Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[una_fides]

The fact that V2 said the bible is inerrant when it relates to matters concerning salvation seems to indicate that it was reading the Pope along the same lines I was.

I am awaiting your response to my earlier post regarding the correct understanding of the passage from Vatican II. You are implying that Vatican II intended to teach something that it clearly didn’t. It never limited the understanding of Scripture to only pertain to matters of salvation. You are wrongly interpreting Vatican II.

 

[una_fides]

I’m not sure what you mean by your first paragraph. I mean surely your not saying that since Pope Leo XIII said that the doctors and fathers all agreed that the texts were free from all error then that must be so. I mean I quoted two that seemed far from universal in that view. If Tertulian or St. John Crysostom appear not to agree that it’s so important we dispute every quibble must we assume there is some mistranslation or copyist error or that we simply don’t understand what they (the fathers) are saying? That’s taking things a bit far don’t you think?

You quoted two early Church fathers but you are misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and misrepresenting what they said, as I will demonstrate below.

I’m not aware of any church father that would disagree that the scriptures were inspired. However it does indeed appear that some church fathers did not think that meant we must believe no contradictions, no matter how trivial, could possibly happen.

Contradictions may seem to occur but I assure you, they are not actually contradictions.

With respect to Tertulian he was a church father and I am unaware of any statement he would have made that suggested contrary to the quote I posted. If you find one lets consider it. But until you find a quote that has him contradicting what he said, I think we can rightfully think he pretty much believed what he said…You say that you agree with Tertulian when he says “Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of the [gospel] narratives. What matters is that there is agreement in the essential doctrine of the Faith” You say “certainly true.”

I stand behind my initial statement. Tertulian never said the variations were in error, and if you read the rest of what Tertullian said about Scripture, you will see that it’s in line with the universal view of the fathers that the Scriptures because they have God as their author cannot contain errors.

Pope John Paul II and the church have consistently reinforced the idea that scripture is intended for our salvation not as a science or history textbook.

Fundamentalists also agree the that purpose of Scripture is not that of a science or history textbook. Their purpose is salvation, but because they are inspired and inerrant what they teach contain concerning science or history–when properly understood–cannot be error.

With respect to St. John Chrysostom…the quote again. “the discord which seems to be present in little matters shields [the authors] from every suspicion and vindicates the character of the writers” He used the word “discord” and that word does not fit with your explanation. Something is true if it accords with reality. If it does not accord with reality it is false. If there is discord between two statements they can’t both accord with reality and hence they can’t both be true. …I think the Catholic church allows us to take the same position St. John Chrysostom took. That is we can concede there seems to be error on little matters.

Things are always what they may seem. I hope you realize that something can appear (or seem) to be an error but in reality not be. Based on our limited understanding, concerning what you call the “little matters” of Scripture, there may “seem” to be errors, but in reality there are not. This understanding is in line with Augustine’s and the rest of the fathers.

Am I open to the idea that it possible that rabbits 6000 years ago had a different type of stomach like you suggest. I can’t rule that out with God anythign is possible. But it “seems” to me that is not the case. It “seems” to me there is “discord” in the bible “on little matters.” If the position which was held by St. John Chrysostom is now heresy I would like to hear it under no uncertain terms.

The way you interpret St. John Chrysostom’s statement is in error but when it is properly understood, it is correct. If he did in fact intend to say that the Scriptures contained errors, which he never explicitly did, then it would be erroneous yes, but again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that he taught contrary to what Pope Leo said he did. Yes, when Pope Leo said that the fathers are unanimous, I believe him.

 

[joemccarron]

The book “Misquoting Jesus” shows we really don’t have original texts. Even the early church leaders were complaining about the great variation in content between the different manuscript copies they had available.

To say that the current versions are inerrant is not possible, because they do not 100% reflect the originals. Either the original writers wrote some amount of error and modern versions corrected them, or the originals were inerrant and the modern versions introduced error.
(Or, none of the versions were truly inerrant - including the originals).

Personally, I don’t reconcile it - the theology is wrong.

Note that by saying this, I’m not negating Christianity - just certain interpretations and definitions. If Church leaders want to “bet the farm” on these things, they will eventually lose it. Christianity will remain.

