A little correction: the Church does not teach that the Bible is only infallible on matters “necessary for salvation,” but rather in everything that the sacred author asserts, including historical details. In fact, that category of beliefs “necessary for salvation” is question begging. Is belief in the virgin birth necessary for salvation, for example? One would probably say yes, but why? Is that not just an “historical detail”? While it’s true that the Bible isn’t a scientific textbook, it is a book about history. A science textbook would say that a virgin can’t give birth, and yet God says that a real virgin in real history did, in fact, give birth. This is something we must believe because God revealed it, just as He reveals everything else that a sacred author asserts as the truth.
Based on your comment, I went back and made some updates to my post correcting my statement that the Bible is only error-free on matters of salvation. That was wrong, as you pointed out. Hopefully, I added a bit more nuance to what I was getting at with my contrast with evangelical literalism. Keep in mind, I grew up in a Young Earth Creationist church.
I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm for the faith, and your openness to correction, those are very good qualities for catechumens to have. May the Lord continue to bless you on your journey to Him! ❤️🔥
“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.”
And this article by Jimmy Akin:
“Consequently, Scripture contains assertions of a non-soteriological nature, including assertions about history, and such assertions are therefore assertions of the Holy Spirit and therefore without error.
The “for the sake of our salvation” clause thus refers to the purpose for which God put his truth into Scripture, not to a restriction on the scope of God’s truth.
The tricky part is figuring out what is an assertion and what isn’t. Scripture is a complex and rich text that uses many different means of conveying God’s truth. Since some of these involve ancient modes of writing and speech that are not used in 21st century English literature, it isn’t always clear to us what precisely is being asserted. Indeed, Scripture acknowledges that it isn’t always clear, as when St. Peter notes that St. Paul’s writings contain many things that are hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16).”
I’m a Catholic and love Catholicism. The only other faith that has really ever tempted me is Orthodoxy, but (among other issues) I don’t like that the Orthodoc Church has no clear position on matters like contraception and IVF. I’ve also seen Orthodox believers defend legalized abortion and gender ideology, which is difficult for the Church to combat because (in my view) it lacks centralized authority and traditional mechanisms for establishing dogma.
Also, I have always wondered - how do literalist types reconcile their emphasis on inerrancy with John 6? There have to be some mental gymnastics going on there.
I’ve been really enjoying your pieces, thank you! Something I’ve been wondering (because of my own journey, it is not meant at all as a challenge): why did you choose Catholicism instead of Orthodoxy?
I was baptized Greek Orthodox, not really raised religious, became super New Age, and now have just found my way back to Christianity. I have fallen in love with the Orthodox Church for many of the reasons you’ve named here. I have great appreciation for Catholicism as well since it is traditional - but it came from Orthodoxy and I see Orthodoxy as holding more true to tradition. I’ve been wondering why people choose Catholicism over Orthodox. Is it because it is more accessible and churches are more common? Another reason? I’d love to hear!
I did look into Orthodoxy. I guess the primary reason I chose the Catholic Church is that the local Orthodox communities were…ethnic? Like Greek or Serbian etc. It did not seem universal to me in the way Catholicism is. And then the way my OCIA teacher explained it, the Orthodox have not had a truly ecumenical and universal council post-schism. And since Jesus founded a truly universal church, and the creeds affirm a universal church, the only true church must be the one that has remained absolutely universal under a single leader that can call truly ecumenical councils.
With that said, I find Orthodoxy quite beautiful and the theology of theosis compelling and the churches and iconography and chanting and liturgy beautiful and sacred.
And if you have any questions, I’m sure you can talk to the OCIA teachers and/or priests at your parish and solid Catholic theologians on here like Donald Maddox and Eric Anderson.
A little correction: the Church does not teach that the Bible is only infallible on matters “necessary for salvation,” but rather in everything that the sacred author asserts, including historical details. In fact, that category of beliefs “necessary for salvation” is question begging. Is belief in the virgin birth necessary for salvation, for example? One would probably say yes, but why? Is that not just an “historical detail”? While it’s true that the Bible isn’t a scientific textbook, it is a book about history. A science textbook would say that a virgin can’t give birth, and yet God says that a real virgin in real history did, in fact, give birth. This is something we must believe because God revealed it, just as He reveals everything else that a sacred author asserts as the truth.
Based on your comment, I went back and made some updates to my post correcting my statement that the Bible is only error-free on matters of salvation. That was wrong, as you pointed out. Hopefully, I added a bit more nuance to what I was getting at with my contrast with evangelical literalism. Keep in mind, I grew up in a Young Earth Creationist church.
I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm for the faith, and your openness to correction, those are very good qualities for catechumens to have. May the Lord continue to bless you on your journey to Him! ❤️🔥
Yes you’re right there’s definitely historical details as well not only matters of salvation.
I don’t proclaim to be expert on this but I did find this article which suggests the question is theologically complicated, at the very least:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-inerrant
“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.”
And this article by Jimmy Akin:
“Consequently, Scripture contains assertions of a non-soteriological nature, including assertions about history, and such assertions are therefore assertions of the Holy Spirit and therefore without error.
The “for the sake of our salvation” clause thus refers to the purpose for which God put his truth into Scripture, not to a restriction on the scope of God’s truth.
The tricky part is figuring out what is an assertion and what isn’t. Scripture is a complex and rich text that uses many different means of conveying God’s truth. Since some of these involve ancient modes of writing and speech that are not used in 21st century English literature, it isn’t always clear to us what precisely is being asserted. Indeed, Scripture acknowledges that it isn’t always clear, as when St. Peter notes that St. Paul’s writings contain many things that are hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16).”
https://jimmyakin.com/2005/02/inerrancy_of_sc.html
I’m a Catholic and love Catholicism. The only other faith that has really ever tempted me is Orthodoxy, but (among other issues) I don’t like that the Orthodoc Church has no clear position on matters like contraception and IVF. I’ve also seen Orthodox believers defend legalized abortion and gender ideology, which is difficult for the Church to combat because (in my view) it lacks centralized authority and traditional mechanisms for establishing dogma.
Also, I have always wondered - how do literalist types reconcile their emphasis on inerrancy with John 6? There have to be some mental gymnastics going on there.
Well said 🙏
I’ve been really enjoying your pieces, thank you! Something I’ve been wondering (because of my own journey, it is not meant at all as a challenge): why did you choose Catholicism instead of Orthodoxy?
I was baptized Greek Orthodox, not really raised religious, became super New Age, and now have just found my way back to Christianity. I have fallen in love with the Orthodox Church for many of the reasons you’ve named here. I have great appreciation for Catholicism as well since it is traditional - but it came from Orthodoxy and I see Orthodoxy as holding more true to tradition. I’ve been wondering why people choose Catholicism over Orthodox. Is it because it is more accessible and churches are more common? Another reason? I’d love to hear!
I did look into Orthodoxy. I guess the primary reason I chose the Catholic Church is that the local Orthodox communities were…ethnic? Like Greek or Serbian etc. It did not seem universal to me in the way Catholicism is. And then the way my OCIA teacher explained it, the Orthodox have not had a truly ecumenical and universal council post-schism. And since Jesus founded a truly universal church, and the creeds affirm a universal church, the only true church must be the one that has remained absolutely universal under a single leader that can call truly ecumenical councils.
With that said, I find Orthodoxy quite beautiful and the theology of theosis compelling and the churches and iconography and chanting and liturgy beautiful and sacred.
Ah interesting. Yes that makes sense regarding the ethnicity. Thank you so much for sharing!
Welcome home again, Ray! I’m grateful for you and for our friendship! 🙂🙏🇻🇦
Thank you friend and likewise 🙏❤️🙏
And Dei Verbum, the Vatican II apostolic constitution on Sacred Scripture, contains the Catholic teaching on it. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
And if you have any questions, I’m sure you can talk to the OCIA teachers and/or priests at your parish and solid Catholic theologians on here like Donald Maddox and Eric Anderson.
Also, here is a book by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, that might be of interest: https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/called-to-communion-understanding-the-church-today_pope-benedict-xvi/341725/?resultid=1ed4fad5-4225-4905-b5a4-c78a8c53b096#edition=4408084&idiq=4133864