Question 18 of the Compendium

  • Thread starter Thread starter jlancey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jlancey

Guest
Dear Catholic Answers Staff Apologists:

As a would-be philosopher-apologist (and 1st year PhD candidate at Notre Dame), I’m hoping to seek some direction from my apologetical colleagues:

While, on the whole, I am quite happy with the new Compendium of the CCC, Question 18 of said text at least appears to teach (in its English, French and Italian forms) the doctrine of “limited inerrancy” of Scripture. Now, please note: this problem (if it be a true problem) represents a new development within things magisterial; neither the CCC nor Dei Verbum may be charged with posing the same difficulty. As regards the total absence of any error whatsoever in the Sacred Texts, both Dei Verbum and the Catechism, while ambiguous, can be interpreted in an orthodox fashion (*a la *Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus).

Indeed, Pope Leo’s encyclical letter was only recently cited by the CDF in the 1998 document "Illustrative Note on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei” wherein “absence of [unqualified] error” within the Sacred Texts is affirmed to be a truth of both Divine and Catholic faith. Leo XIII, in the precise passage footnoted in the CDF document, affirms said total absence of error in Scripture (when, of course, properly interpreted – using, say,Father Most’s method of fleshing out this issue).

Question 18 of the Compendium, on the other hand, seems (to me, at least) to veer perilously close in coming squarely down in favor of the limited inerrancy interpretation of Dei Verbum’s and, hence, the CCC’s regarding Sacred Scripture. (Just as a reminder to everyone: the issue of interpretation of the original Vatican II document and, derivatively, the CCC centers on how exactly to interpret the “for the sake of our salvation” clause. The standard orthodox interpretation of the relevant passage views said passage as a description of what the purpose (the end, the telos) of Scripture is – and not (according to the standard unorthodox interpretation) as a clause restricting the sense in which the Scriptures are to be considered inerrant. In contrast, Question 18 of the Compendium at least appears (in my all too fallible, corrigible opinion) to interpret Dei Verbum and the Catechism in this latter sense.)

Now, just to be as clear as possible, the apparently conflicting passages are as follows:

The relevant portion of Question 18 of the Compendium reads (in English, but not, so I have been assured, in a substantially different fashion in the French or Italian):

“For this reason [Scripture] is said to be inspired and to teach without error those truths that are necessary for our salvation.” [Are we to assume, then, that error may indeed creep in with respect to those things taught in Scripture that are *not necessary for our salvation?]

The preceding seems at odds with the relevant portion of DS 3293 (taken from Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus), cited by the CDF in 1998, which reads:

“It is futile to argue that the Holy Spirit took men as his instruments in writing, implying that some error could slip in…” (Emphasis added)

My question, therefore, is this: is my concern much ado about nothing, or is something more substantial taking place – something, that, nevertheless, may be brought into further (hopefully clarifying) relief?

Thank you for your help and God bless you,

Jeremy J Lancey

University of Notre Dame
 
I think that you may have posted this in the wrong section. I believe that it would be more suited in the “Ask an Apologist” section of the Boards. In the common section, which this is, it is mostly answered by people other than the CA staff. However, I also think that you may proffit from the (name removed by moderator)ut that may be given in this section of the forum. To that end I will answer your question myself with great nuance and percision. 😃 (huh, first time I’ve used an Smiley)

Much ado about nothing.

Seriously, the passage that you quote from the Compendium is consistent with the understanding of Providentissimus Dues given in Dei Verbum of which the Catechism references. It seems that the statement is consistent because it allows for the interpretation of Scripture by the normative Patristic Senses of Scripture derived from the Alexandarian School. It is a subtlety that is a reaction against the “hard wood” interpretation model that is used in some Protestant Scripture Theology which is more similar (not the same as) the Antiochian School of the Patistic Age - which gave rise to Arias.

But it also holds at bay the modern exegetical formulae that does violence to the Scriptures to the point of depriving them of any certitude or Inspirational Character such as the Historical Critical Method or other text criticism that are in the spirit of unorthodox scholars such as Fr. Raymond Brown and the like.

The language seems to want to emphasis the the Scriptures are the norm of our faith and that it is in the reading of the Holy Bible that we can find those things that are necessary for our salvation when read in the context of themselves and in the context of the whole of revelation as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church. Further it safeguards Scripture from Scientism that will make claim of certain historical or textual errors that are found in Scripture and thus brashly deny the Divine Inspiration of the Bible through such means.

Perhaps the wording is a direct response to the modern objections that the average Catholic is faced with in the modern world thus emphasis is placed on the inerrancy of Scripture as seen from the model of faith. Further one must question the level of certitude that is involved in the passage. It may be addressing a single facet of our understanding of Revelation and not the whole understanding which can only be given fair treatment in reference to the documents cited. I think that this passage when read in context of the consistent Magisterial teaching is welcome and not a path to error.
 
Dear Mosher:

I can’t thank you enough for this highly illuminating reply; if you don’t mind, I will pass it along to a rather well-known theologian, as he too expressed the same concern over question 18 when I had gone to him seeking his* own *advice! Of course, if you don’t wish me to pass it along, just let me know.

At any rate, given the result, I’m kind of glad I – sheerly by accident – posted this in the wrong forum!

In Him,
Jeremy
 
40.png
jlancey:
Dear Mosher:

I can’t thank you enough for this highly illuminating reply…
Click to expand...
This is a public forum and you shouldn’t put your email address (I actually think it is a violation of the stated rules)… Please use the private message function or the email member function built into the Boards. I would hate for you to get all sorts of bad email from someone who is “fishing” for personal date on public forums.

You may pass it to whom you choose and if they would like to dialogue about the issue please check my user profile for means of contacting me apart from the CA Boards.
 
oops! i apologize for the misstep. nevertheless thank you – and may I (anonymously) forward your response?
 
oops! i apologize for the misstep. I nevertheless thank you for your insightful reply.
 
40.png
jlancey:
oops! i apologize for the misstep. I nevertheless thank you for your insightful reply.
Click to expand...
That is ok. The moderators will eventually come around and clean things up. They are pretty efficient housemaids …
 
40.png
jlancey:
“For this reason [Scripture] is said to be inspired and to teach without error those truths that are necessary for our salvation.” [Are we to assume, then, that error may indeed creep in with respect to those things taught in Scripture that are *not necessary for our salvation?]
Click to expand...
The preceding seems at odds with the relevant portion of DS 3293 (taken from Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus), cited by the CDF in 1998, which reads:

“It is futile to argue that the Holy Spirit took men as his instruments in writing, implying that some error could slip in…” (Emphasis added)

My question, therefore, is this: is my concern much ado about nothing, or is something more substantial taking place – something, that, nevertheless, may be brought into further (hopefully clarifying) relief?

Thank you for your help and God bless you,

Jeremy J Lancey

University of Notre Dame

Please consider the following from the 6th Chapter of Matthew

"The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light;
23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness "

I would first say that I consider the Sermon on the Mount to be the most certain guide I have in my life in terms of advice for daily living. However, the first statement of that quote demonstrates an incorrect view of the nature of light and of how the eye works. Is that a failure of the Holy Spirit or of Scripture? Certainly not because that error has nothing to do with the relevant meaning of the Scriptures.

I think that concern over absolute inerrancy in scripture can be much ado about nothing. Concern over the inerrancy of Scripture as it guides our life is quite different.

I have no letters after my name but I offer this response for what it is worth.

Jim
 
If I sound a little confused with this post it is because I know what I want to say be the words are not coming but here goes something (hopefully as opposed to nothing).

I think perhaps our starting points in scripture sometimes are a little off and problems arise. One of the lessons I was taught a long time ago about the scriptures is that they are first faith documents. This statement should be obvious in itself but isn’t always the case. But I would like to stress two aspects of this statement.

The first is the easier one to understand. The truths found in the Bible must be accepted on Faith because they are not always self evident especially when considering the many apparent contradictions found through out the bible - just contrast the four Gospels and you may understand what I mean. So we do have to accept the Bible on Faith.

My second point is we find in all scriptures the faith response of a particular people at a particular time. For example, by looking at the historical books of the OT, they show (no matter how “historical innacurate” the Israelite (Jewish) understanding that God is acting in a unique way through them. This is there faith and it is expressed in the very human instrument of their literature.

And here I think we come to an understanding of the writings of Leo XIII and the Popes since in regards to Divine Revelation and biblical studies. God uses the very human instruments of the written word to reveal Himself. And the role of modern biblical scholarship to to shed light on this revelation by giving us a better understanding of the human instrument through which this revelation comes.

The Truth is there the problem continues to be human ignorance or misunderstanding of the revealed truth present in each book of the Bible. In some books it is harder to see the truth revealed than others but the truth is always there.

Modern biblical scholarship, as directed by our Popes from Leo XIII through Pius XII until Benedict XVI, is there to help shed light and understanding on the human means God used to revealed Himself.

An important theological principle of the Roman Catholic Church is the principle of Sacramentality. Since the majority present in this forum are very orthodox in there beliefs I will not go into this principle however, I would end by saying what modern scriptural scholarship does is to aply this principle using modern science to understanding the revealed truth of the scriptures realizing however, that by the authority of their office, the Tradition in which they safeguard and the unique grece given them through the sacrament of Holy Orders it is the Pope and Bishops who have the true say and it is the theologian role to serve as an aide in their Office.
 
I just wanted to thank ‘Tome’ for writing what she or he did. I think Vatican II did a real service to our Church in reminding us of the purpose for God’s revealing Himself to each one of us (very directly and intimately) by way of the Scriptures in His Church. While we know that whatever is affirmed by the human author is affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we don’t always know why the Holy Spirit chose to inspire the individual human author to affirm what he did. What we can know with certainty is that whatever said affirmation is, it is, at least ultimately, for the sake of our salvation. Even the most mundane historical truth asserted by the human author (and thus asserted by God) in Scripture is, quite literally, “God-breathed.” Praise God for the Written Word and praise Him for this great time of both confusion and growth in the Church!

For what my advice is worth (not much), I’d recommend to everyone (for his or her devotional time) – in addition to a prayerful reading of the Scriptures – a devout reading of both *Providentissimus Deus *by Pope Leo XIII (found on the Vatican’s website) and Dei Verbum of Vatican II (likewise found on the Vatican’s website). All of the Scriptural documents promulgated by the Magisterium over the past couple hundred years have been wonderful, but these two - in my opinion - are pure gold, spiritually speaking.

As one person has said: the Compendium (as well as the CCC itself and, ultimately, Dei Verbum) remind us of the essential fact that the Scriptures, properly interpreted, are completely inerrant – *but *not just for no reason; they inerrantly contain what they inerrantly contain so that they might express and assert those wondrous truths which (in what it sometimes takes a highly attuned spiritual eye to apprehend) are necessary for our salvation. (Cf. question 18 of the new *Compendium *of the CCC).

Praise the Lord Jesus that even the most seemingly unimportant historical event recorded in 2nd Chronicles (if affirmed by the human author and, therefore, the Holy Spirit as having certainly taken place) can have such value as is ascribed “every Scripture” (in the Greek implying “every part, every verse” of Scriptures) in 2nd Timothy 3:6-7!

In Him,
Jeremy Lancey
 
err…make that verses 16 & 17 of 2nd Timothy – not 6 & 7! I wasn’t attempting to make any point about making one’s way into households or capturing “weak women”!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top