Harmonization of the Nativity accounts

[diggerdomer]

Not at all.

**Fd Trent, and finally and more expressly formulated by the [First] Council of the Vatican *(*Pope Leo XIII encyclical Providentissimus Deus EB 124-125).

Yes of course I agree with Pope Pius XII taught. But Catholic teaching and understanding did not stop there. We need to also consider the Catechism, the teachings of all Popes subsequent to Pius XII, and so on (including documents from the Pontifical Biblical Commission).

That is precisely what some of its adherents say (if in less honest terms). They say that the infancy accounts, the miracles and other significant accounts in the Old and New Testaments were basically invented by authors to make a point, or to provide Jesus with miracles and an origin to befit his status as Messiah. That is making things up to fool people. There is no getting round it.

I don’t know of any Catholic scholars who claim the infancy narratives (and other things you mention that seem secondary to this thread’s topic) were inventions of authors.

Nothing in that document allows one to argue that the Apostles invented the infancy narratives, the miracles or teachings of Jesus. Nor does it attempt to contradict Providentissimus Deus or any of the statements of the Councils of the Church.

Again, I never argued that anything in Scripture was simply invented or contradicts any Papal or Conciliar teaching. Though you seem to raise an intriguing (though off-topic) question of whether the Bible or Popes/Councils have a primacy of teaching. You should start a new Thread if you want to follow up on that idea.

In fact the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1964 declared

Yes, of course. I wish more Catholics knew this! Back to the topic of this thread as raised by the OP…nothing here affects the infancy narratives.

How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

**106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71 **
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

**126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels: **
1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up.” 2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."100
3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."101

Well of COURSE the Catechism is a sure reference for Catholics regarding the Bible. Again, nothing from the passages you note contradict anything I said.
Axion;7015732:
A good Catholic Answers article on this subject:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0407fea3.asp

Interesting, perhaps, but again, not directly relevant to what the OP posted as a subject for this thread.

 

[diggerdomer]

Why does the reference have to be ‘current’ ? The teaching of the Church does not have an expiration date.

Seriously? Why does the teaching of the Church have to be current? Because the Church exists here and now, today, with today’s peoples, cultures etc. Are you suggesting that the Church in some previous age had all the truth and whatever happens today is irrelevant? That we should simply follow some past teaching of the Church without regard to facts and history and experience and culture?

There is no teaching of the Magisterium stating that the infancy narratives are fictional.

No kidding. But, for those who may not know, thanks for sharing.

There is also no teaching of the Magisterium stating the the infancy narratives are historically accurate.

The inerrancy of Scripture on matters of history was taught by the Magisterium in the quote that I cited above. Also, Sacred Tradition has always held the infancy narratives to be true accounts. None of the Fathers, Doctors, or Saints ever held that these are stories invented to make a point. They all have treated these stories as historical descriptions.

Yes, maybe in the past the Church taught “inerrancy” I’m simply asking where and how does the Church use that term now. Today. In the 21st century. Any references?

I never said the infancy narratives were not true.

 

[diggerdomer]

In terms of chronological harmonization, here is how I think things may have happened:

1. Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth. (Luke 1:26)

But according to Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. There is no mention prior to that of Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth.

1. They travel to Bethlehem for the census. (Luke 2:4)

Again, completely different from the Gospel of Matthew. Are you saying we should ignore Matthew and just follow Luke?

1. Jesus is born in Bethlehem, and, as said, Mary and Joseph decide that they want to live here. (Matt 2:1 and Luke 2:6-7)

Where in Matthew’s Gospel does it say Mary and Joseph decided they wanted to live there?

1. After 40 days they go to Jerusalem for the purification. (Luke 2:22)

Not according to the Gospel of Matthew.

1. They return to Nazareth to say their goodbyes and to collect other belongings for their more permanent stay in Bethlehem. (returning to Nazareth: Luke 2:39; to say their goodbyes: another conjecture carrying no authority.)

Key words for this claim: conjecture; no authority.

1. They return to Bethlehem and the magi pay a visit to them in their new home. (returning to Bethlehem: yet another conjecture carrying no authority; the visit of the magi: Matt 2:1-12; the house: Matt 2:11; the newness of the house: derived from the conjectures lacking authority. )

ditto

1. They flee to Egypt. (Matt 2:13-15)

They went to Egypt? Why didn’t Luke mention this significant event? How long were they there? According to Luke, Jesus appears in the Temple as a child…are these two accounts really coherent, historically?

1. Herod seeks to kill Jesus. (Matt 2:16-18)

Why in the world would Luke not also relate such a seemingly significant event?

1. They want to return to Bethlehem but are unable, and they end up back in Nazareth. (Matt 2:19-23)

Not according to Luke’s Gospel.

 

[Axion]

Yes of course I agree with Pope Pius XII taught. But Catholic teaching and understanding did not stop there. We need to also consider the Catechism, the teachings of all Popes subsequent to Pius XII, and so on (including documents from the Pontifical Biblical Commission).

Catholic teaching does not change. Perhaps you have liberal-modernist teachers who have tried to convince you that everything in the faith is up for grabs, and that the opinions of certain modern University theologians “trump” the “old fashioned, fuddy-duudy” Popes and the Councils. This is not so.

I don’t know of any Catholic scholars who claim the infancy narratives (and other things you mention that seem secondary to this thread’s topic) were inventions of authors.

You are clearly implying just this in your post above, where you try to make contradictions between Mark and Luke. These “contradictions” do not in fact exist, since the accounts are COMPLEMENTARY, one mentioning events that the other does not. But we see where this line of thinking is going. You are alleging that Matthew contradicts Luke, therefore one of them, or both of them must be false, invented, accounts. It is beyond denying.

I’m afraid it does.

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

---

…The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."

3. The written Gospels. “The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.”

---

It is quite clear that any attempt to describe or infer that the infancy narratives, miracles of Jesus, or anything else, are fictions or falsehoods goes directly contrary to Church teaching.

 

[Pete_Holter]

But according to Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. There is no mention prior to that of Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth.

Again, completely different from the Gospel of Matthew. Are you saying we should ignore Matthew and just follow Luke?

Where in Matthew’s Gospel does it say Mary and Joseph decided they wanted to live there?

Not according to the Gospel of Matthew.

Key words for this claim: conjecture; no authority.

ditto

They went to Egypt? Why didn’t Luke mention this significant event? How long were they there? According to Luke, Jesus appears in the Temple as a child…are these two accounts really coherent, historically?

Why in the world would Luke not also relate such a seemingly significant event?

Not according to Luke’s Gospel.

Greetings!

Yes, everything I wrote coheres historically and even has a high level of plausibility; and nothing contradicts the Gospel accounts. Life is complicated. If you’d like to read about inerrancy, you can start here and follow along to the other threads that get linked in the discussion. I do not have time to interact with you.

Have a blessed day!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[diggerdomer]

Catholic teaching does not change. Perhaps you have liberal-modernist teachers who have tried to convince you that everything in the faith is up for grabs, and that the opinions of certain modern University theologians “trump” the “old fashioned, fuddy-duudy” Popes and the Councils. This is not so.

You are not correct to say, simply, “Catholic teaching does not change.”

Ask anyone who fasted from midnight prior to Mass, as opposed to the current discipline.

Can you please clarify just what you mean about the false statement "Catholic teaching does not change? (feel free to refer to slavery, usury, et. al.)

You are clearly implying just this in your post above, where you try to make contradictions between Mark and Luke. These “contradictions” do not in fact exist, since the accounts are COMPLEMENTARY, one mentioning events that the other does not. But we see where this line of thinking is going. You are alleging that Matthew contradicts Luke, therefore one of them, or both of them must be false, invented, accounts. It is beyond denying.

I never said Matthew contradicts Luke or vice versa. For you to charge me of such is your opinion, not something I said nor believe. Similarly, your baseless charge that a Gospel is false or invented exists simply in your mind…not in my personal belief nor in anything I posted. Thanks anyway for your response.

Well of COURSE the Catechism is a sure reference for Catholics regarding the Bible. Again, nothing from the passages you note contradict anything I said.

I stand by and adhere to everything the Catholic Church teaches, including the Catechism. Nothing I posted here contradicts that.

Again, thanks anyway for responding. Sorry I don’t see your point. Feel free to clarify.

 

[diggerdomer]

Greetings!

Yes, everything I wrote coheres historically and even has a high level of plausibility; and nothing contradicts the Gospel accounts. Life is complicated. If you’d like to read about inerrancy, you can start here and follow along to the other threads that get linked in the discussion. I do not have time to interact with you.

Have a blessed day!

In Christ,
Pete

I’m sorry you don’t have time. That’s ok, this probably isn’t that important to you.

The source you refer to is your own post…hmmm…and something referring to an isolated past Church teaching, not accounting for what the Church teaches today (like…the Catechism). If you have time (which you understandably probably don’t, which is fine) feel free to clarify.

 

[patg]

I’m sorry you don’t have time. That’s ok, this probably isn’t that important to you.

The source you refer to is your own post…hmmm…and something referring to an isolated past Church teaching, not accounting for what the Church teaches today (like…the Catechism). If you have time (which you understandably probably don’t, which is fine) feel free to clarify.

A much better source on this subject than random internet postings is Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald Witherup (imprimatur and Nihil Obstat). Of course the more fundamentalist and literalist members of these forums probably won’t like it.

 

[diggerdomer]

A much better source on this subject than random internet postings is Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald Witherup (imprimatur and Nihil Obstat). Of course the more fundamentalist and literalist members of these forums probably won’t like it.

Let’s see what Pete H thinks, if he has the time/interest to follow on this thread. Thanks.

 

[Pete_Holter]

A much better source on this subject than random internet postings is Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald Witherup (imprimatur and Nihil Obstat). Of course the more fundamentalist and literalist members of these forums probably won’t like it.

Here, Patg plagiarized John Shelby Spong. Neil Anthony pointed out this plagiarism here. When it failed to be acknowledged, he more pointedly exposed it here. Patg then responded by saying, “Thanks for the reference, I forgot the source of those statements.” It seemed innocent enough at the time.

But consider the post that he provided us with on this very thread (and other threads) and his repeated plagiarisms of by Margaret Nutting RalphAnd God Said What?…

The author of an infancy narrative is not responding to the question “How can I tell the story of this person’s birth exactly as it occurred?” but to the question “How can I tell this story so that the reader understands just how great this person became?” An infancy narrative is not written from a point of view contemporary with its subject’s birth; it is written in hindsight in the light of subsequent events to teach what came to be known about the person over time. The birth narratives of Jesus were written after the resurrection, after the disciples had come to understand Jesus’ true identity.

For this paragraph, see pages 172-173. Next:

Matthew and Luke’s contemporaries would have been familiar with the technique of using an Old Testament text to cast light on a contemporary situation. This is what is happening in the infancy narratives. Images from scripture are woven around the accounts of events in order to teach the significance of those events in the lives of the audience.

For this paragraph, see page 177. Next:

knowledge of the infancy narrative form and a knowledge of how the infancy narratives use the midrash teaching device help us understand the depth of meaning found in Matthew’s and Luke’s infancy narratives. Without this knowledge we might miss Matthew’s keen perception of Jesus as the embodiment of the history of his people, especially as the new Moses, and we might miss Luke’s perception of Jesus as the God-man who has come to pasture his people. With an understanding of literary form, we are able to understand the deep meaning that is so simply and beautifully woven into Mathew’s and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth.

This same paragraph is found at the bottom of this other post on a separate thread:

knowledge of the infancy narrative form and a knowledge of how the infancy narratives use the midrash teaching device help us understand the depth of meaning found in Matthew’s and Luke’s infancy narratives. Without this knowledge we might miss Matthew’s keen perception of Jesus as the embodiment of the history of his people, especially as the new Moses, and we might miss Luke’s perception of Jesus as the God-man who has come to pasture his people. With an understanding of literary form, we are able to understand the deep meaning that is so simply and beautifully woven into Mathew’s and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth.

For these duplicates, see page 190.

 

[Pete_Holter]

You probably remember NotWorthy commending Patg for his post on this thread:

patg,
That is very well put.

Patg went on to say…

…I tried to explain this in my original post.

“I” tried to explain, or Margaret? Here is some more from the other thread I had just quoted:

Scripture scholars believe that Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives include a historical core – the information that the stories have in common – but they also contain many details that do not find their source in events but in the text of the scripture. The infancy narratives wind throughout their accounts of events scriptural images that cast light on the significance of events. This is to say that Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives employ a teaching technique common in Jesus’ culture known as midrash.

For this paragraph, see page 176. Next:

When a person who knows the Old Testament reads the infancy narratives, they realize that many of the details unique to each story have a familiar ring to them. In fact, they are Old Testament allusions added to the stories to teach the significance of the events being recounted. When one is able to bring these Old Testament allusions to bear on one’s understanding of the story, a whole new level of meaning opens up. Only by doing this can we understand the theological richness that Matthew and Luke have added to their accounts by their of midrash.

For this paragraph (here, and we’ll see this same paragraph show up on a different post with fewer alterations, patg has simply exchanged the singular personal pronoun for the plural and made the verb fit the plurality, replacing “he or she realizes” with “they realize”; replaced “Matthew and Luke’s” with “the”; omitted “very”; forgot “use”; etc.), see page 177. Next:

The images that Luke weaves into his account of Jesus’ birth are very different than those used by Matthew. Still, the intention behind the images is the same. By incorporating these images, Luke is helping his audience understand the significance of Jesus’ birth, a significance that was understood only in the light of the resurrection.

For this paragraph (he forgot “use of” and “of the event”), see page 183. Next:

What is Matthew telling his audience when he includes in his infancy narrative the accounts of the star, the magi, Herod’s plot, the massacre of the babies, and the flight into Egypt? Each of these images recalls to the mind of Matthew’s largely Jewish audience something significant in their past. He organizes his gospel into five sections that reflect the Pentateuch, the five books of the old law. He pictures Jesus giving the new law on a mountain, just as Moses did. Everywhere in Matthews’s gospel we read of Jesus against the backdrop of the history of the Jewish people, for it is only against this backdrop that Jesus’ true identity can be understood by Matthew’s largely Jewish audience.

For this paragraph (after removing the typo, Matthews’s, and noticing that patg removed some of the original material), see pages 177-178. Next:

a type of writing in which a scriptural text is used not simply to discover the meaning of that text but to seek out new meanings that have practical application to the present. In midrash, the original meaning of a text is not being explained; rather, the text is being used to interpret contemporary events.

For this, see page 176.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I break these up so that each paragraph can be verified:

Midrash played an important role in Judaism after the Babylonian exile. Once the Israelites resettled the holy land, the age of the prophets ended. The function that had been fulfilled by prophets, to confront the contemporary audience with God’s will and God’s word, was taken on by the scribes. Through reinterpretations of Old Testament texts scribes tried to bring the words of the law and of the prophets to bear on the lives of the people. Midrash had much the same function in postexilic Judaism that a good homily or sermon has in our lives. The question that the scribe, homilist, or preacher is trying to address is not “What is the original meaning of this text?” but “How does this text, God’s living word, help us understand the meaning of our present situation?”

For this paragraph, see page 176. Next:

In the Infancy Narratives, for example, Matthew and Luke’s contemporaries would have been familiar with the technique of using an Old Testament text to cast light on a contemporary situation. In the infancy narratives. Images from Scripture are woven around the accounts of events in order to teach the significance of those events in the lives of the audience.

For this paragraph (notice also patg’s fragment resulting from messing up his plagiarism of the first half of the second sentence), see page 177. Next:

When a person who knows the Old Testament reads Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives they realize that many of the details unique to each story have a very familiar ring to them. In fact, they are Old Testament allusions added to the stories to teach the significance of the events being recounted. When one is able to bring these Old Testament allusions to bear on one’s understanding of the story, a whole new level of meaning opens up.

For this paragraph (here, as mentioned above, patg has simply exchanged the singular personal pronoun for the plural and made the verb fit the plurality, replacing “he or she realizes” with “they realize”), see page 177. Next:

The task before us, then, is to interpret the allusions, many from the Old Testament, that have been woven into the accounts in Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives. Only then can we understand the theological richness that Matthew and Luke have added to their accounts by their use of midrash.

Continued plagiarism of page 177. Next:

What is Matthew telling his audience when he includes in his infancy narrative the accounts of the star, the magi, Herod’s plot, the massacre of the babies, and the flight into Egypt? Each of these images recalls to the mind of Matthew’s largely Jewish audience something significant in their past, something that touches their minds and hearts because it reminds them of their history, their hopes, and their sense of purpose and destiny.

More. Next:

We must remember that when Matthew was arranging his inherited oral and written traditions into the Gospel that we now have, he was ever mindful of the needs of his Jewish audience. He was writing to people of the covenant who wanted to remain faithful to that covenant. Matthew presents Jesus to his audience as the new Moses who has authority from God to give the new law. This basic concern is reflected in both the form and the content of Matthew’s Gospel. He organizes his Gospel into five sections that reflect the Pentateuch, the five books of the old law.

And more.

 

[Pete_Holter]

It is actually even more complicated;

• Which version of the text is to be considered inerrant - the originals (which we don’t have)? The copies? Which copies?
• Which translation from which copy? All translations introduce differences, some slight and some significant.

These are some of the reasons the church doesn’t get real hung up on the concept of inerrancy - the word comes with a lot of baggage that just gets in the way.
Catholicism generally shuns using the actual word “inerrancy” because of the strong
connotation of literalist in*terpretation that it embodies. A quotation from the
Constitution on Divine Revelation illustrates the Catholic position:

Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writ*ers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures *(Dei Verbum *§1l).

This assertion of a lack of error, which affirms the under*standing that sacred Scripture is inspired by God, is coupled with the charge to interpret the Scriptures carefully through the exploration of their expression:

Seeing that, in sacred Scripture, God speaks through men [sic] in human fashion, it follows that the interpreter of sacred Scripture, if he is to ascertain what God has wished to com*municate to us, should carefully search out the meaning which the sacred writers really had in mind, that meaning which God had thought well to manifest through the medium of their words *(Dei Verbum *§ 12).

Implicit in this stance is the recognition that interpreters must honor the various literary forms found in the Bible. The biblical authors employed many different forms (narratives, poems, hymns, laws, parables, miracle stories, proverbs, sayings, apocalyptic visions, etc.) that require careful discernment to arrive at a proper understanding of their meaning.

The medium does affect the message. Another practical import of Vatican II’s position is that a Catholic interpretation of a passage of Scripture is not bothered by inconsistencies or inaccuracies that some of the ancient writings contain. Human errors of a scientific or historical nature are not unexpected in ancient literature, and the Bible is no exception

This post is almost entirely a plagiarism from the Witherup book he recommended earlier in this thread. See page 40.

I’ll let patg wrap up what I’m saying by using his own words at the end of one of his posts full of plagiarism:

I could go on but I hope you get the idea.

The point is that someone who presents one thing as if it were something else has a much easier time affixing the “fiction” label to a seemingly historical narrative.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I’m sorry you don’t have time. That’s ok, this probably isn’t that important to you.

The source you refer to is your own post…hmmm…and something referring to an isolated past Church teaching, not accounting for what the Church teaches today (like…the Catechism). If you have time (which you understandably probably don’t, which is fine) feel free to clarify.

As for the Witherup book recommended by patg, the author states:

“Divino Afflante Spiritu, Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XII, 1943: This is the most important official document that inaugurated modern Catholic critical exegesis of the Bible. It affirms that the Bible contains no errors in faith and morals, but it also respects the human dimension of the Word of God” (page 37).

This is a very misleading statement. The author of this book moves on to claim that Dei Verbum also propounds a “lack of error in matters of faith and morals” (page 38), and to assert that the Catholic Church “recognizes a type of ‘inerrancy’ of the bible, but only in faith and morals” (page 40).

This final claim made by the author must be in some way related to his claims made about Dei Verbum and Divino Afflante Spiritu. But if you read the documents themselves, you will find Witherup’s claims to be unsubstantiated and even adverse to what is actually written.

Divino Afflante Spiritu states as clear as day that the limitation of “the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals” was a justly and rightly condemned proposition because the so-called “science” and “history” of the Bible are connected with faith and are therefore similarly free “from any error whatsoever.” It also reaffirmed the teaching of Providentissimus Deus pertaining to inerrancy, wherein it was written that “it is absolutely wrong and forbidden… to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” Pius reaffirmed Providentissimus Deus here, and, in Humani Generis, he explained that “if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.” Pius moved on to specifically identify the limitation of the “immunity from error… to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters” as a matter “already often condemned.” To leave no room for doubt as to where these condemnations could be found, he carefully named not only Providentissimus Deus, but also his own encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, and this time pointing to Spiritus Paraclitus as well. Please read these documents.

In discussing the relationship between Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Benedict said that “in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII offered Catholic exegetes new encouragement and new directives on the subject of inspiration, truth and biblical hermeneutics. Later, Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, gathered and completed the preceding teaching and urged Catholic exegetes to find solutions in full agreement with the Church’s doctrine” ( Address of Pope Benedict XVI to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 2009). If you want your biblical hermeneutic to be in “full agreement with the Church’s doctrine,” on the “inspiration” and “truth” of Sacred Scripture, then it will have to accord with the teaching of Divino Afflante Spiritu, which “gathered and completed the preceding teaching.”

 

[Pete_Holter]

Dei Verbum says that the Bible was written for the sake of our salvation and that for this purpose the text has been rendered free from error. There are copious footnotes provided for the controverted statement of Dei Verbum to prevent us from misunderstanding it. For identification of the cited texts of Enchiridion Biblicum 121, 124, 126-127, and 539, all of which come from Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu, you can refer to , Article 11Dei Verbum. In this article, Father Harrison very helpfully identifies the paragraphs from these encyclicals corresponding to these citations. Augustine gets cited twice. For the “‘Gen. ad Litt.’ 2, 9, 20” citation, you can see this post. For Augustine’s “Epistle 82, 3” citation, and Thomas Aquinas’ “‘On Truth,’ Q. 12, A. 2” citation, you can see this post. I followed up on Augustine and Aquinas here and here.

Here is some additional information I was hoping you would take the time to search out by following the thread that I linked you to:

Posts 189-191 examine an exchange that took place between Cardinal John Henry Newman and then Bishop (later Archbishop) John Healy prior to the release of Providentissimus Deus. The exchange helps us understand both Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu.

Here is a quotation from the Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Paragraph of the Professio Fidei of 1998.

Here it is pointed out that “salvation only” type inerrancy formulas are inadequate and have already been dismissed by the Church.

Here the assertion is made that the dogma is based on the unanimous faith of the Early Church Fathers. This post links to another post, which is itself the first in a series of posts quoting from the Fathers on this doctrine. Additional quotations from the Fathers can be found sprinkled throughout the rest of both threads (Thread 1 and Thread 2).

Here I clarify that all of Scripture pertains to our salvation.

Posts 188-190 recapitulate yet another defense of the dogma.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Where does the Catholic Church teach that these are historical accounts? Thanks for any (current, relevant) reference.

This question was addressed in part in Post 37. For the historicity of the Infancy Narratives in the Catechism, you can discern this by reading the various paragraphs that handle the discreet elements found in these narratives. The best place to look is in Paragraphs 525-530. In Paragraph 530, you’ll notice reference to “Christ’s whole life,” and that the context includes the massacre of the innocents and the flight into Egypt. You’ll see this same language used in Paragraph 486 – “the whole life of Jesus Christ” – where it mentions the shepherds and the magi in conjunction with John the Baptist and Christ’s disciples. There is no distinction made between a postulated pseudo-history for the infancy accounts, and a separate “true” history for the rest of His life. The Church makes no such distinction. Rather, the Church “unhesitatingly asserts” the historicity of the whole of the Gospels (, Art. 19Dei Verbum). In reading Article 19, you’ll notice that the Church derives the force of this claim to historicity from the introduction to Luke’s Gospel, which also serves more immediately as an introduction to Luke’s infancy narrative.

Speaking more broadly, the Church teaches that the historical narrative of Sacred Scripture “is not mythology, but a true history” (Final Propositions of the Synod of Bishops on the Bible in 2008, Proposition 25). For the “Christian faith has its specificity, primarily in that it refers to historical events, or better to a coherent history, which actually took place as history. In this sense, the question about the fact, the reality of the event, is essential to” our faith; consequently, what might be styled as the deeper meaning of salvation history “must not be separated from the facts” (, 2002Current Doctrinal Relevance of the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

In keeping with the historical setting of Luke’s Gospel, Pope Benedict notes that Jesus was conceived in Nazareth (cf. May 14, 2009). He considers the probable curiosity and excitement of the shepherds upon hearing the message spoken by the angel (cf. December 24, 2009). And “[e]nveloped by the holy cloud, they heard the angels’ song of praise” (December 25, 2008). He surmises that “the Wise Men were astronomers” who “had noticed the appearance of a new star and had interpreted this celestial phenomenon as the announcement of the birth of a king” (January 6, 2009). “Once again heaven and earth, the cosmos and history, call to each other and respond. The ancient prophecies find confirmation in the language of the stars” (January 6, 2008). “There is no doubt that [the Magi] were persuaded by the sign of the star that they had seen” (January 6, 2007), that Jesus is King! But “Herod made it clear that he was effectively the one in power forcing the Holy Family to flee to Egypt and offering proof of his cruelty by the massacre of the innocents” (January 6, 2010).

I hope you found this information helpful. If I don’t make it back to this thread, I hope that the Lord of peace will be with you.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[diggerdomer]

I hope you found this information helpful. If I don’t make it back to this thread, I hope that the Lord of peace will be with you.

Not really helpful, as this is simply a reiteration of Catholic teaching that I am familiar with. thanks anyway.

So, what’s your real question or concern?

 

[The_Exodus]

Not really helpful, as this is simply a reiteration of Catholic teaching that I am familiar with. thanks anyway.

So, what’s your real question or concern?

I find it odd you call yourself Catholic when all the Doctors of the Church and all its councils have claimed that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Ghost and are free from any error whatsoever.

 

[diggerdomer]

I find it odd you call yourself Catholic when all the Doctors of the Church and all its councils have claimed that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Ghost and are free from any error whatsoever.

Why do you find it odd that I adhere to Catholic teaching, given this forum?

Yes of course all Scriptures are inspired.

But…despite what you might think ,the Catholic Church does not teach that Scripture is free from any error whatsoever (as you suggest).

Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a better understanding of what we Catholics believe. Specifically, see para 107 (though you might benefit from all of para 50-141). Note…it does not say Scripture is “free from any error whatsoever.”

Hope this helps your understanding of what Catholics believe about Scripture.

 

[The_Exodus]

Yes of course all Scriptures are inspired.

But…despite what you might think ,the Catholic Church does not teach that Scripture is free from any error whatsoever (as you suggest).

I’m not against Catholicism. Indeed, I am getting confirmed this Easter. I would just like to point out, however, it seems to me inconsistent to hold that Scripture is inspired and yet that it also contains errors. How could the Holy Ghost “partially” inspire something? I admit, many passages are used allegorically or anagogically. This does not mean error though. It just means a certain mind ought to be assumed when reading it. The Gospels, however, have always and unanimously been held to be historical accounts and free from all error whatsoever. See Augustine on his harmonizing: newadvent.org/fathers/1602.htm