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

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 June 2010 - 09:07 AM' timestamp='1275916038' post='2125148']
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).
[/quote]

Since our faith is incarnational, we believe faith intersects with history in regards to certain doctrines and certain testimonies of Tradition. So inerrancy is [i]not merely a matter of faith and morals[/i], although the history involved does relate to these issues. As for certain quotes, you of all people (and I hope you know that I do respect you) should know that mere quotes do not equate to a dogma, nor do they necessitate strict interpretation, whether they are brought up by Orthodox or Protestant Christians. There are other examples of quotes in Church history that would be stumbling blocks to later dogmas or theological consensuses. Heck, there was even a time when the Church awoke with a groan to find herself Arian (though not really, yada yada).

Edited June 7, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 June 2010 - 08:51 AM' timestamp='1275918687' post='2125151']
Since our faith is incarnational, we believe faith intersects with history in regards to certain doctrines and certain testimonies of Tradition. So inerrancy is [i]not merely a matter of faith and morals[/i], although the history involved does relate to these issues. As for certain quotes, you of all people (and I hope you know that I do respect you) should know that mere quotes do not equate to a dogma, nor do they necessitate strict interpretation, whether they are brought up by Orthodox or Protestant Christians. There are other examples of quotes in Church history that would be stumbling blocks to later dogmas or theological consensuses. Heck, there was even a time when the Church awoke with a groan to find herself Arian (though not really, yada yada).
[/quote]

Sophistry to avoid what the Church teaches. Brilliant.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 June 2010 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1275919690' post='2125156']
Sophistry to avoid what the Church teaches. Brilliant.
[/quote]

Implying I am a casuist? Well, if I am resorting to ca---ninja edit? Weird, did you just change casuistry to sophistry? In any case, I find that calling a person a sophist is often another way of saying "your appeal to commonsense or principles of regularity annoy me." Not always, but it certainly seems so in this case, especially since you left it at that. I wonder if your sarcasm belies your position.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 June 2010 - 09:17 AM' timestamp='1275920273' post='2125159']
Implying I am a casuist? Well, if I am resorting to ca---ninja edit? Weird, did you just change casuistry to sophistry? In any case, I find that calling a person a sophist is often another way of saying "your appeal to commonsense or principles of regularity annoy me." Not always, but it certainly seems so in this case, especially since you left it at that. I wonder if your sarcasm belies your position.
[/quote]

Basically, I see your position as no different from the position of those who advocate a denial of transubstantiation based on a misguided notion of "commonsense". I don't know if you care what the Church has to say on the matter, but maybe others will find the following of interest: "Those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error." (Pope Leo XIII,[i] Providentissimus Deus[/i], 21)

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 June 2010 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1275920808' post='2125162']
Basically, I see your position as no different from the position of those who advocate a denial of transubstantiation based on a misguided notion of "commonsense". I don't know if you care what the Church has to say on the matter, but maybe others will find the following of interest: "Those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error." (Pope Leo XIII,[i] Providentissimus Deus[/i], 21)
[/quote]

Transubstantiation does indeed fit the message of the Scriptures; indeed, I think transubstantiation is one of the most exhaustively scriptural of all doctrines and in fact a synthesis of all Catholic theology and therefore the most commonsense interpretation. I also care very much what the Church says. The pope is not the Church. The pope is the key-bearer, the head of the Church on earth, but he is not the Church himself (Protestants would misrepresent Pious IX with an infamous quote here). And even when we see a certain attitude amongst the majority of the saints, it need not mean that we understand the fullness of the truth behind that attitude today. A great handful of passages from Scripture and a certain attitude of the Magisterium would seem to indicate that a great number of people are burning in Hell, forever beyond all hope. Yet that does not mean that it is heretical or sinful to hope that most - or even ALL - may ultimately be saved (even if they endure a very Hellish Purgatory). The idea that there are errors within the dimension of the human co-authoriship of Scripture makes the most sense in light of the perceptible problems within the sacred writings. Those that stoop to say there are "no problems in Scripture" are dishonest, ignorant, or crazy. Take your pick. Even the most devout and strictly literalist camp will admit that, and author all sorts of laboriously maze-like explanations for that very purpose.

[Ziggamafu]

In His Light,

Re: OP. I think the moral of the story is this, that there are two camps within the circle of devout Catholics. Both sides seek to obey the Church and surrender their lives to Christ. Both sides think that they are right. Neither side is going to Hell for their position. You just need to pick one.

Given the position you seem to be in, I think it seems you've already noticed what side you seem to be on - and it scares you, for fear that you are losing your faith merely by exercising commonsense in looking at the objective data of Scripture and Church history. Fear not. The only risk is in trying to reconcile the two sides, as if they are compatible; they are not, and if you conclude that my side is opposed to the faith and you can't bring yourself to check your brain at the door and switch sides, your faith may very well be in danger. But I reiterate what I've already said, that coming to acknowledge the faithfulness of my side has caused my faith - and my relationship with God - to grow dramatically, and was a very great relief. What's more, my side offers hope to the atheists who become disenchanted by Christians who resort to nonsensical back-bending rather than acknowledge a real problem in Scripture or Church history. It is like the difference between Catholics who viciously condemn the behavior of leadership in regards to the sex-abuse scandals and those who spend more time and effort trying to make excuses for the way the situation was handled (acknowledging the problem vs pretending it doesn't exist).

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 June 2010 - 08:29 AM' timestamp='1275913759' post='2125142']
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).
[/quote]
I am a Catholic Christian who approachs Scripture with faith and reason. I claim no other title and I follow no other group of theologians or any system whatsoever.

The correct interpretation is that the seven days of creation are symbolic for periods of time. They are figures of speech on the first level. So the first day could be billions of years which would agree with the scientific evidence. I also think a limited evolution is implied in the Genesis account and other verses of Sacred Scripture.

JPII in fides et ratio teaches that valid scientific evidence does not contradict faith. They are compatable. Only science is limited and fallible, Divine Revelation(Tradition and Scripture) is infallible and a fullness of truth. If one thinks science evidence contraticts anything Scripture asserts his interpretation is incorrect.

My personal theological opinion/interpretation is that we are in the sixth day (time period) of creation and thet the seventh day is the New Heaven and New Earth which God will create after the general resurrection and general judgment.

My point of departure for interpreting Sacred Scripture is that what the Sacred Writers are asserting is immune from error. That must, it literally must be the point of departure in order to learn the truth, the realities being Revealed by God whether literal or a figure of speech.

I am not going to spend time on the rest of your post.

Teachings of the Fathers:

St. Gregory Nazianzen: “We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them....”

St. Clement of Rome: “You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them.”

St. Justin Martyr: “But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.”

St. Jerome: “I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord's words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired….”

St. Augustine: “I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie.... If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.”

St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome: “For, I admit to your Charity that it is from those book alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text [particular copy] is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.”
(Willis, The Teachings of the Church Fathers; Ignatius Press, 2002)

Pope Leo XIII and 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, [b]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[/b], Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, [b]justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.[/b](DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, n. 1)


But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, [b]or to admit that the sacred writer has erred[/b]. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; 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).

Edited June 7, 2010 by kafka

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' date='07 June 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1275924129' post='2125187']
...
I am not going to spend time on the rest of your post.
...
[/quote]

I do not see it as incidental that you chose to ignore the more substantial and relevant section of my post, particularly why so many skeptics are scandalized by your Evangelical treatment of Scripture. Regarding your quotes, please see my previous comments on quote-thumping. Ironically enough, though perhaps not surprisingly, I find your attitude toward scriptural and ecclesial quotes to be just as poisonous as you find my attitude to be. It is symptomatic of the influx of Evangelical thought into the Catholic Church. I used to be the same way.

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 June 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1275928402' post='2125226']
I do not see it as incidental that you chose to ignore the more substantial and relevant section of my post, particularly why so many skeptics are scandalized by your Evangelical treatment of Scripture. Regarding your quotes, please see my previous comments on quote-thumping. Ironically enough, though perhaps not surprisingly, I find your attitude toward scriptural and ecclesial quotes to be just as poisonous as you find my attitude to be. It is symptomatic of the influx of Evangelical thought into the Catholic Church. I used to be the same way.
[/quote]
Sirach
{4:34} Do not choose to be quick with your words, nor unproductive or neglectful in your works.

{5:11} You should not winnow in every wind, and you should not go forth into every path.

{8:20} You should not hold counsel with the foolish. For they are not able to love anything except what pleases them.

{8:22} You should not reveal your heart to every man, lest perhaps he may offer a false kindness to you, and then speak reproachfully about you.

{11:9} You should not contend in a matter which does not concern you, and you should not sit in judgment together with sinners.

{13:11} Do not choose to be low in your wisdom, otherwise, having been brought low, you will be seduced into foolishness.

Proverbs
{10:9} He who walks in simplicity walks in confidence. But he who corrupts his ways shall be discovered.

{12:23} A resourceful man conceals knowledge. And the heart of the unwise provokes foolishness.

{13:1} A wise son is the doctrine of his father [Jesus Christ and his Church]. But he who ridicules does not listen when he is reproved.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 June 2010 - 09:48 AM' timestamp='1275922106' post='2125171']
Transubstantiation does indeed fit the message of the Scriptures; indeed, I think transubstantiation is one of the most exhaustively scriptural of all doctrines and in fact a synthesis of all Catholic theology and therefore the most commonsense interpretation. [/quote]

That is your fallible and very subjective interpretation of what is commensensical.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 June 2010 - 09:48 AM' timestamp='1275922106' post='2125171']
I also care very much what the Church says. The pope is not the Church. The pope is the key-bearer, the head of the Church on earth, but he is not the Church himself (Protestants would misrepresent Pious IX with an infamous quote here).[/quote]

The pope's teaching authority and infallibility are nothing more than an extension of the Church's own infallible magisterium.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 June 2010 - 09:48 AM' timestamp='1275922106' post='2125171']
The idea that there are errors within the dimension of the human co-authoriship of Scripture makes the most sense in light of the perceptible problems within the sacred writings. Those that stoop to say there are "no problems in Scripture" are dishonest, ignorant, or crazy.
[/quote]

What a great way to characterize the Fathers and saints of the Church.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 June 2010 - 11:33 AM' timestamp='1275928402' post='2125226']
It is symptomatic of the influx of Evangelical thought into the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

It's interesting that you find the use of quoting to prove a point "Evangelical" or Protestant. Quotes were frequently used by scholastic writers to answer questions or to prove certain arguments. I guess that the medieval scholastics were influenced by post-Reformation Protestants.

[Apotheoun]

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' date='07 June 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1275930205' post='2125243']
Sirach
{4:34} Do not choose to be quick with your words, nor unproductive or neglectful in your works.

{5:11} You should not winnow in every wind, and you should not go forth into every path.

{8:20} You should not hold counsel with the foolish. For they are not able to love anything except what pleases them.

{8:22} You should not reveal your heart to every man, lest perhaps he may offer a false kindness to you, and then speak reproachfully about you.

{11:9} You should not contend in a matter which does not concern you, and you should not sit in judgment together with sinners.

{13:11} Do not choose to be low in your wisdom, otherwise, having been brought low, you will be seduced into foolishness.

Proverbs
{10:9} He who walks in simplicity walks in confidence. But he who corrupts his ways shall be discovered.

{12:23} A resourceful man conceals knowledge. And the heart of the unwise provokes foolishness.

{13:1} A wise son is the doctrine of his father [Jesus Christ and his Church]. But he who ridicules does not listen when he is reproved.
[/quote]

Funnily enough, I get that second passage in Proverbs from Protestants all the time. They usually resort to it when cornered and unable to logically defend themselves. Your additions are a fun Catholic twist, of course; I would expect no less.

But oh! Oh! Can I play too???

Proverbs 26.4-5:
Answer not the fool according to his folly, lest you too become like him. Answer the fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes. (*Be sure you obey each of these verses exactly)

1 Peter 3.15:
Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope... (*I assume you interpret "always" to mean "until I feel like thumping some OT passages that imply an ad hominem argument)

Matthew 23.15:
You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves. (*No, [i]you're[/i] an ad hominem!!!)

Colossians 4.5-6:
Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you know how you should respond to each one.

1 Thessalonians 5.21:
Test everything; retain what is good.

Proverbs 14.15:
The simpleton believes everything, but the shrewd man measures his steps.

Philippians 1.9-10:
And this is my prayer: that your love may increase ever more and more in knowledge and every kind of perception, to discern what is of value...

Isaiah 28.9-10:
"To whom would he impart knowledge? To whom would he convey the message? To those just weaned from milk, those taken from the breast? For he says, 'Command on command, command on command, rule on rule, rule on rule, here a little, there a little!'"


Theology is a science. The highest of all sciences. And like other sciences, it implies growth in understanding and constant reinterpretation, though (and this is where the similarity to other sciences ends) never direct contradiction to its past. And you certainly shouldn't go tossing around the word "heretic" or imply that the person whom you are debating is a fool that is unworthy of your precious time.

This is an example of what goes on in an intelligent non-Christian's mind when they hear your side represented:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o[/media]

Edited June 7, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[Resurrexi]

I've seen a few other videos from that same site, and I can honestly say that they are anything but intelligent.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 June 2010 - 07:30 PM' timestamp='1275953455' post='2125408']
I've seen a few other videos from that same site, and I can honestly say that they are anything but intelligent.
[/quote]

As have I, and it is obvious that he is ignorant of Catholic theology. Nevertheless, he is intelligent insofar as the Protestantized, check-your-brain-at-the-door approach to the Bible sounds nonsensical to him; he is scandalized. Almost every atheist I've ever known (and I've known many), if they came from a Christian background, came from an Evangelical background where the Bible is literally inerrant in every way and problem-free. When it dawns on them that if the Bible were truly problem-free then it wouldn't take volumes of text to explain "difficult passages", they leave the faith because they thought it hinged on a perfect text.

Please take a stab at the problem-free passage of Mark that I mentioned earlier.