Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Gospel Puzzles?; [Revised Catholic Edition]
Topic Started: Tuesday, 24. April 2007, 22:25 (1,412 Views)
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Pope Leo XIII again
 
...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.


Yet, Gerry, you choose to jettison that solemnly defined by three ecumenical councils teaching in favour of your understanding of a not solemnly defined teaching of one pastoral council, which defined nothing, and which doesn't really contradict the solemnly defined teaching anyway.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
St Augustine again
 
"Therefore, 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."
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
St Gregory the Great
 
"Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "


So, St Augustine and St Gregory the Great were "fundamentalists" too.
Edited by Clare, Thursday, 5. August 2010, 20:49.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

I guess Dei Verbum is too subtle for a Fundamentalist to cope with.
I guess the arguments in this thread are too subtle for you to understand.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare, may I ask, are you a biblical fundamentalist?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Thursday, 5. August 2010, 14:43
Mairtin
Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 19:36
In regard to geocentrism, Augustine was simply going along with the accepted scientific opinion of his day - in so far as the term 'scientific' can be applied to those days.
Same as you and Gerry then, Mairtin.
Why shouldn't we, Clare?

You and we accept scientific opinion every time we press a switch and expect our electric light to come on; we accept every time we use our computers or our cars or any of the myriad of things that science has brought us. We place our very lives in the hands of scientists when we swallow drugs given to us by our doctors or let them knock us out completely and slice us open with a knife.

Why on earth should we reject scientific opinion in other areas when the only people opposing it are doing so purely on the basis of an interpretation of the Bible that is not even endorsed by our own Church?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Thursday, 5. August 2010, 16:19
I'm sure I had this argument before with Mairtin somewhere.
We did indeed, Clare, and as far as I recall, the debate ran out of steam when I asked you to give an actual example where science contradicts Church teaching and you were unable to do so.

That, in my opinion, is where the confusion about St. Augustine and Pope Leo is coming from. What they are saying is that particular interpretations of Holy Scripture may be wrong and should be revised when science shows them to be wrong; science, however, can never contradict the underlying truth of Holy Scripture.

A good example of this is Creation as described in Genesis. Science has incontrovertibly shown that it did not take place over six literal days of 24 hours duration but our Church has never ever taught that Genesis should be read literally so there is no contradiction there.

What our Church has always taught is that everything in Creation came from God and science has nothing whatsoever to say on that aspect and never can say anything because it is outside the realms of science.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

In regard to the rather surreal debate about God being the author of scriptures, I am reminded of the excellent advice given by OsB a week or two ago in another thread viz. "Metaphors are valuable but vulnerable things. They need very careful handling or they collapse.".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Are we to accept that God picked certain people, used them as zombies, guided their hands while they wrote, without considering, words, paragraphs and chapters of documents that would eventually be accepted as the Holy Scriptures. and when they had finished had not a clue to what they had written, or what had possessed them to do it?

Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pat
Member Avatar

Rose of York
Thursday, 12. August 2010, 12:10
Are we to accept that God picked certain people, used them as zombies, guided their hands while they wrote, without considering, words, paragraphs and chapters of documents that would eventually be accepted as the Holy Scriptures. and when they had finished had not a clue to what they had written, or what had possessed them to do it?

Funnily enough, that's exactly what muslims believe about the qur'an - that it was magically dictated to Muhammad who didn't know what he was writing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Thursday, 12. August 2010, 12:10
Are we to accept that God picked certain people, used them as zombies, guided their hands while they wrote, without considering, words, paragraphs and chapters of documents that would eventually be accepted as the Holy Scriptures. and when they had finished had not a clue to what they had written, or what had possessed them to do it?

No. That is rather a caricature, Rose. No one suggests that except people who want to mock those who believe the Holy Ghost is the primary author of scripture, which is what the Church teaches.
Edited by Clare, Friday, 13. August 2010, 12:49.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

pat
Friday, 13. August 2010, 01:13
Funnily enough, that's exactly what muslims believe about the qur'an - that it was magically dictated to Muhammad who didn't know what he was writing.
Minor problem with your point, Pat, is that what we have today is the SECOND version he wrote - he having accepted that the first version had been given him by the Devil, rather than by God!

It has always rather bothered me that if we are to accept his teachings in Islam - and even he could not tell which was coming from God and which from Satan - we must, by definition, have a very big problem!
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

I still found it a rewarding read.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pat
Member Avatar

Anne-Marie
Friday, 13. August 2010, 13:31
pat
Friday, 13. August 2010, 01:13
Funnily enough, that's exactly what muslims believe about the qur'an - that it was magically dictated to Muhammad who didn't know what he was writing.
Minor problem with your point, Pat, is that what we have today is the SECOND version he wrote - he having accepted that the first version had been given him by the Devil, rather than by God!

It has always rather bothered me that if we are to accept his teachings in Islam - and even he could not tell which was coming from God and which from Satan - we must, by definition, have a very big problem!
Just goes to show, you should always keep a backup copy!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

"we must, by definition, have a very big problem!"

Not we Anne-Marie. They.

PJD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply