Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[Pete_Holter]

“‘In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, “Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”’ (Matthew 18:1)

…]

“And if Mark says, that they did not ask, but reasoned in themselves (Luke 9:46-47; cf. Mark 9:34), that is nothing contrary to this. For it is likely that they did both the one and the other, and whereas before, on another occasion, they had had this feeling, both once and twice, that now they did both declare it, and reason among themselves” (Homily 58 on Matthew).

“‘We desire,’ it is said, ‘that one should sit on Your right hand, and one on Your left’ (Mark 10:37). How then does this evangelist say, that their mother came to Him (cf. Matthew 20:20)? It is probable both things were done. I mean, that they took their mother with them, with the purpose of making their entreaty stronger, and in this way to prevail with Christ.

“For in proof that this is true, as I say, and the request was rather theirs, and that being ashamed they put forward their mother, mark how Christ directs His words to them” (Homily 65 on Matthew).

“‘And Jesus went into the temple, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers and the seats of them that sold doves, and says unto them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you have made it a den of thieves”’ (Matthew 21:12-13).

“This John likewise says, but he in the beginning of his Gospel (cf. John 2:13-22), this at the end. Whence it is probable this was done twice, and at different seasons.

“And it is evident both from the times, and from their reply. For there He came at the very passover, but here much before. And there the Jews say, ‘What sign do you show us?’ (John 2:18); but here they hold their peace, although reproved, because He was now marvelled at among all men.

“And this is a heavier charge against the Jews, that when He had done this not once only, but a second time, they continued in their trafficking, and said that He was an adversary of God …]

“But the boastful and arrogant Jews, wishing to interrupt His teaching, came unto Him, and asked, ‘By what authority doest thou these things?’ (Matthew 21:23) For since they could not object against the miracles, they bring forward against Him the correction of the traffickers in the temple. And this in John also they appear to ask, although not in these words, but with the same intent. For there too they say, ‘What sign do you show unto us?’ (John 2:18); seeing that you do these things. But there He answers them, saying, ‘Destroy this temple, and I in three days will raise it up’ (John 2:19), whereas here He drives them into a difficulty. Whence it is manifest, that then indeed was the beginning and prelude of the miracles, but here the end” (Homily 67 on Matthew).

Comment: He offers essentially the same thoughts as these in his homilies on John:

“But on going up to Jerusalem, what did He, a deed full of high authority; for He cast out of the Temple those dealers and money changers, and those who sold doves, and oxen, and sheep, and who passed their time there for this purpose.

“Another Evangelist writes, that as He cast them out, He said, Make not my Father’s house a den of thieves (cf. Matthew 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46), but this one, an house of merchandise (cf. John 2:16).

“They do not in this contradict each other, but show that he did this a second time, and that both these expressions were not used on the same occasion, but that He acted thus once at the beginning of His ministry, and again when He had come to the very time of His Passion. Therefore, (on the latter occasion,) employing more strong expressions, He spoke of it as (being made) a den of thieves, but here at the commencement of His miracles He does not so, but uses a more gentle rebuke; from which it is probable that this took place a second time” (Homily 23 on the Gospel of John).

“And Luke indeed says, that He declared what these men should suffer; and ‘they said, “God forbid”’ (cf. Luke 20:16); and He added the testimony [of Scripture]. For ‘He beheld them, and said, “What is it then that is written? ‘The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; and every one that falls upon it shall be broken’”’ (Luke 20:17-18). But Matthew, that they themselves delivered the sentence (cf. Matthew 21:41). But this is not a contradiction. For indeed both things were done, both themselves passed the sentence against themselves; and again, when they perceived what they had said, they added, God forbid; and He set up the prophet against them, persuading them that certainly this would be” (Homily 68 on Matthew).

“But wherefore does Matthew say that he asked, tempting Him (cf. Matthew 22:35), but Mark the contrary? For ‘when Jesus,’ he says, ‘saw that he answered discreetly, He said unto him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God”’ (Mark 12:34).

“They are not contradicting each other, but indeed fully agreeing. For he asked indeed, tempting, at the beginning, but being benefitted by the answer, was commended. For not at the beginning did He commend him, but when he had said that to love his neighbor is more than whole burnt sacrifices (cf. Mark 12:33), then He says, ‘You are not far from the kingdom’ (Mark 12:34)” (Homily 71 on Matthew).

 

[Pete_Holter]

“‘Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets and scribes: and some of them shall you kill and crucify, and scourge; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, that all these things shall come upon this generation’ (Matthew 23:34-36).

…]

“But who is this Zacharias? Some say, the father of John; some, the prophet; some, a priest with two different names, whom the Scripture also calls, the son of Jehoiada” (Homily 74 on Matthew).

*Comment: I thought I’d offer some additional thoughts on this since Contarini mentioned this as an historical difficulty bearing for him thus far only dubious solutions…

For the father of John the Baptist (which I found the most interesting), confer Luke 1:5 and The Protoevangelium of James, 23. This solution would also agree with Matthew 11:13 and Luke 16:16 which say that the Law and the Prophets were until John, so that by this interpretation His charge against the Pharisees brings upon them the blood of all the righteous slain from the beginning of the world unto the ushering in of the New Covenant; it also agrees with Matthew 23:35 where Jesus charges the current generation with Zacharias’ death: “whom you murdered.” This distinction is notable by comparison with Jesus’ language in verses 30-32 where He charges the deaths of the prophets, not to the current generation, but more accurately to their ancestors. This also serves to explain why Jesus could already liken the two to one another: “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers!” Fill up, then, what you have already begun to fill by slaying the father of John the Baptist!