Hello Anon

I think it was in this book that Bart Ehman explains why he lost his faith due in part from his inability to determine that the mustard was truly smaller than all other seeds- like Jesus said it was in Mathew. I can only see this as a tragedy of the faulty teaching he received from fundamentalists. Belief that the mustard seed is the smallest seed is not an essential doctrine of the faith and should never be understood as such.

As to your comment, keep in mind that the position maintained by Una Fides allows for copyist errors.

Bart Ehrman did not “establish” that we do not have the originals, as we all agree we do not have the originals of the texts. Some early fathers did complain from time to time about bad copyists. But by and large it is quite remarkable how close the copies are to each other. The facts that the copies are so numerous, found in many different areas and that they have so few discrepancies provides decent evidence that we have fairly good copies of what was originally said.

What I consider “decent evidence” may be woefully lacking to a fundamentalist like Ehrman used to be. You see they put so much emphasis on the minor details that even slight copy errors can be cause for alarm. When reading his books I suggest you ignore all the relative terminology such as “there are many copy mistakes” etc. Look at the cases he points out. If its an Ehrman book you have a safe bet he will point out an issue in John and the adulteress passage and take issue with the ending in Mark. He likes to write book after book after book pointing out the issues surrounding these Passages. But after you get past these you will see he is trying to make big issues out of problems with relatively minor aspects of the texts.

 

[una_fides]

Ron Conte
Thank you for sharing in these posts. I read your website and although I disagree with your conclusion I do believe you provide much good information on this topic. Those who are interested in this topic might like to read it:
catholicplanet.com/TSM/papal-infallibility.htm

In your opinion Providentissimus Deus is ex cathedra regarding the unlimited inerrancy of scripture. However I do not think ex cathedra statements can cover statements outside faith and morals unless it at least has some tie in with them.

Let me put it this way:

1. Some claims are relevant to “faith and morals” and that’s it.
2. Some claims are relevant to both “faith and Morals” and also have implications to some other topics such as to science and history etc.
3. Some claims are relevant only to science and history or whatever but not our faith and morals.

Now I think we both agree that the Pope can make infallible statements about 1 and 2. I would say the pope can not make infallible statements about 3.

If some of the statements in the bible fit in 3 then your interpretation has the Pope speaking infallibly about them. I do not believe that can happen. So to the extent the teaching of the church is infallible it must deal with claims that are 1 or at least 2.

This is the context I read the papal statements. Once you consider this context you will see no conflict with Vatican 2.

It is impossible to interpret the various papal statements to say that they are incorrect because they overstep their boundaries because then the infallible papal statements would be incorrect and therefore in error and not infallible.

The idea you are promoting was explicitly condemned. How can you say that the pope had no right to condemn such teaching or that his condemnation was outside the bounds of his authority? If it is forbidden to believe in limited inspiration, then you cannot believe such can possibly be in line with the Catholic faith.

 

[anon5216]

I’m sorry to read on your personal profile info that you are a former Catholic and are now interested in Indian spirituality. This fact is evidenced by your post.

What an individual may think about Christianity does not change what it is. We know from the authority of Christ, which he delegated to his Church, that the teachings of the Catholic faith are true concerning Scripture. Just because something may seem at first glance to be a contradiction or error does not mean it is. There are viable explanations for anything in Scripture that seems to be a contradiction. The possibility of a copyist error is there but is fractional, i.e. pertaining to about 1% of passages. Here’s a site that explains. home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html Our Catholic faith, however, ensures us that there are no errors in the original inspired texts, and we know that the differences in manuscripts is minimal enough to not cause us any concern regarding the doctrines of our faith. The texts we now have, however, could contain manuscript errors, which could potentially effect minor things such as this silly rabbit chewing cud argument that seems to never go away on this thread.

I agree entirely that what a person or organization believes about Truth in no way can change what Truth is. That works on all sides of any religious discussion.

I believe there are varying estimates by different scholars as to the percent of passages that vary between the available ancient manuscripts.

In addition to the copyist errors there are the intentional changes made by those who were intending to correct what they considered copyist errors - potentially introducing new errors.

Then there are the questions of changes to conform to Church theology.

 

[joemccarron]

Based on our limited understanding, concerning what you call the “little matters” of Scripture,

Not only what I call “little matters” but also what St. John Chrysostom called “little matters.” I’m just borrowing his language.

You seem to recognize that if you are interpreting Pope LeoXIII statements correctly there can be no “little matters” in the bible. Whether its believing that rabbits chew cud or believing that mustard seeds are the smallest seed they are all apparently essential beliefs for the faith by your interpretation of Church teaching.

Whatever these two thought, regardless of whether they in fact thought there was an error in the bible or not, one thing is clear:

They did not think issues on small matters were essential to the faith.

As for the word “seem” I do agree that if I say “something seems to be in error” that does not mean I don’t allow the possibility its correct. However if I say something seems to be in error but I really don’t really believe something seems to be in error then I am lying. So either St. John Chrysostom believed there seemed to be discord on little matters or he was lying. I think he was probably telling the truth. So is his view now considered heresy?

I, of course, think Pope Leo XIII is trustworthy source as to what the Church fathers believed but I do not think he is infallible as to what the Church fathers believed. Do you?

 

[anon5216]

Hello Anon

I think it was in this book that Bart Ehman explains why he lost his faith due in part from his inability to determine that the mustard was truly smaller than all other seeds- like Jesus said it was in Mathew. I can only see this as a tragedy of the faulty teaching he received from fundamentalists. Belief that the mustard seed is the smallest seed is not an essential doctrine of the faith and should never be understood as such.

As to your comment, keep in mind that the position maintained by Una Fides allows for copyist errors.

Bart Ehrman did not “establish” that we do not have the originals, as we all agree we do not have the originals of the texts. Some early fathers did complain from time to time about bad copyists. But by and large it is quite remarkable how close the copies are to each other. The facts that the copies are so numerous, found in many different areas and that they have so few discrepancies provides decent evidence that we have fairly good copies of what was originally said.

What I consider “decent evidence” may be woefully lacking to a fundamentalist like Ehrman used to be. You see they put so much emphasis on the minor details that even slight copy errors can be cause for alarm. When reading his books I suggest you ignore all the relative terminology such as “there are many copy mistakes” etc. Look at the cases he points out. If its an Ehrman book you have a safe bet he will point out an issue in John and the adulteress passage and take issue with the ending in Mark. He likes to write book after book after book pointing out the issues surrounding these Passages. But after you get past these you will see he is trying to make big issues out of problems with relatively minor aspects of the texts.

Why someone else lost their faith is irrelevant to my decision (many years ago) to leave Catholicism.

I agree that vague references to “many” is not decent evidence, but Ehrman does give more specific examples than just the two you mention. In any case, I’ve only come across his book very recently by way of someone on these forums mentioning it. My personal spiritual beliefs developed long before.

 

[joemccarron]

It is impossible to interpret the various papal statements to say that they are incorrect because they overstep their boundaries because then the infallible papal statements would be incorrect and therefore in error and not infallible.

The idea you are promoting was explicitly condemned. How can you say that the pope had no right to condemn such teaching or that his condemnation was outside the bounds of his authority? If it is forbidden to believe in limited inspiration, then you cannot believe such can possibly be in line with the Catholic faith.

If its forbidden to think a pope can speak on matters outside of what is understood as ex cathedra - faith and morals - then why even give this as a condition for ex cathedra?

Every pronouncement of a Pope becomes an ex cathedra statement. But anyway I think what the Pope said - when understood in the context of what he is trying to do as leader of the church - can indeed be consistant with V2.

 

[una_fides]

If its forbidden to think a pope can speak on matters outside of what is understood as ex cathedra - faith and morals - then why even give this as a condition for ex cathedra?

Every pronouncement of a Pope becomes an ex cathedra statement. But anyway I think what the Pope said - when understood in the context of what he is trying to do as leader of the church - can indeed be consistant with V2.

Ok. Let the record show that you continually try to say that V2 teaches something, yet you still have not answered my repeated attempts for you to prove that it must be interpreted the way you think it should. Please respond to my earlier post before we continue any further: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4738032&postcount=36
Otherwise, please stop saying that V2 taught something that it didn’t.

 

[joemccarron]

Why someone else lost their faith is irrelevant to my decision (many years ago) to leave Catholicism.

I agree that vague references to “many” is not decent evidence, but Ehrman does give more specific examples than just the two you mention. In any case, I’ve only come across his book very recently by way of someone on these forums mentioning it. My personal spiritual beliefs developed long before.

I didn’t mean to say it would apply to you personally. The reason why I mention what caused Ehrman to reject Christianity is because 1) I think it has some relevance to this thread and 2) you need to understand this about him when you read his works. He has a very specific view of Christians and that view was shaped by his fundamentalist upbringing.

