Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[joemccarron]

Joe, please answer this question: Why do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead? What is the basis on which you come to that conclusion? I too believe and would die for this faith, but I want to know why you do and what reason you have behind your faith in this dogma.

Asking this question is sort of like asking why do I believe the continent of Australia exists. (I’ve never been there BTW) If I say well I saw it on a map you might ask which map. You may indeed be able to show me that the map maker was completely unreliable and even if I am convinced of this I still will believe Australia exists. I have seen and understood other maps and many other things that strongly Australia exists.

But that said, I would say one reason I believe Jesus rose from the dead is because we have, at least, 4 different ancient accounts all attesting to that fact.

 

[joemccarron]

The Greek word for contradiction is not used in John’s first homily until he writes, “if there were any hostility (μάχη) in their statements, neither would the sects, who maintain the contrary part, have received all, but only so much as seemed to harmonize with themselves.”

This usage is noted in footnote 41 of his first homily on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library website.

This Greek word is derived from the Greek word that John uses farther down where he writes that “it is one thing to speak differently (διαφόρως) and another to speak at variance (μαχομένους).”

So here is an argument for you that I hope you’ll appreciate and make your own:

Chrysostom admits to discordance which seems to exist in the little matters (we have two different ideas of what he means by “seems,” but it doesn’t really affect this argument).

Chrysostom identifies this seeming discordance as material that has simply been related “differently.”

He says that it is one thing for writers to express themselves differently and another thing to speak at variance.

The comparative used to contrast “differently” with “at variance” is the Greek word for hetero (‘έτερόν), i.e., other, different.

To be at variance is in the same category as to contradict.

Consequently, seeming discordance is not in the same category as contradiction and is therefore not an error.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

Pete I can’t help but quote the passage again. I keep reading it and I keep getting the same understanding. St. John Chrysostom says that the minor disagreements including those of time and place seem to exist. (He does not say “only seem” to exist) But these minor discordances actually verify that each obtained the information from distinct sources and therefore what they say regarding the chief heads is even better evidenced than if we had only one Gospel - or 4 Gospels that didn’t have at least a few minor disagreements.

He even goes on to say explicitly separates out what the chief heads are and tells us there is no disagreement as to these. In this context I can not see how he is not distinguishing the chief heads of the faith - which are free from any disagreement - from the minor matters of time and place where disagreement seems to exist.

here is the quote again:

"But the contrary, it may be said, has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance. Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.

But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.

But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He has given commandments tending to salvation, that He has brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement."

I do agree with TMC on this matter. The question must be asked what are the writers intending to communicate? If we understand this broadly enough then we can see there is no error. That is if we understand that the authors are trying to communicate information for our salvation they are flawless. But if we look to the texts as a science or history book we will miss the message and we will set ourselves up for a failure.

Our Pope seems to be indicating this in his address to the PBC. Knowing they are examining the truth of the gospels he tells them not to focus too much on science.

 

[joemccarron]

…This is further explained in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

… This means that God is the primary author of the Bible. He certainly employed human authors in this task as well, but he did not merely assist them while they wrote or subsequently approve what they had written. God the Holy Spirit is the principle author of Scripture, while the human writers are instrumental authors. These human authors freely wrote everything, and only those things, that God wanted: the word of God in the very words of God. …

I guess when reading this I found this contrast interesting. The editors of this bible say its the “Word of God in the very words of God.” Which seems different than what Pope BenedictXVI is saying:

“This divine-human synergy is very important: God truly speaks to men in a human way. For a correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture, therefore, it is necessary to research carefully what the sacred writers truly meant to say and what God wished to manifest to man through human words. ‘The words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men’ (Dei Verbum, 13).”

vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com/2009/04/hermeneutic-of-faith-word-of-god-must.html

I always thought scripture was the word of God in the words of man. But it seems there are conflicting views on this.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Pete I can’t help but quote the passage again. I keep reading it and I keep getting the same understanding. St. John Chrysostom says that the minor disagreements including those of time and place seem to exist. (He does not say “only seem” to exist) But these minor discordances actually verify that each obtained the information from distinct sources and therefore what they say regarding the chief heads is even better evidenced than if we had only one Gospel - or 4 Gospels that didn’t have at least a few minor disagreements.

He even goes on to say explicitly separates out what the chief heads are and tells us there is no disagreement as to these. In this context I can not see how he is not distinguishing the chief heads of the faith - which are free from any disagreement - from the minor matters of time and place where disagreement seems to exist.

Hey Joe! John doesn’t use the word “only” because there are two ways of using the word seems and both meanings are denoted by using the word seems all by itself. If you precede the word “seems” with “only” then this only clarifies which use of the word you have intended, but it is not necessary. I am using the word “only” because I think it clarifies what he has said in light of the broader context of everything he has written. We gain a greater understanding of what he is saying by giving heed to homilies 2 through 90 and to the other things that we’ve seen him write. But there are a couple of things that we can glean even from the immediate context…

“‘But the contrary,’ it may be said, ‘has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.’ Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity. But now even ***that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers. ***

The argument runs in this fashion:

If John is admitting to discordance when he says “this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth,” then it would be self-defeating to follow up by saying that the discordance only seems to exist, in the sense that it is likely there. Of course it not only seems to exist, it does exist, if you’ve just admitted to it! Either it exists and by its existence is “a very great evidence of their truth,” or it only appears to exist and by its mere appearance is “a very great evidence of their truth.” The antagonist has charged the writers with a definitive discordance. John Chrysostom says yes to something being there definitively and that this definitive thing “is a very great evidence of their truth.” In evaluating John’s concession the question becomes whether the discordance is definitive in appearance or definitive in substance. This is one reason why I do not see “seems” being used in the sense that you take it at the end of this paragraph. He has just conceded something definitive.

And people do not approbate something as sure, use this sure thing as a defense for their own position, and then back away to what is unsure, which in our present example would be, to taking “seems” in the sense of a probable existence. Hence, “seems” must be taken in the sense of a definitive existence in appearance only.

This level of difference amongst the authors is enough to distinguish the agreement in little things from the greater accuracy attributable to doctrinal agreement.

 

[Pete_Holter]

“But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.

The fact that John freely alternates from saying “the discordance which seems to exist” in the immediately preceding paragraph, to saying that they’ve simply related things “differently,” together with the fact that he’s going to rely on the strength of God to harmonize this “different” material, once again proves that the discordance that John admits to is there only in appearance. Otherwise, when John goes on to show how reconciling merely “different” material doesn’t injure the truth of what they have said, while ignoring what, by your interpretation, he thinks might be contradictory material, we would be forced to believe that John had vainly handed his brilliancy over to conducting an ostentatious display of poor reasoning skills: he is straining out the gnat by harmonizing mere difference in narration, but swallowing the camel of contradiction. And he is so far blind to the vainness of his efforts that he enlists God’s help to do it! Unless he thought that every apparent contradiction was resolvable, I think it should at some point become embarrassing for him to say things like:

• many of the simpler sort, not understanding, have said there is a discordance…not knowing that both took place. And this sort of thing it is necessary to bear in mind throughout the whole history; for in this way we shall solve many seeming discordances (as far as I know, this is the only other place where seem and discord appear together in his homilies on Matthew, and seem is used in the sense of existing in appearance only)
• this comes not of any dissonance
• these things I have mentioned before, lest any one from the omission should suppose there was a discordance (this also has bearing on how we understand “discordance which seems to exist.” If we understand “seems” in the sense of a possible/probable existence of that thing, rather than a mere semblance of that thing, then the people in this example are those who think there really is discordance in the text. John is showing that that appraisal was mistaken and this places him in harmony with himself if we understand him to have said that the discordance is there only in outward appearance.)
• the statement comes not of disagreement, but of a different manner of narration
• this I have said, not without purpose, lest any one should think there is a discrepancy
• this contains no matter of difficulty
• So completely do the evangelists harmonize one with another
• not contradicting this writer, but most fully agreeing with him
• that is nothing contrary to this
• They are not contradicting each other, but indeed fully agreeing
• most certainly is it both true and in harmony

We do not typically resolve a great number of apparent contradictions, repeatedly declare with exclamation the substantive harmony using flowery language that spills over beyond the present example, and at the end of it all admit to true contradictions.

 

[Pete_Holter]

“But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.

You wrote that the truth that John refers to here in his first sentence refers only to the truth of the chief heads. And it is my position that it refers to the truth about everything they say. When he says that he is going to require us, “together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads…” he gives indication that he has not yet broached the subject of the chief heads in the way that you suppose. Had he done this, we would rather expect him to have finished out his first sentence by saying more simply, “this nothing injures the truth of what they have said about the chief heads.” But I do not think he intended to limit himself in this way because defining “truth” as something separable from “facts” doesn’t seem to be the mindset of our author.

We gain an understanding of what he is saying here by examining the large number of examples which serve to demonstrate what he is talking about. They are our best informants because he said that he is going to endeavor by the power of God to point out how the difference in narration touching times or places nothing injures the truth of what they have said. Since John says he is going to do this for us as he goes along, we should ask the question, When he harmonizes the differences concerning the little matters, what does he conclude each time? In my own words, this is what he says: “See how the different material I’ve harmonized doesn’t injure the truth of what they were trying to communicate by that different material!” The truth about the times and places is itself maintained by the different narrations! This truth, as you have pointed out, translates into serving to substantiate the truth of the Gospel, and so what you are saying is implicated by Chrysostom’s assertion; but if the words pertaining to the little things do not first contain the truth of what they themselves represent, then their inherent falseness will obliterate themselves and certainly injure the truth of the chief heads. The two can’t be separated. The truth about “the times and places” in Scripture is valuable to us because it goes beyond bare facts and leads us to the truth about God, and our confidence in our having the truth about God is made sure by this truthfulness in the little matters.

The Christian faith has its specificity, primarily in that it refers to historical events, or better to a coherent history, which actually took place as history. In this sense, the question about the fact, the reality of the event, is essential to it, and must make room for the historical method. But these historical events have meaning for the faith only because it is certain that in them God Himself acted in a specific way and the events contain something which surpasses simple historical facticity, something which comes from elsewhere and gives them meaning for all times and for all people. This surpassing element must not be separated from the facts, it is not a meaning which is subsequently added to them from without, but rather it is present in the event itself, and yet it transcends the purely factual aspect. (Address of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Current Doctrinal Relevance of the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Let’s think about a few of the examples:

“But Mark says, ‘In the days of Abiathar the High Priest’ (Mark 2:26): not stating what was contrary to the history, but implying that he had two names” (Homily 39 on Matthew).

The implication that he had two names is only there if you presuppose an inerrant text because we have no corroborating evidence that this is true. John’s conclusion in this case is that Mark had not stated what was contrary to the history. In maintaining this congruity between the statement of Mark and the historical fact, there is no direct and immediate impact upon any doctrine of the faith. But had the Gospel writers attempted to make a statement about history and gotten it wrong, then this would be a contradiction and would injure the truth of what they had said, both about Abiathar and, by implication, about everything else too, if by nothing else than by casting the clouds of suspicion and doubt.

This, by the way, is the text that drove Dr. Bart Ehrman into apostasy when he had the unfortunate experience of a professor suggesting, to the contrary of Ehrman’s best efforts, that Mark had simply made a mistake. If Chrysostom had been his instructor, think of the happy results that would have come about!

Something else worth mentioning: how many people in John’s congregation were aware of this apparent historical error? I would say, Not that many, and likely even less than today. This is telling because a person who is confident in a completely inerrant text is more likely to be the one who brings in unknown examples in order to resolve them.

“The place likewise, and the time, he puts down, to bring to our remembrance ancient prophecies” (Homily 6 on Matthew).

Here the time and the place are directly connected to Old Testament prophesies. I share this example to illustrate the fact that the little matters are completely interwoven into the history of salvation recorded in the Bible.

