how our rejections of God’s Will through the exercise of Free Will, affected humanities relation with God, fellow humans and all creation).

Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this Revelation and the history of our salvation was recorded through the human instrument of human authors with in their own cultural melieu.

So to focus on the Bible as an accurate historical misses the point entirely. And what seems to be elements that contradict history and science therefore negating the validity of the Bible again misses the reason and being of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[gryskull]

Led Zeppelin75:

There are obviously errors and contradictions in the bible. Just look at:

There’s a long list of errors. I know the Church teaches the bible is the infallable Word of God. But what do yuo believe about the bible?

I don’t think that the bible has errors. It is the inspired word of GOD. Although the writers were mere human they were all inspire by GOD. So basically you can say that the Bible was written by men with GOD as the main author. As St. Augustine said "The mistakes are not in the revelation of God, but are in the misinterpretations of man."

---

So if one of the most brilliant minds in this world could say that the bible has no errors then I could rest my mind and say that the bible is error free.

 

[amdraeger]

“(The alledged Pi error is not an error at all, I’ll get to that one first).”

I give up. What is the explanation of this purported error, with reference to the passage in scripture that says the pools circumference is 3 x the diameter?

Thanks,
Tony

 

[Larry_B]

A particular translation of the Bible may have errors in it but God’s Word is errorless.

Larry