Did Vatican II Reverse the Teaching on Inerrancy of Scripture?

[Neil_Anthony]

It’s impossible to reconcile the posture of JPII in his Theology of the Body and Benedict in both his PBC and in “in the beginning…” and the very work of the PBC itself with any claim that inerrency is the rule. I laughingly think that they assume that the only people who really notice the conflict are scholars who dont’ pay any attention anyway.

I think it would be really interesting to look at specific things you are thinking of that came from JPII or Benedict XVI that you feel couldn’t really be reconciled with inerrancy. Would you care to give an example?

Something I’ve noticed when reading scholars views is that they will start off by showing how a text that appeared in error really wasn’t, for example, by showing that it was a mode of expression used at the time. But then they seem to get carried away with this and stop justifying the things they don’t take literally in scripture… as if it gave them a wholesale justification to discount anything in scripture without explanation. Maybe it’s because they think the ‘modes of expression’ and other terms are just an excuse to accept error? It might be interesting to look at it more closely.

 

[Genesis315]

I think the OP is misreading Dei Verbum. Read the whole thing in context with the previous passage. The part highlighted in the OP means the Scriptures as a whole are for the good of our salvation–God has inspired everything that the Sacred writers have written and it is all for our ultimate good (and therefore all true). See this passage from Dei Verbum:

"(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)"

We also must remember that inerrancy does not equal rigid literalism.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are no errors at all in Sacred Scripture on any topic, whether, faith, morals, salvation, history, geography, chronology, science, math or any other. This has been clearly taught since the time of the early Church fathers.

The primary object of the inspiration of Sacred Scripture is things pertaining to salvation. However, infallibility and inspiration extend to every subject, even in some sense to the words themselves:

St. Gregory Nazianzen: We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them…

St. Clement of Rome: You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them.

St. Justin Martyr: But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] tht it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.

St. Jerome: I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired

St. Augustine: I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie… If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practise or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.

St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome: For, I admit to your Charity tht is is from those book alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text [particular copy] is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes, it’s so frustrating when people point out a mistake in an assumption you’ve made that isn’t relevant to what you’re trying to say. Maybe those don’t count as errors. Maybe Luke’s point was that Jesus was a real person whose history contemporary with real historical political figures of the Roman empire, and Luke didn’t spend too much time double-checking his facts about who was governor when? Maybe that’s not an error?

That idea of Luke’s point may be where the total inerrancy lies: rather than in his - or the text’s ? - total inerrancy in matters of Roman politics. Or do both he & the text have to be inerrant ?​

What are the boundaries of the set of inerrant facts:

• Luke’s intention ?
• the objective facts of Roman politics ?
• the text as a mediator of one or both of these ?
• The literary genre of his text ?
• Some or all of none of these ?
  One would love to know

The whole business of inerrancy bristles with puzzles

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi Neil,

After reading this, I’m still not 100% sure whether you’re saying that scripture is inerrant in truth relevant to salvation, or inerrant in every way. Would you mind looking at an example to explain what you’re saying?

The passage you quoted applies to the whole Bible. The whole Bible is written to guide us to salvation. But a particular passage may not have any direct relationship to salvation, for example the fact that Zaccheus was up a fig tree. This is not saying that we don’t have to believe that Zaccheus was up a fig tree. We are taught that the whole Bible is also inerrant.

Some people think that there is a contradiction in Luke about what year Jesus was born. But the year Jesus was born, or who was governor of Syria when he was born does not affect what the bible teaches about salvation, faith, or morals. So, is it acceptable to say that Luke made a historical error?

“Some people think”… well if it is some people, then it is not the all people. So, in that case, we would have to investigate some more, wouldn’t we? I think most of the “inaccuracies” are of that sort. We need to learn more… and it is possible that we will never be sure of the facts.

If that is so - how can it be morally right to assert as true what may not be ? If one does not know that X is so, it is immoral to assert as true that it is so. It is a form of lying ​

Here allow me once more to quote Pius XII in Divino Afflance Spiritu :

To paraphrase St. Augustine, when I find an “error” in the Bible, then I must say to myself : either there is a copyist mistake or a translation mistake or I do not understand the passage. Or the historical source quoted against the Bible is wrong.

