Is there error in the Bible?

[itsjustdave1988]

RobNY:

I think we agree in substance. The whole deal with intent is exactly what I was trying to address when quoting the relevant portion to MaryAgnes for explaning the Genesis creation stories.

Oh and, you never responded to my fan club comment.

itsjustdave1988–

Thanks for all the good references.

Just a question, I know that there are many, apparent biblical contradictions. What are your favorite sources for reconciling difficult passages or inconsistencies?

I don’t know that I’ve found a good source yet. I do like Fr. William Most’s *Basic Scritpure *
catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=6

But it doesn’t get into every specific difficulty, but instead takes a higher-level understanding that centers on literary genres and authorial intent.

I also have a text called The Scripture Documents - An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings, edited and translated by Fr. Dean P. Bechard. If you disregard the Fitzmyer-esque editorial commentary and simply stick to the magisterial texts, it’s an outstanding anthology of Catholic teaching on the Bible.

However, many attempts to reconcile appearant contradictions seem so unconvincing even to me. I can’t imagine they will convince someone who is skeptical about the inerrancy of Scritpure.

For example, how did Judas die? I’ve read the attempts to reconcile them and they just seem so desparate. I think instead that we should simply accept that differing accounts of Judas death are intended by the sacred authors, and presenting the detailed facts surrounding Judas’ was rather unimportant in the didactic history they were presenting to their respective audiences.

PhilVaz has provided an index for answering objections here:

Countering Bible Contradictions
bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

A protestant version is found here:
carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
tektonics.org/index2.html

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

I think we are saying the same thing, but I cannot say there are errors in the Bible for the same reason I cannot say that “faith alone” justifies without a heck of a lot of qualifications. It would be contrary and dangerous to the faith to do so. There’s much more qualifications needed when saying “faith alone” really means “faith which includes love and hope, and oh yeah, repentence, and don’t forget being born from above.”

Likewise, inerrancy (as defined by Catholic teaching to be the absence of all error in what the sacred author affirms) is dogma, and saying the Bible errs is in my view contrary to dogma, and can be easily understood as the Jesus Seminar has concluded, blaming the sacred texts for errors, when instead the error is in misunderstanding the texts.

It is tantamount to saying the sacred author erred in what he wrote, and as the Jesus Seminar asserts, Jesus didn’t really raise from the dead as the authors clearly assert, but was likely to be eaten by dogs. The search for the “historical Jesus” is filled with conclusions that are contrary to the inerrant assertions of the Sacred Writers, because they have an a priori view that the Bible is not inerrant.

Catholics would have to have so many qualifications to such an assertion that the “Bible is not inerrant” to make such a dangerous statement “true” that I, instead, prefer to join with the saints…

**St. Justin Martyr, ***Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, *(ca AD 155):

From St. Irenaeus’ *Against Heresies *(ca. AD 180/199):

St. Augustine of Hippo, *Letter to Faustus, *AD 400, & *Letter to St. Jerome, *AD 405:

The Fathers say lots of things, and are often mistaken - why should they not be wrong about this ? More positively - how do we know they are right ?​

Even if they were not wrong - what reason is there to suppose this was any more than their opinion ? And what is there to stop an opinion being all but universal, yet mistaken ? Absolutely nothing at all.

And where did the Fathers the the idea in the first place ? Quoting later authors is no good, certainly not the usual Popes, because they do not tell us where the Fathers got the idea of inerrancy in the first place. And if the idea as held by the Fathers is illogical balderdash, an army of Popes can’t make the idea anything else - unless they teach something intelligible in place of the balderdash.

Which would lead to two possibilities:

• Papal teaching of something the Fathers did not teach: in which case, why bother what the Fathers say, if one can replace their teaching by one’s own ?

or,

• teaching illogical balderdash believed to be truth by the Fathers

Neither of these is a pleasant possibility.

As for the teaching that Scripture is totally inerrant, in all respects, as taught by Leo XIII: that could only be Catholic teaching, if it was already the belief of Catholics: but if that particular version of inerrancy was not taught in the Church before he taught it, then he would be inventing doctrine. So - where are the previous teachings of that doctrine ? Do they exist ?* If* they did not exist before 1893, the doctrine is a theory of the Pope’s, but no more than that. Popes are not entitled to teach their pet ideas as the Catholic Faith. ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Gottle,

We’ve been over this many times. Your thesis could only be true if all the Church has been wrong for the past 2000 years, and that multiple popes have taught the “error of inerrancy” as you have called it. I get you have that opinion.

Nevertheless, my understanding of dogmatic theology is that the ordinary universal magisterium is infallible. This means in effect what St. Vincent de Lerins asserted in the 5th century, that we can know the Catholic faith by that which was taught everywhere, always and by all in the Catholic Church.

All patristic evidence asserts the Bible is inerrant. The saints and doctors of the Catholic Church, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II must all be wrong for you to be right. I side with them and reject your hypothesis.

Cardinal Ratzinger included inerrancy as a dogma of Catholic faith, denial or obstinent doubt of such dogma is heresy. The pope approved and promulgated Cardinal Ratzinger’s doctrinal view. I agree with them. Canon law obliges me to assent with the magistierum and avoid that which is contrary to Catholic doctrine. To do otherwise is grave error.

John Paul II stated as much to the American Bishops gathered at San Fernando Mission in Los Angeles on 16 Sep 1987:

It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions… It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere. I wish to encourage you in the love of Christ to address this situation courageously in your pastoral ministry, relying on the power of God’s truth to attract assent and on the grace of the Holy Spirit which is given both to those who proclaim the message and to those to whom it is addressed.

In my opinion, you fail to grasp Catholic dogmatic theology and fail to recognize the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium or submit to the teachings of the Church you claim to belong to.

 

[Ghosty]

Oh and, you never responded to my fan club comment.

I figure that’s something for non-Ghostys to discuss. It’s not that I didn’t notice and have a good chuckle at it, just that I couldn’t be a member by definition

Peace and God bless!

 

[trth_skr]

MaryAgnes:

Exactly my point. The inerrant TRUTH of the Sacred Text is

[T]hat truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures. Dei Verbum, 11

Which is everything in the sacred Scriptures. I.e., EVEWRYTHING in the sacred Scriptures is* that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures. *

MaryAgnes:

So it does not matter if God created mankind before he created the trees, shrubs and grass (the garden) as in Genesis 2 or after as in Genesis 1 … the TRUTH is that God created mankind in his image and likeness. Therefore, NEITHER of the Creation stories has to be true (inerrant)–but the truth they profess does.

Yes, it does matter, otherwise God would not have inspired the authors to place it in the sacred Scriptures.

The quote is Dei Verbum is completely ambiguous. It can go either way. For that reason we do what the Catholic faith has always done in cases where a new statement appears ambiguous- go back to tradition, which supports the interpretation I am presenting.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[CreosMary]

No error in Holy Scripture as Holy Mother Church would have ensured this.
The only error is in an individuals interpretation and self interpretation at the expense of truth and reason.
God Bless

 

[RobNY]

itsjustdave1988:

I don’t know that I’ve found a good source yet. I do like Fr. William Most’s *Basic Scritpure *
catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=6

But it doesn’t get into every specific difficulty, but instead takes a higher-level understanding that centers on literary genres and authorial intent.

It’s probably better to have a good understanding before trying to reconcile difficulties, thanks.

I also have a text called The Scripture Documents - An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings, edited and translated by Fr. Dean P. Bechard. If you disregard the Fitzmyer-esque editorial commentary and simply stick to the magisterial texts, it’s an outstanding anthology of Catholic teaching on the Bible.

I’ll keep this filed in the back of my mind.

However, many attempts to reconcile appearant contradictions seem so unconvincing even to me. I can’t imagine they will convince someone who is skeptical about the inerrancy of Scritpure.

For example, how did Judas die? I’ve read the attempts to reconcile them and they just seem so desparate. I think instead that we should simply accept that differing accounts of Judas death are intended by the sacred authors, and presenting the detailed facts surrounding Judas’ was rather unimportant in the didactic history they were presenting to their respective audiences.

I tend to agree, the accounts of Judas seem too divergent to be reconciled. But on the other hand, it also seems like a bit of a cop out to merely say that they could actually say two totally different things which could both be true. I suppose that I’ll have to study the whole concept of intent and genre and then come back to the issue.

PhilVaz has provided an index for answering objections here:

Countering Bible Contradictions
bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

A protestant version is found here:
carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
tektonics.org/index2.html

Thank you. I’m familiar with those, I believe, at least Phil’s and CARM’s. If I recall, I was having trouble finding the one on Patrick Holding’s site.

Ghosty:

I figure that’s something for non-Ghostys to discuss. It’s not that I didn’t notice and have a good chuckle at it, just that I couldn’t be a member by definition

Peace and God bless!

