Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[una_fides]

Indeed I think the opposite would be reasonable.

1. That a set of books could not possibly contain an error would be so rare, that if someone believed that about a set of books that they talked about often, we would expect them to say that somewhere.
2. Most of the fathers do not say the books of scripture are completely without error.
   Therefore most fathers likely did not believe that most books are completely without error.

This is an inductive valid argument.

I will get to your other points when time allows. Thank you for looking at this logically.

Joe, I wrote a long response to an earlier post of yours but before I could post it, unfortunately it was lost I will try to recap those things later, but I just read this and wanted to point out a problem with your second premise. You wrongfully assume that most fathers do not say the books of Scripture are completely without error. First, an argument from silence doesn’t prove anything one way or another. Second, you don’t know if they were silent or not. We simply do not have a record of the other fathers writing on the subject, but one cannot imply by that somehow that they had a view one way or another simply because we do not have surviving writings on that subject. How many fathers of the total argued any particular teaching? You pointed out the Trinity earlier, but what about other dogmas such as the Real Presence, Holy Orders, Confession, or other sacraments? If you took a measure you would find that most fathers do not comment on any of those subjects, but that in no way implies that they disagreed with any of those teachings. You also will also not likely find any early Church fathers explicitly arguing for the Assumption, yet we know that to be true with divine and Catholic faith. The fact that no one explicitly argues against inerrancy when the doctrine was so widely believed, however, is a significant point. The fathers argued amongst themselves over doctrines they felt was contrary to Tradition. The ones they accepted, they did not argue about. One can conclude with a better likelihood that since none of the fathers explicitly argued against inerrancy as being incorrect (only one that seemed to by your interpretation), then they likely generally accepted inerrancy as true. No one took Augustine up on this point, and the Church later infallibly canonized the entire canon from these same fathers and declared it in each and every one of its parts free from any error at the Council of Trent. Even if most fathers argued against inerrancy–which they obviously did not–the case has been settled by Rome, and we are not permitted to speculate to the contrary according to the law of the Church.

 

[una_fides]

He said what you said up until you got to “but in reality when one understands them correctly…” He didn’t put any “but” in there at all. Indeed he confirmed the discord as proof the Gospels were not written by collusion.

If one reads the actual text of St. John Chrysostom with the understanding that he did not believe there to actually be any errors in Scripture, then the passage makes perfect sense. Let’s take a look at what he actually says:

"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, 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."

First, St. John uses the word “seem” for a reason. You want to rewrite the passage to take out the word “seem” altogether and instead say that “discordance which exists in little matters…” However, the author does not say that, as much as you want him to. Just because something may seem to be true does not prove it to be true or false. He is speaking as to appearance and is not making a statement of reality no matter how much you want to make the passage say so.

Second, notice also that he says that “nothing injures the truth of what they said.” You would interpret the word “truth” here in an attempt to justify your position by saying he only meant salvific truth beneath the surface of what the writer said. The more certain understanding of the word truth here would be the way that the Church fathers used such a word, in the absolute sense. Just because two witnesses reiterate the same historical occurrence from different perspectives does not mean that the text is automatically an error if they may seem to disagree on little matters. St. John is saying that the fact they may seem to disagree does not change that what they said was true and without error. This understanding is in line with the rest of the records from the fathers who chimed in on inerrancy and does nothing to damage the text or unduely read something differently into the author’s perspective that was not most likely already there.

Regardless of whichever way one interprets a passage, you cannot say with any real certainty that St. John taught that Scripture actually contained errors. You can only say at best that he said that they seem to be errors, but for you to continually present it with certainty that he meant to say that Scripture actually contained errors is to stretch his writings to say something they do not clearly state on their own apart from your interpretation.

And even if St. John did believe that Scripture contains error pertaining to small matters, his interpretation would not at all bear any authority or weight whatsoever any more than a Church father who taught that the Virgin Mary was not without sin. Both issues have been settled by the Magisterium now, so neither is up for debate.

But there were those fathers, like Tertullian, St. John, and Origen, who saw no need to extend the inerrancy much beyond this.

Tertullian = heretic (nuff said)
St. John Chrysostom (see above)
Origin??? When did you arbitrarily just decide to insert Origin in the mix?? Did you not read his quote from earlier?

Origen (A.D. 244): “To the man who is a peacemaker …] there is in the Divine oracles nothing crooked or perverse, for they are all plain to those who understand. And because to such an one there is nothing crooked or perverse, he sees therefore abundance of peace in all the Scriptures, even in those which seem to be at conflict, and in contradiction with one another. And likewise he becomes a third peacemaker as he demonstrates that that which appears to others to be a conflict in the Scriptures is no conflict, and exhibits their concord and peace …] [A]ll the Scriptures are words of the wise like goads …] and there is nothing superfluous in them. …] [H]e who comes instructed in the music of God, …] knows that all the Scripture is the one perfect and harmonized instrument of God, which from different sounds gives forth one saving voice to those willing to learn…]” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Bk. 2).

The definition of “oracle” (according to the Oxford American Dictionary): “a thing regarded as an infallible guide on something.” St. John understood that all the words in Scripture had God as their author and as such could not contain error, regardless of what may have “appeared” or “seemed” to be conflict or discord.

If you are saying that his view is likely the same as St. John’s in that Scripture may “seem” or “appear” to have errors or conflicts but in reality “in the Scriptures [there] is no conflict,” then that would seem to be a valid statement. Your attempted re-interpretation of the fathers reveals your intentions as not to find out what the Church teaches and follow it but rather to try to conform Church teaching to your preconceptions. Again, the case has already been closed. If you are Catholic and obedient to the pope, you cannot continue arguing without fault that Scripture contains errors. If you are simply trying to understand how it works, then that’s fine, but if you are trying to present as a legitimate understanding that a couple Church fathers had such a view and therefore it’s ok to have such a view today, then you are entering in the realm of arguing and supporting a teaching repeatedly condemned as heresy.

 

[una_fides]

Regarding the means of how inspiration took place, I do not believe that the writers likely even knew they were being inspired. There does not seem to be any evidence that God whispered in their ears what to write or that He took control of their bodies or anything of the sort. I’ve heard it described as a wind that moves a boat and guides it where it is supposed to go and a flute player blowing into a flute. Regardless of exactly how inspiration took place, we believe with divine and Catholic faith that God moved the writers to communicate without error everything exactly as the Holy Spirit desired and that the Scriptures in all of their parts do not contain any error not just pertaining to faith and morals but in all regards they are completely free from error, since God was the author.

 

[una_fides]

Regarding the interpretation of Vatican II documents pertaining to inerrancy:

Pope Benedict has repeatedly explained that the correct way to interpret Vatican II is in light of sacred Tradition and not innovation. Here’s one of several articles I’ve read where he’s made such a statement:

The Pope also stressed the importance of priestly formation which must maintain “communion with unbroken ecclesial Tradition, without pausing or being tempted by discontinuity. In this context,” he continued, “it is important to encourage priests, especially the young generations, to a correct reading of the texts of Vatican Council II, interpreted in the light of all the Church’s doctrinal inheritance." catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15380

To interpret Vatican II as limiting inspiration is to interpret the text with a different intention than that from which the source, the Church, intended. The Church cannot change Tradition. She can only reiterate it and further explain it. Once Rome has spoken, the case is closed. Vatican II gave no clear teaching on the matter and to read into the somewhat vague text a meaning that was previously condemned as heresy is disingenuous to say the least.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hey Joe! I hope these posts find you well.

Pete:

I think its important that when we represent the views of the catholic Church we represent only the truth.

I agree!

Pete:

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.

I should start off by saying that I only quoted from this essay to help shed light on the words of Pope John Paul II when the PBC document was released.

But I also think that a preliminary discussion about the unanimity of the fathers might help. The Council of Trent stated the following:

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published” (The Council of Trent, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures).

To say that the fathers are unanimous is to say that a representative portion of the fathers interpreted a given passage a certain way and that none of them openly and directly contradicted that interpretation. Whenever this unanimity occurs, those who haven’t given their interpretation are assumed to have held the same position as those who have due to the unity of the faith preserved by the Holy Spirit. This assumption is what Trent is referring to when it talks about unpublished interpretations. This instruction from Trent applies specifically to interpreting passages of Scripture in matters of faith and morals, so it is not addressing articles of faith directly. But this same manner of speaking could also be applied to an article of faith, such as to inerrancy. This appears to be what Pope Leo XIII did, who went beyond what the Catholic Encyclopedia article said and declared the fathers to be, not “almost,” but in fact, unanimous:

“o emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the ‘higher criticism;’ for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: ‘On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honour and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand’” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

 

[Pete_Holter]

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.

This statement from Jesus is actually pretty far reaching because His dispute against the Jews hinges on a single word from the Old Testament, gods. This reliability of God’s word is also shown by what Jesus says in Matthew’s Gospel, that “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (5:18). This speaks not only of the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, but also of their supreme reliability in truth-telling even down to the letter. But that the Scriptures cannot be broken is only one verse of many that come together to form the dogmas of inspiration and inerrancy.

The Law was “put in place through angels by an intermediary” (Gal. 3:19), but it was not “contrary to the promises of God” (Gal. 3:21). Rather it “is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12), and through obedience to the Gospel we “uphold the law” (Rom. 3:31). The passage from Deuteronomy that Jesus picks up on about divorce is actually from God Himself given through Moses. Moses’ commands in Deuteronomy are given in an unbroken discourse from Deuteronomy 10:12 up through the passage on divorce in chapter 24. All of this material is prefaced by and described as “the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I [Moses] am commanding you today for your good” (Deut 10:13; cf. 13:18, etc.).

Someone may be tempted to see a dichotomy between what God wrote and what Moses wrote as being implied by what Jesus said. However, what we may think is implied cannot overturn what is explicit: “the commandments and statutes of the LORD” (Deut 10:13). And, as Pius XII reminded us, “it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used” (, 21Humani Generis).

Augustine and Chrysostom both endeavored to show how Moses and Jesus were in agreement on divorce and how Jesus brought to fulfillment in the New Covenant that which was partial in the Old, just as the Second Coming will issue in what is perfect, at which time even the partial aspects of the New Covenant will likewise “pass away” (1 Cor 13:10), the structures of both covenants having served their purposes in their allotted times. Moses is not endorsing divorce in Deuteronomy. Instead, God was telling the Israelites what to do when a divorce took place. Rather than condoning divorce, issuing the certificate was meant to curb divorce by forcing the spouses to go through the procedure of securing a certificate in order to procure the separation. If Moses and Jesus were not tending towards the same end, then Jesus could not rightly say that He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (cf. Matt. 5:10), and this preceding His first segment of teaching on divorce. Within the context of the Sermon on the Mount, fulfillment most naturally speaks of bringing to completion that which is harmonious yet lacking, not of doing away with that which is contrary. Augustine writes about this aspect of divorce in , Book 19Against Faustus:

“The precept not to put away a wife is the opposite of saying that a man may put away his wife if he pleases; which is not what the law says. On the contrary, to prevent the wife from being put away, the law required this intermediate step, that the eagerness for separation might be checked by the writing of the bill, and the man might have time to think of the evil of putting away his wife; especially since, as it is said, among the Hebrews it was unlawful for any but the scribes to write Hebrew: for the scribes claimed the possession of superior wisdom; and if they were men of upright and pious character, their pursuits might justly entitle them to make this claim. In requiring, therefore, that in putting away his wife, a man should give her a writing of divorcement, the design was that he should be obliged to have recourse to those from whom he might expect to receive a cautious interpretation of the law, and suitable advice against separation. Having no other way of getting the bill written, the man should be obliged to submit to their direction, and to allow of their endeavors to restore peace and harmony between him and his wife. In a case where the hatred could not be overcome or checked, the bill would of course be written.”

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.

I hope that these posts helped. I’ll come back to Tertullian and John Chrysostom shortly.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Greetings all! So here is the debatable quote from Tertullian:

“John and Matthew first instill faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion” (, Bk 4, Ch 2Against Marcion).

Now I thought it would be funny to dismiss Tertullian with that quote from Jerome. But since this is a more serious inquiry, we’ll proceed with greater sobriety.

Tertullian says that the variation of order that can be noted when we compare our Gospel narratives is unimportant. The problem is that his point of contradistinction with the order of the narrative is the essential matter of the faith. However, it is important to note here that Tertullian is combating the Marcionite heresy on the specific points that he mentions, that the Creator is the One and only True God, that Christ was born of the Virgin, and that He was not opposed to the law and the prophets but came to fulfill them. It is important that the Gospels agree on these matters because they formulate the raison d’être for Marcion’s heretical separation from the Church. Although he touches on it, Tertullian is not trying to make a statement about inerrancy; rather, he is trying to prove the utter absurdity of Marcion’s rejection of three of the Gospels when they all agree with each other, together with Luke, over against the very doctrines that Marcion asserts!

So the question becomes, what if Tertullian was asked about certain apparent discrepancies pertaining to historical facts or miracle accounts, or other substantive differences amongst the Gospels? Would he assign error to the Scriptures? Does he assign error to the Scriptures for the Gospels’ having variation in the order of their narratives? Thankfully, the book that CathPhilosopher linked us to led me to this excellent quote of his:

Tertullian (A.D. 203): “[H]e prophetically declared the great mystery of Christ and the church… ‘This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and he shall cleave unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh’ (Genesis 2:23-24). But this (gift of prophecy) only came on him afterwards, when God infused into him the ecstasy, or spiritual quality, in which prophecy consists. …] The statements, however, of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth” (, Ch 21A Treatise on the Soul).

Now the question becomes, what are we to make of the variation of order in the Gospel narratives? The Pontifical Biblical Commission has provided us with instruction on this very point:

“The truth of the Gospel account is not compromised because the Evangelists report the Lord’s words and deeds in different order. Nor is it hurt because they report His words, not literally but in a variety of ways, while retaining the same meaning. As St. Augustine says: ‘It is quite probable that each Evangelist felt duty-bound to narrate his particular account in the order which God suggested to his memory. At least this would seem to hold true for those items in which order of treatment would not affect the authority or truth of the Gospel. After all, the Holy Spirit distributes His gifts to each as He chooses. Since these books were to be so authoritative, He undoubtedly guided and directed the sacred writers as they thought about the things which they were going to write down; but He probably allowed each writer to arrange his narrative as he saw fit. Hence, anyone who uses enough diligence will be able to discover this order with the help of God’” (The Historicity of the Gospels).

Augustine elaborates on the issue of chronology here, providing us with this summary statement:

“The task we have proposed to ourselves is simply to demonstrate that not one of the evangelists contradicts either himself or his fellow-historians, whatever be the precise order in which he may have had the ability or may have preferred to compose his account of matters belonging to the doings and sayings of Christ; and that, too, at once in the case of subjects identical with those recorded by others, and in the case of subjects different from these. For this reason, therefore, when the order of times is not apparent, we ought not to feel it a matter of any consequence what order any of them may have adopted in relating the events. But wherever the order is apparent, if the evangelist then presents anything which seems to be inconsistent with his own statements, or with those of another, we must certainly take the passage into consideration, and endeavour to clear up the difficulty.”

Further down in the PBC document just quoted, we read that the Scriptural exegete “should always be prepared to obey the Magisterium of the Church. And he should never forget that the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit when they preached the good news; that the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Who preserved their authors from every error.”

So is Tertullian a witness to total inerrancy as understood and taught by the Catholic Church? I think so.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

“Rome has spoken; the case is closed” (St. Augustine).

Hey Una Fides!

I hope you don’t mind me commenting on this, but Reformed Baptist James White wants to make sure that Catholics are aware that Augustine never said this. So I thought that this would be a good opportunity to share a fun little piece of trivia. Here are the words of Augustine:

“Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see [in Rome]; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too!” ( on the New Testament).

So James White is correct that Augustine never actually said, “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.” But the fun part about it is that – and this is not to put Dr. White down, but to enjoy our faith – one of our Popes beat him to the punch:

‘“They know”, he wrote, “that from the apostolic fountain-head issue answers to inquirers through all provinces. Particularly when a matter of Faith is in question, I think that our brothers and fellow-bishops should have recourse to Peter alone, namely to the author of the title and rank they hold, even as you, beloved Brethren, have now appealed, because he can give universal aid to all churches through the whole world.” When Augustine, accordingly, had learned of the Roman Pontiffs condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius, he uttered the following memorable words in a sermon to the people: “The views of two councils touching this controversy have been transmitted to the Apostolic See, and the answer has been sent back. The case has been settled. God grant that the error be ended likewise.” These words of his, condensed a trifle, have passed into a proverb: “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” Again in another occasion, after citing the decision of Pope Zosimus put under the ban of his condemnation all Pelagians in all parts of the world, the saint wrote: “The Catholic doctrine is so ancient and well-grounded, so certain and clear in these words of the Apostolic See, that it would be criminal in a Christian to doubt of this truth”’ (Pope Pius XI, Ad Salutem Humani, April 20, 1930).

Get the word out, my brother!

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[joemccarron]

Joe, I wrote a long response to an earlier post of yours but before I could post it, unfortunately it was lost I will try to recap those things later, but I just read this and wanted to point out a problem with your second premise. You wrongfully assume that most fathers do not say the books of Scripture are completely without error. First, an argument from silence doesn’t prove anything one way or another. Second, you don’t know if they were silent or not. We simply do not have a record of the other fathers writing on the subject, but one cannot imply by that somehow that they had a view one way or another simply because we do not have surviving writings on that subject. How many fathers of the total argued any particular teaching? You pointed out the Trinity earlier, but what about other dogmas such as the Real Presence, Holy Orders, Confession, or other sacraments? If you took a measure you would find that most fathers do not comment on any of those subjects, but that in no way implies that they disagreed with any of those teachings. You also will also not likely find any early Church fathers explicitly arguing for the Assumption, yet we know that to be true with divine and Catholic faith. The fact that no one explicitly argues against inerrancy when the doctrine was so widely believed, however, is a significant point. The fathers argued amongst themselves over doctrines they felt was contrary to Tradition. The ones they accepted, they did not argue about. One can conclude with a better likelihood that since none of the fathers explicitly argued against inerrancy as being incorrect (only one that seemed to by your interpretation), then they likely generally accepted inerrancy as true. No one took Augustine up on this point, and the Church later infallibly canonized the entire canon from these same fathers and declared it in each and every one of its parts free from any error at the Council of Trent. Even if most fathers argued against inerrancy–which they obviously did not–the case has been settled by Rome, and we are not permitted to speculate to the contrary according to the law of the Church.

Hi Una Fides I have been gone for a bit but thanks for your post I think you make some decent points but I do think there is another side of the coin. Let me break your post into 3 different points.

1. Argument from silence. Yes I agree that in general one shouldn’t draw conclusions from silence. However when something is very remarkable and a person writes lengthy treatises concerning them then we would think they would mention it somewhere. Here if I were to say a group of 73 books contained no errors at all that would be remarkable wouldn’t it? Now these fathers who wrote at length about these books by and large didn’t say that they were without error. Luke in writing his Gospel said it was based on humans telling him information. He did not say he was gripped by a spirit and couldn’t control his writing hand.
2. The fathers didn’t address other issues such as the assumption. Yes I agree with the general gist of this. Its no requirement of infallible teaching that all the fathers must have agreed. However, I am simply pointing out that it is wrong to say on this issue that the fathers all clearly expressed their view that the bible is completely without error. Its simply not true. Just like it would be untrue if someone were to say all the father clearly said the assumption happened.
3. As far as disputes - I’m not sure this would be something they would argue about. They were religious people not scientists or historians. Why should they care if rabbits chew the cud? Why should we? Yes they argued about issues of salvation and morals but they generally didn’t concern themselves of many issues we see today. In any event there are 3 Fathers who explicitly said they are mainly concerned about the chiefheads of the faith and we shouldn’t be concerned about minor conflicts. If this was a big issue for those who believed in complete or extreme inerrancy I suppose there might be argument but it seems they were not so concerned.

 

[joemccarron]

Hey Joe! I hope these posts find you well.

I agree!

I should start off by saying that I only quoted from this essay to help shed light on the words of Pope John Paul II when the PBC document was released.

But I also think that a preliminary discussion about the unanimity of the fathers might help. The Council of Trent stated the following:

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published” (The Council of Trent, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures).

To say that the fathers are unanimous is to say that a representative portion of the fathers interpreted a given passage a certain way and that none of them openly and directly contradicted that interpretation. Whenever this unanimity occurs, those who haven’t given their interpretation are assumed to have held the same position as those who have due to the unity of the faith preserved by the Holy Spirit. This assumption is what Trent is referring to when it talks about unpublished interpretations. This instruction from Trent applies specifically to interpreting passages of Scripture in matters of faith and morals, so it is not addressing articles of faith directly. But this same manner of speaking could also be applied to an article of faith, such as to inerrancy. This appears to be what Pope Leo XIII did, who went beyond what the Catholic Encyclopedia article said and declared the fathers to be, not “almost,” but in fact, unanimous:

“o emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the ‘higher criticism;’ for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: ‘On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honour and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand’” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

Again this boils down to LeoXIII encyclical. He makes the same errors in logic that were addressed above. That is he assumes that since the fathers at time defended the scripture from error that they must have believed they were without error. Moreover despite his statements in this encyclical Origen Tertullian and St. John pretty clearly disagreed with what Pope Leo XIII said in the encyclical.

 

[joemccarron]

Pete
Thanks for the additional info on Tertullian. I do agree that is some strong evidence in favor of your view. Certainly I would think this shows Tertullian believes there is no discordance with truth from scripture when it comes to issues of salvation.

As to whether he would say it stretches beyond that - I’m not as sure. As to whether he believed, like Pope Leo XIII, that it should be forbidden to believe there might be an error in scripture as to matters that have nothing to do with salvation - I doubt it.

 

[una_fides]

Hi Una Fides I have been gone for a bit but thanks for your post I think you make some decent points but I do think there is another side of the coin. Let me break your post into 3 different points.

Hi Joe,

Glad you are back and appreciate your response.

1. Argument from silence. Yes I agree that in general one shouldn’t draw conclusions from silence. However when something is very remarkable and a person writes lengthy treatises concerning them then we would think they would mention it somewhere. Here if I were to say a group of 73 books contained no errors at all that would be remarkable wouldn’t it? Now these fathers who wrote at length about these books by and large didn’t say that they were without error. Luke in writing his Gospel said it was based on humans telling him information. He did not say he was gripped by a spirit and couldn’t control his writing hand.

I don’t believe inspiration worked this way, and the citations from the fathers and popes on the way inspiration actually took place also do not make it seem this way either. It appears from Scripture itself that the authors themselves may not have even known they were being inspired (verses available upon request). We know that they were moved to write every word that they wrote, but this “movement” need not be one in which they were aware at a conscious or even subconscious level.

God is omnipotent. During the consecration at Mass, Christ actually takes possession of the soul of the priest, and when the priest speaks the words of consecration, it is no longer the priest who speaks, but Christ himself is speaking. This is a mystery as is the means how God inspired the human authors of Scripture. God in his omnipotence could have very well put the words into their minds with the authors thinking that the words were their own. He is God. He can do it.

1. The fathers didn’t address other issues such as the assumption. Yes I agree with the general gist of this. Its no requirement of infallible teaching that all the fathers must have agreed. However, I am simply pointing out that it is wrong to say on this issue that the fathers all clearly expressed their view that the bible is completely without error. Its simply not true. Just like it would be untrue if someone were to say all the father clearly said the assumption happened.

I agree that you and I cannot presume to know the mind of all the fathers of the Church since they all did not explicitly write on this issue. Nevertheless, the preponderance of surviving evidence demonstrates that the vast majority (in my mind all) of those who did write on the subject agreed that the Bible was without any error and that God was the author of all of the Scriptures. This fact must be acknowledged. Furthermore, no father clearly and explicitly said that there are actual errors in Scripture, despite your arguments to the contrary. The three fathers you propose never said that any particular passage was in error, and when their writings are interpreted in light of their contexts and within the contexts of their other writings, they are demonstrated to be in agreement with the Church’s position of total inerrancy.

1. As far as disputes - I’m not sure this would be something they would argue about. They were religious people not scientists or historians. Why should they care if rabbits chew the cud? Why should we? Yes they argued about issues of salvation and morals but they generally didn’t concern themselves of many issues we see today. In any event there are 3 Fathers who explicitly said they are mainly concerned about the chiefheads of the faith and we shouldn’t be concerned about minor conflicts. If this was a big issue for those who believed in complete or extreme inerrancy I suppose there might be argument but it seems they were not so concerned.

The fathers argued over many issues that would seem to be of less importance than the total inerrancy of Scripture. Inerrancy is actually a very fundamental issue because to say that there is an error in Scripture, when we know that all of Scripture is God-breathed, is to say that God erred, which–to be blunt–is heresy and blasphemy against almighty God.

I’ve been engaged in this discussion with someone else who said that Scripture was not inerrant pertaining to science but only faith, morals, and history. His argument was more based on the technical definition of the word “science,” which pertains to knowledge, so in that he was correct; however, we must reconcile what we believe to be true concerning the truths of physical nature and what we believe to be true concerning the truths of what Scripture is communicating.

Anyway, he seems to be overemphasizing the role of history in Scripture, and I have been repeatedly answering that the historical details are not important, and that what is important is the teachings in Scripture concerning faith and morals. The purpose that God inspired Scripture is for our salvation in order to teach us concerning faith and morals. The fact that Scripture is inerrant pertaining to everything else it communicates is only incidental since it has God for its author. The purpose of the historical accounts is to instruct us in righteousness for our perfection (1 Tim 3:16). Thus, I agree with those fathers that we should not focus on what seems to be in disagreement pertaining to matters of historical or scientific inquiry as that was not the purpose for which Scripture was written. If we encounter something that seems to be a discrepancy, we know that God put it there so that we would then seek the answers from him (St. Augustine).

– John 17:17 “Sanctify them in Thy truth. Thy word is truth.”

 

[una_fides]

Again this boils down to LeoXIII encyclical. He makes the same errors in logic that were addressed above. That is he assumes that since the fathers at time defended the scripture from error that they must have believed they were without error. Moreover despite his statements in this encyclical Origen Tertullian and St. John pretty clearly disagreed with what Pope Leo XIII said in the encyclical.

Any disagreement you may interpret into their statements is anything but clear as has been demonstrated. At best you could say that you think that they some of their statements seem to be at odds with Pope Leo’s, but you cannot in any way make such a statement with such certainty especially since their statements can easily be understood as not opposing absolute inerrancy.

 

[una_fides]

Pete
Thanks for the additional info on Tertullian. I do agree that is some strong evidence in favor of your view. Certainly I would think this shows Tertullian believes there is no discordance with truth from scripture when it comes to issues of salvation.

As to whether he would say it stretches beyond that - I’m not as sure. As to whether he believed, like Pope Leo XIII, that it should be forbidden to believe there might be an error in scripture as to matters that have nothing to do with salvation - I doubt it.

If you believe that there is an error in Scripture when the passage in question in genuinely understood for what the author meant to communicate, then such a belief does pertain to salvation because it would make God the author of that error.

There can be no question whatsoever on the issue of whether God inspired every word of Scripture because such was infallibly defined to be true in Vatican I and subsequent popes have explained the Council’s statements and intentions and have expounded upon the idea in defining that because God authored every word of Scripture, then it is impossible that Scripture contains any errors because God is perfect and absolute truth and as such cannot possibly be the author of any form of error.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hey, Joe!

Again this boils down to LeoXIII encyclical. He makes the same errors in logic that were addressed above. That is he assumes that since the fathers at time defended the scripture from error that they must have believed they were without error. Moreover despite his statements in this encyclical Origen Tertullian and St. John pretty clearly disagreed with what Pope Leo XIII said in the encyclical.

If you don’t think that Tertullian and Origen held to the teaching of the Catholic Church on this point, then that is fine. And we might also say that heretics are not included under the designation of “Fathers and Doctors” as used by Pope Leo XIII. Tertullian embraced Montanism and later founded his own sect, and Origen was condemned by two ecumenical councils. The Second Council of Constantinople said that whoever doesn’t anathematize Origen is himself anathema , and the Second Council of Nicea added its own condemnation. I think it is a bad idea to use heretics, who are obviously not Saints, much less are they Doctors, as counter examples against the Catholic Faith. We can safely say that heretics, if anything, can only be used as examples in support of the faith, not against it.

Pete
Thanks for the additional info on Tertullian. I do agree that is some strong evidence in favor of your view. Certainly I would think this shows Tertullian believes there is no discordance with truth from scripture when it comes to issues of salvation.

As to whether he would say it stretches beyond that - I’m not as sure. As to whether he believed, like Pope Leo XIII, that it should be forbidden to believe there might be an error in scripture as to matters that have nothing to do with salvation - I doubt it.

The statements, however, of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth” (, Ch 21A Treatise on the Soul).

This is an unqualified positive statement of inerrancy (there is a period after the word truth ). The interpretation of his statement proposed as a counterexample, on the other hand, is based on a conjectured inference of what he said in his dispute with Marcion. “Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith,” could also be a way of saying, “Let’s not concern ourselves with this issue right now, but let’s deal with the disputed points.” It seems that you are reading your own ideas into this one statement from Tertullian, and only after this attempting to approach his second, much clearer assertion. The surer path is to interpret Tertullian’s two comments in light of one another, understand the implicit in terms of the explicit, and then attempt to draw a conclusion. In order to overturn, or at least come up to equal footing with, Tertullian’s explicit statement in favor of inerrancy, we would have to give a positive, explicit counterexample of him saying, “There is a contradiction here in what the authors of Scripture were trying to say;” or “the Bible, interpreted correctly, says this; but this is false, an error;” or, more generally, “Sacred Scripture contains errors.” Without such examples, the weight of the argument is in favor of what he says explicitly (especially when the Catholic Church teaches that there is no error on account of the variation in the order of the Gospels).

I hope you have a blessed day!

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

 

[Pete_Holter]

Now we can return to St. John Chrysostom. Since there was such contention about how to interpret his words in his first homily on Matthew, I resolved to read all 90 homilies before I commented any further. That’s what took me so long to get back to you.

One of the concerns that you had was that, if Chrysostom rejected total inerrancy while the Catholic Church infallibly taught total inerrancy, then he would be a heretic. And if he was alive today and held to that position, this would indeed be true. And I think I actually uncovered two possible heresies in these homilies.

One was that of semi-Pelagianism.

Canon 4 of the Second Council of Orange teaches that “If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit Himself Who says through Solomon, ‘The will is prepared by the Lord’ (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, ‘For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure’ (Phil. 2:13).” The acts of this council were approved by Pope Boniface II and “therefore enjoy ecumenical authority” (Councils of Orange).

And yet Chrysostom taught that God waits for the action of our free will before assisting us:

“Do not then allege to me labors and sweats; for not by the hope only of the things to come, but in another way also, God has made virtue easy, assisting us everywhere, and putting His hand to our work. And if you will only contribute a little zeal, everything else follows. For to this end He will have you too to labor a little, even that the victory may be thine also. And just as a king would have his own son present indeed in the array; he would have him shoot with the bow, and show himself, that the trophy may be reckoned his, while he achieves it all himself: even so does God in our war against the devil: He requires of you one thing alone, that you show forth a sincere hatred against that foe. And if thou contribute this to Him, He by Himself brings all the war to an end. Though thou burn with anger, with desire of riches, with any tyrannical passion whatever; if He see you only stripping yourself and prepared against it, He comes quickly to you, and makes all things easy, and sets you above the flame, as He did those children of old in the Babylonian furnace: for they too carried in with them nought but their good will” (Homily 16 on Matthew).

Again,

“As then in the forgiveness of our sins the beginnings are from us, so also in this judgment” (Homily 23 on Matthew).

And again,

“It by no means follows, however, because it is a gift, that therefore free will is taken away; and this is evident from what comes after. To this purpose, in order that neither the one sort may despair, nor the other grow careless, upon being told that it is given, He signifies the beginning to be with ourselves” (Homily 45 on Matthew).

Although he says a lot of wonderful things about the grace of God, his understanding of the relationship between His grace and our free will on this small but crucial point at the beginning of salvation is anathema.

The second example comes from what he says about Mary in a couple of places.

“And when they said unto Him, ‘Behold, Your mother and Your brethren seek You’; forasmuch as these were under the influence of some human infirmity, not desiring to hear something profitable, but to make a display of their relationship to Him, and therein to be vainglorious; hear what He says: ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’” (Homily 27 on Matthew).

“And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach.

…]

“Having then said these words, He came out of the house. Do you see, how He both rebuked them, and did what they desired? Which He did also at the marriage. For there too He at once reproved her asking unseasonably, and nevertheless did not gainsay her; by the former correcting her weakness, by the latter showing His kindly feeling toward His mother. So likewise on this occasion too, He both healed the disease of vainglory, and rendered the due honor to His mother, even though her request was unseasonable. For, in the same day, it is said, went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side” (Homily 44 on Matthew).

I think it goes without saying that Catholics cannot hold that Mary suffered from “the disease of vainglory.”

 

[Pete_Holter]

“Matthew, as writing to Hebrews, sought to show nothing more, than that He was from Abraham, and David; but Luke, as discoursing to all in general, traces up the account higher, going on even to Adam. And the one begins with His generation, because nothing was so soothing to the Jew as to be told that Christ was the offspring of Abraham and David: the other does not so, but mentions many other things, and then proceeds to the genealogy.

“But the harmony between them we will establish, both by the whole world, which has received their statements, and by the very enemies of the truth. For many sects have had birth, since their time, holding opinions opposed to their words; whereof some have received all that they have said, while some have cut off from the rest certain portions of their statements, and so retain them for themselves. But if there were any hostility * in their statements, neither would the sects, who maintain the contrary part, have received all, but only so much as seemed to harmonize with themselves; nor would those, which have parted off a portion, be utterly refuted by that portion; so that the very fragments cannot be hid, but declare aloud their connection with the whole body. And like as if you should take any part from the side of an animal, even in that part you would find all the things out of which the whole is composed;— nerves and veins, bones, arteries, and blood, and a sample, as one might say, of the whole lump;— so likewise with regard to the Scriptures; in each portion of what is there stated, one may see the connection with the whole clearly appearing. Whereas, if they were in discord, neither could this have been pointed out, and the doctrine itself had long since been brought to nought: for every kingdom, says He, divided against itself shall not stand. But now even in this shines forth the might of the Spirit, namely, in that it prevailed on these men, engaged as they were in those things which are more necessary and very urgent, ***to take no hurt at all from these little matters.

“But that they are not opposed to each other, this we will endeavor to prove, throughout the whole work. And thou, in accusing them of disagreement, art doing just the same as if thou were to insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech***” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

Comment: He says that the Spirit prevailed on the Gospel writers to take no hurt at all from the little matters. There are three ways by which the Gospels could take no hurt at all from the little matters: (1) The people who received the apostolical writings were deceived by the Spirit and didn’t notice that there really was discordance, (2) the discordance in little matters is irrelevant, or (3) there is no real hurt to be had from them because there is no real discordance between them. I think that you’ll agree, once you see how he handles the Sacred Text, that it is this third option which Chrysostom has in mind.

“And I do not yet say, that those likewise who glory greatly in rhetoric and philosophy, having many of them written many books touching the same matters, have not merely expressed themselves differently, but have even spoken in opposition to one another (for it is one thing to speak differently and another to speak at variance); none of these things do I say. Far be it from me to frame our defense from the frenzy of those men, neither am I willing out of falsehood to make recommendations for the truth” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

Comment: Chrysostom is saying that the Gospel writers wrote about the same things differently but not at variance with one another, that there is no real discordance. And he’s not going to charge other writers with discordance in order to establish the concordance of the Gospel writers, but he will let the truth stand on its own merit.

“But this I would be glad to inquire: how were the differing accounts believed? how did they prevail? how was it that, while saying opposite things, they were admired, were believed, were celebrated everywhere in the world?

“And yet the witnesses of what they said were many, and many too were the adversaries and enemies thereof. For they did not write these things in one corner and bury them, but everywhere, by sea and by land, they unfolded them in the ears of all, and these things were read in the presence of enemies, even as they are now, and none of the things which they said offended any one. And very naturally, for it was a divine power that pervaded all, and made it to prosper with all men” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

Comment: Although the Gospel writers wrote about the same things differently, the Divine Power secured the absolute truth of the Gospel accounts and thereby precluded opportunity for offense.

OK, sorry. That was a lot of quoted material to interact with. From here forward I will, for the most part, provide illustrations to substantiate the interpretation that the discord in the little matters only seems to be there, and that in fact “they speak all things as it were out of one mouth.” And actually, the first quote that I provide may be enough to settle our friendly dispute without going any further. You may notice at certain places that Chrysostom seems to speak of a particular reading of the text that is not followed by our translations. This could indicate peculiarities in the manuscript(s) he was using, or, if he was citing from memory, that he had some retrieval errors. For those of you who just want the cliff notes, I tried to highlight some of the more pointed remarks. *

 

[Pete_Holter]

“For these reasons he speaks to the Virgin before the conception, but to Joseph at the time of travail.

“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).

“‘And when they were come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother’ (Matthew 2:11).

“How then says Luke, that He was lying in the manger (cf. Luke 2:7 & 2:16)? Because at the birth indeed she presently laid Him there (for, as was not unlikely, in that large assemblage for the taxing, they could find no house; which Luke also signifies, by saying, ‘Because there was no room’ (Luke 2:7), she laid Him there); but afterwards she took Him up, and held Him on her knees” (Homily 8 on Matthew).

“Joseph therefore comes to Nazareth, partly to avoid the danger, partly also delighting to abide in his native place. To give him the more courage, he receives also an oracle from the angel touching this matter (cf. Matthew 2:22). Luke, however, does not say that he came there by Divine warning, but that when they had fulfilled all the purification, they returned to Nazareth (cf. Luke 2:39). What then may one say? That Luke is giving an account of the time before the going down to Egypt, when he says these things. For He would not have brought them down thither before the purification, in order that nothing should be done contrary to the law, but he waited for her to be purified, and to go to Nazareth, and that then they should go down to Egypt. Then, after their return, He bids them go to Nazareth. But before this they were not warned of God to go thither, but yearning after their native place, they did so of their own accord. For since they had gone up for no other cause but on account of the taxing, and had not so much as a place where to stay, when they had fulfilled that for which they had come up, they went down to Nazareth” (Homily 9 on Matthew).

“This sight [of silver or gold coin], which (as you said) does good to the eyes, suffered not the wretched Judas to hearken unto the Lord’s voice, but led him even to the halter (cf. Matthew 27:5), made him burst asunder in the midst (cf. Acts 1:18); and, after all that, conducted him on to hell” (Homily 9 on Matthew).

“‘And walking by the sea of Galilee, He saw two brethren, Simon that was surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers. And He says unto them, “Come ye after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” And they left their nets, and followed Him’ (Matthew 4:18-20).

“And yet John says that they were called in another manner (cf. John 1:35-42). Whence it is evident that this was a second call; and from many things one may perceive this. For there it is said, that they came to Him when John was not yet cast into prison; but here, after he was in confinement… And from the place whence they were called, and from many other things, one may perceive this” (Homily 14 on Matthew).

“[T]he question is, whether each of them has set before us the zealousness of the man, and his having had the right opinion concerning Christ. But it is likely, that after sending his friends, he himself also came and said these things. And if Luke did not speak of the one, no more did Matthew of the other; and this is not the part of men disagreeing among themselves, but rather of those that are filling up the things omitted by one another. But see by another thing also how Luke has proclaimed his faith, saying that his servant was ready to die. Nevertheless, not even this cast him into despondency, neither did it cause him to give up: but even so he trusted that he should prevail. And if Matthew affirm Christ to have said, ‘I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel’ (Matthew 8:10), and hereby to show clearly that he was not an Israelite; while Luke says, ‘He built our synagogue’ (Luke 7:5); neither is this a contradiction. For it was possible for one, even though not a Jew, both to build the synagogue, and to love the nation” (Homily 26 on Matthew).

“‘And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother laid and sick of a fever: and He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she arose and ministered unto Him’ (Matthew 8:14-15).

“But Mark adds also, ‘immediately’ (Mark 1:30), meaning to declare the time as well; but this evangelist has set down only the miracle, without signifying besides the time. And whereas the others say, that she that lay ill did also entreat Him (cf. Mark 1:30 & Luke 4:38), this too he has passed over in silence. But this comes not of any dissonance, but the one of brevity, the other of exact narrative” (Homily 27 on Matthew).

 

[Pete_Holter]

“‘And when He was entered into a ship, His disciples followed Him. And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves, but He was asleep’ (Matthew 8:23-24).

“Now Luke, to free himself from having the order of time required of him, says thus, ‘And it came to pass on a certain day that He went into a ship with His disciples’ (Luke 8:22); and Mark in like manner (cf. Mark 4:35). But this evangelist not so, but he maintains the order in this place also. For they did not all of them write all things in this way. And these things I have mentioned before, lest any one from the omission should suppose there was a discordance” (Homily 28 on Matthew).

“And though Luke and those who follow him say that it was one person (cf. Luke 8:27 & Mark 5:2), but this evangelist two (cf. Matthew 8:28), this does not exhibit any discrepancy at all. I grant if they had said, there was only one, and no other, they would appear to disagree with Matthew; but if that spoke of the one, this of the two, the statement comes not of disagreement, but of a different manner of narration. That is, I for my part think, Luke singled out the fiercest one of them for his narrative, wherefore also in more tragical wise does he report their miserable case; as, for instance, that ‘bursting his bonds and chains he used to wander about the wilderness’ (Luke 8:29). And Mark says, that he also cut himself with the stones (cf. Mark 5:5)” (Homily 28 on Matthew).

“This paralytic (cf. Matt 9:1-8), however, was different from that one who is set forth in John (cf. John 5:1-17). For he lay at the pool, but this at Capernaum; and that man had his infirmity thirty and eight years, but concerning this, no such thing is mentioned; and the other was in a state destitute of protectors, but this had some to take care of him, who also took him up, and carried him. And to this He says, ‘Son, your sins be forgiven you’ (Matthew 9:2), but to that He says, ‘Will you be made whole?’ (John 5:6) And the other He healed on a sabbath day, but this not on a sabbath, for else the Jews would have laid this also to His charge; and in the case of this man they were silent, but in that of the other they were instant in persecuting him.

“And this I have said, not without purpose, lest any one should think there is a discrepancy from suspecting it to be one and the same paralytic” (Homily 29 on Matthew).

“And Luke indeed affirms that the Pharisees said it (cf. Luke 5:30-33), but this evangelist, that it was the disciples of John; but it is likely that both said it. That is, they being, as might be expected, in utter perplexity, take the other sort with them; as they did afterwards with the Herodians likewise. Since in truth John’s disciples were always disposed to be jealous of Him, and reasoned against Him: being then only humbled, when first John abode in the prison. They came at least then, and told Jesus; but afterwards they returned to their former envy.

“Now what say they? ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but your disciples fast not? (Matthew 9:14)” (Homily 30 on Matthew)

“‘Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Jesus, he sent two of his disciples, and asked Him, saying, “Are you He that should come, or do we look for another?”’ (Matthew 11:2-3)

“But Luke says, they also told John of the miracles, and then he sent them (cf. Luke 7:18-19). However, this contains no matter of difficulty, but of consideration only; for this, among other things, indicates their jealousy towards Him” (Homily 36 on Matthew).

“But what follows is completely among the controverted points. Of what nature then is this? Their saying, ‘Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?’ (Matthew 11:3) That is, he that knew Him before His miracles, he that had learned it of the Spirit, he that heard it of the Father, he who had proclaimed Him before all men; does he now send to learn of Him, whether it be Himself or no? …] How then now, when He has been made manifest to all, and the fame of Him has gone out everywhere, and dead men have been raised, and devils driven away, and a display made of so great miracles, do you after this send to learn of Him?

“What then is the fact? Were all these sayings a kind of fraud: a stage play and fables? Nay, who that has any understanding would say so?..

“… it is evident, that neither did he send as being himself in doubt, nor did he ask in ignorance…

“What then is it which he is bringing about? For that it belongs not to John to have doubt hereupon, no nor to any ordinary person, nor even to one extremely foolish and frenzied; so much is evident from what we have said. And now we have only to add the solution.

“For what intent then did he send to ask? John’s disciples were starting aside from Jesus, and this surely any one may see, and they had always a jealous feeling towards Him…

“Knowing therefore, as being God, the mind with which John had sent them, He straightway cured blind, lame, and many others (cf. Luke 7:21)” (Homily 36 on Matthew).

Comment: The preceding section was truly exciting for me to read. This was for me the highlight of all the sermons. If you’ve ever been troubled by the seeming historical implausibility of John asking this question while in prison and been left unsatisfied with the “he had a moment of doubt” type solutions, then this is the sermon for you! I’ve omitted some of the details here and he continues with this solution in Homily 37. Take a look!

 

[Pete_Holter]

“But Mark says, ‘In the days of Abiathar the High Priest’ (Mark 2:26): not stating what was contrary to the history, but implying that he had two names” (Homily 39 on Matthew).

“Again He heals on a Sabbath day (cf. Matthew 12:9-14), vindicating what had been done by His disciples. And the other evangelists indeed say, that He set the man in the midst, and asked them, If it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath days (cf. Mark 3:1-6 & Luke 6:6-11).

…]

“And while the other evangelists say, He asked the question, this one says, it was asked of Him. ‘And they asked Him,’ so it stands, ‘saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?” that they might accuse Him’ (Matthew 12:10). And it is likely that both took place. For being unholy wretches, and well assured that He would doubtless proceed to the healing, they hastened to take Him beforehand with their question, thinking in this way to hinder Him. And this is why they asked, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?’ not for information, but ‘that they might accuse Him’ (Matthew 12:10). Yet surely the work was enough, if it were really their wish to accuse Him; but they desired to find a handle in His words too, preparing for themselves beforehand an abundance of arguments.

“But He in His love towards man does this also: He answers them, teaching His own meekness, and turning it all back upon them; and points out their inhumanity. And He sets the man in the midst; not in fear of them, but endeavoring to profit them, and move them to pity” (Homily 40 on Matthew).

“He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathers not with Me scatters abroad” (Matthew 12:30).

…]

“But all these things He says, to indicate His enmity against the devil, how great and unspeakable it is. For tell me, if you must go to war with any one, he that is not willing to fight on your side, by this very fact is he not against you? And if elsewhere He says, ‘He that is not against you is for you’ (Mark 9:40), it is not contrary to this. For here He signified one actually against them, but there He points to one who in part is on their side: For ‘they cast out devils,’ it is said, ‘in Your name’ (Mark 9:38)” (Homily 41 on Matthew).

“For ‘he said,’ it is mentioned, ‘unto his servants, “This is John, whom I slew, he is risen from the dead, and therefore the mighty powers do work in him”’ (Matthew 14:2)…

…]

“But Luke affirms that the multitudes said, ‘This is Elias, or Jeremias, or one of the old prophets’ (Matthew 16:14; cf. Luke 9:8), but he, as uttering forsooth something wiser than the rest, made this assertion.

“But it is probable that before this, in answer to them that said He was John (for many had said this too), he had denied it, and said, I slew him, priding himself and glorying in it. For this both Mark and Luke report that he said, ‘John I beheaded’ (Luke 9:9; cf. Mark 6:16). But when the rumor prevailed, then he too says the same as the people” (Homily 48 on Matthew).

“[A]fterwards He says to them, as Mark relates, ‘Are your hearts so hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? And having ears, hear ye not?’ (Mark 8:17-18)

…]

“But Matthew says, that after this He also rebuked them, saying, ‘O you of little faith, do ye not yet understand, nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?’ (Matthew 16:8-10). So completely do the evangelists harmonize one with another” (Homily 53 on Matthew).

“‘And after six days He takes with Him Peter and James and John’ (Matthew 17:1).

“Now another says, after eight (cf. Luke 9:28), not contradicting this writer, but most fully agreeing with him. For the one expressed both the very day on which He spoke, and that on which He led them up; but the other, the days between them only” (Homily 56 on Matthew).

“And it is remarkable how, when both Peter had been rebuked, and Moses and Elias had discoursed concerning it, and had called the thing glory, and the Father had uttered a voice from above, and so many miracles had been done, and the resurrection was at the doors (for He said, He should by no means abide any long time in death, but should be raised the third day); not even so did they endure it, but were sorry; and not merely sorry, but ‘exceedingly sorry’ (Matthew 17:23).

“Now this arose from their being ignorant as yet of the force of His sayings. This Mark and Luke indirectly expressing said, the one, ‘They understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask Him’ (Mark 9:32): the other, ‘It was hid from them, that they perceived it not, and they feared to ask Him of that saying’ (Luke 9:45).

“And yet if they were ignorant, how were they sorry? Because they were not altogether ignorant; that He was to die they knew, continually hearing it, but what this death might be, and that there would be a speedy release from it, and that it would work innumerable blessings, as yet they knew not clearly; nor what this resurrection might be: but they understood it not, wherefore they grieved; for indeed they clung very earnestly to their Master” (Homily 58 on Matthew).