Truth: is it relative or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter philophoser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay,
We’ve eased our way into this discussion by way of the first two questions, and now we arrive at the third, one of the primary sources of disagreement between hard-line “sola scriptura” Protestants (of which I am not one), and the Catholic Church. Let me just start by asking two things.
  1. Is it even possible, in the Catholic view, that Jerome could have gotten things wrong in his translation of the Bible, or is it believed dogmatically that he was correct in all of his translation work as it pertains to the Bible?
  2. Is a Catholic allowed to imagine a scenario in which the Church might be in error for the sake of argument, or is part of submitting the intellect an assent that all teachings of the Catholic are true and to be believed at all times? If I ask you, in discussion, to consider the position where the church is wrong and see what follows, is a good Catholic able to do that in good conscience?
 
philophoser said:
Is it even possible, in the Catholic view, that Jerome could have gotten things wrong in his translation of the Bible, or is it believed dogmatically that he was correct in all of his translation work as it pertains to the Bible?
Click to expand...
No…

The Catholic Church’s Well Known Vulgate to English Translation,
The Douay-Rheims – comes from St. Jerome…
 
@philophoser, Let me suggest we take a step back. This may seem a little off the track but I think it would be good to look at how we Catholics arrive at the point of such trust in the Church. I will quote from Ronald Knox’s excellent book “The Belief of Catholics”.
Let me then, to avoid further ambiguity, give a list of certain leading doctrines which no Catholic, upon a moments reflection, could accept on the authority of the Church and on that ground alone.
(i.) The existence of God.
(ii.) The fact that he has made a revelation to the world in Jesus Christ.
(iii.) The Life (in its broad outlines), the Death, and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
(iv.) The fact that our Lord founded a Church.
(v.) The fact that he bequeathed to that Church his own teaching office, with the guarantee (naturally) that it should not err in teaching.
(vi.) The consequent intellectual duty of believing what the Church believes.
Click to expand...
 
philophoser said:
Okay,
We’ve eased our way into this discussion by way of the first two questions, and now we arrive at the third, one of the primary sources of disagreement between hard-line “sola scriptura” Protestants (of which I am not one), and the Catholic Church. Let me just start by asking two things.
  1. Is it even possible, in the Catholic view, that Jerome could have gotten things wrong in his translation of the Bible, or is it believed dogmatically that he was correct in all of his translation work as it pertains to the Bible?
Click to expand...
  1. Is a Catholic allowed to imagine a scenario in which the Church might be in error for the sake of argument, or is part of submitting the intellect an assent that all teachings of the Catholic are true and to be believed at all times? If I ask you, in discussion, to consider the position where the church is wrong and see what follows, is a good Catholic able to do that in good conscience?
    [/quote]
There is no such thing as a Biblical translation which the Church has dogmatically declared to be infallible or “perfect”, including St Jerome’s work. The Catholic canon of scripture has been translated into hundreds of languages. The scholarship from St Jerome is, however, very impressive.

For #2: a person cannot disagree with the dogmas and well-established doctrines of the Church. The dissent from liberal theologians tends to be on stuff that is already well-established doctrine (no such thing as female priests, contraception violates the sacredness of life, etc.). This article digs into some of the details:

www.patheos.com

How Much Can Catholics Disagree With The Church?

The "line" is where the Church has established a dogma or solidly established doctrine. Most theological issues have been settled, & Catholics are not free to disagree.
www.patheos.com www.patheos.com

Church clergy and laity can and frequently do make mistakes, including gravely immoral ones.
 
Last edited:
tafan2:
1-4 can indeed be accepted without acceding to the authority of the RC church. 5 and 6 are born out of a certain interpretation of Matthew 16. These cannot be believed WITHOUT believing in the authority of the church. There is nothing in Matthew 16 that anybody could ever take to mean “that which the bishop of Rome claims in matters of doctrine is always and everywhere infallible.” This is, however, a Biblically unsupported claim that bishops of Rome have made about themselves for the last 1300 years or so.

How does this relate to question 2? Is it the intellectual duty of all Catholics to assume the truth of the Catholic church in all matters of dispute and THEN seek to defend that truth? This is a classic example of the fallacy of petitio principii, which is a problem I had with my brother when arguing these points. If this is a view that everybody here holds, then there is no point discussing these issues…
 
TK421 said:
There is no such thing as a Biblical translation which the Church has dogmatically declared to be infallible or “perfect”,
Click to expand...
It’s part of Church Teachings that Sacred Scriptures are Of GOD…
 
See my response to tafan2.
A Catholic is required to submit their intellect to the church. On matters of doctrine, especially with respect to the supremacy of the Catholic Church based in Rome, I take this to mean something of this sort:
Church: “Catholic, the church is the source of all truth in manners of doctrine and cannot err.”
Catholic: “why?”
Church: “because we said so.”
A person who holds this view by faith is immune to evidential and logical debate.
 
@philophoser

I don’t believe so. I’m a convert to the faith and I came to the Church through significant self-debate. Cradle Catholics usually arrive at a moment in their lives where they need to explore their faith deeper or either end up leaving or compromising.

This website (among many other sources) is an example of people providing evidence and arguments for why the claims of the Church are legitimate. I would say the Church has done this to greater lengths than any other branch of Christianity or any other world religion.
 
Last edited:
But you can only “provide evidence and arguments” which strictly adhere to what your church teaches though, correct? I mean, for a good Catholic, there is no alternative to believing the view expressed by the Catholic Church about itself that it is the one true church, correct?
Do you see why logic and evidence can never persuade somebody who believes this?
 
philophoser said:
Church: “Catholic, the church is the source of all truth in manners of doctrine and cannot err.”
Catholic: “why?”
Church: “because we said so.”
Click to expand...
On a Catholic Forum? Why Not? 🙂

But that’s certainly not all that I’d said…

TO THE OP: In your arguments.

You come across IMO as strongly representing one who strongly Believes
that what you are presenting - is True - in an Absolute sense of that word; yes?

And IMO your appraisal of Catholicism seems to lack any sense
of those who worship in Spirit and in Truth…
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
You come across IMO as strongly representing one who strongly Believes
that what you are presenting - is True - in an Absolute sense of that word; yes?
Click to expand...
Really? You guys convinced me I was wrong in my understanding of questions 1 and 2? The problem I’m having is that nothing can convince a Catholic that they’re ever wrong.
 
philophoser said:
But you can only “provide evidence and arguments” which strictly adhere to what your church teaches though, correct? I mean, for a good Catholic, there is no alternative to believing the view expressed by the Catholic Church about itself that it is the one true church, correct?
Do you see why logic and evidence can never persuade somebody who believes this?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t. People leave the Church and join the Church all the time.

The alternative is there are as many branches of Christianity as there are people who identify as Christian.
 
Last edited:
Those are bad Catholics 😂
Good Catholicism provides immunity from ever being wrong.
 
But I will try anyway.
Is it possible that Jerome could have mistakenly translated important parts of the Bible that led the Catholic Church into error?
 
philophoser said:
But I will try anyway.
Is it possible that Jerome could have mistakenly translated important parts of the Bible that led the Catholic Church into error?
Click to expand...
When the Church declares something dogmatically, this comes about supernaturally through the Holy Spirit, so strictly speaking it is not reliant on human effort or knowledge.
 
philophoser said:
1-4 can indeed be accepted without acceding to the authority of the RC church. 5 and 6 are born out of a certain interpretation of Matthew 16. These cannot be believed WITHOUT believing in the authority of the church. There is nothing in Matthew 16 that anybody could ever take to mean “that which the bishop of Rome claims in matters of doctrine is always and everywhere infallible.” This is, however, a Biblically unsupported claim that bishops of Rome have made about themselves for the last 1300 years or so.
Click to expand...
I will just leave you a link to Fr Knox’s chapter on that subject, I think it worth reading and he makes a better case than I.

http://www.cin.org/liter/belief11.html
 
philophoser said:
The problem I’m having is that nothing can convince a Catholic that they’re ever wrong.
Click to expand...
INDEED .

So for what purpose in your life
do you continue to attempt doing that acknowledged impossibility?

Curious if you’re of a non-Catholic form of Christianity?
_
 
philophoser said:
Again, I’m not talking about the “formula”.
(This is a historical simplification, but roughly conforms to the history of belief in the church.)
Years 33-1000 AD - God absolves people of their sins.
Years 1001-2020 - Priests absolve people of their sins.
Which of these competing and separate views is true? Or does belief by the Church MAKE the view true (i.e. truth is relative?)
Click to expand...
Truth is objective. A thing is true or it isn’t, and the church thinking a thing is not what makes it true.

I don’t think these are separate and competing views. This isn’t an either/or. It’s both/and.

A priest, by virtue of the Apostolic Succession, has been granted certain ‘powers’ by Jesus to act in His stead. The Apostolic Succession means that Jesus granted these gifts to His apostles, laying His hands on them. They passed them on to the next priests, who passed it on, and so on down to our current priests–a direct line back to Jesus.

Therefore, the priest in saying I absolve you, is speaking in God’s stead. He has been granted the ‘right’ to give absolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top