taimatsu | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

This is good good good.

Channel 4, right now, 'Dispatches: Women Bishops'. Christina Odone questioning her previously traditionalist outlook. I'm enjoying it. Oh noes, the Bible is not monolithic and literally true! Oh noooo, it contradicts itself!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

'S not a question of tolerance - is a question of theology.

Don't look at me, I'm a Catholic, we're not inerrantists (and DON'T mention that A W woman, just DON'T).

What makes you say Catholics aren't inerrantists?

(I'm technically one too.)

Humane Generis, for one.

For another - the four senses of scripture, from the middle ages on.

And for another... lots of stuff. :)

Yes, but the FiF lot won't follow their theology to its logical conclusions (which are basically that women are not made in God's image and are generally not valuable, while men are all that is wonderful. Or similar. I don't think theology that seriously marginalises over half of God's human creation is worthy of any association with the root word at all.)

I've never really looked at them all that closely, tbh.

It's a bit difficult to deal with that idea considering that there are TWO creation stories in Genesis...

But paragraph 107 of the catechism does say, "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".

It does, indeed, say that.

It does not, however, attest the "literal truth of the earliest autographs" which is what inerrancy is about, qua Fundamentalism.

Note the EXTREMELY careful phrasing - "that truth which God ...wished to see confided to the SS". That's not the same as, "Every word in SS is true in the literal sense".

(Insert here my rant about the catechism, the way it is used, the fact that the bishops have NOT done what they were supposed to do, and so on.... ).

As I understand it, inerrantism is a different thing from literalism. To assert that the scriptures are inerrant is not to assert that they are true in the literal sense, but only that they are true in the properly understood sense.

You are, of course, entirely right - I've been using the wrong word. Thank you.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only