Inerrancy

[itsjustdave1988]

Every adult ed class I have attended has taught inerrancy only in faith and morals

I believe you may be mistaking “biblical inerrancy” with “doctrinal infallibility.”

Magisterial sources of Catholic doctrine have never taught that the truth of Sacred Scripture is limited solely to matters of faith and morals. Fr. Raymond Brown even admits this view of Biblical inerrancy is condemned by Catholicism. The doctrine on doctrinal infallibility pertains to doctrines on faith and morals.

In dogmatic theology, what constitutes a matter of faith? Is salvation history a matter of faith? Yes. Questions of sacred history regarding “**facts narrated in [Scritpure] that touch upon the fundamentals of the Christian religion” **(St. Pius X, PBC decree, *AAS *1 (1909) 567-69) are inseparably related to dogma. That’s why such things as Mary’s immaculate conception and Christ’s real incarnation, passion, death and resurrection are dogmatically taught as actual historical facts of sacred history.

The revelation of God happened in time, within history, in real events, deeds, and words of the prophets, and of Jesus Christ, and of the apostles. The response of man is also something that happens in time, within history, in real events. Scriptures give us an inspired and inerrant account of this sacred history, with the intended purpose or authorial intent to teach what our response to this historic revelation ought to be for the sake of our salvation. What is inerrant pertains to the affirmations, the authorial intent of the sacred writers, what they intend to assert about sacred history and the response of man desired by God: God’s historic revelation, man’s historic response. Man’s historic response presented in history is one of faithfullness, and one of faithlessness. The sacred authors are obviously teaching that faithfulness is salvific, and faithlessness is not.

This sacred history is presented without error, but is tailored to the audience in an inspired way by the sacred author for a purpose other than simply “rememberence” or giving history for history’s sake. While the intent of Scripture is not profane history, math, or science, it is the intent to teach sacred history, the true history of salvation, which consists in God’s progressive revelation to man, and man’s historical response to that revelation. The author presents this true sacred history, yet often consolidated, synthesized, re-ordered, and in various literary genres for the purposes of preaching so as to make us Christians, not to make us historians or mathematicians.

As I’ve asserted before, just because an author reorders, synthesizes, gives a different context of actual events, or recounts true historical events in a poem, the events that he recounts are still historic, which is precisely what Paul VI is affirming in his PBC Instruction on the HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPELS Sancta Mater Ecclesia.

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

… is not from the Biblical Commission. The second quote is from a commentary by Fr. Fitzmyer. So if the direct quote seems irreconciliable to what Fr. Fizmyer’s commentary says, then I’d suggest you take it up with Fr. Fitzmyer.

Since he translated it, I would trust his understanding more than yours or mine. I read paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 and come exactly to the conclusion he presents in his “unofficial” summary.

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

As I’ve asserted before, just because an author reorders, synthesizes, gives a different context of actual events, or recounts true historical events in a poem, the events that he recounts are still historic, which is precisely what Paul VI is affirming in his PBC Instruction on the HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPELS Sancta Mater Ecclesia.

I think we’re still just using circular reasoning and complex semantics to say the same thing. The infancy narratives are symbolic and synthesized statements about the divine origins of Jesus. There is no requirement that they be both that and literal history.

My understanding is that you are insisting they have both the traits of “biblical inerrancy” and “doctrinal infallibility.” I insist that they only have the latter and that is what I say is being taught and supported within the actual church (as opposed to the inconsistent douments being released by popes, the PBC, and whoever else wants to have their say). I also understood you to say that biblical inerrancy (in all matters) is an infallibly stated doctrine - a required belief.

I know that my relationship with God is not affected in the slightest whether or not I believe the infancy narratives or Noah’s flood are history. I am convinced they are not and will continue in that belief, a belief apparantly shared by most other catholics.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

patg:

Since he translated it, I would trust his understanding more than yours or mine. I read paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 and come exactly to the conclusion he presents in his “unofficial” summary.

I don’t have his translation, but I do have the translation by Fr. Dean P. Bechard. Nonetheless, show me in Fr. Fitzmyer’s translation or Fr. Bechard’s or any other where Paul VI is contary to any statement of the Biblical Commission.

It seems to me you mistook Sancta Mater Ecclesia to be something apart from the Biblical Commission’s instruction in question, and/or that you mistook Fr. Fitzmyer’s commentary for the Biblical Commission’s statement, which indicates to me that you haven’t actually read the instruction in question.

I agree with the Instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia. Nothing I’ve asserted regarding Biblical inerrancy is contrary to it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Since he translated it, I would trust his understanding more than yours or mine.

I’m not the one having a problem reconciling the two. You are the one who thought that Fr. Fitzmyer’s commentary on Sancta Mater Ecclesia was contary to the actual quote from Sancta Mater Ecclesia.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I also understood you to say that biblical inerrancy (in all matters) is an infallibly stated doctrine - a required belief.

To clarify, it was Pope John Paul II who 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. That this is understood in the same sense that *Divino Afflante Spiritu *described inerrancy is understood from Pope John Paul II’s description of Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu as having “permanent validity,” specifically comparing the incarnation of Jesus to the written Word, as did the 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu …

“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.

*(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)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

SaintJVMan:

How would you recommend explaining this to a protestant?

**

**## Maybe one should begin with what is common ground, and therefore, familiar to the Protestant as well as to you. Go one step at a time, and don’t expect people who are not familiar with such things as Bulls, encyclicals, and so on, to be impressed by them. **

---

**In short, don’t argue from a Catholic POV as though it was the only one either of you had heard of. Listen to each other, and find out where the disagreements are disagreements in words only, and where the disagreements are real ones; and why you disagree. **

---

Hope that helps ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

I believe you may be mistaking “biblical inerrancy” with “doctrinal infallibility.”

Magisterial sources of Catholic doctrine have never taught that the truth of Sacred Scripture is limited solely to matters of faith and morals. Fr. Raymond Brown even admits this view of Biblical inerrancy is condemned by Catholicism. The doctrine on doctrinal infallibility pertains to doctrines on faith and morals.

In dogmatic theology, what constitutes a matter of faith? Is salvation history a matter of faith? Yes. Questions of sacred history regarding “**facts narrated in [Scritpure] that touch upon the fundamentals of the Christian religion” **(St. Pius X, PBC decree, *AAS *1 (1909) 567-69) are inseparably related to dogma. That’s why such things as Mary’s immaculate conception and Christ’s real incarnation, passion, death and resurrection are dogmatically taught as actual historical facts of sacred history.

The revelation of God happened in time, within history, in real events, deeds, and words of the prophets, and of Jesus Christ, and of the apostles. The response of man is also something that happens in time, within history, in real events. Scriptures give us an inspired and inerrant account of this sacred history, with the intended purpose or authorial intent to teach what our response to this historic revelation ought to be for the sake of our salvation. What is inerrant pertains to the affirmations, the authorial intent of the sacred writers, what they intend to assert about sacred history and the response of man desired by God: God’s historic revelation, man’s historic response. Man’s historic response presented in history is one of faithfullness, and one of faithlessness. The sacred authors are obviously teaching that faithfulness is salvific, and faithlessness is not.

This sacred history is presented without error, but is tailored to the audience in an inspired way by the sacred author for a purpose other than simply “rememberence” or giving history for history’s sake. While the intent of Scripture is not profane history, math, or science, it is the intent to teach sacred history, the true history of salvation, which consists in God’s progressive revelation to man, and man’s historical response to that revelation. The author presents this true sacred history, yet often consolidated, synthesized, re-ordered, and in various literary genres for the purposes of preaching so as to make us Christians, not to make us historians or mathematicians.

As I’ve asserted before, just because an author reorders, synthesizes, gives a different context of actual events, or recounts true historical events in a poem, the events that he recounts are still historic, which is precisely what Paul VI is affirming in his PBC Instruction on the HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPELS Sancta Mater Ecclesia.

**## But a lot of the Bible is not history - unless in the sense, that the books were composed in the past. **

**The Songs of Songs is not history; nor is the mythological imagery in Psalms, Isaiah, or Job. Proverbs relates no battles, plagues, prophecies, or the like. **

**And what makes matters worse, is that the very texts that show what sort of environment Israel lived in, are being ignored. Leo XIII and Fr. Kelly, like ourselves, were not Semites; still less were they members of the societies which influenced the culture which produced the traditions which finally developed into the OT books. It is foolishness to ignore the remains that these societies have left behind, and to treat the Popes as though they alone had anything worthwhile to say. **

---

**The entire inerrancy doctrine as so far discussed is not being drawn from the Bible - no sort of exegetical reasoning or argument for it has been employed; if anything, the Bible is being squeezed and pinched and forced into a mould to suit the doctrine imposed upon it. **

---

IOW, the very people who insist on history, approach the OT (& the NT) in a completely ahistorical fashion. Instead of listening to the archaeologists and ancient historians and Assyriologists and so on, they merely - it seems - repeat the doctrines of those who were not able to make use of the means now available to exegetes, because they lived when these things were lost.To repeat Popes is not enough. They have authority certainly, - but there is an equally weighty authority bestowed by learning and experience. Listening only to the Magisterium, is as much a mistake as listening only to the scholars. ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**

The entire inerrancy doctrine as so far discussed is not being drawn from the Bible

**

Neither is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura drawn from the Bible. So I’d say such epistemology is flawed, and will produce flawed doctrines

The Word of God is not something merely read in a book, even if that book is sacred, but it is a deposit of faith handed on (Gk “paradidomi”) or more literally “traditioned” to the faithful (cf. Jude 3). The Bible, the inspired and inerrant written Word of God is among the deposit of faith taught (Grk paralambano") to the faithul in Tradition, which was both oral and written.

“*So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (Gk "paradosis”) that you were taught (Gk “paralambano”) by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" *(2 Thess 2:15).

According to Thayer’s Lexicon:

paralambano: to receive with the mind 1) by oral transmission: of the authors from whom the*** tradition*** proceeds 2) by the narrating to others, by instruction of teachers (used of disciples)

Only Protestants contend that proofs of doctrines to be explicit in Scritpure. Catholics (and Orthodox) believe the Word of God is taught in both Scripture and Tradition.

When the counter-magisterium of “scholarly experts” speak with the authority of God, I will be bound to their teachings. Until then, they give nothing other than their opinion, to which this does not apply: "He who hears you, hears me" as it does with the teachings of the magisterium.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**

the very people who insist on history …

**To clarify, I’ve never insisted that all of Scripture is “history.” What I’ve done, however, is uphold what the Catholic Church has taught regarding the historicity of the Gospels. Also, when a new-fangled opinion is insufficiently proved (eg. parting of the Red Sea miracle was merely “low tide”), then I uphold Paul VI’s instruction to “***shun what is merely new-fangled or what is insufficiently proved,” ***affirming instead that Catholics are “duty bound never to depart in the slightest form the common doctrine and tradition of the Church.”