The Church And Scripture

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=164e679c-8310-4e94-adc2-012e94094154"]http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story....c2-012e94094154[/url]



[url="http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4750&Itemid=48"]http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php...0&Itemid=48[/url]

[kafka]

A pure historical/literal approach to interpretating Scripture is heretical. It was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Modern Scripture scholars (including Catholic ones) have done so much to harm the Faithful's understanding of Sacred Scripture. Instead of using their scholarship to defend the Church they use it to question and criticize and undermine and deny.

Sacred Scripture is infallible, totally inerrant, and totally inspired in all of its part and in its entirety, on all that it asserts whether it be faith, morals, historical events, geography, science, customs, human nature, society etc. If the Faithful accept this truth, they will more easily plunge into the unfathomable depths of Sacred Scripture and understand a great deal.

When prayerfully reading Sacred Scripture it is good to know the two levels of meaning taught by Aquinas. I wrote a blog about it here:
[url="http://greatcatholicmonarch.blogspot.com/2008/08/levels-of-meaning-in-sacred-scripture.html"]http://greatcatholicmonarch.blogspot.com/2...-scripture.html[/url]

Basically there are two levels of meaning in Sacred Scripture:

A. the literal level of the passage (also known as the direct or explicit) is the plain meaning of the text whether it be an historical event, a law, a parable, a figure speech, etc.

B. the spiritual level of the passage (also know as the indirect or explicit) is the meaning where the literal level is referring to other truths.

Here is an example from the Psalms:

{5:8} But I am in the multitude of your mercy. I will enter your house. I will show adoration toward your holy temple, in your fear.

+In the literal sense the psalmist was a Hebrew and is expressing the time when he will go up to the Temple in Jerusalem and adore God in the Holy of Holies.

~In the spiritual sense this refers to a Catholic who enters a Church and adores the humanity of Christ (in the Eucharist) which is the temple of His Divinity.

The literal level, directly expresses truths, in a literal or figurative way, and the divine author inspired by the Spirit writes and asserts only what he knows in his mind.

The spiritual level, indirectly expresses truths beyond the divine author's mind, yet placed their by the wisdom of the Spirit.

Edited October 26, 2008 by kafka

[tinytherese]

I wish that the NAB would have its commentaries corrected. Often the biased notions of biblical scholars making them are contained and some of the notes they make are heretical.

[kafka]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1686851' date='Oct 26 2008, 06:41 PM']I wish that the NAB would have its commentaries corrected. Often the biased notions of biblical scholars making them are contained and some of the notes they make are heretical.[/quote]
The state of Catholic biblical scholarship is appalling and abysmal. And it is tragic how so many Catholics perhaps the large majority, have a poor fundamental understanding of Sacred Scripture.

One does not need to know historical and archaeological facts in order to plunge into the depth of truths expressed in Sacred Scripture.

What is most important is that one understand and accept the truth taught by the Magisterium, and the Doctors and Saints (I have an armada of quotes btw) that:

[b]Sacred Scripture is Infallible, Totally Inerrant, and Totally inspired in every passage and on everything it asserts on every subject whatsoever without exception. [/b]

That is part of the reason I want to complete a commentary on the entire book of Psalms. Not only to I want to share my insights, but I want to encourage people to read Scripture and explore for themselves the unfathomable truths expressed therein. And realize this wonderful gift God has given us.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kafka' post='1686761' date='Oct 26 2008, 04:09 PM']A pure historical/literal approach to interpretating Scripture is heretical. It was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Modern Scripture scholars (including Catholic ones) have done so much to harm the Faithful's understanding of Sacred Scripture. Instead of using their scholarship to defend the Church they use it to question and criticize and undermine and deny.

Sacred Scripture is infallible, totally inerrant, and totally inspired in all of its part and in its entirety, on all that it asserts whether it be faith, morals, historical events, geography, science, customs, human nature, society etc. If the Faithful accept this truth, they will more easily plunge into the unfathomable depths of Sacred Scripture and understand a great deal.[/quote]
The Bible is NOT a science book.

[kafka]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1686926' date='Oct 26 2008, 08:56 PM']The Bible is NOT a science book.[/quote]
what are you implying by that and what is the meaning of this statement of yours?

[kafka]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1686926' date='Oct 26 2008, 08:56 PM']The Bible is NOT a science book.[/quote]
This phrase inspired my newest blog:

[url="http://greatcatholicmonarch.blogspot.com/2008/10/total-inspiration-and-total-inerrancy.html"]http://greatcatholicmonarch.blogspot.com/2...-inerrancy.html[/url]

This post is in reaction to a phrase I have often seen or heard, here and there among Catholics or other Christians:

"The Bible is not a science book."

It implies an error spread by modern theologians and biblical scholars who have gone astray from Truth, and it fills me with anger (borderline rage) since I once fell victim to them:

God is Truth,
It is against the Nature of God to tell a lie, fall into error, or mislead anyone;
therefore, everything whatsoever God reveals is the truth without exception.

God is the Author of the Bible,
God inspired human authors to write down exactly those things He willed, no more no less,
therefore, everything the Bible asserts on faith, morals, science, geography, the physical world, history, human nature, society, and any other field of knowledge, is true, is infallible, is inerrant without exception.

If one is confused or cannot grasp those truths which God is expressing in any given verse,
it is not that the verse is in false or in error;
it is the limited mind of the reader who has failed to grasp that truth which God is asserting.

If a theologian or biblical scholar, based on his research of history, archaeology, etc. comes to an interpretation or conclusion which contradicts that which God, any given verse of Scripture, is asserting; it is the theologian/scholar who is error and his interpretation is null and void.

It is not always clear what God is asserting in some passages. The truth might be a figure of speech, it might elude our own limited-human minds, yet it is never the case that which God is asserting in any given passage is in error, or is not the truth, in any way whatsoever without exception.

If any given passage of the Bible were in error on any matter, then God could not possibly have Divinely inspired the human author of that passage since God is Truth. If God had not inspired the human author of any book of the Bible then it would not be a part of the Sacred Canon of Sacred Scripture, since we have been infallibly taught by the Sacred Council of Trent 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.” (DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, n. 1)

Therefore God is the Author of every book and all their parts of the Sacred Canon of the Old and New Testaments. And the total inerrancy, and total inspiration of all the books of Sacred Scripture has been infallibly taught by the Universal Magisterium:

“St. Jerome's teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the [b]absolute immunity of Scripture from error:[/b]" (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16)

“But although these words of our predecessor leave [b]no room for doubt or dispute[/b], it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church's teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18)

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible [b]without the slightest exception[/b], and that no error can occur in the inspired text....” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

“...they put forward again [b]the opinion, already often condemned,[/b] which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, [b]each and every one, free from every error.”[/b] (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

Pope Leo XIII perceiving the errors of his time (which to an even greater extent are the errors of our time 2008), and moved the Holy Spirit wrote this striking paragraph in his encyclical:

"[b]But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden,[/b] either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.... 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 Spirit; 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[b]. 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."[/b] (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

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, [b]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, [/b]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.
(Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

These teachings of our beloved Popes clearly express the infallible truth of the Universal Magisterium of the total inerrancy and total inspiration of Sacred Scripture on all that it asserts including those truths which are not faith and morals, but may be in any other field of knowledge without exception.

Therefore may Christians understand and accept with all their hearts and minds and senses the truth of the total inerrancy and total inspiration of Sacred Scripture. And with this in mind may they prayerfully plunge into the unfathomable truths and depths; grace and beauty and power of this stupendous gift of God's revelation known as the Bible. Amen.


For in depth articles read:

The Total Inspiration and Total Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/Biblical-inerrancy.htm

Syllabus of Errors on the Topic of Tradition and Scripture by the same author
www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/syllabus-errors.htm

Edited October 27, 2008 by kafka

[kafka]

grrr. sometimes I get a bit carried away.

I edited and refined the short article

For the final copy click here:

[url="http://greatcatholicmonarch.blogspot.com/2008/10/total-inspiration-and-total-inerrancy.html"]http://greatcatholicmonarch.blogspot.com/2...-inerrancy.html[/url]

[thessalonian]

Seems you have a problem with pride.

"It implies an error spread by modern theologians and biblical scholars who have gone astray from Truth, and it fills me with anger (borderline rage)"

tell me, what is the smallest of seeds?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kafka' post='1686928' date='Oct 26 2008, 10:02 PM']what are you implying by that and what is the meaning of this statement of yours?[/quote]

It means that the books in the Bible are not science books. Period.
So when I read Genesis I don't have to take 6 days of Creation literally, because the author isn't intending a scientific treatise and of course, he wasn't there as an eyewitness. I also don't have to subscribe to the protestant theory that the earth is merely 6,000 year old. Once you get out of this morass of thinking the Bible is the sum of Creation and all questions of any nature are answered within it, you are free to immerse yourself in it. And that of course, is the work of a lifetime.

[kafka]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1687331' date='Oct 27 2008, 01:43 PM']Seems you have a problem with pride.

"It implies an error spread by modern theologians and biblical scholars who have gone astray from Truth, and it fills me with anger (borderline rage)"

tell me, what is the smallest of seeds?[/quote]
why would getting angry over modern errors imply I have pride?

And why are you talking to me like a sage?


[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1687341' date='Oct 27 2008, 01:56 PM']It means that the books in the Bible are not science books. Period.
So when I read Genesis I don't have to take 6 days of Creation literally, because the author isn't intending a scientific treatise and of course, he wasn't there as an eyewitness. I also don't have to subscribe to the protestant theory that the earth is merely 6,000 year old. Once you get out of this morass of thinking the Bible is the sum of Creation and all questions of any nature are answered within it, you are free to immerse yourself in it. And that of course, is the work of a lifetime.[/quote]
I see what you are getting at.

The six days in my opinion are figurative for longer periods of time. And to think the earth is 6000 years old is absurd, since there is scientific evidence it is much older.

[kafka]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1687341' date='Oct 27 2008, 01:56 PM']It means that the books in the Bible are not science books. Period.
So when I read Genesis I don't have to take 6 days of Creation literally, because the author isn't intending a scientific treatise and of course, he wasn't there as an eyewitness. I also don't have to subscribe to the protestant theory that the earth is merely 6,000 year old. Once you get out of this morass of thinking the Bible is the sum of Creation and all questions of any nature are answered within it, you are free to immerse yourself in it. And that of course, is the work of a lifetime.[/quote]
I also wanted to say I'm sorry, I didnt write my blog in reaction to you personally. I edited it and took out the part about "The Bible is not a science book."

Am I mistaken? When Catholics use that phrase are they referring to the literalist Protestants who think the world is 6000 years old? I always thought that that phrase implies doubt about what the Bible is asserting in a given passage about scientific things.

Like for example, some Catholics interpret, the passages in the Psalms, "four corners of the earth," as referring to the Hebrews belief that the earth was flat hence implying a scientific error on part of the Bible. But this is not a scientific error it is a figure of speech, and besides the ancients knew the world was round. The Bible is free from scientific errors since it is inspired by God.

In any case I am still glad I wrote it since the errors about the Bible are prevalent in the Church and it was a good theological exercise. I refined a few of the premises from the above post.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kafka' post='1687415' date='Oct 27 2008, 04:22 PM']And why are you talking to me like a sage?[/quote]

It's a question from scripture. Clearly you don't know the passage and so you don't understand the question.

[Slappo]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1687331' date='Oct 27 2008, 10:43 AM']Seems you have a problem with pride.

"It implies an error spread by modern theologians and biblical scholars who have gone astray from Truth, and it fills me with anger (borderline rage)"

tell me, what is the smallest of seeds?[/quote]


There is no clear sign of pride in that statement. Nothing is sinful about anger (although anger can prove to BECOME sinful).

As for your reference to the mustard seed... That still plays no role in this topic. The mustard seed would only matter if you took a LITERALIST rather then a literal interpretation of scripture. Literal: The literal meaning of the scripture passage. Literalist: the literal meaning of the words of the scripture passage.

When was the last time you mentioned a sunset? Literalistly... there is no such thing as a sunset as the sun does not in all technicality set since it is the earth that moves. Literally the word sunset means dusk when the sun leaves sight of where you are. Literalistly it means an impossible movement of the sun.

All I sensed in both of your posts was arrogance towards Kafka's very well thought out and intelligent posts, especially with your reference to him not knowing the passage of scripture you were referring to (surely he's heard of the mustard seed before in scripture, but the exact phrase you used I had to look up on google myself.)

[kafka]

here are the Final Propositions of the Synod of Bishops on the Bible:

[url="http://ncrcafe.org/node/2228"]http://ncrcafe.org/node/2228[/url]

I havent finished yet, but hopefully I can come up with some comments.