I think a lot of people confuse “the fullness of the divine truth” with factual statements. There’s a lot in the Bible that can’t (or shouldn’t) be taken literally, but as a whole, the Bible conveys divine truth.

After all, do we really think Jesus rode a donkey AND a horse at the same time as he entered Jerusalem (Mt 21:1-11)? That would be more of a circus stunt than a miracle and it clearly shows how translations can go awry.

I drive a Toyota and a Holden (GM for Americans). This does not mean that I simultaneously operate two motor vehicles. Christ may well have gotten off one and mounted another.

Overall though I agree with the point you are making… I think. It may well hinge on how exactly you define “a lot”.

There are some Biblical passages in which I can find no hermeneutic answer, for example:  Deut 25:11-12.

Some famous examples I recall are passages mention the rising of the sun (not literally true, we assume the earth rotated), and I believe there is a town location misidentified in the book of Tobit.  Most people would need a full breakdown with regards to inerrancy and mythological language, as that used in Genesis 1 which would seem to preclude dinosaurs roaming the earth.  I’m sure there are a lot more I’m missing.  I know some of these are silly, but I hope for a definitive statement that would incorporate the silly objections too.

Is the Church really bound to refute silly objections? Shouldn’t the Church be expected only to address serious disputes, or points of legitimate confusion? Providentissimus Deus already addressed examples like the sun rising (ie expressions commonly used at the time of writing, some surviving even to the present day, which mean something different to that literally described by the words themselves).

Excellent post Mr. Akin! Prayers are definitely needed on this extremely important topic!

@Stella Orientis: Silly objections can and do often grow into serious disputes. I would rather they be dealt with while they are still silly objections.

Ha! I just looked up Deut 25:11-12. Thanks, Carl. Would love to hear that one read at Mass. I don’t think my sons and I would be able to stop laughing.

Well, to be honest, the whole “inerrancy of Scripture” think is probably the greatest difficulty I have with the Catholic faith.  Why?  Because it means the slightest discrepancy within Scripture, or between what Scripture assures as fact and historical, empirical fact means 1) Church doctrine is in error, ergo 2) the Catholic Church was not founded by Christ, because she teaches an untruth.  With the claim of absolute inerrancy, things like the rabbit “chewing its cud,” Eden being located between the Tigris and the Euphrates (when current research seems to indicate mankind originated in Africa) and other tiny details assume critical importance.  (The “limited inerrancy” theory, I must admit, does give “breathing room” that I must admit I like.)  I know not everything in Scripture is meant to be taken literally, I have no wish to disagree with the Church, and am trying to trust the Spirit in these matters, but the emphasis on *absolute* biblical inerrancy fills my heart with terror and dread…

The matter of Biblical inerrancy has often been of great interest to me, so I will surely join in the prayer.
I firmly believe in Biblical inerrancy, but the true problem is “how” it is interpreted. People who read the Bible on their own (some of them, are even theologians!) argue that the Bible can’t be accurate as there are many errors: a 6000 years old Earth, for example; the non-existence of a “Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians” taken from Judith’s book; or the contradictions between the Gospels on the timing of the Last Supper. But in truth, that shows that WE are errant, not the Bible.

As you rightly asserted, dear Jimmy, the Holy Spirit is the inspirer, the invisible hand behind the writers. Nevertheless, the words come from the author. God chose them as instruments to record His message (the Church Fathers called each inspired author and Organon or musical instrument!). To tell it in other words, we tend to put our limits into the Bible: we insist in admitting that history can be recorded exclusively as we do in our days, everything else is a fairy tale. But the inspired authors had no interest in “writing history” from a scientific point of view. To them, the telescoped genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were pure historical record. To them, giving pseudonyms to the original characters and places of Judith’s history was normal. To the Evangelists there was no need to explain why Jesus celebrated his last Passover Meal one day in advance with respect to the rest of Israel. That’s the main point: it’s our limit, not the Bible’s.

So, I firmly subscribe to the concept of “Biblical inerrancy” as it was rightly pointed out by Pius XII in his “Divino Afflante Spiritu”. We must understand the original language, its idioms, its culture, its author… if we want to properly grasp the original inerrant historical background. If only Bible readers weren’t so proud of reading the Scriptures thinking to be superior to God’s Word, the Church would suffer much less problems then ever: no more ultra-literalists and no more minimalists will harm the unity of our faith anymore!

In Christ,
    Alessandro

Carl,

Deuteronomy 25.11-12—not to mention much else that is contained in the detailed judicial law of the OT—has been superseded by what is contained in the NT. The judicial law, as distinct from the moral law (i.e. the decalogue), is a harsher law for a harsher time; it is what Dei Verbum calls that aspect of the law which was “provisional.”

Thomas Aquinas similarly observed: “Nothing prevents a thing from not being utterly perfect, and yet being perfect in respect of time: thus a boy is said to be perfect, not utterly, but with regard to the condition of time. So, too, precepts that are given to children are perfect in comparison with the condition of those to whom they are given, although they are not perfect simply. Hence the Apostle says (Gal. 3:24): “The law was our pedagogue in Christ.” “

The Pope made clear in his message to the Pontifical Biblical Commission that the interpretation of the inspired word of God in the Scriptures must always conform to the doctrine of the Church as contained in the living Tradition of the Church. First comes Tradition as enunciated by the Magisterium of the Church, then the inspired Scriptures. There never has been and never can be any contradiction between these two. I don’t see that there is a problem here. But I can see where some biblical scholars of a scientific bent would have a problem. How many of these are Catholic I don’t know but you see the sad effects of the scientific view plastered all over the predominate media from time to time. This is a problem but it does not effect the inerrancy of the Scriptures but can misslead the public and the faithful.

I seem to remember that there already was a document released on this issue.  It is supposed to be a long one but easily readable (also considered the most complete document since Dei Verbum I am wondering if anyone knows its name.

The instrumentum laboris (“working document”) of the recent XII Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on “The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church” included the following troubling excerpt (15c):

‘In summary, the following can be said with certainty: […] with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture, inerrancy applies only to “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”’

Hrm…

I’d ask The Synod to put its Theological Cards, face-up,on the table.  Tell us what you believe. If you do not think the Bible is inerrant, please tell us.

As for Vatican Two, there were at least 80 Bishops who did not sign one or more of the Documents and yet after The Council they left in full union with the Pope.

Vatican Two was sui generis. At no other that I am aware of, was that allowed. The sooner we get over Vatican Two the better. It was a Pastoral Council that taught no new Doctrine and then in more than just the passage sighted by Mr Akin, there is confusion about meaning and what was intended.

Gimme that old time Religion with its old time Dogmatic Definitions, Canons, Decrees, and Anathemas and enough with the temerarious temporising.

Great topic Mr Akin. I attended last week what I was told to be a symposium between Catholics and Evangelical Christians. I went as Beckwith was attending,a man who did return to the Church, and a prolific writer, as were the other three or four of the Evangelical movement.

These men cam loaded for bear. There was subtle anti Catholicism, from very learned men who made statements regarding “inerrancy” which none have broached. What I witnessed was one Evangelical who railed on this subject and went from the New to Old testament to prove the “inerrancy” through various Biblical verbiage. It was interesting but at same time flawed.

My point, I did not record this talk, my error, I went to prove or disprove another position taken by Evangelical Christianity, which anther posting in First Things magazine, portend implosion within ten years…I am not so sure. Why are there not Catholic Apologetic, speakers traveling the United States to re-invigorate Catholicism? 

Why are there not more Father Corapi, gray or dark beard,or lay people educated in the theology of Catholicism, and trained in apologetic’s more involved in the hinterlands of America as we lose our priests the “inerrancy” as much a truism in Catholic belief as Evangelical belief getting ot those whom need the reinforcement these men I witnessed Friday evening do to their believers.

Prayers to guide the Bishops on inerrancy, maybe the Bishops should tend to their flocks and address the deficiencies of the seminary and the priests who mean well but do too little. I love my church for all the right reasons and had the distinct participation in cloister some 40 years ago, I wish for Catholicism to thrive. Let us all pray.

Sic Transit Gloria

I will joyfully add this to my list of intentions. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

So apparently I’m the *only* one here who’s troubled by the doctrine?

Sulkow82, the document that was published last November is the Apostolic Exhortatlion: Verbum Domini (The Word of the Lord).  It is a very readable document unlike others mentioned above, and makes a lot of sence.  It can be downloaded from various sources, and if you don’t want to go through a reem of paper, can be had very reasonably in book form or Pauline Books and Media (www.pauline.org).

Carl, Catholics believe in the inerrancy of the Bible with regards to the truths it seeks to impart.  God made use of fallible vehicles for his own divine authorship.  As far as I understand Catholic teaching, absolute literal inerrancy is practically against reason (my earlier example of the sun rising).  Even different accounts of the same event profess to teach different truths, which are not necessarily historical truths, but neither are these denied.  Generally understood, it is the truth as interpreted by the Church’s Magisterium, not the facts, that is inerrant.  I expect the CDF to confirm this.

In the end, be at peace.  No matter what will be or has been said about Biblical truth/inerrancy, Catholics all the more believe in God as a rational being.  God cannot be contradictory.  Whatever statement the CDF/Pope will say about the Bible is always subject to our understanding of that everlasting truth.

Hi Tommy, I share your reservations about “Inerrancy,” and so does the Church. What the Church teaches is that protected from error are those details God wanted to reveal which are necessary for our salvation (that’s from Dei Verbum, paragraph 11, I think). The task of the exegete is to determine, first, how the original audiences would have understood what was communicated to them, and second, the extent to which the details of that communication are necessary for salvation. But the idea that there is no “error” in the Bible is nonsense. So while I am glad you see through this, I just would hope you recognize that the Church realizes this as well.

KellyWilson, please read Providentissimus Deus (Pope Leo XIII) and Divino Afflante Spiritu (Pope Pius XII). The nonsense is thinking that there is error in the Bible, of any kind.

The real error is in how we read it - either in mistaking for literal truth that which was never intended to be read literally, or in rejecting the inerrancy of scripture rather than question some present scientific theory. As mentioned above, St Thomas teaches that God is the one source of all Truth, both in faith and “science” (material knowledge), thus if there appears to be an unresolvable contradiction between the two then it is our own understanding which is defective, and not the “two truths” irreconcilable.

The sacred scriptures are indeed wholly and entirely free from error, and need only be interpreted correctly by man.

Great post, Jimmy! Thanks for bringing this news release to our attention.

I would like to point out here that your request for prayers has (I believe providentially) coincided with a great deal of recently scholarly labor on this subject. The newest volume of Letter & Spirit, edited by Scott Hahn and David Scott, is entirely devoted to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. The volume, For the Sake of Our Salvation: The Truth and Humility of God’s Word, takes its title from the very passage in Dei Verbum 11 you mentioned and about which so much debate has taken place.

Letter & Spirit 6 is to my knowledge the most extensive treatment of inspiration and inerrancy in English since the Second Vatican Council, and maybe ever. At a whopping 430 pages, it contains essays by some major Catholic theologians, such as Michael Waldstein (Ave Maria),  John Betz (Univ Notre Dame), Germain Grisez (Mount Saint Mary’s), Matthew Levering (University of Dayton), Fr. Pablo Gadenz (Seton Hall), as well as some lesser lights (like myself). It also includes some invaluable classic treatments of the subject by Romano Guardini, Augustine Cardinal Bea, S.J., and others that have long been out of print.

For a great overview, see Jeff Morrow’s (also a contributor) excellent review at www.amazon.com/Letter-Spirit-Vol-Salvation-Humility/dp/1931018685/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1303259879&sr=1-1.

This is truly a great moment in the history of the Church, especially since before we contributors even knew it, Pope Benedict in Verbum Domini called for greater research into precisely these two topics!

Hi Stella, I’ve those two documents, and plenty more, because as I am sure you know, those document were not the last the Church had to say on the matter.

You’ll note that I put “error” in quotation marks. I did so for a reason. Sometimes when a typically held interpretation is shown to be untenable, that is supposed to be an error. But that is more the error of the interpretter than a particular author.

You need to realize though, that when we speak of the Holy Spirit protecting the Sacred Writings from error, the second Vatican Council states that this protection extends to what God wanted to reveal for the purposs of salvation.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God. The Scriptures prepare for him, and testify to his person and activity, and to the Holy Spirit’s continued activity in the Church. To suppose, that every detail the Scriptures contain is free from “error,” is untenable, and fundamentalistic. Free from error, according to the point of development that our Church has reached (I’m assuming your Catholic) is what God wants to reveal for the sake of our salvation. Spend you time with that…

Hi KellyWilson, thank you for your response. I believe Jimmy already addressed your interpretation in his article. I am only a student of theology, but I am convinced that to hold the Catholic teaching from time immemorial that the Sacred Scriptures are utterly free from any error is neither untenable, nor fundamentalistic. Rather I contest that any interpretation of Dei Verbum which contradicts the previous teaching of the Church is protestantising and heretical, as it permits the Holy Spirit as permitting falsehood to enter Sacred Scripture.

That was a very gentle response, considering my own was riddled with typos. I’m in the middle of a busy time, so perhaps I’ll leave it at this, but its a very interesting subject, and perhaps we can discuss it more sometime? I shouldn’t have said the position is “nonsense.” That was not necessary.

In the meantime we can both pray for a good outcome from the commission for the Church and the world!

Yay!! All of these comments are excellent.

Is God quirky? We are made in his image after all. I, too, find it that some people think that they are above the scripture. I don’t mind people questioning it. I DO NOT think they should change it though. The Catholic Church could be accused of a lot of different things on top of it. People may actually leave the faith probably moreso for changing the Bible than people leaving the faith because of some “mistake” guided by the Holy Spirit that happened centuries ago that some people have a problem with.

Either God has a sense of humor or there is some deeper meaning to it and might need to be looked at in a different way, or both. These “inerrancies” may mean something to someone and lead them to truth and urge them to read the bible more. The Body of Christ needs everybody and taking out some of these passages may take out some interesting people. I also find joy in reading passages like Deut. 25:11-12. I got a kick from it.

Not that I am threatening with anything, but these may be some unintended consequences.

God Bless and may Peace be with all of you!!!
Petah

The previous comment was mine. I got a little carried away by putting a fake name. Please forgive me. I think everyone has a legitimate opinion. Some actions, though, go a little too far like changing the actual wording of the Bible. Also, after that, it is not the Bible anymore. It is the Bible with that “inerrancy” taken out. I know this is a very serious and tough issue and people should pray about it.

Truly and maybe even put harshly,

Peter Anthony Tsivis

God Bless and may the Peace of Christ be with all!!!

Thanks for this, Jimmy.  I’m happy to see this is being looked at more carefully.  We are in great need for DV 11 to be clarified because trust in the Sacred Scriptures is constantly under attack.  I was surprised to see that the newly published “YOUCAT” catechism basically undermines inerrancy in question 15: “How can Sacred Scripture be ‘truth’ if not everything in it is right? The Bible is not meant to convey precise historical information or scientific findings to us.  Moreover, the authors were children of their time.  They shared the cultural ideas of the world around them and often were also dominated by its errors.  Nevertheless, everything that man must know about God and the way of his salvation is found with infallible certainty in Sacred Scripture.”  This answer seems to limit inerrancy to faith and morals, which Dei Verbum does not do (cf. Augustin Cardinal Bea’s commentary on Dei Verbum, among others).  This statement essentially puts Scripture on the same level as papal infallibility: there is not a fullness of truth, but only a freedom from error in the matters of faith and morals.  This statement begs the question: if the authors of Scripture wrote “whatever [God] wanted written, and no more” (DV 11), then how is Scripture’s inerrancy limited to faith and morals?  Should it not also extend to whatever the sacred authors assert?  This is problematic since Dei Verbum itself asserts this: “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (11).While the “YOUCAT” is a wonderful resource, it is troubling that this at best ambiguous response regarding inerrancy is in the youth catechism that’s being handed out to each WYD participant.

Hi People,

I am not able to take part in any conversation about this matter until after Easter. I find it a fascinating subject, and if you do too, and want to discuss it further, meander along to my blog, http://kellyjwilson.blogspot.com , and there on the right sidebar you will see my email. Send me an email, and I’ll let you know when I’ve had time to write something about this. Based on the quality of the comments here, I think you’d benefit from some further conversation about this matter…  :)

Propositions are either true or false. It is the task of the exegete to discover what in fact is asserted and what is not asserted.

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS?ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ?ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For 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 Ghost; 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. These are the words of the last: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.”(57) Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. “Therefore,” says St. Augustine, “since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated.”(58) And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: “Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. “(59)
21. It follows that 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. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the “higher criticism;” for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. 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.”(60)

+++++++++++++++++ end quote ++++++++++++++++

Holy Mother Church has always taught the Bible does not contain errors and so I would like to learn if any Bishop refutes Tradition on this point. We have all read the low % of Catholic Laity who believe what Tradition has taught in more than one are of Faith and Morals but we never seem to hear about what it is our Bishops do and do not believe.

We do know that The Creed of St. Athanasius has fallen into desuetude in modern times and we do know that it was cast out of our Liturgical Books after the greatest Ecumenical Council in the history of the universe. All one has to do is read it and see why the modern Church - in dialogue with the world - would think it a bit harsh for our times. I mean,come on, it has breath-takingly beautiful theology and it contains anathemas and as a Church we don’t do anathemas.

We also cast-out The Oath against Modernism, forbid the Traditional Mass, forced a protestantised Mass on all and sundry and the results of all of this reading and responding to the signs of the times has been an absolute collapse of every singe objective measure of Catholicity from Belief to Mass attendance etc etc etc.

So, I think it is imperative that these Bishops reveal to us what it is they do and do not believe about the Bible.

Become an Evangelical Protestant and avoid all these issues.

Dei Verbum II is only unclear on biblical inerrancy in the English translation (I haven’t read any other translations, so I can’t speak for their accuracy). The original Latin is far harder for liberal Bible scholars to twist into a more restrictive sense.

The translation reads, “...the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

The Latin is much clearer (to paraphrase): “for the sake of salvation, the Scriptures teach…without error the truth which God wanted written down.”

The difference is subtle, but the translation allows for the false interpretation that biblical inerrancy is restricted to matters of faith and morals. The original text states that every assertion of the sacred page is inerrant, with our salvation being the reason that God preserved the sacred authors from all error.

Yeah, Kelly. We’ll all be over to your blog right away. Our lives won’t be complete until you enlighten us.

The Sons of Satan who twist Scripture for their own ends have been allowed to have free reign for far too long.. The lamentable practice of refusing to discharge ecclesiastical discipline (See Pope John XXIII’s opening speech to the council) ineluctably had to result in the madness and mayhem we see all about us.

This will not cease no matter what happens at The Synod. This will continue until the Hierarchy, which instituted this revolution, puts an end to it and there is no sign The Hierarchy has exhausted itself with its opening to the world or its dialogue with the world or its endless novelties.

In the meantime, faithful Catholics are on their own. The Shepherd will not cast-out the ravenous wolves inside the Sheep Gate.

If a Bishop or Priest tells you the Bible teaches error they are, at minimum, material heretics and the best thing to do is stay away from them and find sanctuary in the Traditional Mass, Traditional Sacraments, and Traditional Theology, and let the modernists be dragged down to perdition with the anchor of error they refuse to release.

You have to distinguish between Jesus Christ, as THE Word of God, and the Scriptures, as a testimony. Jesus Christ is the Revelation of God. The Scriptures testify to that revelation.

This helps in the process of clarification. You can’t just keep quoting something that does not representent the current state of Catholicism’s examination of the issue. Dei Verbum has to be the point of reference, and in Dei Verbum, especially when you study the process and growth of the text to its final form (and you do that by comparing it to previous drafts…) you see the direction the Vatican Fathers are going on this matter.

Let’s lose this silly talk about modernity, or heresy. Modernity or heresy would say, in this regard, that whatever conception it is that humans choose to identify as God, surely doesn’t protect the Bible from error.

Instead the Catholic says, that the Holy Spirit guides the human authory. And that, according to our Church, protected from error are those things which God has had written down “for the sake of our salvation.” That is an important statement, and it represents the current state of development within the Church on the matter. So the refences to a previous state in the development don’t seem to me to be wise. If you read some of the early responses of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (and certainly they represented their own era of the Chuch’s understanding of the issue) and then compared them to something Ratzinger writes in the Jesus of Nazareth for example (which in many ways reflects more the current state of biblical scholarship) then you’d see a disconnect.

Some of you are engaging in this issue with strong emotion, but not much else. Perhaps as reading you should take in Alois Grillmeier, “The Divine INspiration and the Interpretatino of Sacred Scripture,” in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. 3, pp. 199-246.

Kelly
kellyjwilson.blogspot.com

Kelly I think you’ve gone a bit astray theologically. The moment you attempt to make a single document the sole hermeneutic of interpretation, you abandon the Catholic method of practicing theology. Magisterial documents can only be correctly interpreted in light of magisterial documents that precede them - thus Dei Verbum is not a law unto itself, but must be interpreted in light of the persistent teaching of the Church (as quoted in Providentissimus Deus above).

Next, I have to contest your idea of heresy. Heresy is by definition the deviation from Orthodoxy: that is, something which differs from orthodoxy in any way. There is no single “heretical” position which if avoided renders a statement orthodox, rather there is a single orthodox position which renders all others heretical.

The orthodox position, as consistently taught by the Church since apostolic times, is that the sacred scriptures are free from any and all error, of any conceivable kind. I do take issue with some of the above comments about fleeing to “traditional sacraments” (as though “non-traditional” sacraments are somehow not sacraments) but I don’t want to get distracted from the topic of Jimmy’s post (in which, again, he addresses your apparent objection that infallibility applies only to those things which are necessary for salvation, and not such details as which of the Holy Apostles were brothers).

If there were “errors” in the Bible, they would come from man, not the Holy Spirit as everything that comes from the Mouth of God is Holy and True. Pope Benedict has very little “use” of these modern so-called scholars and by glancing over some of the posts, I can see why. Science needs a very old “age” to prove their stories, and the more that they try, the funnier it gets. For 7000 years man knew where he came from and where Adam & Eve started out from (not Africa, by any means). I heard a sermon by a Pastor that falls for this new-age garbage about Adam & Eve being part of Greek “mythology) that says they were only a “symbol” of man-kind and not two human beings. That for itself, says that God is a liar, and we shouldn’t put any faith into Holy Scripture, which is absurd. I have read many translations, and I have yet to come across Jesus riding on a horse, maybe it was a camel on in a motor-home? Come Holy Spirit, we need You more than ever. +JMJ+

Wow, JMJ. Have you had any religious education beyond 4th grade CCD?

If we believe in continuity, which we should (if we’re Catholic), then we don’t read the present in light of the past, we re-read the past as anticipation of the present. That’s the hermeneutic Ratzinger has identified in the already referenced Commentaries on the Documents of the Vatican II.
Again, I repeat, we need to be very careful about the use of the word “error,” but the Second Vatican Council, which is owed credibility in its totality (I’m not say you can’t pick apart individual points…), identifies very, very specifically what the Holy Spirit protects from error: Truths God wished to reveal for our salvation.

And that’s how its been interpretted since…

kelly
kellyjwilson.blogspot.com

I hesitate to reject your claim before asking you to clarify it. Are you saying that Dei Verbum makes a claim directly contradictory to Providentissimus Deus, and that this contradiction is resolved by reinterpreting the latter in conformity with our existing interpretation of the present?

I don’t hesitate to reject your “if, then” condition, though. That we are Catholics (and therefore believe in continuity, and development of doctrine) means precisely the opposite of what you claim. Our Catholicity is defined in that no later doctrine can directly contradict an earlier - and yet, to limit the infallibility of Scripture is in direct contradiction to the previously taught universal infallibility of scripture.

Andrew G: How about you? Just what is it that you are confused about? Evolution, global warming, fossil fuels, Pope Benedict or the Bible?  +JMJ+

We’re treading into matters of ecclesiology, and into questions of what constitutes infallibility. We know that there are gradations within the Church’s teaching: The Immaculate Conception, for example, has a weight, that the identity of the Fourth Gospel’s author does not (even if tradition has had a fairly consistent about both).

So yeah, something might have been said in a past document that is now being corrected or qualified, just as Ratzinger himself, in recognizing things that he feels shouldnt be a part of Gaudium et spes, for example, state’s their error. He’s extremely critical of the text’s Introduction for example.

We can’t represent what is only a stage in development, as the current place where we now sit. And that’s what commentators are doing here.

Kelly
kellyjwilson.blogspot.com

JMJ, nothing else you have to say really matters if you actually believe Adam and Eve were real people. I suppose you also embrace the Noah’s Ark story in a literal way, too?

But Kelly, you are representing as an adjustment something which is an abject contradiction. To interpret DV as a “qualification” of PD is either ignorant or deceptive, because a contradiction is of a completely different substance to a qualification. PD asserts (with magisterial authority, no less) that the Sacred Scriptures are utterly free of any defect of error. DV can be read to agree, or it can be read to restrict this freedom from error to certain fields (which, by omission, allow error in other fields). The first interpretation may legitimately be described as a “qualification” of PD by DV, the second can only be honestly called a “contradiction”. Contradiction is not development, it is rejection and replacement.

Andrew, it appears you do not believe that Adam and Eve were distinct individuals. If this is true, would you mind explaining to me how you account for original sin? Further, if Adam were not a real man, how could St Paul claim that sin entered the world through a man (Adam), and was conquered by a man (Christ)?

JMJ, have you read what Benedict has written, as Cardinal Ratzinger, on the relationship between creation and evolution? He’s not a young earth creationist you know…

Stella, you’re point about the distinctino between contradiction and qualification is fine (although qualification is almost immediately viewed by its critics as contradiction, so I’m not sure how far you want to take that…).

The larger issue, it appears, is your ecclesiology. Might I suggest ch. 2 of Francis Sullivan’s “Weighing and Interpretting Documents of the Magisterium.”

Kelly I don’t mean to be rude but I do think you’ve started dropping names and articles instead of outlining your positions. Rather than send me away to read, couldn’t you just state where you think “my” ecclesiology is incorrect? It is a point you have mentioned twice now and I am genuinely interested in seeing your thoughts. Up to this point, since you have said nothing beyond raising the issue of ecclesiology, I don’t see how it’s even related to the issue. I can imagine several “angles”, but you haven’t said enough to make clear just what you mean.

Apologies. I’m supposed to be working on my reaseach of Ratzinger’s trinitarian theology. Hence my giving you a bibliography. It’s brief, however.

Let me state head-on what I mean: Your eccelesiology *seems* not to permit “contradiction.” However because you do not *evidence* a knowledge of how a document’s weight is to be interpretted, you *seem* not able to place such “contradiction” in context.

No Stella, I don’t believe Adam and Eve were actual people, nor does any non-literalist theologian (which includes most respected Catholic theologians, including all our popes of recent history).

Catechism 390: “The account of the fall in Gensis 3 uses figurative language…” Adam and Eve are “tools” for explaining a concept that is difficult to understand without the use of images, characters, narrative.

They don’t have to have been real people in order for the truth conveyed through their story to be relevant for us.

Also, Stella, you would do well to read Chapter 3 (Sacred Scripture: Its Divine Inspiration and Its Interpretation) in Dei Verbum. Far too much for me to type out here, but would help you get back in line with the church when it comes to our approach to Scripture.

Andrew, thank you for sending all your friends over to my blog. A number have told me they have since experienced enlightenment…

I don’t understand why the Vatican, or Catholic pew people, care enough about the Bible to have another symposium on it.  Why bother?  Whenever I mention the Bible to fellow Catholics, they dismiss what I say, making the Bible irrelevant.  It’s Tradition Catholics want. 

Bishops must be looking for something different to do-tired of meditating on their navels now that the “New” (old) Roman Missal is finished, after 15 years of having worked on it.

One would think the conscience of our esteemed leaders would bother them, considering they’ll do ANYTHING but teach us pew people the Bible, in context.  But these men seem to be like city workers in good unions, with huge pensions.  So they can push papers around, until they retire.  Of course, most bishops like the acclaim they have, so they never really retire.  In some ways, I think that’s the problem.  They last, like EverReady batteries, going on and on…pontificating their thoughts, and we pew people are like hostages, to their musings.

If only there were some leaders that just believed what was IN the Bible, as it’s written, and taught it to us pew people.  But alas, they refuse. They’d rather read each other’s opinions.

Now, we’ll get the opinions of even MORE leaders, and the Holy Spirit remains on the shelf, where He has been for hundreds of years.  Oh well.  It is what it is.  These men need MORE than prayers.  They need heart and mind transplants.  They need wisdom.  They’ll have no wisdom, until they believe the Bible is the “Word of God”.

This inerrancy discussion is the leading theological bent, which is used against the Roman Catholic Church by the Evangelical and Fundamental Christian sects, in their proselytization (sp) efforts domestically and countries all over the world.

If, in a bookseller, there is a teaser headline, GOD’S WAR a magazine which is more about foreign policy. The GOD’S WAR article turned an analysis of Evangelical Christianity influence on the politics which is pervasive in our daily lives.

Inerrancy was an overriding theme and a disturbing discovery of that which is the standard for this movement. Catholics do need to be aware as these points are “...(1)a high view of biblical authority and inspiration; (2) a strong determination to defend the historical protestant faith against Roman catholic and modernist, secular, and non-Christian influence;(3)and the conviction that believers should separate themselves from the non-Christian world.” This article is found in FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Sept/Oct 2005

These attitudes and beliefs are when discussed between adults can be countered by debate or ignoring the aspersion as just another bias which Catholics traditionally have endured, “no Irish need apply,” the Know Nothings” and attempts through legislation the Blaine Amendments which, in each instance bias against our religion and our beliefs.

This is the argument on inerrancy which many choose to ignore. Children in this group, take these subtle asides and see them in the black and white of youth, in their understanding of difference in the collective Christendom. Roman Catholics need to take a stand as this group is decimating those established other religions in the umbrella Christianity which we know. The Community Churches, train locally, their pastors or ministers, to an idea of Christianity which unless you attend, is an unknown and is attacking the Roman Catholic Church.

We need to wake up and support our religion and live our religion, as inerrancy, has been dissected and analyzed, pity those who went before absent Wikipedia and the access to concordats. Have they lost their salvation?

Sic Transit Gloria

Dear Mr Wilson. You are trying to tell me something I was warned against by St Vincent of Lerins.  Of course Doctrine develops as the Catholic Church, guided by The Holy Ghost, comes to understand ever more deeply and completely the Original Deposit of Faith but a change is not a development. The Catholic Church can not teach for a score of centuries that the Bible contains no error and then begin to teach it does contain error and it makes no difference if the Pope who does such a thing is brilliant or holy or both - that is irrelevant.

The Catholic Church simply can not teach the opposite of what she has always taught. Period.

The Catholic Church can NOT teach that Tradition has always held that there is no error in Scripture and then “modify” that teaching by changing it.

That is not a Catholic Idea.

As for the Holy Father’s personal opinions about this or that, they are not probitive until he speaks with the authority of Peter and declares thus and such. He is speaking as a private theologian way too frequently and he is creating great confusion with his books that bear his name as Pope. Who is speaking, the personal theologian, or the Pope, or both?

This is a very modern mistake and it is sowing confusion and it will ineluctably undermine Papal authority

It is silly to claim that Vatican Two is binding upon me when it was not Binding on the 80 Bishops who did not sign one or more of the Documents of that Council but who left that Council in union with the Pope and the Catholic Church.

“I do take issue with some of the above comments about fleeing to “traditional sacraments” (as though “non-traditional” sacraments are somehow not sacraments)”

That is a bit off topic but only a bit:)

Of course I did not write that the New Mass, Holy Orders etc were not sacraments but when Holy Mother Church just junks, say, The Order of Exorcist, what else but trouble could be the result?

The Traditional Orders with the Traditional Mass, Traditional Sacraments, and Traditional Theology are absolutely a sanctuary during this modern crisis. And I suspect you are less than a year away from throwing in with them if This Synod tries to reconcile these opposing ideas that Mr. Wilson seems to think is the coolest things since refrigeration.

Humani Generis

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

So, yeah. There was an Adam, and there was an Eve. They were our first parents. See Question #7 “Compendium” Catechism of the Catholic Church of

Lumen Gentium (from the bestest council in the history of the universe)

12. The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name.(110) The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(113) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.

Well, until we got wind of this Synod, we Christian Catholics have always believed that the Word of God was without error so it will be interesting to hear the Vatican Two’ers resolve this contradiction.

Vatican I..

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

++++ end of quote ++++++

Good luck explaining that away

Oh Cranky, your simple, literal understanding of things is what makes you cute. Reminds me of my children. Don’t ever change.

DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON PROMOTING BIBLICAL STUDIES, COMMEMORATING
THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS,
ARCHBISHOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

Inspired by the Divine Spirit, the Sacred Writers composed those books, which God, in His paternal charity towards the human race, deigned to bestow on them in order “to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”[1] This heaven-sent treasure Holy Church considers as the most precious source of doctrine on faith and morals. No wonder herefore that, as she received it intact from the hands of the Apostles, so she kept it with all care, defended it from every false and perverse interpretation and used it diligently as an instrument for securing the eternal salvation of souls, as almost countless documents in every age strikingly bear witness. In more recent times, however, since the divine origin and the correct interpretation of the Sacred Writings have been very specially called in question, the Church has with even greater zeal and care undertaken their defense and protection. 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.”[2] 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.”[3] When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.

Dear Andrew G. Why thank you. I do not know if you intended that as a compliment but I sure took it as one. I stand with Tradition and so it is literally impossible for The Catholic Church to suddenly begin teaching that Holy Writ contains error.

If any Synod tries to teach such a thing I will consider it a Confession that the Bishops comprising that Synod are of the Synagogue of Satan

I will try to remember to pray for the members of the PBC, as this is, as you say, an important issue. Having studied the issue (and inspiration in general) some, I find it perplexing and difficult. Clearly Christians assume and believe that the Bible is fundamentally reliable, and yet committing to a viewpoint that requires one to engage in the long-standing yet dubious practice of *harmonization* is, in my opinion, a bad thing. I suspect that most (perhaps even all) of the members of the PBC share an opposition to harmonization as a good approach to Bible interpretation. But rejecting harmonization itself hardly answers all our questions. In fact, it raises several with few clear answers appearing. Hopefully the PBC will do a good job outlining some reliable ways of hacking a path through the jungle. Probably will be a few years before we see anything. http://chrysologus.blogspot.com

To those who keep hammering away with document after document stating that every tiny detail in Scripture is correct, you’re not doing a good job of convincing others.  If, however, you’re trying to destroy my faith, you’re doing a pretty good job.

One interpretation of the Church’s doctrine that has helped me can be found here:
http://disputations.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_archive.html#106199221147077875
I have no doubt some of you will believe the author of the above article holds to the “limited inerrancy” theory and thunder against him for his alleged lack of faith.  There is, however, one part of it I think I should note:

“A person can point (and a lot of people have pointed) out that Genesis’s two creation stories present incompatible creation sequences; that 1 Kings 7 and 2 Chronicles 4 contradict each other; that camels have split hooves; that Nathan was not the son of David, as Luke records. These are empirical observations.”
(OK, so I’ve read there’s some desert camels w/not-totally-split hooves, so maybe that’s a bad example…)
In no way do I wish to oppose the teaching of the Church.  I am trying to accept all the teachings of the Church, but I don’t think I can stand doublethink…

Topics like this always beg the question.  In this case inerrancy to what.
Whenever ones speaks, it is to a destination. Likewise, whenever one writes there is a theme and a thesis, a point addressed. In the case of the gospels there were thirty or more of them at the end to the second century.  The inerrancy then is addressed to whom, the selectors of the four canons, the scribes who copied them, the various translations.  Did any of the unknown authors of any of these sacred scripts at the time of the writing think that he sat to write a Bible.  It is far better to read what has been written for content and understanding, not accurate history, or to think that a God wrote them, who did not write as well as a Shakespeare or a Dante, and who had no knowledge of history, science, and cast devils out of the medically ill.  It is far better to value the gospels and other writs for its content and instruction, than to debate whether a Holy Spirit or other anomaly influenced them. We can attribute ‘divination’ again and over again, when the simple response is we simply do no know. Once anything is in print, it has its own existence and ought to be appreciated as such…not enlarged by magical thinking beyond any original intent.  All these writings were directed to a purpose and to a particular audience, and mindful of a theme.

Tommy Aquinas - You must have very weak faith.  Stay off the blogs and keep your mind in the Bible, instead.

You wrote, “If, however, you’re trying to destroy my faith, you’re doing a pretty good job.”  Neither bloggers nor Church theologians ought to be allowed to have that much power over you.

I love these intelligent comments and can’t wait to check out Kelly’s blog.

I ask that something else b thrown into the equation. I agree the most with Vernmont Crank’s April 20 post at 4:34pm and with this previous post. The Church needs to stay consistent and nobody knows who they are poking fingers at whether it be the Holy Spirit or human error. I think ultimately, if the Church somehow decides that there is some “inerrancy” in the Bible, it would divide the Church against itself into an old tradition sect and a new tradition sect. It is one of the devil’s favorite techniques to hurt Christians. This URL is a priest explaining this in a sermon/homily.

    http://www.patheos.com/community/deaconsbench/2011/04/16/the-favorite-trick-of-the-enemy-of-the-church-is-to-divide-us-against-ourselves/

Like I said before, the Bible should stay the way it is because the Church needs to stay consistent in that it was written by God himself. I have not read Dei Verum or Providentissimus Deus, but from what it sounds like, there is an inconsistency with these. My personal opinion as to hopefully not offend anyone is that, for example, just because Andrew is the brother of Peter and this seems irrelevant with regards to our salvation doesn’t give warrant to change what God wrote in the Bible. If everything in the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t it be impossible to distinguish intention from error.

    It is better to leave it the way it is instead of changing around the Word of God itself when nobody except God knows what went down when the Bible was written. Not that the issue should be dropped, but if people have a serious problem with this and the Word of God itself is being jeopardized of being changed and dividing the Church against itself, wouldn’t it be better not to let the devil get to us and to leave the Bible the way it is?

    Hope this helps,

  Peace and God Bless to all!!!
Peter

Sorry - I have a tendency to obssess.

It’s just whenever the topic of biblical inerrancy comes up, the “inerrancy enthusiasts” come forth with all their documents and such, lambasting anyone who has difficulties with the doctrine as lacking in faith, modernist et al.

The reason why I struggle with the doctrine is that if the Bible is completely and absolutely without any type of error whatsoever, then if the *tiniest*, most *insignificant* detail in Scripture is wrong, Catholicism is false.

Yet instead of addressing the issue, people here like post papal documents that appear to say “yes, that’s true, now believe it!”

ThomasAquinas,
Every Catholic, without exception, has weak faith.  Why?  The Bible says: Faith comes by hearing the WORD!, which means putting complete trust in the Bible.  Any religious system that requires faith in a Magisterium or tradition is blatant contradiction to the teachings of the Bible.  Thus Catholicism by its very nature is FAITH DESTROYING.  The road to truth for every Catholic is the following:  Catholicism to Atheisim to Evangelical Protestantism.  If you are not man enough to make this journey than you shall be liquidated in the lake of fire.  God hates the double-minded, for they are unstable in all their ways.

Dear Thomas Aquinas. Every single word of The New testament was written by a Catholic and it was The Catholic Church which decided which book of the New Testament would or would not be included in the New testament and one of the crucial criteria considered for whether or not a book would be included as part of the Canon was whether or not it had been a The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass.

The Catholic Church preceded The New Testament and the New Testament is “...likewise her exclusive property, of which she is the absolute Owner, Guardian, Trustee, and Interpreter….” (The Bible as the Church’s Exclusive POssession,”“A Catholic Commentary on Scripture,” Dom Orchard, Thomas Nelson & Sons ltd, 1953)

We wrote it, we preserved it, we say what it means. Perhaps a simple, “Thanks,” would be the place for you to start

Dear Tommy Aquinas. I apologise. I was reading other blogs this AM.  and I confused you with another. My apologies.

Hereis Fr. Harrison on the Latin of Dei Verbum and this captious conundrum

http://rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html

to st. bart: Which came first, the Bible or THE CHURCH? Nope, you are wrong! The Church gave us the Bible, and of course, Jesus gave us the ony and only Church which is called the Roman Catholic Church and now, where did your “church” come from? Ours is 2000 years old and yours? Pope Benedict doesn’t get hung up with a very old world, despite some of the “news” releases that says different.  Happy 7000+ years to mankind.

It is worth remembering that, back in the day, The Pontificial Biblical Commission was part of The Curia and the decisions they took - in favor of inerrancy, the historicity of genesis, etc etc - , once accepted by the Pope,were binding whereas the PBC, “reformed’ (deformed) by Pope Paul VI (The Jimmy Carter of Popes) issues opinions that are not binding, thankfully, as many are not worth our attention and clearly at odds with Tradition

Dear JMJ please do not feed the troll.. A response is like oxygen to a troll. He tries to hijack every thread. Ignore him please

Catholics like their Muslim brothers think by telling lies that they can convince people of some ridiculous truth.  Very simply if the Catholics gave us the Bible, than ask yourself the following.

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.  The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire.  Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time later.

Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point.  The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition.  In other words, it discovers what is already authentic.  Jesus said “my sheep hear my voice and they follow me…” (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word.  It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done.  Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.

Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed.  If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible?  It didn’t, so it cannot make that claim.  The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired.  The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired.  That is what those who are of God do.

Catholics, who are NOT CHRISTIANS, are incapable of recognizing what is inspired, so they must appeal to some fallible Magisterium.  The same Magisterium that gave us indulgences, Crusades, Inquisitions, and other nonsense.

The Vermont Crank is a coward, who is to scared to face the truth that he has believed a lie and is going to bust HELL wide open.

Vermont Crank,  I hate to disillusion you, but there was no Catholic Church when the many gospels were written. There were though multiple Christian factions all vying for its version and condemning and excommunicating opposing views.  That intolerance of contrary opinions has continued to the present. It was not until the 4th century that four gospels became the canon, and through the influence of Constantine and the Patriarchs of Christendom that an orthodox church became established. History is always written by the victors not by the vanquished. What is needed and what is missing is a reading and understanding of how the scriptures were written and put together…rather than a repeating of your indoctrination and wishing were truth. It is only when open minds appreciate the intent, meaning and fullness of the message, rather than debating the ‘errancy’ or ‘inerrancy’ of the Bible can the Truth of the Spririt prevail.

Vermont Crank is basically a revisionist.  Read about his anti-Semitic nature at other blogs.

Dear Jesuitical Facts are stubborn things and you have not disillusioned me with your Mount Athos-style propaganda.  You do have Free Will and you are at liberty to think what you think and believe what you believe and I will not lose one nanosecond of sleep over it.

Have a Blessed Pasch. At least you are a member of a Church :)

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap040000.htm

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D….

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.

The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.++++++++end of quote+++++

Happy Father’s Day to all of our Catholic Priests. In part, this is their day, Maundy Thursday, when Jesus established His Priesthood so the one true sacrifice (Malachias),which replaced the Jewish Sacrifices, would be offered universally as it is today in The Catholic Church.

Did you know that Jerome did not want to include the Apocrypha in the Bible.  He did not think it inspired.  If it is not inspired it can not be canonical.  The Jews also said the Apocrypha was inspired literature.  Thus the Catholics prove they don’t understand what constitutes inspired literature.  So the Magisterium proves that it is unable to arbitrate on what is canonical.  Thus I pity anyone who remains Catholic.  Catholics have no hope for they are cursed for adding to God’s Word.

When the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit.  There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic.  Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church.  To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.

Jimmy says, “At first glance it might appear to restrict the scope of inerrancy only to truths having to do with our salvation. On other subjects, the Bible might be chocked full of errors.”

In fact, as a convert I was somewhat surprised to see that the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church appears to take EXACTLY this stance.  About the controversial passage in question (in Dei Verbum), the Compendium in #18 states that the Scripture “is said to be inspired and to teach without error those truths which are necessary for our salvation.” (#18 in the Compendium)

In summary:
The Apocrypha is riddled with ERRORS.
The canonical OT and NT = Protestant Bible is WITHOUT error.

This is why the Catholic church is too stupid to figure out if the Bible has error or not.  I just laugh at all the Catholics who blindly trust their Magisterium.

The way I heard that the Catholic canon was formed was that the Catholic community had already been reading the accepted books of the current Catholic canon, but when protestant groups like the gnostics started forming, they had to call a council in order to formally declare what books they considered to be sacred.
    The Catholic canon that I am growing up with is the following and is slightly different than what Vermont Crank posted. I’m just throwing this out there. Not that I have more authority than St. Damasus, this is just what I have in my room and is what I grew up with: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms (150 total), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiastus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zepheniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation to John.
    Tommy Aquinas, for the record, that post wasn’t directed towards any particular person. I’m glad though that someone made a definite statement on where they stand on the issue. You bring up a very good point. For my experience of faith, I have had to get past the things I do not understand in order to grow and sometimes I grow in my understanding and understand the scripture in a new light. This means I understand something I did not know before. Not that this is guaranteed, but when I put life in God’s hands, what He wants to happen is more likely to happen and sometimes I do not know what that is. I do know one thing for sure though, is that God keeps his Commandments, whether they are from the book of Exodus or from the Gospels. That’s a little of my philosophy. On another point, the God of the Catholic Faith is a very personal God. I read a quote somewhere saying that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not philosophers. This is why I say that something someone may not understand, it may mean something to another (and that’s why the Bible shouldn’t be changed. It was inspired by the same God I interact with daily), and I agree with you that people should not be using papal encyclicals and councils with a cut and dry answer. To me there is less love in that with the way you put it, and it doesn’t help people understand as much because there isn’t as much God in that response. I also think God is love and wisdom.
    I hope this helps.
  Peace and God Bless to all!!
Peter

The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles. It does not rest in the declaration of the Catholic Church. This is very important.  The Christian Church recognizes what God has ordained through his sovereign inspiration to be the word of God. When the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is, in effect, placing itself above the word of God.  It needs to repent.

My first reaction to the article is to be wary of the increasing movement of conservative Catholics toward an evangelical understanding of scripture (Scripture as literally and scientifically true). I have observed this in many quarters and it is to be resisted as incongruous with authentic Catholic understanding rooted in the incarnation and taught by the magisterium.

The author states, “According to Dei Verbum, the human authors of Scripture recorded everything that the Holy Spirit wished them to and no more.” He commits a logical fallacy in reading this part of Dei Verbum. What this teaches is that the content of the Scriptures is from the Spirit. It says nothing here about the genre, ancient ways of writing, use of allegory, use of symbolism etc. etc. The author of the article immediately jumps to the idea that the “everything” is somehow literal, in the sense, e.g., of “what actually happened.” This is a non-sequitur from what Dei Verbum actually states.

The author of the article goes on to write, “consequently, whatever is asserted by the Scriptures is asserted by the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is omniscient, infallible, and all holy, any assertions made by him are true.” This is only half the case! The author here should read more carefully what Pope Benedict actually says in his charge to the PBC. The Holy Spirit is omniscient and infallible, but speaks in the words of men and women. This means the Spirit would use the ordinary literary conventions of the day which may not be – and often are not – historical descriptions in the way we think about historical (e.g. what actually happened in a single instance).

The author of the article also writes, “but if Scripture makes assertions that aren’t directly related to our salvation, and if those are asserted by the Holy Spirit and therefore guaranteed to be true, then one can’t reduce Scripture’s inerrancy to just truths connected with our salvation.”  Yes one can, since this is exactly what is asserted by Dei Verbum 11. The entire Biblical narrative can be called true for the sake of salvation since the use of various ancient genres and symbols might well, and we believe do, reveal the truth of salvation. What one cannot do, and this is important, is to take the ancient human author out of his or her time and place, to make that person “more capable” than that person would have been in the ancient context (e.g. magically writing in a language not their own). To do that denies the very reality of the incarnation within a specific time and place. The task of the biblical interpreter is to discern the “extra stuff from God” within that very context not beyond it.

Finally the author states, “many things in it are not intended to be read literally, but when it does assert something as a matter of fact, that assertion is true.” The sixty-four dollar question of course is how we would know something is “a matter of fact” in the ancient context. For example, Mark tells the story of the raising of the paralytic in Mark 2:1-11. It appears to be a matter of fact. But such “stories” were often told in the ancient world and not all were meant to be the telling of a fact? Did Mark intend to communicate a fact? Our best historical research of the ancient context might well determine the answer to be no, but there may still be room for debate as well. But there is more. The fact that Mark might be telling this story to be the paradigmatic healing of a Gentile at this point in the gospel might be more significant than any “fact” about the actual healing. Indeed the latter might be (and is in my estimation) the more significant “fact.”

Charles A. Bobertz, Ph.D.
Professor of New Testament and Patristics
St. John’s University School of Theology (MN)

Dr. Charles A. Bobertz, thank you. This clears a lot up for me and I agree that the Bible should be interpreted more figuratively than literally, but I still have some questions: Does this mean that a biblical story can be put into modern terms with a modern story with the same fundamental teachings and truths about salvation (what I’m saying is that anyone can parallel a modern story to a Biblical story while the biblical story is still the same)? Should someone trying to understand, pray, or study the Bible be aware of what the historical literary elements are? Is being aware that the literary elements are different have any affect on how the reader interprets the Scripture (of course it does, but why does that matter)? If so, what are the effects?
  I am aware that these might be difficult to answer. I think they are something to think about. Dr. Charles A. Bobertz, what do you think?

Where did the non-catholic “churches” get their version(s) of the Bible from? The one and only Church that Jesus gave us: The Holy Roman Catholic Church! When Jesus gave Peter (our 1st. Pope) He didn’t tell him that it was for only 1600 years and then He will start hundreds of “new churches” to compete with each other. If you st. bart, hate our True Church so much, what a you doing on a Catholic site? Could be that the Holy Spirit is working on your heart to find the only real true Church. I don’t fault you for your false ideas as this is what you have been feed with, but just keep searching and maybe sooner than what you will realize, you will be asking for God’s forgiveness for attacking His Church. May each and everyone of you have a Blessed and Holy Easter, my family will as my son, his new wife and his step-children will be Catholics on Sunday. Praise God and don’t but me tomorrow because it is Good Friday.  +JMJ+

“The one and only Church that Jesus gave us: “
This ought not be a surprise that Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, and died as a Jew. Early Christianity was a Judaic sect with many diverse factions, each vying with one another, believing its version was orthodox. James, brother of Jesus led the specifically Jewish sect of Christianity with Peter as a ‘go between’ with Paul, in disputation over admitting gentiles and strict observance of Jewish law.  Paul spoke of Peter as the world’s biggest hypocrite.  There was no Catholic Church, Peter not only was never pope, he never was bishop of Rome.  The only time he went to Rome he was executed. None of the Apostles wrote anything as they were illiterate, spoke only Aramaic, and the gospels were written in Greek.  None of the unknown authors were witnesses to Jesus.
The Holy Spirit is not in question in this regard…and whether the Spirit is infallible or omniscent is thusly mute.  What is in question is the authenticity of Sacred Script, who wrote what, to whom, and the politicalization of canon acceptance. There is too much diversity, contrariness, fragmented information that in the constraints of space it must be suggested to seek independent historical study. Summarily, it takes a considerable leap of imagination and reckless faith to conclude that the four Canons are inspired.

Dear Dr Bobertz. When it comes to The Bible, we Christian Catholics begin with a literal interpretation.

What Dei Verbum states is not authoritative if it in any way departs from Tradition. Dei Verbum, all of it, must be reconciled with all that has ever been taught about The Bible and The Holy Father’s instruction to the PBC, I am sure (I haven’t read it), stressed the continuity with Tradition and not a severing of that connection with Tradition.

If there is a disconnect, the problem is with modern ideas about the Bible and the hermeneutic of suspicion.

I mean, when I read St Mark, who wrote after Matthew, it never occurs to me to ask myself the question you do—Is that story a fact? And how could a faux paradigmatic healing be more significant than an actual healing - a healing the Jews weren’t too happy about?

Dear Dr Bobertz. I checked you out on google and read a description of your course on St Mark. Why am I not surprised to read you accept Markan priority and that you use C.E. instead of A.D.?

You have to learn to develop a better rhetorical poker face. THe Tells can be seen a mile away :)

The Markan priority was generated by the Protestants in support of the Kulturmampf in Germany. Many sources for this fact can be read by googling…...  Markan Priority + Kulturkampf

Here is a good essay on the bogus Markan Priority Thesis by Mr Beaumont that was published in “Culture wars.”

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/KULTGOS.TXT

I remember combatting this protestant propaganda a LONG time ago. It is depressing to see men with authority continuing to mislead the Faithful.

“st. bart,”

If you were hoping to lead me on the path to Protestantism, I’m sorry to say you have failed.  Whatever difficulties I may have with Catholic doctrine, they’re nothing compared to the errors and innovations (a purely symbolic Eucharist, complete lack of Apostolic succession, et cetera) of Protestantism (even the Evangelical variety.)  Your frankly uncharitable decription of Catholics as “NOT CHRISTIANS” definitely doesn’t help things, either.

Dear Tommy Aquinas. Please stop feeding the troll. Deprived of attention and responses he will leave. Do not respond to him. Please.

What it comes down to is this:  Is what is taught in the Bible the same doctrine that those in the early church were willing to give their lives for, expressing their conviction that the doctrine they believed is true?

A person may be willing to die for what they know is true.  But they will not be as willing to die for what they *know* is a lie.

My Christian faith came about after reviewing all the evidence left to us in the Bible, & in light of all the other science fields: such as archeology, and the Hebrew Bible prophecy.  I concluded the Bible is 100% true.  The Bible is remarkably consistent in IMPORTANT matters of doctrine - the Old Testament and the New Testament.  It reads to me as if ONE Person wrote it.

Ask four people to describe a car accident today, and you’ll get four different answers about HOW it happened.  The key is it HAPPENED.  So some details may be different - the details are not as important as is the DOCTRINE - the “Deposit of Faith” that the apostles left the church.

I was not there when God created the world.  So what Moses wrote is what God wanted us to know.  It need *not* be history. 

I was not there, 2000 years ago, when Jesus was on earth.  So again, I look at the evidence & came to a conclusion that His life IS history, and it resulted in my faith about who Jesus is & His purpose in my life.
Just looking at the events on Calvary: the earthquake, the dead rising, the sky going dark, the manner in which Jesus gave up His Spirit- enough to where even the Roman centurian said, “Surely this must be the Son of God” - and a centurian knew what he was doing.

If I were to be faced with putting my life on the line for my faith, I’d like to think I would do that.  Christians in the Middle East and in China, among other parts of the world ARE dying for their faith in Jesus.
For Christians all over the world, Catholic included, it may one day come to that.  No one is insulated from some form of persecution, and St. Peter even wrote that Christians could expect it.

So based on all the evidence that has been around for 2,000 years, and that is clearly documented for us in the Bible: I believe Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead on the 3rd day; that He ascended into Heaven where He makes intercession for me, personally, with the Father, and that He is coming again, to judge the living and the dead; and I have been “sealed” with the Holy Spirit, so my Eternal Life is secure, although here on earth…. there is no security for any of us, in earthly terms.  Without faith, it is impossible to please God.  And God hears the prayers of His children.  We depend on His grace and mercy.

The paragraph above is what Paul wrote about in his 13 New Testament letters.  It was the reason he was flogged, and eventually killed by those that did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, even though they too, had plenty of prophecy about Who the Messiah would be, such as Isaiah 52-53, Jesus did not fill their expectations.

The question I would have for the theologians, clergy and Catholic pew people reviewing the Bible at his late date is: “Would you be willing to die for what you believe?”  If not, you don’t have a conviction.  You have a theory, an opinion, & it could change tomorrow, given more data.
There is no eternal security in that.  The Bible is the Word of God.  What it contains are Truths for which the early church members, died.

But not *all* Catholics are really Christians, and not *all* non-Catholic Protestants are really Christians either.  I know of a Protestant minister that was a pastor for over 10 years, before he actually became a Christian.  Who knew!!

The take-away is we cannot take things for granted.  Just because someone says they’re Christian - are they?  Look at the fruit.  Ask probing questions to find out what they really think.

That’s why I love Paul.  And Peter too.  They knew what they believed, and why.  Each participated in The Great Commission.  What a bundle of resources we have today.  Thanks to men like them!!

Thomas Aquinas,
You fail to understand my approach to Evangelism. Dolt try to use a common ground approach to Evangelism.  This is a futile exercise since there is always a minimal basis set between all religious communities.  This common ground approach is a type of reductionism.  I am trying to get you to Atheism, because then the Holy Spirit will finally be able to reach you.  Catholicism is a cult, and statistics show that it is very difficult for a person in a cult to get out of that cult.  Atheists have an easier time to come to Christianity because they have no affinity to any particular group.  You claim charity. Think about it.  Was Jesus charitable to the Pharisees?  Was Paul charitable to the Judaizers?  So why should I be charitable to the greatest Satanic institution of the past 1700 years?  Every Biblical scholar, Russian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and secular historian will tell you that the Papacy is an innovation of the early Middle Ages.  However, most Catholics REFUSE to view the other side, so they remain in their cult of mind control.

Vermont Crank,
I will respond when I see fit.  Your problem that you have no rebuttal to unassailable arguments, and you can’t handle it.  This makes you an intellectual coward.  As I have said before the lake of fire in the book of Revelation is reserved for cowards.  Catholics are mere sport for intellectual Evangelical Protestants.

St. Bart-

So what precisely do you believe about Jesus and the Bible?  I’m not looking for a dissertation.  Just a short list of what you believe.

Why?  Because you might be asking Thomas Aquinas to exchange one alleged cult, for another… making a lateral move to nowhere.

Vermont Clark,
As I have said before you are an intellectual lightweight, who KNOWS NOTHING about hermeneutics.  I laugh at the Dr. Charles A. Bobertz because he is even more CLUELESS than yourself.  Thus it is hopeless for a Catholic to figure anything out between your and Dr. Bobertz posts.  As I have said the only thing that Catholics really understand is confusion and raw stupidity.  If you were born-again the Holy Spirit would remove the confusion and show the correct hermeneutic.  I have had mainline Chinese discern these basic truths within weeks of being a born-again Christian.  So I am amazed that Catholics after 30+ years in the church are still dumber than a sack of hammers.  I can disciple a Chinese in 13 weeks to give any Catholic an intellectual and spiritual whooping that he would never forget.

Born Again Cradle Catholic,
What I believe:
http://www.efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith.

I also believe:

1. Bible + Jesus = Evangelical Protestant
2. Bible + false christ + Transubstantiation + paganism = Catholicism
3. According to Catechism: Muslim and Catholics worship the same god.  Evangelicals DO NOT worship the same god as Muslims thus they can not worship same god as Catholics.

4. Believe that anyone who remains Catholic after being born-again is dumber than a sack of hammers and needs to leave ASAP.

I seldom visit the comment section on Christian blogs, and I now remember why.  I too am a convert to Catholicism from an Evangelical background, and there are many interesting points of doctrine that could be discusssed between the two traditions.  But it is very sad to see the comments being made here and the spirit being displayed.  And on Holy Thursday no less.  Agnus Dei, dona nobis pacem!

Barry,
I raise your Ph.D in Mathematics with a Ph.D in Physics and a Seminary degree.  You backslid from Evangelical Protestantism because of your belief in evolution and probably dispensational premillennialism.  All I can say learn more physics, more historical-grammatical hermeneutics, more young earth creationism, more church history, more preterist eschatology, avoid Calvinism, and learn more about the 3 part nature of man and you will get back on track and return to a good Evangelical church.  As the Bible says, ‘My people perish for lack of Knowledge’.  Christ came with a sword not a wafer!!

Poor st. bart, you make many claims which none are true, such as you have the only correct bible, which is absurd as the King James’s version is came from the Catholic Bible. Our Church came straight from Jesus, while your “church” came from a very confused monk just over 450 years ago. The Catholic Church has always taught that there is only one God and we can call Him Abba, Daddy, because we are His children. The Muslims only know of a God that is all Judgement (such as yourself) and not a loving, forgiving Father, so, where did you pick up this “information”? Someone up above told me not keep feeding you as you are not interested in the truth, but seeing how you are still vomiting your false and very unholy swill, which means that you are starving for the real truth and Jesus tells us that we give someone a drink or food to eat, we are in fact feeding Him. Keep on this page and you will be well on your way to Heaven as you join the Church that will take you there. If Jesus can knock Saul off of his horse, then He can knock you off of you Jack-ass. Let me be the first to welcome you into the Church of Jesus, HIS Holy Catholic Church. +JMJ+

Vermont Crank:
I think you’re right about not feeding the troll…

Dear Christian Catholics. Please stop responding to the troll. By doing so you are letting him hijack this thread like he hijacks every other thread. JMJ , wise-up. Eve spoke with the devil and look what happened. Jesus did not speak with devils - He cast them out.  He hijacks every tread because Christian Catholics are so prideful they think everybody wants the truth. Everybody does not want the truth. Ignore him please
Do you think you have some special gift of persuasion that many many others do not have and have ALREADY, REPEATEDLY, responded to him?

Stop. Please just stop Exercise some humility and self-control and ignore him

Everyone, please don’t bother responding to mr.bart of bart street our intellectual superior and evangelical fundididdly. All you will hear from him are insults and ad hom remarks while he copies and pastes posts he has been refuted thoroughly on a hundred times over yet stills sees fit to post again and again in a new thread ignoring anything anyone has said to him before about his faulty logic and delusional accounts of history and what are essentially non-arguments and just his own feelings. There come times when even Christ would tell his apostles not to bother with certain people and move on. We can’t help bart, pray for his soul to God and maybe in time something good will happen for him. It’s cute though that he believes becoming an Evangelical will clear away doubts about Biblical inerrancy when many Evangelicals themselves do not believe in the Bible or take it literally and argue amongst themselves as to what constitutes what or what is properly moral and can never reach any sort of consensus so Satan easily sifts them and people like bart like sand scattering them all over as a house divided with demons legion. The only thing that unites them is their hatred for Christ’s true Church, much like all the demons of hell are in agreement that they hate God.

On topic of Biblical inerrancy. I have no trouble believing that Scripture is inerrant for the exact same reason we believe the Church does not err thanks to the Holy Spirit. Of course the Bible contains many types of literature. Historic, poetic, apocaylptic, literal and non literal things, things for one time period and things for another time period, letters, biographies, rhetoric, etc. etc. The problem most people have is that they contain a pre conceived notion of what errancy constitutes. Laws and covenants in the Bible change to suit the progress the people of God have made and the times. This is not a contradiction. There are also different sections of the law. A moral law, which lasts for everyone for all time, and a ritual one that can change. Some accounts like those in the Gospels such as I believe Mark’s for example, are recordings of homilies Peter gave, and Peter would group accounts of something Jesus did with what Jesus taught for emphasis, and not to be specifically choronological because this was intentional on his part to stress ideas and not choronology, because he never intended the work to be such an account, so things like that confuse people…

One of the biggest ones that is the elephant in the room is due to Catholics wanting to marry the faith with Darwinian and naturalistic evolution philosophies. Many Catholics have been tricked into believing that there is any scientific merit whatsoever to macro-evolution. There isn’t, not a shred, and it’s the biggest hoax and mystical fairy tale the world has ever been deceived into believing. The 6-day account of Creation is not some mere poetic form. It is literal in its base details, and creationists, like biblical inerrancy apologetics have made plenty of great cases to accept the Bible’s creation account as true in accord with real knowable science and not naturalistic nonsense. All the Biblical inerrancy arguments always stem from the origins debate.

There are forces in this world that want to undermine God’s Word and the Bible. They don’t need some thorough refutation, a simple little doubt will do just as well. No different than when the serpent suggestively got Eve to disbelieve in what God really said in order to get her to see things not relying on God, but with her own human senses, thus the dangerous fruit appeared good to eat to her eyes.

Undermine God’s word by saying it is not inerrant, then you undermine the morality contained within, you undermine the history contained within, you undermine the Church which claims to have come forth from this history, and Christianity is just another ultimately flawed religion amongst all the others with no special status.

Don’t be fooled. Trust that God and the Holy Spirit are powerful enough to counfound this world and preserve an inerrant record and an inerrant Church. Sure there’ll be some negligabel things like a word copied wrong here and there, and later scribes might change things or add to it to clarify things for later readers, but the issue is that the originals would not contain error and what we have are highly remarkable preservations of them where any errors are copyist ones that are easily corrected and do not pose trouble for the essential things of the faith.

St. Bart- It is an attitude such as yours that gives Christians a bad name.  The evidence of being Holy Spirit-filled is: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and SELF-CONTROL.

I don’t see those characteristics, in many of your comments.  Anyone can have an off day, or have a comment sound insulting, but it was not intentional.  But your comments seem intended as insults.

May I respectfully suggest that you read the Bible more than the blogs?  Your contributions have become counter-productive.  If your intentions are indeed honorable, and meant to build the Kingdom of God, you would be wise to humble yourself before the Lord, and ask for His direction about how to go forward.  I communicate with many non-Catholic Christians on blogs, and even in person.  Your comments are offensive, even to me.  Insulting comments are not God-honoring.  You sound smug.

This frightens me, as the Holy Father has repeatedly stated his belief in evolution, among other issues with Scripture.  I will definitely be praying, although this commission will NOT be an infallible statement anymore then the one on birth control called by Pope Paul VI was.

They could clear up the issue by going back to earlier encyclicals on the issue that state that the Bible is infallible when it speaks on history and science (i.e. creation, or the Jews in Egypt) as well as faith and morals.  But Catholics, laypeople and clergy alike, seem to be unable to quote anything before VII, instead they have to have meetings and dialogue and commissions to redefine in some more palatable way what has already been infallibly and clearly defined.  Highly frustrating.

Jim, thank you. I have a copy of the “new” American bible and it is just as bad, if not worse, than the original. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God and than the scholars came with their knowledge they decided to change the word into their own words. Poor Andrew, if you don’t know that Adam and Eve were very real people or that the flood took, place, than what can you believe that comes God’s Holy Word? Basically, you are calling God a LIAR and a follower of Martin Luther, as he was also very confused monk. We know that st. bart has been filled with anti-catholic nonsense, but, what is your excuse? Death (sin) came into this world by one woman, named Eve and by one woman, named Mary (ever hear of her?) death (sin), death met it’s answer by Her Son, Jesus. So sad that you don’t believe in the whole truth, but in “science” made up by man. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising up of the dead, the blind seeing, water coming from rocks, Jesus in the Eucharist, etc. must me very hard for you to understand. It is no wonder that Pope Benedict has problems with you modern scholars.  Have a Blessed Easter, I do hope that you at least believe in the Resurrection.  +JMJ+

JMJ, it is only those who ascribe to the ‘Creationist’ viewpoint who believe that the universe is 6,000 years old…that there was a world-wide flood, and an actual tower of Babel.  The educated world knows this to be nonsense…Lilith, Adam’s firt wife, and Eve the second wife along with Adam were all myths.

WHY APOCRYPHA IS FILLED WITH ERROR.
The apocrypha consists of 15 pieces of Jewish literature written around 200 years B.C. They are included with the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures known as the Septuagint. Seven of these books (First and Second Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch and Ecclesiasticus, also known as Sirach) and additions to Esther and Daniel, are considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants do not accept them as part of the Holy Scriptures.

R. K. Harrison explains: “Use of the term apocrypha to mean noncanonical goes back to the fifth century AD, when Jerome urged that the books found in the Septuagint and in the Latin Bibles that did not occur in the canon of the Hebrew Old Testament writings should be treated as apocryphal. They were not to be disregarded entirely, since they were part of the great contemporary outpouring of Jewish national literature. At the same time they should not be used as sources for Christian doctrine, but at best for supplementary reading of an uplifting and inspirational nature”

These books do not make any claim to inspiration. On the contrary, the prologue of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) asks pardon from the readers for all inexactitudes: “I entreat you… pardon us for those things wherein we may seem, while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition of words.” The author of Maccabees concludes by saying, “I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me” (2 Maccabees 15:28, 39). That is not the language of divine inspiration!

First Maccabees notes that there were no prophets in Israel at that time (1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; 14:41). Since the New Testament frequently refers to the Scriptures as “the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; 24:44; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21), how could a writing that specifically states that there were no prophets at the time when it was written be called Scripture?
-Source: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a48.htm
Conclusion: Apocrypha is riddled with NON-INSPIRED WRITING. Catholic Bible is filled with CORRUPTION. Protestant Bible is FILLED with ONLY INSPIRED writing. Christ makes it clear if you corrupt the word of God you are CURSED.  Happy Easter!

CATHOLIC CHURCH TO PRIDEFUL TO CORRECT ERRORS IN LATIN VULGATE!
The Council of Trent declared that Jerome’s translation of the Scriptures into Latin is the standard translation for all Catholics:

“Moreover, the same Holy Council . . . ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputatious, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and so no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546).

However, every Protestant, most Catholics, all Eastern Orthodox know of the multitude of translational errors in the Latin Vulgate.

For example:
Hebrews 10: 12, ‘But when this priest (i.e. Christ) had offered (aorist) for all time one sacrifice for sins he sat down on the right hand of God,’

became in the Vulgate,

‘But this man offering (continuous present) one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth etc.’ (Douay-Rheims version)

Similarly in Hebrews 1:3, Jerome changed the aorist to the continuous present, so that Christ is continuously ‘making purgation of our sins.’

The Greek New Testament was soon lost to the West, so for eleven hundred years (a vast stretch of time roughly equal to the period from Alfred the Great to the present day), the only New Testament available was in the Vulgate.

Consequently, for over a millennium the Churches believed uncritically that in heaven, Christ is continuously offering for our sins. It is easy to see how, as Tait shows, this deeply influenced thinking about Holy Communion, moving people to integrate it with Christ’s alleged heavenly offering, involving the idea that the bread and wine become Christ.

There is no doubt about Jerome’s capabilities as a linguist, and so the inevitable conclusion is that he deliberately twisted Scripture to express his personal opinions.

Conclusion: Blindly and Stubbornly trust in a corrupted translation and God will SHOW NO MERCY ON THOSE WHO CORRUPT HIS WORD.

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/08/saint-jerome-on-deuterocanonical-books.html

PLease remember not to feed the trolls.

Catholic Answers

The Old Testament Canon

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be.

Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.

The Didache

“You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]” (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Rome

“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp of Smyrna

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be b.asphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is b.asphemed [Is. 52:5]!” (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

Irenaeus

“Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]” (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

“Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]” (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).

Hippolytus

“What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah” (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).

Cyprian of Carthage

“In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, “Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . .”’ [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]” (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).

“So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]” (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Council of Rome

“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Augustine

“The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them” (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

“We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place” (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

“Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius” (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400]).

Jerome

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

Pope Innocent I

“A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . .” (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

Jesuitical, right on. The world is just over 7000 years old and where did you ever find Lilith? If Adam and Eve, his FIRST wife, are not real, but instead only make believe, then Original Sin could NOT have entered into this world and the Jesus would not have been sent down to suffer and die such a terrible death (or is this also a lie by the standards of you “educated” people?) and what would be the truth (if any) that we could believe from the bible?  If being “educated” means to believe in lies, fairy tales, or any other rubbish that comes from the father of lies, satan, then us creationists will stay with the rest of mankind that believe in the Word of God and remain stupid. I bet that Abel will be happy to know that you “educated” people save him from being murdered by Cain as they never-ever existed. No tower of Babel? I suppose that Lot’s wife didn’t turn into a pillar of salt and Jonah wasn’t fish-meat and of course, no Ark (someone should tell those explorers not to try to salvage that boat up on the mountain that doesn’t exist), and of course, all this nonsense about Moses and talking to a flaming bush and staffs that turn into snakes and eat other snakes. I wonder, just how many “educated” people get into Heaven? Can’t be too many, they are just too smart to fall for such nonsense as Heaven or Hell. Come Holy Spirit and give me Faith without man’s “education”. If God is merciful to me and allows me to get into Heaven, I’ll tell Adam and Eve what you said about them not being real. Blessed Mary of Agreda wrote a series of books called “City of God”, of which, you should get and have someone explain them to you. Of course, you wouldn’t believe them as they came from Heaven by the voice of our Blessed Mother and you don’t believe in Holy Scripture that came from the Holy Spirit. Hey st. bart, how was your Easter? Without being able to receive Jesus as He commanded you, it must have been pretty empty, just like His tomb. As you noticed, we have people that nowadays are SO educated that their beliefs are rooted in quick-sand. Just think, that next Easter when you join the Catholic (Roman) Church, you will be able to receive Jesus (in that wafer that you now mock) as He desires of you so that you will be able to be truly alive in Him.  ALLELLUIA!!!

JMJ, right on to you too…that is exactly what I mean:  Adam & Eve, Noah’s Ark, Jonah in belly of a big fish are indeed fiction.  Even worse, ‘original sin’ is a manufacture and a contrivance of St. Augustine:
http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs03.htm
These stories of the Judaic Testament are read for a theme, not history. They are beautifully written and we do not have a clue who wrote them, any more than you have a clue about history.

two-thirds of the quotes in the new testament are taken from the seputuaignt which the protestant rejected. the protestants accepted the judgment of the Jews at the Jewish Council of Jamnia held 70 years after Our Lord’s resurrection. Ever since tghe protestant dark ages - luther and the revolt of others - they have remained in the dark.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

Oh, yeah, Jesuitical is now in the sameignore net as st bart

- Jesuitical

And how does the ‘educated’ world know these things to be nonsense? You’d be surprised at the levels of stupidity the ‘educated’ world subscribes to. Will you next be telling us that the educated world does not believe dead people can come back to life…

Adam and Eve were real, The Flood of Noah was real. The Tower of Babel were real and you need to be better educated because you are obviously not. I’ll recommend checking out a Protestant resource on these matters such as ‘Answers in Genesis’ which you can find at http://www.answersingenesis.org . As it looks like you, like many have drunk the kool aid and follow irrational science and atheistic naturalism.

- Jesuit

The Apocrypha also contains works that are extended parables. In other words a biblical genre of fiction. Hence the so called ‘inaccuracies’ are intentional because the author was writing fiction, much like how Jesus made up parables in order to teach people. Vermont Crank has also addressed your other accusations.

Johnno,for both your surprise and edification, I am well acquainted with AIG, read its blog daily, and in fact attended a week end conference with Ken Ham as its principle speaker. Also, I read extensively in subject matters with which I disagree or have little knowledge.  From what I’ve read here, it seems that many others are in need of doing similar, and that is reading outside of indoctrinated brow beatings, mistaken as knowledge. Vermont Crank, is beyond the pale of hope, and it is just as well for that person to remain believing and kept in darkness.  Tertullian addressed matters of personages such as Vermont Crank stating at no time should such a person be allowed to think, no new learning, just believe what you’ve been spoon fed. I always attempt to stay on topic, hope to address the present issue, and discuss with like-minded discerning individuals who are able to broach the surface in earnest. As you must have garnered by now, many are unable to do so, and sink into an abyss of ad hominem accusations.

Vermont Crank,
And yet again, I bring you unassailable arguments.  All you can do is punt. Like every Catholic you continue to bury your head.  You take raw stupidity to NEW LEVELS, when you claim “Hence the so called ‘inaccuracies’ are intentional because the author was writing fiction”.  NO LITERARY SCHOLAR WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT.  YOU ARE CREATING NOVEL DOCTRINE TO DEFEND YOUR PERVERTED BELIEF.  So you continue to prove that you are perverter of truth and are thus DAMNED to HELL

“Sentire cum ecclesia”  is the motto for all of those interested in escaping the chains of private judgment protestantism.

The plain and simple truth is that the prisoners in the Protestant Dark Age that began with the fat lying vow-breaking violent drunk, Luther, are willing prisoners due to their Pride.

Having been told by the Sons of Satan, the protestant revolutionaries, that they have the authority to decide what the Bible means, they are unwilling to accept the truth. Well, that proves their is Free Will - which Luther rejected.

And now Jesuit finds himself trapped in the same ignore snare as Jesuitical and st bart. Who wants to read their lies? If I wanted to read their lies I could go to one of their crappy sites and discover what Pope St Bart or Pope Jesuitical or Pope Jesuit or Pope Stu of Pope helen or Pope Jimmy Swaggart or Pope Benny Hinn or Pope Donny Swaggart or Pope…well, I am not going to list all of the Protestant Popes; there are as many of them as there are protestants. Each protestant is his own Pope and the only unity amongst them is hatred towards the Catholic Church Jesus established and a stunning and brash ignorance about the facts of Christian history.

You can’t find two of them that agree on Doctrine. Pope Benny Hinn disagrees with Pope Jimmy Swaggart an both of those freaks disagree with Pope James White and all of those three disagree with Pope Joyce Meyers and those four protestant Popes disagree with Pope Jimmy Baker.

Take your silliness and your lies to your own sites and fight it out amongst yourselves as to which of you 4 million Popes have been infallibly guided by The Holy Ghost. I have heard and refuted your lies for over a quarter-of-a-century online and the same old lies copied and pasted by the newest Pope who has just gotten his driver’s license ain;t persuasive.

Shoo….Back to your Protestant Dark Age Prisons.

For the rest of my life I am ignoring you clowns on Catholic sites.  Y’all coming here makes as much sense as a PETA Member going to a Barbecue Site and harassing men who know how to cook ribs. Grow-up and Shut-up and Buzz-off.

Vermont Crank,
You seem not to listen to your own advice, why do you keep engaging the Evangelical Protestant?  You have not refuted one iota of anything I have said.  I told you that dealing with you is like Michael Jordan playing basketball with a preschooler.

Here is one to ponder: The Catholic Rosary is largely a prayer to Mary.  Though Catholics like to point out that they are not praying to Mary, the 2nd of the ten commandments clearly prohibits and warns us NOT to BOW DOWN to any graven image.  God in the 2nd commandment even goes as far as to warn us against bowing down to the likeness of anything in HEAVEN OR EARTH.  Mary worship is a sin!  Pope John Paul II is a great Mary lover.  In his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, the Pope testifies that his personal devotion to Mary was developed at Marian sites such as Jasna Gora (home of the Black Madonna) in his homeland of Poland (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 220).  The Pope has “Totus Tuus” (All Yours) embroidered on his papal garments, designating his “abandonment to Mary” (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 215).  After the Pope was shot during an assassination attempt in May 1981, he attributed his subsequent recovery to Mary, and it was at shrines such as Jasna Gora and Fatima that he has expressed his thankfulness to the “Queen of Heaven.” He prayed to Mary daily.  This is an abomination unto the Lord.

Catholics saying they don’t worship Mary when praying the Rosary is like a Crack addict saying he does not have a drug problem.  Both are living in deception and denial. God hates hypocrites and Catholics are Ph.D’s in hypocrisy.

This is an old one, but seems very appropo at this time

Laura Schlesinger is an open line “ex¬pert” in the U.S. The most widely heard talk show host in the country and armed with a degree in physiology, she has consistently demonized homosexual people, calling them “biological errors” and “sexual deviants .‘For years Schlesinger credited her strict Jewish background as the basis for her harsh stands. She always quoted the Hebrew Bible as the basis of her anti-homosexual stands. Several years ago she shocked her listeners by openly breaking with her ultra-orthodox religion. The following letter to the good doctor pokes fun at her fundamentalist stance.)
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Law and how to follow them:
1.  When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord — Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2.  I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3.  I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual undeanliness — Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4.  Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both” male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies;to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
5.  I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6.  A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination — Lev. 11:10. it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7.  Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8.  Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Zev. J 27. How should they die?
9.  I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10.  My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of ” two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? — Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private familv affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for remind¬ing us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan, Jim

Trebert, the list goes on…“If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother,or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ unknown to you or your ancesters before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him;  you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt.  No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following.  You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God…(Deuteronomy 13:7-11).
...and if you think such a God is kidding…“Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away.”  (Deuteronomy 13:1).
The killer instinct of the Judaic God is so vile that many of the early Xtians questioned whether that was the same God they worshipped…some said it could not be. The legacy was always the influence of demons, and show no tolerance to any opposition since that opposition must be possessed.

Jesuitical, you finally said a true statement, in that Mary worship is a sin, and of course, that is what Catholics don’t do despite your attacks and slander against us, which is by the way, a SIN on you as you are now disobeying God’s commandment: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”. Unless of course, as you changed man’s history and the history of God’s creation, you removed this commandment also. Why would God tell Moses not to make or worship idol, and then He commands Moses to put what on the Ark? Jesus told Peter (before Peter became the 1st. Pope) to get behind me satan, you see as a man and not with the eyes of God. There is just so much nonsense coming from you that it would be impossible to refute in my short life span that I have left. Your take on Original Sin is a real beaut. Still doesn’t explain why God felt that He needed to send His Son down here to suffer such a horrible passion and death. Mary, our Mother, has such a love for you and you refuse to listen to her. No wonder that you are so confused. What is the most important verse in the Bible (I bet it is still in your incomplete version)? Luke 1:38. Without your mother’s YES, you wouldn’t be here on a Catholic site making up such stories. Hail Mary, FULL of Grace, blessed are YOU among women.  Come Holy Spirit and fill the hearts and minds of the confused, Amen.  +JMJ+

Greetings in the LORD, Jimmy Akin!

Thank you for this article.

I emailed my poorly edited, 60+ page Word document on Biblical inerrancy to the CDF this past Friday night.  In it I present thoughts from the Fathers and the Magisterium.  But it will most likely not get looked at.  So I will pray for a powerful reaffirmation of inerrancy.  God always does His best work without me!  :)  I have Klemens Stock’s book on Mary.  Although I haven’t read it all, he seems pretty good so far!  For those Catholics disturbed by the questions surrounding this dogma of our faith, be encouraged!  God will not suffer His written words (cf. DV, 13) to be disparaged as erroneous without a just and fair retribution.

With love in Christ,
Papist Pete Holter

A Papist I believe myself to be also. I found your response interesting as we ‘celebrate’ the 400th year anniversary of the King James Committee brief Bible, that inerrancy in such a hallmark of Evangelical Christianity, I cannot adequately express my guffaw with their adamant and often errant understanding on the passion, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. how many versions of the word of God can be inerrant? If not the NIV, or some other committee finding do we need for our salvation? This is the most predatory Christian phenomena in American or worldly history, a complete charade! Sic Transit Gloria, to all may the peace of Christ be truly with you and family.

Joe McCarthy, on your rhetorical query; “How many versions ‘of the word of God’ [sic] can be inerrant”.  The answer Joe is ‘none of them’; since it is a stretch of the imagination the likes of Hookes Law to think any of them are but the fallible words of man. No author ever sat and wrote saying:  “I am writing a Bible”. We do not know who wrote any of the gospels.  At least five of St. Paul’s letters are considered forgeries. None of the apostles were literate, they spoke only Aramiac, and the gospels were written in Greek. Further whoever wrote any of the gospels certainly did not do so as a witness of the life of Jesus, but wrote anecdotally. So, who was inerrant:  the scribes, the 4th century clerics who cherry picked the canon from probably fifty gospels, the copiers who deleted or changed or added to their version. None of the gospels were intended as history, but each had a theme and an audience which were addressed and played for a specific purpose. The same goes for the selectors of the accepted gospels as canon. These selectors were endorsing its perspective and point of view.  The victors not the vanquished are the sole determiners of orthodoxy; not Truth. Truth is no selector of canon.

Poor Jesuitical, so desperately trying to change the truth to meet her lies and nonsense. Now she has more “knowledge” than the Church of Jesus that gave us the Holy Scriptures. Where in the Bible does it say that Apostles were illiterate and only spoke one language? How do YOU know that the gospels were not “intended” for history? You see with the eyes of man and not of God and you keep making false statements about something that you are so clueless about. They weren’t a witness to Jesus? You are not a witness to Jesus! I thank God that He gave us The Church to pass on to the world, His written Word, and didn’t wait until you came along to change the history of the world and His only Church! How blind you are to the real truth. We just had a most wonderful day in Church history, with the Feast of Divine Mercy Sunday and our VERY HOLY Pope elevated to the ranks of Blessed. Will you even make it into Heaven? When my time is up and if Jesus will forgive me, I will ask all the Apostles about their writings of the good news and you can ask Luther when you go down to be with him, “why were you so wrong?” about God, His Church and His Holy Word. Come Holy Ghost, we need you now more than ever. +JMJ+

Scripture has long been interpreted through four means: 1) literally; 2) allegorically; 3) topologically (morally); and 4) anagogically.  Some scripture should not be taken literally.  Jesus wasn’t an actual lamb, the earth does not have four corners, etc.  All earthly things, including all the writers of scripture, are imperfect.  God uses imperfect things to achieve perfect ends.  How many claims have been made that interpretations of scripture have come through the Holy Spirit which have contradicted one another?  Peter himself believed the gospel was only for the Jews and this after the Holy Spirit had fallen upon him at Pentacost.  All we can do is read, hear, study and pray for guidance.  The scriptures are profitable for those who seek God, but not profitable to all.  Some reject them. Some use them for evil.  The devil himself quotes scripture.
  The Bible need be no more inerrant than you or I who have been filled with the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ.  God uses things filled with error every day to speak his truth and word.  Every priest knows this with every homily they give.  Every believer knows this each time they share the gospel.  Mother Theresa saw the Hitler in herself.  The Bible is not without error.  God alone is perfect and the Word of God will only be perfect when it is written on our hearts—-“when the perfect comes” and we see no longer through a “glass, darkly”. 
Still, the Bible comes to us through the apostolic tradition.  It has been used of God to fulfill his will in the hearts of men and in the church.  It is a gift of special revelation.  But let us not equate special with inerrant.  Inspiration from the Holy Spirit does not equate to perfect wording this side of heaven.  We have made the Bible into an idol.  Only God is perfect.

INERRANCY “is to be resisted as incongruous with authentic Catholic understanding rooted in the incarnation and taught by the magisterium.

This is worthy of Raymond E. Brown, but just like his stuff and so much of subsequent output, it violently misrepresents the teaching of the magisterium of the last century in the Papal encyclicals on inerrancy. They all flatly affirmed it, but now it is explained away. If this is so, how much moreso can people explain away the real meaning of scripture. In this context, hermeneutic of continuity means only a hermeneutic that changes to fit modernity.

www.ncregister.com ist eine der beeindruckensten Blogs die ich gesehen habe. Vielen Dank für die Führung der Internet-edel für einen Wechsel. Youve hat Stil, Klasse, Draufgängertum. Ich meine es ernst. Bitte macht weiter so, denn ohne das Internet definitiv fehlt, ist in der Intelligenz.

Peace be with you,
dear friend I will be glad if you answer to my question after reply, thanks