Biblical Inerrancy

[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

 

[Ron_Conte]

I believe that the question of Biblical inerrancy has already been infallibly answered and defined by Pope Leo XIII:

Papal Infallibility in Providentissimus Deus
catholicplanet.com/TSM/papal-infallibility.htm

A Synod such as the one planned for 2008 is not an Ecumenical Council, and so it cannot teach infallibly. If it were to contradict this past infallible teaching, then such a contradiction would be null and void. But I doubt that the Synod will accept that very liberal ‘working statement’.

 

[thistle]

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

Why should that concern us? Is there something in that declaration that bothers you?

 

[Genesis315]

It seems to be a bad English translation–for example, in the Spanish translation it says Scripture is completely inspired. It’s also a working paper mind you. The final product is an Apostolic Exhortation promulgated by the Pope.

That being said, the way it is written can seem like it is saying the entirety is not inerrant (inerrancy is not the same as literalism). However, the meaning of the Second Vatican Council was that the entirety of Sacred Scripture was inspired without error for our salvation. This becomes even more apparent when one checks the citations for that sentence in the footnotes of Dei Verbum which cite the passage on inerrancy in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical and a similar passage in Pope Benedict XV’s encyclical on Scripture.

 

[Ron_Conte]

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).

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

Sounds utterly perfect to me and in line with everything I’ve been taught where ever I’ve been. It is certainly in line with the works of both JPII and Benedict to date.

 

[Contarini]

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.

Good. I’ve been berated by a conservative convert to Catholicism in the past for interpreting Vatican II this way.

Let me point out, however, that restricting inerrancy to the truth that God put into Scripture for the sake of our salvation is not quite the same thing as restricting it to “moral and religious matters.” The latter can be interpreted as referring only to strictly theological questions divorced from historical and scientific ones. I don’t think this is possible in Christian theology, but there are liberal Protestants who try to do it, and no doubt there were (and are) Catholic modernists who did the same thing. This is clearly heretical. In fact, I would not say (and I don’t think Vatican II or this current document are saying) that only parts of Scripture are inerrant. I would say that all Scripture is inerrant insofar as it relates to our salvation. Scripture as a whole (which means every word of Scripture when read in the context of the whole and of Sacred Tradition) presents saving truth without error. This saving truth touches not only on “religion” as defined in a spiritualizing modern way, but on history, science, and every other aspect of human life and knowledge.

So I think you may be hasty in seeing a contradiction here.

Edwin

P.S. After writing this I see that (name removed by moderator) has made the same point!

 

[thistle]

Good. I’ve been berated by a conservative convert to Catholicism in the past for interpreting Vatican II this way.

Let me point out, however, that restricting inerrancy to the truth that God put into Scripture for the sake of our salvation is not quite the same thing as restricting it to “moral and religious matters.” The latter can be interpreted as referring only to strictly theological questions divorced from historical and scientific ones. I don’t think this is possible in Christian theology, but there are liberal Protestants who try to do it, and no doubt there were (and are) Catholic modernists who did the same thing. This is clearly heretical. In fact, I would not say (and I don’t think Vatican II or this current document are saying) that only parts of Scripture are inerrant. I would say that all Scripture is inerrant insofar as it relates to our salvation. Scripture as a whole (which means every word of Scripture when read in the context of the whole and of Sacred Tradition) presents saving truth without error. This saving truth touches not only on “religion” as defined in a spiritualizing modern way, but on history, science, and every other aspect of human life and knowledge.

So I think you may be hasty in seeing a contradiction here.

Edwin

P.S. After writing this I see that (name removed by moderator) has made the same point!

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?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Theologians who say that the inerrancy of Scripture is limited to truths pertaining to salvation also claim that there are numerous errors in Scripture on topics such as history, geography, etc. They go so far as to claim that there was only one miracle of the loaves and fishes. They sometimes claim things such as that the Three wise men did not exist, or that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. There are a myriad of claimed errors in Sacred Scripture, which are justified by saying that inerrancy is narrow, that it does not apply to all of Sacred Scripture without exception.

No one takes the absurd point of view that inerrancy is narrowed to truths pertaining to salvation, but that truths pertaining to salvation is broadened to include all assertions on every topic.

I believe that the following papal statement meets all of the criteria for papal infallibility:

But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, 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. 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. (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

 

[Ron_Conte]

Here is my online article on the topic of Biblical inerrancy:

The Total Inspiration and Total Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture
catholicplanet.com/TSM/Biblical-inerrancy.htm

It speaks directly to the error on this topic found in the working document of the next Bishops’ Synod (2008) on the topic of the Bible.

It is very disturbing that such an error could enter even a working document, because it indicates that there is widespread support for this idea.

The article also notes that there are doctrinal differences between the versions of the document in different languages.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Sorry but I’m a bit confused. Are you saying the Bible is inerrant in every respect …]?

Hi Thistle!

Those who hold to the dogma of inerrancy say “yes” to this part of your question.

Here is a very helpful thread on this topic:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39397. I think itsjustdave1988 does a great job of explaining this dogma.

Ron Conte has explained the debate taking place since Vatican II as to the correct interpretation of the Council’s teaching on inerrancy.

Monsignor John F. McCarthy has written that certain “scholars read the text [of *Dei Verbum No. 11] as though it means only that truth which is aimed at our salvation, but this reading is contrary to the wording of the original, which says “the truth,” and not “that truth” (eam veritatem) and contrary to the meaning, as is clearly indicated in the footnotes that the Council itself appended to these words. In fact, the footnotes of the conciliar document include references to Providentissimus Deus, exactly where it says that divine inspiration absolutely excludes any error (EB 124: cf. no. 9d above) and that error cannot be ascribed to the human authors as distinct from the divine Author (EB 125: cf. no. 9c above.) And the same footnote references include the following judgment from Providentissimus Deus: ‘It follows 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.’ Hence, the opinion that biblical inerrancy covers only that truth which pertains to our salvation cannot be sustained, as is brought out in the encyclical Humani generis of Pope Pius XII (1950), where he excludes once again ‘the opinion, already several times condemned, according to which the immunity from errors of Sacred Writ extends only to those things which are conveyed concerning God and moral and religious matters’” (Living Tradition, No. 136 – July 2008, quoted with permission from the author).

Enchiridion Biblicum 539 is also cited by Dei Verbum at the end of the sentence containing “for the sake of salvation,” and it is the passage from Divino afflante Spiritu of Pope Pius XII (1943) which reads, “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,’ since divine inspiration ‘not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes it and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.’ This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously” (emphasis added; the reference to this quote is also provided courtesy of Msgr. John F. McCarthy).

In light of this, the most natural understanding, the one that does not force the Church into a kind of schizophrenia, is that Dei Verbum, Article 11 teaches us that God wrote the whole Bible for the sake of our salvation, and, with this purpose in view, He preserved the whole Bible free from all error.

The other option is to agree with the late Father Brown, who wrote concerning the Dei Verbum footnotes, “Essential to a critical interpretation of church documents is the realization that the Roman Catholic Church does not change her official stance in a blunt way. Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time. … What was really going on was an attempt gracefully to retain what was salvageable from the past and to move in a new direction at the same time” (taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown, which cites The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Paulist Press (1981), page 18.).

This interpretation, while it explains the wording of the bishops’ Working Paper, does not persuade me. My hope is that the current wording will be modified by the bishops, or at least not included by the Pope in his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation.

 

[Pete_Holter]

It’s me again, Thistle!

Here’s another way of looking at it.

The “Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei” by the CDF (June 29, 1998) states that “The Magisterium of the Church …] teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed …] with an act which is either defining or non-defining. …] In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph). …] Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.”

This same commentary identifies “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” as “a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.” So the first point to keep in mind is that inerrancy was a de fide dogma in 1998. Next, the authoritative Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1934 already refers to “the dogma of biblical inspiration and inerrancy” (Concerning the Work of R. D. Frederic Schmidtke entitled Die Einwanderung Israels in Kanaan, February 27, 1934). And so the second point to remember is that inerrancy was a de fide dogma prior to 1934. Vatican I taught that “that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along …]: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.” To this positive decree, the council attached a dogmatic canon: “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.” And that’s the third point.

