'Percieved Contradictions'

[Cruxis117]

A Protestant I know has taken this quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

The person says that this quotation has been debated upon by scholars of a conservative and liberal bent, as meaning different things. Thus, this shows that the Church isn’t teaching unity and is doing the same thing as the Protestant Churches do with doctrine. What would you say to refute such a notion?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’m not sure exactly what you mean. Perhaps you could elaborate on what the “notion” you mention is. Regarding Biblical inerrancy, the essence of the teaching is that everything the Bible asserts as true is true, because it is authored by the Holy Spirit. If anyone goes against that idea they are obviously in error from the Catholic perspective- and that’s the big difference between the Catholic point of view towards the Bible and the Protestant, since the Protestant doesn’t have authoritative Church teachings about Scripture to refer to as guides for their interpretation.

Now, different people may come to different conclusions about what the Bible does in fact assert to be true, and this is fine. Catholic orthodoxy does not demand that everyone agree with each other 100% of the time. Indeed, on many issues considerably more theological diversity is permitted in the Catholic Church than has traditionally been tolerated in many Protestant denominations. But when the Church does teach something authoritatively, we hold it to really be authoritative, not subject to the test of my own private interpretation of Scripture.

Edit: if your friend’s objection is that it is possible for a heretic to subject Church statements to heretical interpretations, well that’s just silly. Heresy doesn’t disprove the existence of orthodoxy any more than darkness disproves the existence of light. And here we find another difference between Catholic teaching and Protestant private interpretation. If a Protestant, or a whole bunch of Protestants, misinterpret the Bible the Bible can’t correct them with a new document clarifying a disputed point, since the era of public revelation has ended. The Church can do just that- clarify a point of Her teaching that someone has been misinterpreting.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The person says that this quotation has been debated upon by scholars of a conservative and liberal bent, as meaning different things. Thus, this shows that the Church isn’t teaching unity and is doing the same thing as the Protestant Churches do with doctrine. What would you say to refute such a notion?

I wouldn’t even try at this point. First, the person needs to show you the source of his contention: where exactly are these documents that Catholic scholars of “liberal or conservative bent” saying different things?

And, in fact, there are plenty of unresolved questions in the Church, where people go back and forth, wrangling over issues. UNITY isn’t the same as “cookie-cutter” theology. Unity comes from love and acceptance, including accepting different opinions and ways of thinking.

So, if you ever get any specific evidence that what is being suggested is correct, then you can discuss the issues. And if two people don’t think the same way, they are not divided, they are simply different.

(And “truth” and “fact” are not synonyms.)