Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[una_fides]

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.

The only way to reconcile what modern popes said with what St. John said would be to interpret St. John’s statements as not meaning to believe that the sacred writer has erred. The pope’s have given the definitions, which are by their very nature and purpose designed to be as clear and concise as possible. There is no way to try to interpret those popes declarations in a way that in any way admits any form of error in any of the parts of Scripture. It is much easier to understand St. John correctly in context that though he said that there seems to be errors that in reality the statements when understood properly are not truly errors. Lastly, one does not need to reconcile Chrysostom’s statements in any way with authoritative papal declarations, as the two are not even close to the same playing field. The Church father could have very well altogether explicitly said that there really were errors in the inspired text when properly understood, and there would still be no need whatsoever to reform these papal declarations nor would such be possible. Vatican I infallibly defined that dogmas must be undestood in the same sense and that any increase in understanding cannot change this same sense in which the dogma has always been understood.

 

[una_fides]

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.

Most of the arguments that Scripture allegedly has errors in minor details involve areas that most people without degrees in science could easily see how they appear to be errors. The current (fallible) knowledge of science and history have raised new questions as to how certain passages can be understood and have at the same time answered former questions that were thought by some to be errors in the past. Again, Vatican I explicitly condemned the line of reasoning you are using as modernism, when it said that new knowledge cannot change the sense in which teachings of the Church are understood. They can develop but they cannot change them or have them to be understood in a different or contrary sense. The Church has authoritatively spoken on this issue, and she does not do so until she has enough evidence and truth to make such a pronouncement. Scientific understanding changes and fluctuates drastically from century to century and in modern times from decade to decade and in some cases even from year to year. What was thought to be truth one day becomes error the next. We cannot hold Scripture to such fallible errant standards. We should make every attempt to reconcile them with what we know to be true from science, but we cannot at any time conclude that the sacred writer has erred. The Church’s Magisterium is the foundation and one of the pillars on which the Church is built. Without it, we cannot know the truth.

“…the Church of the living God [is] the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

 

[una_fides]

Here is what The Catholic Study Bible says:
…

Joe,

In response to your Catholic study Bible’s intro, I have to direct you back to several points previously made on this thread. First, Vatican II did not make or teach any new dogmas of the faith. It’s intended purpose was to be a “pastoral council” and to make the unchanging faith more attractive and stated in more positive terms. Pope Benedict has explicitly stated that Vatican II must be understood in light of sacred Tradition of the Church and the Church’s prior teachings. It is not to be interpreted as teaching or revealing anything new concerning the faith or going contrary to any previously defined dogmas. Furthermore, Vatican I, which was indeed a dogmatic and infallible Council explicitly and infallibly defined that dogmas cannot change nor can the sense in which they have always been understood change. Thus, we are bound to understand and interpret Vatican II in light of the Church’s prior teachings and Tradition. Those who try to make Vatican II into some radical departure from Catholic teachings or Tradition have erred most gravely concerning the faith and are responsible for the crisis of faith from which Catholics are now only starting to emerge. Luckily, people are getting sick of watered down Catholicism and are getting sick of being fed lies, and they want the true faith. They realize that the Church either is correct or not, and they trust Her as their Mother as not only being correct now, but most importantly being correct in the past with respect to her faith and teachings. If the Church was right before, then those who continue to believe her teachings in the same sense as the Church previously understood them will continue to be right today. If she erred in the past concerning any of her defined teachings on faith or morals, then she is not a credible or authoritative source today. Either she is the pillar of truth or she is a liar. There is no gray area in this regard.

 

[una_fides]

I don’t think that there is any particular passage that I think can not be reconciled with enough fancy footwork. Its just that I find all the fancy footwork really being true improbable. I mean ok Judas was hung the rope broke and he then fell spilling out his guts. (its just that the gospels have a funny way of saying it) Then Jesus said forgive them lord for they know not what they do, followed by a loud “My Go My God why have you forsaken me”, which was followed by another loud cry and he gave up his spirit but not before saying “It is finished” and then gave up his spirit but not before saying “father into your hands I commit my spirit” and then he gave up his spirit. Again the way its worded in the Gospels its not impossible that there were no mistakes but … I could go on as to what the Holy spirit said when Jesus was baptized, how the empty tomb was found, what day he died etc. We don’t even need to get into the infancy narratives.

About five years ago, I remember going through the different gospel accounts and taking special note on the words of Christ and the sequence. I just revisited them now after reading your above comments, and I compared all four accounts side by side. The fact that anyone claims these accounts contain any error demonstrates an incredible bias and assumption of error from the onset. No “fancy footwork” is needed at all in demonstrating that these four accounts are in complete agreement as to what was said and took place. The way you described the accounts above is erroneous and presumes disagreement where none exists. An approach that no Church father would ever take towards God’s Word.

Here are the notes I took on the four accounts when reading through them:
Matthew, Mark, & Luke agree pertaining to the exact time that these words followed, which was the 9th hour (Mat 27:46, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44).

1. Jesus cries out ‘Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?’ That is, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mat 27:46, Mark 15:34).
2. Jesus is mocked and is given vinegar to drink (Mat 27:47-49, Mar 15:35-36, John 19:28-29).
3. Jesus says, “It is consummated” (John 19:30a).
4. Jesus in a loud voice cries out and says, “Father into your hands I commend my spirit” (Mat 27:50a, Mark 15:37a, Luke 23:46a). [Note: Only Luke specifies the actual words Christ said when “crying out with a loud voice.” Matthew & Luke only mention the crying out in a loud voice.]
5. Jesus bows head (John 19:30) and gives up the ghost (Mat 27:50b, Mark 15:37b, Luke 23:46b, John 19:30).
   The only possible chronological question is in John 19:30: “Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: “It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.” The question is whether the text is in any way implying that immediately after Jesus said, “It is consummated” that he immediately thereafter without doing or saying anything else bowed his head and gave up the ghost. Obviously, there is nothing in the text to mandate an immediate chronology and that nothing took place between these two things. This gospel writer, however, just does not include the loud cry in his account. Each gospel includes the respective content for its own respective reasons and none of them intend to give a complete account of every single detail that took place.

Your comments above demonstrate how people try to pit the gospel writers against one another and see disagreement when in reality no disagreement exists. If you took the same approach to matters that were weightier and pertained to faith and morals, you would also believe that the Scripture contained contradictions on these matters as well.

 

[RobbyS]

About five years ago, I remember going through the different gospel accounts and taking special note on the words of Christ and the sequence. I just revisited them now after reading your above comments, and I compared all four accounts side by side. The fact that anyone claims these accounts contain any error demonstrates an incredible bias and assumption of error from the onset. No “fancy footwork” is needed at all in demonstrating that these four accounts are in complete agreement as to what was said and took place. The way you described the accounts above is erroneous and presumes disagreement where none exists. An approach that no Church father would ever take towards God’s Word.

Here are the notes I took on the four accounts when reading through them:
Matthew, Mark, & Luke agree pertaining to the exact time that these words followed, which was the 9th hour (Mat 27:46, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44).

1. Jesus cries out ‘Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?’ That is, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mat 27:46, Mark 15:34).
2. Jesus is mocked and is given vinegar to drink (Mat 27:47-49, Mar 15:35-36, John 19:28-29).
3. Jesus says, “It is consummated” (John 19:30a).
4. Jesus in a loud voice cries out and says, “Father into your hands I commend my spirit” (Mat 27:50a, Mark 15:37a, Luke 23:46a). [Note: Only Luke specifies the actual words Christ said when “crying out with a loud voice.” Matthew & Luke only mention the crying out in a loud voice.]
5. Jesus bows head (John 19:30) and gives up the ghost (Mat 27:50b, Mark 15:37b, Luke 23:46b, John 19:30).
   The only possible chronological question is in John 19:30: “Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: “It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.” The question is whether the text is in any way implying that immediately after Jesus said, “It is consummated” that he immediately thereafter without doing or saying anything else bowed his head and gave up the ghost. Obviously, there is nothing in the text to mandate an immediate chronology and that nothing took place between these two things. This gospel writer, however, just does not include the loud cry in his account. Each gospel includes the respective content for its own respective reasons and none of them intend to give a complete account of every single detail that took place.

Your comments above demonstrate how people try to pit the gospel writers against one another and see disagreement when in reality no disagreement exists. If you took the same approach to matters that were weightier and pertained to faith and morals, you would also believe that the Scripture contained contradictions on these matters as well.

The simple fact that the Church preserved a four-fold gospel is telling. If those passed them down to us saw a contradiction, they would long ago reduced them to one account. They had that option but did not choose to do that. As for me, the different reports remind me that we dealing with people who tell us what they saw and do not conceal their different perspectives.

 

[D_M]

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

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

religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

It quotes another Catholic source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahem ok no more attempts at humor I promise.

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

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

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

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

Hi,

I don’t know if anyone has stated this yet, but:

The hebrew word isn’t ‘cud’, the hebrew word is ‘gerah’ (pronounce gay-raw)… which is traditionally translated in english as ‘cud’ (ie. the part of food that an animal regurgitates and eats again) although in their literature they could have easily had a broader meaning to this word than we do in english, thus perhaps allowing for it to mean an animal that consumes its own excrement as well.

The hebrew word translated for chewing, doesn’t actually meaning ‘chewing’, the word is ‘alah’ (pronounce aw-law) and it has a variety of meanings, among which it can mean ‘to take away’.

God Bless,

 

[Pete_Holter]

Well Joe, I just can’t stay away… I hope you don’t mind that I’ve changed my mind.

I think your basic ideas are contradicting each other. Either God put difficulties in scripture or he didn’t. If God really inserted difficulties into the text in order to humble us or train us then this contradicts your claim that “[God] builds our confidence in His teaching about things we can’t see, by speaking truthfully about things we can see.”

If God wanted to build our confidence in his teaching by speaking truthfully about things we can see he would not put so many difficulties there. We would be able to plainly see that everything he said checks out fine. Something may be true but it won’t build our confidence unless we can recognize that truth.

So either God put the difficulties in there or he didn’t. If he did, then don’t try to claim he didn’t in order to build our confidence in the other matters. If he didn’t put difficulties in there, then don’t say he did in order to humble and train us.

Augustine had a thought similar to what I am trying to express here:

”But hasty and careless readers are led astray by many and manifold obscurities and ambiguities, substituting one meaning for another; and in some places they cannot hit upon even a fair interpretation. Some of the expressions are so obscure as to shroud the meaning in the thickest darkness. And I do not doubt that all this was divinely arranged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and of preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without difficulty” (, Book 2, Chapter 6On Christian Doctrine).

Put briefly, I’m looking for a way to interpret the written Word of God in light of the Person of the Word of God. “All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, He said nothing to them without a parable” (Matthew 13:34). “Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them’” (John 12:39-40). Jesus teaches us with enough obscurity and with a sufficient sprinkling of conundrums to either draw us in deeper by the grace of God or drive us away in our sin. “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk? But that you may know…’” (Mark 2:9-10) He uses tangible, “earthly” evidence to vindicate the truth of His teaching about Himself and His mission.

You rightly observe that there is a tension in what I am claiming. But to speak truthfully about something is not the same thing as to speak so clearly that we are utterly compelled to accept what is said such that there is no room for the arm of faith to be extended by the grace of God. And as with His earthly life, so with the Bible: He leaves enough difficulty in the text so that we might be saved by faith, and not by reason alone. While difficulties and seeming discordance lead to opposite effects in the lives of various persons by the secret working of the providential grace of God, these things are not necessary impediments and can help us in the manner Augustine described.

True contradictions and indisputable errors, on the other hand, [should] drive everyone away without exception; but if these things are absent, we are left with the possibility of drawing confidence from truthful speech about verifiable earthly things in order to trust Him about the unverifiable heavenly things.

If you don’t like this idea, then that’s ok with me. It’s a side point.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[joemccarron]

You rightly observe that there is a tension in what I am claiming. But to speak truthfully about something is not the same thing as to speak so clearly that we are utterly compelled to accept what is said such that there is no room for the arm of faith to be extended by the grace of God. And as with His earthly life, so with the Bible: He leaves enough difficulty in the text so that we might be saved by faith, and not by reason alone. While difficulties and seeming discordance lead to opposite effects in the lives of various persons by the secret working of the providential grace of God, these things are not necessary impediments and can help us in the manner Augustine described.

True contradictions and indisputable errors, on the other hand, [should] drive everyone away without exception; but if these things are absent, we are left with the possibility of drawing confidence from truthful speech about verifiable earthly things in order to trust Him about the unverifiable heavenly things.

If you don’t like this idea, then that’s ok with me. It’s a side point.

In Christ,
Pete

Hi Pete I’m glad you decided to post. Even if all the alleged errors are not really errors if they appear to be errors to us, then the notion that God said them to build confidence in his word fails.

Both arguments are based on our understanding of whether there are difficulties in the text. So indeed the question in both lines of thinking is not whether the text is actually true but whether the text is difficult for us to understand without thinking there are errors.

If we have no difficulty understanding the text to be true you say “see God did this so we can have confidence in what he says about heaven.” (Note here if the passage is true but we understand it to be false God wouldn’t accomplish this purpose. So the only way this argument works is not only if it is true, but if we understand it to be true.)

If on the other hand we think it would be difficult for the text not to contain errors, then you say “see God is trying to humble us.”

Ok so my point is that when you have some fact that you think is evidence (here the “fact” is either the text does contain difficulties suggesting error or it doesn’t) you should chose whether you think your case would be better supported if that fact is true or false. But don’t make arguments both ways.

Beyond this I do not see any conflict between reason and faith. Our faith can be based on reason and there is nothing wrong with this. Indeed it was through reason that Paul and John and even Jesus converted many to believe and trust God. John tells us the miracles he relates told to us so we will believe. Jesus let Thomas see (and possibly touch) his hands for him to believe. Yes those who believe without seeing are blessed. However Jesus did not say Thomas was not blessed even though he believed through seeing. Thomas is considered a saint. All the disciples – except John abandoned Jesus when he died on the cross. They all came to believe after he rose from the dead. In Acts Luke gives many passages where he describes Paul’s modus operandi of trying to convince people through reason.

You say:
“True contradictions and indisputable errors, on the other hand, [should] drive everyone away without exception…”
I can’t disagree more. If you truly believe Jesus rose from the dead - you should hold fast to the faith even if a gospel writer got it wrong about how Judas died.

 

[joemccarron]

About five years ago, I remember going through the different gospel accounts and taking special note on the words of Christ and the sequence. I just revisited them now after reading your above comments, and I compared all four accounts side by side. The fact that anyone claims these accounts contain any error demonstrates an incredible bias and assumption of error from the onset. No “fancy footwork” is needed at all in demonstrating that these four accounts are in complete agreement as to what was said and took place. The way you described the accounts above is erroneous and presumes disagreement where none exists. An approach that no Church father would ever take towards God’s Word.

Here are the notes I took on the four accounts when reading through them:
Matthew, Mark, & Luke agree pertaining to the exact time that these words followed, which was the 9th hour (Mat 27:46, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44).

1. Jesus cries out ‘Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?’ That is, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mat 27:46, Mark 15:34).
2. Jesus is mocked and is given vinegar to drink (Mat 27:47-49, Mar 15:35-36, John 19:28-29).
3. Jesus says, “It is consummated” (John 19:30a).
4. Jesus in a loud voice cries out and says, “Father into your hands I commend my spirit” (Mat 27:50a, Mark 15:37a, Luke 23:46a). [Note: Only Luke specifies the actual words Christ said when “crying out with a loud voice.” Matthew & Luke only mention the crying out in a loud voice.]
5. Jesus bows head (John 19:30) and gives up the ghost (Mat 27:50b, Mark 15:37b, Luke 23:46b, John 19:30).
   The only possible chronological question is in John 19:30: “Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: “It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.” The question is whether the text is in any way implying that immediately after Jesus said, “It is consummated” that he immediately thereafter without doing or saying anything else bowed his head and gave up the ghost. Obviously, there is nothing in the text to mandate an immediate chronology and that nothing took place between these two things. This gospel writer, however, just does not include the loud cry in his account. Each gospel includes the respective content for its own respective reasons and none of them intend to give a complete account of every single detail that took place.

Your comments above demonstrate how people try to pit the gospel writers against one another and see disagreement when in reality no disagreement exists. If you took the same approach to matters that were weightier and pertained to faith and morals, you would also believe that the Scripture contained contradictions on these matters as well.

Una Fides, I tend to agree there are definitely more difficult problems than this one. Yes the only major difficulty is with John and Luke and the actual last words. I agree it would have to be Luke’s phrase as the last words. John may have omitted it that phrase since he wrote that jesus handed over his spirit. (and that is in some sense what luke has him saying anyway) However it does seem odd that Mathew and Mark make no mention of what he said in the “loud cry.” Of course, it may not have been understood by everyone - dying words often aren’t the most articulate.

Here is Mathew:
And about three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Some of the bystanders who heard it said, “This one is calling for Elijah.” Immediately one of them ran to get a sponge; he soaked it in wine, and putting it on a reed, gave it to him to drink. But the rest said, “Wait, let us see if Elijah comes to save him.” But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.

Here is Mark:

And at three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Some of the bystanders who heard it said, “Look, he is calling Elijah.” One of them ran, soaked a sponge with wine, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see if Elijah comes to take him down.” Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.

Heres John:
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I thirst.” There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

Heres Luke:
It was now about noon and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon
because of an eclipse of the sun. Then the veil of the temple was torn down the middle.
Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”; and when he had said this he breathed his last.

BTW I do agree with you that there is not an issue with the hour even though it is phrased differently. My NAB does a good job explaining that.

 

[joemccarron]

Joe,
… If she erred in the past concerning any of her defined teachings on faith or morals, then she is not a credible or authoritative source today. Either she is the pillar of truth or she is a liar. There is no gray area in this regard.

This is a false dichotomy.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I did not take his statements out of context. If you read the statements in context its pretty clear he did think there seemed to be inconsistency. That’s what he said and the context fits squarely with what he said.

That said I do agree that a Pope can say “No, in this case the Saint was mistaken and was teaching false doctrine.” I agree with that. But that is not what Pope Leo XIII did. He said all the fathers agreed with his (Pope Leo’s) view and indeed based his position on that agreement.

So we can either say:

1. Pope Leo XIII was simply unaware of St. Johns position in which case we can only wonder if becoming aware of it might change his opinion. Popes have said things based on insufficient information and once they had that information changed their mind. Consider our current Pope lifting the excommunication but then becoming aware that one was a holocaust denier, then changing course. Popes do make decisions based on reasoning and that reasoning can be important. (unless it is ex-cathedra)
   or
2. Pope Leo XIII was aware of it but did not mean his statements to be interpreted in such a way that they would run contrary to what Saint John said. After all I believe some of the scholars of Pope Leo’s day were indeed claiming errors in the chief heads of the faith. His statements may have been a reaction against that.

Actually, the Popes were primarily reacting against the very thing you are suggesting: that Scripture could be in error when it touched on “the domain of physical science or history, as ‘obiter dicta’ and – as they contended – [that these things are] in no wise connected with faith” (Divino Afflante Spiritu).

I think that Pope Leo XIII and his men were familiar with what St. John wrote and consciously included him in the claim to unanimity. But I’m just guessing. At any rate, Pope Leo’s teaching is perfectly clear so you don’t have to worry about interpreting his explicit teaching in light of your interpretation of what Chrysostom wrote. And I think that there is enough evidence in the writings of Chrysostom to conclude that he likewise agrees with this explicit teaching from the Magisterium.

So let’s press further on into John. You gave Tertullian the benefit of the doubt, so maybe we can arrive at the same possibility being conceded in John’s case.

 

[TMC]

What would give the wise more reason to despise our faith: telling them that the Bible does not have errors when in some parts certain statements in this 2000 year old book can seem to be, or having a pope infallibly bind a dogma saying that the Bible does not contain errors only to later have the teaching changed or denied by Catholics who claim to acknowledge the Church’s authority? (Even if those papal declarations were not infallible–which they certainly were–they would at least be binding dogmatic statements that the pope authoritatively said all are bound to believe and the heresies that all are bound to disbelieve.) If the Catholic faith contradicts itself on one dogma of the faith, then she no longer has any credibility at all. Any and every other dogma can then be called into question, since she then would have lost her credibility as an infallible teacher of the faith. So yes, this issue is much bigger than just inerrancy; it rests on the authority of the Church and also touches on the nature of God as being a God of truth, not error.

I will be responding to other recent comments soon.

How about doing what the Church has actually done, explaining that the Bible inerrantly communicates that for which it was inspired, but it was not inspired as a textbook of science and history?

Also, as others have pointed out, your baseline premise that if the Church changes one thing the whole institution crashes down does not make sense to me. If someone always strives to tell the truth, but somethings gets a trivial fact wrong here and there, that person is not a liar and not untrustworthy. The Church’s core teaching on Scripture is unchanged. Certain interpretations and applications of the core teaching have changed. This kind of adjustment in the application of teaching has happened other times and places in Church history without the world crashing down.

 

[Pete_Holter]

The Greek word for contradiction is not used in John’s first homily until he writes, “if there were any hostility (μάχη) in their statements, neither would the sects, who maintain the contrary part, have received all, but only so much as seemed to harmonize with themselves.”

This usage is noted in footnote 41 of his first homily on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library website.

This Greek word is derived from the Greek word that John uses farther down where he writes that “it is one thing to speak differently (διαφόρως) and another to speak at variance (μαχομένους).”

So here is an argument for you that I hope you’ll appreciate and make your own:

Chrysostom admits to discordance which seems to exist in the little matters (we have two different ideas of what he means by “seems,” but it doesn’t really affect this argument).

Chrysostom identifies this seeming discordance as material that has simply been related “differently.”

He says that it is one thing for writers to express themselves differently and another thing to speak at variance.

The comparative used to contrast “differently” with “at variance” is the Greek word for hetero (‘έτερόν), i.e., other, different.

To be at variance is in the same category as to contradict.

Consequently, seeming discordance is not in the same category as contradiction and is therefore not an error.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[TMC]

The Greek word for contradiction is not used in John’s first homily until he writes, “if there were any hostility (μάχη) in their statements, neither would the sects, who maintain the contrary part, have received all, but only so much as seemed to harmonize with themselves.”

This usage is noted in footnote 41 of his first homily on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library website.

This Greek word is derived from the Greek word that John uses farther down where he writes that “it is one thing to speak differently (διαφόρως) and another to speak at variance (μαχομένους).”

So here is an argument for you that I hope you’ll appreciate and make your own:

Chrysostom admits to discordance which seems to exist in the little matters (we have two different ideas of what he means by “seems,” but it doesn’t really affect this argument).

Chrysostom identifies this seeming discordance as material that has simply been related “differently.”

He says that it is one thing for writers to express themselves differently and another thing to speak at variance.

The comparative used to contrast “differently” with “at variance” is the Greek word for hetero (‘έτερόν), i.e., other, different.

To be at variance is in the same category as to contradict.

Consequently, seeming discordance is not in the same category as contradiction and is therefore not an error.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

This is entirely consistent with the Church’s current teaching. A good example is the withering of the fig tree. In Mark, Christ curses the fig tree and goes on his way. The tree withers overnight and the apostles notice the withering the next day. In Matthew the tree withers immediately. This is one of many small factual discrepencies between the synoptic Gospels. Matthew and Mark tell the story of the withered fig differently, but the stories do not contradict each other because each relays the same message. Mark chooses to use the story as a frame around the cleansing of the temple, Matthew tells it in a single set piece.

The fundamentalist’s reaction to these discrepencies is to say that the evangelists relay two incidents, or to say that some of the disciples didn’t notice the withering. The answer is that it doesn’t matter. The evangelists tell the story differently, but without any real contradiction. The point is not to relay how long it takes to wither a tree, its about avoiding the withering of our souls and, I believe, avoiding the withering of our Church.

If it doesn’t matter, why bring it up? But to say that the two accounts must be factually reconciled detracts attention from the real message. And suggesting that if the facts cannot be reconciled the message is somehow lost is serious error - error that is more likely to lead folks astray than any “modernist” interpretation.

 

[una_fides]

Hi Pete I’m glad you decided to post. Even if all the alleged errors are not really errors if they appear to be errors to us, then the notion that God said them to build confidence in his word fails.

Both arguments are based on our understanding of whether there are difficulties in the text. So indeed the question in both lines of thinking is not whether the text is actually true but whether the text is difficult for us to understand without thinking there are errors.

If we have no difficulty understanding the text to be true you say “see God did this so we can have confidence in what he says about heaven.” (Note here if the passage is true but we understand it to be false God wouldn’t accomplish this purpose. So the only way this argument works is not only if it is true, but if we understand it to be true.)

If on the other hand we think it would be difficult for the text not to contain errors, then you say “see God is trying to humble us.”

Ok so my point is that when you have some fact that you think is evidence (here the “fact” is either the text does contain difficulties suggesting error or it doesn’t) you should chose whether you think your case would be better supported if that fact is true or false. But don’t make arguments both ways.

Joe, I think that the argument can work both ways effectively. You can say that the authors agree to such a great extent that they had to either a) somehow be in contact with the same sources or eachother or b) that they were divinely inspired. God put the level of agreement in the texts in order to boost our confidence. He put the comparatively few difficult passages in there to humble us. Not everyone receives the gift of faith, and consequently, when such people see anything that seems to be disagreement, they assume error. Scripture, however, cannot be approached that way and that approach is not one to make conversions. The true approach to Scripture must first be based on the authority of the Magisterium, which compiled Scripture and tells us that these books are inspired by God in all their parts and are without any error. When we then approach this Book as not just any other written work but as the Word of God, its agreement on the other matters falls into place. God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him and humbly seek his truth. It is our faith in God and his Church that shapes our correct approach to Scripture.

Augustine:“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so” (Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.).

You say:
“True contradictions and indisputable errors, on the other hand, [should] drive everyone away without exception…”
I can’t disagree more. If you truly believe Jesus rose from the dead - you should hold fast to the faith even if a gospel writer got it wrong about how Judas died.

Joe, please answer this question: Why do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead? What is the basis on which you come to that conclusion? I too believe and would die for this faith, but I want to know why you do and what reason you have behind your faith in this dogma.

 

[una_fides]

This is a false dichotomy.

You say this because you believe that the Church can authoritatively bind a dogma only later to loose it. The problem with that thinking is that the Church has infallibly said she cannot! My faith is not based on my own opinion. I take Augustine’s approach. The relativistic protestant approach of sola Scriptura does not work any more than does the relativistic approach of “cafeteria Catholicism” (which is a contradiction of terms). Truth by its very nature cannot change. If the Church got it wrong about the inerrnacy of Scripture when she had bound all her faithful to believe that there were not, then we are left without knowing if she got it wrong on other truths of the faith. We are left to our own personal opinions of the Church’s claims to truth whether to believe them or not. If the Church can teach one minute that Scripture is inerrant and the next that it is not, then what’s to stop her from one minute saying that birth control is wrong and another that it’s not, or that the Eucharist is the Real Presence and another that it’s not, or that Jesus Christ was the 2nd Person of the Trinity one minute and later “discover” that she was wrong. You and I must have drastically different views of the Church. If the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” that pillar crumbles when the Church makes an absolute claim to the truth and later says that it was error. You can say that you personally still believe that she is trustworthy on a, b, and c, but then you would never know beyond your own opinion that that they were really true, and what would stop you from concluding that the Church’s teachings on x, y, and z were errors that the Church would later realize? Do you see that you are relying on your own authority. You effectively become your own pope, and the pope is reduced to a mere “credible but non-infallible source” rather than the vicar of Christ, the head of the universal Church on earth, and the one to whom was given the keys (of authority) to the kingdom of heaven. If something is infallible truth one day, it cannot become error the next. Truth is eternal. Either the Catholic Church is the infallible Church of Chirst or it is a liar for she has claimed this authority from her foundation.

 

[una_fides]

How about doing what the Church has actually done, explaining that the Bible inerrantly communicates that for which it was inspired, but it was not inspired as a textbook of science and history?

There is no error here. It is based on your approach to Scripture. It is not a science book or history book in the sense that you do not know you are interpreting it properly because you are not the Church. However, as the Church has said, anything the Bible intends to teach concerning history or natural phenomena is without error.

Also, as others have pointed out, your baseline premise that if the Church changes one thing the whole institution crashes down does not make sense to me. If someone always strives to tell the truth, but somethings gets a trivial fact wrong here and there, that person is not a liar and not untrustworthy. The Church’s core teaching on Scripture is unchanged. Certain interpretations and applications of the core teaching have changed. This kind of adjustment in the application of teaching has happened other times and places in Church history without the world crashing down.

See my previous post. The difference between a person who “strives to tell the truth” and the Church is that the Church has from her onset claimed to be the infallible source of the truth. If, for example, Jesus claimed to be the perfect almighty God (which He did) and then told a lie (which he didn’t) and later admitted that what he said was a lie, then would you trust him that he was God? Of course not because you already know that God cannot lie because God is truth. In the same way, if the Church who claimed to be the infallible teacher of the truth, taught something definitively and authoritatively and said all were bound to believe it and had believed it from her founding and then later she admitted that she was wrong, then she would not be who she always claimed to be. And anyone who based their faith in the authority of the Magisterium would then no longer be able to do so as she would loose that credibility as to being able to teach infallibly. Make sense?

 

[una_fides]

The fundamentalist’s reaction to these discrepencies is to say that the evangelists relay two incidents, or to say that some of the disciples didn’t notice the withering. The answer is that it doesn’t matter. The evangelists tell the story differently, but without any real contradiction. The point is not to relay how long it takes to wither a tree, its about avoiding the withering of our souls and, I believe, avoiding the withering of our Church.

If it doesn’t matter, why bring it up? But to say that the two accounts must be factually reconciled detracts attention from the real message. And suggesting that if the facts cannot be reconciled the message is somehow lost is serious error - error that is more likely to lead folks astray than any “modernist” interpretation.

TMC, I agree with your post up until your closing sentence. The most important thing is the correct understanding of the passage and its moral and doctrinal meaning and application. Interestingly, however, the early Church fathers also spilled a large amount of ink arguing that the factual details were not errors as well. The reason they defended the Bible’s veracity on the minor details as well as the major was not that they were just pointlessly hung up on these things. The reason was that they understood the Bible to be inspired by God in all its parts and therefore inerrant in everything it teaches. They also understood biblical passages as having both a literal and figurative / spiritual meaning, not solely spiritual. They were defending the integrity of Scripture and its inerrancy by reconciling passages that could seem to be at variance. Here is what Augustine wrote about the fig tree passage:

“It must be considered that Mark relates the wonder of the disciples at the withering of the tree, and the answer of the Lord concerning faith, to have been not on the day following the cursing of the tree, but on the third day after; and that on the second day Mark relates the casting of the merchants out of the Temple, which he had omitted on the first day. On the second day then he says that He went forth out of the city in the evening, and that as they passed by in the morning, the disciples then saw that the fig tree was withered. But Matthew speaks as though all this had been done on the day following. This must be so taken as that when Matthew, having related that the fig tree was dried up, adds immediately, omitting all the events of the second day, And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, he yet meant that it was on another day that they marveled. For the tree must be supposed to have withered at the time it was cursed, not at the time they saw it. For they did not see it withering, but when it was withered, and by that they understood that it had withered immediately upon the Lord’s words” (Catena Aurea, Augustine’s Commentary on Mat 21:17-22).

So was St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, a fundamentalist by your definition? We reconcile the Scriptures because we believe them to be reconcilable. Yes, the most important thing is the spiritual meaning, but the literal truth of the passages not contradicting is also very important for these are the actual words of God communicated inerrantly through the means of the human instruments he employed.

Again, I only have trouble with your last statement. For if the details of Scripture are not reconcilable and are in fact errors, then we must ultimately conclude that the Church is not reliable for she has told us that God is truth, He has inspired all of Scripture, and that in the Scriptures as a result there can be no error. We must either then conclude that God is not a God of truth or that his Church is not the infallible means by which he communicates truth.

The following is the Catholic act of faith taken from Catholic prayer books:
“O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God, in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost: I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. * I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived***.** Amen.”

Let us bear in mind the Church’s teaching of Lex Creyendi, Lex Credendi, which means the Church prays what the Church believes.

 

[anon5216]

…
Truth by its very nature cannot change.
…
Truth is eternal.

I would add that Divine Truth, as opposed to simply honest human description of some material fact or group of facts, cannot be accurately and completely conveyed via spoken or written language.

Actually, even material descriptions can not guaranteed be interpreted by a given listener/reader in the precise way the speaker or writer intended - even given elaborate explanatory and interpretive accompanying documents.

To know Truth, one must know God’s language - not English, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.

It’s simply beyond comprehension why people continue to believe the “Word of God” can be translated into human language.

 

[TMC]

There is no error here. It is based on your approach to Scripture. It is not a science book or history book in the sense that you do not know you are interpreting it properly because you are not the Church. However, as the Church has said, anything the Bible intends to teach concerning history or natural phenomena is without error.

See my previous post. The difference between a person who “strives to tell the truth” and the Church is that the Church has from her onset claimed to be the infallible source of the truth. If, for example, Jesus claimed to be the perfect almighty God (which He did) and then told a lie (which he didn’t) and later admitted that what he said was a lie, then would you trust him that he was God? Of course not because you already know that God cannot lie because God is truth. In the same way, if the Church who claimed to be the infallible teacher of the truth, taught something definitively and authoritatively and said all were bound to believe it and had believed it from her founding and then later she admitted that she was wrong, then she would not be who she always claimed to be. And anyone who based their faith in the authority of the Magisterium would then no longer be able to do so as she would loose that credibility as to being able to teach infallibly. Make sense?

(bolding mine)

The Church has never, ever claimed to be always and everywhere right about everything - even on faith and morals. The Church has changed its position on many faith issues in the past, and I trust it will do so in the future. There are a very few central tenents of faith that the Church has declared infallibly, and the factual and scientific accuracy of specific passages of Scripture is not one of them. You point out that the Church teaches that “anything the Bible intends to teach concerning history or natural phenomena is without error.” I agree, but we don’t know what history or science the Bible intends to teach, so this statement is not a particuarly useful aid in interpretation.