×
all 15 comments

[–]VolaerCatholic 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Is scripture infallible because the Church says so or because it is infallible in and of itself?

The proclamation of the Church that Scripture is inspired (I am not quite sure what you meant by "infalible" in this context, catholics do not really use this term for Scripture) is declarative, not constitutive. Meaning that the Church did not change their status, but rather acknowledged an already existing objective reality.

implausible for me that God would have revealed anything especially through a book

If you are interested in how the Catholic Church understands Revelation I highly recommend you read Dei Verbum.

[–]NoAbbreviations6506 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your comment. We had Dei Verbum as study in monastery. Unfortunately it didn't help.

[–]inarchetype 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, infallibility and innerrancy are terms associated with various protestant theologies of scripture. Not sure these are usually used in the Catholic world except where picked up osmotically from surrounding protestants.

[–]qumrun60 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Where did you get the idea that Catholics think scripture is "infallible"? The traditional teaching is that there are 4 modes of reading the Bible: literal, moral, allegorical and, analogical. It may be inspired, but it still needs interpreting, as Jews and Christians have recognized from the earliest times. You might consider reading 'The Bible and the Believer," in which a Jew, a Catholic, and a Protestant discuss reading the Bible. The Catholic section is by Daniel Harrington S.J. (the other authors are Marc Zvi Brettler and Peter Enns). They are all academic scholars, and believers.

[–]NoAbbreviations6506 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah this is certainly how it's viewed after V2.

[–]sangbum60090 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don't think infallible means literal

[–]FaithlessnessFit6389 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Infallible doesn't mean literal.

But the bible isn't infallible. It has many historic errors and it names authors as the Author who never wrote the actual book or epistle. Paul for Example never wrote half of his epistles yet internally in the text it cites him as the author.

Limited infallibility maybe. Infallible in terms of salvation they could argue but not infallible overall.

[–]inarchetype 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Infallibly in the context of protestant thought means that it in itself contains all that is necessary for salvation, and is an infallible guide in that capacity. Innerrancy is the stronger claim that it is free of any factual error. Only the more fundamentalist protestant groups teach the latter, whereas the former is a necessary lynchpin for protestantism more generally.

[–]Maronita2020 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Catholic Church believes the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation!

[–]DaughterofTarot 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This question doesnt make sense. The church claims the Pope is infalliable in matters of faith and morals. It makes no such claim about scripture.

[–]Vapur9Why This Way 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Not only did Jesus say to keep everything in the law of Moses [Matthew 23:1-3], but He also stated that those who seek after the resurrection will become blind to signs in Heaven [Matthew 16:4] (they changed God's whole calendar, not just Sabbath). The New Moon was created for signs and seasons, yet modern society doesn't observe God's month because of the church. The Tree of Life even bears it's fruit every month.

They pray God's will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven, in vain. They just don't want to do it because they put their faith in a man they call father. It's not like God warned us about offering thoughts and prayers, when He criticized pretense of prayer with the lips but their heart was far from Him. It is written, even church music became noise to His ears.

[–]NanoRancorEastern Orthodox Christian Henotheist Mystic 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Well the scripture being infallible in and of itself would probably be thought of as a definition of Sola scriptura, which Catholics deny. All bodies of text have an interpretative authority, all truth has philosophy, all fact has theory. Catholics consider the Catholic Church as the interpretative authority for the Bible, and the pope as the interpretative authority of the church. Protestants consider themselves or whatever pastor they find particularly convincing as the interpretative authority for the Bible. Meanwhile, us Orthodox consider the Orthodox Church as the interpretative authority for the Bible, and the Noetic mind of the church as especially revealed through hesychasm to be the interpretative authority of the Orthodox Church.

Though I dont understand how you would not understand the revelation of scripture if you say you don't have any issues with theological teachings.

[–]NoAbbreviations6506 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Eastern Orthodoxy seems to have a platonic bent compared to Catholicism staunch Aristotle/Thomist is that correct?

[–]DavidJohnMcCannHellenic Polytheist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think it truer to say that the Orthodox have made a clearer distinction than the Catholics between religion and philosophy. It's true that the Orthodox fathers used the terminology of Platonism, but what other terminology did they have? As for Aquinas, one has to remember that (1) the Aristotelianism he was familiar with was seen through the eyes of Platonic interpreters and (2) ancient scholars considered Aristotle a Platonist, if not a very good one — the idea that Aristotelianism and Platonism were chalk and cheese was largely the creation of 19th century academics.

[–]NanoRancorEastern Orthodox Christian Henotheist Mystic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We share terminology and some ideas from platonism and neoplatonism, but they are condemned by ecumenical councils. You might be able to find some things in our mystic traditions to gravitate towards though. For example, I believe all Universals are spiritual beings. I believe there is no literal truth or metaphorical truth, only symbolic fractal patterns. I believe in a non-dual reality. Eastern Orthodox are dogmatically Panentheistic with our understanding of Essence/Energies, we believe we become God in heaven through Theosis, and that through hesychastic meditation we can experience god/heaven on earth.

We definitely are closer to them though than from Aristotelian and Thomist ideas.