Biblical Inerrancy

[patg]

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).

I appreciate all your responses - you have put out a lot of effort for this and you have said some things much better than I did.

Your arguments make logical sense as presented but there are far too many inconsistencies when reality is considered and it is clear that “the Church”, on a practical level, isn’t really very absolute about all this.

Some observations in no particular order:

• It is a bit of a problem that scholars are instructed to apply knowledge of non-historical literary forms to interpret the “truth” in the gospels and at the same time told that the only literary form they may consider is one of absolute historicity. Thankfully (personal opinion) most of them ignore this and teach with the assumption that, while most of the gospels have a historical basis in Jesus, there is plenty of non-historical truth being taught.
• Pope Paul VI and the Pontiifical Biblical Commission fully supported the non-historical nature of the gospels in the Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels. This document also stresses the ongoing process of interpretation based on new methods and knowledge.
• Many of the Church’s most esteemed biblical scholars have written extensively on the non-historical nature of the gospels, almost all with the approval of members of the magisterium through the imprimatur and nihil obstat.
• The church has consistently taught at the “grass roots” level that not everything (and sometimes very little) in the gospels in historical - especially in adult scripture classes. The books I have seen used and which I have taught from are very clear in this.
• The quote which started all this is part of a magisterially published document and is not even listed as a point of possible discussion. It is consistent with what the church actually teaches.
  Maybe this is all modernist heresy and maybe it isn’t - I don’t think we can be the judge of that. I understand your argurments and what you are saying but I would have a very hard time rationally accepting your conclusions even if I thought that it is what the Church demanded (which I don’t).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hi everyone!

I sent my concern over the wording in the Instrumentum to four different individuals, and three of them have so far very gracious responded. Two of them have even given me permission to include their personal correspondence. If either of them ever sees this thread: “thank you so much!” First let me repeat the quote from the Instrumentum, which is the reason for this thread:

“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].

Here are the thoughts of Dr. Robert Sungenis – President and Principal Apologist of the Bellarmine Theological Forum – on this issue (quoted with permission):

The distortion of Dei Verbum 11’s clause “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation” is one of the most serious and insidious heresies ever to face the Church, for it gets right to the core of the Christian faith – the revelation of God.

There are three ways to deal with the above synod’s statement:

1. It doesn’t matter what a bishops’ synod says. If it goes against traditional and dogmatic Church teaching, we are not required to give our assent to it, and, in fact, we have an obligation to both condemn it and write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to voice our objections (Canon 212.2-3).
2. If the bishops want to interpret Dei Verbum 11 to read that “inerrancy applies only to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation’” then this just begs the question, for they must first prove that not everything in Scripture was written for the sake of our salvation. Suffice it to say, there is no statement in Scripture, no tradition from the Fathers, and no magisterial decree that says that any statement in Scripture was not written for the sake of our salvation. …]
3. It is a fact that Dei Verbum and its surrounding context said absolutely nothing to the effect that Scripture’s inerrancy is limited. There is not one word in all of Dei Verbum, or in the other 15 documents of Vatican II, that even suggests that Scripture’s inerrancy is limited. To base a conclusion, a conclusion that goes against all other previous Catholic teaching on inerrancy, on one ambiguous phrase (“for the sake of our salvation”) is the most irresponsible action ever taken by theologians of the Catholic Church. The clause “for the sake of our salvation” was added precisely to counter the very idea of limited inerrancy. A simple and unbiased reading of the context reveals this. It says:

“…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 Scripture. Thus ‘all Scripture is inspired by God…’”

How much clearer could it be? It clearly says that:

indent “the books of Scripture” are “without error.”
(b) the “truth” was “confided to the sacred Scripture.”
(c) “all Scripture is inspired.”

Do we see in any of those statements a dichotomy between what Scripture says about salvation and what is not about salvation? No! It simply refers to Scripture at large, the whole of Scripture, with no separations or divisions into salvific or non-salvific portions.
[/indent]
Hence, if we read the statement of Dei Verbum in light of both its context and the traditional teaching of the Church, we understand that, all of Scripture was inspired to be without error so that it could serve as a firm foundation upon which we can know the truths of salvation. It’s very simple. In other words, Scripture is inspired and inerrant for the sake of our salvation. Every time we open Scripture and read it we can be sure that its words are trustworthy, and each passage will relate, in one way or another, to our salvation, for we need all of Scripture to know all the truths about our salvation. The veracity of one passage is dependent on the veracity of another, and so on and so on.

John Salza – Catholic Apologist, Author, and Creator of ScriptureCatholic.com – was also very kind to respond (quoted with permission):

[T]his is an error and a total misrepresentation of what Dei Verbum 11 actually says. DV 11 does not say “only.” A good English translation of the Latin is: “it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” While this is one of those poorly worded phrases we often find in Vatican II documents, it can be interpreted in the traditional manner, that is, that Scripture is inerrant without limitation and that all things written in Scripture is for the sake of our salvation. In other words, Scripture contains that truth which God wanted us to know, for the sake of our salvation, and that this truth is inerrant because it has been inspired by God, Scripture’s principal author. Don’t get upset about a non-binding interpretation from a group of bishops. The Church, through her councils, has definitively declared that the Scriptures are inerrant on all that they teach, period. End of story. No pope or group of bishops can change this definitive teaching.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I sent my concern over the wording in the Instrumentum to four different individuals, and three of them have so far very gracious responded.

That should have been graciously responded. Where’s my editor???

Thanks to my Sweet Wife for pointing that out.

I love you!

 

[Just_Lurking]

Adapted from Wikipedia (see here):

Case | Prior Church teaching | Subsequent contradictory Church teaching | Possible/Impossible
1 | fallible | fallible | could possibly happen
2 | fallible | infallible | could possibly happen
3 | infallible | fallible | could not ever happen
4 | infallible | infallible | could not ever happen

Case 3 would seem to go against those people who advocate that Catholics could just ignore whatever the Synod of Bishops teaches because they believe it contradicts prior infallible Church teaching. BTW, the argument for case 3 comes from Lumen Gentium:

The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

 

[Pete_Holter]

I appreciate all your responses - you have put out a lot of effort for this and you have said some things much better than I did.

Wow! Patg, this is very humble of you. God’s favor is upon you. Not because you said this to me, of course, but because you took the time to say this to a person you don’t know and with whom you disagree. Thank you and may God bless you!

• It is a bit of a problem that scholars are instructed to apply knowledge of non-historical literary forms to interpret the “truth” in the gospels and at the same time told that the only literary form they may consider is one of absolute historicity. Thankfully (personal opinion) most of them ignore this and teach with the assumption that, while most of the gospels have a historical basis in Jesus, there is plenty of non-historical truth being taught.

I’m not sure why you think that you are “instructed to apply knowledge of non-historical literary forms” specifically to the Gospels. The Historicity of the Gospels identifies the following “types of presentation” found in the Gospels: “catechetical formulas, narrative reports, eyewitness accounts, hymns, doxologies, prayers, and similar literary genres commonly found in Sacred Scripture and the speech of that period.”

Have you read Benedict XVI’s book, Jesus of Nazareth?

For it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events. It does not tell stories symbolizing suprahistorical truths, but is based on history, history that took place here on this earth. The factum historicum (historical fact) is not an interchangeable symbolic cipher for biblical faith, but the foundation on which it stands: Et incarnatus est – when we say these words, we acknowledge God’s actual entry into real history.

If we push this history aside, Christian faith as such disappears and is recast as some other religion (Introduction, XV).

He also writes concerning the Gospel of John,

[W]hat sort of truth can the Paraclete guide into if He leaves behind the historical because it is too banal?

…] What faith does [the Gospel of John] “testify” to if, so to speak, it has left history behind? How does it strengthen faith if it presents itself as a historical testimony – and does so quite emphatically – but then does not report history? I think that we are dealing here with a false concept of the historical, as well as with a false concept of faith and of the Paraclete. A faith that discards history in this manner really turns into ‘”Gnosticism.” It leaves flesh, incarnation – just what true history is – behind (228).

• Pope Paul VI and the Pontiifical Biblical Commission fully supported the non-historical nature of the gospels in the Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels. This document also stresses the ongoing process of interpretation based on new methods and knowledge.

Again, The Historicity of the Gospels identifies the following “types of presentation” found in the Gospels: “catechetical formulas, narrative reports, eyewitness accounts, hymns, doxologies, prayers, and similar literary genres commonly found in Sacred Scripture and the speech of that period.” These all pertain to a historical reality: hymns, doxologies, and prayers being offered up by the people depicted. It would be strange for your assessment of the Instruction to be accurate, and then for Dei Verbum to confirm the historicity of the Gospels a year and a half later.

And according to Father Joseph Fitzmyer, Instructions, even prior to 1971, were “usually occasioned by errors or excessive tendencies in certain biblical matters.” If he is wrong, someone please correct me. If he’s correct, feel free to be “uninstructed” on any point contained in this Instruction that you think encourages you to see so little “history” in the Gospels.

 

[Pete_Holter]

• Many of the Church’s most esteemed biblical scholars have written extensively on the non-historical nature of the gospels, almost all with the approval of members of the magisterium through the imprimatur and nihil obstat.

Although bishops are a part of the magisterium when they teach in union with the Pope, a bishop giving an imprimatur is not itself an act of the magisterium. And I’m not correcting anything you’ve said here; I’m just clarifying for others.

Bishops are only members of the magisterium insofar as they are united to the Pope. So if a bishop grants an imprimatur to a book that contains doctrinal statements against what has been taught by the Councils and Popes, then the imprimatur serves as no authentication and it cannot help but lead people into heresy. That’s why I can quote an anonymous reviewer on Amazon whose opinion is in agreement with the teachings of the magisterium to overwhelm any and all opinions to the contrary found in books having imprimaturs. And of course, [ can be withdrawnimprimatur (FindArticles.com | CBSi).

One of Scott Hahn’s latest books, Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith has an imprimatur. Dr. Hahn writes the following on page 69: “All Christians revere the Bible and consider it to be an authoritative text. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and, as such, is free from error. …] It helps if we can establish that fact from the start.” Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Denver Archdiocese gave his endorsement, calling it “[a]n outstanding book.” Father Benedict Groeschel says, “This book should be required reading for every Catholic college student and especially for every priest, seminarian, and deacon.” The imprimatur for this book is a solid assurance because the unqualified statement about Sacred Scripture being “free from error” is in line with the Church’s teaching.

These comparisons having been made, of both those books adopting inerrancy and those denying it, all having the imprimatur, the proof is there that the imprimatur itself cannot be a deciding factor for determining orthodoxy. We must go to the Councils and the Popes.

• The church has consistently taught at the “grass roots” level that not everything (and sometimes very little) in the gospels in historical - especially in adult scripture classes. The books I have seen used and which I have taught from are very clear in this.

This does make me sad. I feel like you’ve been cheated. Maybe God is providing you with a fresh opportunity, and He’ll start to fill you with a hopeful excitement for what used to provoke spurn. Patg, “do you believe the prophets? I know you do!" (Acts 26:27)

• The quote which started all this is part of a magisterially published document and is not even listed as a point of possible discussion. It is consistent with what the church actually teaches.

Well, it’s actually not consistent with what the Church teaches, as has been shown throughout this thread. That’s the problem. And because it unequivocally distorts the Church’s teaching concerning “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts,” it is actually not magisterial and has no authority: “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff” (CCC, Para. 883).

Maybe this is all modernist heresy and maybe it isn’t - I don’t think we can be the judge of that. I understand your argurments and what you are saying but I would have a very hard time rationally accepting your conclusions even if I thought that it is what the Church demanded (which I don’t).

Let me know if you ever want any encouragement moving in the direction that at this point is too hard for you, or just want to hear a voice of confirmation. I am excited for you and I will pray for you.

What size trains do you like?

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Although bishops are a part of the magisterium when they teach in union with the Pope, a bishop giving an imprimatur is not itself an act of the magisterium. And I’m not correcting anything you’ve said here; I’m just clarifying for others.

Bishops are only members of the magisterium insofar as they are united to the Pope. So if a bishop grants an imprimatur to a book that contains doctrinal statements against what has been taught by the Councils and Popes, then the imprimatur serves as no authentication and it cannot help but lead people into heresy. That’s why I can quote an anonymous reviewer on Amazon whose opinion is in agreement with the teachings of the magisterium to overwhelm any and all opinions to the contrary found in books having imprimaturs. And of course, an imprimatur can be withdrawn.

One of Scott Hahn’s latest books, Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith has an imprimatur. Dr. Hahn writes the following on page 69: “All Christians revere the Bible and consider it to be an authoritative text. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and, as such, is free from error. …] It helps if we can establish that fact from the start.” Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Denver Archdiocese gave his endorsement, calling it “[a]n outstanding book.” Father Benedict Groeschel says, “This book should be required reading for every Catholic college student and especially for every priest, seminarian, and deacon.” The imprimatur for this book is a solid assurance because the unqualified statement about Sacred Scripture being “free from error” is in line with the Church’s teaching.

These comparisons having been made, of both those books adopting inerrancy and those denying it, all having the imprimatur, the proof is there that the imprimatur itself cannot be a deciding factor for determining orthodoxy. We must go to the Councils and the Popes.

This does make me sad. I feel like you’ve been cheated. Maybe God is providing you with a fresh opportunity, and He’ll start to fill you with a hopeful excitement for what used to provoke spurn. Patg, “do you believe the prophets? I know you do!" (Acts 26:27)

Well, it’s actually not consistent with what the Church teaches, as has been shown throughout this thread. That’s the problem. And because it unequivocally distorts the Church’s teaching concerning “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts,” it is actually not magisterial and has no authority: “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff” (CCC, Para. 883).

Let me know if you ever want any encouragement moving in the direction that at this point is too hard for you, or just want to hear a voice of confirmation. I am excited for you and I will pray for you.

What size trains do you like?

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Adapted from Wikipedia (see here):

Case | Prior Church teaching | Subsequent contradictory Church teaching | Possible/Impossible
1 | fallible | fallible | could possibly happen
2 | fallible | infallible | could possibly happen
3 | infallible | fallible | could not ever happen
4 | infallible | infallible | could not ever happen

Case 3 would seem to go against those people who advocate that Catholics could just ignore whatever the Synod of Bishops teaches because they believe it contradicts prior infallible Church teaching.

Hi Just Lurking,

Thanks for coming back to the thread!

I think the chart is actually trying to say the opposite of what you might think. The chart seems a little strange. But the point it’s making is that once you have an infallible teaching of the Church, no subsequent teaching can contradict it. In criticizing Cases 3 and 4 of the chart, I wouldn’t bother distinguishing between subsequent fallible or infallible teaching because subsequent contradictory teaching in such cases can only be, by the very definition of infallibility, not only fallible, but both fallacious and heretical.

Those of us who oppose the disputed wording of the Instrumentum actually do so based on the reasoning described by that chart. Does that make sense?

At the end of the synod in October, a Final List of Propositions (perhaps around 50 as with the last synod) will be forwarded to the Pope for him to decide what he will include in his Apostolic Exhortation on this topic. What I am hoping is that the Pope does not include the objected to language, and, more than that, that it doesn’t even get that far, but is quashed at the October meeting.

BTW, the argument for case 3 comes from Lumen Gentium:

The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

The first point I would want to make is that the synod of bishops is not the means used by the Church to exercise “the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.” Secondly, infallible definitions, as described here in Lumen Gentium, proposed by the body of bishops in union with the Pope, only come about, as far as I know, through Ecumenical Councils:

“‘The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,’ above all in an Ecumenical Council” (CCC, Para. 891).

So this wording of exercising “the supreme Magisterium” would not apply to a synod of bishops which merely culminates in an Apostolic Exhortation which, according to Second Exodus, is itself of less weight than an Encyclical and, in being less, “do[es] not define the development of doctrine.” As for the current standing of the Instrumentum, please see my previous post to patg and CCC, Para. 883).

Happy Lurking!

But seriously, may God make His face to shine upon you as you continue “just trying to follow Christ.”

Pete
“Though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.”

 

[Just_Lurking]

Happy Lurking!

But seriously, may God make His face to shine upon you as you continue “just trying to follow Christ.”

Thanks for the reply – it was very informative.

And thanks for the blessing (is that the correct Catholic term?)!

Back to lurking…

 

[rwoehmke]

Discussions like this give me a headache when some of the participants have chosen only in their profile " Catholic" or “Roman Catholic.” I mean I fit that description but hardly feel qualified to jump into this thread and throw my weight around. Documents quoted, interpretations, and opinions given by players who might be qualified or not. Who’s to say?

 

[thistle]

Adapted from Wikipedia (see here):

Case | Prior Church teaching | Subsequent contradictory Church teaching | Possible/Impossible
1 | fallible | fallible | could possibly happen
2 | fallible | infallible | could possibly happen
3 | infallible | fallible | could not ever happen
4 | infallible | infallible | could not ever happen

Case 3 would seem to go against those people who advocate that Catholics could just ignore whatever the Synod of Bishops teaches because they believe it contradicts prior infallible Church teaching. BTW, the argument for case 3 comes from Lumen Gentium:

The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

This is a joke. Since when did Wikipedia become the Magesterium of the Church.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hello everyone!

With the topic of this thread being inerrancy, specifically as it relates to the wording chosen by the Instrumentum Laboris for the upcoming Synod of Bishops in October, I thought it would help to spend some more time with the passage from Dei Verbum which has been deleteriously modified by the current Working Paper. The wording from the Instrumentum, again, is this: “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].

Most of us are familiar with the translation of Dei Verbum found on the Vatican website, which reads,

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

So I thought I’d share this – I think superior – alternative translation provided by The Roman Theological Forum, found in , “Article 61”Living Tradition:

Therefore, since everything affirmed by the inspired authors, or sacred writers, must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must in consequence acknowledge that the books of Scripture teach the truth firmly, faithfully, and without error - keeping in mind that it was for the sake of our salvation that God wanted this truth recorded in the form of Sacred Writings. …] 101

Footnote 101 gives a partial justification for the translation, which is reproduced here in part:

The case for the above translation cannot be argued in full here. Briefly, however, it can be said that consignare in Latin does not mean “consign,” but “record,” and takes no indirect object. Thus, Litteris Sacris is in the ablative case, not the dative: i.e., the Sacred Writings are not that to which truth is “consigned,” or into which it is “put,” as though the Bible were a sort of container for salvific truth (immune from error) as well as some other kind of truth (which might be contaminated by error). Rather, these writings are that by means of which (or in the form of which) God’s saving truth is recorded. …]

I call it a superior translation, not because I think it says anything different, but because by it, the same thing is better said. It is also less susceptible to being misused and misinterpreted.

In a separate article, the same author, Rev. Brian Harrison, explains how the Council arrived at the final wording of Dei Verbum Article 11. The described proceedings also shed light on the correctness of the proposed alternative translation:

In the main text of Dei Verbum, §11, the adjective salutarem was replaced by an adjectival clause, so that instead of ascribing the charism of inerrancy to the “salvific truth” taught by the Bible, the Council ascribes it, as we have seen, to the truth “which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” This is less ambiguous than before, since the “salvific” idea is no longer directly adjectival, qualifying “truth,” but adverbial, qualifying the verb “wished to see confided” (consignari voluit). In other words, the Council is saying that our salvation is the purpose God had in mind in giving us biblical truth – and this is certainly what the Church has always taught (, “Article 59”Living Tradition).

Given all of the pre- and post-conciliar statements made by the Magisterium that have been provided throughout this thread, I thought I would share this more perspicuous alternative translation as “one that makes sense of it all.”

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

In my previous post I quoted from Article 59 of Living Tradition. I’d like to include another insight taken from this article:

The other last-minute change agreed on by the Commission is not only less obvious, but has been sadly neglected …] Further quotations from the Fathers and the Church’s Magisterium were included in footnote 5 at the end of the key sentence, in order to provide an authentic interpretation.

What follows are the more crucial portions of the text for the footnotes that were added:

No real dissension will ever arise between the scientist and the theologian, provided each stays within the proper bounds of his discipline, carefully observing St. Augustine’s admonition “not to assert rashly as known what is in fact unknown.” But if some dispute should arise, the same Doctor sums up the rule to be followed by the theologian: “If they have been able to demonstrate some truth of natural science with solid proofs, let us show that it is not contrary to our Scriptures; but if they maintain anything in any of their treatises which is contrary to Scripture (that is, to the Catholic Faith), let us believe without hesitation that it is completely false, and, if possible, find a way of refuting it.” (EB 121).

[T]hose who claim that anything false can be contained in authentic passages of the Sacred Books either pervert the Catholic notion of divine inspiration, or make God Himself the author of error (EB 126).

All the Fathers and Doctors were so utterly convinced that the original versions of the divine Scriptures are absolutely immune from all error that they laboured with no less ingenuity than devotion to harmonize and reconcile those many passages which might seem to involve some contradiction or discrepancy (and they are nearly always the same ones which today are thrust at us in the name of modern scholarship) (EB 127) (, “Article 59”Living Tradition).

The additions of Enchiridion Biblicum 121 and 127 are noteworthy because they eliminate the possibility of any conflict or contradiction between (1) the Bible and anything extrinsic to it, and (2) the Bible and itself. And although the footnote to Divino Afflante Spiritu already secured “freedom from any error whatsoever,” the added citations more pointedly and effectively address and rebut the so-called errors that were specifically pointed out earlier in the proceedings of the Council, whereby the Bible had purportedly contradicted both historical reality and itself (Although EB 121 does not specifically identify historical sciences, Providentissimus Deus, the encyclical being quoted here, goes on to explain that “[t]he principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history.”).

If you are so inclined, please read the whole article. It’s very informative.

If before coming to this thread, by God’s all sufficient grace you already believed that the Bible is “free from any error whatsoever,” or if after reading this thread His grace has brought you to this same conclusion, please let your priests and bishops know what you believe.

Holy Spirit, please guide this synod into all truth and thereby “advanc[e] the glory of God and contribut[e] to the salvation of souls.” Please Father, preserve “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church” in our generation so that we can rejoice at your receiving glory at the proclamation of Your Truth! We love You and we thank You for Your “heaven-sent treasure,” the Sacred Scriptures, the pure Word of God. We beg this of You in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[Contarini]

Sorry but I’m a bit confused. Are you saying the Bible is inerrant in every respect and that we must take everything in the Bible literally? I wouldn’t believe that. If the Bible has in it there was an army of 600,000 people or that someone lived to 1000 years old I really don’t think that means there were exactly 600,000 in the army or that the person died at age 1000. Surely it means a very large army and that a person simply lived to a very old age?

First of all, if you can make a reasonable case that numbers are used loosely in the OT and that the original readers would have understood this, then even a strict view of inerrancy would not require you to take those numbers literally.

I do not hold to such a view, however–I think that inerrancy covers specifically the sense of Scripture which pertains to our salvation. In other words, the divinely inspired, salvific meaning of Scripture (all of Scripture) is never hindered by human error. When the text is properly understood, all of Scripture can be seen to be unerringly moving us toward salvation.

Sometimes historical details are relevant for that salvific meaning. Sometimes they are not.

The reason I’m uncomfortable with saying simply “only religious truth is inerrant” is that some people would say that the virgin birth (for instance) is theologically relevant only in a spiritual sense–that the question of whether Mary actually had sexual intercourse before Jesus’ birth (please, no debates about the perpetual virginity–I’m neither affirming or denying it any more than St. Matthew was!) can only be resolved through naturalistic historical and scientific methods.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The premise of Brown’s argument is that the Magisterium does not ever teach infallibly and irreformably. This idea necessarily coincides with the claim that the Bible does not teach infallibly and irreformably, for the Magisterium teaches from Scripture.

Could you provide evidence that Brown believed either of these things? (I.e., that he denied that either the Bible or the Magisterium teaches infallibly or irreformably?) I suspect that this is your own very fallible, and hopefully reformable, interpretation of the late Fr. Brown’s writings.

Edwin

 

[patg]

… Let me know if you ever want any encouragement moving in the direction that at this point is too hard for you, or just want to hear a voice of confirmation. I am excited for you and I will pray for you.

What size trains do you like?

With the love of Christ,
Pete

I appreciate your reasoning but things are still made quite murky by Fitzmyer’s statements such as :

• “…the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express His sayings not literally but differently, while preserving their sense.” The Commission speaks of “truth” only, and does not specify it as ‘historical truth.’"*

Preserving the “sense” of something is quite different than presenting inerrant historicity. Furthermore:

The most significant thing in the whole document, when all is said and done, is that the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists.

Based on this type reasoning, I find it possible to agree that the gospels have a definite historical basis, but to insist on inerrant historicity is out of the question.

Actually, I think Fitzmyer sums it all up for us:

The Instruction of the Biblical Commission has by no means put an end to all the problems regarding the historicity of the Gospels. Discussions of them will certainly continue, and now with more freedom.

---

I’m sure discussion here will also continue.

In answer to your question, I model Colorado narrow gauge in Sn3 (but I like them all).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Since Vatican II, there has been a debate as to whether Dei Verbum meant to narrow inspiration and inerrancy only to those assertions pertaining to salvation (or to faith and morals), or whether all assertions of Scripture are inspired and inerrant.

Instrumentum Laboris is openly taking the view that inerrancy is narrow.

This assertion is not limited to the English translation.

in French: “leur inerrance se réfère uniquement”

in German: “obwohl die Heilige Schrift in allen ihren Teilen inspiriert ist, bezieht sich ihre Irrtumslosigkeit nur [only] auf”

in Latin: “tamen eius inerrantia pertinet tantummodo”

in Spanish: “la inerrancia se refiere sólo a”

This document is claiming that all of Scripture is inspired, but not all that is inspired is inerrant. This claim contradicts numerous past teachings:

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiratigon to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n.21)

“…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.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea 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.” (Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

There’s probably some sense in which the problematic phrase can be taken as not contradicting past teaching.​

I’m not surprised - the bishops in the UK teach the same; AFAICS & IIRC. Why can’t the Bible be totally inerrant under one aspect, while being errant in some other ? The Book of Revelation is written in Greek which not free of errors, yet AFAIK this has not been seen as a problem by Protestant advocates of total inerrancy - so why should it be a problem for anyone else ?

People talk about inerrancy, but:

• How does this apply in fact ?
• Why is it important ?
• What is it supposed to do ?
• How does it “work”; in a consonantal text for example ? The vowels were not added to the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible for centuries; were those added them inspired ? If so, how do we know ?
• What is the connection between inerrancy & meaning ? The graphic markings that we call letters, however well or long preserved, do not of themselves tell the reader how to connect them; by themselves, they are marks on a surface; the meaning is provided by the reader. And this problematic because quite a few words are identical in written form but not in meaning.
• By what is it limited - if anything ?
• What is the locus of inerrancy - the final text, or previous drafts or both ? The usual model of inspiration seems to take for granted that books were written at a sitting.
• How does that model cope with the likelihood that the NT books were dictated to more than one scribe; & that different scribes may have made errors in different places ? It’s not clear how that fits the notion of a text as “originally given”.
• How does inerrancy “work” when texts understood as one kind of literature are understood as another ? If the Flood was thought be universal, but no longer is, the meaning of the Flood narrative has changed even if the written text has not. If the kings of Judah are understood to have reigned one count of years between them & the number is explained as something different, the meaning has changed: X years =/= Y years. If a king is identified in one way & then in another, his name has changed even if the text is untouched - so the meaning has changed; but how is this different in practice from error in the text ? IOW - interpretation is problematic; it affects the meaning of the text.
• Which suggests that Catholics should be Vulgate-onlyists, & reject textual scholarship & archaeology & anything else that does not confirm the unique inerrancy of (say) the Vulgate. This is unlikely to happen.
  If an expression of the doctrine of total inerrancy is to be plausible, it has to account for difficulties such as these. It has to be coherent. An a priori expression or form of this idea has to fit the Bible as it is - it’s no use, & is very unconvincing, if it can fit only an ideal Bible with none of the details of the Bible as it is. And appealing to mystery won’t do. That is not legitimate if used as a way of escaping awkward problems.

The Instrumentum Laboris is here:

• vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20080511_instrlabor-xii-assembly_en.html
  To quote:
• — 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);
  ISTM that specifies the purpose of inerrancy, without denying the “Leonine” teaching. Those words can be construed as denying it, but need not.

See also the Lineamenta:

• vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20070427_lineamenta-xii-assembly_en.html

 

[Pete_Holter]

things are still made quite murky by Fitzmyer’s statements such as:

• “…the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different* order, and express His sayings not literally but differently, while preserving their sense.” The Commission speaks of “truth” only, and does not specify it as ‘historical truth.’"

Preserving the “sense” of something is quite different than presenting inerrant historicity.

Father Fitzmyer goes on to have someone pose a hypothetical question, “Well, then, if it is not a question of historical truth, of what kind is it?”

If you have a copy of Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth, please refer to pages 231-235 for a discussion of how the “history” of Jesus’ life is given to us by the Apostle John:
[This] remembering …] is a being led by the Holy Spirit, who shows us the connectedness of Scripture, the connection between word and reality, and, in doing that, leads us “into all truth.” …] the Gospel of John does not simply transmit a stenographic transcript of Jesus’ words and ways; …] [yet] it remains faithful to what really happened and …] is not a violation of the historical events. …] It truly shows us who Jesus was, and thereby it shows us someone who not only was, but is; who can always say “I am” in the present tense. “Before Abraham was, I am (Jn 8:58). It shows us the real Jesus, and we can confidently make use of it as a source of information about him (pp. 234-235).

Elsewhere in his book, Benedict says that the discourses of Jesus found in John’s Gospel are not like a recorded transcript (pg. 229); but at the same time, we see how readily he attributes the words, “Before Abraham was, I am,” to Jesus. He can do this because the Instruction tells us that the Apostles did not “distort His teaching,” for “the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error” (The Historicity of the Gospels).

In dealing with questions of history, I always like to keep in mind this quote from the Current Doctrinal Relevance of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Christian faith has its specificity, primarily in that it refers to historical events, or better to a coherent history, which actually took place as history. In this sense, the question about the fact, the reality of the event, is essential to it, and must make room for the historical method. But these historical events have meaning for the faith only because it is certain that in them God Himself acted in a specific way and the events contain something which surpasses simple historical facticity, something which comes from elsewhere and gives them meaning for all times and for all people. This surpassing element must not be separated from the facts, it is not a meaning which is subsequently added to them from without, but rather it is present in the event itself, and yet it transcends the purely factual aspect.

So I think Fitzmyer, in pointing out that the PBC did not precede “truth” with “historical,” is at worst trying to wring out of the text something that isn’t there: the admission that we are not dealing with historical truth. I have to ask him, Must I precede “truth” with “historical” every time I mention the word truth, even when I am writing within a document entitled, The Historical Truth of the Gospels? Father Fitzmyer seems to be going out of his way to make things more “murky” than they really are.

 

[Pete_Holter]

things are still made quite murky by Fitzmyer’s statements such as:

• “…the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different* order, and express His sayings not literally but differently, while preserving their sense.” The Commission speaks of “truth” only, and does not specify it as ‘historical truth.’"

Preserving the “sense” of something is quite different than presenting inerrant historicity.

Continuing my response from the previous post, the PBC cites Augustine here where he is dealing with the words ascribed to John the Baptist at the beginning of the Gospels. Without doing a word for word comparison, we can lay out the verses and take a look…

Matthew 3:11: “I baptize you with water for repentance, but He Who is coming after me is mightier than I, Whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”

Mark 1:7-8: “After me comes He Who is mightier than I, the strap of Whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I have baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Luke 3:16: “I baptize you with water, but He Who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of Whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”

John 1:26-27, 33: “I baptize with water, but among you stands One you do not know, even He Who comes after me, the strap of Whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.…] this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.”

We can briefly note that some of the words themselves and the order of them are different. Augustine comments,

If now the question is asked, as to which of the words we are to suppose the most likely to have been the precise words used by John the Baptist …] it will not be deemed worth while creating any difficulty for oneself in a matter of that kind, by any one who wisely understands that the real requisite in order to get at the knowledge of the truth is just to make sure of the things really meant, whatever may be the precise words in which they happen to be expressed. For although one writer may retain a certain order in the words, and another present a different one, there is surely no real contradiction in that. Nor, again, need there be any antagonism between the two, although one may state what another omits.

He goes on to say that,

we ought not to suppose that any one of the writers is giving an unreliable account, if, when several persons are recalling some matter either heard or seen by them, they fail to follow the very same plan, or to use the very same words, while describing, nevertheless, the self-same fact. …] or although, with the view of illustrating his meaning, and making it thoroughly clear, the person to whom authority is given to compose the narrative makes some additions of his own, not indeed in the subject-matter itself, but in the words by which it is expressed …] [W]hen several parties happen to narrate the same circumstance, none of them can by any means be rightly charged with untruthfulness if he differs from the other only in such a way as can be defended on the ground of the antecedent example of the evangelists themselves. For as we are not at liberty either to suppose or to say that any one of the evangelists has stated what is false, so it will be apparent that any other writer is as little chargeable with untruth, with whom, in the process of recalling anything for narration, it has fared only in a way similar to that in which it is shown to have fared with those evangelists” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 12The Harmony of the Gospels).

So preserving the “sense” or “meaning” is not fully compatible with a word for word, proceeding from line to line, literalistic interpretation, which cannot be applied to the Gospel accounts wholesale without forcing the authors into any number of contradictions (as the preceding quotes from the Gospels demonstrate). Benedict says that John’s Gospel (in particular) makes “no claim to literal accuracy of this sort” (pg. 229). We can make guesses as to what John the Baptist really said, word for word, and when he really said what he said, some words before or after the others, based on careful exegetical exploration. However, even prior to such an analysis, would anyone say that we really don’t know what John said? And so, “preserving the sense” is perfectly in line with an inerrant historical account, but not with an overly literalistic interpretation of this historical account.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Furthermore:

The most significant thing in the whole document, when all is said and done, is that the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists.

I’m not sure why Father Fitzmyer attaches so much significance to this. The three stages described are just the plain facts of history: (1) Jesus lived, died, rose, and ascended, (2) the apostles went out preaching, and (3) the apostles and their associates wrote the Gospels. Again, my question to Father Fitzmyer would be, Why is it significant for the PBC to “calmly and frankly” admit this? I wonder, Who wouldn’t admit this? If this is the true history behind the composition of the Gospels, and we know that it is, then there is no other way for His life to have come down to us. Stages 1 and 2, events of history, have come down to us in Stage 3, the composition of the Gospels and the book of Acts. I understand that this also acknowledges a diachronic depth in the Gospels for the exegete to study and understand better; but it does not suggest, as Benedict has written, that there has been “a violation of the historical events,” a corruption or distortion. Whatever “words and deeds” the evangelists attribute to Jesus, we do too.

You didn’t include this next comment from Father Fitzmyer, but I wanted to offer some thoughts on it anyway as it seems related to our discussion:

Even when the Commission says that the apostles after the Resurrection “faithfully explained His life and words,” it appeals significantly to none of the Gospels, but to one of the speeches of Peter in Acts (10:36-41). …] But it is noteworthy that there are no “words” of Jesus quoted in Peter’s speech; and yet such a speech is regarded as a faithful explanation of Jesus’ “life and words.” This is an important nuance that should not be missed.

I disagree that there is an important nuance here. The section we are dealing with is “The Apostles’ Teaching” – in history – and their earliest teaching on the life of Christ is recorded in Acts. And, of course, the preaching described in the book of Acts took place before the Gospels were written, which are the subject of the next section of the Instruction. So to avoid anachronism, we should expect to see quotes from Acts in this section of the Instruction. However, the “life and words” of Jesus are certainly set forth in Acts 10:36-41, from birth to resurrection, in summary form. And I say “from birth” because the Son of God is the “[W]ord that [God] sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)” (Acts 10:36). We know that the sending of the Son is in its first instance connected with the Incarnation: “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him Who sent me” (John 6:38). And the “good news of peace” was proclaimed at His birth, coming first through “a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!’” (Luke 2:13-14); and, being “preached” by His presence in the temple, this peace also issued forth into the life of Simeon who says he could now “depart in peace” having seen the Lord’s salvation (cf. Luke 2:29-32). It is explicit in the rest of the passage from Acts that the summary of His life extends in the other direction to include the resurrection.

So what we have here in Acts is simply an example of what we also find in the Gospels, what Dei Verbum and this Instruction refer to as a “synthesis” of “the events connected with the Lord Jesus.” Had the Instruction chosen any particular event or words from Jesus’ life to illustrate their point, it could lead to the idea that other sayings or events were perhaps not as faithfully recorded. A quote from Mark might cast doubt on John, etc. So instead of citing either each and every saying and event, which would be pages of citations, the Instruction wisely chose a summary statement that faithfully encapsulates the entire life of Jesus, and accurately represents the very stage of history that the PBC is dealing with in this section of the Instruction.

In answer to your question, I model Colorado narrow gauge in Sn3 (but I like them all).

I haven’t heard of that one before. Trains were my dad’s big hobby. He had a bunch of O-gauge trains and we had a big train table in our basement with tunnels underneath for us to crawl through. Memories!

Peace be with you!
Pete