tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1682650935234354671..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Papal fallibility (Updated)Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger124125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44654842450124657092020-01-24T08:08:27.645-08:002020-01-24T08:08:27.645-08:00This makes sense. "Novelties don't count...This makes sense. "Novelties don't count" is a "no true Scotsman" argument.JDaleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86084331943376419102019-11-12T11:06:58.266-08:002019-11-12T11:06:58.266-08:00Anytime OS is discussed, the discussion often neve...Anytime OS is discussed, the discussion often never refers to a dubium regarding its nature that was asked and answered by the CDF and also gave rise to a further reflection on that answer by the CDF.<br />See the Link below to reflections by Cardinal Ratzinger on his reply as head of the CDF to a dubium on OS<br />Read the whole thing but the money quote is: “In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.”<br />This act was explicitly noted in its text as “definitive” by JPII and as Prof. Feser’s post notes it was therefore Category 2 (and also per the CDF). Thus, there can be no legitimate dissent from it although it is a theoretical possibility that the Pope could have been wrong in what he thought he recognized as an already existing infallible teaching in the Church’s ordinary magisterium. So all debate (especially public debate and question) should have ceased unless and until another Pope ( likely with a council if only as a prudent course for such a momentous reversal especially vis-à-vis maintaining any opening to the Eastern Orthodox) decided to re-open the question (which progressives are naturally hoping Francis will do; I do not). I believe by the way this is what Cardinal Schonborn, rather sloppily, was referring to in his off the cuff remarks. Dr. Peter’s criticism of Schonborn’ remarks did not adequately acknowledge Cardinal Ratzinger’s analysis in my opinion (Dr. Peters has elsewhere noted he is aware of it and disagrees with Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF).<br /><br />http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_commento-dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html<br />Toddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00202156079831053710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24907661081154422212018-09-06T11:28:37.784-07:002018-09-06T11:28:37.784-07:00So the best you can come up with against papal inf...So the best you can come up with against papal infallibity is the infallibility of private judgement. Given the doctrinal chaos resulting from the use of private judgement that's not a very effective argument.Highland Cathedralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07519428794618769856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6726657842355311132018-08-29T07:59:09.621-07:002018-08-29T07:59:09.621-07:00When a Pope errs, we can know that he has erred. I...When a Pope errs, we can know that he has erred. If it were not so, then our Faith would have no objective content and the Church would be a gnostic sect. Papal errors cannot be said to belong to the Magisterium at any level. They are errors, that is all. <br /><br />The very term "fallible Ordinary Magisterium" implies that any Church teaching not solemnly defined could be reformed. That is the loophole Francis is now exploiting. But in fact his novel teachings are extrinsic to the Magisterium by the very reason of their novelty as no Pope can announce new doctrines. <br /><br />The Magisterium is the constant teaching office of the Church, presenting what has been believed always, everywhere and by all. It is not what any one Pope says in a papal document or oral utterance. There is no "Magisterium of Pope Francis" but only the Magisterium. Errors are foreign to it.Ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15904697471256936203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55891932224119011872018-08-02T18:50:10.673-07:002018-08-02T18:50:10.673-07:00Popes have never erred against the Faith defined a...Popes have never erred against the Faith defined as Vatican I determined before defining papal infallibility. They have erred when the Church had not yet declared the position. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21646373831391513572018-08-02T18:45:54.143-07:002018-08-02T18:45:54.143-07:00All of Siscoe's arguments have been thoroughly...All of Siscoe's arguments have been thoroughly refuted here:<br /><br />https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/robert-siscoe-and-the-remnant-newspaper-go-down-in-flames/<br /><br />https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/canon-188-4-and-defection-of-faith-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-iii/<br /><br />https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/the-sin-of-heresy-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-ii/<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7211290728966514212018-05-22T07:04:01.013-07:002018-05-22T07:04:01.013-07:00The good Dr. Edward Peters has a few choice things...The good Dr. Edward Peters has a few choice things to say about Cardinal Schonborn's outrageous comments regarding female ordination. It makes for some good reading:<br />https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/should-one-take-cdl-schonborns-comments-on-female-ordination-seriously/Tritiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09898318643029403042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66211167024712183382018-02-12T05:52:27.612-08:002018-02-12T05:52:27.612-08:00You can pretend Bergoglio is the bark of Peter.
O...You can pretend Bergoglio is the bark of Peter.<br /><br />Or his communion is.<br /><br />I can say even Alexander IX and even more so Pope Michael are more likely than Bergoglio. Alexander IX of course has the problem of being strictly Feeneyite.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22240645838616932642018-02-10T11:10:32.924-08:002018-02-10T11:10:32.924-08:00Ouch -- no thanks, I'll stay with the barque o...Ouch -- no thanks, I'll stay with the barque of Peter. And I'll stay on topic here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7410899924141003022018-02-10T01:51:18.695-08:002018-02-10T01:51:18.695-08:00Saying Bergoglio is not pope does not equal sedeva...Saying Bergoglio is not pope does not equal sedevacantism properly so called. <a href="http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/12/alternatives-to-pope-francis-other-than.html" rel="nofollow">See here.</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59558704106525556742018-02-09T21:23:19.342-08:002018-02-09T21:23:19.342-08:00I don't think sedavacantism is the answer here...I don't think sedavacantism is the answer here. Jesus gave us a promise, and we are not orphans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87383521352732220812018-02-05T06:11:30.021-08:002018-02-05T06:11:30.021-08:00I know you asked Dr. Feser, not me.
For my own pa...I know you asked Dr. Feser, not me.<br /><br />For my own part, I can only say that Bergoglio even before 2013 "promotion" was heterodox and is not Pope.<br /><br />I suppose Edward Feser will not agree, of course ...Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27411142221111769182018-02-05T06:09:50.499-08:002018-02-05T06:09:50.499-08:00Continued: "Thinking in terms of the second p...Continued: <i>"Thinking in terms of the second possibility, "from the beginning of the creation" in the first verse cannot literally mean the very beginning, since the Bible itself says humans were created on the sixth day of creation; and if it's just interpreted to mean "since the beginning of the human race","</i><br /><br />A very bold dichotomy.<br /><br />How about the time between literal beginning and creation of man being negligible in terms of the total time?<br /><br />The first π times a millionth of time can obviously count as its beginning.<br /><br />And that is how the six days count, if Christ spoke in year 5229 after the actual "in the beginning" of verse 1.<br /><br /><i>"then it's just as true in evolutionary theory as it is in creationism that humans have always been male and female since the beginnings of the species."</i><br /><br />Non, merci.<br /><br />He was not in context speaking of dichotomy of sexes against either androgynous hermaphroditism or even gay marriage, though it is applicable there too. He was in context speaking of "a male" and "a female", two persons of opposite sex, one of each, therefore of marriage.<br /><br />In evolutionism, Neanderthals and others counting as possible candidates for "pre-Adamites" (a position condemned about Isaac La Peyrère) are not uniformly credited with having human marriage.<br /><br /><i>"As for Matthew 23:35, I don't know how the phrase is used in Aramaic, but in English a phrase of the type "from A to B" does not always mean that A is the first in a sequence and B is the last, A and B can just be two exemplars which give a sense of the scope of whatever the phrase is intended to cover."</i><br /><br />My own reference to Matthew 23 was not to verse 35, but to other verses indicating that the Pharisees had formed a magisterium during the Old Covenant or its final centuries (a co-magisterium with the principal one of the Cohanim) and that therefore Christ was accepting Jewish Tradition on historicity. <b>As infallible Church Teaching.</b><br /><br /><i>"Finally, what about the possibility that everything the prophets say that is not obviously figurative is literally true, but that some of their words might have been misreported by those who recounted them or wrote them down, who were not themselves prophets?"