Scripture Dictated or Inspired - What is offical Catholic Magisterial teaching?

[GodHeals]

Hi,

Scripture Dictated or Inspired - What is offical Catholic Magisterial teaching? Please help me to understand.

God Bless You!

Brian

They held “that it is not necessary in order that a text be Holy Scripture, for the Holy Ghost to have inspired the very material words used.” The protests against this new opinion were so violent that Bellarmine and Francisco Suárez thought it their duty to tone down the formula by declaring “that all the words of the text have been dictated by the Holy Ghost in what concerns the substance, but differently according to the diverse conditions of the instruments.” This opinion went on gaining in precision, and little by little it disentangled itself from the terminology which it had borrowed from the adverse opinion, notably from the word “dictation.” Its progress was so rapid that at the beginning of the nineteenth century it was more commonly taught than the theory of verbal inspiration. Cardinal Franzelin seems to have given it its definite form. During the last quarter of a century verbal inspiration has again found partisans, and they become more numerous every day. However, the theologians of today, whilst retaining the terminology of the older school, have profoundly modified the theory itself. They no longer speak of a material dictation of words to the ear of the writer, nor of an interior revelation of the term to be employed, but of a Divine motion extending to every faculty and even to the powers of execution to the writer, and in consequence influencing the whole work, even its editing.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Hi,

Scripture Dictated or Inspired - What is offical Catholic Magisterial teaching? Please help me to understand.

God Bless You!

Brian

Inspired.

Vatican II, Dei verbum, #11:
Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because 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. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

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 for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

What is the source for the quote you presented?

 

[Reuben_J]

Inspired. The messages was (name removed by moderator)ired and the authors wrote them in his own language (words) and understanding. The more reason we have to know the mind of the authors when they wrote the books of the Bible. The Church understood this and therefore we have to follow the meaning of the scriptures as understood by the Church which canonized them.

 

[WoundedIcon]

It’s technically plenary verbal inspiration. Which means God inspired the writers to write exactly what he wanted down to the very word order and choices.

 

[PJM]

=GodHeals;10335782]Hi,

Scripture Dictated or Inspired - What is offical Catholic Magisterial teaching? Please help me to understand.

God Bless You!

Brian

INSPIRED; not dictated.

**2nd. Tim. 3:16-17 **“All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work”

Current Code of canon Law

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Gorgias]

It’s technically plenary verbal inspiration. Which means God inspired the writers to write exactly what he wanted down to the very word order and choices.

Yikes! No!!!

 

[COPLAND_3]

INSPIRED; not dictated.

**2nd. Tim. 3:16-17 **“All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work”

Current Code of canon Law

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

God Bless,
Pat

Very nice!!

 

[COPLAND_3]

I’d like to add a thing that is important, that is, along with the INSPIRED Sacred Scriptures comes the INSPIRED understanding and belief system that its a part of. Scripture is a product of the Catholic Church in which Jesus Christ established. Christianity is NOT a product and the result of the Bible, which many protestants seem to subconsciously perceive. Kinda like the question, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Ask a Protestant, “which came first, Christianity or the Bible?” We know its Christianity that came first, and the Church operated universally without the Bible for a few centuries because it had the inspired authority to do so, and it is the same authority that determined what books were to be in the Bible, and the same authority that teaches what the Bible means, and the same authority which is still leading the Catholic Church today!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Pope Leo XIII evidently thought Scripture is “dictated.”

“For the Sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Ghost, it contains things of the deepest importance, which in many instances are most difficult and obscure. To understand and explain such things there is always required the “coming” of the same Holy Spirit; that is to say, His light and His grace; and these, as the Royal Psalmist so frequently insists, are to be sought by humble prayer and guarded by holiness of life.”
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

 

[LittleHannah]

Those who wrote down Scripture were inspired by God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Pope Leo XIII evidently thought Scripture is “dictated.”

“For the Sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Ghost, it contains things of the deepest importance, which in many instances are most difficult and obscure. To understand and explain such things there is always required the “coming” of the same Holy Spirit; that is to say, His light and His grace; and these, as the Royal Psalmist so frequently insists, are to be sought by humble prayer and guarded by holiness of life.”
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

An excellent reference but may I offer some additional info? The term dictated can be understood in a couple ways. There is dictation in business, such as reciting something you want someone else to write word for word. Or there is dictation as in a non-mechanical steering. We see this in sports, for example, when we say, “Team X dictated the pace of the game.”

In the 1994 Magisterial text Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, we find this:
*The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. *Here, the Magisterium is criticizing the idea of a word-for-word dictation.

 

[Reuben_J]

An excellent reference but may I offer some additional info? The term dictated can be understood in a couple ways. There is dictation in business, such as reciting something you want someone else to write word for word. Or there is dictation as in a non-mechanical steering. We see this in sports, for example, when we say, “Team X dictated the pace of the game.”

In the 1994 Magisterial text Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, we find this:
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. Here, the Magisterium is criticizing the idea of a word-for-word dictation.

And also this (the highlighting is mine).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

An excellent reference but may I offer some additional info? The term dictated can be understood in a couple ways. There is dictation in business, such as reciting something you want someone else to write word for word. Or there is dictation as in a non-mechanical steering. We see this in sports, for example, when we say, “Team X dictated the pace of the game.”

In the 1994 Magisterial text Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, we find this:
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. Here, the Magisterium is criticizing the idea of a word-for-word dictation.

Raymond Brown once claimed in a lecture that after their reorganization as a consultative body in 1971, the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s statements no longer carry any magisterial authority. Is that still correct? Or did I misunderstand him?

 

[WoundedIcon]

Of course the Scriptures weren’t just fed to the writers to be written down, but it’s a heresy to try to equate inspiration to the general spirit of the message. Yes, the Scriptures were time bound, incarnational, cultural, and inflected with the personalities of its writers, but the fact remains that at the same time every word is exactly what God wanted. And yes, right down to the tenses and orders. That’s why even St. Jerome was pretty adamant about translating the Bible word for word, as opposed to the sense like in secular works.

“For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek I render sense for sense and not word for word, except in the case of the Holy Scriptures, where even the order of the words is a mystery.”

— Jerome to Pammachius, on the Best Method of Translating.

 

[WoundedIcon]

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s technically plenary verbal inspiration. Which means God inspired the writers to write exactly what he wanted down to the very word order and choices.

How do we know what the very word order is in all cases - the original Greek NT texts no longer exist.

All we now have is 5 main Codices, many ancient partial texts and 100’s of much later copies/translation. The problem being that significant percentages of these most ancient Codices actually vary considerably in this area. “Word order” would seem the least problematic issue in this area of variations.

If the NT was inspired exactly the way you mention … why would God not make sure we had the originasl text, or make sure our oldest copies 100% agree down to the detail you suggest?

 

[WoundedIcon]

newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm

There are some quotes from de fide dogmatic statements in there.

But yeah, Blue Horizon, I don’t know why God didn’t perfectly preserve the text of the original languages. All I know is that the text, with textual criticism and all, is largely intact, and that the flaws of the copies ultimately have no bearing on the status of the original autographs. Just because we don’t have a perfectly ordered, variant free text now doesn’t necessarily mean that the originals weren’t as specifically written as is said. I understand that it’s natural to think that, if God cared so much about such specifics, He would preserve them perfectly. But apparently He didn’t, and I have no clue why. I’m just going by I’ve been taught.

 

[WoundedIcon]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article:

(2) The Catholic who wishes to make a correct analysis of Biblical inspiration must have before his eyes the following ecclesiastical documents: (a) “These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been transmitted to the Church as such.” (Concil. Vatic., Sess. III, const. dogm, de Fide, cap. ii, in Denz., 1787). (b) “The Holy Ghost Himself, by His supernatural power, stirred up and impelled the Biblical writers to write, and assisted them while writing in such a manner that they conceived in their minds exactly, and determined to commit to writing faithfully, and render in exact language, with infallible truth, all that God commanded and nothing else; without that, God would not be the author of Scripture in its entirety” (Encycl. Provid. Deus, in Dena., 1952).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm

There are some quotes from de fide dogmatic statements in there.

But yeah, Blue Horizon, I don’t know why God didn’t perfectly preserve the text of the original languages. All I know is that the text, with textual criticism and all, is largely intact, and that the flaws of the copies ultimately have no bearing on the status of the original autographs. Just because we don’t have a perfectly ordered, variant free text now doesn’t necessarily mean that the originals weren’t as specifically written as is said. I understand that it’s natural to think that, if God cared so much about such specifics, He would preserve them perfectly. But apparently He didn’t, and I have no clue why. I’m just going by I’ve been taught.

I have found the answer.
There appears to be no such Magisterial teaching that Catholics are to believe “plenary verbal inspiration” is at work in the Bible. That conclusion appears to be no more than a (incorrect) conjecture by some re the sources you have ably referenced.

Have you found any Magisterial documents that actually come out straight and say “plenary” inspiration? I haven’t.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Raymond Brown once claimed in a lecture that after their reorganization as a consultative body in 1971, the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s statements no longer carry any magisterial authority. Is that still correct? Or did I misunderstand him?

I couldn’t comment without seeing his words in the context of his lecture. Although in Verbum Domini (2010), a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Pope Benedict does cite the same passage I quoted (see Verbum Domini, paragraph 44)