Biblical Inerrancy

[Ron_Conte]

This doctrine has been solemnly defined, therefore it is infallible and inreformable:

When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.
(Pius XII, DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, n. 1)

This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. (Leo XIII, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, n. 20).

It is not an open question, but a required belief, therefore, it is not the role of scholars to express an opposing opinion, nor is it reasonable to think that the Magisterium will overturn this dogma and teach its opposite.

 

[patg]

This doctrine has been solemnly defined, therefore it is infallible and inreformable:

When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.
(Pius XII, DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, n. 1)

This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. (Leo XIII, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, n. 20).

It is not an open question, but a required belief, therefore, it is not the role of scholars to express an opposing opinion, nor is it reasonable to think that the Magisterium will overturn this dogma and teach its opposite.

You may believe that a 115 year old document is the final word on this, many do not. Pius XII was speaking from a different viewpoint that lacked the knowledge and advances in understanding that have occured since then by scholars just as dedicated and inspired as he. Dei Verbum is just as vital to the Church’s teachings and it is not the "last word"either.

Thank God for statements like "the following can be said with certainty: … inerrancy applies only to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation’ (DV 11)” - it gives me hope for the future of the Church.

And thanks for the information on this synod - I will certainly talk to my priests and bishops in support of this wording.

 

[Ron_Conte]

You may believe that a 115 year old document is the final word on this, many do not. Pius XII was speaking from a different viewpoint that lacked the knowledge and advances in understanding that have occured since then by scholars just as dedicated and inspired as he. Dei Verbum is just as vital to the Church’s teachings and it is not the “last word” either.

Infallible solemn definitions are irreformable. They do not expire with age, nor can they be said to have become false or irrelevant after some time has passed. So the age of the document is not relevant.

When a Council or a Pope teaches infallibly, their teaching has the charism of infallibility, a charism not found in the teaching of any individual scholar, nor group of scholars (other than the Pope and the body of Bishops). So the knowledge and ‘advances in understanding’ of a group of scholars cannot prevail over a solemn definition.

Dei Verbum itself does not support the interpretation that has been given to one particular phrase taken out of the whole passage (as has already been pointed out above).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Father Witherup …] states:

*We should note that despite some tendencies toward fundamentalism in its history, the Catholic Church has resisted using the terminology of “inerrancy” applied to the Bible. To the best of my knowledge, the word has never been used in official Church doctrine at the level of an ecumenical council. The word comes loaded with considerable baggage - a world view, we might say - that tilts toward an overly literal interpretation of the Bible. Vatican II uses the expression “without error” rather than the word “inerrancy” to avoid the innuendo of historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible (see Dei Verbum, the Constitution on Divine Revelation, 41’11; also quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1O7). *

I mean no disrespect to Father here, but to say that the word “inerrancy” has not been used at the level of an ecumenical council is a moot point because common sense tells us that to be “without error” means precisely to be “inerrant.” Also, to say that “inerrancy” is not used because it is a loaded term is unpersuasive because “without error” is the same wording used at the “pre-scientific”, “nineteenth century” First Vatican Council. In other words, if Vatican II used “without error” rather than “inerrant” for the reason suggested, why did Vatican I use “without error” rather than “inerrant”? The fact is that the wording chosen, “without error,” “free from error,” “immunity from error,” etc., is the language that the Church has always used.

Nevertheless, “inerrancy” is a perfectly suitable term that can be used to describe this dogma. The Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments didn’t have a problem using it in 2001 when he wrote that the Church has “constantly defend[ed] the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures” (Translations and the Consultation of the Nova Vulgata of the Latin Church). And the Pontifical Biblical Commission wrote in 1993 that “Fundamentalism is right to insist on …] the inerrancy of the word of God” (The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church).

Father Witherup …] states:

Although I will say more about this distinction below, we should note that the Catholic Church’s position on lack of error in the Bible embraces only doctrinal and moral teaching, not scientific or historical.

The Church distinguishes between, on the one hand, “the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers” (Providentissimus Deus), which are free “from any error whatsoever” (Divino Afflante Spiritu), and, on the other hand, any given “copy” of the Bible. Otherwise there would not be the room for the copyist and translation errors for which this dogma gives room. The Church has taught that the Vulgate itself, for example, “was not affirmed by the Council [of Trent] particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown …] to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; …] and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical (Divino Afflante Spiritu).

And thanks for the information on this synod - I will certainly talk to my priests and bishops in support of this wording.

You’re welcome!

May God bless you on your journey, patg!

 

[Pete_Holter]

I’ve just started reading the May 11, 2008, *Instrumentum Laboris *for the XII Synod of Bishops and it says that “the 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)” [emphasis added].

If the way this document is worded here concerns you, please let your priests and bishops know before the bishops meet in October.

Thank you and may God bless you!
Pete

It is certainly in line with the works of both JPII and Benedict to date.

Good afternoon SpiritMeadow!

“The strict relationship uniting the inspired biblical texts with the mystery of the incarnation was expressed by the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in the following terms: ‘Just as the substantial Word of God became like men in every respect except sin, so too the words of God, expressed in human languages, became like human language in every respect except error’ (EB, n. 559). Repeated almost literally by the conciliar Constitution *Dei Verbum *(n. 13), this statement sheds light on a parallelism rich in meaning” ( (April 23, 1993)The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church).

I think the appropriate question to ask at this point is this: If the teaching on inerrancy had changed at Vatican II, why would John Paul II resurrect it in its pre-Vatican form 28 years later?

John Paul II also wrote an Apostolic Letter about Augustine in 1986:

“Before concluding, let us ask this extraordinary man what he has to say to the modern man. I believe that he has indeed much to say, both by his example and by his teaching. …] Augustine’s legacy to the theologians, whose meritorious task is to study more deeply the contents of the faith, is the immense patrimony of his thought, which is as a whole valid even now …] It is well known how much Augustine loved Sacred Scripture, proclaiming its divine origin,(266) its inerrancy,(267) its depth and inexhaustible riches;(268) and it is well known how much he studied Scripture” (Augustinum Hipponsensem).

Footnote 267 cites the following letters from Augustine to Jerome:

“For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. It is one question whether it may be at any time the duty of a good man to deceive; but it is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another question— it is no question at all. For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true” (Epistle 28, 3, 3).

and

“For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it” (Epistle 82, 1, 3).

May the peace of Christ be with you!

 

[patg]

Let’s try to clear up this issue a little…

The problem with relying on specific church documents is that no individual text is complete in itself. The development of church teaching on scriptures is a process that can only be understood by following the progression of thought. Providentissimus Deus is an important component of that process and even though it is all the things people here have said it is, it is NOT complete and it paints things with far too wide a brush. It leaves out some very essential concepts, several of which are identified and explained in subsequent documents. Divino Afflante Spiritu, attempted to clean up some of this and Dei Verbum expounded considerably more*.*

The problem with *Providentissimus Deus *in this discussion is that it fails to clearly delineate what it means by inerrancy, truth, freedom from error, etc. and some here have assumed that these terms have meanings beyond what they mean in the scriptures. That is why Dei Verbum is so important - it explicitly states that while the scriptures contain error free truth, the format for the presentation of that truth varies widely thoughout the writings and that one cannot assume that the truth is presented as literalistic truth or that one can understand that truth without considering that truth is presented differently in different times.

For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

Which brings us to the statement which started all this and which I firmly support. As Dei Verbum clearly states, it is wrong to blindly apply the broad brush of inerrancy literalistically to all scriptures (as Providentissimus Deus implies*)*. Everything written contains inerrant truth but that truth is not always conveyed in a literal manner, not always with historic truth or scientific truth also.

The statement "…for the sake of salvation" is important because of what it includes, not because of what it denies. It re-emphasizes that the truth is that of salvation, regardless of the form in which that truth is presented, which is not necessarily history, etc.

The Church does not required literal belief in the creation accounts, the flood, the serpent in the garden, or the infancy narratives of Jesus but it does require belief in the truth they teach. And that is why all the documents are important and incomplete in themselves. Dei Verbum isn’t the last word either, future scholars and popes will no doubt build on it.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

Here are two questions regarding inerrancy:

1 - Are some versions, even though they have an Imprintur, capable of being not inerrant? For example, the NAB renders Luke 1 verses as the BVM having found favor, while the DR correctly titles the BVM as being “full of grace”. How can such a distortion by the NAB of the BVM be overlooked as casting serious doubt on it’s inerrancy?

2 - And can a Protestent Bible, which is missing books, be inerrant? While the whole rest of a Protestent Bible may be completely inerrant (which is highly improbable), if it is missing books isn’t that like a jigsaw puzzle missing pieces?

 

[Ron_Conte]

The problem with relying on specific church documents is that no individual text is complete in itself.

When a Council or Pope teaches by a solemn definition, that teach is infallible, irreformable, and a required belief. One cannot refute or contradict such a required belief by saying that the dogma is incomplete.

Everything written contains inerrant truth but that truth is not always conveyed in a literal manner, not always with historic truth or scientific truth also.

If Sacred Scripture makes an assertion of a truth about history, science, geography, or any other subject, then that assertion is true and without error. The approach of calling any assertion that one thinks is false a mere figure has the result that any truth asserted by Scripture that falls under doubt for any reason is made null and void by being called a figure, not because it is a figure, but because it was judged to be false.

Examples of assertions of Scripture on topics such as geography, history, science, etc., which are not figures:

1. Scripture says that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. Some scholars claim that he may have been born elsewhere.
2. Scripture says that the teaching of John chapter 6 was taught when Jesus was at Capernaum. Some scholars say that Jesus never taught the full passage from John 6, and that it was added later.
3. Numerous passages stating who is descended from whom. Some scholars reject these geneologies completely, claiming that they are merely making a point about the individual by a false claim of who his ancestors were.
4. The passage in Joshua where the sun and moon stood still:
   {10:13} And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.

This cannot be claimed as a mere figure without basing that figure on a falsehood. Nor is it tenable to say that this was an eclipse or some other natural event, for there is no natural event that causes the sun and moon to stand still. But scholars claim that the event was an eclipse or a mere figure.

1. The passage on Adam and Eve. Certainly, there are figurative elements, but the claim that no two such persons, a man and a woman, the progenitors of the human race, ever existed, is contrary to the assertions of Scripture in both the old and new Testaments.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

1. The passage in Joshua where the sun and moon stood still:
   {10:13} And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.

This cannot be claimed as a mere figure without basing that figure on a falsehood. Nor is it tenable to say that this was an eclipse or
some other natural event, for there is no natural event that causes the sun and moon to stand still. But scholars claim that the event was an eclipse or a mere figure.

I believe what the Church teaches about infalibility of Scripture, I also believe that the Church is intelligent enough to realize that somethings that are in the Bible may have been “expessions”.

Kinda like saying it is raining “cats and dogs”. To criticize the statement for asserting the literal, it does make for excellent illustration that means so much more to the current reader.

Another example would be Jesus describing going to heaven is harder than " a camel passing through the eye of a/the needle".
Without a teaching Magesterium, we would have no clue as to what this means.

So the inerrancy of Scripture relies on someone to explain it to us, and not as relying on the Holy Spirit to guide and direct Protestants in their desired individual meanings, or even worse through the eyes of the 5 Solas:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

 

[patg]

When a Council or Pope teaches by a solemn definition, that teach is infallible, irreformable, and a required belief. One cannot refute or contradict such a required belief by saying that the dogma is incomplete.

That is obviously not true - we have scholars continuing to reform our understanding and popes releasing dogmatic statements on updated scripture interpretation. To say that Dei Verbum is not a refinement of previous dogmatic statements is just not untenable. There is no logical reason why refinement can not occur.

If Sacred Scripture makes an assertion of a truth about history, science, geography, or any other subject, then that assertion is true and without error.

I’m not sure what you mean by “assertion” - simply using a place name or a reference to science in no way presumes a dogmatic belief requirement. The bible is full of myths, legends, poems, etc. which are not history or science lessons.

The approach of calling any assertion that one thinks is false a mere figure has the result that any truth asserted by Scripture that falls under doubt for any reason is made null and void by being called a figure, not because it is a figure, but because it was judged to be false.

You are making an invalid assumption - that defining the genre or literary form of something also defines its truth or falsehood. That is totally incorrect. Calling something a symbolic myth does not in any way speak to the truth of the teaching embedded within it.

Examples of assertions of Scripture on topics such as geography, history, science, etc., which are not figures:…

I respect your opinion on this but the Church does not require any specific belief on these items. And not believing them literalistically in no way affects the truths they are describing.

 

[thistle]

When a Council or Pope teaches by a solemn definition, that teach is infallible, irreformable, and a required belief. One cannot refute or contradict such a required belief by saying that the dogma is incomplete.

If Sacred Scripture makes an assertion of a truth about history, science, geography, or any other subject, then that assertion is true and without error. The approach of calling any assertion that one thinks is false a mere figure has the result that any truth asserted by Scripture that falls under doubt for any reason is made null and void by being called a figure, not because it is a figure, but because it was judged to be false.

Examples of assertions of Scripture on topics such as geography, history, science, etc., which are not figures:

1. Scripture says that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. Some scholars claim that he may have been born elsewhere.
2. Scripture says that the teaching of John chapter 6 was taught when Jesus was at Capernaum. Some scholars say that Jesus never taught the full passage from John 6, and that it was added later.
3. Numerous passages stating who is descended from whom. Some scholars reject these geneologies completely, claiming that they are merely making a point about the individual by a false claim of who his ancestors were.
4. The passage in Joshua where the sun and moon stood still:
   {10:13} And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.

This cannot be claimed as a mere figure without basing that figure on a falsehood. Nor is it tenable to say that this was an eclipse or some other natural event, for there is no natural event that causes the sun and moon to stand still. But scholars claim that the event was an eclipse or a mere figure.

1. The passage on Adam and Eve. Certainly, there are figurative elements, but the claim that no two such persons, a man and a woman, the progenitors of the human race, ever existed, is contrary to the assertions of Scripture in both the old and new Testaments.

Scripture says God created everything in 6 days. Are you saying we must believe that litterally because I don’t think that’s what the church teaches.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m not sure what you mean by “assertion” - simply using a place name or a reference to science in no way presumes a dogmatic belief requirement. The bible is full of myths, legends, poems, etc. which are not history or science lessons.

I think that’s the key - understanding what the bible is asserting. When the bible includes a fictional story, that story doesn’t assert anything about science or history. Perhaps it asserts something about theology. One must consider the genres of writing to know what the bible asserts and doesn’t assert.

 

[patg]

I think that’s the key - understanding what the bible is asserting. When the bible includes a fictional story, that story doesn’t assert anything about science or history. Perhaps it asserts something about theology. One must consider the genres of writing to know what the bible asserts and doesn’t assert.

I agree - of course that still leaves open the problem of agreeing on what the literary form of a passage is. A good example is the case of the Infancy Narratives - we have had many spirited discussions here on this topic and little agreement (but that is, and has often been, a topic for another thread). The Church has made very few dogmatic statements on such topics so I’m sure the discussions will continue.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Let’s try to clear up this issue a little…

The problem with relying on specific church documents is that no individual text is complete in itself. The development of church teaching on scriptures is a process that can only be understood by following the progression of thought. Providentissimus Deus is an important component of that process and even though it is all the things people here have said it is, it is NOT complete and it paints things with far too wide a brush. It leaves out some very essential concepts, several of which are identified and explained in subsequent documents. Divino Afflante Spiritu, attempted to clean up some of this and Dei Verbum expounded considerably more.

The only things I would change in what you’ve written here is that I would not say that Providentissimus Deus “paints things with too wide a brush” and I would not say that Divino Afflante Spiritu “attempted to clean up some of this”. I would put it a different way. I would say that Providentissimus Deus laid a foundation and set up some framework. Spiritus Paraclitus added some serious reinforcements and put on the walls. Divino Afflante Spiritu and Humani Generis finished and furnished the structure. And Dei Verbum, together with The Historicity of the Gospels … I would say they both went into the room of the Gospels and put some new furniture in there, and then Dei Verbum took a picture of the whole edifice.

This is not to say that further updates will not be made. There’s just no demolition work going on. Authentic progress can only be made in accordance with these words of Vatican I, already quoted: “May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.”

 

[Pete_Holter]

The problem with *Providentissimus Deus *in this discussion is that it fails to clearly delineate what it means by inerrancy, truth, freedom from error, etc. and some here have assumed that these terms have meanings beyond what they mean in the scriptures. That is why Dei Verbum is so important - it explicitly states that while the scriptures contain error free truth, the format for the presentation of that truth varies widely thoughout the writings and that one cannot assume that the truth is presented as literalistic truth or that one can understand that truth without considering that truth is presented differently in different times.

For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

In agreement with the amateurish picture I tried to paint in my previous post, I don’t think Dei Verbum really adds much in this regard. It seems like more of a summary statement of previous teaching. Divino Afflante Spiritu actually already gave a fuller exposition of this point:

“Let the interpreter then …] endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed. …] [T]he literal sense of a passage is …] not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. …] What [forms or kinds of speech] those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East. …] For of the modes of expression [found] among ancient peoples, and especially those of the East, …] none is excluded from the Sacred Books …] Hence the Catholic commentator, …] in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also …] determine …] to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation …] By this knowledge and exact appreciation of the modes of speaking and writing in use among the ancients can be solved many difficulties, which are raised against the veracity and historical value of the Divine Scriptures …]”.

As for Providentissimus Deus’ teaching on inerrancy, the Encyclical is abundantly clear when it says that “inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true”; and when it says that “those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error”; and when it says that “the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error.” What this dogma says is that if I have interpreted the Bible in such a way that I think I have definitively proved, by that interpretation, the text to be saying something false or erroneous or contrary to reality, my proof is flawed and I must rather “conclude either that the text is faulty [has copyist errors], or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand” (Providentissimus Deus).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Which brings us to the statement which started all this and which I firmly support. As Dei Verbum clearly states, it is wrong to blindly apply the broad brush of inerrancy literalistically to all scriptures (as Providentissimus Deus implies*)*. Everything written contains inerrant truth but that truth is not always conveyed in a literal manner, not always with historic truth or scientific truth also.

The dogma of inerrancy does not equate to a hermeneutic of wooden literalism. Otherwise, Pius XII, while at the same time affirming “freedom from any error whatsoever,” could not have written that “no one, who has a correct idea of Biblical inspiration, will be surprised to find, even in the Sacred Writers, as in other ancient authors, certain fixed ways of expounding and narrating, certain definite idioms, especially of a kind peculiar to the Semitic tongues, so-called approximations, and certain hyperbolical modes of expression, nay, at times, even paradoxical, which even help to impress the ideas more deeply on the mind” (Divino Afflante Spiritu).

I think that your concern here somewhat conflates the dogma of inerrancy with the connected doctrine of authentic Biblical interpretation. Concerning the latter, Leo XIII wrote that “The Professor of Holy Scripture …] must not …] consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires” (Providentissimus Deus). So if a person determines that reason itself, being formed by faith, demands a departure from the literal and obvious sense, then that’s ok. But that’s not all. “The commentators of the Sacred Letters …] should no less diligently take into account the explanations and declarations of the teaching authority of the Church, as likewise the interpretation given by the Holy Fathers, and even ‘the analogy of faith’ as Leo XIII most wisely observed” (Divino Afflante Spiritu). “[T]he Catholic commentator” must also take into account “those passages which have received an authentic interpretation …] from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament),” etc. (Providentissimus Deus). Also, see my previous post.

Now, keeping all of this in mind, “there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church” (Divino Afflante Spiritu). So there’s a lot of freedom, even after taking everything into account, when it comes to the interpretation of individual texts.

 

[Pete_Holter]

The Church does not required literal belief in the creation accounts, the flood, the serpent in the garden, or the infancy narratives of Jesus but it does require belief in the truth they teach.

Attempting to place the accounts of the early life of Jesus in a genre defined in such a way that it leaves behind the factum historicum, that is, the “historical reality,” conveyed to us by the Gospel authors, is not acceptable. The “historicity” (Latin: historicitatem) of the Gospels has been “unhesitatingly” asserted by the Church (cf. Dei Verbum).

As for your other examples, Pius XII reminds you that “the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes …]” (Humani Generis).

Now, keeping in mind the liberty that was mentioned in my previous post, and all the tools of the exegete, ask our Lord if He would have you come closer to this view of Sacred Scripture as you seek to faithfully interpret the text:

“Jerome maintains that belief in the Biblical narrative is as necessary to salvation as is belief in the doctrines of the faith; …] Thus St. Jerome is in complete agreement with St. Augustine, who sums up the general belief of Christian antiquity when he says: ‘Holy Scripture is invested with supreme authority by reason of its sure and momentous teachings regarding the faith. Whatever, then, it tells us of Enoch, Elias and Moses - that we believe. We do not, for instance, believe that God’s Son was born of the Virgin Mary simply because He could not otherwise have appeared in the flesh and “walked amongst men” …] but we believe it simply because it is written in Scripture; and unless we believe in Scripture we can neither be Christians nor be saved’” (Spiritus Paraclitus).

May He give you the grace!

A final observation… your understanding of inerrancy, as indicated throughout your posts and by your endorsement of the wording of the Instrumentum Laboris, brings to mind Benedict XV’s unfavorable assessment of those who, “while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase – and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture – yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration – namely, absolute truth and immunity from error – are to be restricted to that primary or religious element” (Spiritus Paraclitus).

Pius XII complains about this as well, saying that “some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they 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. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. …] Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical ‘Providentissimus Deus,’ and Benedict XV in the Encyclical ‘Spiritus Paraclitus,’ as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical ‘Divino Afflante Spiritu’” (Humani Generis).

Please take these remonstrations to heart.

May God bless you!

 

[Pete_Holter]

Scripture says God created everything in 6 days. Are you saying we must believe that litterally because I don’t think that’s what the church teaches.

Concerning the Hebrew word for “day” as used in Genesis 1, you are not required to understand it as a literal 24 hour period:

"In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?

“Answer: In the affirmative” (Pontifical Biblical Commission, , No. VIIIConcerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis, June 30, 1909).

The peace of our Lord be with you!
Pete

 

[thistle]

Concerning the Hebrew word for “day” as used in Genesis 1, you are not required to understand it as a literal 24 hour period:

"In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?

“Answer: In the affirmative” (Pontifical Biblical Commission, Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis, No. VIII, June 30, 1909).

The peace of our Lord be with you!
Pete

Thanks.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Here are two questions regarding inerrancy:

1 - Are some versions, even though they have an Imprintur, capable of being not inerrant? For example, the NAB renders Luke 1 verses as the BVM having found favor, while the DR correctly titles the BVM as being “full of grace”. How can such a distortion by the NAB of the BVM be overlooked as casting serious doubt on it’s inerrancy?

Hi Ted!

As far as I know, only the Vulgate has been declared by the Church to be “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” The implication is that any other translation could be subject to error even in matters of faith and morals, not to mention in other less important matters as well.

But I think the NAB translation is actually OK here. We know from the Catechism that “Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life” (CCC, Para. 1996).

The word used for Mary in the Greek text is kecaritwmenh. You could pronounce this word “keh-cah-rih-toe-meh-nay”. Because of the verb tense, it could be translated as “one who has received grace in the past with the effects of this grace continuing into the present.” This word does not in itself strictly denote that this grace is “full” either in duration or in measure, but neither does it rule this out. Lumen Gentium, as Father Most points out,

“goes into much detail, and with great care, on the Annunciation: ‘…] Being adorned with the splendors of altogether singular holiness from the first instant of her conception, the Virgin of Nazareth, by command of God, is hailed by the angel of the Annunciation as “full of grace” (cf. Lk. 1:28), and she responds to the heavenly messenger: “I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done to me according to your word” (Lk. 1:38). …]’

“The special precision employed by the Council appears again in the fact that it used cf. with Luke 1:28 but not with 1:38. In the former, the Council did, as we just saw, use the words “full of grace” for Luke 1:28, as it is in the Vulgate translation. The cf. seems to mean the Council did not wish to guarantee that translation-which is defensible yet debatable-while definitely making its own the thought that she was full of grace, whether that conclusion be derived from Luke 1:28 or from other sources. In contrast, there is no cf. with Luke 1:38, which the Council accepts as fully true” (, “Chapter 12: Genre of Infancy Gospels”Free From All Error).

Further, “full of grace” is explicitly used of Stephen in Acts 6:8. In Greek it is plhrhV caritoV (pronounced “play-rayss cah-rih-tahss”). But the Church does not teach that Stephen was full of grace in the way that Mary is. So even if the Greek text explicitly read “full of grace” in reference to Mary, it still wouldn’t convey what the Catholic Church teaches about her when she [the Church] calls her “full of grace.”

So one can argue from the Nova Vulgata and Catholic dogma that the preferred translation of the Greek is gratia plena, full of grace. But to get at what the Church teaches about Mary being full of grace, you really need to bring in many Biblical texts and theological concepts.

2 - And can a Protestent Bible, which is missing books, be inerrant? While the whole rest of a Protestent Bible may be completely inerrant (which is highly improbable), if it is missing books isn’t that like a jigsaw puzzle missing pieces?

This is just my opinion, but I would say that, in English, there are Protestant translations that are just about as trustworthy as any English Catholic translation; except, as you point out, they’re missing some books.

The love of Christ be with you!
Pete