Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[Ron_Conte]

Ron I already posted a link to your article and some thought on it in this thread at post 39 here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4738446&postcount=39

Good commentary in that other thread; I did not see that before. I agree that any teaching on faith and morals, even one with implications for science or history or other subject areas, can be taught infallibly. For example, it is a required belief that God created the universe. So any scientific theory that says it came into existence on its own out of nothing, or that it always existed, is contrary to the Faith. However, any scientific theory or other assertion not related to faith and morals is not the subject area of the Magisterium. But I should add that once we have the Beatific Vision of God, all truths on all topics will be known with certitude. So it is not as if there are two types of truths. Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium are concerned with the truths important for salvation (as DV states), but they are not strictly limited to those truths.

But the question of the inerrancy of Scripture is related to faith and morals. If Scripture is not entirely inspired, then there is no way for us to know which assertions are inspired and which are not. As a result, the entire text becomes uncertain, since different persons would categorize truths pertaining to salvation in different ways. Is it only truths essential to salvation, or is it truths distantly related to salvation?

Also, we are now about 2000 years into the pilgrim journey of the Church. There are ancient quotes from Fathers and Saints and Doctors supporting total inerrancy. But if the PBC were to say that inerrancy is limited to the topic of salvation, or of faith and morals, this would have no basis in past teachings. But it is impossible that God permitted the Chuch to go forward for 2000 years before saying, ‘Oh and by the way, Scriptue is only partially inerrant’. It is impossible for the answer to this fundamental question on Divine Revelation to be absent from the Living Tradition for 2000 years, and then suddenly appear due to a 1/2 sentence quote from Vatican II.

Concerning a rabbit chewing its cud, bats categorized with birds, and similar points:

these are merely convenient categorizations for the purpose of ceremonial precepts; both the categorizations and the ceremonial precepts, are not assertions of truth, but dispensable rules, i.e. a rule for categorizing animals in to clean and unclean. These are not assertions of truth or falsehood. The ancients were instructed to categorize bats with birds since this was the most convenient way to categorize animals.

But there is a larger issue here. If we say that rabbits do not chew their cud (rather than understanding this as merey a way to categorize animals by appearance – since they do appear to chew again), then in effect we are saying that God inspired a falsehood, thereby accusing God of lying. If God ever lies or inspires lies then our faith is in vain.
So no point within Scripture is irrelevant to faith and morals, such that a falsehood could be asserted as true, or a truth asserted as false, because all of Scripture is inspired.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Only a pope himself can overrule a previous non-infallible declaration from a previous pope.

No, a Council could do so also.

The teaching on inerrancy was taught definitively by several Popes, and this teaching is also handed down in Tradition, and so it is infallible under Sacred Tradition. There is a Tradition going back to the early Church Fathers on total inerrancy. There is no Tradition of limited inerrancy.

St. Gregory Nazianzen: We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them…

St. Clement of Rome: You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them.

St. Justin Martyr: But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.

St. Jerome: I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired

St. Augustine: I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie… If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.

St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome: For, I admit to your Charity that it is from those books alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text [particular copy] is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.

Furthermore, Popes Leo 13 and Benedict 15 declared this teaching on total inerrancy to be a teaching of Tradition and settled doctrine.

“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).

“Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church … these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute,” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16, 18)

If the current Pope had made such a declaration yesterday then it would be treated as a definitive teaching, but because it was many years ago, some persons have a tendency to treat older teachings as if they have lost their force over time.

 

[una_fides]

A more reasonable conclusion is that St. John and the other fathers believed that the scriptures had to be inerrant or their faith would have no foundation and would be false.
They were incorrect in their assumption. True Christianity does not require inerrancy of writings or teachings.

So this “true Christianity” that you’ve apparently discovered on your own must have a god that can err. I’m sorry but this “Christianity” is a fiction you’ve created. The God of the Church is perfect and his divine revelation therefore cannot contain errors.

 

[una_fides]

Many have begged for - and received - grace and light from God and heaven.
They are not now all Catholics - many are Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim/Sufi/Adwaitan/non-aligned/etc./etc.

Here’s the problem with your thinking: if God is a God of truth, then He will not be leading people to believe things false. The God of Christianity, Jesus Christ, said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6).
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you.
1John 4:6 We are of God. He that knows God hears us. He that is not of God hears us not. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

I realize you are not a Catholic or even a Christian for that matter and that you basically disregard anything that the Church teaches, so my quoting Scripture likely will not have much affect on you as you will likely write it off as some made up teachings and not as divine revelation. But understand this: these verses are part of what we Catholics and Christians refer to as divine revelation, meaning that God himself revealed these things to us. Even if someone falsely concludes that Scripture is only inspired pertaining to faith or morals, these verses clearly teach things on those matters as they pertain to the nature of God and the truth itself and how it can be known, which is through the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit that inspired the books of Scripture. I do not wish to revisit our discussions all over again as to your thinking this reasoning is circular because you still have not responded to my answering this objection and the book that I cited. Furthermore, such a discussion is off topic and would better be left to private messaging if you wish to discuss those things with me further.

My goal in writing these things is that you see that the Christian faith is grounded in revelation and is known as a revealed faith. If you reject the Church’s authority, which you have openly done, then it is obvious you will not accept her Scriptures as well.

 

[una_fides]

Just because followers of one religion claim the other religions are false means nothing.
Everyone can write their own scriptures claiming everyone else is false - the whole concept is utter nonsense.

It is utter nonsense to you because you do not believe it, but if it is true, then you could be in quite a bit of trouble.

Yes! The pope is the referee of Catholicism and gets to make the call on the field.
And yes, the players who have agreed to be bound by the calls of the referee are bound to abide by those calls - right or wrong. (Unless they are willing to leave the game).

Now the audience on the other hand, can watch the slow-motion replay and see details that even the refs couldn’t perceive in real time from their limited vantage point.
It can be blatantly obvious that the referee either was wrong because they didn’t perceive all the details fast enough - or were possibly even intentionally manipulating the game.

Like I said, the analogy as with virtually any is not perfect and breaks down at some level. The difference is that almighty God has promised that this referee through divine revelation revealed through sacred Scripture, the Magisterium, and Tradition, that when he makes definitive calls pertaining to certain matters (faith and morals) that these decisions are safeguarded against any error (infallible) and are irreformable. Nevertheless, some sit at home and watch the game and their biased minds continue to tell them that the player stepped out of bounds when in reality and in Truth he did not. It would be the equivalent of watching the game from the stands and trying to make a decision as to what happened when the true and correct decision has been made by someone who cannot possibly fail.

 

[joemccarron]

Good commentary in that other thread; I did not see that before. I agree that any teaching on faith and morals, even one with implications for science or history or other subject areas, can be taught infallibly. For example, it is a required belief that God created the universe. So any scientific theory that says it came into existence on its own out of nothing, or that it always existed, is contrary to the Faith. However, any scientific theory or other assertion not related to faith and morals is not the subject area of the Magisterium. But I should add that once we have the Beatific Vision of God, all truths on all topics will be known with certitude. So it is not as if there are two types of truths. Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium are concerned with the truths important for salvation (as DV states), but they are not strictly limited to those truths.

But the question of the inerrancy of Scripture is related to faith and morals. If Scripture is not entirely inspired, then there is no way for us to know which assertions are inspired and which are not. As a result, the entire text becomes uncertain, since different persons would categorize truths pertaining to salvation in different ways. Is it only truths essential to salvation, or is it truths distantly related to salvation?

We are in agreement with the first paragraph. The truths of religion can overlap with history and science but when something is only of historical scientific significance the church does not claim to be the source of knowledge.

As for your second paragraph: It’s not true that we have no way to acquire necessary knowledge. We do have the Holy Spirit guiding us and our church. We can have faith/trust in that guidance even if the authors of scripture and the leaders of our church are only human. As to whether we must believe rabbits chew the cud or not for our salvation - this is for our church to answer.

The tough questions are not answered by making a blank statement there are no errors. It is just artificially pushes them to a different level. Then we say well we don’t understand the passage or there must be a copy error etc. How can a passage that we don’t understand be “….profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”? 2 Timothy 3:16

I would suggest that when we (or Timothy) say “all scripture” we don’t necessarily mean every minutia but instead all the books including the old testament all the letters etc. We have 4 Gospels all telling the same story of Christ’s passion but they are all inspired and all profitable. Its not like since we have Luke we can do without Mathew Mark and John. These were the issues faced in the early church. The idea is to look at the scripture as a whole not focus in on just a phrase. In that way it’s “all” inspired and profitable even if we don’t understand one phrase or even if one phrase contains an error.

Also, we are now about 2000 years into the pilgrim journey of the Church. There are ancient quotes from Fathers and Saints and Doctors supporting total inerrancy. But if the PBC were to say that inerrancy is limited to the topic of salvation, or of faith and morals, this would have no basis in past teachings. But it is impossible that God permitted the Chuch to go forward for 2000 years before saying, ‘Oh and by the way, Scriptue is only partially inerrant’. It is impossible for the answer to this fundamental question on Divine Revelation to be absent from the Living Tradition for 2000 years, and then suddenly appear due to a 1/2 sentence quote from Vatican II…

We have the church fathers including Saint John Chrystosm. If what he taught was orthodox then it shouldn’t be considered false teaching 1800 years later. It’s either true or false. If there are disagreements on small matters in the Gospels then John taught truly if they do not exist then what he said was false. But we are indeed 2000 years into it. We were 1850 years into it before Pope Leo XIII spoke and no council has ever said that we must believe that every phrase of scripture can contain no error or we would be excommunicated from the church. The church gave us many creeds teachings through councils and developments. Why did Pope Leo XIII all of a sudden make this statement? It wasn’t because of a new scientific/historical/archeological discovery verifying the truth of scripture in every detail. He said it as a reaction to certain claims that were being made at the time. We should understand his statements as a reaction to those claims.

Its worth noting that Pope Leo XIII would not be incorrect in saying all the church fathers agree with his view of inerrancy if he did not mean to extend it to the extreme such that what St. John said would be false. I don’t know exactly what Pope Leo XIII had in mind but if he meant to condemn what St. John had taught he probably could have been more precise. I choose to read them as not contradicting each other but instead in agreement. Hence Pope Leo XII could not have meant to say the discordance in small matters that St. John referred to was not allowed. (although I agree his terminology often seems to contradict the Church Father on this.)

 

[joemccarron]

Concerning a rabbit chewing its cud, bats categorized with birds, and similar points:

these are merely convenient categorizations for the purpose of ceremonial precepts; both the categorizations and the ceremonial precepts, are not assertions of truth, but dispensable rules, i.e. a rule for categorizing animals in to clean and unclean. These are not assertions of truth or falsehood. The ancients were instructed to categorize bats with birds since this was the most convenient way to categorize animals.

But there is a larger issue here. If we say that rabbits do not chew their cud (rather than understanding this as merey a way to categorize animals by appearance – since they do appear to chew again), then in effect we are saying that God inspired a falsehood, thereby accusing God of lying. If God ever lies or inspires lies then our faith is in vain.
So no point within Scripture is irrelevant to faith and morals, such that a falsehood could be asserted as true, or a truth asserted as false, because all of Scripture is inspired.

With respect to the first paragraph:
When the text says “…the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs…” It does indeed seem to making a truth claim. To say the text does not here make a truth claim takes textual reconstruction to new heights. I would suggest if we go that route we really can’t make sense of anything in scripture and it’s therefore useless.

Now I agree it’s possible that there may be certain problems with the translation and the meaning of what a cud chewer was. So I am not here to say its impossible to believe that the author might somehow have not been mistaken. But saying something is possible and probable are two different things. When we add up all the different such phrases I think we have to agree with Saint John that there seems to be discord regarding small matters in the scripture.

With respect to your second paragraph I think you are incorrect in your reasoning. God may have inspired the entire scripture but that does not necessarily mean he dictated every phrase. This distinction was drawn by the PBC in a document which had Cardinal Ratzinger’s recommendation.

No if this statement was in error it is not the case that God lied to us. He has no use to lie to us and it is not his nature. He had rules for the Jewish people to follow to among other things demonstrate and strengthen their obedience to him. But the rules themselves in this case were not important. It was the obedience that was important.

Some rules were based on natural law some weren’t. The 10 commandments are based on natural law, not eating rabbits is not based on natural law. So it really doesn’t matter if mistakes were made concerning the formulation of dietary laws. Just like it doesn’t matter what exactly you choose to give up for lent. You give something up for many reasons but in part to show that God comes first in your life and you have that in the forefront of mind at all times.

God inspired the Gospel writers and guides our church to help us understand what we need to understand. He is not there as a big science/history tutor in the sky. We shouldn’t expect that God is going to intervene and demonstrate truths that are not important to him. Popes shouldn’t pray that God will guide them regarding the digestive processes of rabbits. Popes have much more important truths they need God’s guidance for.

 

[joemccarron]

haha. i like and appreciate the football analogy, especially as i’m a big football fan myself. i think in this analogy, the way we watch the slow motion replay is by reading the text very carefully in light of Tradition and other such texts. The key to understand is that this is not just a game play: it’s the final decision by the referree that we are here discussing. No one can outrule the pope, so he’s made the call on the field. He’s said that x is true and y is false. We’re set. Now we just apply that ruling to the game itself and other similar situations that occur where that ruling also applies. I realize the analogy breaks down eventually, but I think it makes my point.

Yes but when we do that we can’t throw out parts. We should try to find a way to understand that what these modern Popes said that does not contradict what Saint John said. I think Vatican 2’s statement did that.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Although this may sound ok it is a demonstration of a formal logical fallacy - Affirming the consequent."

Hey Joe!

May these posts bless you and may God somehow use them to draw you closer to Him. I agree that if I had constructed a hypothetical argument and either affirmed the consequent or denied the antecedent, then the conclusion would not necessarily follow. But I didn’t intend to present my argument in this form. Sorry if I goofed.

Let me ask you. If I mirror What Saint John said and say:

1. “Discordance … seems to exist in little matters” of scripture.

would this be heresy?

Discordance seems to exist in Scripture no matter what we are talking about, so there’s no problem with saying this as long as you don’t proceed to assert that it’s actually there in substance. In your initial analysis of John’s Homily 1 on Matthew, you wrote

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

You took what John said as his conceding that there is discordance. But a more careful reading reveals that all he is actually conceding is the object that lies behind the cause of the objection raised by the antagonist. When he writes “this very thing,” the Greek words for “this” and “thing” have a neuter gender. This means that their antecedent is likewise neuter and this takes us back to “the contrary” thing which has come to pass: “‘The contrary,’ it may be said, ‘has come to pass.’” The antagonist thinks that this contrary “thing” is discordances which are manifestations of underlying contradictions. John concedes that this “thing” is there, but disagrees as to what that thing is. For John, this “thing” is discordances in appearance which are manifestations of an underlying harmony. In other words, John thinks that the “discordance” is simply a different way of saying the same thing. After the disputed statement, John goes on to clarify,

For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.

The quote that I provided from Homily 28 is a good example of what John is in fact conceding here:

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

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

Here, John believes that Matthew has placed things in chronological order whereas Luke and Mark have just decided to plop down a story about Jesus at this point in their narratives. All three have not maintained the exact same order of narrative. Chrysostom assigns a reason for this: they are not always intending to relate a catalogued chronology. If all of the stories about Jesus’ life were all in the same order, this would be the level of agreement that John acknowledges them not to have. But there is no discordance here (or anywhere), and since the antagonist misses this fact John reminds his hearers of this recurring pattern and offers this solution to the current discrepancy so that they will not be of the “simpler sort” of Homily 4 who thinks there is a real discordance. The antagonist sees the difference in order and assumes that the writers were all trying to maintain the same order; hence, he sees a contradiction. John knows that there is no real contradiction and so he harmonizes the texts.

Homily 56 provides another good example:

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

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

Chrysostom agrees with the antagonist that the Gospel writers do not both say six days and that they do not both say eight days. The Gospel writers do not agree “in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words… because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity.” But John disagrees with the antagonist when the antagonist goes on to say that this is a true discordance, that the authors truly intended to convey two different lengths of time and that at least one of them therefore got it wrong. John shows how they in fact do agree, even that they fully agree! But the authors used a different number of days to signify the same length of time. The antagonist sees discord and declares a contradiction; John sees “discord” and declares harmony.

 

[Pete_Holter]

What if I say:
2) The Gospel writers do not always agree to the time and place of what occurred?

Would that be heresy?

For this example, I think that what you mean by “agree,” and what John means by “agree,” do not agree. He wrote that “if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said,” and then goes on to say further down that “it is one thing to speak differently and another to speak at variance.” What you have said here, that they don’t agree, is a little different from what John is saying, which is that their “disagreement” consists of their having harmoniously related the same things differently.

You may want to think about it like this. John is going to show us how their different material, as it pertains to time and place, in no way injures the truth. He says, “And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out.” Now if John had just conceded discordance (Gk. = διαφωνία) in the Bible as it pertains to these things, why would he go on from there to show that when they have related things differently (Gk. = δίαφόρως) it doesn’t injure the truth? The implication of saying that things spoken differently doesn’t injure the truth is that if they went beyond mere “differences” then it would injure the truth, or, more accurately, it would at least have a greater propensity for injuring the truth. So why bother harmonizing the different material if there is discordant material? It’s a moot point. In other words: if there is any real discordance at all when it comes to time and place, why harmonize the more benign form of a mere “difference?” A reasonable person will not proceed in this fashion. It is like the one who uses buckets to save the sinking ship. From this reasoning, and from the fact that he harmonizes everything that he comes upon – like he said he would do – we understand that John admitted only to discordance in appearance: “that discordance which seems (Gk. = δοκουσα) to exist.” “So completely do the evangelists harmonize one with another” (Homily 53 on Matthew).

As for heresy, I believe that that would consist of a series of statements such as this: “I hold that I have an authentic reading of the text in the original language (there are no manuscript or translation issues) and that I have interpreted the passage in the sense intended by the author (the authentic meaning of the text); and, finally, I assert that there is an error in this passage of Scripture.”

Please believe me that my intent is not to label you as a heretic. My entire endeavor is to share the truth with you and with the world so that everyone can have the option of submitting themselves to God and of being made pleasing to Him. The issue is not Who is a heretic? The issue is What is the truth? “Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Chrysostom tells us:

“Yet surely, if you are willing to believe what is evident, the things invisible ought to be believed by you, rather than those which are seen. Even though what I say be a paradox, nevertheless it is true, and among men of understanding is fully acknowledged. For whereas the eyes are often deceived, not in the things unseen only (for of those they do not so much as take cognizance), but even in those which men think they actually see, distance and atmosphere, and absence of mind, and anger, and care, and ten thousand other things impeding their accuracy; the reasoning power of the soul on the other hand, if it receive the light of the divine Scriptures, will prove a more accurate, an unerring standard of realities” (Homily 13 on Matthew).

And

“Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight… For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That has never failed, but this in most things goes wrong” (Homily 82 on Matthew).

These are clear affirmations of total inerrancy.

No they are not. They would only be that if you denied there was any human component to the scripture. But there is. I totally agree with everything you posted from St John Crhysostom yet do not see how this implies that the profane details of the scripture can’t have errors.

Referring back to the quote from Homily 13 above, where John says that the divine Scriptures provide our reasoning power with an unerring standard of realities… if Scripture is a source that provides our reasoning power with an unerring standard of realities, from what source can our reasoning power draw to show that Scripture errs?

And not [only is excessive ridiculousness] in [the Greek philosophers]… worthy of blame, but so is also their ever-shifting current of words; for since they assert everything on uncertain and fallacious arguments, they are like men carried hither and thither in Euripus, and never remain in the same place.

Not so this fisherman; for all he says is infallible (Gk. = ἀσφαλείας); and standing as it were upon a rock, he never shifts his ground. For since he has been thought worthy to be in the most secret places, and has the Lord of all speaking within him, he is subject to nothing that is human… what he says is divinely inspired (Gk. = Θεόπνευστα; cf. 2 Tim. 3:16). (The Gospel of John, Homily 2)

And referring back to the quote from Homily 82 above… when John says that Jesus’ word cannot deceive and has never failed while our own personal thoughts do – and keeping in mind that John holds that it is really God in Christ Who speaks through all of the authors of Scripture – how can His word, i.e., the whole Bible, err? And how can our failing thoughts show that His unfailing word does this?

By this Apostle stand the powers from above, marveling at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and the bloom of that virtue by which he drew unto him Christ Himself, and obtained the grace of the Spirit. For he has made ready his soul, as some well-fashioned and jeweled lyre with strings of gold, and yielded it for the utterance of something great and sublime to the Spirit.

Seeing then it is no longer the fisherman the son of Zebedee, but He who knows the deep things of God, the Holy Spirit I mean, that strikes this lyre, let us hearken accordingly. For he will say nothing to us as a man, but what he says, he will say from the depths of the Spirit. (The Gospel of John, Homily 1)

Were John about to converse with us, and to say to us words of his own, we [must needs] describe his family, his country, and his education. But since it is not he, but God by him, that speaks to mankind, it seems to me superfluous and distracting to enquire into these matters (The Gospel of John, Homily 2).

 

[Pete_Holter]

I hope that you can now appreciate how John Chrysostom’s general appraisal as given in his first homily on Matthew is in conformance with the Church’s teaching on total inerrancy. I also hope that you’ll find the time to compare what he says in that first homily with the quote that I supplied from his commentary on Galatians 1:7. I think that he is saying the same thing in both places.

What we have are two competing interpretations. I have examples to adduce in favor of the interpretation I’ve provided. To show that your interpretation of his words is correct, we only have to provide a single example where he admits to a discordance/contrariety in the text as it pertains to “little matters.” But he doesn’t do this. And we can go further. We can examine those discordances which seem to exist in times and places and to the very words to see what John does with them (as we did above). A final example:

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

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

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

The difference in words between “den of thieves” and “house of merchandise” is enough to indicate to Chrysostom that these events were two different cleansings. Even though we could find ways to show that these two phrases are similar enough to be harmonized into saying the same thing, with one of the authors placing a sterner accent on Jesus’ words, he assigns to the words such a profound degree of accuracy that he asserts that from this difference alone, the words “show that He did this a second time.”

I don’t think you are reasoning poorly. I just think you came up with a speciously plausible interpretation before we had all the data and that you were deleteriously influenced by that article you had read which mishandled what Tertullian and Chrysostom had written on the subject of inerrancy. Although I thought my initial interpretation was correct, I realized, after seeing your interpretation, that I might have been wrong. The fact that your interpretation of John was plausible was what forced me to read all of his homilies on Matthew to be sure of the truth. I hope that you will now agree, after weighing all of the evidence, that John Chrysostom does not think that the Bible has any errors (mistakes, contradictions, etc.). The LORD bless you and keep you!

 

[Pete_Holter]

But here is the important point. There is a big difference between saying

1. I believe the scripture has no error even to matters that have nothing to do with our salvation.
   and
2. No one can consider themselves a true Christian unless they believe the scripture has no error even to minor matters that have nothing to do with our salvation.

Very few of the relatively few fathers you quoted said 2. Yet that is what we are trying to decide in this thread. Of course no one would say it’s wrong to believe 1. But the question is whether 2 is also true. Vatican 2 does not say 2.

The solution of the Fathers was to assert that the Bible contained nothing else but what pertained to our salvation. To assert an error in the sacred text, we would have to show that when Dei Vebum asserted that God wrote the Bible for the sake of our salvation, the intent was to render some portion of the Scriptures superfluous to this purpose. But this would be a true novelty, for there is no separating out from within the Sacred Text things that do not pertain to salvation from things that do. Every word is directed to this task. There is no small s Scripture and big S Scripture as we have with “traditions” and “Tradition.” The whole Bible is the Inspired Word of God and a part of Sacred Tradition. Interpreted in light of the tradition of the Church, here are some illustrations of what Dei Vebum means (sorry for some repeats):

“All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, ‘because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ’ (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8)” (CCC 134).

“Whoever has experienced the spiritual sense of the Scriptures knows that the simplest word of Scripture and the most profound are uniquely one, both having the salvation of humankind as their purpose” (St. Peter Damascene, quoted in The Instrumentum Laboris for The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Chruch).

Saint Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190): “I could adduce ten thousand Scriptures of which not one tittle shall pass away without being fulfilled; for the mouth of the Lord the Holy Spirit has spoken these things… Let us then ever obey the voice of the divine word.

…]

“For truly holy are those letters that sanctify and deify; and the writings or volumes that consist of those holy letters and syllables, the same apostle consequently calls inspired of God, being profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work. No one will be so impressed by the exhortations of any of the saints, as he is by the words of the Lord Himself, the lover of man. For this, and nothing but this, is His only work— the salvation of man” (, Ch. 9Exhortation to the Heathen).

Saint Basil the Great, The Doctor of Monasticism (A.D. 371-379?): “Now it is Moses who has composed this history… It is this man, whom God judged worthy to behold Him, face to face, like the angels, who imparts to us what he has learned from God. Let us listen then to these words of truth written without the help of the enticing words of man’s wisdom by the dictation of the Holy Spirit; words destined to produce not the applause of those who hear them, but the salvation of those who are instructed by them” (, Homily 1, No. 1The Hexæmeron).

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

The words, “for the sake of our salvation,” explain the purpose and form of the Bible and give us the reason why it is that the Bible teaches us the truth without error.

 

[Pete_Holter]

When you assert that there are errors in Sacred Scripture you are saying that the reasoning of man, aided by all of the natural sciences, has a greater capacity for scrutinizing and assessing truth, than the Holy Spirit has ability in conveying that truth by speaking through men borne along by Him. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along (Gk. = φερομενοι) by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). You may compare this language with that used in Acts 27 of the ship tossed by the storm: “And when the ship was caught and could not face the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along (Gk. = εφερομεθα)” (v. 15). Do you think that the will of man, having been trumped by the impulsion of the Holy Spirit – though more accurately stated, they were in perfect agreement with man’s will being taken up into the Divine will – is able to scrawl an erroneous account under such a controlling influence? We say no. “For who can resist His will?” (Rom 9:20) There is not one who can!

The study note on 2 Peter 1:21 taken from the ESV Study Bible is helpful:

No biblical prophecy was ever produced merely because a man wanted to prophesy (by the will of man). The prophecy in Scripture was given only by God through men, who “spoke” as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was the active, revelatory agent working within the OT prophets and through their lives and circumstances as they prophesied. This is a key verse for the doctrine of Scripture, indicating that Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but at the same time men spoke God’s words, using their own personalities, knowledge, background, vocabulary, and style. “They were carried along” implies that the inspiration of Scripture was invisibly directed by the Holy Spirit, though without overriding the personalities of the human authors. Thus Scripture is fully the Word of God, even though it is recorded in the words of human beings. The exact way in which this was accomplished remains a divine mystery. What is true of OT prophecy is true of “all Scripture” (see 2 Tim. 3:16 and note).

“[T]hey, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted” (Dei Verbum). Several difficulties follow from this assertion for those who hold to error in so-called nonsalvific material. The question has to be answered: Why did God want nonsalvific material included in the Bible? If you answer by saying that “He wanted his message about salvation to be accepted and so He spoke using the erroneous language and concepts of the time, then you have just connected this nonsalvific material to salvation and, according to the limited-scope interpretation of Dei Verbum, have made it immune to error. If you answer otherwise, then you have to come up with a compelling reason why God wanted error-ridden, nonsalvific material in the Book that He inspired for the sake of our salvation.

This leads to the next question: Do you believe that God wanted to write errors and to include true contradictions in His Book, and that this would not hinder our quest for salvation? True difficulties and obscurities yes, to humble us and train us in spiritual exercises, but errors and contradictions? If we believe that we have detected errors in those areas where the Biblical text is testable (history and science), why would we believe that there are none of these things where the text is untestable (theology)? To do so would be, I think, a form of fideism and not true faith. It is also in conflict with Jesus’ own pedagogy: “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12) He builds our confidence in His teaching about things we can’t see, by speaking truthfully about things we can see. If we assert that there are errors in the Bible pertaining to earthly things, then, from Jesus’ line of reasoning, we’ve undercut our hope in receiving inerrant truth pertaining to heavenly things. I hope I am giving you some things to think about that you haven’t thought about before.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Here is another logical quandary faced by those who assert error in select portions of the Sacred Text: they have no consistent hermeneutic with which to approach the text. People who limit the scope of material where errors may be found adopt a woodenly literalistic approach to historical and scientific material in order to show that there are true contradictions; but then these same people apply a softer, harmonizing hermeneutic to theological material – and necessarily so!

For example, Ezekiel 33:11 says, “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” On the other hand, 1 Sam. 2:25 says that the sons of Eli “would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.” I take this example from Still Sovereign, edited by Schreiner & Ware. The same Hebrew word, haphez, is used in both verses to describe God’s disposition toward these people.

You can read John Piper’s essay which mentions this here. Translating the Hebrew consistently, we could render the verses like this:

Ezekiel 33:11: “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.”

1 Sam. 2:25: “[The sons of Eli] would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the pleasure of the LORD to put them to death.”

or like this:

Ezekiel 33:11: “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I do not will the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.”

1 Sam. 2:25: “[The sons of Eli] would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.”

etc.

In one case He does not desire the death of anyone. In the other, He desires the death of Eli’s sons. On the face of it, this is a sheer contradiction concerning the character of God. Consequently, “I am speaking as a fool,” we have just as much of a theological contradiction as we do any kind of historical or scientific contradiction. Of course, I believe that this example is only an apparent contradiction, and I believe that a satisfying explanation exists for this and for every apparent contradiction.

It seems to me that we either have to admit that there are contradictions on every level, or we have to seek the grace and illumination of God and embrace a consistent hermeneutic that submits to the notion – and I would say reality – that the Holy Spirit was able to and actually did preserve the Holy Authors from every error.

 

[Pete_Holter]

The point is that the church fathers lived closer in time to the Scripture writers so their understanding of science were not much different from those writers. However we have indeed made advances in the sciences. Accordingly the reasoning employed by those church fathers has been shoed to be in error. If we reject their reasoning but still try to hold on to the conclusions - just because of blind faith - we can’t call ourselves reasonable.

There is a difference between (1) the Fathers’ ability to offer a compelling and timeless solution to the interpretation of a particular Biblical passage as it pertains to “physical matters,” and (2) the article of faith that the Bible is free from all error even as it pertains to “physical matters”. Pope Leo XIII explains:

The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith – what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,” according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: “When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.” The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. (Providentissimus Deus)

The only thing that advances in science will do is to help us better understand the Sacred Text. They will help us remove erroneous interpretations of it, but they will never help us to find errors in it. God wrote the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. Truth cannot contradict Truth.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Nevertheless the issue of inspiration and inerrancy are separate. I might say my grandmother was the inspiration for an entire book that I wrote. But it would be very extreme for you to then say “Well on page 372 the second paragraph third sentence you say “x” and I know your grandmother and she never would have said x, therefore the book was not inspired by her.”

So I really see no problem with agreeing that all the books of the bible as listed by Trent are inspired but still maintaining that there may be an error that has nothing to do with salvation.

The inspiration of the Bible and a book inspired by your grandmother are two distinct concepts, the former being a theological understanding of a coextensively human and Divine enterprise and the latter being primarily psychological and referring to an emotional drive. The study note for 2 Timothy 3:16 from the ESV offers this analysis:

All Scripture would refer first to the OT but by implication also to at least some NT writings, which by this time were already being considered as Scripture (see 1 Tim. 5:18 and note; 2 Pet. 3:15–16 and note). Breathed out by God translates a Greek word (theopneustos) that does not occur in any other Greek text (biblical or otherwise) prior to this letter. Some therefore suggest that Paul coined this term from words meaning “God” and “breathed,” which is certainly possible. The term stresses the divine origin and thus the authority of Scripture. Paul does not point to the human authors of Scripture as inspired people but says that the writings themselves (“Scripture,” Gk. graphē, “writing,” which in the NT always refers to biblical writings) are the words spoken (“breathed out”) by God. Whereas it seems that Paul and Timothy’s opponents stressed certain aspects or portions of Scripture (e.g., genealogies, 1 Tim. 1:4; cf. Titus 3:9), Paul stresses the authoritativeness of all of Scripture. The divine origin of Scripture is the reason for its power to convert (2 Tim. 3:15) and its usefulness in training (v. 17). Because Scripture comes from God himself, “all” of it is profitable in a range of ways, ultimately leading to righteousness.

This is further explained in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

What does the Church mean, then, when she affirms the words of St. Paul: “All scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3:16)? Since the term “inspired” in this passage could be translated “God-breathed”, it follows that God breathed forth his word in the Scriptures as you and I breathe forth air when we speak. This means that God is the primary author of the Bible. He certainly employed human authors in this task as well, but he did not merely assist them while they wrote or subsequently approve what they had written. God the Holy Spirit is the principle author of Scripture, while the human writers are instrumental authors. These human authors freely wrote everything, and only those things, that God wanted: the word of God in the very words of God. This miracle of dual authorship extends to the whole of Scripture, and to every one of its parts, so that whatever the human authors affirm, God likewise affirms through their words.

The principle of biblical inerrancy follows logically from this principle of divine authorship. After all, God cannot lie, and he cannot make mistakes. Since the Bible is divinely inspired, it must be without error in everything that its divine and human authors affirm to be true. This means that biblical inerrancy is a mystery even broader in scope than infallibility, which guarantees for us that the Church will always teach the truth concerning faith and morals. Of course the mantle of inerrancy likewise covers faith and morals, but it extends even farther to ensure that all the facts and events of salvation history are accurately presented for us in the Scriptures. Inerrancy is our guarantee that the words and deeds of God found in the Bible are unified and true, declaring with one voice the wonders of his saving love.

Well, Joe, I hope that I was able to share some helpful information. I am thinking that what may best serve you is if we look at some of the specific struggles you are having. Perhaps we can work through a couple of them together. Of course I don’t have satisfying answers for all of them. But with God’s mercy, we’ll do what we can. When I was first exposed to the Bible as an adult, I was looking at it from the perspective of a skeptical agnostic. So I was looking for all of the absurdities and contradictions I could find, and I found them in spades. But after a lot of consideration, and by the sovereign grace of God, by His pure mercy on my life, I had something of an Augustine experience:

“Most eagerly, then, did I seize that venerable writing of Your Spirit, but more especially the Apostle Paul; and those difficulties vanished away, in which he at one time appeared to me to contradict himself, and the text of his discourse not to agree with the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets. And the face of that pure speech appeared to me one and the same; and I learned to rejoice with trembling” (Confessions, Bk. 7, Ch. 21).

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

 

[joemccarron]

Ron, I have given many reasons why we happen to find these sorts of quotes. If extreme or total inerrancy were indeed an essential doctrine of the faith we should find many more saying this than just the 13 (of the 65) that we have. Indeed the ones we have are almost always expressing their personal views and not saying that it is essential to the faith to believe every phrase in scripture must be without error. As we know these personal beliefs expressed by the fathers were often based on ignorance of science. This is why many of them would argue that the universe is only several thousand years old.

Moreover when making these sorts of statements they were almost always making them in support of arguments that were indeed important for salvation. They were rarely arguing about minutia when they would make these sorts of claims that all scripture is true.

In the end if the church is going to insist that every phrase must be believed to be without error and therefore every time a phrase appears discordant with reality it will say …erhh umm well we must not understand it, or maybe its a copyist error or bad translation, yeah that’s it lets get a better translation… I think we will merely create a credibility problem not only for the texts but for the church in reaching out to others.

I’m not looking for the church to declare there are errors in the text. Nor am I even saying that there are errors. I’m simply saying there seem to be errors. But to the extent the church wants to do real biblical research it should allow openness. Because if the conclusions are already decided before the research begins – it’s not really research. If the church wants all the research to be done by non Catholics then continue to scare Catholics with excommunication if they do real research.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger acknowledged that the PBC needed more independence and needed to discuss matters openly without the risk of scandal every time a condemned idea surfaced in discussion.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/751/Relationship_between_Magisterium_and_Exegetes_Ratzinger.html

Here is a quote from that text that I think not only discusses the relation between history and faith but also hints at the idea that certain things must be believed historical (leaving open the possibility that others are not):

"Here too, so to speak, it was necessary gradually to redefine the spheres; the fundamental relation between faith and history was rethought. A similar clarification was not undertaken since it could not be made from one day to the next. Here as well there will always be room for discussion. The opinion that faith as such knows absolutely nothing of historical facts and must leave all of this to historians is Gnosticism: this opinion disembodies the faith and reduces it to pure idea. The reality of events is necessary precisely because the faith is founded on the Bible. A God who cannot intervene in history and reveal Himself in it is not the God of the Bible. In this way the reality of the birth of Jesus by the Virgin Mary, the effective institution of the Eucharist by Jesus at the Last Supper, his bodily resurrection from the dead - this is the meaning of the empty tomb - are elements of the faith as such, which it can and must defend against an only presumably superior historical knowledge.

That Jesus - in all that is essential - was effectively who the Gospels reveal him to be to us is not mere historical conjecture, but a fact of faith. Objections which seek to convince us to the contrary are not the expression of an effective scientific knowledge, but are an arbitrary over-evaluation of the method."

 

[joemccarron]

There is a difference between (1) the Fathers’ ability to offer a compelling and timeless solution to the interpretation of a particular Biblical passage as it pertains to “physical matters,” and (2) the article of faith that the Bible is free from all error even as it pertains to “physical matters”. Pope Leo XIII explains:

The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith – what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,” according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: “When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.” The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. (Providentissimus Deus)

The only thing that advances in science will do is to help us better understand the Sacred Text. They will help us remove erroneous interpretations of it, but they will never help us to find errors in it. God wrote the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. Truth cannot contradict Truth.

Extreme inerrancy was not considered a doctrine of the faith for the fathers. These fathers are making statements about their own beliefs not saying one must accept everything out of scripture or be deemed a heretic.

Of course, the fathers had an easier time defending scripture in their day because their understanding of the world did not vary much from that of the scripture writers. The fathers gave reasons for their defenses of scripture. We can’t say they would reach the same conclusions if their reasons had been clearly disproven. To say that would be to say that the Fathers were intellectually dishonest. Of course the reasons they gave couldn’t be disproven then, but they can now.

 

[joemccarron]

Here is another logical quandary faced by those who assert error in select portions of the Sacred Text: they have no consistent hermeneutic with which to approach the text. People who limit the scope of material where errors may be found adopt a woodenly literalistic approach to historical and scientific material in order to show that there are true contradictions; but then these same people apply a softer, harmonizing hermeneutic to theological material – and necessarily so!

For example, Ezekiel 33:11 says, “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” On the other hand, 1 Sam. 2:25 says that the sons of Eli “would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.” I take this example from Still Sovereign, edited by Schreiner & Ware. The same Hebrew word, haphez, is used in both verses to describe God’s disposition toward these people.

You can read John Piper’s essay which mentions this here. Translating the Hebrew consistently, we could render the verses like this:

Ezekiel 33:11: “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.”

1 Sam. 2:25: “[The sons of Eli] would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the pleasure of the LORD to put them to death.”

or like this:

Ezekiel 33:11: “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I do not will the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.”

1 Sam. 2:25: “[The sons of Eli] would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.”

etc.

In one case He does not desire the death of anyone. In the other, He desires the death of Eli’s sons. On the face of it, this is a sheer contradiction concerning the character of God. Consequently, “I am speaking as a fool,” we have just as much of a theological contradiction as we do any kind of historical or scientific contradiction. Of course, I believe that this example is only an apparent contradiction, and I believe that a satisfying explanation exists for this and for every apparent contradiction.

It seems to me that we either have to admit that there are contradictions on every level, or we have to seek the grace and illumination of God and embrace a consistent hermeneutic that submits to the notion – and I would say reality – that the Holy Spirit was able to and actually did preserve the Holy Authors from every error.

Your last paragraph is an explicit false dichotomy. It is not the case that either there is no error in any area scripture or there must be errors in every area of scripture. Moreover the resolution to an issue about rabbits chewing the cud is unlikely to help regarding the issue you present. These are simply two different issues.

The Church is here to help us understand scripture so that we can attain salvation. To the extent any passage in the bible seems to require contradictory action or beliefs from us we need the church to help us sort through this.