Tim Staples gave an incomplete answer

[awalt]

I was listening to the Q&A with Tim Staples broadcast on October 11, and for the first time I think, I disagree with something Tim said because he gave an incomplete answer.

The call was from a lady who said someone teaching her son said that there were historical errors in the Bible, and that Adam and Eve did not exist. Of course Adam and Eve (or one set of common parents for all of us, that passed on original sin) is a teaching of the Church. No disagreement there.

But Tim said, if I understood him correctly, that there were no historical errors in the Bible. While technically this is correct, I think this is an incomplete answer and not Church teaching.

The real answer seems to be, was there "history" being asserted in any given scripture. Bible scholars can read certain text, for example the "history" related to the census commissioned by Herod, and state that there are errors in that history narrative. To just say "there are no errors" is incomplete; one can state that the author did not intend to make a historical statement, i.e. there was no assertion about history being made there, but that's not what Tim said. Even Jimmy Akin's article in Dec. 2005 This Rock says "The Bible is not making scientific (or in our case historical) assertions and we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were."

If I draw out Jimmy's statement, it would say "Therefore we should not say that <some book of the Bible> does not have "full historical accuracy"—a statement that is bound to disturb the faithful and undermine their confidence in Scripture. Instead we should say that <some book of the Bible> is not making historical assertions and that we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were."

That's a lot different from just saying there are no historical errors in the Bible, that lady will believe the Bible is 100% historically correct, which is not what we are saying here! This is just like if in Jimmy's example in that article our caller hung up believing that it actually did rain cats and dogs, when in fact that was not a scientific assertion the Bible was trying to make (if in Jimmy's example somewhere the Bible said "It was raining cats and dogs").


There are many other things to back up this assertion, listed below. Suffice it to say I would have been happy if Tim had said more than there are no historical errors, that was an incomplete answer.

--Pope Pius XII wrote an encyclical in 1943 called Divino Afflante Spiritu. He said among other things, that there are statements in the Bible that are purely figurative, illustrative and must be understood as figures of speech.

--St. Augustine also taught this. He said that the parables of our Lord are not necessarily taken from actual events, though in many cases it is quite probably that they were.

--Here is another good article (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM), on the various ways the Bible can be interpreted. One important sentence in it:

"When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction."

--Jimmy references a publication by the Bishops of England, Wales and Scotland called "The Gift of Scripture". If you can find a copy, it says in part:

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision”.

So - "no history errors" is an incomplete answer. "No errors in any assertions made" is more complete and more accurate. Agreed Tim?

[uther]

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologet...ray-brown1.htm

[awalt]

You can keep posting links to articles disparaging Brown in threads if you want, but if you read my post this goes way beyond Ray Brown. You really should get a little more informed about even what the current and prior Popes have said about this by looking at Church documents on interpeting Scripture here.

[USMC]

Originally Posted by awalt

I was listening to the Q&A with Tim Staples broadcast on October 11, and for the first time I think, I disagree with something Tim said because he gave an incomplete answer.

The call was from a lady who said someone teaching her son said that there were historical errors in the Bible, and that Adam and Eve did not exist. Of course Adam and Eve (or one set of common parents for all of us, that passed on original sin) is a teaching of the Church. No disagreement there.

But Tim said, if I understood him correctly, that there were no historical errors in the Bible. While technically this is correct, I think this is an incomplete answer and not Church teaching.

The real answer seems to be, was there "history" being asserted in any given scripture.

Tim's answer was 100% correct. There are no historical errors in the Bible.

Bible scholars can read certain text, for example the "history" related to the census commissioned by Herod, and state that there are errors in that history narrative.

If they do they are in contradiction to what the Church teaches, and you would be a fool to listen to them.

Pope Pius XII wrote an encyclical in 1943 called Divino Afflante Spiritu. He said among other things, that there are statements in the Bible that are purely figurative, illustrative and must be understood as figures of speech.

Of course there are, but that doesn't mean that the historical details found in the Bible are inacurate. It just means that we sometimes find figurative language being used.

I'm not sure why you have fallen into the trap of the modern heretical scripture "scholars" such as Raymond Brown. Why are you so fascinated by these innovators? Love of novelty will lead to heresy. Stick with what the Church has always taught and you are on solid ground. In our day of heresy and confusion, if you follow the innovators, you can be virtually certain you will end in heresy.

Pope Leo XIII: "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. .... 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."[...

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. (Providentissimus Deus)

[awalt]

USMC, you are wrong - you are taking a Bible fundamentalist perspective. Read this, especially about Article 13: http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/public...ure%20text.pdf

In particular, just to whet your whistle:

It is important to note this teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the truth of Scripture is to be found in all that is written down ‘for the sake of our salvation’. We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.

I know you will likely attack this, but the facts are the facts. How much clearer can the Bishops be for you to believe it? And note there is no Ray Brown attached to this, so you can't use that excuse...although I would love to see you have an audience with our Pope and explain how you think a person whom he has represented to Pope John Paul II is a heretic.

PS - and this is what is being taught in the Diaconate, probably in the Seminaries too. You can deny it, but again the facts are the facts.

[awalt]

USMC, while you ponder the article on the Bishops, what do you thin kof this article by Jimmy Akin:

The Accuracy of Scripture

I do believe the Bible is inerrant, that is different from saying that the Bible has no historical error, because there are times the intent is not to convey historical accuracy.

If you agree with Jimmy's article, I do too! It is not a fundamentalist position though - they believe every word is accurate, that's not what Catholics believe. The bishops article I cited above is consistent with Jimmy's article. Again, I'll cited the EWTN article:

(http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM)
One important sentence in it:

"When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction."

Maybe we are word smithing ourselves into a difference?

[USMC]

Originally Posted by awalt

USMC, while you ponder the article on the Bishops, what do you thin kof this article by Jimmy Akin:

The Accuracy of Scripture

I do believe the Bible is inerrant, that is different from saying that the Bible has no historical error, because there are times the intent is not to convey historical accuracy.

If you agree with Jimmy's article, I do too! It is not a fundamentalist position though - they believe every word is accurate, that's not what Catholics believe. The bishops article I cited above is consistent with Jimmy's article. Again, I'll cited the EWTN article:

(http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM)
One important sentence in it:

"When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction."

Maybe we are word smithing ourselves into a difference?

I would love it if we were. I have to be honest with you. I am not interested in reading an article written by a lay person. I get my doctrines from the Popes, councils, and St. Thomas. If Jimmy akin agrees with them, then I agree with him.

You are obviously interested in the subject of the divine inspiration of the bible. Therefore, please read the encyclical from Pope leo XIII that I have been quoting from. That represents the official and "unchangeable" teaching of the Church.

I truly hope you will read it and that you will submit to it.

[USMC]

I think this the following the link to the article I mentioned by Fr. Harrison. You should read it.

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html

[awalt]

Sorry, but I'm not going to read that 60 page link you provided

you have listened to the heretics and (as predicted) fallen into error

I quoted the Church teaching, as given by Pope Leo XIII, in my last Post

The fact that you may have been taught heresy in the Diaconate does not surprise me

Look at your four statements. You have a very narrow opinion of what is Church teaching and what it is not. You have discredited and attacked just about every bishop including Benedict and JP II in your comments, as well as lay scholars including ones that are the leading thinkers of this site.

You point to a 200 year old document and refuse to comment or read on the Magisterium's documents published since. Is that open-minded? Is the fact it's 60 pages what makes it heretical in your mind? I have read it, it's really very good and not that hard to get through. Maybe that's why we have different opinions, I have read more of what the Church is publishing?

I noticed how you have refused to read or comment on anything I have written that YOUR CHURCH has published since that time - you just call them heretics. I have read Leo XIII, but the Church has published since - you don't seem to understand, accept, or want to read that.

You must think the Magisterium doesn't have authority to say what it says or teach what it teaches? Why do you read a Priest that wrote one article in 1995, and refuse to read much less consider a formal teaching document of the current Bishops of the Church? Have you read about the procedure they have to go through to issue that? It is much more rigorous than the 1995 document - and it's almost ten years later.

Have you read any of what Pope Benedict has written on this, or is that heretical also?

You have also attacked the Diaconate formation program of YOUR CHURCH. You must be pretty upset that so much of the current Church, including its Magisterium, are heretical now in your view?

I am out of this thread now too, I assume we agree to disagree. I will pray for you, I am very comfortable I am following the CURRENT teaching of the Church - I'll take current documents and thinking of our church, its bishops, and its popes over 1 document from 200 years ago, whose theology has been further developed and 1 article written by a priest 10 years ago. That seems like grasping at straws to me. I know you disagree.

[USMC]

Originally Posted by awalt

Look at your four statements. You have a very narrow opinion of what is Church teaching and what it is not. You have discredited and attacked just about every bishop including Benedict and JP II in your comments, as well as lay scholars including ones that are the leading thinkers of this site.

You point to a 200 year old document and refuse to comment or read on the Magisterium's documents published since.

The truth does not change. I am well aware than many (or even most?) of the current hierarchy reject the teaching of the Church as infallibly defined at the councils of Florence, Trent, and Vatican II, and as defended by many Popes.

Do you reject Church teachings because they are old? If so, I guess you also question the outdated doctrines of the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Transubstantiation, and those ancient teachings contained in the 1900+ year old New Testament, right?

Do you consider a teaching to be Orthodox based on its newness? For you novelty is a sign of othodoxy, and antiquity is to be suspect?

Is that open-minded?

Open-minded? Is it is virtue to be question the teachings of the Church, and to be "open-minded" with those who reject them? Would you be open to the hypothesis that 2 + 2 is 5? If not, why not? Why not be open-minded to the possibility that 2+2 is five, or three?

Is the fact it's 60 pages what makes it heretical in your mind?

The length does not make it heretical in me mind. The quote you provided from that document, to "wet my whistle", is what confirmed that it is heretical

HERETICAL QUOTES: "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision."

I guess secular and scientific matters are out of the realm of expertise of God, right? God, who is the primary author of the Bible, can only be trusted when He discussed faith and morals?

I am well aware that the innovators now reject the truth that the Bible is completely free from error. First they claimed that it is only free from error in faith and morals, then Raymond Brown and company drift farther into heresy by claiming that it even contains error in the teaching faith and morals.

Don't you see what these heretics are doing. Isn't it completely obvious to you. They are attempting, with subtle and specious arguments, to undermine the authority of the Bible, just as many are doing with other doctrines of the Church. The pattern is the same, and the means are the same: Use specious arguments to subtly attack, and thus undermine, the truth.

I have read Leo XIII, but the Church has published since - you don't seem to understand, accept, or want to read that.

Have you read the brillian writings of late that question the Divinity of Jesus? They are soooo good, you really must read them. Sure, the Church used to teach that he was Divine, but now it realizes that we are all divine, and that Jesus only gradually became aware of his mission. You should really study up on these new teachings.

Why do you read a Priest that wrote one article in 1995, and refuse to read much less consider a formal teaching document of the current Bishops of the Church?

I am inclined to read the writings of one who devends the truth; not those who attack and undermine it. And unlike you, I will even reject error when it is spouted by a wolf in sheeps clothing - those whom our Lord said to be on guard against.

continue

[USMC]

continuation

Have you read any of what Pope Benedict has written on this, or is that heretical also?

The good thing about being a Catholic is that we can know the truth. We don't have to wait in suspence for the latest teaching in order to be up-tp-date. The issue of the total inherency of the Bible was settled long ago; therefore, all faithful Catholics know what to believe by accepting those teachings.

I am out of this thread now too, I assume we agree to disagree. I will pray for you, I am very comfortable I am following the CURRENT teaching of the Church - I'll take current documents and thinking of our church, its bishops, and its popes over 1 document from 200 years ago, whose theology has been further developed and 1 article written by a priest 10 years ago. That seems like grasping at straws to me. I know you disagree.

Firstly, the document wasn't written 200 years ago. Did you even look at it? It was written in 1893, 113 years ago. And I could have quoted many other documents that say the same thing, but you would have rejected them too. For you antiquity is suspect and novelty is a sign of orthodoxy.

Secondly, as I mentioned in another thread: You are confusing doctrinal developement with the modernist heresy of "doctrinal evolution". Doctrinal developement occurs when what the Church has always taught become more clearly understood; the heresy of doctrinal evolution is when the teaching of the Church changes from one meaning to another, or, in the case in point, completely reverses. That is not a developement, but an evolution, and as such is condemned.

Lastly, if you publicly question the Church teaching on the total inherency of the Bible, and seek to confuse people and/or lead them astray (as you've done here several times), prepare for my response.

Let me end with a quote from Pascendi, the encyclical of Pius X in which he condemns the modernists - those lovers of novelty - who you follow.

Pius X: "Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles... 'Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty", thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions..."

