Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #151  
Old Aug 22, '11, 12:56 pm
Little One0307's Avatar
Little One0307 Little One0307 is offline
Banned
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: May 14, 2011
Posts: 12,464
Religion: Roman Catholic faithful to The Magisterium
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by razredge View Post
So the Church is definitely moving forward towards ways of reconciling polygenism with other doctrines (like Original Sin), rather than ignoring the evidence and insisting on a literal descent from two biological first parents.
Here is what Vox Nova has to say on its disclaimer page.

Quote:
Each post at Vox Nova expresses solely the views of its respective author and does necessarily reflect a consensus of any number of Vox Nova‘s contributors. Vox Nova does not engage in group commentary on socio-political matters including political candidacies, political organizations and movements, and national identities.

The content of the linked blogs and organization websites does not necessarily reflect the views of Vox Nova and its contributors, especially if this content is not aligned with the intellectual and spiritual tradition of the Catholic Church.
Why would we want to refer to other's opinions when we have the wealth of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the writings of the Church Fathers, the writings reguarding the Councils of the Church, Dogmas, Church Tradition, Sacred Scripture, approved exegetes, writings of the saints? To me their opinion really does not matter if it is not in line with that which Holy Mother Church Teaches.

Not everything on Vox Nova is in line with the Teaching of the Church. I would not go and get any answers from that site or in good conscience pass it off as a source to cite when discussing Church Teaching.

Here's what they say on their About page.

Quote:
Vox Nova is a Catholic group blog. Our contributors come from a wide range of backgrounds, but we all try speak to the world from the heart of the Church.

It is our goal to investigate and discuss how the church can better carry out its mission in the world. To do this we present our ideas in the areas of politics, economics, ethics, theology, philosophy, history and more in the hope of engaging our readership in substantive conversation. We do this through a combination of writing from regular contributors and guest posts from members of our reader community. (To submit a guest post, email [email protected])

We try to approach issues of concern to the Catholic faithful in a way which transcends the usual divisions that plague the discussions of the Church in America. Our hope is that you are challenged through our writing and that we are likewise challenged through our readers to become more thoughtful and more faithful Catholics.
Yet this blog nor any of its contributors does not represent the Official Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I will address the article that you linked when I have had sufficient time to go and consider it as I am loathe to comment on things off the cuff.

God bless.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old Aug 22, '11, 1:03 pm
Little One0307's Avatar
Little One0307 Little One0307 is offline
Banned
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: May 14, 2011
Posts: 12,464
Religion: Roman Catholic faithful to The Magisterium
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by razredge View Post
So the Church is definitely moving forward towards ways of reconciling polygenism with other doctrines (like Original Sin), rather than ignoring the evidence and insisting on a literal descent from two biological first parents.
When there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism so-called, then the sons of the Church in no way enjoy such freedom. For the faithful in Christ cannot accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the Magisterium of the Church teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own. (Humani Generis 37) Pope Pius XII

God bless.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old Aug 22, '11, 3:09 pm
Debora123 Debora123 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Posts: 7,734
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddarko View Post
CAF's apologists never referred to a church document. They merely gave a piece of writing from Karl Keating. Apologist CAN make mistakes. The church DOES NOT.

So you are suppossed to listen to the Church. Not an apologist. This should be common sense but it appears that it isn't so I am just reminding you.
The apologist is not here to give their own opinions on questions that have a definitive Catholic answer. They are here to tell us what the Church's stance is. The Church DOES NOT say we are obligated to believe in the historicity of the OT, including the story of Jonah.

Karl Keating is not just some random person giving his own opinion either. His book is consistent with the teachings of Catholicism, and is advertised here on CAF.

See this link:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/qui.../keyword/Jonah

You have severely misunderstood the Church's stance on this issue, ddarko.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old Aug 22, '11, 3:30 pm
Contarini Contarini is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 16,450
Religion: Christian (seeking admission to the Catholic Church)
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddarko View Post
Um, Deborah, don't give me a link to something that quotes Kark Keating AFTER I give you something STRAIGHT from a CHURCH DOCUMENT Providentissimus Deus.
No, you didn't. You gave your interpretation of PD, filtered through the CE's article on Jonah.

Edwin
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old Aug 22, '11, 3:39 pm
Contarini Contarini is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 16,450
Religion: Christian (seeking admission to the Catholic Church)
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddarko View Post
I think you are slightly off in comparison here.

What I mean is that let us say by Divine revelation we are told Adam and Eve existed for an example. Just because we cannot find evidence for it, does not mean we discard the narrative as fiction.
Agreed. But whether we find evidence where we would expect to find it plays a role in how we interpret divine revelation. And some interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis (such as that there was no animal death of any kind before human beings sinned) aren't just lacking in evidence but positively contrary to the evidence.

I would very much like to hold that there was a first human couple. I recognize that the evidence against this seems to be mounting (it's not just a question of absence of evidence here either), and it's possible that Humani Generis will turn out not to be the permanent, infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. However, I respect the authority of Humani Generis and am reluctant to endorse polygenism as things currently stand.

Quote:

I am honestly not much interested in what THEOLOGIANS say. I am only interested in what the Church teaches and what the THEOLOGIANS in sync with the Church teach.
But you seem rather cavalier in deciding for yourself (against the consensus of contemporary Catholic scholars and theologians) what the Church teaches.

Quote:
That is pretty clear. The matter of Jonah for an example is decided as FACT.
You say this, but you haven't provided evidence for it.

Quote:
There will always be theologians who disagree. But that really means nothing for a Catholic.
Not to your kind of Catholic. But you aren't the only kind of Catholic, much as you might wish you were.

Quote:
Please read the following for better understanding.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08497b.htm

Again, I am not interested in convincing you to embrace the Catholic position here. I am merely making sure people KNOW the CHURCH position and not that of mere "Catholic" Theologians.
But the CE is simply an encyclopedia produced by "mere 'Catholic' theologians." You seem to grant them magisterial authority just because they wrote 100 years ago. This position makes no sense whatever.

You keep saying, "The Church teaches, the Church teaches," but your only support is a 100-year-old text produced not by the magisterium but by those very theologians you claim to disregard!

To say, "I agree with them because they agree with the Church" is begging the question, because you are depending on them for your view of what the Church teaches.

Edwin
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old Aug 22, '11, 3:50 pm
rben20's Avatar
rben20 rben20 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Posts: 729
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Deb

I had similar thoughts on the OT but the Church simply tells us there are several ways of interpreting Scripture. Symbolism is just one aspect. The point is not in the details but in the message. Humans tend to get in conflict with the bible when they spend so much time reconciling details with science that they completely forget the message. i.g. Galileo and earth being the center. As he later remarked the bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go. I had a friend who said his grandfather thought humans being made from clay was ridiculous, that if Christians actually believed that. Well we do in the sense that we recognize that humans are nothing and will return to nothing (dirt) but not in the sense that we are actually made from play-doh. You get it right?

Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, not a literalist interpretation like some of our fundamental christian brothers. There is a big difference.

As far as Adam and Eve and what the Church has taught, I believe your stance is contrary, with all do respect. Here is some info I had found:

From an issuance by the Pontifical Biblical Commission confirmed by Pope St. Pius X:

1. The creation of all things out of nothing by God
2. The special creation of man
3. The creation of woman from man
4. All of humanity is descended from an original pair of human beings, Adam and Eve
5. Adam and Eve were created in state of holiness, justice, and immortality
6. A divine command was communicated to them to prove obedience to God
7. The transgression of that commanded at the instigation of satan
8. Lost of the state of holiness, justice, and immortality of our first parents because of their disobedience
9. Promise of a future redeemer

These are truths from Genesis. They are to be believed. Adam and Eve were real people. To say otherwise would put a lot into question, the very fall of man and sin...it is for that reason we have Christ. So much is thrown into chaos if we did not actually believe this Truth. Hopefully what I have put is of some help
__________________
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Nunquam draco sit mihi dux!
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old Aug 22, '11, 4:09 pm
Debora123 Debora123 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Posts: 7,734
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by rben20 View Post
Deb

I had similar thoughts on the OT but the Church simply tells us there are several ways of interpreting Scripture. Symbolism is just one aspect. The point is not in the details but in the message. Humans tend to get in conflict with the bible when they spend so much time reconciling details with science that they completely forget the message. i.g. Galileo and earth being the center. As he later remarked the bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go. I had a friend who said his grandfather thought humans being made from clay was ridiculous, that if Christians actually believed that. Well we do in the sense that we recognize that humans are nothing and will return to nothing (dirt) but not in the sense that we are actually made from play-doh. You get it right?
Excellent. My position exactly.

Quote:
Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, not a literalist interpretation like some of our fundamental christian brothers. There is a big difference.

