Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Beginning Catholic: Understanding The Bible: A Catholic Guide To The Word of God [Ecumenical]
BeginningCatholic.com ^ | not given | Beginning Catholic.com

Posted on 08/20/2008 11:08:01 AM PDT by Salvation

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
Ecumenical thread. Please follow the Guidelines for Ecumenical threads
1 posted on 08/20/2008 11:08:02 AM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Lady In Blue; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; Catholicguy; RobbyS; markomalley; ...
Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

2 posted on 08/20/2008 11:09:39 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Beginning Catholic: The Catholic Church's Origin [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Church Authority In Scripture [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Tradition: Life in the Spirit [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Infallibility: Keeping the Faith [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Moral Conscience: Catholic Teaching for a Strong Faith [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: Catholic Morality: Life in Christ [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: A Strong Start in the Faith: The Catholic RCIA Stages [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: The RCIA Inquiry Stage In the Catholic Church [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: Accept No Substitutes: Catholic Orthodoxy [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Basic Tenets of Catholicism [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: The Creed Of The People Of God: The Essentials/Catholic Belief [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Creeds: Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Purgatory: What Does It Mean? [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: Understanding The Bible: A Catholic Guide To The Word of God [Ecumenical]

3 posted on 08/20/2008 11:11:58 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

bump


4 posted on 08/20/2008 11:13:08 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Righter-than-Rush

Did you read the Guidelines for Ecumenical posts?

Please do.


6 posted on 08/20/2008 11:14:55 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Righter-than-Rush

This is an “ecumenical” thread in the Religion Forum. Antagonism is not allowed.


7 posted on 08/20/2008 11:21:39 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation
God chose to reveal to us certain truths for the sake of our salvation. This message of salvation is the set of revealed truths which we call the "deposit of faith," or Divine Revelation. The Bible is primarily concerned with telling us these truths, which are without error. God himself made sure of that.

So, does this mean the Bible is only inerrant when teaching theological matters?

8 posted on 08/20/2008 11:25:21 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful and enkindle in them the fire of Thy love. Send forth Thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew the face of the Earth. Amen.

Let us pray.

O God, who didst instruct the hearts of the faithful by the light of the Holy Spirit, grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment in all things and ever rejoice in His consolation, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

9 posted on 08/20/2008 12:07:10 PM PDT by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oratam

Thanks for that prayer.


10 posted on 08/20/2008 12:10:11 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom; Antoninus; ArrogantBustard; celticfreedom; CTK YKC; dan1123; DaveMSmith; ...
If you want to be on the Catholic Theology for non-Catholics list but are not on it already, or if you are on it but do not want to be, let me know either publicly or privately.

Previously posted:

On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church
The Great Heresies
SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING
Hermits and Solitaries [Ecumenical]
THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE
RIGHTEOUSNESS AND MERIT
A Well-Rounded Pope [Ecumenical]
A Monastery to Last 1,000 Years [Ecumenical]
Explaining Purgatory from a New Testament Perspective [Ecumenical]
In the Crosshairs of the Canon [How We Got The Bible] [Ecumenical]
'An Ordinance Forever' - The Biblical Origins of the Mass [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Church Authority In Scripture [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Tradition: Life in the Spirit [Ecumenical]
Christian Atheism
Vatican plea to uncover Virgin Mary and show her breast-feeding baby Jesus
Why do Catholics have to confess their sins to a priest instead of praying straight to God? [Ecu]
Our Times: The Age of Martyrs
The Eucharist - the Lord's Sacrifice, Banquet and Presence
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Morality: Life in Christ [Ecumenical]
Chosen In Him: The Catholic Teaching on Predestination [Ecumenical]
The Sacraments [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: A Strong Start in the Faith: The Catholic RCIA Stages [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: The RCIA Inquiry Stage In the Catholic Church [Ecumenical]
Catholic Art
Evangelicals: Change of Heart toward Catholics
Beginning Catholic: The Creed Of The People Of God: The Essentials/Catholic Belief [Ecumenical]
An open letter to Mr. Stephen A. Baldwin, Actor, and “born again” Christian.
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Purgatory: What Does It Mean? [Ecumenical]

11 posted on 08/20/2008 12:28:57 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

Remembering our recent discussion, here’s a thread that does a nice summary of what the Scripture is and is not.


12 posted on 08/20/2008 12:33:17 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
No, that phrase simply means that God revealed to us what He chose to reveal and that which He revealed is inerrant.

Sections more pertinent to your habitual concern would be

God also used human language and knowledge—with all of its limitations—to tell us his eternal truths.

[...]

if you don't understand what the sacred author was saying to people in his own cultural context, in terms as they were used at the time, you won't be able to clearly see what God is saying through him.


13 posted on 08/20/2008 12:37:51 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I already know that you reject total inerrancy. I was inquiring about the article and its source.

I suppose I should have known better than to ask in the first place.

14 posted on 08/20/2008 1:47:51 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
So, does this mean the Bible is only inerrant when teaching theological matters?

No. It means what it says....the theological matters are of primary significance.

I see where you're going with this though....the author might (I didn't read closely) want to carve out for himself a niche in which to say that non-theological facts could be in error. If so, he's being rather imprudent IMHO.

15 posted on 08/20/2008 2:02:47 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Claud; Zionist Conspirator
non-theological facts could be in error.

They are simply not a part of the revelation. They are a part of the limitations of human language and knowledge.

For example, a reporter might reveal an event he observed in a photograph. That is inerrant, thanks to the physics of the camera and print. However, if you magnify the print of the photograph, you will see dots of red green and blue color that were not a part of the event. They are just the imaging technology. One who would argue that the actual even had a multitude of red, green and blue dots involved because the photograph has then would not be arguing from the inerrancy of the photograph, but from his ignorance of the technology used in photography.

16 posted on 08/20/2008 3:11:45 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Exciting topic.


17 posted on 08/20/2008 4:03:54 PM PDT by defconw (Pray for Snow-RIP TONY, we love you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Claud; Zionist Conspirator
the actual even had a multitude of red, green and blue dots involved because the photograph has then

the actual event had a multitude of red, green and blue dots involved because the photograph has them.

Typos that are legitimate words are the worst. There is a lesson in separating the transmission from the content in this as well.

18 posted on 08/20/2008 4:17:50 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Claud
non-theological facts could be in error.

They are simply not a part of the revelation.

And I suppose the fact that Popes have condemned this notion of yours (non-theological matter in the Bible is not inerrant) means nothing to you or to those who think like you. Oh well. We all know so much more nowadays than those primitives did.

Since "Biblical scholars" reject the notion that the Israelites were ever in Egypt to begin with I suppose the Book of Exodus is full of historical errors as well.

19 posted on 08/20/2008 5:14:54 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Popes have condemned this notion of yours

Got a quote? Precise language matters in these things.

20 posted on 08/20/2008 5:21:04 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; annalex

I don’t think annalex is saying non-theological facts could be in error.

The text is inerrant throughout. Where the error might come in is our mistakenly interpreting a completely incidental figure of speech for a statement of fact. For example, there is no grounds for interpreting Christ’s statement about mustard seeds as absolutely disqualifying the possibility of a smaller seed somewhere in the world.


21 posted on 08/21/2008 5:13:55 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

Interesting statement by the Catholic church...The authors of the scripture wrote everything they heard(?) or were told to write...And the authors wrote ONLY what Jesus wanted them to write...

Now that creates a dilema for the Catholic Traditions...Apparently Jesus wanted to keep 'those' traditions a secret...

And of course I don't believe that for a minute...Apparently someone at your church doesn't either:

The people who experienced these events and received God's divine messages either wrote them down later, or would pass them on in a reliable oral tradition that was later written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

As we can see, there is no such thing as 'oral Tradition' that did not make it into scripture...

22 posted on 08/21/2008 5:57:18 AM PDT by Iscool (If Obama becomes the President, it will be an Obama-nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Claud; annalex; wideawake
I don’t think annalex is saying non-theological facts could be in error.

Yes he is.

There isn't really any need of us all doing this dance again for the nteenth time. We all know where we stand.

I'll just say that with the Church's hostility to "Biblical literalism" it's no wonder that most Catholics are uncomfortable reading the Bible. After all, they might interpret something "literally" and fall into heresy!

It's most interesting that the beliefs of the church fathers are invoked to "prove" the Catholic position on several issues but are dismissed anytime they are too "literal" on the grounds that "they didn't know then what we know now."

23 posted on 08/21/2008 7:09:22 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
...most Catholics are uncomfortable reading the Bible...

What a delightful slander!

24 posted on 08/21/2008 7:11:27 AM PDT by Petronski (The God of Life will condemn the Chinese government. Laogai means GULAG.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Got a quote?

Riiiiight. Suuuure he does.

25 posted on 08/21/2008 7:13:25 AM PDT by Petronski (The God of Life will condemn the Chinese government. Laogai means GULAG.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
What a delightful slander!

Yes, one I took right from the Catholic author of the article at the head of this thread.

26 posted on 08/21/2008 7:16:51 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Petronski; Claud; wideawake; papertyger
Got a quote? Precise language matters in these things.

"16. St. Jerome's teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo Xlll, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error:

"So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error.

"17. Then, after giving the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed by the Council of the Vatican, Pope Leo continues:

"'Consequently it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as His instruments for writing, and that therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves. For by supernatural power the Holy Spirit so stirred them and moved them to write, so assisted them as they wrote, that their minds could rightly conceive only those and all those things which He himself bade them conceive; only such things could they faithfully commit to writing and aptly express with unerring truth; else God would not be the Author of the entirety of Sacred Scripture.'[42]

"18. But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church -- nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning -- who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church's teaching on this point.

"We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor's injunctions and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.

"19. Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase -- and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture -- yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration -- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error -- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning "profane knowledge," the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author's greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science!

"20. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since -- so they claim -- he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external -- and thus deceptive -- appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things -- of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo Xlll, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks -- we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture.

"21. Moreover, our predecessor, sweeping aside all such distinctions between what these critics are pleased to call primary and secondary elements, says in no ambiguous fashion that "those who fancy that when it is a question of the truth of certain expressions we have not got to consider so much what God said as why He said it," are very far indeed from the truth. He also teaches that Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text: 'It would be wholly impious to limit inspiration to certain portions only of Scripture or to concede that the sacred authors themselves could have erred.'[43]

"22. Those, too, who hold that the historical portions of Scripture do not rest on the absolute truth of the facts but merely upon what they are pleased to term their relative truth, namely, what people then commonly thought, are -- no less than are the aforementioned critics -- out of harmony with the Church's teaching, which is endorsed by the testimony of Jerome and other Fathers. Yet they are not afraid to deduce such views from the words of Leo Xlll on the ground that he allowed that the principles he had laid down touching the things of nature could be applied to historical things as well. Hence they maintain that precisely as the sacred writers spoke of physical things according to appearance, so, too, while ignorant of the facts, they narrated them in accordance with general opinion or even on baseless evidence; neither do they tell us the sources whence they derived their knowledge, nor do they make other peoples' narrative their own. Such views are clearly false, and constitute a calumny on our predecessor. After all, what analogy is there between physics and history? For whereas physics is concerned with "sensible appearances" and must consequently square with phenomena, history on the contrary, must square with the facts, since history is the written account of events as they actually occurred. If we were to accept such views, how could we maintain the truth insisted on throughout Leo Xlll's Encyclical -- viz. that the sacred narrative is absolutely free from error?

"23. And if Leo XIII does say that we can apply to history and cognate subjects the same principles which hold good for science, he yet does not lay this down as a universal law, but simply says that we can apply a like line of argument when refuting the fallacies of adversaries and defending the historical truth of Scripture from their assaults.

"24. Nor do modern innovators stop here: they even try to claim St. Jerome as a patron of their views on the ground that he maintained that historic truth and sequence were not observed in the Bible, "precisely as things actually took place, but in accordance with what men thought at that time," and that he even held that this was the true norm for history.[44] A strange distortion of St. Jerome's words! He does not say that when giving us an account of events the writer was ignorant of the truth and simply adopted the false views then current; he merely says that in giving names to persons or things he followed general custom. Thus the Evangelist calls St. Joseph the father of Jesus, but what he meant by the title "father" here is abundantly clear from the whole context. For St. Jerome "the true norm of history" is this: when it is question of such appellatives (as "father," etc), and when there is no danger or error, then a writer must adopt the ordinary forms of speech simply because such forms of speech are in ordinary use. More than this: Jerome maintains that belief in the Biblical narrative is as necessary to salvation as is belief in the doctrines of the faith; thus in his Commentary on the Epistle to Philemon he says:

"'What I mean is this: Does any man believe in God the Creator? He cannot do so unless he first believe that the things written of God's Saints are true.' He then gives examples from the Old Testament, and adds: 'Now unless a man believes all these and other things too which are written of the Saints he cannot believe in the God of the Saints.'[45]

"25. Thus St. Jerome is in complete agreement with St. Augustine, who sums up the general belief of Christian antiquity when he says:

"'Holy Scripture is invested with supreme authority by reason of its sure and momentous teachings regarding the faith. Whatever, then, it tells us of Enoch, Elias and Moses -- that we believe. We do not, for instance, believe that God's Son was born of the Virgin Mary simply because He could not otherwise have appeared in the flesh and 'walked amongst men' -- as Faustus would have it -- but we believe it simply because it is written in Scripture; and unless we believe in Scripture we can neither be Christians nor be saved.'[46]

"26. Then there are other assailants of Holy Scripture who misuse principles -- which are only sound, if kept within due bounds -- in order to overturn the fundamental truth of the Bible and thus destroy Catholic teaching handed down by the Fathers. If Jerome were living now he would sharpen his keenest controversial weapons against people who set aside what is the mind and judgment of the Church, and take too ready a refuge in such notions as "implicit quotations" or "pseudo-historical narratives," or in "kinds of literature" in the Bible such as cannot be reconciled with the entire and perfect truth of God's word, or who suggest such origins of the Bible as must inevitably weaken -- if not destroy -- its authority."

--Spiritus Paraclitus, Pope Benedict XV, 9/15/1920

"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, Divine Afflante Spiritu, 1943

Then of course there are the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in the early years of the twentieth century (when the PBC was a magisterial body), which so many Catholics are embarrassed by today (the condemnation of the errancy of obiter dicta, affirmation of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch).

I'm sorry I got into this again on this thread. I've learned long ago that there's no need trying to reason with the vast majority of Catholics on this subject, since "Biblical literalism" is considered by them a mark of Protestantism and therefore "un-Catholic." But as these encyclicals make clear, you are at least consistent enough to reject the literal interpretation of them as well.

The stubbornness with which most of you defend evolution and higher criticism is such that one can only conclude that they have achieved a quasi dogmatic status in contemporary Catholicism.

27 posted on 08/21/2008 8:09:27 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Claud; Zionist Conspirator
Where the error might come in is our mistakenly interpreting a completely incidental figure of speech for a statement of fact

Yes, exactly. Note that in #19 Zionist Conspirator begins by inserting a false interpretation of my post in parenthesis, then proceeds to say that the parenthetical part (his) is condemned by the popes.

On the other hand, I was unclear, because I gave an impression that the Bible is divided in inerrant theological part and fallible non-theological part. What I was trying to say was that the apparent error comes from our reading with the mind different from the mind of the inspired author, and is not the revealed divine truth to begin with.

28 posted on 08/21/2008 8:47:59 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; Petronski; Claud; wideawake; papertyger

Thank you very much; I will read the entire Spiritus Paraclitus and if I discover that my views were not in accord with it, I will amend my views. At first glance though, I do not find anything where my understanding differed from the papal superb exegesis.


29 posted on 08/21/2008 8:51:11 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Because two wrongs make a right.


30 posted on 08/21/2008 8:53:59 AM PDT by Petronski (The God of Life will condemn the Chinese government. Laogai means GULAG.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Zionist Conspirator
There is a HUGE difference between the phrase, "too many Catholics" and "most Catholics."

To illustrate: There are 1.1 BILLION Catholics in the world, so if say 1% of Catholics were uncomfortable reading the Bible, that would be 11 million (approximately the TOTAL number of Methodists in the world) and it could easily be said that 11 million is "too many;" however, the reality is that this would be 1% not "most" Catholics.

31 posted on 08/21/2008 9:01:04 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Claud
Yes, exactly. Note that in #19 Zionist Conspirator begins by inserting a false interpretation of my post in parenthesis, then proceeds to say that the parenthetical part (his) is condemned by the popes.

In what way did I misinterpret you? You plainly stated that non-theological matter in the Bible is "not part of revelation."

But pay no attention to me. I'm going to Hell as a punishment for my rebellious "literalism."

Are we really going to rehash our well-known arguments for the blue-millionth time? I've already apologized for getting involved in this thread.

32 posted on 08/21/2008 9:04:00 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
There is a HUGE difference between the phrase, "too many Catholics" and "most Catholics."

::Sigh::

If I admitted that Charles Darwin was right, that the Book of Jonah is a fairy tale, that the Book of Daniel is a pseudepigraph, and that the Israelites were never in Egypt (as our "inerrant" atheist scholars insist) would you then be happy?

33 posted on 08/21/2008 9:07:55 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Yes, one I took right from the Catholic author of the article at the head of this thread.

No, you didn't. The author said Too many Catholics aren't comfortable reading and understanding the Bible.

In this case, the two wrongs that "make a right" are (a) your slander as noted above and (b) your effort to blame the author by misrepresenting what he said.

Just pitiful.

34 posted on 08/21/2008 9:10:49 AM PDT by Petronski (The God of Life will condemn the Chinese government. Laogai means GULAG.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
If I admitted that Charles Darwin was right, that the Book of Jonah is a fairy tale, that the Book of Daniel is a pseudepigraph, and that the Israelites were never in Egypt (as our "inerrant" atheist scholars insist) would you then be happy?

No, I would say that it has NOTHING to do with what you wrote.

35 posted on 08/21/2008 9:11:20 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I missed that completely. I just assumed that the claim “one I took right from the Catholic author of the article at the head of this thread” was honest.


36 posted on 08/21/2008 9:12:59 AM PDT by Petronski (The God of Life will condemn the Chinese government. Laogai means GULAG.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Anti-Catholics have a long history of restating things to make them comform to what they WANT them to say.


37 posted on 08/21/2008 9:19:47 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Perhaps "too many" Catholics wouldn't feel uncomfortable reading the Bible if they weren't afraid they might accidentally interpret something "literally" and thus be guilty of "Protestantism."

We're really going to argue all day, aren't we?

38 posted on 08/21/2008 9:27:16 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Perhaps "too many" Catholics wouldn't feel uncomfortable reading the Bible if they weren't afraid they might accidentally interpret something "literally" and thus be guilty of "Protestantism."

Please provide a SINGLE source from an official Catholic teaching that states that the events you are talking about are not as the Bible states.

39 posted on 08/21/2008 9:34:21 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Please provide a SINGLE source from an official Catholic teaching that states that the events you are talking about are not as the Bible states.

Please provide an explanation of why so many "conservative" Catholics, including FREEPERS, feel compelled to at least be open to dismissing them as actual historical events.

40 posted on 08/21/2008 10:01:23 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; Claud

When I said, in 16, that non-theological part are “not a part of the revelation” I immediately explained that the error, if any, is in our perception of what is revealed, and gave a very clear, I think, example of color dots on a photograph.

The purported rephrase “non-theological matter in the Bible is not inerrant” suggests that, for example, the historical narratives are not inerrant, because history is not theology. That is what is inaccurate in the rephrase.

You keep complaining that arguments get re-hashed. This is like complaining that 2+2=4 is a rehashed argument. No matter how many times you differently misrepresent my views, you will get the same clarifications from me.

On the other hand, why do you apologize? I enjoy talking about these things with you; I also think that your criticism of liberal Catholics, — they do exist — is constructive and I welcome it.


41 posted on 08/21/2008 11:25:34 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Please provide an explanation of why so many "conservative" Catholics, including FREEPERS, feel compelled to at least be open to dismissing them as actual historical events.

I'm not talking about individual Catholics, I'm talking about Church teaching. Because, as I'm sure you realize, a great many Protestants and Jews ALSO subscribe to Darwinism and dismiss the literal truth of Scripture.

42 posted on 08/21/2008 11:53:55 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; Claud
I'm going to Hell as a punishment for my rebellious "literalism."

Forgot to react to that. You are not: the Protestant error is certain false doctrines that deny the salvific character of good works, the role of the Church, her tradition and her sacraments, veneration of saints, etc. No one has ever been anathemized for taking the Bible as literally as he wants. In fact, the Church teaches that while anagogical or allegorical passages exist, one should always give precedence to the literal interpretation.

43 posted on 08/21/2008 12:11:32 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Zionist Conspirator
On the other hand, why do you apologize? I enjoy talking about these things with you; I also think that your criticism of liberal Catholics, — they do exist — is constructive and I welcome it.

I agree, annalex.

ZC, you know I try to give you credit for a good argument whenever you make one--and you make them quite often--but I really do think that your critique of annalex here is off. He's repeatedly asserted that the error is in the interpretation and not in the text.

44 posted on 08/21/2008 1:08:01 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Please provide an explanation of why so many "conservative" Catholics, including FREEPERS, feel compelled to at least be open to dismissing them as actual historical events.

How's this: they've been really badly taught. :)

45 posted on 08/21/2008 1:20:07 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Forgot to react to that. You are not: the Protestant error is certain false doctrines that deny the salvific character of good works, the role of the Church, her tradition and her sacraments, veneration of saints, etc. No one has ever been anathemized for taking the Bible as literally as he wants. In fact, the Church teaches that while anagogical or allegorical passages exist, one should always give precedence to the literal interpretation.

I may subscribe to "error" in your view, but it is not Protestant.

I also reject sola scriptura, sola fide, etc., only I do so from a far more consistent position than do you, since Catholicism's rejection of the validity of Torah observance in favor of "chr*stian faith" (not to mention its rejection of Oral Torah as "the doctrines and commandments of men") is the ultimate source of Protestantism.

