Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[anon5216]

This is not a logical train of thought. The authors of scripture were not inspired by God to teach science or history. They were inspired by God to give us what we need for salvation. Logically there need not be any difference between the statements in the bible and statements from the church. We understand that ex cathedra statements only applies to matters of faith and morals - not science and history or geology. We have this understanding because beliefs about faith and morals deal with our salvation.

I’m not saying God doesn’t take some joy in our understanding the world and what happened in the past, but this doesn’t compare with his concern that we understand faith and morals.

Infallibility and inerrancy are concepts set up under circular arguments by fallible humans of an organization using documents they themselves compiled and wrote.

They are not independently verifiable or provable.

 

[joemccarron]

Infallibility and inerrancy are concepts set up under circular arguments by fallible humans of an organization using documents they themselves compiled and wrote.

They are not independently verifiable or provable.

I’m not sure I understand why that would matter.

 

[una_fides]

This is not a logical train of thought. The authors of scripture were not inspired by God to teach science or history. They were inspired by God to give us what we need for salvation. Logically there need not be any difference between the statements in the bible and statements from the church. We understand that ex cathedra statements only applies to matters of faith and morals - not science and history or geology. We have this understanding because beliefs about faith and morals deal with our salvation.

I’m not saying God doesn’t take some joy in our understanding the world and what happened in the past, but this doesn’t compare with his concern that we understand faith and morals.

Joe,

Here’s where you’re going wrong. God actually inspired every single word in Scripture. He actually moved the authors to write every single thing they did, and for this reason, he is universally understood to be the author of Scripture as Pope Leo XIII explicitly stated and the Vatican Council infallibly defined. If God authored something, then it cannot contain any form of error because he wrote it. What you are saying is that God actually guided the pens of the human authors to write errors pertaining to things that you do not consider of the utmost importance (i.e. salvation); however, such a view is impossible! You would have to conclude that God did not author all of Scripture but that he only inspired and authored the parts pertaining to salvation. Vatican I infallibly defined otherwise, so as you can see, the Catholic Church is teaching something entirely different than what you try to interpret into Vatican II.

 

[anon5216]

anon5216;4870192:

Infallibility and inerrancy are concepts set up under circular arguments by fallible humans of an organization using documents they themselves compiled and wrote.

They are not independently verifiable or provable.

I’m not sure I understand why that would matter.

Fallible humans have no authority or even capability to define something as inerrant or someone as infallible.

You can’t write a book, claim it is inerrant and that you can infallibly interpret and expand on it; and when asked to produce proof just point to the book you yourself wrote.

 

[una_fides]

Fallible humans have no authority or even capability to define something as inerrant or someone as infallible.

You can’t write a book, claim it is inerrant and that you can infallibly interpret and expand on it; and when asked to produce proof just point to the book you yourself wrote.

You are pointing out the circular logic involved here. However, the Church does not claim its authority rests solely by evidence in Scripture. It begins with faith in Christ and his teachings. We know from history that Jesus existed and that he taught his apostles certain things. We know historically that he formed a Church from the their teachings. We know that that Church had a hierarchy. And we know that those in the hierarchy universally understood their positions as having the authority transferred to them by the apostles to “rule the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.”

Here’s a site with some quotes from the fathers: freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1775198/posts

Also the books in Scripture do have historical value and one can conclude from these books, which were virtually accepted universally by the Church, that they do provide historical accounts of their time. These historical documents also lay out the authority of the bishops and the Church.

We also know as a continuation of history that the Catholic Church has survived 2000 years and still continues the same apostolic succession from the time of the apostles.

Thus, the authority that the Church possesses is not based solely on her Scriptures, but rather comes from Christ as transmitted through the successors of the apostles.

St. Augustine: “I should not believe the gospel, except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

The Catholic Church, her authority and her Tradition, predates even the writing of Scripture itself. The Church existed first and then the Scriptures. To prove her authority to skeptics and unbelievers, she often points to the writings from history that attest to her authority to show that it comes from antiquity and that it was not just something made up along the way. The Church has always been “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic.”

 

[una_fides]

Fallible humans have no authority or even capability to define something as inerrant or someone as infallible.

The fallible humans have been protected by the power of an almighty God so that when they make use of their God-given authority to bind a dogma of the faith, they do so without the possibility for error not because of their own power but because God has preserved them from error as he promised.

 

[anon5216]

The fallible humans have been protected by the power of an almighty God so that when they make use of their God-given authority to bind a dogma of the faith, they do so without the possibility for error not because of their own power but because God has preserved them from error as he promised.

This claim is made using circular arguments.
There is no provable verification possible.

 

[anon5216]

You are pointing out the circular logic involved here. However, the Church does not claim its authority rests solely by evidence in Scripture. It begins with faith in Christ and his teachings. We know from history that Jesus existed and that he taught his apostles certain things. We know historically that he formed a Church from the their teachings. We know that that Church had a hierarchy. And we know that those in the hierarchy universally understood their positions as having the authority transferred to them by the apostles to “rule the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.”

Here’s a site with some quotes from the fathers: freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1775198/posts

Also the books in Scripture do have historical value and one can conclude from these books, which were virtually accepted universally by the Church, that they do provide historical accounts of their time. These historical documents also lay out the authority of the bishops and the Church.

We also know as a continuation of history that the Catholic Church has survived 2000 years and still continues the same apostolic succession from the time of the apostles.

Thus, the authority that the Church possesses is not based solely on her Scriptures, but rather comes from Christ as transmitted through the successors of the apostles.

St. Augustine: “I should not believe the gospel, except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

The Catholic Church, her authority and her Tradition, predates even the writing of Scripture itself. The Church existed first and then the Scriptures. To prove her authority to skeptics and unbelievers, she often points to the writings from history that attest to her authority to show that it comes from antiquity and that it was not just something made up along the way. The Church has always been “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic.”

How does any of this counter the circular logic issue?

 

[una_fides]

How does any of this counter the circular logic issue?

Because your claim of circularly reasoning was that the Church claims its authority is based on the Scriptures, which some of her members composed. I demonstrated that her authority is not based on her Scriptures but is based on the historical fact that Jesus formed his Church and gave her authority. The Church predates the Scriptures.

Your only argument then can be that you personally do not find sufficient proof from history that Jesus formed his Church and gave her his authority. I would also ask whether you can prove that he did not do so and if you have any historical evidence to back up such a claim. The truth is that Christ did form his Church and gave her authority, and there is sufficient evidence to prove so from history and the many miracles and Old Testament prophecies that Christ fulfilled. Even the Jews accept that Jesus lived and that he performed miracles. Nevertheless, faith in Jesus Christ is a divine gift that must be freely accepted or rejected. The choice is up to you.

 

[anon5216]

Hello una fides,

I’ve applied -]strikethrough/-] to those items that are belief or tradition as opposed to objectively provable and inserted my perspective in red:

You are pointing out the circular logic involved here. However, the Church does not claim its authority rests solely by evidence in Scripture. It begins with faith in Christ and his teachings. We know from history that Jesus existed and believe that he taught his apostles certain things. We -]know historically/-] believe that he formed a Church from the their teachings. We know that that Church had a hierarchy. And we know that those in the hierarchy -]universally understood/-] claimed their positions as having the authority transferred to them by the apostles to “rule the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.”
…
Also the books in Scripture -]do/-] have doubtful precise, accurate and unbiased historical value and one can’t really conclude from these books, which were -]virtually accepted universally/-] selected, modified and/or written by the Church, that they -]do/-] provide objectively accurate historical accounts of their time. These -]historical/-] Church documents also lay out the authority of the bishops and the Church. (Note circular logic again).

We also know as a continuation of history that the Catholic Church has survived 2000 years and still -]continues/-] claims the same apostolic succession from the time of the apostles.

Thus, the authority that the Church possesses is not based solely on her Scriptures, but rather comes from -]Christ as transmitted through the successors of the apostles/-] Church tradition and claims (circular logic again).

St. Augustine: “I should not believe the gospel, except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

The Catholic Church, her authority and her Tradition, predates even the writing of Scripture itself. The Church existed first and then the Scriptures. To prove her authority to skeptics and unbelievers, she often points to -]the/-] her own writings from history that attest to her authority to show that it comes from antiquity and that it was not just something made up along the way. (How can you use your own writings to show that you haven’t “just made things up along the way”)? The Church has always -]been/-] claimed “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic.”

