total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

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?

There is a story of a frog living in a pool at the bottom of a deep well. Overhead flew an eagle. The pair began discussing the ocean. The eagle described it as vaste, the frog as somewhat smaller, each drawing from their own experiences.

 

[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.

Obviously, I disagree that there are any errors in Scripture, not just because I have faith in the Church who gave us Scripture, but also because I’ve never found any “errors” that don’t have answers.

First, even if one thought something could be an error, there is no way he can definitively prove it, as he does not have the originals. Second, if you are not an expert in ancient Roman history and in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic languages, then I hardly trust your evaluation as you would not be qualified to make such a conclusive determination. Third, so far every single “discrepancy” you’ve raised has at least one if not several viable answers. You alleged certainty of “discovering errors in Scripture” seems to boil down to your will, which seems set to disprove the Scriptures and the Church. If you are unwilling to do a serious evaluation of the Scriptures, then it appears to me that you are on this thread not to find answers but to promulgate an agenda. It is important that we remain humble and open to God and his leading. Even if you doubt the Scriptures’ lack of error, you have to admit that if you believe in a God who wants to draw you to him and know his truth, then he will guide you if you remain humble and open to his leading.

 

[una_fides]

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

So you are saying that instead of relying on the definitive decisions of the Vicar of Christ, the head of the universal Church, you are instead relying on “your own thought”? Do I understand you correctly here?

Mat 16:18-19 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

"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

I agree with both of these statements, but I fail to see where they say that there are errors in Scripture or that divine inspiration is limited to *only *matters of faith or morals. There is a literal sense and a spiritual sense of Scripture and the spiritual is divided into different senses as well. Sounds like they got this from St. Thomas Aquinas. I suggest reading his approach to Scripture. I did, and I found it very helpful.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

So you are saying that instead of relying on the definitive decisions of the Vicar of Christ, the head of the universal Church, you are instead relying on “your own thought”? Do I understand you correctly here?

No, I am saying my thoughts are in accord with Catholic dogma.

**Mat 16:18-19 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. **

I fail to see the necessity of quoting Mat 16:18-19:shrug:
Unless you have reached a decision without enquiring further?

**I agree with both of these statements, but I fail to see where they say that there are errors in Scripture or that divine inspiration is limited to only matters of faith or morals. There is a literal sense and a spiritual sense of Scripture and the spiritual is divided into different senses as well. Sounds like they got this from St. Thomas Aquinas. I suggest reading his approach to Scripture. I did, and I found it very helpful.

You fail to see where they say there are errors in Scripture - probably because they don’t.
You fail to see where they say that divine inspiration is limited to only matters of faith and morals - probably because they don’t.
In exegesis we need to consider the motivating factors of the author - what is the purpose of the Scripture before us? Narrative, historical, prayer, etc.
The authors of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *was written under primi potest to Cardinal Ratzinger - maybe it was influenced by St Thomas Aquinas, maybe not.

St Thomas’ approach was Scholastic theologian. However, I reckon Cardinal Ratzinger knew what was orthodox.

 

[JP_Marat]

KEVIN WILCOX
Junior Member Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 432
Religion: Catholic

Re: total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

---

KEVIN WILCOX;5983548:

Bengoshi;5983438:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat
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?

RESPONSE:

A related question.

I notice that a few of my posts have been slightly altered. For example, my quotation above has **"Hahahahahahah! and the laughing icon added **"which I did not have in my original post. How is this being done? (I’m not a computer person).

 

[JP_Marat]

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

RESPONSE:

That’s the way apologists try to get around an obvious blunder. But:

1. It only one animal is meant, why would Jesus **send for two **(and the other gospels say he sent for only one)?
2. If only one animal is meant, according to Zech 9.9 that Matthew quoted, Jesus was **not “fulfilling” the prophecy **contrary to Matthew’s statement.
3. The writing would be grammatically absurd. How can “them” used throughout the prophecy to describe **two animals **and then **suddenly refer to garments **instead?

Yes, early on Matthew’s obvious “rodeo Jesus” blunder was recognized and apologists have been trying to get around it ever since beginning with Jerome’s explanation.

 

[Pete_Holter]

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.

Good day, Kevin! Please take some time to compare what you’ve written here with these papal explanations of the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I:

In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.” 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, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors …

…it is absolutely wrong and forbidden “either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,” since divine 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. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.”

This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously. – Divino Afflante Spiritu

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 091128 Saturday
To Peter Holter –
I am deeply appreciative of all you have posted these past few days, Peter.
I say WOW … and I ask God in Jesus to Bless you and yours in ways most beneficial.
This posting must be short … because I must first gather, print, and digest all you have shared with me.
I most certainly will be back – it is my obligation.
Please be patient. Thank you again. May the Will of “the Ancient One” be done! God help me! John (JohnJFarren)

 

[una_fides]

RESPONSE:

That’s the way apologists try to get around an obvious blunder. But:

1. It only one animal is meant, why would Jesus **send for two **(and the other gospels say he sent for only one)?

The other gospels do not say he sent for only one. Matthew’s account simply provides more detail than the other three do. The accounts are complementary not contradictory.

1. If only one animal is meant, according to Zech 9.9 that Matthew quoted, Jesus was **not “fulfilling” the prophecy **contrary to Matthew’s statement.

Zech does not say that only one animal will be rode upon and that if another is ridden at any time during the journey than that invalidates the prophecy. You are reading this thing into the Scripture here in order to support your idea that these passages are in contradiction, when they are not.

1. The writing would be grammatically absurd. How can “them” used throughout the prophecy to describe **two animals **and then **suddenly refer to garments **instead?

Yes, early on Matthew’s obvious “rodeo Jesus” blunder was recognized and apologists have been trying to get around it ever since beginning with Jerome’s explanation.

Why do you claim that it is necessary to understand that Jesus rode on both the animals at the same time? St. Matthew could easily have been describing riding in succession. Regarding the grammar, I’m curious if you are able to read Greek and if so if you have read and analyzed the original Greek translation of Mat 21:7. If not, then you can hardly say definitively that it is grammatically absurd as you do not even know the words used and how they were used in the original languages, which could possibly shed more light. Furthermore, the English makes perfect sense:

“And they brought the *** and the colt and laid their garments upon them and made him sit thereon.”

So the text says that the apostles put their garments on both the *** and colt and made Jesus to sit on their garments. Does the text say that he rode on both or in any way necessitate that understanding for it to be grammatically correct? Absolutely not. He could just as well have first ridden on the first animal that had apostolic garments on it and then later the second animal that had garments on it. The “thererupon” otherwise translated as “upon them” could refer to either the garments or the animals. If it does refer to the animals, then it would be understood that they he sat upon them in succession. It is not the apostle’s intention to write all the details for us and specify the manner in which Jesus rode and so on. He is focused on explaining the fulfillment of the prophecy and as the fathers and theologians have understood he is also intending to convey a spiritual meaning as the *** and colt have deeper representations.

You do not need to take a literalist approach as if St. Matthew was trying to communicate that Jesus rode them both at the same time. It is clear that this was not the author’s intention, and thus the intended message when properly understood by the words is without error.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

KEVIN WILCOX
Junior Member Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 432
Religion: Catholic

Re: total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

---

Bengoshi;5983600:

KEVIN WILCOX;5983548:

Bengoshi;5983438:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat
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?

RESPONSE:

A related question.

I notice that a few of my posts have been slightly altered. For example, my quotation above has **"Hahahahahahah! and the laughing icon added **"which I did not have in my original post. How is this being done? (I’m not a computer person).

JP I’m confused as to whom you are addressing - Bengoshi or me.

In Scriptural exegesis we have to remember the authors’ style was not such as ours is today. This does not infer they were fabricating events, rather interjecting commentary with things they believed may address the intended audience in a personal way (for example the Gospel of Matthew being written with a Jewish audience in mind, the Gospel of Mark that of a Roman). We cannot afford to read Scripture as we do modern journalistic commentary.

As to your posts being altered this is a mystery to me too. Neither of us are “computer people”. We are baptized into Christ, spiritual brothers, what is detrimental to yourself also affects me in a negative way - what is the benefit in my causing you to stumble or look foolish?

 

[una_fides]

The other gospels do not say he sent for only one. Matthew’s account simply provides more detail than the other three do. The accounts are complementary not contradictory.

Zech does not say that only one animal will be rode upon and that if another is ridden at any time during the journey than that invalidates the prophecy. You are reading this thing into the Scripture here in order to support your idea that these passages are in contradiction, when they are not.

Why do you claim that it is necessary to understand that Jesus rode on both the animals at the same time? St. Matthew could easily have been describing riding in succession. Regarding the grammar, I’m curious if you are able to read Greek and if so if you have read and analyzed the original Greek translation of Mat 21:7. If not, then you can hardly say definitively that it is grammatically absurd as you do not even know the words used and how they were used in the original languages, which could possibly shed more light. Furthermore, the English makes perfect sense:

“And they brought the *** and the colt and laid their garments upon them and made him sit thereon.”

So the text says that the apostles put their garments on both the *** and colt and made Jesus to sit on their garments. Does the text say that he rode on both or in any way necessitate that understanding for it to be grammatically correct? Absolutely not. He could just as well have first ridden on the first animal that had apostolic garments on it and then later the second animal that had garments on it. The “thererupon” otherwise translated as “upon them” could refer to either the garments or the animals. If it does refer to the animals, then it would be understood that they he sat upon them in succession. It is not the apostle’s intention to write all the details for us and specify the manner in which Jesus rode and so on. He is focused on explaining the fulfillment of the prophecy and as the fathers and theologians have understood he is also intending to convey a spiritual meaning as the *** and colt have deeper representations.

You do not need to take a literalist approach as if St. Matthew was trying to communicate that Jesus rode them both at the same time. It is clear that this was not the author’s intention, and thus the intended message when properly understood by the words is without error.

Wow, they actually bleeped out the Scriptures on here! That’s amazing. I suppose ***** is on their banned list of words to use.

 

[una_fides]

No, I am saying my thoughts are in accord with Catholic dogma.

So are you trying to say that Catholic dogma has changed and what used to be solemnly condemned as heresy before is now legitimate teaching? You did read the several papal mandates stating that to hold that it is absolutely forbidden to believe that freedom from error is limited to matters of faith and morals alone in sacred Scripture or to believe that the human writers in any way erred in any of the words they wrote. Not only that, but you admit that the Church now has not said that there are any errors of any kind in Scripture nor has she limited inspiration to certain parts or said that only matters of a religious nature are free from error.

The Church now teaches that her modern teachings must still be read and understood in light of the sacred and unchanging teachings of the Church. Hence, Vatican I’s definition that any defined dogma must continue to be understood in the same sense as it has always been understood and no new meanings may be adopted regardless of whatever increase in knowledge may have occurred. In other words, the Church cannot 2000 years later say that somehow due to more historical or scientific data that what used to be heresy is no longer or what had previously been infallibly defined by the universal and ordinary Magisterium now no longer applies. For if the Church was wrong about one dogma, then her entire system crumbles for no one then knows what dogmas she has infallibly defined will not one day be reversed, and she herself would be an unreliable source. She would be made to be a liar, which is the exact same thing that one does when he makes Scripture out to contain errors, since all Scripture has God as its author.

The Church was and is always “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15), and that truth is unchangeable, as it has its foundation in Christ and in his promises to be with and guide his Church until the end of time. If the Church is the foundation of truth and she is found to be untruthful, then we loose our foundation, and the Church ceases to be the Church, and everything is then left for private interpretation, aka protestantism. For modernists, that is the goal–the relativity and changeableness of “truth.” For true Catholics, we must find such an attack on the faith as offensive and heretical and must do our best to stand up for what we know to be the constant and unchanging faith of our fathers.

 

[anon5216]

…
For if the Church was wrong about one dogma, then her entire system crumbles for no one then knows what dogmas she has infallibly defined will not one day be reversed, and she herself would be an unreliable source. She would be made to be a liar, which is the exact same thing that one does when he makes Scripture out to contain errors, since all Scripture has God as its author.
…
If the Church is the foundation of truth and she is found to be untruthful, then we loose our foundation, and the Church ceases to be the Church, and everything is then left for private interpretation, aka protestantism. For modernists, that is the goal–the relativity and changeableness of “truth.” For true Catholics, we must find such an attack on the faith as offensive and heretical and must do our best to stand up for what we know to be the constant and unchanging faith of our fathers.

If the Church were to be proven fallible, it would not crumble and cease to exist.
It would not be made a liar either - unless the Church leadership had themselves never believed in infallibility or inerrancy all these centuries.
If Church leaders honestly and in good faith believed in infallibility and inerrancy up to the time it was disproven, they would simply be fallible - period.
(In the same manner in which CC leadership not being morally impeccable hasn’t destroyed the Church in 20 centuries, being shown not infallible isn’t going to destroy it either).

This revelation would force the Church to become much stronger spiritually - not just more adamant in its belief requirements, but actually, genuinely, spiritually stronger.
It is so ridiculously easy for a person to stop dead in the tracks of their spiritual lives when they believe that a certain set of words memorized and pledged loyalty to equals the pinnacle of their path, it isn’t funny.

IMO, the most cleverly brilliant possible trojan horse, designed to deliver the most unsuspecting deadly spiritual virus, that Satan could possibly invent is the twin concepts of infallibility and inerrancy.

In spite of this, there are still saints like Padre Pio cropping up even in modern times.
Although, I believe there would be many thousands at his spiritual level alive today had that trojan horse not been accepted - hook, line and sinker.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

So are you trying to say that Catholic dogma has changed and what used to be solemnly condemned as heresy before is now legitimate teaching? You did read the several papal mandates stating that to hold that it is absolutely forbidden to believe that freedom from error is limited to matters of faith and morals alone in sacred Scripture or to believe that the human writers in any way erred in any of the words they wrote. Not only that, but you admit that the Church now has not said that there are any errors of any kind in Scripture nor has she limited inspiration to certain parts or said that only matters of a religious nature are free from error.

No. I am not trying to say that Catholic dogma has changed and what used to be condemned as heresy before is now legitimate teaching. Nor am I attempting to impute my beliefs in interpretation of Ecclesiastical teaching.

Yes, I did read the passages you kindly assigned me.

Never have I said the authors of Scripture were mistaken in what they have written: “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written” (Vatican 2, Dei Verbum)

 

[JP_Marat]

JP Marat;5989711:

KEVIN WILCOX
Junior Member Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 432
Religion: Catholic

Re: total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

---

Bengoshi;5983600:

KEVIN WILCOX;5983548:

JP I’m confused as to whom you are addressing - Bengoshi or me.

In Scriptural exegesis we have to remember the authors’ style was not such as ours is today. This does not infer they were fabricating events, rather interjecting commentary with things they believed may address the intended audience in a personal way (for example the Gospel of Matthew being written with a Jewish audience in mind, the Gospel of Mark that of a Roman). We cannot afford to read Scripture as we do modern journalistic commentary.

As to your posts being altered this is a mystery to me too. Neither of us are “computer people”. We are baptized into Christ, spiritual brothers, what is detrimental to yourself also affects me in a negative way - what is the benefit in my causing you to stumble or look foolish?

RESPONSE:

The “author’s style” argument to avoid admitting errors and contradictions isn’t logically tenable. Contradictions are contradictions, style or not.

 

[JP_Marat]

Anon 5216 posted:

“If the Church were to be proven fallible, it would not crumble and cease to exist.
It would not be made a liar either - unless the Church leadership had themselves never believed in infallibility or inerrancy all these centuries.
If Church leaders honestly and in good faith believed in infallibility and inerrancy up to the time it was disproven, they would simply be fallible - period.
(In the same manner in which CC leadership not being morally impeccable hasn’t destroyed the Church in 20 centuries, being shown not infallible isn’t going to destroy it either).”

RESPONSE:

“If the Church were to be proven fallible, it would not crumble and cease to exist.”

Yes. It continues to exist despite it’s many fallibilities. So do other religions.

JPM

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

KEVIN WILCOX;5991043:

JP Marat;5989711:

KEVIN WILCOX
Junior Member Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 432
Religion: Catholic

Re: total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

---

Bengoshi;5983600:

RESPONSE:

The “author’s style” argument to avoid admitting errors and contradictions isn’t logically tenable. Contradictions are contradictions, style or not.

“In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres of that time, and the modes of speaking, and narrating then current. ‘For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetic and poetic texts, and in other forms of literary expressions’(De Verbum)” CCC

 

[JP_Marat]

JP Marat;5993087:

KEVIN WILCOX;5991043:

JP Marat;5989711:

KEVIN WILCOX
Junior Member Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 432
Religion: Catholic

Re: total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

---

“In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres of that time, and the modes of speaking, and narrating then current. ‘For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetic and poetic texts, and in other forms of literary expressions’(De Verbum)” CCC

RESPONSE:

And the fact that he may be writing total fiction.

Contradictions in andytime or culture remain contradictions, one statement at least must be in error.

eg. **Three nights ( John and Jesus) in the tomb or two nights **in the tomb (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

KEVIN WILCOX;5993928:

JP Marat;5993087:

KEVIN WILCOX;5991043:

RESPONSE:

And the fact that he may be writing total fiction.

Contradictions in andytime or culture remain contradictions, one statement at least must be in error.

eg. **Three nights **

( John and Jesus) in the tomb or** two nights **in the tomb (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

To understand Scripture we have to able to assimilate the thinking of the time in which it was written.

"It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls’ (Vatican 2, Dei Verbum)

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hey guys! Here’s a little help. Rather than attributing the quoted material to Bengoshi, Post 253 should look like this:

RESPONSE:

The “author’s style” argument to avoid admitting errors and contradictions isn’t logically tenable. Contradictions are contradictions, style or not.

“In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres of that time, and the modes of speaking, and narrating then current. ‘For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetic and poetic texts, and in other forms of literary expressions’(De Verbum)” CCC​

When you use the quote function, everything in the previous post will be embedded in an open and a close quote. In the last several posts between JP Marat and KEVIN WILCOX, extraneous open quotes have been included without matching close quotes. In responding to Post 255, JP Marat will want to remove the following text before posting:

KEVIN WILCOX;5993928:

JP Marat;5993087: