P
patg
Guest
It appears the “Church” can’t quite make up its mind. I’ll follow Dei Verbum and the spiritual truths, anything else is irrelevant.
- Status
D
Dj_Roy_Albert
Guest
So basically you’re saying “I won’t listen to the “Church”, but will follow what is written in “Church” doctrines & dogmas”???.. :ehh:
Or your own personal interpretations of them?
That what is sounds like to me.
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Do I take it you agree with the teaching of Dei Verbum?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
*Humani Generis *does not contradict *Dei Verbum. *Yet is does contradict your flawed understanding of Dei Verbum.
Commenting on *Dei Verbum, *Fr. Ignace de la Potterie, SJ, a non-conservative by all accounts, writes:
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
To conclude that *Dei Verbum *restricts inerrancy to matters of faith and morals, but not history, is ridiculous. Those who have actually read *Dei Verbum *ought to know better.
Observe, this passage of *Dei Verbum *affirms the historicity of the event of the Gospels:
This is what the inspired authors (and the Holy Spirit) affirm regarding the parting of the Red Sea …
Observe, this passage of *Dei Verbum *affirms the historicity of the event of the Gospels:
*Dei Verbum *asserts ""all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit."
This is what the inspired authors (and the Holy Spirit) affirm regarding the parting of the Red Sea …
I find this much more compelling than the theories of a former weather-man-turned-Methodist-preacher, even if such theories have convinced some Catholics of its veracity.
P
patg
Guest
I have read it and to conclude that *Dei Verbum *does not restrict inerrancy to matters of faith and morals is ridiculous.
faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, It is interesting that you quote a direct example and ignore what it says - note the last four words “for their eternal salvation”. Matters of science, geography, geology, and history are not matters which Jesus addressed for our eternal salvation nor are they matters which have anything to do with our eternal salvation. Those are things of this world and not of the spiritual world. I don’t think your quote could be much clearer that in restricting itself to matters of faith and morals - Jesus didn’t do or teach anything related to the physical sciences or history.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
That’s ridiculous. Of course the historicity of Sacred Scripture, already AFFIRMED by the Church, that which REALLY HAPPENED, was for the sake of eternal salvation. This does not reduce Scripture’s inerrancy to faith and morals alone as you assert, a proposition that was CONDEMNED by the Church.
Yes, Scripture describes events that really happened. The historicity of these events are important for our eternal salvation (eg. the historicity of the sin of our first parents). You twist *Dei Verbum *as if it agreed with your own fantasy doctrine, but anyone who has studied Catholicism is unconvinced.
It doesn’t matter what you think. It only matters what the Catholic Church teaches.
The Holy Office of 1961, just four years prior to *Dei Verbum, *issued a warning to those who, like you, would restrict inerrancy to only faith and morals, and “call into question the genuine historical and objective truth of Sacred Scripture.”
Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office
Warning to those who expound the Scriptures
June 20, 1961
And from the Pontifical Bible Commission of 1964, just one year prior to *Dei Verbum, *and approved by Pope Paul VI, the same pope that approved Dei Verbum:
Pontifical Bible Commission
Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels
Sancta Mater Ecclesia
April 21, 1964
There can be no error.
Pius XII, in his encyclical on Scripture, *Divino Afflante Spiritu *(1943), quoting from the Vatican Council, commented: “In our age, the Vatican Council, to reject false teachings about inspiration, declared that these same books [of Scripture] must be considered ‘as sacred and canonical’ by the Church, 'not only because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church.’”
Pius XII adds, “when certain Catholic authors, contrary to this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, in which authority of this kind is claimed which enjoys immunity from any error whatsoever, for these books ‘whole and entire, with all their parts’-when these authors had dared to restrict the truth of Holy Scripture to matters of faith and morals … our Predecessor of Immortal memory, Leo XIII, in an encyclical, Providentissimus Deus… rightly and properly refuted those errors….”
To continue to insist that inerrancy is restricted to matters of faith and morals is CLEARLY contrary to Catholic doctrine. Your insistence that Dei Verbum contradicts a solemn definition of Catholic doctrine set forth in Vatican I, affirmed by Pius XII and Leo XIII, is ridiculous. On the contrary, Dei Verbum quotes approvingly from Divino Afflente Spiritu, Humani Generis, and Providentissimus Deus.
P
patg
Guest
Ummm, so show me where it is condemned… You (and popes, and anyone else) can “affirm” it all they want but there is no moral requirement as a member of the catholic church to believe what is so clearly not history to be so.
I’ll admit that some did.
Somae may be important but the message is far more important than the messenger and since when is there a requirement that messengers be literal history?
**Apparantly you can read "For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse." and not hear anything
Fortunately the church does not require us to believe that which is known to be untrue.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Also quoted approvingly by Pope Paul VI in Dei Verbum is Pope Benedict XV’s encyclical,*Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), *which states:
"Those, too, who hold that the historical portions of Scripture do not rest on the absolute truth of the facts but merely upon what they are pleased to term their relative truth, namely, what people then commonly thought, are - no less than are the aforementioned critics - out of harmony with the Church’s teaching, which is endorsed by the testimony of Jerome and other Fathers. … Such views are clearly false, and constitute a calumny on our predecessor. **" **(Spiritus Paraclitus, 22)
"Those, too, who hold that the historical portions of Scripture do not rest on the absolute truth of the facts but merely upon what they are pleased to term their relative truth, namely, what people then commonly thought, are - no less than are the aforementioned critics - out of harmony with the Church’s teaching, which is endorsed by the testimony of Jerome and other Fathers. … Such views are clearly false, and constitute a calumny on our predecessor. **" **(Spiritus Paraclitus, 22)
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Already did. Providentissimus Deus, *Spiritus Paraclitus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, *and *Humani Generis, *all of which are approvingly quoted from by Pope Paul VI in his Dei Verbum.
P
patg
Guest
Well, I guess I and most Catholic bible scholars are just “a calumny on our predecessor” whatever that means - I suppose it must mean knowing how to read the bible. I wish I could ask old Benedict just how he could make such an ignorant statement but then I don’t know if he had the background as a biblical scholar to carry much weight. I’m glad Dei Verbum cleared it up for me (once again)…
For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
Once again, how can you read this and not hear anything? Oh well, you have your quotes and I have mine - I’ll believe by mine.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
You claim to be in agreement with most Catholic bible scholars? Can you give proof?
Most Catholic Bible scholars present at Vatican II rejected the notion that some parts of Scripture were not inerrant.
Objecting to schema #4 of Dei Verbum 11, Archbishop Philippe spoke to the Vatican II council Fathers:
Therefore it should not be said that the sacred books ‘teach’ salvific truth without error, because this insinuates a distinction among the scriptural affirmations themselves, as if some of them taught without error truths pertaining to salvation, while others had no such content and were thus not necessarily immune from error…I request that we restore the expression ‘without any error,’ as in the previous draft, since the documents of the Magisterium…always express themselves in such a way as to exclude completely from the sacred Scriptures error of every kind. At the request of the Pope, the Commission reconvened. Seventeen of twenty-eight members voted to follow his advice to omit the word “salvific.” Since the vote did not reach a two-thirds majority, a group of Fathers suggested they use the phrase “for the sake of our salvation” (nostrae salutis causa), which led to a two-thirds vote of 19 to 9, and the vote was approved by the pope.
That Dei Verbum is in agreement, and not in contradiction to the previous papal encyclicals is clear from footnote #5 of DV 11 inserted by the Fathers of Vatican II to illuminate their intent:
Let’s look at footnote #5:
These texts explicitly disagree with your assertion that inerrancy is limited to merely matters of faith and morals.
- cf. St. Augustine, “Gen. ad Litt.” 2, 9, 20
L 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, 124, 126-127. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539.
Divino Afflante Spiritu: "“when certain Catholic authors, contrary to this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, in which authority of this kind is claimed which enjoys immunity from any error whatsoever, for these books ‘whole and entire, with all their parts’-when these authors had dared to restrict the truth of Holy Scripture to matters of faith and morals … our Predecessor of Immortal memory, Leo XIII, in an encyclical, Providentissimus Deus… rightly and properly refuted those errors….”
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Well then … Let’s hear what your “scholastic” background is, shall we? Does it carry ANY weight? Are you vested with magisterial authority, let alone papal authority? I’d say all these popes, Leo XIII, Pius XII, Benedict XV, are much more qualified than you are to authentically determine Catholic doctrine and to condemn contrary views, such as yours, as erroneous.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Yes, Benedictus XV was a dolt and all wrong. That’s why Paul VI references Spiritus Paraclitus no less than three time in his encyclical *Dei Verbum, *because he rejected this prior popes assertions just like you do. 
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
By the way, the quote that you give from *Dei Verbum *about literary forms I am in 100% agreement with. It is from the same article where Paul VI references Benedict XV’s encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, which you oppose. I find that rather ironic.
P
patg
Guest
Well, since I’m sure everyone here wants to know, lets get to the bottom line - is it infallible, ex-cathedra, burn in hell forever dogma if you don’t believe every word of bible is literal history, accurate science, and faultless geography?