Or the Bible may be wrong.​

Ultimately if we ever prove beyond a shadow of doubt that there is a historical inaccuracy in the Bible then we shall have to reassess our understanding of inerranc, won’t we? Don’t hold your breath.

Verbum

Indeed - but that implies that in the meantime a false doctrine about the character of the Bible’s contents may have been taught as being true. If this re-assessment occurs in (say) 500 years’ time, & ends in a revision of the meaning of inerrancy, that is nice for the generations following the re-assessment, but sticky for the preceding 500 years’ worth of Christians, who will have heard the unre-assessed doctrine, & believed it: IOW, believed as true what is untrue.​

Proof “beyond a shadow of doubt” is only as cogent & indubitable as people allow it to be. X cannot prove Y is the case to Z, if Z can find a way not to accept what X says.

But as you say, breath-holding is not a good idea

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think the OP is misreading Dei Verbum. Read the whole thing in context with the previous passage. The part highlighted in the OP means the Scriptures as a whole are for the good of our salvation–God has inspired everything that the Sacred writers have written and it is all for our ultimate good (and therefore all true). See this passage from Dei Verbum:

"(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)"

We also must remember that inerrancy does not equal rigid literalism.

maybe that’s what I’m doing, conflating literalism with inerrancy.
Still I do believe I’ve seen some mentioned like in Samuel etc. Wikipedia has a lot on errancy I believe…I remember checking a few of the discrepancies and they appeared to be just that errors. I guess I better do some more research.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think it would be really interesting to look at specific things you are thinking of that came from JPII or Benedict XVI that you feel couldn’t really be reconciled with inerrancy. Would you care to give an example?

Something I’ve noticed when reading scholars views is that they will start off by showing how a text that appeared in error really wasn’t, for example, by showing that it was a mode of expression used at the time. But then they seem to get carried away with this and stop justifying the things they don’t take literally in scripture… as if it gave them a wholesale justification to discount anything in scripture without explanation. Maybe it’s because they think the ‘modes of expression’ and other terms are just an excuse to accept error? It might be interesting to look at it more closely.

Well here’s what comes to mind. Now I can understand that we can say that that Genesis is not meant to be taken as science, therefore those who believe in a literal Genesis as portrayed are interpreting the text incorrectly. It is meant to convey the theological truth that God is the perfect creator of all things. But there are two creation stories. JPII very clearly understood this, knew that 2 different authors from two different traditions wrote them, that one was a good deal older than the other. Now does that suggest God repeated himself? No of course not, so it must mean what? That the second has a different theological truth to convey? To suggest as I always have that the redactor decided both were valuable and thus included them both seems not in line with being “inspired”. sigh…well I’m just getting more confused now…lol…

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Well here’s what comes to mind. Now I can understand that we can say that that Genesis is not meant to be taken as science, therefore those who believe in a literal Genesis as portrayed are interpreting the text incorrectly. It is meant to convey the theological truth that God is the perfect creator of all things. But there are two creation stories. JPII very clearly understood this, knew that 2 different authors from two different traditions wrote them, that one was a good deal older than the other. Now does that suggest God repeated himself? No of course not, so it must mean what? That the second has a different theological truth to convey? To suggest as I always have that the redactor decided both were valuable and thus included them both seems not in line with being “inspired”. sigh…well I’m just getting more confused now…lol…

Yes I think the two apparently-contradictory creation stories make it pretty clear that the redactor didn’t think the historical or scientific aspects of the stories were important. If he thought they were important, surely he would have edited them or put in some explanation. So that alone should tell us something about the genre of writing that they are.

I think the two creation stories have very different purposes… one is about creation, the other about the fall of man. So theologically I don’t think they contradict each other, so God didn’t repeat anything theological.

I think of the redactor as being inspired and probably the original authors of the two creation accounts.

