The third reference is to Aquinas where he writes that, “
the spirit of prophecy inspires the prophets even about conclusions of the sciences” because “many things which are proved in the sciences can be useful for” salvation. “Hence, we find that mention of these is made in Holy Scripture” (
, Q. 12, A. 2, C.De Veritate). In this same article, he says that “Although the conclusions of sciences can be known in another way than through prophecy, it is not superfluous for them to be shown by prophetic light, for
through faith we cling more firmly to what the prophets say than we do to the demonstrations of the sciences. And in this, too, the grace of God is praised and His perfect knowledge is shown forth.” Although this latter quote was not cited by
Dei Verbum, we’ll see this same thought expressed by Pope Leo XIII in the fifth citation.
The fourth reference is to the Council of Trent where it states:
“[The Synod,] following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and holds in veneration with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament, since one God is the author or both, and also the traditions themselves, those that appertain both to faith and to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession” (
Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures).
Here we can note that the books of Scripture are set alongside the Traditions “appertaining both to faith and to morals.” We gain from this that the infallibility of the Church extends, as we already know, to include faith and morals; but Scripture doesn’t have this “faith and morals” limitation put to it because “
God is the author” of the books of Scripture.
The fifth reference is to
Providentissimus Deus where it is stated:
“There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, ‘not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.’ If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: ‘Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and
whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith,
we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.’ ”
This citation is perhaps the most emphatic in teaching that Sacred Scripture is free from any error whatsoever. If the scientist asserts anything that is contrary to the Scriptures, then even if we can’t prove that the assertion is false, “we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so,” i.e., believe that the assertion of the scientist is entirely false. This citation goes on to state that the purpose of Scripture is our salvation, and because of this, “the secrets of nature” were written “in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time,” and in language describing “what sensibly appeared” and “in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.” But we can’t for this reason charge them with error as we’ll see in the next citation.
The sixth reference is also to
Providentissimus Deus. Here is the full quotation without any superfluous comments from me:
“It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. 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. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.”
L 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2, C. Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, 124, 126-127. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539.
The first reference is to Augustine:
