So, now Iâm even more confused than ever.
Some say the Bible is only infallible in terms of faith & morals (which makes me ask why the Holy Spirit would inspire the authors to write all the other things that are obviously of some relevance, but need not be* correct*)
Others say that the Bible is
completely inerrant, but that we ought to pay attention on
how we read it.
So what IS the actual teaching? So much confusion is really getting annoyingâŚ
Hey Shlomey!
I started a thread on this subject last May called
Biblical Inerrancy. The thread covers a lot of ground, but if you skip to the end (post 102), youâll see that the recent Synod of Bishops has asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for a clarification on this dogma. So weâre waiting to see what happens with that.
Until then, here is some material (in addition to what can be found on that thread) that you might find helpful:
Bea then proceeds to raise the question: âDoes the inerrancy asserted in
Dei Verbum] cover also the account of these historical events?â, which he answers: âFor my own part I think that this question must be answered affirmatively, that is, that these âbackgroundâ events also are described without error. 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⌠This thought, which re-occurs in various forms in the recent documents of the Magisterium of the Church (cf. E.B. 124, 279, 450 et seq., 539 et seq., 559) is here clearly understood in a sense which excludes the possibility of the Scriptures containing any statement contrary to the reality of the facts. In particular, these documents of the Magisterium require us to recognize that Scripture gives a true account of events, naturally not in the sense that it always offers a complete and scientifically studied account, but in the sense that what is asserted in Scripture - even if it does not offer a complete picture - never contradicts the reality of the fact. If therefore the Council had wished to introduce here a new conception, different from that presented in these recent documents of the supreme teaching authority, which reflects the beliefs of the early fathers, it would have had to state this clearly and explicitly. Let us now ask whether there may be any indications to suggest such a restricted interpretation of inerrancy. The answer is decidedly negative. There is not the slightest sign of any such indication. On the contrary everything points against a restrictive interpretation.â (taken from
Unam Sanctam Catholicam quoting Augustin Cardinal Bea)
Father William Most:
âSince all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers assert should be regarded as asserted 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 be confided to sacred Scripture.â
Some say the above italicized words are ambiguous. That is, the clause could be either
restrictive or
descriptive. If restrictive, it would mean that
only things needed for salvation would be free of error. If descriptive, it simply describes the Scriptures as for our salvation.
We admit that the words are ambiguous,
provided that we ignore the context â which is something no scholar should ever do with any document.
- If Vatican II had really wanted to make that clause clearly restrictive, there is an unambiguous Latin construction that would have made it clear called qui quidem with the subjunctive. The Council did not use that structure.
- Vatican II added a note to the sentence in italics, which refers us to the statements of Vatican I, Leo XIII, and Pius XII, all of whom insisted that there is no error, not even scientific or historical error, in Scripture.
- Pius XII, as we saw, said the statement of Vatican I that there is no error at all in Scripture was a âsolemn definition.â
So can we suppose the Church reversed a solemn definition in language that is ambiguous if we ignore the context, but clearly meaning the same as the past if we consider the context? And that it added a note referring us back to the very statements it would supposedly contradict? If there ever was a case of strained pleading, the objectors are giving it here. (
Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics)
And hereâs something Pope Paul VI wrote after the Council:
âLa Sacra Scrittura per la Chiesa è Parola di Dio, da Lui ispirata e perciò, nel significato autentico suo proprio, garantita da divina in erranza.â
âFor the Church, Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, inspired by Him and therefore guaranteed by divine inerrancy in its own authentic meaningâ (Paul VI,
General Audience, July, 1 1970, translation provided by Father Brian Harrison of the
Roman Theological Forum).
May God bless you!
