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

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='08 June 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1276025996' post='2125794']
Whoa. *keanu stare*

What is the debate here? Sorry, I missed the first four pages of this thread. tl;dr atm. Looks like something about the Scriptures? If you two fellows have time please fill out my survey below.

Rexi: What is your position? Summarized as much as possible I guess.
Zigg: What is the view you are arguing for?

I'll buy a round of catnip for everyone.
[/quote]


I believe that the doctrine of inerrancy refers to the Divine Inspiration present within the authors of Scripture at the time that they wrote it. I believe that each and every word of Scripture was therefore "God-breathed". I also believe that the human authors were just that: real, co-authors with God of Scripture. I believe that as genuine authors, the humans that God chose to inspire conveyed a very perfect message in sometimes very imperfect ways, and I therefore believe that while the scriptures are "inerrant", that said inerrancy applies simultaneously to the whole of the Bible's message (God's Word; Sacred Tradition) as well as to those particular truths that are essential to our salvation, be they moral, doctrinal, or historical.

Having stated this, I believe that the Church (Militant, Apo) has gradually evolved (I know, you'll hate that idea) in her understanding of inerrancy, just as she has evolved in her understanding of other matters, though by clarification (or perhaps more accurately, "reinterpretation") and not contradiction.

I also believe that it is not unfaithful to call a spade a spade and point out that a scriptural author made an error in some area or another rather than attempt a monumental feat of back-bending harmonization or extremely hypothetical explanation, which not only makes us Christians look desperate, but even self-deceiving. I would regard those passages that seem to describe scientific matters "phenomenologically" as errors on the part of the authors (rather than "phenomenological observations").

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 June 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1276027417' post='2125808']
Having stated this, I believe that the Church (Militant, Apo) has gradually evolved (I know, you'll hate that idea) in her understanding of inerrancy, just as she has evolved in her understanding of other matters, though by clarification (or perhaps more accurately, "reinterpretation") and not contradiction.
[/quote]

As stated above, the evolution of dogma has been condemned by the Church as heretical.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='08 June 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1276025956' post='2125793']
If the the teaching authority of the Church is not the final authority on this issue, then what is?
[/quote]

The teaching of the Church is indeed the final authority in any present generation. I do not believe that past generations are as accurate in their understanding of Divine Revelation as subsequent generations. And so I view Church authority as holistic and diachronical rather than a matter of this or that individual proclamation. Even the dogmatic proclamations of the councils may at later points be reinterpreted; they are supernaturally guaranteed to be free from error, but not guaranteed to be perfectly understood (much less worded) in their fullness (as only the Church Triumphant knows them).

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='08 June 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1276027660' post='2125812']
As stated above, the evolution of dogma has been condemned by the Church as heretical.
[/quote]

Have you ever read Newman's [i]Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine[/i]? Maybe you and I are talking about different ideas. I do not suggest that new dogmas may contradict previous dogmas. But if you deny that new dogmas and conciliar teachings build upon the old, I would have to think you may be historically ignorant. The developmental awareness of the Church in certain christological, soteriological, and papal matters is very clear. There is a reason that even the Apostles had to seriously debate the issues at hand in the Council of Jerusalem.

I would like to know how your position toward Scripture and Church authority is reconciled with the article on geocentrism posted above.
[b]
[u]Are you a geocentrist? And if not, why? (That is, how do you refute the article I posted from Scripture Catholic?)[/u][/b]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 June 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1276027779' post='2125814']
The teaching of the Church is indeed the final authority in any present generation. I do not believe that past generations are as accurate in their understanding of Divine Revelation as subsequent generations. And so I view Church authority as holistic and diachronical rather than a matter of this or that individual proclamation. Even the dogmatic proclamations of the councils may at later points be reinterpreted; they are supernaturally guaranteed to be free from error, but not guaranteed to be perfectly understood (much less worded) in their fullness (as only the Church Triumphant knows them).
[/quote]

Basically, you're saying, "I'm going to believe what I want to believe, even if the Church teaches differently."

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 June 2010 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1276028219' post='2125833']
Have you ever read Newman's [i]Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine[/i]? Maybe you and I are talking about different ideas. I do not suggest that new dogmas may contradict previous dogmas. But if you deny that new dogmas and conciliar teachings build upon the old, I would have to think you may be historically ignorant. The developmental awareness of the Church in certain christological, soteriological, and papal matters is very clear. There is a reason that even the Apostles had to seriously debate the issues at hand in the Council of Jerusalem.[/quote]

I actually have read that work of Newman, and I am perfectly aware of what the development of doctrine is. However, the development of doctrine (in the orthodox sense of the term) is completely different from the heretical notion that dogmas evolve. According to the orthodox understanding of the development of doctrine, truths that have always been believed implicitly are defined explicitly, heretical opinions are condemned, and new theological terminology is created better to explain the truths that have always been believed. According to the heretical notion of the evolution of dogmas, the sense in which the Church understands dogma changes over time.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 June 2010 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1276028219' post='2125833']
I would like to know how your position toward Scripture and Church authority is reconciled with the article on geocentrism posted above.
[b]
[u]Are you a geocentrist? And if not, why? (That is, how do you refute the article I posted from Scripture Catholic?)[/u][/b]
[/quote]

Quite frankly, that article was tl;dr. If you would like me to read it, you need to summarize it and only choose a few short and relevant quotes. I have tried to keep my posts short for you, and I expect you to do the same.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='08 June 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1276029129' post='2125850']
I actually have read that work of Newman, and I am perfectly aware of what the development of doctrine is. However, the development of doctrine (in the orthodox sense of the term) is completely different from the heretical notion that dogmas evolve. According to the orthodox understanding of the development of doctrine, truths that have always been believed implicitly are defined explicitly, heretical opinions are condemned, and new theological terminology is created better to explain the truths that have always been believed. According to the heretical notion of the evolution of dogmas, the sense in which the Church understands dogma changes over time.



Quite frankly, that article was tl;dr. If you would like me to read it, you need to summarize it and only choose a few short and relevant quotes. I have tried to keep my posts short for you, and I expect you to do the same.
[/quote]

The article is long, but it is well worth the read. It shows scriptural support for geocentrism and subsequent support from the Fathers, and tries to nail the case shut by quoting councils on the obligatory nature of teachings that are found in Scripture and the Fathers, even in scientific matters. From what you have posted, it seems you would be hard pressed to find wiggle room in wrestling your way out of geocentrism. I would like you to come clean on that because (and this should be obvious) I would be greatly amused to force you to admit a geocentrist position.

I do not believe that dogmas contradict each other over time, but I do believe that they "change" where change means development (even to the point of an apparent change). I do not believe that, if I am to keep my pledge of loyalty to Christ, I may "believe what I want, regardless of Church teaching" as you inferred. Nevertheless, I do not leave Church teaching is as rigid and black & white as you make it out to be. Theology and dogma is messy and living and dynamic. It is not the ossified statue for examination that you make it out to be; as if it were a frozen image in stone, a monolithic fossil set before Mankind. We humble ourselves before the Church, who is greater than ourselves in our frail individuality. We bend our knee before her outstretched hand when she says, "tread no further, dear child, until such time as we may ascertain the dangers ahead." Although we do not contradict ourselves, we do push ahead in a progressive exploration of what, until the Consummation of All Things, only the Church Triumphant knows in its fullness.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='07 June 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1275959027' post='2125451']
Theology can be a very complex, confusing subject. The reason it is best studied in an academic setting is that it requires learned instruction and direction. Just memorizing verses of this, or sentences out of 100 year old encyclicals can't teach you to think like a theologian any more than memorizing a law book can teach you to think like a lawyer.
[/quote]
+1 i wish i could give you a thousand +1s!!! i love you CatherineM!!

[tinytherese]

[quote name='In His Light' date='07 June 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1275960964' post='2125460']

Anyone know of a good book or two on church history from a Catholic perspective?
[/quote]

The Resilient Church: The Glory, the Shame, & the Hope for Tomorrow by Mike Aquilina

Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words by Rod Bennett

The History of the Church (The Didache Series)by Fr. Peter Armenio

The Compact History of the Catholic Church by Alan Schreck

How The Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

The Myth of Hitler's Pope: Pope Pius and His Secret War Against Nazi Germany by David G. Dalin

Three Popes and The Jews by Pinchas E. Lapide

Hitler, The War and the Pope by Ronald J. Rychlak

Defamation of Pius XII by Ralph Mcinerny

Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths by Regine Pernoud

Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 June 2010 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1276032080' post='2125893']
The article is long, but it is well worth the read. It shows scriptural support for geocentrism and subsequent support from the Fathers, and tries to nail the case shut by quoting councils on the obligatory nature of teachings that are found in Scripture and the Fathers, even in scientific matters. From what you have posted, it seems you would be hard pressed to find wiggle room in wrestling your way out of geocentrism. I would like you to come clean on that because (and this should be obvious) I would be greatly amused to force you to admit a geocentrist position.[/quote]

I do not believe that the human authors of holy Scripture were trying to make any scientific claim about the position of the earth in the universe. Nor do I believe the opinions of the Fathers on this matter is of any importance since the authority of the Fathers only extends to matters relating to faith and morals.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 June 2010 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1276032080' post='2125893']
I do not believe that dogmas contradict each other over time, but I do believe that they "change" where change means development (even to the point of an apparent change). I do not believe that, if I am to keep my pledge of loyalty to Christ, I may "believe what I want, regardless of Church teaching" as you inferred. Nevertheless, I do not leave Church teaching is as rigid and black & white as you make it out to be. Theology and dogma is messy and living and dynamic. It is not the ossified statue for examination that you make it out to be; as if it were a frozen image in stone, a monolithic fossil set before Mankind. We humble ourselves before the Church, who is greater than ourselves in our frail individuality. We bend our knee before her outstretched hand when she says, "tread no further, dear child, until such time as we may ascertain the dangers ahead."
[/quote]

The teaching of the Church on the inerrancy of holy Scripture has been the same since the times of the Apostles; it was the consensus of the holy Fathers; it was defined at several ecumenical councils. Not has this teaching never changed, but it is unchangeable. In fact, as I have stated before, your statements remind me very strongly of one of the propositions condemned by Vatican I.

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." (First Ecumenical Vatican Council: Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3020)

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='08 June 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1276042780' post='2126006']
I do not believe that the human authors of holy Scripture were trying to make any scientific claim about the position of the earth in the universe. Nor do I believe the opinions of the Fathers on this matter is of any importance since the authority of the Fathers only extends to matters relating to faith and morals.
[/quote]

I think you are on shaky ground, according to your own viewpoint. It could easily be argued that the geocentric view of the universe is central to the doctrine of Man's significance to God and Man's special place in God's creation. Moreover, the scriptures and the Fathers come down very clearly in favor of a geocentric view, and in light of the following quotes, I would think you would find the article very important to read and reflect on in its entirety.

[quote]In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8) infallibly declared that that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine...interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

This infallible declaration was restated by the First Vatican Council: “In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers” (On Revelation, April 24, 1870, chapter 2, no. 9).

Pope Leo XIII explained why we are required to hold to the interpretation of the Fathers when they are unanimous: “the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, no. 14).

In other words, when the Fathers are unanimous about an interpretation of Scripture, their understanding comes from the Sacred Deposit of Faith handed down by Christ and the Apostles. The Fathers unanimously interpreted the Scriptures to support a geocentric cosmology. According to Trent and Vatican I (two dogmatic ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church), we are not permitted to depart from their interpretation of the Scriptures, because their interpretation is deemed to have come from the Apostles. Those who reject geocentrism must explain why they do not submit to this rule of biblical interpretation set forth by two infallible councils.

With that, let us look at some of the quotes from the Fathers.

...

1870 – The First Vatican Council, Canons and Decrees, Chapter III, infallibly declares that “the Church, which together with the apostolic office of teaching, [b]has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and duty of proscribing false science[/b], lest any should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit. Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth.” The Council also affirms the inerrancy of Scripture by dogmatically stating: “These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.” Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter 2, paragraph 7, 1870.

