Did Vatican II Reverse the Teaching on Inerrancy of Scripture?

[TOME]

The other day I was reading J. D. Crossan’s “The Birth of Christianity” and he wrote something I think is revelant therefore useful to this discussion. In the part I was reading he was being critical of some of his fellow scholars (Fr Meier in particular) because he failed to find in many of their works a clearly defined methodology in their works. I think his criticism can be useful for us if we apply this not so much to our “methodologies” but if we stop and take some time to clearly define for ourselves the basic principles we use in our study of Scripture.

Upon reflection I have developed a few I would like to present (the principles you might find of any value I acknowledge clearly did not originate with me but the worthless ones are truly my own).
My principles are these:

1. I must start with an “A Priori” that could be sumarized by the word “Faith” I start with my belief in God and that God has revealed himself through His “Word” and through the “Apostolic Tradition” of the Church. Also, I must acknowledge that what we are dealing with in Scripture are “Faith Documents” revealing God’s saving presence throughout mankind’s history, i.e. Salvation History, they have come from and were written for faith communities (Israel and the Church).
2. Because these are faith documents of Salvation History biblical exegesis and the “Theology” of the Church are intrinsiclly united.

3.Our understanding of Scripture, theology, doctrines, dogmas etc. has to be understood as something that is living and dynamic but whose growth is always inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit.

1. There does exist a “Tension” between science and theology a tension that is necessary and dialectical, however, is not in essence in diamectrical opposition to each other (there is after all just one “Truth”).
2. In Scripture God’s Truth is revealed, not arrived at through human understanding. This truth is ontological truth, although rooted in human understanding and history, transcends the phenomena of our perceived reality.
3. The only real “proof” of the truth (Inerancy) of Scripture is found when the gospel message becomes a lived reality.

 

[JReducation]

The other day I was reading J. D. Crossan’s “The Birth of Christianity” and he wrote something I think is revelant therefore useful to this discussion. In the part I was reading he was being critical of some of his fellow scholars (Fr Meier in particular) because he failed to find in many of their works a clearly defined methodology in their works. I think his criticism can be useful for us if we apply this not so much to our “methodologies” but if we stop and take some time to clearly define for ourselves the basic principles we use in our study of Scripture.

Upon reflection I have developed a few I would like to present (the principles you might find of any value I acknowledge clearly did not originate with me but the worthless ones are truly my own).
My principles are these:

1. I must start with an “A Priori” that could be sumarized by the word “Faith” I start with my belief in God and that God has revealed himself through His “Word” and through the “Apostolic Tradition” of the Church. Also, I must acknowledge that what we are dealing with in Scripture are “Faith Documents” revealing God’s saving presence throughout mankind’s history, i.e. Salvation History, they have come from and were written for faith communities (Israel and the Church).
2. Because these are faith documents of Salvation History biblical exegesis and the “Theology” of the Church are intrinsiclly united.

3.Our understanding of Scripture, theology, doctrines, dogmas etc. has to be understood as something that is living and dynamic but whose growth is always inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit.

1. There does exist a “Tension” between science and theology a tension that is necessary and dialectical, however, is not in essence in diamectrical opposition to each other (there is after all just one “Truth”).
2. In Scripture God’s Truth is revealed, not arrived at through human understanding. This truth is ontological truth, although rooted in human understanding and history, transcends the phenomena of our perceived reality.
3. The only real “proof” of the truth (Inerancy) of Scripture is found when the gospel message becomes a lived reality.

BRAVO!! :clapping:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

“the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” is an infallible, immutable dogma of the Catholic Church, “to be believed as divinely revealed,” and is “of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.” This Catholic dogma “require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fide, approved and promulgated by Pope John Paul II).

Thanks for that ​

I thought that the CC taught that the Bible was totally inerrant. I even posted all the relevant sections of the Note

Your post should put paid to accusations of “twist[ing]” Papal teaching.

Now I’m* really* confused

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Both of these are good questions. Let’s take one at a time. They’re actually easy to answer.

The discrepancies in the texts such as Mt 5, which has the Sermon on the Mount, Lk 6 has the Sermon on the Plain. In Mt and Lk the the order of the Beatitudes is different. We believe that the reason was the target audience. Matt is writing for the entire Christian community and Lk seems to be writing for the disciples. These differences are not errors. They are deliberate litrary license that the authors take for the purpose of delivering the Truth to the proper audience. In other words, the differences are deliberate.

Another example would be Gn 1, the Creation Story. The Church accepts that the universe as we know it has evolved over millions of years. In Gn God creates in six days and rests on the 7th. This is not an error. The Hebrew writers knew that a day was measured by the rising and setting of the sun. They did understand the solar day. Though they didn’t measure it as we do.

They wrote the theology of creation in the form of a hymn which did several things, but we’ll stick with two, to explain this. First, they wanted to demonstrate the holiness of the Sabbath or Shabbat. The story is written in support of the commandment to keep holy the Lord’s day. They describe creation in six days making the 7th day the Shabbat, the Lord’s day. By using a metaphor, God rested on the 7th day, they drive home a TRUTH that was revealed to them, the Lord’s day is holy. Also, they teach another unerring truth, that being that God brought the universe into existence out of nothing. Rabbinical, Christian and atheistic biblical scholars have all arrived at this conclusion. Yes, there are scholars of the Bible who are non-believers. They study it for its literary value.

The hymn is a salutation and declaration of God’s power and glory. They use the known world to remind people of how glorious and good God is. In a sense, they are saying that the created universe is a sign of God’s greatness and goodness. It is also a sign of our selection, because it was created for us. Even though the creation of the world did not take place in 6 days, there is no error. The intention was to draw one into the mystery of the relationship between the Creator and the created. They were not trying to lie nor did they make a mistake. They also drew their audience into the divinity of the Word. Little did they know that the Word would become flesh. I hope these examples work.

The second question, could the authors introduce errors? Absolutely not. The authors wrote what they received from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would not teach them error or allow them to misconstrue his message. It is impossible for God to allow his Word to contain error.

Remember the Gospel of John. God’s Word is Jesus Christ. The written word is the same word that became Incarnate. God has only one Word, his only Son. There is no error in the Son and no possibility for the Son’s perfection to be marred by humanity. Humanity can misunderstand the Son, but not change the Son. The Son is perfect as his Heavenly Father is perfect.

Therefore, as time passes the eternal Word of God is revealed slowly, first through the written word, then the Incarnate Word, finally through the Risen Word. Nonetheless, it is the same Word.

It is no coincidence that the writers of Gn 1 begin each sentence with “God SAID” There is a connection between this and Johanine theology, “In the beginning was the Word.”

Everything in scripture, from cover to cover, is really Jesus. There is no error in Jesus.

That being said, we must understand that Jesus is presented to us using human language. Therefore, we must use the tools of literary criticism, anthropology, ancient languages, history, and theology to correctly understand the message.

The errors that creep into scripture are in interpretation. These are not errors of the authors, but of the reader.

I hope this helps.

How is a corrupt or uncertain text inerrant ? Any ideas ? Thanks ​

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The errors that creep into scripture are in interpretation. These are not errors of the authors, but of the reader.

I hope this helps.

Yes it did help, thank you very much!

Another thing that helped (from another thread) was where you pointed out that there is a difference between theology, even theology from a Catholic, and Roman Catholic studies. I think sometimes the two become confused in the discussions here, and people are accused of not being good catholics for not accepting the latest theological studies from catholics, for example, from the Pontifical Biblical Comission.

 

[JReducation]

How is a corrupt or uncertain text inerrant ? Any ideas ? Thanks ​

I can’t respond to your question, because I don’t understand it. I’m sorry.

JR

 

[Pete_Holter]

How is a corrupt or uncertain text inerrant ? Any ideas ? Thanks ​

The teaching on inerrancy pertains to the originally inspired text:

“It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear” (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

“Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if ‘copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible’” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 3, quoting Providentissimus Deus).

You were talking about copyist errors, weren’t you?

Gottle, I am encouraged to see you struggling with this teaching… admitting it to be what it is… and your honesty in having a hard time accepting it, not yet being able to accept it. I will be praying for you!

 

[TOME]

I think as we discuss the question of the Church’s teaching on the inerrancy of scripture we may be limiting our thoughts to papal documents and council decrees too much. Perhaps we should be expanding our diologue to look at how the Church applies this doctrine and this may give us a better understanding of the doctrine itself.

The question of slavery might help with this approach. Today the Church teaches and I hope all here would agree that slavery is more than just a peculiar institution, it is an evil institution. However, this has not always been the teaching of the Church and it is clear that in the Old and New Testaments it was an accepted institution.

But the Church has used the same Bible to justify and condemn slavery so it is in my opinion reasonable to ask the question if the Bible is the inerrant word of God how can the Bible both accept slavery and condemn it, isn’t this a contridiction thus inerrancy is a falacy?

I think this would be the case if we limit our understanding of inerrancy to the phenomena of fundamentalism and literal meaning
of what is being read rather than the ontological truth that transcends time and experience.

In regards to slavery, as I wrote above, it was clearly accepted in the Bible however at the same time there always existed the ontological truth that went beyond human institutions and understanding. (Again I am focusing on slavery). While in Genesis we find slaves still we find from the very first words of scritpture the truth of equality - God is the one creator of us all and we are all equal because we are all made of the same stuff (the same “dust”). From Genesis through the teaching of Christ the answer to the questions concerning the meaning of the Sabbath also points to the equality of all humans. Pope Benedict XVI teaches the Sabbath points to man’s worship of our Creator and on a more human level John Crossan points out the sabbath laws made all men, even just for a few hours, equals - both observations point to the truth of communion of all men as found in scriptures. Through out the psalms and the writings of the prophets (especially in regards to the Kingdom of God) there exist the continued expression of the natural equality of all men because we are all his creatures. While St Paul and others accept the reality of slavery still he and the other authors of the letters of the NT proclaim there is a greater truth revealed in the paschal mystery - Christ died for all and in Baptism all are made one.

So while there is an apparent acceptance of slavery throughout all Scripture as expressed in the human experience of the Choosen People (Hebrews - Isaerlites-Jews) and the people of the NT there was always the truth of equality that in its roots condemned slavery.

Here I think it would be interesting for those so inclined to study the how the Church herself came to the present understanding of the evils of slavery and the history of this development in Church Doctrine. One interesting aspect of this development in doctrine is the role of the laity - the Sensus Fidelium in the development in Church teaching on slavery and what this teaches us of the Magisterium and the role each member of the Church (sharing in Christ’s role as Priest, Prophet, and King) in regards to her teaching authority.

I realize I am getting lost in my forest of thoughts again but the point I hope I get across through the example above is me may come to a better understanding of what is meant when the Church says the Scriptures are totally inerrant by looking at the whole process of development as is being applied to a particular doctrine, realizing that this is a living and dynamic process

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thanks for that ​

I thought that the CC taught that the Bible was totally inerrant. I even posted all the relevant sections of the Note

Your post should put paid to accusations of “twist[ing]” Papal teaching.

Now I’m* really* confused

I’m confused too, as I’m not certain what you mean by the above.

The Church teaches that “the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error.” (Providentissimus Deus, 21). Furthermore, the Church accepts “as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition.” (Trent). However, the Church understands this decree in the sense of what has been called “juridical” authenticity, not “critical” accuracy of the text. In other words, the Church does not assert that any one extant manuscript or another is the exact rendering of the original autographs as had been written, inerrant, by the sacred authors/hagiographers. Instead, the Church, in comparing the various Latin editions, chose one edition for the public reading in the Latin Rite. This kind of authenticity would be admittedly insufficient if we affirmed a “Bible alone” epistemology. No true Church of Christ would claim such an epistemology, however. Instead, we “listen to the Church” as truly being, by the power of God, the “pillar and foundation of truth.”

Consequently, all that the Sacred Author asserts is totally inspired, and therefore totally inerrant. As JR described above, the difficult but necessary question is: What did the Sacred Author assert? If the Sacred Author intended to state historical fact (e.g. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day), then the Sacred Author is INERRANT in what he asserted as HISTORY.

Like scientists who try to grapple with the “apparent contradictions” revealed to us by God’s natural revelation, theologians study the “stuff” of supernatural Divine revelation with the a prior view that the assertions of the Sacred Authors of Scripture is ALL revealed by God and therefore, ALL that they assert is without any error whatsoever.

That isn’t to say that everything that may “appear” historical to those who study the extant manuscripts of Sacred Scripture was truly asserted as “history” by the Sacred Author. The interpreter of science sometimes erroneously concludes things contrary to the authorital intent. So too do Scripture scholars.

Historians are capable of error. Scientists are capable of error. Scripture copyists are capable of making errors. Moreover, Bible scholars are capable of errors in the interpretation of God’s revelation. Such collection of errors may create “apparent contradictions” which we know by faith cannot be “true” contradictions.

Consequently, we affirm as Catholics that no “true” contradictions in God’s revelation (natural or supernatural) can exist. So, if whenever we come across an “apparent contradiction” in the Sacred Texts, Catholic hermeneutics continue to insist that “if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.”(St. Augustine, Ep. lxxxii., i. et crebrius alibi., as cited by Pius XI, *Providentissimus Deus, *21).

Scientists and historians should no doubt conclude similarly should they find “apparent contradictions” in the evidence they examine. God, as the author of science, history, and Scripture, does not err.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…The question of slavery might help with this approach. Today the Church teaches and I hope all here would agree that slavery is more than just a peculiar institution, it is an evil institution. However, this has not always been the teaching of the Church and it is clear that in the Old and New Testaments it was an accepted institution.

But the Church has used the same Bible to justify and condemn slavery so it is in my opinion reasonable to ask the question if the Bible is the inerrant word of God how can the Bible both accept slavery and condemn it, isn’t this a contridiction thus inerrancy is a falacy?

… there was always the truth of equality that in its roots condemned slavery.

The Church has always condemend unjust forms of slavery, such as “chattel” slavery. Yet, there are such things called “just title servitude” which has not been condemned by the Church.

See more here: Was Catholic moral doctrine on slavery erroneous?

There are forms of slavery that are always intrinsically evil (eg. chattel slavery). Yet, there are forms of slavery that are just. For instance, God Himself justly imposed slavery upon the people of Israel by their Babylonian captivity. According to John Paul II, “The Second Book of Chronicles reminds us that the deportation to Babylon was a punishment inflicted by Yahweh on his people for their grave sins, especially that of idolatry. Nonetheless, the period of slavery was meant for their repentance and conversion” (John Paul II, Homily at St Gaudentius Parish , 9 March 1997).

Consequently, I don’t quite follow your description of how Scripture is inerrant using slavery as an example.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is certainly by no means controlling of anything but i sure did find it ironic given this thread.

It seems that in the early 1700’s a guy named Johnt Mills sat down with 100 manuscripts of the greek NT. He found 30,000 variations between those manuscripts, something very minor, others not so. Of course this had to be met with quick rebuttal and the best job was done by one Daniel Whitby…scouring the texts in an effort to refute Mr. Mills, now deceased, he was forced at last to lament, " I GRIEVE, therefore and am vexed that I have found so much in Mill’s Prolegomena which seems quite plainly to render the standard of faith insecure, or at best to give others too good a handle for doubting." He goes on to say…". . .what triumphs then will the Papists have over the same text when they see the variations quadrupled by Mill after sweating for thirty years at the work?"

Why was he worried about the Papists? Simply because the Papists always said that the bible couldn’t be taken on its own as complete, but was completed by Tradition and Catholic teaching. This might suggest that even in the 18th century, it was well known that Catholics were not literalists and had a rather different definition of “unerrancy.” Just an interesting aside I thought.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I can’t respond to your question, because I don’t understand it. I’m sorry.

JR

What don’t you understand in it ?​

 

[JReducation]

The teaching on inerrancy pertains to the originally inspired text:

“It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear” (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

“Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if ‘copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible’” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 3, quoting Providentissimus Deus).

You were talking about copyist errors, weren’t you?

Gottle, I am encouraged to see you struggling with this teaching… admitting it to be what it is… and your honesty in having a hard time accepting it, not yet being able to accept it. I will be praying for you!

I was wondering the same thing. Thank you for asking the question. I’m still not clear what would be a corrupt text, unless we’re speaking of one that was incorrectly translated or placed in the wrong place by the copyist. Help!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The teaching on inerrancy pertains to the originally inspired text:

“It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear” (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

“Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if ‘copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible’” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 3, quoting Providentissimus Deus).

You were talking about copyist errors, weren’t you?

Gottle, I am encouraged to see you struggling with this teaching… admitting it to be what it is… and your honesty in having a hard time accepting it, not yet being able to accept it. I will be praying for you!

I’m looking at the teaching from as many angles as possible.​

Errors of copyists are only a tiny part of it - though by no manner of means an unimportant part.

As one always has one’s own biasses, in the nature of the case, it’s essential, if one can, to read what Evangelical champions of total infallibility have to say - which is where those writing just when critical scholarship was getting into its stride are useful.

OTOH, you have people like the late Father Most, who was Catholic,&, anti-critical, & wrote in our own times.

One of the problems is, that even if the texts had been perfectly preserved, that would not secure the meaning of them. This is particularly acute in Hebrew. For instance, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that all the 1291 verses of Isaiah that make up the 66 chapters of that book were written by Isaiah of Jerusalem. So, there is Isaiah, acting exactly as Providentissimus describes the inspired hagiographers acting.

The - or, a - difficulty is, that even if every single one of the signs that we call letters was made by that prophet, & by nobody else, the meaning of the words written is not secured. For even if the Prophet was the sole human author of every single one of the consonants, in the period 740-700 BC or so, the vowel points were not added until about 600 AD. IOW, the vowel points were not in the “original” text - they were added a thousand years later. So a major element of the text, & one which helps to stabilise the meaning of it, was not the hagiographer’s work - it was the work of the learned men who added the vowel-points. This means that Isaiah was inspired to write the consonants; & that if the vowel points are inspired, the inspiration of them took place more than a thousand years after him. If they were not inspired, the values of the points still need to be accounted for somehow.

The Hebrew alphabet developed in that time too, just like others. In some forms of it, D & R are very hard to tell apart. This is why in identical passages different versions read “Edomites”, or, “Syrians” - the difference affects the sense: an inerrant account of an Edomite defeat, is not the same as an an inerrant account of a Syrian defeat. If the text is inerrant, & if inerrancy matters, it matters mightily that we should know *which *message is being inspired by Almighty God. We can’t shrug it off, because we insist that the Bible is totally inerrant - to shrug it off, is in effect to say it does not matter; IOW, to adopt a position which denies total inerrancy. Yet that is just what we are not allowed to do.

And this is just one of the problems with TI that no-one seems to address. Those who insist that a doctrine is true, are responsible for it - shrugging off problems is irresponsible; because doctrines are not for private contemplation, but for public preaching as part of the Good News of Christ. Doctrines are not inert - they have all sorts of consequences. There is no place for confused thinking - if something is but a muddle, it won’t turn into a mystery

Which is why an authentic exposition of TI is so necessary.

One problem with all this - a meta-question really - is that discussing such matters may weaken people’s faith

 

[JReducation]

I thought the point of slavery and the bible was an interesting take. There are other such interesting takes, such as the conception of Isaac. If we look at that story, it almost looks as if the Israelites, as they were known back then, understood slavery and adultery admissible to fulfil the will of God. The issue is that what it looks like and what it is are not the same. “The whole is greater than the sum total of the parts.” Now I feel better, I got that off my chest! LOL

As has been said by the teaching Magisterium of the Church many times, God speaks to man in human language. But that of which God speaks transcends human experience, time and space.

“the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” is an infallible, immutable dogma of the Catholic Church, “to be believed as divinely revealed,” and is “of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.” This Catholic dogma “require **the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. **Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fide, approved and promulgated by Pope John Paul II).

We must look at the scriptures as an ongoing process, not a history book. Albeit, there are some books in the Bible that were meant to be historical, but such is not the case with all of them. However, they all present an inerrant truth about God and his relationship with his creation. This is the where the assent of theological faith enters the picture. We are bound to assent to the truth that is revealed to us. Such an assent is an act of faith.

The Church is clear to use the term “theological faith”, because faith has many nuances. Theological faith is different from the faith that I place in the President of the United States or my spouse and so forth. The faith of the Christian stands in relation to hope and love. The three cannot be separated.

Therefore, in receiving biblical revelation we believe that he who is revealed (The Father) and who does the revealing (Holy Spirit) and the mediator of revelation (Jesus Christ) is truly the Godhead, the alpha and the omega. We trust (hope) God’s self-disclosure through the scripture. We observe his love and respond in kind (charity). When it is all bound together, we defer in faith to what has been revealed as inerrant truth, without any other possible meaning.

The best piece of writing on the bible itself, believe it or not, is John’s Prologue. He summarizes the entire story of salvation, which is what the Bible is about. I believe that any Christian who wants to understand the Bible should begin by reading this book first, the Prologue of John. The rest falls into place.

Karl Rahner puts it well. God reveals himself to humanity and the event of Jesus Christ is the centre-point of God’s communication. The Holy Spirit operates both in the incarnation of the revelation and in the hearts of those to whom the truth has been revealed. Because the Bible is the self-disclosure of God and God is truth, there can be no error (falsehood) in it. In essence, the Bible is a collection of writings on God and the writers attempted to capture the mystery of God, the work of God, the love of God, and God’s plan for humanity. The details are frosting on the cake.

At times, the Biblical authors share the historical details, but often they will use literary tools to communicate **THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORICAL FACT, “God so loved the world. . . . “ ** This is the inerrant truth contained in scripture which cannot be denied. The use of literary tools is justified, when it makes revelation easier to understand. It is not an attempt to deceive, but to make assent to revelation easier for the audience.

If you miss the whole, you end up going around in circles, as many fundamentalist do, with isolated citations trying to capture the revealed truth and always just missing the mark. For the average person who does not have the time or desire to get a PhD in Scripture, it is easier to use the commentaries. These will help in identifying historical facts, metaphors, allusions, allegory, simile, and so forth. They also help understand the writer’s message.

 

[JReducation]

I’m looking at the teaching from as many angles as possible.​

Errors of copyists are only a tiny part of it - though by no manner of means an unimportant part.

As one always has one’s own biasses, in the nature of the case, it’s essential, if one can, to read what Evangelical champions of total infallibility have to say - which is where those writing just when critical scholarship was getting into its stride are useful.

OTOH, you have people like the late Father Most, who was Catholic,&, anti-critical, & wrote in our own times.

One of the problems is, that even if the texts had been perfectly preserved, that would not secure the meaning of them. This is particularly acute in Hebrew. For instance, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that all the 1291 verses of Isaiah that make up the 66 chapters of that book were written by Isaiah of Jerusalem. So, there is Isaiah, acting exactly as Providentissimus describes the inspired hagiographers acting.

The - or, a - difficulty is, that even if every single one of the signs that we call letters was made by that prophet, & by nobody else, the meaning of the words written is not secured. For even if the Prophet was the sole human author of every single one of the consonants, in the period 740-700 BC or so, the vowel points were not added until about 600 AD. IOW, the vowel points were not in the “original” text - they were added a thousand years later. So a major element of the text, & one which helps to stabilise the meaning of it, was not the hagiographer’s work - it was the work of the learned men who added the vowel-points. This means that Isaiah was inspired to write the consonants; & that if the vowel points are inspired, the inspiration of them took place more than a thousand years after him. If they were not inspired, the values of the points still need to be accounted for somehow.

The Hebrew alphabet developed in that time too, just like others. In some forms of it, D & R are very hard to tell apart. This is why in identical passages different versions read “Edomites”, or, “Syrians” - the difference affects the sense: an inerrant account of an Edomite defeat, is not the same as an an inerrant account of a Syrian defeat. If the text is inerrant, & if inerrancy matters, it matters mightily that we should know *which *message is being inspired by Almighty God. We can’t shrug it off, because we insist that the Bible is totally inerrant - to shrug it off, is in effect to say it does not matter; IOW, to adopt a position which denies total inerrancy. Yet that is just what we are not allowed to do.

And this is just one of the problems with TI that no-one seems to address. Those who insist that a doctrine is true, are responsible for it - shrugging off problems is irresponsible; because doctrines are not for private contemplation, but for public preaching as part of the Good News of Christ. Doctrines are not inert - they have all sorts of consequences. There is no place for confused thinking - if something is but a muddle, it won’t turn into a mystery

Which is why an authentic exposition of TI is so necessary.

One problem with all this - a meta-question really - is that discussing such matters may weaken people’s faith

Gottle
I think I understand what you mean now when you say “corrupt” texts; but correct me if I’m wrong.

As I read your post you develop two theses. Let’s see if I got this right. Help me here.

First, the books of the Bible are written by multiple authors. For example, Issaiah didn’t sit down and type up his prophecies. This is compounded by the fact that we do not have the original manuscripts. The compound is complicated by the third fact, that centuries later scholars had to fill-in the blanks by working on such elements are grammar, vowel sounds etc. You fear that all of these elements may compromise the original message. Did I get that part right?

Second, if the Biblical writings are inspired, it is important to know which part is inspired and which part is of human creativity or a human insert. Did I get that part right?

You believe these to be problems that have been shrugged off by the Church and such behaviour is irresponsible. Did I get that right?

For the moment, I just need to know if I correctly understood what you mean. In addition, I want you to know that I took the time to read and try to dissect your post as best I could. If I did get it right, I MAY be able to shed some light, no guarantees.

Thanks

 

[TOME]

itsjustdave,
The reason I brought up slavery was not to discuss the issue of slavery itself but I thought it might be helpful if we looked at a real issue and see how the Church, over the centuries, developed its teachings on the issue knowing that all doctrine has to be rooted in scripture.

I thought if anyone would do this, it could be on any question and not just slavery - for example the development of the theology of the Sacrament of Confirmation is an interesting study - they might get a better understanding of the definition of “Inerrancy” through its practicable application on a particular subject.

But I wasn’t speaking of slavery per se, however, the link you provided did in a way point to what I was trying to get at- so thank you for the link.

 

[JReducation]

This debate is getting out of control. The facts stand the same. Why are we still debating this?

1. Canon Law is written by the Church. However, the Pope is not subject to Canon Law. He is above the law. The Archbishop is subject to the law. There is not argument on that.
2. Peter did sin. Every pope sins, because every pope is human. Nonetheless, sin does not take away his authority. The authority was confirmed by Christ onto Peter, despite his sin. Christ asks Peter if he loves him. He does not ask Peter if he’s sinless. Then he tells Peter, that he will build his Church on this rock, he will give him the keys, whatever he binds or unbinds shall be so in Heaven, the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against him. Whether we are speaking of St. Peter or John Paul II, the promise of Christ to protect the Church from being destroyed by the Gates of Hell stands. Also, the confirmation of his authority to bind and unbind stands. The fact that he is the keeper of the Keys also stands. The keeper of the keys has the power over the house.
3. The Tridentine mass is not the embodiment of Christian tradition. It is part of the tradition. What the Catholic Church understands as tradition is the faith of the Church that we received from the Apostles. When the liturgical reforms took place, there was no doctrinal change regarding the Eucharistic celebration. It continues to be the celebration of the Paschal Mystery. In fact, you can’t have a mass without bread and wine, the words of consecration and an ordained priest. The essence was not changed. Some may prefer the Tridentine mass over the new ordo that is acceptable. But to fear that the Church was going to be lost forever, because the way that we celebrate the mass is to doubt Christ’s promise to Peter. The promise was that he (Peter) would never lead the Church to its damnation, because the Holy Spirit would guide him. He might take a few rocky roads, but would come out in the right place in the end. History has proven that this is the case. We have been down many rocky roads. Hmmm, I wonder if that’s why Jesus changed his name to Rock.
4. As to the Assisi issue, John Paul II neither ordered nor sanctioned it. John Paul II is not the mayor of Assisi. They’re not even in the same country, considering that Vatican City is a separate state. He has no jurisdiction over the city. He has jurisdiction over the pastoral affairs of the parishes in the city. By the way, the parishes in the old city of Assisi belong to the Conventual-Franciscan Brothers. Traditionally, when a bishop, in this case the bishop of Assisi, believes that something wrong is happening in a parish under the jurisdiction of a religious order, it is up to the superior of that order to make sure that his religious are not part of the sin or error. If so, it is up to him to fix the problem. As far as I know (correct me if I’m wrong) there has not been any injunction on the part of the Bishop of Assisi against the Brothers. I’m wondering how much control the Church had over whatever happened there. I find it hard to believe that the Bishop of that Diocese and the Minister General the Order would not have protested or put a stop to something that was morally objectionable, if they had the power to do so. John Paul is not the Bishop of Assisi or the Minister General of the Franciscan Brothers. He leaves those issues to be dealt with by them. The Pope becomes involved when there is harm to the universal church or when the Bishop of the diocese and the superior general of the order have met a dead end and appeal to the Holy See for help. Remember the child sexual abuse issue in the USA. The Holy Father did not become personally involved in that either. He asked the bishops to fix the problem and asked then Cardinal Ratzinger to look into it. Now Pope Benedict, has not become personally involved. These are matters that the Pope can choose to leave to the local bishops. If the local bishop is the guilty party, then the Pope has to deal with it.
5. Finally, why does anyone have any doubt as to the Pope’s right to excommunicate? Even the local bishop can excommunicate. We can disagree with the excommunication, but we have to accept it as a fact and as a right. Abortion and remarriage after divorce incur excommunication, no matter what the reasons. It is then up to the local bishop to decide if the ipso facto excommunication applies. The Bishops’ bishop is the Pope. He decided it applies. If people want to believe that John Paul II was mean for doing so, they can think it. It will not change his authority, which comes from Christ. Just for the sake of argument, Benedict XVI can retract it, but hasn’t even addressed it. We have had excommunications lifted. The Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church excommunicated the Roman Catholic Church. Both lifted the excommunication on each other.

 

[JReducation]

I APOLOGIZE

My previous post was meant for a different thread. I was reading this one and writing a response to another thread at the same time. I’M SOOOO sorry if I caused anyone any confusion.

Please forgive me.

 

[juliamajor]

I APOLOGIZE

My previous post was meant for a different thread. I was reading this one and writing a response to another thread at the same time. I’M SOOOO sorry if I caused anyone any confusion.

Please forgive me.

hey- it was a great post anyway!