total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

[Bengoshi]

Originally Posted by JP Marat
Did Jesus spend two nights in the tomb (Matt, Mark, Luke) or three nights (John) to fulfil the Jonah prophecy? Or did somebody just write that in?

Etc, etc., etc.

The Hebrew **counting of days **is not the same way that we count it now. It depends on the reference point used by the Gospel writer. The Jews count a day from sunset to sunset, meaning from 6PM-5:59PM the following day. Correct me if I’m wrong on this as I am not an expert in Hebrew. There are always good explanations out there by scholars, you just have to search for it. For as long as we have faith that God is perfect and cannot commit a mistake, then the answers will definitely come to us. <<

Actually, I’ve read a very good explanation of this. I’m just not sure about its veracity. It said that the passover was also during the 7-year period. It was weird anyway!

 

[David_Zampino]

Have you read this yet? Once you have, I’d be interested in your comments.

An interesting site. One which is not Catholic at all.

Respectfully, I don’t believe that this reference would help you convince any Catholic.

Blessings,

 

[JP_Marat]

Personally I like the contradictions, the so called “errors in the text.” For me it makes it personally authentic. If all the stories were identical it would appear as some kind of conspiracy; look at all the stories we witness every day - each person seeing them from perhaps a different viewpoint, a different take on it, and reporting them in a different way. Basically we can see in the stories something has taken place, and by entering into the stories we can get some idea of what took place.

How do we know the soldiers watching over the tomb of Christ were not telling the truth? They all came up with the same story.

RESPONSE:

If the stories are all different, then three of the four contain errors. This shows that they are not really divinely inspired.

“For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that **inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely **and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.” (Providentissimus deus,20)

 

[JP_Marat]

How do we know the soldiers watching over the tomb of Christ were not telling the truth? They all came up with the same story.

RESPONSE:

The Evangelists who wrote the gospels couldn’t come up “with the same story” either. **Only Matthew **says anything about a guard at the tomb.

 

[una_fides]

An interesting site. One which is not Catholic at all.

Respectfully, I don’t believe that this reference would help you convince any Catholic.

Blessings,

So in other words if I found a reference of St Augustine using the same arguments then it would be convincing but since you don’t like the source then you automatically disregard the arguments altogether. I could have just written the arguments myself on here so that they could be weighed on their own merits but the fact you write them off because of the source shows your bias against the content itself. I don’t have time right now to dig through the Church fathers and show where they make the same arguments demonstrating how Scripture harmonizes and does not contradict itself. But of course because you likely disagree with the conclusions I’m sure you will find a way to write them off as well. The Church has explained how to interpret Scripture is according to Tradition and that we must look to the fathers for our understanding. The Catholic Church has solemnly pronounced that there are no errors in the texts of Scripture so if a Protestant, Jew, or even an atheist were to agree or offer evidence supporting the Church’s teaching then I would think that deserves our attention. Do you only read Catholic history books or only attend Catholic lectures or Catholic classes taught by Catholic professors? Certainly you can learn information from any source, but we must carefully weigh the evidence especially if the source is not Catholic and is teaching on doctrinal matters. This site does not teach doctrine, but it simply stated a way to historically reconcile Scriptures, which the Church itself commends us to do.

It’s a shame that today there are many Protestants who are more Catholic in their beliefs than many people who profess to be members of the Church.

 

[una_fides]

RESPONSE:

The Evangelists who wrote the gospels couldn’t come up “with the same story” either. **Only Matthew **says anything about a guard at the tomb.

Your bias is quite apparent. Just because St Matthew, an eyewitness writing under divine inspiration, did not mention something that another did does not mean that his account disagrees. The various accounts are complementary not contradictory.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

RESPONSE:

If the stories are all different, then three of the four contain errors. This shows that they are not really divinely inspired.

“For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that **inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely **and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.” (Providentissimus deus,20)

Without error. Meaning? I interpret this as referring to faith & morals. Again, we are confronted with a question of interpretation - the ghost in the machine.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

RESPONSE:

The Evangelists who wrote the gospels couldn’t come up “with the same story” either. **Only Matthew **says anything about a guard at the tomb.

I am sitting at my laptop, looking out of my widow at a garden full of birds come for an early morning feed. I have not mentioned any of this until now, yet every morning a similar scene. By your logic, I have not mentioned it before therefore it does not take place.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Greetings David!

Keeping in mind that catholicity is determined, not by who said it, but by what is said, here are some expositions for you from the mouths of Catholics (see also this post with links):

St. Justin Martyr:

And truly our Lord Jesus Christ, when He intended to go into Jerusalem, requested His disciples to bring Him a certain donkey, along with its foal, which was bound in an entrance of a village called Bethphage; and having seated Himself on it, He entered into Jerusalem. And as this was done by Him in the manner in which it was prophesied in precise terms that it would be done by the Christ, and as the fulfilment was recognised, it became a clear proof that He was the Christ. And though all this happened and is proved from Scripture, you are still hard-hearted. Nay, it was prophesied by Zechariah, one of the twelve [prophets], that such would take place, in the following words: ‘Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; shout, and declare, daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your King shall come to you, righteous, bringing salvation, meek, and lowly, riding on [a donkey], and the foal of [a donkey]’ (Zechariah 9:9). Now, that the Spirit of prophecy, as well as the patriarch Jacob, mentioned both [a donkey] and its foal, which would be used by Him; and, further, that He, as I previously said, requested His disciples to bring both beasts; [this fact] was a prediction that you of the synagogue, along with the Gentiles, would believe in Him. For as the unharnessed colt was a symbol of the Gentiles even so the harnessed [donkey] was a symbol of your nation. (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 53).

Justin quotes the passage from Zechariah – “riding on [a donkey], and the foal of [a donkey]” – and says that Jesus fulfilled the “precise terms” of the prophecy by seating Himself upon the colt alone. He repeats himself elsewhere: “He was foretold expressly as to sit upon the foal of [a donkey] and to enter Jerusalem. The words are these: ‘Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your King comes unto you; lowly, and riding upon a donkey, and upon a colt the foal of [a donkey]’ (Zechariah 9:9)” (, Ch. 35The First Apology).

Origen (though condemned by ecumenical councils), on the other hand, holds that Jesus rode both animals: “the Lord sat upon them, clearly on the [donkey] and the colt” (, Bk. 10, Ch. 17Commentary on the Gospel of John). But he charges the “literal interpreters” with explaining “how two beasts of burden were needed for so short a journey,” from which we infer that Origen understands riding both of them to mean, riding them in succession. He goads the one who remains fixed on a superficial reading, wondering whether it “indicate a certain degree of stupidity on the part of the writer to take delight in such things, if nothing more is meant by them than what lies on the surface.” And with these words, Origen urges us on to the deeper spiritual meaning of the text, to which Catholics happily go (without neglecting the literal).

St. Ephraim says that “from beside the donkey they brought for Him the colt whereon He entered Jerusalem” (Homily on Our Lord). This again would be a reference to Matthew’s Gospel because only Matthew mentions the mother donkey in connection with the colt; and, with this as his reference, St. Ephraim indicates that He rides only the colt.

St. John Chrysostom:

“For here the church is signified by the colt, and the new people, which was once unclean, but which, after Jesus sat on them, became clean. And see the image preserved throughout. I mean that the disciples loose the donkeys. For by the apostles, both they and we were called; by the apostles were we brought near. But because our acceptance provoked them also to emulation, therefore the donkey appears following the colt. For after Christ has sat on the Gentiles, then shall they also come moving us to emulation. And Paul declaring this, said, ‘That blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved’ (Romans 11:25-26)…

“But He does not sit on the bare colt, but on the apostles’ garments. For after they had taken the colt, they then gave up all” (Homily 66 on Matthew).

Chrysostom gives mention of the cloaks and points out that they are what Jesus sat on, not the bare colt. This is the beginning of Chrysostom’s exposition of what Matthew draws our attention to by telling us that Jesus sat on “them.”

In his Harmony of the Gospels, where he solves many apparent contradictions, St. Augustine doesn’t mention anything about Matthew’s text suggesting that Jesus rode two animals [at the same time]. His primary concern is to point out that, whereas there is no contradiction when one author mentions one thing and another author something else, even less is there a contradiction when one author mentions multiple things while another author mentions only a subset of those things. Augustine holds that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the colt: “He on [a donkey’s] colt came into the city” (Exposition on Psalm 34). “The Gentiles made subject to Him are represented by the [donkey’s] colt, on which He also sat, leading it into Jerusalem” (, Bk. 12Contra Faustum).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Cornelius à Lapide:

And they brought, &c., spread their clothes, Gr. ιμάτια, i.e., their cloaks, or outer garments, as it were in adornment. Placed Him thereon: many existing MSS. together with the Syriac have, He sat upon him, i.e., the colt. It is most probable that Christ sat both upon the [donkey] as well as her colt in succession. First He made use of the [donkey], then of the colt. The colt perchance was not strong enough to bear a rider in the descent and ascent of the mountain: the [donkey] was not so becoming for the entry into the city. But it was chiefly because of the mystery implied that He willed to make use of both the beasts, that He might signify that He should reign not over those only to whom He had been promised, i.e., the Jews, but over the two sorts of people of which the world is made up – the Jews, accustomed to the yoke of the Mosaic law, who were represented by the [donkey]; and the Gentiles, living up to this time without the Law of God, and who were denoted by the colt. “For as sinners,” says Auctor Imperfecti, “are the horses of the devil, so are the saints said to be the horses of Christ, although Christ loves mild [donkeys], rather than fierce and proud horses.”

These disciples, together with the multitude, were inspired and acted upon by the Holy Ghost, or else by Christ’s own Divinity to make the adornment of this royal pomp. They clothed the [donkey] with their garments as with regal trappings; and they made Christ to sit thereon that they might render Him homage as the Messiah, and inaugurate His reign as King of Jerusalem…

… Remigius says: “The Lord came to Jerusalem sitting upon [a donkey], because He presides over the holy Church and the faithful soul, and rules it in this life, and afterwards introduces it to the vision of the celestial country. The Apostles and other Doctors placed their garments upon the [donkey], because they gave to the Gentiles the glory which they had received from Christ…” – The Great Commentary of Cornelius à Lapide: S. Matthew’s Gospel – Chaps. X to XXI.

Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

21:1-11 … Jesus rides a colt into Jerusalem (21:7) as Solomon rode David’s mule into the city…

21:5 A combined reference to Is 62:11 and Zech 9:9. • The emphasis of this citation is twofold: (1) Isaiah’s prophecy, only partially cited, speaks of a highway to Jerusalem when the Lord declares, “Behold, your salvation comes.” The similar wording of Zechariah’s prophecy connects this salvation with the coming king. (2) The uniqueness of this king is his lowliness and humility: he rides a peaceful donkey rather than a “war horse” (Zech 9:10).

21:7 he sat on them: Matthew alone mentions a donkey and a colt (cf. Mk 11:7; Lk 19:35). That Jesus sat on them refers either to the garments or indicates that he rode both beasts successively. • Allegorically (St. Jerome, Homily 81), the two beasts are the nations that Christ brings under his Lordship. The donkey signifies Israel in its long-standing covenant with God; the colt is the younger Gentiles, unfamiliar with God and his Law. Jesus ushers them together into the Church of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:26; Heb 12:22) – Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospel of Matthew.

The Navarre Bible:

1–5. In his triumphant entry into Jerusalem Jesus reveals himself as the Messiah, as St Matthew and St John (12:14) stress by quoting the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. Although the Latin translation says “mounted on a [female] [donkey]”, the original Hebrew text says “mounted on a [male] [donkey]”, and the latter is the text followed in this translation (in the Greek translation of the Septuagint no sex is specified). The other two Synoptic Gospels limit themselves to giving the key fact of Jesus’ messianic entry into the Holy City mounted on the colt (Mk 11:2; Lk 19:30). St Matthew sees in the fact that the colt is with the [donkey] a further detail of the prophecy, which refers to the colt being the foal of [a donkey] (that seems to be why the [donkey] is referred to throughout the account, the [donkey] being with the colt, although Jesus was mounted only on the colt).

In the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 (which in the original Old Testament text is longer than the quotation in Matthew) the future messianic king is described as “humble”. The [donkey], originally a noble mount (cf. Gen 22:3; Ex 4:20; Num 22:21; Jud 5:10), was replaced by the horse in the period of the Israelite monarchy (cf. 1 Kings 4:26; 10:28; etc.). The prophecy, by referring to [a donkey], shows that the king of peace wins his victory by humility and gentleness, not by force of arms.

The Fathers have read a deeper meaning into this episode. They see the [donkey] as symbolizing Judaism, for long subject to the yoke of the Law, and the foal, on which no one has ridden, as symbolizing the Gentiles. Jesus leads both Jews and Gentiles into the Church, the new Jerusalem – The Navarre Bible: Gospels & Acts.

I hope you find this material helpful.

Your brother in the Lord,
Pete

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

KEVIN WILCOX;5983548:

Bengoshi;5983438:

JP Marat;5980026:

RESPONSE:

Are you seriously claiming that both Matthew’s story of Jesus sending for and riding two animals of different sizes into Jerusalem is the same as Mark’s, Luke’s, and John’s story of Jesus sending for and riding only one animal? Or is one version an error, or written in by some later interpolator?

Hahahahaha!

The style of Gospel narrative is not that of the 21st century. In interpretation of Scripture we must look for what is reasonable, however we must also be looking for the author’s intent. Was Matthew reflecting a prophecy in Zechariah?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Sorry. I couldn’t fit this one in my previous posts:

Ver. 7. Sit thereon. St. Jerome reprobates the opinion of those who suppose that Christ rode upon both the [donkey] and the colt, though without sufficient reason. The Greek indeed, epano auton, upon them, may be referred either to the beasts or to ta imatia, the garments; but the very general sentiment is, that he first sat upon the [donkey] for a short time, and then mounted the colt – Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[una_fides]

Without error. Meaning? I interpret this as referring to faith & morals. Again, we are confronted with a question of interpretation - the ghost in the machine.

Kevin,

If we read just a few sentences earlier in Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus we find that he clearly understands all of Scripture as inspired an inerrant, and he even goes as far as to absolutely forbid anyone to admit that the human authors erred in anything they wrote:
“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/l...ii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

Interestingly, when we read other papal declarations, the position that inerrancy of Scripture only applies to faith and morals becomes untenable for Catholics desiring to be faithful to the Church’s Magisterium. Please read the following:

                           Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Concerning Some False Opinions Threating to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, n. 21-24

“22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p.../hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

                 Pope Pius X published the Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned *as heresy* the idea that "**Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from *every* error**." (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11). [http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm)

            "**Divine inspiration extends to *every part* of the Bible* without the slightest exception*, and...*no error *can occur in the inspired text**....

1. 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.
2. All this shows us how earnestly we must strive to avoid, as children of the Church, this insane freedom in ventilating opinions which the Fathers were careful to shun. This we shall more readily achieve if you, Venerable Brethren, will make both clergy and laity committed to your care by the Holy Spirit realize that neither Jerome nor the other Fathers of the Church learned their doctrine touching Holy Scripture save in the school of the Divine Master Himself. We know what He felt about Holy Scripture: when He said, “It is written,” and “the Scripture must needs be fulfilled,” we have therein an argument which admits of no exception and which should put an end to all controversy.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21,22,28) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...n-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus_en.html

Hope this helps!

 

[una_fides]

For Catholics it is not a matter of opinion or interpretation of what the Church has taught, as these documents are very clear and concise in their wording so that there is no room for wonder or doubt. It is now only a matter of whether we accept these teachings or reject them.

Our goal has to be to approach the Scriptures as divinely inspired in all their parts without any error, and if we find seemingly contradictory or difficult passes to then try to work them out. As I stated, the early Church fathers have already handled most of these alleged contradictions. Think about it, they were the ones who gave us Scripture! Of course they studied it and knew about it enough to know that these were not contradictions; otherwise, we would have found them admitting errors in those matters. But instead, we find them unanimously affirming their harmony and their freedom from any error and their tireless efforts to reconcile even the most seemingly meaningless passages that seemed to be saying different or contradictory things. Yet not once do we find them citing any passage of Scripture and admitting a contradiction. Our faith is handed down, not created or modified to fit with modern skepticism.

 

[JP_Marat]

Bengoshi;5983600:

KEVIN WILCOX;5983548:

Bengoshi;5983438:

The style of Gospel narrative is not that of the 21st century. In interpretation of Scripture we must look for what is reasonable, however we must also be looking for the author’s intent. Was Matthew reflecting a prophecy in Zechariah?

RESPONSE:

As Matthew frequently does, he take a snippet of the Old Testament and claims it is a prophecy of Jesus which he has Jesus fulfill.

In the case of Zech 9.9, Matthew mistakenly thought that the king rode two animals, so he has Jesus do the same. The other evangelists don’t of course, since this would be nonsensical.

 

[JP_Marat]

For Catholics it is not a matter of opinion or interpretation of what the Church has taught, as these documents are very clear and concise in their wording so that there is no room for wonder or doubt. It is now only a matter of whether we accept these teachings or reject them.

Our goal has to be to approach the Scriptures as divinely inspired in all their parts without any error, and if we find seemingly contradictory or difficult passes to then try to work them out. As I stated, the early Church fathers have already handled most of these alleged contradictions. Think about it, they were the ones who gave us Scripture! Of course they studied it and knew about it enough to know that these were not contradictions; otherwise, we would have found them admitting errors in those matters. But instead, we find them unanimously affirming their harmony and their freedom from any error and their tireless efforts to reconcile even the most seemingly meaningless passages that seemed to be saying different or contradictory things. Yet not once do we find them citing any passage of Scripture and admitting a contradiction. Our faith is handed down, not created or modified to fit with modern skepticism.

RESPONSE:

No. The contradictions in scripture have no been explained. What apologists end up doing is insisting that the plain words mean something entirely different to what they clearly say.

 

[JP_Marat]

Kevin,

If we read just a few sentences earlier in Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus we find that he clearly understands all of Scripture as inspired an inerrant, and he even goes as far as to absolutely forbid anyone to admit that the human authors erred in anything they wrote:
“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/l...ii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

Interestingly, when we read other papal declarations, the position that inerrancy of Scripture only applies to faith and morals becomes untenable for Catholics desiring to be faithful to the Church’s Magisterium. Please read the following:

                           Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Concerning Some False Opinions Threating to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, n. 21-24

“22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p.../hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

                 Pope Pius X published the Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned *as heresy* the idea that "**Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from *every*** error." (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11). [http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm)

            "**Divine inspiration extends to *every part*** of the Bible* without the slightest exception*, and...*no error *can occur in the inspired text....

1. 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.
2. All this shows us how earnestly we must strive to avoid, as children of the Church, this insane freedom in ventilating opinions which the Fathers were careful to shun. This we shall more readily achieve if you, Venerable Brethren, will make both clergy and laity committed to your care by the Holy Spirit realize that neither Jerome nor the other Fathers of the Church learned their doctrine touching Holy Scripture save in the school of the Divine Master Himself. We know what He felt about Holy Scripture: when He said, “It is written,” and “the Scripture must needs be fulfilled,” we have therein an argument which admits of no exception and which should put an end to all controversy.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21,22,28) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...n-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus_en.html

Hope this helps!

RESPONSE:

But the inescapable conclusion - if all this is so - is that because there are in fact errors in scripture, it cannot therefore be divinely inspired.

 

[una_fides]

RESPONSE:

No. The contradictions in scripture have no been explained. What apologists end up doing is insisting that the plain words mean something entirely different to what they clearly say.

And what the atheists do is insist they have the infallible understanding of Scripture when in reality they are looking for errors, just like you seem to be. You claim to know more than the early Church fathers did concerning how to understand the Scriptures they canonized, you who live 2000 years later in an entirely different culture speaking an entirely different language with an entirely different approach to God and faith than they. At some point you need to ask yourself if you are still a Catholic and are willing to believe the teachings of the Church or your own private interpretations. As I said, there are clear answers, if you are willing to look for them. We need prayer and humility to approach the things of God, especially when approaching his divinely inspired word.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Unafides, what the Popes write has not negated my own thought.

"According to ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the 4 senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in Church’ CCC

‘God is the author of Sacred Scripture because He inspired its human authors; He acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error His saving truth’ CCC

 

[una_fides]

RESPONSE:

But the inescapable conclusion - if all this is so - is that because there are in fact errors in scripture, it cannot therefore be divinely inspired.

No errors in Scripture, just errors in your understanding. I think at some point most people go through some period where they doubt their faith. Some come out of it and some don’t. I pray that you are one of the former who finds his faith in the Church and in the Word of God and that you don’t rely too heavily on what you believe to be contradictions.

I have one important question to ask you. Your profile says you are Catholic. As one who professes himself to be Catholic, have you at least humbly and openly approached these passages that you find difficult and sought answers for them? Have you humbly begged for light from heaven, or are you presuming that you could not possibly be reading errors into Scripture that when understood correctly and according to how they were intended to be meant in reality are no errors at all?