Does the Bible have errors in it?

[itsjustdave1988]

the actions of the church’s highest earthly authority are to TWICE appoint Raymond Brown a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (Pope Paul VI in 1972 and Pope John Paul II in 1996).

The recommendation is made at the lowest levels, by the national conference of bishops. The Pope merely ratifies it.

For example, I was commissioned as an officer in the USAF by President George Bush over 15 years ago. Both the president and the congress have ratified my subsequent promotions throughout the years. Do you think Pres. Bush actually knows me? Do you think the president and congress hand-picked me for my commission and each promotion?

I think you read more into Fr. Brown’s appointment than is actually there. Those who accuse Fr. Brown of asserting erroneous views were also appointed to the Commission by the same Pope.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

I agree. Yet, I think it’s also important to understand that the *imprimatur *from Bishop Thomas O’Keefe of NY to the works of Fr. Raymond Brown that assert biblical errancy is not infallible, nor is it to be implied that the ideas within the book are doctrinal, as it is not magisterial endorsement of these ideas.

For example, in Fr. George A. Kelly’s book, *The New Biblical Theorists, *describes how Fr. Brown’s assertions are erroneous in view of the teachings of Leo XIII, Pius XII, and Paul VI, and takes the exact opposite view of Fr. Raymond Brown. It too has the imprimatur of Bishop Thomas O’Keefe of NY. It seems to me that if this proves anything, it proves that the Most Rev. O’Keefe (RIP) was giving out imprimaturs with very little discernment. This says nothing with regard to the actions and doctrines of the magisterium, as an *imprimatur *is not magisterial act.

== IOW, the book by Father Brown was no less in accord with Catholic doctrine than Father Kelly’s - which agrees perfectly with what I said. I’m not seeking to criticise Father Kelly, but to defend the legitimacy of that un-Fundamentalist method of Biblical study of which Father Brown was in life a representative.

I’m arguing against the error of inerrantism - not against methods or approaches to the Bible that are not all explicitly “higher critical”. I’m fully in favour of a diversity of methods and approaches, exactly as the Church recommended in 1993. What I reject, is Fundamentalism, Protestant or Catholic, since it distorts the very books it aspires to honour.

I’m a Catholic - not a Fundamentalist ==

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Gottle of Geer:

the book by Father Brown was no less in accord with Catholic doctrine than Father Kelly’s.

I’m guessing you have either neglected to read Fr. Brown’s book, or neglected to read Fr. Kelly’s. They contradict each other with respect to what they insist about Catholic doctrine. They both cannot be right. For example …

Fr. Raymond Brown asserts that the Sacred writer erred in religious truths, saying of the Bible: “[C]ritical investigation points to religious limitations and even errors [in Scripture.]” (Brown, R., *The Critical Meaning of the Bible, *Paulist Press, NY, 1981, pg. 16, *Imprimatur: *Bishop O’Keefe, NY). “Well, critical investigations also point to religious errors in the Bible, for example, Job’s denial of an afterlife.” (Brown, R., *Theological Studies, *March 1981, pgs. 18-19).

On the contrary, Fr George A. Kelly asserts: "If the Bible can err on truths that pertain to God’s revelation of himself and to man’s salvation, then Christianity itself comes across to modern-minded people as incredible… This subject–the inerrancy of scripture–is probably the chief area of disageement between the Catholic Church and her new biblical theorists [such as Raymond Brown]. … Like the Church, scripture cannot be wrong about what God has revealed. … " (Kelly, G., *The New Biblical Theorists - Raymond E. Brown and Beyond, *Servant Books, MI, 1983, P. 153-154, *Imprimatur: *Bishop O’Keefe, NY). Taking the position opposed to Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. George Kelly quotes from Vatican II peritus Cardinal Augustin Bea: “‘In fact, we declare in general that there is no limit set to this inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms’ … Certain scholars do not accept this. … Brown insinuates a denial of inspiration and inerrancy as the Church defines both” (ibid., 155).

In context with footnote 5 of *Dei Verbum *11, Paul VI shows the intent of Vatican II’s teaching on inerrancy, by which he cites and affirms the teachings of Pius XII’s *Divino Afflante Spiritu: *"***it is absolutely wrong and forbidden … to admit that the sacred writer has erred… ***This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church."

**In direct conflict with the above from Paul VI and Pius XII (and Leo XIII), Fr. Brown asserts that the Sacred Writer of Scripture made an error. This is rubbish, and is contrary to what Fr. Kelly asserts and contrary to the ancient and constant faith of the Church. **

Now, I reject fundamentalism too. But Fr. Brown uses the word “fundamentalists” as including any conservative Catholic who disagrees with him and dares to suggest that he made a mistake. That’s not my understanding of the word.

Furthermore, I also reject any propositions already condemned by the Church as erroneous, to include proposing as Fr. Brown has, that the writers of Sacred Scripture have erred. Just as against Fr. Brown’s views on the ordination of women, Rome has spoken authoritatively on the matter. For obedient Catholics, the debate is over.

As a Catholic, I have vowed to submit to any doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium, in accordance with Vatican II’s Apostolic Constitution on the Church. I have vowed to obey canon law and to submit to Catholic doctrines even if I might not understand all aspects of them. I cannot now “pick and choose” what vows I keep and what vows I won’t. That would show a lack of integrity. I used to be a rationalistic “cafeteria” Catholic many years ago, but those days are over, by the grace of God.

I now believe as one saint and doctor of the Catholic Church states, “**For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other” **(St. Catherine of Sienna, letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).

I cannot assent to the counter-magisterial writings of Fr. Raymond Brown which are clearly not in accord with papal encyclicals. Bishop O’Keefe was either incorrect in giving an *Imprimatur *to Fr. Brown or incorrect when he gave it to Fr. Kelly, as they both make claims regarding Catholic doctrine which are opposed to one another.

My measure of orthodoxy is to compare the assertions of these men with the teachings of the Roman Pontiff, either via his ordinary magisterium or solemn magisterium? Fr. Kelly, in this case, is the orthodox of the two.

“Biblical theories are not a fit replacement for Catholic theology.”
– Fr. George A. Kelly

 

[BayCityRickL]

I think Scripture was given to us by God to inspire us. I think we ought to read it and try to extract the many lessons and truths that it presents.

I think it’s wonderful that some people are skeptical about it, which, if anything, should lead them and us to read it more and pray over it more for inspiration.

There is so much there beyond human experience.

In the last could weeks, I heard someone on the History Channel or A&E saying that child sacrifice was common in Abraham’s time. That’s an interesting idea and it helps to understand the account of God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac: That piece of information may make it easier to understand why Abraham was so readily obedient to God, in traveling to the place of sacrifice with his son, Isaac. In the Bible account, the child is saved, making a comment about the practice of child sacrifice. And, then, there’s the other implications of the story as well.

This shows that we need to read and study, rather than reactively criticizing a God who would have Abraham sacrifice his son.

Or, take the last verse of the Gospel of Luke. If everything that Jesus did were written down, it would fill all the books in the world. Hmmmmm. Is that possible? Well, if what Jesus did for me, and for you, and for each other person – salvation or condemnation – were written down, it would indeed be enough to fill all the books in the world. Sometimes, even hyperbole has a truthful meaning to it.

I think we should stop quibbling and get on with reading and studying the Bible. A little bit of “Islam” – surrender – would be in order here. We should be as those who want to kiss every word in the book.

 

[BayCityRickL]

RSiscoe:

Quote:

… Unfortunately, we live in a day of almost total apostacy from the faith. That is the hard thing for some people to grasp, but the evidence is there. Mass attendance in the US has dropped from about 80% in 1958 to about 15% today. In Europe it has dropped to single digits. And of those who do still attend Mass, most do not believe (or are completely ignorant of) basic teachings on faith and morality. Churches and Seminaries are closing everywhere because the faith is being diminished all accross the world.

Recall how Satan tempted Eve in the garden of Eden (Ge 3:1) the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?”

and

Recall how Satan tempted our Lord in the desert? Lk 4:3 4:3 “If you are the Son of God…”

The commonality is that the devil works by creating doubt and skepticism, and the Bishops have said that the “smoke of Satan” is in the Church.

I think the ‘apostacy’ is not a true apostacy but simply a rejection of the false things the people (like me) see in the Church. Yes, I do expect a lot better than I see right now, as a matter of fact. Take it or leave it. We KNOW better, duh.

 

[RSiscoe]

BayCityRickL:

Recall how Satan tempted Eve in the garden of Eden (Ge 3:1) the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?”

and

Recall how Satan tempted our Lord in the desert? Lk 4:3 4:3 “If you are the Son of God…”

The commonality is that the devil works by creating doubt and skepticism, and the Bishops have said that the “smoke of Satan” is in the Church.

I think the ‘apostacy’ is not a true apostacy but simply a rejection of the false things the people (like me) see in the Church. Yes, I do expect a lot better than I see right now, as a matter of fact. Take it or leave it. We KNOW better, duh.

Well, I think I understand what you are saying (but I am not 100% sure). I think you are explaining why so many (such as yourself) have stopped going to Mass. I might have implied (in my previous post) that the lack of attendance was the “apostacy” I was speaking of. If so, that is not exactly what I think. I believe the lack of attendance by many is a result of the apostacy - and I believe their lack of attendance is even understandable. The apostacy has started at the top. It was Pope Paul VI who said “the smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary”.

I believe we are in apostacy, not because Mass attendance is down, but because MOST of our church leaders are heretics, who deny Church dogma. They falsely believe that the Catholic faith “changed” at Vatican II, therefore they have “changed” their faith; but the faith does not change. What has happened is that in “changing” their faith, they have lost the faith: they have become something other than Catholic, since they no longer believe what the Church has always taught.

If you still have the Catholic faith, then I can understand why you would be unable to attend most Catholic Churches, since Catholicism is not taught there. What you get instead is a mixture of secular humanism and liberalism, with just enough Catholic terminology mixed in to keep those with a little knowledge of the faith in the pews. If you still have the faith you will see right through it, and it will make your stomach turn. In that case, it will be understandable why you would not go to Mass. I personally would never be able to attend Mass at the local Church.

But believe it or not, there actually is a solution and an answer for the Catholics who cannot tolerate the non-sense that goes on at their local parish. There are usually a few Churches in each diocese that are still Catholic.

If you can find a Church that has the Traditional Latin Mass, that Church will probably still be Catholic. The liberals HATE the old Latin Mass, and only the most conservative priests have the courage to say it. So, if in your post you were saying that you have stopped attending Mass because you cannot tolerate the non-sense that you see at your local Parish, it you can find a Church that offers the Latin Mass in your area, you will probably find what you are looking for - the Catholic Faith!

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Interesting thread. It seems strange to me that a few seem to put equal weight on statements by theologians and doctrinal statements by Popes. I agree with Mr. Keating, from another thread. An imprimatur simply does not mean what it used to mean.
I would also say that it seems there is a bit of “talking past one another” going on here. Of course, there is a legitimate need to determine the kind of scripture we’re dealing with. Some is poetic, some historical, some prophetic, some apocalyptic etc. Each requires a different approach, a slightly different lens.
Yet, it seems to me that the more liberal (not meant as a slap, just a relative term) on this thread are a little too ready to stop struggling with scripture to preserve the highest degree of inerrancy. This is common these days, unfortunately. People sometimes seem more concerned with appearing to be in agreement with the latest theological opinions than with the historical Church, the popes, etc. And they don’t really care if they “lower the bar” in relation to the degree of inerrancy to be found in the Holy Scriptures in the process.
It seems to me that there is a pervasive tendency in this day to make Sacred Scripture the handmaiden of current, modern opinion, secular science, secular history, etc…and I think this has it a bit backwards. Oughtn’t the onus be on those proposing novel ideas? And for a Catholic, “novel” or “new” is viewed in terms of decades, or even centuries.
In regard to the importance of the historical accuracy of the Scriptures, it is not so easy to separate the historical from the “salvific”, I think. For instance, the geneologies given in the NT are there to provide proof that Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Ditto for where he was born. There are many more such examples. And if one carelessly gives way on the historical intention, they may find they have cut at the heart of the salvific power as well.
In regard to Vatican II, any interpretations of it (at least those things that are of a doctrinal nature) that contradict previous councils, solemn papal teaching, etc. are de facto wrong interpretations. God does not contradict himself. One of the defining marks of the Catholic Church is Tradition. Newman’s contribution in regard to development does not provide for contradiction, but only organic growth, clarification.
Finally, if there are two statements given by someone on an issue, one that is clearer and more detailed, and the other that is not as clear, doesn’t it make sense to use the clearer, more detailed rather than the more general, the more vague? This is one of the difficulties with Vatican II. It was generally a “pastoral” council, reaching out to the world. And pastoral things are more concerned with having a nice tone, than with precision, accuracy. Precision and accuracy tend to be a bit harsh.

God bless!
Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

If you still have the Catholic faith, then I can understand why you would be unable to attend most Catholic Churches

Hmmmmm… I have Catholic faith BECAUSE I attend (and listen, and pray, and love, and read), and have ONLY done so in the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. I have attended a few FSSP-celebrated Latin Masses in accord with the 1962 Roman Missal, yet I don’t believe I furthered my understanding of Catholic teaching by it, other than a better understanding of what the Latin Mass of 1962 was like.

 

[vern_humphrey]

itsjustdave1988:

RSiscoe,
Hmmmmm… I have Catholic faith BECAUSE I attend (and listen, and pray, and love, and read), and have ONLY done so in the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. I have attended a few FSSP-celebrated Latin Masses in accord with the 1962 Roman Missal, yet I don’t believe I furthered my understanding of Catholic teaching by it, other than a better understanding of what the Latin Mass of 1962 was like.

I love the Latin Mass – I was an altar boy in the days when your mother washed and ironed your cassock and surplice, and you carried it to church on a hanger – past where the tough guys lived, and had to fight them every time you served Mass.

I’ll drive a hundred miles to attend a Latin Mass – but I also understand the vernacular mass. And I understand that “parish-shopping” is not permitted in the Church.

There is nothing wrong with Vatican II. There are some unfortunate choices as bishops, men who are poor leaders and not as concerned with Catholic morality as they should be, but that’s not the fault of Vatican II.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

RSiscoe,
Hmmmmm… I have Catholic faith BECAUSE I attend (and listen, and pray, and love, and read), and have ONLY done so in the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. I have attended a few FSSP-celebrated Latin Masses in accord with the 1962 Roman Missal, yet I don’t believe I furthered my understanding of Catholic teaching by it, other than a better understanding of what the Latin Mass of 1962 was like.

There are a lot of people out there who became so disgusted with the sacreligous non-sense that took place at their local Church that they stopped attending Mass alltogether. If the person who posted was one of those people (and I thought he might be), I wanted to let him know that he can find a Church where such nonesense does not take place I have been to a lot of Latin Masses throughout the country and I have never been to one that was not reverent and holy. On the other hand, I have been to many Novus Ordo masses that made my stomach turn. Therefore, I suggested to him what I would suggest to anyone who sounded a little fed up with the non-sense at their local Church: find a Church that offers the Latin Mass and give it a try.

If a person wants a reverent Mass; silence before and after Mass (in the presence of the Blessed sacrament); no communion in the hand (which had always been considered a sacriledge); no altar girls (which had never been allowed, and which even John Paul II said he would never allow); and if they are concerned about the wrong words being used at the concecration (“for many” mistranslated to “for all”), then they should attend the Latin Mass.

I absolutely love the Latin Mass. I love being able to unite my prayers with those of the priest, and to, in a sense, “say the Mass with Him”, in the universal language of the Church. I love the prayers of the Latin Mass: they are beautiful, holy and majestic: I love the silence of the low Mass, and the beautiful songs of the high Mass. I love everything about it.

It took me about 6 months or so of daily Mass before it grew on me. By the time I had memorized the prayers, I was in love with it. There is nothing like silently uniting myself with the priest and praying the prayers along with him to God. I love it.

Therefore, if anyone is disgusted with the Mass at their local Church, because of non sense or sacriledge that takes place, I always encourage them to find a Latin Mass where there will be no non-sense or sacriledge, but a holy, beautiful and reverent Mass.

Amen

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RSiscoe:

Well, I think I understand what you are saying (but I am not 100% sure). I think you are explaining why so many (such as yourself) have stopped going to Mass. I might have implied (in my previous post) that the lack of attendance was the “apostacy” I was speaking of. If so, that is not exactly what I think. I believe the lack of attendance by many is a result of the apostacy - and I believe their lack of attendance is even understandable. The apostacy has started at the top. It was Pope Paul VI who said “the smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary”.

I believe we are in apostacy, not because Mass attendance is down, but because MOST of our church leaders are heretics, who deny Church dogma. They falsely believe that the Catholic faith “changed” at Vatican II, therefore they have “changed” their faith; but the faith does not change. What has happened is that in “changing” their faith, they have lost the faith: they have become something other than Catholic, since they no longer believe what the Church has always taught.

If you still have the Catholic faith, then I can understand why you would be unable to attend most Catholic Churches, since Catholicism is not taught there. What you get instead is a mixture of secular humanism and liberalism, with just enough Catholic terminology mixed in to keep those with a little knowledge of the faith in the pews. If you still have the faith you will see right through it, and it will make your stomach turn. In that case, it will be understandable why you would not go to Mass. I personally would never be able to attend Mass at the local Church.

But believe it or not, there actually is a solution and an answer for the Catholics who cannot tolerate the non-sense that goes on at their local parish. There are usually a few Churches in each diocese that are still Catholic.

If you can find a Church that has the Traditional Latin Mass, that Church will probably still be Catholic. The liberals HATE the old Latin Mass, and only the most conservative priests have the courage to say it. So, if in your post you were saying that you have stopped attending Mass because you cannot tolerate the non-sense that you see at your local Parish, it you can find a Church that offers the Latin Mass in your area, you will probably find what you are looking for - the Catholic Faith!

== I think I understand the POV - but, as a “dissenter” (according to itsjustdave anyway) I want no part in this. The Bishops are the divinely ordained teachers in the Church, and any notion that they are to be ignored as “heretics” fills me with horror. If they teach something, the burden of proof is on those who find fault with them, and the presumption must be that they are teaching truly.

The TLM is not enough - the Arians were not in error in liturgical matters. That did not make them Catholics. And in any case, The Pauline Mass is now the proper form of the Roman Rite, and any defects in it have been made good by iits being in universal use these last 35 years. It is therefore customary according to canon law. ==

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If they teach something, the burden of proof is on those who find fault with them, and the presumption must be that they are teaching truly.

Interesting viewpoint. I can only pray that you hold to it with regard to the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

Interesting viewpoint. I can only pray that you hold to it with regard to the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

== The burden of proof is irrelevant once a question is clear one way or the other.

And it is perfectly clear that the Bible contains errors and asserts errors and is not inerrant. There is in fact nothing to discuss; merely a fact to recognise.

The problem is, that inerrantism is a doctrine without content - it can’t be falsified, because the inerrancy is always being redefined so that error becomes impossible to demonstrate. But by making error impossible to demonstrate, the inerrantist has not proved that inerrancy is truly a quality of the Bible - he has proved only that it is methodologically impossible to prove to his satisfaction that the Bible contains error. Which is a very different thing from proving the Bible to be inerrant.

No one had even attempted to show that inerrantism is worthy of belief - all that has been done, is that quotations insisting it is inerrant and must be so regarded have been given. But that in no way shows that believing it, is good or moral or edifying; far less does it show why inerrantism should be regarded as theologically important or theologically valuable or essential to faith in Christ. So far, there is no reason to think that total inerrancy is of any more value, importance, or theological profundity, than assertions that “there are green unicorns on Mars”.

Far too much apologetic never gets beyond asserting that there are green unicorns on Mars - merely quoting screeds of writers who make such a claim, makes the asserted claim neither true, profound, edifying, theologically important, nor even worth saying. IOW, Catholics seem to be far too easily satisfied, and far too disinclined to think seriously about what theological statements mean, commit them to, imply, require in practice, or what the objections are to them.

If I were as abrupt as some people, I would say “Two Popes made Raymond Brown a member of the PBC. Deal with it” - but I do not think that sort of tone is a very gracious one. That assertion, has, however, not been challenged. So, if Father Brown was so heterodox, what the blazes were Paul VI & JP2 doing, to make him, of all men, a member of the PBC ? Is that not rather worse than careless ? Surely, while once may be carelessness, twice is criminal negligence. Yet the thing happened. If the Pope is such a blithering incompetent as - it would appear - he must be: what is he doing as Pope ?

For it is not very competent to choose a “dissenter” and “heretic” and “modernist” - all of these terms have been used as descriptors for Father Brown - as a member of a Pontifical Commission; especially a Commission the work of which is of such great importance for the “average Catholic”.

So, if the Pope acts as though teaching about inerrancy is so much waste-paper - who am I to say it is not ? ==

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

Interesting viewpoint. I can only pray that you hold to it with regard to the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

But Dave, he does! Don’t you understand, by rejecting the total inherency of the Bible, he is following the Bishops; yet these Bishops are not following the Popes who explicitly condemned their views. These Bishops have strayed from the Catholic teaching on the inherency of the bible (and MANY other matters), yet many people are following them.

Don’t you see, Gottle of Geer, that what is being taught today is very often exactly contrary to what has always been taught, and forms part of the Catholic Faith. What are you going to do? Are you going to follow the “new” beliefs of these liberal Bishops of our day, whose views have already been condemned by the Church? or are you going to follow what the Church has always taught? If you say you are going to follow the Bishops today who reject what the Church has always taught, what will you do if the Bishops 15 years from now reject teachings that you now hold firmly? Will you “change” what you now believe?

The Church always taught that the Bible is completely inherent. Today, many reject this teaching of the Church and claim its inherency only extends to faith and morals. Yet, actually, they do not even believe it is inherent in faith or morals, since they often accept homosexuality (morals), and claim that the Jewish religion is still salvific (faith). So it is really only a matter of time before they again “revise” the inherency of the Bible, to exclude faith and morals, as well as history and science. They will probably do this by redefining the term “inherent” to means something completely different than what it has always meant.

The truth and the comforting fact is that the Catholic faith does not change. It builds on itself and thus becomes more clearly defined, but never does any doctrinal matter change. This “evolution of doctrine” was explicitly condemned by Pius X.

What would you have done during the days of the Arian heresy when up to 90% of the Bishops were Arian? Would you have said: Well, it is true that the Church used to teach that Jesus was God - equal to the Father - and even defined it at the Council of Nicea, but the Bishops today no longer believe that, and they are the leaders. Therefore I will just follow what they are now teaching (even thought it has been condemned), and I will reject what the Church has always taught. Would it “fill you with horror” if another Catholic of that time told you that those Bishops who reject what the Church had always been taught were in heresy and are not to be trusted?

It is true that in normal times we should not even consider questioning our Bishops. But in a day like ours, when the Bishops are teaching things which have already been explicitly condemned by the Church, we must hold fast two what the Church has always taugth, and not follow the “wolves in sheeps clothing”, because “if the blind follow the blind, both will end up in the pit”.

The solution is to read the encyclicals of the past Popes, and Catechisms that were produced before this crisis began - when the Bishops taught what the Church has always taught.

 

[BayCityRickL]

== I think I understand the POV - but, as a “dissenter” (according to itsjustdave anyway) I want no part in this. The Bishops are the divinely ordained teachers in the Church, and any notion that they are to be ignored as “heretics” fills me with horror. If they teach something, the burden of proof is on those who find fault with them, and the presumption must be that they are teaching truly.

Nah. Garry Wills was on CSPAN yesterday and made the observation that many bishops in the 4th century accepted the Arian heresy. It was the laity that maintained the orthodox faith in the Church.

