Hey Fellow Theology Students/graduates....help Please!

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='05 June 2010 - 08:20 AM' timestamp='1275740450' post='2124039']
Actually the interpretation that Brown gives to the sentence he quotes, which he - like Richard McBrien - takes in isolation from its proper context makes St. Cyril guilty of the heresies (i.e., Arianism and Nestorianism) that he is condemning. Now, the key to properly understanding St. Cyril's Christology is to always focus upon the unity of Christ's hypostasis. Christ - as a divine person - cannot be ignorant of anything, although He may - as St. Cyril would say - [i]seem[/i] to be so as far as outward appearances are concerned. Christ is always one divine subsistence even after the incarnation.
[/quote]

In all of my readings of Brown, he usually seems more interested in the objective data; he is a biblical scholar and not so much a biblical theologian. So perhaps rather than draw theological resolutions he is merely presenting the data as it objectively appears. That is in fact his tendency, which is why I like him.

[Guest KevinSymonds]

[quote name='In His Light' date='01 June 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1275370430' post='2121958']So my question is simple...to those who have studied a theology degree or are studying one right now...how do you separate your studies from your faith?
[/quote]

My story is very short: I'm a masochist. I took a sick amount of pleasure from the challenges posed to me and my faith was bolstered.

No, seriously, here is what I did:

My freshman year I was in a non-supportive environment. I transferred to Steubenville for a better theology program and that supportive environment. It was one of the smartest decisions I ever made. I was still very much challenged but I had good people around me to help me through any particular struggles (can I get an "Amen!" for the Household program, anyone?).

There are no magic words I or anyone else can give you, In His Light. I can only tell you what George Weigel said, "Theology is done on one's knees before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament" (or words to that effect). You must live the Faith while studying it. You must know the Faith while studying. If you do not know the Faith, you need basic catechesis before studying Theology.

Any catechetics majors care to explain the reason for this?

You are in my prayers, IHL.

Peace!
-KJS

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='05 June 2010 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1275751425' post='2124068']
In all of my readings of Brown, he usually seems more interested in the objective data; he is a biblical scholar and not so much a biblical theologian. So perhaps rather than draw theological resolutions he is merely presenting the data as it objectively appears. That is in fact his tendency, which is why I like him.
[/quote]
That may be what he is trying to do, for good or ill, but he has misrepresented St. Cyril's position, and that in my opinion is a problem.

Moreover, I do not believe that a man can be a good biblical scholar by separating himself from the rule of faith by which scripture is properly read, and within which it was inspired. Now that is not to say that there is nothing of value in Brown's books, but his so-called "objectivity" is actually nothing more than a scholarly form of [i]sola scriptura[/i], which can be destructive of faith, and of a solid Catholic reading of scripture.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Apotheoun

[CatherineM]

[quote name='KevinSymonds' date='05 June 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1275757427' post='2124112']
program, anyone?).

There are no magic words I or anyone else can give you, In His Light. I can only tell you what George Weigel said, "Theology is done on one's knees before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament" (or words to that effect). You must live the Faith while studying it. You must know the Faith while studying. If you do not know the Faith, you need basic catechesis before studying Theology.

Any catechetics majors care to explain the reason for this?

You are in my prayers, IHL.

Peace!
-KJS
[/quote]
I don't have any technical reason, but I suspect it is for the same reason you don't give a gun to someone who has no training with one. It can be dangerous. Foundations are important.

[Brother Adam]

Scott Hahn requires all of his graduate theology students to read Thomas Dubay's Power of Beauty before we do theology in his classes. He explains that theology is often no longer done like the Father's practiced it, but rather in a mechanical/professionalistic sort of way, where faith is actually not a requirement. This is of course, the most serious handicap one can have to studying God's Word.

[kafka]

[quote name='In His Light' date='05 June 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1275711762' post='2123973']
Lay formation here is hugely lacking and I admit that freely due to being my mum's carer. The closest I get right now is the Oblate mailings that come from Jamberoo Abbey and my letters between Rev Mother Cyril [Tyburn]and myself and yes I brought this subject up with her.