And the Oath Against Modernism, taken by all clergy up to the 1960's

Oath Against Modernism: "Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

[Magicsilence]

Originally Posted by USMC

continuation



The good thing about being a Catholic is that we can know the truth. We don't have to wait in suspence for the latest teaching in order to be up-tp-date. The issue of the total inherency of the Bible was settled long ago; therefore, all faithful Catholics know what to believe by accepting those teachings.



Firstly, the document wasn't written 200 years ago. Did you even look at it? It was written in 1893, 113 years ago. And I could have quoted many other documents that say the same thing, but you would have rejected them too. For you antiquity is suspect and novelty is a sign of orthodoxy.

Secondly, as I mentioned in another thread: You are confusing doctrinal developement with the modernist heresy of "doctrinal evolution". Doctrinal developement occurs when what the Church has always taught become more clearly understood; the heresy of doctrinal evolution is when the teaching of the Church changes from one meaning to another, or, in the case in point, completely reverses. That is not a developement, but an evolution, and as such is condemned.

Lastly, if you publicly question the Church teaching on the total inherency of the Bible, and seek to confuse people and/or lead them astray (as you've done here several times), prepare for my response.

Let me end with a quote from Pascendi, the encyclical of Pius X in which he condemns the modernists - those lovers of novelty - who you follow.



And the Oath Against Modernism, taken by all clergy up to the 1960's

Excellent post.

[awalt]

I guess you also question the outdated doctrines of the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Transubstantiation, and those ancient teachings contained in the 1900+ year old New Testament, right?

Personal attacks, unreasonable comments, and irrational replies really aren't Christian. I have tried to explain what is going on in the Church now, which you agree is happening, but because I guess that upsets you so much you attack me. Please don't, please treat me with the same respect you wish others would treat you.

We were having a discussion. You say things that I do not believe, just for the sake of argument and debate. I gave the basis of my comments, and certainly to call me and the current Church bishops heretics is a major personal attack that I likely think you would not do to their face. People have a lot of bravado behind their keyboard I guess.

You win - you are the better debater, your attacks won the day. Although maybe I'll get a 1/2 point since the facts I presented about current Magiusterium statements and teaching you could only say "heretical". Fine.

However, to accuse me of not believing in Church teaching based on postings on a forum is a wicked thing to do. You are not my judger. Please be more Christian the next time you engage in a discussion.

[USMC]

Originally Posted by awalt

USMC, you are wrong - you are taking a Bible fundamentalist perspective. Read this, especially about Article 13: http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/public...ure%20text.pdf

Sorry, but I'm not going to read that 60 page link you provided.

In particular, just to whet your whistle:

It is important to note this teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the truth of Scripture is to be found in all that is written down ‘for the sake of our salvation’. We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.

You didn't wet my whistle, but only showed that you have listened to the heretics and (as predicted) fallen into error. The heretics who you follow have misinterpreted that statement from Dei Verbum.

You should read Fr. Harrison's article, which gives the true meaning of that particular sentence from Dei Verbum 11. In the article he provides the conciliar discussions that surrounded that often misquoted sentence, and discusses the additional note attached to the document by Paul VI which confirmed the total inherehcy of scripture.

I know you will likely attack this, but the facts are the facts.

I quoted the Church teaching, as given by Pope Leo XIII, in my last Post. You have rejected that teaching of the Church, chosen to follow the teaching of the modern heretical scripture "scholars", and are now in formal heresy.

PS - and this is what is being taught in the Diaconate, probably in the Seminaries too. You can deny it, but again the facts are the facts.

The fact that you may have been taught heresy in the Diaconate does not surprise me. Actually, it makes me a little sad. You have fallen for the snares of the enemy.

Let's hear Pope Leo XIII describe the heretics that you have chosen to follow:

Pope Leo XIII

"It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labor carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority.

Prividentissimus Deus, was written for the purpose of refuting the errors of the heretics that you follow. These heretics are "deceiving and being deceived" and you are one of their many victims.

You have a choice: You can either read Providentimus Dues, which represents the official teaching of the Church, and accept it; or you can persist in your error, and suffering the eternal consequences. The choice is yours.

You could serve the Church well by using your talents to defend the infallible teaching of the Church on the complete inherency of the Scriptures, in a day when it is being attacked.

Are you going to be a faithful Catholic and accept the Church teaching? or are you going to pretend it is not the teaching of the Church and continue to follow the heretics? For God's sake, make the right choice. You eternal salvation depends on it.