Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[joemccarron]

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?

Not the way I am interpreting it. I am saying that the way you interpret these statement you have the Popes making claims that have nothing to do with faith and Morals. That is you have the Pope essentially saying it is a matter of Catholic faith of morals that we believe rabbits do indeed chew the cud. You refuse to answer whether you agree with me – that it has nothing to do with faith and morals.

I am saying either you should not interpret the Popes statement so broadly or recognize it is not infallible. But if you agree with me that your beliefs about rabbits and their cud chewing have nothing to do with Catholic faith and Morals, you can’t have both.

It’s a matter of logic.

 

[una_fides]

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.

If you claim that I can’t interpret infallible definitions that are crystal clear in their wording from only 100 years ago, then how in the world are you able to claim that you can possibly interpret correctly biblical passages written thousands of years ago?! How can you possibly know you are properly interpreting the passage concerning “chewing the cud”? The Church has never ruled on that particular passage of Scripture as to how it must be interpreted so you are free to interpret it how you please as long as it is in line with how the popes have infallibly said all Scripture must be interpreted: aka without error.

I’d like to see you go through decree by decree and provide some sort of alternate interpretation. In order to do that, you would have to make the statements entirely void of meaning. The facts are that you chose not to interpret those statements because they clearly contradict and condemn the propositions you are presenting. At this point, you either need to go through those decrees coming from the Church’s highest authority and prove that they agree with your proposition of limited inspiration or else you need to at least admit that they condemn such propositions. I have lots of other comments to make regarding your “chewing the cud” argument and the non-binding document from the biblical commission, but I will not comment any further until you go through those decrees and either prove they support the propositions you are raising on this thread or admit they contradict and condemn them.

 

[joemccarron]

Take any and every one of the statements you want from any pope or church official. Here is the analysis:

1)The statement either makes claims about faith or morals 1) in whole or 2) in part or 3)not at all.

1. If the statement makes claims pertaining to our faith and morals only in part (or not at all) then to the extent the claims have nothing to do with faith and morals they are not infallible. (Even statements that are seen as clearly ex cathedra only apply to a few lines not to the whole encyclical. )
2. The way you interpret the Prior Popes statements you have him making claims that are clearly irrelevant to faith and Morals. One of many such claims is that “rabbits do indeed chew the cud.”
3. Now then either your interpretation is wrong or that statement can not possibly be infallible.

This is simple logic. So you can insist all you want that you are interpreting the Pope correctly that’s fine. (Although I have my doubts he intended to mean rabbits do indeed chew the cud.) We do not need to answer that question. Because if you are interpreting the Pope correctly then, by logical implication, he is making claims that have nothing to do with Catholic faith and Morals. Hence it is not infallible. Not everything the Pope says is infallible.

 

[una_fides]

Take any and every one of the statements you want from any pope or church official. Here is the analysis:

1)The statement either makes claims about faith or morals 1) in whole or 2) in part or 3)not at all.

1. If the statement makes claims pertaining to our faith and morals only in part (or not at all) then to the extent the claims have nothing to do with faith and morals they are not infallible. (Even statements that are seen as clearly ex cathedra only apply to a few lines not to the whole encyclical. )
2. The way you interpret the Prior Popes statements you have him making claims that are clearly irrelevant to faith and Morals. One of many such claims is that “rabbits do indeed chew the cud.”
3. Now then either your interpretation is wrong or that statement can not possibly be infallible.

This is simple logic. So you can insist all you want that you are interpreting the Pope correctly that’s fine. (Although I have my doubts he intended to mean rabbits do indeed chew the cud.) We do not need to answer that question. Because if you are interpreting the Pope correctly then, by logical implication, he is making claims that have nothing to do with Catholic faith and Morals. Hence it is not infallible. Not everything the Pope says is infallible.

It is laudable that you are writing off what the pope said and claiming that it does not pertain to faith and morals and therefore has no binding authority. You seem to be quick to try to find errors in Scripture but are unwilling to admit your own.

