If inerrancy is false, is Catholicism false?

[guanophore]

Does that prove Catholicism is false?

When I was evangelical, I was aware that there were many problems with Biblical inerrancy. I believed it, but I read other evangelicals who said that, even if the Bible had errors in it, Christianity could still be true.

However, from what I understand, if the Bible has errors in it, than that proves that the Church is not guided by God, because she said the Bible was without errors in ecumenical councils.

So, my essential question is… If the Bible has ONE error in it, does that prove that Catholicism is false (including the eucharist, the saints, etc.)?

Yes and no. Since the CC is the one who declared in inerrant, then it would mean the CC made a mistake.

But, since the CC is not based upon the bible, it does not necessarily mean that the CC is not infallible.

 

[Vincent9]

rcjones,

one question. Do you consider the law of non contradiction mere greek logic that cannot be used on the Hebrew Bible?

 

[Ismael]

Does that prove Catholicism is false?

When I was evangelical, I was aware that there were many problems with Biblical inerrancy. I believed it, but I read other evangelicals who said that, even if the Bible had errors in it, Christianity could still be true.

However, from what I understand, if the Bible has errors in it, than that proves that the Church is not guided by God, because she said the Bible was without errors in ecumenical councils.

So, my essential question is… If the Bible has ONE error in it, does that prove that Catholicism is false (including the eucharist, the saints, etc.)?

I think the concept of “bible inerrancy” differs in Catholic and Protestant thought/theology (and even among differen protestant affiliations…)

The Catholic Church teaches that the bible is inerrant in matters of moral and theology, i.e. the revelation of God to man.

Some protestants (not all of them I reckon) feel that the bible is completely without error in all matters.

So if the bible is somewhere unprecise about some facts or that the values reported are symbolic this does not make the bible inerrant in matters of theology and morality. It just means the bible is not a science book.

Parts of the bible can also be regarded as historical documents, retelling the history of the Jews, in the history presented there may exist inaccurancies (as in many if not most ancient historical documents) but this does not affect the ‘Revelation of God’.

===

But, since the CC is not based upon the bible, it does not necessarily mean that the CC is not infallible.

I’d rather say the Catholic Church is based upun Scriptures (ie the Bible) AND Tradition.

 

[MichelleByrne]

The Bible is hard for us to understand. But if Catholicism is false then what is truth? Seek what is essential to salvation: The Ten Commandments, The Beatitudes, The Sacraments, Prayer, Faith/Hope/Charity. All of Catholicism is built around these principals. If there is error or falsity anywhere, it surely isn’t the fault of the faithful believers, and it would still be the best spiritual discipline.

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic Church teaches that the bible is inerrant in matters of moral and theology, i.e. the revelation of God to man.

In evangelical Protestantism this is typically referred to as “infallibility.” Catholics don’t generally use this term for Scripture, since they use it for an authority whose future pronouncements are protected from error (the Church).

However, we should distinguish: the Catholic Church has in the past (non-infallibly, many would argue) condemned the view that inerrancy only applies to theological truth. I would agree with this condemnation in the sense that obviously the Christian faith makes claims about things that happened in time and space. So, for instance, one might say that the Resurrection as a theological truth is infallibly taught in Scripture, but that this doesn’t have anything to do with the purely “historical” question of what happened to Jesus’ body after He died. If that is what the Church was condemning, then I would agree.

Dei Verbum seems to say that only matters pertaining to our salvation are inerrant; however, more conservative Catholics (especially converts from a Reformed perspective) have argued that the better translation is that all the contents of the Bible are divine truth written down for the sake of our salvation, so that the Bible is fully inerrant in every respect.

In short, the position you describe is the one I would hold (with the clarification that some historical and scientific questions do come under the heading of “faith and morals”), and I think it’s the majority one among Catholics (indeed, many Catholics hold to an even more liberal view). But there are those who dispute it, and I wouldn’t say that it is “taught by the Catholic Church” in an official way.

Edwin

 

[verum_peto_1]

The Catholic Church teaches that the bible is inerrant in matters of moral and theology, i.e. the revelation of God to man.

What is the Churches position on the Theory of Evolution? Is it accepted for its increasingly irrefutable body of supporting evidence, or is it rejected because of its implications with respect to humankind’s relationship to God?

 

[Contarini]

What is the Churches position on the Theory of Evolution? Is it accepted for its increasingly irrefutable body of supporting evidence, or is it rejected because of its implications with respect to humankind’s relationship to God?

The most detailed and authoritative statement so far has been Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis, written more than 60 years ago I believe. HG says that Catholics can believe in biological evolution, but must believe in the direct creation of the human soul and in the descent of human beings from an original pair. Recent popes have made generally friendly noises about evolution (JPII said something that was generally translated as “it’s more than a theory,” but may have been intended as “there is more than just one theory of evolution”), so certainly the dominant Catholic stance is not one of outright rejection. Whether one can go further in accommodating the Faith to evolution than HG went is a question of debate (most here would say no, but they don’t speak for all Catholics).

I think the best way to summarize the Catholic view is that Catholics don’t hold to a literalist reading of Genesis, but do believe that God is the Creator of all life and that human beings mark a new kind of creation, sharply different from other forms of life. I think that’s where the conflict is right now.

Edwin

 

[rcjones]

rcjones,

one question. Do you consider the law of non contradiction mere greek logic that cannot be used on the Hebrew Bible?

Absolutely. Coupled with universal ignorance is the basis of the ubiquitous false dilemma in Greek logic. I have already given you examples, as in answering the fool. The Greek thinks there is a contradiction, the Hebrew sees it as a riddle.

It took me a while to figure out if I should answer your question

Just kidding. Sorry I didn’t get notified that the thread was continuing.

 

[guanophore]

In evangelical Protestantism this is typically referred to as “infallibility.” Catholics don’t generally use this term for Scripture, since they use it for an authority whose future pronouncements are protected from error (the Church).

You are right that we do not use that term for Scripture, but the primary reason for that is because the nature of the Scripture precludes it. Infallibility, which is a negative gift that prevents the Church from teaching error, must, by default, presume fallibility. If it is not possible to make a mistake, then one would not need to be prevented from it.

Being fallible, then requires the ability to act, and action requires the ability to discern, choose, exercise the will, and take responsibility for the outcome. Scripture has none of these qualities, which are germaine to persons, not books, however Holy.

This is perhaps the single most serious error of the Reformation - forcing the Scripture into a role it was never intended to play. In order for authority to be exercised, fallibility must exist, and this belongs only to persons.