Did Vatican II Reverse the Teaching on Inerrancy of Scripture?

[Neil_Anthony]

Good morning Neil!

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

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

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

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

Thank you. In addition to nonscientific language, there are places where scripture refers to ‘the firmament’ and other aspects of an old cosmology that has been disproven by science. I suspect Leo XIII (and augistine) also had those things in mind when he wrote. Do you think those kind of things also fall under what he was describing?

 

[Pete_Holter]

If you suggest this I think you are essentially espousing fundamentalism and the Church certainly does not approve of such a literalism, if indeed that is what you mean. Your suggestion that there are no “science” mistakes is certainly incorrect IMO. The story of the mustard seed? There are seeds much smaller than a mustard seed, as any gardener would tell you. So that is literally incorrect, though it does not affect the point the evangelist was trying to make.

You may be able to work a similar logic to solve this case as Augustine does in this example:

“And what is written, that ‘He wills all men to be saved,’ while yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which I have mentioned in other writings of mine; but here I will say one thing: ‘He wills all men to be saved,’ is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is among them. Just as it was said to the Pharisees, ‘Ye tithe every herb;’ where the expression is only to be understood of every herb that they had, for they did not tithe every herb which was found throughout the whole earth. According to the same manner of speaking, it was said, ‘Even as I also please all men in all things.’ For did he who said this please also the multitude of his persecutors? But he pleased every kind of men that assembled in the Church of Christ, whether they were already established therein, or were to be introduced into it” (A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Chapter 44).

If this is not satisfying, there are a couple of other things to think about… the word translated “earth” here could be referring to a specific locality, a piece of land. But then someone will say, “well, it is not even the smallest seed in this or that place where Jesus may have been thinking of.” So then we try something else.

The word “smallest” as used here by Jesus may mean something other than what we most naturally think of when we hear Him say “smallest”. I am thinking of Jesus’ own comparison between Himself and His Father, when He says that “my Father is greater than I.” And yet, we do not understand Him to be saying that His Father is of a greater size than Jesus. So when we understand the Greek comparatives (is that how you say that?) of the root words “megas” and “mikros” in a way opposite of each other, it is a possibility that our assumed interpretation of “smallest” as “the physically smallest seed” is a mistake.

There is also a reference in the beginning of Mark to Isaiah, in fact only part of the passage is Isaiah, the rest is from Ex. and Mal.

One solution to this is to understand Malachi as being subsumed by Mark’s reference into Isaiah, with Mark understanding Malachi’s verse as a restatement of or commentary on the Isaiah passage. Malachi’s verse would therefore be understood as drawn from and building upon Isaiah’s thought and thus be considered, as referring to its own source, “Isaiah”.

In Mark 2:25-26 Mark has Jesus asking “Haven’t you ever read what David did when he was in need and hungry–he and those who were him? How he went into the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest…”
This is an error, the high priest at the time of David was Abiathar’s father Ahimelech.

One explanation I’ve read for this is to understand Jesus to be saying two things: (1) Abiathar was the high priest, and (2) during Abiathar’s lifetime, this event took place. And then an example is usually given: “‘I went to high school with President Bush’ is an acceptable way to communicate the fact that I went to high school with George Bush, who later became president.”

If any or all of these “solutions” are not satisfying to you, then that’s ok. They’re not necessarily the solutions. What the doctrine of inerrancy tells us is that we can have absolute confidence that there are solutions. Even if no one has yet uncovered them, God knows what they are. Yet another exciting prospect of heaven!

I hope you have a nice evening, SpiritMeadow!

 

[Pete_Holter]

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

DEI VERBUM

Here is a small point worth noting. See where the citation is placed in the English translation? It can make someone think that a few words got tacked on to modify the existing teaching. But look at its placement in the Latin text:

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 (21).

Ah, much better! It’s such a small thing: the mere shifting of a citation! But it can really affect one’s understanding of the relationship that exists between this teaching from Vatican II and what came before.

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Rom 11:33).