1885 – Father William Roberts publishes his book The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement. In this book, Fr. Roberts presents a strong case for the position that the Church’s condemnation of heliocentrism is infallible. He concludes: (1) [b]Alexander VIII’s Speculatores was a papal act of supreme authority by which the pope, in the face of the whole Church, confirmed and approved the decrees with his Apostolic authority, and made himself responsible for their publication, that heliocentrism was false;[/b] (2) heliocentrism was false because the Church declared it a heresy, and whoever says an opinion is heresy ipso facto says that the contradictory of that opinion has been revealed by God with sufficient certainty to oblige a Catholic to accept it by an act of divine faith; and, (3) infallible teachings, even those ex-cathedra, do not generally generate any fresh obligation of faith, but protect and vindicate one that already exists.

1893 – Pope Leo XIII issues Providentissimus Deus which affirms the teaching of the Council of Trent that the Scriptures are inerrant in all matters written, not just matters relating to salvation. The pope states “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow its 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 impossible that any error can coexist 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” (No. 20).

1907 – On July 3, Pope Pius X issues the encyclical Lamentabili Sane which condemned the errors of the modernists. [b]In connection with creation, science and the inerrancy of Scripture, the following errors, inter alia, were expressly condemned: -Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences [/b](no. 5). -They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations (no. 8). -Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error (no. 11). -Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted (no. 64). [/quote]

Finally, I am not asserting that the teaching on inerrancy should be changed, merely reinterpreted. A perfection in message (as interpreted and proclaimed by the Church) rather than a textual perfection seems to fit the bill.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 June 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1276052211' post='2126117']
I think you are on shaky ground, according to your own viewpoint. It could easily be argued that the geocentric view of the universe is central to the doctrine of Man's significance to God and Man's special place in God's creation. Moreover, the scriptures and the Fathers come down very clearly in favor of a geocentric view, and in light of the following quotes, I would think you would find the article very important to read and reflect on in its entirety. [/quote]

In the 19th century, the Holy Office gave approval to heliocentrism as not contrary to the faith, and Galileo's works were removed from the Index. From this, it can be seen that the Church in no way condemns heliocentrism.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 June 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1276052211' post='2126117']
Finally, I am not asserting that the teaching on inerrancy should be changed, merely reinterpreted. A perfection in message (as interpreted and proclaimed by the Church) rather than a textual perfection seems to fit the bill.
[/quote]

Giving a new interpretation to the dogma of the inerracy of scripture is the same as changing it. The proposition that dogmas can be re-interpreted to mean something that they did not before, as I have repeatedly stated (and do now state again), has been condemned by the Church as heretical. See [i]Dei Filius[/i], [i]Lamentabili Sane[/i], and [i]Pascendi Dominici Gregis[/i].

[HisChildForever]

This has been interesting to read.

Rex, thank you for sharing you extensive knowledge of the Scriptures and the Church - it is refreshing that one does not need a degree in order to deeply understand the particulars and facts of our faith and I hope that others respect you for your orthodox and disciplined study.

[kafka]

I guess no one noticed my interpretation of Mark.



Though I need to re-think it. I was describing the spiritual/indirect/implicit level of meaning. I still need a better explanation for the first level.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 June 2010 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1276057626' post='2126221']
In the 19th century, the Holy Office gave approval to heliocentrism as not contrary to the faith, and Galileo's works were removed from the Index. From this, it can be seen that the Church in no way condemns heliocentrism.[/quote]

Perhaps in the same way that the Church has given "approval" of the idea that Muslims worship the same God we do as not contrary to the faith? I wonder what you might think of that. Also, I would like you to pull up some specific citations so I can forward them along to John over at Scripture Catholic. I'm sure he has his own take on them - and I suppose it is clear that you are willing to ignore the unanimous consent of the scriptures and the Fathers on this issue, as well as the decrees to abide by such consent even in matters of false science. The article really is pretty good. It is a shame it is too long for you to read.

[quote]Giving a new interpretation to the dogma of the inerracy of scripture is the same as changing it. The proposition that dogmas can be re-interpreted to mean something that they did not before, as I have repeatedly stated (and do now state again), has been condemned by the Church as heretical. See [i]Dei Filius[/i], [i]Lamentabili Sane[/i], and [i]Pascendi Dominici Gregis[/i].
[/quote]


Was Jehoiachin eight (2 Chronicles 36.9) or eighteen (2 Kings 24:8) when he began to reign? Or does that error not count? Kafka's admirable attempt to interpret the discrepancy I mentioned from Mark is a perfect example of "perfect message" vs "perfect text". The text is the surface; the literal, objective wording chosen by an imperfect - albeit divinely inspired - human author. The message is greater than the words used to convey it. Anyone who says that there is no contradiction between Mark and 1 Samuel is either a liar or a fool. It is likewise dishonest to euphemize the word "contradiction" by instead choosing to say "discrepancy". Atheists and agnostics pick up on this deceptive tactic and the absurd back-bending "hypothetical explanations" that ensue and are scandalized. [b]THAT IS THE ISSUE I AM CONCERNED WITH.[/b]

Do atheists often point to what they think are errors and contradictions without realizing that Catholic theology or a better understanding of the Bible does indeed provide easy and plausible explanations? Yes, of course. But there are also many other textual "discrepancies" that have no plausible (even if hypothetically possible) explanations, and quite a few that are, plainly speaking, true contradictions on the face of the text itself. To look at them and say they are not an error is to look at a cat and call it a pig. You are fooling no one but yourself. And you scandalize the atheists, who then spread lies mingled with truth that in turn scandalizes others:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk[/media]

And no, the reexamination and subsequent reinterpretation of Church teaching does not mean changing it. We still believe that there is no salvation outside of the Church, even though we now recognize that there are non-Christians who may very well be saved, even if they are aware of the Church but reject it because of sincere misunderstanding / misrepresentation. We did not change the doctrine, we merely clarified the proper interpretation that had been hinted at in centuries past. Every quote that has been offered could either be argued to be in some cases not infallible or in other cases interpreted as applying to the message of the text rather than the text [u]itself[/u], and the doctrine of inerrancy is not thereby reversed or contradicted, but merely has its proper interpretation clarified. Notice that the Church Fathers would read Scripture, primarily, typologically; they were more concerned with the message of any given text that could be seen to concern Christ or His Church rather than the letters of the text itself.

There is a good article to be found @ http://www.ancient-future.net/bible.html

[quote]
...
The early Fathers held that the Bible was inerrant. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches affirm this as well. However, this is the case only when the Bible is properly understood, interpreted by the Church. This is inerrancy by ancient standards and not modern, fundamentalist standards. The early Fathers did not think that minor contradictions rendered the Bible errant, nor did they insist all stories were meant to be interpreted literally. For instance, the creation stories were often allegorized, interpreted in ways so as to prefigure Christ, or interpreted through the lens of the science of the day (or all three!). Thus St. Augustine could say each day in the Genesis creation story was equal to a thousand years, or that the science of the day should shape our understanding of the creation stories, without ever denying the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. So when a Catholic affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, the idea has far less baggage than the fundamentalist understanding.

For example, many early Christian writers were well aware of minor contradictions within the Scriptures, even in the gospels, and did not seem too bothered by it. Tertullian (AD 200) said, "Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of the [gospel] narratives. What matters is that there is agreement in the essential doctrine of the Faith" (Against Marcion, IV:2). St. John Chrysostom (AD 390) was even bolder (at least to modern ears) to suggest that contradictions in the gospels actually strengthen the conviction that Christianity is true. If the gospel authors agreed in every small detail, then it was obvious that the stories were forgeries by a group of dishonest early Christians in collusion with one another. He even says, "the discord which seems to be present in little matters shields [the authors] from every suspicion and vindicates the character of the writers" (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, I:6). Even today, we Christians are far more credible if we admit to minor Biblical contradictions rather than trying come up with absurd, non-realistic stories designed to make the gospel accounts completely harmonize. So without denying the Bible's inspiration or essential accuracy, many Church Fathers recognized minor contradictions and variants in the text.

Thus the view of the early Church is that the Bible is an accurate, God-inspired testimony, the written document accurately reporting the foundations of the faith, but not necessarily inerrant as defined by modern criteria, and the Old Testament is certainly not inerrant when exclusively interpreted literally.
...
[/quote]

That article is a great read as well, though I am getting the impression that perhaps the most that you feel comfortable reading are the clippings you find in various apologetics websites and maybe software such as the Faith Database (and no offense intended to the sites; I frequent them and am thankful for them).

Edited June 9, 2010 by Ziggamafu