Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[joemccarron]

Una Fides
I have been preparing responses to your points as time allows. I appreciate what you say and I do agree with what you say about history not always being what we think was recorded. Nevertheless, I do think there is more that should be considered on this topic. I would say that unless you have studied all the alleged errors and really think you can rationally defend all of them as being free from error, I don’t think you should regard the matter as so clear cut. I mean I suppose you could always go the route of Martin Luther and say our religion is irrational but I don’t think that is what the Catholic Church teaches. Until you get through all the seemingly discordant passages I don’t think you can really understand what it is we are talking about.

In the meantime bear in mind it was not so much the case that atheists shook my faith in what I understood inerrancy to mean. It is rather the notion that in order to be a Catholic I must believe some of the things you suggested regarding rabbits and cud chewing. I do not think that is the case and I think to the extent you think that is a requirement you are mistaken.

As to what verses give me trouble I gave you one. You tried to suggest some explanations for it which are different than the one given by the Catholic Study Bible – which, by the way, (unlike your post) carries an Imprimatur. I don’t think I’m being difficult when I tell you that so far you are 0-1 in explaining away the alleged errors. I’m not sure what purpose posting other difficult passages would prove. The way you seem to interpret the bible is that it is impossible that there be any mistake on even the smallest detail regardless of how irrelevant it is to our salvation. Hence you can’t just skip over passages and move on to others.

The Catholic Study Bible IMO gives far and away the most probable explanation of what happened. It says “According to modern Zoology, the rock badger (hyrax Syriacus) is classified as an ungulate, and the hare is a rodent; neither is a ruminant. They both appear to chew their food as the true ruminants do, and it is upon this appearance that the classification in the text is based.” Just so you know, a ruminant is an animal that chews the cud. That is it throws up material it previously swallowed and chews it again. The commentators are simply stating that the author of Leviticus said the rabbits do this because it appears that indeed rabbits do this, but they don’t. It’s hard to understand this as anything other then stating the author made a mistake.

(Leviticus 11:5f states “…the rock badger, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.”)
Please note this passage is not treated as a big deal in this study bible. It’s indeed not a big deal if the author was mistaken by the appearance of how rabbits chewed their food. Fundamentalists and Atheists can get all up in arms about this and believe their faith somehow hangs in the balance but that is not the Catholic way.

Like I said I have no interest in trying to flood this thread with lists of difficult passages. But if you would like to understand where I’m coming from you may like to simply consider the passage I gave you. What do you make of it? Do really you believe it was mistranslated? Miscopied? You don’t understand it? Don’t say all three because then you might get tied in knots. Consider what I said in response to your 3 suggestions taken from Saint Augustine. Moreover consider the effort that went into the Catholic study bible. Do you not think they would have considered that maybe there was a copyist error, a mistranslation or that this may have some hidden meaning? I can assure you these issues are indeed considered by people doing the translation and commentary on the bible. The NAB bible was the product of the work of huge amount of work by many scholars. If they think there is significant reason to believe that happened they would state it. Until I hear anything to support your view that one of those three things must have happened it appears to be based on thin air.

However in all of this I am trying to approach the subject with humility and recognize there is variance of opinion and that there is a possibility that I may be wrong. With that in mind I would like to go ahead and address several points that you have raised and I would like to share some further reasons that I believe support my position.

But before I do I would like to point out that I think you are misunderstanding my post about your slippery slope argument. It is fallacious just like all slippery slope arguments. I am however pointing out that to the extent you believe there is a slippery slope here Augustine’s three recommended ways to address apparent error do not stop us from going down hill, so to speak. You are the one who is suggesting that a copyist just made a mistake in the text of Leviticus not me. I have no reason to believe that and indeed have some reason to think that is not the case. But if you think these sorts of copyist errors can occur, you are the one who is going to have a bigger credibility problem for the bible than I am.

 

[joemccarron]

… 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,…”

.

I’m not sure what you mean by your first paragraph. I mean surely your not saying that since Pope Leo XIII said that the doctors and fathers all agreed that the texts were free from all error then that must be so. I mean I quoted two that seemed far from universal in that view. If Tertulian or St. John Crysostom appear not to agree that it’s so important we dispute every quibble must we assume there is some mistranslation or copyist error or that we simply don’t understand what they (the fathers) are saying? That’s taking things a bit far don’t you think?

I’m not aware of any church father that would disagree that the scriptures were inspired. However it does indeed appear that some church fathers did not think that meant we must believe no contradictions, no matter how trivial, could possibly happen.

With respect to Tertulian he was a church father and I am unaware of any statement he would have made that suggested contrary to the quote I posted. If you find one lets consider it. But until you find a quote that has him contradicting what he said, I think we can rightfully think he pretty much believed what he said. That is minor inconsistencies that do not effect essential doctrine should not concern us.

You say that you agree with Tertulian when he says “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” You say “certainly true.” But don’t you see that by your interpretation of Pope Leo XIII you are making these variations into issues concerning essential doctrine? It’s clear that Tertulian does not think how we deal with these variations is anything that matters for the essential doctrines of the faith. This is logically implied by his language is it not? Your interpretation of Pope Leo XIII clearly says it does matter and turns how we deal with these variations into an essential doctrine. I mean the way you interpret Pope Leo XIII can I still be a good Catholic and think perhaps the author Leviticus got it wrong on rabbits and cud chewing?

Have any Popes quoted him or Crysostom on this? I’m not sure. I haven’t read everything all the popes ever wrote. In any event this does not mean they are not church fathers or doctors. Certainly Popes and people who have positions of authority over you and I have said similar things to what Tertulian said.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission (link above) said this in criticizing the fundamentalist approach:

“It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit……Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.”

The way you want to interpret Pope Leo XIII also puts undue stress on the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts.

Pope John Paul II and the church have consistently reinforced the idea that scripture is intended for our salvation not as a science or history textbook. I think this is what Tertulian is saying and your interpretation of Pope Leo XIII puts him at odds with this view.

If indeed it was so well established that it is without error in science then why when I went to catholic schools didn’t we break out the bible for say for biology class when deciding that rabbits do “indeed chew the cud.” Why didn’t we break out Luke’s genealogy at the start of every world history class? I wouldn’t be surprised if fundamentalists do this. Nor would I be surprised if certain early church fathers did this. I’m sure we can find the church fathers saying all sorts of things we are not bound to believe today. Would you agree?

With respect to St. John Chrysostom I agree what he says is easy to understand. Let me give the quote again. “the discord which seems to be present in little matters shields [the authors] from every suspicion and vindicates the character of the writers” He used the word “discord” and that word does not fit with your explanation. Something is true if it accords with reality. If it does not accord with reality it is false. If there is discord between two statements they can’t both accord with reality and hence they can’t both be true.

Note he says this regarding “little matters.” The way you want to interpret Pope Leo XIII there are no “little matters.” You want to say it is essential that we believe every tiny bit in there is true or we are basically a heretic. Again that view is very hard to square with St. John Chrysostom’s statement.

I do agree St. John says the discord “seems” to be present so he is not saying he is absolutely sure there is error. But he does indeed state there seems to be discord. I think the Catholic church allows us to take the same position St. John Chrysostom took. That is we can concede there seems to be error on little matters.

Am I open to the idea that it possible that rabbits 6000 years ago had a different type of stomach like you suggest. I can’t rule that out with God anythign is possible. But it “seems” to me that is not the case. It “seems” to me there is “discord” in the bible “on little matters.” If the position which was held by St. John Chrysostom is now heresy I would like to hear it under no uncertain terms.

 

[joemccarron]

With that in mind lets look at what terms Pope Leo XIII used and what context we are to understand these papal encyclicals.

Pope Leo XIII starts out with statement a which qualifies everything he says below after. He says “The principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to History.”

You never explained what you think he meant by “especially” to history. Remember I asked you a series of questions about how the principals of inerrancy “especially” apply to history but apparently not science. I mean a proposition in history is either true or false right? For any proposition whether historical religious scientific etc., it either corresponds with reality or it doesn’t. It’s true that George Washington was the first US president but what would it possibly mean that was especially true? That can’t be what he means.

I would suggest that the Pope was acknowledging a spectrum of application of the principal of inerrancy. That is he was specifically talking to those would say Jesus didn’t really die or didn’t really walk on water in a historical sense and responding by saying no that is not right. Now you may disagree but then what does the word “especially” mean to you?

In fallibility only applies to statements made by the pope that in some sense concern faith and morals. This is an important background understanding to have whenever we read church teachings. They are not to be interpreted outside of the concerns of the church as being infallible. If a Pope stated “all the church fathers always believed that as a matter of science there are only three elements to all of creation and therefore this is true.” We would have to ask is this statement applying to faith and morals? If not, its not an infallible teaching. Accordingly if the pope starts out by saying something like “the principles I am going to lay down apply to engineering” We should immediately question whether what follows is infallible.

The answer to our question would depend on the specific issue raised. It is possible that teachings on faith and morals can require certain views of a historical or a scientific nature. But this is because they also involve our faith and morals! Hence if someone were to say “scientifically” Jesus couldn’t rise from the dead. We would properly say well he did and that is part of our faith as set out as early as St. Paul. The same would go if someone says based on history we can’t accept that Jesus really existed. These historical claims are also faith claims. But when the historical or scientific claims do not address faith or morals – or as Vatican 2 puts it – our salvation, those claims are of a different matter and should not be read as infallible.

So if he were then to say something which was both addressed an article of faith or moral teaching then yes it could be infallible. But if it is a claim that does not address our matter of faith or moral teaching it is not and can not be infallible.

Consider this: If a Pope were to say “what I am about to say applies to the craft of shipbuilding and Noah’s ark was indeed big enough to traverse water while containing a pair of every known animal species and food and fresh water for them…” This would not be an infallible teaching. The reason it wouldn’t be is not soley because Noah and his ark can properly be considered myth. We can’t simply stop there and consider the matter settled. We can’t just stop there because one could accept that this was a myth but still believe that the scripture was correct in stating part of the blueprints for an ark. Just like one could believe the Story of the flood was a myth but still believe there was nevertheless a man named Noah whose faith provided an important lesson to the Jews of his day. The reason we aren’t required to believe the ark was big enough to hold all the animals is because it has no effect on our religious or moral teachings! We would know this is not an infallible teaching of the church. It would be the Pope stating his beliefs about things like the number and size of animals and his understanding of shipbuilding.

Its with this understanding that you need to look at what Pope Leo XIII said. In particular you should not pass over that word “especially” at the beginning. You never did explain what you thought the significance of that word is. But its there and we can’t write it out. The fact that he says “The principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to History.” Logically implies he is looking at a spectrum of application. I mean I think we would both agree that any proposition in the bible is either true or false right? So the spectrum can’t apply to truth and falsity. The spectrum applies to how we apply the principals he sets forth. He was responding “especially” to claims being made at the time that it is historically unlikely Jesus lived but we can still be Christians. If you have the background understanding that the Pope speaks to religious and moral teachings this word makes sense. If you don’t you will want to read it out of what the Pope said and claim that what he says applies equally across the board to every little detail in the bible.

Also if you have this background understanding you will also understand that there is no conflict between Second Vatican and Pope Leo XIII. That Pope Leo XIII was applying the principle of inerrancy to passages effecting our salvation was a background assumption.

 

[una_fides]

Una Fides
I have been preparing responses to your points as time allows. I appreciate what you say and I do agree with what you say about history not always being what we think was recorded. Nevertheless, I do think there is more that should be considered on this topic. I would say that unless you have studied all the alleged errors and really think you can rationally defend all of them as being free from error, I don’t think you should regard the matter as so clear cut. I mean I suppose you could always go the route of Martin Luther and say our religion is irrational but I don’t think that is what the Catholic Church teaches. Until you get through all the seemingly discordant passages I don’t think you can really understand what it is we are talking about.

Joe, slow down with all the long posts… give me some time to respond already…
Ok. So you’re right, I haven’t studied all the seemingly contradictory passages, but I have certainly studied some of them. You do not have to study every single potential discrepancy to know what you are talking about, and yes, I absolutely can have faith in the Church and Scripture as the inerrant Word of God without having to investigate every time an atheist tries to attack it. Nevertheless, I will demonstrate to you that there are answers out there if you look for them.

In the meantime bear in mind it was not so much the case that atheists shook my faith in what I understood inerrancy to mean. It is rather the notion that in order to be a Catholic I must believe some of the things you suggested regarding rabbits and cud chewing. I do not think that is the case and I think to the extent you think that is a requirement you are mistaken.

As to what verses give me trouble I gave you one. You tried to suggest some explanations for it which are different than the one given by the Catholic Study Bible – which, by the way, (unlike your post) carries an Imprimatur. I don’t think I’m being difficult when I tell you that so far you are 0-1 in explaining away the alleged errors.

First, in my defense, I wrote that post without doing any research whatsoever into this specific claim. I was merely offering potential alternate solutions to demonstrate that there can be alternate explanations or things beyond our understanding and that we do not have to begin with the presumption that Scripture contains errors. Nevertheless, I will refute and answer your actual silly claim about the rabbits chewing cud if that helps you to cease believing that God is the author of error. I realize that you have other things up your sleeve, other alleged discrepancies, but they too will have answers.

I’m not sure what purpose posting other difficult passages would prove. The way you seem to interpret the bible is that it is impossible that there be any mistake on even the smallest detail regardless of how irrelevant it is to our salvation. Hence you can’t just skip over passages and move on to others.

And it appears that you approach the Bible as a book written by fallible ordinary men that is only inspired in the parts that you think pertain to salvation.

The Catholic Study Bible IMO gives far and away the most probable explanation of what happened. It says “According to modern Zoology, the rock badger (hyrax Syriacus) is classified as an ungulate, and the hare is a rodent; neither is a ruminant. They both appear to chew their food as the true ruminants do, and it is upon this appearance that the classification in the text is based.” Just so you know, a ruminant is an animal that chews the cud. That is it throws up material it previously swallowed and chews it again. The commentators are simply stating that the author of Leviticus said the rabbits do this because it appears that indeed rabbits do this, but they don’t. It’s hard to understand this as anything other then stating the author made a mistake.

There we have it. Your god makes mistakes in Scripture. My God does not. We know from defined Church teaching that God is the author of Scripture. Let’s apply your limited inspiration theory for a second. Here’s a verse from Scripture that pertains to salvation, specifically sanctification, and it actually happens to be Scripture’s own witness to its own inspiration:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

“That the man of God may be perfect” is the phrase pertaining to our salvation. The first word in the passage is the most significant because it does not say that “all scripture–pertaining to salvation–is inspired of God.” It says All Scripture, and thus means “all Scripture.” Furthermore, it is inspired by GOD, not by man. We know from both Scripture and Tradition that God cannot lie.

 

[una_fides]

(Leviticus 11:5f states “…the rock badger, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.”)
Please note this passage is not treated as a big deal in this study bible. It’s indeed not a big deal if the author was mistaken by the appearance of how rabbits chewed their food. Fundamentalists and Atheists can get all up in arms about this and believe their faith somehow hangs in the balance but that is not the Catholic way.
Like I said I have no interest in trying to flood this thread with lists of difficult passages. But if you would like to understand where I’m coming from you may like to simply consider the passage I gave you. What do you make of it? Do really you believe it was mistranslated? Miscopied? You don’t understand it? Don’t say all three because then you might get tied in knots. Consider what I said in response to your 3 suggestions taken from Saint Augustine. Moreover consider the effort that went into the Catholic study bible. Do you not think they would have considered that maybe there was a copyist error, a mistranslation or that this may have some hidden meaning? I can assure you these issues are indeed considered by people doing the translation and commentary on the bible. The NAB bible was the product of the work of huge amount of work by many scholars. If they think there is significant reason to believe that happened they would state it. Until I hear anything to support your view that one of those three things must have happened it appears to be based on thin air.
However in all of this I am trying to approach the subject with humility and recognize there is variance of opinion and that there is a possibility that I may be wrong. With that in mind I would like to go ahead and address several points that you have raised and I would like to share some further reasons that I believe support my position.
But before I do I would like to point out that I think you are misunderstanding my post about your slippery slope argument. It is fallacious just like all slippery slope arguments. I am however pointing out that to the extent you believe there is a slippery slope here Augustine’s three recommended ways to address apparent error do not stop us from going down hill, so to speak. You are the one who is suggesting that a copyist just made a mistake in the text of Leviticus not me. I have no reason to believe that and indeed have some reason to think that is not the case. But if you think these sorts of copyist errors can occur, you are the one who is going to have a bigger credibility problem for the bible than I am.

Ok. So I was able to find the answer to your question after doing a few minutes of searching online. You said in your OP that the problem with the pellets is that they don’t literally “chew” them that they swallow them. You are correct. However, “the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’.” answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp Check out the rest of the article. The author has his phd in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry), so I think he has some idea what he’s talking about.
Here’s some more from the article to hopefully help ease your worry:
“Also, rabbits and hares practice refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the skeptics are wrong.
God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.”

 

[joemccarron]

Ok. So I was able to find the answer to your question after doing a few minutes of searching online. You said in your OP that the problem with the pellets is that they don’t literally “chew” them that they swallow them. You are correct. However, “the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’.” answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp Check out the rest of the article. The author has his phd in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry), so I think he has some idea what he’s talking about.
Here’s some more from the article to hopefully help ease your worry:
“Also, rabbits and hares practice refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the skeptics are wrong.
God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.”

Thanks for your responses. I appreciate your thinking through this with me.

I agree with what you said in an earlier post, my rabbit example is a silly one. The thing is I think it’s silly that we need to try to defend this or believe this or else be called a heretic. So the silliness of these problems I think demonstrates a weakness in your stance on this.

But anyway on to The Fundamentalist’s JP Holdings explanations:

I do not find the explanation of the “physical chemistry” doctor as convincing as the explanation that is given in my Catholic Study bible and here is why:

First he wants to interpret “chew the cud” as bring up what has been chewed in such a broad sense that it includes rabbits eating excrement. If he goes this route then he is going to have problems when its pointed out that pigs also eat their excrement. Yet Leviticus says they do not “chew the cud.”

Second: From what I understand I do not think the author would have used the same expression for eating dung as he would have used for a cow chewing the cud. I mean they are considering whether an animal is “clean” and are making all sorts of relatively picky distinctions. So are we to say the author intended to lump animals that eat their excrement with animals chewing their cud without any mention of this difference? I’m sorry I just don’t quite buy it.

Third I do not think what he is saying is dependant on his authority as a scientist. I think the scientific facts of what occurs in animals is fairly well accepted by all. Instead its more dependant on his authority as a Hebrew translator. He is trying to get around another problem in that rabbits do not actually “chew” these pellets. Here he makes the statement:

“First, gerah (or gehrah) is indeed the word used here, and—this is important—it is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.”

Well I’m not so sure about this. I mean I am not so sure we can say we can’t understand this word unless we can learn its meaning form the OT itself. Are there no other Hebrew texts we can use? (I really don’t know the answer for sure but I do have reason to question this) Also to say what it means “in terms of the Mosaic law” seems quite weak to me. I mean why does cud chewing mean something different in Mosaic Law as opposed to everywhere else the term is used? At least on the face of itI have some serious doubts here. I’m not a scholar of the Hebrew language so I can’t and I don’t rule the possibility that they may even be right. Perhaps the author meant that Rabbits eat their own dung and for this reason they should be considered clean animals but unfortunately they aren’t clean because they have split hooves.

However based on what I have read in this argument I have to say this “seems” unlikely. I do not think my inability to buy into this (as opposed to the explanation given in the Catholic study Bible) should be considered heresy.

My perspective as a catholic is that I do not need to argue to the teeth such matters. More importantly no Catholic should say his faith hangs in the balance of such fancy dancing.

 

[una_fides]

Thanks for your responses. I appreciate your thinking through this with me.

I agree with what you said in an earlier post, my rabbit example is a silly one. The thing is I think it’s silly that we need to try to defend this or believe this or else be called a heretic. So the silliness of these problems I think demonstrates a weakness in your stance on this.
…
However based on what I have read in this argument I have to say this “seems” unlikely. I do not think my inability to buy into this (as opposed to the explanation given in the Catholic study Bible) should be considered heresy.

My perspective as a catholic is that I do not need to argue to the teeth such matters. More importantly no Catholic should say his faith hangs in the balance of such fancy dancing.

It is not silly to think that God inspired all of Scripture when Scripture itself says so. First, if you are Catholic, start with your faith and what must theologically be put together. If your Catholic faith says that God inspired and therefore is the author of all Scripture, and if God cannot err, then Scripture cannot possibly contain errors. The “this” in your statement underlined above is referring to my stance on the inspired nature of all Scripture and God’s authorship. You must first determine the true Catholic faith on this matter, then apply it to how you view the Scripture rather than take Scripture as a mere book and then see if it by its contents can prove to be inspired. Do you see the difference. Furthermore, if the Catholic faith says that all Scripture is inspired by God, as it does and as Scripture itself most clearly says, then that is a matter of fact theologically that I don’t think you are prepared nor can anyone refute. I would like to first hear your arguments as to how you could possibly view Scripture as containing errors theologically before we continue to examine the evidence as to the particular claims. Once you realize that the Catholic faith is clear that God inspired without error all of Scripture, then you will not think it silly that we should be defending all of God’s inspired Word.

 

[joemccarron]

Joe, slow down with all the long posts… give me some time to respond already…
Ok. So you’re right, I haven’t studied all the seemingly contradictory passages, but I have certainly studied some of them. You do not have to study every single potential discrepancy to know what you are talking about, and yes, I absolutely can have faith in the Church and Scripture as the inerrant Word of God without having to investigate every time an atheist tries to attack it. Nevertheless, I will demonstrate to you that there are answers out there if you look for them.

Well I am not sure how many difficult passages you have gone through so its hard for me to say how much of a sense of the problem you have. I mean I became interested in the bible and understanding it from a historical perspective several years ago. I have read several claims of inconsistency or error that I, like you, recognize have more to do with the claimants irrationally determined mindset to prove error than the facts could sustain. I mean we both agree many people who for whatever reason hate Christianity try to make these huge lists of alleged errors that are nothing more than garbage claims.

On the other hand when trying to educate myself to defend the faith I have heard at least a few alleged errors that in the end I recognize it would only be through my own irrationally determined mindset that I would be able to deny that it does seem to be some error or inconsistency. None of these were remotely close to essential teachings BTW. Do I need to throw the rationality out? Ok that may be a question some face. But do I need to face that question because my beliefs about rabbits and cud? To me that is just seems a bit hard too accept.

I am not one who is out to radically redefine the bible. I think that way has many errors that can be clearly explained. But I’m not convinced that Pope Leo made my believing rabbits chew the cud an essential article of Catholic Faith in his statement. I don’t think he was squarely dealing with these sorts of concerns. I gave you my reasons for my interpretation of Leo XIII above. I’m not saying everyone has to agree with it but I do think its a reasonable way to look this issue and the statements made in V2.

 

[joemccarron]

It is not silly to think that God inspired all of Scripture when Scripture itself says so.

Scripture and Jesus himself also pointed out that scripture was also written by Humans not solely by God. I think your interpretations are ignoring the human aspect.

Consider when Jesus forbids divorce. Jesus refers to scripture from Deuteronomy where Moses said you could give your wife notice and leave her etc.
Jesus "said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Notice he did not say “Mose’s took dictation from God’s and thereby said…” Yet we can find the scripture he is talking about in Deuteronomy 24. Jesus I have no doubt acknowledged that scripture had divine inspiration. But he also recognized it had a human component. The Catholic Church recognizes both aspects.

 

[Genesis315]

I think if you read the whole chapter in the Catechism on the topic and all of Dei Verbum it becomes apparent that it intends to teach inerrancy and to say the entirety of Scripture was inspired for our salvation.

In fact, in his instruction on a certain profession of faith, then Cardinal Ratzinger listed inerrancy as a truth revealed by God (notice, his list is not meant to be exhaustive):

To the truths of the first paragraph

• [truths revealed by God] belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas21 and Marian dogmas;22 the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace;23 the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist24 and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration;25 the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;26 the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff;27 the doctrine on the existence of original sin;28 the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death;29 the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts;30 the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.31

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[Ron_Conte]

“St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error. ” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16)

“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18 )

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“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 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 Spirit; 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.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.”[2] In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.” When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules. (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)

---

Therefore, it is a required belief of the Catholic Faith
that the Bible is entirely inspired and entirely inerrant.

 

[una_fides]

Scripture and Jesus himself also pointed out that scripture was also written by Humans not solely by God. I think your interpretations are ignoring the human aspect.

Actually all of Scripture was written by humans and God did not “write” any of it. But he did move the authors to write what they wrote.

Consider when Jesus forbids divorce. Jesus refers to scripture from Deuteronomy where Moses said you could give your wife notice and leave her etc. ,
Notice he did not say “Mose’s took dictation from God’s and thereby said…” Yet we can find the scripture he is talking about in Deuteronomy 24. Jesus I have no doubt acknowledged that scripture had divine inspiration. But he also recognized it had a human component. The Catholic Church recognizes both aspects.
You are trying to say that Catholic Church agrees with your interpretation, however, the magisterial document with the highest authority that has been demonstrated on this thread is the encyclical from Pope Leo, which says that God moved the authors to write and “dictated” to them what to write and that nothing they wrote contains “any error.” We thereby interpret the CCC in light of Pope Leo not in light of what we want it to mean.

Regarding Jesus’ statement, it is absolutely unnecessary to try to say that just because Jesus said that Moses gave a particular teaching that such teaching was not given to him first by God. Just because the text does not explicitly state the divine origin of a temporary law dealing with discipline does not mean that it was of mere human origin.

I don’t know what you meant when you said we can’t find the Scripture he is talking about. Deuteronomy 24 does say that divorce was permitted… Are you saying that Deut 24 did not say the part about inspiration? I’m unsure what you meant by that.

 

[joemccarron]

There we have it. Your god makes mistakes in Scripture. My God does not. We know from defined Church teaching that God is the author of Scripture. Let’s apply your limited inspiration theory for a second. Here’s a verse from Scripture that pertains to salvation, specifically sanctification, and it actually happens to be Scripture’s own witness to its own inspiration:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

“That the man of God may be perfect” is the phrase pertaining to our salvation. The first word in the passage is the most significant because it does not say that “all scripture–pertaining to salvation–is inspired of God.” It says All Scripture, and thus means “all Scripture.” Furthermore, it is inspired by GOD, not by man. We know from both Scripture and Tradition that God cannot lie.

This passage is not troubling for the view that it is inerrant for our salvation. Look at what the author is trying to communicate. Is he trying to communicate that we can learn biology from it? Does he say its profitable for that? No. Timothy is a human being writing with background understanding that scripture is written for a purpose that is religious.

Like you say the phrase “That a man of God may be perfect” is not referring to our wisdom of biology or history. It is referring to our spiritual being and salvation.

Again do you think for a second he has in mind a rabbits digestive tract? Consider this: Lets say you were in church in ancient times in front of Timothy when he read this out loud to you. Lets say you politely raised your hand and said “ahem Well I have been examining some rabbits and I find that they do not “indeed chew the cud” like it claims in Leviticus, so what you say about ‘all’ of scripture must be false.” How long do you think he would stare at you with knitted brow before he understood where in the world you were coming from? These trains of thought are on two different rails. We should not pretend they meet.

 

[una_fides]

…

Ron, thank you for your post. I hope this helps settle the issue as to whether the Catholic Church teaches that all of Scripture is inspired and has God as its author and as such is inerrant.

 

[una_fides]

joemccarron,

In light of the post above that clearly states that the Catholic Church teaches without a doubt that all of Scripture is free from error and that it all is inspired (not just the parts in reference to salvation) and that to think contrary is condemned, are you saying that the Catholic Church is wrong and that your concept of limited inspiration is correct?

Again from the post above from Vatican II:
“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)
What part of “everything” is unclear?

Why would God, who is truth, communicate error through the authors he employed? Either all of Scripture is inspired and without error or it contains errors and is thereby not all inspired. Otherwise, you would have to conclude that somehow God inspired (moved) the author to write error. How do you reconcile this obvious problem with such theology?

 

[una_fides]

Let’s examine for a second where the “for our salvation” phrase came about in the CCC. It was a rewording from Vatican II, which was partially quoted above. Here is the complete quote boldened in its context:

“11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
**Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. **Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).”
(Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Notice specifically that the prepositional phrase “for the sake of salvation” does not occur until the end of the text and after the reference (5). Reference #5 points to the following documents that all support unquestionably that all of Scripture is without errors: 5. cf. St. Augustine, “Gen. ad Litt.” 2, 9, 20L 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, 124, 126-127. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539.

So we are either left with one of two conclusions. That the phrase “for the sake of salvation” is a new way of looking at inspiration as only pertaining to the parts regarding salvation -or- that the purpose of God inspiring all of Scripture and keeping it free from error is to help accomplish our salvation. All the referenced teachings point to the latter explanation. The former explanation (previously condemned as modernism) also cannot possibly be true in light of Vatican I, which infallibly declared that dogmas of the Church must be understood and interpreted in eodem sensu (in the same sense) as they have always be understood and how they were always intended. piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason Hence, the Catholic interpretation of Vatican II absolutely must be in line with the previous declarations on this matter in the same sense as they have always meant to be understood.

 

[Genesis315]

una fides,

I think the sentence right before the section you bolded is also helpful. The writers wrote only what God wanted written–nothing more and nothing less.

 

[anon5216]

joemccarron,

In light of the post above that clearly states that the Catholic Church teaches without a doubt that all of Scripture is free from error and that it all is inspired (not just the parts in reference to salvation) and that to think contrary is condemned, are you saying that the Catholic Church is wrong and that your concept of limited inspiration is correct?

Again from the post above from Vatican II:
“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)
What part of “everything” is unclear?

Why would God, who is truth, communicate error through the authors he employed? Either all of Scripture is inspired and without error or it contains errors and is thereby not all inspired. Otherwise, you would have to conclude that somehow God inspired (moved) the author to write error. How do you reconcile this obvious problem with such theology?

The book “Misquoting Jesus” shows we really don’t have original texts. Even the early church leaders were complaining about the great variation in content between the different manuscript copies they had available.

To say that the current versions are inerrant is not possible, because they do not 100% reflect the originals. Either the original writers wrote some amount of error and modern versions corrected them, or the originals were inerrant and the modern versions introduced error.
(Or, none of the versions were truly inerrant - including the originals).

Personally, I don’t reconcile it - the theology is wrong.

Note that by saying this, I’m not negating Christianity - just certain interpretations and definitions. If Church leaders want to “bet the farm” on these things, they will eventually lose it. Christianity will remain.

 

[joemccarron]

Ron Conte
Thank you for sharing in these posts. I read your website and although I disagree with your conclusion I do believe you provide much good information on this topic. Those who are interested in this topic might like to read it:
catholicplanet.com/TSM/papal-infallibility.htm

In your opinion Providentissimus Deus is ex cathedra regarding the unlimited inerrancy of scripture. However I do not think ex cathedra statements can cover statements outside faith and morals unless it at least has some tie in with them.

Let me put it this way:

1. Some claims are relevant to “faith and morals” and that’s it.
2. Some claims are relevant to both “faith and Morals” and also have implications to some other topics such as to science and history etc.
3. Some claims are relevant only to science and history or whatever but not our faith and morals.

Now I think we both agree that the Pope can make infallible statements about 1 and 2. I would say the pope can not make infallible statements about 3.

If some of the statements in the bible fit in 3 then your interpretation has the Pope speaking infallibly about them. I do not believe that can happen. So to the extent the teaching of the church is infallible it must deal with claims that are 1 or at least 2.

This is the context I read the papal statements. Once you consider this context you will see no conflict with Vatican 2. You will not see a conflict with the Synod of bishops draft statement either. (Do you know the status of that by the way?)

It seems to me that it has never been necessary to our faith to believe that rabbits chew the cud. Nor has this belief (or lack of belief) been a moral teaching. Now if you mean to say that Pope Leo XIII meant to infallibly claim that “rabbits do indeed chew the cud and this is an now a teaching of faith and morals” then I am going to have to hear that more explicitly. In the meantime I am going to interpret what he says in the context that I look at all Papal encyclicals. That is he is teaching about our Faith and Morals and to the extent we try to go into matters outside that realm we are either not understanding what he says or he is not speaking infallibly.

Now you might say he is not saying it is an essential part of our faith that we believe rabbits do indeed chew the cud. I would agree. But the way you interpret his statement it is logically implied that it is. We must believe rabbits do indeed chew the cud. To the extent you interpret it that way I think it can’t be infallible.

So the statement was either not infallible or it dealt only with claims relating to faith and morals. This is basically the analysis Catholics have used in deciding infallibility for as long as I have known it.

The fact that V2 said the bible is inerrant when it relates to matters concerning salvation seems to indicate that it was reading the Pope along the same lines I was.

 

[una_fides]

The book “Misquoting Jesus” shows we really don’t have original texts. Even the early church leaders were complaining about the great variation in content between the different manuscript copies they had available.

To say that the current versions are inerrant is not possible, because they do not 100% reflect the originals. Either the original writers wrote some amount of error and modern versions corrected them, or the originals were inerrant and the modern versions introduced error.
(Or, none of the versions were truly inerrant - including the originals).

Personally, I don’t reconcile it - the theology is wrong.

Note that by saying this, I’m not negating Christianity - just certain interpretations and definitions. If Church leaders want to “bet the farm” on these things, they will eventually lose it. Christianity will remain.

I’m sorry to read on your personal profile info that you are a former Catholic and are now interested in Indian spirituality. This fact is evidenced by your post.

What an individual may think about Christianity does not change what it is. We know from the authority of Christ, which he delegated to his Church, that the teachings of the Catholic faith are true concerning Scripture. Just because something may seem at first glance to be a contradiction or error does not mean it is. There are viable explanations for anything in Scripture that seems to be a contradiction. The possibility of a copyist error is there but is fractional, i.e. pertaining to about 1% of passages. Here’s a site that explains. home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html Our Catholic faith, however, ensures us that there are no errors in the original inspired texts, and we know that the differences in manuscripts is minimal enough to not cause us any concern regarding the doctrines of our faith. The texts we now have, however, could contain manuscript errors, which could potentially effect minor things such as this silly rabbit chewing cud argument that seems to never go away on this thread.