Er… honorary member? Peace and God bless to you too.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

trth_skr:

The quote is Dei Verbum is completely ambiguous.

Only if you don’t bother to reference footnote 5. That footnote was put there for a reason, so that we could understand *Dei Verbum *in it’s proper context.

I’m not implying you don’t know the context, but I wanted to show the context as referenced in Dei Verbum…

Dei Verbum states:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.

Footnote 5 gives the proper context for the statement preceding it. Footnote 5 refers to these references:

1. cf. St. Augustine, “Gen. ad Litt.” 2, 9, 20L 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, 124, 126-127. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539.

One of St. Augustine’s references is from his text called *The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, *2, 9, 20, which states:

With the Scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the Scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation. [translated by William A. Jurgens, *The Faith of the Early Fathers,

Vol. 3, 1687]

The other reference from St. Augustine is cited, from Epistle 82, par 3, which states:

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.
newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm ]

St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2 I have only in Latin, and haven’t found the time to search for the relevant passage and translate it. However, within that article, St. Thomas quotes from passage above from St. Augustine’s The Literal Interpretation of Genesis: "quamvis auctores nostri sciverint cuius figurae sit caelum; tamen per eos dicere noluit nisi quod prodest saluti"

The next reference is from the Council of Trent:

… the purity itself of the Gospel is preserved in the Church, which promised before through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded “to be preached” by His apostles “to every creature” as the source of every saving truth and of instruction in morals, and [the Synod] clearly persceiving that this truth and instruction are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down even to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand" [Denzinger 783]

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

The next reference is from Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, which states:

No real dissension will ever arise between the scientist and the theologian, provided each stays within the proper bounds of his discipline, carefully observing St. Augustine’s admonition ‘not to assert rashly as known what is in fact unknown.’ But if some dispute should arise, the same Doctor sums up the rule to be followed by the theologian: 'If they have been able to demonstrate some truth of natural science with solid proofs, let us show that it is not contrary to our Scriptures; but if they maintain anything in any of their treatises which is contrary to Scripture (that is, to the Catholic Faith), let us believe without hesitation that it is completely false, and, if possible, find a way of refuting it.' [translated by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, “The Truth and Salvific Purpose of Sacred Scritpure according to Dei Verbum Article 11*,” Living Tradition, *No. 59, July 1995, rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html ]

Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 124 states:

It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labour carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. ***This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. ***

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html ]

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…
Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 126-127 states:

Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments,*** we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author.*** For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that*** the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth.*** Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. “Therefore,” says St. Augustine, “since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for** His members executed what their Head dictated**.”(58) And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "(59)

1. ***It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. ***And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the “higher criticism;” for ***they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. ***[ibid.]

The last reference cited by Vatican II’s *Dei Verbum *is from Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539, which states:

The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order, "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either “in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.” For “the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine’s - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is, the intimate constitution of visible things - which are in no way profitable to salvation”; which principle “will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,” that is, by refuting, “in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks.” Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if “copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible,” or, “if the real meaning of a passage remains ambiguous.” Finally, it is absolutely wrong and forbidden “either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,” since divine inspiration “not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.” [translated by Fr. Brian Harrison, LT59 - THE TRUTH AND SALVIFIC PURPOSE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE ACCORDING TO DEI VERBUM, ARTICLE 11”]LT59 - THE TRUTH AND SALVIFIC PURPOSE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE ACCORDING TO DEI VERBUM, ARTICLE 11

]

The above references show that Vatican II was teaching in continuity with the Council of Vatican I, the Council of Trent, the teaching of Pope St. Gregory the Great, and the Sacred Tradition which came before it.

 

[trth_skr]

itsjustdave1988:

continued…
Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 126-127 states:

The last reference cited by Vatican II’s *Dei Verbum *is from Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539, which states:

The above references show that Vatican II was teaching in continuity with the Council of Vatican I, the Council of Trent, the teaching of Pope St. Gregory the Great, and the Sacred Tradition which came before it.

Wow!

Thanks, Dave for taking the time to present all that.

Clearly all of it adds up the interpretation I was alluding to, namely, that " EVEWRYTHING in the sacred Scriptures is* that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures."*

Or, more specifically, the Scriptures ARE without error.

Also, perhaps rather than saying:

“The quote is Dei Verbum is completely ambiguous. It can go either way. For that reason we do what the Catholic faith has always done in cases where a new statement appears ambiguous- go back to tradition, which supports the interpretation I am presenting.”

I should have said:

The quote is Dei Verbum is completely ambiguous, taken out of context. . It can go either way. For that reason we do what the Catholic faith has always done in cases where a new statement appears ambiguous- go back to tradition, which supports the interpretation I am presenting.<And this you did, in style, and even following the very footnotes of Dei Verbum itself>.

The most important point you are making is that Vat II is often mis-interpreted, i.e., the spirit of Vatican II. Conversely, Vat II is not in error, but one needs to look at it in light of previous tradition where it appears ambiguous (and try reading the footnotes for starters) due to the style in which it was written.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RobNY,

Hmmm…James Patrick Holding’s explanation of Judas’ death is probably the best I’ve seen yet…

tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html

we would maintain that the parallels are sufficient, and that Matthew is indeed alluding to the traitor Ahithophel in this passage, and is therefore NOT telling us that Judas indeed hung himself, but that Judas fulfilled the “type” of Ahithophel by being a traitor who responded with grief and then died. Matthew is thereby making no statement at all about Judas’ mode of death, and Luke’s “swelling up” stands alone as a specific description of what happened.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

trth_skr:

Wow!

Thanks, Dave for taking the time to present all that.

You’re welcome. You might like Fr. Most’s first chapter of Basic Scripture, which addresses the (failed) attempts made at Vatican II to change doctrine…

**Basic Scripture: “Chapter 1: A Revolution by Vatican II?” **
catholicculture.org/docs/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=6&ChapNum=2

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

Gottle,

We’ve been over this many times. ## That’s because the defences have been mostly of the same, authority-based, kind, rather than explaining how the objections made are invalid. Which is a bit rough, if one already knows the authority-based arguments. One asks, because one knows them, and is not helped by them. ##

Your thesis could only be true if all the Church has been wrong for the past 2000 years, and that multiple popes ## This takes for granted that the Church taught it formally for 2000 years - what is to stop the idea having been a working assumption, rather than a formal teaching ? Your task is to show that it was not an assumption, but a formal doctrine; and that all the Fathers held it; and that they did so as Christians who regarded it as a truth, one so important, that one could not be a Christian while denying it - IOW, I want evidence that it really is a dogma, and not something less.

Modern Popes cannot teach any old thing - they have to teach what was taught in the past: not make up a new dogma out of bits and bobs of people’s theological ideas. If the doctrine as articulated in 1893 is not the traditional teaching of the Church, then it’s not. The Pope taught total inerrancy in all respects - did St.Justin Martyr believe in exactly that ? ##

have taught the “error of inerrancy” as you have called it. I get you have that opinion.

Nevertheless, my understanding of dogmatic theology is that the ordinary universal magisterium is infallible. This means in effect what St. Vincent de Lerins asserted in the 5th century, that we can know the Catholic faith by that which was taught everywhere, always and by all in the Catholic Church.## Fair enough - but does that doctrine qualify ? Even if it does, that does not make it true if it is without meaning.

All patristic evidence asserts the Bible is inerrant. The saints and doctors of the Catholic Church, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II must all be wrong for you to be right. I side with them and reject your hypothesis.

Saints and doctors have disagreed with other saints and doctors - they have corrected them, and themselves been corrected. Maybe they are all wrong in this matter - why not ? A donkey corrected a prophet. What matters, is not who is speaking, but what is said.​

Numbers have nothing to do with truth. If the Apostles had believed numbers were a guarantee of truth, they would not have broken with their traditions. St Paul was only one man - the believers in other gods were very numerous, and their religions were old. That did not bother him. It should not bother anyone. Are the stars more valuable than men ? They are far older than the human race, and far more numerous; yet we matter more than they. ##

Cardinal Ratzinger included inerrancy as a dogma of Catholic faith, denial or obstinent doubt of such dogma is heresy.

The 1998 document ? I have a link or two somewhere.​

If a dogma is meaningless or illogical, nothing the Pope or the SCDF or the bishops do can make it otherwise: defining what is nonsense, would be as empty a gesture as defining that the earth is flat.

The Church cannot alter reality - she can only accept it and work within it. That holds for realities of mathematics, logic, history, and any others that could be mentioned. She cannot create truth, any more than she can create holiness or morality: she can only respond to them and recognise them. If she insists on calling illogic truth, that is not a reason for anyone else to do so. The Church is not entitled to require anyone to lie: and nonsense recognised as nonsense but embraced as truth, is a lie. ##

The pope approved and promulgated Cardinal Ratzinger’s doctrinal view. I agree with them. Canon law obliges me to assent with the magistierum and avoid that which is contrary to Catholic doctrine. To do otherwise is grave error.

…continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

And lying is a sin - the Pope would be perverting the reason for his function in the Church, if he used his office to enforce a lie. He could not do so, even if he wanted to: because his authority is not his at all, but Christ’s. And Christ does not use His authority to enforce a lie.​

John Paul II stated as much to the American Bishops gathered at San Fernando Mission in Los Angeles on 16 Sep 1987:

In my opinion, you fail to grasp Catholic dogmatic theology and fail to recognize the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium or submit to the teachings of the Church you claim to belong to.## I know less dogmatic theology than might be, but I do know the Church cannot teach any old thing that comes into her head. She has no right to teach anything but what is true. And if a thing is taught, it makes no sense to begin by teaching a thing, and then to ask whether it be true. But if it makes no sense, how can it be true or false ? If it cannot be known to be true, it cannot be taught.

Knowing it to be true, implies that one has at least some understanding of what reasons recommend it as true. Those reasons, that recommend the doctrine, not from outside, but from within the doctrine, are what I am looking for. I do believe in revelation - what I do not believe at all, is that revealed truths are incoherent. So if something is incoherent, it cannot be revealed. Mystery is not muddle - it’s a light too bright for our sinful & mortal frailty to bear: but this doctrine is not a mystery, it is a muddle. Both are obscure - but for wholly different reasons.

What I fail to grasp, and want very much to grasp, is what basis there is for saying the Bible is infallible in the first place - saying the earliest Fathers thought it was so, is no answer, because that does not explain why they thought that, if they did; let alone whether they were right to think that. I’m not the one defending belief in total inerrancy - so I’m not the one who has to show it is true, or rational, or logical: doing that, is for those who do believe it. So, please give me a reason to accept it which is not vulnerable to the criticisms made of it.

Or: please show that the objections made, are invalid. The reasonings given do everything except show that the doctrine is true and coherent. Reasons of the “40 million French can’t be wrong” kind don’t show what needs showing. You might be helping lurkers too. I doubt very much I’m the only Catholic with these objections.

If a doctrine can’t be defended by those who do believe it, those who reject it can hardly be blamed for their rejection of it. I don’t how to put that more clearly - as you say, this is something we have often discussed. ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I do know the Church cannot teach any old thing that comes into her head.

They haven’t. The basis is Divine revelation. We don’t know the reasons behind the Trinity, yet it is a dogma nonetheless, simply by virtue of it being Divine revelation. We don’t know why the Epistle to the Hebrew, for example, was included in Scripture. Yet, the canon of Scripture is a Divinely revealed dogma. We don’t know why the Son is “eternally begotten of the Father” but even if it were never explicitly taught before, the Church has the Divine authority to discern what is and is not dogma. Faith in the dogmas of Catholicism has the following reason: “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you rejects me.”

The ordinary universal magisterium affirms that inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is* de fide* dogma, a Divinely revealed doctrine. But what about the opposite view?

Can you provide the patristic evidence, councilar support, and or magisterial texts for your thesis? The early Church was quick to pounce on any novel doctrines that popped up out of the blue. Even the date of Easter was met with much dispute in the early Church. So, if someone were to suddenly say, out of the blue, that the Sacred Scriptures are without any error, one would expect that if this was such a novel teaching that there would be much argument against such a view. Yet, we see no such thing in the early Church. No saint, doctor, or pope has ever held the view that the Sacred Scriptures are not inerrant. None. Yet, there are many fathers, councils, and popes over many centuries who have agreed that the Sacred Scriptures are authored by the Holy Spirit, and as such, are without all error. They haven’t posed this view as speculative, but as certain.

So, looking solely at the patristic, councilar and other magisterial evidence, your thesis is in no way Catholic. St. Vincent de Lerin’s rule of faith is that Catholic faith is that which has the characteristics of: 1) antiquity, 2) universality, and 3) consent.

Antiquity means that it is not new, that there’s evidence from the past that the early Church believed this teaching either implicitly or explicitly. Universality means that it is not merely a regional teaching, but can be found in various places in the universal Church. Consent means that in antiquity, the fathers taught similarly, and if there was some dissent among them (e.g. apokatastasis), nearly all the fathers agreed. Often, when something is met with such dissent, councilar decisions provide evidence of consent.

Of the two of us, I’m the only one who has provided patristic, councilar, and magisterial evidence that the rule of St. Vincent has been met. Your only rebuttal is that all these saints, ecumenical councils, and popes may have been wrong, or merely giving their speculative opinion with the intent that Catholics may legitimately hold the contrary view and be a “good Catholic.” Yet, you have not shown any evidence to support your thesis. Which other early fathers of our Church were quick to disagree with these? Your argument is based upon the mere possibility of error, without any support whatsoever that the early Church ever disagreed with the doctrine. It is clear to me that comparatively, there was more disputes about the Divinity of Jesus Christ in Church history than whether Sacred Scripture is or is not inerrant.

Catholicism is based upon the rule of faith which relies upon revelation and principles of dogmatic theology. If you would attempt the same, that would be more compelling that simply telling us over and over again that Church, century after century, despite being guided by the Holy Spirit, is wrong.

These are levels of dogmatic certainty as I understand them are:

1. De fide (either by the repeated teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium or definitive through the solemn magisterium). This is the highest level of dogmatic certainty, considered infallible.
2. Sententia Certa (certain teaching). Lacking a solemn definition and it is not clear that such a teaching has been repeatedly held by the universal ordinary magisterium. These teachings over time can be understood more clearly as de fide when it becomes a repeated assertion by the universal ordinary magisterium. The manner or words used by the magisterium when promulgating sententia certa is what makes it clear that such a teaching is “certain” to Catholics, and no longer a matter of free opinion.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

1. Sententia communis (Common teaching). This falls into “free opinion” but has been taught by the magisterium in such a way (determined by the manner in which it was taught) that the magisterium does not intend to end theological speculation to the contrary. Limbus infantium is a good example. This teaching is normally well-founded in Scripture and the teachings of Catholic history, but there are also many examples where the saints and doctors of the Church have disagreed.
2. Pius Opinion. This is where a theological opinion has little to no magisterial endorsement, but is well-founded in Scripture and/or past theological speculation.
3. Tolerated Opinion. This is where a theological opinion has no magisterial endorsement and is not well-founded in Scripture and/or past theological speculation.
4. Condemned Opinion. This is a theological opinion that has been condemned as error by the magisterium and is contrary to sententia certa. Also called heterodox opinion.
5. Heresy. This is a theological opinion that is contrary to de fide dogma.

The inerrancy of Sacred Scripture has been taught by an ecumenical council of the Church (Vatican II), not definitively, but certainly as an exercise of the universal ordinary magisterium which is guided by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it confirms and repeats the teaching of Divino Afflante Spiritu, Providentissimus Deus, St. Gregory the Great, St. Augustine, etc. Thus, by virtue of the universal ordinary magisterium it is de fide dogma.* The “reason” one give their assent of Faith is due to the authority from which it came. For example, St. Augustine asserted, “**I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.*” (St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6)

Now, you might think that the repetition of the teaching by the magisterium over centuries is not clear enough to make it de fide. However, without conceding that view, if it were true then the teaching would be at least sententia certa, which Catholics are bound by the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and Catholic Canon Law to give their religious assent of intellect and will (religiosum obsequium).

Where does the contrary opinion fall using the principles of dogmatic theology? The contrary opinion is that Scripture is NOT inerrant. Has it ever been taught in patristics? Has any council ever asserted such a thing? Has any pope asserted such a thing?

Given the condemnation of St. Pius X, “[The proposition that asserts] Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scripture in such a way that it renders all of its parts free from every error [is condemned.]” (Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, July 5, 1907), I’d say that even if you don’t concede as I do that the teaching is de fide, then the contrary view that Scripture is NOT inerrant is clearly no better than a *condemned or heterodox opinion. That is, it is contrary to at least sententia certa of the Catholic Church. *We are obliged by canon law to avoid that which is contrary to Catholic doctrine (sententia certa). No “good Catholic” can hold such a condemned opinion.

Nonetheless, the *Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fidei * ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM ] asserts as I do that the inerrancy of Scripture is among the de fide dogmas of Catholicism. This was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and approved and promulgated by Pope John Paul II as an Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Inerrancy of Scripture is de fide. Thus, contrary opinion is heresy.

So at best your opinion is contrary to the certain teaching of the Catholic Church, and is therefore a condemned opinion, and at worst (most likely) your opinion is heresy.