I don’t attend any of the other protestant churches in town, so why should I attend a church pretending to be catholic, which dissents on just so many things, even the instructions for the Mass? It’s just another protestant church that I’m bypassing on Sunday.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The burden of proof is irrelevant once a question is clear one way or the other.

And it is perfectly clear that the Bible contains errors and asserts errors

Likewise, it was “perfectly clear” to Martin Luther with regard to his heretical opinions about Scripture. However, just cuz you think it is perfectly clear, like Martin Luther, you are contrary to Catholic teaching, defiantly rejecting Heb 13:17. Your defiant rejection of Catholic doctrine is what is “perfectly clear.”

When you can show me why the doctrine of Jesus being “eternally begotten of the Father” is “worthy of belief” apart from the authority of the Catholic Church, then your dissident ramblings will make more sense to me.

I, like St. Augustine, would not even believe in the Gospels if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me to do so. Your position is so incredibly inconsistent. You claim to be Catholic, which supposedly includes belief in the Gospels based merely upon the say so of the Church, but you can’t seem to accept other teachings based merely upon the say so of the Catholic Church. It is the say so of the Catholic Church which is precisely the ONLY reason we know anything about Jesus and Christianity.

Even Martin Luther admitted: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” (Commentary on St. John, ch. 16)

If you were consistent, you would reject Christianity altogether, or accept ALL that the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

But Dave, he does! Don’t you understand, by rejecting the total inherency of the Bible, he is following the Bishops

Which Bishop? Can you provide a magisterial text which rejects the inerrancy of Scripture?

Catholic ecclesiology consists of this:

1. Obey your pastor in all things within his sphere of authority, even when you think he’s wrong, unless compelled by higher authority to do otherwise. "A subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIb, 104, 5). "a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops,exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals."(canon 752, Code of Canon Laws). See also Heb 13:17.
2. “Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.” (St. Catherine of Sienna).

Whether a Catholic proclaims to a so-called “traditionalist” or so-called “progressive,” those who reject the above Catholic ecclesiology, reject Catholicism.

So, in practice, I am to defer to the teaching of Fr. Brad, my pastor. I am to obey him in all things lawful, within his sphere of authority. I can obey him in things outside his authority, so long as it is lawful. Let’s say Fr. Brad’s next homily, he asserts the teachings of Fr. Raymond Brown and says that the writer of the Book of Job made an error. Am I to assent to this teaching? No. Higher authority comes from Bishop Michael Sheridan, who asserts the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. But what if Bishop Sheridan also asserted the errancy of Sacred Scritpure? Then I am not bound to defer to his teachings insofar as it is contrary to that of the Pope. But what of the Pope’s teachings? That doctrine formally promulgated by the Pope, whether solemnly promulgated in council or ex cathedra, or even in his universal ordinary teaching, is gudied by the Holy Spirit, and can never be contary to Divine Faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If I were as abrupt as some people, I would say “Two Popes made Raymond Brown a member of the PBC. Deal with it” - but I do not think that sort of tone is a very gracious one. That assertion, has, however, not been challenged.

Others also appointed to the PBC assert that Fr. Brown is absolutely incorrect regarding the errancy of Scripture. As such, I don’t see Fr. Brown’s appointment to the PBC as indicating that his opinions are orthodox, let alone doctrinal. If this is all you have, then the support for the “authority” of errantism is lacking. I quote councils and popes from writings promulgated in the Acta Apostolica Sedis. You refer to non-magisterial texts and PBC appointments. Gotta say with all objectivity, your support is weak.

 

[Brad]

BayCityRickL:

I don’t attend any of the other protestant churches in town, so why should I attend a church pretending to be catholic, which dissents on just so many things, even the instructions for the Mass? It’s just another protestant church that I’m bypassing on Sunday.

Exactly. What bothers me is they can still call themselves Catholic.

 

[Malachi4U]

God inspires and men (includes women) write. The Bible was inspired by God but was written by men. Men can and do error. That is why Christ founded a Curch and not a Bible. The theology in all Catholic editions is inerrant.