Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[Ron_Conte]

So I really see no problem with agreeing that all the books of the bible as listed by Trent are inspired but still maintaining that there may be an error that has nothing to do with salvation.

Why do these continual discussions on Biblical inerrancy always ignore the definitive teaching of several Popes? Does a papal teaching lose its authority after a certain number of years? Did Vatican II nullify all past papal teachings? If the current Pope taught the following, would you still hold the same view?

"St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error. " (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16)

“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18 )

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.”[2] In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.” When, subsequently, 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. (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)

 

[una_fides]

Finally I would point out that although yes the church fathers often argued there were no errors in scripture, it is important to understand they often did this based on their ignorance of science. Look at this tract where so many of them end up arguing the universe could have only existed for a few thousand years.

catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

The point is that the church fathers lived closer in time to the Scripture writers so their understanding of science were not much different from those writers. However we have indeed made advances in the sciences. Accordingly the reasoning employed by those church fathers has been shoed to be in error. If we reject their reasoning but still try to hold on to the conclusions - just because of blind faith - we can’t call ourselves reasonable.

What you are proposing is that since people today have a greater amount of knowledge we can now understand the Church’s teaching on inspiration in a different sense than how the Church understood it previously.

Vatican I (infallible):

"3. If anyone says that
• it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding."
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason

Joe,
What you are promulgating is pure modernism. You do realize that by now; don’t you?

 

[una_fides]

The peace of the Lord be with you.

If anyone (including you, Joe ) would like me to respond to Joe’s latest posts, I will put something helpful together. You can respond to this thread or send me a private message letting me know. But without a request, I am moving on.

With the love of our Creator King, the Lord Jesus,
Pete

Pete,

Thank you again for all your work on this thread. I think at this point our friend Joe is just putting up the same objections that have already been answered on this thread several times. I think we are starting to sound a bit redundant. Ultimately it comes down to whether one is willing to submit his intellect to the teaching and authority of the Church or not. I think there is an abundance of evidence available on this thread, and anyone who wants to be faithful to the teachings from the Church’s highest authority will have no doubt that there can be no error in Scripture.

As I said before on this thread, your comments and insights are greatly appreciated! We will only be blessed if you choose to share more.

God bless!

 

[joemccarron]

Why do these continual discussions on Biblical inerrancy always ignore the definitive teaching of several Popes? Does a papal teaching lose its authority after a certain number of years? Did Vatican II nullify all past papal teachings? If the current Pope taught the following, would you still hold the same view?

"St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error. " (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16)

“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18 )

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.”[2] In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.” When, subsequently, 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. (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)

Ron we can indeed find statements in Papal Encyclicals that Catholics are not bound to believe.

The earliest Pope you quote that would have required all Catholics to believe in extreme inerrancy is Leo XIII. Wasn’t he in the latter half of 19th century? Why all of a sudden this change that all Catholics must believe this? I mean with abortion there is new scientific evidence regarding DNA that helped us better understand what a heinous act it is and therefore the recent teachings of the church took this into account. But there is no new discovery in biblical science or studies that has been used to say what John Chrysostom said was a heresy.

Yes there are many questions left unanswered here in this thread. I asked a few of them but they were not really addressed. I mentioned that since for example Leo XIII’s encyclical explicitly says it is dealing with history and science and not just faith and Morals can it be said to be ex cathedra? Response to me: I’m a heretic for even asking such a question. My response was that if we are not to ask such questions then why does the church let us know the criteria? I’m not sure I ever received a response to this.

Other questions was why did Pope Leo say inerrancy applies to history and science but “especially” to history? Does this not mean he sees a spectrum on this? I’m not sure I ever received an answer to that one. Doesn’t this leave open the possibility that it doesn’t “especially” apply to science?

St. John clearly stated there seemed to be inconsistencies in the gospels regarding time and place. Is this Saint now to be considered a heretic as well? If I hold the same view he did am I now a heretic?

It was apparently fine to do that view for 1850 years of the church but then all of a sudden this changed?

These are legitimate and important questions. If you want to pretend they don’t exist than that is your prerogative. But they were raised in this thread and are still open. Instead we only have quotes from about a dozen Church Fathers who did believe in extreme inerrancy but far fewer who said this belief in extreme inerrancy is a chief head/dogma of our faith that must be believed by all Christians.

 

[joemccarron]

What you are proposing is that since people today have a greater amount of knowledge we can now understand the Church’s teaching on inspiration in a different sense than how the Church understood it previously.

Actually it does not appear that anyone in the church required that all Catholics believe in extreme inerrancy until at best Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical at the end of the 19th century. What to make of that encyclical (and those that followed in more modern times) is I believe somewhat of an open and complicated question.

Hence the PBC is going to address this and has been addressing these issues for quite some time.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If the above quoted teachings on inerrancy, definitive teachings from numerous Popes on a matter of faith, do not qualify as an infallible teaching, then no teaching would seem to qualify. The Popes could not have spoken any more definitively on the subject.

I believe that the statement in Providentissimus Deus, n. 20 falls under papal infallibility.
catholicplanet.com/TSM/papal-infallibility.htm

Although some open questions remain, it is currently material heresy to say that ‘error can occur in the inspired text’ or that ‘Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.’

What is happening here is that popular opinion is being used to dilute and contradict the authority of the Magisterium. It is a popular opinion that Scripture contains errors on some subjects. And so the very definitive teachings of numerous Popes is claimed, contrary to the plain truth, to be not a required belief.

The contrary opinion, that some errors are possible on matters not pertaining to salvation, has been explicitly repeatedly condemned by successive Popes.

If this teaching is not infallible and a required belief, then all teachings of the Magisterium thathave been taught less definitively, with less repetition and less clarity, would also not qualify as required beliefs. This would in effect leave the Catholic Faith with almost no required beliefs.

If Scripture is not infallible, then neither is Tradition, since Scripture flows from Tradition, and the two comprise a single Deposit of Faith. And if Tradition and Scripture err, then the teachings of the Magisterium, which are always drawn from or based upon Tradition and Scripture, would never be infallible. The entire foundation of the Catholic Faith would be left uncertain. But such is not the case.

As for those who say that we don’t know what the Popes meant by ‘error’ or ‘falsehood’, if the same approach of claiming that we don’t know the meaning of common words is applied to every other teaching, then no teaching would stand. But the same persons who claim not to know what ‘error’ means, use the word error themselves when discussing Scripture.

 

[joemccarron]

Ron I already posted a link to your article and some thought on it in this thread at post 39 here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4738446&postcount=39

The Catholic Church has plenty of dogmas from the Nicene Creed to other teachings. There are two teachings of the Popes that are widely considered to be ex-cathedra - this is not one of the 2.

I think this is questionable to be ex-cathedra for the reasons I point out in the post (and the following responses) and because typically the ex-cathedra statements are typically very specific. The entire encyclical may not be infallible indeed the sentence before and after the actual doctrine may not be infallible.

But in any respect I think this should be treated as an encyclical. That of course means I need to obey it as best I understand it in the context of the other teachings of the church. But not everything in an encyclical is ex-cathedra and or infallible.

 

[una_fides]

Ron we can indeed find statements in Papal Encyclicals that Catholics are not bound to believe.

These statements have been stated that ALL CATHOLICS ARE BOUND TO BELIEVE THESE THINGS. What makes you think that Catholics are not bound to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in the ways that these popes have said that they must believe? Please read and re-read the contents of the papal declarations paying special attention to such statements as “It is absolutely forbidden…” and “all the faithful are bound to believe”, etc.

Vatican II affirmed this fact in Lumen Gentium #25. Please read it: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

These teachings on Biblical inerrancy are also concerning faith, as my previous posts have demonstrated, since it deals with the nature of God as being the author of Scripture and therefore no error can exist in the text. The “human element” you keep referencing is not to that of authorship as if they created the ideas they were led to write. This element is referring to them being the actual writers of Scripture. Popes have also said that it is absolutley forbidden to say the sacred [human] writer has erred. So there you have it. The matter has been settled. You can either accept the Church’s judgment or reject it.