A few questions:
**1) Did popes explicitly condemn your propositions? **
2) Does the teaching that the inerrant God is the author of all of Scripture pertain to the faith? And could this teaching be part of the deposit of faith entrusted to the apostles?
3) Do any of those solemn papal statements ever mention anything about “rabbits chewing their cud”?
4) Does the pope say that you have to interpret Scripture according to a particular literal construct in all occasions and that authors err any time they may explain something from a human perspective rather than a scientific one?
5) Even if those papal decrees are not infallible declarations (which they clearly are), they are made from the Church’s highest authority, and thus, the Church has already settled this issue, has she not? Can a lower authority then change what a higher authority has clearly ruled?
6) Why do you think the Church ruled that it is forbidden for people to believe that there are any errors in the Bible whatsoever.
7) Isn’t it a statement of faith as in what one believes concerning the inspiration of the Bible? Thus, wouldn’t it be a matter of faith that the authors of Scripture could not have possible erred.

Again, until you at least admit to the answer of my 1st question, we cannot proceed further because the fact that you won’t tells me you merely have an agenda and are not even open to any reasoning or possibility of admitting error whatsoever. The goal has to be to come to the truth of the matter not to prove your propositions to be correct. If you are saying that you believe these popes were wrong, then please openly come out and say so.
We have much more we can discuss, and I honestly think I have a great insight to share with you regarding your cudchewing passage that you keep coming back to, but I need to know I am not wasting my time when you won’t even admit what the Church has clearly said.

 

[una_fides]

joe,

I just found one more thing that you may find helpful in your determining whether the statements concerning the inspiration and absolute inerrancy of the Bible pertain to faith and morals.

These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful’s minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.

Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the general inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed.

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

The following Thursday, the fourth day of the same month and year, all these matters were accurately reported to our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius X. His Holiness approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers and ordered that each and every one of the above-listed propositions be held by all as condemned and proscribed.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

The highest authority in the Church has authoritatively ruled on a matter that the Church says pertains to “faith and morals,” and he has ordered that this belief be held by “all” and hence has made use of his will to bind the whole Church. Even if you persist to argue that somehow this statement does not pertain to faith and morals (despite the fact the Church has authoritatively said otherwise), you nevertheless must agree that the pope condemned the proposition of Scriptural errancy and said that everyone must accept this condemnation as true. To thereby disregard this condemnation is at the very least to disobey the pope and at most is to hold to a view that has been infallibly condemned.

I do hope you will please answer the questions from my last post to show that you are open to discuss these matters in all honesty. And to be fair, I will subsequently answer any questions you would like me to as well.

 

[Shlomey]

Okay, so the whole rabbit issue may seem silly to some, but I find it interestinf, considering there has not been any good explanation presented yet as to how we ought to understand it.
Simply saying: believe this seemingly wrong passage without question does not really satisfy someone who seeks to have faith AND reason.

We do see it is a problem when the Bible states that hares chew cud when they - in fact - do not. And declaring them unclean for something which is not true is an even greater error.

Therefore we have to find an explanation. I would go for “mistranslation”. This position however has a weakness: if the Church has declared any translation as equally free of error as the original Hebrew/Greek and that translation uses the term “hare”.

I wonder why we do not simply ask the Jews about the Torah:

From: Sheldon Meth <SHELDON.Z.METH@…>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:38:52 -0400
Subject: Rabbit and Camels

I saw this once in a journal of the Association of Orthodox Jewish
Scientists. I am recalling it from memory; all errors are mine:

The verses in question (Leviticus 11:4 - 6) are problematic. Firstly,
we don’t really know what the shaffan and the arneves are. The popular
translations of rabbit and hare are questionable, since they don’t have
hooves, per se, so “mafris parsa” is irrelevant (e.g., sheratzim aren’t
included either - and, BTW, I don’t think hippos have split hooves: they
have toes like elephants). Secondly, the Torah uses present tense
(mafris) for the gammal, future tense (yafris) for the shaffan, and past
tense (hifrisah) for the arneves.

A possible solution proposed in the AOJS article is that these three
animals refer to the same species: the camelids. The gammal refers to
the dromedary (one humped) camel, which is indigenous to Africa and the
Middle East. The Jews in the time of the Torah were used to these
camels, and so the gammal is listed in present tense. The arneves is
the bactrian (two-humped) camel, which originated in Baktria,
Afghanistan, and was likely prevalent in Iran/Iraq, i.e., Ur Kasdin,
when Avraham Avinu was born. Therefore, it is listed in past tense,
since they are remembered from our origins.

There is a third member of the camel family - the llama (and other South
American camelids like the alpaca, vicuna, and guanaco), which the Jews
would not see for another 2.5 millennia when the New World was
discovered, but which G-d knew existed. This is the shaffan, and that
is why it is mentioned in the future tense.

From: Chaim Mateh <chaimm@…>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 22:12:43 +0200
Subject: Rabbit and Camels

In vol 33#45, Eliezer Shemtov <shemtov@…> wrote:

<<I have researched the matter a bit and have found that neither the camel
nor the rabbit ruminate. Does anyone have any answer to this apparent
contradiction?>>

I’m not so sure about the camel. If I remember correctly, I’ve seen
camels (here in Israel) bring up their cud from their stomachs and then
proceed to chew it. It looks pretty disgusting actually .

Regarding rabbit/hare, Rav S.R.Hirsch says that the english for shafan
and arnevet cannot be rabbit/hare since these do not chew their cud.

I haven’t found any sources that discuss the Hallachic technical
definition of “maaleh geira”. We translate it as “chewing the cud”.
Perhaps it is sufficient for it to appear to chew its cud. IOW, if
the animal eats and chews in a fashion that appears to be chewing its
cud, even if scientifically it isn’t, this may still be considered
maaleh geira. Do rabbits/hares appear to chew their cud?

Kol Tuv,
Chaim

 

[Shlomey]

This is quite interesting:

From: Kaye David Capt 86 AW/HC <David.Kaye@…>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 14:32:55 +0200
Subject: Rabbit and Camels

What’s the answer to the question posed?

HaGaon HaRav Moshe Dovid Tendler once noted that he believes that

the shafan is a llama and arneves is a vicuna. They belong to the
camelidae, or the class of the small camels.

He noted that microbiology offers another possible answer.

Ruminants are animals that have a special digestive organ, the rumen,
which serves as a huge microbial culture vessel. The rumen is a unique
ecosystem in which anaerobic microorganisms play the principle role in
the digestion of insoluble feed materials such as cellulose and
starch. The fermentative bacteria of the rumen produce volatile fatty
acids which then serve as the principle energy source of the ruminant
animal. In addition to their role in the digestive process, the rumen
microorganisms synthesize vitamins and amino acids used by the
ruminant. A rabbit, in fact, does chew its cud. A cow ferments the food
in the rumen, then regurgitates and digests it. The rabbit defecates in
one corner of its cage and comes back at night to eat the fermented
remains. It thus does “chew its cud” or eats its food once again! Let me
explain: Rabbits, like horses are herbivorous mammals, but they are not
ruminants.** Instead they have only one stomach and employ an organ called
the cecum, a small digestive organ located posterior to the large
intestine (just before the anus), as their cellulolytic fermentation
vesse**l. The cecum contains a cellulolytic microflora and digestion of
cellulose occurs here. Nutritionally, ruminants have an advantage over
horses and rabbits in that the cellulolytic microflora of the ruminant
eventually passes through a true (acidic) stomach and can serve as a
protein source for the animal. In horses and rabbits, the cellulolytic
microflora is passed out of the animal in the feces. To recover some of
this lost protein, rabbits frequently practice coprophagy (eating of the
feces).

This one would lead to one conclusion: the Bible is right

 

[Shlomey]

more from the Jews who has the same trouble

From: Naomi Kingsley <rogerk@…>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 16:53:20 +0300
Subject: Rabbits and camels chew the cud

True [biological] ruminants, like cows, sheep, [giraffes] etc. have a
very complicated digestive system, with two stomachs. Food enters the
first stomach, is partially broken down, regurgitated [the ‘cud’],
chewed again “chewing the cud”], then sent to the second stomach, which
has a different set of enzymes, to continue digestion. Other grass
eating animals have other strategies to digest otherwise indigestible
vegetable matter. Rabbits, in particular, pass the food through the
digestive system twice - the first time producing soft, wet faeces,
which are then swallowed and chewed again. [The second time round the
faeces are dry and hard.] Thus the rabbit CAN be said to ‘chew the cud’,
even though it is not biologically a ruminant. I assume hares are
similar.

AFAIK, camels’ stomachs are designed to regurgitate small?] quantities
of semi-digested food, which is then chewed well, before being swallowed
a second time, and replaced with another load of ‘cud’. So, again,
camels can be said to ‘chew the cud’. Go to the nearest zoo and watch
one chew!

Naomi Kingsley

From: Eli Linas <linaseli@…>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:05:41 +0200
Subject: Re: Rabbits and Camels

Concerning the question of whether rabbits can be classified as
ruminants, I sent an email to Dr. Tim Lewis, PhD, who holds the biology
chair at Wittenberg University. I wrote him after seeing the entry on
rabbits in Wittenberg’s excellent site about animals. Here is the letter
I wrote, and his response:

I just saw your website on animals, specifically, lagomorphs, and I was
wondering if I could ask you a question: Could rabbits be classified as
ruminents? The Bible says that there are three animals that chew the cud,
but don’t have split hooves, and one that has a split hoove, but doesn’t
chew the cud. In the former category, one one the animals listed is
commonly translated from the Hebrew into English as a rabbit. Thanks for
your time.

His reply:

I will give first the biological answer, and then a philosophical one.
Since some of this is unsavory, you might not want to be eating lunch as
you read it.

Plant material is broken down primarily by bacteria that live in an
animal’s digestive tract. In rabbits, these bacteria live in the cecum, a
blind pouch between their small intestine and their large intestine. Food
passes (in almost all animals you are familiar with) from mouth to
esophagus to stomach to small intestines to large intestines and out.
Nutrients are absorbed in the small intestines. With rabbits having their
food broken down after it has passed trough their small intestines, they
get almost no nutrients. So when they defecate food after its first pass
through the digestive tract, they eat it again (they appear to be grooming
but in fact are defecating directly into their mouths). The nutrients are
them absorbed on the second pass through and these pellets are excreted
normally and not consumed again. This form of feeding is called coprophagy
and is more common than you might care to think.

Ruminants keep their bacteria in their stomach (plural, usually 4). They
tend to eat fast and then go find a sheltered place to regurgitate their
food, chew it again (their cud), and swallow it. Since the stomachs come
before the small intestines, they do not re-eat their feces like rabbits
do. So rabbits are not ruminants.

Taxonomically rabbits are closely related to rodents (rats and mice) and
ruminants are with other even-toed (cloven hoof) animals.

Philosophically speaking, I try to tell my students (both at Wittenberg and
at my Lutheran church where I teach catechism) that the bible was not
written to be a science text book for the 20th century, but a spiritual
guide based on facts for all times. It would be meaningless to write in
the Old Testament (sorry, it’s that Lutheran thing) law something that
would not be addressed or defined by science for thousands of years and add
nothing to the point of the law. So while we would not call a rabbit a
ruminant, the word may well have been used differently when the text was
written to mean something like “anything that eats its food twice” in which
case the word would be fine.

It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to define “ma’alei geira” in
keeping with Dr. Lewis’s final statement. As far as camels, the websites
on animals that I checked out all classify camels as ruminents - and
therefore I didn’t bother to ask Dr. Lewis about that.

Eli Linas

 

[Shlomey]

From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@…>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 23:36:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Rabbits and Camels

The term “maalai gairah” does not necessarily mean a ruminant. It is an
interesting point that a fiction book (Watership Down) pointed out what
many veterinarians did not know but which turned out to be correct, that
rabbits “rechew” their food even though they do not have the extra
stomachs that true ruminants do.

An article in from the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists
suggested a different translation. It suggested a possibility based on
the tense of the verb used in “splitting the hoof”. I keep forgetting
which kind of camel (one or two humped) had existed in the time of
Avraham but disappeared from that area by Yetzias Mitzrayim but I think
it was the two humped camel. That leads to

Two humped camel - upharsa lo hifrisah - past tense
One humped camel - uses mafris - present tense
llama - uses yafris - future tense not discovered until “modern” times.

While I don’t know if this is correct or not, it certainly is an
intriguing thought.

Said the fox to the fish, “Join me ashore” | Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
Jews are the fish, Torah is our water | Zovchai Adam, agalim yishakun

From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@…>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:43:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Why we mistranslate ARNEVET

Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov asks (v33n42) what the proper translation of
Rabbit is (Since it does not ruminate and could not therefore be the
reference in Lev11-the chapter on Kashruth)

I believe that ARNEVET is translated as something like HARE(in light of
the postings saying that HARE does not ruminate either I wont commit
myself). King Ptolemy’s wife’s name was HARE(or however they translated
it) —to avoid insulting her (by translating the Bible as ‘(Queen) HARE
is not kosher’ they instead translated it as Rabbit. (This was
uniformly done by the 70 scholars who translated the Bible into Greek).

I also believe there is a Tosafot presenting many other ‘false’
translations such GRIFFEN VULTURE for NESER which is usually translated
as EAGLE.

Now, I’m not a scientist. I just want to know the dogmatic teaching of the Church on this one: entirely free of error or limited inerrancy? Even priests I talk to would concede that there are enough historical mistakes in Sacred Scripture…

 

[Pete_Holter]

I posted about Biblical inerrancy here and also had a thread discussing this dogma here.

It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that Sacred Scripture is free from all error. Praise God!

 

[una_fides]

Now, I’m not a scientist. I just want to know the dogmatic teaching of the Church on this one: entirely free of error or limited inerrancy? Even priests I talk to would concede that there are enough historical mistakes in Sacred Scripture…

Sadly, it is quite likely that the majority of priests in the Church today are infected with modernism. Asserting that there are historical errors in Scripture is one of its clear manifestations. The various papal declarations cited above make it clear that to limit salvation only to matters of salvation or to only matters of faith and morals is a solemnly condemned modernist teaching, and Catholics are bound to believe that the sacred writers are free from any error in their writings because God is the author of all of Scripture. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4737350&postcount=31

On a side note, the fact that most priests profess modernist heretical views should not in any way damage our faith. A study of history shows that during the Arian crisis most Catholic bishops were heretics and denied the divinity of Christ. The Church is at another point of doctrinal crisis, but we know from Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not ultimately prevail against her. Here is a quote from St. Athanasius who wrote this during the peak of Arianism: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ” (AD 373).

 

[joemccarron]

This is in response to post # 64 by una fides:

First it’s not “laudable” to write off what popes have said. I suppose you were being sarcastic. However, acknowledging the fact that Popes are not infallible in all things such as history or science is not somehow knocking them or our faith. Indeed I usually have to remind the anti-catholics of this fact of our church teaching. Denying or pretending this teaching does not exist does not make you a better Catholic.

But anyway, I see you need to still consider what your position is going to be before you answer any questions. I do not want you to feel rushed - especially if posting your position on these forums will harden your heart to the possibility your wrong. I know in my own thinking on this I have to keep in mind that these matters are still being considered by the church and so I need to keep an open mind as well. Ok now let me answer your questions.

