Hath The Church Erred?

[ferdgoodfellow]

mtr:

“As for your example concerning the vulgate, infallibility only applies to questions of faith and morals. It is not a doctrine of the church that the pope is infallible regarding bible translations, or on a physics test, or even on Jeopardy! for that matter. It seems like the people you are talking to are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Also remember that infallibility is a negative protection; it simply prevents the pope from teaching error in regard to faith and morals.”

Seems to me that if a Pope or council attempted to teach definitely that translation X is the only true translation, then then such a teaching would fall under the category of faith and morals.

I don’t have time right now to dig out the specific allegation, but it might have been one of the Canons of Trent that a Prot apologist was citing. If anyone know what he may have been referring to, please help.

Cordially,

Ferd

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Dan The Man,

“There has definately been a development of doctrine when it comes to the infallible dogma that OUtside the CHurch there is no salvation just as their has been a definite development of the infallible dogma of the Trinity from the time of the APostles will Nicea I.”

I seem to recall that someone wrote a book on this subject. Do you (or anyone else) recall the title and author?

Thanks.

Ferd

 

[The_Augustinian]

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

It is important to note who this particular canon was directed to: the Protestants, some of whom denied that the sacraments were necessary for salvation.

Note that I bolded and italicized the above phrase. The Catholic Church teaches that one can be saved through either a baptism of water, blood (martyrdom) and desire. This baptism of desire can either be explicit, in the case of, say, catechumens, or implicit, in the case of the African tribesman. It is implicit in the sense that, if the tribesman knew the truth of the Catholic Church (and God knows all possibilities), he would be eager to embrace the sacraments, including baptism. Thus, properly understood, Vatican II and Trent do not contradict.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[Nate]

ferdgoodfellow:

Here is the question: Does Trent anathemtize V2?

Specifically:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

How is this to be reconciled with Lumen Gentium 16, where it says ,in relevent part:

“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator…
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church…
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life…”

Does acknolwedgement of the Creator, striving to live a good life, etc. replace the sacraments as the means to salvation?

Hi Ferd,

Note that in your past of the Trent canon I have bolded the words “or without the desire thereof.” That is the prase which enables the the statement of LG to be understood. Since the Scriptures teach that God will all men to be saved, it is not unreasonable to suggest that a person striving to live a good life might be considered to have an implicit desire for the sacraments. That is, if they knew better they would want them.

One thing that is seldom pointed out is that all these words like “might, may, can, etc.” that are used, merely denote possibility, and say nothing about probability. All the Church has said in VII is that it is not their place to determine that any specific person is going to hell, because that is God’s judgment. It is POSSIBLE that a person can become a licensed physician or engineer with out ever having gone to college. (I know of 1 person who did). But I would not recommend that path for anyone with those ambitions.

 

[Nate]

Hi Ferd,

I thought I might mention one flaw that I see in any of the Sola Scriptura versions. They all want to use the bible as some sort of authority to replace or subordinate that of the church. But if you look up the word authority, you will see words like "the rightful power to command, or make final decisions. NO WRITING can do these things, only intelligent personal beings can exercise authority.

If you look for the word authority in the Scriptures you will find that it is ALWAYS associated with persons. Jesus said that all authority had been given to Him by the Father and he only delegated it to apostles and did not write anything.

The Scriptures are “authoritative” (produced by an authority) but are not themselves an authority. They must by iterpreted by an authority, and rejection of the delegated authority of the Church means that all sola advocates are** self proclaimed **authorities.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hi Augie,

“It is important to note who this particular canon was directed to: the Protestants, some of whom denied that the sacraments were necessary for salvation.”

Where does Trent identify the “who,” the object of its anathemas. Is it an all-encompassing who (all folks, for all time)?

“Note that I bolded and italicized the above phrase. The Catholic Church teaches that one can be saved through either a baptism of water, blood (martyrdom) and desire. This baptism of desire can either be explicit, in the case of, say, catechumens, or implicit, in the case of the African tribesman. It is implicit in the sense that, if the tribesman knew the truth of the Catholic Church (and God knows all possibilities), he would be eager to embrace the sacraments, including baptism. Thus, properly understood, Vatican II and Trent do not contradict.”

This helps a lot.

Thanks!

Ferd

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Here’s another troublesome question:

It has been alleged by some that Trent attempted to dogmatize the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible.

Here is the excerpt under question:

"…written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: …
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, *as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as *they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. "

Now if Trent was merely trying to ID the books in the bible, that is this statement is dogmatic only as to canonicity, that is OK. But the last sentence is troublesome. What exactly was Trent trying to do here?

 

[ricatholic]

The church can never err on matters that it can’t err, it has said that anytime it does err it will only be in matters that it can err.

And anytime it does err it will only be on matters that don’t matter.

So the church can err on matters like abuse that have evidence but don’t really concern doctrine or morals, but it can not err on matters like infallibility , of which it has no evidence but concern doctrine or morals.

So in a nut shell it can’t err in telling us about something that doesn’t physically exist but it reserves the right to err in matters of living. Also by extention,the majesterium, the bishops and cardinals have the ministry of discernment from the Holy Spirit, but apparently the Holy Spirit has decided not to concern itself with some important issues or else the majesterium and the bishops reserve the right to ignore the Holy Spirit on some matters.

Peace

 

[JimG]

fix:

Some have pointed out that it would be hard to be invincibly ignorant in our society.

Personally, I think it is easier than ever to be invincibly ignorant in OUR society! Just look at all the sources of mis-information that are available and ubiquitous.

JimG

 

[fix]

JimG:

Personally, I think it is easier than ever to be invincibly ignorant in OUR society! Just look at all the sources of mis-information that are available and ubiquitous.

JimG

Our society has many educated people. We are very sophisticated and learn many esoteric, abstract things. We have many talents. The truth can be known by all. Many refuse to inform themselves. Invincible ignorance is rare, if it exists at all, in our age and culture.

 

[Pax]

Nate:

Hi Ferd,

I thought I might mention one flaw that I see in any of the Sola Scriptura versions. They all want to use the bible as some sort of authority to replace or subordinate that of the church. But if you look up the word authority, you will see words like "the rightful power to command, or make final decisions. NO WRITING can do these things, only intelligent personal beings can exercise authority.

If you look for the word authority in the Scriptures you will find that it is ALWAYS associated with persons. Jesus said that all authority had been given to Him by the Father and he only delegated it to apostles and did not write anything.

The Scriptures are “authoritative” (produced by an authority) but are not themselves an authority. They must by iterpreted by an authority, and rejection of the delegated authority of the Church means that all sola advocates are** self proclaimed **authorities.

Well put

 

[Pax]

Ferd,

Scripture, council proclamations, and encyclicals are “high context” documents. As pointed out in an earlier post, the statements of Trent were made in the context of the Protestant revolt. These proclamations were made in direct contradiction to the thrust of Protestantism. And keep in mind that, at the time, all people were Catholic and knew the Canon of the Bible and knew the Church’s teachings on the Sacraments.

The Church was telling its children that if they rejected that which they “knew” and had been given to them by Christ’s body, the Church, then they would lose their salvation. This is consistent with the teaching of Peter where he says, “It would have been better for them never to have learnt the way of uprightness, than to learn it and then desert the holy commandment that was entrusted to them.” [2 Peter 2:21]

At the time of Trent, pretty much anyone adopting the Protestant view was a formal heretic. Today a Protestant might be in “material heresy,” but would not be considered a formal heretic. Since they never knew the truth they could not be formal heretics. Therefore, a modern Papal proclamation or teaching would be worded differently to address the specific situation of our times. There are no conflicts between Trent and today. The teachings are complimentary not contradictory.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hey Pax,

The problem is the actual language of the Canons. They don’t seem to dfferentiate between formal and material heretics. “If anyone says …, let him be anathema.”

What evidence is there from the Council fathers that this is how they intended to be understood?

Cordially,

Ferd

 

[Pax]

The only evidence would be the historical context. The reformation was running full steam, and Trent was dealing directly with it. Today the problems and issues are somewhat different. We’ve got 500 years of valid Christian baptisms outside the Catholic Church. A non-Catholic Christian of today simply isn’t in the circumstance and position of knowledge of a Catholic abandoning their faith at the time of the Reformation. I still don’t see the conflict that seems to be disturbing you.

The Lutheran/Catholic accords are of interest in this area. Both sides have recognized the commonality of teachings on justification and the anathemas of Trent no longer apply to modern Lutherans. The Church still, however, points out that there are differences and that these differences are important. Moreover, the Church has not retracted its anathemas against the fathers of the reformation.

I don’t know if any of this helps, but I gave it a shot.

 

[trogiah]

ferdgoodfellow:

In discussions with Protestants over the last several years, their most convincing argument in favor of the classical definition of sola scriptura (as Luther and Calvin would understand it) is that the popes and councils have erred and contradicted themselves and thus proven themselves fallible.

In discussing specifics, it does seem they have plausible arguments. I am not talking about issues discussed in Madrid’s book on alleged errors of popes. I am referring to apparent reversals of pretty infallible sounding teachings, of Trent, e.g.

I was wondering if anyone else has been suffering the “queasies” over such issues and is willing to discuss.

Thanks.

I have found it possible to avoid the “queasies” for the following reasons:

I accept the fact that popes and councils have erred, that Luther’s criticisms of Church practices were valid, at least for the most part.

I don’t think Luther was wrong to criticize Church authorities. I think he was probably wrong in publicizing his criticisms in a way that would likely encourage others to break away from the Church.

I believe that Jesus would still have us respect and, in many respects, submit to Church authority even when it may seem misguided. (I don’t mean to imply that a person should submit to abuse from a priest for example, but I believe there is merit in following Church directives on liturgical practices, fasting, etc. even when they may seem unnecessarily burdensome)

Scripture is my source for this belief. Chapter 23 of Matthew states:

"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,

saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.

Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them."

Jesus then proceeds to give a scathing criticism of the authorities that he just told his disciples to listen to.

The authority of the pope, bishops, priests, etc should be respected - not because they are always right, but because they have taken their seat on the chair of Peter.

Luther’s mistake was in not respecting this authority. I think the practice of forming seperate “churches” that began with him is at least partly responsible for the loss of unity in Christendom that ultimately led to WWI and WW2.

The issue of the authority of scripture versus the authority of those seated on the chair of Peter will never be a simple one. I believe ultimately in the authority of scripture but I know that scripture can be misunderstood. I am convinced that the Church will steadily maintain a path towards complete understanding of scripture.

Anyway, hope it helps beat the “queasies”

-Jim

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hey Pax,

I guess the Protestants I’ve spoken with on this subject don’t find the differing historical contexts to be a very persuasive explanation. It looks to them that the Church plainly stated something categorically and then added qualifiiers after it became apparent that it went too far in making the first dogmatic statement.

Getting back to the Canons of Trent concerning Scripture and the Latin Vulgate, critics say this is just another example. But here we see the church saying that the VL must be treated as inspired writing even though it can be shown that it contained errors, omissions, and additions (e.g. 1 John 5:7). The canon in questions also seems to limit biblical scholarship including textual criticism.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Ferd

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

trogiah:

I accept the fact that popes and councils have erred, that Luther’s criticisms of Church practices were valid, at least for the most part.

Hey Jim,

I admit that the Catholic notion of infallibility, insofar as it is applied to the Pope and Church in general, is higly nuanced and qualified. There are very limited circumstances in which the Church can claim infallibility. However, when there are apparent errors and reversals in those limited areas, then I get queasy. The Canons of Trent defined dogma and they cannot be wrong. They cannot be reversed. It does seem we get perilously close to a reversal or contradiction sometimes between Trent and what the Church has taught subsequently. Both Protestants and arch Trads. agree on that point, with the former concluding that nothing a church can propose for belief can be infallible, and with the latter concluding that V2 was not a valid council or that it did not teach infallibly.

Cordially and still queasily,

Ferd

 

[Pax]

ferdgoodfellow:

Hey Pax,

I guess the Protestants I’ve spoken with on this subject don’t find the differing historical contexts to be a very persuasive explanation. It looks to them that the Church plainly stated something categorically and then added qualifiiers after it became apparent that it went too far in making the first dogmatic statement.

Getting back to the Canons of Trent concerning Scripture and the Latin Vulgate, critics say this is just another example. But here we see the church saying that the VL must be treated as inspired writing even though it can be shown that it contained errors, omissions, and additions (e.g. 1 John 5:7). The canon in questions also seems to limit biblical scholarship including textual criticism.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Ferd

Somehow how I’m not surprised that Protestants are not impressed with the historical context argument. People of “all beliefs” are not easily persuaded by anything. We all hold our religious beliefs close to our hearts and it is natural for us to take a less than positive view of the arguments of others. I’m sure that my own assertions are weak in presentation and that others would do a much better job in this regard. That is also part of the problem.

As far as the Vulgate is concerned, or any translation for that matter, it is important to remember that it is only a translation. While the bible in all of its translation iterations is the inspired word of God, we do not say that the translators were inspired. If we get overly excited about this issue we might as well throw out all of the translations and force everyone to learn Greek and Hebrew. Although I have problems with certain English translations of the Bible, I would never contend that they were not the inspired word of God. And so it is with Trent and the Vulgate.

I am not sure what to say about your statement that, “The canon in questions also seems to limit biblical scholarship including textual criticism.” It seems to me that your statement would have to apply to any canon of scripture no matter what it contained or who might have approved it.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hey Pax,

Let’s look at this part from Trent again:

"Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. "

What does it mean to be “held as authentic?” Genuine? Genuine means the real thing. Kind of suggest to me that the Council regarded the translation to be without error, which we know wasn’t the case. e.g. 1 John 5:7

Also forbidding the faithful to “reject under any pretext whatever” doesn’t give us much wiggle room for correcting errors that we now know existed in the Vulgate (knowledge we have largely gained via textual criticism, scholarship later approved by Dei Verbum). So it does seem that most if not all of the biblical scholarship done after Trent ist verboten by Trent. It also appears that the church felt constrained by the wording of Trent. Catholic biblical scholarship didn’t take off until much later until they somehow rationalized a way around the plain meaning of Trent. This is a puzzlement to me.
What do you make of it?

Have a great LD weekend.

Thanks for talking to me.

Cordially,

Ferd

 

[mtr01]

ferdgoodfellow:

Hey Pax,

Let’s look at this part from Trent again:

"Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. "

What does it mean to be “held as authentic?” Genuine? Genuine means the real thing. Kind of suggest to me that the Council regarded the translation to be without error, which we know wasn’t the case. e.g. 1 John 5:7

Hi Ferd. Before I begin, let me just say that to state that there isn’t conclusive proof that 1 John 5:7 is in error. There is much evidence to suggest there is no error. For example: wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/vers4fbns.htm

As for the "error filled Vulgate being issued, it seems that is not true. Apparently, the Cardinals prevented Sixtus from issuing his original version. Sixtus then began revising it, but before he completed the task (and it could be issued), he died. Thus the “error filled” version was never officially issued…it’s a myth. catholicfaithandreason.org/papal_infallibility.htm (scroll about 3/4 way down, or see Patrick Madrid’s book, Pope Fiction).

Also forbidding the faithful to “reject under any pretext whatever” doesn’t give us much wiggle room for correcting errors that we now know existed in the Vulgate (knowledge we have largely gained via textual criticism, scholarship later approved by Dei Verbum). So it does seem that most if not all of the biblical scholarship done after Trent ist verboten by Trent. It also appears that the church felt constrained by the wording of Trent. Catholic biblical scholarship didn’t take off until much later until they somehow rationalized a way around the plain meaning of Trent. This is a puzzlement to me.
What do you make of it?

Again, the existence of error is debatable. As for the plain text of Trent, saying that the council is suggesting that the translation is impeccable is a stretch (IMO). You have to remember the context of the council. They were responding to threats from Protestant versions that were purported to be the true version of scripture. It seems to me that Trent was making it clear that the Vulgate was the official version of the Church, and that one may not reject it for another (i.e., Protestant) version.

Have a great LD weekend.

Thanks for talking to me.

Cordially,

Ferd

Right back atcha.