P
patg
Guest
As an aside, is the story of Job history or fiction used as a teaching tool?
- Status
P
patg
Guest
Its not a matter of belief - I have taken the classes, read the books, and had discussions with theologians and bible scholars and so I know what is being taught by the church.
Yes, it does. Because where the “rubber meets the road” - that is, when the catholics today get their education, the message is clearly one of literary form, cultural environment, and historical-critical analysis. You imply that I am personally coming up with heretical ideas - everything I profess has been gathered from catholic authors and teachers.
A pope is not here teaching the adult ed or university classes, he is not writing the books used in those classes, and he is not preaching daily to the people. The scholars and leaders who are doing this have moved far from the “literal history” mode and making full use of the non-historical thrust of the papal writings you quote from. As has been noted before, there is a serious disconnect here and no quoting from papal documents will get the genie back in the bottle.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
patg,
Do you have something from your bishop that teaches that Biblical inerrancy is limited to “faith and morals?” Just as I asked GottleofGeer, have you even asked your bishop what he teaches regarding inerrancy?
This is Catholic doctrine from Pope Pius XII: “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.” (Divino Afflante Spiritu). No Roman Pontiff since Pius XII has asserted otherwise. On the contrary, Pope John Paul II explicitly described this encyclical as having “permanent validity.”
Ya see, it really doesn’t matter what your religious education teacher is teaching. He is among the taught Church not the teaching Church. He is not vested with magisterial authority, and as such Catholics are not bound to his opinion. We are bound, however, by canon law, to give our religious submission of intellect and will to the teachings of the diocesene bishop and the Roman Pontiff when they exercise their authentic teaching authority.
I have shown where my Catholic post-graduate professors are teaching contrary to your assertions. Opinions vary. Yet my professor’s opinions are in agreement with papal encyclicals. And yet, they too are merely giving their opinion, even if they have an Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the bishop (which they do). In the final analysis, it is my bishop and the Roman Pontiff that I am bound to, not any biblical theorist, theologian, or religious educator. This is especially important to remember when theorists, theologians, and educators teach contrary to the Roman Pontiff.
*“If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. Yet there are priests – a considerable number of them – who submit the word of the Pope to their private judgement and who, with unheard-of audacity, make their obedience to the Roman Pontiff conditional upon such personal judgement.” *(Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)
Do you have something from your bishop that teaches that Biblical inerrancy is limited to “faith and morals?” Just as I asked GottleofGeer, have you even asked your bishop what he teaches regarding inerrancy?
This is Catholic doctrine from Pope Pius XII: “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.” (Divino Afflante Spiritu). No Roman Pontiff since Pius XII has asserted otherwise. On the contrary, Pope John Paul II explicitly described this encyclical as having “permanent validity.”
Ya see, it really doesn’t matter what your religious education teacher is teaching. He is among the taught Church not the teaching Church. He is not vested with magisterial authority, and as such Catholics are not bound to his opinion. We are bound, however, by canon law, to give our religious submission of intellect and will to the teachings of the diocesene bishop and the Roman Pontiff when they exercise their authentic teaching authority.
I have shown where my Catholic post-graduate professors are teaching contrary to your assertions. Opinions vary. Yet my professor’s opinions are in agreement with papal encyclicals. And yet, they too are merely giving their opinion, even if they have an Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the bishop (which they do). In the final analysis, it is my bishop and the Roman Pontiff that I am bound to, not any biblical theorist, theologian, or religious educator. This is especially important to remember when theorists, theologians, and educators teach contrary to the Roman Pontiff.
*“If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. Yet there are priests – a considerable number of them – who submit the word of the Pope to their private judgement and who, with unheard-of audacity, make their obedience to the Roman Pontiff conditional upon such personal judgement.” *(Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)
P
patg
Guest
not the teaching Church. He is not vested with magisterial authority, and as such Catholics are not bound to his opinion. We are bound, however, by canon law, to give our religious submission of intellect and will to the teachings of the diocesene bishop and the Roman Pontiff when they exercise their authentic teaching authority.Well, lets take this in a slightly different direction then (I assume the original poster of this thread won’t mind since they haven’t been heard from for a long time). Maybe we’re stuck on semantic arguments that we could clear up.
