The Rampant Liberalism Of The Nab

[amarkich]

Beautiful refutation, Hananiah. I was going to reply until I saw yours. Mine would not have been nearly as good God bless.

Adam

[Chrysologus]

Okay, I'll admit it: Your papal quotations shook me up. So I looked into it more and you're right: Popes, saints, and theologians, that is, the magisterium, often used to say the Bible was totally inerrant. But, you know what, the Church also used to teach that:

Only baptized Catholics can be saved.
Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by law.
The pope has temporal authority over the whole world.
Charging interest on a loan is gravely sinful.
The Jews are guilty of killing Christ.
Ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue are evil.

There are probably other false doctrines that I could add to this list. What it comes down to is the fact that the Church doesn't always teach definitively, or dogmatically. Consequently, some teachings have changed throughout the centuries as theology has progressed. Not all Catholic doctrine is infallible.

That's the best I can do for now. If this seems somehow illogical, I'm not surprised, because I'm not even sure I believe it myself. Maybe I've been living in denial...

[MorphRC]

Some teachings have changed from early times...hmmm

[P3chrmd]

The inclusive language really bothers me!

"Humans do not live by bread alone"

I only read The Jerusalem Bible....but....all the other ones without inclusive language are good...just not as good for me

RSV-CE, Duay

what other Catholic translations do not use inclusive language other that the JB, RSV-CE, and the DR bible???

(The NRSV has to be the WORST for inclusive language!!! The New Jerusalem isn't as bad...i actually own a NJB....but I rarely use it..just because of the inclusive language)

[MorphRC]

Can you give me an example of what you mean from the bible. I still dont get it :S

[P3chrmd]

hey Morph...I tried to explain it on the Open Mic Phorum...under the "Which Bible Should I Buy" thread!

[MorphRC]

[quote name='P3chrmd' date='Jun 30 2004, 06:24 PM'] hey Morph...I tried to explain it on the Open Mic Phorum...under the "Which Bible Should I Buy" thread! [/quote]
Saw it Thx!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jun 28 2004, 12:28 PM']
:haha: With the people I hang out with...it wouldn't shock me. Words like preternatural are not exactly uncommon... :haha:  [/quote]
I use the word [i]preternatural[/i], because it is a technical theological term sanctioned by the Church's tradition. I wish more people would use that word, and use it correctly when they do.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Chrysologus' date='Jun 30 2004, 03:25 AM']
Okay, I'll admit it: Your papal quotations shook me up. So I looked into it more and you're right: Popes, saints, and theologians, that is, the magisterium, often used to say the Bible was totally inerrant. But, you know what, the Church also used to teach that:

Only baptized Catholics can be saved.
Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by law.
The pope has temporal authority over the whole world.
Charging interest on a loan is gravely sinful.
The Jews are guilty of killing Christ.
Ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue are evil.

There are probably other false doctrines that I could add to this list. What it comes down to is the fact that the Church doesn't always teach definitively, or dogmatically. Consequently, some teachings have changed throughout the centuries as theology has progressed. Not all Catholic doctrine is infallible.

That's the best I can do for now. If this seems somehow illogical, I'm not surprised, because I'm not even sure I believe it myself. Maybe I've been living in denial... [/quote]


False doctrines? Some of these have never been doctrines. And you misrepresent the facts. Doctrines (and dogma) do not change. There is a certain legitimate development of doctrine, but it does not involve any substantial or essential change. There have been theological opinions change, even ones many in the Church held to be true, but this does not signify a change in doctrine.

Let's take a look at your list:
The first: "Only baptized Catholics can be saved."

While I have no intention of starting a debate on this issue let me just say that all but one (Lactantius) of the Church Fathers believed in some form of baptism of desire as did Augustine, as did Aquinas, as did Blessed Pius IX. I'll just leave it at that.

Second: "Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by law."

While it is certainly true that the state has the duty to acknowledge and protect true religion, the Church has never demanded that all other religions must be always and everywhere illegal. I can give you many examples of the Church admonishing heads of state for excessively harsh treatment of heretics or Jews.

Third: "The pope has temporal authority over the whole world."

You would have to define your terms here. I'll save my response.

Fourth: "Charging interest on a loan is gravely sinful."

This would require more time than I have to do it credit. Let this suffice, this was never a solemnly defined teaching of the Church. To the best of my knowledge it was a moral judgment based on the circumstances at the time. The modern economy bares no resemblance to the glorious guild economy of the middle ages and even less to that in existence before the middle ages.

Fifth: "The Jews are guilty of killing Christ."

I wrote an entire paper on this once. Did the Jews kill Christ? The answer is yes (historically speaking). Of course the Romans helped. But we all played our part didn't we? The Church has always held this to be true and still does. However, I imagine that you are talking about collective guilt. This is all I will say to this for now. The Jews reject Christ. That tenet forms the basis of their religion and has ever since the Jamnian Council. To reject Christ (knowingly) is to be guilty of His death. We do it every time we sin. They do it as a matter of principle.

Lastly: "Ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue are evil."

Again I have no intention of starting a debate. Let me just say this: any inter-religious dialogue that gives the appearance of religious indifferentism is contrary to Catholic teaching.

ALL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE IS INFALLIBLE!

Edited June 30, 2004 by popestpiusx

[Chrysologus]

"Christ left to Peter not only the universal Church, but the whole world to govern."
- Innocent III

Here is a pope teaching that he is king of the world. But we don't believe this anymore. He was not teaching infallibly. Likewise, the more recent popes who riled against biblical "modernism" (which is to say, looking at the Bible with both faith [i]and [/i]reason instead of faith alone) were also not teaching infallibly. I'm sure the same is true of the Church's fierce condemnations of usury that lasted throughout the Middle Ages. That's what the whole point of my list was.

Also, I think your statement about Jews and Christ is highly suspicious, though it does sound very much like what Catholics used to believe (which doesn't surprise me since your s/n indicates you may be a traditionalist). In any case, the Church [i]now [/i]believes that "neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion....[T]he Jews should be not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this view followed from holy Scripture" (Vatican II, [i]Nostra aetate[/i]).

Your statement about ecumenism is highly ambigious. It's well known that the Church now fully supports ecumenism, yet less than 100 years ago it condemned it as something which Catholics could never participate in. But again, my point is not to condemn the Church but to show that some Catholic doctrines (not solemnly defined dogmas) change. The doctrine of total biblical inerrancy is not contained in the Bible itself, and contradicts the Bible as the Bible clearly contains numerous internal historical contradictions or inaccuracies, which mind-bending apologetics cannot believably answer. The phrase "death by a thousand qualifications" comes to mind.

While the Church frequently speaks out against heretical tides of thought within her ranks (support for abortion, religious indifferentism, priestesses, etc.), it has, since Vatican II, done absolutely [i]nothing [/i]to stop historical biblical criticism, and has seemingly encouraged it numerous times (in the NAB, for instance). To me, this is all the indication I need to believe that the doctrine of total biblical inerrancy, like so many other false doctrines before it, has fallen to the wayside in light of the Church's ever-increasing understanding of the faith, thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who is with us always and guides us into all truth.

[Chrysologus]

Let me add this: Not all Catholic doctrine is infallible, as the [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church [/i]explains (the [i]Catechism [/i]itself is a book of Catholic doctrine, but not infallible):

"Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles ... and to the bishop of Rome ... when, [i]without arriving at an infallible definition [/i]and without pronouncing in a 'definitive manner,' they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals" (paragraph 892).

Now I'm not exactly sure what kind of "divine assistance" is meant since the possibility that the magisterium's decision will be [i]wrong [/i]is allowed, and God is not the author of falsehood. Also, if it is capable of error, then it won't necessarily lead to a "better understanding of Revelation." The [i]Catechism [/i]also states that we're supposed to adhere to such pronouncements with religious assent, but if they [i]can [/i]be wrong, and we [i]believe [/i]they are wrong, how can we assent to them? Moreover, if everyone assented to them, they would never change. I'm really not sure how this paragraph is to be understood, but it does (it seems to me) admit the existence of Catholic teachings which may be objectively wrong.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Chrysologus' date='Jun 30 2004, 12:03 PM'] "Christ left to Peter not only the universal Church, but the whole world to govern."
- Innocent III

Here is a pope teaching that he is king of the world. But we don't believe this anymore. He was not teaching infallibly. [/quote]
Well, we still believe, or at least I do, that the Pope should have authority over secular leaders in so far as their decisions touch areas of morality. Political leaders who promote evil should be made to repent and do penance just like any other Catholic.

[quote]Likewise, the more recent popes who riled against biblical "modernism" (which is to say, looking at the Bible with both faith [i]and [/i]reason instead of faith alone) were also not teaching infallibly.[/quote]
Yes they were. Check [i]Lumen Gentium §25[/i]. Total Biblical inerrancy was certainly taught by the bishops in communion with Peter's sucessor. As the language and the format of the above decrees shows, these Popes were teaching authentically in a matter of faith and morals. They certainly had the moral unanimity of the bishops behind them. Finally, again, as the language in the decrees shows, these Popes presented their teaching as one to be held definitively. Besides, the council's of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II all teach the same doctrine so the extraordinary magesterium is behindthis one as well.

[quote]I'm sure the same is true of the Church's fierce condemnations of usury that lasted throughout the Middle Ages. That's what the whole point of my list was.[/quote]
The Church's teaching on usury has not changed at all. The nature of money has changed, rendering loaning money on interest no longer a usurious practice. See David Palm's article, [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=646"]The Red Herring of Usury[/url].

[quote]In any case, the Church [i]now [/i]believes that "neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion....[T]he Jews should be not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this view followed from holy Scripture" (Vatican II, [i]Nostra aetate[/i]).[/quote]
This is not a change in belief. The Council Fathers are rejecting the notion of the collective guilt of the Jewish nation through a curse which God supposedly placed on them in Matt 27:25. This notion is not part of the Tradition of the Church. However, Jews share equally with Pagans, Muslims, and Christians in guilt for the death of Christ by virtue of their personal sins.

[quote]It's well known that the Church now fully supports ecumenism, yet less than 100 years ago it condemned it as something which Catholics could never participate in.[/quote]
Indeed. What level of magesterial authority does this new ecumenical orientation have, however?

[quote]But again, my point is not to condemn the Church but to show that some Catholic doctrines (not solemnly defined dogmas) change.[/quote]
You are quite simply wrong. All Catholic doctrines are immutable and absolute. And no matter how many bishops and seminary professors abandon them they remain immutable and absolute. Christ did not cease to be God when 80% of the bishops of the Catholic Church embraced the Arian heresy.

[quote]The doctrine of total biblical inerrancy is not contained in the Bible itself, and contradicts the Bible as the Bible clearly contains numerous internal historical contradictions or inaccuracies, which mind-bending apologetics cannot believably answer. The phrase "death by a thousand qualifications" comes to mind.[/quote]
You should try reconciling the contradicitons. It's really not all that hard. Quite often one is left with a very detailed description of what happened, more detailed than either biblical narrative. For example the Stations of the Cross reconciles Luke 23:26 and John 19:17.

[quote]While the Church frequently speaks out against heretical tides of thought within her ranks (support for abortion, religious indifferentism, priestesses, etc.), it has, since Vatican II, done absolutely [i]nothing [/i]to stop historical biblical criticism, and has seemingly encouraged it numerous times (in the NAB, for instance). To me, this is all the indication I need to believe that the doctrine of total biblical inerrancy, like so many other false doctrines before it, has fallen to the wayside in light of the Church's ever-increasing understanding of the faith, thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who is with us always and guides us into all truth.[/quote]
Or it is an indication that a great portion of the hierarchy has abandoned the authentic patrimony of the Church and emraced ideas antithetical to the faith.

[popestpiusx]

Very well said, Hananiah!!

[p0lar_bear]

I would like to add that historical biblical criticism and Biblical inerrancy are not mutually exclusive. Historical criticism is allowed, but "Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written" (Dei Verbum 12). One cannot approach the Scriptures with a "hermenutic of suspision." Just as faith and reason are not opposed, scholarly study of Scripture (including historical criticism) is not opposed to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

I can provide more information on the magisterial documents referring to the inerrancy of Scripture if you would like.

[Hananiah]

I agree entirely that historical criticism has a legitimate domain and use. It's much easier to understand Christ's parables with a little background in the culture of 1st century Palestine, for example. Also, archeology can shed a great deal of light on passages which are obscure, such as David's conquest of Jerusalem.