You must realize this is not the view held by many Catholics - even theologians writing under the* imprimatur *disagree with it. I may not have any official credentials but I can read the statement on history in Dei Verbum.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
And this is not the view I hold. You have implied that inerrancy is restricted to matters of faith and morals in Sacred Scripture. This is what I dissent with, as does the Catholic Church, time and again in condemning your proposition.
The Catholic Church teaches that there are two senses of Sacred Scripture: literal and spiritual. (cf. CCC 115). "The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal” (CCC 116).
The literal sense is foundational, and cannot be denied in order to put forth a contrary, non-literal meaning. The spiritual sense must be based upon (not in contradiction to) the literal.
The literal sense is that sense the author intended given the literary form he uses. If he uses the literary form of “history” than what he intends (history) is inerrant, even if his testimony to historic events is supernatural and doesn’t make historic or scientific sense as understood by profane science (like Jesus rising from the dead).
Form criticism is necessary to ascertain what the literary form the author intends. Sometimes, things that appear to be history are only appearant, and the author intended it figuratively. However, the literal sense is determined from the actual words used by the author. Sound principles of exegesis ought to be used to put forth solid arguments for asserting what the literal sense of the narrative is, the authorial intent.
With regard to the parting of the Red Sea, there has been no exegetically sound argument from the actual words used by the author to convincingly claim that his actual words meant “low tide” versus “high tide” within the Red Sea. How does a tide change create a “wall” of water to the left and right of the “dry” passage through the Red Sea? It appears they are not even attempting to exegete the literal sense from the actual words of Scritpure. Instead, they simply deny the literal sense to put forth some explanation which denies the miraculous.
If you would like to exegete this passage, I suggest you learn how.
**How to DO exegesis **
(Pilfered and summarized from an article by Rev. Leonard Obloy)
- Delimit the text - narring what exactly will be the passage under consideration. Usually, the exegete will select a certain periscope, such as the deluge. This sets the limits that will be under observation, usually a selection of verses.
- Set the text - This means teh work of textual criticism. The exeget must see whether or not there are any variant readings fro the delimited test. These must be examined, state which readings are chosen and why.
- Work up the text - language, grammar, and syntax analysis. Every word is examined and parsed, sentences diagrammed out. How one understands certain words may be crucial to interpretation.
- Check parallels - if parallels exist (especially in the synoptic gospels) these must be examined. Does the passage quote other books of the Bible? What is the context in these other books? The wider context is observed.
- Check the history of the exegesis of the text - What have others throughout history said about this passage? How was it interpreted by the Fathers and others? Perhaps one will see how it has been used in the Liturgy of the Church.
- Do one’s own exegesis, using:
Source Criticism
Redaction Criticism
Analyze the Structure
See what are the elements that seem to make a structure
See what elements seem to disrupt that structure
Bring questions to the text
Answer problems in the text
Questions will be asked. What is the context of this passage? What does the author intend to say. This is an endeavor to get to the literal sense. After arriving at the literal sense, they will see if any fuller sense or typical sense is present.
The exegete will check his or her own interpretations against the rule of faith. Does anything one has proposed as an interpretation of the passage go against what is commonly held by the Church?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Just because you can read doesn’t mean that you can properly exegete what is written. Luther asserted that what he read was true, contrary to what the Church taught. You assert that your interpretation of Dei Verbum is contary to Providentissimus Deus, *Spiritus Paraclitus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Humani Generis, *although Paul VI quoted from ALL OF THESE encyclicals favorably within *Dei Verbum, *never intending to contradict these encyclicals. It is clear to even the most casual observer that your exegesis of Dei Verbum is contary to the authorial intent of Paul VI.
P
patg
Guest
Ok, two sort of questions:
- It sounds like you are saying that innerancy is not restricted to matters of faith and morals…but is not necessarily present in other areas. In other words, a story is not innerant history if the author is not writing history. There is a fine (if any) semantic difference there.
- Along those lines, most authors/bible scholars state that the birth stories in Matthew and Luke are of the classic literary form known as the “infancy narrative” - a form which is never meant to convey history. Therefore, I assume you would agree these are teaching the truth of the divine origins of Jesus seen from those who believed him to be God while not trying to literally describe the events of his birth.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Correct. Inerrancy pertains to EVERYTHING the author intends to express, his literal sense.
Incorrect. In anything and everything the author intends to express, he is inerrant. The problem is with us, not with the author, in discovering what he intended to express.
For example, there are such things in Scripture as two variant traditions as being expressed by the same author.
Fr. William Most discusses one example, from his book Basic Scripture:
Often, our erroneous view of the author’s intent is the source of contradiction. If one were to presume that the author intended to give ONE account but that one account was contradictory, then the reader (not the author) is in error.
Correct. If the writer is writing poetically, we ought not to presume him to be writing history.
I have to go to a meeting, so I will have to addres #2 later.
- Status