Lets consider the following point - does the bible contain fiction? Or, in other words, do the authors ever use a fictional story to teach a truth? Obviously Jesus does - he relates numerous parables and allegories to teach various concepts. Do other authors relate fictional accounts as teaching tools? Well, why wouldn’t they? - all authors or all ages have done it. You mentioned the story of Job - a fictional debate which explores the mystery of suffering. There are many others, such as Adam and Eve in the garden, which explores the same subject.
Now, is there a requirement that fiction be “innerrant” or “error free”? Not that I know of - that is the beauty and power of fiction - you can create an environment to teach great truths and never have to worry about whether all the supposed “facts” occurred or even could occur. And you can create events and situations as needed to enhance your theme.
Do fictional teachings exist in the bible? I certainly think so. Are they innerrant? Sure, as much as innerrancy applies to fiction - they are innerrant in their theme and teachings and presented truths.
I think modern readers (which probably includes anyone in the last 1800 years) have difficulty determining the nature of many stories and that is where we get into disagreements. Some stories really sound like history to us. However, many do not support a claim of historicity upon a detailed historical-critical examination. I believe they are still innerrant - the teach absolute truths - but, being fiction, innerrancy simple does not apply to their plot and other details.
I agree with those who say that the infancy narratives are fiction. Without arguing the details here, they do not support a claim of historicity. Like the story of Job explores suffering, they are exploring the divine origins of Jesus in a way that makes sense in the culture and styles of the period. Are they innerrant? - sure, the divine nature is real. An author who wanted to show that Jesus was the new Moses, leading the Jewish people to the new covenant woud obviously tell a story in which Jesus’ origins paralleled those of Moses. An author who wanted to use an old quote about the new leader coming from Bethlehem would naturally come up with a story that gets Mary and Joseph to that city at the right time. The fact that all these significant and miraculous events were totally forgotten by everyone when Jesus grew up isn’t important to the author who’s story’s purpose involved only Jesus’ origins.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
… There are many others, such as Adam and Eve in the garden, which explores the same subject.
Yet, there are aspects of Genesis that are historical fact, which touch upon matters of faith. Just because the author does not intend to write a strict historical account, does not mean that the events of his work are not based upon true history or that one can simply discount the historicity of everything in Genesis. Thus, one does not have to take as strict history what the sacred author does not intend as strict history. Pope St. Pius X made this clear to the faithful.
For example, humanity certainly did have one set of historical first parents (i.e., monogenism is a historic fact of Genesis). Some historical affirmations are at times mixed with non-historical affirmations. However, one cannot simply call such narratives fable or fiction simply because the author did not intend to write a strict history.
Epic, for example, is a long narrative poem based upon historical figures and events. Just because the genre is epic, doesn’t mean the historical figures and events were make believe, even if some details were added from the author that have no basis in actual history. Illiad and Odessy are epic–not strict history, but based upon historical figures and events. Determining what was history, strictly-so called and what was not is difficult and highly speculative, especially when the source is ancient.
Although Bible scholars often attach the word “scientific” to their opinions, as a person who studied science and earned a living as a spacecraft and “rocket scientist” for many years, I know the difference between real science (experimentally verifiable hypothesis) and “soft” sciences (which always remain speculative). Biblical theories are nothing more than speculative science (like philosophy and theology), nothing more than opinion which cannot be experimentally or scientifically proved. Nonetheless, whose opinion do Catholics find authoritative as a matter of faith, based upon the Divine authority given to them? The Catholic magisterium.
The magisterium teaches that the historical facts of Sacred Scripture often touch upon doctrines of Catholic faith, and as such they cannot be called into question (eg. Genesis affirmation of monogenism versus any contrary and condemned theories of polygenism).
Nevertheless, St. Pius X affirmed:
Q: Whether all and each of the parts of these chapters—namely, the single words and phrases–must always and of necessity be taken in the literal sense so that one may never deviate from it, even when it is clear that expressions are used figuratively, that is, either metaphorically or anthropologically, and when reason forbids us to hold, or necessity impels us to reject, the literal sense.
