How the churches got around errors in scripture.

[polonius]

In 1893 we were still being told by the Pope that “ Inspiration (is)Incompatible with Error�

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCR IPTURE DECLARED THAT:

“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. “

This was essentially the Protestant teaching as well. But things changed in the 1900’s
The Protestant “Chicago Statement� declared that:

“Article X We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.

That was a safe claim since autographic copies of scripture no longer existed.

But the CatholicChurch at Vatican II came up with still a better explanation.

“ Paragraph #11: “Since, therefore, all that the…sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.�

In short, if there is an error, than the matter must not be necessary for our salvation!

New Jerome Biblical Commentary, coauthored by the late Raymond Brown and Thomas Aquinas Collins:

..."Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purposes of God."

Elsewhere, Brown writes,
It is falsely claimed that there has been no change towards the Bible in Catholic Church thought because Pius XII and Vatican II paid homage to documents issued by Leo XIII, Pius X and Benedict XV and therefore clearly meant to reinforce the teaching of their predecessors. What really was going on was an attempt gracefully to retain what was salvageable from the past and to move in a new direction with as little friction as possible."

In sum, if you find an error in scripture, then that passage was not necessary for our salvation!

What a great solution!!!

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 10 by marco]

Yes, the RCC has thousands of years of apologetical material by which to defend its case, but of course the material doesn't withstand critical examination, e.g., Peter being the first pope. In the NT Peter only has a kind of temporary leadership of "the Twelve", while post-Resurrection, James seems to have been the functional equivalent of a pope. Luke-Acts, while starting out strong presenting Peter as a forceful leader and orator, is not interested in following his later career: first, Peter is active in Jerusalem, but Luke says that "then [some unidentifiable time] Peter went away to another place". Had Peter actually been the first pope, then his travels, destiny and/or fate would have been pointedly remembered and celebrated in the Church, but we don't see that happening.

Ditto with the claim that the Twelve (or at least the Eleven) were the first priests. Nothing can be further from the truth biblically speaking. The Gospels never depict Jesus teaching the Twelve anything about being priests who would, after his death, offer and symbolically re-sacrifice Jesus "on the altar".

In addition to that, Luke-Acts insists (Acts 21:20ff) that the Jerusalem apostles punished Paul for preaching that the Temple (and Judaism) had been invalidated by Jesus's "atoning" sacrificial death. The apostles rebuke Paul and point out to him the "many thousands of believers [Jewish Christians] who are zealous for the Law". Then they make Paul take a Nazarite Vow in the Temple - a sacrifice that demanded an animal offering. Clearly, at least according to Luke, far from being, or even considering themselves to be, priests, the Jerusalem disciples were still loyal to the Temple and its priesthood.

I believe that these two issues alone - Peter's purported papacy and Jesus's supposed ordaining the Twelve as priests - put the lie to Catholicism's basic claims. Granted, as you pointed out, the RCC has many "evidences" that it can pull out of any number of drawers, but as history and textual studies move along, those evidences become less credible, except, of course, to those who already believe, or to those who fiercely desire to believe.

[marco]

I believe that these two issues alone - Peter's purported papacy and Jesus's supposed ordaining the Twelve as priests - put the lie to Catholicism's basic claims. Granted, as you pointed out, the RCC has many "evidences" that it can pull out of any number of drawers, but as history and textual studies move along, those evidences become less credible, except, of course, to those who already believe, or to those who fiercely desire to believe.

We do not know the final details of how Peter was regarded or what guidance he gave. He may have been in Rome; he may have been crucified upside down. The words of Christ in the Vulgate: super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, addressed to Peter, must mean something. It is reasonable to suppose that Peter was at least the nominal antecedent of the popes. Your argument does not oppose this - it simply says we don't know about Peter's later years.


Priests at the time performed many functions, one of them was to build bridges between one race and another and to teach a doctrine. Pontifex means bridge builder. The disciples were first taught and as apostles were sent out to preach. This is sufficient to enable us to call them priests or missionaries. We are merely quibbling over semantics.


You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but then so is the RCC.

[polonius]

I believe that these two issues alone - Peter's purported papacy and Jesus's supposed ordaining the Twelve as priests - put the lie to Catholicism's basic claims. Granted, as you pointed out, the RCC has many "evidences" that it can pull out of any number of drawers, but as history and textual studies move along, those evidences become less credible, except, of course, to those who already believe, or to those who fiercely desire to believe.

We do not know the final details of how Peter was regarded or what guidance he gave. He may have been in Rome; he may have been crucified upside down. The words of Christ in the Vulgate: super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, addressed to Peter, must mean something. It is reasonable to suppose that Peter was at least the nominal antecedent of the popes. Your argument does not oppose this - it simply says we don't know about Peter's later years.


Priests at the time performed many functions, one of them was to build bridges between one race and another and to teach a doctrine. Pontifex means bridge builder. The disciples were first taught and as apostles were sent out to preach. This is sufficient to enable us to call them priests or missionaries. We are merely quibbling over semantics.


You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but then so is the RCC.

RESPONSE: Actually, James the Just was the first bishop of the fledgling Jewish Christian community. See Acts of the Apostles and Church History by Eusebius.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 13 by polonius.advice]

Yes, if anyone ought to be called the functional equivalent of "first pope", it would be James, as Robert Eisenman and many others have demonstrated. That's why in my earlier post I mentioned that the true "apostolic succession" was not the RCC's list, but rather the Jewish "Jerusalem Caliphate" which consisted of Jesus's relatives in Palestine-Jordan-Syria, not in Rome.

[marco]

Actually, James the Just was the first bishop of the fledgling Jewish Christian community. See Acts of the Apostles and Church History by Eusebius.

This is not contradicting anything. I understand the term Pope wasn't used until the fourth century with Damasus I who proclaimed the apostolic succession, using Christ's words to Peter. So Peter is not an arbitrary choice but the choice of Christ - at least according to RC interpretation of Scripture.

[polonius]

Actually, James the Just was the first bishop of the fledgling Jewish Christian community. See Acts of the Apostles and Church History by Eusebius.

This is not contradicting anything. I understand the term Pope wasn't used until the fourth century with Damasus I who proclaimed the apostolic succession, using Christ's words to Peter. So Peter is not an arbitrary choice but the choice of Christ - at least according to RC interpretation of Scripture.

RESPONSE:

Please provide a reliable reference written before 200 AD claiming that Peter was the bishop of Rome. Or was even there.

"We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).

[marco]

Please provide a reliable reference written before 200 AD claiming that Peter was the bishop of Rome. Or was even there.

"We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).

Good request, Polonius. I think we have a simple misunderstanding. It may well be that "the apostles did not ordain one man etc." Even if they had this would not give the same authority as was handed to Peter. Matthew tells us:


16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.


Some sort of power was given to Peter, so forget the apostles. The final instruction is for secrecy, for whatever reason. So it is sufficient that the Church accepts this as Christ's instruction and whether or not Peter invested himself with papal vestments or presided from Rome is of no account. He was the first successor of Christ. Call him Pontiff, Bishop, Holy Father or plain Peter. The clever pun on Peter's name identifies his delegated authority.

[polonius]

Nope: Matthew 16 contains a later interpolation (addition) not by Mark to provide a scriptural basis for a church that Jesus never founded.

Mark 8:27-30

Peter’s Confession About Jesus.*

Now Jesus and his disciples set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi.h Along the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?�

They said in reply, “John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets.�

And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?� Peter said to him in reply, “You are the Messiah.�

Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

SEE ALSO:


1. Acts of the Apostle, Chapter 15: 19 , New American Bible.
James the Just speaking) “It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm


2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, Eusebius, History of the Church Book II

3 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htmSt Clement of Rome was the fourth pope. He wrote a very revealing Letter to the Corinthians about 80 AD which, shows that Peter remained in the east and only Paul traveled to the west.

Chapter 5
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.
Note: Paul is indicated as being in the West. Then see Peter’s Jerusalem Tomb

SEE ALSO http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm -text

[Monta]

[Replying to post 17 by marco]



"16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

v16 Peter was given a revelation (from the Father) that Jesus is the Christ.

Peter's affection for truth was rewarded and it is this affection for truth that will bind or loose likewise anyone on earth.

Peter is a stone - affection of truth, but there is only one rock - Truth Itself and it is eternal Christ himself "upon this rock I will build my church".

The very purpose for which he came into the world.

[marco]

Nope: Matthew 16 contains a later interpolation (addition) not by Mark to provide a scriptural basis for a church that Jesus never founded.

We are not arguing about early church politics or gradual moves to some hierarchy; we are discussing the authority given by Christ. Reliance is placed on all four evangelists by Christians so to argue that the absence of a statement in one indicates it was never made would invalidate our four sources of Christ's words. The Church and most Cristians would not accept an argument that wants to rule out the testimony of a respected evangelist. To play the game properly we must show that the Church's interpretation is flawed, not that Matthew writes fiction, an unacceptable contention in the present discussion.

In the wider picture it may be all four write fiction but that is not the Church's concern. She doesn't derive her authority and power from unbelievers.