They’re eyewitnesses, telling their story to two distinct audiences. They’re not allowed to tell it in the ways that humans tell stories? I would posit that both retellings are true, and are honest eyewitness accounts. If “differing non-essential details” are the hallmark of ‘contradiction’, then no eyewitness account is usable.
Sure… if it were ‘dictated’, then it would putatively been dictated verbatim – and we’d call differences “errors” or “contradictions”. Not sure I’d go there with legitimate eyewitness accounts, though.
And… there’s the kerfuffle! There are those who would say, “wellllllll… that isn’t theology, and that isn’t theology, and therefore, we are only gonna assert ‘inerrancy’ to the parts that we judge to be ‘theology’!” That’s not what the Church teaches, however…
The Church doesn’t teach “inerrant except in small details”, as such. If you take that tack, then you mire yourself in a debate over what’s ‘small’ and what isn’t. Is the Eucharist ‘small’ (after all, we could argue that it’s mere allegory)? Are Jesus’ miracles ‘small’ (after all, they’re not recorded identically in all Gospels)?
Except that, in the context of the example you used to illustrate your point, there’s no difference of opinion over whether the event happened!
No, that’s not quite right, either. By that description, the Church is “Bible-only” (and we’re not). We hold that Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture stand side-by-side and hand-in-glove!
I am not saying their testimonies are not usable. Even things that contain errors (and in this case it is error very, very minor in character and one that has no impact) is usable.
Well sure, one can say anything really… but Church has declared what theology is. Whether Apostles were allowed to bring “only staff” or “not even staff” says same things in theological value- it explains how Apostles shouldn’t bring much. Having only staff was as insignificant as having none.
No, but to my understanding Church teaches that Bible is inerrant in realm of theology (including morality of course). However, when Bible says “Lord said XY” it doesn’t actually say completely precise what Lord said. How do I know that? Bible is written in Greek and our Lord did not speak Greek to Apostles. Hence when Bible said “our Lord called Simon Peter” he actually called him Cephas. Mathematically speaking that is imprecise and on verge of error… but anyone reading it gets the point. I guess “error” itself is a bad word for this exact example, but you get the point I suppose.
There is difference in opinion whether they were or were not allowed to bring staff. Were they allowed? One Apostle is “wrong” about that small detail. Were they not? One Gospel is “wrong” about that small detail.
and we don’t even have to talk “approximation” or “error”!
Fair enough. Please re-read Dei verbum.
Immaterial. Heck, if you want, you can read an Aramaic translation of the Gospels. Still, that doesn’t get you where you need to be. (After all, it’s the autographs of the Scriptural texts that the Church holds to be inerrant!
)Yeah… “error” isn’t what we’re talking about. Nevertheless, you’re conflating “translation” with “inspired text” here, and I think that it’s muddying the water for you.
I would say that the inspired evangelists (not apostle
) were inspired to tell the story for their original audience in distinct ways.I will try to do so. Thank you for suggestion.
Fair enough. It was a bad point.
Perhaps so… as explained above, if telling the story exactly is not the goal but goal is to teach, then real “error” is not present in teaching. If you look at it from “how did this really happen” scope, you see error. If you look at it from scope of theology through which we ought to view Bible it’s different thing.I would say that the inspired evangelists (not apostle
No…well, at least I’d describe a biblical commentary more as a study guide for the Bible. The Catechism is a study guide for the entire Deposit of Faith that has been entrusted to the Magisterium. The canon of Holy Scriptures, in contrast, are those writings recognized for the Church by the Magisterium as the divinely-inspired Word of God. In them, God speaks to us directly, both in lectio divina but also and most especially in the liturgy. When we hear the word of God proclaimed at Mass, it is Christ who speaks to us. (And, as on the road to Emmaus, the priest breaks open the word of God in persona Christi, which is why the homily is a liturgical act reserved for clergy rather than just a sermon like the kind that any of the faithful who are properly instructed and in accord with the Magesterium might preach outside of Mass.)
You’re right, God can do anything. *Maybe, * I should have said man cannot teach by word of mouth forever… but I guess that depends on the subject and the man.
@OrbisNonSufficit said the church isn’t doing their own thing (which I already knew) but was being led by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God.
I wasn’t questioning the Church because the Church is God, The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit, the head of the Church.
yes and no.
Thank you for your prayers.
I guess what this comes down to is what do you mean by “is” in sentence “Church is God”. “Is led” “is Head of” are all very true. However, we know that God is not composite and does conform to Divine Simplicity principle. Church however exists in three parts - Church Militant (us on Earth), Church Suffering (those in Purgatory who need our prayers) and Church Triumphant (those in Heaven). That distinction is very real hence Church itself is composite. God can not be / contain anything truly composite. Which is why I say “Church is not the God” in true direct sense but it comes down to what we mean by that… of course from different point of view than literal one, you can be correct.
Well, no… there are multiple points to that;
We discern. But in our case, if we follow through love for God and obedience to His Church someone who is misled without realizing he is misled, God knows that is it not about our own pride… Also since God did indeed grant us all the sources possible to discern through the Church (in history and now), and promised Church would not teach error, we are in better place if we follow Magisterium. I am not saying one can not meet or be subject to Bishop who is misled… but Thomas Aquinas deals with this by saying that we are not to obey things we know are wrong. Magisterium itself can not be wrong because Holy Spirit guides it, which is why we trust in Church as a whole.
We believe that we are the Church, the Bride of Christ, not Christ himself. Christ is God, the groom.
We don’t follow the magisterium blindly. We accept their authority to define what is true & what is not. Just like when a parent tells a child “you’ll understand when you are older.” We take some things on faith & try to understand, until we do.
I don’t think you’re bible alone because you attend a Lutheran church. I think you’re bible alone because you believe everything has to be defined in the bible. Technically basing your beliefs on the bible, & not all that Jesus taught.
That’s a strange thing to say. I can only speak for myself but when the Church teaches something I don’t understand I do go to the Bible & try to see how they came to that understanding. But I also look back to the early Church to confirm that is what the Church has understood from the beginning and I look to the Saints to see how that understanding has been put into practice through the centuries.
I disagree still. Humans – apostles and their successors – have been teaching Jesus’ message continuously for 2000 years!
For the first decades of the Church, they were exclusively teaching orally. (And, Paul was writing letters to individual communities. Although it seems that he hadn’t intended it, these communities copied the letters and sent them to their neighboring Churches, so that they could read his words, too.)
Because you’re forgetting the word “led” that you used. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit, not “the Church is the Holy Spirit”.
I had a feeling that this was going to be a response to that Scripture quote. The grammar of that sentence doesn’t say what you’re claiming it says. The sentence identifies the “household of God” and calls it “the Church of the living God”. When it says “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, though, to what is Paul referring? Is it the living God who is that pillar and foundation, or the Church? Greek grammar helps us understand which it is. The case that “pillar and foundation” appears uses is the case of the noun that it’s referring to. Here, “pillar and foundation” is in nominative case. “God” is in genitive case. “The Church” is in nominative case. Therefore, the “pillar and foundation” refers to the Church. I know that often, Protestants will make the case that it’s God to whom this reference is made, but it’s not. In English, it’s not easy to see this; in the original Greek, it’s crystal clear.
Actually, we don’t see instructions for Christian worship in the Bible! (We see that they worshiped, but it doesn’t tell us how to worship, as such.) The requirements for Jewish worship are found in the Mosaic law, but there’s no guide to Christian liturgy in the NT! Rather, the apostles taught the Church how to worship in the Christian context!
Agreed. Yet, it’s definitely not the case that it was “Sola Scriptura”, even once the canon of the NT was decided upon! “Word of Mouth” continued to be the teaching method – especially since the majority of the members of the Church were illiterate!
Right. Yet, there’s only one set of leaders who received authority from Christ. Only one set of leaders received the promise of protection against teaching doctrinal error. So, if we say that “the Holy Spirit leads individual Christians to teach the truth”… well, we know who those leaders are, right? As for the others, as you say, “some will struggle, some will ignore, and some will listen and follow.”
In matters of prudential judgement? Absolutely! In matters of doctrine? No, we shouldn’t.
If they have the authority of Christ to teach, we should certainly discern the Spirit in their words… but what would it mean if we said “nah; you’re wrong about that ‘Eucharist’ thing”? Wouldn’t that mean that we’re questioning the authority of Christ itself?
You are doing so well I hate to contradict you.
These are the instructions for worship. They are filled out with he Beatitudes, the Prodigal Son, the preaching of John the Baptist, etc. instead of the rubrics we have come to expect.
We question the leaders of he Church all of the time, even the Pope. We follow them as they lead us to the Lord who leads us all.
The Catechism is a summary document whose authority is in its footnotes. One of the primary sources of authority are scriptural references.