B
Bengoshi
Guest
Is that so? Aww…and I thought the Magisterium and the Popes speaking ex cathedra were supposed to be infallible…
If the RCC changes its doctrine that easily, then I guess it really isn’t infallible at all.
- Status
If the RCC changes its doctrine that easily, then I guess it really isn’t infallible at all.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Stick with Grudem on this one.Is that so? Aww…and I thought the Magisterium and the Popes speaking ex cathedra were supposed to be infallible…
If the RCC changes its doctrine that easily, then I guess it really isn’t infallible at all.
Please also see this thread where I do my best to show that the Catholic Church still teaches, and always will teach, “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts.”With the love of Christ,
Pete
B
Byzman
Guest
This is good information for those on this thread who think the Church teaches otherwise!Stick with Grudem on this one.
With the love of Christ,
Pete
I
iamanea
Guest
D
David_Zampino
Guest
J
JohnJFarren
Guest
JMJ / MMM 091008 Thursday
Hello All You Fellow Sons and Daughters of the Church –
I want to add something that has not appeared anywhere in this particular topic.
The documents of Vatican II in an official footnote in the Constitution on Divine Revelation quotes St Thomas Aquinas, “Any knowledge which is profitable to salvation may be the object of prophetic inspiration. But things which cannot affect our salvation do not belong to inspiration.” The quoting in the footnote continues, “Augustine says that although the sacred writers may have known astronomy, nevertheless the Holy Spirit did not intend to utter through them any truths apart from that which is profitable to salvation. He adds that this may concern either teachings to be believed or morals to be practiced.”
I am aware of references and quotations from Dei Verbum 11 and Providentissimus Deus 20. Neither Aquinas nor Augustine say anything contrary to either document.
The point is clear, that matters in the Bible that do not have to do with our salvation are not matters of inspiration. It’s not a question of correct or incorrect natural science, or of three people or two people, or of early morning or 3 in the afternoon – it simply means that the accuracy of those matters are not inspired and were not meant to be inspired.
Keep in mind that the Church … in an official footnote … deliberately and explicitly placed that appended to the document. Why bother unless the Church wanted to make that a serious point?
The Holy Spirit be with us all. Blessing! John (JohnJFarren)
Hello All You Fellow Sons and Daughters of the Church –
I want to add something that has not appeared anywhere in this particular topic.
The documents of Vatican II in an official footnote in the Constitution on Divine Revelation quotes St Thomas Aquinas, “Any knowledge which is profitable to salvation may be the object of prophetic inspiration. But things which cannot affect our salvation do not belong to inspiration.” The quoting in the footnote continues, “Augustine says that although the sacred writers may have known astronomy, nevertheless the Holy Spirit did not intend to utter through them any truths apart from that which is profitable to salvation. He adds that this may concern either teachings to be believed or morals to be practiced.”
I am aware of references and quotations from Dei Verbum 11 and Providentissimus Deus 20. Neither Aquinas nor Augustine say anything contrary to either document.
The point is clear, that matters in the Bible that do not have to do with our salvation are not matters of inspiration. It’s not a question of correct or incorrect natural science, or of three people or two people, or of early morning or 3 in the afternoon – it simply means that the accuracy of those matters are not inspired and were not meant to be inspired.
Keep in mind that the Church … in an official footnote … deliberately and explicitly placed that appended to the document. Why bother unless the Church wanted to make that a serious point?
The Holy Spirit be with us all. Blessing! John (JohnJFarren)
I
iamanea
Guest
That is true, I dont think anyone is disputing that. However, we need to keep in mind that our 21st century concern for objective fact and our understanding of language is not the same as those of biblical authors. We may interprete a story in the bible as history but that is not, necessarily as the ancient author saw it. That is why Dei Verbum tells us to pay attention to the literary types, belief system and culture of biblical times. This is where current methods of literary criticism can and have made a valid contribution to understanding the bible. The central question is: What is the Holy Spirit trying to teach us? What is the Spirit asserting in a text? By unlocking the differences in meaning of words, literary typology, etc. we can answer these questions.
A case in point is the Jonah story. One interpretation of the story is that it is a historical narrative. It describes a series of happenings as if they happened and on that basis it could be loosely defined as a historical narrative. The question I would ask is does the moral force of the story disappear if the events described did not happen EXACTLY as described? NO! For that reason, I would argue that it was never intended to be interpreted as history but as an allegorical story with a moral point. The same applies to many of Jesus’ parables. Their moral force lies in precisely the UNIVERSAL nature of applicibility. We can see ourselves in Jonah’s futile attempt to run from God and in his disappointment in His/Her/It’s (strictly speaking God has no gender, Jesus, as MAN does, but not as God) blessing of Jonah’s enemies. We can see ourselves in Jesus’ parables. This is thier truth, not whether they represent the details of history in EXACTLY the way it happened.
Take the bible’s statement that Jesus died for the sins of mankind and He rose on the third day. I agree with you. These two things actually happened. They are facts of history. But why do I say that? Based upon our modern day criteria of historical fact? Absolutely not. I accept them because I have faith. They are not subject to the laws and criteria of scientific inquiry. Science, by itself, cannot prove or disprove any of the bible as a whole in any of its claims. Yes, our beliefs are reasonable. But they are not science and the Church has never claimed it to be science. All the Church has ever said definitively about science is that it cannot contradict Divine Revelation, or its two sources, Magisterial Tradition, or Sacred Scripture.
The fact is that those who want to discredit the bible do so by using modern sensibilities, definitions of scientific facts, interpretation of words and word meanings to interprete ancient understandings which are most often entirely different. One cannot apply our modern sense of “error” to the bible. Our understanding of the entire situation is too different and alien to do so. That is why it does not disturb me in the least if someone can point to a certain passage in scripture and say it has been “scientifically proven” to be wrong. It does not mean that I believe in a limited inerrancy. It simply means that I refuse to let my opponents (those who deny God and the bible) set the rules for debate.
Corry
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
2. But - what did the meaning of these sayings amount to ?
Did Augustine mean what Vatican I meant ? Did either or both of them mean what Leo XIII meant ?An example: Augustine used one version of the Book of Jonah, Leo XIII another. What was the species of plant that grew up to protect the the head of the prophet from the heat ? Jerome was criticised by Augustine for his rendering of the name for the plant - correspondence here:
- [Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Scriptures (Correspondence of Augustine and Jerome concerning the Latin Translation of the Scriptures) - search for the word ivy
This means that the totally inerrant Bible known to Leo XIII, differed in the meaning of a word from the totally inerrant Bible used by Augustine. At the very least, a sizeable body of Christians had to get by with a Bible which in error in its identification of a plant. “But what practical difference does it make ?” None whatever - but the champion of total inerrancy cannot used that argument; the logic of his position binds him to a doctrine that is absolutely exceptionless: he insists on a totally inerrant Bible, not on a Bible that is totally inerrant, except for one teeny-tiny itty-bitty error. If he insists that the Bible is totally inerrant, in all matters, then it is he, and no one else, who has put that position forth as true; so it is perfectly fair to hold him to it, in the form in which he put it forth. People who make theological & doctrinal & dogmatic claims cannot blame others, if they are expected to take responsibility for them. The very lack of practical difference made by difference in translation - such as this - does not suggest that it much matters whether a translation or version means exactly what another does, or not. But it matters immensely, vastly, stupendously, to claims of total inerrancy of the Bible.
“But…this only a lot of semantics”, someone may say. Quite so. Semantics is not important, but essential, to any doctrine that states that there is no error of any kind in the Bible, because semantics is what makes meaning recognisable; if meaning cannot be recognised, it cannot be recognised as true or untrue, so no statements that a meaning is true can be made, so no doctrine can be elaborated from those statements. Ignore semantics, & judgements of orthodoxy, or of the want of it, become impossible. Ignore semantics, and it becomes impossible to say whether what X says is the same as what Y, Z, A, B, & C say.
The importance of semantics is all the greater when the judgements made, are being made about a collection of texts - and is greater still, when the texts are not in their original languages or scripts or settings. Add the necessity of interpretation, and the importance of semantics is underlined yet again. So any doctrine of Biblical inerrancy that ignores semantics, or casts it aside as a piece of nit-picking, has feet of clay that are built on sand. All of which greatly limits the force of the argument from authority.
3. BTW: whose error is being denied ? Hebrew cosmology is full of errors compared with modern; but was it erroneous by the standards of accuracy known to this or that author of the Biblical texts ? Does “The Bible is free of all error” refer to:
- what we would call error
- what the authors would have called error
1. As to the doctrine of the Church: the words of Dei Verbum can be seen, not as a denial of the doctrine already held, but as a refinement of it, a more exact focussing of the purpose of total inerrancy. Be that as it may, the phrase “for the sake of our salvation” does not unsay the doctrine already held; so far as the phrase goes, the doctrine remains where it was. It can be seen as an unsaying of the doctrine - but the absence of any explicit statement of the doctrine is not the same in form as a disavowal of it. The logic of the phrase quoted does not contradict the logic of the doctrine then in possession; it can quite easily be read as explaining it. That this understanding of the phrase is correct is made more likely because it is the habit of the Church to explain an earlier doctrinal utterance by a later one; doctrinal understanding - therefore, its expression - grows by a process of accumulation, a bit like silt.
I
iamanea
Guest
Hi Corry, you can call me Pete, or “Man with a Pie Hole.”
Dear Pete:
I respect your view as to the “false” authorship of different books. While I think this is a matter where personal perference and opinion governs (i.e. it is permissible to hold a variety of opinions), I feel a clarification of my position is warranted.
#1. I don’t disagree totally with your assertation that Paul directed and authorized the writing of those letters he did not personally dictate. I quibble a bit solely because my memory of the relevant literature reminds me that some scholars claim the “non-Pauline” letters were written (or some of them) AFTER Paul died in 67 CE (CE common era/BCE before common era - non-offensive terms currently used by most OT scholars in substitution for AD/BC). Whether their evidence is conclusive or not is an open question I am not prepare to comment on. As I recall, there are those who claim so and if correct then Paul could not have directed/authorizied except in a very indirect way - inspiration.
I would also accept the traditional authorship of the Gospels, Revelation, and the other letters of the NT (that Luke wrote Luke, the Apostle John wrote John and Revelations, etc… In my reading of the evidence, the weight of evidence is on the side of traditional authorship.
Even in the case of David writing all the psalms, science cannot prove conclusively that he did not write all of them. It is just a theory; one accepted almost universally, but still a theory.
I may be wrong here - my opinion - NOT Church teaching - but I interpret Dei Verbum’s calling the human author of Scripture a true author in every sense of the term to mean that it was the HUMAN author who chose to use whatever literary terminology devices etc. used in the biblical text. Yes, the Spirit saw to it that he used the form, words, etc. that were actually used. This is part of what is meant by the Holy Spirit being the primary author of scripture.
- When interpreting scripture we must be careful to not let our modern day 21st century sensibilities and understanding of words and their meanings block understanding of biblical sensibilities. Because “pseudo-authorship” was a very common and accepted practice of ancient times, I don’t have the problem that you do in the Holy Spirit making use of it.
The point is that we need to understand the culture, times, literary devices commonly used, and differences in word meanings unique to the times the biblical passage was originally written in order to correctly evaluate and apply that understanding to our modern day culture, sensibilities and meaning.
That is why I follow the advice of O’Keefe and Reno offered in their excellent treatment of patristic exegesis in their book “Sanctified Vision.” Understand the patristic fathers culture and method of exegesis before rejecting it out of hand. Only then can one rightly evaluate its methods and rightly judge the application and the appropriateness of its conclusions to modern day exegesis.
BTW: appreciate the joke about being a man with a pie hole. I can certainly be one too. The biggest frustration of my life has been my inability to finish my professional studies in theology because of finances. As a result, I tend to be hyper sensitive when people accuse me of being a fool. As someone who suffers from bi-polar disorder, I sometimes give in to the urge to sling mud back - I think we all know at who.
Corry
I
iamanea
Guest
No they haven’t. It depends on the correct understanding of absolute inerrancy. This has been repeatedly pointed out by myself and others. For those who still have questions on this, I would offer reading the following books:
Word of explanation here. The following works were all written by witnesses to the Council. In Fr. Wiltgreen’s case he was the official correspondent of a U.S. Catholic news agency assigned to cover Vatican II from the beginning to its end. His book is extremely well documented and includes a great many quotes from actual participants in the Council’s proceedings including those of Non-Catholic observers. In the case of Cardinal Bea, and Fr. Grillmeier, they both served on the Commission that wrote Dei Verbum. By virtue of that position, they are in an unique position to authoritively (in a human sense only) comment on what the Commission intended by and through its dicussions. The reccommended works are:
Bea, Augustine Cardinal. 1967. The Word of God and Mankind. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 188 - 191.
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.
Wiltgen, Ralph, M., Rev., S.V.D. 1978. The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II. Rockford, IL: Tan Books And Publishers, Inc.
Corry
I
iamanea
Guest
In addition to what I just previously posted I would add:
While maybe not infallible in the strict sence I would also reccomend the documents of the PBC (Pontifical Biblical Commission). JPII’s reorganizaton of the Roman Curia MAY have changed this agency to a non-magisterial organ of the Church. Prior to that time, it was an arm of the Holy Office (popular title, not official) and thus I believe it was a magisterial organ. I would also offer that some still view it as a magisterial organ and thus enjoys the authority of the Magisterium (an opinion and opinion only) Here is the info on the recent document:
Pontifical Biblical Commission. 1993. “The Document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (April 15, 1993).” Published with “The Address of His Holiness John Paul II on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (April 23, 1993).” Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Reprinted with permission by Pauline Books, Boston.
Finally, I would offer the following exerpt of Vittorio Messori’s 1986 interview of Cardinal Ratzinger, then prefect of the Holy Office (common title not formal), now Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal, with Vittorio Messori. 1986. The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church. Second Printing. San Francisco: Ignatius Press).
In his interview by Vittorio Messori, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, summarizes the problem as a “crisis of confidence in Scripture as it is read by the Church (Ratzinger 1986, 74).” Cardinal Ratzin-ger continues by explaining that the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation has certainly assisted the scholar’s attempt to better understand and thus explain the bible.
By its nature, however, it can only comment on the bible’s historical context. It cannot comment on the bible’s spiritual dimension, or how the bible message applies to the reader of today, without recourse to arbitrary and wild speculations, which are “illogical and therefore also unscientific (74).”
He concludes from this that modern secular biblical research forgets that the present and future dimensions of the bible can only be understood through an integral link with the Church and its magisterial teaching as to how Scripture is to be understood. This integral link requires that the bible be read from the perspective of the Church and its Tradition as the point of departure.
Failure to do this results in a false sense of freedom which views the traditional faith of the Church as no longer justified by current day biblical exegesis but instead as a barrier to the genuine “modern” understanding of Christianity (74).
Corry
While maybe not infallible in the strict sence I would also reccomend the documents of the PBC (Pontifical Biblical Commission). JPII’s reorganizaton of the Roman Curia MAY have changed this agency to a non-magisterial organ of the Church. Prior to that time, it was an arm of the Holy Office (popular title, not official) and thus I believe it was a magisterial organ. I would also offer that some still view it as a magisterial organ and thus enjoys the authority of the Magisterium (an opinion and opinion only) Here is the info on the recent document:
Pontifical Biblical Commission. 1993. “The Document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (April 15, 1993).” Published with “The Address of His Holiness John Paul II on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (April 23, 1993).” Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Reprinted with permission by Pauline Books, Boston.
Finally, I would offer the following exerpt of Vittorio Messori’s 1986 interview of Cardinal Ratzinger, then prefect of the Holy Office (common title not formal), now Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal, with Vittorio Messori. 1986. The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church. Second Printing. San Francisco: Ignatius Press).
In his interview by Vittorio Messori, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, summarizes the problem as a “crisis of confidence in Scripture as it is read by the Church (Ratzinger 1986, 74).” Cardinal Ratzin-ger continues by explaining that the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation has certainly assisted the scholar’s attempt to better understand and thus explain the bible.
By its nature, however, it can only comment on the bible’s historical context. It cannot comment on the bible’s spiritual dimension, or how the bible message applies to the reader of today, without recourse to arbitrary and wild speculations, which are “illogical and therefore also unscientific (74).”
He concludes from this that modern secular biblical research forgets that the present and future dimensions of the bible can only be understood through an integral link with the Church and its magisterial teaching as to how Scripture is to be understood. This integral link requires that the bible be read from the perspective of the Church and its Tradition as the point of departure.
Failure to do this results in a false sense of freedom which views the traditional faith of the Church as no longer justified by current day biblical exegesis but instead as a barrier to the genuine “modern” understanding of Christianity (74).
Corry
I
iamanea
Guest
John:
Thank you for a very thought provoking and ORIGINAL post. I am not yet prepared to comment except that I am not, at this point - havenot considered the matter prayerfully - sure how it squares with what the Church DEFINITELY teaches about the Holy Spirit’s inspiration: the Holy Spirit’s inspiration is so total as to disallow error in the human author’s contributions to the text (my opinion of the teaching and paraphrasing - needs further refinement and thought).
I am not saying that St. Thomas and Augustine are wrong. They certainly know more about it than all of us layman on this site put together. I am also not saying your solution to the problem is not a good one. I will give it some more thought and respond. Thanks again and God Bless.
Corry
I
iamanea
Guest
Quote:
“But…this only a lot of semantics”, someone may say. Quite so. Semantics is not important, but essential, to any doctrine that states that there is no error of any kind in the Bible, because semantics is what makes meaning recognisable; if meaning cannot be recognised, it cannot be recognised as true or untrue, so no statements that a meaning is true can be made, so no doctrine can be elaborated from those statements. Ignore semantics, & judgements of orthodoxy, or of the want of it, become impossible. Ignore semantics, and it becomes impossible to say whether what X says is the same as what Y, Z, A, B, & C say.
The importance of semantics is all the greater when the judgements made, are being made about a collection of texts - and is greater still, when the texts are not in their original languages or scripts or settings. Add the necessity of interpretation, and the importance of semantics is underlined yet again. So any doctrine of Biblical inerrancy that ignores semantics, or casts it aside as a piece of nit-picking, has feet of clay that are built on sand. All of which greatly limits the force of the argument from authority.
End Quote:
Response:
Michael:
An excellent and thoughtful explanation of why Dei Verbum says we should turn to modern biblical exegesis to understand the biblical text in terms of the human author’s culture, meaning of language, etc. It is only after we understand what the author (both the Holy Spirit and the Human) is trying to assert that we can apply that understanding to our present day culture, meaning of language, etc. The same conclusion applies to your statement about Hebrew cosmology and its impact on biblical inerrancy.
Quote:
1. As to the doctrine of the Church: the words of Dei Verbum can be seen, not as a denial of the doctrine already held, but as a refinement of it, a more exact focussing of the purpose of total inerrancy. Be that as it may, the phrase “for the sake of our salvation” does not unsay the doctrine already held; so far as the phrase goes, the doctrine remains where it was. It can be seen as an unsaying of the doctrine - but the absence of any explicit statement of the doctrine is not the same in form as a disavowal of it. The logic of the phrase quoted does not contradict the logic of the doctrine then in possession; it can quite easily be read as explaining it. That this understanding of the phrase is correct is made more likely because it is the habit of the Church to explain an earlier doctrinal utterance by a later one; doctrinal understanding - therefore, its expression - grows by a process of accumulation, a bit like silt.
Response:
I would also refer back to previous posts by Cardinal Bea and Fr. Grillmeier. As participants in the writing of Dei Verbum, I feel their views are very instructive in interpreting the intent of Dei Verbum. I also feel that they show your conclusion is correct (that Dei Verbum is a further development - not an abrogation of earlier views) because they explain how Scriptures can be said to be inerrant.
Corry
“But…this only a lot of semantics”, someone may say. Quite so. Semantics is not important, but essential, to any doctrine that states that there is no error of any kind in the Bible, because semantics is what makes meaning recognisable; if meaning cannot be recognised, it cannot be recognised as true or untrue, so no statements that a meaning is true can be made, so no doctrine can be elaborated from those statements. Ignore semantics, & judgements of orthodoxy, or of the want of it, become impossible. Ignore semantics, and it becomes impossible to say whether what X says is the same as what Y, Z, A, B, & C say.
The importance of semantics is all the greater when the judgements made, are being made about a collection of texts - and is greater still, when the texts are not in their original languages or scripts or settings. Add the necessity of interpretation, and the importance of semantics is underlined yet again. So any doctrine of Biblical inerrancy that ignores semantics, or casts it aside as a piece of nit-picking, has feet of clay that are built on sand. All of which greatly limits the force of the argument from authority.
End Quote:
Response:
Michael:
An excellent and thoughtful explanation of why Dei Verbum says we should turn to modern biblical exegesis to understand the biblical text in terms of the human author’s culture, meaning of language, etc. It is only after we understand what the author (both the Holy Spirit and the Human) is trying to assert that we can apply that understanding to our present day culture, meaning of language, etc. The same conclusion applies to your statement about Hebrew cosmology and its impact on biblical inerrancy.
Quote:
1. As to the doctrine of the Church: the words of Dei Verbum can be seen, not as a denial of the doctrine already held, but as a refinement of it, a more exact focussing of the purpose of total inerrancy. Be that as it may, the phrase “for the sake of our salvation” does not unsay the doctrine already held; so far as the phrase goes, the doctrine remains where it was. It can be seen as an unsaying of the doctrine - but the absence of any explicit statement of the doctrine is not the same in form as a disavowal of it. The logic of the phrase quoted does not contradict the logic of the doctrine then in possession; it can quite easily be read as explaining it. That this understanding of the phrase is correct is made more likely because it is the habit of the Church to explain an earlier doctrinal utterance by a later one; doctrinal understanding - therefore, its expression - grows by a process of accumulation, a bit like silt.
Response:
I would also refer back to previous posts by Cardinal Bea and Fr. Grillmeier. As participants in the writing of Dei Verbum, I feel their views are very instructive in interpreting the intent of Dei Verbum. I also feel that they show your conclusion is correct (that Dei Verbum is a further development - not an abrogation of earlier views) because they explain how Scriptures can be said to be inerrant.
Corry
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Nah, I was just being sarcastic to the post that I replied to. I do believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture.Stick with Grudem on this one.
With the love of Christ,
Pete
J
JP_Marat
Guest
John J. Farren posted:
Isn’t that contrary to what is claimed in The Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” Given by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII?
20…" 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. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated.
RESPONSE****
Isn’t that contrary to what is claimed in The Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” Given by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII?
20…" 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. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated.
J
JohnJFarren
Guest
JMJ / MMM 091009 Friday
jamanea –
Thank you for the references you offer. I have read carefully the interviews by the Italian with Ratzinger Benedict. I will examine carefully the references you offer.
What we need (as Ratzinger yearned for) – especially “Original Sin” – is new skins for the better focused wine. No essential changes, denials, but ever greater understanding.
This is a major project for me in coming time. I have to close now because I’ve a full day at local hospital bringing Jesus in Holy Communion to patients. AND a marvelous symphony tonight in Lancaster PA > Brahms and Haydn … Igor Yuzefovich, violinist, whom I heard and saw performing Tchaikovsky’s (unplayable) Violin Concerto … perfectly!
THANK YOU again, jamanea! John (JohnJFarren)
jamanea –
Thank you for the references you offer. I have read carefully the interviews by the Italian with Ratzinger Benedict. I will examine carefully the references you offer.
What we need (as Ratzinger yearned for) – especially “Original Sin” – is new skins for the better focused wine. No essential changes, denials, but ever greater understanding.
This is a major project for me in coming time. I have to close now because I’ve a full day at local hospital bringing Jesus in Holy Communion to patients. AND a marvelous symphony tonight in Lancaster PA > Brahms and Haydn … Igor Yuzefovich, violinist, whom I heard and saw performing Tchaikovsky’s (unplayable) Violin Concerto … perfectly!
THANK YOU again, jamanea! John (JohnJFarren)
J
JohnJFarren
Guest
JMJ / MMM 092009
To All Who Are and Who will be … members of the One Whole Christ –
The institutional Church founded by Jesus, the Catholic Church, is a living thing, and grows and matures … in its understanding of God’s Revelation.
I find meaningful to think of this growth in terms of a special lens ever focusing better and more nearly completely on an important picture … Revelation as given us in Scripture. At all times, from beginning to focus until the focusing is perfect, the whole picture (Revelation in Scripture) becomes, progresses, matures, FOCUSES better and better on the picture. The blur we saw in the beginning is not wrong, is not false – but it sure is lacking much. The Second Vatican Council was a very great focusing with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Essential matters have not been set aside or denied. But deeper understanding, better focusing, has been given us by the Holy Spirit.
Neither you nor I should claim we have the perfect picture. But both you and I and all others should honestly and sincerely share what we have … and pray … together … that what we do see is valid, is real – and hope for more.
Only the Beatific Vision will bring us into total and perfect focusing. We shall See God as God Sees Godself. John (JohnJFarren)
To All Who Are and Who will be … members of the One Whole Christ –
The institutional Church founded by Jesus, the Catholic Church, is a living thing, and grows and matures … in its understanding of God’s Revelation.
I find meaningful to think of this growth in terms of a special lens ever focusing better and more nearly completely on an important picture … Revelation as given us in Scripture. At all times, from beginning to focus until the focusing is perfect, the whole picture (Revelation in Scripture) becomes, progresses, matures, FOCUSES better and better on the picture. The blur we saw in the beginning is not wrong, is not false – but it sure is lacking much. The Second Vatican Council was a very great focusing with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Essential matters have not been set aside or denied. But deeper understanding, better focusing, has been given us by the Holy Spirit.
Neither you nor I should claim we have the perfect picture. But both you and I and all others should honestly and sincerely share what we have … and pray … together … that what we do see is valid, is real – and hope for more.
Only the Beatific Vision will bring us into total and perfect focusing. We shall See God as God Sees Godself. John (JohnJFarren)
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:
Yes. Up until about 1950 the Church taught that all scripture was inspired by God and therefore contained no error.
Since Vatican II, however, the Church has adopted the limited or partial inspiration explanation perhaps to avoid recognizing the many obvious contradictions and error scripture contains.
The problem with this approach, however, is deciding what is inspired scripture and what is uninspired (merely human) stories.
I know. It’s whatever Father tells you is inspired, right? D
But this changes over time as did the “all inspired and error free” teaching.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Wow! Sorry about your bipolar disorder. I will pray for stability and for joy during the low times!
Well, I hope to have some helpful information to share with you on pseudonymous writings. I was working on some posts about the authorship of 2 Peter, but I never finished them up. So I will borrow from some of what I’ve written for that…
The strongest and ultimately persuasive evidence against pseudonymous authorship is the problem of ancient forgeries. The “literary convention popular at the time,” mentioned by the commentators for the NAB, of unknown people writing in the name of someone famous, is also known as lying. Even when done out of false-humility, as when someone does not feel worthy to claim the thoughts as his own, it is still lying. Bart Ehrman shares his insights:
We do commonly though have instances of forgery in the ancient world, when somebody will write in the name of a famous person knowing full well that they’re not that person. This was understood in the ancient world to be a deceitful practice just as it’s understood to be deceitful today. Ancient authors talk about forgery and in virtually every instance that they talk about forgery, they condemn it as a practice. People in antiquity enjoyed being deceived no more than people do today (Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication, Lecture 6).
It is sometimes argued by scholars of the New Testament that forgery was so common in the ancient world that no one took it seriously: since the deceit could normally be easily detected, it was never really meant to fool anyone. I have spent the past couple of years examining the ancient discussions of forgery and have come to the conclusion that the only people who make this argument are people who haven’t actually read the ancient sources.
Ancient sources took forgery very seriously. They almost universally condemn it, often in strong terms. How widely was it condemned? Odd as it might seem, the practice of forgery is sometimes condemned even in documents that are forged. Furthermore, the claim that no one was ever fooled is completely wrong. People were fooled all the time. That’s why people wrote forgeries – to fool people…
Forgery was widely practiced, it was meant to deceive, and it often worked. That it was not an accepted practice is clear from the terms that ancient authors used for it. Two of the most common terms for a forgery in Greek are pseudon, a lie, and nothon, [expurgated: an illegitimate] child. This latter term is as harsh and unsavory in Greek as it is in English. It is often juxtaposed with the term gneision, which means something like legitimate or authentic (Jesus, Interrupted, pp 115, 116).
- Status