The earliest Pope you quote that would have required all Catholics to believe in extreme inerrancy is Leo XIII. Wasn’t he in the latter half of 19th century? Why all of a sudden this change that all Catholics must believe this?

Why must we believe in the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption? Because the pope said so. Or how about abortion, euthenasia, or any other teachings that have not been authoritatively declared ex cathedra that they are infallible dogmas? We believe them because we are bound because the highest authority in the Church has spoken out on the issue. I’ve posted previously several times about this fact but it appears you either never read them or forgot their contents or purposefully are ignoring them. Which is it?

Yes there are many questions left unanswered here in this thread. I asked a few of them but they were not really addressed. I mentioned that since for example Leo XIII’s encyclical explicitly says it is dealing with history and science and not just faith and Morals can it be said to be ex cathedra? Response to me: I’m a heretic for even asking such a question. My response was that if we are not to ask such questions then why does the church let us know the criteria? I’m not sure I ever received a response to this.

Other questions was why did Pope Leo say inerrancy applies to history and science but “especially” to history? Does this not mean he sees a spectrum on this? I’m not sure I ever received an answer to that one. Doesn’t this leave open the possibility that it doesn’t “especially” apply to science?

Actually I replied to all of these things. Please re-read through this thread information. I don’t want to have to keep reposting. Thanks

St. John clearly stated there seemed to be inconsistencies in the gospels regarding time and place. Is this Saint now to be considered a heretic as well? If I hold the same view he did am I now a heretic?

Alright so I’m not sure if I answered this one before, so I’m going to answer this one now for you. I agree with the statement that there are inconsistencies regarding time and place. These “inconsistencies” are not to be understood as errors however. What St. John Chrysostom is pointing out is that the gospel writers did not all say the same exact thing or give the same exact word for word account. For example, one gospel account might say thing x took place then thing y, and another writer may say in this order that thing y took place as well as thing x. The accounts therefore would be inconsistent as they listed them in a different order; however, if both events took place, then one not need interpret that they both were reporting them chronologically unless the text itself makes that clear. Depending on what was reported, it could also be possible that the two authors were reporting two similar but in actuality different events.

One specific inconsistancy would be in the accounts given by Matthew and Luke concerning the lineages of Jesus. They both give two different or “inconsistant” accounts, yet both accounts are true. There are several different explanations for these differences that I do not wish to explain right now. But if this is one that you struggle with or have struggled with, I can point you to some resources. What you won’t be able to find are Church fathers who said these were errorrs. Instead, you will find that they universally acknowledged these accounts were true, though there were various explanations given. (Such is a similar thing to the fact that the fathers gave two different explanations as to the passage stating “Jesus’ Mother and brothers”). Modernist theologians today, however, will not hessistate to say that such was an error. How do they know exactly? Because they do not presume the Bible is without error like the early Church fathers did. Otherwise, they would be following in teh fathers’ footsteps by defending the passages.

Why defend a passage that on the face seems to be an error if you believe the Bible has errors? This is why St. John defended so many passages that “seemed” to be in error. Because he realized there were no errors in the text, as the other fathers did as well.

What was understood universally then was mandated to be believed by the popes that have been repeatedly cited throughout this thread.

 

[una_fides]

Actually it does not appear that anyone in the church required that all Catholics believe in extreme inerrancy until at best Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical at the end of the 19th century. What to make of that encyclical (and those that followed in more modern times) is I believe somewhat of an open and complicated question.

Hence the PBC is going to address this and has been addressing these issues for quite some time.

The PBC can come to whatever conclusion it wants to and it can make the most definitive and clear statements possible saying that the Bible contains errors, and it will make no difference whatsoever as no one will be bound to believe any of what they say because they have absolutely no binding authority. Period. Only a pope himself can overrule a previous non-infallible declaration from a previous pope. And unless a modern pope uses the same definitive and clear language to do so, then we are still bound absolutely to believe what the Church’s highest authority has mandated that we believe. Even if a modern pope were to not personally believe in such a teaching himself, such would mean nothing unless he makes use of his will to bind all the faithful to likewise believe, which these previous popes have clearly done.

Joe, I’m not saying you are a heretic. I’m just saying that you have to admit that the Church has ruled on the issue, and if you accept the authority of the Church, then you will accept their decisions on these matters and will try to figure out how they are correct. It appears that perhaps you might not accept the authority of the Church and as such you are trying to figure out ways that the Church could be in error or that she did not mean what she clearly has taught. Just an observation and some food for thought. Hope I am doing more help than harm.

 

[una_fides]

But in any respect I think this should be treated as an encyclical. That of course means I need to obey it as best I understand it in the context of the other teachings of the church.

My last post was before I read this. Glad to read that you accept that you have the duty to submit to these teachings. A thing to keep in mind is that we must believe in the same sense as the pope explained, so the statements before and after a dogmatic definition will help you to understand exactly what the pope meant by what he said. Also, we must start with the highest authoritative rulings and work our way down from there. So we can’t, for example, take a PBC document and put it on the same level as the Supreme Magisterium of the Church.

 

[joemccarron]

Why must we believe in the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption? Because the pope said so. Or how about abortion, euthenasia, or any other teachings that have not been authoritatively declared ex cathedra that they are infallible dogmas? We believe them because we are bound because the highest authority in the Church has spoken out on the issue. I’ve posted previously several times about this fact but it appears you either never read them or forgot their contents or purposefully are ignoring them. Which is it?

I do not think being Catholic means we must believe everything a Pope says in an encyclical. If you do that’s fine. For example I do not agree with Pope Pius IX that these things are errors:

"X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

1. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.—Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
2. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852."

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

As I said before I also disagree with Pope Pius XII when he said that all the fathers said they embrace extreme inerrancy. I quoted Saint John who did not embrace that. Am I supposed to pretend I didn’t really read what the father said because a Pope said something different? This is not the way Catholicism works.

I will quote from my NAB on this as well when I have some time. That, unlike your and my posts, has an Imprimatur. As I recall it explained that V2 does have more authority than encyclicals and that V2 was a culmination of Catholic thought on this. Although Peter is correct that V2 did not set out to redefine dogma or resolve disputes. Moreover, it explained that V2 did state that the inerrancy was primarily concerned with salvation. When I get a chance I will quote it exactly before I butcher what it said on these issues.

 

[joemccarron]

The PBC can come to whatever conclusion it wants to and it can make the most definitive and clear statements possible saying that the Bible contains errors, and it will make no difference whatsoever as no one will be bound to believe any of what they say because they have absolutely no binding authority. Period. Only a pope himself can overrule a previous non-infallible declaration from a previous pope. And unless a modern pope uses the same definitive and clear language to do so, then we are still bound absolutely to believe what the Church’s highest authority has mandated that we believe. Even if a modern pope were to not personally believe in such a teaching himself, such would mean nothing unless he makes use of his will to bind all the faithful to likewise believe, which these previous popes have clearly done.

Joe, I’m not saying you are a heretic. I’m just saying that you have to admit that the Church has ruled on the issue, and if you accept the authority of the Church, then you will accept their decisions on these matters and will try to figure out how they are correct. It appears that perhaps you might not accept the authority of the Church and as such you are trying to figure out ways that the Church could be in error or that she did not mean what she clearly has taught. Just an observation and some food for thought. Hope I am doing more help than harm.

Well I admit I am a bit unclear as to what we are bound to believe and what we are not bound to believe. Some things are clear others are not as clear. Its clear we must believe in inerrancy as explained in V2 and the Catechism. But must be believe everything in an encyclical? I’m not so sure what the limits are here. The NAB study bible refers to another work on the issue I may pick that up to try to understand this better.

If you have any recommendations on this issue I am interested.

 

[una_fides]

I do not think being Catholic means we must believe everything a Pope says in an encyclical. If you do that’s fine. …

I’m not saying that everything in an encyclical is infallible; however, if a pope says that something must be believed, then it must be believed, and if a pope says that something is heresy, then it is heresy.
Mat 16:18-19 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The Church teaches that the degree of our assent depends on the degree of the pope’s manifest will in binding us to believe or not believe a particular dogma.

I will quote from my NAB on this as well when I have some time. That, unlike your and my posts, has an Imprimatur. As I recall it explained that V2 does have more authority than encyclicals and that V2 was a culmination of Catholic thought on this. Although Peter is correct that V2 did not set out to redefine dogma or resolve disputes. Moreover, it explained that V2 did state that the inerrancy was primarily concerned with salvation. When I get a chance I will quote it exactly before I butcher what it said on these issues.

Does or can an imprimatur from a mere bishop outstrip the teaching of several popes? The truth is that that bishop could put an imprimatur on complete heresy. It would not make it any less heresy, and we would be no less bound to condemn it as such. If a preface in the NAB states any teaching authoritatively and definitively condemned by a pope as heresy, then we likewise as faithful Catholics must condemn such teaching. So if what you are about to quote even comes close to saying that there are errors or could be errors in Scripture, then it is false. Period.

 

[una_fides]

Well I admit I am a bit unclear as to what we are bound to believe and what we are not bound to believe. Some things are clear others are not as clear. Its clear we must believe in inerrancy as explained in V2 and the Catechism. But must be believe everything in an encyclical? I’m not so sure what the limits are here. The NAB study bible refers to another work on the issue I may pick that up to try to understand this better.

If you have any recommendations on this issue I am interested.

I do have a recommendation. I recommend sticking with Peter on this issue. The teaching on inerrancy does pertain to faith and morals. I don’t have time to look up my previous posts where I explain that in detail, but I would like to point you in that direction to re-visit them if you can.

Also Vatican II Lumen Gentium #25 says that we are bound to follow the pope’s teaching on this issue even if you somehow don’t consider it to be infallible. Also if a pope condemns a teaching as heresy, how could the teaching not be heresy? Do you really think that what everyone believes to be condemned heresy one day can somehow later be discovered to be orthodoxy the next?

Also please comment on Vatican I’s definition that all dogmas must be understood in eodemn sensu (in the same sense) as they have always been understood and no new meanings that change the way the Chuch has always understood the teaching can be applied. Thus, if numerous popes explain a teaching and say it absolutely must be definitively held by all the faithful, then we are bound to understand this as a dogma and understand it in the same sense as they explained and understood it. This teaching thereby also falls under the universal and ordinary Magiserium of the Church and is also thereby infallible for no one can legitimately hold to a teaching that a pope condmens as heresy, and thus, all the bishops in union with the pope were bound to accept this teaching or be condmned for teaching otherwise, as were these popes’ manifest wills in defining these teachings.

I hope my explanations can be of assistance. The answers are there if you look for them. The key is submitting our will to the authority of the Church. Once we do that and pray to God for understanding, He will give it to us. But again we must cooperate with that grace and humbly beg Him for it. The more we beg, the more he will grant. I used to be protestant. I did a lot of begging for light, and now I’m Catholic. I believe it works!

This is one of my favorite lines from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium Animos: “We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity.” papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

 

[joemccarron]

I’m not saying that everything in an encyclical is infallible; however, if a pope says that something must be believed, then it must be believed, and if a pope says that something is heresy, then it is heresy.
Mat 16:18-19 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The Church teaches that the degree of our assent depends on the degree of the pope’s manifest will in binding us to believe or not believe a particular dogma.

The quote I gave was condemned and Proscribed by Pope Pius the IX. Are you going to now say you no longer believe non-catholics should have the right to exercise their religion?

Does or can an imprimatur from a mere bishop outstrip the teaching of several popes? The truth is that that bishop could put an imprimatur on complete heresy. It would not make it any less heresy, and we would be no less bound to condemn it as such. If a preface in the NAB states any teaching authoritatively and definitively condemned by a pope as heresy, then we likewise as faithful Catholics must condemn such teaching. So if what you are about to quote even comes close to saying that there are errors or could be errors in Scripture, then it is false. Period.

Like I said in a different thread an imprimatur can be revoked. The NAB bible is the Bible used in America. We are not talking about an obscure book from a backwater press that was presented to a bishop and promptly forgotten. I would think if the Catholic bible was teaching heresy it would be quickly addressed.

So while I agree no Bishop can outstrip the teachings of several Popes they can explain Catholic teaching to you and I. Moreover this is not just any imprimatur its an imprimatur on our authorized bible.

To some extent I think some of the posters here are jumping authority on Bishops and saying they know better than they do and they know its all been settled even though several Bishops may not agree. The posters may be right. I’m just going to sit back and wait. We both can pray that the Holy Spirit guides the church. I admit I will be praying that the church will do more “loosening” than “binding” (I wish it would do more of this generally) but however it ends up on this issue I can accept it.

I do appreciate your comments here as you are calling it as you see it.

I guess, to use a football analogy, you think you clearly saw a touchdown. I’m saying I would like to see the slow motion replay.

 

[joemccarron]

I do have a recommendation. I recommend sticking with Peter on this issue. The teaching on inerrancy does pertain to faith and morals. I don’t have time to look up my previous posts where I explain that in detail, but I would like to point you in that direction to re-visit them if you can.

Also Vatican II Lumen Gentium #25 says that we are bound to follow the pope’s teaching on this issue even if you somehow don’t consider it to be infallible. Also if a pope condemns a teaching as heresy, how could the teaching not be heresy? Do you really think that what everyone believes to be condemned heresy one day can somehow later be discovered to be orthodoxy the next?

Also please comment on Vatican I’s definition that all dogmas must be understood in eodemn sensu (in the same sense) as they have always been understood and no new meanings that change the way the Chuch has always understood the teaching can be applied. Thus, if numerous popes explain a teaching and say it absolutely must be definitively held by all the faithful, then we are bound to understand this as a dogma and understand it in the same sense as they explained and understood it. This teaching thereby also falls under the universal and ordinary Magiserium of the Church and is also thereby infallible for no one can legitimately hold to a teaching that a pope condmens as heresy, and thus, all the bishops in union with the pope were bound to accept this teaching or be condmned for teaching otherwise, as were these popes’ manifest wills in defining these teachings.

As far as Vatican I, I do not know that Pope Leo XIII was intending to say yes we must all believe that the writer of scripture could not have been in error when he said rabbits do indeed chew the cud. This is in part because Pope Leo XIII said his comments had to do with history and science but especially history. I mean what does the “especially history” mean? Everything in scripture is either true scientifically and historically or it isn’t. A statement either accords with reality or it doesn’t. This “especially history” seems to indicate he is taking aim at certain views that were circulating at the time and not really trying to make overbroad statements to be taken out of context. This was a qualification to everything he said following that quote. However, I do certainly agree that after that he said much in very broad terms.

Well again Popes when they are not speaking ex cathedra have said all sorts of things. So while I do agree that something is either a false teaching / heresy or orthodox. So its either true or false that the authors of the Gospels may have had some mistakes about times and places and other small matters or they didn’t. If they did make some mistakes a Papal encyclical won’t correct those mistakes. And a Papal encyclical that claims otherwise than the truth is wrong.

Here’s the thing. I think when we are talking about matters of salvation and morals we have no better sources than the bible and our church. But when it comes to history and science - well the church itself says it, and the bible, are not out to teach these things except to the extent they cross paths with salvation. See my post regarding Ron Conte’s article about how these might overlap.

 

[una_fides]

The quote I gave was condemned and Proscribed by Pope Pius the IX. Are you going to now say you no longer believe non-catholics should have the right to exercise their religion?

I don’t want to get into this topic because it would be better left to another tread, and I’ve actually posted on threads before on this subject. But to answer your question, no, non-Catholics do not have a divine right to exercise their false religions. It is a violation of the 1st Commandment, and no one has a right to violate the 1st Commandment any more than the 5th. You can’t say that someone has a divine right to have an abortion, though in our country they are said to have “a right to choose” to do so. That said, false religions can be permitted to exercise their religion if a greater good can come out of it or if a greater evil would occur from not doing so, such as war, etc. Thus, they can be tolerated, but they do not have a right to exist.

Like I said in a different thread an imprimatur can be revoked. The NAB bible is the Bible used in America. We are not talking about an obscure book from a backwater press that was presented to a bishop and promptly forgotten. I would think if the Catholic bible was teaching heresy it would be quickly addressed.

So while I agree no Bishop can outstrip the teachings of several Popes they can explain Catholic teaching to you and I. Moreover this is not just any imprimatur its an imprimatur on our authorized bible.

To some extent I think some of the posters here are jumping authority on Bishops and saying they know better than they do and they know its all been settled even though several Bishops may not agree. The posters may be right. I’m just going to sit back and wait. We both can pray that the Holy Spirit guides the church. I admit I will be praying that the church will do more “loosening” than “binding” (I wish it would do more of this generally) but however it ends up on this issue I can accept it.

I do appreciate your comments here as you are calling it as you see it.

I guess, to use a football analogy, you think you clearly saw a touchdown. I’m saying I would like to see the slow motion replay.

haha. i like and appreciate the football analogy, especially as i’m a big football fan myself. i think in this analogy, the way we watch the slow motion replay is by reading the text very carefully in light of Tradition and other such texts. The key to understand is that this is not just a game play: it’s the final decision by the referree that we are here discussing. No one can outrule the pope, so he’s made the call on the field. He’s said that x is true and y is false. We’re set. Now we just apply that ruling to the game itself and other similar situations that occur where that ruling also applies. I realize the analogy breaks down eventually, but I think it makes my point.

 

[anon5216]

…
Instead, you will find that they universally acknowledged these accounts were true, though there were various explanations given.
…

The process of giving “various explanations” for things that don’t ring true is now commonly referred to as “spin”.
And those most adept at spinning will win over the minds of all who want to be spun.

Works pretty well if you’ve already convinced those people that they are not allowed to question or think deeply about the possibility of “spin” being a lie.

…
This is why St. John defended so many passages that “seemed” to be in error. Because he realized there were no errors in the text, as the other fathers did as well.
…

Your conclusion here is a non-sequitur.

A more reasonable conclusion is that St. John and the other fathers believed that the scriptures had to be inerrant or their faith would have no foundation and would be false.
They were incorrect in their assumption. True Christianity does not require inerrancy of writings or teachings.

 

[anon5216]

…
Once we do that and pray to God for understanding, He will give it to us. But again we must cooperate with that grace and humbly beg Him for it. The more we beg, the more he will grant. I used to be protestant. I did a lot of begging for light, and now I’m Catholic. I believe it works!

This is one of my favorite lines from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium Animos: “We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity.” papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

Many have begged for - and received - grace and light from God and heaven.
They are not now all Catholics - many are Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim/Sufi/Adwaitan/non-aligned/etc./etc.

 

[anon5216]

… no, non-Catholics do not have a divine right to exercise their false religions. It is a violation of the 1st Commandment, and no one has a right to violate the 1st Commandment any more than the 5th. … , they can be tolerated, but they do not have a right to exist.

Just because followers of one religion claim the other religions are false means nothing.
Everyone can write their own scriptures claiming everyone else is false - the whole concept is utter nonsense.

haha. i like and appreciate the football analogy, especially as i’m a big football fan myself. i think in this analogy, the way we watch the slow motion replay is by reading the text very carefully in light of Tradition and other such texts. The key to understand is that this is not just a game play: it’s the final decision by the referree that we are here discussing. No one can outrule the pope, so he’s made the call on the field. He’s said that x is true and y is false. We’re set. Now we just apply that ruling to the game itself and other similar situations that occur where that ruling also applies. I realize the analogy breaks down eventually, but I think it makes my point.

Ahh!! Here the analogy and your commentary has hit the nail on the head!

Yes! The pope is the referee of Catholicism and gets to make the call on the field.
And yes, the players who have agreed to be bound by the calls of the referee are bound to abide by those calls - right or wrong. (Unless they are willing to leave the game).

Now the audience on the other hand, can watch the slow-motion replay and see details that even the refs couldn’t perceive in real time from their limited vantage point.
It can be blatantly obvious that the referee either was wrong because they didn’t perceive all the details fast enough - or were possibly even intentionally manipulating the game.

A very, very good analogy you guys came up with!