Scripture: What's myth and what's history?

[Pete_Holter]

That’s not what Pius XII said in Divino Afflante Spiritu:

Hey Catholic Johnny!

The inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is not limited to faith and morals; however, the Church’s ability to interpret Scripture infallibly is so restricted. That’s why Pius opens DAS by saying of Scripture, “This heaven-sent treasure Holy Church considers as the most precious source of doctrine on faith and morals.”

May the LORD be with you!

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Hey Catholic Johnny!

The inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is not limited to faith and morals; however, the Church’s ability to interpret Scripture infallibly is so restricted. That’s why Pius opens DAS by saying of Scripture, “This heaven-sent treasure Holy Church considers as the most precious source of doctrine on faith and morals.”

May the LORD be with you!

And also with you, Pete. So, are you saying that the Church limits its authority to interpret Genesis 1-11?

There is a vaccuous dearth of contemporary interpretations of Genesis 1-11 and the Holy Father addresses the dangers of this in his writings In the Beginning and Christianity, Islam, Relativism and the West.

Until very recently, the Traditional interpretation of Genesis attributes authorship to Moses and the literal meanings as the primary interpretation. In the Syllibus of Errors (Lamentabili Sane) these and other points are stressed in Papal teaching.

These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful’s minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Congregation.
Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following proposals to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this current decree, they are condemned and proscribed.

1. 
   *]The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.
   *]The Church’s interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.
   *]From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.
   *]Even by dogmatic definitions the Church’s magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.
   *]Since the Deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences. (the list continues, follow link)

1. 
   The “faith and morals only” quip has become a cliche whereby Catholics who consider themselves too sophisticated to comply with a long line of Papal Encyclicals on this subject excuse themselves from the supernatural historical events in Sacred Scripture.
   
   Pax Christi,
   CJ

 

[Pete_Holter]

And also with you, Pete. So, are you saying that the Church limits its authority to interpret Genesis 1-11?

Pax Christi,
CJ

Thanks! Hmmm… I guess all I was trying to do was to point out that if the Church has a non-dogmatic interpretation of scripture in the area of natural sciences, then this interpretation can be revised in light of the progress of science.

If the interpretation is dogmatic, then we would understand it as pertaining to faith and morals because that is the limit of the Church’s infallibility:

“And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded” (Lumen Gentium).

Pius reminds us of this and will hopefully also temper the tone of this thread (not referring to your response to me ) with these words:

“Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church” (Divino Afflante Spiritu).

A reminder for all of us: non-Catholics are watching us and reading these threads to see where the truth and love of Christ reigns in the world.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Charity in discussion of our differences, always. But we must also repudiate the false irenism (sp) Pius XII warned of in Humani Generis. And because discussion is allowed, that certainly doesn’t mean that Catholics who embrace the Tradtion of interpretation that served the church well for two millenia are somehow anti-science because we don’t run to the latest theories or ideas of so-called science.

Almighty God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55). Man’s puny ruminations based on observation of the material accidents of time and space are rust on the scales compared to the Divine Wisdom. Before souls, however pious and charitable seek to persuade the faithful to relinquish long held beliefs in order to accomodate unproven scientific theories promulgated by unbelievers and heretics (Bultmann, et al), let them stand in awe at the transcendant and unsearchable wisdom and power of the Almighty. Let us all weigh our advice very carefully when it decreases confidence in the integrity and reliability of the Sacred Word.

Jesus requires conversion to childlike faith if one would see the reign of God. Without it, we choose the sophistry of satan and are led with clinging companions down the road to perdition.

 

[cassini]

Hi Cassini,

The Church only claims infallibility for herself when interpreting the Bible “in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine” (First Vatican Council).

Hi Pete. I fully agree with you but you had better read this judgment of Cardinal Bellarmine in his Letter to Foscarini in 1615:

‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.’

 

[cassini]

Thanks! Hmmm… I guess all I was trying to do was to point out that if the Church has a non-dogmatic interpretation of scripture in the area of natural sciences, then this interpretation can be revised in light of the progress of science. QUOTE]

Pete. either the Church is an infallible interpreter of Scripture or it is not. Here above amounts to a statement that it is not. It matters not a jot or tittle what ‘area’ of the Bible the Church is interpreting, it is still the Bible. Your exegesis and hermeneutics were invented to try to get the Church ‘off the hook’ for having declared it heresy to hold as a truth a fixed sun and moving earth, and for saying it is heresy to say the Bible can be read heliocentrically.

I hold the Church to be the infallible interpreter of scripture. That is my Catholic faith. This belief however came under attack by Satan (if anyone believes in Satan anymore) and he almost won. But then a Calvanist showed us the way to truth again and this truth is spreading.

Alas, such a faith is rare today. One of the reasons for this is because Rome itself and good Catholics thinking the Church NEEDS saving, do Satan’s work for him in suppressing this truth. And this is why you pete, and many others, tell all that the Church has no infallibility when it interprets mundane matters in the Scriptures.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Pete. either the Church is an infallible interpreter of Scripture or it is not. Here above amounts to a statement that it is not. It matters not a jot or tittle what ‘area’ of the Bible the Church is interpreting, it is still the Bible. Your exegesis and hermeneutics were invented to try to get the Church ‘off the hook’ for having declared it heresy to hold as a truth a fixed sun and moving earth, and for saying it is heresy to say the Bible can be read heliocentrically.

I hold the Church to be the infallible interpreter of scripture. That is my Catholic faith. This belief however came under attack by Satan (if anyone believes in Satan anymore) and he almost won. But then a Calvanist showed us the way to truth again and this truth is spreading.

Alas, such a faith is rare today. One of the reasons for this is because Rome itself and good Catholics thinking the Church NEEDS saving, do Satan’s work for him in suppressing this truth. And this is why you pete, and many others, tell all that the Church has no infallibility when it interprets mundane matters in the Scriptures.

Good evening Cassini,

I think that what I’ve done is to quote from Vatican I, Pius XII, and Vatican II to show that the Church understands herself to have infallible interpretations of the Word of God in matters pertaining to faith and morals. I am not aware of the Church declaring that this infallibility extends beyond that.

Let me know if I’m wrong. Thank you!

“Grant that I may love You forever; and then do with me as You will.”

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

When it comes to interpretations, it is helpful to remember that all truths are subject to the Teaching Office of the Church, and not just religious or “faith and morals” truths. Divino Afflante Spiritu states:

In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”[3] When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, **justly and rightly *condemned these errors ***and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.

 

[Pete_Holter]

When it comes to interpretations, it is helpful to remember that all truths are subject to the Teaching Office of the Church, and not just religious or "faith and morals truths. Divino Afflante Spiritu states:

Greetings Catholic Johnny!

This quote from DAS reiterates the truth of the dogma that there are no errors in the original text of Sacred Scripture. As Benedict refers to it in Spiritus Paraclitus, “the absolute immunity of Scripture from error.”

 

[patg]

Greetings Catholic Johnny!

This quote from DAS reiterates the truth of the dogma that there are no errors in the original text of Sacred Scripture. As Benedict refers to it in Spiritus Paraclitus, “the absolute immunity of Scripture from error.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had anything like the original texts? But then you stilll haven’t defined the term “error” or agreed that truth is often taught with fiction. These are far more than black and white concepts. One can quite validly insist that “there are no errors in the original text” and at the same time point out that many of the accounts in the gospels are both fictional and the truth.

Unfortunately, the original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

None of the bibles we use are from a single or original source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had anything like the original texts? But then you stilll haven’t defined the term “error” or agreed that truth is often taught with fiction. These are far more than black and white concepts. One can quite validly insist that “there are no errors in the original text” and at the same time point out that many of the accounts in the gospels are both fictional and the truth.

Unfortunately, the original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

None of the bibles we use are from a single or original source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.

We have Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession. We have Author with us to this day (the Holy Spirit). Moreoever, the Dead Sea Scrolls (ca 100 BC) are a powerful witness to the scriptures we use today. The Vulgate (St Jerome’s 4th century translation) was translated from ancient documents. The Bible used in New Testament times was the Greek Septuagint which was very reliable and multiple copies existed to corroborate authenticity. We also have the Hebrew people whose ardent zeal for preserving the scriptures grew even more intense after the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 AD.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Again, Leo XIII from Providentissimus Deus:

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.

We have all heard this from our own Priests, Catechists and fellow Catholics: “well, its not really important if these things really happened, its important that we get the religious truths from the ‘stories’ that God intended us to receive.”

In this way they try to explain away the supernatural miracles of scripture, the Creation Account given by Moses in Genesis, and the prophecies that hail the coming of Christ. In today’s readings, our Priest (probably reading the error-filled Jerome Bible Commentary- may it burn in hell with its so called ‘exegetes’) said that the prophecy (Isaiah 63) was ‘probably written after the exile’. This is a common fallacy clean contrary to the Encyclicals of the Popes on these very issues. Isaiah was contemporary with King Hezekiah (8th century BC) and the exiles began returning to Jerusalem in 539 BC.

Leo XIII in *Providentissimus Deus *condemns this view with great vehemency:

Now, we have to meet the Rationalists, true children and inheritors of the older heretics, who, trusting in their turn to their own way of thinking, have rejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief which had been handed down to them. They deny that there is any such thing as revelation or inspiration, or Holy Scripture at all; they see, instead, only the forgeries and the falsehoods of men; they set down the Scripture narratives as stupid fables and Iying stories: **the prophecies and the oracles of God are to them either predictions made up after the event **or forecasts formed by the light of nature; the miracles and the wonders of God’s power are not what they are said to be, but the startling effects of natural law, or else mere tricks and myths; and the Apostolic Gospels and writings are not the work of the Apostles at all.

Any Catholic with the integrity to see it for him/herself can plainly see that the “what God meant by these stories” system (Leo XIII calls it) is condemned and rejected by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Everytime I hear this line of reasoning discussed I try to defend the Teaching of the Catholic Church on the inerrancy of the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Fathers and Doctors in its steadfast interpretation.

Unfortunately there are millions of Catholics that believe in evolution, radical feminism, abortion rights, homosexual marriage and other errors who willingly swallow the urban legend of the “what God really meant” system of interpretation, especially when they hear it from Catholic leaders who stand in complete opposition to the Teaching Office of the Church.

 

[cassini]

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had anything like the original texts? But then you stilll haven’t defined the term “error” or agreed that truth is often taught with fiction. These are far more than black and white concepts. One can quite validly insist that “there are no errors in the original text” and at the same time point out that many of the accounts in the gospels are both fictional and the truth.

Yes patg, you have raised a very valid point. My answer would be that the Scriptures as defined by Trent are without error in what the REALLY MEAN. But given the Scriptures are in their parts literal, allegorical, parable, poetry etc., WHO is authorised by that same God to be able to interpret any of the above parts without error. The answer, the Pope, using whatever help he chooses.

 

[cassini]

Good evening Cassini,

I think that what I’ve done is to quote from Vatican I, Pius XII, and Vatican II to show that the Church understands herself to have infallible interpretations of the Word of God in matters pertaining to faith and morals. I am not aware of the Church declaring that this infallibility extends beyond that.

Let me know if I’m wrong. Thank you!

“Grant that I may love You forever; and then do with me as You will.”

Pete. The question of the Church’s infallibility is extremely complicated. Unlike the Pope’s extraordinary ex-cathedra infallibility there is an ordinary infallibility never definitively defined and spelled out explicitedly. Vatican I says this:

The Roman Pontiffs too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of some other useful means afforded by divine Providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic traditions.

