Does the Bible have errors in it?

[RSiscoe]

RSiscoe:

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

Itsjustdave:

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

I sincerely hope there are no magesterial texts which explicitly, and unambiguously, teach heresy. Usually, such recent documents “allude” to heresy; or teach the truth ambiguously. And my evidence to support that statement is this: Simply look at how many people have interpreted Dei Verbum to mean that the Bible is only inspired in faith and morals. Although I agree that it did not explicitly teach that heresy, it was written in such a way that it has allowed that heresy to become almost universal in the Church today. And, of course, Rome has issued no document recently condemning this almost universal heresy. In this case it is an evil embiguity that has caused people to believe heretical things, rather than an outright heresy being taught by the documents. But as we see, both outright heresy and ambiguity have accomplish the same thing: they have caused people to reject the truth. And it only gets worse when Rome does not issue an encyclical to clear up that matter. In fact, sometimes what comes out of Rome only adds to the confusion.

Let’s look at an example: Consider the heresy recently taught by the document issued through the USCCB. This document explicitly taught the heresy that the Jews have their own covenant which has not been “annuled”; and that this covenant is salvific for them. This is not ambiguity, but outright heresy, condemned by both the Bible and the Council of Florence. But notice who this document quotes numerous times to support its heresy: John Paul II. John Paul II has said repeatedly that the Old Covenant has “never been revoked by God”. Now, we have no way of knowing what the Pope meant by that. Did he mean that the Jewish covenant is still in force? If so John Paul II is a heretic. Did he mean that the Old Covenant was not revoked, but fulfilled by Jesus, but that it is not longer salvific? If so he taught the truth. His repeated statement that the old Covenant has “never been revoked by God” is, at best, ambiguous. The US Bishops who issued that heretical documents several years ago certainly thought John Paul II meant that the old covenant was still salvific for the Jews. In fact, they based their heretical document in large part on what John Paul II has said! Since the Pope did not correct this heresy of those Bishops who used many of his quotes to back up what they were teaching, it makes one wonder if he also believes the heresy they taught. But we don’t know for certain. It is not our place to subjectively judge the Pope. But we also should not close out eyes and act as though everything is functioning perfectly normal in the Church today. We must realize that we are in a crisis of faith and therefore be on our guard against false teachings, and ambiguous teachings. We must also respond to this crisis by reading and enforming ourselves of what the Catholic Church really does teach. To do this, all we need to do is read the old Catechisms which teach the truth very clearly; and if we are being prudent and wise, we will also read the old encyclicals of our Popes, which addressed many of the errors being taught today.

So, has the magesteriums issued an unambiguous text rejecting the total inherency of the Bible? I doubt it. Have they issued a text officially teaching the heresy that the USCCB taught a few years ago? I hope not. But they have issued ambiguous documents that have allowed for these heretical interpretations to become mainstream, and have not come out explicitly against them. This in itself is a big problem. To allow heretical teachings to become mainstream, and not to issue a document clearing up the confusion is being very neglegent, in my opinion. Just look at how many honest and sincere Catholics actually believe that the Church teaches that the Bible is only without error when it teaches faith and morals. This is what most bothers me: We have sincere Catholics being led into heresy through these ambiguous documents. Even most “conservatives” now believe the Bible is only inspired in faith and morals. This shows just how bad thing have become.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Itsjustdave:

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.

I’m not sure if this was addressed to me or not. Of course I believe in obedience. Obediences is one of the highest moral virtues. It brings our will under submission and frees us from self will. Obedience is the road to perfection.

However, as you perfectly understand, we should never obey by assenting to heretical teachings. All moral virtues are a balance between two extremes. One extreme would be to obey an evil command; the other extreme would be to fail to obey a ligitimate command. Moral virtues are not absolutes. As you know, assenting to heresy would be false obedience as it would separate us from God.

We are very fortunate today in our crisis since we have such a solid magesterium, consisting of encyclicals explicitly condemning many errors of our day, as well as 2000 years of Church Councils, the teachings of which were all revealed by God. We are very fortunate to have them today when so many contradictory things are being taught (although no always "officially). We must take advantage of these Councils and encyclicals by reading them and informing ourselves. We must “take up the shield of faith”, in order to “deflect the firy darts” of heresy. We must have a strong and uncompromising faith. This comes to us through prayer and study. But we must study only GOOD and SOLID materials. For that, in my opinion, we have to read older Catholic writings.

Just as you would not want to study about the Divinity of Jesus by reading writings produced during the Arian heresy, so too, should we not attempt to learn the faith by reading writings produced in our day of apostacy (in my opinion). We have 1900 years of solid Catholic writings to form our faith with. If you study only todays ambiguous writings, you are running a very great risk. We must always chose the better path; and it is better to form our faith by older writings which are very clear, rather than recent writings which are ambiguous; can mean one of many things; and very often result in the reader arriving at a heretical belief.

 

[RSiscoe]

By Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza

Two popular weekly magazines, Newsweek and Time, devoted their current issue (Dec. 13) to an extensive cover story on the birth of Jesus. Both magazines probed the questions which scripture scholars, theologians, historians and astronomers have asked for years: Are the Christmas stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke the literal truth, or are they stories mostly based on ancient Greek and Roman myths about their national heroes?

It is not surprising that neither magazine gave a definite answer to this old question, and concluded that the debate has not been resolved by scholars. I found much in both articles which are quite acceptable to our Catholic understanding of the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. Some aspects of the articles, however, gave too much credence to opinions which misunderstand the purpose of the gospel narratives. They are not meant to be accurate biographical accounts of the life of Jesus. Rather they are the story of the faith of the first Christians about Jesus. Matthew and Luke were not interested in historical evidence for their account of Jesus’ birth, but they were interested in portraying the core facts of this unique event. They reflected the belief of those who were closely associated with Jesus and His disciples and what they wrote is true but not in the sense that every detail is historically verified, although there are important historical details in the story.

Here is one recent example of a Bishop teaching the almost universal heresy, that the Bible is not inherent when teaching history.

So what was Rome’s response to this heresy? Did they publically reprimand the Bishops? Did they issue a statement to clarify the matter so that the thousands of Catholics who read it are not deceived? No, what they did instead was to promote this heretic to Archbishop, thus giving credit to his false teaching. This is what happens in the church today. The most liberal heretics get promoted to the highest offices.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But as we see, both outright heresy and ambiguity have accomplish the same thing: they have caused people to reject the truth.

If memory serves me correctly, I believe it was St. Augustine that taught that Scripture itself is ambiguous by Divine providence, so that faith itself is meritorious. I think that if Divine revelation lacked ambiguity, or more properly called “mystery,” it wouldn’t be very interesting and man would take little notice of it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BayCityRickL:

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.

However:​

See Acts 20.28; I Corinthians 12.

I never imagined I would be defending the divine authority of the episcopate against a Catholic ##

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.

Does the Pope agree with you ?​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

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.

I’ve spent the best part of three pages saying I have more reason than this alone to reject inerrantism. What is the point of giving reasons if they are merely ignored ? None at all I have still had no replies to the problems with the doctrine that arise from the history of its vocalisation, for example - yet this is post 300, or so.​

What is beyond dispute, is that two Popes chose a man whom you (and others) deem unorthodox - so that even if he was so judfged by others, the fact - and it it is a fact - remains that he was on the PBC: even though it follow s from the comments of his critics that he had no business to be so chosen.

If he was so “incorrect” - why was he appointed, and appointed twice ? This does create a very big problem for those who say who argue that the Popes’ word are not inconsistent with their acts. So it should be faced; niceties about the official character of an action do not mean that an action does not have extensive results upon the the Church at large - that choice was made, twice, regardless of whether it was recorded in the AAS or not. As the saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words”. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RSiscoe:

By Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza

Two popular weekly magazines, Newsweek and Time, devoted their current issue (Dec. 13) to an extensive cover story on the birth of Jesus. Both magazines probed the questions which scripture scholars, theologians, historians and astronomers have asked for years: Are the Christmas stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke the literal truth, or are they stories mostly based on ancient Greek and Roman myths about their national heroes?

It is not surprising that neither magazine gave a definite answer to this old question, and concluded that the debate has not been resolved by scholars. I found much in both articles which are quite acceptable to our Catholic understanding of the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. Some aspects of the articles, however, gave too much credence to opinions which misunderstand the purpose of the gospel narratives. They are not meant to be accurate biographical accounts of the life of Jesus. Rather they are the story of the faith of the first Christians about Jesus. Matthew and Luke were not interested in historical evidence for their account of Jesus’ birth, but they were interested in portraying the core facts of this unique event. They reflected the belief of those who were closely associated with Jesus and His disciples and what they wrote is true but not in the sense that every detail is historically verified, although there are important historical details in the story.