The conclusion that follows would be that the dogma of inerrancy as formulated and propounded by the church before 1934 is the same dogma in 1998 and forever.

The only question left to answer is when and where this dogma was taught. Returning to the language of the “Doctrinal Commentary,” I would say that it was taught “infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter.” And I would say that a “declaration of confirmation,” that is, a “formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church,” was first made in Providentissimus Deus where Pope Leo XIII promulgated the doctrine “with such solemnity” and confirmed it to be “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church.” And this was his confirmation, which was subsequently quoted and reaffirmed by Pius XII and cited by Dei Verbum: “For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, 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” (“with such solemnity” taken from Divino afflante Spiritu).

I hope this helps you to defend God’s Truth!

May the peace of Christ be with you!

 

[Ron_Conte]

God wrote the whole Bible for the sake of our salvation, and, with this purpose in view, He preserved the whole Bible free from all error.

Well said.

The other option is to agree with the late Father Brown, who wrote concerning the Dei Verbum footnotes, “Essential to a critical interpretation of church documents is the realization that the Roman Catholic Church does not change her official stance in a blunt way. Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time. … What was really going on was an attempt gracefully to retain what was salvageable from the past and to move in a new direction at the same time” (taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown, which cites The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Paulist Press (1981), page 18.).

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. As for Tradition, if Scripture and the Magisterium are unable to teach inerrantly, the inerrancy of Tradition also falls.

 

[patg]

In light of this, the most natural understanding, the one that does not force the Church into a kind of schizophrenia, is that Dei Verbum, Article 11 teaches us that God wrote the whole Bible for the sake of our salvation, and, with this purpose in view, He preserved the whole Bible free from all error.

And which bible would that be? The original Greek New Testament - oh, wait, we don’t have any of those. So then which translation into which language?? Just which one is “inerrant” and what does that mean in the wold of translation, interpretation, and retranslation? If God had inspired anyone to preserve an original bible and we all all understood its language perfectly then maybe what you say would make sense, regardless of whether or not there are errors in the bible in those areas not pertaining to our salvation (which there obviously are).

For a good description of how the Church really feels about this, I recommend Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald D. Witherup S.S. Maybe after reading this it would be clear why the bishops should not change any wording.

…This interpretation, while it explains the wording of the bishops’ Working Paper, does not persuade me. My hope is that the current wording will be modified by the bishops, or at least not included by the Pope in his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation.

My hope and prayer is that the current wording is emphasized more and taught to everyone.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The teaching of the Church on this point is already definitive, from the teaching of a number of Councils and Popes. When the Magisterium teaches definitively, the opinion of scholars is mute.

We don’t have the original manuscripts, so the Holy Spirit must protect the transmission of Scripture, just as He protects the transmission of Tradition, in order that the Magisterium can teach from the one Deposit of Faith, which is ever incorrupt. Otherwise, the Church would not be indefectible.

Individuals involved in handing on Tradition and Scripture can make mistakes, but the Spirit is involved in the handing on of Tradition and Scripture to the extent that no truths can be lost, no falsehoods can be added, and no truths can be corrupted, in the Deposit of Faith as a whole.

 

[patg]

The teaching of the Church on this point is already definitive, from the teaching of a number of Councils and Popes. When the Magisterium teaches definitively, the opinion of scholars is mute.

We don’t have the original manuscripts, so the Holy Spirit must protect the transmission of Scripture, just as He protects the transmission of Tradition, in order that the Magisterium can teach from the one Deposit of Faith, which is ever incorrupt. Otherwise, the Church would not be indefectible.

Individuals involved in handing on Tradition and Scripture can make mistakes, but the Spirit is involved in the handing on of Tradition and Scripture to the extent that no truths can be lost, no falsehoods can be added, and no truths can be corrupted, in the Deposit of Faith as a whole.