</i><br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />That would make their prophecy as public ministry pointless. The point of the words is not that some people have a prophetic charism for their proper edification, but that the Holy Ghost through that charism is speaking to the Church.<br /><br />In other words, God is giving the prophets magisterial authority in a higher sense even than that of Papacy.<br /><br /><i>"There is pretty good evidence of at least a few such transmission errors in the Bible, for example the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 does not appear in the earliest known copies and was probably a later addition."</i><br /><br />Are you a Protestant?<br /><br />Trent defined that all 73 books as included in the Vulgate are God's word.<br /><br />The "earliest known copies" as in those know to be preserved to this day are NOT the point in comparison to the Tradition of the Church.<br /><br />In other words, the Medievals who believed this and the Pope St Pius X who believed this were not even materially mistaken.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53938472944160842892018-02-05T06:09:32.768-08:002018-02-05T06:09:32.768-08:00Continued: "The prophets in the Bible often s...Continued: <i>"The prophets in the Bible often speak in ways that most Christians would understand to be figurative rather than literal, as with much of the imagery in the Book of Revelation."</i><br /><br />A historic book is not the same as a prophetic book. And yes, the hagiographers of historic books also fall under the general description in the Creed "qui locutus est per prophetas".<br /><br /><i>"Jesus also used plenty of figurative language, and although it was often introduced with a phrase of the type "__ is like __", it wasn't always--the statement about the camel passing through the eye of a needle is obviously figurative but not introduced that way, for example."</i><br /><br />The phrase about the camel and the needle's eye is introduced with "it is easier for" and followed by "than", meaning, like the ones "the kingdom of the heavens is like" examples, it is introduced by a comparison.<br /><br /><i>"And although I suppose it would have been just as obvious to his listeners that this was figurative, there may be cases where it would be genuinely ambiguous to listeners whether he was talking literally or figuratively--for example, when he said in John 14:2 that "In my Father's house are many mansions", this could be interpreted either in terms of literal heavenly residences for people in resurrected physical bodies, or it could be interpreted in a more figurative way."</i><br /><br />There is no probable ambiguity, since mansions and sections of the people of God living in them would both be many, and so both meanings be appropriate.<br /><br />Exactly as St Augustine in the "fait lux" opted for BOTH spiritual and material or visible light.<br /><br /><i>"The verses you mentioned, Mark 10:6 and Matthew 23:35, could either be interpreted in terms of Jesus speaking from the understanding of a first century Jew (who would have believed the story of Cain and Abel regardless of whether it was literally true as a historical incident)"</i><br /><br />Oh, that is a VERY huge supposition you are asking me to condone.<br /><br />The reason why Jews of the first century believed in Cain and Abel is precisely because it is in the first book of Moses, it is therefore covered by "qui locutus est per prophetas" or more 1st C Jewish terms "we know God spoke to Moses", and the reason they believe it is literal is, Genesis was always taken as a historic book.<br /><br />Therefore the REASON why 1st C Jews believed in Cain and Abel is, Cain and Abel is a real historic incident.<br /><br /><i>"or simply in terms of the language not being intended to have the literal meaning you ascribe."</i><br /><br />You can have language not intended to have a literal meaning only in the case of figures of speech generally understood as such.<br /><br />This was absolutely not the case in the context.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90478960068272631992018-02-05T06:08:53.199-08:002018-02-05T06:08:53.199-08:00I for some reason saw this post again, and started...I for some reason saw this post again, and started replying before noticing I had already done so on December 26.<br /><br />I will now give the new replies, and you can check how they fit what I said then.<br /><br /><i>"To say that God has "spoken through the prophets" does not obviously mean that God dictated the precise wording and the prophets repeated what they heard word for word; one might for example suppose that God planted certain high-level concepts and images in their mind and they expressed them in their own words, with some of their own interpretation, with God guiding this process to prevent clear errors (and this could be true of Jesus as well, provided one believes he chose not to access his omniscient knowledge on many matters and spoke from the understanding of his human mind, which I believe is the Catholic teaching)."</i><br /><br />Key words : <i>with God guiding this process to prevent clear errors.</i><br /><br />I go one further : with God guiding this process to prevent any errors.<br /><br />That is the position of the Church.<br /><br />Other key words : <i>does not obviously mean that God dictated the precise wording and the prophets repeated what they heard word for word</i><br /><br />Verbal dictation (except where testified, as with certain chapters of Moses receiving the law) is certainly not required for the net result of all and any errors being excluded.<br /><br /><i>"And there is also the fact that the ideas had to be expressed in human language, which always has some degree of ambiguity about literal vs. figurative meaning"</i><br /><br />Human language in context very rarely has a real ambiguity about that.<br /><br /><i>"and would continue to do so for human listeners even if God did dictate the precise wording (unless God intervened in each listener's thought processes to prevent misunderstanding)."</i><br /><br />It is entirely sufficient that God actually guides the outcome of the readers whose words in the external forum constitute the Catholic Tradition, either singly, as with definitions of the infallible magisterium (Popes, Councils, when obliging Church Universal).Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60212893754392141812018-02-03T06:13:41.457-08:002018-02-03T06:13:41.457-08:00The Argentinian bishops issued a heterodox interpr...The Argentinian bishops issued a heterodox interpretation of the admission of divorced/remarrieds to Holy Communion. Thereafter, Pope Francis agreed with that error and entered his agreement into the official "Acta Apostolicae Sedis."<br /><br />The cardinal who spoke about this event tells us that "together the two documents became the Holy Father’s authentic magisterium for the whole church.”<br /><br />So.... what are we to make of this? In the post above we hear that the closest thing to papal heresy over the centuries was John XXII's error given in a sermon. If THAT was the worst we've had (a lowly sermon!), I ask Dr. Feser what are we to make of this error that is presented as OFFICIAL papal teaching??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35479805951244136662016-01-29T02:43:15.652-08:002016-01-29T02:43:15.652-08:00I am pretty sure Padre Pio wasn't Primate of I...I am pretty sure Padre Pio wasn't Primate of Italy (btw, I think the Popes, those who were such, were so, not sure how Pope Michael intends to fulfil that part of his duty, probably it is suspended by his being Pope in exile).<br /><br />But on the other hand, Hitchens may not have met Padre Pio.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13422612006400095172016-01-28T06:53:47.012-08:002016-01-28T06:53:47.012-08:00Whenever the subject of Papal infallibility comes ...Whenever the subject of Papal infallibility comes up, I think of a quote by Christopher Hitchens:<br /><br />"I've never met a Holy Man who wasn't also a primate..."Gerard Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13760334164514762337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1997230095598816842016-01-06T01:59:22.509-08:002016-01-06T01:59:22.509-08:00"I remember for example when Benedict ascende...<i>"I remember for example when Benedict ascended it was said by many Catholics that it is good that a staunch defender of traditional faith is the new Pope. Then, when Francis ascended a lot of Catholics changed tune and suddenly it was good that a breath of fresh air was the new Pope, and that many felt restricted under Benedicts "traditional" mindset."</i><br /><br />Are you sure you remember any single, or even many Catholics who used both tunes according to occasion?<br /><br />I never felt Ratzinger was TOO traditional, to me he was rather good news when he came, but a disappointment, too LITTLE traditional. After that I was glad Bergoglio was a gentle man, but was watchful about what he would say, after "canonisation" of Wojtyla and Roncalli I am no longer accepting him as Pope. Currently provisionally Under Pope Michael.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30746450738273304032016-01-05T10:06:34.417-08:002016-01-05T10:06:34.417-08:00I just discovered this blog and have greatly enjoy...I just discovered this blog and have greatly enjoyed reading so far. As a Non-Catholic who respects many of the traditions of the Catholic church I thought I would lend my opinion.<br /><br />The issue of Papal infallibility for non-Catholics has more to do with the aura and mystique than with the real vested authority. I remember for example when Benedict ascended it was said by many Catholics that it is good that a staunch defender of traditional faith is the new Pope. Then, when Francis ascended a lot of Catholics changed tune and suddenly it was good that a breath of fresh air was the new Pope, and that many felt restricted under Benedicts "traditional" mindset. <br /><br />Now to be fair, Francis has not changed doctrine, but many of his statements, while said in compassion have been vague enough as to make many believe that he supports homosexuality, to use that as one example. And for his part, being compassionate, he has not done enough to deliver real doctrines to the people in a way that is unequivocal.<br /><br />So while he has certainly not changed Church doctrine on homosexuality his statements have empowered many in the Church to believe that he does condone it or even celebrate it and is only bound by a "tradition" that prevents him from openly endorsing what has long been considered a sin. This in turn erodes the very value of the traditions that empower the Popes authoritative statements. After all, if tradition has always said one thing, and that one thing is now considered wrong, and it is ONLY tradition that prevents the church from moving into the new age then tradition, including all the powers vested in the Pope become meaningless.<br /><br />This shifts the argument away from can the Pope alter church doctrine to what extant is the Pope a defender of the faith, and then if he ceases to be a defender of the faith can he be rightly said to be a divinely appointed pontiff? In many ways what we are seeing today is not that dissimilar, though on a much smaller scale to what the world saw during the first schism, when the East and West church parted ways, or the second Schism that saw the birth of Protestantism.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11705392427531886080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29711674897680808092015-12-26T08:58:19.754-08:002015-12-26T08:58:19.754-08:00"For example, if you picked up a book titled ...<i>"For example, if you picked up a book titled "Leadership in Warfare from Rameses II to General Patton" and found that the book actually mentioned leaders prior to Rameses and later than Patton, you probably wouldn't feel that the title had misled you; the idea was just that Rameses is a major example of a leader from one of the earliest wars we have written records of, and Patton is a major example from the "modern" era."</i><br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br />Either main scope is limited to between Ramses II and Patton, and earlier and later ones are marginal, like pre-Ramses not being sufficiently documented and post-Patton being too close to cover without indiscretion or stirring passions, OR scope has been widened since book got its title, with added examples.<br /><br />So, you are vastly exaggerating a point of imprecision in "from A to B" in order to squeeze in Long Age "Science". You are wronging the English and any other language.<br /><br /><i>"Finally, what about the possibility that everything the prophets say that is not obviously figurative is literally true, but that some of their words might have been misreported by those who recounted them or wrote them down, who were not themselves prophets?"</i><br /><br />Prophet by extension includes also other hagiographers.<br /><br />Only after hagiographer is such a thing possible.<br /><br />For instance, Amwaz is 160 stades from Jerusalem (city). Possibility one: St luke wrote 160 stades like one manuscript says. Possibility two: Amwaz is only 60 stades from Jerusalem COUNTY. Possibility three : Emmaus was moved when rebuilt after wars. St Luke did not get it wrong.<br /><br /><i>"If God allows such "minor" errors in the transmission of the text, why not "minor" errors in the memory of the apostles about the exact phrases Jesus used, as long as they didn't alter the main message being taught?"</i><br /><br />The range for such minor errors is like quoting "who touched me" when Jesus said "who is it who touched me" - St Peter could do that in conversation, but St Matthew had too good a "secretarial" training for that.<br /><br />"<i>for example the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 does not appear in the earliest known copies and was probably a later addition."</i><br /><br />The earlist known copies are not very worn, are they? Such an omission might have been why they were laid aside as not to be read, and why they are available to us.<br /><br />So, the story very much belongs to the Gospel. Your example does very much NOT amount to "pretty good evidence".<br /><br /><i>"So if a Christian in the Medieval era believed that trust that God "spoke through the prophets" and that this meant he could trust absolutely that Jesus actually said the phrase translated as "let him who is without sin, cast the first stone", wouldn't he have been mistaken?"</i><br /><br />None of those who believed this up to "modern scholarship" was mistaken, none of those who believe it to this day are mistaken.<br /><br />It has been attacked ultimately because it involves a God who could show clemency with an adulteress.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16818819250385520992015-12-26T08:58:02.435-08:002015-12-26T08:58:02.435-08:00Continued, part III
"The verses you mentione...Continued, part III<br /><br /><i>"The verses you mentioned, Mark 10:6 and Matthew 23:35, could either be interpreted in terms of Jesus speaking from the understanding of a first century Jew (who would have believed the story of Cain and Abel regardless of whether it was literally true as a historical incident), or simply in terms of the language not being intended to have the literal meaning you ascribe."</i><br /><br />But the thing is that a first century Jew had top quality infoirmation about it, so his understanding was perfectly correct. He had this from Genesis, from God.<br /><br />You speak as if we were past 1:st C Jews in that respect, we aren't.<br /><br /><i>"Thinking in terms of the second possibility, "from the beginning of the creation" in the first verse cannot literally mean the very beginning, since the Bible itself says humans were created on the sixth day of creation"</i><br /><br />Before getting to very opposite range of exactitude, and implying a bad wording in the Word Made Flesh, how about looking at it like this:<br /><br />* time from "beginning" before God created light on day one to day six is, compared to time lapsed from day six to Jesus' or our time negligible;<br />* by contrast, time from "Big Bang beginning" to "Lucy's posterity" of Erectus or Heidelberg type (whichever you count as first real man) is so great that it is instead the human story since then which is negligible by comparison.<br /><br />This even Protestants get, why not you, if you have the advantage of being Catholic?<br /><br /><i>"in English a phrase of the type "from A to B" does not always mean that A is the first in a sequence and B is the last, A and B can just be two exemplars which give a sense of the scope of whatever the phrase is intended to cover."</i><br /><br />No, not just two examples.<br /><br />To be continued<br /><br />Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90335386507840150412015-12-26T08:57:11.846-08:002015-12-26T08:57:11.846-08:00Continued from previous.
"And there is also ...Continued from previous.<br /><br /><i>"And there is also the fact that the ideas had to be expressed in human language, which always has some degree of ambiguity about literal vs. figurative meaning, and would continue to do so for human listeners even if God did dictate the precise wording (unless God intervened in each listener's thought processes to prevent misunderstanding). The prophets in the Bible often speak in ways that most Christians would understand to be figurative rather than literal, as with much of the imagery in the Book of Revelation"</i><br /><br />What is figurative is not the wording of St John, but the visions given by God.<br /><br />This does not mean it is not precise.<br /><br /><i>"the statement about the camel passing through the eye of a needle is obviously figurative but not introduced that way, for example."</i><br /><br />Obviously figurative? The sentence actually doesn't say "a camel can go through a needle's eye" but "it is easier" (as in less obvious obstacles amounting to practical impossibility) "for a camel" etc. Meaning the comparison is stated as a comparison, though of a somewhat different sort.<br /><br /><i>"And although I suppose it would have been just as obvious to his listeners that this was figurative, there may be cases where it would be genuinely ambiguous to listeners whether he was talking literally or figuratively--for example, when he said in John 14:2 that "In my Father's house are many mansions", this could be interpreted either in terms of literal heavenly residences for people in resurrected physical bodies, or it could be interpreted in a more figurative way."</i><br /><br />Both are literally true.<br /><br />That there are mansions (as witnessed by St John's vision of Heavenly Jerusalem) and the practical purposes of mansions being there too, i e people who get along better together being in same mansion (as was the point, obvious from context).<br /><br />To be continuedHans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75193736757650277272015-12-26T08:33:29.651-08:002015-12-26T08:33:29.651-08:00"Of course the interpretation I'm discuss...<i>"Of course the interpretation I'm discussing is not one where the Bible merely excludes damning errors like the Silmarillion--the idea is that unlike the Silmarillion, it also contains a great deal of revealed truth, and will be of vital importance to people in attaining salvation and also in living a moral life."</i><br /><br />Vital or not, Silmarillion may be useful for such purposes too.<br /><br />It has not pleased God that a collection of books with the vital importance for salvation the Bible has, should anywhere be untrustworthy even as to non-damning (or non-salvific) detail.<br /><br />For one thing, Christ said, John 3:12 <b>If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things?</b><br /><br />For another:<br /><br /><i>To say that God has "spoken through the prophets" does not obviously mean that God dictated the precise wording and the prophets repeated what they heard word for word; one might for example suppose that God planted certain high-level concepts and images in their mind and they expressed them in their own words, with some of their own interpretation, with God guiding this process to prevent clear errors (and this could be true of Jesus as well, provided one believes he chose not to access his omniscient knowledge on many matters and spoke from the understanding of his human mind, which I believe is the Catholic teaching).</i><br /><br />Even personal interpretation not given by God must be excluded if the Holy Spirit has spoken through the prophets.<br /><br />Only acceptable level broader than dictation word by word (which however does occur - God Spoke to Moses and Said, and St John was receiving Apocalypse vision for vision, but Gospel penstroke per penstroke), is own wording without any implication accepted by God which might then and in future in itself lead anyone to a real error (even factual), if he was attentive and pious.<br /><br />Church is infallible, i e its words can never lead anyone to damnation. It is not inerrant, as seen from fact that Latin and Eastern liturgies give different years after Creation for Christ's birth (5199 in Latin liturgy, more in Byzantine one). One of the liturgies is factually wrong.<br /><br />Trent has defined that the Bible is not only infallible, but in original text inerrant.<br /><br />That means factual errors can be there in such and such a copy or translation (Vulgate would give a date closer to Ussher's 4004 than to 5199), but these cannot go beyond what can be expected to arise as copying errors.<br /><br />Trent and Pope Leo XIII have made it quite clear that your view is "out of court".Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44715593482948636302015-12-23T14:53:46.519-08:002015-12-23T14:53:46.519-08:00(continued from previous comment) The verses you m...(continued from previous comment) The verses you mentioned, Mark 10:6 and Matthew 23:35, could either be interpreted in terms of Jesus speaking from the understanding of a first century Jew (who would have believed the story of Cain and Abel regardless of whether it was literally true as a historical incident), or simply in terms of the language not being intended to have the literal meaning you ascribe. Thinking in terms of the second possibility, "from the beginning of the creation" in the first verse cannot literally mean the very beginning, since the Bible itself says humans were created on the sixth day of creation; and if it's just interpreted to mean "since the beginning of the human race", then it's just as true in evolutionary theory as it is in creationism that humans have always been male and female since the beginnings of the species. As for Matthew 23:35, I don't know how the phrase is used in Aramaic, but in English a phrase of the type "from A to B" does not always mean that A is the first in a sequence and B is the last, A and B can just be two exemplars which give a sense of the scope of whatever the phrase is intended to cover. For example, if you picked up a book titled "Leadership in Warfare from Rameses II to General Patton" and found that the book actually mentioned leaders prior to Rameses and later than Patton, you probably wouldn't feel that the title had misled you; the idea was just that Rameses is a major example of a leader from one of the earliest wars we have written records of, and Patton is a major example from the "modern" era.<br /><br />Finally, what about the possibility that everything the prophets say that is not <i>obviously</i> figurative is literally true, but that some of their words might have been misreported by those who recounted them or wrote them down, who were not themselves prophets? And what if God does not interfere with such transmission errors as long as they don't alter anything in a way that would lead people to be damned who might otherwise be saved? There is pretty good evidence of at least a few such transmission errors in the Bible, for example the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:53-8:11" rel="nofollow">John 7:53-8:11</a> does not appear in the earliest known copies and was probably a later addition. So if a Christian in the Medieval era believed that trust that God "spoke through the prophets" and that this meant he could trust absolutely that Jesus actually said the phrase translated as "let him who is without sin, cast the first stone", wouldn't he have been mistaken? If God allows such "minor" errors in the transmission of the text, why not "minor" errors in the memory of the apostles about the exact phrases Jesus used, as long as they didn't alter the main message being taught?JesseMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09993568347649474812noreply@blogger.com