Scripture and infallibility

[Muze]

Does the Church have an official council or statement on the infallibility of Scripture? (Not asking about sola scriptura, I understand that the Church believes that tradition is necessary for interpretation. I’m interested in its stance specifically on the nature of infallibility of the writings themselves.)

 

[hazcompat]

INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#111

Peace

 

[catholictiger]

as shown above it does but there are many things it is growing in.

ex: what do “dark passages” mean in scripture. When God ordered the genocide of thousands of people.
How should Genesis be taken what does it mean and what is the real meaning behind these passages

 

[Beryllos]

Muze, you should look that up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is a large section on Sacred Scripture. hazcompat has quoted part of it. I may introduce errors if I attempt to summarize it briefly, but just to get you started, here are a few items from the “In Brief” short summary at the section’s end:

135 “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired they are truly the Word of God”.

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth.

137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully “understood except by the Spirit’s action”.

 

[bzkoss236]

I will note that infallibility and inerrancy only apply to the original translation of the Bible. I believe the position of the Church is that subsequent translations, especially modern translations, do not hold these charisms.

 

[Muze]

I will note that infallibility and inerrancy only apply to the original translation of the Bible. I believe the position of the Church is that subsequent translations, especially modern translations, do not hold these charisms.

I think you mean the original writing, not original translation, but I get what you mean… And I agree.

And thanks to everyone. That’s what I was looking for.

 

[PJM]

=Muze;10939281]Does the Church have an official council or statement on the infallibility of Scripture? (Not asking about sola scriptura, I understand that the Church believes that tradition is necessary for interpretation. I’m interested in its stance specifically on the nature of infallibility of the writings themselves.)

Not is the precise sense of your question. How ever IMO, the answer is yes for the following reasons.

Holy Scripture exist for a precise reason

That reason being it is God’s Divinely INSPIRED words [2nd, Tim 3:16]

It’s Purpose is to enable one to Learn God’s Faith requirements

Towards this “end goal.” Christ Gives the very Key’s to heaven and therefore the exclusive ability to share the bibles truth in its entirety to only Hos Catholic Church.

Mt. 16:15-19
Mt. 10:1-8
John 17:15-19
John 14:16-17
John 20:21-22
Mark 16:14-15
Mt. 28:16-20
Eph. 2:6-10

are but some of the evidence of the exclusivity of God’s Plan.

Because God is One ]Triune]
God’s Own Faith beliefs can [and are] also ONLY One
And to INSURE the fullness and accuracy of His Teaching, He choose to confine truth to ONLY His own Founded CC.

If Protestant were permitted by God to recognize this reality; there would be ONLY the One Church clearly identified as God’s OWN Will.

Following this one INFALLIBLE Rule for RIGHT Bible understanding will help:

Using the Entire Bible: [caps for emphasis not shouting]
NEVER, EVER, CAN MAY OR DOES
ONE BIBLE VERSE; PASSAGE OR TEACHING
MAKE VOID
INVALIDATE
OR OVERRIDE ANOTHER
VERSE, PASSAGE OR TEACHING

Should this be even a possibility[IT"S NOT] the bible would be rendered worthless to teach or learn the faith [singular]

THANKS for asking,
Patrick [PJM]

 

[po18guy]

From the introduction to the 1967 Papal Edition Confraternity Bible:

“Translations of the Bible are absolutely without error only in so far as they accurately express the ideas written by the inspired writer in the original language.”

Proper interpretation is absolutely necessary, and since scripture does not include the oral tradition which both preserved and produced those scriptures, it cannot be properly interpreted apart from that same oral tradition. As well, using a Greek dictionary to translate expressions, idioms or even words originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic is a sure path to error.

Have you ever written a sentence and translated it forward and back using an online translator? Humorous what you end up with. Here is a brief vignette that was written in English, then translated online from English to French to German, then back to French and then to English. Was any meaning lost? youtube.com/watch?v=BlJsPEgXhC0

 

[thistle]

I will note that infallibility and inerrancy only apply to the original translation of the Bible. I believe the position of the Church is that subsequent translations, especially modern translations, do not hold these charisms.

The religious truths in Scripture necessary for our salvation are infallible.

 

[TimothyH]

The religious truths in Scripture necessary for our salvation are infallible.

Thistle not only hit the nail on the head but he drove it all the way in with one strike!

***Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation
DEI VERBUM
1965

1. …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 for the sake of salvation**. *

God gave us Scripture so that we may be saved. That is the entire reason why Scripture was given to man, so that we could be saved. Scripture was given to man not for the sake of historical accuracy, nor for the sake of scientific accuracy, but for the sake of salvation, and as Thistle put it so perfectly and the Second Vatican Council explains, everything in scripture for our salvation is without error.

-Tim-

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The clearest writing on this question is Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus. The main idea is this:

“[A]ll 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 principle is reiterated in Dei Verbum from the Second Vatican Council, albeit less clearly and eloquently. Nevertheless DV cites PD on this matter.

I dislike the use of the term “infallibility” in reference to the Scriptures. It sounds as if that is supposed to mean that the Scriptures will not fall into error or lead people into error. Neither is true. First, the Scriptures are fixed; they are what they are. Second, all good heresies stem from a misunderstanding of Scripture.

 

[ChristAgenda]

King James servant of God brought all church fathers and men of God together to compile all the manuscripts from the early 1st century churches in Europe and with 100% confidence be able to translate all these manuscripts into the Holy Bible you have today.

King James Holy Bible becomes therefore inspired because there were no preconceived ideas about the interpretation of the manuscripts, where as today the current translations have tried to interpret the text and have brought in contradictions and errors.

The fact that we have the King James Bible across the world today is an act of God to distribute his Word without any denominational bias.

In principle say my denomination says one thing and the Holy text says another then I will use the text as the all infallible truth because like everything else church tradition over time has a tendancy to be distorted according to that current social climates world view.

 

[ChristAgenda]

Without going into detail or making judgements, the interfaith ecumenical movement is today’s world view at securing universal peace through a broad spectrum of ecclesiastical distortions of the written word.

Simple answer to such movement of the 21 St century is that it offers peace without the prince of peace Jesus Christ.

In other words it is like a fruit salad without the fruit.

If my denomination supports this cause then my position as a Christian would be to uphold the written word at all cost and to die rather than to have universal peace.

That is just my belief and everyone one will be held accountable when the time comes.

Basically the choice is either universal peace or Christ

If you want to self preserve yourselves then you will choose universal peace

 

[po18guy]

King James servant of God brought all church fathers and men of God together to compile all the manuscripts from the early 1st century churches in Europe and with 100% confidence be able to translate all these manuscripts into the Holy Bible you have today.

King James Holy Bible becomes therefore inspired because there were no preconceived ideas about the interpretation of the manuscripts, where as today the current translations have tried to interpret the text and have brought in contradictions and errors.

The fact that we have the King James Bible across the world today is an act of God to distribute his Word without any denominational bias.

In principle say my denomination says one thing and the Holy text says another then I will use the text as the all infallible truth because like everything else church tradition over time has a tendancy to be distorted according to that current social climates world view.

Wow! A die hard, rock-ribbed KJV only-ist! Please pardon me, but the Church of England, forcibly taken by secular authority from the Catholic Church, with secular King James as its head, is a denomination. Now, I like the KJV, as long as it is the more complete version with the Deuterocanon, as Catholic doctrine is easy to defend from it. Of that, there is little doubt. The rest of your rather hyperbolic assertions are clearly opinion - to which you are welcomed.

 

[Abu]

These writers give us the reality in Sacred Scripture.

Question on 16/12/2007:
Does the Catholic Church still maintain that all of scripture is inspired and inerrant, or did this teaching change with Vatican II’s Dei Verbum #11, in which only the portions of scripture necessary for salvation are considered to be inspired?

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 20/12/2007 (EWTN):
You are likely working off a badly translated version of Dei Verbum, which changed the word order of the original Conciliar statement, which some use–erroneously–to claim that inerrancy applies only to matters related to salvation. In the text below, I provide an accurate translation, with the correct order: The Church formally teaches that the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely without error. This teaching is not arrived at inductively–namely, that a careful study of the entire Bible has revealed no discrepancies or difficulties–but follows from the fact that God is the ultimate Author of the Bible and falsehood is incompatible with Truth Itself. As taught by the Second Vatican Council: The inspired books teach the truth. **“Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” **[My emphases].

Msgr George A Kelly explains in The New Biblical Theorists – Raymond E Brown and Beyond:

“Vatican II did not claim that God inspired sacred authors to teach astronomy or history. But historical and scientific facts written down by the inspired authors to assist in our salvation are covered by the guarantee of inerrancy.

“Dei Verbum does not say that every sentence inn the Bible is true; poetry, satire and irony are hardly ever presented as ‘objective truth.’ ” (p 157-8).

Fr Brain Harrison:
“The teaching of Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum, 11, is thus in complete harmony with the traditional Catholic understanding of the revealed truth that the books of Scripture are inspired by God and free from all error. When properly understood, this teaching also clarifies the hermeneutical criteria which need to be kept in mind in order to defend this dogma in its traditional sense. It is unfortunate and ironic that some scholars who are quick to claim the backing of Vatican II for their opinion that the biblical authors sometimes err (at least in their ‘statements’ if not in their ‘affirmations’ or ‘teachings’) are found to defend this opinion by appealing to that very text which anticipates and refutes it: the text, that is, which reminds us that, since biblical truth was given to us “for the sake of our salvation,” and not in order to teach us natural science or history for their own sakes, Sacred Scripture cannot fairly be judged to be in error when it sometimes presents historical or scientific truth in a less complete, less detailed, more popular, or more imprecise (i.e., merely approximate) fashion than would be acceptable in modern texts dedicated formally to those disciplines.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html

 

[ChristAgenda]

Wow! A die hard, rock-ribbed KJV only-ist! Please pardon me, but the Church of England, forcibly taken by secular authority from the Catholic Church, with secular King James as its head, is a denomination. Now, I like the KJV, as long as it is the more complete version with the Deuterocanon, as Catholic doctrine is easy to defend from it. Of that, there is little doubt. The rest of your rather hyperbolic assertions are clearly opinion - to which you are welcomed.

No they are not my opinions and I am a living Saint so you need to pay extra respect and and attention to listen.