Inerrancy

[SaintJVMan]

For the past few days I’ve been in a dialogue with a number of Protestants, about inspiration, and Inerrancy, of scripture. To some extant I’ve been hindered by the apparent lack of an authoritative definition about the nature of Inerrancy. I’ve found a large number of resources from Catholic sites, all claiming to represent authentic Catholic doctrine, all citing the same sources and quoting the same people but coming to very different conclusions. The best that I’ve been able to come up with, concerning the position that I’ve been arguing is that it may be insufficient. Since I of course will submit to any authoritative declaration from the Church, I would appreciate any help, particularly any thing that I can read online to provide clarification.

Some of the specific questions that have come up are:

Does inerrancy extend to the whole of the sacred text, including historical details when the sacred writer meant to give an historical account?

Does this apply only to the originals?

The claims by many that inerrancy extends only to faith and morals.

If inspiration extends to the complete text, how it is that inerrancy can pertain only to matters of faith and morals.

 

[mj330]

Hi,
Inerrancy applies to the text as written by man as God led them. Inerrancy is applicable only to the original text, as the copies are subject ot human error, although there is an astounding rate of accuracy between varient texts and what was originally written. We can apply inerrancy to the words that were written, even if they were mistaken details given in an account. Analogous, perhaps, to the “lies” that were told by Abraham concerning Sarah. Although the lies would not be attributed to the Holy Spirit, the account of those lies would be inerrant. I hope that this helps.

 

[serendipity]

I think what it means is that as a whole the scripture tells us what we need to know about God’s plan of salvation for us. This at least is how it is stated in the Cathechism. To me this means that some parts of scripture may not be literal truths of sience or exact numbers, (because who counts every body for a battle masscre - they don’t even do that today; literalists sometimes say why was it 13, 500 here and the 14,000 elsewhere), but that as a whole the stories of the Bible present an eternally relevant representation of God’s love for us and attitudes we should embrace and promote to create his kingdom on earth. The Bible’s central messages never contradict themselves. Often numbers are only backdrops with sympbolic importance.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Here’s some source information for you on Catholic teaching regarding inerrancy of Scripture …

FROM PATRISTICS:

St. Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians (ca. AD 80):

Brethren, be contentious and zealous for the things which lead to salvation! You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and are of the Holy Spirit. You well know that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in them. [45,1]

St. Justin Martyr’s *Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, *(ca AD 155):

[That the Scriptures contradict each other] – I will not have the effrontery at any time either to suppose or to say such a thing. If a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and there be a pretext for regarding it as contradictory, since I am totally convinced that no Scripture is contradictory to another, I shall admit instead that I do not understand what is spoken of, and shall strive to persuade those who assume that the Scritpures are contradictory to be rather of the same opinion as myself." [65]

From St. Irenaeus’ *Against Heresies *(ca. AD 180/199):

If, however, we are not able to find explanations for all those passages of Scripture which are investigated, we ought not on that account seek for another God besides Him who exists. This would indeed be the greatest impiety. Things of that kind we must leave to God, the One who made us, knowing full well that the Scriptures are certainly perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and by His Spirit. [2, 28, 2]

St. Hippolytus of Rome, *Commentary on Daniel *(ca. AD 204):

Neither does Scripture falsify anything, nor does the Holy Spirit deceive His servants, the prophets, through whom He is pleased to announce to men the will of God. [4,6]

St. Augustine of Hippo, *Letter to Faustus, *AD 400, & *Letter to St. Jerome, *AD 405:

“If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.” (Augustine,Reply to Faustus the Manichean,11:5(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:1)

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. (Ltr LXXXII. (A.D. 405.), reply to St. Jerome’s letters LXXII., LXXV., and LXXXI)

See here for more:

**Free from all Error
**cin.org/users/jgallegos/noerror.htm

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

From the Council of Florence, Session 11, 4 February 1442:

[The Catholic Church] Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that … ***one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament ***— that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

From the** Council of Trent, Session 4**, 4 April 1546:

… the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, ***all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both ***… lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From the First Vatican Council, Session III, 24 April 1870 (Denzinger 1787):

Futhermore, this supernatural revelation, according to teh faith of the universal Church, as declared by the holy synod of Trent, is contained “in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself; or, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit have been handed down by the apostels themselves and have thus come to us” [Council of Trent]. And, indeed, these books of the Old and New Testament, whole with all their parts, just as they were enumerated in the decree of the same Council, are contained in the older Vulgate Latin edition, and are to be accepted as sacred and canonical, not because, having been put together by human industry alone, they were then approved by its authority; nor because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself.

From **Leo XIII, ***Providentissimus Deus, *18 Nov 1893
*

Inspiration Incompatible with Error
20. The principles here laid down will apply cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labour carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. 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. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. *
To be continued …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Continued from **Leo XIII, ***Providentissimus Deus, *18 Nov 1893

… because*** the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author.*** For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was ***so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. ***Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. “Therefore,” says St. Augustine, “since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated.”(58) And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "(59)
21. It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance-the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the “higher criticism;” for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: “On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honour and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.”(60)

 

[Prometheum_x]

When judging the accuracy of a particular passage, one has to be aware of the literary style employed by the author. For example, suppose the text says in one place that King David had 70,000 chariots (I think there may be a passage which says that). The author may never have intended to provide an exact count, but only to indicate that King David had a lot of chariots. I do the same thing sometimes – “There were millions of ladybugs around our house this summer!” I doubt that there were in fact even one million ladybugs, but my only intention was to indicate that there were a lot of them. The only way my statement would be wrong would be if it was interpreted to mean something I never intended.

 

[SaintJVMan]

How would you respond to someone who insists that scripture is only inspired in matters of faith and morals?

 

[patg]

SaintJVMan:

How would you respond to someone who insists that scripture is only inspired in matters of faith and morals?

I would say that this is exactly what the church teaches today. You can quote any number of old documents which imply otherwise but the current documents allow for this reality.

 

[SaintJVMan]

This would cause a contradiction in Church teaching, on a area more important then a simple matter of discipline or local practice.

 

[patg]

SaintJVMan:

This would cause a contradiction in Church teaching, on a area more important then a simple matter of discipline or local practice.

Not at all - the church is charged with teaching faith and morals, as serving as a guide to our relationship with God. There is no directive from God, Jesus, or any early church person to “go and teach history, science, math, geology,…”. Some early writers may have written to imply otherwise but that seeming contradiction was based on the limited worldview of the times - a worldview which was must closer to the culture which produced the bible and did not reflect the knowledge gained in later centuries.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

SaintJVMan:

How would you respond to someone who insists that scripture is only inspired in matters of faith and morals?

I would respond by quoting the papal encyclicals which teach us Catholic doctrine.

According to Leo XIII, *Providentissimus Deus *(1893),

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. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.

Leo XIII specifically writes against those who would claim that inspiration, and therefore inerrancy, is materially limited to those passages of Sacred Scripture that touch upon faith and morals, those that would discount the historicity, for example, of the infancy narratives of the Gospels.

According to Pius XII, *Divino Afflante Spiritu *(1943):

When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and–as they contended–in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.

According to Paul VI, this tendency to assert a material limitation on the doctrine of inerrancy, even rejecting the historicity of the Gospels continued to plague the Church, even in his day. In 1964, one year before promulgating Vatican II’s Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, Paul VI warns against those who would reject the historicity of Scripture, those who would reject an a priori view of the historicity and character (e.g., inerrancy) of Sacred Scripture.

Paul VI, Sancta Mater Ecclesia (1964)

"… the truth of the events and sayings recorded in the Gospels is being challenged. In view of this … [we] insists on the following…

For certain exponents of this [historical-critical] method, led astray by rationalistic prejudices …practically deny a priori the historical value and character of the documents of revelation. … these abberations are … ***opposed to Catholic doctrine … ***

… at all times the interpreter must cherish a spirit of ready obedience to the Church’s teaching authority, and must also bear in mind that … ***the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it was he who preserved their authors immune from ALL ERROR. ***

It is doctrine above all that they must impart… They must altogether shun what is merely new-fangled or what is insufficiently proved …

Let them regard themselves as in duty bound never to depart in the slightest from the common doctrine and tradition of the Church. … they should keep altogether clear of the precarious fancies of innovators…"

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In Dei Verbum (1965), Paul VI upholds the teaching of Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu by asserting that all parts of Scripture are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and immune from error. Paul VI specifically refers to these encyclicals in footnote 5 of Dei Verbum 11 to affirm the continuity of Vatican II with the constant faith of the Catholic Church on inerrancy.

Paul VI, Dei Verbum (1965),

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because 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 (1). In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

---

Therefore, since*** everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit***, it follows that*** the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error*** that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

[Footnotes:]
Chapter III
Article 11:

1. cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 2 “On Revelation:” Denzinger 1787 (3006); Biblical Commission, Decree of June 18,1915: Denzinger 2180 (3629): EB 420; Holy Office, Epistle of Dec. 22, 1923: EB 499.

1. cf. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu,” Sept. 30, 1943: A.A.S. 35 (1943) p. 314; Enchiridion Bible. (EB) 556.

1. “In” and “for” man: cf. Heb. 1, and 4, 7; (“in”): 2 Sm. 23,2; Matt.1:22 and various places; (“for”): First Vatican Council, Schema on Catholic Doctrine, note 9: Coll. Lac. VII, 522.

1. Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus,” Nov. 18, 1893: Denzinger 1952 (3293); EB 125.

1. cf. St. Augustine, “Gen. ad Litt.” 2, 9, 20L 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)

Note the frequent reference to Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu, with which Dei Verbum maintains a continuity of teaching.

Paul VI also cited a Decree of Benedict XV of June 18, 1915. This is what that decree affirmed:

… the Catholic dogma on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scritpures, according to which all that the sacred writer asserts, declares, and introduces ought to be maintained as asserted, declared, and introduced by the Holy Spirit;

The thesis that these “old documents” of Leo XIII and Pius XII, et. al., no longer apply is complete rubbish.

Paul VI, even after Dei Verbum was promulgated in 1965, continued to warn against those who would discount the Catholic dogma on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, specifically the historic value of the Gospels, including the historicity of the infancy narratives.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to Paul VI, Allocution of Dec 18, 1966 (Insegnamenti di Paolo VI), he complained that some…

"try to diminish the historical value of the Gospels themselves, especially those that refer to the birth of Jesus and His infancy. We mention this devaluation briefly so that you may know how to defend with study and faith the consoling certainty that these pages are not inventions of people’s fancy, but that they speak the truth… . The authority of the [Vatican II] Council has not pronounced differently on this: ‘The Sacred Authors wrote… always in such a way that they reported on Jesus with sincerity and truth’ (Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum,* n. 19)."*

---

Note that he cites Dei Verbum in its authentic meaning to defend of the historic value and character of the Gospels.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What about Pope John Paul II? Does he disregard these “old documents” as no longer the “current” teaching of the Catholic Church? Not at all.

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 speach in every respect except error. … This statement sheds light on a parallelism rish in meaning.” … What was true in 1943 remains so even in our day.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for the "current" teaching of the Catholic Church on inerrancy of Scripture, the following is from Cardinal Augustin Bea, a Vatican II peritus who asserts the correct 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)

Cardinal Augustin Bea was the Jesuit Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, and was the Vatican II *peritus *chosen to instruct bishops on biblical matters at the opening of Vatican II. He was also the President of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. His understanding of Biblical inerrancy is in accord with Vatican II, is current and authoritative. He asserts, as do other post-Vatican II scholars, that ***“Every assertion of the sacred writer–whether it be religious or moral or scientific or historical–is free from error, because God wanted these writers to convey to us unalloyed truth for the sake of our salvation.” ***(MSgr George Kelly, The New Biblical Theorists, 1983, pg. 157)

Another current understanding of the dogma of inerrancy is from June 29, 1998, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the president of the current Pontifical Biblical Commission, and the prelate of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, who asserted that “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” (Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fide, approved and promulgated by Pope John Paul II).

As such, the following proposition, having been condemned by St. Pius X, remains an authentic condemnation of Catholicism: “[The proposition that asserts] Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scripture in such a way that it renders all of its parts free from every error [is condemend.]” (Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, July 5, 1907)

Catholics may not re-assert errors once definitely condemned by the Catholic Church. Observe,

From** Pope St. Gelasius I, Licit inter varis, (493):**

… since the Lord is superior, the pure truth of Catholic faith drawn from the concordant opinions of all the Fathers remains present… What pray permits us to abrogate what has been condemned by the vernable Fathers, and to reconsider the impious dogmas that have been demolished by them? Why is it, therefore, that we take such great precautions lest any dangerous heresy, once driven out, strive anew to come [up] for examination, if we argue that what has been known, discussed, and refuted of old by our elders ought to be restored? Are we not ourselves offering, which God forbid, to all the enemies of the truth an example of rising again against ourselves, which the Church will never permit? Where is it that it is written : Do not go beyond the limits of your fathers [Prov 22:28], and: Ask your fathers and they will tell you, and your elders will declare unto you [Deut. 32:7]? Why, accordingly, do we aim beyond the definitions of our elders, or why do they not suffice for us? … are we wiser than they, or shall we be able to stand constant with firm stability, if we should undermine those [dogmas] which have been established by them?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So what does the Catholic Church teach regarding the dogma of inerrancy of Scripture? Does it mean that every word in Scripture must be taken as literally and historically accurate, and/or scientifically true, apart from the intent of the sacred author? Not at all. Neither did St. Pius X intend that inerrancy be so understood. Observe,

According to the decree of the Pontifical Bible Commission, approved and promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, June 30, 1909 (Responsa de charactere historico trium priorum capitum Geneseos, AAS 1 (1909) 567-69):

"Q: Whether we may call into question the literal historical sense where there is a question of facts narrated in these chapters that touch upon the fundamentals of the Christian religion…

Response: Negative."

Q: Whether all and each of the parts of these chapters—namely, the single words and phrases–must always and of necessity be taken in the literal sense so that one may never deviate from it, even when it is clear that expressions are used figuratively, that is, either metaphorically or anthropologically, and when reason forbids us to hold, or necessity impels us to reject, the literal sense.

*Response: *Negative.

Q: Whether, granting the literal and historical sense, an allegorical and prophetical interpretation of certain passages in these chapters–a practice exemplified by the Fathers and the Church–may be wisely and profitably applied.

Response: Affirmative.

Q: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis, the sacred writer did not intend to teach in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather sought to provide people with a popular account–such as the common parlance of that age allowed–that was adapted to the intellectual capacities of his audience, we are strictly and always obliged, when interpreting these chapters, to look for the precision proper to scientific discourse.

Response: Negative.

Instead, Catholicism teaches that everything the writer affirms is true, without ANY error, but not everything the writer affirms is understood.

---

Thus, Catholic doctrine continues to insists, as did St. Augustine:

If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood." (Augustine,Reply to Faustus the Manichean,11:5(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:180)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Furthermore, the current teaching on Biblical inerrancy is explained by my post-graduate professors of Catholic Religious Studies in the following manner:

The Catholic Church teaches thatinerrancy is defined as: “**the theological concept that the Bible is free from errors, not just in faith and morals, but in all that pertains to and which God wished to teach for our salvation… Inerrancy flows from inspiration. So the whole Bible is thus inerrant. To say only parts are inerrant would mean only parts are inspired… One guiding principle is to discern the intention of the author… Looking at the overall thrust of the book is also necessary. The Evangelists did not intend to write a biography of Jesus. Thus they differed in some particulars. **” (Fr. Leonard Obloy, *Introduction to Sacred Scritpure, *Second Edition, 1989).

Likewise, from the anthology readings from the same course, Fr. Ignace de la Potterie writes:

[Some prior to Vatican II proposed] a *purely material limitation *of inerrancy to certain categories of texts: the truth of the Bible would only be guaranteed in those places where it teaches “faith or morals.” A distinction of this type is ill-chosen and artificial. It supposes a conception of revelation too highly intellectualist, as if God had only revealed himself to men by communicating some “truths”, some religious doctrines pertinent to faith and morals. The conciliar Constitution of Vatican II clearly moved beyond this conception and tells us that God revealed himself in words and deeds, “*gestis verbisque intrinsece inter se connexis” *(“in words and deeds instrinsically connected”).

Furthermore, a limitation of inerrancy to only “religious” matters seems to suppose that the Bible contains other material which would be “profane”–another unfortunate distinction! For the Bible is entirely inspired. How could it be admitted that God was able to inspire the holy authors to make them write purely profane things? Rather it is necessary to say that the word of God refers above all to the salvific design of God and that consequently, Scripture has always in some way a religious character… the truth of Scripture ought always to be considered from the viewpoint of the revelation of God’s salvific design, i.e., of the history of salvation. There can be no question then of only "religious truths" of the Bible (in the plural!) but the truth in the order of salvation, present everwhere in Scripture. From the viewpoint of the formal object of this truth, no material limitation ought to be introduced into the domain of biblical truth. In the particular perspective which was mentioned, everything in the Bible is free from error… it will be necessary always to insist on the fact that God has revealed himself throughout a true history, the history of salvation. But the facts recounted in the Bible are not there to instruct us in the profane history of the ancient East. They are there to make us know the divine plan of salvation progressively manifested in the course of this history. It is precisely this relationship of the biblical facts with the mystery of salvation which formally constitutes their “truth.”… The historicity of biblical events is guaranteed by inspiration when these events are related to the history of salvation and in the very measure in which they are related… We are saying … that the “truth” of Scripture presupposed the reality of the historical events when these touch on the mystery of salvation and insofar as they do. …

The first patristic text to which the Council has recourse it St. Augustine [cf. footnote #5]. To those who would seek in Scripture divine instruction on the composition of the world, Augustine answers that the Holy Spirit did not want to teach those things having no use for the salvation of men: “nulli sluti profutura (things that will be of no benefit to salvation).”… the Doctor of Hippo says in a more decisive manner elsewhere: “In the gospel one does not read that the Savior said: 'I am sending you the Paraclete who will teach you how the sun and the moon turn.” He wanted to form Christians, not mathematicians." Applying this principle to the realm of history we could say equivalently: the Holy Spirit did not want to instuct us precisely about … profane history but rather of the history of salvation. He wanted to make us Christians and not historians.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

SaintJVMan,

Given the context of the above magisterial texts and the current teaching of the Church, as explained above, the following questions can be answered with moral certainty…

**Does inerrancy extend to the whole of the sacred text, including historical details when the sacred writer meant to give an historical account?
**
When the sacred writer intended to affirm history, then, yes, that which he affirmed is without error.

Does this apply only to the originals?

Only the “genuine passage of the sacred writings" ,”**the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error." (Providentissimus Deus). Such passages are referred to as “critically accurate.” The Catholic Church describes later manuscripts, such as the Latin Vulgate, as authentic as well. The Church does not mean that the Latin Vulgate exactly matches the original autograph, thus the Latin Vulgate is not asserted to be “critically accurate” in all its passages. Instead the Church intends that the Latin Vulgate is “juridically accurate.” That is, the Vulgate faithfully represents the original intent of the sacred authors, when the manuscript is authentically interpreted by the Catholic Magisterium, even though the manuscript may be inexact if one could compare them to the original autographs.

The notion of critical accuracy is a problem of Sola Scripturists who discount any authority excepting the Bible. It is not, however, a problem of Catholics, who accept the authority of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture, and are not so bound to critical accuracy of a particular manuscript, which is always rather speculative given that we do not have the original autographs extant.

**The claims by many that inerrancy extends only to faith and morals. **… Have been forever condemned by the Catholic Church.