Pope John Paul II's encyclical Faith and Reason, not yet but I will see if Jamberoo Abbey's bookshop has it.

I have Pope Benedict's intro to Christianity waiting to be read and I'm waiting on his book on Jesus to be delivered. I'll check the other books out.

Ziggamafu though has touched on a nerve and something that I struggles with, so if you don't mind, I'll quote you-




This is one point where I struggle....eg. the Exodus...in theological circles its been all but proven impossible in that it could not have happened on that scale, if it happened at all looking at the archeological evidence. How does one reconcile that?
[/quote]


[quote name='CatherineM' date='05 June 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1275712899' post='2123987']
By understanding that the Bible isn't a history book or a science book.
[/quote]
Sacred Scripture is a history book, and much more.

Sometimes figures of speech are used by the Sacred Writers to express actual events. These figures are mixed with the literal. e.g. Adam and Eve were historical persons, the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a symbol for the sin of pride, the serpent a symbol for the fallen angel, Satan.

The events of Exodus happened. Scholarship is limited. Faith opens up one's mind to realities which transcend it.

Here are some works of scholars who have narrowed down the location of Mount Sinai to the Negev desert:

1. This article cites a researcher that Mt. Sinai (where the ten commandments were given) is in southern Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176844

2. I have held the opinion that Mt. Sinai is in southern Israel, in the Negev desert for some years now. This researcher has convincing arguments:
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/
And there are some indications in Scripture and in the writings of Bl. Emmerich.

The first is claiming that the Vatican is about to accept that Mt. Sinai is in southern Israel. That cannot be correct. The Holy See does not decide questions on the topic of archaeology or geography. This is not a matter of doctrine, nor does it pertain to the disciplines of the Church.

The second is claiming that there is a 1000 year gap in the history of the Israelites, due to a portion of Scripture being completely lost by copist errors, so that no extant Biblical text contains the truth on that point -- which he claims to now present. This is false since the Spirit protects the truths of Sacred Scripture so that none can be lost. There is a transmission of Scripture similar to the transmission of Tradition.

Still good links to look at.

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='05 June 2010 - 06:35 AM' timestamp='1275734157' post='2124031']
Exactly. The Bible is a divinely inspired message that is cloaked in human writing techniques (including myth-styles, fictions, and hyperbole) and even human inadequacies ([b]including errors not pertaining to faith or morals)[/b]. The message is revealed, with greater and greater clarity in every generation, by the voice of Christ in His Church. We read the Bible and cherish it as Sacred Scripture. We leave the Bible's interpretation, including the sorting of inspired historical records from inspired fictions, to the Church. The inspiration of the Bible and the infallibility of the Church go hand in hand.
[/quote]
Sacred Scripture and all of its parts are inspired and so infallible and inerrant. The immunity from error pertains to all parts with no exception on any matter with no exception, including faith, morals, history, culture, science, and everything without exception. This is an infallible dogma taught by the Magisterium. Their are so many things I could quote:

1. Pope St. Clement I: "Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them." (Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 45).

2. Pope Leo XIII: "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." (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

3. Pope St. Pius X condemned 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." (Lamentabili Sane, 'Syllabus of Errors,' n. 11).

4. Pope Benedict XV: "St. Jerome's teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, 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…. 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…. Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…." (Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16, 18, 21).

5. Pope Pius XII: "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." (Humani Generis, n. 22).

6. Pope Pius XII: "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.' 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." (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1).

7. Second Vatican Council: "everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit…." (Dei Verbum, n. 11).

[kafka]

[quote name='In His Light' date='05 June 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1275711762' post='2123973']
This is one point where I struggle....eg. the Exodus...in theological circles its been all but proven impossible in that it could not have happened on that scale, if it happened at all looking at the archeological evidence. How does one reconcile that?
[/quote]
Here is a link with some archeological/historical evidence (apart from Sacred Scripture) about the events of Exodus and what they did to Egypt. This scholar thinks the successor of Pepy II was the Pharoah reigned during the Exodus:

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php

very good link.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' date='05 June 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1275787636' post='2124351']
Sacred Scripture and all of its parts are inspired and so infallible and inerrant. The immunity from error pertains to all parts with no exception on any matter with no exception, including faith, morals, history, culture, science, and everything without exception. This is an infallible dogma taught by the Magisterium. Their are so many things I could quote:

1. Pope St. Clement I: "Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them." (Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 45).

2. Pope Leo XIII: "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." (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

3. Pope St. Pius X condemned 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." (Lamentabili Sane, 'Syllabus of Errors,' n. 11).

4. Pope Benedict XV: "St. Jerome's teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, 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…. 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…. Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…." (Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16, 18, 21).

5. Pope Pius XII: "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." (Humani Generis, n. 22).

6. Pope Pius XII: "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.' 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." (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1).

7. Second Vatican Council: "everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit…." (Dei Verbum, n. 11).
[/quote]

The immunity from error applies to everything the Church teaches is free from error, and of course this does include some basic history. The Bible was written under divine inspiration, not by divine dictation. When we call a painting "inspired" we do not mean to say that the painting is flawless, only that it conveys that from which the inspiration was derived. The difference is that men did not look to something for inspiration when they wrote Scripture, but rather the Source of the inspiration was actively choosing to inspire while every word was written, and is therefore true Author along with the men who wrote it. Nevertheless, the inerrancy applies to the Source of the inspiration - the meaning that the Source intends behind the words, even if they are fiction - rather than the particular words, expressions, and techniques that were employed while writing under that active inspiration. Otherwise we would indeed refer to the Bible as being divinely dictated, rather than inspired, and that God was the only author while men were mere, "living pens"(not co-authors). And of course the meaning that the Source intends is sometimes historical in nature.

The quotes that you point to can certainly be interpreted in this direction, and I would argue that they must be interpreted in this direction if we are to retain commonsense and intellectual honesty. While people are certainly free to believe a duck is a cow, I think it would then be a bit hypocritical to point out the problems of others calling a pig a monkey. But if it looks like a duck and you call it a duck, you certainly can point out that the pig is a pig. I point out the errors and problems of other religious scriptures because I acknowledge the errors and problems of my own. But of course the errors and problems of my own do not mitigate their importance or the reliability of the Church that interprets them. The Bible is all true and most of it really happened. That some of it didn't happen does not denigrate the Bible's truth since the truth of the Bible is about the meaning of the inspiration behind the words and not the words themselves. And that is why we have the Church.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='06 June 2010 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1275829744' post='2124531']
The immunity from error applies to everything the Church teaches is free from error, and of course this does include some basic history. The Bible was written under divine inspiration, not by divine dictation. When we call a painting "inspired" we do not mean to say that the painting is flawless, only that it conveys that from which the inspiration was derived. The difference is that men did not look to something for inspiration when they wrote Scripture, but rather the Source of the inspiration was actively choosing to inspire while every word was written, and is therefore true Author along with the men who wrote it. Nevertheless, the inerrancy applies to the Source of the inspiration - the meaning that the Source intends behind the words, even if they are fiction - rather than the particular words, expressions, and techniques that were employed while writing under that active inspiration. Otherwise we would indeed refer to the Bible as being divinely dictated, rather than inspired, and that God was the only author while men were mere, "living pens"(not co-authors). And of course the meaning that the Source intends is sometimes historical in nature.

The quotes that you point to can certainly be interpreted in this direction, and I would argue that they must be interpreted in this direction if we are to retain commonsense and intellectual honesty. While people are certainly free to believe a duck is a cow, I think it would then be a bit hypocritical to point out the problems of others calling a pig a monkey. But if it looks like a duck and you call it a duck, you certainly can point out that the pig is a pig. I point out the errors and problems of other religious scriptures because I acknowledge the errors and problems of my own. But of course the errors and problems of my own do not mitigate their importance or the reliability of the Church that interprets them. The Bible is all true and most of it really happened. That some of it didn't happen does not denigrate the Bible's truth since the truth of the Bible is about the meaning of the inspiration behind the words and not the words themselves. And that is why we have the Church.
[/quote]
But their are no error or problems with our Sacred Scripture. The problem is in you thinking that there are. Wherever you got this idea from they taught you an error which is becoming ever more widespread and common. Your interpretation is lacking. It is not correct. The Magisterium is very plain and straightforward in this regards. Read Divino Afflantu. Read all the encycilicals.

The immunity of error is inherent to inspiration which is a unique gift given to the Sacred Writers. Everything the Sacred Writers intend to assert using any literary form whatsoever is immune from error. The words express what is being asserted. As far as fiction, to use that word is misleading and erroneous. Figures of speech is different from fiction. The Magisterium has never used the word fiction. And I do not understand what you mean by some of it didnt happen. This is lacking. All that is asserted as actually happening whether literal or figurative happened. That is obvious. Some of what is being asserted has happened in the past, and some of what is being asserted will happen in the future. Some of the figures of speech refer to what is happening in the Church and in souls. The Bible is asserting truths, realities, that which is, has been or will be.

And the living Magisterium draws from and serves Sacred Scripture which is already immune from error. It does not sit above and beyond Scripture deciding what is truth and what is false (fiction). That is what arrogant modern scholars do who are spread throughout Catholic universities and infecting lay people with poison.

Inspiration is a subtle gift. Here is my commentary I wrote of Dei Verbum. Read it carefully:

11. "Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

Inerrancy and immunity from all possibility of error is inherent to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God is Truth. He never wills error, nor could He possibly inspire error, for then He would be contradicting His own Nature which is impossible.

"For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

The Old and New Testaments in their entirety with all their parts, refers the truth that every book, every verse, every subtitle, everything contained, everything expressed and everything asserted in the sacred Canon without exception is inspired by the Holy Spirit. God who is Truth is the author.

The Canon of Sacred Scripture is the 72 books of the old Latin Vulgate, in their entirety, with all their parts. The Canon was solemnly defined by the Ecumenical Councils of Florence and Trent.

"(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)"

Everything and only those things God willed is contained, expressed, and asserted in Sacred Scripture. Thus any matter whatsoever without exception contained, expressed, and asserted in Sacred Scripture is inerrant, whether it be a matter of faith, morals, salvation, geography, culture, history, science or anything. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning. This truth is an infallible dogma of the Sacred Magisterium. There are many Magisterial teachings supporting this truth which I will not quote here for the sake of brevity other than a few by recent popes:

Pope Pius XII: "In Scripture divine things are presented to us in the manner which is in common use amongst men."[30] For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, "except sin,"[31] so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error." (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 37)

Pope Benedict XV: "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." (Spiritus Paracletus n. 21)

"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." (Spiritus Paracletus n. 18)

It is a fairly recent error that some parts of the Bible are erroneous and/or not sacred and canonical. This heresy has crept into Catholic circles and poisoned many to this very day.

"Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation."

Some 'Catholic' scholars use the last phrase to supposedly prove that only those matters asserted 'for the sake of salvation' are immune from error, yet this interpretation is taken out of context of what is being expressed above, and is interpreted against the constant teaching of the Magisterium for centuries. It is true that the Holy Spirit inspired Sacred Scripture for the sake of salvation, yet this does not limit the scope of inerrancy in any way whatsoever. Inspiration extends to everything asserted whether historical, spiritual, cultural, scientific, and everything.

"Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text)."

This is the teaching of Saint Paul. If there were any possiblilty that anything asserted by Scripture is erroneous then it would not be worthy of teaching truth and refuting error, correction, discipline etc. Yet it is immune from error on everything it asserts.

I have many more quotes and I will not relent and I will not back down.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='kafka' date='06 June 2010 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1275846394' post='2124640']


I have many more quotes and I will not relent and I will not back down.
[/quote]
Yes, we are all aware of that. These discussions lead no where except to acrimony that serves no real purpose. I choose to follow the teachings of my seminary professors, who are following the teachings of their professors before them, that the bible is without error when it comes to faith and morals. It is a theology book, not a traditional history book. You may choose to follow the bible like an evangelical Christian would, I do not. I do find it interesting that you follow the literal translation of the bible on every verse, I guess except the whole, "for you know neither the day nor the hour."

Have fun stomping around. I don't debate these issues anymore because my doctor has said that banging my head against a wall isn't good for my IQ. So I won't see a response since I won't be back to visit. I have a policy now of boycotting threads that turn counter-productive.

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='06 June 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1275854668' post='2124724']
Yes, we are all aware of that. These discussions lead no where except to acrimony that serves no real purpose. I choose to follow the teachings of my seminary professors, who are following the teachings of their professors before them, that the bible is without error when it comes to faith and morals. It is a theology book, not a traditional history book. You may choose to follow the bible like an evangelical Christian would, I do not. I do find it interesting that you follow the literal translation of the bible on every verse, I guess except the whole, "for you know neither the day nor the hour."

Have fun stomping around. I don't debate these issues anymore because my doctor has said that banging my head against a wall isn't good for my IQ. So I won't see a response since I won't be back to visit. I have a policy now of boycotting threads that turn counter-productive.
[/quote]
They lead to nowhere since most will not be corrected.

not debating, but proclaiming. Intramural apologetics has become almost impossible and your post here isnt helping any.

I am dead serious and would die for this. And the way you interpret my posts is absurd. The literal is side by side with the figurative. This is the first level of Scripture. The literal/figurative-direct-explicit level. My understanding is with the Magisterium. Why follow professors who may have gone astray? There are many out there. They are wolves.

Do not appreciate some of the other things you said and the whole tone but I will leave it.

[kafka]

and I do not wonder why those who study theology like 'In His Light' who started this thread struggles as a result of the studies. One of the reasons is that so-called Catholic scholars are ravaging the second pillar of the Catholic Faith: Sacred Scripture.

I am angry right now. There are so many problems. Yet we are going to get back on the up and up. God will make it happen.

[Ziggamafu]

Kafka, are you geocentrist? Like Sungenis and the guy behind scripturecatholic.com? Do you find biological evolution (even, let's say, of just animals) to be absolutely and inexcusably contrary to the faith? Do you believe the earth is merely 6,000 to 10,000 years old? What about Judith? Do you believe Judith is a divinely inspired history text or that it is divinely inspired fiction? Were Christ's parables actually true stories that He knew by means of His omniscience or were they tall tales used to convey a message? I won't even ask your opinion of the historicity of, say, Jonah; I'm confident that since the Lord mentions the story you would deem it to be historical (even though nobody would have odd questions if I drew a metaphor from fiction and applied it to a future event I plan to actually engage in).

Just curious.

I have had a good deal of success in working with atheists and agnostics because I know and appreciate where they are coming from. I used to be an atheist, myself. Until they feel comfortable that they need not leave their brain behind when they embrace Christ (and how silly to think that critical thought and commonsense must be checked at the door of Truth), they want nothing to do with the Church. Here is a brief article that an agnostic / atheist posted; notice the unfortunate, certainly unnecessary, conclusions it espouses:

[quote]
The Skeptical Review
Any Loophole Will Do
by Farrell Till
1993 / March-April


The how-it-could-have-been scenario is a common tactic that fundamentalists use to "explain" passages in the Bible that pose serious problems for the inerrancy doctrine. They like to believe that as long as they can suggest an interpretation that removes the spectre of contradiction or discrepancy from a problem passage, then they have preserved the inerrancy doctrine, no matter how far-fetched or unlikely the interpretation may be. They insist that just as long as the interpretation is not absolutely impossible, they are justified in believing that it could have happened or could have been the way the interpretation explains away the problem.

TSR readers have often encountered this tactic in the rebuttal articles of our fundamentalist contributors. The most recent examples of it occurred in Bill Lockwood's articles written in response to what I had said about the problem of Sarah's seminal emission mentioned in Hebrews 11:11 . A problem incidental to this passage was the claim that Sarah "counted him [Yahweh] faithful who had promised [that she would have a son]." I showed that the Old Testament record of Sarah's response to the promise had depicted Sarah as anything but a believer that the promise would be fulfilled, because when Yahweh made the promise, she laughed at the absurdity of her having a child in her old age (Gen. 18:9-15 ). With no textual evidence at all to support him, Lockwood proposed, as a how-it-could-have-been way out of the problem, that Sarah had simply "changed her mind" ("Sarah's Power to Conceive: a Response, Summer 1992, pp. 14-15). On the actual matter of Sarah's power to "make a deposit of semen," Lockwood argued that the Greek expression katabole spermatos didn't have to be interpreted according to its literal or face-value meaning. "(I)f you don't have a can't-possibly-be-anything-else case," he said, "you don't have a case against the Bible" (second reply, Autumn 1992, p. 13).

The only thing a statement like this proves is that inerrantists cannot think logically. I don't have to prove a can't-possibly-be-anything-else case in this or any other matter that challenges the inerrancy doctrine, because I make no extraordinary claims about the Bible when I question the inerrancy claim. To the contrary, the inerrantist is the one who must establish can't-possibly-be-anything-else cases. The matter is as simple as what William Lindley said in his letter specifically in response to Lockwood's attempt to shift the burden of proof to those who question the inerrancy doctrine: "(T)he notion that a written text is supernaturally free of error is so strange that the burden of proof ought to be the other way" ("Reader Reaction," p. 12).

Lindley has merely recognized the principle that says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. When I say that the face-value meaning of Text A contradicts the face-value meaning of Text B, I am making no extraordinary claim, because contradictions are commonplace in written documents. On the other hand, when inerrantists say that a collection of 66 books containing thousands of words, written by different people, in different languages, is totally and completely free of mistakes of any kind, that claim is so extraordinary that it requires extraordinary proof. Since there is nothing at all extraordinary about how-it-could-have-been explanations, such "proof" really amounts to no proof. An apologist can't just say, "Well, Text A could have meant this, whereas Text B could have meant that"; he must present a couldn't-possibly-mean-anything-else case or his argument to preserve inerrancy fails.

When, for example, I point out that Matthew's genealogy of Jesus differs substantially from Luke's, I am only stating an obvious conclusion that anyone can reach by reading both genealogies. Inerrantists will say, of course, that Matthew traced the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, whereas Luke traced it through Mary, but there isn't a hint of any kind in the entire book of Luke that he intended his genealogy to be so understood. In the absence of evidence that this was what Luke intended, the inerrantist accomplishes nothing by merely saying, "Well, it could have been this way, so to have a case, you must prove that it couldn't possibly have been this way." No, a thousand times no! Such a position as this is not at all compatible with the nature of evidence. A lot of things could have been or could have happened, but just because something could have happened doesn't mean that it did happen. A copyist could have corrupted the text after Luke wrote it. Joseph could have been orphaned at an early age and then adopted by another family, and so Matthew traced the genealogy through the biological father and Luke through the adoptive father. Either one of these would serve as well to "explain" the inconsistencies as the traditional claim that Matthew traced the genealogy through Joseph whereas Luke traced it through Mary, but none of the explanations would work unless couldn't-possibly-mean-anything-else cases could be made for them.

When inerrantists use the how-it-could-have-been tactic, they are simply resorting to desperation hermeneutics. The quest of those who engage in it is not to discover the intended meaning of the Bible text but to preserve a cherished belief. In the final analysis, the meaning of a problem passage isn't important. Importance lies in the ability of an interpretation to explain away a discrepancy or contradiction, and for that reason, any interpretation will do that resolves the problem of discrepancy, no matter how far-fetched or ridiculous it may be. The absurdities that Bible fundamentalists have proposed in the name of this how-it-could-have-been tactic are too numerous to analyze in one article, but one has only to read a book like Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties to see this desperation hermeneutics at work. I have had skeptics and freethinkers tell me that reading such works as this and seeing the absolute absurdity of the how-it-could-have-been tactics used in them provided the final impetus that they needed to cross the line separating their belief from skepticism.

In a booklet that examined discrepancies in the four gospel accounts of Peter's denials, Dave Matson identified nine inconsistencies in the way the story was told. These concerned such matters as the actual nature of the denials, their locations, their timing, etc. On the matter of Peter's location when he made the denials, the gospel writers seemed confused about where Peter was at the time, especially when his second and third denials occurred. Matthew and Mark, for example, said that Peter left the campfire in the courtyard after his first denial and went "out into the porch," where his other denials were made (Mt. 26:71-73 ; Mk. 14:68-70 ), but Luke and John wrote the story as if Peter's second and third denials were also made as Peter was standing by a fire (Lk. 22:55-60 ; Jn. 18:18-27 ). As a way out of the problem, inerrantists have suggested that there were two campfires on the scene so that even though Peter moved about, he was still in the proximity of a fire. In his analysis of this "explanation," Matson made some excellent observations about basic fallacies inherent in any-loophole-will-do hermeneutics.
[/quote]


This could all be avoided if they knew that there was another idea of authority than that to which Evangelicals cling so desperately, and that there was another idea of how to approach the Sacred Scriptures.

Let me give you an example:

Mark 2:26 and the problem of Abiathar. Christ says that Abiathar was the high priest when David ate the show bread while 1 Samuel 21:1-7 shows that it was actually Ahimelech - the father of Abiathar - who was high priest at that time. Which of the accounts were an historically inerrant account? Obviously an error on the Lord's part is not at stake here, merely a mistake on the park of the author of Mark. Now, the "divine dictation" crowd would bend over backwards to find some kind of crazy explanation (though I've never seen a good one). The divine inspiration crowd would look for the deeper message, and guess what you would get? Abiathar was condemned for not honoring the son of David - the Christ (anointed one of the throne) - and his priestly line was ended as a consequence. So while Ahimelech was the historical priest during the time of the actual event, by referencing Abiathar the pharisees are hit over the head twice. Once for questioning the authority of the Christ over the law of Moses and another time by indicating that their dishonor of the Christ will result in the end of the legitimacy of their priesthood. So while the dictationists who insist on inerrancy of the writings rather than the message are fighting over a bend-over-backwards resolution to defend their Evangelical tendencies, those who believe in inspiration - inerrancy of message - see an important lesson that might otherwise go unnoticed. And no, I'm not saying something like this can be found in every "problem passage"; only stressing an example of why we regard Scripture as something that is a theological work, and thus left to the divinely protected Church for interpretation (e.g., of what must be regarded as historical).

There is a reason that Protestants thump the Bible while Catholics convey its theology; thumping vs theologizing is symptomatic of dictation vs inspiration. The difference between shouting Bible verses and preaching the Tradition they convey.

[Resurrexi]

For what it's worth, the CDF has stated that Church has defined "the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts" as a divinely revealed dogma ([i]Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Forumla of the Professio Fidei[/i]). It would, thus, seem that it is heretical to claim that the inerrancy of Scripture only extends to matters of faith and morals. In fact, Pope Leo XIII officially condemned such a restriction the inerrancy of Scripture in his famous encyclical [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i] (no. 20).

As for the claim that it is inappropriate to use the term "dictation" when talking about the inspiration of the Bible, I think it is important to note that the Church has actually used that term before. Pope Leo XIII speaks of the "dictation of the Holy Spirit" in the above mentioned encyclical (no. 20).