Here is one recent example of a Bishop teaching the almost universal heresy, that the Bible is not inherent when teaching history.

So what was Rome’s response to this heresy? Did they publically reprimand the Bishops? Did they issue a statement to clarify the matter so that the thousands of Catholics who read it are not deceived? No, what they did instead was to promote this heretic to Archbishop, thus giving credit to his false teaching. This is what happens in the church today. The most liberal heretics get promoted to the highest offices.

“They”, being the Pope. IOW, the Pope promoted someone accused of being a heretic - so just possibly, he is no such thing. Those two possibilities are not the only ones.​

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

If memory serves me correctly, I believe it was St. Augustine that taught that Scripture itself is ambiguous by Divine providence, so that faith itself is meritorious. I think that if Divine revelation lacked ambiguity, or more properly called “mystery,” it wouldn’t be very interesting and man would take little notice of it.

I was wondering what had happened to this thread. It showed that you had posted, but when I clicked on it there was no new post. I guess it was fixed.

Regarding you post: I completely disagree with your point. The faith is not to be taught ambiguously. It is to be extremely clear, so that anyone can know for certain what the Church teaches on each point… We may not have a complete understanding of every detail, but we should know very clearly what the Church teaches.

I agree with Augustine, however, that certain things in the Bible are hard to understand to test ouf faith. I think God purposefully placed “appearant” contradictions in the Bible to see if we would really believe that it is true; or if we would easily give in to those who claim that there are real contradictions . I believe there are good explanations for any seeming contradiction within the Bible. One reason the Bible may not always be very easy to understand is because God did not want the New Testament Church to be based on the “Bible alone”.

But these two things: the seeming contradictions in the Bible, and the faith being taught ambiguously, are two different things. If the faith is not taught clearly, how are we supposed to know what to believe? Also, keep in mind that when Pope Pius XI condemned the modernists in Pascendi he said they purposefully used ambiguity to confuse people. Ambiguity is not the way to teach the faith, but the way to confuse people.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But these two things: the seeming contradictions in the Bible, and the faith being taught ambiguously, are two different things.

If Sacred Scritpure can be ambiguous per Divine providence, then I dont’ see why magisterial teachings, guided by the same Holy Spirit, are to be held to a higher standard of perpiscuity than the Bible. There will necessarily be mystery in our Holy Relgion, in both Scritpure and Tradition, this side of heaven. Many seem to have trouble dealing with this fact, much like my teenagers who always want a reason for everything or they refuse their internal assent. Yet, there are many things in our Holy Religion that just are to be believed based upon authority. See Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders …” There’s no caveat here about obedience based upon how clever or convincing their reasons may be.

The Catholic Church has given reasons for its doctrine of inspiration and from that, derives its doctrine of inerrancy. It has formally stated that one follows from the other. You keep asking why? why? why? This isn’t because the Church hasn’t explained it sufficiently enough, but because you don’t assent to their reasons. Like my teenager does so often, it seems you are asking why not because an answer is lacking, but because you are not sufficiently persuaded by the answer thus far given.

John the Baptist didn’t understand why Jesus came to him to be baptized … a baptism of repentence. Jesus answered him briefly and rather ambiguously, telling him to accept it for now as it is fitting to fulfill all rigteousness. John accepted the answer humbly based upon Jesus’ authority. That authority is continued in his Vicar. You may not be satisfied with all the reasons that authority gives to you, but Catholics ought to accept and assent based upon the authority it comes from, not based upon how clear, clever, or completely persuasive the response is.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If the faith is not taught clearly, how are we supposed to know what to believe?

Sola Scripturists ask the same thing when arguing for the perpiscuity of Scripture. The fact is, however, that by Divine providence, Sacred Scipture is not clear *apart *from the authorative teaching of the living magisterium of the Church. Same with Sacred Tradition. I get that you reject that Scritpure is totallty without ambiguity, yet it seems you and many Catholics want *sola traditio *to be your substitute for sola scriptura. Sola traditio, like sola scriptura is insufficient *apart *from the authoritative teaching of the living magisterium.

The constant teaching of the Church has been that the Bible is inerrant. This is what the past Church has taught, and what Vatican II taught. This pope, far from changing this teaching, has instead upheld the teachings of Providentissimus Deus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, and *Dei Verbum. *There has been absolutely no magisterial texts affirming errantism.

Also, keep in mind that when Pope Pius XI condemned the modernists in Pascendi he said they purposefully used ambiguity to confuse people. Ambiguity is not the way to teach the faith, but the way to confuse people.

True, and I don’t consider that the Church is purposely ambiguous. It is as clear as it can be *given *the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is clearly in favor of the inerrancy of Scripture. It has clearly rejected what you opine to be the error of inerrantism. You may *think *that it is an error, but your opinion is unsupported by the authoritative teaching of the magisterium.

The Church certainly is ambiguous about the precise meaning of inspiration and inerrancy. But the accuracy of inerrantism is clear. If the Church knew more, it would teach it. Doctrine develops, and sometimes the Church simply has to state what it knows accurately, instead of attempting a precision which is contrary to that accuracy. This is precisely why both Thomism and Molinism is acceptable with regard to teaching about grace, free will, and predestination. The Church teaches accurately, even if it is not as precise as you wish it to be. Over time, it has certainly been more precise in its doctrines, especially regarding Christology. But the magisterium is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching formally and universally any Catholic doctine inaccurately just so it can satisfy the faithful’s insatiable need for more precision.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

I understand your frustration, but you seem to imply this is new within the Church. Remember that St. Cyprian of Carthage taught that the baptisms of heretics were not efficacious. Pope St. Stephen was ready to excommunciate him for it. He didn’t. Do you know why? I don’t. But the fact is that St. Cyprian continued until his martyrdom to bind those in Carthage to canonically re-baptize heretics against the demands of Pope St. Stephen. Thus, you may be frustrated by a pope who doesn’t censure as you think he ought to, but from my perspective, this is nothing new, and I ought to always keep in mind that I am among the governed. I’m happy to be in this position. While I may have my own opinions, I never lose the perspective that it is God’s wish that I be among the governed and that Pope John Paul II and his college of bishops be our pastors.

I keep these words of St. Catherine of Sienna in mind whenever I want to shake my angry fist at those ordained by God to govern my soul:

"He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." (Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

GottleofGeer,

As the saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words”. ##

Nice saying, but it is not relevant to Catholic doctrine and the study of dogmatic theology. Papal actions throughout history have not equated to Catholic doctrine. Some popes have had illegitimate children against their oath of celibacy, that doesn’t equate to *de facto *agreement to this as a legitamite part of Catholic doctrine.

The pope may govern poorly. He may sin gravely. His actions, his policies, his appointments, etc. are not protected from error. What he formally and universally teaches as Catholic doctrine, in his role as pastor of the Catholic Church is without error.

Thus, the teachings of the Ordinary and Solemn Magisterium are Divinely guided, and as such these words of Christ apply to those teachings: “He who hears you, hears me.”

So, it is ridiculous to conclude that a change in Catholic doctrine occurred based upon an appointment to the PBC of a fine Bible scholar who happens to be erroneous with regard to Scriptural inerrancy. Other equally fine scholars were also appointed by the same popes who upheld biblical inerrancy. To conclude that such appointments are tacit approvals of these scholars opinions is unconvincing.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

I believe that ‘errors’ is too strong a term to be applied to the Bible; if you consider all the allegory and metaphors then the Bible is errorless.

The Anthropromorphic fallacy is rife within the bible and the many doctors of the church did a good job explaining logically all the seemingly conflicting reasoning within the Bible.

The Roman Catholic Church is peerless in its logical explanation of the Catholic faith and both the old and new Testaments.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

GottleofGeer,
Nice saying, but it is not relevant to Catholic doctrine and the study of dogmatic theology. Papal actions throughout history have not equated to Catholic doctrine. Some popes have had illegitimate children against their oath of celibacy, that doesn’t equate to *de facto *agreement to this as a legitamite part of Catholic doctrine.

The pope may govern poorly. He may sin gravely. His actions, his policies, his appointments, etc. are not protected from error. What he formally and universally teaches as Catholic doctrine, in his role as pastor of the Catholic Church is without error.

Thus, the teachings of the Ordinary and Solemn Magisterium are Divinely guided, and as such these words of Christ apply to those teachings: “He who hears you, hears me.”

That needs exegesis - was Alexander IV speaking for Christ in legalising torture for the Inquisition, or was Leo X, in condemning the proposition that “To burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit” ? So that text needs a lot of qualifying, if it is not to be made to justify enormities. Neither Pope was in the same setting in life as the hearers of that word of Christ, after all. So exegesis and application are both needed: something we all acknowledge in practice - how many here have cut off a hand lest it offend them ? I haven’t - have you ? But Jesus says we should. So with any other passages - those about the ekklesia included.​

So, it is ridiculous to conclude that a change in Catholic doctrine occurred based upon an appointment to the PBC of a fine Bible scholar who happens to be erroneous with regard to Scriptural inerrancy.

I did not say there had been a change recently - I am saying, that there is a lack of coherence between conduct and teaching, and that it has its effect on how the teaching is to be understood. This attempt to separate behaviour from doctrinre is IMHO both artificial and utterly wrong,. as well as opposed to the Bible and human nature - for what we are, cannot but affect what we believe; and so conversely.​

If the Pope believes in total Biblical inerrancy - what on earth is he doing appointing to the PBC someone who allegedly does not ? That’s insane - it’s a textbook example of what Father Groeschel (in Arise From Darkness) calls being “passive aggressive”. ##

Other equally fine scholars were also appointed by the same popes who upheld biblical inerrancy. To conclude that such appointments are tacit approvals of these scholars opinions is unconvincing.

If a robber is appointed to the board of a company, one is entitled to wonder if the CEO is honest or competent, or, if the robber is really a robber at all, rather than a much-wronged individual who has been falsely accused. The probity of the other Board members is irrelevant to the question of the robber’s probity - but the probity of the robber, and the probity & competence of the CEO, are of the very greatest relevance and concern. Not least to the share-holders. Who are unlikely to be impressed by eloquent and ingenious statements defending a separation between the morals of the CEO, and the CEO’s actions with their cash. Because no theories or eloquence defending his actions are going to alter the very practical fact that, if he has been playing about with it as he ought not, then so he has, to their loss.​

I see no reason to suppose Father Brown is such a robber - but the assertion that he was, casts the gravest doubt upon the competence, integrity, and probity of two Popes. Their actions anent the PBC (and in other respects) affect the rest of us, greatly; and no theorising can alter that. And I prefer to think the Popes knew what they were doing, and to suspect that his critics among the laity don’t know what they are talking about when they criticise Biblical criticism in toto, as they do. It would not be the first time that scholars have been maligned by Fundamentalists or conservatives. So singing the praises of Fathers Most or Kelly does not explain - nor explain away - why a supposedly unorthodox scholar was twice made a member of the PBC by a Pope. And yes, there were other equally fine scholars on the PBC - I was taught by one, so I’m not in the least surprised he was made a member of the PBC. It was a great honour, and I was delighted to learn of it. But he would not impress the critics of Father Brown very much, I think. ##

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

There will necessarily be mystery in our Holy Relgion, in both Scritpure and Tradition, this side of heaven. Many seem to have trouble dealing with this fact, much like my teenagers who always want a reason for everything or they refuse their internal assent. Yet, there are many things in our Holy Religion that just are to be believed based upon authority.

I think you are missing my point. I am not saying that every mystery of the faith can be perfectly comprehended. I am saying that the faith should be taught clearly. You said that there are many things in our Holy Religion that are to be believed based upon authority. I agree. My point is, Catholics should clearly know what is being proposed so that they can assent to it. I am not saying we are going to completely understand everything. Here is one example. Belief and understanding are two different things.

This is an example of an ambiguous teaching (just an example). “Jesus is very much like God; therefore we call Him God”.

Now, that can either mean that Jesus IS God, or it can mean that He is not quite God, but only like God. That is an ambiguous teaching. The statement should go like this: “Jesus Christ IS God, He is not just “like” God.” That is a clear and unambiguous teaching. The first teaching is ambiguous and the second is very clear.

Now, using the second example, a person may not fully understand how Jesus is God, but they will at least know that the Church teaching that Jesus is God, and they will be able to submit to that teaching. With the first example, they will not even be sure what they are supposed to believe.

The teaching must be clearly proposed so that Catholics know what to submit to. If the teaching is not clear, they will not be sure what they are required to believe. Keep in mind that there is a distinction between belief and understanding. We should know clearly what the Church teaches so we can submit to it, even though we may not fully understand it.

For example, someone could say: "I believe there are three Persons in One God, but I don’t exactly understand how it is possible. Therefore, I believe it, not because I understand it, but by faith.

Catholics must be taught what they are required to believe very clearly so that they know what to assent to. If they understand it, great; if not, then their faith is that much more meritorious.

The Catholic Church has given reasons for its doctrine of inspiration and from that, derives its doctrine of inerrancy. It has formally stated that one follows from the other. You keep asking why? why? why? This isn’t because the Church hasn’t explained it sufficiently enough, but because you don’t assent to their reasons.

Have you been reading my posts? I absolutely submit to every teaching of the Church. I am the one who has been defending the total inherency of the bible against those who reject it. And why do they reject that teaching? Because they have been led to believe (through ambiguous teachings) that the Church no longer teaches that the Bible in totally inherent.

That is a perfect example of what I am talking about. These people have been rejecting the total inherency of the Bible on ambiguous documents: based on those documents, they have been led to believe that the Church no longer teaches that the bible is completely inherent. The ambiguity of these documetns has led to them believing something contrary to what the Church actually teaches. That is my point: The Church must teach clearly so people can know what to believe.

Actually, I find it very hard to believe that you do not agree with me - very hard to believe.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continue…

How do you teach you children the faith? Do you use ambuguous words which allow for several interpretations? Do you say, for example: “The Bible is not a science text book; it is inspired when it teaches faith and morals.” That statement did not deny that the Bible is inspired in science, but it leads one to think that.

Do you teach you kids that Jesus is “like” God? Or do you tell them that Jesus IS God? According to your reasoning, you should tell them that Jesus is “like” God, since ambuguity is a good thing.

In conclusion: The truths of the faith must be proposed very clearly so that Catholics know what they must believe. If the truth is not proposed clearly, how will they know what to assent to? Understanding is a different thing. I may believe that the moon sometimes appears orange in the sky, but I don’t understand why. I may believe that there is such a thing as DNA, but I don’t understand it. Belief and understanding are two different things.

One example: I am sure you are familiar with the homoousian, and homoiousian (sp), contriversy. During the Arian crisis, the Arians changed “one iota” in the word, which caused an ambiguity which allowed for their heretical interpretation. Homoousian means that Jesus is of “the same” substance as God the Father; homoiousian, means that he is of “like substance” to God the Father. This ambiguity was absolutely condemned by the Church, because of the confusion that it caused. That is where the term “not one iota” came from.

You may not be satisfied with all the reasons that authority gives to you, but Catholics ought to accept and assent based upon the authority it comes from, not based upon how clear, clever, or completely persuasive the response is.

I just had to scroll back down and re-read your post to make sure it was addressed to me. You are preaching to the choir here. I am not saying we should not believe all that is proposed; I am saying that the teaching should be proposed clearly so everyone knows what to assent to. Certainly you cannot think otherwise.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

RSiscoe,

I understand your frustration, but you seem to imply this is new within the Church. Remember that St. Cyprian of Carthage taught that the baptisms of heretics were not efficacious. Pope St. Stephen was ready to excommunciate him for it. He didn’t. Do you know why? I don’t. But the fact is that St. Cyprian continued until his martyrdom to bind those in Carthage to canonically re-baptize heretics against the demands of Pope St. Stephen. Thus, you may be frustrated by a pope who doesn’t censure as you think he ought to, but from my perspective, this is nothing new, and I ought to always keep in mind that I am among the governed. I’m happy to be in this position. While I may have my own opinions, I never lose the perspective that it is God’s wish that I be among the governed and that Pope John Paul II and his college of bishops be our pastors.

I keep these words of St. Catherine of Sienna in mind whenever I want to shake my angry fist at those ordained by God to govern my soul:

I am not saying we should shake our fists at bad leaders. What I am saying is that, when we realize they are bad leaders and are not protecting the flock, we should be on our guard. That is my point. We need to use our common sense.

We must strive to be obedient, but we must realize that faith is a suprnatural virtue - the foundations of the supernatural life - and therefore faith is much greater than obedience. Therefore, we should obey all things unless it would require us to commit a moral sin (sin against morality), or a sin against faith. We must also realize that “indifferentism” is a sin against faith. Therefore we must be on our guard against things that can cause us to become indifferent. Eccumenism, when practiced the wrong way (the way it is practiced today) leads to indifferentism. True eccumenism seeks to convert the heretics, schismatics and infidels to the Catholic Church so that they can be saved; false ecumenism claims that all religions are means of salvation and seeks to “unite” Catholics with their false religion, and thus to brong about one big false ecumenical religion, which is called “The Great Harlot” in the Apocalypse.