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You may be able to work a similar logic to solve this case as Augustine does in this example:

“And what is written, that ‘He wills all men to be saved,’ while yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which I have mentioned in other writings of mine; but here I will say one thing: ‘He wills all men to be saved,’ is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is among them. Just as it was said to the Pharisees, ‘Ye tithe every herb;’ where the expression is only to be understood of every herb that they had, for they did not tithe every herb which was found throughout the whole earth. According to the same manner of speaking, it was said, ‘Even as I also please all men in all things.’ For did he who said this please also the multitude of his persecutors? But he pleased every kind of men that assembled in the Church of Christ, whether they were already established therein, or were to be introduced into it” (A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Chapter 44).

If this is not satisfying, there are a couple of other things to think about… the word translated “earth” here could be referring to a specific locality, a piece of land. But then someone will say, “well, it is not even the smallest seed in this or that place where Jesus may have been thinking of.” So then we try something else.

The word “smallest” as used here by Jesus may mean something other than what we most naturally think of when we hear Him say “smallest”. I am thinking of Jesus’ own comparison between Himself and His Father, when He says that “my Father is greater than I.” And yet, we do not understand Him to be saying that His Father is of a greater size than Jesus. So when we understand the Greek comparatives (is that how you say that?) of the root words “megas” and “mikros” in a way opposite of each other, it is a possibility that our assumed interpretation of “smallest” as “the physically smallest seed” is a mistake.

One solution to this is to understand Malachi as being subsumed by Mark’s reference into Isaiah, with Mark understanding Malachi’s verse as a restatement of or commentary on the Isaiah passage. Malachi’s verse would therefore be understood as drawn from and building upon Isaiah’s thought and thus be considered, as referring to its own source, “Isaiah”.

One explanation I’ve read for this is to understand Jesus to be saying two things: (1) Abiathar was the high priest, and (2) during Abiathar’s lifetime, this event took place. And then an example is usually given: “‘I went to high school with President Bush’ is an acceptable way to communicate the fact that I went to high school with George Bush, who later became president.”

If any or all of these “solutions” are not satisfying to you, then that’s ok. They’re not necessarily the solutions. What the doctrine of inerrancy tells us is that we can have absolute confidence that there are solutions. Even if no one has yet uncovered them, God knows what they are. Yet another exciting prospect of heaven!

I hope you have a nice evening, SpiritMeadow!

I quoted the second as a amusing aside. A biblical scholar at I believe South Carolina went to Moody Bible School form High school, which is the most fundie bible school in the country. From there he went to Wheaton, where Billy Graham went. By now he was having some serious problems with inerrency. He did his doctoral work at Princeton and chose this section of Mark to write a paper on. He said he wrote lengthy defenses of Jesus, twisting and turning the text so as not to make Jesus incorrect as it so clearly appears to be. He submitted his paper, (mind you to one of the most prestigeous biblical experts in the country, and go it back …As he paged though, he found no comments at all in the margins. Puzzled, he continued…until he reached the last page…There was one sentence…“Perhaps Mark made a mistake.” So ended his love affair with fundamentalism. He had never ever thought of that…and that simple as it was made his paper a waste of time. I chuckled, and still do when I think of it.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thank you. In addition to nonscientific language, there are places where scripture refers to ‘the firmament’ and other aspects of an old cosmology that has been disproven by science. I suspect Leo XIII (and augistine) also had those things in mind when he wrote. Do you think those kind of things also fall under what he was describing?

Hey Neil!

I would not say that Scripture “refers”, with any kind of tacit agreement, to “aspects of an old cosmology that has been disproven by science.” One might have evidence taken from profane writers of biblical times to suggest that the biblical authors favorably included the same mistaken notions or false conceptions of the universe in the text of Scripture. I’m thinking of the common pictorial representation sometimes seen of a dome sitting over a flat earth, which is grounded on pillars.

Contradicting this methodology, which tends to blur the lines and nearly equates Scripture with other ancient texts, are the words of Pius XII: “If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents” (Humani Generis, 38).

There is a discussion of the first four days of creation starting here:

rtforum.org/lt/lt45.html

with a discussion of the “firmament” starting here:

rtforum.org/lt/lt47.html

Taking an easier example, the teaching of the Church concerning the use of “more or less figurative language,” would certainly apply to “the four corners of the earth” (cf. Rev. 7:1; 20:8). In this case, a literalistic interpretation is not possible, and the text has to be understood, in its literal sense, as figurative. One thing to keep in mind when dealing with questions of inerrancy: it is always the interpretation of the text that is in doubt, and not the text itself (referring to the originally inspired text).

I hope you have a blessed day!

 

[Pete_Holter]

I quoted the second as a amusing aside. A biblical scholar at I believe South Carolina went to Moody Bible School form High school, which is the most fundie bible school in the country. From there he went to Wheaton, where Billy Graham went. By now he was having some serious problems with inerrency. He did his doctoral work at Princeton and chose this section of Mark to write a paper on. He said he wrote lengthy defenses of Jesus, twisting and turning the text so as not to make Jesus incorrect as it so clearly appears to be. He submitted his paper, (mind you to one of the most prestigeous biblical experts in the country, and go it back …As he paged though, he found no comments at all in the margins. Puzzled, he continued…until he reached the last page…There was one sentence…“Perhaps Mark made a mistake.” So ended his love affair with fundamentalism. He had never ever thought of that…and that simple as it was made his paper a waste of time. I chuckled, and still do when I think of it.

This is actually very sad. Bart Ehrman was crushed by this incident (my description), and ended up losing his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. As far as I know, he is now agnostic and is chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (where my niece is currently attending).

Please pray for Bart.

 

[juliamajor]

This is actually very sad. Bart Ehrman was crushed by this incident (my description), and ended up losing his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. As far as I know, he is now agnostic and is chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (where my niece is currently attending).

Please pray for Bart.

Unfortunately that’s the fruit of Fundamentalism- Look at the Jesus Seminar the Majority are evangelicals and Fundamentals that lost there faith by severe interpretation of scripture. They throw the baby and the bathwater out the window. now they have nothing

 

[TDiGaetano]

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

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

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

I believe the Bible is inerrant but between the two quotes you gave I don’t see how they contridict. Some things written in the bible are written precisly like the dimentions of Noah’s ark and other things are written vaguely and not necciarly explained. Does that mean to reject scripture… No. Does memorizing the genology list of David to Jesus make you saved… No. Is that list important? Yes, because it confirms the authentisity of Christ. This is why you can not take the Bible word for word as the literal truth and that no other information on the truth exists outside of the bible. The bible itsself is God’s word written through man that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The writtings do not contridict themselves only stress the importances that the inspired men bore wittness to by their perception of the events that occured.

Just because one person says one thing does not mean that the next person will discreadit it. Only that they will all complement each other or provide some sort of reference to other scripture in relation to the event. The entire bible should be taken as inerrant, but that is why we have the Magistarium to make sure that the truth of the words in the bible are upheld through all ages.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is actually very sad. Bart Ehrman was crushed by this incident (my description), and ended up losing his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. As far as I know, he is now agnostic and is chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (where my niece is currently attending).

Please pray for Bart.

Wow, I sure didnt know that. He was sorely distressed I know with fundamentalism after Moody, moreso after Wheaton. Thanks for the correction to North Carolina. But of course, i still think his point was accurate. There is no need to try to twist things, It was a simple error, at least to us. There may have been things Mark considered we are unaware of that made that choice the correct one in his eyes.

He certainly doesn’t sound crushed in his book. He never mentions so far at least his loss of faith, just his departure from fundamentalism. I’m only part way through his “misquoting” book. He’s certainly been prolific. I’m learning things, but after all he is writing here for a very general audience, so frankly there isn’t as much new in it for me as I was expecting. Still I am very grateful to have the chance to read it. He does put a lot of disperate material together and it makes for easier understanding of some things.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Unfortunately that’s the fruit of Fundamentalism- Look at the Jesus Seminar the Majority are evangelicals and Fundamentals that lost there faith by severe interpretation of scripture. They throw the baby and the bathwater out the window. now they have nothing

Yeah, when you are taught that most of science is bunk and virtually anything else that doesn’t exactly comport with some bible verse is bunk, then if you should finally SEE, it can be so jarring that you can’t cope at all, and just think you’ve been completely duped. One would wish to grab those people as they head out the door and explain the truth to them. I really do feel bad when people react with the all or nothing mentality, especially on something so important.

I liken it sometimes to the jarring effect the liturgy and mass of today is from the latin mass. People just ran out in droves because they thought their church had disappeared. It was so sad. Transitions are very difficult for the people involved.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Is it dishonest to have a doctrine saying that the bible is inerrant in what God intends to teach through it, without specifying exactly what God intends to teach?

Not as such - no​

Whether God intends to tell us about history or not, or what parts of history, or what people in history? Is the doctrine meaningful if its content is still partly a mystery to us?

This is one of the problems:​

• Are we dealing with a mystery ? - or
• AWD with a muddle ?
  All doctrines are mysterious (I hope !), & many (all ?) are paradoxical. That this is so is not a problem, for mysteries & paradoxes have their own intelligibility. It is this intelligibility that is not found in a muddle. Both are dark, the muddle with the darkness of “waste and formless” chaos & muddle; mysteries & paradoxes, OTOH, with a darkness which is an excess of brightness beyond our ability to comprehend fully. They are both dark - for wholly unconnected reasons and in wholly unlike ways.

As yet, I’ve not seen anything to indicate that we aren’t dealing with a muddle. I would love to find an explanation of inerrancy which shows I’m wrong. The trouble is, that such explanations as I’ve read either don’t deal with the Church’s doctrines, or, assert the TI of the Bible as something true on a priori grounds: for example, the Fathers said it.

I don’t think it is wrong to point out that the Fathers had a somewhat different understanding of the meanings of the texts, & of their inter-connections, than many of their modern successors - however committed to upholding TI some of the latter may be. And the connections made, & the exegetical methods from which they derive, influence the meaning of the text arrived at, & so, judgements about the presence (or absence) of errors.

Did they fret about the issues a modern apologist for inerrancy has to: such as the casualties of battles in Samuel, Kings & Chronicles ? I don’t know.

What is clear, is that while TI may exclude error (however defined), it does not safeguard meaning; it is consistent with any number of meanings, provided these do not imply or presuppose error. For a Church which regards doctrine & the stability of the meaning of doctrines as of great importance, this is bad news. This is one of the reasons that, whatever else may be thought about inerrancy, it is so important for there to be a stable core of meaning in the doctrine. Inerrancy is not enough: there has to be a stable meaning of which inerrancy can be predicated. Without this stable core of meaning, the exposition of the Faith becomes impossible

We do know of some things that the church insists that scripture meant to teach, but those are all matters of faith and morals… and it seems unlikely the church would ever insist that scripture was teaching something that was not part of faith and morals…

So perhaps is the doctrine this:

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

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

Ah, but… - there is a further subtlety (sorry about this ). Namely, that the salvific purpose of inspiration includes, even necessitates, the total inerrancy of the Bible; &, that this total inerrancy is required for the Bible to be salvific.​

On this view, TI is:

• a quality of the text - &
• a quality of the message conveyed in that text
  IOW - it is both a cause & an effect of inspiration: not as the same levels of inspiration, but at two distinct (though not unrelated ones).

If this view is correct: I may be attributing to the Church something it does not teach.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

I’m not “twist[ing]” anything - merely keeping in mind the solemn teaching of a Pope, in a document of high authority, which, because it is a document of a certain type, calls for interior assent at the very least. Or so Pius XII taught, in “Humani Generis” (having affirmed TI in “Divino Afflante” in 1943)​

To say the Church “does not condemn the concept of total inerrancy”, is an understatement.

The late Father Most defended the same understanding of the same doctrine. Was he “twist[ing] the words of earlier successors of Blessed Peter and the Church Fathers to justify [his] own conception of Scriptural inerrancy” ?

What is so amusing is that I’ve denied on other threads what you deny - and, lo & behold, I’ve been called a heretic for denying TI. It would be interesting, maybe productive, if the OP involved were to contribute to this thread. Between you & him, I really don’t whom to believe - or what.

