/lit/ - Literature

>>17275290
What Catholic denies scripture being inerrant?

>>17275300
Every one I've ever interacted with except for tradcaths, and not the larper tradcaths, the real ones. Before you go any further define your terms if you're going to try to talmud me. Based on the sources that link references, inerrant includes historical and scientific details down to the very line/word. That is the Catholic definition of inerrant.

>>17275290
>Catholic dogma infallibly defines the entire Scripture as inerrant and infallible.
That's just self-defeating.

>>17275338
>that image
wow dude looks like you science'd the shit out of the bible!

>>17275343
I typed "contradictions in the bible" in google images, don't get latched on to it, you know what my point is.

>>17275351
no i'm right there with you, my dude. just searching for the upvote button to let you know how i feel.

>>17275290
>OH NO THESE PEOPLE ARE DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF DINOSAURS 65 MILLION YEARS AGO!!! NOT MY HECKIN DINOSUARINOS! AS SCIENCE AS MY WITNESS THESE PEOPLE MUST BE STOPPED.
Ok fag.

>>17275320
>inerrant includes historical and scientific details down to the very line/word.
Where does it say this. I can't find it.

>>17275367
Why don't you actually read the link I posted then and stop wasting my time? Why don't you engage with the actual sources like a good Catholic actually should? I can see your cognitive dissonance and resistance to the magisterium flaring up, looking for a way to Talmud your way out of the plain words of centuries of popes. It's ok dude I'm sure you can find one. Just remember that your entire identity is a lie and you are a larper through and through.

You know how I know that's what you are? You can't identify that claim I made even with it being spoonfed to you in the OP. I knew about it before I ever came across this link because I've actually read famous/important papal letters. You haven't. Now keep squirming.

Pretty sure Aquinas said that genesis could have happened over a period of thousands of years because nobody knows what God's definition of a day is. Also pretty sure Aquanis isn't a heretic or anything and forms the basis of much of Catholic thinking.

>>17275386
That's a totally irrelevant point but thanks for proving you're a larper too. You don't understand your own religion.

All theologians are subservient to the magisterium in all cases period. Also if you knew anything, you'd know Aquinas actually DID hold some heterodox opinions and that's fine because no theologian is perfect and that's what the magisterium is for.

Go ahead keep denying the truth of the Church with your sophistry. Keep proving what a larper you are.

>mfw Chantards LARPing as Christians

>>17275362
Kek exactly
>nooooo God didn’t reveal the existence of irrelevant animals to Moses and the Prophets therefore the Bible is fake science!!!!

>>17275411
you're right. all the catholics on /lit/ are larpers. you can see this in the responses to this thread. they don't know their own religion and they make totally theologically misinformed arguments proving they don't know anything about catholicism.

and why? because they value science over their own supposed faith they shill all day here. true catholics are ashamed by people like this.

>>17275417
not the point. the point is this: catholics submit private judgment to the magisterium which says that there is only one way to interpret the bible. if they do not do this, they are anathema and are no longer catholics and go to hell.

>>17275398
What about Doctors of the Church?
t. not even roman-catholic

>>17275385
What would you say to Pope Leo XIII in Proventissimus Deus, 18 where he writes that sacred writers, “did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science”

>>17275426
If you take the teachings of Christ seriously you wouldn't be a degenerate chantard.
Go lounge-act somewhere else.
Isn't there some kind of Catholic social media or facebook page you can go to for a virtual friend experience?

>>17275479
I would say that's not what I was referencing and you clearly still haven't read and absorbed that whole article and the relevant texts. Until you can quote me the papal bull substantiating what I said you're not worth my time.

>>17275484
Happy to once all of these larpers either get right with the Church or renounce their false beliefs. Not my fault Catholics post here ignorantly. Why don't you do your part to make them stop spouting fake teachings too.

>>17275385
Why don’t you actually engage with the source you posted?
>But when a synod of bishops devoted to “The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church” met under Pope Benedict XVI’s direction in 2008, its working paper included the statement, “[T]he following can be said with certainty . . . with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture, inerrancy applies only to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation’ (DV 11).” The use of the word only seems to put a limitation on the scope of Scripture’s inerrancy, an incorrect limitation in the eyes of many. At the conclusion of the synod, the bishops asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to clarify the teaching of Dei Verbum 11. A CDF response is yet to come.
I don’t think you understand the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches for that matter as well as you assume to. Think of the Dogmas as a constitution and not as specific bylaws. There is a certain amount of purposeful elasticity in the dogmas and the degree of this elasticity has been debated for centuries. It is humorous to me that you use the phrase Talmudizing in a derogatory way to refer to the complex history of high church dogmas, philosophies, and exegesis because that has always been a feature of these faiths. It’s an honest argument to have if you want to disagree with this feature, but it’s quite dishonest to say that this whole discussion on interpretation of dogma is “un-catholic” when there are nearly 2000 years of conclaves, synods, and councils who were concerned with interpreting not only scripture itself but dogma as well.

>>17275479
wow the op is right. you really are frantically searching looking for any way to ignore the teaching of the church you supposedly love. meanwhile i looked at the article and immediately realized the consequences of this post:

Pope St. Pius X in his 1907 Lamentabili Sane condemned the proposition “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error” (LS 11).

But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church—nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning—who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point (SP 18).

Hey look, according to this pope, people just like you grieve the church!

>>17275554
OK buddy sure I'll trust your word over the word of "catholic.com" in an article with a Nihil Obstat and the words of the popes. Sure. That's a lot of typing to ignore simple conceits like

>In his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII dealt with the issue yet again: “For some . . . put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters” (HG 22).

>>17275554
Why quote an article that explicitly refutes the claim you're making when that article is declared free of error, much like the Bible? Pathetic.

>>17275290
>It is infallibly defined that ALL SCRIPTURE IS INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE AND BELIEVING OTHERWISE IN EVEN THE SMALLEST DETAIL MAKES YOU ANATHEMA
Where? This isn't even dogma. The idea that the scriptures are inerrant hasn't been dogmatised yet.

>>17275554
>I don’t think you understand the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches for that matter as well as you assume to. Think of the Dogmas as a constitution and not as specific bylaws. There is a certain amount of purposeful elasticity in the dogmas and the degree of this elasticity has been debated for centuries. It is humorous to me that you use the phrase Talmudizing in a derogatory way to refer to the complex history of high church dogmas, philosophies, and exegesis because that has always been a feature of these faiths. It’s an honest argument to have if you want to disagree with this feature, but it’s quite dishonest to say that this whole discussion on interpretation of dogma is “un-catholic” when there are nearly 2000 years of conclaves, synods, and councils who were concerned with interpreting not only scripture itself but dogma as well.
You're laity you pompous protestantizing talmudizer. You don't get an opinion. That's literally not how the church works. You're not a bishop. You don't have a teaching office. You receive the teaching you're given. Holy shit how do I need to explain this to you only to have you lecture me about not knowing the church? And then you conflate catholicism with orthodoxy and expect me to take you seriously as a catholic? Go to confession, sicko

>>17275601
>Where? This isn't even dogma. The idea that the scriptures are inerrant hasn't been dogmatised yet.
Not according to catholic.com. I wonder who is right? A degenerate porn addict on 4chan larping as a catholic, or catholic.com????

>>17275601
literally quotes in this thread and in the link and you still are proud of admitting to knowing nothing about the religion you claim to follow. pathetic.

i bet you rail at orthodox and protestant posters all day. would explain why you aren't familiar with even the most prominent papal letters, huh? don't post again. get right with christ or go to hell. your choice. you've been made aware so either convict yourself of your sin or keep larping until judgment

>>17275567
>>17275605
I didn’t claim that the scripture was fallible but rather deny your attempt to decide what infallible. Your narrow interpretation of the terms is what I take issue with and not the scripture’s infallibility which I acknowledge
>RCC
>Orthodoxy
>not intrinsically linked sister churches currently in a schism with one another but sharing a large degree of interpretation and Dogma as laid down by the Nicene Council and countless other smaller events prior to their schism some 600 years after the founding of the Christian Church
You’re pathetic dude. I’m done with your polemic sophistry masquerading as informed debate.

