Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[joemccarron]

Ok this is a follow up from a different thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=301926
I think it is better placed here so I moved it.

My concern revolves around the question of whether Vatican 2 allowed for some wriggle room on inerrancy. I am going to argue that the qualification of Vatican 2 is necessary to have a logical understanding of the scripture. The Catechism mirrors the language from Vatican 2 that would seem to allow this. Here is a decent website that focuses in on this issue:

religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

It quotes another Catholic source:

"In 1999, the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published the results of a conversation between scholars and church leaders of the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. They emphasized limited inerrancy, and rejected the literal inerrancy of Fundamentalist Protestants. The Secretariat wrote:

'For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Vatican II says that ‘the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (Dei Verbum 11). What is important is the qualification of ‘that truth’ with ‘for the sake of our salvation’.’ 5"

Lets consider the passage from Leviticus with this important qualification in mind. Moses (or whoever the author might be) is explaining why hares should be considered an unclean food. “‘Likewise, the rock badger, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; 6 the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.”

These are my thoughts feel free to offer any better information you might have.
Ok so I don’t think anyone can say the author is meaning rabbits symbolically or figuratively. It seems he does indeed mean to literally say the rabbit has these qualities therefore don’t eat them. In other words we are not reading the book of revelation with 7 headed dragons, we are reading a dietary code that was to be taken literally.

Is it literally true? Well if you google something like “do rabbits chew the cud” you will get a wide variety of responses. Mostly it will be debates between fundamentalists and atheists. The crux seems to be that the fundamentalists claim that since Rabbits eat their own excrement – a pellet - they do “chew cud.” They argue this could possibly be what the author meant by the Hebrew word cud. I tend to think that’s a stretch but would be willing to grant it I suppose. The problem with this whole line of thought is that rabbits don’t chew this pellet. They apparently just swallow it.

My Catholic Study bible (1990 NAB Oxford university press) basically states that the rock badger and hare appear to chew their cud but they don’t and it was based on this appearance that classification was made.

It does not explicitly say the author got this wrong but it’s also very hard to see how they are saying something different. To some extent I am reminded of “the Fonz.” The author was wrr… he was wwrrroorrr…. (deep breath and straighten jacket) he was wrrooorrooooooooorrr.“

Ahem ok no more attempts at humor I promise.

Ok in interpreting this particular scripture in light of Vatican 2 we would likely recognize that after Christ this would not have anything to do with our salvation. Accordingly as a Catholic we could dismiss this concern. Note that in saying that we are not saying it was not helpful to others. Specifically it was important to the Jews before Christ.

Here’s the thing though. For the Jews before Christ was this important for their salvation? The more immediate response seems to be yes it was. The dietary law was part of their covenant therefore this was important for their salvation. I think we can grant that the dietary law was important for their salvation and still maintain this potential error was not. The point seemed to ultimately be that the Jews should not eat rabbit. This passage made that truth clear to the Jews. Hence the error really doesn’t effect salvation.

Consider though the flip side. Lets say that since the rabbit did not chew the cud it was not forbidden. The text says it is forbidden so that would be where the potential error would lie. But here when a specific restriction is mistakenly mentioned as being forbidden when it really isn’t there is no important effect on salvation unless it is forbidding something that needs to be done for salvation. In other words even if we concede that the OT forbids the eating of rabbit improperly, since not eating rabbit is no sin that mistake would seem unimportant to salvation as well.

Accordingly I think this passage can square with church teaching if and only if we include the important passage from Vatican 2. What are thoughts of others here?

 

[joemccarron]

BTW I would also like to hear from people regarding this analysis:
Here is an analysis of the Vatican 2 qualification given by someone from New Advent in a question and answer part of the website:

“I read a book by a scripture scholar who said the Bible is inerrant only in religious matters that pertain to our salvation. He quoted Vatican II as the source of this “limited inerrancy” doctrine.
The documents of Vatican II don’t limit biblical inerrancy to religious truths necessary for salvation or even to religious matters in general.
….
Proponents of “limited inerrancy” claim this last clause is restrictive: Inerrancy extends only to things pertaining to our salvation. Whether or not this is the case (such a reading isn’t required by the Latin), the “limited inerrancy” position is still weak.
….If the whole of Scripture is inspired, and if what the biblical writer asserts the Holy Spirit asserts, then, unless error is to be attributed to the Holy Spirit or unless the biblical authors assert only religious truths (which isn’t the case–some make historical assertions, such as the historical existence of Jesus), inerrancy can’t be limited to religious truths.”

Ok I think there are a few mistakes at the very end of this analysis. First the author seems to ignore the possibility that a historical truth might also be a religious truth. The historical existence of Jesus is also a religious truth. The historical truth that Jesus really rose form the dead would also be a religious truth. The converse can also occur. The religious truth that Jesus was God is also a historical truth. The author’s failure to recognize that truths can have both religious and historical implications leads him to a false dichotomy and therefore an illogical criticism of the qualification in Second Vatican’s language.

The author concludes with this:
“Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ."

In the last paragraph the author of the new advent answer tries to reword the Vatican 2 language. They seem to say the authors could be mistaken in what they 1)assume or 2)presuppose or 3)what isn’t integral to what they assert.

First I think the 3rd point is largely correct. I think this is a fair estimate of a paraphrase for Vatican 2. The Authors were trying to convey religious truth so to the extent they say something not involving religious truth it wouldn’t be integral.

The first and second points however I do not think are consistent with any church teaching. If the Gospel writers were making assumptions or presupposing things that were important to our salvation we have to count those as inerrant. Assumptions or presupposition they may have been, but if it is important to our salvation it must have been inerrant according even the most liberal reading of any church documents I have read.

 

[anon5216]

BTW I would also like to hear from people regarding this analysis:
…

In the last paragraph the author of the new advent answer tries to reword the Vatican 2 language. They seem to say the authors could be mistaken in what they 1)assume or 2)presuppose or 3)what isn’t integral to what they assert.

First I think the 3rd point is largely correct. I think this is a fair estimate of a paraphrase for Vatican 2. The Authors were trying to convey religious truth so to the extent they say something not involving religious truth it wouldn’t be integral.

The first and second points however I do not think are consistent with any church teaching. If the Gospel writers were making assumptions or presupposing things that were important to our salvation we have to count those as inerrant. Assumptions or presupposition they may have been, but if it is important to our salvation it must have been inerrant according even the most liberal reading of any church documents I have read.

The writers (fallible humans that they were) can not be considered infallible in their assertion of the Holy Spirit being the source of all scriptural text. And not every last writer personally asserted this.

I maintain that scriptural inerrancy is not even required for the development of people like Padre Pio. I also maintain that the dogma of inerrancy actually has prevented more people from reaching those levels of spirituality because of getting bogged down in theological speculations (falsely termed truths as they start with the assumption of inerrancy).

 

[rightandreason]

This an interesting topic that I have been interested for some time but have found no really great sources talking about what the inerrancy entails. It seems to me that most of the old Catholic Commentaries lean towards that the entire Bible and every historical happening in it is inerrant, containing no error. It does seem that we now have people espousing that only things pertaining ot the faith are inerrant, which I find to a difficult position to be in. For if you question one historical happening to be accurate, then where does it stop? Did Jesus really do this or do that? As long as we get the message does it matter whether he went here or went there etc? Then we have to question what He said too, and the ball unravels.

I believe the Scriptures need to be understood depending on the type of writing it is, allegorical, historical, etc. Depending on what type it is, the historical setting in the allegory may never have been intended to historical in nature as far as it being a literal historical happening. It may be that it was just a fictional story used to tell a truth that God wanted revealed in that manner. We must however be careful that when something is referred to in a real historical setting, that we understand it to be true. An example would be Sodom and Gomorrah. This story is understood to be literal history by the Church and all of the Early Fathers, so therefore it would be inerrant in its historical context there. Another would be Jesus going to certain places and preaching, etc. His words and actions would be without error completely. If you come across any more info on this please post it. Thanks

 

[joemccarron]

This an interesting topic that I have been interested for some time but have found no really great sources talking about what the inerrancy entails. It seems to me that most of the old Catholic Commentaries lean towards that the entire Bible and every historical happening in it is inerrant, containing no error. It does seem that we now have people espousing that only things pertaining ot the faith are inerrant, which I find to a difficult position to be in. For if you question one historical happening to be accurate, then where does it stop? Did Jesus really do this or do that? As long as we get the message does it matter whether he went here or went there etc? Then we have to question what He said too, and the ball unravels.

I think the Church is considering these issues and will likely let the second Vatican statement sit for a long time. In the mean time those of us who wonder about these things can use these teachings to help guide our thoughts as best we can. Accordingly what I say here should be understood as simply speculation on my part.

In the Pontifical report averagejoe linked to (in the first thread)

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm

They make it clear that they see danger in the way fundamentalists interpret the bible. I see it too. Bart Ehrman is a typical casualty. He set his bar so high he could not help but be disillusioned when he read the writings of the humans who wrote the testaments. He became an atheist. (or agnostic whatever) What I found interesting is when I would read his arguments I thought, these are by and large just a bunch of quibbles. But for those who want to defend to the teeth that no errors of any sort can happen I guess he has valid points.

He explained that at first he would try to dance around these problems but eventually he did so much dancing his legs gave out and he rejected the faith. He specifically noticed that these problems that were causing him so much turmoil were not a problem for his fellow Catholic students. Its not that they were better dancers than he was it was that they could shrug it off and say “yeah it looks like a contradiction – oh well.” Now the question is: were these Catholics simply ignorant of the fact that they could not hold that belief without being a heretic? Perhaps some would say so but I do think there is a deeply rooted difference in how Catholics and Protestants look at the bible. Catholic teaching has always had perspective. Sola Scriptura traditions don’t. When we look at the perspective of the earlier pronouncements of the church they were in reaction to people trying to claim things like Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead. The early pronouncements were communicating a strong rejection of those ideas. But the aim was to clarify that the church doesn’t walk that walk when it comes to bible interpretation.

But now there is a different concern that the church is addressing. Specifically the concern is whether this fundamentalist view of interpretation is correct. In that view we have rabbits chewing cud and humans only being around for about 4000 years – based on Luke’s genealogy. In Vatican 2 the Church is saying well we don’t walk that walk either.

I mean I think it’s a stretch to say Pope Leo XIII intended, by implication, to say all Catholics must believe rabbits chew the cud is a stretch well beyond the breaking point. These sorts of beliefs are foreign to Catholic thinking if not to some extent “uncatholic.” In my experience it’s just not how Catholics think when they think of the Scripture. I see Vatican 2 as making that clarification.

The Church has always been quite respectful of the beauty of our Sacred scripture. It does indeed often say you must understand that when this passage says XYZ that means you can’t do this or that action. But it doesn’t usually say that is the only thing you can take away from that scripture. Fundamentalists are often trying to be too literal and bite off way more than is necessary or healthy.

Frankly I think many in the church agree there is error in trying to do what Fundamentalists do in trying to justify every bit of scripture as true. For one, it diverts attention from the more important parts of scripture. Secondly, they acknowledge it’s “intellectual suicide.” If you want to say everything single jot in the bible (no matter how minute or remote from the central message or themes) must be true, but then say well rabbits don’t actually chew the cud like its claimed in Leviticus you are asking people to believe a contradiction.

I do not think the ball will unravel. After all we would have the church guided by the Holy Spirit to help guide us just as it was guiding the members of the church that wrote it (at least the NT) and chose the writings. It’s through the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the church that we have the books. Why not trust that holy spirit in teaching them? It seems incongruous to limit what the church infallibly teaches as guided by the holy spirit to points of morals and religion but when it comes to the church writing these books (at least the NT) the infallibility extends to science and history.

Moreover even non sacred books we know have mistakes in them but we don’t then say well everything they say is untrue.

 

[joemccarron]

At base I think our faith must be rooted in a trust in God and our Church which includes their writings which includes the New Testament scriptures. As Catholics I think we must believe that these things will give us sufficient guidance to achieve as much virtue as we are willing to achieve and bring us as close to God as we are willing to get. But I find it hard, and foreign, to think that as Catholics we must buy into the claims of fundamentalists that rabbits do indeed chew their cud.

 

[joemccarron]

I believe the Scriptures need to be understood depending on the type of writing it is, allegorical, historical, etc. Depending on what type it is, the historical setting in the allegory may never have been intended to historical in nature as far as it being a literal historical happening. It may be that it was just a fictional story used to tell a truth that God wanted revealed in that manner. We must however be careful that when something is referred to in a real historical setting, that we understand it to be true. An example would be Sodom and Gomorrah. This story is understood to be literal history by the Church and all of the Early Fathers, so therefore it would be inerrant in its historical context there. Another would be Jesus going to certain places and preaching, etc. His words and actions would be without error completely. If you come across any more info on this please post it. Thanks

I am not familiar with the passages you mention but early church fathers were at times wrong.

Also as far as arguing about context and allegory etc. I totally agree. However that will sometimes help the author on others it doesn’t. Like I said when you read that passage in Leviticus in context your going to have a hard time imagining the author meant the rabbit somehow symbolically. He was talking about dietary restrictions. I have yet to hear a decent explanation of this passage that seems even close to the plausibility that the commentators of the Catholic Study bible give. I.e., The author thought the rabbits chewed their cud because they seem to chew allot but actually they don’t.

 

[una_fides]

It is lamentable that people interpret Vatican II’s phrase “for the sake of our salvation” to mean more than what was intended rather than interpret it in light of what the Church has always taught on this subject, which is since God is the author of Scripture, it cannot contain any errors. The phrase “for the sake of our salvation” must be understood that Scripture was given to us without error for the purpose of helping accomplish our salvation rather than that only those parts that pertain to salvation are without error, which has already been explicitly condemned by previous popes, and such an interpretation is contrary to the infallible definitions given at the Councils of Florence and Trent.

 

[joemccarron]

I wasn’t at Vatican 2 to personally ask those who put that document together what they intended. There seems to be a considerable difference of opinion here. Anyway here is another link where this is discussed:

theocoid.blogspot.com/2007/05/scriptural-inerrancy-vatican-ii.html

 

[una_fides]

1. The principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labor carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it – this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."57 Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write – He was so present to them – that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. “Therefore,” says St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated."58 And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things – we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution."59
2. It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored 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 honor 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."60
   papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm

 

[una_fides]

I wasn’t at Vatican 2 to personally ask those who put that document together what they intended. There seems to be a considerable difference of opinion here. Anyway here is another link where this is discussed:

theocoid.blogspot.com/2007/05/scriptural-inerrancy-vatican-ii.html

If the authors of Vatican II intended something different then what the Church has always taught, then they were in error plain and simple. If one views Vatican II as an infallible Council, (which Pope Paul VI explicitly said it was not), then one is absolutely obligated to interpret the intention of the authors to be in harmony with the constant teaching of the Church on the matter. Otherwise, if the Church can go against one truth, then she is no longer trustworthy and the Scripture would be wrong to call her “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). It is impossible for something to be true one day and then become error the next. What is true in the past continues to be true in the future. If one takes Vatican II to be a non-infallible exercise of the Church’s magisterium, then it’s possible that one could speculate that the fathers at the Council could have been in error in their intentions if their intentions were incorrect. Either way, it is not wrong to ask for a clarification and for the Church to use more explicitly clear language. To purposefully employ vague language with the intention for people to read erroneous interpretations into it, to me seems dishonest and morally unjustifiable as a sin against the truth. I am not impugning the motives of the authors, but I would like the Vatican to put out a clarification so that the modernists and liberals will not continue to run wild with this idea that only parts of Scripture that pertain to salvation explicitly are free from error and the rest is open to any error they thereby wish to ascribe to promote their false doctrines and ideas.

 

[una_fides]

Here’s something to think about. Why would the early Church fathers spend so much ink trying to reconcile passages that seemed to be at variance with each other? Why not just say that the Scriptures contained errors? Simple, because the universal consensus of the Church fathers was that because the HS was the author of Sacred Scripture, it could not possibly contain error.

We should all take the approach of St. Augustine:
“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 honor 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.”

 

[joemccarron]

If the authors of Vatican II intended something different then what the Church has always taught, then they were in error plain and simple. If one views Vatican II as an infallible Council, (which Pope Paul VI explicitly said it was not), then one is absolutely obligated to interpret the intention of the authors to be in harmony with the constant teaching of the Church on the matter. Otherwise, if the Church can go against one truth, then she is no longer trustworthy and the Scripture would be wrong to call her “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). It is impossible for something to be true one day and then become error the next. What is true in the past continues to be true in the future.

We both agree that something and its contradiction can not both be true.

Rabbits either do or they don’t chew the cud. Which is it?

I’m not here to list all the difficult passages and I do heartily agree many fundamentalists that there are tons of passages that are unnecessarily and wrongfully counted as a contradiction. But if you really try to address everything in the scripture I think, in the end, you will find its easier to see how the Vatican 2 qualification can be consistent with Pope Leo XIII and other teaching than trying to go the route of the fundamentalists.

Look at context for both the church teaching and the scripture.

Pope Leo XIII was addressing certain types of biblical criticism. At the time there were movements that said Jesus may have been standing in shallow water instead of walking on it etc. That was the context in which he made his pronouncements.

He was not addressing people who in the face of science were saying humans only lived for about 4000 years. I highly doubt Leo was addressing certain minutia that has been raised and argued by fundamentalists. No he was not saying this is the way to go.

Consider how the quote starts out:

“The principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to History”

What does he mean “especially to history.”? A claim is either true or false. If it is in accordance with reality it is true if not its false. How can something be “especially” true? Think about that. What does that mean the history is “especially” inerrant as opposed to the science which is not “especially” inerrant?

Here is a possibility he was especially addressing certain forms and methods of scriptural analysis. He describes it immediately afterward. Its going through scripture with a bias that it must have errors that he says is lamentable. At the time he wrote this there were scholars doing this like never before he corrected their ways. By the time of Vatican II there was an overzealousness to try to justify every minutia in some circles they corrected that as being unnecessary.

 

[joemccarron]

Here’s something to think about. Why would the early Church fathers spend so much ink trying to reconcile passages that seemed to be at variance with each other? Why not just say that the Scriptures contained errors? Simple, because the universal consensus of the Church fathers was that because the HS was the author of Sacred Scripture, it could not possibly contain error.

We should all take the approach of St. Augustine:
“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 honor 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.”

It is well known and understood that church fathers are not infallible would you agree? St Augustine may have thought rabbits chew their cud. Others may have believed the Genealogy of Luke was literally true and humans only existed for a few millennia.

Not all church fathers and early Saints agreed with Augustine and the importance of strong inerrancy:

“Tertullian (AD 200) said, “Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of the [gospel] narratives. What matters is that there is agreement in the essential doctrine of the Faith” (Against Marcion, IV:2). St. John Chrysostom (AD 390) was even bolder (at least to modern ears) to suggest that contradictions in the gospels actually strengthen the conviction that Christianity is true. If the gospel authors agreed in every small detail, then it was obvious that the stories were forgeries by a group of dishonest early Christians in collusion with one another. He even says, “the discord which seems to be present in little matters shields [the authors] from every suspicion and vindicates the character of the writers” (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, I:6).”

quoting from this webpage:
74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:yhfOUX9BMIYJ:www.ancient-future.net/bible.html+church+fathers+inerrancy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

So check the sources if you think it’s necessary.

 

[una_fides]

We both agree that something and its contradiction can not both be true.

Rabbits either do or they don’t chew the cud. Which is it?

I suggest you take the approach of St. Augustine. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4709173&postcount=12
Either

1. the text you have is faulty (i.e. copy errors)
2. the translator did not properly express the meaning of the passage
3. you simply do not understand

I’m not here to list all the difficult passages and I do heartily agree many fundamentalists that there are tons of passages that are unnecessarily and wrongfully counted as a contradiction. But if you really try to address everything in the scripture I think, in the end, you will find its easier to see how the Vatican 2 qualification can be consistent with Pope Leo XIII and other teaching than trying to go the route of the fundamentalists.

Look at context for both the church teaching and the scripture.

Pope Leo XIII was addressing certain types of biblical criticism. At the time there were movements that said Jesus may have been standing in shallow water instead of walking on it etc. That was the context in which he made his pronouncements.

He was not addressing people who in the face of science were saying humans only lived for about 4000 years. I highly doubt Leo was addressing certain minutia that has been raised and argued by fundamentalists. No he was not saying this is the way to go.

Scripture does not always have to be interpreted literally. However, it does have to be admitted to be free from ANY error, as Pope Leo repeated several times. Free from any error means any error. There also ways to interpret Scripture in ways the fundamentalists do not employ such as taking into account what is not said in Scripture. They tend to limit Scripture to what is said alone and in the plain literal sense alone. Scripture cannot contradict science or history, but your interpretation of Scripture can and often will be faulty. We also do not know of all the copying errors that have taken place throughout the centuries. It is my understanding that the Scriptures are inspired pertaining to what was originally written in the original languages with the original intentions and in the original contexts of the original authors themselves. Thus, we can have a Bible today with inaccurate texts that perhaps do not depict exactly what the author intended to mean. I also think the idea of perspective must be taken into account. Nevertheless, God is the author, and there can be no errors in his writings–not just the writings pertaining explicitly to salvation–but to ALL his writings for the whole of Scripture is inspired.

By the time of Vatican II there was an overzealousness to try to justify every minutia in some circles they corrected that as being unnecessary.

How do you think “they” (by which I assume you mean the fathers at V2) “corrected” what you perceived to be “an overzealousness to try to justify every minutia” of Scripture? Are you implying that they changed the Traditional definition of Scripture as being completely inspired in all its parts or that they taught that it is no longer necessary to view Scripture as inerrant? If so, I suggest reading Vatican I, which says that dogmas of the Church must be understood in eodem sensu (in the same sense) as they have always been understood.

 

[una_fides]

It is well known and understood that church fathers are not infallible would you agree? St Augustine may have thought rabbits chew their cud. Others may have believed the Genealogy of Luke was literally true and humans only existed for a few millennia.

I’m starting to get sick of this rabbit argument. So is every species still around that was around what 6k+ years ago? Hmm… so could it have been possible that such an animal may have existed at that time? or could it have been possible that it was a textual error? or could it have been possible that you just don’t understand? Why do you ASSUME that Scripture is incorrect rather than assume your understanding of it is? Here is the danger in claiming errors in Scripture. If God’s Word contains one error, who is to say it does not contain others? If one passage is incorrect, why not another and another and another? Who draws the line? Many times liberals will argue their way around doctrinal passages (claiming them to not pertain explicitly to salvation) and claiming that the authors were likely in error on this or that point or that it was the understanding of the author that…x, y, and z, but in reality the author was mistaken. Do you see how that destroys the faith in Scripture as wholely inspired by God as Pope Leo had settled. All of Scripture is inspired, not just some of it.

Not all church fathers and early Saints agreed with Augustine and the importance of strong inerrancy:

“Tertullian (AD 200) said, “Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of the [gospel] narratives. What matters is that there is agreement in the essential doctrine of the Faith” (Against Marcion, IV:2). St. John Chrysostom (AD 390) was even bolder (at least to modern ears) to suggest that contradictions in the gospels actually strengthen the conviction that Christianity is true. If the gospel authors agreed in every small detail, then it was obvious that the stories were forgeries by a group of dishonest early Christians in collusion with one another. He even says, “the discord which seems to be present in little matters shields [the authors] from every suspicion and vindicates the character of the writers” (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, I:6).”

quoting from this webpage:
74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:yhfOUX9BMIYJ:www.ancient-future.net/bible.html+church+fathers+inerrancy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

So check the sources if you think it’s necessary.

Obviously individual saints are not infallible. However, perhaps you should rexamine what the authors of those quotes meant by their statements before assuming that they diagreed with St. Augustine.
Let’s keep in mind what Pope Leo declared on the subject:
“And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance”

First, you have the context of the statements. Did Tertulian (who btw broke away from the Church as a schismatic) not believe that the whole of Scripture was inspired? Or was he instead reassuring his audience not to doubt the divine quality of Scripture because they were troubled that they perceived passages to be different. Yes, what does matter most is that they agree on doctrinal matters. Certainly true. But that does not rule out the possibility in his mind that they could be found to agree on the others. I heard someone claim for example that the gospels were in error on what words Christ said on the Cross because they had different accounts. Hmm… Did it ever occur to this person that the authors did not tell the entire story equipped with every word and work of our Lord (as the apostle John also tells us in 20:30 and 21:25 of his gospel)? Jesus said all 7 of those statements recorded. There are ways to understand and reconcile seemingly difficult passages as St. Augustine and Pope Leo in citing him have demonstrated. Did any of the popes ever quote from these two fathers to support his thinking? Then their writing does not have magisterial approval as Augustine’s does anyway, which really doesn’t matter since you misunderstand them as well.
Regarding the second quote, St. John Chrysostom’s writing is actually easier to understand than Tertullian’s. He is not saying that the writers were in error. He was saying that they did not all contain the same minor details, which indicates they did not conspire together. His statement does not need imply that the writers were in error, but rather that their accounts differed at first glance, as we would all agree in certain limited circumstances they do. For example, there is one part of Scripture where one author says that a certain number of lepers was healed and another author that says a different number. I recall that the two statements can be reconciled because they were not reporting the same incident. One was reporting the number that were healed upon entry and another upon exiting the temple, if I recall correctly. Anyway, the point is that all of Scripture is inspired and hence it is all true. That doesn’t mean that we can know how old the earth is or other scientific facts based on it, but we know that what it said is truth.

 

[joemccarron]

1. I’m starting to get sick of this rabbit argument. 2)So is every species still around that was around what 6k+ years ago? 3) Hmm… so could it have been possible that such an animal may have existed at that time? 4) or could it have been possible that it was a textual error? 5) or could it have been possible that you just don’t understand? 6) Why do you ASSUME that Scripture is incorrect rather than assume your understanding of it is? 7) Here is the danger in claiming errors in Scripture. If God’s Word contains one error, who is to say it does not contain others? If one passage is incorrect, why not another and another and another? Who draws the line? Many times liberals will argue their way around doctrinal passages (claiming them to not pertain explicitly to salvation) and claiming that the authors were likely in error on this or that point or that it was the understanding of the author that…x, y, and z, but in reality the author was mistaken. Do you see how that destroys the faith in Scripture as wholely inspired by God as Pope Leo had settled. All of Scripture is inspired, not just some of it.

I numbered your quote so I can address your questions easier:

1. Well you had not tried to answer the example until this latest set of posts.
2. Do you mean every species of animal or every species of rabbit? I’m not sure if every species of rabbit is still around. You see I am a Catholic. As a Catholic I did not think I needed to investigate such matters in order to comply with 1 peter 3:15. But if indeed I have to defend the claim that the entire bible is inerrant then I better start checking the taxonomy books. (or whatever I would need to check.) I used to think that was only something fundamentalists needed to do in order to defend their faith to non-believers.
3. From what I gathered animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. Unlike other animals they have a multi-chambered stomach. I suppose it’s possible that 6000 years ago there were rabbits with completely different stomachs than the rabbits of today. I suppose it’s equally possible there were humans with completely different stomach than humans of today.
4. Let me address this a bit further down.
5. I suppose one can never completely rule that out. But this passage on diet sure seems straight forward doesn’t it?
6. I don’t assume this or any passage out of scripture is in error. I have read a bit from people on both sides of this issue. Indeed until some atheist challenged me on this issue I never even bothered with the question. My response was that I really don’t care if rabbits chew the cud or not. I said it’s unimportant to me if the author of Leviticus made a mistake about rabbits chewing their cud. Perhaps that was spreading heresy on my part. I do not take that possibility lightly that is why I am trying to explore that issue on this message board. But before I decide that in order to defend my faith I have to examine and challenge all sorts of scientific beliefs I would really like to know for sure that is what the church demands.
   Back to 4) at this point I answered your other questions in regard to rabbits and cud. I think the prospects are dim for any of your possible outs. In any respect even if I could convince myself of them they would probably not be very likely helpful in reasonably defending my faith to others. We are left with the final out: The copyists must have made a mistake. So is this the panacea? Every time scripture seems wrong we can just say the copyist made a mistake. Well in this situation it seems he may have had to make a couple of mistakes right? I mean if he said rabbits don’t chew the cud then he wouldn’t have had to have said the animal doesn’t have a split hoof. It seems the entire passage would have been written differently. So the copyist would have made a major mistake. I would say that it seems if we are to blame the copyist for problems this size then we have a bigger problem with the credibility of the scripture we have now than from saying the author made minor a mistake.
7. Ok let’s look at your slippery slope argument. There are perhaps too many problems to list but let’s consider just a few points. First consider St. Augustines 3 ways to deal with problem passages that you suggest. 1) bad translation 2) bad copy 3) I must not understand it. None of these solutions help the slippery slope you set up. If we start saying this translations are flawed, then who’s to say the others aren’t flawed? Etc etc. If we say the copyist blundered here, then who’s to say he didn’t blunder in other places etc. etc. If we don’t understand this passage despite the fact that it seems straight forward, then how do we know we are not misunderstanding others etc. etc. I mean maybe the scriptures are some secret code that only the gnostics understand. So the solutions to the difficulties that Augustine recommends leads to the same sort of slippery slope you suggest.

Beyond that argument consider this. We can say the pope is infallible regarding certain issues of morals and religion yet not on science and history. This doesn’t cause the whole doctrine to unravel does it? Why would we think the Holy Spirit acts so much differently in him than it does in the churchmen who wrote scripture? Finally consider the points I raised early. There are many books that we believe are very credible even if they contain a few mistakes. The notion that books are worthless if there is some mistake that has nothing to do with its purpose is simply not tenable.

continued next post:

 

[joemccarron]

Understand I’m with you for most of the way here. I do agree there are many things that atheists claim are contradictions that are completely bogus. But on the other hand there are allot that tend to add up. Again I don’t want to list all of them for fear people who believe (improperly IMO) their faith depends on believing the bible is inerrant would have their faith shaken. I don’t want to do that even if I lose this argument that’s why I’m just sticking with the silly rabbit example. Let me just say that when you examine these issues you will find many alleged difficulties that are easy to resolve and others that get harder. For whatever reason I found enough hard ones that I was forced to face this issue. In the end I said I have overwhelming reasons to remain Catholic despite a belief that I probably could never resolve all the nitpicky alleged discrepancies out there. Maybe its wishful thinking on my part that I would not be considered a heretic.

If the church makes it clear that Vatican 2 should be interpreted like you say then I suppose I will just try to selectively forget what I have found. But I won’t be able to defend this part of my faith reasonably and honestly. That gives me trouble especially when I will be the one who will primarily be responsible for explaining the faith to my daughters.

 

[una_fides]

Understand I’m with you for most of the way here. I do agree there are many things that atheists claim are contradictions that are completely bogus. But on the other hand there are allot that tend to add up. Again I don’t want to list all of them for fear people who believe (improperly IMO) their faith depends on believing the bible is inerrant would have their faith shaken. I don’t want to do that even if I lose this argument that’s why I’m just sticking with the silly rabbit example. Let me just say that when you examine these issues you will find many alleged difficulties that are easy to resolve and others that get harder. For whatever reason I found enough hard ones that I was forced to face this issue. In the end I said I have overwhelming reasons to remain Catholic despite a belief that I probably could never resolve all the nitpicky alleged discrepancies out there. Maybe its wishful thinking on my part that I would not be considered a heretic.

If the church makes it clear that Vatican 2 should be interpreted like you say then I suppose I will just try to selectively forget what I have found. But I won’t be able to defend this part of my faith reasonably and honestly. That gives me trouble especially when I will be the one who will primarily be responsible for explaining the faith to my daughters.

Joe (assuming your name is Joe),

There are answers out there. I don’t know what you have experienced at the hands of these atheists that has so greatly shaken your faith in Sacred Scripture as the inerrant Word of God. We know that God cannot produce error. There are answers out there even if we cannot yet see them. Science and history are both based upon incomplete knowledge. It is enough to say that perhaps our understanding of science or history could also be flawed. I was a history major in college. Most people think history is just a bunch of historical facts that people put together into history books. However, the more history books and accounts of history that one reads, the more he will understand that our history is not always the history. There are differences in perspective of those who provide the accounts. There are most often incomplete records, and often times within those records there are numerous errors. What happens is someone finds a historical document and then reconstructs what he thinks happened in the larger context based upon limited evidence and trusting that evidence to be a credible and trustworthy source. History can only take us so far. I think it safe to trust the Bible’s version of history as being without error and then subjecting the rest of secular historian’s records to it, yet at the same time understanding that there can be things that don’t make sense in Scripture historically speaking but that does not have to mean that the Scriptures are necessarily in error. We have faith in God, and faith in his Church, and faith in his Word. Our faith coincides with reason, but we as humans have limited knowledge. Pray to God to increase your faith and trust in him. He will guide you through the sticky arguments with atheists who lack faith.
You are correct regarding the slippery slope of assuming something to be a textual error in Scripture. If we assume one textual error here or there, who is to say there are not more elsewhere? Well, we do have very many ancient manuscripts with which we can compare the texts. I do not personally think textual errors to be a big problem. I think often the problem could also result from faulty translations of the original texts. Hebrew is not an easy language to know with absolute certainty from what I’ve heard. Words also can have multiple meanings often times, as I’ve discovered from my studies of Latin. Anyway, I’m out of time. Remember to pray for faith! God will show the way.

 

[Shlomey]

Did not Jesus say something to the effect as: How can we believe in His words pertaining to the supernatural when we cannot believe His words pertaining to the natural?

Therefore, how can we trust the Bible in the supernatural sense if it’s faulty in things that we can observe and falsify?