I was trying to reconcile your denial of the infallibility of Scripture with what Rome has historically held to, such as what LAMENTABILI SANE Pius X taught in condemning the proposition that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.”
But as noted in post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657209/posts?page=2190#2190, i do realize there is an internal debate over whether “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.” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#107) refers to all of Scripture, which was the more historical position, or only that which pertains to salvation (and where one draws the line is an interpretive matter).
As for “Why do you guys keep going on about Rome?” and your statement that “the Church..is not headquartered at Rome,” it is because your fellow RCs basically tell us that it is (capital C) and the rest need to submit to here. One prolific RC poster recently told me that for a liberal Catholic like John Kerry to leave the RCC and become a conservative evangelical would be like the fall of Adam and a step toward death.
And that implicit assent to be given to Rome when it has officially defined something. I think that answers the question why we go on about Rome.
Regarding your distinction btwn “infallible and “inerrant,’ I read (http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-theology-in-rapid-city/nt-wright-s-dismissal-of-the-importance-of-scripture-s-infallibility) that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was not until 1837 that the English word inerrant was used in the modern sense of exempt from error, free from mistake, infallible. Thus, as JI Packer wrote, “Previously, the preferred term for expressing the conviction that Scripture never misinforms or misleads was infallibility…” (Inerrancy and the Church, 144),
As for printed words not being infallible in the sense that the RC magisterium is said to be, (exemption from the possibility of error) Script-ure is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and what was written sometimes had no oral stage.
If you are referring to the need for a interpreter, as my 2190 post points out, “infallible” pronouncements themselves need some interpretation.
But the problem is not that the interpretation of these words may be infallible in themselves, but the formulaic assured status Rome infallibly claims she has as the uniquely supreme interpreter.
It has to do with not only the words but with the interpretation of them. If I can defend a heresy using only Scriptural quotations, then the idea that the Bible cannot teach wrong is rendered invalid.
As for “Why do you guys keep going on about Rome?” and your statement that “the Church..is not headquartered at Rome,” it is because your fellow RCs basically tell us that it is (capital C) and the rest need to submit to here. One prolific RC poster recently told me that for a liberal Catholic like John Kerry to leave the RCC and become a conservative evangelical would be like the fall of Adam and a step toward death.
Which ones? The Church is not headquartered in Rome. The Roman Catholic bishop is stationed in the Vatican, just like any other bishop is stationed somewhere. For example, the bishop of the New York City archdiocese is stationed where? New York City. And so on. I have no idea who this prolific Catholic poster is, but I do not believe that John Kerry is likely to become a conservative Evangelical.
Regarding your distinction btwn “infallible and “inerrant,’ I read (http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-theology-in-rapid-city/nt-wright-s-dismissal-of-the-importance-of-scripture-s-infallibility) that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was not until 1837 that the English word inerrant was used in the modern sense of exempt from error, free from mistake, infallible. Thus, as JI Packer wrote, “Previously, the preferred term for expressing the conviction that Scripture never misinforms or misleads was infallibility…” (Inerrancy and the Church, 144),
The English language has changed its nuances over the the 300 years between the Reformation and this encyclical. The Church needed to provide a clear definition to people which, again, showed that people could defend old, or even derive new, heresies from Scriptural points.
For example, Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity and prove it from Scripture. The Branch Davidians used Scripture exclusively. So do all these cults.
As for printed words not being infallible in the sense that the RC magisterium is said to be, (exemption from the possibility of error) Script-ure is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and what was written sometimes had no oral stage.
Wholly inspired. Not wholly dictated. We understand that the Torah was dictated, because of Jewish Tradition and because the OT says it. It does not say that anywhere in the NT or even the rest of the Tanakh. And even so, these words may be taken out of context and used to come up with different conclusions, beliefs and theologies. As we see in the knotted spaghetti mess of the evolution of the Protestants since the Reformation.
If you are referring to the need for a interpreter, as my 2190 post points out, “infallible” pronouncements themselves need some interpretation.
This does lead to somewhat of an agreement inasmuch as somebody needs to interpret these words - either the Church Magisterium or somebody else, often in the comfort of their own home.
But the problem is not that the interpretation of these words may be infallible in themselves, but the formulaic assured status Rome infallibly claims she has as the uniquely supreme interpreter.
We believe that that is the responsibility of the Church - the teaching (and therefore interpreting) body given it by Christ.