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

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' date='09 June 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1276094078' post='2126309']
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.
[/quote]

I think it was admirable. I also like your interpretation of the first creation account in Genesis. However, I think that your interpretation merely serves to prove my point that the perfect message trumps the imperfect text itself.

The Sacred Scriptures are inerrant and every word was written under divine inspiration. Nevertheless, from a modern (not "modernist", "modern"; i.e., contemporary academic verbiage) perspective, there are "errors" in the text on the surface level - that for which the human side of authorship is responsible. And that is what I think needs acknowledgment in the Church today.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[kafka]

There are problems with those articles you posted Ziggamafu. I am not going to read them all and criticize them. First of all any teachings of Sacred Scripture concerning science cannot be infallibly taught by the Church or anyone since it falls out of the range of faith and morals. Second, some of those interpretations of the Fathers and Doctors are fallible.

The interpretation of Sacred Scripture has to be approached with faith and reason. Today we have much more scientific evidence than in the past so one has to reconsider and rework an interpretation of the scientific assertions of the Genesis account. And btw the whole Galileo issue was a matter of the Church's temporal authority which is fallible and does not decide matters on faith and morals.

Here are some good interpretations of the Genesis account worthy to consider (since we are throwing long passages at each-other at this point.

{1:1} In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.

~ Heaven was created first, then earth. The creation of angels also occurred with the creation of heaven. The creation of earth is really the creation of the universe, and subsequently earth.

{1:2} But the earth was empty and unoccupied, and darknesses were over the face of the abyss; and so the Spirit of God was brought over the waters.

~ After earth was created, it was empty and unoccupied. Darkness is plural in the Latin. This could symbolize fallen angels, with the abyss symbolizing Hell. The word ‘darknesses’ can also refer to the absences of so many good things, so that God had to continue creating. The Spirit of God was brought or was carried over the waters, passive tense.

[I add that the waters could be symbolic for the cosmic particles flowing from the original unfolding of the cosmos, and not necessarily the waters on earth.]

{1:3} And God said, “Let there be light.” And light became.

~ God created light. Darkness, as the absence of light, became by default. Similarly with evil. God created the heavens and the angels, but some angels fell and so Hell (the abyss) was created.

{1:5} And he called the light, ‘Day,’ and the darknesses, ‘Night.’ And it became evening and morning, one day.

~ The first day is not a day as we count time, but merely the first period of time, of unspecified length, in the universe. Science agrees that first the Universe was created, and there was no life in the first time period, for the Universe was void and unoccupied. And when the earth first became, it was void and lifeless.

{1:10} And God called the dry land, ‘Earth,’ and he called the gathering of the waters, ‘Seas.’ And God saw that it was good.

~ This verse introduces a useful ambiguity, whereby the word ‘terra’ can refer to the entire Earth, or to the land (soil or ground), or to a particular land, e.g. ‘Terram Chanaan.’ A similar ambiguity exists with the word ‘caeli’ referring either to Heaven, or to the sky.

{1:11} And he said, “Let the land spring forth green plants, both those producing seed, and fruit-bearing trees, producing fruit according to their kind, whose seed is within itself, over all the earth.” And so it became.

~ Notice that God commands the earth to produce plant-life (‘herbam virentem’). He miraculously created heaven and earth out of nothing, but he causes the plant-life to be produced out of what already exists, the land. This text supports the idea, found in science, that life developed from existing inanimate matter. But the text also clearly teaches the truth that the entire process of creation and the development of creation is caused by God and is under His Providence.

{1:20} And then God said, “Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures above the earth, under the firmament of heaven.”

~ In this next step within the development of creation, God creates the first creatures that have living souls (but not immortal souls) within the sea. Again, science agrees, teaching that the first animals were in the water, not on the land. The word ‘reptile’ in Latin is not equivalent to the English word ‘reptile.’ The best translation in this context is probably either ‘moving creatures’ or ‘animals.’ The text is contrasting the moving creatures of the waters with the plants.

{1:24} God also said, “Let the land produce living souls in their kind: cattle, and animals, and wild beasts of the earth, according to their species.” And so it became.

~ Again, the word ‘genere’ is more general, while the word ‘species’ is more specific. If these two words were translated by the same word in English, then there would be an unnecessary redundancy in the text. And here again we see that ‘reptile’ is not specifically reptiles, or even crawling things, but is even more general, referring to every type of moving creature (animal) on land. These creatures are contrasted with the moving creatures of the waters, as well as the plants, of the previous verses. Therefore, the term is more general than crawling things. The mention of cattle and wild beasts are merely specific examples of familiar types of moving creatures, with living souls, on land.

~ So, plants were the first life created, then moving creatures of the sea, then moving creatures of the land. This is the same order of development in creation taught by science (although Scripture omits mention of microscopic organisms, with which the ancients were unfamiliar).

from:
http://www.sacredbible.org/studybible/index.htm

Edited June 9, 2010 by kafka

[Ziggamafu]

On positive note, Kafka, I do sometimes enjoy reading your thoughts on Scripture. You remind me of the author of a devotional I sometimes use, [i]Our Daily Bread: Expositions of the Readings of Catholic Mass[/i], by James H. Kurt (published by Author House), and that is a compliment.

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 10:42 AM' timestamp='1276094552' post='2126313']
I think it was admirable. I also like your interpretation of the first creation account in Genesis. However, I think that your interpretation merely serves to prove my point that the perfect message trumps the imperfect text itself.

The Sacred Scriptures are inerrant and every word was written under divine inspiration. Nevertheless, from a modern (not "modernist", "modern"; i.e., contemporary academic verbiage) perspective, there are "errors" in the text on the surface level - that for which the human side of authorship is responsible. And that is what I think needs acknowledgment in the Church today.
[/quote]
well in one sense there is an inadequacy in all human language. "Truth transcends the telling" as Ino says. But inadequacy is different than inaccuracy. And the truth remains God willed everything asserted in Sacred Scripture both on the first level of the author's intention and on the second spiritual level of what the Holy Spirit is asserting above and beyond the author's intention. And both are infallible and inerrant since God who is Truth cannot inspire and guide the assertion of error. If the words are inaccurate how could it be expressing a truth?

Maybe the modernists should bow down to God's Sacred Scripture. The spirit of the Church is that the point of departure for intrepreting Scripture is immunity from all error on everything including science, history, culture. As far as the fiction dilemna I still think the term is misleading at best and erroneous at worst, since the assertion of truth whether it be past, present, future happenings, or metaphysical, or happening in the Church or the world or in souls, in science, in culture, etc. is never fiction.

As far as Job, Judith, Tobit, Esther, Jonah these for me are all historical persons. Perhaps some of there books are mixed with figures and additional teachings on the first level, especially Job for Job is a figure of the Church yet still for me they are historical people and the events surrounding them are historical even if not all evident in scientific research. Jonah is historical. The fact that he survived in the whale was a miracle of God, just as the resurrection of Jesus is a miracle.

Edited June 9, 2010 by kafka

[Resurrexi]

The following is the first of either two or more posts. I have decided that it would be best to respond using multiple posts in order to keep my posts at an adequate length, which is helpful both for me and for anyone reading.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1276094105' post='2126310']
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.[/quote]

I would actually agree that Muslims worship God, even if they get a lot of things wrong about Him. Pope St. Gregory VII said as much in his 21st letter to the Muslim King of Mauritania.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1276094105' post='2126310']
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]

Perhaps before you try to prove the inerrancy of holy Scripture wrong by a [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i], you should look at what the Church actually has to say in regard to the matters at hand.

St. Augustine, quoted by Pope Leo XIII, says that, "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so." (Pope Leo XIII, [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i], 18) From this it can be seen that, rather than trying to deny what has been undeniably demonstrated by the natural sciences, we should interpret holy Scripture so that it is not in contradiction with scientific fact, for it is impossible for truth to contradict truth.


Pope Leo, in his encyclical, goes on to address matters such as heliocentrism:

"The sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science." (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 18)

The poetic descriptions of the earth and of the universe are not to be interpreted in a literalistic manner. They are to be seen as what they are: figurative descriptions of the physical world described in a poetic manner and according to what was visibly seen. You and I both know that the sun does not technically rise or set, but, rather, that the earth is constantly rotating on its axis and that, as it rotates, one part of the earth is constantly becoming illuminated by the sun while while another part goes into darkness. Would you fault an astronomer for using the inexact and figurative expressions of "risinging sun" and "setting sun"? I think not. Why, then, would you fault the human authors of holy Scripture for using inexact, nontechnical, figurative and poetic language in [i]their[/i] description of cosmology?


Having addressed the matter of geocentrism, I think the next point to be addressed is the way you are talking about the consensus of the Fathers. The Fathers are not authorities on physics or astronomy; they are authorities theology. To use the Fathers as an authoritative source on matters of natural science is extending their authority far beyond its true scope. The Church recognizes that the consensus of the Fathers is only binding on matters of faith and morals. Pope Leo XIII said as much in his previously referenced encyclical: "The Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, [b]as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals.[/b]" (Pope Leo XIII,[i] Providentissimus Deus[/i], 14, emphasis added)

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' date='09 June 2010 - 10:49 AM' timestamp='1276094955' post='2126314']
...any teachings of Sacred Scripture concerning science cannot be infallibly taught by the Church or anyone since it falls out of the range of faith and morals. Second, some of those interpretations of the Fathers and Doctors are fallible.
[/quote]

You provided a nice quote that would suggest otherwise, especially when coupled with the quotes I have already provided via Scripture Catholic:

[quote]
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.” [b]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, [i]ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in [u]the domain of physical science[/u] or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended[/i] - 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 [/b]and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.(DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, n. 1)
[/quote]

And just a few minutes ago:

[quote]...intrepreting Scripture is immunity from all error on everything [b]including science,[/b] history, culture...[/quote]

Moreover, geocentrism does not merely deal with science, but the doctrine that Man is the center and purpose of the rest of Creation in God's plan to glorify Himself.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 June 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1276097219' post='2126327']
The poetic descriptions of the earth and of the universe are not to be interpreted in a literalistic manner. They are to be seen as what they are: figurative descriptions of the physical world described in a poetic manner and according to what was visibly seen. You and I both know that the sun does not technically rise or set, but, rather, that the earth is constantly rotating on its axis and that, as it rotates, one part of the earth is constantly becoming illuminated by the sun while while another part goes into darkness. Would you fault an astronomer for using the inexact and figurative expressions of "risinging sun" and "setting sun"? I think not. Why, then, would you fault the human authors of holy Scripture for using inexact, nontechnical, figurative and poetic language in their description of cosmology?[/quote]

Because that is the way they thought things were. They were not describing things "phenomenologically". They were describing what they actually thought was the case. They did not think they were being figurative. We impose a "figurative intent" upon the scriptures whenever we discover that they do not match up to the facts. But that doesn't mean that the writer intended figurative language.

[quote]Having addressed the matter of geocentrism, I think the next point to be addressed is the way you are talking about the consensus of the Fathers. The Fathers are not authorities on physics or astronomy; they are authorities theology. To use the Fathers as an authoritative source on matters of natural science is extending their authority far beyond its true scope. The Church recognizes that the consensus of the Fathers is only binding on matters of faith and morals. Pope Leo XIII said as much in his previously referenced encyclical: "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." (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 14, emphasis added)
[/quote]

Please see my response to Kafka, above. I think Robert Sungenis, who is just as knowledgeable a thumper as you, would disagree.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' date='09 June 2010 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1276097118' post='2126325']
well in one sense [b]there is an inadequacy in all human language. "Truth transcends the telling" [/b] as Ino says. [/quote]

I agree.
[quote]

But inadequacy is different than inaccuracy. [/quote]

I disagree. What matters, for the sake of evangelism in the contemporary world, is face-value.


[quote]And the truth remains God willed everything asserted in Sacred Scripture both on the first level of the author's intention and on the second spiritual level of what the Holy Spirit is asserting above and beyond the author's intention. And both are infallible and inerrant since God who is Truth cannot inspire and guide the assertion of error. If the words are inaccurate how could it be expressing a truth?[/quote]

It could not, unless you are wrong that God willed perfection on the part of the author's intention. For goodness sake, some scriptural authors clearly DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE AUTHORING SCRIPTURE AT THE TIME THEY WROTE IT!!!!

[quote]Maybe the modernists should bow down to God's Sacred Scripture. [/quote]

Agreed, figuratively. I disagree if you mean literally, as if the original manuscripts were transubstantiated upon authorship.

[quote]The spirit of the Church is that the point of departure for intrepreting Scripture is immunity from all error on everything including science, history, culture.[/quote]

I think you might disagree with yourself, unless there is some kind of harmonization that you can work up for your own contradictions.

[quote]As far as the fiction dilemna I still think the term is misleading at best and erroneous at worst, since the assertion of truth whether it be past, present, future happenings, or metaphysical, or happening in the Church or the world or in souls, in science, in culture, etc. is never fiction.
As far as Job, Judith, Tobit, Esther, Jonah [b]these for me are all historical persons.[/b] Perhaps some of there books are mixed with figures and additional teachings on the first level, especially Job for Job is a figure of the Church yet still for me they are historical people and the events surrounding them are historical even if not all evident in scientific research. Jonah is historical. The fact that he survived in the whale was a miracle of God, just as the resurrection of Jesus is a miracle.
[/quote]

So...they are all textually perfect books with inerrant history, but the history is intermingled with "figures and additional teachings on the first level"? Quite a bit of leeway you've given yourself, there. I also think - especially with regard to Judith - that you would find the vast majority of devout, practicing, Catholic scholars to disagree with you, there. But hey, why trust their interpretation of Scripture and Church teaching over and above your own, right? I would also be curious if Rex is in 100% agreement with you, here.

[kafka]

o.k. I figured out the problem with Abiathar. Now I have an interpretation on both levels. I will put it together today hopefully in one article and post. Abiathar even though the son of Ahimelech was high-priest at the time David and his men recieved the Bread of Presence:

"The frequency of change in the office is hinted at by St. John (xi, 51), where he says that Caiphas was "the high-priest of that year". Solomon deposed Abiathar for having supported the cause of Adonias, and gave the high-priesthood to Sadoc (1 Kings 2:27, 35): then the last of Heli's family was cast out, as the Lord had declared to Heli long before (1 Samuel 2:32)." (newadvent.org)

The succession of the eldest son to the high priest was their law yet this succession did not necessarily tarry til the death of the father. The change could taken place before the father's death.

And the law was not strictly enforced since Solomon replaced Abiathar with Sadoc. I think Caiphas was Ananias' son-in-law.

Ahimelech is not mentioned as high priest in the first book of Samuel, simply priest:

{21:1} Then David went into Nob, to the priest Ahimelech. And Ahimelech was astonished that David had arrived. And he said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one is with you?”

When a man is in charge of a group of men, the actions of members of that group can be attributed to the person in charge. So Jesus attributed the action of Ahimelech to Abiathar since he was high priest at the time.

There is no inaccuracy in the Sacred Writer. The inaccuracy is in our fallible, limited, fallen minds.

Edited June 9, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1276098654' post='2126332']
I agree.


I disagree. What matters, for the sake of evangelism in the contemporary world, is face-value.




It could not, unless you are wrong that God willed perfection on the part of the author's intention. For goodness sake, some scriptural authors clearly DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE AUTHORING SCRIPTURE AT THE TIME THEY WROTE IT!!!!



Agreed, figuratively. I disagree if you mean literally, as if the original manuscripts were transubstantiated upon authorship.



I think you might disagree with yourself, unless there is some kind of harmonization that you can work up for your own contradictions.



So...they are all textually perfect books with inerrant history, but the history is intermingled with "figures and additional teachings on the first level"? Quite a bit of leeway you've given yourself, there. I also think - especially with regard to Judith - that you would find the vast majority of devout, practicing, Catholic scholars to disagree with you, there. But hey, why trust their interpretation of Scripture and Church teaching over and above your own, right? I would also be curious if Rex is in 100% agreement with you, here.
[/quote]
[i]I disagree. What matters, for the sake of evangelism in the contemporary world, is face-value. [/i]

Universal truth cannot be tweeked for the sake of evangelism.

[i]It could not, unless you are wrong that God willed perfection on the part of the author's intention. For goodness sake, some scriptural authors clearly DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE AUTHORING SCRIPTURE AT THE TIME THEY WROTE IT!!!! [/i]

It doesnt matter. God inspired the author as he was writing including his intention. Inspiration is that thorough and subtle. God guided the mind and heart of the writer.
That is infallible Magisterial teaching.

[i]Agreed, figuratively. I disagree if you mean literally, as if the original manuscripts were transubstantiated upon authorship. [/i]

The Holy Spirit protects and guides the transmission of Sacred Scripture, so that no intended truths are lost.

[i]I think you might disagree with yourself, unless there is some kind of harmonization that you can work up for your own contradictions.[/i]

I could be contradicting myself. My interpretations are limited and fallible.

[i]So...they are all textually perfect books with inerrant history, but the history is intermingled with "figures and additional teachings on the first level"? Quite a bit of leeway you've given yourself, there. I also think - especially with regard to Judith - that you would find the vast majority of devout, practicing, Catholic scholars to disagree with you, there. But hey, why trust their interpretation of Scripture and Church teaching over and above your own, right? I would also be curious if Rex is in 100% agreement with you, here.[/i]

I'm not the one who wrote Scripture. God uses language in a dynamic way as I think you put it. It is clear that figures are used to explain the historical events of the fall. In Job there are a lot of additional wisdom teachings. The conversation of he and his friends I think took place but it is not an exact word for word transcription of their conversation.

I guess I am bowing out now. This is getting beyond me. I can only explain things so well. At least I figured out Abiathar.

Edited June 9, 2010 by kafka

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1276094105' post='2126310']
Was Jehoiachin eight (2 Chronicles 36.9) or eighteen (2 Kings 24:8) when he began to reign? [/quote]

In my opinion, those numbers were not intended to be exact. Rather, the human authors probably intended to give Jehoiachin's approximate age rather than an exact one. His exact age was probably somewhere in between those two approximations. I often do the same thing every day. One particular example that comes to mind is when I confess my sins. There are many times when I do not know the exact number of times I have committed a particular sin; therefore, I try to give an approximate number. I am not erring when I give an approximate number; I am just estimating.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1276094105' post='2126310']
Anyone who says that there is no contradiction between Mark and 1 Samuel is either a liar or a fool.[/quote]

Then I am assuming you count St. Bede the Venerable, a Doctor of the Church, among the liars and foo[i][/i]ls. If you read St. Thomas Aquinas' [i]Catena Aurea[/i] under Mark 2:26, you will see that St. Bede interprets the passage in such a way that there is "no discrepancy," to quote the sainted Doctor.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1276094105' post='2126310']
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][/quote]

If atheists are scandalized by the Church's proclamation of the inerrancy of holy Scripture, then they will just have to be scandalized. We cannot compromise the truth, much less preach heresy, in order to avoid scandal. Even though our Lord knew that His cross would be a scandal to many, that did not keep Him from going through with His Father's will.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1276094105' post='2126310']
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.[/quote]

I am sure that the holy Fathers were fooling themselves, too.

Nevertheless, I stand with the Fathers and with the Church. I will re-iterate my position with a quote from Pope Leo XIII that I used earlier in this thread:

'The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: "On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honour and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand."' (Pope Leo XIII, [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i], 21)

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1276094105' post='2126310']
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. [/quote]

The interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is one unrelated to this thread, and I think it would be better if we did not go off on a tangent about it. I think it will suffice to say that my interpretation of what constitutes "invincible ignorance" is much stricter than yours.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1276094105' post='2126310']
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.[/quote]

I think that it is interesting that you are writing off the quotes as collectively "non-infallible". While I do agree that not every quote I have used is infallible, I would certainly say that there are parts of Providentissimus Deus that are infallible as part of the ordinary and universal magisterium. I say this because the CDF document [i]Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei[/i] references them as such.

In any case, your statement that the dogmas of the Church need to be interpreted in a different manner than the Church interpreted them before is an example of a view that was condemned as heretical by Vatican I.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1276097971' post='2126330']
Because that is the way they thought things were. They were not describing things "phenomenologically". They were describing what they actually thought was the case. They did not think they were being figurative. We impose a "figurative intent" upon the scriptures whenever we discover that they do not match up to the facts. But that doesn't mean that the writer intended figurative language.[/quote]

I disagree that the human authors of holy Scripture were necessarily describing the physical universe the way they thought it really was. With St. Thomas Aquinas, I hold that they "went by what sensibly appeared" (Summa Theologiæ, I, Q. 70, Art. I).


[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='09 June 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1276097971' post='2126330']
Please see my response to Kafka, above. I think Robert Sungenis, who is just as knowledgeable a thumper as you, would disagree.
[/quote]

It is of little concern to me what Robert Sugenis thinks.

[kafka]

Rexi,

Do you have Aquinas' Catena Aurea? If so could you post the Mark 2, 26. I want to read it before I finish my full blown Abiathar interpretation.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' date='09 June 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1276100564' post='2126339']
Rexi,

Do you have Aquinas' Catena Aurea? If so could you post the Mark 2, 26. I want to read it before I finish my full blown Abiathar interpretation.
[/quote]

The [i]Catena Aurea[/i] can be found online [url="http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php"]here[/url].

[Ziggamafu]

Bede's explanation is indeed the best. Nevertheless, I deem it dishonest to say "there is no discrepancy". There plainly is, otherwise there would be no need to offer a hypothetical explanation.