P
ProVobis
Guest
Could be but all we have are translations, which I believe are seldom infallible.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Translations are fallible.
But we are agreed, yes, that Matthew was infallible when he wrote his gospel? And Mark, Luke and John?
C
crazzeto
Guest
However we have the Vulgate which was backed up as containing nothing which offends faith and morals, as we do know that when written God made this his infallible word.
Yep, but we do have pretty good source materials to work with as well as well as duplicates in the original language dating back very far as well as the Vulgate which serves as a reference translation.
We also have Holy Tradition to back up current versions of scripture, of which scripture its self is a part.
C
clem456
Guest
I’m not trying to be contentious, but precisely what do we mean when we use “infallible” in this context? The Scriptures are what God willed to be written in their entirety. But the authors…you get the idea. People have different understandings of infallibility.
C
crazzeto
Guest
I honestly fear the subject matter is getting derailed over a technical battle over this term. I think by and large it’s safe to assume any Catholic bible you can buy at an average store today is ‘good enough’.
C
clem456
Guest
I whole heartedly agree with that. But many people have a real problem believing God “really and truly” spoke the words to Moses for instance, telling him to have the Levites slay 3000 of their brethren including women and children. The Scriptures are replete with examples that many Christians take as the literal word of God, and that drives many people away from Christianity in general. Or the young earth issue is another example. “Infallibility” or inerrancy are just misunderstood and drive a lot of people away.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It means that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc were prevented from proclaiming as true what is actually false.
So unless we believe that there is some false teaching in their writings, we believe that these human persons were, indeed, infallible.
And I believe that this is a point that most non-Catholic Christians fail to consider. They perseverate on the idea that “no man can be infallible”, yet also hold the Scriptures to be written without error. They need to reconcile these conflicting paradigms.
C
clem456
Guest
Yes agreed the authors are preserved from proclaiming deceit.
In my opinion (which I swore off of for lent
) … the reason infalliblity of the Scriptures is acceptable to many but infallibility of the Pope is not is,accepting the scriptures **can be **a self contained endeavor that is answerable only to one’s self,
accepting the infallibility of the Pope requires humbling yourself before another human being for the greater glory of God, something that can be very hard to do.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Perhaps.Yes agreed the authors are preserved from proclaiming deceit.
In my opinion (which I swore off of for lent
accepting the scriptures **can be **a self contained endeavor that is answerable only to one’s self,
accepting the infallibility of the Pope requires humbling yourself before another human being for the greater glory of God, something that can be very hard to do.
But my opinion is that Protestants are stuck on this idea: No man can be infallible!
Except they forget that they believe that Matthew, et al were infallible.
P
pickerij
Guest
For awhile, but now she’s in a much better place and singing her heart out!
Really, I think it’s because she woke up one morning and realized she was still married to an “old guy.”
If you pray the Rosary, you might enjoy “Sing the Rosary with Annmarie.” That’s a truly beautiful piece. God Bless.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I would say that, IN COMBINATION, they provide indisputable evidence. But do we know for a fact St. Matthew himself wrote one of the gospels? I don’t think we have the originals.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Sorry. I am not following your point.
If a Protestant believes that men can NOT be infallible, how is it that they believe in the Scriptures, which were written by men.
How is it that you believe they are able to reconcile this?
C
crazzeto
Guest
As I understand (and is the opinion of the Priest my wife and I were talking with in a bible study) the infallibility of scripture goes well beyond the negative infallibility you describe here which applies to the Holy Father. At least in the opinion of the Priest, scripture should more positively be regarded the written word of God allowing for the fact that he did use human authors who did use their own words and expressions to present the word.
So taken in this context, it isn’t just that they were prevented from error as the Holy Father is, but rather they received positive prompting to write what they did. In my experience though, it seems many protestants seem to almost box this off some how as unique to those individuals. The same sort of boxing they do to argue against Mary being sinless based on St. Paul even though St. Luke presents Zachariah & Elizabeth as “blameless before the Lord”.
C
clem456
Guest
I believe most often they use the “tape recorder” or “robot” theory of scripture. It’s the word of God “transcribed” by men. Dictation is another word I hear used to describe this. The author does not have the free will to be infallible.
Getting off the beaten track here. Bottom line is people do not want to submit to any other person in obedience. Which is absurd because none of us would know about Christ if it were not for other human beings (unless we all got our own private revelation like Joseph Smith). Obedience is essential for Catholicism. It was the hardest thing for me to swallow when coming back to the Church. The posts of Brother JR are really a blessing in this area. I also really like St John of the Cross’ writing about obedience to human authority, as given by Christ. Christ subjected himself to death at the hands of human beings, and left the Church in the hands of weak and sinful human beings. I sometimes forget that.
I
inChristAlone33
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah, yes. This is a correct and better explication of my postings.
Only Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired, and thus holds a position superior to that of the infallibility of the magisterium, which is only, as you correctly state, a negative charism.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Maybe they feel Catholicism and the Catholic God - is not the Truth
B
Brandall
Guest
She’s really too pretty to be married to a “geezer”For awhile, but now she’s in a much better place and singing her heart out!
Really, I think it’s because she woke up one morning and realized she was still married to an “old guy.”
If you pray the Rosary, you might enjoy “Sing the Rosary with Annmarie.” That’s a truly beautiful piece. God Bless.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Are we as Catholics supposed to believe this? I thought the the magisterium preceded the completion of scripture as we know it; in fact, it could be argued that the magisterium defined scripture.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes.
From Jimmy Akin:
The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible alone is the inspired word of God, where inspired refers to the action of the Holy Spirit in guiding the human authors to write what God wanted written, in the precise way he wanted it written. Sacred Tradition, though also the word of God, does not come to us in an inspired (or “God-breathed”) form (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). Theologians talk about sacred Tradition being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, to be sure, as they do the teaching ministry or magisterium of the Church.** But only Scripture has God as its primary author and in that sense only Scripture is divinely inspired**
- Status