*Response: *Negative.
Q: Whether, granting the literal and historical sense, an allegorical and prophetical interpretation of certain passages in these chapters–a practice exemplified by the Fathers and the Church–may be wisely and profitably applied.
Response: Affirmative.
Q: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis, the sacred writer did not intend to teach in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather sought to provide people with a popular account–such as the common parlance of that age allowed–that was adapted to the intellectual capacities of his audience, we are strictly and always obliged, when interpreting these chapters, to look for the precision proper to scientific discourse.
Response: Negative.
The magisterium has affirmed the historicity of the Gospels, to include the infancy narratives. Pope John Paul II describes the census of the infancy narratives, for example, as “historical fact.” He describes the source of these narratives, not as myth, but from the eyewitness of Joseph and Mary. When it is a matter of clever opinion of theorists versus the teachings of the Roman Pontiff, I go with the latter, as I am bound to by canon law. If the Roman Pontiff changes his teachings, then I will.
Yet, there are aspects of Genesis that are historical fact, which touch upon matters of faith. Just because the author does not intend to write a strict historical account, does not mean that the events of his work are not based upon true history or that one can simply discount the historicity of everything in Genesis. Thus, one does not have to take as strict history what the sacred author does not intend as strict history. Pope St. Pius X made this clear to the faithful.
For example, humanity certainly did have one set of historical first parents (i.e., monogenism is a historic fact of Genesis). Some historical affirmations are at times mixed with non-historical affirmations. However, one cannot simply call such narratives fable or fiction simply because the author did not intend to write a strict history.
Epic, for example, is a long narrative poem based upon historical figures and events. Just because the genre is epic, doesn’t mean the historical figures and events were make believe, even if some details were added from the author that have no basis in actual history. Illiad and Odessy are epic–not strict history, but based upon historical figures and events. Determining what was history, strictly-so called and what was not is difficult and highly speculative, especially when the source is ancient.
Although Bible scholars often attach the word “scientific” to their opinions, as a person who studied science and earned a living as a spacecraft and “rocket scientist” for many years, I know the difference between real science (experimentally verifiable hypothesis) and “soft” sciences (which always remain speculative). Biblical theories are nothing more than speculative science (like philosophy and theology), nothing more than opinion which cannot be experimentally or scientifically proved. Nonetheless, whose opinion do Catholics find authoritative as a matter of faith, based upon the Divine authority given to them? The Catholic magisterium.
The magisterium teaches that the historical facts of Sacred Scripture often touch upon doctrines of Catholic faith, and as such they cannot be called into question (eg. Genesis affirmation of monogenism versus any contrary and condemned theories of polygenism).
Nevertheless, St. Pius X affirmed:
Q: Whether all and each of the parts of these chapters—namely, the single words and phrases–must always and of necessity be taken in the literal sense so that one may never deviate from it, even when it is clear that expressions are used figuratively, that is, either metaphorically or anthropologically, and when reason forbids us to hold, or necessity impels us to reject, the literal sense.
*Response: *Negative.
Q: Whether, granting the literal and historical sense, an allegorical and prophetical interpretation of certain passages in these chapters–a practice exemplified by the Fathers and the Church–may be wisely and profitably applied.
Response: Affirmative.
Q: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis, the sacred writer did not intend to teach in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather sought to provide people with a popular account–such as the common parlance of that age allowed–that was adapted to the intellectual capacities of his audience, we are strictly and always obliged, when interpreting these chapters, to look for the precision proper to scientific discourse.
Response: Negative.
The magisterium has affirmed the historicity of the Gospels, to include the infancy narratives. Pope John Paul II describes the census of the infancy narratives, for example, as “historical fact.” He describes the source of these narratives, not as myth, but from the eyewitness of Joseph and Mary. When it is a matter of clever opinion of theorists versus the teachings of the Roman Pontiff, I go with the latter, as I am bound to by canon law. If the Roman Pontiff changes his teachings, then I will.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
patg & GottleofGeer,
The following description of Biblical inerrancy from my post-grad studies is what I believe. Do you disagree with it? If so, what part and why?
As I compare the following to magisterial texts, there’s nothing below that is contrary to the teachings of the magisterium.
The following description of Biblical inerrancy from my post-grad studies is what I believe. Do you disagree with it? If so, what part and why?
As I compare the following to magisterial texts, there’s nothing below that is contrary to the teachings of the magisterium.
Likewise, from the anthology readings from the same course, Fr. Ignace de la Potterie writes:
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
**## One is bound to the truth - no matter who says it. Bilge is to be shunned, even if all the Doctors & Fathers, Saints & Popes in creation affirm it. Rome does not have a monopoly on truth, wisdom, virtue, scholarship, insight, learning, probity, integrity, or any other good thing. **
**So if Popes are wrong, or foolish or unscholarly or interfering, or pig-headed, their being Popes does not make their blunders into truths. **
**Besides, the Church is upheld by Christ - not by popes; not by us either. **
Pius X had the ill-fortune to be living in a time when Pope-worship was all too common. ##
## That is a most dangerous argument. The Pope’s word matters not a jot when he is wrong - as he was in 1332, for example. And has been since. That argument of Pius X’s raises “respect of persons” to a theological principle, and subjects truth to human respect. It is immoral. It puts a premium on the person of the Pope instead of on Christ, so it is anti-Christian. St. Thomas never disgraced himself by writing such things. ##
"We must obey God, rather than men" - as a rather wiser Christian pastor once said (Acts 5.29) ##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
**
itsjustdave1988:
The following description of Biblical inerrancy from my post-grad studies is what I believe. Do you disagree with it? If so, what part and why?
As I compare the following to magisterial texts, there’s nothing below that is contrary to the teachings of the magisterium.
Likewise, from the anthology readings from the same course, Fr. Ignace de la Potterie writes:
**## None of those quotations came up in the “Reply” window
**
**The last was interesting - it seems to be saying something condemned in Spiritus Paraclitus. **
**Which raises the question: when Fathers Most, de la Potterie, etc., affirm inerrancy - what is the theological furniture which they have used as the foundations for that assertion ? It’s not enough to quote people’s conclusions - one has also to understand the reasoning behind the conclusions quoted. **
**In addition: Papal documents are greatly illuminated if one knows who prepared them, and what theology is reflected. “Providentissimus” would have been very different if a different theory among those then current had been adopted; IMO, it’s an uneasy compromise between Jesuit and Dominican theories. I think it is badly out of date, because it pays no attention to diversity of genres - though still useful in some respects. **
**This emphasis on “original text” is all very well, but it begs the question of what that actually amounts to: it completely ignores the re-editing of the texts, and, the fact that Hebrew words were not vocalised until c. 600-900 AD: they were “written” in two long stages. So the absence of the vowel points makes the notion of an “originally given text”, an empty notion. **
A dogma (?) of inerrancy is one thing - applying it in detail from Genesis 1.1 to Revelation 22.21, is another matter. However attractive a theory, if it does not cope with the facts, it is useless. It is perfectly possible for a syllogism to be formally valid, & yet, to contradict reality. ##
The following description of Biblical inerrancy from my post-grad studies is what I believe. Do you disagree with it? If so, what part and why?
As I compare the following to magisterial texts, there’s nothing below that is contrary to the teachings of the magisterium.
Likewise, from the anthology readings from the same course, Fr. Ignace de la Potterie writes:
**## None of those quotations came up in the “Reply” window
****The last was interesting - it seems to be saying something condemned in Spiritus Paraclitus. **
**Which raises the question: when Fathers Most, de la Potterie, etc., affirm inerrancy - what is the theological furniture which they have used as the foundations for that assertion ? It’s not enough to quote people’s conclusions - one has also to understand the reasoning behind the conclusions quoted. **
**In addition: Papal documents are greatly illuminated if one knows who prepared them, and what theology is reflected. “Providentissimus” would have been very different if a different theory among those then current had been adopted; IMO, it’s an uneasy compromise between Jesuit and Dominican theories. I think it is badly out of date, because it pays no attention to diversity of genres - though still useful in some respects. **
**This emphasis on “original text” is all very well, but it begs the question of what that actually amounts to: it completely ignores the re-editing of the texts, and, the fact that Hebrew words were not vocalised until c. 600-900 AD: they were “written” in two long stages. So the absence of the vowel points makes the notion of an “originally given text”, an empty notion. **
A dogma (?) of inerrancy is one thing - applying it in detail from Genesis 1.1 to Revelation 22.21, is another matter. However attractive a theory, if it does not cope with the facts, it is useless. It is perfectly possible for a syllogism to be formally valid, & yet, to contradict reality. ##
P
patg
Guest
itsjustdave1988 said:
And just where is the infallible, ex-Cathedra, law of God which states that Catholics must agree with that definition? Please note that it states “but in all that pertains to and which God wished to teach for our salvation”. Now please explain how anyone could come up with the concept that statements about science, math, or geography have the slightest pertinence to our salvation. There is no relationship whatsoever!! I agree that the authors were not trying to deceive - they were writing using the knowledge and understanding of the time. BUT they were often wrong, just as many of our theories and understandings are wrong today and will be corrected as knowledge expands…
Inerrancy flows from inspiration.****
Ok.
That’s a ridiculous, unfounded leap of non-logic!
*
*To say only parts are inerrant would mean only parts are inspired… **
That’s ridiculous also. I grant God the intelligence to inspire someone to write fiction which teaches theological truths. If God wants to explain the causes of suffering using a myth such as the couple in the garden or the debate of Job, who are we to ignore God’s choices?
One guiding principle is to discern the intention of the author… Looking at the overall thrust of the book is also necessary. The Evangelists did not intend to write a biography of Jesus. Thus they differed in some particulars. " (Fr. Leonard Obloy, *Introduction to Sacred Scritpure, *Second Edition, 1989).So, even though we agree the intention wasn’t to write history, you still demand we believe everything is history???
P
patg
Guest
Yes, I know the current and former bishops along with many priests. They are good people and good administrators. They are NOT bible scholars or interpreters by their own admission or by any stretch of the imagination. Their responsibilities do not include time for biblical research or studies and it has been many years since they were involved with such things.
That’s the reality and the pope is usually in the same posiiton. Popes aren’t chosen because of their depth of biblical scholarship, if that is even ever a consideration. The documents you throw around are at best confusing blends of competing philosophies which need some serious work.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The pope and bishops are just too busy to be as knowledgeable as biblical theorists? That’s too funny.You say you have something from your bishop asserting that Biblical inerrancy is restricted to “faith and morals.” Can you give us a quote? Who is your bishop? Or is this just from a private discussion you had with him? Please provide the context of his assertion. If you dont’ want to bother, than simply give me his name and I will write to him on the matter.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
GottleofGeer,
Your assertion that all the popes, doctors and saints are wrong while you are right is absurd, and is contrary to Catholicism. The teachings of the ordinary universal magisterium are infallible, while you are not.
The Constitution of the Catholic Church demands religous submission of intellect and will to any doctrine taught by the Roman Pontiff. Catholic teaching asserts that Divine obedience can never be contrary to obedience to the Holy Father. I get that you disagree with Catholic teaching. I’m only happy to point that out to everybody else reading this thread, so that they may judge for themselves whether to follow GottleofGeer in dissent with Catholicism, or to submit to the Vicar of Christ. Your epistemology that exhaults personal judgement over papal teachings is rather Protestant. I really wonder why those who subscribe to your thesis even call themselves Catholic. Must take a lot of energy dissenting with the magisterium while trying to convince yourself that you have not in fact rejected the authority of the Vicar of Christ.
Your assertion that all the popes, doctors and saints are wrong while you are right is absurd, and is contrary to Catholicism. The teachings of the ordinary universal magisterium are infallible, while you are not.
The Constitution of the Catholic Church demands religous submission of intellect and will to any doctrine taught by the Roman Pontiff. Catholic teaching asserts that Divine obedience can never be contrary to obedience to the Holy Father. I get that you disagree with Catholic teaching. I’m only happy to point that out to everybody else reading this thread, so that they may judge for themselves whether to follow GottleofGeer in dissent with Catholicism, or to submit to the Vicar of Christ. Your epistemology that exhaults personal judgement over papal teachings is rather Protestant. I really wonder why those who subscribe to your thesis even call themselves Catholic. Must take a lot of energy dissenting with the magisterium while trying to convince yourself that you have not in fact rejected the authority of the Vicar of Christ.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The last was interesting - it seems to be saying something condemned in Spiritus Paraclitus.
Like what?
Like what?
P
patg
Guest
itsjustdave1988 said:
Absolutely - try reading about their lives sometime. Most were chosen for diplomatic and political skills.
I think its sad, but then that’s what the scholars are for in the giant bureaucracy we call the church. Reading the documents you quote has definitely strengthened that feeling in my mind.
Our former bishop appointed the author of “And God Said What?” as the director of religious education for the diocese (and approved the book for use as instructional material). And I know what you think of her writing…
I’d really like your comments on my other post today…
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
When did I demand this? I quoted from St. Pius X affirming the exact opposite. I suggest you pay closer attention to what I’m writing before asserting what it is I believe.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
That’s it? He gave an imprimatur? Is that what you consider your proof of his affirming the Bible’s inerrancy is limited to faith and morals?
Can you give me your bishops name, or are you and GottleofGeer too frightened to learn what they really teach?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Actually, inerrancy is asserted with regard to the Divine writings “as left by the hariographers.” Nevertheless, the Church is infallible in its solemn and ordinary universal teaching authority. Your view is protestant. A Catholic trusts the ordinary universal magisterium and the teachings of the Roman Pontiff, because Catholicism teaches that for such teaching these words of Christ apply: “He who hears you, hears me.”
Pius XII, Humani Generis, 20
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;(Luke 10:16)"
Whether you disagree with the above Catholic teaching and subscribe to personal judgement contary to the teachings of the Roman Pontiff (ie. Protestantism), is your choice. But at least be honest with the choices you make and quit the pretense that you what you adhere is Catholicism.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Then I guess the same could be said of St. Irenaeus, who affirmed that the Church in Rome, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
I suppose the same could be said of St. Vincent de Lerins (d. ca. AD 450), who asserted:
Or of St. Catherine of Sienna who asserted:
Or of Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, who affirmed in agreement with St. Robert Bellarmine:
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
And just where is the infallible, ex-Cathedra, law of God which states that Catholics must agree with that definition? Please note that it states “but in all that pertains to and which God wished to teach for our salvation”. Now please explain how anyone could come up with the concept that statements about science, math, or geography have the slightest pertinence to our salvation. There is no relationship whatsoever!! I agree that the authors were not trying to deceive - they were writing using the knowledge and understanding of the time. BUT they were often wrong, just as many of our theories and understandings are wrong today and will be corrected as knowledge expands…
Ok.
That’s a ridiculous, unfounded leap of non-logic!
That’s ridiculous also. I grant God the intelligence to inspire someone to write fiction which teaches theological truths. If God wants to explain the causes of suffering using a myth such as the couple in the garden or the debate of Job, who are we to ignore God’s choices?
**## This is what seems to divide us from itsjustdave: he sees as inerrancy as necessarily effected by inspiration. **
**Or rather, Leo XIII did. **
**I just wish that Leo XIII had refrained from requiring Catholics to believe such a questionable notion of inspiration. It is by no means self-evident that that Biblical writers though in such a way, and it not at all clear that one must have a totally inerrant Bible at the risk of implying that God is not perfectly truthful. **
**I would love to know how the speaking powers of Balaam’s jenny (she-donkey, if you will), the number of Solomon’s horses, or the ages of Shem’s descendants, have any bearing on the Christian’s faith in Christ. It is suicidal to suggest that the Bible will become utterly worthless the instant an error is found in it; we are not saved by the Bible, or justified through faith in the Mosaic authorship of Leviticus, or sanctified by believing in the historicity of the battle of Ai. **
**If God is God, He is not going to be impeded by an imperfect Bible, nor be able to move more freely if the Bible is in every respect flawlessly perfect. God’s activity is not dependent on the Church - why must it be dependent on the Bible ? **##
So, even though we agree the intention wasn’t to write history, you still demand we believe everything is history???
- Status