Still, your assertion is difficult to believe considering all the Catholic "big guns" that are brought out to attack literalism. Maybe if abortion were attacked with the same single-minded fervency it would be defeated.

46 posted on 08/21/2008 1:43:07 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Because, as I'm sure you realize, a great many Protestants and Jews ALSO subscribe to Darwinism and dismiss the literal truth of Scripture.

Protestants and Jews don't have a pope or a vatican.

47 posted on 08/21/2008 1:45:17 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . ki lo' `al-halechem levaddo yichyeh ha'adam, ki `al-kol-motza' fi-HaShem yichyeh ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
all the Catholic "big guns" that are brought out to attack literalism.

"Attack" is an aerodynamic word. "Literalism" is another aerodynamic word. Let's get specific, please.

First, we need to see what exactly is being attacked. Do they attack literalism as a Fundamentalist Christian understands it, with all the Sola Scriptura accretions; do they attack Catholics who believe that the 6 literal day creation is the only acceptable reading of the book of Genesis; do they attack Judaizing elements in the Christendom who insist on obeying the law of Moses? Or do they simply argue without accusation of heresy? These are all different things.

Second, no one disputes that there are Catholics in good standing who believe, for example, in theistic evolution. As well as there are Catholics who believe as far as the Creation goes, the same thing you believe. Each side would naturally attack the other, and good for them, so long as the "attack" is intellectual and not by force. These are not, however, anathemas: neither side proclaims the other excommunicated, which can be construed (inaccurately, but let's skip that over) as "going to hell".

My assertion is that one who believes in literal interpretation of the Creation is not excommunicated. It is an acceptable belief in Catholicism, but so is a belief in theistic evolution. Both can claim correctly understood literalism as their cognitive tool.

48 posted on 08/21/2008 2:13:16 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
since Catholicism's rejection of the validity of Torah observance in favor of "chr*stian faith" (not to mention its rejection of Oral Torah as "the doctrines and commandments of men") is the ultimate source of Protestantism.

Now wait a second. There was very clearly a school of thought in the Oral Torah (and there still is) that the Messiah would propound a new law and a new covenant. If the Messianic claim of the Christians was true, they were certainly well within the confines of oral tradition to believe that the Messiah could and would set over them a new Law. And as the Sanhedrin never ruled on those Messianic claims one way or the other until it was destroyed, the Apostles were under no official sanction save for strong personal disapproval.

The Church's tradition never suggests anywhere that its own magisterial teaching would be abolished on earth, and it *did* rule officially on the doctrines of the Reformation. So I don't think your comparison is at all apt.

49 posted on 08/21/2008 2:32:59 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; Petronski; Claud; wideawake; papertyger
Read this beautiful encyclical.

This passage is meant for you:

64. Small wonder, then, if in his devout meditations he applied everything in the Bible to Christ: When I read the Gospel and find there testimonies from the Law and from the Prophets, I see only Christ; I so see Moses and the Prophets and I understand them of Christ. Then when I come to the splendor of Christ Himself, and when I gaze at that glorious sunlight, I care not to look at the lamplight. For what light can a lamp give when lit in the daytime? If the sun shines out, the lamplight does not show. So, too, when Christ is present the Law and the Prophets do not show. Not that I would detract from the Law and the Prophets; rather do I praise them in that they show forth Christ. But I so read the Law and the Prophets as not to abide in them but from them to pass to Christ.[124]


124. Id., Tract. in Marc., 9:1-7.

SPIRITUS PARACLITUS

There is nothing in the Encyclical that made me change my views. In fact, the interplay between the literal form and the meaning is well illustrated in the quote with which I started my post, as well as, for example, here:

[St. Jerome] does not say that when giving us an account of events the writer was ignorant of the truth and simply adopted the false views then current; he merely says that in giving names to persons or things he followed general custom. Thus the Evangelist calls St. Joseph the father of Jesus, but what he meant by the title "father" here is abundantly clear from the whole context. For St. Jerome "the true norm of history" is this: when it is question of such appellatives (as "father," etc), and when there is no danger or error, then a writer must adopt the ordinary forms of speech simply because such forms of speech are in ordinary use.

This is as good an example as my photographic dots. To read the words "Joseph his father" from the scripture and conclude that Joseph was Christ's biological father is false literalism; the mistake is with the reader, not the writer.

50 posted on 08/21/2008 3:37:46 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson