Pope Leo XIII on interpreting scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter _L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

_L

Guest
I’ve recently come across a quote from Pope Leo XIII where he speaks of interpreting scripture:

"“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… do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond… this system cannot be tolerated”

~ Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical “Providentissimus Deus”

Now this seems to be a concern, given the fact that its rather common now by theologians and even Popes to take a looser interpretation of scripture in that according to them, the inerrancy of Scripture applies only to divine Truth rather than things like historical or scientific fact where they consider the Bible to be in error on, or just simply not concerned with such information and any abnormalities are irrelevant given the issue that the Bible is a book concerned with Truth and not science, or history.

So how do we reconcile Pope Leo XIII’s position with interpretations by subsequent Popes and countless others?
 
I took this question as an opportunity to download Providentissimus Deus from the EWTN document library, to look up the context of the words you quoted.

I read Leo XIII as saying that a satisfactory explanation cannot always be given but that we should apply our collective knowledge and skills to defending scripture.

As he said in that encyclical, there have been many attacks on scripture, but your question implies that the discussion is over, like four quarters of a football game, and that the score has been tallied and is final.

Leo didn’t say that the ‘game’ was over. I don’t think the Church has conceded that the ‘game’ is over.

Each of the popes since Leo have encouraged scripture study and even expanded its scope.

Your question is largely a sola scriptura question, and I don’t think Leo was pointing to a sola scriptura position on Biblical exegesis. He didn’t say that, and no one has taken him that way, either.

It’s the middle of the night here, and I was listening to somebody maybe “Matt Barber” perhaps? on EWTN radio. He was excited about Pope Benedict XVI’s second volume of “Jesus of Nazareth.” Barber is a Ph.D. professor of scripture, if I heard him correctly, and he mentioned that Benedict says in the new book that the guidelines for scripture study promulgated by Vatican II haven’t yet been followed and that in the last 50 years or so, the scholars have hardly scratched the surface of the subject. (He was looking at an advanced copy of the book, and I’m wrestling with caffeine-induced insomnia as I listen to him. So, I apologize to him and to you if I have misrepresented anything about this subject.)

I’m not trying to change the subject, I think this is the subject.

I do understand your question, but it would help if you also quoted anything you thought was contradictory to Leo’s statements. It’s hard to respond to a specific quote on the one hand with just a vague reference on the other.
 
_L said:
I’ve recently come across a quote from Pope Leo XIII where he speaks of interpreting scripture:

"“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… do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond… this system cannot be tolerated”

~ Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical “Providentissimus Deus”

Now this seems to be a concern, given the fact that its rather common now by theologians and even Popes to take a looser interpretation of scripture in that according to them, the inerrancy of Scripture applies only to divine Truth rather than things like historical or scientific fact where they consider the Bible to be in error on, or just simply not concerned with such information and any abnormalities are irrelevant given the issue that the Bible is a book concerned with Truth and not science, or history.

So how do we reconcile Pope Leo XIII’s position with interpretations by subsequent Popes and countless others?
Click to expand...
It would be helpful to include the missing? parts of the quote plus a link to the context.
 
Crumpy said:
I took this question as an opportunity to download Providentissimus Deus from the EWTN document library, to look up the context of the words you quoted.

I read Leo XIII as saying that a satisfactory explanation cannot always be given but that we should apply our collective knowledge and skills to defending scripture.

As he said in that encyclical, there have been many attacks on scripture, but your question implies that the discussion is over, like four quarters of a football game, and that the score has been tallied and is final.

Leo didn’t say that the ‘game’ was over. I don’t think the Church has conceded that the ‘game’ is over.

Each of the popes since Leo have encouraged scripture study and even expanded its scope.

Your question is largely a sola scriptura question, and I don’t think Leo was pointing to a sola scriptura position on Biblical exegesis. He didn’t say that, and no one has taken him that way, either.

It’s the middle of the night here, and I was listening to somebody maybe “Matt Barber” perhaps? on EWTN radio. He was excited about Pope Benedict XVI’s second volume of “Jesus of Nazareth.” Barber is a Ph.D. professor of scripture, if I heard him correctly, and he mentioned that Benedict says in the new book that the guidelines for scripture study promulgated by Vatican II haven’t yet been followed and that in the last 50 years or so, the scholars have hardly scratched the surface of the subject. (He was looking at an advanced copy of the book, and I’m wrestling with caffeine-induced insomnia as I listen to him. So, I apologize to him and to you if I have misrepresented anything about this subject.)

I’m not trying to change the subject, I think this is the subject.

I do understand your question, but it would help if you also quoted anything you thought was contradictory to Leo’s statements. It’s hard to respond to a specific quote on the one hand with just a vague reference on the other.
Click to expand...
My concern of this is not really with the Sola Scriptura issue, but more so with how we are to interpret scripture even through the lens of the Church, and the quote seemed to suggest that we are to believe the Bible is inerrant in ALL things, and not just things pertaining to theology or philosophy. And this is something that even within the Church seems like it has lost its sway…if that is the right wording. Because even within Catholic Bible commentaries I am reading things that suggest that the historical accuracy of certain things in the old testament may be false or in question, but that the important thing is divine Truth contained within those scriptures.

And I suppose specific references that seem to go against this is that evolution is becoming more and more acceptable of a belief within the Church, when a plain face reading of the Bible would not lead anyone to believe in Evolution. But I really can’t think of specific quotes from speeches or encyclicals, but I am sure we have all encountered reading about Bishops or Theologians, not necessarily eroding the inerrancy of scripture, but having a formula for interpretation that would kind of disregard perceived scientific or historical inaccuracies in the Bible, and this seems to go against what Pope Leo XIII was saying when he seemed to suggest that Scripture is inerrant in all ways.
 
_L said:
I’ve recently come across a quote from Pope Leo XIII where he speaks of interpreting scripture:

"“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… do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond… this system cannot be tolerated”

~ Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical “Providentissimus Deus”

Now this seems to be a concern, given the fact that its rather common now by theologians and even Popes to take a looser interpretation of scripture in that according to them, the inerrancy of Scripture applies only to divine Truth rather than things like historical or scientific fact where they consider the Bible to be in error on, or just simply not concerned with such information and any abnormalities are irrelevant given the issue that the Bible is a book concerned with Truth and not science, or history.

So how do we reconcile Pope Leo XIII’s position with interpretations by subsequent Popes and countless others?
Click to expand...
The answer is quite simple: you don’t reconcile them. The Church’s dogma is that Scripture is entirely without error since it is totally inspired. It’s Modernism-Liberalism that suggests that inspiration only covers limited (or no) part of Scripture, and the sad reality is many Catholics (even in universities and in high positions) have fallen prey to liberal theologians and mindsets. The Church teaches that when there are difficult parts of Scripture that appear to be contradictions or error, one must seek a reasonable explanation (and there are many good examples) rather than cave into liberalism and say “error”.

You will want to check this out:
calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/vatican-ii-and-the-inerrancy-of-the-bible/
 
Crumpy said:
I took this question as an opportunity to download Providentissimus Deus from the EWTN document library, to look up the context of the words you quoted.
Click to expand...
How would I do the same? Could you give a link or explain how to get to the actual document?

Thank you.
 
_L said:
My concern of this is not really with the Sola Scriptura issue, but more so with how we are to interpret scripture even through the lens of the Church, and the quote seemed to suggest that we are to believe the Bible is inerrant in ALL things, and not just things pertaining to theology or philosophy. And this is something that even within the Church seems like it has lost its sway…if that is the right wording. Because even within Catholic Bible commentaries I am reading things that suggest that the historical accuracy of certain things in the old testament may be false or in question, but that the important thing is divine Truth contained within those scriptures.

And I suppose specific references that seem to go against this is that evolution is becoming more and more acceptable of a belief within the Church, when a plain face reading of the Bible would not lead anyone to believe in Evolution. But I really can’t think of specific quotes from speeches or encyclicals, but I am sure we have all encountered reading about Bishops or Theologians, not necessarily eroding the inerrancy of scripture, but having a formula for interpretation that would kind of disregard perceived scientific or historical inaccuracies in the Bible, and this seems to go against what Pope Leo XIII was saying when he seemed to suggest that Scripture is inerrant in all ways.
Click to expand...
When I read CAF threads where someone refers to some kind of “divine Truth contained within those scriptures” --usually the verses involving the origin of Adam and original sin-- I ask what exactly is the “divine Truth”.
 
I’ve attached a couple of good articles on this subject by Jimmy Akin. Basically, any perceived error in Scripture is an error on our part to determine what the Holy Spirit is actually asserting through the human authors of Sacred Scripture:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512bt.asp

jimmyakin.org/2005/02/inerrancy_of_sc.html

Meanwhile, related to a prior post, I’ve found the following site to be a great source for the Douay Rheims bible text, the Haydock commentary, and various Church documents regarding the interpretation of Scripture:

veritasbible.com/

The document being discussed in this thread is on that site here:

veritasbible.com/resources/articles/Providentissimus_Deus

rocketrob
 
_L said:
I’ve recently come across a quote from Pope Leo XIII where he speaks of interpreting scripture:

"“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… do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond… this system cannot be tolerated”

~ Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical “Providentissimus Deus”

Now this seems to be a concern, given the fact that its rather common now by theologians and even Popes to take a looser interpretation of scripture in that according to them, the inerrancy of Scripture applies only to divine Truth rather than things like historical or scientific fact where they consider the Bible to be in error on, or just simply not concerned with such information and any abnormalities are irrelevant given the issue that the Bible is a book concerned with Truth and not science, or history.

So how do we reconcile Pope Leo XIII’s position with interpretations by subsequent Popes and countless others?
Click to expand...
Some theologians have been known to dissent with Church teaching, so beautifully articulated by Leo XIII. However, no other pope has dissented with this teaching. In fact, this passages is reference by Vatican II and the Catechism.

John Paul II taught:
"I want to highlight some aspects of the teaching of these two encyclical [Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu] and the permanent validity of their orientation…For as the substantial Word of God became like to human beings in all things ‘except sin’ (Heb 4:15), so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect except error. … This statement sheds light on a parallelism rich in meaning… What was true in 1943 remains so even in our day."
Click to expand...
See more here: What does it mean that the Bible is inspired and inerrant?
 
=L;7648845]. Because even within Catholic Bible commentaries I am reading things that suggest that the historical accuracy of certain things in the old testament may be false or in question, but that the important thing is divine Truth contained within those scriptures.
Click to expand...
I share your concern but remember that bible commentaries are not infallible.
And I suppose specific references that seem to go against this is that evolution is becoming more and more acceptable of a belief within the Church, when a plain face reading of the Bible would not lead anyone to believe in Evolution.
Click to expand...
This quote from Father Victor Warkulwiz in his book *The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11 A Compendium and Defense of Tradtiional Catholic Theology on Origins *really hit home with me:

“There are two versions of naturalism. The first is an atheistic version, which rejects divine revelation simply because it rejects the existence of God. It holds dominion in the modern sciences…The second is a theistic version, which admits that God created the universe but will not admit that He has told us something about how He did it. Its adherents do not totally ignore God, they must marginalize Him by silencing Him. Their slogans are, “The Bible is not a science textbook.”…Today the Catholic Church has well-developed theologies of redemption and sanctification. However, she has no well-developed theology of creation because so many of her theologians, scholoars and scientists have embraced theistic naturalism…Further, theistic naturlalists are ignorant of, ignore, or dismiss the sound theology of creation developed by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church over the centuries, a theology based on the conviction that Genesis 1-11 speaks the literal truth.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top