B
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Have or can biblical writings ever be proven to be the undistorted "Word of God"?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
wynnejj
Guest
Buffalo, Thank you for your posts. It indeed does show that I am mistaken about my ideas of ‘inerrancy’ according to the Church fathers. That the RCC claims the literal truth of the Bible in its entirety and, not just the essence of Bible stories that tend toward instruction on faith & morals. I have definitely been mis-informed about Catholic teaching according to your sources. So there are no historical or scientific inaccuracies? Somewhere I have either reasoned badly on my own or, received some unreliable info that caused me to draw some wrong conclusions. Thanks again.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
The articles, while not directly addressing my question, go a long ways toward clarifying the subjects of discussion. In particular, I like the distinction between inspiration and inerrency with the CC apparently preferring the former, if I read these sources correctly.
Thus, to pick one of the most popular examples, the author of Genesis was “inspired” to write that the universe was created in six days but that does not mean that this claim is literally true nor that it is true only insofar as it is pertinent to salvation.
The question then becomes twofold: what exactly is meant by “inspiration” and why does the CC claim infallibilty anywhere if not in scripture?
To explain what I mean by infallibility, the question can be stated thus: is there ever any point to the CC revisiting previous decisions? If the CC is infallible, then the answer is no, there is no point to the exercise. If the CC is merely reasoning about inspired tradition/scripture, then it may well be appropriate and fruitful. (The related question is whether individuals should second-guess the CC on dogma but I’ll leave that issue of the table for now except to note that, obviously, procedurally, this must be allowed/encuoraged if only in a research context.)
Thus, to pick one of the most popular examples, the author of Genesis was “inspired” to write that the universe was created in six days but that does not mean that this claim is literally true nor that it is true only insofar as it is pertinent to salvation.
The question then becomes twofold: what exactly is meant by “inspiration” and why does the CC claim infallibilty anywhere if not in scripture?
To explain what I mean by infallibility, the question can be stated thus: is there ever any point to the CC revisiting previous decisions? If the CC is infallible, then the answer is no, there is no point to the exercise. If the CC is merely reasoning about inspired tradition/scripture, then it may well be appropriate and fruitful. (The related question is whether individuals should second-guess the CC on dogma but I’ll leave that issue of the table for now except to note that, obviously, procedurally, this must be allowed/encuoraged if only in a research context.)
A
anon5216
Guest
I want to be clear that I’m not suggesting the Bible is a spiritually useless set of documents.
Even if it was proven definitively to be the result of fallible humans writing errant text - albeit based on some sort of true spiritual inspiration. (Of course, my position is that this is all that can be honestly inferred - anything more is unprovable wishful thinking - or merely a means to attain power and influence over a set of “subjects”).
I do claim, however, that the Church’s approach of insistence on infallibility and inerrancy, (while certainly practical in matters of keeping a large group of people on the same page with respect to maintaining a coherent and consistent belief system), is counterproductive to the a true spiritual transformation of each individual.
The problem is, there is no need or impetus for personal spiritual transformation in this life if all your focus is on mere acceptance of a set of beliefs, in exchange for a ticket to paradise after death. (And of course living consistently with those beliefs for those who actually take the second step).
Now, if biblical writings (and others such as those of the “doctors of the Church”) are seen from my perspective, that forces the issue of requiring genuine spiritual transformation on an individual level to connect back to the source of the inspiration. I agree that this does present the possibility of individuals making mistakes. But the more individuals that reach a true spiritual transformation, the more guidance (on a level beyond mere textually expressed beliefs) is available to correct those mistakes.
If the Church had taken this approach, by now there could literally be hundreds if not thousands of Catholics alive at any given time that were at the spiritual level of Padre Pio.
As it is, these people are incredibly rare. (Padre Pio was in another class entirely than 99% of those the Church canonizes. Sainthood standards are quite lax in my opinion).
Even if it was proven definitively to be the result of fallible humans writing errant text - albeit based on some sort of true spiritual inspiration. (Of course, my position is that this is all that can be honestly inferred - anything more is unprovable wishful thinking - or merely a means to attain power and influence over a set of “subjects”).
I do claim, however, that the Church’s approach of insistence on infallibility and inerrancy, (while certainly practical in matters of keeping a large group of people on the same page with respect to maintaining a coherent and consistent belief system), is counterproductive to the a true spiritual transformation of each individual.
The problem is, there is no need or impetus for personal spiritual transformation in this life if all your focus is on mere acceptance of a set of beliefs, in exchange for a ticket to paradise after death. (And of course living consistently with those beliefs for those who actually take the second step).
Now, if biblical writings (and others such as those of the “doctors of the Church”) are seen from my perspective, that forces the issue of requiring genuine spiritual transformation on an individual level to connect back to the source of the inspiration. I agree that this does present the possibility of individuals making mistakes. But the more individuals that reach a true spiritual transformation, the more guidance (on a level beyond mere textually expressed beliefs) is available to correct those mistakes.
If the Church had taken this approach, by now there could literally be hundreds if not thousands of Catholics alive at any given time that were at the spiritual level of Padre Pio.
As it is, these people are incredibly rare. (Padre Pio was in another class entirely than 99% of those the Church canonizes. Sainthood standards are quite lax in my opinion).
A
annem
Guest
I am really stunned that anyone could think that an acceptance of a set of beliefs was at the core of Catholicism. I mean stunned. Are you kidding? You look at the centuries and centuries of priests and nuns and lay Catholics, the thousands and thousands of saints and martyrs, the books of how to grow spiritually, and all you get out of it is a set of beliefs you have to accept? Are you kidding?The problem is, there is no need or impetus for personal spiritual transformation in this life if all your focus is on mere acceptance of a set of beliefs, in exchange for a ticket to paradise after death. (And of course living consistently with those beliefs for those who actually take the second step).
Yes, from the very first writing we have by a Christian–Paul–we are urged to live like Christ. There is no greater spiritual transformation possible.Now, if biblical writings (and others such as those of the “doctors of the Church”) are seen from my perspective, that forces the issue of requiring genuine spiritual transformation on an individual level to connect back to the source of the inspiration…
And speaking of Paul brings me back to some of your earlier remarks about how you couldn’t trust the bible. Have you read anything by Larry Hurtado on the prayers embedded in Paul’s epistles that go back to the first years after the crucifixion?
God bless, Annem
A
anon5216
Guest
I’m not familiar with Prof. Hurtado. Thanks for the suggestion.I am really stunned that anyone could think that an acceptance of a set of beliefs was at the core of Catholicism. I mean stunned. Are you kidding? You look at the centuries and centuries of priests and nuns and lay Catholics, the thousands and thousands of saints and martyrs, the books of how to grow spiritually, and all you get out of it is a set of beliefs you have to accept? Are you kidding?
Yes, from the very first writing we have by a Christian–Paul–we are urged to live like Christ. There is no greater spiritual transformation possible.
And speaking of Paul brings me back to some of your earlier remarks about how you couldn’t trust the bible. Have you read anything by Larry Hurtado on the prayers embedded in Paul’s epistles that go back to the first years after the crucifixion?
God bless, Annem
So where are all the Padre Pios? As I said in my earlier post, 99% of the Church’s saints are nowhere near his category. Where are the results? The Church’s standards for canonizing someone are so lax it’s ridiculous.
How many Catholics are aware of, have read and studied, and understand “The Cloud of Unknowing”? (As a percentage of the total number of Catholics in the world). I expect a reasonable number of those on these forums to be up on it, but…
How many of you personally have a Catholic spiritual director of the caliber of Padre Pio?
U
Usagi
Guest
The answer to that is both yes and no, depending on the issue under discussion.To explain what I mean by infallibility, the question can be stated thus: is there ever any point to the CC revisiting previous decisions? If the CC is infallible, then the answer is no, there is no point to the exercise. If the CC is merely reasoning about inspired tradition/scripture, then it may well be appropriate and fruitful. (The related question is whether individuals should second-guess the CC on dogma but I’ll leave that issue of the table for now except to note that, obviously, procedurally, this must be allowed/encuoraged if only in a research context.)
A matter of defined dogma is not something that can be reversed, so there is little point in revisiting it. (On the other hand, sometimes the Church’s reading of a particular defined truth can be changed enough through ongoing consideration that the conclusions drawn also change. The Church still teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, for example, but the common understanding of that teaching has gone from “You’re screwed if you’re not a card-carrying Catholic” to “everyone who is saved is saved through some partial connection to the Catholic Church.”)
Matters of theological opinion or prudential judgment can always be revisited, and may indeed be judged as entirely wrong by future generations.
Usagi
- Status
- Not open for further replies.