Yes he has many other examples beside the two I mention but those two always seem to make it into just about every book and class he authors. The others tend to be a bit underwhelming.

 

[joemccarron]

Ok. Let the record show that you continually try to say that V2 teaches something, yet you still have not answered my repeated attempts for you to prove that it must be interpreted the way you think it should. Please respond to my earlier post before we continue any further: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4738032&postcount=36
Otherwise, please stop saying that V2 taught something that it didn’t.

I’m not saying it must be interpreted the way I understand it. I am saying that interpreting it my way is consistent with prior infallible teachings. I would note you have skipped many questions and difficulties I have posed for your position. But nevertheless I will address the post you link to here before I have to go do something to support my family . It will be the next post.

 

[anon5216]

I didn’t mean to say it would apply to you personally. The reason why I mention what caused Ehrman to reject Christianity is because 1) I think it has some relevance to this thread and 2) you need to understand this about him when you read his works. He has a very specific view of Christians and that view was shaped by his fundamentalist upbringing.

Yes he has many other examples beside the two I mention but those two always seem to make it into just about every book and class he authors. The others tend to be a bit underwhelming.

Agreed that knowing an author’s background and agenda greatly helps in understanding and assessing their writings.

 

[una_fides]

I’m not saying it must be interpreted the way I understand it. I am saying that interpreting it my way is consistent with prior infallible teachings.

Can you perhaps provide some of these prior infallible teachings that say that Scripture is only inspired in parts, that it contains errors, or that God is the author of error? Otherwise, your position has been explicitly condemned by popes. Your argument earlier was that these prior teachings are not infallible because they are not pertaining to faith or morals not that they on their face agree with your position which they certainly do not. It seems what you are really saying is that your interpretation of Vatican II to you seems consistent with how you are then attempting to reinterpret the subsequent teachings. After you explain your interpretation of V2, I’d like to see how you then make the texts cited in this earlier post agree with your position when they clearly state the opposite: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4737350&postcount=31

 

[joemccarron]

…
So we are either left with one of two conclusions. That the phrase “for the sake of salvation” is a new way of looking at inspiration as only pertaining to the parts regarding salvation -or- that the purpose of God inspiring all of Scripture and keeping it free from error is to help accomplish our salvation. All the referenced teachings point to the latter explanation. The former explanation (previously condemned as modernism) also cannot possibly be true in light of Vatican I, which infallibly declared that dogmas of the Church must be understood and interpreted in eodem sensu (in the same sense) as they have always be understood and how they were always intended. piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason Hence, the Catholic interpretation of Vatican II absolutely must be in line with the previous declarations on this matter in the same sense as they have always meant to be understood.

BTW: You are the one who has ignored my questions about what Pope Leo XIII might have meant by “especially” History. Until you understand that he was applying these principals on a spectrum you won’t understand why there is no conflict with Vatican II and him.

Anyway, lets break down what you say here. You say:

“So we are either left with one of two conclusions. 1)That the phrase “for the sake of salvation” is a new way of looking at inspiration as only pertaining to the parts regarding salvation -or- 2) that the purpose of God inspiring all of Scripture and keeping it free from error is to help accomplish our salvation.”

First that is a false dichotomy.

Second, I do not think what Vatican II said was new at all. I think it is consistent with what was said in timothy, and I think it is consistent with the references, properly understood, and with the 2 church fathers I quoted above. So the Vatican II statement is not a new way of looking at inspiration by any stretch. But other than that I think 1 is true.

I agree with the second statement as well. The purpose of keeping it free from error is to help accomplish our salvation. Hence to the extent claims are made in scripture that have nothing to do with our salvation (read more or less faith and moral teaching) it has little to do with God’s purpose and so we shouldn’t expect the same safeguard against error.

Put another way why would God be concerned to ensure lack of error for things that have nothing to do with our salvation?