Your post does nothing to explain even a single point in mine A start might be made, if you could explain how both “Providentissimus Deus” & “Divino Afflante” affirm TI, yet are to be ignored. They both explain why it is wrong to allow that there is - or even could be - any error in Scripture whatever. How do they not teach TI ? If they do not teach TI, what name would you give their teaching ? Neither of them allows any doctrine of limited inerrancy - they positively exclude it. So if they

• do not teach TI
  although they
• do reject LI
  (as they make abundantly clear): what do they teach ?

Let us suppose their words are being “twist[ed]” - if so, & if that is not their teaching: what is to be put in its place ? Those who make accusations are the people to take the responsibility for justifying them.

And how do you account for the relevant section of the Ratzinger Note ?

What is the point of all those citations from Fathers that have been posted, if not to show that they preceded Leo XIII in believing the Bible to be TI ? ISTM you should argue with whoever put them up. Do they support TI ? IMHO, no - but that doesn’t mean they are not being used by OPs to support TI.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

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

 

[itsjustdave1988]

My understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture is this…

God gives us his revelation in two ways: 1) Natural revelation – God speaks through the things he has created, and 2) Supernatural revelation – God speaks directly, supernaturally. Whenever & however God speaks, he always speaks the truth, and nothing but the truth. Whenever we think we has come across an apparent contradiction in what God has spoken, the error is in our failure to properly understand the Author’s intent.

With regard to Divine revelation of the “natural” sort, scientists trust that truth can be discovered by discerning the nature of things. For instance, when observing lightning on particular occasions (particular truth), we can reason or infer things about the truth of lightning in general (general truth). Anyone who has spent any significant time studying science has come across what seem to be “apparent contradictions.” For example, light seems to behave as a particle. However, it also seem to behave like a wave. This wave-particle duality can be an “apparent contradiction” to some, but we accept it as true, although complex and not quite fully understood…a “mystery.” A mystery that gifted men and women may come to understand more deeply after further contemplation, while others may never see past the apparent contradiction. Thus, when scientists encounter apparent contradictions in the study of nature (science), we do not presume that nature is fraudulent, filled with error. Instead, we accept a priori, the God’s revelation is inerrant. When faced with apparent contradictions in nature, we conclude that we haven’t perfectly understood the truthful material very well*, and therefore we have more work ahead of us.* Scientists accept that there are still things they do not understand. In other words, nature contains some “mysteries” which we are still trying to contemplate. While we are aware that there are “apparent contradictions” in God’s natural revelation to us, we also know that they cannot be true contradictions in nature, but instead result from our own lack of ability, our own failure to understand that revelation properly.

Same thing goes for the Divine revelation of the “supernatural” sort. It is complex. It is filled with mystery. We can sometimes come across “apparent contradictions” which we find perplexing, but we trust that such are the result of a lack of understanding on our part, not characterized by “fraud” on the part of the Author.

In other words, God’s natural revelation and God’s supernatural revelation are not erroneous, but true. There can be no true contradictions within or between them. It would be foolish to accuse the Author of Divine Revelation of error. We instead admit humbly that something in our own understanding must be lacking, and we are called to further contemplation. In this way, it is in God we trust above our own limited talents.

Why is this important? From the perspective of Catholicism, the ultimate norm for discerning the truth is God and His revelation to us (natural and supernatural). Consequently, by seeking to better understand God’s revelation, Catholics may come to a deeper knowledge of God, and a more intimate love of God, so that we may more faithfully serve God.

Inerrancy of Scripture derives from the dogma which affirms that God is the author of Scripture in such a mysterious way that the Sacred human authors wrote only that which God himself wanted written. A dogma taught forever, always, and by all, affirmed by Vatican II, and all the popes since Vatican II.

 

[JReducation]

I’m adding my two cents to this thread at the invitation of the OP. First, I must begin with a disclaimer. I am not an expert in Pastoral Theology. My areas are Franciscan and Mystical Theology.

That being said, both PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS and DEI VERBUM are saying the same thing. However, they were written for two different audiences and at two different times in the history of the Church. Hence, the language can sound confusing, if not conflicting.

Both documents affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. What Vatican II brings to the table is a reminder that we must be attentive to what the human author truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words to interpret Scripture correctly, because God speaks to man in a human way.