As far as error goes, if those stories were presented as history or science, they would be full of error. But if presented as two separate myths with their own theological truths… I’m not sure what the error would be. Unless it turns out that God didn’t really create the universe, or that the fall of man didn’t occur.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There are no errors at all in Sacred Scripture on any topic, whether, faith, morals, salvation, history, geography, chronology, science, math or any other. This has been clearly taught since the time of the early Church fathers.

If you suggest this I think you are essentially espousing fundamentalism and the Church certainly does not approve of such a literalism, if indeed that is what you mean. Your suggestion that there are no “science” mistakes is certainly incorrect IMO. The story of the mustard seed? There are seeds much smaller than a mustard seed, as any gardener would tell you. So that is literally incorrect, though it does not affect the point the evangelist was trying to make. There is also a reference in the beginning of Mark to Isaiah, in fact only part of the passage is Isaiah, the rest is from Ex. and Mal. In Mark 2:25-26 Mark has Jesus asking “Haven’t you ever read what David did when he was in need and hungry–he and those who were him? How he went into the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest…”
This is an error, the high priest at the time of David was Abiathar’s father Ahimelech. Matthew and Luke cleaned this up by removing the reference at all.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There are no errors at all in Sacred Scripture on any topic, whether, faith, morals, salvation, history, geography, chronology, science, math or any other. This has been clearly taught since the time of the early Church fathers.

The primary object of the inspiration of Sacred Scripture is things pertaining to salvation. However, infallibility and inspiration extend to every subject, even in some sense to the words themselves:

St. Gregory Nazianzen: We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them…

St. Clement of Rome: You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them.

St. Justin Martyr: But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] tht it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.

St. Jerome: I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired

St. Augustine: I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie… If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practise or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.

St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome: For, I admit to your Charity tht is is from those book alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text [particular copy] is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.

This is all worth reading - as is anything in Jurgens: is he your source ? ​

What these quotations don’t do, & can’t do, is vindicate the total inerrancy of the Bible against questionings which arise from difficulties of which they did not, & often could not, be aware; difficulties that have arisen since their times, & are alive for us.

Authors writing in (say) the 5th century did not have to cope with early 19th century geology or with Assyriology later on. They were able to assert total inerrancy partly because they were ignorant of some things later generations were not. The problems of critical exegesis cannot always be resolved by the solutions of pre-critical exegesis - the points of vantage are different.

They also resorted to allegory where moderns would not - & allegory is a means of interpretation that can be very helpful in relieving the difficulties that an unallegorised text can pose. If the purpose of the place-names in Numbers 21 is allegorical - one does not have to face the responsibilty of showing that they are historically plausible, or consistent with other parts of the Bible. So there is no danger of finding they may be inconsistent with those parts - so allegorisation is a powerful help for making the text mean only what is not incompatible with total inerrancy. Moderns do not have that luxury, because they know that many text are not intended to be allegorical that were formerly allegorised as though they were meant to be.

Where the meaning of a text changes - the problems often change. So previous judgements about the meanings of a text may cease to be valid.

 

[Genesis315]

I wanted to add a related note. While Scripture is completely inerrant, the Church’s interpretation of it is only infallible in matters concerning faith or morals:

From the First Vatican Council:

1. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.
   1. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I don’t see any contradiction between PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS and DEI VERBUM: they both elucidate and elaborate the same truths that the Church has always believed.

A careful reading of PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS shows up some interesting points that would shed light on the continuity of faith regarding the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures.

There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, “not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.” If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: “Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.” To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(Quoting St Augustine)Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. (emphasis added)

Pope Leo continues, condeming the errors of those who limit biblical inerrancy:

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.(emphasis added)

It seems clear from the above that Pope Leo teaches
(i) Biblical inspiration does not extend to those realities that the Holy Spirit does not intend to teach: those that are not profitable for salvation. The language is reflected in DEI VERBUM.
(ii) that the Bible should not be considered or used as a science textbook. Hence, he does not teach that Biblical inerrancy extends to all dimensions.
(iii) that the errors of those who seek only to interpret a passage by God’s intention are to be condemned.

I think the Pope is combatting the Modernist heresies who deny that the miracles of the Gospels are really miracles. In another incarnation of the Modernist heresies, I have heard a priest not too long ago mention that the exorcisms that Jesus performed are really not exorcisms, but are simple healing that the evangelist attributed to as exorcisms. The latter would appear to contradict the papal teaching as well as the teaching of the Church even after Vatican II.

While one might want to hold, for whatever reasons, that every thing presented in the Bible is exactly true in all dimensions, this has never been the position of the Catholic Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I wanted to add a related note. While Scripture is completely inerrant, the Church’s interpretation of it is only infallible in matters concerning faith or morals:

From the First Vatican Council:

1. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.
2. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Doesn’t that make the practical application of inerrancy content-free ?​

If the CC’s judgement can be fallible in saying a passage means X, when it ex hypothesi really means Y - how is that different from saying the passage changes meaning ? As with - say - the ages of the Patriarchs ?

A content-free doctrine does not signify anything - it has no content to signify. It has to be applicable as signifying some *specific meaning *(or range of them), if it is to have a meaning & therefore is to be of any practical use. Otherwise, it is nothing but an empty formula, which can be applied arbitrarily Which is very bad for theology.

And a content-free inerrancy lends itself very easily to being a denial of magisterial teaching - a denial all the more dangerous for wearing the appearance of an affirmation of total inerrancy. Which is perhaps even worse for theology.

I know all this looks like hair-splitting semantics of the most arid kind - but it is of great importance for the health of doctrine & its exposition, & so, for preaching & theology & personal faith & growth in the mystery of Christ, that doctrine should not be corrupted by carelessness over its meaning.

Sorry to sound so hyper-orthodox - but clarity (wherever available) should not be made foggy by our carelessness; obscurity should not be super-added by us but be the result of the encounter between our tiny minds, & God, Who is “dark with excessive bright”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Originally Posted by Genesis315
I wanted to add a related note. While Scripture is completely inerrant, the Church’s interpretation of it is only infallible in matters concerning faith or morals:

Doesn’t that make the practical application of inerrancy content-free ?​

If the CC’s judgement can be fallible in saying a passage means X, when it ex hypothesi really means Y - how is that different from saying the passage changes meaning ? As with - say - the ages of the Patriarchs ?

If the CC is only fallible on matters of faith and morals, which I believe is all it ever claimed to be, then by definition, any interpretation that it it makes of scripture is only infallible in terms of faith and morals. What else could the church ever say about scripture that was not a matter of faith and morals? The church does not teach about science or history, it teaches about faith and morals.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Gottle,

Indeed - but that implies that in the meantime a false doctrine about the character of the Bible’s contents may have been taught as being true.

We are going around in circles here aren’t we? There is no error in scripture; but there can be progress in understanding it.

Verbum

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi Gottle,

Indeed - but that implies that in the meantime a false doctrine about the character of the Bible’s contents may have been taught as being true.

We are going around in circles here aren’t we? There is no error in scripture; but there can be progress in understanding it.

Verbum

We are, a bit - & yes, there can be (though this doesn’t solve the puzzle)​

I wonder whether one could have a doctrine of inerrancy which incorporated a belief in the presence of error ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If the CC is only fallible on matters of faith and morals, which I believe is all it ever claimed to be, then by definition, any interpretation that it it makes of scripture is only infallible in terms of faith and morals. What else could the church ever say about scripture that was not a matter of faith and morals? The church does not teach about science or history, it teaches about faith and morals.

That depends ​

That Elkanah the father of Samuel was an Ephraimite is asserted in 1 Samuel 1. This is a statement - it states something to be the case. It states that something is the case about Samuel. as it is a statement in a book which is asserted to be free from all error, it follows that to assert that:

• Elkanah the father of Samuel was not an Ephraimite
  is to deny the truth of an inerrant statement in the Bible - it is an assertion that the Bible is not inerrant. And to deny that the Bible is inerrant, is (so it would seem) materially heretical.

So the statement, that Elkanah the father of Samuel was an Ephraimite, is infallibly true, & it is (so it would seem) heretical, & mortally sinful, to deny it.

This is one of the things about total inerrancy that bothers me a lot:

• if the Ratzinger Note is authoritative as an interpretation of the Church’s mind on doctrine
  and if
• the teaching of total inerrancy is still authentic Catholic doctrine
  (& it is not clear to me at least how either proposition could be denied)

then it follows that

• to deny one single statement in the Bible is to cut oneself off from the Church.
  Does our salvation depend on what we believe about the parentage or ages of OT worthies, the number of chariots in a battle, the extent of the Flood or the names of the high priests ? It just does not make sense to believe that one’s eternal state is contingent on belief in the accuracy of the geography of the gospels. There seems to be no proportion between the doctrine, & the importance accorded to it. Murder is a great sin against God & neighbour, as is hatred - can they really be comparable to denying that there was a battle at Ai (as mentioned in Joshua) ?

Inerrancy cannot be limited:

• the Popes reprobate this notion very severely
• the notion is impossible to apply in practice
• the notion is condemned by the Fathers (as an OP proved)
• it falsifies the doctrine of inspiration expounded by Leo XIII
  ISTM the Church cannot with any integrity unsay the words of past Popes - not without committing suicide. If it can - then a lot of argumentation against all sorts of people on all sorts of issues has been a waste of time. If the Ratzinger Note is right, there is no way in which the doctrine in Providentissimus can be denied, watered down, buried, or swept under the carpet. If it is not authentic Catholic teaching - what does that mean for the Catholics of the years between Providenissimus & (say) Vatican II ? They believed in total inerrancy - so how can the Church since them not also do so, holding the same doctrine, in the same sense as Leo XIII, his successors, & they too did ? Not to do so, is not progress - it’s a sinful alteration of the content of the Faith

It may seem perverse to sort-of-defend a doctrine one does not believe - it’s just that the CC has to take responsibility for its doctrinal assertions, & for what they entail. And it is no help to any one if the belief of the Church is not stated - regardless of one’s own views about it. To dilute or to exaggerate the Church’s understanding & interpretation of the words expressing a doctrine, is to represent the Church’s faith as something that it is not. And that is not fair to anyone.

The question is - what does the Church mean ?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Well, even Pope Leo XIII, as quoted by peregrinus in #32 of this thread, quotes Augustine to show that the bible does not intend to teach about ‘the essential nature of things of the visible universe’. So even according to Leo, it would seem that inerrancy is limited to what God intends to teach us through scripture. So I’m not sure you can say that people between Leo and Vatican II believed in total inerrancy…

Is it dishonest to have a doctrine saying that the bible is inerrant in what God intends to teach through it, without specifying exactly what God intends to teach? Whether God intends to tell us about history or not, or what parts of history, or what people in history? Is the doctrine meaningful if its content is still partly a mystery to us? We do know of some things that the church insists that scripture meant to teach, but those are all matters of faith and morals… and it seems unlikely the church would ever insist that scripture was teaching something that was not part of faith and morals…

So perhaps is the doctrine this:

Scripture is inerrant in matters of faith or morals, and in every other teaching given for our salvation, and in anything else that God intends to teach through scripture.

But the last part in italics, is the part that is not understood? (And maybe not that relevant to us?)

That depends ​

That Elkanah the father of Samuel was an Ephraimite is asserted in 1 Samuel 1. This is a statement - it states something to be the case. It states that something is the case about Samuel. as it is a statement in a book which is asserted to be free from all error, it follows that to assert that:

• Elkanah the father of Samuel was not an Ephraimite
  is to deny the truth of an inerrant statement in the Bible - it is an assertion that the Bible is not inerrant. And to deny that the Bible is inerrant, is (so it would seem) materially heretical.

So the statement, that Elkanah the father of Samuel was an Ephraimite, is infallibly true, & it is (so it would seem) heretical, & mortally sinful, to deny it.

This is one of the things about total inerrancy that bothers me a lot:

• if the Ratzinger Note is authoritative as an interpretation of the Church’s mind on doctrine
  and if
• the teaching of total inerrancy is still authentic Catholic doctrine
  (& it is not clear to me at least how either proposition could be denied)

then it follows that

• to deny one single statement in the Bible is to cut oneself off from the Church.
  Does our salvation depend on what we believe about the parentage or ages of OT worthies, the number of chariots in a battle, the extent of the Flood or the names of the high priests ? It just does not make sense to believe that one’s eternal state is contingent on belief in the accuracy of the geography of the gospels. There seems to be no proportion between the doctrine, & the importance accorded to it. Murder is a great sin against God & neighbour, as is hatred - can they really be comparable to denying that there was a battle at Ai (as mentioned in Joshua) ?

Inerrancy cannot be limited:

• the Popes reprobate this notion very severely
• the notion is impossible to apply in practice
• the notion is condemned by the Fathers (as an OP proved)
• it falsifies the doctrine of inspiration expounded by Leo XIII
  ISTM the Church cannot with any integrity unsay the words of past Popes - not without committing suicide. If it can - then a lot of argumentation against all sorts of people on all sorts of issues has been a waste of time. If the Ratzinger Note is right, there is no way in which the doctrine in Providentissimus can be denied, watered down, buried, or swept under the carpet. If it is not authentic Catholic teaching - what does that mean for the Catholics of the years between Providenissimus & (say) Vatican II ? They believed in total inerrancy - so how can the Church since them not also do so, holding the same doctrine, in the same sense as Leo XIII, his successors, & they too did ? Not to do so, is not progress - it’s a sinful alteration of the content of the Faith

It may seem perverse to sort-of-defend a doctrine one does not believe - it’s just that the CC has to take responsibility for its doctrinal assertions, & for what they entail. And it is no help to any one if the belief of the Church is not stated - regardless of one’s own views about it. To dilute or to exaggerate the Church’s understanding & interpretation of the words expressing a doctrine, is to represent the Church’s faith as something that it is not. And that is not fair to anyone.

The question is - what does the Church mean ?

 

[peregrinus_sg]

That depends ​

If it is not authentic Catholic teaching - what does that mean for the Catholics of the years between Providenissimus & (say) Vatican II ? They believed in total inerrancy - so how can the Church since them not also do so, holding the same doctrine, in the same sense as Leo XIII, his successors, & they too did ? Not to do so, is not progress - it’s a sinful alteration of the content of the Faith

The Church does not condemn the concept of total inerrancy. But it seems to me quite clear that the Church NEVER taught that Scripture is totally inerrant. Nothing of the quotes mentioned by the ancient Fathers imply that. Peter continues to speak to the Church and the world through his present-day successor, and the Church has not ceased to bear witness to the same truth. Please do not twist the words of earlier successors of Blessed Peter and the Church Fathers to justify your own conception of Scriptural inerrancy.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Well, even Pope Leo XIII, as quoted by peregrinus in #32 of this thread, quotes Augustine to show that the bible does not intend to teach about ‘the essential nature of things of the visible universe’. So even according to Leo, it would seem that inerrancy is limited to what God intends to teach us through scripture.

Good morning Neil!

I believe the Pope is here defending the use of non-specialized, nonscientific language on the part of the biblical authors, allowing the authors to describe phenomena – using “figurative language” – as they “sensibly appear.” He is trying to adjust the degree of accuracy to be expected by the reader from “scientific” statements found in scripture.

So when Scripture asserts that rabbits “chew the cud” we shouldn’t take a modern understanding of “chew the cud” and force the biblical authors into that standard of scientific precision. Rabbits do appear to chew the cud, and they do eat a certain type of their own poopy, and these two actions are sufficient to warrant the assertion that rabbits “chew the cud.”

The teaching is that the language of Scripture, when it comes to scientific statements, is sufficiently accurate so that the authors are not to be charged with error, while at the same time sufficiently non-technical so that it is accessible to the peoples. That is the point Leo XIII is trying to make in this section of his encyclical as shown by his opening and closing words:

“We have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents …] Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers – as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – ‘went by what sensibly appeared,’(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to” (Providentissimus Deus, 18).