>>17275534
Well I'm not sure what you exactly want me to reference since the article itself uses Proventissimus Deus as a source. Even so, papal bulls and encyclicals aren't infallible. If they were we would have numerous infallible decrees (we don't). It doesn't seem like Proventissimus Deus meets the requirements for infallibility that the Church lays out. So this isn't even dogma.

I've read the Catholic.com article and I don't see anywhere in it that says the bible is to be an instructor for scientific and historical facts. These historical and scientific claims are simply for our salvation not for our knowledge of the natural world. Again, Proventissimus Deus says this. Dei Verbum seems to lay this out pretty clearly that the Bible is for the sake of our salvation.

>He concludes that the phrase is not restrictive but descriptive. Therefore the phrase emphasizes that the truth in the whole of Scripture, whether it be religious, historical, or scientific, is for our salvation. There is no part of Scripture that does not contribute to our journey of salvation. As St. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” If God is the author of all of Scripture, then all of Scripture is for our salvation.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-everything-in-the-bible-true

>>17275615
Here is Catholic.com talking about Genesis, saying that a Catholic doesn't have to believe in Genesis literally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XfpZcv4rOE

>>17275715
It’s cool dude OP is clearly a confirmed atheist who practiced all his polemical arguments against a certain type of interpretation and when he got BTFO by a chad metaphysical Christian philosopher he sperged out and made this thread to No True Scotsman the things he didn’t like back into the narrow pigeon hole he is comfortable debating. We should just ignore him now. He’s arguing in bad faith. Remember to put the herbs in the option field

>>17275702
No, you're done dealing with your own cognitive dissonance and the realization that your worship of science is incompatible with the Catholic Church. I won't even address the rest of your sad heresy.

I was going to put one last quote here, but you've already read it and decided not to believe it. Let those who have ears to hear, huh? You are lost. I am not making any judgment here. I am simply making you aware of the words of the popes. Anathema and hell are your choice.

>>17275715
Why are you being dishonest with yourself? Playing dumb with the material I provided you won't save you from hell.

>So, is Scripture inerrant? Certainly it is! Is its inerrancy unrestricted? The Church’s constant teaching seems to indicate that it is. In 2010 Pope Benedict published his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini. This was his response to the 2008 synod of bishops. In it, he reaffirmed the aforementioned teachings of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII as well as Dei Verbum’s three criteria of biblical interpretation.

Also, you don't understand the definition of dogma, and once again prove you're a larper.

>Pope St. Pius X in his 1907 Lamentabili Sane condemned the proposition “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error” (LS 11).

Go ahead and google (lol) information about how dogma is formed and the role of papal encyclicals therein. Once you find out that they are the highest level of teaching,

>Pope St. Pius X in his 1907 Lamentabili Sane condemned the proposition “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error” (LS 11).

Protip: Condemned means outside the church if you don't obey. This is binding forever unless this statement itself is condemened

>>17275758
Catholic.com isn't a papal encyclical and that podcast doesn't have a nihil obstat

>>17275764
This is some pretty sad cope. Enjoy carrying with you the reality that your religious conviction is a lie at best, at worst you're going to hell for being anathema.

wow i've never seen the larp kiddies get btfo harder in my life. saving this link...

Can allegory be truth OP?

>>17275776
>I wonder who is right? A degenerate porn addict on 4chan larping as a catholic, or catholic.com????

>>17275821
>>17275758
Are you claiming you want to take Genesis figuratively and endorse evolution? Fine but the Catholic Church still demands you believe in monogenism full stop. Lets see how that works for you?

>>17275823
I posted you the words of 3 different posts speaking in papal encyclicals, so this diversion is just sad. Like I said, playing this games here literally does not change one word of what the popes have said for centuries. The fact that most Catholics ignore this teaching only makes the state of the church sadder; it does nothing to validate your opinion, unless you don't believe the Church has a deposit of objective truth. But in that case, contraception is OK because most catholics believe in it, and transubstatiation isn't real.

Baptist here. I'm really loving seeing this Catholic-bro rip into these hypocrite larpers and exposing them for what they are!

>>17275854
>Are you claiming you want to take Genesis figuratively and endorse evolution?
No I'm saying that the Church doesn't claim the Bible to be a scientific textbook. It says this in any Catholic Catechism (even the Baltimore catechism). The bible's purpose is a spiritual text not an instruction on matters of the natural world.

>papal encyclicals
Not infallible and in which Pope Leo even says that authors used figurative language. The bible being inerrant doesn't mean that there is no figurative language. What Christ says in Matthew 5:30 isn't literal. Of course you understand this. I know you do. This whole thread you've been arguing in bad faith. You've called me a larper when I was born and raised a Catholic. I'm was trying to be respectful to you and you immediately threw attacks against me for no reason.

>contraception
forbidden

>transubstantiation
real

>>17275867
>9 posters in this thread
I know it's funny for you but really anon?

>>17275290
>The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

The bible is inerrant and the Catholic church instructs the reader that there are many different senses in scripture.

>>17275963
OP BTFO

>>17275963
>>17275996
None of those senses as describes, notably including the allegorical, would deny literal six day creation. Did you even read this?

>>17276009
Hold your L already bud you lost

>>17276009
You had 10 minutes to come up with this weak ass response?

>>17276028
>>17276039
Wow you are really desperate to the point you're not reading.

>1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

The crossing of the Red Sea, the example of allegory, literally happened. It is allegorical because it points to Christ, but it is still a literal event. That should have clued you in. But in case that didn't you have this:

>"All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."

Just because something is an allegory for something else doesn't mean it didn't also literally happen. Per the example they give and the qualifier they emphasize. Read your own sources.

>>17276009
>None of those senses as describes, notably including the allegorical, would deny literal six day creation. Did you even read this?

I'm gonna ask you your own question. Did you even read this, this being the fucking mess of a sentence you just wrote? The fuck does that even mean?

>>17276068
Take the L

Am actually enjoying this thread, despite the fact that OP is obviously Satan. It has a much higher quality debate then this sort of thing usually does. The Enemy is helping us to rexamine the roots of our faith and properly defend it. To the Catholic bros citing papal bulls above, just remember even if you can never convince OP you're still educating the rest of us.

>>17276149
OP here in what way has what I said been incorrect? All I've done is quote authoritative sources. That's literally it. And then when a "fellow" Catholic finally produced an actual magisterial document I instantly demonstrated how it TOO supports my position.

Every single document of the church that isn't the hot opinion of some larper Catholic has been 100% in my favor and fully supportive of the clear, dogmatic teaching of centuries of popes.

So do you consider the popes Satan?

>>17276239
But with what intent dear Adversary? Your conduct seems to contradict your stated goals.

>>17276055
“literal” had a different meaning before prots, dumb burghers, and i fucking love science types crippled the capacity of the literate to read: the word wasn’t equated with what had physically happened and was factually or historically the case, but rather denoted the level of reading in which one payed attention to the letters (hence “literal”) on the page prior to performing an exegesis in the other senses, i.e. what happens before what else, the basic plot, etc. you have to remember ancient readers would often encounter manuscripts with no spaces or punctuation, so even making out how the letters on the page were arranged was an interpretive task of its own.

>>17275290
>>17276055
>To know the literal sense is to know the reality intended by the author and signified by those words.

>Within this understanding of the literal sense, Thomas includes metaphor. Indeed, any literary device used in Scripture, in so far as it is common to other literary texts, is a matter of the literal sense. So, for example, Thomas notes that Christ's sitting on the right hand of God is to be understood metaphorically, since God has no right hand, but that the metaphorical meaning (the power of God) is the literal meaning as it is the thing, the reality, ultimately signified by the words.

https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/Taqandss.htm

There are correct interpretations of scripture and wrong interpretations. To say something is a metaphor does not mean the bible is in error.

>>17276285
He’s an ahistorical pseud to be sure.

>>17276285
Huh? Come on the CCC was published in the 90s.

>>17276277
A Catholic with even a remote amount of charity wouldn't refer to another as Satan, especially for quoting the Popes. I won't respond to you again. Your conduct places you right in line with a "Catholic" who doesn't know when the CCC was published.

>>17276315
None of that has anything to do with the CCC passage you introduced into the discussion. If you want to "interpret" (aka Prod) the plain words of the CCC, please use the CCC to do so, or subsequent authoritative commentaries on it from the CDF.

>>17276285
paid* — excuse the bad prose too; it’s 9:33am here and i’ve been up all night

the unfortunate thing is that the idiotic thinking evinced by the op is rampant today, both among the faithful and the atheists/generally apathetic, and the splendor of the figurative and symbolic, of allegory and metaphor, language which Christ himself made use of, and their relation to truth, is completely lost on people. with all the new former prot/evangelical converts to orthodoxy it’s even spreading into some of the last places where people knew how to read scripture truthfully. soon it will just be scholars at the angelicum and a few academic scholars of neoplatonism or something who write about how people in history used to read this way. read the fathers, read philo, read de lubac, read about reading.

>>17276337
>390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

>>17275320
So Catholics in your brain all of them deny the Biblical being inerrant? Nice.

>>17276337
OK OP here I have to go now. Keep in mind that every single "Catholic" on this board is completely ignorant of their own faith. Just some examples here.
>didn't know when the catechism was published
>didn't know that church theologians were not infallible
>didn't know the popes override theologians, including doctors
>didn't know what nihil obstat was
>didn't know dogma isn't solely created by ex cathedra proclamations
>didn't know the church's teaching on monogenism
>didn't know the church's teaching on inerrancy
>call people who quote the pope directly satan
>refuse to submit to papal condemnations as if that doesn't make them anathema
These people, these "Catholics" are monsters. Truly vile. They hate others and they hate their own faith, they just don't admit it. I've never in real life ever encountered a Catholic who openly balks at a papal encyclical.

These monsters are narcissistic, angry, and fake. Look at this thread. The popes' words could not be clearer. And yet they are excited to offer their own personal judgments and couldn't care less about anathemas.

Evil. Evil. Evil.

>>17276390
I bet you think this proves something.
>affirms a primeval event

>>17276403
Great grammar.

Ok bye satans. Enjoy larping and never actually practicing your faith except to berate others online.

>>17276412
>The Catholic Church says the bible has no figurative language
>Ok it does but you're still wrong

>>17276285
paid* — excuse the bad prose too; it’s 9:33am here and i’ve been up all night

the unfortunate thing is that this kind of thinking is rampant today, both among the faithful and those opposed to religion, and the splendor of figurative language, which Christ himself made use of, and its relation to truth, is completely lost on all too many people.

>>17276337
doesn’t matter. the word “literal” still means “to the letter,” that is, what is written on the page, rather than what it means (in terms of the spirit of the text, moral, allegorical, or anagogical). you may use it in a sense that’s colloquial and commonplace today — defining it as “physically factual” — but that’s not what it has meant or means to this day in the Church. during proper catechesis, this would be explained to the catechumen. we believers aren’t simply the mirror image of dogmatic, vulgar materialists, at least we shouldn’t be. the story of Noah’s ark, to take but one example, contains a truth that surpasses the factual, and yet its figurative language is not reducible to that of a fairy tale. pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance, friend.

>>17275290
There being figurative language in the Bible does not mean it has errors

Kek OP being irreparably beat out of his own thread

Religion is a communal activity, not a set of beliefs.
>inb4 dictionary definition

>>17275300

All of them? They ARE Catholics.

>>17275300
The ones that live inside his head and call him with weird voices in the night