Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[Pete_Holter]

he says he is going to show us how this different narration doesn’t injure the truth. If he thought that some things were contradictory and other things were not, as it pertained to times and places, then we would expect him to show us how both the contradictory things and the non-contradictory things don’t injure the truth of what they have said, because that’s what he said he was going to do. But he only shows how non-contradictory things don’t injure the truth of what they have said. Consequently, we have no evidence to suggest that he thought that there was true disagreement on these issues, and all of the evidence points to the fact that he doesn’t view the Gospel writers as contradicting themselves even on these matters. Again, the level of reconcilable difference that does exist amongst the authors is enough to distinguish the agreement in little things from the greater accuracy attributable to doctrinal agreement.

Pete I put my thoughts in red.

I disagree. He clearly argues that the small disagreements are proof that was no collusion. Here it is “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…” That is what John says. That is why the minor disagreements including those of time and place help the overall truth of what the gospel authors said.

I do not think that you have adequately addressed my argument above. You only need one example from 90 homilies to substantiate the claim that he thinks they truly disagree on these matters, that their level of “disagreement” amounts to something more than simply signifying the same things differently. If he thinks they really disagree, then he should be showing us where this happens so that we can see how it lends towards establishing the credibility of the chief heads. According to your interpretation, this is what he said he would be doing. He said he would be showing us:

1. Here’s where they “disagree.” And without reconciling this material,
2. Here’s how this disagreement doesn’t injure the truth of the chief heads.

Your brother in the Lord,
Pete

 

[una_fides]

I wrote my comments in red again. If this is annoying please let me know and I will stop. I think its helpful though.

Well I have not done a historical review of the doctrine of infallibility. I thought it was only defined as recently as 1870 or so. The ECFs had quite a bit more leeway in what they could believe than we have - yet even there some departed or were condemned. Again I’m only pushing for a bit more loosening on some of these requirements intended to control beliefs which seem to have little to do with Jesus message. Do you think the church has the power to loose things or do you think Jesus only spoke the truth about binding and not about loosening?

The Church certainly has the authority to loose as well. Nevertheless, the Church cannot loose something she has claimed has been infallibly bound. Otherwise, the dogma was never infallibly bound to begin with and at that point we no longer accept the Church’s ability to bind any dogma for if she was wrong once about an infallible dogma, then what makes her right about any other? Her authority is not her own. It comes from Christ and from the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. We as Catholics are bound by the Catholic faith to firmly believe all the sacred truths that the holy Catholic Church teaches, because God has revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. If the Church has claimed infallibility about any dogma wrongfully, then we have certainly been deceived who have trusted in her authority given to her by Christ.

 

[joemccarron]

I don’t think you can understand St. John because you have a low view of inspiration when compared with his own. I refer you back to Post 251 where I quote you as saying that the statements from John only imply total inerrancy “if you denied there was any human component to the scripture.” I then shared with you quotes from Chrysostomos where he asserts this very thing, that John the Evangelist was “subject to nothing that is human;” that “he will say nothing to us as a man, but what he says, he will say from the depths of the Spirit;” and that “it is not he, but God by him, that speaks to mankind.” You then want to devise a way of saying that John only viewed this level of inspiration as applying to certain statements from the Biblical authors. But in doing this you run into the problem of not being able to assert that the whole Bible, together with all of its parts, is God-breathed.

Well if this you mean it was dictation from God then I agree I don’t think that is the case. But I don’t think that is a problem either. Neither did the PBC in their last paper which Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the preface to. In criticizing the fundamentalist approach this is what it said: “…[The Fundamentalist approach] refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit…” Yes John (of the Gospel) does not speak as a man when he wrote scripture but there was a human side to his writing. To the extent John Chrysostom did not believe that, he does not share the same view as many in the Catholic Church. But I think I pointed out that although inerrancy and inspiration are related they are not identical. I think were getting a bit off course.

Inerrancy aside, I think I agree with your assessment of the greater value of texts that have direct bearing upon the divinity of Christ, etc. And that these Scriptural witnesses are not to be compared with texts revealing to us who Uz and Buz were. However, as St. John said,

“Wherefore let us stay at this point our discourse concerning the questions, and in the meanwhile let us retain with accuracy what has been revealed to us; as, for instance, why he mentioned David first; wherefore he called the book, a book of the generation; on what account he said, ‘of Jesus Christ’; how the birth is common and not common; whence it was that Mary was shown to be from David; and wherefore Joseph’s genealogy is traced, while her ancestors are passed over in silence…

“Wherefore I entreat you to revolve these things. For from taking thought concerning such matters, there springs in the soul some great good, tending unto salvation” (Homily 2 on Matthew).

All Scripture is God-breathed and all Scripture is therefore profitable towards equipping the man of God.

Well I agree that understanding the true meaning of all scripture can be beneficial. (Although when I say “all” I’m not sure I mean it as extreme as you do.  Paul says all men have sinned and none are righteous. But surely he understood that David and Abraham were counted righteous and Jesus did not sin. Don’t take every general statement to an extreme.) Moreover I agree we can often find that what appears to be error is often and even usually not error. So I think we do find some common understandings and we may not be that far apart.

The argument from examples is inductive.

The fact is, and I think I’ve said it before, we have two competing interpretations of Homily 1. My interpretation has evidence in its favor and yours has no evidence in its favor, and substantial evidence against it.

No evidence for my position on St. John? I will ask again why can’t Saint John’s own words serve as evidence of his beliefs? He said there is disagreement on small matters relating to times and places. Why can’t we take his word that he really believed what he said? Why should we prefer to look to other writings addressing different contexts and try to piece together inferences based on logical fallacies?

Please reconsider. But I wish you a blessed day either way.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

Pete I hope you have a blessed night too. I’m always reconsidering things – perhaps to a fault.

 

[joemccarron]

The Church certainly has the authority to loose as well. Nevertheless, the Church cannot loose something she has claimed has been infallibly bound.
I happen to disagree.

Otherwise, the dogma was never infallibly bound to begin with and at that point we no longer accept the Church’s ability to bind any dogma for if she was wrong once about an infallible dogma, then what makes her right about any other?
A couple of things here. I’m looking at “binding and loosing” as different than being “right or wrong.” The scripture either is without error or it has one or more. I don’t think the binding and loosing of the church changes that reality. I think the binding and loosing does have control over what we can believe and still be in the church. So if the church currently says no one can believe there seems to be an error in scripture and be in the church it can change that and say yes you can believe that. Jesus said it has that authority and I believe him.

I’m not expecting the Church to start announcing there are errors in scripture. I am hopeful that it will exercise its loosening power so its flock does not have such a treacherous path to tread.

Sometimes it’s hard to understand why the church continues to require these extra beliefs beyond what Christ and the early church taught. I mean sure if there is a scientific advance with dna that shows abortion is really just the killing of a human being then ok I can see the new teaching. But when these new demands on our belief just come out the blue, I have to wonder what the motivation is. If you and Pete are right on the issue of this thread then it is a prime example of what I mean. I mean if a passage has nothing to do with our salvation then why require any sort of beliefs about it? The Path to heaven is narrow enough.

Her authority is not her own. It comes from Christ and from the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. We as Catholics are bound by the Catholic faith to firmly believe all the sacred truths that the holy Catholic Church teaches, because God has revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. If the Church has claimed infallibility about any dogma wrongfully, then we have certainly been deceived who have trusted in her authority given to her by Christ.

Well the church has not acted perfectly in its history. But I would not say that means the Holy Spirit has deceived us. I tend to doubt anyone knows exactly how the Holy Spirit works in the Church other than what Christ said about binding and loosening. Banging fists on the podium and shouting decrees is not going to change that.

 

[joemccarron]

I do not think that you have adequately addressed my argument above. You only need one example from 90 homilies to substantiate the claim that he thinks they truly disagree on these matters, that their level of “disagreement” amounts to something more than simply signifying the same things differently. If he thinks they really disagree, then he should be showing us where this happens so that we can see how it lends towards establishing the credibility of the chief heads. According to your interpretation, this is what he said he would be doing. He said he would be showing us:

1. Here’s where they “disagree.” And without reconciling this material,
2. Here’s how this disagreement doesn’t injure the truth of the chief heads.

Your brother in the Lord,
Pete

Pete
As to your first claim I explained why we don’t see fathers going out of their way to point out nitpicky disagreements in this Post 161. Doing that would not serve their purposes of drawing people to the church. So no its not the case that any father would have any reason to point out a disagreement even if they thought they existed. I mean its not like the early church was declaring people were heretics if they thought there may be disagreement :
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4954115&postcount=160

The quote I gave has St. John saying there is disagreement when he is specifically asked about the those who alleged there is disagreement in the Gospels. You take statements from him in other contexts (i.e. out f context) to try to contradict what he said when the question was squarely put to him. I think this is grasping.

Moreover with respect to St. John and the word “seem” I would direct you to posts 116 and 143.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4864229&postcount=116

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4921007&postcount=143

Even after those posts I have noticed you still try to insert an “only” before the word “seems” when you try to summarize St. Johns views. I stand by my analysis in those posts until someone gives me reason to think otherwise, and think your insertion of the word “only” before the word “seems” changes the meaning of what the Saint said.

You have not addressed the fact that it is extremely rare that any of the ECF said their own personal view on inerrancy is a dogma of the faith that must be believed by all Christians. It certainly is not in any Creeds early or late. I can only assume you would agree that, to the extent you think the church is forcing everyone to believe this particular view, it is a recent development in the church.

 

[una_fides]

una fides;5142342:

The Church certainly has the authority to loose as well. Nevertheless, the Church cannot loose something she has claimed has been infallibly bound.

I happen to disagree.

Joe,

Since you are stating that you believe the Church can change her teachings on a dogma she has invoked infallibility to define, I have started up a new thread where we can further discuss this matter of infallibility: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5156167#post5156167
I honestly have no idea how you are going to support such a theory logically or theologically, so I am interested to read your comments on that thread.

I will try to keep my posts in this thread more focused specifically on its subject of inerrancy, and we can use the other thread I created to continue our discussion on authority and infallibility. Again, I’m interested to continue this conversation there, and do hope you will explain yourself further on that thread.

 

[una_fides]

Joe,
I am still hoping that you will join in on that thread, but in my researching some other sources for another apologetic endeavor I’m engaged in, I stumbled upon the following excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia that explains our duty to consent to the teachings contained in the Syllabus of Errors:

Binding power

The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical “Quanta Cura”. There is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly false, merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus. Many theologians are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex-cathedra decision by the pope or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church. Others question this. So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses. Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.
newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

Pope Pius X published the Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned as heresy the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11). papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

Thus, as Catholics we are bound to believe that every part of Scripture is free from every error.

 

[Pete_Holter]

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.

The hermeneutic that you have applied here is the one adopted by John Chrysostom as it pertains to parables, but not to historical narrative. His approach to historical narrative, as we’ve seen on this thread, is much more rigorous. Here is his approach to the parables so that you can appreciate the contrast:

“‘Many that were first shall be last, and last first’ (Matthew 19:30).

…]

“These last have wrought but one hour, and you have made them equal unto us that have borne the burden and heat of the day” (Matthew 20:12).

…]

“‘Thus the last shall be first, and the first last’ (Matthew 20:16).

“What is to us the intent of this parable? For the beginning does not harmonize with what is said at the end, but intimates altogether the contrary. For in the first part He shows all enjoying the same, and not some cast out, and some brought in; yet He Himself both before the parable and after the parable said the opposite thing. That the first shall be last, and the last first, that is, before the very first, those not continuing first, but having become last. For in proof that this is His meaning, He added, ‘Many are called, but few chosen’ (Matthew 22:14), so as doubly both to sting the one, and to soothe and urge on the other.

“But the parable says not this, but that they shall be equal to them that are approved, and have labored much. For ‘you have made them equal unto us,’ it is said, ‘that have borne the burden and heat of the day’ (Matthew 20:12).

“What then is the meaning of the parable? For it is necessary to make this first clear, and then we shall clear up that other point. By a vineyard He means the injunctions of God and His commandments: by the time of laboring, the present life: by laborers, them that in different ways are called to the fulfillment of the injunctions: by early in the morning, and about the third and ninth and eleventh hours, them who at different ages have drawn near to God, and approved themselves.

“…] Wherefore then did He so frame His discourse? The saying is a parable, wherefore neither is it right to inquire curiously into all things in parables word by word, but when we have learned the object for which it was composed, to reap this, and not to busy one’s self about anything further.

“Wherefore then was this parable thus composed? what is its object to effect? To render more earnest them that are converted and become better men in extreme old age, and not to allow them to suppose they have a less portion.

…]

“From everything then it is manifest to us, that the parable is spoken with reference to them who from earliest youth, and those who in old age and more tardily, lay hold on virtue; to the former, that they may not be proud, neither reproach those called at the eleventh hour; to the latter, that they may learn that it is possible even in a short time to recover all” (Homily 64 on Matthew).

He explains this hermeneutic for parables elsewhere in his homilies, as when he says,

“And, as I am always saying, the parables must not be explained throughout word for word, since many absurdities will follow; this even He Himself is teaching us here in thus interpreting this parable. Thus He says not at all who the servants are that came to Him, but, implying that He brought them in, for the sake of some order, and to make up the picture, He omits that part, and interprets those that are most urgent and essential, and for the sake of which the parable was spoken; signifying Himself to be Judge and Lord of all” (Homily 47 on Matthew).

 

[Pete_Holter]

When approaching Scripture, it is important to keep these two principles in balance:

1. “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18).
2. “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).

On the one hand, the details – every iota and dot – are important. And every iota and dot work for the salvation of man and the glory of God. On the other hand, the whole Bible can be synthesized into the Holy Name of Jesus Christ, for He is the Law and the Prophets and “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10). But we want to avoid both (1) missing the message, and (2) smearing the details when they ought not to be smeared. And since the Catholic Church unhesitatingly asserts the historicity of the Gospels (cf. , 19Dei Verbum), we should put our best efforts into preserving and explaining the facts of that history, understanding with Thomas Aquinas that wherever the Scriptures narrate history, “we must hold to the historical truth of the narrative as a foundation of whatever spiritual explanation we may offer” (, Part 1, Question 102, Article 1, “I answer that…”Summa Theologica).

As for the fig tree episode, Matthew’s account emphasizes the immediacy of the withering, and the form of his narrative follows the content: he places what has happened over the course of two days into a single scene to draw attention to the immediacy of the withering and to the faith of the apostles that it had indeed withered immediately. The Word of God takes its effect without any passing of time. “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Genesis 1:3). By comparing with Mark’s narrative, we learn that the historical event recorded in the opening verses of 18 and 19 actually takes place on the morning of the cleansing, which itself takes place later that day, even though these verses follow after the cleansing on the page of Matthew’s narrative. Since verse 18 doesn’t tell us when this event took place in relation to the preceding material, we are able to rearrange the scenes as necessary without destroying the integrity of the narrative or the truth of it as it pertains to the history.

Verse 20 opens up with, “When,” suggesting a passage of time, and that the disciples didn’t see the withering right away, but only heard the previous day’s cursing as Mark’s Gospel indicates. By preserving the history – that the disciples believe that it did whither right away even without seeing the withered tree until the next day – we are reminded of Jesus’ commendation, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29), and are led by their earnest faith into what Jesus teaches in connection with the withering, about praying with faith and not doubting. If we think that Matthew is not compressing the narrative in his account, and we miss the fact that he is knowingly relating what actually happened in two days as a single scene – though without narrating what is contrary to the history – then we forfeit the dramatic emphasis of immediacy that this compression conveys as well as the other benefits gained by appreciating the trustworthiness of our, “veracious historians,” as Augustine calls them. With such rapidity of force to be found in the words of Jesus, and which rapidity is reinforced by the form of the narrative, we are also somewhat led to see a connection here with the fig tree imagery used at the coming of the Son of Man, and how His appearing will come with a force that is similarly instantaneous: “as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:27).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Returning to the “When” of verse 20… John Chrysostom shares an interesting observation about the denotation of times and use of temporal connectives that helps us here:

“‘Then.’ When? Here, as I have often said, the word, then, relates not to the connection in order of time with the things before mentioned. At least, when He was minded to express the connection of time, He added, ‘Immediately after the tribulation of those days’ (Matthew 24:29), but here not so, but, then, not meaning what should follow straightway after these things, but what should be in the time, when these things were to be done, of which He was about to speak. So also when it is said, ‘In those days comes John the Baptist’ (Matthew 3:1), he is not speaking of the time that should straightway follow, but that many years after, and that in which these things were done, of which he was about to speak. For, in fact, having spoken of the birth of Jesus, and of the coming of the magi, and of the death of Herod, he at once says, ‘In those days comes John the Baptist’; although thirty years had intervened. But this is customary in the Scripture, I mean, to use this manner of narration. So then here also, having passed over all the intermediate time from the taking of Jerusalem unto the preludes of the consummation, He speaks of the time just before the consummation. ‘Then,’ He says therefore, ‘if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not’ (Matthew 24:23)” (Homily 76 on Matthew).

Mark, for his part, does “express the connection of time” when he introduces his account of the withering, by saying, “On the following day” (Mark 11:12); and so we understand that the structure of his narrative is following the flow of the actual history more closely. He places an emphasis on the totality of the withering and by his wording, “to its roots,” indirectly reminds us of the axe laid to the root of the tree for the unrepentant (cf. Matt 3:10; Luke 3:9), and brings to mind that we all run the risk of our faith being found to have no root in the time of testing (cf. Mark 4:17). Ironically, Mark is the one who has everything happening immediately in his Gospel, and the conspicuous omission of this favorite expression of his (by passing over in silence the amount of withering that took place on the first day), especially in light of Matthew’s double use of a similar term, draws even more attention to Mark’s desire to convey nothing else about the fig tree, but its being completely withered, by the time of the second day, utterly to its roots.

This comparison between Matthew and Mark is an excellent example of what the PBC was talking about in their document on the historicity of the Gospels where they wrote that “the Evangelists reported Christ’s deeds and words in varying contexts, choosing whichever one would be of greatest help to the reader in trying to understand a particular utterance” (The Historicity of the Gospels). Mark sandwiches the cleansing of the temple within the history of the withered fig tree, as it really happened, and this helps us to appreciate the ensuing plan of salvation, that, although it was true that “Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship” (John 4:20), “the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship Him” (John 4:23). And that “just as you [Gentiles] were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all” (Romans 11:31-32).

 

[Pete_Holter]

In defending Christ’s divinity, Chrysostom understands the expectation for figs attributed to Jesus as really being attributable to the disciples, who mistakenly thought that that was what Jesus was thinking at the time that the event took place (though this was not what they thought at the writing of the Gospels):

“‘And when He saw a fig tree in the way, He came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only’ (Matthew 21:19). Another evangelist says, ‘The time of figs was not yet’ (Mark 11:13); but if it was not time, how does the other evangelist say, ‘He came, if haply He might find fruit thereon’ (Mark 11:13)? Whence it is manifest that this belongs to the suspicion of His disciples, who were yet in a somewhat imperfect state. For indeed the evangelists in many places record the suspicions of the disciples” (Homily 67 on Matthew).

To me, it seems rather that the evangelists are pointing to something else, that Jesus really was looking for fruit; not so much, however, for fruit on the fig tree, no, not so much – for He has food that we do not know about (cf. John 4:32). Although He was hungry and would have enjoyed the fruit, much more was He looking for fruit on another fig tree: “Even the stork in the heavens knows her times, and the turtledove, swallow, and crane keep the time of their coming, but My people know not the rules of the LORD… behold, they have rejected the Word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?.. When I would gather them, declares the Lord, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them” (Jeremiah 8:7, 9, 13). The withering, as seen from this perspective (and this goes back to what I was just saying about the cleansing being sandwiched), seems to entail a recapitulation of the history of salvation and the passing of one dispensation into another, which passing would initiate upon the complete rejection of Jesus (the Word of the LORD) and result in making “the first one obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13), as the blessings promised in the Old Covenant pass on to others. Jesus’ looking for the fruit on the fig tree helps us to make this connection and prompts us to look forward to the grace bestowed in the New Covenant, when the indwelling Holy Spirit will make Christians’ bodies His temple (1 Corinthians 6:19), so that out of their hearts “will flow rivers of living water” (John 7:38), providing them a sustenance such that “their leaves will not wither, nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary” (Ezekiel 47:12). Finally, we see the Apostle John connecting this passage from Ezekiel with the consummation of the age when He will bring us into heaven, having completed the good work He began, where we will “see His face” (Revelation 22:4). Such are the promises on which we stand, and such is the revolution of history that proceeds upon a casted glance from the Almighty towards a fig tree while on His way to Jerusalem. And in another ironic twist, such as with what we have in Jesus’ reply to the rich young ruler about “goodness,” we have Jesus’ divinity shining brilliantly. For it is the LORD Himself, in Jeremiah, Who goes looking to gather figs from the fig tree, and we come thereby to appreciate once again that “the Son can do nothing of His own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise” (John 5:19).

All of this do we learn from Mark when he tells us that “it was not the season for figs” (Mark 11:13). Thus do the foreboding indictment of Jeremiah and the auspicious vision of Ezekiel inform our understanding of Jesus’ imprecation. And from Jesus’ hungry humanity we are paradoxically led to His satiating divinity, and on from there, by John the Seer, to the Beatific Vision of the Trinity in the new heaven and the new earth.

The historical details of both accounts feed into and enhance the spiritual message; and the manner in which they guide us to other Scriptures illustrates what Chrysostom saw “with regard to the Scriptures; in each portion of what is there stated, one may see the connection with the whole clearly appearing. Whereas, if they were in discord, neither could this have been pointed out” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

The immediacy and efficacy of the Word encourage us to trust that God will fully answer our prayers with abounding haste and whelming power, provided we are united with Jesus the Word through faith. “So shall My Word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11). And “if it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay” (Habakkuk 2:3).

And “greater works than these” will we do (John 14:12; cf. Matthew 21:21), by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Your brother in the Lord,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Julius Africanus (A.D. 225?): “AFRICANUS ON THE GENEALOGY IN THE HOLY GOSPELS. —Some indeed incorrectly allege that this discrepant enumeration and mixing of the names both of priestly men, as they think, and royal, was made properly, in order that Christ might be shown rightfully to be both Priest and King;… The evangelists, therefore, would thus have spoken falsely, affirming what was not truth, but a fictitious commendation… To no purpose, then, is this fabrication of theirs. Nor shall an assertion of this kind prevail in the Church of Christ against the exact truth, so as that a lie should be contrived for the praise and glory of Christ. For who does not know that most holy word of the apostle also, who, when he was preaching and proclaiming the resurrection of our Saviour, and confidently affirming the truth, said with great fear, “If any say that Christ is not risen, and we assert and have believed this, and both hope for and preach that very thing, we are false witnesses of God, in alleging that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not up?” And if he who glorifies God the Father is thus afraid lest he should seem a false witness in narrating a marvellous fact, how should not he be justly afraid, who tries to establish the truth by a false statement, preparing an untrue opinion? For if the generations are different, and trace down no genuine seed to Joseph, and if all has been stated only with the view of establishing the position of Him who was to be born—to confirm the truth, namely, that He who was to be would be king and priest, there being at the same time no proof given, but the dignity of the words being brought down to a feeble hymn,—it is evident that no praise accrues to God from that, since it is a falsehood, but rather judgment returns on him who asserts it, because he vaunts an unreality as though it were reality. Therefore, that we may expose the ignorance also of him who speaks thus, and prevent any one from stumbling at this folly, I shall set forth the true history of these matters” (The Epistle to Aristides).

Eusebius of Cæsarea (A.D. 324): “[T]hey say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.

“And this indeed is true…

“John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.

“One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 24, 7-8 & 12-13Church History).

Saint Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 382?): “As, then, the heavens declare, though they do not speak, and the firmament shows God’s handy-work, yet requires no voice for the purpose, and the day utters speech, though there is no speaking, and no one can say that Holy Scripture is in error— in like manner, since both Moses and David have one and the same Teacher, I mean the Holy Spirit, Who says that the fiat went before the creation, we are not told that God is the Creator of words, but of things made known to us by the signification of our words” (Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book).

Saint John of Damascus, The Icon Doctor (A.D. 740?): “Of the future both the angels of God and the demons are alike ignorant: yet they make predictions. God reveals the future to the angels and commands them to prophesy, and so what they say comes to pass. But the demons also make predictions, sometimes because they see what is happening at a distance, and sometimes merely making guesses: hence much that they say is false and they should not be believed, even although they do often, in the way we have said, tell what is true. Besides they know the Scriptures” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 4An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith).

Saint John of Damascus, The Icon Doctor (A.D. 740?): “It is one and the same God Whom both the Old and the New Testament proclaim, Who is praised and glorified in the Trinity: ‘I have come,’ says the Lord, ‘not to destroy the law but to fulfil it’ (Matthew 5:17). For He Himself worked out our salvation for which all Scripture and all mystery exists. And again, ‘Search the Scriptures for they are they that testify of Me’ (John 5:39). And the Apostle says, ‘God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son’ (Hebrews 1:1-2). Through the Holy Spirit, therefore, both the law and the prophets, the evangelists and apostles and pastors and teachers, spoke.

“All Scripture, then, is ‘given by inspiration of God and is also assuredly profitable’ (2 Timothy 3:16)” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 17An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith).

 

[Pete_Holter]

I don’t believe Vatican II intended to “qualify” the dogma of inerrancy of Scripture. Instead, Vatican II stated in a positive way what the Church has in the past stated in a negative way. For instance…

Negative way: “Scritpure is inerrant.”
Positive way: “Scripture is true.”

This understanding is in perfect agreement with the expressed purpose of Vatican II: to teach the same truths of the faith in more positive language as explained by “Pope John’s assertion regarding Christian doctrine at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: ‘This certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is due, has to be explored and presented in a way that is demanded by our times. One thing is the deposit of faith, which consists of the truths contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and signification.’[41]” (Mysterium Ecclesia).

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

This understanding is in perfect agreement with the expressed purpose of Vatican II: to teach the same truths of the faith in more positive language as explained by “Pope John’s assertion regarding Christian doctrine at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: ‘This certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is due, has to be explored and presented in a way that is demanded by our times. One thing is the deposit of faith, which consists of the truths contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and signification.’[41]” (Mysterium Ecclesia).

In Christ,
Pete

So that others do not perpetuate my errors, that should read Mysterium Ecclesiae, not Mysterium Ecclesia.

Have a blessed evening!

 

[Pete_Holter]

Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 175-185): “Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, [by so acting,] manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple. For through him we have become acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel; for instance, the generation of John, the history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary, the exclamation of Elisabeth, the descent of the angels to the shepherds, the words spoken by them, the testimony of Anna and of Simeon with regard to Christ, and that twelve years of age He was left behind at Jerusalem; also the baptism of John, the number of the Lord’s years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar…

“It follows then, as of course, that these [heretics] must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth.” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 14, 3-4Against Heresies).

My comment: Irenaeus includes the historical fact that Jesus’ baptism took place in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar as an important part of the Gospel. Even more strikingly, he says that the one who does away with this historical fact – together with the other unique portions of Luke’s Gospel – for being a falsehood, is manifestly rejecting the Gospel (not referring to any one of the four books of the New Testament, but to the saving Gospel that is recorded in these four books). Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Luke knows the truth; and he was enabled to write this truth down, without error, for the sake of our salvation:

“[N]or can [the heretics] prove Luke guilty of falsehood, when he proclaims the truth to us with all diligence. It may be, indeed, that it was with this view that God set forth very many Gospel truths, through Luke’s instrumentality, which all should esteem it necessary to use, in order that all persons, following his subsequent testimony, which treats upon the acts and the doctrine of the apostles, and holding the unadulterated rule of truth, may be saved. His testimony, therefore, is true” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 15, 1Against Heresies).

In Christ Alone,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Saint John of Damascus, The Icon Doctor (A.D. 740?): “The heaven of heaven, then, is the first heaven which is above the firmament. So here we have two heavens, for God called the firmament also Heaven. And it is customary in the divine Scripture to speak of the air also as heavens, because we see it above us. ‘Bless Him,’ it says, ‘all you birds of the heaven,’ meaning of the air. For it is the air and not the heaven that is the region in which birds fly. So here we have three heavens, as the divine Apostle said. But if you should wish to look upon the seven zones as seven heavens there is no injury done to the word of truth. For it is usual in the Hebrew tongue to speak of heaven in the plural, that is, as heavens, and when a Hebrew wishes to say heaven of heaven, he usually says heavens of heavens, and this clearly means heaven of heaven, which is above the firmament, and the waters which are above the heavens, whether it is the air and the firmament, or the seven zones of the firmament, or the firmament itself which are spoken of in the plural as heavens according to the Hebrew custom” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 6An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith).

My comment: The word of truth is not injured by the findings of science because the statements of Scripture, rightly interpreted, and any authentic findings of science are both true and therefore harmonious with one another.

Saint John of Damascus, The Icon Doctor (A.D. 740?): “If the human activity is passion because the divine activity is energy, assuredly also the human nature must be wicked because the divine nature is good, and, by conversion and opposition, if the divine activity is called energy because the human activity is called passion, then also the divine nature must be good because the human nature is bad. And so all created things must be bad, and he must have spoken falsely who said, ‘And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good’ (Genesis 1:31)” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 15An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith).

My comment: The reason that we cannot fashion such an argument is that it would, according to John’s reasoning, force Scripture into asserting a falsehood; and since this is impossible, the original premise must be false. He reasons in this same way here:

Saint John of Damascus, The Icon Doctor (A.D. 740?): “Wherefore to say, with that foolish Julianus and Gaïanus, that our Lord’s body was incorruptible, in the first sense of the word, before His resurrection is impious. For if it were incorruptible it was not really, but only apparently, of the same essence as ours, and what the Gospel tells us happened, viz. the hunger, the thirst, the nails, the wound in His side, the death, did not actually occur” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 28An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith).

My comment: Since the Gospels tell us that these things happened, they assuredly did happen. This type of argument reminds us of what Augustine wrote in Letter 147, here quoted by Leo XIII:

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1879): “[T]he fifth Lateran Council, after it had decided that ‘every assertion contrary to the truth of revealed faith is altogether false, for the reason that it contradicts, however slightly, the truth,’ advises teachers of philosophy to pay close attention to the exposition of fallacious arguments; since, as Augustine testifies (Letter 147, A.D. 413), ‘if reason is turned against the authority of sacred Scripture, no matter how specious it may seem, it errs in the likeness of truth; for true it cannot be’” (Aeterni Patris).

Saint John of Damascus, The Icon Doctor (A.D. 740?): “‘But some one will say, “How are the dead raised up?”’ (1 Cor. 15:35) Oh, what disbelief! Oh, what folly! Will He, Who at His solitary will changed earth into body, Who commanded the little drop of seed to grow in the mother’s womb and become in the end this varied and manifold organ of the body, not the rather raise up again at His solitary will that which was and is dissolved? ‘And with what body do they come?’ (1 Cor. 15:35) Thou fool, if your hardness will not permit you to believe the words of God, at least believe His works” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 27An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith).

My comment: I included this last quote to begin addressing your concern expressed in Post 303 about Scott Hahn’s assertion that the Bible is “the word of God in the very words of God.” And this is a topic that I hope to come back to later. Here I will only say that this statement should not be seen as being in conflict with the Church’s teaching. And you may have read the quote from Dei Verbum too quickly, for even there it was said that we are dealing with the words of God.

Jesus is Lord of All! Just press play.

With the Love of Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

The Vatican website cites Letter 147 for the quote from Augustine in my previous post. But it seems that this quote is actually from Letter 143. I’m not sure why the numbers are different. Here is the text for this beautiful truth:

Saint Augustine, The Doctor of Grace (A.D. 412): “For if reason be found contradicting the authority of Divine Scriptures, it only deceives by a semblance of truth, however acute it be, for its deductions cannot in that case be true. On the other hand, if, against the most manifest and reliable testimony of reason, anything be set up claiming to have the authority of the Holy Scriptures, he who does this does it through a misapprehension of what he has read, and is setting up against the truth not the real meaning of Scripture, which he has failed to discover, but an opinion of his own; he alleges not what he has found in the Scriptures, but what he has found in himself as their interpreter” (Letter 143).

With love for you and your loved ones,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

The “Old Man” who brought Justin Martyr to faith in Christ (A.D. 130): “There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, both righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place. They are called prophets. These alone both saw and announced the truth to men, neither reverencing nor fearing any man, not influenced by a desire for glory, but speaking those things alone which they saw and which they heard, being filled with the Holy Spirit. Their writings are still extant, and he who has read them is very much helped in his knowledge of the beginning and end of things, and of those matters which the philosopher ought to know, provided he has believed them. For they did not use demonstration in their treatises, seeing that they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief; and those events which have happened, and those which are happening, compel you to assent to the utterances made by them” (qtd. in , Ch. 7Dialogue with Trypho).

Saint Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): “I consider it reasonable to recur to our progenitors, who both in point of time have by a great way the precedence of your teachers, and who have taught us nothing from their own private fancy, nor differed with one another, nor attempted to overturn one another’s positions, but without wrangling and contention received from God the knowledge which also they taught to us. For neither by nature nor by human conception is it possible for men to know things so great and divine, but by the gift which then descended from above upon the holy men, who had no need of rhetorical art, nor of uttering anything in a contentious or quarrelsome manner, but to present themselves pure to the energy of the Divine Spirit, in order that the divine plectrum itself, descending from heaven, and using righteous men as an instrument like a harp or lyre, might reveal to us the knowledge of things divine and heavenly. Wherefore, as if with one mouth and one tongue, they have in succession, and in harmony with one another, taught us both concerning God, and the creation of the world, and the formation of man, and concerning the immortality of the human soul, and the judgment which is to be after this life, and concerning all things which it is needful for us to know, and thus in various times and places have afforded us the divine instruction… To [Moses] first did God communicate that divine and prophetic gift which in those days descended upon the holy men, and him also did He first furnish that he might be our teacher in religion, and then after him the rest of the prophets, who both obtained the same gift as he, and taught us the same doctrines concerning the same subjects. These we assert to have been our teachers, who taught us nothing from their own human conception, but from the gift vouchsafed to them by God from above” (, Chs. 8 & 10Hortatory Address to the Greeks).

In a previous post I adduced John 3:12 in support of the doctrine of inerrancy: “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” Justin Martyr, I think, would have the same appreciation for what I think can be concluded from Jesus’ words, for in his work just quoted he complains of the Greek philosophers, saying, “Thus, then, do they differ concerning things heavenly. So that one can see that they not only are unable to understand our earthly matters, but also, being at variance among themselves regarding these things, they will appear unworthy of credit when they treat of things heavenly… they are unable to comprehend even earthly things, [and yet they] profess to understand things heavenly as if they had seen them” (Chs. 6 & 36).

Further on, Justin admits the ancient prophetess Sibyl to have received what must be thought of as a “potent inspiration,” and he thinks that Plato says of non-biblical prophets very much the same as what Christians mean when they say that the Old Testament prophets were divinely inspired:

And Plato seems to me to have counted prophets divinely inspired when he read [Sibyl’s] prophecies. For he saw that what she had long ago predicted was accomplished; and on this account he expresses in the Dialogue with Meno his wonder at and admiration of prophets in the following terms: “Those whom we now call prophetic persons we should rightly name divine. And not least would we say that they are divine, and are raised to the prophetic ecstasy by the inspiration and possession of God, when they correctly speak of many and important matters, and yet know nothing of what they are saying,” — plainly and manifestly referring to the prophecies of the Sibyl. For, unlike the poets who, after their poems are penned, have power to correct and polish, specially in the way of increasing the accuracy of their verse, she was filled indeed with prophecy at the time of the inspiration, but as soon as the inspiration ceased, there ceased also the remembrance of all she had said (Ch. 37).

Christians, of course, do not think that the Scriptures cannot be improved upon because the inspired human authors experienced a loss of consciousness when composing their works; rather, they cannot be improved upon because the writings are God’s, and so are already perfect!

“I am not so dull-witted nor so coarsely ignorant …] I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired” (St. Jerome, , 1Letter 27).

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

The discussion has continued here.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[adriancombe]

I just found this gem which I posted on another thread. It may be useful here:

On Narratives Historical only in Appearance in Books of Holy Scripture Historical in Form

By the Pontifical Biblical Commission - June 23, 1905

"Is it possible to admit as a principle of sound exegesis that books of sacred Scripture which are regarded as historical, at times do not relate, either wholly or in part, history properly so-called and objectively true, but present only the appearance of history with the purpose of expressing some meaning differing from the strictly literal or historical sense of the words?

Answer: In the negative, except in a case neither easily nor rashly to be admitted, in which the m ind of the Church not being contrary and without prejudice to its judgement, it is proved by solid arguments that the sacred Writer intended not to recount true history, properly so-called, but under the guise and form of history to set forth a parable, an allegory, or some meaning distinct from the strictly literal or historical signification of the words."

English translation: catholicintl.com/epologet…/bible/pbc.htm

Original Latin:
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…nibus_lt.html