“Then, lest you should be confounded at what is going on, and at their strange frenzy, He introduces the prophet also, foretelling all this. For so great was the accuracy of the prophets, that they omit not even these things, but foretell His very journeyings, and changes of place, and the intent with which He acted therein; that you might learn, how they spoke all by the Spirit. For if the secrets of men cannot by any art be known, much more were it impossible to learn Christ’s purpose, except the Spirit revealed it.” (Homily 40 on Matthew).

The accuracy of the prophets extends even to indicating the places of Jesus’ travels. If the Gospel writers had at any point contradicted each other on these details, then this accuracy would be a strange thing for John to bring attention to.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Not only do we gain insight into what he is saying in Homily 1 on Matthew by examining it in light of the ensuing examples he provides in that series, we also gain a better understanding of it by appreciating the illumination that is reciprocally shed by comparing it with the complementary appraisal he gives in his commentary on Galatians:

“‘Which is not another Gospel’ (Galatians 1:7).

“And justly, for there is not another. Nevertheless the Marcionites are misled by this phrase, as diseased persons are injured even by healthy food, for they have seized upon it, and exclaim, ‘So Paul himself has declared there is no other Gospel.’ For they do not allow all the Evangelists, but one only, and him mutilated and confused according to their pleasure. Their explanation of the words, ‘according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ’ (Romans 16:25), is sufficiently ridiculous; nevertheless, for the sake of those who are easily seduced, it is necessary to refute it. We assert, therefore, that, although a thousand Gospels were written, if the contents of all were the same, they would still be one, and their unity no wise infringed by the number of writers. So, on the other hand, if there were one writer only, but he were to contradict himself, the unity of the things written would be destroyed. For the oneness of a work depends not on the number of its authors, but on the agreement or contradictoriness of its contents. Whence it is clear that the four Gospels are one Gospel; for, as the four say the same thing, its oneness is preserved by the harmony of the contents, and not impaired by the difference of persons. And Paul is not now speaking of the number but of the discrepancy of the things spoken. With justice might they lay hold of this expression, if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke differed in the signification of their contents, and in their doctrinal accuracy; but as they are one and the same, let them cease being senseless and pretending to be ignorant of these things which are plain to the very children (Commentary on Galatians 1:7).

Had the gospel writers contradicted themselves in anything, the unity of their writings would have been destroyed. John goes on to say, by our making a necessary inference, that the Gospel writers do not differ either in the signification of their contents or in their doctrinal accuracy. He doesn’t say that they signify the same thing only in doctrine but, more broadly, in their contents. And he goes on to emphasize accuracy in the subset of doctrine. With everything we have the same signification; with doctrine, we have not just the same signification, but the highest degree of accuracy. This seems to be a positive restatement of what he put in negative terms and said with greater elaboration in Homily 1 on Matthew. In Matthew, he asserts that whereas the Gospel writers outwardly appear to write discordantly on little matters, we don’t even have this level of apparent disagreement as it pertains to doctrine. Here in Galatians, he looks behind the superficial discordance in little things to assert the same underlying signification, and he moves from there to assert greater accuracy as it pertains to doctrine.

“‘And they gave Him gall to drink,’ and this to insult Him, ‘but He would not’ (Matthew 27:34; cf. Mark 15:23). But another says, that having tasted it, He said, ‘It is finished’ (John 19:30). And what means, ‘It is finished?’ The prophecy was fulfilled concerning Him. For ‘they gave me,’ it is said, ‘gall for my meat, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink’ (Psalm 69:21). But neither does that evangelist indicate that He drank, for merely to taste differs not from not drinking, but has one and the same signification” (Homily 87 on Matthew).

By the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete

 

[una_fides]

Asking this question is sort of like asking why do I believe the continent of Australia exists. (I’ve never been there BTW) If I say well I saw it on a map you might ask which map. You may indeed be able to show me that the map maker was completely unreliable and even if I am convinced of this I still will believe Australia exists. I have seen and understood other maps and many other things that strongly Australia exists.

But that said, I would say one reason I believe Jesus rose from the dead is because we have, at least, 4 different ancient accounts all attesting to that fact.

Unfortunately we are not even comparing apples and oranges or even apples with a fruit in this instance. You say that the reason you believe Australia exists is all these other maps and sources that you have encountered. Let me sum up why most people would believe Australia exists: because virtually everyone accepts this as a fact and no one out there is arguing over whether or not that continent exists. It is universally accepted by enough credible sources so that you thereby accept it on their faith and the other maps you have seen that people you trust have studied the matter have compiled. Unfortunately, most people do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, nor is it a demonstrable or testable phenomena unlike the existence of Australia.

You did not provide any sufficient answer to my question pertaining to supporting your belief in the Resurrection. I could waste a lot of time and space doing more Q&A with you on this specific question, which would bring you to see the end result of faith in this teaching, but instead I will shortcut by asking another question that will jump right to the point:

Do you firmly believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary? If so, can you please provide me with the reasons why you do which could justify belief in this dogma?

 

[una_fides]

(bolding mine)

The Church has never, ever claimed to be always and everywhere right about everything - even on faith and morals. The Church has changed its position on many faith issues in the past, and I trust it will do so in the future. There are a very few central tenents of faith that the Church has declared infallibly, and the factual and scientific accuracy of specific passages of Scripture is not one of them. You point out that the Church teaches that “anything the Bible intends to teach concerning history or natural phenomena is without error.” I agree, but we don’t know what history or science the Bible intends to teach, so this statement is not a particuarly useful aid in interpretation.

(bolding mine as well )

Actually there are very many dogmas that the Church has declared infallibly. Have you read the Church’s many General Councils? Every single dogmatic pronouncement in them is infallible, and there are very many. Furthermore, I recommend studying Vatican I’s definition of Papal Infallibility as well as its infallible declaration that dogmas must be understood in the same sense as the Church has always understood them and that the sense in which the Church understands dogmas cannot change. Development and change are two completely different things. The Church’s explanation of the Trinity as one God in three distinct persons is a development of dogma. The Church builds one block on top of another. Someone claiming that there are errors in a text that is fully inspired by God is a change in meaning to a dogma that the Church has always understood. Even if you were to errantly argue that this dogma was never infallibly defined, it would still fall under the Church’s Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and as such would not require a dogmatic definition to be an infallible dogma. As the papal declarations reproduced on this thread have demonstrated, the Church has already ruled on this issue. It’s up to you to accept or reject her ruling that she has said all Catholics are bound to believe as a matter of faith.

Regarding what history or science the Bible intends to teach, Pope Leo’s encyclical also lays out our foundation for interpretation of the text as well.

 

[joemccarron]

Unfortunately we are not even comparing apples and oranges or even apples with a fruit in this instance. You say that the reason you believe Australia exists is all these other maps and sources that you have encountered. Let me sum up why most people would believe Australia exists: because virtually everyone accepts this as a fact and no one out there is arguing over whether or not that continent exists. It is universally accepted by enough credible sources so that you thereby accept it on their faith and the other maps you have seen that people you trust have studied the matter have compiled. Unfortunately, most people do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, nor is it a demonstrable or testable phenomena unlike the existence of Australia.

You did not provide any sufficient answer to my question pertaining to supporting your belief in the Resurrection. I could waste a lot of time and space doing more Q&A with you on this specific question, which would bring you to see the end result of faith in this teaching, but instead I will shortcut by asking another question that will jump right to the point:

Do you firmly believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary? If so, can you please provide me with the reasons why you do which could justify belief in this dogma?

Generally speaking, I woudl say, it starts with my belief that Jesus rose from the dead. This provided evidence to me that what he taught was from God and he was God. Form that I can see he taught that the church will be guided by the Holy Spirit. (although the language is not at all detailed.) The church teaches the assumption of Mary. I have not really investigated the matter to believe otherwise and see no reason not to accept it, so I do. Do I believe this as strongly as I believe Jesus rose from the dead? No. My belief that Jesus rose from the dead is a basis for this belief. If I did not believe Jesus rose from the dead I almost certainly would not believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[joemccarron]

“But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.

The fact that John freely alternates from saying “the discordance which seems to exist” in the immediately preceding paragraph, to saying that they’ve simply related things “differently,” together with the fact that he’s going to rely on the strength of God to harmonize this “different” material, once again proves that the discordance that John admits to is there only in appearance.

But what John says simply doesn’t say what you say. He does not say he is going to harmonize all the small matters. He says he will require one “to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little”

What furnishes our life and our doctrine? The chief heads. And nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed. He says the opposite of small matters. He says:

“But the contrary,’ it may be said, ‘has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.’ Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact…”

No I think what you want to do is read the words I bolded out of the text. Here John is saying there is not exact agreement on time and place. However you are not acknowledging this. You are interpreting John as if said the only disagreement was to the “very words.” Pete, can you at least agree that if John left out the words “to time and place” your case would be much stronger?

You also claim that because he says this disagreement does not injure the truth of what they say he must mean that there really is no disagreement. Well here I think you are taking your own views of what “the truth of scripture” means and applying it to St. John.
To understand what I and St. John are getting at I think you should consider the legal idea of “collateral issues.” These are issues that may come up in trial and be in dispute. However, they are irrelevant to the cause of action. It seems to me that when john addresses these little matters where there seems to be discordance, he is contrasting this with the chief heads. He is saying in effect that these are collateral issues. The relevant truth of the Gospels is in no way injured by the seeming discordance of collateral issues.

Now I would concede that he may not think all of scripture is either collateral or a chiefhead . That is there may be some scripture John thinks is relevant yet not a chiefhead. But he is also indicating that some things are so little (collateral) that discordance regarding them does not injure the truth of the Gospels.

Lets consider some other ways that your understanding of scripture may disagree with what John taught.

I think you will not dispute that St. John does draw a distinction between “little matters” and chief heads. The Chief heads “constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine” At least this I hope we can agree on this.

Now then though the way you interpret Dei Verbum, 11. “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”

You want to say that the bit about for the sake of our salvation is not intended to mean that the inerrancy is primarilly concerned with just salvation. In your view there is no primarilly its all or nothing and no such distinctions are made. Accordingly you reconcile this phrase “…for the sake of our salvation.” as covering all that is said. Hence by your interpretation when every “part” is inspired you think that means every “phrase” is for the sake of our salvation. Well if every phrase is for our salvation then every phrase would be a big deal. Well then how then can anyone sensibly distinguish between “little matters” and chief heads when discussing scripture? By your understanding they are all big deals whether we are talking about rabbits chewing cud or Jesus rising from the dead.

I would suggest that the reason St. John talks of chiefheads as opposed to little matters is because he does not see this the same way you do.

 

[joemccarron]

Pete the following quotes show that St. John argued against about a dozen alleged errors. It does not demonstrate any more or less. In each of the quotes below he is saying there is no disagreement in that particular case. The only place where John is addressing his understanding of inerrancy with respect to the Gospels as a whole is the quote we addressed above. I have explained, in prior posts in this thread, why it is not logical to take a statement like “this contains no matter of difficulty” and to then try to deduce that he would say that about every alleged matter of difficulty. This is especially true when St. John specifically says the contrary when he addresses the Gospels as a whole. He says there are disagreements on small matters and he says there does seem to be discordance.

*]the statement comes not of disagreement, but of a different manner of narration
*]this I have said, not without purpose, lest any one should think there is a discrepancy
*]this contains no matter of difficulty
*]So completely do the evangelists harmonize one with another
*]not contradicting this writer, but most fully agreeing with him
*]that is nothing contrary to this
*]They are not contradicting each other, but indeed fully agreeing
*]most certainly is it both true and in harmony

We do not typically resolve a great number of apparent contradictions, repeatedly declare with exclamation the substantive harmony using flowery language that spills over beyond the present example, and at the end of it all admit to true contradictions.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. But the fact is St. John does not “admit” to anything. Instead he goes out of his way to affirm disagreements of small matters because he (I think correctly) argues these disagreements serve to confirm the overall truth of the scripture.

 

[joemccarron]

“This, by the way, is the text that drove Dr. Bart Ehrman into apostasy when he had the unfortunate experience of a professor suggesting, to the contrary of Ehrman’s best efforts, that Mark had simply made a mistake. If Chrysostom had been his instructor, think of the happy results that would have come about!
​

If Dr. Ehrman had Chrysostom teach him the faith he would have had some perspective and would have understood that there are small matters and Chief heads of the faith. He would have never even thought of abandoning the faith for such a silly reason.

We can’t blame his teacher for merely suggesting there may possibly be an error. Are we to say that if someone thinks there seems to be an error they must lie and say “oh well it must be a copyist error or a bad translation” even though they really don’t believe that?

This day and age we can’t expect that the notion that there may be a mistake in scripture will never surface. If Dr. Ehrman could not deal with that possibility it was because he learned the faith in a way that had a brittle foundation. I can’t help but be concerned when you say things along the lines of “Had the gospel writers contradicted themselves in anything, the unity of their writings would have been destroyed.” There can still be unity even if there is also some discordance. Don’t do what Erhman did. Don’t bet your faith on trying to prove these small matters that really have nothing to do with Christ or his message.

I have listened to many books and courses from Dr. Ehrman. The only reason I listen to him is because he seems to be the only one addressing these issues in audible format or from the teaching company. (his books are much more ubiquitous than any Catholic or even Protestant addressing these issues) Yes I also listened to courses from Dr. Johnson (a Catholic) at the teaching company but he really doesn’t deal with these issues head on. I can get Catholics who will tell me what the Popes say but I have trouble finding Catholic authors who will really go into what the historical evidence is.

It’s now hard to find many Catholics who publish and really delve into these sorts of issues – although I have read that before about 1870 (before the papal encyclicals that have been so often sited in this thread) there were many Catholics who were involved in this biblical scholarship. Perhaps many now believe that even entertaining the idea that there may be an error in the text will cause them to be excommunicated from the church. So we leave these debates to other Christians and various atheists and simply have no voice on the interpretation of historical evidence. We have been told that we are not allowed to let our thoughts wonder there so that dialogue is dealt with by others.​

 

[joemccarron]

Dr. Ehrman learned his faith from fundamentalists, like the Moody Bible institute, and the Wheaton College, and made up his mind that if there is any minute mistake in the scripture then he must reject it all. This view combined with a real historical study of scripture makes for intellectual (or spiritual) suicide as the last PBC paper explained. I sense Dr. Ehrman feels cheated by his church and he is angry about it, and I think some of this anger is justified. His church did him a disservice and set him up for a fall. I think he seems honest. IMO, his anger now causes a bias but he is still, I believe, honest. I do not think we should give up on him in our prayers.

It’s interesting that when he was doing he studies he admits that students from the Catholic religion were not nearly as bothered as he was by the seeming inconsistencies that lead to his renouncing the Christian faith. He explained that he and they did not really understand each other on this. I too have read posts by fundamentalists and although we seem to agree superficially on matters when we dig down we understand them much differently. It can be hard to put your finger on the main difference but I think I have, and this issue in this thread is a big part of it.

Let me explain a bit of where I see the disconnect. Both Catholic and Fundamentalists agree one must “believe in Jesus.” But the Catholics focus on the Gospels and Christ’s command to love each other and to act like Christ acted. To the Catholic obeying these commands and contemplating the messages of love are central to our “belief in Jesus.” The compelling message of Gods love and what Jesus did including but not limited to his “signs” are a strong foundation for our faith.

To many protestants doing these commands are just “works” and not really relevant. So what is the basis for protestants? Well the basis is that the bible is inerrant and it says we must believe in Jesus therefore we believe. I’m not saying this is bad per se. As Catholic I can certainly agree with this, but it’s not the whole picture. Often, protestants seem to reject the works of Jesus as being relevant (other than his dying on the cross) and reject the idea that we must follow commands. So they put all faith in the inerrancy of the bible. And if inerrancy is good, extreme inerrancy is even better.

You see as a Catholic I was raised to understand that its important to understand who Jesus was and what he did. It’s in contemplating his acts of love that my faith grows. Sometimes when I speak with fundamentalists, I get so confused, I end up asking them what do they mean when they say we must believe in Jesus? They say well that he died for our sins (or something along those lines) and this belief is what will gain salvation. The other stuff is really irrelevant. So its this belief that is sort of out there on its own (in a vacuum so to speak) that must be accepted.

Well I then have to ask questions like is it not important that Jesus lived his life like it is stated in the Gospels instead of living a life like Hitler or Genghis Khan? I mean is it not conceivable that a religion could claim such a person rose from the dead for our sins. Often there is no response because the actions are so separated from belief.

For me the way Jesus acted is very important to whether I believe in him or not. The way he acted and taught strikes a chord with my moral beliefs such that I can only think that if there is a loving God who created me then yes this man was sent by him. Moreover believing in Jesus means believing his message and following his command(s). For fundamentalists this latter part is unnecessary. Their belief in Jesus is based solely on the authority of a command in the bible. This belief is separated out and isolated in a way that makes their view of Christianity seem very foreign. This is why when they wring their hands over this minutia those raised as Catholics don’t really get it.

It’s like they believe the bible is magical book that tells them this magical belief will save them. (Now when I call these beliefs “magical” I don’t mean to denigrate the bible or the beliefs themselves but instead I am saying that this basis for belief is foreign to me.) They first and foremost have faith in the Scriptures extreme inerrancy and only from that they believe in Jesus. Hence everything hangs or falls based on whether Judas received 30 silver pieces and not 29.

A fundamentalist says no rock is not good enough of a foundation they need something harder than that – they build their faith on what appears to be diamond. This will allow no sort of error or mistake to penetrate their faith. But soon they realize it’s not diamond but glass and the whole faith shatters under them. This from what I have read is what happened to Ehrman.

 

[Pete_Holter]

No I think what you want to do is read the words I bolded out of the text. Here John is saying there is not exact agreement on time and place. However you are not acknowledging this. You are interpreting John as if said the only disagreement was to the “very words.” Pete, can you at least agree that if John left out the words “to time and place” your case would be much stronger?

My interpretation of what he says is, to the best of my ability, an accurate representation of what he says if you read everything he wrote and you stop trying to take Homily 1 out of the broader context of St. John’s writings in order to read them in light of your own ideas. After talking about the seeming discordance pertaining to the little matters, “times and places” are repeated as those things which have been related differently and he says he is going to show us how this different narration doesn’t injure the truth. If he thought that some things were contradictory and other things were not, as it pertained to times and places, then we would expect him to show us how both the contradictory things and the non-contradictory things don’t injure the truth of what they have said, because that’s what he said he was going to do. But he only shows how non-contradictory things don’t injure the truth of what they have said. Consequently, we have no evidence to suggest that he thought that there was true disagreement on these issues, and all of the evidence points to the fact that he doesn’t view the Gospel writers as contradicting themselves even on these matters. Again, the level of reconcilable difference that does exist amongst the authors is enough to distinguish the agreement in little things from the greater accuracy attributable to doctrinal agreement.

However, he doesn’t come back to the third little thing that he mentions in the preceding paragraph, “to the very words,” until further down in the homily where he says that “thou, in accusing them of disagreement, art doing just the same as if thou were to insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech.” And so, yes, the third “little matter” is distinguished from times and places because words have meaning and we do not “insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech.”

You want to say that the bit about for the sake of our salvation is not intended to mean that the inerrancy is primarilly concerned with just salvation. In your view there is no primarilly its all or nothing and no such distinctions are made. Accordingly you reconcile this phrase “…for the sake of our salvation.” as covering all that is said. Hence by your interpretation when every “part” is inspired you think that means every “phrase” is for the sake of our salvation. Well if every phrase is for our salvation then every phrase would be a big deal. Well then how then can anyone sensibly distinguish between “little matters” and chief heads when discussing scripture? By your understanding they are all big deals whether we are talking about rabbits chewing cud or Jesus rising from the dead.

I would suggest that the reason St. John talks of chiefheads as opposed to little matters is because he does not see this the same way you do.

One of the chief heads is inerrancy. This is a dogma that covers all of Scripture and so every verse of scripture is equally important when it comes to making assertions about there being an error in the Bible. Every verse of Scripture is also valuable to us because each and every verse feeds into presenting us with God’s saving message. You can say that the Sermon on the Mount is more vital to our walk with God than the first eleven chapters of 1 Chronicles, and I’ll agree with you 100%. But it is also vital to recognize that there is no error in those eleven chapters of 1 Chronicles (in addition to appreciating whatever other information can be gleaned from these chapters). As it pertains to “the chief heads,” there is a mandate laid on us to resolve the Biblical data in one particular way. Whereas there are a thousand other issues touched on by Scripture that we can resolve in any number of ways.

Inerrancy was not defined by the Church of John’s day. The dogma was assumed and there was no scandal surrounding this obvious truth. It would have been anachronistic for Chrysostom to list it as one of the chief heads and we shouldn’t expect him to have done this. He has asserted that Scripture provides an unerring standard of reality and that it has never failed over against our reasoning ability and the data we receive from our sense organs. He does not place history in a category outside of reality and he says that it was the Holy Spirit Who recorded the historical narratives of the Bible. There was nothing left for him to say.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I don’t think you can understand St. John because you have a low view of inspiration when compared with his own. I refer you back to Post 251 where I quote you as saying that the statements from John only imply total inerrancy “if you denied there was any human component to the scripture.” I then shared with you quotes from Chrysostomos where he asserts this very thing, that John the Evangelist was “subject to nothing that is human;” that “he will say nothing to us as a man, but what he says, he will say from the depths of the Spirit;” and that “it is not he, but God by him, that speaks to mankind.” You then want to devise a way of saying that John only viewed this level of inspiration as applying to certain statements from the Biblical authors. But in doing this you run into the problem of not being able to assert that the whole Bible, together with all of its parts, is God-breathed.

Inerrancy aside, I think I agree with your assessment of the greater value of texts that have direct bearing upon the divinity of Christ, etc. And that these Scriptural witnesses are not to be compared with texts revealing to us who Uz and Buz were. However, as St. John said,

“Wherefore let us stay at this point our discourse concerning the questions, and in the meanwhile let us retain with accuracy what has been revealed to us; as, for instance, why he mentioned David first; wherefore he called the book, a book of the generation; on what account he said, ‘of Jesus Christ’; how the birth is common and not common; whence it was that Mary was shown to be from David; and wherefore Joseph’s genealogy is traced, while her ancestors are passed over in silence…

“Wherefore I entreat you to revolve these things. For from taking thought concerning such matters, there springs in the soul some great good, tending unto salvation” (Homily 2 on Matthew).

All Scripture is God-breathed and all Scripture is therefore profitable towards equipping the man of God.

Pete the following quotes show that St. John argued against about a dozen alleged errors. It does not demonstrate any more or less. In each of the quotes below he is saying there is no disagreement in that particular case. The only place where John is addressing his understanding of inerrancy with respect to the Gospels as a whole is the quote we addressed above. I have explained, in prior posts in this thread, why it is not logical to take a statement like “this contains no matter of difficulty” and to then try to deduce that he would say that about every alleged matter of difficulty. This is especially true when St. John specifically says the contrary when he addresses the Gospels as a whole. He says there are disagreements on small matters and he says there does seem to be discordance.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. But the fact is St. John does not “admit” to anything. Instead he goes out of his way to affirm disagreements of small matters because he (I think correctly) argues these disagreements serve to confirm the overall truth of the scripture.

The argument from examples is inductive.

The fact is, and I think I’ve said it before, we have two competing interpretations of Homily 1. My interpretation has evidence in its favor and yours has no evidence in its favor, and substantial evidence against it.

Please reconsider. But I wish you a blessed day either way.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[una_fides]

Generally speaking, I woudl say, it starts with my belief that Jesus rose from the dead. This provided evidence to me that what he taught was from God and he was God. Form that I can see he taught that the church will be guided by the Holy Spirit. (although the language is not at all detailed.) The church teaches the assumption of Mary. I have not really investigated the matter to believe otherwise and see no reason not to accept it, so I do. Do I believe this as strongly as I believe Jesus rose from the dead? No. My belief that Jesus rose from the dead is a basis for this belief. If I did not believe Jesus rose from the dead I almost certainly would not believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I can tell you are a lawyer. So let’s get to the straight talk. If you study history, you will not find any record of the Assumption in the early Church fathers to my knowledge. There was a feast day if my memory serves me correctly in the 4th Century that was already established that can potentially indicate an earlier apostolic belief, but again, the volumes of writings of the early fathers, to my knowledge make no mention. Why do you not believe in the Assumption as strongly as the Resurrection? It seems that the reason is that you do not trust solely on the authority of the Church but rather on your own reason as being the final decision maker in the process. So if you somehow were to conclude that there was not enough evidence to support the Assumption, which honestly, historically, there isn’t, then do you then cease to believe in it?

The truth is that ultimately we, as Catholics, believe in the Assumption and should be willing to die for this belief, on the basis of our faith in the infallibility of the Church. You are trying to dance around the issue of infallibility but ultimately its what the whole thing boils down to. If the Church was wrong about the Assumption, then why would we believe her if she claimed that she correctly compiled the books of Scripture infallibly at the Council of Trent? How do you know the books of the Bible are the Word of God without the authority of the Church to tell you so? Ultimately, you are left in the same boat as protestants, and they have no sufficient answer for why they accept the canon of Scripture. And if you can’t trust that you have the correct books in the canon, then how can you know for certain that they accurately explain the resurrection or any other teaching on faith and morals?

The whole Christian religion rests on authority without which she is left with nothing but the relativism of private interpretation. Christ said that we can know the truth, and His Word says that the Church is the pillar and foundation thereof. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and that he would be with her until the end of time. He promised that whatsoever her leaders definitively bound as a dogma on earth was infallibly true as it is in heaven, in which no lies can exist. Do you see the problem with relying on yourself to interpret everything? You are left with no real way to know that anything you conclude is correct? There are tens of thousands of protestant denominations all believing different things from the same Scriptures and all claiming divine guidance. Who is correct? How can one know? It seems your approach to the Catholic Church is similar to that of protestants, they don’t think their leaders are imbued with the gift of infallibility, but they trust them as somewhat reliable and credible sources to help them figure out Scripture on their own along the way. The Catholic Church has been singing an entirely different song for the past 2000 years along with all her saints and martyrs that died for their faith in the Church and trusting completely in her teachings to the point of shedding their own blood.

 

[joemccarron]

Pete I put my thoughts in red.

My interpretation of what he says is, to the best of my ability, an accurate representation of what he says if you read everything he wrote and you stop trying to take Homily 1 out of the broader context of St. John’s writings in order to read them in light of your own ideas.

It’s funny that I did have a discussion with an agnostic who thought that it was likely that the Gospel authors just got together and decided to conspire to write the Gospels. Indeed I used the argument that there are disagreements on small matters that make this impossible for anyone to seriously believe they conspired. At the time I wasn’t aware an ECF had used this argument. But really I can’t claim credit for the idea since he in fact published this argument first. I will need to give him credit in the future.

That said I think you are taking the comments when he is discussing particular cases and trying to improperly apply his comments to the whole of scripture. I have explained why your reasoning depends on a formal logical fallacy. It’s up to you to decide if that matters to you.

After talking about the seeming discordance pertaining to the little matters, “times and places” are repeated as those things which have been related differently…

No he is saying the times and places are those things in which there is disagreement along with matters that were related differently. He is not saying that the times and places are just related differently.

….and he says he is going to show us how this different narration doesn’t injure the truth. If he thought that some things were contradictory and other things were not, as it pertained to times and places, then we would expect him to show us how both the contradictory things and the non-contradictory things don’t injure the truth of what they have said, because that’s what he said he was going to do. But he only shows how non-contradictory things don’t injure the truth of what they have said.

I disagree. He clearly argues that the small disagreements are proof that was no collusion. Here it is “For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact…” That is what John says. That is why the minor disagreements including those of time and place help the overall truth of what the gospel authors said.

Consequently, we have no evidence to suggest that he thought that there was true disagreement on these issues, and all of the evidence points to the fact that he doesn’t view the Gospel writers as contradicting themselves even on these matters.

All the evidence? What about the evidence of what Saint John wrote? I mean his own words should count as some evidence of his beliefs. He wrote that there was disagreement as to small matters, which proves a lack of collusion, and therefore the testimony of the 4 writers is more credible. Why wouldn’t the man’s own statements count as evidence for what he believed?

Again, the level of reconcilable difference that does exist amongst the authors is enough to distinguish the agreement in little things from the greater accuracy attributable to doctrinal agreement.

This is your wording he talks of disagreement not just different wording.

However, he doesn’t come back to the third little thing that he mentions in the preceding paragraph, “to the very words,” until further down in the homily where he says that “thou, in accusing them of disagreement, art doing just the same as if thou were to insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech.” And so, yes, the third “little matter” is distinguished from times and places because words have meaning and we do not “insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech.”

Right I agree with you here. That is why I said if he said the disagreement was regarding only the wording you would have a better case. But he includes disagreements as to times and places. So your case is IMHO weak.

 

[joemccarron]

One of the chief heads is inerrancy.

Now you are leaving St. John altogether. He did not say this and you are starting to conflate views of others with St. John. St. John Chrysostom listed the chief heads and nothing like extreme inerrancy was on the list. What you say after this quote is indeed contradictory to what St. John said.

This is a dogma that covers all of Scripture and so every verse of scripture is equally important *when it comes to making assertions about there being an error in the Bible

Saint John simply disagreed.*

. Every verse of Scripture is also valuable to us because each and every verse feeds into presenting us with God’s saving message. You can say that the Sermon on the Mount is more vital to our walk with God than the first eleven chapters of 1 Chronicles, and I’ll agree with you 100%. But it is also vital to recognize that there is no error in those eleven chapters of 1 Chronicles (in addition to appreciating whatever other information can be gleaned from these chapters).
I would disagree again. I think many good Catholics have died without even knowing what was in 1 chronicles let alone recognizing there was no error there. I agree all scripture is beneficial but I wouldn’t say its all vital to learn let alone acknowledge as without error.

As it pertains to “the chief heads,” there is a mandate laid on us to resolve the Biblical data in one particular way. Whereas there are a thousand other issues touched on by Scripture that we can resolve in any number of ways.

Certainly “as it pertains to the chief heads.” I would say even as to some matters outside the Chief heads but I wouldn’t say it stretches to the most remote aspects.

Inerrancy was not defined by the Church of John’s day. The dogma was assumed and there was no scandal surrounding this obvious truth.

If you mean “extreme inerrancy” then it was apparently far from obvious to Saint John. Nor did you find many other Church fathers who gave more than their own personal opinions. Very rare is the quote where a ECF says all must believe in something like extreme inerrancy. So it was not viewed as a dogma or a chief head. If it was we would have seen it stated more often.

It would have been anachronistic for Chrysostom to list it as one of the chief heads and we shouldn’t expect him to have done this.

He was explaining Christianity to those who were ignorant of it. As were many other Church fathers. Accordingly if it was truly a chief head or a dogma we should have expected him to say that it must be believed by all.

He has asserted that Scripture provides an unerring standard of reality and that it has never failed over against our reasoning ability and the data we receive from our sense organs. He does not place history in a category outside of reality and he says that it was the Holy Spirit Who recorded the historical narratives of the Bible. There was nothing left for him to say.

He also said it contains disagreements as to small matters such as time and places. Don’t get me wrong on the overall picture here. I think you made a strong case for you overall view on inerrancy, even if your case in regard to St. John contradicts what he said. In the end I think we have to say that if your view is correct St. John got it wrong.

 

[joemccarron]

I wrote my comments in red again. If this is annoying please let me know and I will stop. I think its helpful though.

I can tell you are a lawyer. So let’s get to the straight talk. If you study history, you will not find any record of the Assumption in the early Church fathers to my knowledge. There was a feast day if my memory serves me correctly in the 4th Century that was already established that can potentially indicate an earlier apostolic belief, but again, the volumes of writings of the early fathers, to my knowledge make no mention.
Well if I recall there was no mention of finding relics of her body either. This is somewhat odd in given her stature and in comparison to other saints. But I do agree with the gist of your point.

Why do you not believe in the Assumption as strongly as the Resurrection? It seems that the reason is that you do not trust solely on the authority of the Church but rather on your own reason as being the final decision maker in the process.

Well both reason and the authority of the church play a role. It can’t be just the authority of the church or how would I know which church that claims authority to follow. Islam claims the Q’uran is authority etc. So both play a role.

So if you somehow were to conclude that there was not enough evidence to support the Assumption, which honestly, historically, there isn’t, then do you then cease to believe in it?
The churches teaching is evidence. I take the teachings very seriously. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be posting all my concerns about them would I?

The truth is that ultimately we, as Catholics, believe in the Assumption and should be willing to die for this belief, on the basis of our faith in the infallibility of the Church. You are trying to dance around the issue of infallibility but ultimately its what the whole thing boils down to. If the Church was wrong about the Assumption, then why would we believe her if she claimed that she correctly compiled the books of Scripture infallibly at the Council of Trent? How do you know the books of the Bible are the Word of God without the authority of the Church to tell you so? Ultimately, you are left in the same boat as protestants, and they have no sufficient answer for why they accept the canon of Scripture. And if you can’t trust that you have the correct books in the canon, then how can you know for certain that they accurately explain the resurrection or any other teaching on faith and morals?

The answer to all these questions is that I do not believe the Holy Spirit will abandon the church. The Holy Spirit may not act in the church like you, I or anyone else fully understands but I think its always there in one way or other. I don’t say the Holy Spirit must act one way or another. God chooses his own ways. I just trust that he will keep his promises.

The whole Christian religion rests on authority without which she is left with nothing but the relativism of private interpretation.

I think relativism and private interpretation are distinct. But I do tend to reject both. I reject relativism more than private interpretation. We all see the world through our own lenses. We can’t think outside our own thoughts can we?

Christ said that we can know the truth, and His Word says that the Church is the pillar and foundation thereof. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and that he would be with her until the end of time. He promised that whatsoever her leaders definitively bound as a dogma on earth was infallibly true as it is in heaven, in which no lies can exist.

Please don’t forget the loosing part. He also said what was loosed would be loosed in heaven. As a member or the church I am just asking for a bit more loosing from the authorities than all the binding we have been getting. Also I’m not accusing anyone of lying.

Do you see the problem with relying on yourself to interpret everything? You are left with no real way to know that anything you conclude is correct? There are tens of thousands of protestant denominations all believing different things from the same Scriptures and all claiming divine guidance. Who is correct? How can one know?
We have to use reason to decide this because they all claim the same authority. We have to use reason to decide who really has the authority.

It seems your approach to the Catholic Church is similar to that of protestants, they don’t think their leaders are imbued with the gift of infallibility, but they trust them as somewhat reliable and credible sources to help them figure out Scripture on their own along the way. The Catholic Church has been singing an entirely different song for the past 2000 years along with all her saints and martyrs that died for their faith in the Church and trusting completely in her teachings to the point of shedding their own blood.

Well I have not done a historical review of the doctrine of infallibility. I thought it was only defined as recently as 1870 or so. The ECFs had quite a bit more leeway in what they could believe than we have - yet even there some departed or were condemned. Again I’m only pushing for a bit more loosening on some of these requirements intended to control beliefs which seem to have little to do with Jesus message. Do you think the church has the power to loose things or do you think Jesus only spoke the truth about binding and not about loosening?