For the prophet Zechariah of the Book of Zechariah, confer Zechariah 1:1 and compare with Ezra 5:1 and 6:14 where he is secondly called the son of his grandfather; confer also The Targum of Lamentations 2:20.

For Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, confer 2 Chronicles 24:20; the solution being that he is secondly called “son of Barachias,” either as being son of an ancestor who is otherwise unnamed by Scripture or as being son of [something like] “Remembered by the LORD,” understanding “Zacharias” as etymologically referring to Jehoiada’s standing before God.*

“‘See ye not all these things’ (Matthew 24:2), says He, and do ye marvel, and are you amazed (cf. Mark 13:1)? ‘There shall not remain one stone upon another’ (Matthew 24:2). How then did it remain? one may say. But what is this? For neither so has the prediction fallen to the ground. For He said these things either indicating its entire desolation, or at that spot where He was. For there are parts of it destroyed unto the foundations.

“And together with this we would say another thing also, that from what has been done, even the most contentious ought to believe concerning the remains, that they are utterly to be destroyed” (Homily 75 on Matthew).

An interesting note concerning the destruction of the Temple: “But mark thou, I pray you, the dispensation of the Spirit, that John wrote none of these things, lest he should seem to write from the very history of the things done (for indeed he lived a long time after the taking of the city), but they, who died before the taking, and had seen none of these things, they write it, in order that every way the power of the prediction should clearly shine forth” (Homily 76 on Matthew).

“‘Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will You that we prepare for You to eat the Passover?” And He said, “Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, ‘The Master says, “My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples”’”’ (Matthew 26:17-18).

“By the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, he means the day before that feast; for they are accustomed always to reckon the day from the evening, and he makes mention of this in which in the evening the passover must be killed; for on the fifth day of the week they came unto Him. And this one calls the day before the feast of unleavened bread (cf. John 13:1), speaking of the time when they came to Him, and another says on this wise, ‘Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed’ (Luke 22:7); by the word ‘came,’ meaning this, it was nigh, it was at the doors, making mention plainly of that evening (cf. Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:17; John 13:30). For they began with the evening, wherefore also each adds, ‘when the passover was killed’ (cf. Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7)” (Homily 81 on Matthew).

“But how do Matthew and the other evangelists say, that, when he made the agreement touching the treason, then the devil seized him (Luke 22:3); but John, that ‘after the sop Satan entered into him’ (John 13:27). And John himself knew this, for further back he says, ‘The devil having now put into the heart of Judas, that he should betray Him’ (John 13:2). How then does he say, ‘After the sop Satan entered into him’? Because he enters not in suddenly, nor at once, but makes much trial first, which accordingly was done here also. For after having tried him in the beginning, and assailed him quietly, after that he saw him prepared to receive him, he thenceforth wholly breathed himself into him, and completely got the better of him” (Homily 81 on Matthew).

 

[Pete_Holter]

“But how, if they were eating the Passover, did they eat it contrary to the law? For they should not have eaten it, sitting down to their meat (cf. Exodus 12:11). What then can be said? That after eating it, they then sat down to the banquet” (Homily 81 on Matthew).

“And why did they lead Him away there where they were all assembled (cf. Matthew 26:57)? That they might do all things with consent of the chief priests. For he was then high priest, and all were waiting for Christ there, to such a degree did they spend the whole night, and give up their sleep for this object. For neither did they then eat the Passover, but watched for this other purpose. For John, when he had said that ‘it was early,’ added, ‘they entered into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover’ (John 18:28).

“What must we say then? That they ate it on another day, and broke the law, on account of their eager desire about this murder. For Christ would not have transgressed as to the time of the Passover, but they who were daring all things, and trampling under foot a thousand laws. For since they were exceedingly boiling with rage, and having often attempted to seize Him, had not been able; having then taken Him unexpectedly, they chose even to pass by the Passover, for the sake of satiating their murderous lust” (Homily 84 on Matthew).

Comment: Here are two other solutions that he offers from his homilies on John’s Gospel:

“But what is, ‘That they might eat the Passover’ (John 18:28)? For He had done this on the first day of unleavened bread. Either he calls the whole feast the Passover, or means, that they were then keeping the Passover, while He delivered it to His followers one day sooner, reserving His own Sacrifice for the Preparation-day, when also of old the Passover was celebrated” (Homily 83 on the Gospel of John).

Comment: What’s notable here about his second solution in John’s Gospel – that Jesus celebrated the Passover a day early and reserved His own sacrifice for the day of Preparation – is that this is essentially the same solution that Pope Benedict offers us in modern times:

“This contradiction seemed unsolvable until a few years ago…

“…the discovery of the [Dead Sea] Scrolls at Qumran has led us to a possible and convincing solution which, although it is not yet accepted by everyone, is a highly plausible hypothesis. We can now say that John’s account is historically precise.

“Jesus truly shed his blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the lambs.
In all likelihood, however, he celebrated the Passover with his disciples in accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence, at least one day earlier; he celebrated it without a lamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod’s temple and was waiting for the new temple.

“Consequently, Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb - no, not without a lamb: instead of the lamb he gave himself, his Body and his Blood. Thus, he anticipated his death in a manner consistent with his words: ‘No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord’ (Jn 10: 18)” (Homily for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, April 5, 2007).

*Comment: Note that Pope Benedict called it a contradiction, but then offered a solution. And, of course, true contradictions admit of no solution, so that we understand him to mean apparent contradiction, which is the only kind found in Sacred Scripture. *

“‘Then began he to curse and to swear, “I know not the man.” And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the words of Jesus, which said, “before the cock crow, you shall deny me thrice.” And he went out, and wept bitterly’ (Matthew 26:74-75).

“But Mark says, that when he had once denied, then first the cock crew (cf. Mark 14:68), but when thrice, then for the second time (cf. Mark 14:72); for he declares more particularly the weakness of the disciple, and that he was utterly dead with fear; having learned these things of his master himself, for he was a follower of Peter (cf. 1 Peter 5:13). In which respect one would most marvel at him, that so far from hiding his teacher’s faults, he declared it more distinctly than the rest, on this very account, that he was his disciple.

“How then is what is said true, when Matthew affirms that Christ said, ‘Verily I say unto you, that before the cock crow you shall deny me thrice’ (Matthew 26:34); and Mark declares after the third denial, that ‘The cock crew the second time’ (Mark 14:72)? Nay, most certainly is it both true and in harmony. For because at each crowing the cock is wont to crow both a third and a fourth time, Mark, to show that not even the sound checked him, and brought him to recollection says this. So that both things are true. For before the cock had finished the one crowing, he had denied a third time” (Homily 85 on Matthew).

“‘And they gave Him gall to drink,’ and this to insult Him, ‘but He would not’ (Matthew 27:34; cf. Mark 15:23). But another says, that having tasted it, He said, ‘It is finished’ (John 19:30). And what means, ‘It is finished?’ The prophecy was fulfilled concerning Him. For ‘they gave me,’ it is said, ‘gall for my meat, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink’ (Psalm 69:21). But neither does that evangelist indicate that He drank, for merely to taste differs not from not drinking, but has one and the same signification” (Homily 87 on Matthew).

 

[Pete_Holter]

“His enemies and foes, having got Him in the midst of themselves on the cross, insulted, reviled, mocked, derided, scoffed at Him, Jews and soldiers from below, from above thieves on either side: for indeed the thieves insulted, and upbraided Him both of them (cf. Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32). How then says Luke that one rebuked (cf. Luke 23:40)? Both things were done, for at first both upbraided Him, but afterwards one did so no more. For that you might not think the thing had been done by any agreement, or that the thief was not a thief, by his insolence he shows you, that up on the cross he was a thief and an enemy, and at once was changed” (Homily 87 on Matthew).

By the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Chrysostom on Divine Inspiration

“And not even so is there any profit, but if you have joined in chanting two or three Psalms, and making the accustomed prayers at random and anyhow, are so dismissed, you think this enough for your salvation. Have ye not heard the prophet, saying (or rather God by the prophet), ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me?’ (Isaiah 29:13)” (Homily 11 on Matthew)

“[God] Himself has said, ‘He that has pity upon the poor lends to God’ (Proverbs 19:17). You have lent to God: put it to His account” (Homily 15 on Matthew).

“For that He Himself gave the old covenant also, hear the affirmation of the prophet, or rather (so we must speak), of Him Who is both the one and the other: ‘I will make a covenant with you, not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers’ (Jeremiah 31:31-32)” (Homily 16 on Matthew).

“‘Judge not, that you be not judged’ (Matthew 7:1).

“What then? Ought we not to blame them that sin? Because Paul also says this selfsame thing: or rather, there too it is Christ, speaking by Paul, and saying, ‘Why do you judge your brother? And thou, why do you set at nought your brother?’ (Rom 14:10) and, ‘Who are you that judgest another man’s servant?’ (Romans 14:4) And again, ‘Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come’ (1 Corinthians 4:5)” (Homily 23 on Matthew).

“For we are not more perfect than David, who by a little carelessness was hurled into the very gulf of sin. Yet he arose again quickly. Look not then to his having sinned only, but also to his having washed away his sin. For to this end [God] wrote that history, not that you should behold him fallen, but admire him risen; to teach you, when you are fallen, how you should arise. Thus, as physicians choose out the most grievous diseases, and write them in their books, and teach their method of cure in similar cases; if so be men having practised on the greater, may easily master the less; even so God likewise has brought forward the greatest of sins, that they also who offend in small things may find the cure of these easy, by means of the other: since if those admitted of healing, much more the less.

“Let us look then to the manner both of the sickness, and of the speedy recovery of that blessed man. What then was the manner of his sickness? He committed adultery and murder. For I shrink not from proclaiming these things with a loud voice. Since if the Holy Ghost thought it no shame to record all this history, much less ought we to draw any shade over it.” (Homily 26 on Matthew).

“Then, lest you should be confounded at what is going on, and at their strange frenzy, He introduces the prophet also, foretelling all this. For so great was the accuracy of the prophets, that they omit not even these things, but foretell His very journeyings, and changes of place, and the intent with which He acted therein; that you might learn, how they spoke all by the Spirit. For if the secrets of men cannot by any art be known, much more were it impossible to learn Christ’s purpose, except the Spirit revealed it.” (Homily 40 on Matthew).

“[T]he prophets also by the Spirit said whatever they said” (Homily 41 on Matthew).

“Show it to Paul when ill; call in Matthew; let John sit by it. Hear from them, what we ought to do that is thus ill, they will surely tell, and will not conceal. For they are not dead, but live and speak. But does the soul take no heed to them, being weighed down by the fever? Do thou compel it, and awaken its reasoning power. Call in the prophets.

“…] neither are these physicians like those of the body, who often, while vying one with another, overwhelm the sick man. But not so these, for they have regard to the health of the sick, not to their own vainglory. Be not then afraid of the number of them; one Master speaks in all, that is, Christ” (Homily 74 on Matthew).

“Surely he, who seeks his own things only, will receive even from Paul endless blame, and when I say from Paul, I mean from Christ, but the other commendations and crowns. Whence is this evident? Hear what His language is to one, what to the other. ‘Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth’ (1 Corinthians 10:24). Do you see he rejects the one, and brings in the other? Again, ‘Let every one of you please his neighbor for good to edification’ (Romans 15:2). Then comes also the praise beyond words with an admonition, ‘For even Christ pleased not Himself’ (Romans 15:3)” (Homily 77 on Matthew).

“***Christ by Paul commanded ***that a woman depart not from her husband (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:10), and not to defraud one another, except by consent (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:5)” (Homily 86 on Matthew).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Chrystostom and the Teaching of Dei Verbum, that the Scriptures Were Written for the Sake of Our Salvation

“Wherefore let us stay at this point our discourse concerning the questions, and in the meanwhile let us retain with accuracy what has been revealed to us; as, for instance, why he mentioned David first; wherefore he called the book, a book of the generation; on what account he said, ‘of Jesus Christ’; how the birth is common and not common; whence it was that Mary was shown to be from David; and wherefore Joseph’s genealogy is traced, while her ancestors are passed over in silence…

“Wherefore I entreat you to revolve these things. For from taking thought concerning such matters, there springs in the soul some great good, tending unto salvation” (Homily 2 on Matthew).

“Then the evangelist relates to us also the history [of John the Baptist’s beheading]. And what might his reason be for not introducing it as a subject by itself? Because all their labor entirely was to tell what related to Christ, and they made themselves no secondary work besides this, except it were again to contribute to the same end. Therefore neither now would they have mentioned the history were it not on Christ’s account, and because Herod said, John is risen again” (Homily 48 on Matthew).

With the Love of Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

In case anyone is cataloguing all the teachings from the Fathers in keeping with the dogma of inspiration and inerrancy, here are a few additional quotes (thanks to CathPhilosopher and the book he linked us to):

Ambrose (A.D. 378-379): “‘It is written,’ say they, ‘that “There is none good but God alone.”’ I acknowledge the Scripture— but there is no falsehood in the letter; would that there were none in the Arians’ exposition thereof. The written signs are guiltless, it is the meaning in which they are taken that is to blame. I acknowledge the words as the words of our Lord and Saviour” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 1, No. 16Exposition of the Christian Faith).

Pope Gregory the Great (A.D. 585-589 – before he was pope): “It is often a question with many persons, who should be held for the writer of the Book of the Blessed Job; …] But who was the writer, it is very superfluous to enquire; since at any rate the Holy Spirit is confidently believed to have been the Author. He then Himself wrote them, Who dictated the things that should be written. He did Himself write them Who both was present as the Inspirer in that Saint’s work, and by the mouth of the writer has consigned to us his acts as patterns for our imitation. If we were reading the words of some great man with his Epistle in our hand, yet were to enquire by what pen they were written, doubtless it would be an absurdity, to know the Author of the Epistle and understand his meaning, and notwithstanding to be curious to know with what sort of pen the words were marked upon the page. When then we understand the matter, and are persuaded that the Holy Spirit was its Author, in stirring a question about the [human] author, what else do we than in reading a letter enquire about the pen?” (, Preface, Nos. 1 & 2Moralia in Job)

Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1265-1269): “The author of Holy Writ is God …] it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ” (, Part 1, Question 1, Article 10, “I answer that…” & “Reply to Objection 3”Summa Theologica).

May you all be blessed and rejoice in the LORD!

 

[Pete_Holter]

Pope John Paul II wrote an Apostolic Letter about Saint Augustine in 1986:

“Before concluding, let us ask this extraordinary man what he has to say to the modern man. I believe that he has indeed much to say, both by his example and by his teaching. …] Augustine’s legacy to the theologians, whose meritorious task is to study more deeply the contents of the faith, is the immense patrimony of his thought, which is as a whole valid even now …] It is well known how much Augustine loved Sacred Scripture, proclaiming its divine origin,(266) its inerrancy,(267) its depth and inexhaustible riches;(268) and it is well known how much he studied Scripture” (Augustinum Hipponsensem).

Footnote 267 cites the following specific sections of letters from Augustine to Jerome:

“For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. It is one question whether it may be at any time the duty of a good man to deceive; but it is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another question— it is no question at all. For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true” (Epistle 28, 3, 3).

and

“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 manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it …] I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error” (Epistle 82, 1, 3).

You’ll notice that Letter 82 is the same letter that Pope Leo XIII quoted in order to sum up the teaching of the Fathers on this dogma of the faith, which both he and Pope Pius XII declared to be “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church,” Leo continuing, “solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.”

May the peace of Christ be with you all!

 

[Pete_Holter]

Let me revisit something I briefly quoted from earlier in this thread. Coming out of John Paul II’s pontificate, we are told in the Commentary on the Professio Fidei, that “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” is a dogma of the faith. Here is what the commentary has to say about “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts,” and the other dogmas of the faith:

”The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.

“These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

“These doctrines 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, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.”

The commentary refers the reader back to Dei Verbum 11. And the footnotes for Dei Verbum 11

“include references to Providentissimus Deus, exactly where it says that divine inspiration absolutely excludes any error (EB 124: cf. no. 9d above) and that error cannot be ascribed to the human authors as distinct from the divine Author (EB 125: cf. no. 9c above.) And the same footnote references include the following judgment from Providentissimus Deus: ‘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.’ Hence, the opinion that biblical inerrancy covers only that truth which pertains to our salvation cannot be sustained, as is brought out in the encyclical Humani generis of Pope Pius XII (1950), where he excludes once again ‘the opinion, already several times condemned, according to which the immunity from errors of Sacred Writ extends only to those things which are conveyed concerning God and moral and religious matters’” (, No. 136 – July 2008Living Tradition).

Enchiridion Biblicum 539 is also cited by Dei Verbum at the end of the sentence containing “for the sake of salvation,” and it is the very passage from Divino afflante Spiritu of Pope Pius XII (1943) which reads, “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,’ since divine inspiration ‘not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes it 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 constant faith of the Church.’ This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously” (emphasis added; the reference to this quote is also provided courtesy of Msgr. John F. McCarthy).

And so we have Dei Verbum referencing passages from the Popes that declare Scripture to be free from any kind of error, and we have Dei Verbum itself being quoted by the Commentary on the Professio Fidei, as teaching that there is “an absence of error in the inspired sacred texts,” the commentary making no mention of any limitations.

We have Pope Paul VI telling us in 1970 that

“For the Church, Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, inspired by Him and therefore guaranteed by divine inerrancy in its own authentic meaning” (Paul VI, General Audience, July, 1 1970, translation provided by Father Brian Harrison of the Roman Theological Forum).

The Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments wrote in 2001 that the Church has “constantly defend[ed] the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures” (Translations and the Consultation of the Nova Vulgata of the Latin Church)

It is clear, both from what came before Dei Verbum, and from what has followed Dei Verbum, that the disputed text of Article 11 should be interpreted to mean that the Bible was written for the sake of our salvation and is therefore and for this purpose free from any kind of error whatsoever.

 

[Pete_Holter]

That is why the interpretation of Dei Verbum as given by Father William Most and Augustin Cardinal Bea is the only credible option:

Bea then proceeds to raise the question: “Does the inerrancy asserted in Dei Verbum] cover also the account of these historical events?”, which he answers: “For my own part I think that this question must be answered affirmatively, that is, that these ‘background’ 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.” (taken from Unam Sanctam Catholicam quoting Augustin Cardinal Bea)

Father William Most:

“Since 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.”

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 – which is something no scholar should ever do with any document.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Pius XII, as we saw, said the statement of Vatican I that there is no error at all in Scripture was a “solemn definition.”

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)

In light of everything that has been said thus far, let me close by sharing a superior alternative translation of the disputed text of Dei Verbum provided by The Roman Theological Forum, found in , “Article 61”Living Tradition:

Therefore, since everything affirmed by the inspired authors, or sacred writers, must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must in consequence acknowledge that the books of Scripture teach the truth firmly, faithfully, and without error – keeping in mind that it was for the sake of our salvation that God wanted this truth recorded in the form of Sacred Writings. …] 101

Footnote 101 gives a partial justification for the translation, which is reproduced here in part:

The case for the above translation cannot be argued in full here. Briefly, however, it can be said that consignare in Latin does not mean “consign,” but “record,” and takes no indirect object. Thus, Litteris Sacris is in the ablative case, not the dative: i.e., the Sacred Writings are not that to which truth is “consigned,” or into which it is “put,” as though the Bible were a sort of container for salvific truth (immune from error) as well as some other kind of truth (which might be contaminated by error). Rather, these writings are that by means of which (or in the form of which) God’s saving truth is recorded. …]

May the peace of Christ be with you all!

 

[Pete_Holter]

I don’t believe Vatican II intended to “qualify” the dogma of inerrancy of Scripture. Instead, Vatican II stated in a positive way what the Church has in the past stated in a negative way. For instance…

Negative way: “Scritpure is inerrant.”
Positive way: “Scripture is true.”

Cardinal Augustin Bea was selected to lecture the councilar bishops on the historical Catholic understanding of inerrancy at Vatican II. He states: "’***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’

Now, what does the inspired writer mean, what is he affirming? That’s the question. The answer, according to the magisterium of the Catholic Church and the traditional teaching of Catholicism from the very start is that everything the writer affirms is true, but not everything the writer affirms is understood.

The dispute Catholics have with Protestant “literalist” interpretation of Scripture is one which disagrees with the “literalist” understanding, and in no way disagrees with the dogma that what the sacred writer affirmed is true, without any error.

Hey, itsjustdave,

I came back to the Catholic Church this past November. I wanted to let you know that of everyone on these forums, you were the most instrumental in bringing me back. The work that you did in defending biblical inerrancy on earlier threads was a conduit of truth and hope and a tremendous help to me in my spiritual journey! I am grateful to you for that! I might not be Catholic today if it wasn’t for you. I hope I get to thank you in heaven. May God bless you and your loved ones!

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Origen and Biblical Inerrancy

“The truth of these matters must lie in that which is seen by the mind. If the discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must give up our trust in the Gospels, as being true and written by a divine spirit, or as records worthy of credence, for both these characters are held to belong to these works. Those who accept the four Gospels, and who do not consider that their apparent discrepancy is to be solved anagogically (by mystical interpretation), will have to clear up the difficulty, raised above, about the forty days of the temptation, a period for which no room can be found in any way in John’s narrative; and they will also have to tell us when it was that the Lord came to Capernaum. If it was after the six days of the period of His baptism, the sixth being that of the marriage at Cana of Galilee, then it is clear that the temptation never took place, and that He never was at Nazara, and that John was not yet delivered up” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Bk. 10, No. 2).

Comment: The Gospels are true, written by a divine spirit, and are records worthy of credence. Origen’s approach to the Gospels would only be taken by someone who holds to total inerrancy. It is as if he had said, “If the historical discrepancies cannot be cleared away, then we will believe that one or all of the passages were not intending to convey history, and rather assign a mystical interpretation as the literal sense of the text. And if you think that the Gospel authors were trying to convey history on these points, then you will have to find a way to harmonize the historical details because there can’t be any true errors in the Sacred Text.”

“There are many other points on which the careful student of the Gospels will find that their narratives do not agree; and these we shall place before the reader, according to our power, as they occur. The student, staggered at the consideration of these things, will either renounce the attempt to find all the Gospels true, and not venturing to conclude that all our information about our Lord is untrustworthy, will choose at random one of them to be his guide; or he will accept the four, and will consider that their truth is not to be sought for in the outward and material letter” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Bk. 10, No. 2).

Comment: Origen assumes that we will not be able to find a way to otherwise reconcile these particular historical features, and so he holds that their truth is not to be found in the historical details, but only in the spiritual truths of which these details are signs and images.

“We must, however, try to obtain some notion of the intention of the Evangelists in such matters, and we direct ourselves to this…

“In the case I have supposed where the historians desire to teach us by an image what they have seen in their mind, their meaning would be found, if the four were wise, to exhibit no disagreement; and we must understand that with the four Evangelists it is not otherwise. They made full use for their purpose of things done by Jesus in the exercise of His wonderful and extraordinary power; they use in the same way His sayings, and in some places they tack on to their writing, with language apparently implying things of sense, things made manifest to them in a purely intellectual way. I do not condemn them if they even sometimes dealt freely with things which to the eye of history happened differently, and changed them so as to subserve the mystical aims they had in view; so as to speak of a thing which happened in a certain place, as if it had happened in another, or of what took place at a certain time, as if it had taken place at another time, and to introduce into what was spoken in a certain way some changes of their own. They proposed to speak the truth where it was possible both materially and spiritually, and where this was not possible it was their intention to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in the material falsehood” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Bk. 10, Nos. 3 & 4).

Comment: If inerrancy is properly understood, this is another statement in favor of its totality. The person who asserts that there are errors in Scripture will point to historical discrepancies, and, when finding no way to harmonize them, will at the same time assume that the Gospel writers intended to convey this distorted history, and consequently charge them with historical error. And once the Evangelists have been duly charged with error, the critic will move on to offer a second, spiritual interpretation. Origen, on the other hand, holds the position of an inerrantist and asserts that the Gospel authors, on account of there being irreconcilables, were obviously not intending to elicit from the reader a plain and literal interpretation of the discordant material. The hagiographers deliberately changed historical data to suit their purpose. The true errors are rather to be found in the exegete’s misapprehension of the Gospel writers’ purpose for including the contrarieties, which purpose was to point to something else: the spiritual interpretation, which, in these cases, is, by itself, the literal interpretation.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Origen’s approach is the same approach as that taken at times by Augustine when such discrepancies occur:

“But some one may say, How shall I know whether the prophet Jonah said to the Ninevites, ‘Yet three days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,’ or forty days (cf. Jonah 3:4)? For who does not see that the prophet could not say both, when he was sent to terrify the city by the threat of imminent ruin? For if its destruction was to take place on the third day, it certainly could not be on the fortieth; but if on the fortieth, then certainly not on the third. If, then, I am asked which of these Jonah may have said, I rather think what is read in the Hebrew, ‘Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.’ Yet the Seventy, interpreting long afterward, could say what was different and yet pertinent to the matter, and agree in the self-same meaning, although under a different signification. And this may admonish the reader not to despise the authority of either, but to raise himself above the history, and search for those things which the history itself was written to set forth. These things, indeed, took place in the city of Nineveh, but they also signified something else too great to apply to that city; just as, when it happened that the prophet himself was three days in the whale’s belly, it signified besides, that He who is Lord of all the prophets should be three days in the depths of hell. Wherefore, if that city is rightly held as prophetically representing the Church of the Gentiles, to wit, as brought down by penitence, so as no longer to be what it had been, since this was done by Christ in the Church of the Gentiles, which Nineveh represented, Christ Himself was signified both by the forty and by the three days: by the forty, because He spent that number of days with His disciples after the resurrection, and then ascended into heaven, but by the three days, because He rose on the third day. So that, if the reader desires nothing else than to adhere to the history of events, he may be aroused from his sleep by the Septuagint interpreters, as well as the prophets, to search into the depth of the prophecy, as if they had said, ‘In the forty days seek Him in whom you may also find the three days’—the one you will find in His ascension, the other in His resurrection. Because that which could be most suitably signified by both numbers, of which one is used by Jonah the prophet, the other by the prophecy of the Septuagint version, the one and self-same Spirit has spoken. I dread prolixity, so that I must not demonstrate this by many instances in which the seventy interpreters may be thought to differ from the Hebrew, and yet, when well understood, are found to agree. For which reason I also, according to my capacity, following the footsteps of the apostles, who themselves have quoted prophetic testimonies from both, that is, from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, have thought that both should be used as authoritative, since both are one, and divine” (, Bk. 18, Ch. 44The City of God).

Comment: Augustine thinks that Jonah actually said “three days,” so that his solution to the apparent historical contradiction is to hold only one as conveying literal history and both as prophesying Christ. Origen’s solution for the Gospel discrepancies, on the other hand, seems to be that neither is conveying literal history where they contradict. But we can see that Augustine and Origen are both operating with the same interpretive principle of Divine inerrancy in mind.

 

[Pete_Holter]

“[A]s the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not… Now all this, as we have remarked, was done by the Holy Spirit in order that, seeing those events which lie on the surface can be neither true nor useful, we may be led to the investigation of that truth which is more deeply concealed, and to the ascertaining of a meaning worthy of God in those Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by Him.

“Nor was it only with regard to those Scriptures which were composed down to the advent of Christ that the Holy Spirit thus dealt; but as being one and the same Spirit, and proceeding from one God, He dealt in the same way with the evangelists and apostles (The Principles, Bk. 4, Nos. 15 & 16).

Comment: *Origen says that the Holy Spirit sometimes signified both a historical truth and a spiritual truth by interweaving them into what was written, but that at other times he signified only a spiritual truth. This is exactly what we saw Augustine do in the preceding quote from The City of God: the Hebrew Scripture signified both the historical and the spiritual truth, whereas the Septuagint signified only that of the spiritual.

Origen asserts that the Spirit dealt with the Evangelists in the same way as with the Prophets of the Old Testament. Since we’ve already seen that Origen held the Evangelists themselves to have purposefully inserted the incongruous, we understand Origen to be teaching that there is no divergence between the Divine and human purpose in composing all of Sacred Scripture. Consequently, the Prophets likewise were not duped by the Spirit into composing erroneous histories where irreconcilable contradictions occur, but they purposefully composed these historical “errors” and “falsehoods” at the prompting of the Spirit in order to convey a spiritual truth.*

“Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place… the truth of the history may and ought to be preserved in the majority of instances… And therefore great pains and labour are to be employed, until every reader reverentially understand that he is dealing with Divine and not human words inserted in the sacred books” (The Principles, Bk. 4, No. 19).

Comment: Origen’s express desire to maintain the facticity of the historical narratives suggests that he interprets Scripture in accordance with “the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

Hopefully these recent posts will warm your heart to the truth of Biblical inerrancy and also help you to appreciate the reliability of Pope Leo XIII’s bold proclamation:

“o emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed [heretics included ] 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’” (Providentissimus Deus).

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Comment: Origen’s express desire to maintain the facticity of the historical narratives suggests that he interprets Scripture in accordance with “the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

I think that should be expressed desire.

And “cliff notes” from one of my previous posts should have been “CliffsNotes.”

If anyone else finds any mistakes, I would appreciate it if you bring them to my attention.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

This post should have gone between Posts 176 and 177. Somehow I skipped it.

I thought that I would preface his take on inerrancy with these examples, not to soften the blow of his having succumbed to heresy on this latter doctrine as well, but to demonstrate the noteworthiness of his unwavering defense of this truth of the faith at every turn, while faltering on certain points of other truths. Let me start off by sharing a few more thoughts about his words in the first homily…

“And why can it have been, that when there were so many disciples, two write only from among the apostles, and two from among their followers? (For one that was a disciple of Paul, and another of Peter, together with Matthew and John, wrote the Gospels.) It was because they did nothing for vainglory, but all things for use” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

Comment: All Scripture is useful; none is expendable or superfluous.

“What then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to tell all? One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

Comment: The Gospel writers are in complete agreement.

“But the contrary, it may be said, has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance. Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

Comment: The skeptic asserts that there is discordance in the text. The believer knows that the discordance only seems to be there. As for “to the very words,” it is understood within the definition of total inerrancy that precise wording is interchangeable provided that the meaning behind the words remains unchanged. The PBC document quoted in one of my previous posts asserts that the truth of the Gospel is not compromised when the Gospel writers report Jesus’ words “not literally but in a variety of ways, while retaining the same meaning.” You can read Augustine’s elaboration of this point here. This is not to give free reign to diluting the text in any way; rather, it is to direct us to appreciate the fact that words mean something, and that the something meant is where the truth of the words lies.

“But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

Comment: Chrysostom says that they have related these small matters differently and that this does not result in a compromise of the truth. We’ll see him distinguish “differently” from “contrarily” or “at variance” below. He also says that he’s going to point out, as he proceeds throughout this series on Matthew, how this difference in narration “nothing injures the truth of what they have said.” And here is the interesting part… he says that he is going to require us to observe that there is no disagreement, “no not ever so little,” in “the chief heads;” but he requires this of us “together with what we have mentioned,” that is, together with acknowledging the fact that the differences in the narration pertaining to little matters “nothing injures the truth of what they have said.” I’ll comment below as to how and in what way this can be true.

“And if among the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all, but one these, the other those, let not this trouble you. For if on the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in common, and each of them has also received and declared something of his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and cast on the heap to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test of the truth of their affirmations perfect” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

Comment: He lays this general principle down in connection with the miracles, but it is good to keep this principle in mind as a general hermeneutical key. We’ll see Chrysostom come back to draw from this same principle in dealing with other, “littler” matters.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hey, itsjustdave,

I came back to the Catholic Church this past November. I wanted to let you know that of everyone on these forums, you were the most instrumental in bringing me back. The work that you did in defending biblical inerrancy on earlier threads was a conduit of truth and hope and a tremendous help to me in my spiritual journey! I am grateful to you for that! I might not be Catholic today if it wasn’t for you. I hope I get to thank you in heaven. May God bless you and your loved ones!

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

Peter,

Thanks for the very kind words and welcome back to the Church. I’m a revert myself.

As I tell my Confirmation students, our mission is to share why it is that we believe. It is a very personal reason that may or may not be shared by others. Yet, in this way God gives us the mission (and grace) to sow seeds. Of course, it is God alone who gives the grace that such seeds might grow. Glory be to God!

 

[joemccarron]

Hi Pete thanks for your responses. After some consideration of what you posted on Tertullian I would agree that if I had to bet on what he believed he believed the scriptures were without error. He did however seem to at least recognize that some people did make distinctions between essential matters and minor points. He did not feel it was necessary to argue against this position.

On St. John though I have to disagree with you. His writings make it quite clear he did not believe in extreme inerrancy and that he taught we don’t need to accept that. Here is a quote of what you wrote:

“What then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to tell all? One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

Comment: The Gospel writers are in complete agreement.

“But the contrary, it may be said, has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance. Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity.

The “comment” is your own not what John said. You are saying John claims the authors are in complete agreement but in the next paragraph John flatly says the opposite. He says the discordance is the very great evidence of the truth. Here as we know he is talking abotu the truth of the chief heads of the faith. He says its a good thing they did not agree in all things exactly as to time and place.

All your quotes where John says God would speak through various profits and made a covenant with the Jews in no way implies extreme inerrancy. The Second vatican affirmed that the scriptures are free from error as it pertains to our salvation. I would agree none of the fathers dispute that. Nor would that dispute that God inspired the scriptures. John though does think there is disagreement in the gospel writers on matters that don’t effect our salvation.

I have several other points to make based on what you posted but no time now.

 

[joemccarron]

That is why the interpretation of Dei Verbum as given by Father William Most and Augustin Cardinal Bea is the only credible option:

Bea then proceeds to raise the question: “Does the inerrancy asserted in Dei Verbum] cover also the account of these historical events?”, which he answers: “For my own part I think that this question must be answered affirmatively, that is, that these ‘background’ 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.” (taken from Unam Sanctam Catholicam quoting Augustin Cardinal Bea)

There are 3 ways we can look at this:

1. All believers must believe that scripture is inerrant as to matters of salvation. (as to other matters they have liberty to believe inerrancy or not.)
2. All believers must believe that scripture is inerrant as to matters of salvation and only as to matters of salvation. (Here the church would be saying that it is error to believe inerrancy stretches beyond matters of salvation)
3. All believers must believe that scripture is inerrant as to matters of salvation and every other matter addressed no mater how minute and unrelated to our salvation.

Vatican 2 said #1. It allows that people can believe it is inerrant as to other matters without saying they are wrong. So it did not use the restrictive language described by Cardinal Bea as would be the case if it said 2.

Nor did it use the language of 3. By using the language of #1 it simply insists that we must view scripture as inerrant as to matters of salvation. It doesn’t say inerrancy beyond that is error nor does it say we are required to believe that.

As Augustine said on essentials unity, on non-essentials liberty, in all things love. Note Cardinal Bea starts by saying “for his own part…”

I’m just trying to quickly post as I have time.

 

[Pete_Holter]

On St. John though I have to disagree with you. His writings make it quite clear he did not believe in extreme inerrancy and that he taught we don’t need to accept that. Here is a quote of what you wrote:
Pete Holter;5008709:

“What then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to tell all?

One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

Comment: The Gospel writers are in complete agreement.

“But the contrary, it may be said, has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance. Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

The “comment” is your own not what John said. You are saying John claims the authors are in complete agreement but in the next paragraph John flatly says the opposite. He says the discordance is the very great evidence of the truth. Here as we know he is talking abotu the truth of the chief heads of the faith. He says its a good thing they did not agree in all things exactly as to time and place.

Welcome back, Joe! If I cannot win you over with these posts, I may have to end our exchange, regardless. Let me see if I can say something helpful here…

What Chrysostom says is that the seeming discordances provide evidence of the truth of the Gospels. What you’ll want to do is take what John says as a whole and try to make everything fit together. The critic convicts the Gospel writers of discordance; and, to the critic, the discordance seems to be there in the way we use the word seem when we are really saying, “This object has the appearance of being there, and so I think it is there.” But Chrysostom consistently demonstrates that this discordance only seems to be there, i.e., it exists in appearance only, and is not really there. When he proceeds in Homily 4 to say:

“And this many of the simpler sort, not understanding, have said there is a discordance; because Luke says it was Mary to whom he declared the good tidings (cf. Luke 1:26-38), but Matthew, that it was Joseph (cf. Matthew 1:20-22); not knowing that both took place. And this sort of thing it is necessary to bear in mind throughout the whole history; for in this way we shall solve many seeming discordances” (Homily 4 on Matthew).

we gain an understanding of what John was saying in the opening homily. He solves every seeming discordance by showing that there really is no discordance. And he solves many of the seeming discordances, as he did here, by showing how the discordant material actually designates that both events took place at different times.