This is not my personal view alone that Vatican II clarifies its only those passages for our salvation that have this protection. The Catholic Study Bible also concurs with my conclusion on this. (to be clear I’m not saying they set forth my reasoning in any form that is by and large my personal view but I don’t read anything inconsistent with it) That book btw holds an Imprimatur. Its conclusion is squarely in line with my conclusion on this and squarely against yours.
The working paper from the Bishops synod on this issues holds the same conclusion I do and is squarely against yours.
Finally in 1999,

“the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published the results of a conversation between scholars and church leaders of the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. They emphasized limited inerrancy, and rejected the literal inerrancy of Fundamentalist Protestants. The Secretariat wrote:
“For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Vatican II says that 'the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (Dei Verbum 11). What is important is the qualification of ‘that truth’ with ‘for the sake of our salvation’."

(Quoting the website from my first post in the thread.)

So I wouldn’t call this my personal view by any stretch. It’s your view on the interpretation of Vatican II that seems personal in nature and contrary to church teaching.
If there is any publication stating your views on Vatican II that has an imprimatur give me the citation.

 

[una_fides]

I’m not saying it must be interpreted the way I understand it. I am saying that interpreting it my way is consistent with prior infallible teachings. **I would note you have skipped many questions and difficulties I have posed for your position. ** But nevertheless I will address the post you link to here before I have to go do something to support my family . It will be the next post.

I am trying to respond to as many of your exceptionally long posts as I can, but I don’t have all the time in the world. I will eventually get to them, but for now, I’d like to first hear how you can interpret the documents posted on here in the same sense as they were intended to mean and how they’ve always been understood to mean (as Vatican I infallibly declared is the way to approach Church dogmas) and still come away viewing them as agreeing with the proposition you are asserting: that not all of Scripture is inspired and that Scripture contains errors.

I have one response I’m still working on, but if you have something specific that you feel I have not addressed, please direct me to the post. Thanks.

 

[una_fides]

Put another way why would God be concerned to ensure lack of error for things that have nothing to do with our salvation?

You are missing the fact that God was the author of Scripture. He inspired it. So if God were to guide the human authors to write error, then God would be communicating error. God is Truth and cannot possibly be the author of error. The Church also has taught that inspiration pertains to all of the Bible not just some of its parts. Please go through the actual text itself from Vatican II and try to refute the interpretation thereof that I posted. How can you view inspiration as only pertaining to salvation, when the text 1) never places such limiting words as “only”, and 2) the text employs the word “everything” pertaining to inspiration twice without stating any limitations on that word, “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit”, and 3) the text states that everything in Scripture was what God wanted to be there. “they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted” Thus, according to this limited inspiration theory, one would have to conclude that God–who cannot err–actually intended to communicate errors to people in his Word.

There are also much more clearer statements than these from Vatican II, but since this somewhat vague wording is being used as a means for re-interpretation of the Church’s teaching, I thought it best to start with this text to show that if properly understood, it does not at all imply the limited inspiration theory that you are proposing.

Btw, if the USCCB were to come out and say that the Bible contains errors, which it didn’t (though it did employ very vague wording that can easily be used to promote your opinion), it would be in error as it disagrees with prior papal teachings, which are a substantially higher degree of authority. In addition, imprimaturs have been revoked in the past as erroneous by higher authority as well, and only carry with it the authority of the local bishop. What we are talking about is the highest authority in the Church condemning the errors that you are now promoting.

 

[una_fides]

joemccarron

You propose that divine inspiration does not extent to every part of the Bible but only to parts that pertain to salvation and that in the other parts errors occur in the inspired texts.

“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)

You propose that only those parts of Scripture that pertain to religious matters (salvation) are inspired.

“…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, Concerning Some False Opinions Threating to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, n. 22).

Your propose that not all parts of Scripture are divinely inspired but only those parts that pertain to salvation.

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).

You propose that the writers of Scripture have in fact erred in the lesser matters in Scripture and that not all the parts of Scripture are inspired and given by dictation of the Holy Spirit.

“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.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

“Rome has spoken; the case is closed” (St. Augustine)

 

[joemccarron]

I have a few minutes so I would like to ask you a few simple questions I will put my answers (to the best of my belief) below in parenthesis but I would like to hear from you

1. Do rabbits indeed chew the cud?

(No it seems they don’t)

1. Is the above question a question concerning the Catholic faith or Morals?

(No your beliefs about rabbits and cud chewing can be your own)

1. Assume someone is otherwise a very good Catholic but it seems to them that it’s not true “that rabbits do indeed chew the cud” despite being told that rabbits do eat their excrement etc. does this mean they have a heretical belief?

(No, Catholics are not bound to any scientific view that is consistent with their faith. We have been told again and again that the Church speaks infallibly only with regard to matters that are relevant to Faith and Morals. To the extent someone tries to claim that infallibility extends beyond that to matters that are purely biological they are misunderstanding the faith. There is nothing inconsistent with believing rabbits do not chew the cud and the Catholic Faith.)

How would you, or anyone taking your position, answer these questions?

 

[una_fides]

I have a few minutes so I would like to ask you a few simple questions I will put my answers (to the best of my belief) below in parenthesis but I would like to hear from you

1. Do rabbits indeed chew the cud?

(No it seems they don’t)

1. Is the above question a question concerning the Catholic faith or Morals?

(No your beliefs about rabbits and cud chewing can be your own)

1. Assume someone is otherwise a very good Catholic but it seems to them that it’s not true “that rabbits do indeed chew the cud” despite being told that rabbits do eat their excrement etc. does this mean they have a heretical belief?

(No, Catholics are not bound to any scientific view that is consistent with their faith. We have been told again and again that the Church speaks infallibly only with regard to matters that are relevant to Faith and Morals. To the extent someone tries to claim that infallibility extends beyond that to matters that are purely biological they are misunderstanding the faith. There is nothing inconsistent with believing rabbits do not chew the cud and the Catholic Faith.)

How would you, or anyone taking your position, answer these questions?

Joe, the Church did not make a pronouncement that rabbits chew their cud, so I have no idea why you continue to make such an assertion. The Church said that it is part of divine revelation and must be believed with divine and Catholic faith that the entire Bible is inspired in all its parts and is free from any error. How you then take that to interpret individual Scriptures is up to you. The Church has never ruled on the interpretation of that passage, and as I have demonstrated, there are multiple ways to interpret it. I agree that if the Church were to make such a pronouncement that “rabbits chew their cud” in a way that would otherwise meet the criteria for infallibility, and that statement did not pertain to faith or morals, then the statement would not be infallible. However, that is not what the Church pronounced. Are you trying to say that the divine revelation that all of Scripture is given by God and as such it cannot contain errors has nothing to do with faith or morals?

The Church not only made such a pronouncement, but she has also infallibly forbidden the opposite notion that to limit inspiration to only certain parts of Scripture (such as pertaining only to salvation) or to say that the writers of Scripture erred in any way. Thus, the ideas you are proposing to limit Scripture to only those pertaining to salvation is not any way the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church has authoritatively ruled that way has she not? If you are unwilling to give a solid explanation of post 57 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4739356&postcount=57) then I think this discussion cannot continue. We are at an impasse until you can address these very clear and concise infallible and authoritative pronouncements of the Church, coming directly from her highest authority. At that point, we can discuss the details of the passages you may have difficulty understanding, but until then, you cannot continue to try to claim that the Church in any way officially supports the limited inspiration theory you are presenting. If you wish to try to prove the Church wrong by trying to prove that the authors erred, then that’s your business. But the record is clear that the Church has questionably made use of her highest authority possible to condemn the proposition that God’s Word contains any errors of any kind in any of her parts and to positively assert as part of the Catholic faith that God’s Word is completely and totally in all its parts free from any error whatsoever. If any Catholic bishop or even group of bishops says or claims otherwise, he has been overruled by the highest authority of the Church.

Again to quote from St. Augustine: “Rome has spoken; the case is closed”

 

[joemccarron]

Joe, the Church did not make a pronouncement that rabbits chew their cud, so I have no idea why you continue to make such an assertion. The Church said that it is part of divine revelation and must be believed with divine and Catholic faith that the entire Bible is inspired in all its parts and is free from any error.

Well do you believe that? I’m taking a part of scripture and asking you about it. You do agree it is a part of scripture don’t you? So let’s examine your position.

Notice based on my interpretation of what was said by the church I had no problem answering all the questions I put to you. I would be happy to answer any questions you have on how I logically apply the church statements and reason. You on the other hand seem to have some problems. If not in this round of questions I think you will find problems a few questions later.

Like the Pontifical Biblical Commission said - “Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.”

I suggest you would do well to not brush them off so quickly even though they may not be Popes - or at least weren’t then. Don’t be so quick to think you can interpret what a pope might have said over 100 years ago in a context that may not apply here. The Holy Spirit still works through the church - including the Bishops - not just the one in Rome.