I fail to see how any what you wrote actually counters the circular logic issue?

 

[joemccarron]

Joe,

Here’s where you’re going wrong. God actually inspired every single word in Scripture. He actually moved the authors to write every single thing they did, and for this reason, he is universally understood to be the author of Scripture as Pope Leo XIII explicitly stated and the Vatican Council infallibly defined. If God authored something, then it cannot contain any form of error because he wrote it. What you are saying is that God actually guided the pens of the human authors to write errors pertaining to things that you do not consider of the utmost importance (i.e. salvation); however, such a view is impossible! You would have to conclude that God did not author all of Scripture but that he only inspired and authored the parts pertaining to salvation. Vatican I infallibly defined otherwise, so as you can see, the Catholic Church is teaching something entirely different than what you try to interpret into Vatican II.

I understand your analysis. However that analysis can’t be viewed as universal from the church fathers given what Saint John said.

I don’t think the teaching is that God moved the pens. Even Jesus referred to Moses writing a part of Deuteronomy that allowed divorce and so he/Jesus changed/restored the rule that said you can’t divorce.

Yes we understand there is divine inspiration but there is also a human element. I think this is a universal understanding of the scripture.

 

[Pete_Holter]

If the church now teaches that extreme inerrancy must be believed by all then Saint John Chrysostom believed a heresy.

Hey Joe!

I just wanted to let you know that I’m not ignoring your posts. For some reason, I haven’t been getting email notifications for this thread.

It will be a while before I post to this thread again. I hope that you can wait for me.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[una_fides]

Hello una fides,

I’ve applied -]strikethrough/-] to those items that are belief or tradition as opposed to objectively provable and inserted my perspective in red:

I fail to see how any what you wrote actually counters the circular logic issue?

I’m not sure if you read my subsequent post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4882253&postcount=129

Karl Keating does a much better job explaining in his book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”: books.google.com/books?id=FlWAI0JeRcsC&dq=catholicism+and+fundamentalism&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=hzWvSbXGFaGbtwfR5ZyFBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA121,M1
See chapter 9, pages 124-127a
He specifically cites your accusation of a circular approach on page 126. However, you must first read the preceding pages so that you can fully understand his conclusion. Please read those pages carefully, and afterward, let me know your thoughts.

 

[una_fides]

I understand your analysis. However that analysis can’t be viewed as universal from the church fathers given what Saint John said.
**
I don’t think the teaching is that God moved the pens.** Even Jesus referred to Moses writing a part of Deuteronomy that allowed divorce and so he/Jesus changed/restored the rule that said you can’t divorce.

Yes we understand there is divine inspiration but there is also a human element. I think this is a universal understanding of the scripture.

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20-22
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 the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. 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. Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers… vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Concerning Some False Opinions Threating to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, n. 21-24.
22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and** 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.** They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Vatican II, Dei Verbum:
"In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

The highest authority of the Church has already clearly settled these issues.
And what about the Church fathers? Did they not teach the same the same?

Pope Clement of Rome (A.D. 96): “Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them” (Letter to the Corinthians, Ch. 45).

Irenaeus (A.D. 175-185): the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit" (Against Heresies, Bk. 2, Ch. 28, 2).

Athenagoras (A.D. 176-177) : “I think that you also, with your great zeal for knowledge, and your great attainments in learning, cannot be ignorant of the writings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the other prophets, who, lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit, uttered the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them as a flute-player breathes into a flute” (A Plea for the Christians, Ch. 9).

How many more times do we have to post these same quotes before they sink in? This issue has been settled by the highest authority in the Church and cannot be called into question.

His Holiness Pope Pius XII. Humani Generis. Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine. August 12, 1950.
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who hears you, hears me”;[6] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm

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

I thought that you were past this point Joe. The Church has settled this issue.

 

[una_fides]

If the church now teaches that extreme inerrancy must be believed by all then Saint John Chrysostom believed a heresy.

First, as demonstrated earlier, his writings–when understood correclty–did not contradict the teaching of the Church: that there are no errors of any kind in Scripture, only errors in human interpretation thereof or possibly in very rare situations through copyist error. Second, this matter was not authoritatively settled until after St. John Chrysostom’s day, so if he misunderstood the Church’s teaching, then he would not be guilty of formal heresy. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, the most highly acclaimed and approved theologian in the history of the Church, likely may not have believed in or understood the immaculate conception in the way the Church later authoritatively defined the dogma, but this situation poses no problem whatsoever concerning his sanctity or concerning the credibility of his other writings since the matter was still up for interpretation and explanation up until that point. So even if St. John were to have explicitly stated that the authors made errors–which he certainly did not–that opinion would not have necessarily been heresy at that time since no pope had held that one must believe that Scripture was without any form of error, which several later popes have authoritatively declared. If you refuse to accept that each and every part of Scripture is without any error not simply pertaining to matters concerning faith and morals, then you are rejecting what popes have said you must believe. And your counter that parts of Scripture not pertaining to faith and morals is beyond the authority of a pope to declare has already been disproven on this thread since the pope ruled on a matter of faith which was specifically that God authored all of Scripture, each and every part, and this fact is a matter pertaining to faith. When the Bible is understood properly it is without a doubt free from any form of error. The human authors did not write anything independent of God’s inspiration. And yes, to say contrary given that you have already been confronted with the clear dogmatic teachings of from the highest authority in Church is heresy.

 

[joemccarron]

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20-22 They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Why do you highlight only part of the quote? If it is wrong to say there is a human sense to Scripture then this Pope is going against what Jesus himself said when he referred to Scriptures that Moses wrote about divorce. Jesus was making it clear that Moses wrote that part. Unless you think Jesus thought Moses was also God then its clear he is thought Moses wrote part of scripture.

 

[joemccarron]

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20-22
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 the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. 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. Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers… vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

I posted 2 church fathers that make it pretty clear they were not always persuaded that every phrase no matter how minor or remote to the Chiefheads of the faith were completely inerrant. You come back with a statement from a Pope saying they all did believe that. (Contrary tot he quotes I provided) Are you claiming that this part of his encyclical is also spoken ex cathedra? I mean do I have to resort to the Augustinian outs when reading the church fathers as well? that is must I say when reading St John to say it seems to him that there is discord on minor matters in the gospels that it must be:

1. bad translation
2. Copyist error
3. I misunderstand him too?

If you are thinking that then you misunderstand ex cathedra. If we assume this statement that we must believe in the extreme inerrancy is indeed spoken ex cathedra - its still possible that the Pope’s reasoning could have been wrong. I’m just pointing out that to the extent the Pope believed all the fathers were convinced of extreme inerrancy he was wrong. Its ok popes aren’t perfect in all things and Catholics who suggest otherwise do the faith a disservice.

But anyway the SSPX fellow I quoted earlier said something like all fathers clearly expressed their adoption of extreme inerrancy. That seems very far from true. Not only did some reject it (Tertulian and St John) but it seems the majority did not find it necessary to address that question. So far we have only heard from 14 of 65 fathers.

 

[joemccarron]

I thought that you were past this point Joe. The Church has settled this issue.

I’m not saying people should avoid the extreme inerrncy position and indeed I myself do not reject it. (I’m not interested in really delving into every detail of the bible to assure myself I do in fact believe each and every assertion made. I’m hoping I will be saved by focusing on the chiefheads.) I am just pointing out that no one should make false claims to support a position. I think the fellow from the SSPX did that and its wrong.

 

[joemccarron]

Pete
Its always good to here from you I will wait for your response no rush.

 

[una_fides]

Why do you highlight only part of the quote? If it is wrong to say there is a human sense to Scripture then this Pope is going against what Jesus himself said when he referred to Scriptures that Moses wrote about divorce. Jesus was making it clear that Moses wrote that part. Unless you think Jesus thought Moses was also God then its clear he is thought Moses wrote part of scripture.

God did not physically write any part of Scripture. He used the human authors to write exactly what he wanted them to and all of what they wrote in Scripture was under this inspiration of God. He moved them to write what they did “like a flute player blowing into a flute.”