1. I don’t think so. It seems on your interpretation they did. Actually since you aren’t really answering questions about the implications of your interpretation I guess I’m not sure exactly how your interpretation works. So let me say this: on what might be called the “extreme inerrancy” interpretation there seems to be discord on little matters between my view and what the Popes said.
2. I think the Church has consistently maintained that scripture is both human and divine in authorship. Certainly all of scripture is inspired by God and to that extent it is authored by him but it’s also all authored by humans as well. Sort of like the deity of Jesus wholly God and wholly human. Just like Jesus did when he referred, to what Moses wrote, I’m sure the popes you quote also referred to certain human beings authoring scripture at one point or other. I’m not sure if this is our actual disagreement. Looking back at your posts, I see, you repeatedly only acknowledged God as the author.
3. No there is not explicit mention of this passage. That is indeed why I doubt the Pope had these sorts of passages in mind. I think the “extreme inerrancy” interpretation has them saying we must believe rabbits do chew the cud. I mean Leviticus does say rabbits do chew the cud. This is clearly not a symbolic rabbit or symbolic cud. So if you are going to go with the “extreme inerrancy” interpretation then I suppose yes you have to believe that is the truth. I do not have the popes saying this but recognize language in what they say could easily be interpreted that way. That is indeed what I intend this thread to explore.
4. This seems to be a compound question. First as to whether this was meant in a literal sense I think it clearly was literal. I have never heard any Catholic suggest that the rabbit or cud was symbolic of anything. That sort of interpretation does not fit with what the author is doing: setting out a dietary code. No one has tried to explain it that way, so far as I know, and I don’t see how one could with a straight face.

The second part of your question: As far as what you mean by “human error” or “scientific error.” I’m not sure what you mean. I mean categorize the claim that rabbits chew the cud however you want in the end it is either true or false. If it’s false and the author intended to say that, and it’s pretty clear he did, then he was either mistaken or lying. I highly doubt it’s the latter.

1. Encyclicals are not the Churches highest authority. Certain statements of Popes are deemed to be infallible as are certain other church pronouncements. Infallible is infallible. There is no such thing as more infallible than another. If everything was really settled you or someone else reading this post would be able to answer the questions I put forward. Since we have no answers to these questions its unlikely this is settled.
2. If it’s a doctrine of faith established by the church Catholics must believe it. I’m not saying everyone who does not believe everything the church teaches is a heretic but that’s an awfully thin line to walk. Here I really think it’s beyond a stretch to say that the Popes in effect mandated that all Catholics must believe that rabbits chew the cud. However on the “extreme inerrancy” interpretation combined with the belief that the Pope was speaking infallibly that would be logically implied.
3. Well that’s the thing that one statement encompasses many different areas and many different statements. I mean Lets say a Pope took any collection of books and said everything in here is divinely inspired and therefore without error. Say one Pope said “everything Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote was completely without error.” Think about that. It seems to me we would need to say well there is allot that Aquinas wrote. Some of which we all agree has nothing to do with faith or morals. So we would most likely recognize this is not an infallible teaching even though some of what is in there does deal with faith and morals. But even if we were to find anything infallible in such a pronouncement it would only be those matters Aquinas wrote on concerning faith and morals. By definition, it couldn’t possibly be an infallible statement about things that have nothing to do with faith and morals. At least that would be how I would think such a statement should be interpreted. What do you think?

 

[joemccarron]

Una fides says to me:
“Again, until you at least admit to the answer of my 1st question, we cannot proceed further because the fact that you won’t tells me you merely have an agenda and are not even open to any reasoning or possibility of admitting error whatsoever.”

Well I have answered your questions as best I can. I have no problems saying Popes have been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. If you think that is impossible that Popes have been wrong then you misunderstand the faith.

I think if you choose not to pursue this thread further it is not due to my lack of openness. I have been extremely open and honest in this discussion. I have answered every question that you put to me to the extent you think they cause difficulties for my beliefs on this matter. I do not have an agenda and have tried to keep an open mind and indeed that is why I am posting here. The analysis I gave seems inescapable. If you or anyone else thinks I am missing something – well that’s why I started the thread.

 

[joemccarron]

Shlomey
Thanks for posting in this thread. I like to think I’m not the only Catholic who thinks the faith can be defended rationally.

As I said in my first post I scanned some of this after a google search and I read similar arguments if not the same, to what you posted. One problem with the argument that rabbits could be cud chewers by reason that they eat their dung is that pigs would then be in the same boat. They also eat their dung. Pigs are described as animals that do not chew the cud in Leviticus. Hence we have still seem to have the problem.

But this is what bothers me on all this. Is it really the case that in order to be a good catholic we must believe these things about animals and their digestive tracts? I mean can’t we at some point say look this isn’t important for the faith? Or is it the case that the “extreme inerrancy” interpretation is the view of the Catholic church, and hence belief in the claim that rabbits do indeed chew the cud is now an essential doctrine of the faith?

I’m certainly able to believe things that my church tells me even though they may seem miraculous. For example I thoroughly believe that the Eucharist is the real body of Christ. I believe in many such things. But is the church telling me I must believe this was some sort of miracle as well? Is the claim that rabbits chew the cud now just as much an essential part of our faith like the propositions in the Nicene Creed?

 

[joemccarron]

joe,

I just found one more thing that you may find helpful in your determining whether the statements concerning the inspiration and absolute inerrancy of the Bible pertain to faith and morals.

The highest authority in the Church has authoritatively ruled on a matter that the Church says pertains to “faith and morals,” and he has ordered that this belief be held by “all” and hence has made use of his will to bind the whole Church. Even if you persist to argue that somehow this statement does not pertain to faith and morals (despite the fact the Church has authoritatively said otherwise), you nevertheless must agree that the pope condemned the proposition of Scriptural errancy and said that everyone must accept this condemnation as true. To thereby disregard this condemnation is at the very least to disobey the pope and at most is to hold to a view that has been infallibly condemned.

I do hope you will please answer the questions from my last post to show that you are open to discuss these matters in all honesty. And to be fair, I will subsequently answer any questions you would like me to as well.

Thank you for posting this information. What do you think this means? Can you or anyone else give any answers to the questions I posed? Are all Catholics required to believe rabbits do chew their cud?

 

[una_fides]

Thank you for posting this information. What do you think this means? Can you or anyone else give any answers to the questions I posed? Are all Catholics required to believe rabbits do chew their cud?

no we are not required to interpret that particular Scripture a certain way unless the Church were to explain the correct way to interpret that passage, which she has not. I think the problem is that just because popes have clearly taught that inerrancy is not limited to faith and morals and that it pertains to all of Scripture that therefore the way you may interpret a particular passage must be correct. You have not discovered a way to interpret that passage that you find convincing therefore you are concluding that Scripture must not be inspired pertaining to anything not related to faith and morals. Did you ever consider that you just have not figured out a way to interpret the passage yet that is convincing enough for you? Couldn’t there be something you are missing? I mean to assume that you have all knowledge and can interpret Scriptures properly on your own infallibly so seems to be a bit of a stretch and to thereby say that your interpretation determines the limits of inerrancy goes directly in the face of explicit papal teachings. Again, I’ve repeated this several times on this thread, the fact that God is the author of all Scripture and that he moved the writers to write exactly what he wanted mandates, as popes have authoritatively ruled, that Scripture cannot contain any errors whatsoever and that the human authors did not err whatsoever in what they wrote as an earlier papal declaration explicitly stated. The fact is that the position you are condemning as “extreme inerrancy” may seem extreme to you because I think you do not completely understand it yet; however, it is the position of popes that have mandated that ALL Catholics also hold to this position. If you are a Catholic, you are bound by the law of the Church to hold to these things. The position that you are promoting, which states the the Bible contains errors, has been explicitly condemned by Pope Pius X as modernism. If you think those papal declarations support your cause, please provide your interpretation and explanation line by line; otherwise, please at least admit that they do in fact condemn the view that the God’s Word contains errors.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Remember Jesus did not leave us a Bible, he left us the Church. The actual compilation of the bible was certainly very meticulas, but was almost 400 years later. Even today we do not know for certain the author of many books. Besides the rabbits and cuds are OT. Everything changed when Jesus came, at least for the Jews and Gentiles that became Catholics. In almost 1700 years with the Bible it has not changed and what errors are in the NT? WHy did Vatican II change inerrancy? With the long posts there must be some agenda here but I’m too simple to figure it out.

What is the compulsion with rabbits chewing their cud? This sounds more like a Farmer Brown thread! From one of the sites I googled. Seems some rabbits eat their excrement and some have a “form” of chewing their cud. I would guess the author in Leviticus had the rabbits that looked like they were chewing their cud.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.

Is it literally true? Well if you google something like “do rabbits chew the cud” you will get a wide variety of responses. Mostly it will be debates between fundamentalists and atheists. The crux seems to be that the fundamentalists claim that since Rabbits eat their own excrement – a pellet - they do “chew cud.” They argue this could possibly be what the author meant by the Hebrew word cud. I tend to think that’s a stretch but would be willing to grant it I suppose. The problem with this whole line of thought is that rabbits don’t chew this pellet. They apparently just swallow it.

Consider though the flip side. Lets say that since the rabbit did not chew the cud it was not forbidden. The text says it is forbidden so that would be where the potential error would lie. But here when a specific restriction is mistakenly mentioned as being forbidden when it really isn’t there is no important effect on salvation unless it is forbidding something that needs to be done for salvation. In other words even if we concede that the OT forbids the eating of rabbit improperly, since not eating rabbit is no sin that mistake would seem unimportant to salvation as well.

 

[joemccarron]

LeRoy
Thanks for contributing to the thread, I do appreciate any and all thoughts on this.

This interpretation has been discussed in this thread. The ultimate problems with this interpretation are:

1. Rabbits don’t “chew” the excrement they swallow the pellets whole. (Although it may be that this objection can be surmounted by translation)
2. Pigs also eat their excrement yet they are clearly said not to chew the cud in Leviticus. (a few lines up from the rabbits) This is something of a show stopper for this line of thought.

 

[una_fides]

Remember Jesus did not leave us a Bible, he left us the Church. The actual compilation of the bible was certainly very meticulas, but was almost 400 years later. Even today we do not know for certain the author of many books. Besides the rabbits and cuds are OT. Everything changed when Jesus came, at least for the Jews and Gentiles that became Catholics. In almost 1700 years with the Bible it has not changed and what errors are in the NT? Why did Vatican II change inerrancy? With the long posts there must be some agenda here but I’m too simple to figure it out.

What is the compulsion with rabbits chewing their cud? This sounds more like a Farmer Brown thread! …

Leroy,

Thanks for your post. To answer your questions, Vatican II did not change inerrancy as it must be interpreted in light of Tradition, and when the context of the document is read, the meaning becomes more apparent. There are no errors in the NT or the OT. Both the OT and NT are inspired and do not contain any errors as the Church has authoritatively ruled several times. Christ formed a Church and that Church canonized Scripture, which she has authoritatively said does not contain any errors as it has God for its author, who moved the human authors to write exactly what he wanted without any error. We have faith that the God of truth has revealed these things to us, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

 

[joemccarron]

I think the problem is that just because popes have clearly taught that inerrancy is not limited to faith and morals and that it pertains to all of Scripture that therefore the way you may interpret a particular passage must be correct. You have not discovered a way to interpret that passage that you find convincing therefore you are concluding that Scripture must not be inspired pertaining to anything not related to faith and morals. Did you ever consider that you just have not figured out a way to interpret the passage yet that is convincing enough for you? Couldn’t there be something you are missing? I mean to assume that you have all knowledge and can interpret Scriptures properly on your own infallibly so seems to be a bit of a stretch and to thereby say that your interpretation determines the limits of inerrancy goes directly in the face of explicit papal teachings. …

“My interpretation”?? I’m sorry but I can’t take credit for interpreting Leviticus as a dietary code. This interpretation is the interpretation every catholic I have ever read gave this part of Leviticus. It’s the interpretation every non catholic Christian has given this passage. It’s even the interpretation every Jew I know has given this passage. No it’s not my interpretation. I’m just giving the only interpretation I have ever heard from any religious group that has anything to do with this passage.

If you know anyone who interprets this passage differently please share. If not then let me ask you why do you think everyone is getting this wrong? I mean its not a passage out of revelation where symbolism is used extensively. It certainly seems like a straight forward dietary code dealing with real animals that live on this planet earth.

Is your questioning this universal interpretation anything more than the use of this logic:

1)Everyone interprets the passage in a way that seems to suggest it is in error.
2) The pope said there can be no errors.
Therefore everyone must be wrong in their interpretation.