Did Vatican II Reverse the Teaching on Inerrancy of Scripture?

[Pete_Holter]

Jesus was not inerrent in what he said, but Luke may have been in reporting it.

Hello SpiritMeadow! Although what you’ve written here, and the inverse of it, are both incompatible with the Catholic faith, I’m assuming that you meant the inverse of what you’ve written.

To pretend that there are no errors in the text is to simply put your head in the sand. It does nothing to encourage people to listen to the message. The oldest transcripts we have date to no earlier than the 2nd century. By then, every gospel had been copied and recopied innumberable times. Error and mistakes crept in. some by simple human error, some deliberate attempts to correct “errors” they found. There is a long history on this issue, replete with statements by Church fathers and others lamenting the unreliability of the text. In one manuscript there is even a threat to the next scribe to copy it correctly.

Perhaps rereading what Dave wrote here may help you to differentiate between extant manuscripts that have been corrupted through copyist errors, on the one hand, and the Scriptures that are inspired by God and hence free from all error, on the other:

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.

There are certainly copyist errors. These errors, however, are not part of the inspired text. On the other hand, there was also an editing process that took place that was inspired. Benedict XV: “Thus [Jerome] asserts that the Books of the Bible were composed at the inspiration, or suggestion, or even at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; even that they were written and edited by Him” (Spiritus Paraclitus, 8).

May the peace of Christ be with you!

 

[Pete_Holter]

I continue to believe that the Church teaches that the bible is without error as to all material necessary to teach salvation and morals.
In that respect God saw to it that the writer correctly explained the relevant theological lesson. The writers were fallible humans who did not always know “history” or science. That is not the issue.

We know Scripture is not historically inerrant because it gives more than one version of historical events. But I believe Scripture is inerrant because Scripture was not written primarily as a history text (although it has value in that role). It is inerrant in transmitting the faith, and the faith is not about history.

Good afternoon! I am sorry that you have been exposed to bad teaching.

My purpose for bringing forward the following quotes is twofold: (1) to show once again that inerrancy cannot be restricted to faith and morals, and (2) to show once again that the facts of history as related to us by Scripture are foundational to the Catholic faith.

“Some start out with an erroneous concept of faith, regarding faith as indifferent to, or even incompatible with, historical truth” (Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels – PBC).

“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 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. 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” (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

Benedict XV further agrees that this inspiration extends “to every single word of Scripture” and goes on to explain a false notion of inspiration as held by “certain recent writers": “Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest - things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science!” (Spiritus Paraclitus, 19).

“In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical ‘not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.’ When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as ‘obiter dicta’ and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, ***justly and rightly condemned these errors ***and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1).

Please take some time to meditate on and humble yourselves before these words of Leo XIII: “This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church.” The LORD bless you and keep you!

 

[Pete_Holter]

I know that no one is saying that God dictated word for word

Hey SpiritMeadow,

I thought I would share these quotes with you. Something to think about.

Benedict XV: "You will not find a page in [Jerome’s] writings which does not show clearly that he, in common with the whole Catholic Church, firmly and consistently held that the Sacred Books - written as they were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - have God for their Author, and as such were delivered to the Church. Thus he asserts that the Books of the Bible were composed at the inspiration, or suggestion, or even at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; even that they were written and edited by Him (Spiritus Paraclitus, 8).

This idea of “inspiration by dictation” was also taught by Leo XIII: “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” (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

 

[Pete_Holter]

There is something about this viewpoint that has always troubled me. For those that believe in the historical inerrancy of Scripture, how do you reconcile the inconsistencies between the Gospels (and also Acts)? Matthew and Luke give completely different accounts of Judas’ death. John and the Synoptics disagree on the timing of almost everything. The two geneaologies given for Jesus are hard to reconcile (although I know attempts have been made.) If these writing are inerrant in factual details, how did Judas die? Who bought Potter’s Field? When did Jesus cleanse the temple? Which son of David is Joseph descended from?

Let me begin with the words of Benedict XV.

Favorably quoting Jerome and adding his own commentary, Benedict writes that “in this ‘word of truth’ you cannot find things or statements which are contradictory, ‘there is nothing discordant nor conflicting’; consequently, ‘when Scripture seems to be in conflict with itself both passages are true despite their diversity’” (Spiritus Paraclitus, 14).

Again, “Those, too, who hold that the historical portions of Scripture do not rest on the absolute truth of the facts but merely upon what they are pleased to term their relative truth, namely, what people then commonly thought, are - no less than are the aforementioned critics - out of harmony with the Church’s teaching, which is endorsed by the testimony of Jerome and other Fathers. Yet they are not afraid to deduce such views from the words of Leo XIII on the ground that he allowed that the principles he had laid down touching the things of nature could be applied to historical things as well. Hence they maintain that precisely as the sacred writers spoke of physical things according to appearance, so, too, while ignorant of the facts, they narrated them in accordance with general opinion or even on baseless evidence; neither do they tell us the sources whence they derived their knowledge, nor do they make other peoples’ narrative their own. Such views are clearly false, and constitute a calumny on our predecessor. After all, what analogy is there between physics and history? For whereas physics is concerned with “sensible appearances” and must consequently square with phenomena, history on the contrary, must square with the facts, since history is the written account of events as they actually occurred. If we were to accept such views, how could we maintain the truth insisted on throughout Leo XIII’s Encyclical - viz. that the sacred narrative is absolutely free from error?” (Spiritus Paraclitus, 22).

“If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it… Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned… ‘It is better even to be oppressed by unknown but useful signs, than to interpret them uselessly and thus to throw off the yoke only to be caught in the trap of error’” (Providentissimus Deus, 23).

In my next post I will attempt to reconcile the texts that have caused you some concern and to hopefully remove the difficulties. Please keep in mind as I make this attempt, that these are not necessarily the answers for the difficulties. You may be absolutely confident, however, that a true solution does exist.

 

[TMC]

In my next post I will attempt to reconcile the texts that have caused you some concern and to hopefully remove the difficulties. Please keep in mind as I make this attempt, that these are not necessarily the answers for the difficulties. You may be absolutely confident, however, that a true solution does exist.

I am absolutely certain that a true solution does exist, I just don’t think that true and factual are the same thing. I look forward to you response, nonetheless.

 

[Pete_Holter]

how did Judas die?

Judas died after “he went and hanged himself” (Matt. 27:5). It is commonly held that his dead body began to bloat in the sun after hanging for a certain length of time, after which time, “falling headlong he burst open in the middle [of the field] and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18).

Who bought Potter’s Field?

The chief priests are the ones who bought the Potter’s Field: “the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, ‘It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.’ So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers.” (Matt. 27:6-7). When Peter says that Judas “acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness”, this is also true. In fact, Judas did acquire the field, for the field was purchased by the priests with Judas’ money - his payment for the betrayal of the Lord - and through the bartering of the priests, he thereby “acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness” (Acts 1:18).

When did Jesus cleanse the temple?

I believe that Jesus actually cleansed the temple twice. And this is not difficult to believe in light of the fact that even the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fish occurred twice: “‘When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?’ They said to him, ‘Twelve.’ ‘And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?’ And they said to him, ‘Seven.’ And he said to them, ‘Do you not yet understand?’” (Mark 8:19-21).

“This account of the multitude of sellers who were cast out of the temple is given by all the evangelists; but John introduces it in a remarkably different order. For, after recording the testimony borne by John the Baptist to Jesus, and mentioning that He went into Galilee at the time when He turned the water into wine, and after he has also noticed the sojourn of a few days in Capharnaum, John proceeds to tell us that He went up to Jerusalem at the season of the Jews’ passover, and when He had made a scourge of small cords, drove out of the temple those who were selling in it. This makes it evident that this act was performed by the Lord not on a single occasion, but twice over; but that only the first instance is put on record by John, and the last by the other three” (The Harmony of the Gospels, Book II, Chapter 67 – Saint Augustine).

Which son of David is Joseph descended from

I’ve read multiple solutions to this difficulty, but Eusebius’ is the most fascinating: “Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: `Jacob begat Joseph.’ But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him” (Ecclesiastical History, Book I, 9 – Eusebius).

If you find any of these “solutions” helpful, let us thank the Lord together. If you find a better solution, please share it that we may be edified together. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

 

[Pete_Holter]

Returning to the original question that started this thread, Paul VI taught us that “Catholic doctrine…was not called into question by [Vatican II] nor substantially modified.”

“You have to be careful, for the teachings of the Council do not constitute a complete, organic system of Catholic doctrine. Doctrine is much more extensive, as everyone knows, and it was not called into question by the Council nor substantially modified. Instead, the Council confirms, illustrates, defends, and develops it with a most authoritative apologia full of wisdom, vigor and confidence” (General Audience of Paul VI, January 12, 1966).

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hello SpiritMeadow! Although what you’ve written here, and the inverse of it, are both incompatible with the Catholic faith, I’m assuming that you meant the inverse of what you’ve written.

You are most correct. It was a typo. I meant to say Jesus was not errent but perhaps Luke was in reporting it. thank you.

Perhaps rereading what Dave wrote here may help you to differentiate between extant manuscripts that have been corrupted through copyist errors, on the one hand, and the Scriptures that are inspired by God and hence free from all error, on the other:

There are certainly copyist errors. These errors, however, are not part of the inspired text. On the other hand, there was also an editing process that took place that was inspired. Benedict XV: “Thus [Jerome] asserts that the Books of the Bible were composed at the inspiration, or suggestion, or even at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; even that they were written and edited by Him” (Spiritus Paraclitus, 8).

May the peace of Christ be with you!

we have no original autographs. The earliest manuscripts date to the 2nd century. We have in excess of 5,000 today. Some are more reliable than others, but it can depend on other factors of analysis as well. Are you claiming that a Pope declared one set of texts as without error? which translation would that be? Jerome spoke quite loudly at the poor state of the manuscripts he examined. It was the reason for his translation…to bring some order to the various manuscripts which contained so many variants.

 

[TMC]

Judas died after “he went and hanged himself” (Matt. 27:5). It is commonly held that his dead body began to bloat in the sun after hanging for a certain length of time, after which time, “falling headlong he burst open in the middle [of the field] and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18).

The chief priests are the ones who bought the Potter’s Field: “the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, ‘It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.’ So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers.” (Matt. 27:6-7). When Peter says that Judas “acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness”, this is also true. In fact, Judas did acquire the field, for the field was purchased by the priests with Judas’ money - his payment for the betrayal of the Lord - and through the bartering of the priests, he thereby “acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness” (Acts 1:18).

If you find any of these “solutions” helpful, let us thank the Lord together. If you find a better solution, please share it that we may be edified together. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

Well I am, of course, familiar with these explanations. I find them difficult, frankly. Its hard for me to swallow that Luke, who is elsewhere fairly clear narrator, would write “He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity”, if what he meant was that someone else bought the land with money that used to be Judas’. I suppose its possible – I have heard people claim they “bought” their doctor or lawyer’s house, when they mean he bought it with their money. But if Luke is capable of being so cryptic and obtuse here, what can we say about the meaning of the rest of his work? How do we know all the facts in Luke’s writing don’t really mean something else entirely?

I suppose Jesus could have done everything that is put in a different place by John and the Synoptics twice. I wonder why that would not have been mentioned by any of the evangelists.

On the geneology point, though, its hard to really reconcile. Matthew and Luke seem very different on this point and although I know that some say there were multiple brother taking the widow things going on and so forth, its just hard to see.

But I want to be perfectly clear. I don’t think that the differences in the bare objective facts presented by the evangelists can be reconciled. But I agree that both are true, but there is a different kind of true expressed in Scripture. Its hard for me to explain, but others have done a better job of it. The easiest formulation is that the Scriptures accurately set forth what they were meant to set forth, and they were not always meant to convey facts in the post-industrial science and reason way of understanding facts.

This is why what is often referred to as a fundamental approach to Scripture fails. If the truth of Scripture is rooted in the faithful recitation of facts, at least three dangers creep in. First, we overly focus on the facts and let that focus on factual details trump the search for the truth being presented. Second, and related to the first, we limit the power of Scripture to speak by trying to force what is inherently spiritual into a merely factual box. Putting these together and saying it another way, Scripture is a story of spirit and truth, that is attached to facts that are true because they illuminate,explain, and support the spiritual truth. Scripture is not a set of facts from which we deduce a Spiritual truth.

I think this viewpoint is apparent if you think of how the evangelists wrote the Gospels. Did they write down everything that they remembered about Christ, put down the quill, look back over the work and say “Huh, guess Jesus was God and our Savior.” I submit that they thought that they needed to record Christ’s work so that others could know Jesus was Christ, and they wrote with that goal in mind. The Spiritual Truth is the transcendant reality of the Gospel, the facts support that truth, not the other way around.

Finally, a firm and resolute opinion that the Bible is factually inerrant is, to me, just another form of insisting that one knows all the answers. This iron conviction creates a faith that is strong, but brittle. No one knows the answers, we are all seekers. I have seen men lose the faith when they realized (or came to believe) that they were wrong about some strongly held view. If we admit we do not know, we can err without despairing, grow without pain, learn without losing faith.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Good evening SpiritMeadow,

we have no original autographs. The earliest manuscripts date to the 2nd century. We have in excess of 5,000 today.

Just to clarify for other readers, these points refer only to Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

Some are more reliable than others, but it can depend on other factors of analysis as well. Are you claiming that a Pope declared one set of texts as without error? which translation would that be?

No translation. As Dave pointed out, only the “divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error” (Providentissimus Deus, 21).

Jerome spoke quite loudly at the poor state of the manuscripts he examined. It was the reason for his translation…to bring some order to the various manuscripts which contained so many variants.

The faithful today, who sort through the available manuscript evidence with the aim of arriving at a more accurate text, of arriving at the “divine writings as left by the hagiographers,” perform a great work! As the manuscript evidence increases, the number of discrepancies between them increases as well; but the irony is that our ability to reach back to and to virtually replicate the text as left by the hagiographers is thus rendered more sure.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hey SpiritMeadow,

I thought I would share these quotes with you. Something to think about.

Benedict XV: "You will not find a page in [Jerome’s] writings which does not show clearly that he, in common with the whole Catholic Church, firmly and consistently held that the Sacred Books - written as they were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - have God for their Author, and as such were delivered to the Church. Thus he asserts that the Books of the Bible were composed at the inspiration, or suggestion, or even at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; even that they were written and edited by Him (Spiritus Paraclitus, 8).

This idea of “inspiration by dictation” was also taught by Leo XIII: “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” (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

However:​

1. There is a question as to whether the Pope’s “dictare” is intended to mean “to dictate”. This may seem like quibbling - but the question has been raised. Most unfortunately, I cannot remember where; only that the point has been raised.

In view of the debate as to what is meant by “partim…partim” (in the Tridentine decree on the Sacred Scriptures), it seems likely that dictare may not necessarily mean what it may appear to mean. And it would be an injustice to the Pope to father on him a doctrine he may not have taught.

1. Supposing dictation proper to be meant, there was a segment of tradition previous to the Popes quoted that did endorsed that model of God’s activity. However, AFAICS, no later magisterial utterances endorses the notion. So it is far from clear that a dictation doctrine is the authentic teaching of the Church.
2. It is not long since the Limbo of infants - which was not absent from theological or magisterial tradition - was given the heave-ho. Is the dictation model & doctrine more firmly supported ? I don’t know - I’ve not seen it in the CCC, The Teaching of Christ, or any other catechism or doctrinal source that comes to mind. For an authentic Catholic doctrine, dictation seems to be faring none too well - it’s not in the Ratzinger Note of 1998 either (unlike inerrancy).
3. If the bishops are not teaching doctrines, which they should apparently be teaching, then either they are amazingly negligent, or those who think they are not teaching what they should be teaching are mistaken. I prefer to think they - the Pope included BTW - are not teaching this or that doctrine we may think they ought to, because they know better than we do what the authentic doctrine is
4. There is a question whether a dictation doctrine (supposing it to be taught as authentic doctrine) is taught to guarantee the effects to which it is deemed to give rise - or, whether it is taught “for its own sake”. IOW:

• is it taught so that something else (= total inerrancy) may be protected & guaranteed;
• or because it is deemed to be a fact even regardless of its effects ?
• And if its desired effects could be secured by a cause other than dictation, would it be eclipsed ?
  It is far from clear what the theological status, & the degree of theological certainty, of the model of dictation, are meant to be.

1. There is a further consideration: is such a doctrine in accord with the books said to be its effects ? If dictation is what we are dealing with, how are we to account for the very varied character of the books ? How does dictation square with St. Paul’s second thoughts as to whom he baptised, in 1 Corinthians 1 ?

Granted, there are always solutions for such a question - but there is a danger that by making qualifications in the notion of dictation, & of what it may be considered to presuppose & imply, the notion of dictation will end by being qualified into nothingness. Which would make it meaningless.

• PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
• Spiritus Paraclitus

1. Is it suggested that every single line & word is “dictated” - or is there room for the possibility of other modes of the working of inspiration ?
2. How does a dictated OT cope with the problem of the vowel-points ?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Well I am, of course, familiar with these explanations. I find them difficult, frankly. Its hard for me to swallow that Luke, who is elsewhere fairly clear narrator, would write “He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity”, if what he meant was that someone else bought the land with money that used to be Judas’. I suppose its possible – I have heard people claim they “bought” their doctor or lawyer’s house, when they mean he bought it with their money. But if Luke is capable of being so cryptic and obtuse here, what can we say about the meaning of the rest of his work? How do we know all the facts in Luke’s writing don’t really mean something else entirely?

It might help to keep in mind that this could very well be a quotation of Peter’s words.

Finally, a firm and resolute opinion that the Bible is factually inerrant is, to me, just another form of insisting that one knows all the answers. This iron conviction creates a faith that is strong, but brittle. No one knows the answers, we are all seekers. I have seen men lose the faith when they realized (or came to believe) that they were wrong about some strongly held view.

Affirming total inerrancy shouldn’t make someone think that he has all of the answers. But it does give us assurance that there are answers.

“Yet another sign of love will be the effort to transmit to Christians not doubts and uncertainties born of an erudition poorly assimilated, but certainties that are solid because they are anchored in the Word of God. The faithful need these certainties for their Christian life; they have a right to them, as children of God who abandon themselves entirely into His arms and to the exigencies of love” (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 79 - Paul VI). And one of those certainties is “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” (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

 

[Pete_Holter]

However:​

1. There is a question as to whether the Pope’s “dictare” is intended to mean “to dictate”. This may seem like quibbling - but the question has been raised. Most unfortunately, I cannot remember where; only that the point has been raised.

In view of the debate as to what is meant by “partim…partim” (in the Tridentine decree on the Sacred Scriptures), it seems likely that dictare may not necessarily mean what it may appear to mean. And it would be an injustice to the Pope to father on him a doctrine he may not have taught.

1. Supposing dictation proper to be meant, there was a segment of tradition previous to the Popes quoted that did endorsed that model of God’s activity. However, AFAICS, no later magisterial utterances endorses the notion. So it is far from clear that a dictation doctrine is the authentic teaching of the Church.

Hey Gottle! It does appear, however, that at least Benedict’s use of dictation is what we would commonly think of as dictation, considering that it is in a line of progression of terms.

1. It is not long since the Limbo of infants - which was not absent from theological or magisterial tradition - was given the heave-ho. Is the dictation model & doctrine more firmly supported ? I don’t know - I’ve not seen it in the CCC, The Teaching of Christ, or any other catechism or doctrinal source that comes to mind. For an authentic Catholic doctrine, dictation seems to be faring none too well - it’s not in the Ratzinger Note of 1998 either (unlike inerrancy).

Although I think that Limbo is still a permissible doctrine if understood as the experience had in the outermost regions of hell where the unbaptized infant does not feel the pains of hell but is only unknowingly denied the vision of God and communion of saints, and thus not experiencing the loss.

There is a further consideration: is such a doctrine in accord with the books said to be its effects ? If dictation is what we are dealing with, how are we to account for the very varied character of the books ? How does dictation square with St. Paul’s second thoughts as to whom he baptised, in 1 Corinthians 1 ?

When this issue of St. Paul’s second-guessing of himself comes up, the immediate response that comes to mind is that with God “acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted” (Dei Verbum, 11). So God had a reason for having Paul include this in his letter, and God ensured that it be included by acting in him and through him.

I don’t think the Catholic Church requires the faithful to believe that dictation - taken in the sense that the Holy Spirit spoke words to the authors and the authors wrote them down - was the mode of inspiration for all of Scripture. I should have clarified this when I made that post. My intention was to show that it would be permissible for but not required of a Catholic to hold a dictation view of inspiration. If I’m wrong, please correct me!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Good afternoon! I am sorry that you have been exposed to bad teaching.

On the contrary, I was taught by 2 theologians who got their doctorates from the most prestigious theology school in the world. I was taught by Dominicans, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of St. Joseph, all with doctorates in biblical studies and or theology.

Your opinion of scripture sounds very much like fundamentalism to me. The Church has spoken quite clearly on that subject. I have no difficulty with my position. You of course are free to disagree and view scripture as you desire. We have NO document that is original, all are copies dozens of times over, and all conflict with each other on thousands of points. It’s pretty hard to figure out what is inspired when texts give you several different versions I would say.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Good evening SpiritMeadow,

Just to clarify for other readers, these points refer only to Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

Not really. We have copies of parts of the OT as well, but these are not of as great a concern to Catholics or Christians obviously. There are non-Greek texts as well.

No translation. As Dave pointed out, only the “divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error” (Providentissimus Deus, 21).

Which manuscripts are you referring to? There are thousands of them. Are they all free from error when they vary among themselves? That can be a claim, but of course, it doesn’t address the variants does it?

The faithful today, who sort through the available manuscript evidence with the aim of arriving at a more accurate text, of arriving at the “divine writings as left by the hagiographers,” perform a great work! As the manuscript evidence increases, the number of discrepancies between them increases as well; but the irony is that our ability to reach back to and to virtually replicate the text as left by the hagiographers is thus rendered more sure.

Hagiographer is a person who writes hagiographa, which refers to the OT division into three parts. In any case its proper use is in regard to the OT writings and the way they are grouped into 3 categories.

Many feel that we will never achieve a copy of the NT that can be considered “orginal” . We surely don’t have anything like that now. Ironically, I posted a few postings regarding this problem of autographs on my blog this morning. It’s in the upper 5, and not hard to find. Hope it helps you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I don’t think the Catholic Church requires the faithful to believe that dictation - taken in the sense that the Holy Spirit spoke words to the authors and the authors wrote them down - was the mode of inspiration for all of Scripture. I should have clarified this when I made that post. My intention was to show that it would be permissible for but not required of a Catholic to hold a dictation view of inspiration. If I’m wrong, please correct me!

We are told that to read the text as simple dictation is wrong. We are not allowed to view scripture from a fundamentalist point of view. Benedict has called such interpretation “intellectual suicide” see: the first entry under Church Documents on my blog. It’s quite a ways down the document but is entitled “funamentalist approach”

 

[Dauphin]

No. quite simply I don’t. I believe God GUIDED the individual original writers to write down the truths which God wanted understood about Jesus and his ministry. I believe they did just that. Now there have been literally thousands of copiests who have rewritten these texts hundreds of times over. Were they all similarly “guided”. They could have been if God Guides rather than authors. If he authors, then the copiests were definitely not inspired because there are hundreds of thousands of variations at this point crossing close to I believe well in excess of 5,000 manuscripts or fragments.

I’m curious as to how you reconcile this view with the following dogmatic statement from the Council of Trent:

“…and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.”

It seems pretty clear; God didn’t just inspire scripture in some vague sense: He dictated it. It’s clear that the council taught infallibly that God is the author of scripture.

 

[Pete_Holter]

we have no original autographs. The earliest manuscripts date to the 2nd century. We have in excess of 5,000 today.

Just to clarify for other readers, these points refer only to Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

Not really. We have copies of parts of the OT as well, but these are not of as great a concern to Catholics or Christians obviously. There are non-Greek texts as well.

Good day SpiritMeadow!

You are correct that we have no original autographs for the books of either the New or Old Testament. However, the line about the earliest manuscripts dating to the 2nd century does not refer to the Old Testament, but to manuscripts of the New Testament, Greek specifically (which are the oldest). And the number of 5000+ also refers specifically to Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Because you supplied this number, and included the 2nd century date, I took all three statements in your original post as having the same referent, i.e., Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. If you were referring to all manuscripts of the New Testament, including Latin, Coptic, etc., your number would have been, I believe, well over 20,000.

Hagiographer is a person who writes hagiographa, which refers to the OT division into three parts. In any case its proper use is in regard to the OT writings and the way they are grouped into 3 categories.

Hmmm… We must be working with a different set of terms. I would use “Tanak” or “Tanakh” if I wanted to say something about the Old Testament being grouped into three categories. My use of the term hagiographer should be taken in the etymological sense as used by Leo XIII when he wrote that all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that “the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error” (Providentissimus Deus, 20). That is to say, as left by the “holy writers”, the human authors of Scripture.

Also, I didn’t mean to suggest in one of my earlier posts that your education was unscholarly in any way.

May the Lord be with you SpiritMeadow!

 

[Pete_Holter]

I’m curious as to how you reconcile this view with the following dogmatic statement from the Council of Trent:

"…and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession."

It seems pretty clear; God didn’t just inspire scripture in some vague sense: He dictated it. It’s clear that the council taught infallibly that God is the author of scripture.

I’ll add that Pius XII favorably quotes Augustine who said of the gospel writers that “‘from heaven He assisted the evangelists in such a way that as members of Christ they wrote what they had learned, as it were, at the dictation of the Head’” (Mystici Corporis Christi, 50).

 

[Pete_Holter]

I’m curious as to how you reconcile this view with the following dogmatic statement from the Council of Trent:

"…and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession."

It seems pretty clear; God didn’t just inspire scripture in some vague sense: He dictated it. It’s clear that the council taught infallibly that God is the author of scripture.

I’d like to add that Pius XII asserts that “‘from heaven He assisted the evangelists in such a way that as members of Christ they wrote what they had learned, as it were, at the dictation of the Head’” (Mystici Corporis Christi, 50).