total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

[JP_Marat]

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

“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:
JP Marat;5995162:

KEVIN WILCOX;5993928:

JP Marat;5993087:

RESPONSE:

Sounds like a computer problem to be resolved by Catholic Answers webmaster.

 

[JP_Marat]

JP Marat;5995162:

KEVIN WILCOX;5993928:

JP Marat;5993087:

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

)

RESPONSE:

Not if it was in error.

Jesus was born during the reign of king Herod (died 4 BC) - Matthew

Jesus was born during Quirinius’ census (6 AD) - Luke

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

Such as obvious contradictions?

However, that argument can be used to justify **relative morality **such as Lev 25 allowing slave ownership and CCC#2414 making it a sin.

I wonder what else is allowed by the bible that is now forbidden, and conversely what was forbidden by the bible but is now allowed?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

KEVIN WILCOX;5995957:

JP Marat;5995162:

KEVIN WILCOX;5993928:

RESPONSE:

Not if it was in error.

Jesus was born during the reign of king Herod (died 4 BC) - Matthew

Jesus was born during Quirinius’ census (6 AD) - Luke

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

such as Lev 25 allowing slave ownership and CCC#2414 making it a sin.

I wonder what else is allowed by the bible that is now forbidden, and conversely what was forbidden by the bible but is now allowed?

“O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and the idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge - by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.” (1 Tim 6:20,21)

“Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen” (2 Pet 3:18)

 

[Pete_Holter]

Saint Francis de Sales, Doctor of Authors and the Catholic Press (A.D. 1594-1596):

“Holy Scripture is in such sort the rule of the Christian faith that we are obliged by every kind of obligation to believe most exactly all that it contains, and not to believe anything which may be ever so little contrary to it… The Sadducees erred because they did not understand the Scriptures… S. Peter, who having himself heard the voice of the Father in the Transfiguration of the Son, bases himself more firmly on the testimony of the Prophets than on this experience. When God says to Josue: Let not the book of this law depart from thy mouth, he shows clearly that he willed him to have it always in his mind, and to let no persuasion enter which should be contrary to it… we are agreed on this point, and those who are so mad as to contradict it, can only rest their contradiction on the Scripture itself, contradicting themselves before contradicting the Scripture, using it in the very protestation which they make that they will not use it…

“Our Lord, by the Holy Scriptures show us what we must believe, hope for, love, and do, and this by a true expression of his will; if we add, take away, or change, it will no longer be the true expression of God’s will… if it be a true statement, whatever right have we to alter it? Our Lord puts a value on the iotas, yea, the mere little points and accents of his holy words. How jealous then is he of their integrity, and what punishment shall they not deserve who violate this integrity!..

“The Ephrathites [Ephraimites] said Sibolleth, not forgetting a single letter, but because they did not pronounce it thickly enough, the Galaadites slew them at the fords of Jordan. The simple difference of pronunciation in speaking, and in writing the mere transposition of one single point on the letter scin caused the ambiguity, and changing the janin into semol, instead of an ear of wheat expressed a weight or a burden. Whosoever alters or adds the slightest accent in the Scripture is a sacrilegious man, and deserves the death of him who dares to mingle the profane with the sacred” (, pp. 88-90The Catholic Controversy).

 

[anon5216]

Saint Francis de Sales, Doctor of Authors and the Catholic Press (A.D. 1594-1596):
…
“The Ephrathites [Ephraimites] said Sibolleth, not forgetting a single letter, but because they did not pronounce it thickly enough, the Galaadites slew them at the fords of Jordan. The simple difference of pronunciation in speaking, and in writing the mere transposition of one single point on the letter scin caused the ambiguity, and changing the janin into semol, instead of an ear of wheat expressed a weight or a burden. Whosoever alters or adds the slightest accent in the Scripture is a sacrilegious man, and deserves the death of him who dares to mingle the profane with the sacred” (The Catholic Controversy, pp. 88-90).

If pronouncing a word with a slightly different accent deserves the death penalty, then why is anyone alive today at all.
What then ought be the penalty for translating said sacred texts to other languages entirely?

I’d say it’s a safe bet to claim not one single person alive on the planet today pronounces that word identically to the Galaadites as referenced.

The above quoted example sounds like a case of scrupulosity taken to an obsessive, criminally psychotic, degree.
Either that or the Galaadites simply had premeditated plans to murder the Ephrathites (most likely to take their land and resources) and came up with a legalistic excuse to hide behind.

 

[una_fides]

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).

Anon,
It’s amazing how it seems whenever I post anything anywhere you end up joining in on the discussion.

The Catholic Church has taught infallibility among her other numerous doctrines of the faith. She has affirmed this teaching in her most authoritative declarations from two General Councils including most recently Vatican II (See Lumen Gentium #25). If the Church were to change her mind on this teaching, she most certainly would be made into a liar objectively speaking, as she would have been teaching lies for all those centuries. Furthermore, if she was wrong about infallibility, when such a teaching was defined by her highest authority, then such definitions would be brought to be meaningless along with her authority. How could we then trust that she got it right concerning anything? The Church defined the Trinity as a dogma from the same authority of a General Council as she did infallibility. If General Councils teachings in union with the pope do not safeguard teachings from error, then the Holy Spirit would not be guiding his Church as promised, and we would be no better off than Protestants determining truth from error on our own without a pillar and foundation of truth.

If this “church” were to claim she was no longer infallible as she had thought and was wrong on that issue, she would not cease to be the Church for she never would have been the Church in the first place. Such leaders who would claim such a thing would be incurring automatic excommunication and their decisions would not be binding on the faithful. Luckily we have nothing to worry about, as we can trust in Christ’s promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (Mat 16:18-19). Even though the members may be sinners, the Church cannot be moved from her final destination, even if the majority of her bishops were to embrace heresy as they did in the time of the Arian crisis, the Church will prevail as Christ’s spotless bride. The Church has never claimed to be impeccable; in fact, she has claimed the opposite of her members, as is evidenced by her constant plea for forgiveness of sins. But she has for 2000 years claimed to be the same thing that Scripture says she is: “The pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

This revelation would force the Church to become much stronger spiritually - not just more adamant in its belief requirements, but actually, genuinely, spiritually stronger.

This statement is coming from someone whose profile religion says “former Catholic,” so I could see why from your perspective you might think such a thing. You obviously think the Church to be in error and her teachings flawed, so you would think it better for her to back down from her position of authority as the sole ark of salvation. Such a hypothetical is impossible, for if such were to happen, then the Christian religion that Christ founded and for which He and the martyrs throughout the centuries gave their lives would be false. I don’t know why you left the Church, but there are answers to whatever difficulties you may have experienced. You must remain humble and seek those answers.

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.

Do you believe in Satan? If so why? The existence of the Devil is a teaching of the Catholic Church. How do you know she did not get that one wrong too?

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.

Why do you view infallibility as a bad thing? It gives you the foundation on which you can then know which of the Church’s teachings are in fact true. It is a weakness in faith, not a strength, to doubt the teachings that have been guided by the Holy Spirit and handed to us from Christ’s bride, the Church. One cannot grow to the spiritual levels of St. Padre Pio without trusting in God’s promises to his Church and to those who remain therein. The early Church fathers could not have been clearer on these matters, you must remain in the Church for your hope of salvation.

 

[anon5216]

anon5216;5992592:

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).

Anon,
It’s amazing how it seems whenever I post anything anywhere you end up joining in on the discussion.
Must be some overlap of topics which happen to intrigue us both.

The Catholic Church has taught infallibility among her other numerous doctrines of the faith. She has affirmed this teaching in her most authoritative declarations from two General Councils including most recently Vatican II (See Lumen Gentium #25). If the Church were to change her mind on this teaching, she most certainly would be made into a liar objectively speaking, as she would have been teaching lies for all those centuries. Furthermore, if she was wrong about infallibility, when such a teaching was defined by her highest authority, then such definitions would be brought to be meaningless along with her authority. How could we then trust that she got it right concerning anything? The Church defined the Trinity as a dogma from the same authority of a General Council as she did infallibility. If General Councils teachings in union with the pope do not safeguard teachings from error, then the Holy Spirit would not be guiding his Church as promised, and we would be no better off than Protestants determining truth from error on our own without a pillar and foundation of truth.
As I said initially, the Church would only be a liar objectively IF it never actually believed those claims and yet specifically wanted the members to believe them.
To be in error is not synonymous with lying.

But I do agree that definitions of things that can’t be independently verified are meaningless.
That the Holy Spirit promised to guide the Church is one thing (I only see human claims of that).
Assuming that were true, an entirely different question would be “How does the Holy Spirit do the guiding?”. It may be entirely unrelated to the manner in which fallible humans desire or think they are being guided.

A set of statements claimed as facts is just that. Answers to questions.

An athlete does not become an athlete merely by memorizing a list of answers to questions.
Neither does a doctor, artist, lawyer, musician, etc. become proficient in their field just my memorizing an FAQ list.

Why anyone would think that their personal spiritual development and transformation is achieved by memorizing an FAQ list is simply incomprehensible.
(Speaking generally of course - I’m not accusing you personally of such a limited position).

continued …

 

[anon5216]

anon5216;5992592:

If this “church” were to claim she was no longer infallible as she had thought and was wrong on that issue, she would not cease to be the Church for she never would have been the Church in the first place. Such leaders who would claim such a thing would be incurring automatic excommunication and their decisions would not be binding on the faithful. Luckily we have nothing to worry about, as we can trust in Christ’s promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (Mat 16:18-19). Even though the members may be sinners, the Church cannot be moved from her final destination, even if the majority of her bishops were to embrace heresy as they did in the time of the Arian crisis, the Church will prevail as Christ’s spotless bride. The Church has never claimed to be impeccable; in fact, she has claimed the opposite of her members, as is evidenced by her constant plea for forgiveness of sins. But she has for 2000 years claimed to be the same thing that Scripture says she is: “The pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
The Church wouldn’t claim she was “no longer infallible”, she would “no longer claim she was infallible”.
“Truth” is not an FAQ list, so no FAQ list could possibly be “the pillar and foundation of Truth”.
To think that “the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church” means the Church will always infallibly maintain such an FAQ list is ridiculous.

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.

This statement is coming from someone whose profile religion says “former Catholic,” so I could see why from your perspective you might think such a thing. You obviously think the Church to be in error and her teachings flawed, so you would think it better for her to back down from her position of authority as the sole ark of salvation. Such a hypothetical is impossible, for if such were to happen, then the Christian religion that Christ founded and for which He and the martyrs throughout the centuries gave their lives would be false. I don’t know why you left the Church, but there are answers to whatever difficulties you may have experienced. You must remain humble and seek those answers.
The religion would not be false and would still be able to produce people of the caliber of Padre Pio.
By definition how could I be in the CC if I don’t believe things the CC requires me to believe in order to be considered in the CC?
I am inspired by the lives of saints (of many religions and spiritual traditions - Catholicism included), but have no use for religious instruction that amounts to memorizing Q&A sets.
Q&A sets are memorized perfectly by a piece of paper and who in their right mind believes that piece of paper is going to get eternity in Heaven as a reward?

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.

Do you believe in Satan? If so why? The existence of the Devil is a teaching of the Catholic Church. How do you know she did not get that one wrong too?
I believe there are embodied and disembodied beings of various types that manifest varying degrees of “good” and/or “evil”.
I don’t necessarily believe in “Satan” as precisely defined by the CC.

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.

Why do you view infallibility as a bad thing?
Because it lulls people into a false sense of spiritual security thinking that professing loyalty to an FAQ list is the end all and be all of spiritual development.
It gives you the foundation on which you can then know which of the Church’s teachings are in fact true.
Why do people still think “Truth” is an FAQ list???
It is a weakness in faith, not a strength, to doubt the teachings that have been guided by the Holy Spirit and handed to us from Christ’s bride, the Church.
The Holy Spirit is nothing more than the author of an FAQ list???
One cannot grow to the spiritual levels of St. Padre Pio without trusting in God’s promises to his Church and to those who remain therein. The early Church fathers could not have been clearer on these matters, you must remain in the Church for your hope of salvation.
What I have learned and what inspiration I’ve received as a result of delving into the lives of people like Padre Pio has nothing to do with getting the answer to a test question.

That said, if the only way to get your kids to behave decently is to claim that Santa keeps surveillance data on who’s been naughty and who’s been and and will reward accordingly, well I guess the only thing to do is claim Santa is infallible in the matter.

 

[Bengoshi]

If pronouncing a word with a slightly different accent deserves the death penalty, then why is anyone alive today at all.
What then ought be the penalty for translating said sacred texts to other languages entirely?

I’d say it’s a safe bet to claim not one single person alive on the planet today pronounces that word identically to the Galaadites as referenced.

The above quoted example sounds like a case of scrupulosity taken to an obsessive, criminally psychotic, degree.
Either that or the Galaadites simply had premeditated plans to murder the Ephrathites (most likely to take their land and resources) and came up with a legalistic excuse to hide behind.

Hi there! Just for your information, I am not a RC either. I am an Evangelical Christian. However, I do believe in the authority, inerrancy, perspicuity and infallibility of Scripture. That being said, let me offer my explanation of the passage at issue.

The word was used by the Gileadites to identify Ephraimites who claim to be Gileadites but are not. They needed to do this because of their uncanny similarity of physical features. Due to their diferences in accent and pronunciation, the Gileadites easily discerned who were the real enemies (Ephraimates). They were not killed just because they mispronounced the word “Shibboleth” but because they were Ephraimites. Read the context of the passage to be able to understand it correctly. Word spellings were taken from the NIV.

 

[anon5216]

Hi there! Just for your information, I am not a RC either. I am an Evangelical Christian. However, I do believe in the authority, inerrancy, perspicuity and infallibility of Scripture. That being said, let me offer my explanation of the passage at issue.

The word was used by the Gileadites to identify Ephraimites who claim to be Gileadites but are not. They needed to do this because of their uncanny similarity of physical features. Due to their diferences in accent and pronunciation, the Gileadites easily discerned who were the real enemies (Ephraimates). They were not killed just because they mispronounced the word “Shibboleth” but because they were Ephraimites. Read the context of the passage to be able to understand it correctly. Word spellings were taken from the NIV.

You’re right. It makes total sense as a military strategy unconnected with anything else.

The odd thing is de Sales’ use of this anecdote to argue for the last line conclusion: "… Whosoever alters or adds the slightest accent in the Scripture is a sacrilegious man, and deserves the death of him who dares to mingle the profane with the sacred”
He makes the Church sound like some kind of crazy dictatorial cult.

I guess you ‘had to be there’ in on the discussion back in the 16th century.

 

[una_fides]

Hi there! Just for your information, I am not a RC either. I am an Evangelical Christian. However, I do believe in the authority, inerrancy, perspicuity and infallibility of Scripture.

Hi Bengoshi!

I hope you are enjoying the holiday season. I have a few questions for you related to the statement above.

I’m curious as to why you believe that the Bible is authoritative, inerrant, and infallible. What is your basis, your foundation to this belief? Also how can you know for certain that each book in your New Testament Bible was correctly compiled and put there and that the compilers did not make any mistakes when they decided upon which books to call Scripture and include in the canon as inspired. How can we know with absolute certainty that they made the right decisions? After all, the NT was not compiled into a whole until three centuries after the books were written (first determined at the Synod of Hippo AD 393 and confirmed at the Council of Carthage AD 397).

As to the Bible’s perspicuity, how can one make such a claim to know for sure he has the only correct understanding of Scripture when those who base their interpretations on sola Scriptura have divided themselves into tens of thousands of denominations and disagree about every single fundamental issue in the book. They all claim that their interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit, and they all have scholars and experts who will cite the original languages and offer their own persuasive arguments as to why they have the correct understanding, which to them seems abundantly clear, and everyone else is clearly mistaken. Each denomination is obviously convincing enough to have followings of people who also believe their teachings and pass them on to their children and so on throughout the generations.

Interestingly, what I just described in the handing on of teachings is also known as tradition. The reason you believe the Bible is inspired is a result of the religious tradition that you have received concerning the Bible. You were either taught or read somewhere that the Bible was inspired, inerrant, etc, and thus you believe. The early Church also followed tradition, and the early Church fathers–the successors to the apostles–were the ones who later compiled the Scriptures and told the world they were inspired. If it were not for their tradition and handing it on concerning the Scriptures, you would not have a New Testament today! You also would not know the word “Trinity” or have faith in the one God in three divine persons.

You see just as we believe that God preserved his Word in written form, we also believe he preserved his oral Words that give us the one correct way to understand the Bible. It also does not make sense how 1500-2000 years later, people are just now discovering the “truths” of Scripture that allegedly had been lost since the days of the apostles. God did not die on a cross, found a Church, and promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against her, only to have her completely fall away from the teachings of His Son, universally all over the world all believing the same “lies” about how to get to heaven. To me, it does not make sense to believe that the Church could universally fall from grace and fall from teaching the truths of Christ within such a short period of time and then later rediscover the “hidden truths” by reading the book that the same Church herself compiled while teaching these “false Catholic doctrines.”

I used to be protestant my whole life, and grew up that way until I was lucky enough to stumble upon these truths, and my life has never been the same since. I hope sharing my experience can be helpful for you as well, and I do look forward to your answers to the questions I posed.

 

[adriancombe]

I just found this gem which I posted on another thread. It may be useful here:

On Narratives Historical only in Appearance in Books of Holy Scripture Historical in Form

By the Pontifical Biblical Commission - June 23, 1905

"Is it possible to admit as a principle of sound exegesis that books of sacred Scripture which are regarded as historical, at times do not relate, either wholly or in part, history properly so-called and objectively true, but present only the appearance of history with the purpose of expressing some meaning differing from the strictly literal or historical sense of the words?

Answer: In the negative, except in a case neither easily nor rashly to be admitted, in which the mind of the Church not being contrary and without prejudice to its judgement, it is proved by solid arguments that the sacred Writer intended not to recount true history, properly so-called, but under the guise and form of history to set forth a parable, an allegory, or some meaning distinct from the strictly literal or historical signification of the words."

English translation: catholicintl.com/epologet…/bible/pbc.htm

Original Latin:
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…nibus_lt.html

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is of course correct in affirming that Scripture is never false when it presents history. But this was taught much more authoritatively by a number of Popes.

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.”[2] 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 and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules. (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

“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 all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

 

[adriancombe]

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is of course correct in affirming that Scripture is never false when it presents history. But this was taught much more authoritatively by a number of Popes.

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.”[2] 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 and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules. (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

“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 all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

Right. It’s just that the PBC statement closes a specific loophole that some try to use saying that the literary genre clauses of later encyclicals etc let us believe things that appear historical really weren’t intended that way in the first place. The PBC statement basically says if you are going to make that claim, you have to prove it to th le Magisterium first.

 

[Bengoshi]

Hi Bengoshi!

I hope you are enjoying the holiday season. I have a few questions for you related to the statement above.

I’m curious as to why you believe that the Bible is authoritative, inerrant, and infallible. What is your basis, your foundation to this belief? Also how can you know for certain that each book in your New Testament Bible was correctly compiled and put there and that the compilers did not make any mistakes when they decided upon which books to call Scripture and include in the canon as inspired. How can we know with absolute certainty that they made the right decisions? After all, the NT was not compiled into a whole until three centuries after the books were written (first determined at the Synod of Hippo AD 393 and confirmed at the Council of Carthage AD 397).

As to the Bible’s perspicuity, how can one make such a claim to know for sure he has the only correct understanding of Scripture when those who base their interpretations on sola Scriptura have divided themselves into tens of thousands of denominations and disagree about every single fundamental issue in the book. They all claim that their interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit, and they all have scholars and experts who will cite the original languages and offer their own persuasive arguments as to why they have the correct understanding, which to them seems abundantly clear, and everyone else is clearly mistaken. Each denomination is obviously convincing enough to have followings of people who also believe their teachings and pass them on to their children and so on throughout the generations.

Interestingly, what I just described in the handing on of teachings is also known as tradition. The reason you believe the Bible is inspired is a result of the religious tradition that you have received concerning the Bible. You were either taught or read somewhere that the Bible was inspired, inerrant, etc, and thus you believe. The early Church also followed tradition, and the early Church fathers–the successors to the apostles–were the ones who later compiled the Scriptures and told the world they were inspired. If it were not for their tradition and handing it on concerning the Scriptures, you would not have a New Testament today! You also would not know the word “Trinity” or have faith in the one God in three divine persons.

You see just as we believe that God preserved his Word in written form, we also believe he preserved his oral Words that give us the one correct way to understand the Bible. It also does not make sense how 1500-2000 years later, people are just now discovering the “truths” of Scripture that allegedly had been lost since the days of the apostles. God did not die on a cross, found a Church, and promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against her, only to have her completely fall away from the teachings of His Son, universally all over the world all believing the same “lies” about how to get to heaven. To me, it does not make sense to believe that the Church could universally fall from grace and fall from teaching the truths of Christ within such a short period of time and then later rediscover the “hidden truths” by reading the book that the same Church herself compiled while teaching these “false Catholic doctrines.”

I used to be protestant my whole life, and grew up that way until I was lucky enough to stumble upon these truths, and my life has never been the same since. I hope sharing my experience can be helpful for you as well, and I do look forward to your answers to the questions I posed.

Hi there!

The topic here is about the Inerrancy of Scripture. My post to which you replied was a contribution to the interpretation of the text in question. I mentioned that I am not RC because there might be a notion that Evangelicals do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Most importantly, the discussion of sola scriptura has already been covered in other threads to which I also posted. I suggest you just check out those threads. I would not want to go through all that again here because this is not the right thread for it.

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 091208 Feast of Mary’s Immaculate Conception
Warm Greetings Pete Holter and All Others –
I did examine carefully, Pete, your posting of 16 Oct … and I have gotten my thoughts together.

I am interested only in establishing with complete certainty, from the teaching of the Church plain and simple, whether or not a Catholic has to believe as “infallible,” as a dogma of the Church, that every word of Scripture is without error.  I mean dogma like the Immaculate Conception or the infallibility, under precise conditions, of the Pope.  The answer is loud and clear, NO.  And this includes all final documents of Vatican II.

I’m not talking about this encyclical or that one, this statement or that one of the Magisterium.  I am talking *only* about belief that a Catholic should and MUST give to the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption, the Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility (under precise conditions).

If you will only call up and examine the following four websites, my response of NO to the above choice will be perfectly clear.  Would you please call these up and examine them?

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/divatican.htm
www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq08.txt

How much trouble this understanding would obviate is enormous.  Let’s stop arguing over “three donkeys” or “two donkeys” .. how many days Jesus remained on earth after the resurrection until he ascended into Heaven .. whether Jesus resurrected appeared first to his mother or not .. and on and on and on.

Let’s permit ourselves to experience more of the spirit of Scripture, the Spirit of the Scripture .. instead of exhausting ourselves and others and using our energies wastefully.
May Jesus and Mary .. and the Holy Spirit .. Bless us all  …  John (JohnJFarren)

 

[adriancombe]

JMJ / MMM 091208 Feast of Mary’s Immaculate Conception
Warm Greetings Pete Holter and All Others –
I did examine carefully, Pete, your posting of 16 Oct … and I have gotten my thoughts together.

I am interested only in establishing with complete certainty, from the teaching of the Church plain and simple, whether or not a Catholic has to believe as “infallible,” as a dogma of the Church, that every word of Scripture is without error.  I mean dogma like the Immaculate Conception or the infallibility, under precise conditions, of the Pope.  The answer is loud and clear, NO.  And this includes all final documents of Vatican II.

I’m not talking about this encyclical or that one, this statement or that one of the Magisterium.  I am talking *only* about belief that a Catholic should and MUST give to the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption, the Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility (under precise conditions).

If you will only call up and examine the following four websites, my response of NO to the above choice will be perfectly clear.  Would you please call these up and examine them?

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/divatican.htm
www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq08.txt

How much trouble this understanding would obviate is enormous.  Let’s stop arguing over “three donkeys” or “two donkeys” .. how many days Jesus remained on earth after the resurrection until he ascended into Heaven .. whether Jesus resurrected appeared first to his mother or not .. and on and on and on.

Let’s permit ourselves to experience more of the spirit of Scripture, the Spirit of the Scripture .. instead of exhausting ourselves and others and using our energies wastefully.
May Jesus and Mary .. and the Holy Spirit .. Bless us all  …  John (JohnJFarren)

We are obliged to believe as decreed by the PBC, see post #256 and the following:

Pope Pius X, Motu Proprio Praestantia Scripturae, 18 Nov. 1907 (*** [1907] 724ff; EB nn. 278f; Dz 2113f): “We now declare and expressly enjoin that all Without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter, exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are on matters of doctrine and approved by the Pope; nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and of rashness or be therefore without grave fault.”

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 091209 Wednesday
Dear Brother adriancombe –
In the warmth and love of Jesus Christ … I thank you for your sending.

What I have written stands correct.

Jesus and Mary Bless you … and the Church. John (JohnJFarren)

 

[una_fides]

I am interested only in establishing with complete certainty, from the teaching of the Church plain and simple, whether or not a Catholic has to believe as “infallible,” as a dogma of the Church, that every word of Scripture is without error. I mean dogma like the Immaculate Conception or the infallibility, under precise conditions, of the Pope. The answer is loud and clear, NO. And this includes all final documents of Vatican II.

I’m not talking about this encyclical or that one, this statement or that one of the Magisterium.  I am talking *only* about belief that a Catholic should and MUST give to the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption, the Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility (under precise conditions).

If you will only call up and examine the following four websites, my response of NO to the above choice will be perfectly clear.  Would you please call these up and examine them?

…
How much trouble this understanding would obviate is enormous. Let’s stop arguing over “three donkeys” or “two donkeys” … how many days Jesus remained on earth after the resurrection until he ascended into Heaven … whether Jesus resurrected appeared first to his mother or not … and on and on and on.

Let’s permit ourselves to experience more of the spirit of Scripture, the Spirit of the Scripture .. instead of exhausting ourselves and others and using our energies wastefully. ...

Greetings John,

There are several things to keep in mind when determining what the Church has taught. First, several popes, which are the highest authority in the Church, have authoritatively commended that all the faithful are bound to hold that all of Scripture is without any error. The Councils of Trent and Vatican I clarified that God is the author of all Scripture, and from that the popes have clarified that because God is perfect, he cannot possibly err in his communication to mankind. Furthermore, the definitions given by popes meet the criteria for infallible declarations, though obviously some argue and try to disagree because the less they are bound to by faith they feel the better. In reality, however, one must still submit his intellect and will to all teachings of the Church, and no pope has rescinded the previous popes’ teachings on this matter, so you are still bound to hold to whatever their predecessors have taught. If a pope declares that all the faithful are bound to believe “x” then they are bound to believe it. You cannot change that reality no matter how hard you try. And no this teaching is not of the same magnitude as the Church’s teachings on the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception; nevertheless, it is infallibly true, and to hold to anything else has been repeatedly condemned as heresy and error.

continued…

 

[una_fides]

"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. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit. (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20-22). http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/l...ii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

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

“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.”[3] 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 and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules” (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu). vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html

            "22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already **often condemned**, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters"                    (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Concerning Some False Opinions Threating to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, n. 21-24). [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html)
               
            "Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and...no error can occur in the inspired text....

We know what He felt about Holy Scripture: when He said, “It is written,” and “the Scripture must needs be fulfilled,” we have therein an argument which admits of no exception and which should put an end to all controversy.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21,22,28) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...n-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus_en.html

Even if one were to argue that none of these were infallible or final and that the Church could still revise this teaching, he would still have to demonstrate where the Church has since officially and authoritatively from her highest authority changed these teachings–which to do so would be impossible. Otherwise he is still bound to believe what the Church has always before taught he is bound to believe and is still bound to condemn as heresy what the Church has always before condemned as heresy.

Lastly, even if one doesn’t accept those above teachings as themselves being infallible, this teaching would nevertheless fall under the category of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, which has also been defined as infallible. The truth of the Church’s teaching on this matter and our necessary response could not be more clear.