I believe your logic is seriously at odds with the current teachings of the Church. The phrase “…for the sake of salvation” is a necessary and essential part of the Church’s teachings on the bible. You may disagree with an eminent scholar of the Church such as Father Witherup but he has more magisterial approval than you or I and, writing under the imprimatur and nihil obstat, he 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). *

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. Furthermore, it allows for growth in the moral perspective in the Bible, recognizing that moral insight deepened over time. Not every moral teaching in the Bible carries the same weight.

 

[Ron_Conte]

“St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error. ” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16)

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

“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.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, 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. 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.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

hen, 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.
(Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

 

[Pete_Holter]

And which bible would that be?

Hi patg!

“o emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error …] they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true” (Providentissimus Deus, 21).

Ron Conte offers some interesting thoughts as well.

The original Greek New Testament - oh, wait, we don’t have any of those.

“Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us” (John 14:8).

For a good description of how the Church really feels about this, I recommend Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald D. Witherup S.S. Maybe after reading this it would be clear why the bishops should not change any wording.

I offer the following review (not my own) of this book taken from Amazon:

“As a Catholic theologian and ordained clergyman, I am embarrassed by this sort of superficial analysis. This is not a sincere attempt at establishing a serious dialogue, but a cheap caricature. Moreover, the author’s own views are presented as though they reflect Catholic tradition. Instead, they reflect Catholic modernism, thinly veiled. I accept historical criticism and the legitimate gains made by modern scholars, but the view of Scripture in this book is much closer to liberal protestantism than to the Church’s official teaching. Fundamentalism serves as a convenient surrogate for attacking the Church’s own high view of inspiration and inerrancy. What a shame. And a sham.”

Readers may rather want to try Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars by Father William Most.

Here is the Epilogue:

"Early in our study we saw that only six easily observable facts are needed to prove that the teaching authority of the Church comes from Jesus. That Church, in turn, assures us that there is no error at all in Scripture.

"With the help of the new techniques, we can see that the Church is completely right. Numerous problems that early in this century would have seemed unsolvable have been solved.

“In regard to the methods themselves, some think that only highly trained specialists can understand them. These people are too easily awed. Anyone can grasp at least the basics of these methods, and more too. These methods are not mysterious or formidable. They are our friends. They help us understand Scripture more fully. They make it possible for us to defend its complete inerrancy.”

I don’t agree with everything in his book, such as some of the “solutions” he offers, but we’re on the same side of the dogma.

Have a blessed day patg!

 

[Just_Lurking]

With all the different viewpoints about this, I think it is very good that the bishops are getting together to clarify what the Catholic Church really does teach about the Bible.

 

[patg]

Hi patg!

“o emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error …] they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true” (Providentissimus Deus, 21).

These words sound so final and important but they totally ignore the fact that there are many forms of truth and that many of them express truth without being literally true. There are more recent documents than this and, as Fr. Witherup states,

Despite the enlightened nature of this encyclical, some ideas expressed in it were still caught up in a pre-scientific viewpoint. In the nineteenth century the Church was not yet making the distinction in Scripture between lack of error in scientific and historical teaching and the lack of error in moral and religious truth.

Ron Conte offers some interesting thoughts as well.

I think we all offer some of those. The bottom line is that the phrase “…for the sake of our salvation” is clearly a qualifier on biblical interpretation and is a natural part of Dei Verbum. It is also the real basis for other major documents such as the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

I offer the following review (not my own) of this book taken from Amazon:

“As a Catholic theologian and ordained clergyman, I am embarrassed by this sort of superficial analysis. blah, blah…”

I assume you have checked the credentials of “A Customer” who is the author of this review (the only negative one)? All the readers who left 5 star reviews at least used names. I’m sure “A Customer” is just as recognized as the Provincial Superior of the U.S. Province of Sulpicians and President of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men is and that his review has an imprimatur and nihil obstat.

Readers may rather want to try Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars by Father William Most.

Readers who are really interested in such a complex topic would do well to read both. We can all parade out our favorite quotes and documents which bolster our position but in the end the truth that relates to our salvation is the only “truth” that matters.