Did Vatican II Reverse the Teaching on Inerrancy of Scripture?

[Neil_Anthony]

Leo XIII clearly said that scriptural inerrancy is not limited to just matters of faith and morals:

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated.

But Vatican II seemed to limit inerrancy to matters which are related to our salvation:

DEI VERBUM
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.

So did the Church change its mind? Does scriptural inerrancy only apply to matters of faith and morals?

 

[rwoehmke]

A lot of research, archeology, and techniques of understanding Scripture have taken place since Leo XIII’s encyclical, which was not infallible but ordinary teaching. The understanding of inerrancy has developed and changed. The fact has not changed, but our understanding has. It was already starting to develop under Pius XII so Vatican II is not the culprit. Dei Verbum did not cause the developed understanding, it only documented what had been happening for many years since Leo.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

A lot of research, archeology, and techniques of understanding Scripture have taken place since Leo XIII’s encyclical, which was not infallible but ordinary teaching. The understanding of inerrancy has developed and changed. The fact has not changed, but our understanding has. It was already starting to develop under Pius XII so Vatican II is not the culprit. Dei Verbum did not cause the developed understanding, it only documented what had been happening for many years since Leo.

Thanks for your response. So would you say that the present church teaching is that scripture is inerrant only in matters that pertain to salvation?

 

[rwoehmke]

Thanks for your response. So would you say that the present church teaching is that scripture is inerrant only in matters that pertain to salvation?

I think that there is inerrancy in the miracles that Jesus performed, places where he preached, the gist of what he said, details of the crucifixion, resurrection, and more. The problem one gets into by assuming everything is fictional is just as bad as swallowing everything whole. Sometimes location, words, and timing for example may not be in exact sync because the point was not to write a blow by blow description as modern historians attempt to write. To start with Jesus preached for three years and there is no doubt in my mind that the events of the Gospels account for only a fraction of that time. That is why Sacred Tradition and the Early Church Fathers are so important. I also believe that as one moves through the timing of the Bible the historical reporting gets more and more true to the facts, but sometimes a particular part of the narrative may be a conflation of more than a single event…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks for your response. So would you say that the present church teaching is that scripture is inerrant only in matters that pertain to salvation?

Sometimes the Ratzinger Note of 1998 is quoted:​

**Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei
**
5. The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.” The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable. These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks `ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

These doctrines 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, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.
…

1. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.

To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various christological dogmas and marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.
…

ncronline.org/NCR_Online/documents/ratz.htm

[My emphases]

Which does seem to rule out any limitation of inerrancy to matters of F & M. A commentary on the document would help.

It does seem from this that the total inerrancy of the Bible is infallibly taught, &, that it is heresy to deny it. It is after all grouped with matters which are certainly dogmas. The doctrine would seem to count as infallibly true, even though Providentissimus is itself not formally infallible, & does not contain any fresh definition.

As for the question in the thread: Vatican II can be, but need not be (& quite possibly should not be) understood as denying what Leo XIII, Benedict XV, & Pius XII all affirmed: that the Bible is totally free of error. V2 may simply have been taking their teaching for granted, & specifying its purpose as salutary.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think that there is inerrancy in the miracles that Jesus performed, places where he preached, the gist of what he said, details of the crucifixion, resurrection, and more. The problem one gets into by assuming everything is fictional is just as bad as swallowing everything whole. Sometimes location, words, and timing for example may not be in exact sync because the point was not to write a blow by blow description as modern historians attempt to write. To start with Jesus preached for three years and there is no doubt in my mind that the events of the Gospels account for only a fraction of that time. That is why Sacred Tradition and the Early Church Fathers are so important. I also believe that as one moves through the timing of the Bible the historical reporting gets more and more true to the facts, but sometimes a particular part of the narrative may be a conflation of more than a single event…

I agree and think you stated it well. I would only add that even when the story of event is deemed “fictional” or myth, the theological lesson is still highly relevant, and indeed may have been the point God wished to be expressed. He thus allows the writer to write things from his own perspective and knowledge without correction as long as the message is as God wishes it to be.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sometimes the Ratzinger Note of 1998 is quoted:​

Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei

1. The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.” The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable. These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks `ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

These doctrines 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, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.
…

1. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.

To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various christological dogmas and marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.
…

ncronline.org/NCR_Online/documents/ratz.htm

[My emphases

]

Which does seem to rule out any limitation of inerrancy to matters of F & M. A commentary on the document would help.

It does seem from this that the total inerrancy of the Bible is infallibly taught, &, that it is heresy to deny it. It is after all grouped with matters which are certainly dogmas. The doctrine would seem to count as infallibly true, even though Providentissimus is itself not formally infallible, & does not contain any fresh definition.

As for the question in the thread: Vatican II can be, but need not be (& quite possibly should not be) understood as denying what Leo XIII, Benedict XV, & Pius XII all affirmed: that the Bible is totally free of error. V2 may simply have been taking their teaching for granted, & specifying its purpose as salutary.

So then the Church does not believe in evolution and the Big bang, but agrees that all the stories of Genesis are indeed factually true? Does not this conclusion result in the Church becoming simply another fundamentalist Church, simply enlarging the concept to include both tradition and official church teaching?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Sometimes the Ratzinger Note of 1998 is quoted:​

…]everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed…]the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts…]

It does seem from this that the total inerrancy of the Bible is infallibly taught, &, that it is heresy to deny it. It is after all grouped with matters which are certainly dogmas. The doctrine would seem to count as infallibly true, even though Providentissimus is itself not formally infallible, & does not contain any fresh definition.

Thanks very much for that reference. Reading it myself, I would have thought that it’s not clear enough to say whether it refers to complete inerrancy or just inerrancy in matters of faith & morals… Do scholars question what it means?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I agree and think you stated it well. I would only add that even when the story of event is deemed “fictional” or myth, the theological lesson is still highly relevant, and indeed may have been the point God wished to be expressed. He thus allows the writer to write things from his own perspective and knowledge without correction as long as the message is as God wishes it to be.

I hope you don’t mind if I comment on this…

If an author wrote a peice of fiction with a moral to it, and his readers recognized it as fiction, then I don’t think it could be said to have any kind of error other than error in its teachings on faith and morals. Just being a work of fiction doesn’t make something an error, in fact it gives the author great freedom to make the story say whatever he wants without being in error.

On the other hand, if a work was written as science, and understood to be science by its readers, but later turned out to be wrong, and so we classify it as myth… then I’d say that work had error, regardless of how we try to reclassify it as myth or fiction.

 

[awalt]

The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant in that which the author intended to convey. That is why study of the Bible by scholars, hermeneutics, and subsequent teaching by the Magisterium is so necessary to our faith, as discerning their intent is something only done through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Church. It is also why so many verses have no “official” interpretation.

The sticky point of the word “salvation” in Dei Verbum is explained well by Jimmy Akin here.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Neil,

No, the two passages do not contradict each other, and no the Church has not changed its mind. Let’ s read the passage from Dei Verbum carefullly.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.

You will note that it does not say “those truths”, but ", “that truth”, that is the whole of scripture. The whole of Scripture exists for the sake of our salvation, and that is the truth which Scripture teaches. That does not mean that individual passages, not seeming to relate directly to salvation, are not to be believed but, like all of Scripture finally, that they are to be interpreted (1) in the light of the general purpose of scripture and (2) taking into account the literary genres as well as the social, political and historical environment in which they are written

You mayj be interested in the Latin original:

Cum ergo omne id, quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt, retineri debeat assertum a Spiritu Sancto, inde Scripturae libri veritatem,** quam Deus nostrae salutis causa, Litteris Sacris consignari voluit**, firmiter, fideliter et sine errore docere profitendi sunt.

Let me give you a word for word on this :

*Since, therefore, that which the inspired authors or sacred writers assert must be held as asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture are to be held as teaching firmly, faithfully and without error the truth, which God for the sake of our salvation, **wanted to be put into writing in the Sacred Scriptures, ***

Reading the whole document, we realize the great emphasis that the Council puts on the Bible as having our salvation as its purpose. Just do a search of the document with the word “salvation”, and you will find the result most strking.

Verbum

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I hope you don’t mind if I comment on this…

If an author wrote a peice of fiction with a moral to it, and his readers recognized it as fiction, then I don’t think it could be said to have any kind of error other than error in its teachings on faith and morals. Just being a work of fiction doesn’t make something an error, in fact it gives the author great freedom to make the story say whatever he wants without being in error.