 

[RSiscoe]

Dave:

Catherine of Siena:

"He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." (Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28)

Dave,

Thanks for that quote. I also saw that you once quoted from her book called “The Diologue of Catherine of Siena”. That is one of my favorite books.

All that you quoted above is true, but we must keep in mind what I said above: Faith is greater than obedience, and should it happen that the Pope, or anyone else, proposes something contrary to the faith, we should not submit, for in that case the words of scripture would apply: “We must obey God rather than man”.

We should seek to be loyal and faithful to our leaders, but never if it causes us to be unfaithul to God. That would be, what St. Thomas calls, “false obedience”.

 

[RSiscoe]

Dave:

I understand your frustration, but you seem to imply this is new within the Church. Remember that St. Cyprian of Carthage taught that the baptisms of heretics were not efficacious.

Cyprian even held a Council which agreed with this teaching. Of course, it was not ratified by the Pope.

This is one case where we have had true developement of doctrine which has brought clarity to the matter. Cyrprian was actually half correct. In fact, if he would have worded it the way you did above he would have been completely correct.

It is true that if a heretic is baptized, the baptism is not “efficacious”, since it does not impart sanctifying grace. It is a valid baptism, and it does imprint the character on the soul, but their heresy hinders them from receiving sanctifying grace. So he was kind of right.

Where he was wrong was in claiming that heretics should be re-baptized. That is unnecessary since the baptism of heretics, when using the proper form matter and intent, is valid. Once they renounce their heresy, they can recieve sanctifying grace, without being rebaptized.

But the difference between what happened during the days of Cyprian, when he disagreed with Church teaching, and with what happens today, is that the Pope did not promote Cyprian to Cardinal and make him the head of the congregation whose responsibility it was to properly explain the baptism of heretics.

On the contrary, today we have Cardinal Kasper, who explicitly denies that heretics and schismatics need to convert to the Church, being made Cardinal and put in charge of promoting “Christian Unity” (whatever that means today).

At least the Pope in Cyprian’s day said that Cyprian was wrong, and did not give credit to his false teaching by promoting him and praising him. That is the difference.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

I goofed in some of my posts to you. I had in mind GottleofGeer’s insistence on “why why why.” Sorry about the mix up.

I do agree with you. However, I don’t see ambiguity as always the result of the devil. If I can admit ambiguity in Holy Writ then I ought to be able to accept some ambiguity within Sacred Tradition and the doctrines of Catholicism. It may in fact be, just as St. Augustine suggests, the result of Divine providence so that faith is meritorious. Furthermore, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason, but “the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives.” (ST, IIb, 171, 5). I agree that the Church ought to be dogmatic about her dogmas, and clear with regard to what she asserts regarding her doctrines. Yet, when she fails, in my fallible opinion, to be as clear as she could be, I try to keep the above in mind.

As for the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, I think you and I agree that the teaching is without question, clearly affirmed by the magisterium and has never been changed as Fr. Brown suggests. It may not be as precisely described as some with, but there know doubt regarding the accuracy and truth of Biblical inerrancy. I know of no dogmatic theologian that contests this (and Fr. Brown, while he often comments on his interpretation of this doctrine, is not a dogmatic theologian and so is truly speaking outside of his expertise on the matter). Even if my orthodox bishop, Most Rev. Michael Sheridan were to conclude tomorrow that the Bible had errors in it, I am compelled to submit to him only insofar as he does not contradict higher authority.

You said:

Faith is greater than obedience, and should it happen that the Pope, or anyone else, proposes something contrary to the faith, we should not submit, for in that case the words of scripture would apply: “We must obey God rather than man”.

Considering what St. Thomas calls “false” or “indiscreet” obedience (cf. ST, IIb, 104, 3), I hold fast to what St. Catherine of Sienna asserts here:

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, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza]

Thus, I never doubt if obedience to the Holy Father, in what he formally and universally teaches and canonically binds is a danger to the faithful, as obedience to the Holy Father in these matters can never contradict Divine obedience.