As far as Adam and Eve and what the Church has taught, I believe your stance is contrary, with all do respect. Here is some info I had found:

From an issuance by the Pontifical Biblical Commission confirmed by Pope St. Pius X:

1. The creation of all things out of nothing by God
2. The special creation of man
3. The creation of woman from man
4. All of humanity is descended from an original pair of human beings, Adam and Eve
5. Adam and Eve were created in state of holiness, justice, and immortality
6. A divine command was communicated to them to prove obedience to God
7. The transgression of that commanded at the instigation of satan
8. Lost of the state of holiness, justice, and immortality of our first parents because of their disobedience
9. Promise of a future redeemer

These are truths from Genesis. They are to be believed. Adam and Eve were real people. To say otherwise would put a lot into question, the very fall of man and sin...it is for that reason we have Christ. So much is thrown into chaos if we did not actually believe this Truth. Hopefully what I have put is of some help
As I have stated quite a few times now, I have no problem believing that an Adam and Eve existed. However, this is a detail, much like the details you were referring to in your first paragraph. This is what I have stated in a previous post:

Quote:
Posted by Debora123
If I am supposed to believe that they existed, fine. I have no problem with believing that an Adam and Eve existed a long time ago and that they were ancestors of King David, Abraham, etc etc. Either way it doesn't change the whole picture or the actual message of Genesis - God created all things, God gave men souls, God made men masters of all creatures on earth, Men were given free will and chose to sin (the fall of man) - so it doesn't effect my faith either way.
The "names" of the first human beings to inhabit the earth, or how they came about - whether out of nothing, out of clay, or through evolution - is just detail. Either way, they were created by God.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old Aug 22, '11, 4:12 pm
Contarini Contarini is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 16,450
Religion: Christian (seeking admission to the Catholic Church)
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddarko View Post
It is missed in the sense that most on this thread who have been arguing from Dei Verbum seem to think the document claimed that THIS specific verse was Allegory, THAT specific verse was not etc. Or some seem to think the document claimed that EVERY verse in the OT is allegory.
I have not noticed any post endorsing such a silly misunderstanding of DV. Perhaps I missed something, but it's also possible that you are misunderstanding the posters.

What I'm claiming about DV has little to do with "allegory," but is rather that DV seems to leave room open to believe that the human authors did err in some of the things they intended to say, when that error does not affect our salvation. The question of whether a given text is intended by the human author to be literal or nonliteral is quite a different question. One can believe in inerrancy and still believe that Jonah, for instance, was intended to be a work of didactic fiction from the beginning. That doesn't have anything to do with the question of error. PD, contrary to your claims, leaves room for such a view--Catholics didn't need to wait for Divino Afflante or DV in that regard.

Quote:
Some-others think that EVERY supernatural looking event in the OT must be allegory.

All of the above is false.
Certainly. You're arguing against a straw man.

Quote:
Dei Verbum merely states that some stories might be allegory/fiction etc. This does not mean ALL stories are fiction.
No dispute there.

Quote:
The church in its authority have taught throughout Tradition that some stories are FACT-narratives. One cannot disagree with them.
And that is the point that needs to be proven. With regard to Jonah the point is very far from being proven. All that has been shown is that James F. Driscoll, a Catholic scholar working 100 years ago, thought this and received the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur for the article in which he expressed this opinion.

I don't think you are willing to accept the premise that everything said by a Catholic scholar in a work with the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur is said authoritatively by the Church, are you?

Quote:
Once again, what many Catholics think is irrelevant.
So much for the sensus fidelium

I get that the majority opinion is not infallible, but irrelevant? Really?

So why is what you think so relevant?
Why is what James F. Driscoll thought so relevant?
Why does the fact that the Knights of Columbus put his words on their website make him so much more authoritative than every other Catholic scholar?

Quote:
PD is infallible not because it is an encyclical but BECAUSE it doesn't teach anything different than what the Church has held in Tradition.
But that's circular.

You say, "The Church teaches this."
Your only evidence is PD (and with regard to Jonah you haven't even got that, as a matter of fact, only Driscoll's highly dubious and speculative interpretation of PD).
You say, "PD is infallible because it teaches what the Church has taught."

Circular.

You still haven't shown where "the Church" teaches this, if PD isn't your evidence. (The "this" that I admit PD teaches is inerrancy of Scripture on matters not pertaining to faith and morals, not the historicity of Jonah, a point I cannot find addressed in that document, as I have repeatedly pointed out).

Quote:
And what you said has been incompatible with Tradition. But as a protestant, that is fine.
As I said, that's a weird and probably heretical thing to say.

It is not OK for any baptized person to disagree with the Tradition. Arguably it is not OK for any human being at all to disagree with Tradition. Or don't you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of all humanity and that Tradition has authority for all those over whom Jesus has authority?

The question between you and me is not whether Tradition is authoritative, but whether this particular teaching is actually the teaching of Tradition.

What you think "protestants" believe almost certainly has very little to do with what I believe. (I don't fight being called a "Protestant," because "Protestant" is a historical description.) Not that that's particularly relevant.

Quote:
I am not sure what you mean there in the bolded part above.
I mean that there are a lot of things that have happened in the past thousand years in the Western Church that I find highly dubious, and not all of them have occurred among Western Christians out of communion with Rome.
Quote:
Since you are seeking communion with Rome, I am not sure it matters?
Of course it matters. You seem to have adopted the view common among many contemporary conservative Catholics that non-Catholics are to be expected to embrace Catholicism based on considerations that are external to the actual content of Catholic doctrine. I find that to be a fundamentally corrupt approach to Christian faith.

Edwin
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old Aug 22, '11, 4:27 pm
Contarini Contarini is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 16,450
Religion: Christian (seeking admission to the Catholic Church)
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by garysibio View Post
Can you give a good reason for not taking this at face value?
Well, for starters 21st-century people should not take any ancient text whatever at "face value," because "face value" depends on shared cultural understanding. Nor should mere mortals take any divinely inspired text at "face value." So there are two excellent reasons.

Quote:
If Noah didn't exist, how can we claim Abraham did? If Jonah didn't exist, how can we claim David did?
That doesn't make any sense. We can claim it if we think the evidence supports it. You need to give some reason why the non-existence of one figure implies the non-existence of the other.

And I don't think anyone has suggested that Jonah didn't exist, by the way. Jonah is mentioned in 2 Kings, and almost certainly existed even if the book of Jonah is a work of fiction.

Quote:
Jesus asked Nicodemus "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:12).
Out-of-context quotation.

Quote:
Sure the Bible contains poetry and fiction (such as Jesus' parables) which are not to be taken literally, but you can tell these from the context.
Why are you so confident of this?


Quote:
Just because the Church does not state that you must take Gen 1-3 literally does not mean you are correct in not doing so.
Certainly. But it does mean that there is no good reason not to follow normal historical methods in determining the question, with a moderate degree of bias toward a conservative reading and with great respect toward traditional interpretations, particularly theological/spiritual ones.

Edwin
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old Aug 23, '11, 10:52 pm
razredge razredge is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2011
Posts: 893
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little One0307 View Post
Here is what Vox Nova has to say on its disclaimer page.
.
It's a Catholic blog (not a 'liberal' Catholic blog either) and that article was written by a Jesuit.

And it is hardly the only voice commenting on the matter either, Catholic apologist Mark Shea did a whole writeup of the current theoligcal discussion on polygenism
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02...olygenism.html

And the International Theological Commission which I also quoted from, cannot be explained away as the musings of 'fringe Catholics' since it is their job to advise the Magisterium on matters of theology and the 'Communion & Stewardship' statement was approved by none other than Cardinal Ratzinger himself
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old Aug 23, '11, 10:58 pm
razredge razredge is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2011
Posts: 893
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by rben20 View Post
Deb
when they spend so much time reconciling details with science that they completely forget the message. i.g. Galileo and earth being the center. As he later remarked the bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go. I had a friend who said his grandfather thought humans being made from clay was ridiculous, that if Christians actually believed that. Well we do in the sense that we recognize that humans are nothing and will return to nothing (dirt) but not in the sense that we are actually made from play-doh. You get it right?

As far as Adam and Eve and what the Church has taught, I believe your stance is contrary, with all do respect. Here is some info I had found:
Exactly, if there is a conflict between a literal reading of scripture and the findings of modern science, then the reading of scriptures is in error (hence the acceptance of heliocentrism and evolution)

This is precisely the same case, so going by past developments of doctrine we'd expect the Church to eventually reformulate it's doctrine on polygenism (and indeed theologians are looking at doing that as we speak, as my other links show).
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old Aug 23, '11, 11:11 pm
joshrp's Avatar
joshrp joshrp is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2010
Posts: 1,658
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debora123 View Post
How much of the Old Testament are you supposed to believe in, word per word?

Are we supposed to believe that Noah built an ark and crammed each gender of every animal in the world into that ark while the world flooded?

Are we supposed to believe that Jonah was in a whale's mouth for days and then got spit back out alive?

Are we supposed to believe in the tower of babel, the ten plagues, the pillar of salt... etc etc?

And if these things didn't actually happen, did the people involved even exist?
There are lots of fantastic things that happen throughout history. Look at modern miracles. Look at the Eucharist. Who knows? Maybe something fantastic will happen in our own lifetimes. I love surprises.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old Aug 24, '11, 1:21 am
melbanglican melbanglican is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2011
Posts: 110
Religion: Anglican
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debora123 View Post
How much of the Old Testament are you supposed to believe in, word per word?

Are we supposed to believe that Noah built an ark and crammed each gender of every animal in the world into that ark while the world flooded?

Are we supposed to believe that Jonah was in a whale's mouth for days and then got spit back out alive?

Are we supposed to believe in the tower of babel, the ten plagues, the pillar of salt... etc etc?

And if these things didn't actually happen, did the people involved even exist?
If you want a sound assessment of how much of the OT can be taken as 'historically accurate', read Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, 'The Bible Uneartherd' (isbn: 0684869128).

These guys are two of the world's leading archaeologists, and nobody's fools. If people don't like their findings, they don't have to believe them, but if you want an assessment based on the physical evidence, these are your guys!
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old Aug 24, '11, 7:06 am
Debora123 Debora123 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Posts: 7,734
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by razredge View Post
It's a Catholic blog (not a 'liberal' Catholic blog either) and that article was written by a Jesuit.

And it is hardly the only voice commenting on the matter either, Catholic apologist Mark Shea did a whole writeup of the current theoligcal discussion on polygenism
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02...olygenism.html

And the International Theological Commission which I also quoted from, cannot be explained away as the musings of 'fringe Catholics' since it is their job to advise the Magisterium on matters of theology and the 'Communion & Stewardship' statement was approved by none other than Cardinal Ratzinger himself
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old Aug 26, '11, 9:21 am
ddarko ddarko is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Posts: 1,748
Religion: Strictly Roman Catholic
Default Re: The Old Testament - is it for REAL??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarini View Post
I have not noticed any post endorsing such a silly misunderstanding of DV. Perhaps I missed something, but it's also possible that you are misunderstanding the posters.

What I'm claiming about DV has little to do with "allegory," but is rather that DV seems to leave room open to believe that the human authors did err in some of the things they intended to say, when that error does not affect our salvation. The question of whether a given text is intended by the human author to be literal or nonliteral is quite a different question. One can believe in inerrancy and still believe that Jonah, for instance, was intended to be a work of didactic fiction from the beginning. That doesn't have anything to do with the question of error. PD, contrary to your claims, leaves room for such a view--Catholics didn't need to wait for Divino Afflante or DV in that regard.
Once again Edwin, your view is not complete because you are forgetting the authority of the Church.

Once the Church has determined that something is indeed a fact-narrative, and is taken as such, there is no room for debate. So you are falling in to the same trap you denied earlier in your reply. You are assuming that because Dei Verbum states that some parts may be in error because they do not affect Salvation, you can determine which those are. To the contrary, the church is the one with the authority.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarini View Post
Certainly. You're arguing against a straw man.
I am not. I am merely pointing out the reasoning behind most of the "Catholics" who have posted here.

They seem to think that where Science does not "seem" to agree with the Revelation, then Revelation must be in error.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarini View Post
No dispute there.
Good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarini View Post
And that is the point that needs to be proven. With regard to Jonah the point is very far from being proven. All that has been shown is that James F. Driscoll, a Catholic scholar working 100 years ago, thought this and received the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur for the article in which he expressed this opinion.

I don't think you are willing to accept the premise that everything said by a Catholic scholar in a work with the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur is said authoritatively by the Church, are you?
No, one does not base ones faith on the opinion of James F. Driscoll. What one should base ones faith on is his evidence. He makes his case and shows how the view was held with respect to Jonah in Tradition.

So while Driscoll is no where infallible in his writings, HE IS citing accounts from Tradition. Thus the teachings are still true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarini View Post
So much for the sensus fidelium

I get that the majority opinion is not infallible, but irrelevant? Really?

So why is what you think so relevant?
Why is what James F. Driscoll thought so relevant?
Why does the fact that the Knights of Columbus put his words on their website make him so much more authoritative than every other Catholic scholar?
Because Edwin, what Driscoll puts down is evidence from Tradition.

What you are doing here is arguing similar to how some "Catholics" argue whether an encyclical is infallible.

You are both missing the point. The point with Driscoll and even an Encyclical is that it is quoting/providing already established teaching in Tradition. Thus, while the document is not infallible, the teachings it provide ARE infallible/authoritative.

So if a Catholic Scholar by the name of Mr. Heretic John decides to come up with his own interpretation, no one really cares. If every Catholic scholar happened to agree with him, NO ONE should care if his view contradicts that of Tradition.

That is how the church works.

(continued.....)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8569Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Kellyreneeomara
5242CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
4436Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3896Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3876SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3465Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3318Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3237Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3171For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: eschator83



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:56 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.