Both also concur that God is the author of Sacred Scripture. This does not mean that he sat at a computer and typed away. They are referring to divinely revealed realities, which are contained in Sacred Scripture. These realities were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Vatican II also affirmed that the Church relies on the faith of the apostolic age and accepts the books of the Old and New Testaments, wholly, as written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Because God is the Divine author, they are free of error and have been handed down to us as such. This does not rule out human language, metaphor, poetry, symbols and other tools that the authors may have used to convey the Revelation that they received. This is why we have discrepancies between Scripture and history. The discrepancy is in the details, no the revealed truth.

In 1943 Pius XII in an encyclical, Divino afflante Spiritu, said, “We ought to explain the original text which was written by the inspired author himself and has more authority and greater weight than any, even the very best, translation whether ancient or modern. This can be done all the more easily and fruitfully if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill of literary criticism of the same text.”

While he affirms the inerrancy of the Scriptures, he also affirms that to understand it more easily we need to bring together the knowledge of languages and literary criticism. This means that we must understand what the author meant and why he or she said it this way, instead of that to unravel the mystery.

Vatican II also introduced another element, which is the inclusion and cooperation of non-Catholic scholars in the translation of the scriptures: “with the approval of the church authority, these translations are produced in cooperation with separated brothers” so that “all Christians may be able to use them. As you see, there was a pastoral reason for including non-Catholic scholars in the new translations of the Scriptures, not because there is anything missing in the scriptures, but because it was desirable to make sure that everyone could read and use them. Therefore, the language had to fit the man and woman of today, without changing the revealed truth.

Finally, because I’m getting too long-winded, Vatican II indicated three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. Vatican II held that scripture must be correctly interpreted or it will remain a dead letter.

1. We must be attentive to the unity of the Scripture. It is one story, the story of God’s saving plan. Therefore, it would be wrong to take pieces of it out of context for our own purpose. Any citation must reflect and connect to the work of Christ.
2. We must read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church. The Fathers of the Church believed that Scripture was written in the Church’s heart rather than in a document and record. The Church carries the memorial of God’s Word (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit gives her the spiritual. Therefore, our understanding of scripture must conform to what the Church knows about the Word of God (Jesus).
3. We must read scripture according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church. The Church is the final arbiter of the true meaning in Scripture, because the Church has received the Holy Spirit from Jesus Christ. He promised that “the gates of Hell will not prevail against you.” Therefore, the Church’s understanding of Sacred Scripture cannot err.

As you see, Vatican II did not change the Church’s teaching on Sacred Scripture. It added to what had already been said. It gave us a method for approaching scripture. We have to approach it as a whole, realizing that language and critical thinking are part of the approach; we have to keep in mind that the whole thing is the story of God’s plan, and that this plan has been revealed to the Church by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, our interpretation must concur with what the Holy Spirit has revealed to the Church.

Leo XIII and Vatican II are not in conflict.

Those are my two cents.

 

[JReducation]

My understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture is this…

God gives us his revelation in two ways: 1) Natural revelation – God speaks through the things he has created, and 2) Supernatural revelation – God speaks directly, supernaturally. Whenever & however God speaks, he always speaks the truth, and nothing but the truth. Whenever we think we has come across an apparent contradiction in what God has spoken, the error is in our failure to properly understand the Author’s intent.

With regard to Divine revelation of the “natural” sort, scientists trust that truth can be discovered by discerning the nature of things. For instance, when observing lightning on particular occasions (particular truth), we can reason or infer things about the truth of lightning in general (general truth). Anyone who has spent any significant time studying science has come across what seem to be “apparent contradictions.” For example, light seems to behave as a particle. However, it also seem to behave like a wave. This wave-particle duality can be an “apparent contradiction” to some, but we accept it as true, although complex and not quite fully understood…a “mystery.” A mystery that gifted men and women may come to understand more deeply after further contemplation, while others may never see past the apparent contradiction. Thus, when scientists encounter apparent contradictions in the study of nature (science), we do not presume that nature is fraudulent, filled with error. Instead, we accept a priori, the God’s revelation is inerrant. When faced with apparent contradictions in nature, we conclude that we haven’t perfectly understood the truthful material very well*, and therefore we have more work ahead of us.* Scientists accept that there are still things they do not understand. In other words, nature contains some “mysteries” which we are still trying to contemplate. While we are aware that there are “apparent contradictions” in God’s natural revelation to us, we also know that they cannot be true contradictions in nature, but instead result from our own lack of ability, our own failure to understand that revelation properly.

Same thing goes for the Divine revelation of the “supernatural” sort. It is complex. It is filled with mystery. We can sometimes come across “apparent contradictions” which we find perplexing, but we trust that such are the result of a lack of understanding on our part, not characterized by “fraud” on the part of the Author.

In other words, God’s natural revelation and God’s supernatural revelation are not erroneous, but true. There can be no true contradictions within or between them. It would be foolish to accuse the Author of Divine Revelation of error. We instead admit humbly that something in our own understanding must be lacking, and we are called to further contemplation. In this way, it is in God we trust above our own limited talents.

Why is this important? From the perspective of Catholicism, the ultimate norm for discerning the truth is God and His revelation to us (natural and supernatural). Consequently, by seeking to better understand God’s revelation, Catholics may come to a deeper knowledge of God, and a more intimate love of God, so that we may more faithfully serve God.

Inerrancy of Scripture derives from the dogma which affirms that God is the author of Scripture in such a mysterious way that the Sacred human authors wrote only that which God himself wanted written. A dogma taught forever, always, and by all, affirmed by Vatican II, and all the popes since Vatican II.

This is excellent!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thanks for the explanation. There are a lot of people who actually think that since Vatican II, it is OK to say that there are errors of some form or other in the bible.

I’m adding my two cents to this thread at the invitation of the OP. First, I must begin with a disclaimer. I am not an expert in Pastoral Theology. My areas are Franciscan and Mystical Theology.

That being said, both PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS and DEI VERBUM are saying the same thing. However, they were written for two different audiences and at two different times in the history of the Church. Hence, the language can sound confusing, if not conflicting.

Both documents affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. …

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Both documents affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. What Vatican II brings to the table is a reminder that **we must be attentive to what the human author truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal **to us by their words to interpret Scripture correctly, because God speaks to man in a human way.

Does this mean that it is permissible to say that the text contains errors, as long as those errors do not affect what ‘God wanted to reveal’?

Both also concur that God is the author of Sacred Scripture. This does not mean that he sat at a computer and typed away. They are referring to divinely revealed realities, which are contained in Sacred Scripture. These realities were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Since God didn’t type it himself, and worked through imperfect people, does that mean that there could be errors that the authors introduced, as long as those errors don’t change the truths that God was revealing to us?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Does this mean that it is permissible to say that the text contains errors, as long as those errors do not affect what ‘God wanted to reveal’?

Providentissimus Deus affirms: "… 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. "

In explaining the mind of the Church on the matter, Paul VI, Dei Verbum 11 specifically cites this text in footnote 4. Consequently, the thesis that Dei Verbum has rejected the teaching of Providentissimus Deus is untenable.

Cardinal Augustin Bea was the Jesuit Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, and was the Vatican II peritus (expert) chosen to instruct bishops on biblical matters at the opening of Vatican II. He asserts the authentic understanding of inerrancy in accord with Vatican II"In fact, we declare in general that there is no limit set to this inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms" (Cardinal Augustin Bea, The Word of God and Mankind, Fransican Herald Press, 1967, p. 189)
Pope John Paul II, Address on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, April 23, 1993, commemorating the centenary of the encyclical of Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, and the fiftieth anniversary of the encyclical of Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu:"I want to highlight some aspects of the teaching of these two encyclical [Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu] and the permanent validity of their orientation…For as the substantial Word of God became like to human beings in all things ‘except sin’ (Heb 4:15), so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect except error. … This statement sheds light on a parallelism rich in meaning… What was true in 1943 remains so even in our day."

 

[JReducation]

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

Does this mean that it is permissible to say that the text contains errors, as long as those errors do not affect what ‘God wanted to reveal’?

Since God didn’t type it himself, and worked through imperfect people, does that mean that there could be errors that the authors introduced, as long as those errors don’t change the truths that God was revealing to us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps.