Did Vatican II Reverse the Teaching on Inerrancy of Scripture?

[SpiritMeadow]

I have a serious concern about CAF. While I believe that the original founder had good intentions, it seems to lack some guidance from people in the know. The lawyer who founded it intended to help combat proselytizing of Catholics by fundamentalists Protestants. Because the organization is not an official organism within the Catholic Church, the monitoring and support that they received from Catholic theologians, exegetes, liturgists, philosophers, linguists, historians, canon lawyers, psychologists and mystical theologians is minimal at best. CAF has a forum “Ask the Apologists”, but they only respond to some questions. My guess is that they have few apologists and too many questions.

I came here as well expecting intellectual conversation on issues of theology and scripture analysis. Instead I find a free-for all of who interprets the Magisterium correctly? And of course, probably most of the time none of us do. This thread is puzzling to me since I’ve had some training too, and these questions simply do arise among Catholic theologians or scripture scholars at least the ones I have had the priviledge to know and learn from. I am always reading some academic work about the bible. I’m reading an exegetical work on Mark and just started a book on Paul’s Christology. Apparently some here think I shouldn’t because they might suggest that something might be different or didnt happen as literally stated. It’s definitely confusing and distressing.

What is worse, is that people don’t say, gee, I don’t look at it that way. No they tell me I’m in dissent all the time instead. That is indeed a kind remark. I’ve been called a heretic and told I have self-excommunicated myself since I disagree with their version of what teaching is. I am guity as well of stating as fact what is only opinion, and I realize that. But I try not to, and mostly I don’t.

It is a shame that some people here do think that this site reflects correct current Church teaching. It may and probably does in some or even most respects, but independent research has shown me at least that it has its own preferred beliefs that it promotes sometimes against at least the “spirit” of actual church teaching as I see it. So its sad when so much of what is quoted or referred to as “authority” is actually just citation to unknown persons here who have written articles.

Thanks for your valuable comments and the other site.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Like this, there is an explanation for the great variety that exists in each part of the bible. These explanations actually do away with the fear of historical or theological error. If I deliberately place George Washington on the Piedmont Plateau to tell the story, because the altitude of the plateau is going to convey to my audience Washington’s military superiority over that of the British generals and another person says that the battle was at Valley Forge; because they want to demonstrate how Washington’s military leadership held his troops together and kept them alive during a harsh winter, we’re both telling the truth. Valley Forge or Piedmont Plateau is each part of the truth. Washington was a superior General and a great military leader.

If this is all we are talking about then I agree to a point. It has always been my contention that the true value of scripture is the message it contains, not every factual allegation. If you speak of error in that way, I would agree, there is not much that I would contend against. (Though there are discrepancies in manuscripts that significantly change the meaning of small sections of text). But in your example, still and all, Washington was not at both places at the same time. One account is in error factually. Though both are conveying the same general information and tailoring it to their ideological message.

What I do caution against is simply conflating all gospels to gain some “complete” picture. I don’t think that is wise or advisable. Each stands on its own.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Then was the Council of Trent in error? Was the pre-conciliar Catholic Church “fundamentalist”? If a council of the Church says the Bible was “dictated”, aren’t we bound to believe that?

I would think you should ask a specialist in Magisterium teaching. I can’t explain what is wrong if anything with your interpretation of Trent. I just know that that does not seem to be the teaching I heard and continue to hear and read in modern RCIA and Catecthical material. It is always definitively stated that “We do not believe that God dictated the the Bible.” That has always been a protestant way of looking at scripture. Perhaps however, you are right, and the Church has supported study that it never should have.

I continue to assume that the Church does not feel itself in error and promotes continued exegesis and critical examination of scripture in an attempt to better understand what was said and what was meant. It has concerns about how this is done, to be sure, and urges us that we do not need to set aside faith in some attempt to be objective, but that subjective faith also can reason to a clear end. We work in tandem.

 

[Pete_Holter]

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.

perhaps his holiness used it in err. I check with 3 online dictionaries and my own and all said the same thing. that it was a jewish division of the OT into 3 parts. Leo XIII perhaps used it in a different sense or did not understand its limits. In any case, we now understand each other.

Good day SpiritMeadow! I wouldn’t have redressed this issue except that you thought perhaps Leo XIII was wrong to use the word “hagiographers” when referring to the authors of the Christian Scriptures. So I thought we should discuss it further for that reason.

You got me to dig a little deeper…

Hagiographa does indeed have a specialized meaning and can refer specifically to the third division of the Jewish Scriptures. It is not, as far as I know, a word used to refer to the “division of the OT into 3 parts.” It is an alternative term used to designate only the third division, which is otherwise referred to as “Writings” or “Ketuvim.”

Now, hagiographa could also refer to all of the Jewish Scriptures if a Jew wanted to use it that way; but it does not in itself tell us anything about those writings being divided by Jews into three groups as the acronym Tanakh does.

Hagiographa could also, in a less than true yet totally sincere way, refer to the Vedas if a Hindu wanted to use it that way.

The word itself is a transliteration of the Greek words “hagios” (= holy) and “graphe” (= a thing written or a writing).

So then, as used by Leo XIII, hagiographers are people who write holy writings, i.e., the human authors of the Old and New Testaments. If you haven’t read his encyclical yet, or it’s been a while since you have, take the time to read it [again]. It’s great! And you’ll see from the context how he intends the word as he uses it to be taken by the reader.

Hagiographer could also be used to refer to a person who writes hagiographies, or biographies of saints. But this meaning doesn’t have much to do with biblical inerrancy.

So of the three options you provided,

1. Perhaps he erred,
2. Perhaps he used it in a different sense, or
3. Perhaps he did not understand its limits

I say we go with number 2. What do you say?

I hope you have a blessed Lord’s Day!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Good day SpiritMeadow! I wouldn’t have redressed this issue except that you thought perhaps Leo XIII was wrong to use the word “hagiographers” when referring to the authors of the Christian Scriptures. So I thought we should discuss it further for that reason.

You got me to dig a little deeper…

Hagiographa does indeed have a specialized meaning and can refer specifically to the third division of the Jewish Scriptures. It is not, as far as I know, a word used to refer to the “division of the OT into 3 parts.” It is an alternative term used to designate only the third division, which is otherwise referred to as “Writings” or “Ketuvim.”

Now, hagiographa could also refer to all of the Jewish Scriptures if a Jew wanted to use it that way; but it does not in itself tell us anything about those writings being divided by Jews into three groups as the acronym Tanakh does.

Hagiographa could also, in a less than true yet totally sincere way, refer to the Vedas if a Hindu wanted to use it that way.

The word itself is a transliteration of the Greek words “hagios” (= holy) and “graphe” (= a thing written or a writing).

So then, as used by Leo XIII, hagiographers are people who write holy writings, i.e., the human authors of the Old and New Testaments. If you haven’t read his encyclical yet, or it’s been a while since you have, take the time to read it [again]. It’s great! And you’ll see from the context how he intends the word as he uses it to be taken by the reader.

Hagiographer could also be used to refer to a person who writes hagiographies, or biographies of saints. But this meaning doesn’t have much to do with biblical inerrancy.

So of the three options you provided,

1. Perhaps he erred,
2. Perhaps he used it in a different sense, or
3. Perhaps he did not understand its limits

I say we go with number 2. What do you say?

I hope you have a blessed Lord’s Day!

lol…seems argument for the sake of same. I was fine as soon as I looked it up and informed you of the real meaning. If I happen to use the term in the future, which is probably not likely, I shall know how its used. It is of little consequence, I only raised it because I was unclear what YOU meant. You have a awesome day yourself.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You got me to dig a little deeper…

Hagiographa does indeed have a specialized meaning…

Oh man… all that research and typing just to have it laughed at, ignored, and thrown back in your face. You’re more patient than I am.

 

[Pete_Holter]

reread what you just wrote. And of course I cited you to a particular section of the document pertaining to its negation of fundamentalism as a correct way to interpret scripture. You must read the entire document to see what other methodologies the Vatican affirms. But you write yourself of its “criticism” of an overly inerrent approach.

Good evening SpiritMeadow,

I’ve read this document.

In the section you had referred me to, it states, “Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts.” Do you agree that there is a difference between criticizing the placement of undue stress on something and criticizing the thing itself?

Again, it it difficult to interact with a document that does not cite sources. We do not know what “certain details” the PBC has in mind here and what “undue stress” on these details looks like. I doubt that they have works such as Augustine’s Harmony of the Gospels in mind. His is a literal approach, but I am assuming it escapes their criticism of being "naively literalist" and remains a Catholic one.

You have mentioned interpretations and corrupted manuscripts. These issues are connected to inerrancy, but they do not affect the object of the dogma itself.

If a copyist error is detected in any given manuscript, then that error needs to be eliminated through textual criticism in order to arrive at the inerrant text being referred to by the dogma. We do not physically have this text in its absolute purity. I would say, however, that what we do have is very close. It is by faith that we believe this original text was composed with God as its author and is therefore free from all error.

If someone wrongly interprets scripture, the dogma of inerrancy does not extend to that wrong interpretation. Only the text itself is free from all error. The teaching is summarized by Augustine in this way:

And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty , or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said , or I myself have failed to understand it . - Letter 82 From Augustine to Jerome

With these points in mind, do you believe in total inerrancy?

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[JReducation]

**But in your example, still and all, Washington was not at both places at the same time. One account is in error **factually. Though both are conveying the same general information and tailoring it to their ideological message.

What I do caution against is simply conflating all gospels to gain some “complete” picture. I don’t think that is wise or advisable. Each stands on its own.

The two bold points . . . Error means that there is a mistake. When an author deliberately changes a detail to achieve a specific purpose and the purpose is achieved, he has not committed an error. In literature this is known as an amendment. The author has amended the details to for the sake of clarity and convenience. It would be an error if there were no awareness of the change.

Jewish and Christian exegetes believe that the original writers of scriptures deliberately amended and used other literary tools. The changes in details or facts were not errors; they served the purpose of the writing and the writing achieved its purpose.

If I may use an analogy, a woman goes into surgery for a hysterectomy to remove a cancerous uterus. The surgeon knows that the woman will no longer bear children. Sterilization is a result of the surgery, but it is not an error of judgment or knowledge on the part of the surgeon. The surgery achieves its purpose. It removes the cancer. There is no “oops!”

When a biblical writer amends a story for a particular purpose, either through use of metaphor, allegory, allusion, poetic devices, phrases and expressions common to the time and place in which he writes, he knows exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it. The Holy Spirit is guiding his craft. There can be no error. If I may use the term, this is literary surgery. There is a side-effect; you may have Jesus delivering a sermon on a mount in one gospel and a sermon on the plain in another gospel. However, the purpose was served well. In fact, Jesus never delivered the sermon in the first place, as is the case of the Beatitudes. They were collections of Jesus’ sayings. The writers are performing “literary surgery” by weaving these sayings into a single sermon when it is likely that they were teachings that came from various conversations, sermons and other discourses used by Jesus. There is no error, because there is complete awareness of what one is doing and why one is doing it. This was an acceptable form of writing at the time when they produced these manuscripts. We have to approach them with the mindset of the first-century reader, not our 21st century mindset.

As to the second point, to conflate is to combine. You have to combine the gospels to understand the Christ-Event. The individual gospels do not stand alone and the intent of the writers was that they supported what the first Christians believed. Each of the gospels has pieces of the beliefs of the early Church, according to the target audience. The Synoptic Gospels are closer to each other because they use a very similar method of delivering the Good News, which are narratives.

John, on the other hand, uses philosophy and theology. He makes use of narratives necessary to support his theology. He deliberately ignores narratives that have nothing to do with his theology. His entire gospel is written around one theological theme; Jesus is the God-Man who is the pre-existent Logos and became incarnate. Mt, Mk and Lk focus on the prophecies. Jesus is the Messiah that God had promised to Israel, the Son of God.

When you take the four gospels together, you get a complete picture of the Christ-Event. Jesus is the Son of God, the God-Man, whom Yahweh had promised to Israel and who broke into human history at the incarnation and who always existed outside of history; through whom all of history comes into existence and receives life.

This is pretty intense. Without the “conflating”, to use your term, we would miss this.

Many continue to approach history using the classical American model of history. This model has been discarded by most of the developed education systems around the world, because it does not work. The model that we taught our children was to connect names, persons, places, causes and events. It was very left-brained. Today, many education systems that are way ahead of us in social studies and the study of literature are using a right-brained approach, which is taks the event as a whole and exames the reasons for the details instead of the details themselves. Once you understand the reason for the details, then you shift to the left hemisphere of the brain and examine the details for their accuracy. Regardless of their accuracy, your understanding of the event is complete, because those details help clarify it and convey it.

Bible historians have been using this methodology for approximately a century.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

When a biblical writer amends a story for a particular purpose, either through use of metaphor, allegory, allusion, poetic devices, phrases and expressions common to the time and place in which he writes, he knows exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it. The Holy Spirit is guiding his craft. There can be no error.

Thank you so much for this explanation.

I was thinking that even in a modern biography turned into a movie there would be all sorts of ‘amendments’ like that. And I wouldnt’ consider them errors - they are part of making the film. It wouldn’t be possible to cover a person’s whole life in a movie without combining some events together. Also there are details that would have to be filled in, like what colour of shirt was so-and-so wearing the day he said such-and-such. Getting those wrong in a movie biography wouldn’t be an error. Is that a similar example to how one Evangelist had Jesus on a mountain and the next had him in a plain?

 

[Pete_Holter]

The discussion thankfully keeps returning to the Sermon on the Mount. Augustine shares his insights:

"Here the relation permits us to understand that, after selecting on the mountain twelve disciples out of the larger body, whom He also named apostles (which incident Matthew has omitted), He then delivered that discourse which Matthew has introduced, and which Luke has left unnoticed,—that is to say, the one on the mount; and that thereafter, when He had now come down, He spoke in the plain a second discourse similar to the first, on which Matthew is silent, but which is detailed by Luke; and further, that both these sermons were concluded in the same manner…

“After all, however, this explanation may also be suggested,—namely, that in the first instance the Lord, along with His disciples and no others, was on some more elevated portion of the mountain, and that during the period of His stay there He chose out of the number of His followers those twelve; that then He came down in company with them, not indeed from the mountain itself, but from that said altitude on the mountain, into the plain—that is to say, into some level spot which was found on the slope of the mountain, and which was capable of accommodating great multitudes; and that thereafter, when He had seated Himself, His disciples took up their position next Him, and in these circumstances He delivered both to them and to the other multitudes who were present one discourse, which Matthew and Luke have both recorded, their modes of narrating it being indeed different, but the truth being given with equal fidelity by the two writers in all that concerns the facts and sayings which both of them have recounted. For we have already prefaced our inquiry with the position, which indeed ought of itself to have been obvious to all without the need of any one to give them counsel to that effect beforehand, that there is not [necessarily] any antagonism between writers, although one may omit something which another mentions; nor, again, although one states a fact in one way, and another in a different method, provided that the same truth is set forth in regard to the objects and sayings themselves. In this way, therefore, Matthew’s sentence, ‘Now when He was come down from the mountain,’ may at the same time be understood to refer also to the plain, which there might very well have been on the slope of the mountain” (The Harmony of the Gospels, Book II, Chapter 19).

newadvent.org/fathers/1602219.htm

 

[JReducation]

The discussion thankfully keeps returning to the Sermon on the Mount. Augustine shares his insights:

newadvent.org/fathers/1602219.htm

This is an important citation, because even in Augustine’s time, when historical study was still very primitive and archeology was not even a science, there already existed the idea of amendments made to different events and teachings found in the scriptures, not as errors, but as explainable by real situations. I hope people will go to this link.

St. Augustine’s explanation points out something of great importance, which is that the evangelists do no concur with each other, but do not compete, either. The fundamental truth is the same in both. The difference is in perspective and what one chooses to include and the other to exclude.

Later historians have found that the two narratives on the Beatitudes invert the order of some of them. Also, some ancient church documents which probably were not available to Augustine have surfaced suggesting that the Beatitudes were not one discourse, as Augustine already suspects.

Augustine suspects that there were two discourses, one to the Apostles and one to the masses. Later discoveries of ancient documents written by the Church Fathers suggest that there may have been more than two discourses in which Jesus delivers what one may call “wisdom sayings” or “Christological proverbs”. This does not change the fact that they were his teachings.

Like one who turns a biography into a movie, the writers seem to have condensed them into one sermon for the sake of clarity and to show that they were part of the same message, that being how one achieves favor with the Lord. By combining them into one discourse they writer demonstrates the unity between the Beatitudes and how they cannot be sorted out or how the person of faith has to take the entire message, not select as one would ad McDonald’s.

The idea of favor with the Lord comes through very clearly because the writers begin each sentence with the word, “blessed.” For ancient Jews to be blessed meant to have found favor with God, it went deeper than a gift. It meant that one was chosen. We find Luke uses the same word when Elizabeth and Mary meet. Luke seems to choreograph the Magnificat for Mary: "from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” Earlier in Luke’s Gospel the angel refers to her as “having found favor with God.”

In Jewish theology these two ideas went hand in hand. One who found favor with God was considered blessed. This is still very present in modern Jewish theology. The difference is that in Jewish theology the sign of being blessed were children and prosperity. Jesus is adding to what the Jews already believed. He adds more signs of God’s blessings, which are contained in the Beatitudes.

Modern historians believe that these signs of being blessed, such as “poor in spirit” and so forth, were constant themes of Jesus’ preaching. It is unlikely that he would mention these signs only once or twice and drop them… It is more likely that Jesus brought them into his preaching so often, that they became trademarks of his message. This would explain why the writers of the gospels felt compelled to mention them.

While it’s not as important if there were one, two or more sermons, it is important that these are the signs of blessing and that the individual had an active role in achieving these blessings. If you adopted these values, you were blessed. The practice of these values was a blessing and you would also be blessed for living by them. In a sense, it’s a double blessing.

This is historical, even though the details are unclear to us. The fuzziness of the details do not imply error of any

 

[JReducation]

Thank you so much for this explanation.

I was thinking that even in a modern biography turned into a movie there would be all sorts of ‘amendments’ like that. And I wouldnt’ consider them errors - they are part of making the film. It wouldn’t be possible to cover a person’s whole life in a movie without combining some events together. Also there are details that would have to be filled in, like what colour of shirt was so-and-so wearing the day he said such-and-such. Getting those wrong in a movie biography wouldn’t be an error. Is that a similar example to how one Evangelist had Jesus on a mountain and the next had him in a plain?

I like this analogy. It’s a good example and it works for the scriptures.

 

[TOME]

My response to the poll that introduced this thread was “Other”. I responded this way because if anyone seriously studies the development of papal teachings from Leo XIII through Pius XII, in regards to scriptural scholarship, I think one will find a real progression or development in what Catholic scholars were being allowed to do. The goal has always remained the same, to come to a deeper and more profound understanding of the Divine Revelation that has come to us through the written word. To continue to deepen our understanding our Holy Fathers progressively allowed scholars more freedom to work with in the framework or principles laid out by Leo XIII in " Providentissimus Deus" using all that the best of modern science provided.

One of the great contributions of modern scholarship has been was there was a lot more that went into the human efforts than just a few men sitting down and writing the biblical narratives. Rather, first and most importantly these are faith documents which developed from the human experiences and reflections and faith responses of whole communities of peoples, in regards to the Old Testament this happened over centuries for New Testament communities, a generation or two. But the operative words are these are Faith Documents. These are documents which relate the Salvation History of mankind and the truths revealed transcends the material experience of history and because what was experienced is so other it is impossible to express these truths through the limitations of human expression, meaning the truths being revealed cannot be limited to a literal understanding alone.

But this is nothing new, a reasonable understanding of the writings of the Church Fathers already points to this, its just the fact we know a lot more today about the human side of the story of how the Bible was written. But we humans, being humans, have at times misused, abused or just misinterperted the knowledge we were and are gaining and this is were, in the past, our Holy Father’s exercising their pastoral responsibility, had to curb or at time conter these failures through the great encyclical letters of the 20th century however always allowing our deeper understanding to progress so that the Church could proclaim that the truth of the Bible is inerrant even when it seems the scriptures are filled with errors. The important fact is the popes of the 20th century and the fathers of Vatican II were strong enough in the faith to allow and accept the progress made in scriptural scholarship and I may add welcomed what for many seemed to be attacks on the truth of the Bible. One just has to read Divino Afflante Spirito in its entirety to see this and in our own time the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI (their writings as popes and before this as theologians) and many other outstanding theologians (for example Cardinals Kasper and Dullas or Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar)the application of the inerrant truth of Scripture without being entrapped in a literal interpertation of the Bible.

So I hold Vatican II did not reverse the Church’s teachings on inerrancy rather Vatican II understood the true meaning of the truth of scripture and that scripture itself is the living word of God and its truth is timeless even though expressed in the confines of a particular times’ means of communicating this transcendant ontological truth.

 

[JReducation]

I just remembered a good example of what Neil is speaking of and which can apply to scripture. Most of us have seen the movie, The Miracle Worker. Some may have seen the play, which came before the movie.

If one reads Helen Keller’s autobriography The Story of My Life, we quicly realize that the events did not happen in the same sequence or the same way as they were portrayed in the movie. For example, in the movie there is a violent scene at the end where Helen is being a brat at the table and Ann drags her to the water pump to refill the water bottle. The way that Helen tells it in her autobiography, she had a habit of throwing things whenever she didn’t get her will. One of her favorite was throwing water in Ann’s face while at the table. However, on the day when she discovered that w-a-t-e-r were symbols for water, they were actually sitting quietly at the pump.

The screen writer takes the liberty to amend the story by taking Helen’s favorite way of torturing Ann at the table, throwing water in her face and the event that changed Helen’s life, the discovery of the word “water,” and blend it into one scene.

Are these events false? No. Helen did torture Ann when she did not get her way by throwing water in Ann’s face. Helen did discover the world of language through the word water. The screenwriter uses a beautiful strategy. He blends Helen’s favorite weapon against Ann Sullivan (water) and Helen’s portal to the world of language (water) into one scene. So that water is transformed from a weapon to a window in Helen’s life.

There is no error here, even though it does not follow the actual seuqence of events as in the autobiography (which I highly recommend). There are several layers of truth being told by combining scenes from an autobiography into one scene for stage and screen.

The biblical writers did this very often.

 

[JReducation]

My response to the poll that introduced this thread was “Other”. I responded this way because if anyone seriously studies the development of papal teachings from Leo XIII through Pius XII, in regards to scriptural scholarship, I think one will find a real progression or development in what Catholic scholars were being allowed to do. The goal has always remained the same, to come to a deeper and more profound understanding of the Divine Revelation that has come to us through the written word. To continue to deepen our understanding our Holy Fathers progressively allowed scholars more freedom to work with in the framework or principles laid out by Leo XIII in " Providentissimus Deus" using all that the best of modern science provided.

One of the great contributions of modern scholarship has been was there was a lot more that went into the human efforts than just a few men sitting down and writing the biblical narratives. Rather, first and most importantly these are faith documents which developed from the human experiences and reflections and faith responses of whole communities of peoples, in regards to the Old Testament this happened over centuries for New Testament communities, a generation or two. But the operative words are these are Faith Documents. These are documents which relate the Salvation History of mankind and the truths revealed transcends the material experience of history and because what was experienced is so other it is impossible to express these truths through the limitations of human expression, meaning the truths being revealed cannot be limited to a literal understanding alone.

But this is nothing new, a reasonable understanding of the writings of the Church Fathers already points to this, its just the fact we know a lot more today about the human side of the story of how the Bible was written. But we humans, being humans, have at times misused, abused or just misinterperted the knowledge we were and are gaining and this is were, in the past, our Holy Father’s exercising their pastoral responsibility, had to curb or at time conter these failures through the great encyclical letters of the 20th century however always allowing our deeper understanding to progress so that the Church could proclaim that the truth of the Bible is inerrant even when it seems the scriptures are filled with errors. The important fact is the popes of the 20th century and the fathers of Vatican II were strong enough in the faith to allow and accept the progress made in scriptural scholarship and I may add welcomed what for many seemed to be attacks on the truth of the Bible. One just has to read Divino Afflante Spirito in its entirety to see this and in our own time the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI (their writings as popes and before this as theologians) and many other outstanding theologians (for example Cardinals Kasper and Dullas or Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar)the application of the inerrant truth of Scripture without being entrapped in a literal interpertation of the Bible.

So I hold Vatican II did not reverse the Church’s teachings on inerrancy rather Vatican II understood the true meaning of the truth of scripture and that scripture itself is the living word of God and its truth is timeless even though expressed in the confines of a particular times’ means of communicating this transcendant ontological truth.

BRAVO . . . VERY WELL SAID

:clapping:

 

[BeyondDoubt]

Where would an ordinary Joe Catholic find official Church teaching on which parts of the Bible I take literally and which parts I treat subjectively?

Is it right that it should be left to ordinary Joe to decide?

What if ordinary Joe makes the wrong interpretation?

 

[BeyondDoubt]

The goal has always remained the same, to come to a deeper and more profound understanding of the Divine Revelation that has come to us through the written word.

Why may I ask is it necessary for modern day Christians to come to a more profound and deeper understanding?

Was previous understanding lacking?

has The Holy Spirit been holding back?

 

[davidv]

Where would an ordinary Joe Catholic find official Church teaching on which parts of the Bible I take literally and which parts I treat subjectively?

A good place to start is the document Dei Verbum. It can be found at the Vatican website. But, don’t expect to find a list.

Is it right that it should be left to ordinary Joe to decide?

Yes, as long as the “ordinary Joe” doesn’t come up with something contrary to Church teaching. In our personal reading of the Bible it should be a mirror, reflecting our life against that of Christ and leading us to holiness. Our private interpretation may help us respond appropriately to the unique circumstances of our lives.

What if ordinary Joe makes the wrong interpretation?

He should humbly admit his error and get the correct interpretations from the Church.

 

[BeyondDoubt]

He should humbly admit his error and get the correct interpretations from the Church.

I think we went around in a circle.

Where do I find the correct interpretations so I don’t waste my time on my own wrong subjective interpretations.

Let’s start with Noah as an example… where does ordinary Joe Catholic go to find out if it’s literal truth or subjective truth?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think we went around in a circle.

Where do I find the correct interpretations so I don’t waste my time on my own wrong subjective interpretations.

Let’s start with Noah as an example… where does ordinary Joe Catholic go to find out if it’s literal truth or subjective truth?

I don’t think it matters from a theological perspective, whether the story of Noah’s ark happened as described. Whether it happened or not, we know that God had messages for us which we can learn from the story. I don’t think you can go wrong by assuming it is historical, as long as you are only using it to learn about God, and not trying to learn about science and history through it.

But to answer your question, there are the footnotes of catholic bibles, like this:
usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis6.htm

Also there are approved catholic bible commentaries. Some will treat Noah as literal, others wont. But in general they all will teach the same religious lessons from the story.