J
- Status
J
JP_Marat
Guest
Dear Mr. Conte:
Even you admit that there are errors in the bible due to errors in transmission etc. All that I and others dispute is how you interprete the Magisterial documents. When you read and study (with the assistance of teachers trained to interpret them) commentaries on those documents including Dei Verbum, the PBC’ 1964 and 1993 documents and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), you will see that your position is not a correct understanding. You are free to believe as you wish, however, one needs to keep in mind that not all on this site have the benefit of years of study of Catholic teaching. Some are converts and some are not Catholic and thus it is important to correctly explain Catholic teaching.
Corry
RESPONSE:
And some can differentiate between fact and fiction.
I
iamanea
Guest
Clement:
You hit the nail on the head.
First, one needs to understand that the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not involve dictation where the human author simply serves as the Holy Spirit’s “secretary.” This was the position of the Swiss Reformers of the 16th century (Calvin and others it also appears to be Mr. Conte’s interpretation of inerrancy). It is not the Catholic view.
A good description of our view is the concept of “agency” of Aquinas. This is in the sense of a legal representative. The representative “represents” his client. He presents his client’s case based on his client’s description of the facts of the case. In the Catholic sense the human authors are true authors in every sense of the term. They are inspired by the Holy Spirit to convey the truths of salvation. - those things asserted by the Holy Spirit.
In my Vatican II class I read a couple of commentaries on Dei Verbum. One I already described in a previous post and was written by Cardinal Augustin Bea, the co-chairman of the commission selected by Pope John XXIII to amend the first draft of Dei Verbum. The other was written by Fr. Alois Grillmeier, SJ, an expert to the bishops who wrote Dei Verbum (Vorgrimler, Herbert, Ed. 1968. Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vol. III. #12, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Ch. III),” by Alois Grillmeier. New York, NY: Herder and Herder). .
In this commentary and his treatment of the views of another theologian P. Grelot, Fr. Grillmeier states that Dei Verbum’s understanding of the nature of Scripture presents an unbreakable mixture of mortal and divine activity, which still leaves to both their own area of operation. According to Grilmeier, Grelot states that the whole purpose of Scripture is “the communication of saving truths.” These saving truths are described in the context of a narrative containing secular truths. Therefore, these secular truths obtain a relationship to salvation also. The human author of the sacred text neither selects nor presents these secular truths as saving truths in themselves; but, as the means of communicating God’s saving Word.
These secular truths provide a framework to the essential task of “locating” the Divine Word and the history of God’s salvation. The secular truths selected are chosen solely to the extent they fulfill this task. Grillmeier concludes that it is of critical importance to “locate” the saving truths and the salvation history of Scripture. Vatican II starts all its documents from the unmistakable belief that God has spoken to man and has acted in the world. The Church sees the Father’s Revelation in Christ as a certain reality that speaks personally to man. It is not essential, in Father Grillmeier’s view, that exact historical or geographical data be supplied in order to situate the Good News of Christ’s coming into the world, of His life on earth, His performing miracles, His teaching to His followers, His death and resurrection. Too much is known of the cultural context of biblical times to apply the “unvarnished” nineteenth-century view of “historical truth” to the truths of Scripture. Modern biblical research shows the authentic character of the bible’s holy truth by showing modern man how the saving truths of Scripture are “embedded in history.”
Hope this clarifies your question.
Corry
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Council of Trent used the term ‘at the dictation of the Holy Spirit’ but this was used as a figure of speech indicating that Scripture contains all those things and only those things that the Spirit wills.
“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that 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.”
The phrase ‘for the sake of our salvation’ tells us the purpose for inspiration and inerrancy; it does not limit inerrancy to truths pertaining to salvation.
If we can ignore or interpret away the past definitive teachings of Popes and Councils on total inerrancy, then on what basis would we adhere to teachings that have been taught less definitively? The vast majority of Catholic teaching has been taught less definitively than inspiration and inerrancy in Scripture.
Also, I notice that posts arguing against total inerrancy ignore the teachings of Trent, Florence, and the several Popes that I cite, and instead appeal mainly to non-magisterial sources. The problem here is that, given a choice between the majority view of scholars and the laity, and the definitive teaching of Popes and Councils, many persons prefer the majority view.
“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that 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.”
The phrase ‘for the sake of our salvation’ tells us the purpose for inspiration and inerrancy; it does not limit inerrancy to truths pertaining to salvation.
If we can ignore or interpret away the past definitive teachings of Popes and Councils on total inerrancy, then on what basis would we adhere to teachings that have been taught less definitively? The vast majority of Catholic teaching has been taught less definitively than inspiration and inerrancy in Scripture.
Also, I notice that posts arguing against total inerrancy ignore the teachings of Trent, Florence, and the several Popes that I cite, and instead appeal mainly to non-magisterial sources. The problem here is that, given a choice between the majority view of scholars and the laity, and the definitive teaching of Popes and Councils, many persons prefer the majority view.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The claim that ex cathedra (infallible papal teachings) statements could not possibly be issued before the definition of papal infallibility at Vatican I would imply that the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, prior to Vatican I, was not ex cathedra. This is a false claim. It would also imply that Popes after Vatican I have an authority not possessed by previous Popes, which contradicts Church teaching that each Pope has the full authority given to Peter by Christ, no more and no less.
I
iamanea
Guest
QUOTE=Ron Conte;5752202
Mr Conte:
I want to understand your position and am still confused. What do you mean when you say that whatever Scripture asserts as truth is truth. Are you stating that EVERY word in Scripture is inerrant? That when the bible says the sun rises and sets, it does; that when it says the universe was created in six days, in was that when one passage says a thing happened at such and such a time and place and another passage seems to describe the same event and says it happened at a different time and place that both passages are litterally true; that the story of Jonah and the Whale actually happened EXACTLYas the story describes?
Or do you believe that Biblical inerrancy applies to those things that the Spirit intends to assert and that there are details that provide the framework to the story - just what happened when God revealed himself to Abraham that may or may not be true in the scientific empirically able to be proven sense (there are many things in scripture such as the creation story that science cannot prove/disprove in an scientific empirical 2+2 = 4 sense and thus cannot comment on as to Scripture’s veracity).
If you believe the latter than I and others don’t have a problem other than we think it would be better to avoid confusion and say so. If the former, than on what basis do you reject the clear teaching of Vatican II (Dei Verbum) the documents of the PBC released since Vatican II, the Catechism that clearly show the latter explanation is, in fact, the Church’s position?
I suppose you could also take a middle position and agree with Cardinal Bea that there is no limit to limit to the inerrancy of scripture but then would have to admit that Scripture does not teach definitively on matters of the secular sciences except that the truths of those sciences cannot contradict the truths taught in the Bible which means simply that science cannot empirically and definitively show that things did not happen exactly as the bible says they did.
I will agree with you that most “errors” in the bible are not errors at all but simply the result of transmission/translation errors that have accumulated over time and have not yet been resolved by scholarly consensus. Here I refer in particular to the inconsistencies between one biblical passage and another such as have been pointed to by JPM and others.
corry
Mr Conte:
I want to understand your position and am still confused. What do you mean when you say that whatever Scripture asserts as truth is truth. Are you stating that EVERY word in Scripture is inerrant? That when the bible says the sun rises and sets, it does; that when it says the universe was created in six days, in was that when one passage says a thing happened at such and such a time and place and another passage seems to describe the same event and says it happened at a different time and place that both passages are litterally true; that the story of Jonah and the Whale actually happened EXACTLYas the story describes?
Or do you believe that Biblical inerrancy applies to those things that the Spirit intends to assert and that there are details that provide the framework to the story - just what happened when God revealed himself to Abraham that may or may not be true in the scientific empirically able to be proven sense (there are many things in scripture such as the creation story that science cannot prove/disprove in an scientific empirical 2+2 = 4 sense and thus cannot comment on as to Scripture’s veracity).
If you believe the latter than I and others don’t have a problem other than we think it would be better to avoid confusion and say so. If the former, than on what basis do you reject the clear teaching of Vatican II (Dei Verbum) the documents of the PBC released since Vatican II, the Catechism that clearly show the latter explanation is, in fact, the Church’s position?
I suppose you could also take a middle position and agree with Cardinal Bea that there is no limit to limit to the inerrancy of scripture but then would have to admit that Scripture does not teach definitively on matters of the secular sciences except that the truths of those sciences cannot contradict the truths taught in the Bible which means simply that science cannot empirically and definitively show that things did not happen exactly as the bible says they did.
I will agree with you that most “errors” in the bible are not errors at all but simply the result of transmission/translation errors that have accumulated over time and have not yet been resolved by scholarly consensus. Here I refer in particular to the inconsistencies between one biblical passage and another such as have been pointed to by JPM and others.
corry
I
iamanea
Guest
Please excuse me for being off subject here.
I am new to the site and need to understand why I keep having trouble posting replies to my threads. Sometimes I dont see any link to post a reply or to log on to the site at all. Sometimes I do log in, submit a post, and everything works fine. Sometimes I log in submit a post and am told I need to log in to post (usually happens as it takes me sometime to post a reply). Once I re-log in sometimes my response is posted, sometimes it is lost and I am told that because I re-loged in after starting a reply.
I have responded to one specific post by Byzman six times only to have it lost in cyber space. So any help anyone can give is greatly appreciated.
Corry
I am new to the site and need to understand why I keep having trouble posting replies to my threads. Sometimes I dont see any link to post a reply or to log on to the site at all. Sometimes I do log in, submit a post, and everything works fine. Sometimes I log in submit a post and am told I need to log in to post (usually happens as it takes me sometime to post a reply). Once I re-log in sometimes my response is posted, sometimes it is lost and I am told that because I re-loged in after starting a reply.
I have responded to one specific post by Byzman six times only to have it lost in cyber space. So any help anyone can give is greatly appreciated.
Corry
B
Byzman
Guest
I, too, am a student of Theology. What I would like to say is that from the first couple of posts that you posted, I thought you were trying to say that Scripture does contain errors where it does not pertain to saving truths. From reading your other posts correctly since then, I have come to the understanding that you are for the total inerrancy of Scripture. This topic really gets my to me, only because I have encountered this in the classroom. For the longest time I have always thought that Catholics believe the Bible to be inerrant, so when this professor of mine was teaching class one day, she said that Catholics take a limited inerrancy approach, in that the Scriptures do contain errors. I look at that modernist heresy to be something like this, that if there is errors in the Bible, than why bother proclaiming at all the notion of limited inerrancy. Why than dont we just say the Bible is not worth looking at from the fact we cannot be sure what is errant and what is inerrant.
So once again, this is why these modernist “heretics” are wrong. It just doesnt make sense to say that there are errors in the Bible but that we should still study it and make it a part of our faith.
Very Contradictory!
C
ccolley2
Guest
RESPONSE:
And some can differentiate between fact and fiction.
First, Scripture is inspired and is therefore, inerrant.
Second, the bible is NOT a history book, a science book or any other kind of “factual” book.
That being said, it IS Truth! It is the story of God and his relationship to his people. It is intended to be biased writing. It is religious literature that uses history to teach about the relationship of God to his people. And just because something didn’t happen, doesn’t mean it isn’t TRUE.
All the Gospel writers were writing at different times and in different places to different groups of people indifferent kinds of circumstances. So, you have several slightly different accounts of what happened. This doesn’t affect the inerrancy of Scripture.
CC
And some can differentiate between fact and fiction.
First, Scripture is inspired and is therefore, inerrant.
Second, the bible is NOT a history book, a science book or any other kind of “factual” book.
That being said, it IS Truth! It is the story of God and his relationship to his people. It is intended to be biased writing. It is religious literature that uses history to teach about the relationship of God to his people. And just because something didn’t happen, doesn’t mean it isn’t TRUE.
All the Gospel writers were writing at different times and in different places to different groups of people indifferent kinds of circumstances. So, you have several slightly different accounts of what happened. This doesn’t affect the inerrancy of Scripture.
CC
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:
And some can differentiate between fact and fiction.
First, Scripture is inspired and is therefore, inerrant.
Second, the bible is NOT a history book, a science book or any other kind of “factual” book.
That being said, it IS Truth! It is the story of God and his relationship to his people. It is intended to be biased writing. It is religious literature that uses history to teach about the relationship of God to his people. And just because something didn’t happen, doesn’t mean it isn’t TRUE.
All the Gospel writers were writing at different times and in different places to different groups of people indifferent kinds of circumstances. So, you have several slightly different accounts of what happened. This doesn’t affect the inerrancy of Scripture.
CC
RESPONSE:
Several popes have condemned your view of limited inerrancy including Pope Pius XII.
"The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that ‘the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.’ … When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter ‘Providentissimus Deus’ … justly and rightly condemned these errors."
Are you serious?
I
iamanea
Guest
Response:
1. I am not saying that there are errors in the sense of your meaning in scripture. The presence of textual variants, copyists mistakes, errors in translation do not violate the principle of biblical inerrancy, even St. Augustine admitted the existence of them.
2. The point of my post re ex cathedra statements had to do with those posts that confuse ex cathedra statements with decisions on the faith issued by ecumenical councils nothing more.
They are based upon my recollection of a class I took nine years ago and my memory of the intimate details may be foggy and incorrect. As result of your statement, I now realize that it may have been Pius IX and not Leo XIII that first defined ex cathedra statements as infallible solely on the basis that the pope issued them on his own authority and that they directly related to faith and/or moral teachings of the Magisterium.Formally speaking, a statement of a pope prior to Pius IX (or whoever first defined papal infallibility as a formal teaching of the universal church that had to be believed by Catholics) is NOT an ex cathedra statement. Nor are pronouncements of an ecumenical council. That does not mean that they are not infallible. They may or may not be according to the individual circumstances.
Humanae Vitae was not an ex cathedra statement. It is my understanding (I may be wrong on this) for a papal statement to be a ex cathedra statement and infallible in that sense (as an ex cathedra statement), the pope must formally declare his intention to issue an ex cathedra statement by using the words ex cathedra in his pronouncement. Just because Humanae Vitae was not an ex cathedra statement does not mean it is capable of error. It is not because it simply reiterates and develops the consistent moral teaching of the Church that cannot err and therefore cannot be changed.
The point of my post was the confusion that can be caused by equating - formally speaking - an ex cathedra statement, like Pius XII’s pronouncement of the Assumption of the BVM, with a statement of an ecumenical council which is based on their charism of infallibility when exercised in union with the Pope, or a statement of a Pope that reigned prior to ex cathedra statements being defined or not using the formal requirements of an ex cathedra statement like Humanae Vitae or any 20th - 21st century papal encyclical. Depending on the individual circumstances, these encyclicals can represent infallible magisterial teaching - just not on the basis of an ex cathedra statement.
Corry
I
iamanea
Guest
You miss the point of my post. I am speaking about a formal ex cathedra statement. The date that formal definition may have been erroneous in my original post. I base my information on a class I took nine years ago and I may remember the individual details incorrectly.
The point is that FORMALLY speaking an ex cathedra statement can ONLY be issued AFTER an ex cathedra statement has been formally defined. It has NOTHING to do with whether a statement is infallible or not. A statement issued by a council or by a pope alone (just how the doctrine of the Imaculate Conception was proclaimed - by a church council or by the pope alone - I don’t know) may be infallible it may not be. The question is if it is an infallible statement why is it? Statements issued prior to the formal definition of ex cathedra statements are NOT infalliable on the basis of being an ex cathedra statement. They can be infallible on other basis. I don’t know how to make my point any clearer.
An ex cathedra statement is just one type of infallible statement. It is not new doctrine. It is a doctrine that is part of the Continuous and perenial teaching of the Magisterium that has been by virtue of the Pope’s decision by virtue of his special charism as pope that has been elevated to a formally defined dogma that all Catholics must accept as an article of faith.
There are many other types of infallible statements. Decisions of an ecumenical council are also infallible. They are NOT ex cathedra statements. I may be wrong about this (due to faulty memory) but the dogma of papal infallibility was determined by an EX Cathedra statement of a Pope prior to Vatican I. Vatican I only confirmed that decision. Again this is not new doctrine - just development in how that doctrine is defined. Sorry if my previous posts were unclear.
M
matahari
Guest
RESPONSE:
Oh come now!
BENEDICT XVI
"Read the Bible every day
Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ "
Citing words of Saint Jerome the Holy Father advised all the faithful to read a passage from the Bible each day
Words of Saint Jerome
'Thus the Bible, the instrument with which God speaks to the faithful every day becomes the catalyst and source of Christian life for everyone, for all situations ':knight2::bible1:
I
iamanea
Guest
That is why I think it is important to define our terms in our posts. I have been just as guilty of this as others in the past.
The point is that there are some (not you) on this site who SEEM to argue that the Church teaches EACH AND EVERY WORD in scripture is divinely inspired and therefore inerrant. This means, in my opinion, that the role of the human author is REDUCED to a simple secretary. In my view, if this were the case, we would not have the obvious “errors” in transmission, variant readings, contradictions of science, history and geography etc. that are present in our modern biblical text.
Again in my opinion, based on nine years of study, that is NOT what the Church teaches nor what it means by divine inspiration and biblical inerrany. The Church is not competent to speak on purely scientific matters. It does not, at least not while claiming that speech is infallible. It only speaks infallibly on science where the realm of science impigins on the realm of faith - a realm that it has no competency to speak on as the realm of faith, by definition, stands outside the realm of what can be empirically proven/disproven.
These “errors” that some make a great deal about in order to “disprove” the bible did not, ultimately, disturb our religious forefathers, they should not disturb us. They do need to be taken into account when we speak of biblical inerrancy however. This is why I don’t have as much of a problem of speaking of a “limited inerrancy” in the sense that the Scriptures are inerrant in what the Holy Spirit intends to assert - nothing more and nothing less. Then the inconsequential details that may be inconsistent don’t amount to a hill of beans.
Corry
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Every assertion is inerrant. A word does not stand on its own as a truth. If someone says ‘yes,’ you must first know what the question is to know if the ‘yes’ is true.
There are two levels of meaning in Scripture: literal/figurative, and spiritual. The sun rises and sets is a figure of speech which we still use today. The days of creation are figurative. Sometimes it is not clear if an assertion is literal or figurative, in which case faithful and reasonable Catholics may disagree.
My opinion is that in some stories, like Noah and the Flood, some elements are literal and some are figurative.
If you believe that God became a man, died and rose from the dead, then the OT stories should not be immediately dismissed as mere figures. There may be some figures in OT stories, but we should not reach that conclusion too easily.
Inspiration is total, and so inerrancy is total, including all that is asserted. We cannot say that some assertions of the writers are not assertions of the Spirit, because then inspiration would not be total. There are no false assertions on science or history or math or geography or any other subject.
Vatican II does not say that. The PBC’s documents are not an exercise of the Magisterium. And how is it that several Popes have taught definitively on this subject, and several Councils, and you appeal to the PBC?!!
What? Several Popes and Councils have taught definitively on this subject. So we need not appeal to Cardinal Bea. How can a Pope teach something and yet you do not feel bound at all to believe? Even non-infallible teachings require the religious submission of will and intellect. But this teaching on inerrancy has been solemnly defined.
Inerrancy is based on inspiration, and editors, translators, printers, copyists are not inspired. However, the Spirit protects the transmission of Sacred Scripture as a whole (not in each and every edition and verse, but overall) so that no truths are lost and no falsehoods are added.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Hi Corry!
You seem to be saying that Sacred Scripture does indeed contain “obiter dicta,” and that this superfluous/irrelevant material can be erroneous. But this is just what Pius XII said was “justly and rightly” condemned by Leo XIII.
You wrote that “contradictions of science, history and geography etc.” didn’t “disturb our religious forefathers.” But isn’t it true that the reason the Church Fathers were not disturbed by them is that they saw these “contradictions” with the eyes of faith as being merely apparent, not substantive, and so went about harmonizing any such discrepancies?
When you log in, do you click the box that says “Remember Me”?
With the love of Christ,
Pete
You seem to be saying that Sacred Scripture does indeed contain “obiter dicta,” and that this superfluous/irrelevant material can be erroneous. But this is just what Pius XII said was “justly and rightly” condemned by Leo XIII.
You wrote that “contradictions of science, history and geography etc.” didn’t “disturb our religious forefathers.” But isn’t it true that the reason the Church Fathers were not disturbed by them is that they saw these “contradictions” with the eyes of faith as being merely apparent, not substantive, and so went about harmonizing any such discrepancies?
When you log in, do you click the box that says “Remember Me”?
With the love of Christ,
Pete
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Your post above is doctrinally false, and theologically absurd. I am constantly amazed at how many posters feel perfectly free to post assertions on any topic based on their own ignorance. You think you remember from a course nine years ago?!! And based on that faulty memory, you’re going to teach us about infallibility?
Your post is not at all correct and is by no stretch of the imagination what the Church teaches. And you did not even bother to look up the information before ‘teaching’ us on the topic.
B
Byzman
Guest
No, actually I believe just as every word is inspired so too is every word inerrant. I believe this even in genealogies. Of course, I know that this total(word for word) inspiration and total(word for word) inerrancy only applies to the original authors, but translations of the Scriptures can actually have errors due to the fact that men make mistakes.
I am sorry, but if you have a “limited inerrany” approach than you must have a “limited inspiration” approach. So, how does one who believes this determine that the Holy Spirit asserted this part to be in the Scriptures but He didnt assert this other part to not be in the Sacred Scriptures? Again, with this believe there are many contradictions as to why we should uphold the Bible as being Holy.
C
ccolley2
Guest
RESPONSE:
Several popes have condemned your view of limited inerrancy including Pope Pius XII.
"The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that ‘the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.’ … When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter ‘Providentissimus Deus’ … justly and rightly condemned these errors."
My very first statement was that Scripture is inspired and is therefore inerrant. I didn’t say partly inerrant, nor did I say that it was limited inerrancy. I said, it is inerrant. And it is true.
If you look at the story of creation in Genesis, you will see that in chapter 1 there is one account, in Chapter 2 is a different account. They “seem” to be contradictory.
In Genesis 37:25-29 is another “seeming” contradiction. In this passage you find the story of Joseph and his brothers. First you have the Ishmaelites coming and the brothers agreeing to sell him to them. Then in verse 29, you have the Midianites drawing him out of the cistern and selling him to the Ishmaeilites.
My statement was that this “seeming” contradiction does not affect the TOTAL inerrancy of Scripture.
CCC 107 - The inspired books teach the truth…we must affirm 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."
CCC 110 -" In order to discover the sacred author’s intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current."
CCC 110 - “…For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writings, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”
CCC 109- “In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.”
CC
Several popes have condemned your view of limited inerrancy including Pope Pius XII.
"The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that ‘the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.’ … When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter ‘Providentissimus Deus’ … justly and rightly condemned these errors."
Are you serious?
My very first statement was that Scripture is inspired and is therefore inerrant. I didn’t say partly inerrant, nor did I say that it was limited inerrancy. I said, it is inerrant. And it is true.
If you look at the story of creation in Genesis, you will see that in chapter 1 there is one account, in Chapter 2 is a different account. They “seem” to be contradictory.
In Genesis 37:25-29 is another “seeming” contradiction. In this passage you find the story of Joseph and his brothers. First you have the Ishmaelites coming and the brothers agreeing to sell him to them. Then in verse 29, you have the Midianites drawing him out of the cistern and selling him to the Ishmaeilites.
My statement was that this “seeming” contradiction does not affect the TOTAL inerrancy of Scripture.
CCC 107 - The inspired books teach the truth…we must affirm 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."
CCC 110 -" In order to discover the sacred author’s intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current."
CCC 110 - “…For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writings, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”
CCC 109- “In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.”
CC
J
JP_Marat
Guest
- Status