On the other hand, if a work was written as science, and understood to be science by its readers, but later turned out to be wrong, and so we classify it as myth… then I’d say that work had error, regardless of how we try to reclassify it as myth or fiction.

I would agree. This indeed happens a lot. In studying biblical exegesis, I often conclude that a particular passage of scripture was intentionally formulated by the writer and perhaps not an actual occurance, yet the theological truth presented in what the Church teaches as doctrine and rightly so. What some may forget is that the original writings were not written to be part of a book called a bible, they were written to convince their hearers of the day. So it stands to reason they were in a manner that would be understandable to them. We are the ones who struggle mightily to understand because these experiences are foreign to us and the literal words are confusing.

An example will suffice. I used to find the story about the woman who searched her entire household to find a coin strange. To search for a coin and then when found to throw a party seemed at odds. If the one coin was so important, why squander it immediately on a party? When it was pointed out to me many years later, that the coin was probably part of a marriage headdress and something cherished and kept as a keepsake, it because quite clear, and the true message immerged much the stronger. So the wonderful work of scholars does a great deal to enhance our understanding and appreciation of text I believe.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi Neil,

No, the two passages do not contradict each other, and no the Church has not changed its mind. Let’ s read the passage from Dei Verbum carefullly.

You will note that it does not say “those truths”, but ", “that truth”, that is the whole of scripture. The whole of Scripture exists for the sake of our salvation, and that is the truth which Scripture teaches. That does not mean that individual passages, not seeming to relate directly to salvation, are not to be believed but, like all of Scripture finally, that they are to be interpreted (1) in the light of the general purpose of scripture and (2) taking into account the literary genres as well as the social, political and historical environment in which they are written

You mayj be interested in the Latin original:

Let me give you a word for word on this :

Since, therefore, that which the inspired authors or sacred writers assert must be held as asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture are to be held as teaching firmly, faithfully and without error the truth, which God for the sake of our salvation, **wanted to be put into writing in the Sacred Scriptures, **

Reading the whole document, we realize the great emphasis that the Council puts on the Bible as having our salvation as its purpose. Just do a search of the document with the word “salvation”, and you will find the result most strking.

Verbum

Thanks so much. Being here I am constantly finding everything I was taught as a Catholic to be in error. Glad to see that some things remain the same!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Hi Neil,
No, the two passages do not contradict each other, and no the Church has not changed its mind. Let’ s read the passage from Dei Verbum carefullly.

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

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

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So then the Church does not believe in evolution and the Big bang, but agrees that all the stories of Genesis are indeed factually true? Does not this conclusion result in the Church becoming simply another fundamentalist Church, simply enlarging the concept to include both tradition and official church teaching?

You can’t begin to imagine how often I’ve asking myself that ​

AFAICS so far, I think the answer is “Not exactly”

I think the teaching on inerrancy is simply that the Bible is totally inerrant - in such a way that, whatever the meaning & genre of texts, they are inerrant. So that although a parable, an apocalypse & and a letter are different genres of literature in the Bible, & can be & should be interpreted as such by every means available to scholars, there is no formal error in the text.

So there can still be full use of every critical tool, & every hermeneutical approach, just as the 1993 document on “The Bible in the Church” says - but there can’t be any assertion by Catholics that there is formal error in the Bible.

That, as I understand it, is what is meant & implied.

I think this is a Fundamentalist position, & as stated (if this is a correct statement: I fully appreciate it may not be) a mistaken one; but it does seem to be the authentic teaching of the CC.

Part of the problem is that, while it is relatively easy to assert a doctrine of total inerrancy, to apply it to every last detail & in every connection is another matter. There are severe semantic & exegetical problems.

For instance, a Bible which treats the Flood as world-wide, is a different Bible from one that treats it as not world-wide. “X is world-wide” contradicts the statement “X is not world-wide”. Either can be compatible with the assertion “The Bible is totally inerrant” - but they convey contradictory info about the extent of the Flood; so the precise meanings of two conceptions of totally inerrancy, one which asserts X , & one which asserts non-X, are different meanings.

Is a doctrine which, because it is informed by accurate knowledge of geography, does not allow one to assert a universal Flood interpretation, the same as one which is unwittingly informed by mistaken ideas on geography, so allowing one to assert that the Flood was universal ? If the exegetes of the past & those of the present make assertions which are directly contradictory - can they be said to be in agreement ? I don’t know. The more I think about this issue, & what it implies or may imply, the more questions & difficulties I find. I would like to believe in total inerrancy - but it would be a lie to say that I do. ISTM that no good can come from ignoring problems.

One of them is, that the meaning of “total inerrancy” is not clear. How are textual corruptions & ambiguities inerrant ? Is all error excluded, even of grammar ? If not - why not ? After all, grammar helps to the signify the meaning. So it is not clear how there can be an errant Book of Revelation, seeing that it is grammatically not inerrant.

If a doctrine has no stable content, it is hard to see how one can be said to believe it. Asserting inerrancy is fine as far as it goes - but how is it to be applied to the texts ? Are we to believe that the command to destroy the Amalekites is as adequate & permanent a disclosure of the mind of God as the Love of Christ ?

So an authentic & thorough explanation of this doctrine is much to be desired

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks very much for that reference. Reading it myself, I would have thought that it’s not clear enough to say whether it refers to complete inerrancy or just inerrancy in matters of faith & morals… Do scholars question what it means?

It’s not a category the exegetes I’ve read bother with very much - whether Catholic or Protestant or Jew.​

In view of the earlier & very explicit teaching of Popes since 1893, I’d be amazed to find that the Note was confining inerrancy to matters of F & M - especially as this limitation was condemned in Providentissimus. It’s hard to see how something formally (& formerly) condemned as a serious error by the highest authority in the Church, more than once, could become Catholic teaching. In the context of the past teaching of the Church, acts, councils, condemnations, & theological tradition, I don’t see how it could be limited in that way.

It’s possible for condemnations to be withdrawn, as happened a short while ago - the condemnation in 1887 of 40 theses attributed to Blessed Antonio Rosmini-Serbati was withdrawn on the grounds that it had been unjustly arrived at; that clears him - it does not mean of itself that what was condemned as erroneous, was not; even if the error was not in fact imputable to him personally. So condemned theses may be wrong in themselves, even when misattributed. And withdrawing a condemnation is a far less solemn act than withdrawing the meaning of a doctrine which has been repeatedly & emphatically taught.

Does that help ?

 

[rwoehmke]

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

The assumption seems to be that Luke made an error. Perhaps Luke was more interested in the point he was trying to make than he was with getting the timing just right. The exact timing in my opinion has little or nothing to do with what Luke is teaching. Its like owning a fine diamond and whether you set it in gold, silver, or platinum it will have no effect on the value of the diamond itself. In short there is no eror in what Luke intends to teach.

When it come to facts of History, Geology, or other science in Scripture, Thomas Aquinas recognized the problems that might arise long long ago. Already people must have been having problems with Genesis.

newadvent.org/summa/106801.htm
On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 1:6): “God said: let there be a firmament,” and further on (verse 8); “And the evening and morning were the second day.”

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The assumption seems to be that Luke made an error. Perhaps Luke was more interested in the point he was trying to make than he was with getting the timing just right. The exact timing in my opinion has little or nothing to do with what Luke is teaching. Its like owning a fine diamond and whether you set it in gold, silver, or platinum it will have no effect on the value of the diamond itself. In short there is no eror in what Luke intends to teach.

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

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well it seems to be a can of worms and one where the Church seems to be saying a number of opposing things at the same time. I have little expectation we are going to be enlightened with some explanation any time soon. I would have literally bet my life that the Church made no claim of inerrency along the lines of fundamentalists, and doubly so given what Benedict has said about the practice of interpreting this way.

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

I tend to agree with Geer and others that error is a naughty word they refuse to use. Of course when you try so hard to define something away you usually end up saying very little that is intelligible in the end. A lot like trying to find the single thread some of our judiciary use to claim that a new decision is in line with older cases. Sometimes you have to be a search mighty hard to find this “thread of consistency.” That would be because it’s not really there.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Neil,

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

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

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

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

Not infrequently - to mention only one instance - when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients, which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctioned by common usage.

1. When then such modes of expression are met within the sacred text, which, being meant for men, is couched in human language, justice demands that they be no more taxed with error than when they occur in the ordinary intercourse of daily life. By this knowledge and exact appreciation of the modes of speaking and writing in use among the ancients can be solved many difficulties, which are raised against the veracity and historical value of the Divine Scriptures, and no less efficaciously does this study contribute to a fuller and more luminous understanding of the mind of the Sacred Writer.

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

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

Verbum