Ex Cathredra Teachings

[Little_Les]

You’re something all right - formal or material heretic, or schismatic maybe. No more Catholic than Luther or Henry VIII. And every bit as gullible as they and their followers were.

And no, the Church’s teaching on the inerrancy of scripture stands. Scripture is perfect and without error in regards its instruction on faith and morals. Inerrant and infallible. Full stop. Whether it is historically or scientifically accurate in EVERY respect is utterly beside the point.

No. Your claim has been condemned many times by the Catholic Church. See DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, chapter 1

“When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules”

See also Dei Verbum, Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paracletus.

 

[LilyM]

No. Your claim has been condemned many times by the Catholic Church. See DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, chapter 1

“When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules”.

:yawn: So then, even if scriptures appear to be inaccurate they’re not - it’s just that we don’t understand 'em properly. Good. Given that we’re reading translations of translations 2000 and more years after the originals were written, it’s very feasible.

It’s clear enough that the almighty God is quite capable of writing what He wants without us second guessing it or Him.

And if there appears to be error in something that He has told us is inerrant in every particular, then I think I’ll bank on His truth rather than my own (or yours or anyone else’s) incredibly feeble understanding.

What I want to know is why you think your puny intellect, or mine, counts for anything when it comes to understanding Sacred Scripture.

 

[Little_Les]

:yawn: So then, even if scriptures appear to be inaccurate they’re not - it’s just that we don’t understand 'em properly. Good. Given that we’re reading translations of translations 2000 and more years after the originals were written, it’s very feasible.

It’s clear enough that the almighty God is quite capable of writing what He wants without us second guessing it or Him.

And if there appears to be error in something that He has told us is inerrant in every particular, then I think I’ll bank on His truth rather than my own (or yours or anyone else’s) incredibly feeble understanding.

What I want to know is why you think your puny intellect, or mine, counts for anything when it comes to understanding Sacred Scripture.

Some of us are capable of separating fact and fiction and recognizing when a contradiction exists.

For example:
Mark 16:8 “Then they went out and fled from the tomb, seized with trembling and bewilderment. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” (NAB)

or

Matt 28:8 “Then they went away quickly from the tomb, fearful yet overjoyed, and ran to announce this to his.”(NAB)

Does your belief system allow you to admit that there is a contradiction between these supposedly inspired passages?

What I want to know is why you think your puny intellect, or mine, counts for anything when it comes to understanding Sacred Scripture<<

Then there was no reason for scripture to be written, was there?

 

[Little_Les]

And for those who try to limit divine inspiration and inerrancy merely to matters of faith and morals, there is this Catholic Teaching.

1. "Moreover, our predecessor, sweeping aside all such distinctions between what these critics are pleased to call primary and secondary elements, says in no ambiguous fashion that “those who fancy that when it is a question of the truth of certain expressions we have not got to consider so much what God said as why He said it,” are very far indeed from the truth. He also teaches that Divine inspiration extends to EVERY PART of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text: “It would be wholly impious to limit inspiration to certain portions only of Scripture or to concede that the sacred authors themselves could have erred.”[Spiritus Paracletus]

 

[Neil_Anthony]

One "proof " of the fact of the Assumption offered by Munificentissimus is as follows:

" 33. Finally, since the Church has never looked for the bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin nor proposed them for the veneration of the people, we have a proof on the order of a sensible experience"

In short, since the Church never found the body of Mary, she must have been assumed into heaven. But would this reasoning apply equally well to St. Joseph too?

This argument has some merit. Surely the apostles, John in particular would have at least noted where Mary had been buried. There was a fascination with relics and for there to not even be claims (real or false) that people had relics of Mary suggests that people believed in her bodily assumption.

 

[Little_Les]

This argument has some merit. Surely the apostles, John in particular would have at least noted where Mary had been buried. There was a fascination with relics and for there to not even be claims (real or false) that people had relics of Mary suggests that people believed in her bodily assumption.

No. There the story of Mary’s Assumption developed in the 4th or 5th century. But regarding your remark about John, please note his gospel was written between 95 and 110 A.D.

Yet there is no mention of Mary’s Assumption. This suggests that the folklore about the Assumption hadn’t developed yet.

 

[Little_Les]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven. "

If this is true, we can conclude two things based on the statement.

(1) In 451 the occurance of the Assumption was not generally known, certainly not by the Emperor and his wife.

(2) How St. Juvenal knew about the “request of St. Thomas” from the first century is not reported.

 

[Little_Les]

And no, the Church’s teaching on the inerrancy of scripture stands. Scripture is perfect and without error in regards its instruction on faith and morals. Inerrant and infallible. Full stop. Whether it is historically or scientifically accurate in EVERY respect is utterly beside the point.

No. ALL scripture is suppose to be inspired. Not just that dealing with faith and morals. ALL scripture. And if it is in error, then it is not inspired scripture.

Providentissimus deus, Pope Leo XIII, 1893

1. "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 thatANY 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. "
2. “It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error.”

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM,SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965,

Chapter III, #11 “…For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, WITH ALL THEIR PARTS , are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

Thus Catholic teaching is that absolutely nothing in inspired scripture can possibly be in error in any way, and all scripture is thus inspired.

Think that’s right? Or do you want to cut and paste only those areas of scripture dealing with faith and morals?

 

[LilyM]

Some of us are capable of separating fact and fiction and recognizing when a contradiction exists.

For example:
Mark 16:8 “Then they went out and fled from the tomb, seized with trembling and bewilderment. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” (NAB)

or

Matt 28:8 “Then they went away quickly from the tomb, fearful yet overjoyed, and ran to announce this to his.”(NAB)

Does your belief system allow you to admit that there is a contradiction between these supposedly inspired passages?

And some of us are oh so close but no cigar.

Simply there were probably two visits to the tomb. Initially the Marys were scared and probably thought they were hallucinating, so fled and told no one - yet. Then they just had to go back after a little while to check whether the tomb really was empty (I certainly would’ve done, so would you probably).

Second visit they saw the angel again (who I believe was still there for Peter and John’s visit?), were reassured that He was indeed risen, and moreover told to go and tell the Apostles. No contradiction, no crisis in my belief system. Thank you and good night.

What I want to know is why you think your puny intellect, or mine, counts for anything when it comes to understanding Sacred Scripture<<

Then there was no reason for scripture to be written, was there?

Of course there is. God reveals both His law and His truth, which is eternal and probably not as linear and limited as ours. A manifestation of His mystery and His infinitely exceeding our comprehension.

What was true for the Jews (that God wasn’t human) isn’t true for us (He is, because He became so in NT times).

 

[Little_Les]

And some of us are oh so close but no cigar.

Simply there were probably two visits to the tomb. Initially the Marys were scared and probably thought they were hallucinating, so fled and told no one - yet. Then they just had to go back after a little while to check whether the tomb really was empty (I certainly would’ve done, so would you probably).

QUOTE]

No. The Gospels report only one visit to the tomb. Trying to imagine another visit, though creative, does not really fit the reported facts.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No. There the story of Mary’s Assumption developed in the 4th or 5th century. But regarding your remark about John, please note his gospel was written between 95 and 110 A.D.

Yet there is no mention of Mary’s Assumption. This suggests that the folklore about the Assumption hadn’t developed yet.

If the ‘folklore’ about the Assumption hadn’t developed before the 4th century, then there would have been people claiming to have relics of the Virgin Mary (real or fraudulent). The absence of interest in relics of Mary says something about what the people believed.

 

[Little_Les]

And some of us are oh so close but no cigar.

Second visit they saw the angel again (who I believe was still there for Peter and John’s visit?), were reassured that He was indeed risen, and moreover told to go and tell the Apostles. No contradiction, no crisis in my belief system. Thank you and good night.

QUOTE]

The angel part of the story is yet another contradiction.

Matthew -only one angel outside the tomb (Matt 28:2-4).

Mark- only one angel inside the tomb (Mark 16.5)

Luke - two angels not clear where (Luke 24:4)

John -two angels inside the tomb (John 20:4-14)

So the totals are:

Matthew - 2 women and 1angel
Mark - 3 women and 1 angel
Luke - at least 5 women and 2 angels
John - 1 woman and 2 angel.

So you get to pick the inspired and inerrant version you like.

 

[Little_Les]

Of course there is. God reveals both His law and His truth, which is eternal and probably not as linear and limited as ours. A manifestation of His mystery and His infinitely exceeding our comprehension.

What was true for the Jews (that God wasn’t human) isn’t true for us (He is, because He became so in NT times).

Ah, yes. The old fallback “It’s a mystery” explanation. I remember it from Catholic elementary school. To be used whenever Sister didn’t have an answer to questions raised in catechism.

Your presumption then is that Jesus was divine. But only the Gospel of John makes that claim. Have you ever noticed?

 

[Little_Les]

If the ‘folklore’ about the Assumption hadn’t developed before the 4th century, then there would have been people claiming to have relics of the Virgin Mary (real or fraudulent). The absence of interest in relics of Mary says something about what the people believed.

Not at all. Did they have or claim relics of St. Joseph?

Simply stated, the gospels don’t show too much interest in Mary. When she and Joseph died where they were buried wasn’t recorded.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Not at all. Did they have or claim relics of St. Joseph?

Simply stated, the gospels don’t show too much interest in Mary. When she and Joseph died where they were buried wasn’t recorded.

St. Joseph died earlier than Mary did, and wasn’t mentioned in the gospels as much as Mary or the apostles. At the time he died there wouldn’t have been the same interest in relics. St. Joseph isn’t a fair comparison.

While Mary may not be emphasized in the bible as much as she is emphasized by catholics, she is mentioned more often than some of the apostles, but the apostles relics were preserved.

Also, Mary was being emphasized more by Christians by the second century, for example by Irenaeus. Since devotion to Mary existed long before the 4th century, surely real or fraudulent relics of Mary would have appeared long before the 4th century, unless there was already a tradition that she was bodily assumed into heaven.

 

[Little_Les]

St. Joseph died earlier than Mary did, and wasn’t mentioned in the gospels as much as Mary or the apostles. At the time he died there wouldn’t have been the same interest in relics. St. Joseph isn’t a fair comparison.

While Mary may not be emphasized in the bible as much as she is emphasized by catholics, she is mentioned more often than some of the apostles, but the apostles relics were preserved.

Also, Mary was being emphasized more by Christians by the second century, for example by Irenaeus. Since devotion to Mary existed long before the 4th century, surely real or fraudulent relics of Mary would have appeared long before the 4th century, unless there was already a tradition that she was bodily assumed into heaven.

1. When did the interest in relics begin? Evidence.
2. What evidece do you have that relics of mary did not exist in the early centuries before the Assumption legend was developed?
3. What is the earliest evidence you can document that belief in the Assumption existed?

 

[Little_Les]

If the ‘folklore’ about the Assumption hadn’t developed before the 4th century, then there would have been people claiming to have relics of the Virgin Mary (real or fraudulent). The absence of interest in relics of Mary says something about what the people believed.

That’s what is termed an “assertion without evidence.” Do you have any evidence?

 

[Little_Les]

Moving along with yet another proof of the fact of the Assumption as presented in Munificentissimus Deus, there is this:

33." In the fifteenth century, during a later period of scholastic theology, St. Bernardine of Siena collected and diligently evaluated all that the medieval theologians had said and taught on this question…Moreover, it is reasonable and fitting that not only the soul and body of a man, but also the soul and body of a woman should have obtained heavenly glory."

It’s only fair that a woman be allowed in heaven too. So therefore, the Dogma of the Assumption must be true.

Do you think that’s a proof of the fact of the Assumption?

 

[Little_Les]

And perhaps the most interesting “proof” of the fact of the Assumption given in Munificentissimus is the “He could have, should have, therefore must have” statement found in article #38

1. “…And, since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way.”

But this evidently didn’t apply to St. Joseph.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

LilyM;2996258:

And some of us are oh so close but no cigar.

Simply there were probably two visits to the tomb. Initially the Marys were scared and probably thought they were hallucinating, so fled and told no one - yet. Then they just had to go back after a little while to check whether the tomb really was empty (I certainly would’ve done, so would you probably).

QUOTE]

No. The Gospels report only one visit to the tomb. Trying to imagine another visit, though creative, does not really fit the reported facts.

Wow.

You are in essence saying that, if it’s not in the Bible, it didn’t happen. By that rationale:

1. Jesus never skinned a knee when he was a child.
2. Jesus only ate a few times – those which were reported by Scripture.
3. The Apostles never spoke to Jesus, except for those moments which are recorded.

…and so on.

Please note that, although the Gospels may record only one visit to the tomb, they do not say there was only one visit.

Peace,
Dante