Inerrant Bible

[Carol_Coombe]

Muslims worship our God. I never implied that it was impossible for them to obtain salvation from God. I do maintain that although their religion contains a lot of truth, it is still incorrect. Other religions are even more incorrect. Nevertheless, some who follow them may be saved by the grace of God and through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. In addition, not all Christians will obtain salvation.

In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, paragraph 16, the Vatican II Council Fathers wrote: "Those who have not yet received the gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.
There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Romans 9:4-5).
**
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.
*Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4). *
**
*Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through dictates of their conscience—those too, may achieve eternal salvation. *
**
Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life.
**
*So the Fathers of the Council do not exclude anyone acting in good faith from the possibility of salvation. *
**
Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I was very much taken by the note by *itsjustdave1988 above *on understandings of the physical world, and the laws that govern it. I would like to use it as a foundation for thoughts on inerrancy, with particular regard to the matter of *transubstantiation *as an example of the difficulties we get ourselves into. (I apologise in advance to *itsjustdave1988 *if I do him an injustice.)

If I am a literalist, I would need a bit of Christ’s body to eat - His right finger? a left toe, a bit of hair? Disgusting thought, heinous sin, grotesque cannibalism.

The Catholic argument that it is through the process of transubstantiation that the bread and wine of Communion become, in substance but not appearance, the body and blood of Jesus Christ at consecration is not acceptable - for a variety of reasons - to many Christians, Catholic Christians, and moral non-Christians.

And because we cannot literally eat the body of the man Jesus of Nazareth, 2000 years after His death, it is evident that the communion bread and wine we take must be symbolic representations of His flesh and blood.

Why? Understanding our Creator God, and the laws of nature, makes it clear that natural laws of the universe/multiverse are fixed and immutable. as far as we know. Our current belief is that God will not intervene in the physical, chemical or biological laws which He has established for all time. If He did, we would be confronted by chaos and anarchy. Our brains have likely not evolved sufficiently to catch up with the true magnificence of His creation - but they will. (Even if one believes He did *not *create the laws which Newton, Einstein, Hawking et al are defining for us, the laws are still immutable. We must accept this at least until our brains catch up with a law that is not. There are suspicions, admittedly, about both brain and laws.)

The mandatory stability of physical matter means that the substance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not and cannot change into blood and flesh. I know, I know, you will say that according to the teaching of theology a revealed fact can be proved solely by recurrence to the sources of faith viz. Scripture and Tradition, with which is also bound up the infallible magisterium of the Church (Catholic Encyc).

As a Christian I am not bound by this belief, I will not eat Christ’s (literal) body, I am not interested in eating his transubstantiated flesh (which is itself but a symbol of the literal flesh and blood), but I do accept that the bread and wine we offer during the Eucharist, through Him, with Him and in Him, in memory of the death *he freely accepted, *represent his flesh and blood.

Do you think Jesus the man, before recognising His own Divinity on the cross, had any concept of transubstantiation when, 2000 years ago, he commanded us to drink and eat his body? He did not. Therefore how did he assume we were going to eat his flesh and body literally down through the ages?

Transubstantiation, as a concept, is a device of man and not of the Scriptures, whatever Jesus or the apostles are reported to have said about what we should eat and drink in His memory. It is the memory of His sacrifice that matters.

Do you really think that our God, a God of ineffable love and compassion, will send to hell (that is, make separate from His grace) all those who cannot or will not accept the concept of transubstantiation? Reading the Bible literally, as inerrant, in cases like this is quite certainly unChristian, an anathema to the loving grace of our compassionate God. This is the test by which we must read Scripture intelligently.

See also previous posting on Vatican II.

Blessings.

 

[lak611]

Do you think Jesus the man, before recognising His own Divinity on the cross, had any concept of transubstantiation when, 2000 years ago, he commanded us to drink and eat his body? He did not. Therefore how did he assume we were going to eat his flesh and body literally down through the ages?

Jesus never stopped being God after His incarnation. He has always been omniscient. Throughout His life on earth as a man, he never lost His Divinity, and He never failed to recognize it.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Jesus never stopped being God after His incarnation. He has always been omniscient. Throughout His life on earth as a man, he never lost His Divinity, and He never failed to recognize it.

I have been taught - by my spiritual director who is a recently-retired Belgian/South African Bishop - that Jesus learned of His special nature and divine mission over a period of time, and through several epiphanies:

Development of recognition by Christ of his special mission and divinity: child of Mary and Joseph with perhaps some intimation of his divine nature; at baptism by John, Christ knew he was God’s only Son; after His temptation in the desert, he started His/God’s mission; at the Last Supper he said I and the Father are One, recognising fully his dual humanity and divinity; in the Garden of Gethsemane, he pleaded to be released from His mission: Let this cup pass from me; on the cross He suffered the final despair – ***Eloi, Eloi, ****lama sabachthani **– *and became fully divine; through the resurrection He achieved His ultimate triumph in completing his mission fully as the eternal mystical and divine Christ: salvation, redemption, everlasting life. ‘The death he so fully accepted.’

I trust that I have set out the phases correctly: this is new to me, but helped me to gain new insights into some difficult passages in the Bible. Both Monsignor and the Bishop have emphasised that Jesus only gradually became aware of his Divine nature and mission.

Blessings

 

[lak611]

I have been taught - by my spiritual director who is a recently-retired Belgian/South African Bishop - that Jesus learned of His special nature and divine mission over a period of time, and through several epiphanies:

Development of recognition by Christ of his special mission and divinity: child of Mary and Joseph with perhaps some intimation of his divine nature; at baptism by John, Christ knew he was God’s only Son; after His temptation in the desert, he started His/God’s mission; at the Last Supper he said I and the Father are One, recognising fully his dual humanity and divinity; in the Garden of Gethsemane, he pleaded to be released from His mission: Let this cup pass from me; on the cross He suffered the final despair – ***Eloi, Eloi, ****lama sabachthani **– *and became fully divine; through the resurrection He achieved His ultimate triumph in completing his mission fully as the eternal mystical and divine Christ: salvation, redemption, everlasting life. ‘The death he so fully accepted.’

I trust that I have set out the phases correctly: this is new to me, but helped me to gain new insights into some difficult passages in the Bible. Both Monsignor and the Bishop have emphasised that Jesus only gradually became aware of his Divine nature and mission.

Blessings

I started a new thread about this in Apologetics. Here’s the link. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=138262

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I was very much taken by the note by *itsjustdave1988 above *on understandings of the physical world…

I’m glad you liked it. But I regret to say that your post giving us your opinion regarding the impossibility of the miracle of the Eucharist seems very incoherent to me.

God is not governed by the laws which govern his creation. Your entire post seems to be based upon some kind of “physics” which God is bound to follow. Such a notion is absurd.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I’m glad you liked it. But I regret to say that your post giving us your opinion regarding the impossibility of the miracle of the Eucharist seems very incoherent to me.

God is not governed by the laws which govern his creation. Your entire post seems to be based upon some kind of “physics” which God is bound to follow. Such a notion is absurd.

Oh boy. This is the kind of comment that forces one out of the Catholic Answers Forum. It is patronising, unhelpful, and essentially insulting. I am a learner, a quester as I prefer to call it. I would prefer to be a Catholic, and struggle hard every day for appropriate but not knee-jerk understanding and revelation. I would prefer not to have to endure this kind of unnecessary confrontation and obfuscation when I think out loud.

(1) My posting was not a matter of personal opinion, but considered analysis on the basis of my reading, learning and contemplation in matters of sociology, anthropology and science, and a life lived globally.

(2) I do not tend to write incoherently, although one of my University professors in Canada noted that fuzzy writing indicates fuzzy thinking. My thinking is increasingly fuzzed by Forum anomalies, and perhaps this shows as incoherence. However, I understand what I am saying:

• God created
• He did so in such a way that shifts and changes in natural laws are not possible: they are immutable as far as we understand them now
• God is not bound by his own laws, but has established them for our sake. He does not interevene directly in the workings of the material world.
• Their immutability means that bread and wine cannot be changed into flesh and blood (I know this consideration has ramifications for understanding miracles, but that is another discussion)
  (3) I did not say or imply that God is governed by the natural laws which He set in place. He is of course NOT governed by those laws. He established them, but has clearly chosen not to intervene, shift, change or adapt them, as far as we know now. In other words, God cannot be expected to halt global warming: it is not in His nature to do so. (This does not preclude the idea that He created an automatic self-healing system within the planet itself, independent of humankinds’ activities.)

We live in an infinite and eternal complex of an infinite number of infinite and eternal number of universes - a multiverse. The existence of the multiverse cannot yet be proven, but is suggested by scientific anomalies such as the lack of fit between Newtonian physics and Einstein’s theory of relativity. You referred yourself to our relative incapacity now to understand the hidden mysteries.

Natural disasters that cause human suffering – the Asian tsunami, global plagues like HIV, South American mudslides, Icelandic explosions, Swiss avalanches, South African rockfalls, droughts and floods, cataclysms on the ocean floor, flooding as a result of global warming, Chinese mine collapses, and Pacific and Caribbean volcanic eruptions – are the result of physical, chemical and other natural laws at work. They happen in accordance with God’s absolute creation principles. Inevitably, they cause anguish and at times colossal suffering. They do so in our day; they have always done so; and they will continue to do so.

They are the workings of God’s principles, and not of God himself. He did not make them happen - it is not useful to ask *How could God have done this to me? *He did not.

1. I have based my post on my knowledge and understanding of science (not physics alone - but the complex interrelationships between various sciences). God is of course not bound to follow his own laws of creation, but has chosen - because he is omniscient and omnipresent and omnibenevolent - that they remain constant, for our sakes.

This means, for me, that transubtantiation is not possible. I would not call this absurd; I would not call people who believe this absurd; I would not call you absurd; I would prefer it if you would not refer to my hard-won understandings as absurd.

Blessings

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Oh boy. This is the kind of comment that forces one out of the Catholic Answers Forum. It is patronising, unhelpful, and essentially insulting.

It wasn’t intended to be. Yet, often in dialogue, one is forced to say one’s opinion, and that opinion may not be well received. This seems to be one of those instances.

I am a learner, a quester as I prefer to call it. I would prefer to be a Catholic, and struggle hard every day for appropriate but not knee-jerk understanding and revelation.

I’m glad, because if one does not seek, then one will not likely find.

I would prefer not to have to endure this kind of unnecessary confrontation and obfuscation when I think out loud.

I would prefer to come to a Catholic forum and not have to endure heretical claims contrary to Catholic doctrine. However, I don’t always get what I want.

Perhaps when you think a loud you will attempt to see things from our viewpoint, with the understanding that this is a Catholic community. You have chosen to think a loud within a Catholic community, and your contrary thoughts may not be very kind from a Catholic point of view.

After reading your post again, it still remains rather incoherent. If you can better clarify, and perhaps* stick to the point of this thread*, more meaningful dialogue might be possible. If your intent was simply to present a monologue unrelated to the inerrancy of the Bible, then perhaps starting your own blog might better suite your needs. I presumed, however, that you intended a dialogue related to the topic at hand.

My posting was not a matter of personal opinion, but considered analysis on the basis of my reading, learning and contemplation in matters of sociology, anthropology and science, and a life lived globally.

I’ve not found a sociology, anthropology, or science book which affirms a “physics” or even a “metaphysics” which God has no power to dispense. Nor have I found such a text which affirms that God does not directly interact with His Creation. It if did, the text would have gone far beyond to scope of the respective field of study, whose object is limited to the natural order.

(2) I do not tend to write incoherently, although one of my University professors in Canada noted that fuzzy writing indicates fuzzy thinking. My thinking is increasingly fuzzed by Forum anomalies, and perhaps this shows as incoherence. However, I understand what I am saying…

Does what you are saying have something to do with the inerrancy of the Bible, which is the topic of this thread? If not, perhaps you should begin a new thread which addresses the topics which you would like to discuss.

…[God] has clearly chosen not to intervene…

This is not so clear to every human society that has existed since the dawn of human history. It is not clear to many respected and even Nobel-prize winning scientists. It it clearly untrue to those who have personally experienced or witnessed God’s direct interaction in their lives and have seen the very personal miracles which have been attested to in every century of human history. Nor is it clear to me.

It is unfortunate that you have not been blessed with such miracles in your life. I pray someday you will. (BTW, I used to be a Deist, so I understand your view, but over time I’ve rejected the Deistic viewpoint, as it contradicts my reason, experience, and the trustworthy testimony of others).

We come to our beliefs from our experience, our reason, and the trustworthy testimony of others. Your first premise that God does not directly interact with his creation is contrary to the beliefs of most of humankind throughout the ages. It is unproved (and uncompelling), and so the reasoning based upon your first premise is equally unproved.

Laws are given for the “common good.” However, they are not intended for each and every particular good. This is why laws can be dispensed or waived by those who possess such authority. The theory that God can but doesn’t is speculative, and contrary to human experience. Thus, one need not accept that laws which are in effect in general cannot in a particular case be dispensed by the Divine Law-Giver.

… I would prefer it if you would not refer to my hard-won understandings as absurd.

We all have our own preferences. However, if your conclusions are in my opinion unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous, then I think I’ve used the right word to describe them.

Perhaps merely hearing a contrary opinion offends you. However, you should understand that those who come to a Catholic community and profess that the reality of the Holy Eucharist is not true can be equally understood as offensive. Yet, if I’m to have any meaningful theological dialogue with those who profess theories contrary to Catholic doctrine, I’m simply going to have to learn to tolerate the offensive nature of heretical claims.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

OK Dave, I am out of here. This is the most inherently unchristian revelation of the patronizing arrogance and self-importance of some Catholic believers. This is not a Forum for Catholics but for Catholic answers where you will engage with Christians and non-Christians.

I am/was a would-be Catholic convert. I am performing what the Hindus call sannyasi – a contemplative spiritual journey in the last third of my life. I chose Christianity (I am a baptised Canadian Baptist), and within that paradigm, the Catholic Church to mentor my journey.

I found a mentor who would provide spiritual direction once a week; I attend mass three times each week; catechism class once a week; two Sunday services; study sessions and house masses. I go on Retreat, in Canada and in South Africa where I live. My mentors are a Bishop, a Monsignor and an eminent Jesuit. I read, I pray, I meditate, I contemplate. I actually think.

I know that *Christ works through me, Christ stands with me, and Christ is in me. *I know that Christ’s death on the cross, which he willingly accepted, assured my redemption and salvation, but also demanded that I follow his example of loving compassion, healing and caritas in this life.

The Scriptures tell us God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16), and that Christ says I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me**.** (John 14:6). This is clear, unadorned, and eminently inerrant.

WRT my posting on transubstantiation, let us look at Dave’s comments (red). I have not done him the courtesy of a reply, but have comfined myelf to one brief comment on a matter of substance (blue).

I would prefer to come to a Catholic forum and not have to endure heretical [heterodoxical I think you mean] claims contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Perhaps when you think a loud you will attempt to see things from our viewpoint, with the understanding that this is a Catholic community.

I’ve not found a sociology, anthropology, or science book which affirms a “physics” or even a “metaphysics” which God has no power to dispense. Nor have I found such a text which affirms that God does not directly interact with His Creation.

I did not say that God does not interact with His Creation. I said that he does not, as far as we now know, shift, adjust or change the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc that govern the way the multiverse works. Be clear about that point please.

To summarise: God has established immutable laws for the physical universe. This would imply that transubstantiation goes against the grain of those laws. Or can you suggest other instances of unnatural material transofmrations? Our Christian experience and observation suggest that God *does *intervene in the daily life and struggle of humanity, in answer to prayer, and through miracles, and by guiding those who would serve Him.

It is unfortunate that you have not been blessed with such miracles in your life.

If your conclusions are in my opinion unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous, then I think I’ve used the right word [absurd] to describe them.

Perhaps merely hearing a contrary opinion offends you.

You should understand that those who come to a Catholic community and profess [ideas] that are not true can be equally understood as offensive.

I’m simply going to have to learn to tolerate the offensive nature of heretical [heterodoxical] claims.

You have done me a great service in helping me to rethink my spiritual journey. There is no lovingkindness here. There is only the subversive and antagonistic ‘king of the castle’ game of the Catholic convert. I will pray for your sad soul.

I believe that Christ works through me, Christ stands with me, and Christ is in me.

I’m gone. You will stay to work out your salvation in your own charming and blinkered way.

 

[StRaphael]

Allow me to summarize the very lengthy Catholic Encyclopedia article.
Matthew gives three sets of 14, omitting several family members. The first set starts with Abraham and the last set ends with Christ. Luke’s list numbers 77; it starts with Jesus, going back to Adam, and then to God. Luke’s first set begins with Jesus, the second set begins with Zorobabel (St. Luke’s first and second set trace King David’s descendants through Nathan whereas St. Matthew, in his second and third set, traces David’s descendants through King Solomon), the third set begins with Nathan (identical to Matthew’s set except with the order reversed), and the fourth set begins with Abraham (Matthew omits this fourth series, except for Abraham). That being said, there are three remaining harmonization issues.

(1) Who is St. Joseph’s father? The solution is NOT that St. Luke gives St. Mary’s genealogy; both Matthew and Luke provide St. Joseph’s. For St. Mary’s father was not Heli; it was St. Joachim, who was married to St. Anna. Heli was Joseph’s legal father and Jacob was Joseph’s biological father (levirate marriage as in Dt 25:6).
(2) Why the convergence in Shealtiel and Zorobbel? The most plausible answer is that two of Nathan’s descendants were named after the Shealtiel and Zorobabel descended from King Solomon.
(3) How can Jesus be a descendant of David, since He is not the biological son of Joseph? Mary was a descendant of David through Nathan [2 Tim 2:8]; St. John Damascene informs us that Mary’s great-grandfather, Panther, was one of Mathat’s brothers, and her grandfather, Barpanther, was a cousin of Heli, and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli’s levirate (legal) son, as stated in (1) above.

 

[Evan]

I said that he does not, as far as we now know, shift, adjust or change the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc that govern the way the multiverse works. Be clear about that point please.

If you do not believe that God adjusts these laws read “They bore the wounds of Christ”. About stigmatists who suffered for our salvation, and many of whom lived outside the laws of biology physics and chemistry.

eg: No nourishment save the Eucharist for 20+ years (including no liquid nourishment, not even water). Wounds that bleed cups of blood every day, yet no liquid given to replenish the body. No cause of the wounds (save spiritually), no healing of the wounds, yet they were healed after the spirit left the body.

Make ya think!!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

See also *The Genealogies of Christ *by Jimmy Akin.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[patg]

The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, although substantially different from one another, serve a common theological purpose, namely, the descent of Jesus from king David. As a secondary echo, they correspond to and reflect, the teaching of the primitive church expressed not in the synoptic gospels, but in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul.

Matthew makes himself clear from the start, opening his gospel with “This is the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David”. He traces schematically in three units of fourteen generations the male line pedigree of the messiah: from Abraham to David, from David to King Jechoniah, and from Jechoniah to Jesus through Joseph. From Abraham to Zerubbabel (Matt. 1:2-12) the evangelist follows the Old Testament, but the rest of his list is based on an otherwise unknown source which does not tally with the genealogy employed by Luke.

Luke has a more grandiose theological perspective than Matthew. He starts in reverse order with Jesus and Joseph, and reaches back via David to Abraham and to the first man, qualified as “the son of God” (Luke 3:23-38), thus tacitly endorsing Paul’s teaching on the universality of the mission of Jesus, the second Adam.

Both evangelists were aware of the difficulty created by the legal need to chart Jesus’ claim to royal succession through the male line, that is, through Joseph, at a stage when the miraculous conception of Jesus, unknown to Mark, had already become part of the teaching of the primitive Gentile church.

Luke, writing for non-Jews, adopted an easy solution to the problem by quietly suggesting that Joseph was merely the putative father of Jesus (“being the son - as was supposed - of Joseph,” Luke 3:23).

Matthew’s tradition, on the other hand, reveals embarrassment and hesitation, indicated by a number of variants in the text. According to the logic of his account of A begot B who begot C, etc., the register should have ended with “and Jacob begot Joseph, and Joseph begot Jesus” (Matt 1:16). Instead, Matthew’s textual witnesses are unstable. We have “and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus”; “Joseph, to whom was betrothed the virgin Mary, who bore Jesus”; and “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus.” The latter formulation, attested among others by an ancient Syriac (i.e. Christian Aramaic) version of Matthew, became the creed of the Judaeo-Christian community known as the Ebionites, or the Poor; who professed according to early patristic authorities that Jesus was born naturally from Mary and her husband.

In trying to prove the Davidic legitimacy of Jesus as the messiah through Joseph and simultaneously assuming his miraculous birth by a virgin, the tradition of Matthew had to make a way through rough terrain before reaching, in the fold of the not very well informed Gentile Christian Church, the orthodox compromise: a supernatural virginal conception and an imputed, yet legally valid, descent from King David.

According to Matthew, the belief of the Greek-speaking church was further confirmed through as assurance given by an angel to Joseph, Mary’s prospective husband. When, in the certain knowledge that he was not responsible for her pregnancy, Joseph was pondering on a quiet dismissal (a public charge laid against his fiancé might have threatened her with the death penalty) he was informed that the conception was miraculous. Mary’s pregnancy was the work of the Holy Spirit and was intended to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which means God with us” (Matt. 1:23). The reading “virgin” is that of the Septuagint version of the Greek bible, and Matthew’s gloss, interpreting the symbolic name Emmanuel as a pointer to the superhuman nature of the miraculous child, also implies that a non-Jewish readership was envisaged. Jews would have known that the name Emmanuel signified not the incarnation of God in human form, but a promise of divine help to the Jewish people.

Readers familiar with the Hebrew Isaiah would have been perplexed by Matthew’s argument because the word used by the old testament prophet was “young woman” (in Hebrew almah), and not virgin (in Hebrew betulah). A young woman becoming pregnant is not the same as a virginal conception. The misleading rendering of ‘almah’ and ‘parthenos’ (“virgin”) was corrected in the later (first or second century A.D.) Greek translation of Isaiah; all of them substituted "young girl (neanis) for the Septuagint’s “virgin” (parthenos).

 

[awalt]

There is a surprising amount of Bible Fundamentalism within the Catholic Church. I would to like to recommend a book that helped me understand the subtle difference in what we do and do not believe, Biblical Fundamentalism: What every Catholic should know.

The author is Father Ronald Witherup. Fr. Witherup is the U.S. superior for the Society of St. Sulpice and the president of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, an umbrella group for Catholic male religious orders.

I have heard him speak twice, he came and spoke to our archdiocese deacon group this past weekend.

I heartily recommend this book, there are some things said on this thread that are clearly NOT what our Church teaches about the Bible and are clearly considered fundamentalist in viewpoint. Fr. Witherup is just one voice that hopes to educate on this matter. I hope it helps.

 

[patg]

There is a surprising amount of Bible Fundamentalism within the Catholic Church. I would to like to recommend a book that helped me understand the subtle difference in what we do and do not believe, Biblical Fundamentalism: What every Catholic should know.

Thank you - I’ll certainly look for this book. I would also strongly recommend (as I usually do) And God Said What? by Margaret Ralph (Paulist Press - available from Amazon, etc).

I heartily recommend this book, there are some things said on this thread that are clearly NOT what our Church teaches about the Bible and are clearly considered fundamentalist in viewpoint.

Amen to that! (and it is not just this thread)

 

[junk]

In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, paragraph 16, the Vatican II Council Fathers wrote: "Those who have not yet received the gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.
There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Romans 9:4-5).
**
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.
*Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4). *
**
*Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through dictates of their conscience—those too, may achieve eternal salvation. *
**
Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life.
**
*So the Fathers of the Council do not exclude anyone acting in good faith from the possibility of salvation. *
**
Blessings

I know. That’s what I said. If you’d actually bothered to read what I wrote, you wouldn’t have quoted all that. I don’t understand how you could have interpreted what I said any differently. Unless you skimmed through and went on what you think I said based on some prejudiced impression you had of me.

I said

A)Muslims worship our God.
B)I never implied that it was impossible for them to obtain salvation from God.
C)I do maintain that although their religion contains a lot of truth, it is still incorrect.
D)Other religions are even more incorrect. Nevertheless, some who follow them may be saved by the grace of God and through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. In addition, not all Christians will obtain salvation.

A & B & C) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.
D) Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through dictates of their conscience—those too, may achieve eternal salvation.

Seriously, Carol… Nothing I said contradicted the Dogmatic Constitution. In fact, I could’ve written the darn constitution and made it so much more concise.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I know. That’s what I said. If you’d actually bothered to read what I wrote, you wouldn’t have quoted all that. I don’t understand how you could have interpreted what I said any differently. Unless you skimmed through and went on what you think I said based on some prejudiced impression you had of me.

I did bother to read what you wrote, or I would not have replied. I did not interpret differently. I did not skim through. I do not have any opinion of you at all, nevermind a prejudiced opinion.

What I was aware of was that some poor poster who started the thread on whether ‘non-Christians’ could be forgiven, never did get an answer, and there was a large argument swirling around. I did some looking up, and found the Dogmatic etc. (about which I had heard previously), and thought it might help nkelly, and anyone else who was interested and feeling somewhat ignorant.

I just did the same here, without thinking that it might trouble your sensitivities. I regret that. But there are others out there who might not have seen them, no?

Seriously, Carol… Nothing I said contradicted the Dogmatic Constitution. In fact, I could’ve written the darn constitution and made it so much more concise.

I am sure you did not, because it is not in your interest to do so, and you know far more than I do anyway.

You sent me a nice note the other day when I got into a calamidade, and I thank you for it.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

Do you think Jesus the man, before recognising His own Divinity on the cross, had any concept of transubstantiation when, 2000 years ago, he commanded us to drink and eat his body? He did not. Therefore how did he assume we were going to eat his flesh and body literally down through the ages?

What makes you think that Jesus did not recognize his own divinity until he was on the cross? Why did he make so many statements to the contrary?

Yes, I do think that he assumed we would eat his flesh and drink His blood, because he commanded it. This is not a “point of theology” as you state in your previous post, but a revelation of God.

Transubstantiation, as a concept, is a device of man and not of the Scriptures, whatever Jesus or the apostles are reported to have said about what we should eat and drink in His memory. It is the memory of His sacrifice that matters.

I have not read the posts after this, but maybe this is a point on which you encountered some disagreement?

 Do you really think that our God, a God of ineffable love and compassion, will send to hell (that is, make separate from His grace) all those who cannot or will not accept the concept of transubstantiation? Reading the Bible literally, as inerrant, in cases like this is quite certainly unChristian, an anathema to the loving grace of our compassionate God. This is the test by which we must read Scripture intelligently.

See also previous posting on Vatican II.

Blessings.

Honestly? No, I don’ t think that God “sends” anyone to hell. I think that He wants ALL to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. However, I do think He created us with free will, and that if we choose not to be with Him, though it breaks His heart, He will allow us to go away from Him. In the discourse on the Eucharist in John 6, you will see that the people did walk away from Him. They could not bring themselves to believe He was actually present in the elements. But, he let them walk away. He did not chase them, did not try to pursuade them or change his teaching. He also asked his disciples if they would also go away. It is the choice of each one, if they want to reject His Real Presence or not.

 

[guanophore]

I have been taught - by my spiritual director who is a recently-retired Belgian/South African Bishop - that Jesus learned of His special nature and divine mission over a period of time, and through several epiphanies:

Development of recognition by Christ his special mission and divinity: child of Mary and Joseph with perhaps some intimation of his divine nature;

Ok, please belay my last, where I thought you said that Jesus did not recognize His divinity until He was on the cross. Don’t you think His mother would have told Him about the visit of the Wise Men,a nd of the prophesies of Samuel and Anna in the Temple when He was presented? What about after His Bar Mitsvah, when he spent three days in the temple, arguing with teachers who were "amazed at HIs understanding, and His answers?

I do not disagree with you that his human nature may have gradually grasped the depth of divinity. Maybe my personal view is not consistent with teaching here also,but it seems to me that “he grew in understanding” as it says in Luke.
Carol Coombe;1985834:

at baptism by John, Christ knew he was God’s only Son; after His temptation in the desert, he started His/God’s mission;

There is a lot left out here! He made a lot of statements during His ministry that certainly seem to reveal His understanding of Himself.

at the Last Supper he said I and the Father are One

, recognising fully his dual humanity and divinity; in the Garden of Gethsemane, he pleaded to be released from His mission: Let this cup pass from me; on the cross He suffered the final despair – ***Eloi, Eloi, ****lama sabachthani **– *and became fully divine; through the resurrection He achieved His ultimate triumph in completing his mission fully as the eternal mystical and divine Christ: salvation, redemption, everlasting life. ‘The death he so fully accepted.’

I trust that I have set out the phases correctly: this is new to me, but helped me to gain new insights into some difficult passages in the Bible. Both Monsignor and the Bishop have emphasised that Jesus only gradually became aware of his Divine nature and mission.

Blessings

Perhaps you have faithfully shared with us what you were taught. However, it seems that Jesus recognized his full humanity and divinity long before the last supper. And in fact, the statement to which you refer was made prior to that time, according to the gospel account. I would also contend that Jesus did not fall into despair. Since He was one with the father, He would not be able to despair. If by that you mean give up complete hope. But that is related to Him never being separated from the Father even while He bore our sins on the cross.

 

[guanophore]

Oh boy. This is the kind of comment that forces one out of the Catholic Answers Forum. It is patronising, unhelpful, and essentially insulting. I am a learner, a quester as I prefer to call it. I would prefer to be a Catholic, and struggle hard every day for appropriate but not knee-jerk understanding and revelation. I would prefer not to have to endure this kind of unnecessary confrontation and obfuscation when I think out loud.

First let me say that I find your thinking out loud to be very genuine, learned, and sincere. I am sorry that the reception of it has been so poor (I include myself, as my initial reaction to it was similar to the poster to which you are responding here)