Inerrancy

[itsjustdave1988]

This is what seems to divide us from itsjustdave: he sees as inerrancy as necessarily effected by inspiration.
**Or rather, Leo XIII did. **It seems I’m in good company.

Leo XIII affirmed the ancient and constant faith of the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII, Benedict XV, Paul V, all having affirmed the teachings of Leo XIII. So too does Pope John Paul II, who explicitly describes Providentissimus Deus as having “permanent validity,” affirming what Pius XII stated in Divino Afflante Spiritu, “For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.” Consequently, the pope’s *Catechism of the Catholic Church *affirms that inerrancy is a consequence of inspiration.

CCC 107 “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.”

Does Scripture faithfully teach mathematics? No, because that is not what the sacred writers affirm. “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.” (St. Augustine). So that truth, which is everywhere presented in Scripture, is to be understood from the authorital intent, which is always in the order of salvation, not profane science or profane history. Does the Scriptures faithfully teach salvation history? Yes. As salvation history is central to the message of Sacred Scripture, and such sacred history cannot be divorced from doctrine without doing violence to the Catholic faith. For example, Jesus was historically and factually crucified, and factually rose from the dead. To pretend as some scholar have asserted, that Jesus’ resurrection was merely a theological interpolation of the Church and that it did not factually occur is contrary to Catholic faith.

Since the Bible in all its parts is inspired, then everything that the sacred writer asserts is to be understood as asserted by the Holy Spirit. Not everything the writer asserts need be understood a history, strictly so-called. But neither can Catholics “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.” (St. Pius X).

When the Roman Pontiff teaches otherwise, I will give him my religious submission of intellect and will as the Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium prescribes.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

itsjustdave1988:
It seems I’m in good company. ****Leo XIII affirmed the ancient and constant faith of the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII, Benedict XV, Paul V, all having affirmed the teachings of Leo XIII. So too does Pope John Paul II, who explicitly describes Providentissimus Deus as having “permanent validity,” affirming what Pius XII stated in Divino Afflante Spiritu, “For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.” Consequently, the pope’s *Catechism of the Catholic Church *affirms that inerrancy is a consequence of inspiration. **

---

CCC 107 "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."

---

Does Scripture faithfully teach mathematics? No, because that is not what the sacred writers affirm. “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.” (St. Augustine). So that truth, which is everywhere presented in Scripture, is to be understood from the authorital intent, which is always in the order of salvation, not profane science or profane history. Does the Scriptures faithfully teach salvation history? Yes. As salvation history is central to the message of Sacred Scripture, and such sacred history cannot be divorced from doctrine without doing violence to the Catholic faith. For example, Jesus was historically and factually crucified, and factually rose from the dead. To pretend as some scholar have asserted, that Jesus’ resurrection was merely a theological interpolation of the Church and that it did not factually occur is contrary to Catholic faith.

---

Since the Bible in all its parts is inspired, then everything that the sacred writer asserts is to be understood as asserted by the Holy Spirit. Not everything the writer asserts need be understood a history, strictly so-called. But neither can Catholics "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." (St. Pius X).

---

When the Roman Pontiff teaches otherwise, I will give him my religious submission of intellect and will as the Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium prescribes.

**## It may be inspired in its entirety - but inerrant, no. It does not have to be. **

---

**The problem with those words of Pius X, is that they can mean what the Pope wants them to mean, and if he says says something is history, it is, so we must take it to be such - even if the original author had no intention of writing a narrative of historical fact. This is as sensible as using scenes from “King Kong” or “Planet of the Apes” as evidence for the history of New York. What next ? A history of President Bartlett’s incumbency based on “The West Wing” ? **

---

[continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**[continued, ended]

**Those words help to maintain inerrancy, at the cost of inerrancy’s being given a content which is not decided by objective criteria (so far as this is possible), but by the will of the Pope. Inerrancy is in the end an empty doctrine - the “one thing needful”, is that inerrancy be affirmed. It does not have to be objectively true; if evidence against it exists, that can be ignored. This was seriously suggested to me in a recent discussion elsewhere, by a Catholic. The argument was, that Darius the Mede was real because the Book of Daniel was “a first rate historical source”; so the many sixth-century texts which completely ignored and told against the existence of this Median Darius, could themselves be ignored. Since the date and historical reliability of the book were the question at issue, the argument was a perfect circle. Facts must never be allowed to derail a dogma. **
**Because, the facts of history, are of no weight compared to the Church’s dogma. This is not a new idea; it is 300 years old, and it was used at Vatican I. It is totally dishonest, and cannot do any good to a Church that uses it. **

Some of us do not agree with intellectual suicide. If a thing is true, it is true even though it be rejected by Popes. If it is false, no Bulls or definitions or Popes can make it true ##

**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Jesus didn’t have to be incarnate, but it is nonetheless true that he was. It matters very little whether Scripture has to be inerrant. Scripture is without error according to Catholic dogma. Heretical opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.

If a thing is true, it is true even though it be rejected by Popes. If it is false, no Bulls or definitions or Popes can make it true

Your fallible understanding of truth is not compelling to Catholics. The constant teaching of the Catholic Church, vested with teaching authority by God, for whom it is true to say, “He who hears you, hears me” is the standard of Catholic faith. Your thesis is more consistent with Luther than with Catholicism. One of these days, you will realize this and either become Protestant or change your epistemology.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

itsjustdave1988:
Actually, inerrancy is asserted with regard to the Divine writings “as left by the hariographers.” Nevertheless, the Church is infallible in its solemn and ordinary universal teaching authority. Your view is protestant.**

## To what part do you object ? ##

**

A Catholic trusts the ordinary universal magisterium and the teachings of the Roman Pontiff, because Catholicism teaches that for such teaching these words of Christ apply: “He who hears you, hears me.”

**

---

## Those words were not addressed to the Popes. See Luke 10.16. ##

---

---

Pius XII, Humani Generis, 20

**

---

Whether you disagree with the above Catholic teaching and subscribe to personal judgement contary to the teachings of the Roman Pontiff (ie. Protestantism), is your choice. But at least be honest with the choices you make and quit the pretense that you what you adhere is Catholicism.*

---

## You are not my bishop. Papal teaching must be true, in order to bind. If it is not true, it cannot bind. Christ did not commission His Church to teach any old fiction it saw fit; it is accountable to Him, to teach His teaching, not its own. All of us in it, are accountable to Him; even Popes. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

itsjustdave1988:

Jesus didn’t have

to be incarnate, but it is nonetheless true that he was. It matters very little whether Scripture has to be inerrant. Scripture is without error according to Catholic dogma. Heretical opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.**

---

**## What evidence is there for its inerrancy ? **

---

The fact that the Church affirms it ? But why does the Church affirm it ? ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Gottle of Geer:

**## What evidence is there for its inerrancy ? **

The fact that the Church affirms it ? But why does the Church affirm it ? ##

Because it is true.

So now Pius XII was wrong in Humanis Generis?

You seem to believe in Catholicism only in so far as it agrees with your personal theological perspective. This is exactly as Luther believed, and Calvin, and every heretic in history.

I don’t have to be your bishop to point out your heretical views. Any faithful Catholic is charged to uphold the truth as the Catholic Church teaches it. Heresy is not a very nice word, but heresy is also not a very nice thing. It needs to be admonished. You may not think you are spreading heresy, but when you charge all the popes with error, especially regarding a dogma of Catholicism, then you promote heresy.

If you think I’m so wrong, why are you afraid to tell me who your bishop is? Are you afraid to hear the truth from his perspective? All you need to do is tell me who he is and I will write him a letter to determine what his teaching is regarding inerrancy of Scripture. Let your Bishop know what you are teaching and we’ll see what he says about it, hmmm? It seems to me you lack the confidence that his teaching will agree with your heresy, which is why you won’t tell me who your bishop is. Let’s settle this with YOUR BISHOP, shall we? Why are you so reluctant if you are so confident that you are NOT teaching heresy?

In the final analysis, you know perfectly well you are teaching heresy, and you don’t want clear evidence from your bishop that will make it more difficult to pretend otherwise. If the bishop or pope were to disagree with you, and expressly state their disagreement, you would simply state that you are not bound to any teachings of the bishop or pope so long as they disagreed with your version of truth.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I see that you quote from the maxims of St. Philip Neri in your signature. Here’s another of his maxims that I pray you consider:

There is nothing more dangerous in the spiritual life than to wish to rule ourselves after our own way of thinking.
– St. Philip Neri

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

Whether you disagree with the above Catholic teaching and subscribe to personal judgement contary to the teachings of the Roman Pontiff (ie. Protestantism), is your choice. But at least be honest with the choices you make and quit the pretense that you what you adhere is Catholicism.

This is getting a bit tiring,

• You refuse to acknowledge the essential concept that we are not bound by threat of excommunication to believe that the bible is innerrant in all matters. There is no pretense, I follow what the church and its scholars teach me. Your very selective reading and quoting puts you out in some fringe area of extremism where God is not leading me.
• You refuse to discuss the topics people are here to discuss. I don’t recall a single thread in which you actually talked about the specific verses in question and what you thought about them. You seem to have no interest in discussing what is in the bible.
• I constantly hear that our ideas are invalid because of some musty documents which only a tiny number of catholics know about, even fewer have read, and no one with teaching authority or a scholarly background takes in the way you do.
• You ignore the basic question of whether there is fiction in the bible. I suppose that is because if you believed in the documents you quote, you would have to accept that there is.
• Even the most pervasive error, one which runs throughout the entire bible - the ancient concept of the three-tiered universe - is somehow “overlooked”. I guess if you quote enough pious sounding documents from people who didn’t necessarily know what they were talking about, you start believing you are right.

Biblical research and knowledge is a growing and living thing. We know and understand more than now than the Leo’s and Pius’s and Augustines and Irenaeus’s of the past and this growth will continue. Someday I hope that a pope will clear up this mess, instead of going halfway as past one’s have.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

We can settle this with your bishop, patg, but it seems you are afraid to that your bishop will disagree with you. That would force you to the absurd conclusion that your bishop is simply another of the many ill-informed dolts ordained by God to teach with authority in the Catholic Church. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif

I mean, if he ends up disagreeing with you, then he must be just as un-enlightened as my post-graduate professors who have MDiv, SSL and SSD degrees. Perhaps he is simple-minded and as ill-equipped to understand Scripture as St. Augustine, and lacks an understanding of Catholic doctrine as Vatican II peritus and bible scholar Cardinal Augustine Bea, or as uneducated as bible scholar Cardinal Lawrence Shehan, all of whom agree that limiting inerrancy to faith and morals has been condemned as heresy by the Church.

You pretend that your “new and improved” scholarship is better because its new, which is rubbish. My professors are teaching “new” scholarship and they assert that you are teaching heresy. If you had the guts to tell us who your bishop is, I’m betting his response would be the same. Good luck wallowing in your heretical views. They are not “new” but were condemned over 100 years ago.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pope John Paul II, 1993:

“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.

*(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)

Pope John Paul II has also listed “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” as among the infallible and immutable dogmas of Catholicism in the CDF doctrinal commentary on Professio Dei, approved and promulgated by the Roman Pontiff.

I know, you contend that “absence of error” means there are errors in Scripture. I get your theory, but I think its rubbish and entirely contary to the words used by the Roman Pontiffs, past and present. I won’t be holding my breath for that future Roman Pontiff that will reverse the condemnation of Leo XIII, Benedict XV and Pius XII, which condemned those that asserted that inerrancy is limited only to faith and morals.

I’m sure you think the pope is as uninformed as St. Augustine. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

…

Well, thanks again for ignoring every point of discussion. I see I am wasting my time typing anythng - I’ll just respond with blank notes and you can continue to post whatever you want just like you ignore the 3 words at the end of this statement: “but in all that pertains to and which God wished to teach for our salvation”.

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

I won’t be holding my breath for that future Roman Pontiff that will reverse the condemnation of Leo XIII, Benedict XV and Pius XII, which condemned those that asserted that inerrancy is limited only to faith and morals.

I don’t think it will take all that long - Dei Verbum clearly allows consideration of enough aspects of the writings that general inerrancy will slowly fade away much as it has already done in the catholic adult education process.

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

We can settle this with your bishop, patg, but it seems you are afraid to that your bishop will disagree with you.

I’m not afraid of his answer but I am afraid he would feel like I would if I found out one of my good friends gave my name to a telemarketing database distributor!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

patg:

I’m not afraid of his answer but I am afraid he would feel like I would if I found out one of my good friends gave my name to a telemarketing database distributor!

What diocese?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

patg:

Well, thanks again for ignoring every point of discussion. I see I am wasting my time typing anythng - I’ll just respond with blank notes and you can continue to post whatever you want just like you ignore the 3 words at the end of this statement: “but in all that pertains to and which God wished to teach for our salvation”.

I haven’t ignored this. Everything asserted by the sacred writer is “for our salvation.” God did not inspire the sacred writers to write anything that was unimportant for our salvation. Fr. Ignace de la Potterie’s article explains exactly what this means, and does so without resurrecting past heresies already condemned by the Church.

Why should we be concerned with heresies already condemned by the Church? Because according to Catholic doctrine, Catholics may not re-assert errors once definitely condemned by the Catholic Church. That’s why you will never see Pope St. Pius X’s condemnation reversed by any future pope. Ever. This is a matter of dogmatic theology which modernists pretend will someday change.

According to 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?

According to Pope St. Pius X: “[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).

Modernists have deluded themselves into thinking that one day, the Catholic Church will be as “enlightened” as they are, and that the modernist errors, already definitely condemned by the Church, will be Catholic doctrine some day in the future. Fr. Raymond Brown said as much with regard to ordination of women to the priesthood. Yet I compare Fr. Brown’s views on the ordination of women to Pope John Paul II’s views as described in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and my submission of intellect and will if given to the Roman Pontiff.

The intent of the sacred author, everywhere in Scripture is not profane science or profane history, but to express and affirm the history of salvation. This is called by Fr. Potterie, “the truth in the order of Salvation.” "… the truth of Scripture ought always to be considered from the viewpoint of the revelation of God’s salvific design, ie., history of salvation. There can be no question then of only “religious truths” of the Bible (in the plural!) but of the truth in the order of salvation, present everywhere 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."

In *Dei Verbum, *the word *veritas *(truth) is used 30 times, and is never found in the plural. There is but ONE truth that God wished to teach for the sake of our salvation, and it is everywhere present, although in a progressive character, in Sacred Scripture when the Bible is interpreted from the view of the sacred writer’s authorial intent.

 

[SaintJVMan]

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.

How does one judge what the writer intended to affirm?

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

I haven’t ignored this. Everything asserted by the sacred writer is “for our salvation.”

Is that a matter of absolute dogma which we are required to believe for our salvation??..I don’t think so…

I think I’m understanding your position a lot more as we go on. You don’t want to discuss any specifics for some reason - maybe because you can’t or because you know the inerrancy and historicity is unsupportable in many cases? As I look back on your posts in this and other threads, I see your words and quotes almost solely focus on “authority”, as if that is all that matters and as if that provides the answer to every question. In other words, you have to believe in inerrancy solely because you grant absolute authority in all things to the church and the church says (if you are selective enough in you references) that the scriptures are inerrant.

I think it is way too easy to just say “I believe its inerrant because the church says so”. That’s the basis of most fundamentalist religions - say the magic words, believe what we tell you, and you’re saved.

If you really don’t want to talk about the specifics of scripture or are uncomfortable with questioning things, that’s OK - just play the “authority” card and avoid the messy discussions. I want to know far more; I want to understand what it is I am believing in and I want to understand the matters in which I am granting authority. I understand how uncomfortable some are with the idea that scriptural passages may teach that “one” truth you mentioned using non-historical fiction but in many cases, that’s the only answer.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

itsjustdave1988:

Because it is true.

**

---

**## But how do you know that ? **

---

**Because certain Popes say so ? If so - how do you know that they are right in saying so ? Popes have been wrong before. **

---

**What is the good of a doctrine that rests on nothing more than the fact that it is taught ? That is no evidence of its truth, or even of its intelligibility - or, of its orthodoxy. **

---

**So I do hope there is a better reason for the doctrine of inerrancy than that it has been taught. ## **

---

**

So now Pius XII was wrong in Humanis Generis?

---

**You seem to believe in Catholicism only in so far as it agrees with your personal theological perspective. This is exactly as Luther believed, and Calvin, and every heretic in history. ****

---

**## Not all - I am merely looking for a faith fit for a rational human being who is no longer a six-old. **

---

If this thing is true, there will be good reasons for it. It will fit well into the rest of the body of Catholic teaching. It will not rely on mere magisterial authority alone. So - what are those reasons ? ##

---

**

I don’t have to be your bishop to point out your heretical views. Any faithful Catholic is charged to uphold the truth as the Catholic Church teaches it. Heresy is not a very nice word, but heresy is also not a very nice thing. It needs to be admonished. You may not think you are spreading heresy, but when you charge all the popes with error, especially regarding a dogma of Catholicism, then you promote heresy.

---

If you think I’m so wrong, why are you afraid to tell me who your bishop is? Are you afraid to hear the truth from his perspective? All you need to do is tell me who he is and I will write him a letter to determine what his teaching is regarding inerrancy of Scripture. **

---

**## OK. If you wish to write to Cardinal O’Brien, do so. I would not wish to get in your way. He’s never met me, so I can’t imagine how you are going to inform him that a certain nobody, is not in perfect accord with the CC. **
The Church may call it “delation” - but it is still only sneaking.

---

I rather doubt that he will be pleased to receive an accusation against someone he has not met, from someone else he has not met. He has better things to do than to hear that sort of thing; he’s a very busy man. ##

---

**

Let your Bishop know what you are teaching and we’ll see what he says about it, hmmm? It seems to me you lack the confidence that his teaching will agree with your heresy, which is why you won’t tell me who your bishop is. Let’s settle this with YOUR BISHOP, shall we? Why are you so reluctant if you are so confident that you are NOT teaching heresy?

**

---

**## Because I don’t like busy-bodies and sneaks, that’s why. There are far too many self-appointed inquisitors, self-appointed judges of other Catholics, self-appointed heresy-hunters and judges of the bishops and clergy, who forget their place in the Church and, even if they have no degrees in canon law, theology, Hebrew, Greek, Philosophy, or in a hundred other things relevant to theological or Biblical studies, accuse bishops of error for - let us say - giving the Imprimatur to the works of this scholar or that version of Scripture. **

---

**Those who know nothing of a subject, have no competence to discuss it - let alone to level accusations against those who do know it thoroughly, or have given half a lifetime to it. Such conduct is absurd. **

---

BTW, I am not “teaching” anything. ##.

---

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued, ended]

**

In the final analysis, you know perfectly well you are teaching heresy, and you don’t want clear evidence from your bishop that will make it more difficult to pretend otherwise. If the bishop or pope were to disagree with you, and expressly state their disagreement, you would simply state that you are not bound to any teachings of the bishop or pope so long as they disagreed with your version of truth.

**

**## I “know” nothing of the kind. What I do know, is that it is senseless to insist that something is a dogma if it is demonstrably untrue, and if only insufficient arguments can be found for it. **

How can there be original autographs of a book in Hebrew, when the text was not finalised until 600-900 AD? Which text is the inspired original: the consonantal text - or the vocalised text ?

How can a corrupted text be inerrant ?

---

**And how can one say anything at all about the freedom from all error of original autographs one has never seen ? **

**And whose version of inerrancy are we to believe ? There is a difference between believing in the historical reality of a six-hundred year old Shem, son of Noah, brother of Japheth & Ham, and father of Elam, Asshur, & Arpachshad, and believing that this Shem is a mythological culture-hero or something of the kind. Shem cannot be both - yet Catholic exegetes have treated him as the former, and now treat him as the latter. Which did the author mean ? Which is the meaning of the text ? What is the inerrant assertion: that he is an historical figure - or that he is not an historical figure ? **

**The question of interpretation can’t be separated from inerrancy - because it influences what is being said to be the inerrant thing stated. **

**Past exegetes treated him as the ancestor of Abram, & as the uncle of Javan son of Japheth, and of Canaan son of their brother Ham. These relationships are implied by taking the family tree of Genesis 10 at face value - as Augustine did. **

**But apparently, this is not the meaning of the text. Even so “un-frisky” a source as the 1953 Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture does not treat the strictly genealogical interpretation as correct. **
So, if the older and newer interpretations are both inerrant, the content of inerrancy has changed. ##