Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[joemccarron]

Pete

I had typed up a fairly long “response” regarding your post about the fathers. But I’m not sure what value it would have. If you are doing apologetics against other Christians they probably accept complete inerrancy, if you are doing apologetics with atheists they will surely be happy that we must defend every jot of scripture. So I’m not sure what point there would be in showing the fathers may not have been so universal in this view. Moreover I don’t think its really relevant to understanding the Catholic faith since we must go with what the Vatican says even if we think some of the reasons to the conclusion they reach is faulty. But if you want to see what I wrote I can post it.

Yes I know about skeptics and their views on miracles. It can be summed up in one word “prejudice.”

On the issue at hand, I can live with suspending belief on certain things. I probably won’t really argue the scriptures myself much. My interest lies more in the philosophical aspects of apologetics. I just see so many people who apparently reject everything in the bible because they apply this all or nothing view and then start in about the most outlandish quibbles.

I think this idea of suspending belief may indeed be a way to reconcile some of the Vatican 2 and post Vatican two statements. I mean in that pontifical biblical commission statement it says “Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.”

Ok so maybe where before I thought: What do you mean “undue stress” If we must believe every word of scripture as part of our faith then we better start getting to examining the digestive tracts of rabbits! But maybe there is a relevant distinction between what is for our salvation and what appears unrelated to that in the bible. However that distinction isn’t that one part is inerrant and the other can have errors instead it is what we must believe about each type of passage. Consider this:

When it comes to rabbits and cud chewing it may be appropriate to “suspend belief” on what is said here. However when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus it’s not appropriate to suspend belief on this. We actually have to believe that. Based on your (or anyone’s - una fides?) reading of church teaching would this be an acceptable understanding?

So as a catholic apologist we could appropriately say “I don’t see what beliefs about rabbits and chewing the cud has to do with salvation so I am not bound to believe anything in particular about that passage nor am I required to delve into it.” Of course we could not take that view about something like Jesus rising from the dead or that he was indeed a real historical person. We can say yes as a general matter I think everything must sort out but I don’t need to necessarily believe any particular view when it has nothing to do with salvation. So there would be some difference in what we must believe in scripture.

What do you think?

 

[anon5216]

…
On the issue at hand, I can live with suspending belief on certain things. I probably won’t really argue the scriptures myself much. My interest lies more in the philosophical aspects of apologetics. I just see so many people who apparently reject everything in the bible because they apply this all or nothing view and then start in about the most outlandish quibbles.
…
When it comes to rabbits and cud chewing it may be appropriate to “suspend belief” on what is said here. However when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus it’s not appropriate to suspend belief on this. We actually have to believe that. Based on your (or anyone’s - una fides?) reading of church teaching would this be an acceptable understanding?

So as a catholic apologist we could appropriately say “I don’t see what beliefs about rabbits and chewing the cud has to do with salvation so I am not bound to believe anything in particular about that passage nor am I required to delve into it.” Of course we could not take that view about something like Jesus rising from the dead or that he was indeed a real historical person. We can say yes as a general matter I think everything must sort out but I don’t need to necessarily believe any particular view when it has nothing to do with salvation. So there would be some difference in what we must believe in scripture.

What do you think?

That makes sense from a Catholic perspective, but from that of a non-Christian outsider it still comes back to the Church’s claims of 100% inerrancy - all or nothing.

In that case, the Church is setting up a situation of there is no such thing as an “outlandish quibble” - it’s either inerrant or it isn’t. It seems like an incredibly foolish corner to paint oneself into.

From my perspective, inerrancy and infallibility are completely irrelevant to the spiritual legitimacy and efficacy of Christianity.

 

[anon5216]

anon5216;4755649:

Ah, here’s the whole point of the claim - behavioral control. Telling kids that Santa won’t bring presents if they don’t behave well might get the job done, but …

To finish your statement that you didn’t… “but it won’t convince someone who is not already Catholic.” …

Actually, the conclusion I had in mind (that apparently was not obvious) was:
… but the parents know all along the myth isn’t literally true …

it’s just the most convenient way to achieve the desired results of good behaving children while giving those children something mythologically ‘fun’ to believe in.

The implication would then be that the Catholic leadership knew full well that inerrancy and infallibility were myths they created for similar reasons.

From my perspective, that strategy shows an extreme lack of faith in the efficacy of Christianity.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe those concepts are completely irrelevant to the spiritual legitimacy and efficacy of Christianity.

 

[una_fides]

Actually, the conclusion I had in mind (that apparently was not obvious) was:
… but the parents know all along the myth isn’t literally true …

it’s just the most convenient way to achieve the desired results of good behaving children while giving those children something mythologically ‘fun’ to believe in.

The implication would then be that the Catholic leadership knew full well that inerrancy and infallibility were myths they created for similar reasons.

From my perspective, that strategy shows an extreme lack of faith in the efficacy of Christianity.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe those concepts are completely irrelevant to the spiritual legitimacy and efficacy of Christianity.

Do you believe that the Church that Christ founded is some sort of deceiving villain covering up the truth just to try to keep its subjects in line? Such accusations have about as much merit as claiming that Jesus had kids from Mary Magdeline (i.e. they are fiction). Christ founded a Church and appointed the apostles as the heads of the Church and commissioned them to spread his message. The apostles hand selected and appointed others to take their positions of authority and continue to spread the truth of the gospel. Christ promised the apostles that not even the gates of hell would prevail against his Church. If you, as many protestants, believe that soon after the death of the apostles, Christ’s message somehow was lost and was not rediscovered until centuries later, then you would have to conclude that Christ’s promises to his apostles were lies and that Satan had won.

If you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and if you believe that God moved the authors to write what they did, so that God himself is the author of Scripture, and if you believe in a perfect God who cannot err, then it would only make sense that his Word could not contain any errors. Otherwise, you would have to disagree with any of the precluding reasons. Do you believe in the inspiration of the Bible in the sense that God moved the authors to write what they did? Do you believe in a perfect God who cannot err? If you reject the Church and her authority, then it seems that your faith is really just a matter of private interpretation, is it not? How do you know your faith is true with the millions of others who have their own spins on what “true” Christianity is? Christ formed his Church and gave his apostles authority for a reason. So that we can know the truth.

 

[una_fides]

…
Ok so maybe where before I thought: What do you mean “undue stress” If we must believe every word of scripture as part of our faith then we better start getting to examining the digestive tracts of rabbits! But maybe there is a relevant distinction between what is for our salvation and what appears unrelated to that in the bible. However that distinction isn’t that one part is inerrant and the other can have errors instead it is what we must believe about each type of passage. Consider this:

When it comes to rabbits and cud chewing it may be appropriate to “suspend belief” on what is said here. However when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus it’s not appropriate to suspend belief on this. We actually have to believe that. Based on your (or anyone’s - una fides?) reading of church teaching would this be an acceptable understanding?

So as a catholic apologist we could appropriately say “I don’t see what beliefs about rabbits and chewing the cud has to do with salvation so I am not bound to believe anything in particular about that passage nor am I required to delve into it.” Of course we could not take that view about something like Jesus rising from the dead or that he was indeed a real historical person. We can say yes as a general matter I think everything must sort out but I don’t need to necessarily believe any particular view when it has nothing to do with salvation. So there would be some difference in what we must believe in scripture.

What do you think?

Joe

I think you are really coming around with this last post, and I think you are making a good point here. Yes, we are not obliged to believe a certain particular interpretation of passages that do not pertain to fundamental doctrines or passages that the Church has not officially defined must be interpreted a certain way (which all pertain to fundamental doctrines and are few in number). Other passages pertaining to “little matters” such as the “rabbits chewing cud” example we are free to interpret in various ways as long as we keep in mind that the text is not in error.

As was pointed out, we are not even bound to a literal interpretation of Scripture; however, we are called to be honest, sincere, and open to the truth when it comes to our interpretations, and as such we should always take into account the various factors and methods of interpretation available to us as the Church has obliged us to do. We do not have to really delve into the matter with the “rabbit” and “cud” at all if we do not choose to, but as you rightly pointed out, we must believe in the death and resurrection of Christ as well as his professing his deity as the Son of God and other dogmas that we know from divine and Catholic faith. But again, regardless of how we interpret or understand particular passages that do not pertain to salvation, we are bound by our Catholic faith to know that they do not contain any error whatsoever and that the authors themselves also did not err at all in what they wrote. Inspiration and inerrancy pertain to all parts of Scripture, not just those pertaining to faith and morals (or salvation).

 

[anon5216]

Do you believe that the Church that Christ founded is some sort of deceiving villain covering up the truth just to try to keep its subjects in line?
No, I’m not a protestant.

Such accusations have about as much merit as claiming that Jesus had kids from Mary Magdeline (i.e. they are fiction).
I do believe much of the bible is fiction - especially the old testament being a hodgepodge of plagiarized stories from Sumerian, Egyptian and other cultures.

Christ founded a Church and appointed the apostles as the heads of the Church and commissioned them to spread his message.
So you believe.

The apostles hand selected and appointed others to take their positions of authority and continue to spread the truth of the gospel. Christ promised the apostles that not even the gates of hell would prevail against his Church.
So the book the Church itself compiled says.

If you, as many protestants, believe that soon after the death of the apostles, Christ’s message somehow was lost and was not rediscovered until centuries later, then you would have to conclude that Christ’s promises to his apostles were lies and that Satan had won.
I’m not protestant. I was raised Catholic, now consider myself non-Christian, but I’m not a member of any religious organization.

If you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and if you believe that God moved the authors to write what they did, so that God himself is the author of Scripture, and if you believe in a perfect God who cannot err, then it would only make sense that his Word could not contain any errors.
But I don’t believe that God is the author of Catholic scripture.

Otherwise, you would have to disagree with any of the precluding reasons. Do you believe in the inspiration of the Bible in the sense that God moved the authors to write what they did?
No.

Do you believe in a perfect God who cannot err?
That’s a very human perspective of God - especially depending on the coloration of one’s idea of perfection.

If you reject the Church and her authority, then it seems that your faith is really just a matter of private interpretation, is it not?
Until a person reaches what Indian spirituality refers to as God-Realization, everyone’s faith is just their own or someone else’s private interpretation.

How do you know your faith is true with the millions of others who have their own spins on what “true” Christianity is?
Since I don’t start from the assumption that the bible is the only scripture or that it is even Truth from start to finish, I’m not concerned with which version of Christianity is “true”.

Christ formed his Church and gave his apostles authority for a reason. So that we can know the truth.

My opinions not withstanding,
I do believe that it is possible to develop spiritually within (and sometimes in spite of) the Catholic Church.

I respect the spirituality of saints like Padre Pio, Francis of Assisi, Thomas a Kempis, the writer(s) of the book “The Cloud of Unknowing”, etc.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Pete

I had typed up a fairly long “response” regarding your post about the fathers. But I’m not sure what value it would have. If you are doing apologetics against other Christians they probably accept complete inerrancy, if you are doing apologetics with atheists they will surely be happy that we must defend every jot of scripture. So I’m not sure what point there would be in showing the fathers may not have been so universal in this view. Moreover I don’t think its really relevant to understanding the Catholic faith since we must go with what the Vatican says even if we think some of the reasons to the conclusion they reach is faulty. But if you want to see what I wrote I can post it.

Hey Joe!

The quotes that I selected from the Fathers are in many cases quoted in the papal encyclicals that address this topic. What I did was find other quotes from the Fathers that said more of the same to strengthen the papal claim. Of course you can feel free to post your thoughts. Unfortunately, I probably won’t have time to respond to them. But somebody else might.

On the issue at hand, I can live with suspending belief on certain things. I probably won’t really argue the scriptures myself much. My interest lies more in the philosophical aspects of apologetics. I just see so many people who apparently reject everything in the bible because they apply this all or nothing view and then start in about the most outlandish quibbles.

Oh, I’m sorry. When I said suspend judgment, I didn’t mean suspend belief. Where the suspension of judgment comes into play is where we are wont to accuse Scripture of error, because all things considered seem to be pointing in that direction; but we refrain and rather say, “I don’t know what it means.” I do not know what, “the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you,” means, but I do believe that, whatever it means, it is not a false statement and that there is no error. Pope Leo wrote,

If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being” (Providentissimus Deus).

I think a quote from Pope Pius XI might help here too:

Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ’s believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? (Mortalium Animos).

One of the articles of faith is that everything in Scripture is free from error. And I think that it is just as important for any one assertion of Scripture to be as error-free as any other. Drawing a parallel here with what Pius XI was saying about the articles of faith… the subject matter of the resurrection and rabbits are radically different. The resurrection is of supreme value when we compare the subject matter. But to assert that either of these passages of Scripture is in error or unworthy of belief is equally prohibited because the truth and value of each and every passage of Scripture have “a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction.”

 

[Pete_Holter]

I think this idea of suspending belief may indeed be a way to reconcile some of the Vatican 2 and post Vatican two statements. I mean in that pontifical biblical commission statement it says “Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.”

So as a catholic apologist we could appropriately say “I don’t see what beliefs about rabbits and chewing the cud has to do with salvation so I am not bound to believe anything in particular about that passage nor am I required to delve into it.”

What do you think?

A member of the SSPX relates the following about the PBC document… “I told [Cardinal Ratzinger] that ‘the magisterium is here, and not at the Biblical Institute.’ Card. Ratzinger answered by mentioning that the Holy Father intended to intervene personally on the question of Biblical studies, after which I was kindly dismissed. Then, on April 23, 1993, John Paul II gave his disappointing speech, which appears at the beginning of this article” (They Think They’ve Won! Part 9).

I do not support the undue criticism of this article. But the interesting thing to note is that Ratzinger assured the author that John Paul II intended to personally intervene. And John Paul II had this to say when that document was released:

“The strict relationship uniting the inspired biblical texts with the mystery of the incarnation was expressed by the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in the following terms: ‘Just as the substantial Word of God became like men in every respect except sin, so too the words of God, expressed in human languages, became like human language in every respect except error’ (EB, n. 559). Repeated almost literally by the conciliar Constitution *Dei Verbum *(n. 13), this statement sheds light on a parallelism rich in meaning” ( (April 23, 1993)The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church).

Knowing that we are looking for the gentle prodding of the shepherd’s staff in this address, I think that this is where we find it. Indirectly, and following years after the fact, we also have the Commentary on the Professio Fidei, which reminds us that “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” is a dogma of the faith.

So here’s my take. What the qualification of Vatican II does is turn our mind away from trying to figure out the biology of the rabbit and turn it towards figuring out how this passage relates to our salvation, which is a little different from your sentence above in quotation marks. Rather than say, “I don’t see what beliefs about rabbits and chewing the cud has to do with salvation so I am not bound to believe anything in particular about that passage,” it might be better said, “The whole Bible was written for the sake of our salvation. So when I come to the passage about rabbits chewing the cud, I should be trying to answer the question, ‘In what way does this statement relate to God’s purpose for writing Scripture, that is to say, to our salvation?’ more so than the question, ‘What does this passage tell us about the digestive process of rabbits?’”. The latter question is not excluded, but it should not be the focus. We should be aware of such difficulties in the Biblical text so that we are prepared with an answer for the hope that is in us when approached by skeptics; but our primary concern when we are reading the Scriptures is to know Christ. And so I think that the statement about “undue stress” found in the PBC document is best understood in this light, especially since the same document affirms that “Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible [and] the inerrancy of the word of God.” Although not addressing inerrancy, Pius XII also complained about a similarly misplaced emphasis:

”With special zeal should [commentators] apply themselves, not only to expounding exclusively these matters which belong to the historical, archaeological, philological and other auxiliary sciences - as, to Our regret, is done in certain commentaries - but, having duly referred to these, in so far as they may aid the exegesis, they should set forth in particular the theological doctrine in faith and morals of the individual books or texts so that their exposition may not only aid the professors of theology in their explanations and proofs of the dogmas of faith, but may also be of assistance to priests in their presentation of Christian doctrine to the people, and in fine may help all the faithful to lead a life that is holy and worthy of a Christian” (Divino Afflante Spiritu).

I am sorry that these two posts are not very well organized, but it takes me a long time to write and I am running out of energy. So hopefully I’ve said things well enough to be understood although I would rearrange some things and say them differently and more carefully if I had the time. I hope that you find them helpful. May the LORD be with you, my brother.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[joemccarron]

Pete:

I think its important that when we represent the views of the catholic Church we represent only the truth. This is what was written in the article you site

"Towards the end of July, I sent the Archbishop the following letter:

Your Excellency,

…

There is no truth of Faith as clearly expressed by all the Fathers as that of the absolute inerrancy of Holy Scripture, a truth that echoes the words of Jesus: Is it not written…Scripture cannot be broken?.."

It is simply not true that all the fathers have clearly expressed the absolute inerrancy of the Scripture. You had listed about 12 fathers - a far cry from “all” of the approximately 65 fathers we have. Andy of the 12 fathers you listed not all the quotes were clearly in the extreme inerrancy camp. Moreover we know 2 church fathers did not think the scripture was necessarily inerrant or at least explicitly taught the view that believe in extreme inerrancy was not essential to the faith.

Moreover when he mentions Jesus it is true what Jesus said that to the Jews, but I think its a stretch to say Jesus is advocating extreme inerrancy there. I mean if someone really thought that scripture was “broken” just because Moses made a mistake about rabbits chewing the cud that would be pretty far stretch. He also ignores the passage where Jesus makes it clear that the passage from Deuteronomy came from Moses and hence Jesus essentially did away with that method of divorce.

I understand and accept that if the magisteriam adopts the stance that we must all believe extreme inerrancy, then we must do it. However, we should not make false claims in support of the position. And here I think its pretty clear the church fathers we not unanimous on inerrancy, and its obviously false to claim that all the fathers expressed an extreme inerrancy position.

 

[joemccarron]

In reading some of the other parts of this article “they think they’ve won” I see that this person is basically just one of those who refuse to accept Vatican 2. Thats fine for him but that is not the Catholic view.

 

[una_fides]

I recently stumbled across an interesting article from Jimmy Akin concerning inerrancy: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6978&CFID=25793545&CFTOKEN=81224324

I also found a relevant section from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Since God is the principal Author of Sacred Scripture, it can contain no error, no self-contradiction, nothing contrary to scientific or historical truth. The Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” is most explicit in its statement of this prerogative of the Bible:” … “The Fathers agree with this teaching almost unanimously” … “
“The inerrancy of Scripture does not allow us to admit contradictions in its statements. This is understood of the genuine or primitive text of the Bible.”
“The inerrancy of Scripture excludes also any contradiction between the Bible and the certain tenets of science. It cannot be supposed that the inspired writers should agree with all the various hypotheses which scientists assume today and reject tomorrow; but the commentator will be required to harmonize the teaching of the Bible with the scientific results which rest on solid proof. This rule is clearly laid down by the Encyclical in the words of St. Augustine: “Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures, and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so””
newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm

Hope these help as well.

So is everyone on this thread in agreement then? That there are no errors of any kind in Scripture–just possibly in our understanding thereof.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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.

 

[joemccarron]

Yes I’m aware of the considerable authority of the extreme inerrancy position. However there are those who disagree that it is an infallible teaching.

But leaving that aside…

I’m just pointing out that those who believe extreme inerrancy is an infallible teaching should not say all the fathers clearly stated they agreed with the extreme inerrancy position.

The fact is that certain Fathers such as Saint John Chrysostom and Tertullian rejected extreme inerrancy and the vast majority of fathers did not think to mention it in their surviving writings.

 

[una_fides]

Yes I’m aware of the considerable authority of the extreme inerrancy position. However there are those who disagree that it is an infallible teaching.

But leaving that aside…

I’m just pointing out that those who believe extreme inerrancy is an infallible teaching should not say all the fathers clearly stated they agreed with the extreme inerrancy position.

The fact is that certain Fathers such as Saint John Chrysostom and Tertullian rejected extreme inerrancy and** the vast majority of fathers did not think to mention it in their surviving writings**.

Joe,
I think you missed these posts earlier:

Church Fathers:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4761100&postcount=90
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4761107&postcount=91

Care to revise your statement concerning the early Church fathers? It appears more Church fathers it than you thought.

• forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4761095&postcount=89 - The end of this post deals with St. John Chrysostom, and I also had earlier posts that explained the two quote you posted as not contradicting what you label as “extreme inerrancy” and which is exactly what the Church has repeated for her 2000 years: that there are no errors of any kind in Scripture because God authored every word.

 

[joemccarron]

Joe,
I think you missed these posts earlier:

Church Fathers:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4761100&postcount=90
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4761107&postcount=91

Care to revise your statement concerning the early Church fathers? It appears more Church fathers it than you thought.

I counted 12 fathers there. That’s how many I said in the post above. 12 of 65 is 12 of 65. I may have overstated by saying the “vast” majority of fathers did not speak on the issue that may be somewhat of a slight exaggeration. Woud you agree that if we only heard from 12 of 65 fathers it’s a “strong” majority of the fathers that we haven’t heard from on this issue?

It is however false to say “There is no truth of Faith as clearly expressed by all the Fathers as that of the absolute inerrancy of Holy Scripture…”

We know at least 2 who did not accept this - or at least didn’t clearly express it. Hence we know the statement is false not just a slight exaggeration.

The statement is not likely true for other reasons. Obviously other truths of faith are more clearly expressed by the fathers for example that Jesus rose from the dead would be one such truth. Do you think more fathers said everything in the scripture (whatever they thought it was at the time) was without error than those who said Jesus rose from the dead?

Another problem with the statement is the scripture wasn’t even decided on by the time some of these statements were made. So we don’t even know what passages some of the quoted fathers may have been considering as “absolutely” free from error. I think that makes this claim that they “clearly” stated things about books, they didn’t even know they were speaking about a stretch at the outset.

However I would agree those quotes are just the ones I have seen. Peter Holter said he did some digging to come up with those quotes but did not say he looked through every Fathers writings. Although if he has a database that would be fairly easy to do. But Anyway I would agree I should revise my statement to say that at this point I only know of a small minority of fathers who seemed to ascribe to the extreme inerrancy position (Although I think at least a few of the quotes are compatible with the V2 statement on inerrancy interpreted less broadly.) But even if I grant 12 its still a pretty small minority that we have heard from.

• forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4761095&postcount=89 - The end of this post deals with St. John Chrysostom, and I also had earlier posts that explained the two quote you posted as not contradicting what you label as “extreme inerrancy” and which is exactly what the Church has repeated for her 2000 years: that there are no errors of any kind in Scripture because God authored every word.

I will quote that text and respond in a separate post. It seems to me a bit early to jump to the conclusion that the church taught extreme inerrancy for 2000 years. As we will see St. John Chrysostom didn’t and I believe he was a bishop in Constantinople.

 

[joemccarron]

And the key phrase from Chrysostomos is “discordance which seems to exist.”

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.

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.
What did Chrysostomos say? He said two things
1.) there is no disagreement, “no not ever so little” in “those [chief heads] which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine.” And

2.) even in “little matters… touching times or places,” the disagreement only seems to be there.

Ok any good Catholic apologist should immediately notice that by inserting the “only” into the text we are changing what was said. Here in his second statement I think Peter is changing how we should view what the Saint said 180 degrees but I will speak to that later. First let me give a full quote of what Saint John Chrysostom said:

"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.

1. 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.

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.

But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He has given commandments tending to salvation, that He has brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement."

Here I think where Pete inserts the word “only” he actually change what we should think Saint Chrysostom believed 180 degrees. Let’s consider the following statements:

1. It seems that pigs don’t fly.
2. It only seems that pigs don’t fly.

You can replace “pigs don’t fly” with the “there is discord in the scripture on small matters,” or “rabbits chew the cud” or whatever you want. You will still get opposite ideas of what the person believes.

In statement number 1, the idea is communicated that the person does not believe pigs fly. In the second you get the opposite idea – that pigs really do fly.

Now if I did not believe “pigs don’t fly” but said the first statement without further explanation then it would be dishonest. So if I said:

1. “It seems rabbits chew the cud. However I examined them more closely and found that in fact they don’t.”

Then ok the first sentence would not be a dishonest expression of my view. But it is only because I added that extra explanation in the second sentence. If I just left 3 as “it seems rabbits chew the cud” even though I knew they didn’t - that would be dishonest. So we need to look at the context to see what Saint John believed. (Hopefully we can rule out the possibility he was being dishonest about his beliefs)

In this context he not only doesn’t deny that the authors are convicted of discordance he flat out says “Nay, this very thing (the discordance) 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.”

This is pretty convincing evidence that that St. John Chrysostom rejected extreme inerrancy. He goes out of his way to say yes there was disagreement on small matters and these disagreements prove the authenticity of the writing. He then even goes on to say what matters there can be no discrepancy on.

If the church now teaches that extreme inerrancy must be believed by all then Saint John Chrysostom believed a heresy.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yes I’m aware of the considerable authority of the extreme inerrancy position. However there are those who disagree that it is an infallible teaching.

But leaving that aside…

I’m just pointing out that those who believe extreme inerrancy is an infallible teaching should not say all the fathers clearly stated they agreed with the extreme inerrancy position.

The fact is that certain Fathers such as Saint John Chrysostom and Tertullian rejected extreme inerrancy and the vast majority of fathers did not think to mention it in their surviving writings.

I don’t know what “extreme inerrancy” is. However, I do know that “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” is listed as among the **infallible and immutable dogmas **of Catholicism in the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith’s doctrinal commentary on Professio Dei, approved and promulgated by the Roman Pontiff.

I also know what Paul VI approved in Dei Verbum, which cited *Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu. *Both of which were cited also by John Paul II as having “permanent validity.” Consequently, the magisterium has not taught that Vatican II has “qualified” her prior dogma regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

 

[joemccarron]

I don’t know what “extreme inerrancy” is. However, I do know that “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” is listed as among the **infallible and immutable dogmas **of Catholicism in the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith’s doctrinal commentary on Professio Dei, approved and promulgated by the Roman Pontiff.

I also know what Paul VI approved in Dei Verbum, which cited *Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu. *Both of which were cited also by John Paul II as having “permanent validity.” Consequently, the magisterium has not taught that Vatican II has “qualified” her prior dogma regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

Yes extreme inerrancy would be the view that every proposition in the scripture no matter how far removed from the concerns of our salvation or morals must be viewed as without error. I used the example of whether rabbits do indeed chew the cud. Might the author have been wrong about that?

I use the term “extreme inerrancy” as opposed to “absolute inerrancy” because I think everyone agrees that scripture as it pertains to salvation is “absolutely inerrant.” The question comes in when we are dealing with statements that can be found in the Bible that have nothing to do with our salvation. I mean normally I wouldn’t have thought my beliefs about whether rabbits chew the cud or not have anything to do with my salvation.

 

[anon5216]

Yes extreme inerrancy would be the view that every proposition in the scripture no matter how far removed from the concerns of our salvation or morals must be viewed as without error. I used the example of whether rabbits do indeed chew the cud. Might the author have been wrong about that?

I use the term “extreme inerrancy” as opposed to “absolute inerrancy” because I think everyone agrees that scripture as it pertains to salvation is “absolutely inerrant.” The question comes in when we are dealing with statements that can be found in the Bible that have nothing to do with our salvation. I mean normally I wouldn’t have thought my beliefs about whether rabbits chew the cud or not have anything to do with my salvation.

If one can doubt the accuracy of writings not related to salvation (that can be tested scientifically), then one must also doubt the accuracy of those that do relate directly to salvation.

Why? Because we have only belief and faith in that department.
No one knows until after death and those people aren’t giving direct testimony.

There’s no reason to assume those writers could get matters of faith correct if they didn’t get other things correct. There’s no reason to assume God guided their words in matters of faith, but let them err in other matters.

 

[joemccarron]

If one can doubt the accuracy of writings not related to salvation (that can be tested scientifically), then one must also doubt the accuracy of those that do relate directly to salvation.

Why? Because we have only belief and faith in that department.
No one knows until after death and those people aren’t giving direct testimony.

There’s no reason to assume those writers could get matters of faith correct if they didn’t get other things correct. There’s no reason to assume God guided their words in matters of faith, but let them err in other matters.

This is not a logical train of thought. The authors of scripture were not inspired by God to teach science or history. They were inspired by God to give us what we need for salvation. Logically there need not be any difference between the statements in the bible and statements from the church. We understand that ex cathedra statements only applies to matters of faith and morals - not science and history or geology. We have this understanding because beliefs about faith and morals deal with our salvation.

I’m not saying God doesn’t take some joy in our understanding the world and what happened in the past, but this doesn’t compare with his concern that we understand faith and morals.