PBC to Meet on Biblical Inerrancy

[Pete_Holter]

I saw a press release yesterday indicating that the PBC will be meeting next week to work on a document about the Inspiration and Truth (Inerrancy) of the Bible. Last night, I sent the CDF an email at cdf@cfaith.va about this and I wanted to encourage everyone else to do the same, or to send a letter if you think that is better.

If you’re not sure what is at stake, please see [this thread](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=304295&page= 11#165). Of course, you can start from the beginning of the thread if you want, but the issue is fully laid out from Post 165 forward. And you’ll want to read Post 196 after reading 176, and then come back to 177. I goofed!

If you would like to see a copy of the letter that I sent, you can email me at pholter@amrl.net.

Thank you very much!

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[Ron_Conte]

Sacred Scripture is entirely inspired and so must be entirely entirely inerrant.
catholicplanet.com/TSM/Biblical-inerrancy.htm

I also think that this declaration falls under papal infallibility:

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 Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

 

[patg]

Sacred Scripture is entirely inspired and so must be entirely entirely inerrant.

But that broad brush is not sufficient in addressing the many issues we discuss here and elsewhere. It is a nice “slogan” some throw around a lot but it doesn’t really help when we get serious about the scriptures.

Which are the “inspired” scriptures - the originals?, the translations? which translations?

Is fiction a valid vehicle for revelation? Can fiction be entirely inerrant? If we interpret something as poetry, legend, or myth, are we accusing the sacred writer of erring? If you say it is raining casts and dogs, are you lying? Calling something fiction does not comment of the truth of what is being taught.

Are direct quotes from Jesus in English of the same inerrant quality as they would be if we had them in Aramaic? or Greek? Are there any direct quotes, even when “perfectly” translated?

I hope the PCB addresses some of this, hopefully by further developing the ideas in the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. Whatever happens, we will most likely have some new material for our arguments. We’ve pretty much covered the existing material and repeating/listening to all the same discussions.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I saw a press release yesterday indicating that the PBC will be meeting next week to work on a document about the Inspiration and Truth (Inerrancy) of the Bible. Last night, I sent the CDF an email at cdf@cfaith.va about this and I wanted to encourage everyone else to do the same, or to send a letter if you think that is better.

If you’re not sure what is at stake, please see [this thread](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=304295&page= 11#165). Of course, you can start from the beginning of the thread if you want, but the issue is fully laid out from Post 165 forward. And you’ll want to read Post 196 after reading 176, and then come back to 177. I goofed!

If you would like to see a copy of the letter that I sent, you can email me at pholter@amrl.net.

Thank you very much!

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

Many thanks for posting this news What after all - as applied to the Bible - is error ? It’s a notion that is easier to affirm than to vindicate; which is rather unhelpful. The notion of Biblical inerrancy is a very difficult one, not least because - for Catholics, in the present instance - it has somehow to fit organically into past utterances on the subject, Patristic & Papal & Conciliar; so it will be very interesting to see what comes of all this.​

 

[diggerdomer]

Sacred Scripture is entirely inspired and so must be entirely entirely inerrant.

Inspired, yes.

Entirely inerrant, no. If you disagree just read Genesis ch. 1-2: were humans created before animals or after?

Inerrant in the truths pertaining to our salvation that God willed the inspired authors to write in Scripture? yes.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Inspired, yes.

Entirely inerrant, no. If you disagree just read Genesis ch. 1-2: were humans created before animals or after?

Inerrant in the truths pertaining to our salvation that God willed the inspired authors to write in Scripture? yes.

I think there is an ambiguity in this topic - is the total inerrancy of those chapters​

• within the text, in what is said
• “beyond” the text - at a meta-textual level - in what they are used for saying

It’s not the texts that claim inerrancy; nor do they say anything about how they are to be put together in such a way as to yield a result which allows them to be described as inerrant. Inerrancy is a theological construction for derscribing how they are related - it is not an analysis of what they mean. The notion of inerrancy is like a “fence round the Torah”, not something required by what is in the Torah. AFAICS.

Does the Church mean:

• what the texts say, is totally inerrant - or
• what the Church understands them to mean by what they say, is totally inerrant ?

If they are not asserting what the Church thinks they are asserting, the time may come when what the text is understood to mean changes - indeed, it’s happened already:

• an inerrant Bible that inerrantly asserts as a fact that the really-existing man Methuselah attained the age of 969 years

and

• an inerrant Bible that is understood not to be asserting that Methuselah & his age are really existent, but serve a completely different purpose in the Bible

can both be totally inerrant - but the content of the belief in total inerrancy is different, because the sense the text bears is taken to be different. Only the result - that is, the assertion of the total inerrancy of the Bible - is the same.

Furthermore - how can it be said of a text that makes no assertion, that it is, or is not, in error ? Error presupposes a judgement by the intellect - a mistaken one. It presupposes that something not the case, has been judged to be the case in the very sense in which it is not. So, what of those parts of the Bible in which no such judgement is made ? How do categories such as error, & the absence of it, apply to them ? Or - does the dogma of inerrancy apply only to those parts of the Bible in which such judgements are made & such categories applied ? It would be most interesting to know…

 

[Crumpy]

If you go back to the early '90s, and the PBC’s Guide to the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, they themselves assert that they are not the final authority on interpretation of the Bible.

So, I guess I’m saying, lower your expectations about what the PBC may do.

Not only is the order of creation apparently different in Gen 1-2, a couple chapters later, regarding the Flood, the destruction of all the life that takes breath is listed in the reverse order of the first account of creation. The whole story of the Flood generally rests on the first account of creation.

I don’t see how the PBC can resolve the difficulties in the text. When they may be able to do is to put this apparent conflict oon the back burner or off the stove altogether. It’s really not an issue in Genesis itself.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The PBC cannot exercise the Magisterium, so they are not going to solve the problem.

Numerous Popes have taught authoritatively and definitively on this subject, so we are bound by faith to believe what they have taught. As to how to apply that definitive teaching, some interesting questions do arise, but we are not free to believe that Scripture errs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ron_Conte]

What are the questions that the PBC should answer regarding Biblical inerrancy?

 

[Just_Lurking]

The PBC cannot exercise the Magisterium, so they are not going to solve the problem.

The PBC is part of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, so they can most certainly exercise the Magisterium if they choose. I agree that they probably won’t choose to do so.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The PBC is part of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, so they can most certainly exercise the Magisterium if they choose. I agree that they probably won’t choose to do so.

The PBCs role is advisory to the CDF. They have no authority over the faithful and no authority to exercise the Magisterium. Most of the members are non-Bishops. Only the Pope and the Bishops can exercise the Magisterium. So any document issued by the PBC is not an exercise of the Magisterium.

The CDF could issue a document written by the PBC under the magisterial authority of the CDF. But otherwise such documents are not of the Magisterium.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The CDF could issue a document written by the PBC under the magisterial authority of the CDF. But otherwise such documents are not of the Magisterium.

Under Article 18 of Pastor Bonus, the Pope himself would need to approve the document in order for it to have magisterial authority, just as is the case with any CDF document.

All CDF documents (whether from the PBC or not) issued without papal approval have no magisterial authority whatsoever.

 

[patg]

Many thanks for posting this news What after all - as applied to the Bible - is error ? It’s a notion that is easier to affirm than to vindicate; which is rather unhelpful. The notion of Biblical inerrancy is a very difficult one, not least because - for Catholics, in the present instance - it has somehow to fit organically into past utterances on the subject, Patristic & Papal & Conciliar; so it will be very interesting to see what comes of all this.​

It would probably be enough of a task just for them to define what Biblical inerrancy and truth mean. It is interesting how often these terms are thrown about and yet there is almost no agreement on their meaning.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It would probably be enough of a task just for them to define what Biblical inerrancy and truth mean. It is interesting how often these terms are thrown about and yet there is almost no agreement on their meaning.

Defining Biblical inerrancy could be a massive headache; especially if the text is to be inerrant. Hence my suggestion about the possibility that inerrancy might be meta-textual, and not textual. How can one speak of an inerrant book, if the content of the book is not inerrant ? But to be inerrant, there has to be a something of which the quality of inerrancy can be predicated: doctrines about the Bible need a Bible for them to be about. And if entities within the Bible - ancient Patriarchs, events, places, & so on, are judged at one time to be real, & later, not to be real, the meaning of the “bearer” of inerrancy (in this case, the Bible or part or parts of it) has changed: so the thing of which inerrancy is predicated changes; so the meaning of inerrancy changes in its turn. So - what is the locus, or the “bearer”, of inerrancy ? Of what exactly is it predicated, by the Church which desires this doctrine to be believed ? The Church ought to be able to know what it means by its own teaching. Or not ? But if not - why not ?​

 

[Ron_Conte]

Under Article 18 of Pastor Bonus, the Pope himself would need to approve the document in order for it to have magisterial authority, just as is the case with any CDF document.

All CDF documents (whether from the PBC or not) issued without papal approval have no magisterial authority whatsoever.

The Prefect of the CDF is a Bishop, and all Bishops can exercise the Magisterium.

“Bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfilment of the commandments… For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith.” {(LG, n. 24-25)

If the Pope approves of a document of the CDF, it is still issued by the CDF, and not by the Pope. Thus papal infallibility cannot be exercised by the CDF, nor by any Vatican congregation. Similarly, if an advisory body issues a document and it is approved by the Pope for publication, it is still issued by that advisory body, and so it has the authority (or lack there of) of the advisory body, not of the Pope.

But let’s return to the topic at hand.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Defining Biblical inerrancy could be a massive headache; especially if the text is to be inerrant. Hence my suggestion about the possibility that inerrancy might be meta-textual, and not textual. How can one speak of an inerrant book, if the content of the book is not inerrant ? But to be inerrant, there has to be a something of which the quality of inerrancy can be predicated: doctrines about the Bible need a Bible for them to be about. And if entities within the Bible - ancient Patriarchs, events, places, & so on, are judged at one time to be real, & later, not to be real, the meaning of the “bearer” of inerrancy (in this case, the Bible or part or parts of it) has changed: so the thing of which inerrancy is predicated changes; so the meaning of inerrancy changes in its turn. So - what is the locus, or the “bearer”, of inerrancy ? Of what exactly is it predicated, by the Church which desires this doctrine to be believed ? The Church ought to be able to know what it means by its own teaching. Or not ? But if not - why not ?​

Please define meta-texual and texual.

St. Thomas divides the levels of meaning of Scripture into literal (including figures) and spiritual. Both levels of meaning must be inerrant. The literal level cannot be erroneous because the spiritual level is based upon it, and truth cannot be based upon falsehood.

There is a serious problem with the idea that the PBC should settle or even weigh in on the question of Biblical inerrancy. Several Popes have definitively taught the answer to the question of inerrancy, and yet their teachings are being completely ignored. Those who claim limited inerrancy often cite 1/2 of a sentence from DV, and then ignore the rest of DV and the several definitive teachings of several Popes. Why are past teachings of Popes given little or no weight by some Catholics?

What if Pope Benedict issued a document saying the following:
“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…”
Would the matter not be settled?

But Pope Benedict did issue a document with those exact words. So why is this still treated as an open question?

non potest solvi Scriptura

 

[NHInsider]

Error is the opposite of truth - but there are different kinds of truth, and Divine Truth is the kind of which the Church has custody.

It is when we impose upon Scripture - or Faith - a more human-oriented definition of truth, and try to limit God by that definition, that we get into the kinds of silliness that our Fundamentalist brethren struggle with all the time - the need to explain away dinosaur bones (rather than pointing out that Genesis does not pretend to give a scientific catalog of creation), or create timelines that show how all the events in the Gospels line up (rather than accepting that you have varying accounts of events that are drawn on people’s memories, and by the way if you asked 6 people to describe a Thanksgiving dinner they all attended in 2002 you’d get variations, none of which would necessarily be incorrect), and even those who insist that every parable of Jesus was actually a story He told about an actual event, because to allow that He might be a really good storyteller is to call Him a liar . . . .

So yes, it is appropriate, no matter how difficult, for the CDF to try to delineate what it is that the Church means by inerrant, because otherwise all along the spectrum of understanding the faithful get tied up in knots, each insisting that his understanding of the word is correct and the others are (at best) mistaken and (at worst) blasphemous and heretical.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The Prefect of the CDF is a Bishop, and all Bishops can exercise the Magisterium.

All diocesan bishops can exercise the Magisterium over Catholics in their own diocese. The Bishop of Rome is the only bishop who can exercise the Magisterium over all Catholics.

But let’s return to the topic at hand.

Okay.

 

[Ron_Conte]

So yes, it is appropriate, no matter how difficult, for the CDF to try to delineate what it is that the Church means by inerrant, because otherwise all along the spectrum of understanding the faithful get tied up in knots, each insisting that his understanding of the word is correct and the others are (at best) mistaken and (at worst) blasphemous and heretical.

I wish that the CDF would restate and clarify further the teaching of the Church on Scripture. But the current prefect has stated that he does not see the need to do so. He said this in response to the Synod on Scripture (2008).

The main problem is not a clarification of the numerous legitimate questions that follow after a belief in total inerrancy, but rather in the rejection of that inerrancy, despite prior definitive teachings by several Popes.

 

[diggerdomer]

I wish that the CDF would restate and clarify further the teaching of the Church on Scripture. But the current prefect has stated that he does not see the need to do so. He said this in response to the Synod on Scripture (2008).

The main problem is not a clarification of the numerous legitimate questions that follow after a belief in total inerrancy, but rather in the rejection of that inerrancy, despite prior definitive teachings by several Popes.

I hadn’t heard of this potential meeting prior to this thread, so I’m interested to see what “pans out” in Rome.

But, regarding the question at hand as I understand it, what are the shortcomings of current Church teaching e.g. Catechism para 105ff. (usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml) that might necessitate the PBC issuing further teaching?

Just wondering.