I subscribe that the Holy Office of 1616 -of which the Pope is Prefect - was such a ‘useful means’ - and they defined a doctrine (against a fixed sun/moving earth reading of the sacred scriptures) and that their decree was protected by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had anything like the original texts? But then you stilll haven’t defined the term “error” or agreed that truth is often taught with fiction. These are far more than black and white concepts. One can quite validly insist that “there are no errors in the original text” and at the same time point out that many of the accounts in the gospels are both fictional and the truth.

Would you unemploy all of the textual critics around the world? Maybe you can pick a book or portion of Scripture from the Old Testament that you think is fiction and we can see if we have agreement. In putting forward your example, please also include some of the reasons that justify your understanding.

Peace be with you, Patg.

 

[patg]

Yes patg, you have raised a very valid point. My answer would be that the Scriptures as defined by Trent are without error in what the REALLY MEAN. But given the Scriptures are in their parts literal, allegorical, parable, poetry etc., WHO is authorised by that same God to be able to interpret any of the above parts without error. The answer, the Pope, using whatever help he chooses.

That is fine as long as one understands that the Church (or the Pope and his help) requires the faithful to accept a specific interpretation of only a very small handful of scripture passages. For the rest, one is permitted to use the tools such as literary form analysis and historical-critical analysis to study the passages. These tools are recommended in the recent dogmatic documents such as Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum.

This allows one to believe that many stories, such as the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke, are mostly fiction and yet teach truth without error.

 

[patg]

Would you unemploy all of the textual critics around the world? Maybe you can pick a book or portion of Scripture from the Old Testament that you think is fiction and we can see if we have agreement. In putting forward your example, please also include some of the reasons that justify your understanding.

Peace be with you, Patg.

Why the Old Testament? We have debated the story of Adam and Eve in the garden, the creation story, Noah’s Ark, Jonah, the tower of babel, etc… so much that I can’t imagine going through any of them one more time. And they are all “true” they just aren’t literal history.

We could do the Nativity stories just to enjoy a seasonal discussion but they have been pretty much gone over ad nauseum also.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Unlike the Pope’s extraordinary ex-cathedra infallibility there is an ordinary infallibility never definitively defined and spelled out explicitedly. Vatican I says this:

The Roman Pontiffs too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of some other useful means afforded by divine Providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic traditions.

I subscribe that the Holy Office of 1616 -of which the Pope is Prefect - was such a ‘useful means’ - and they defined a doctrine (against a fixed sun/moving earth reading of the sacred scriptures) and that their decree was protected by the Holy Ghost.

Good afternoon Cassini. Hmmm… I wonder. It seems to me that this quote from Vatican I is used as one of the many premises in order to conclude with the definition for the infallibility of the Pope. In other words, from the paragraph you’ve just quoted, we would have to look for historical examples that meet the criteria of the definition that follows this premise. Does the 1616 situation meet the criteria defined at Vatican I?

you had better read this judgment of Cardinal Bellarmine in his Letter to Foscarini in 1615:

‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.’

Bellarmine says that “Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers.”

This is true, but Vatican I and Leo XIII further clarified in Providentissimus Deus that this is only the case in matters pertaining to faith and morals: “in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” Again: “the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith.” And finally: “The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith – what they are unanimous in.” Bellarmine says that geocentrism is “not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter,” and, according to Leo XIII, “passages where physical matters occur” open the door to considering whether and where we must hold to the “common agreement of the holy Fathers.” Did the early Fathers consider their geocentric interpretations as “belonging to faith, or intimately connected with faith?”

Thank you, and may the grace of Christ be with you!

 

[Pete_Holter]

Why the Old Testament? We have debated the story of Adam and Eve in the garden, the creation story, Noah’s Ark, Jonah, the tower of babel, etc… so much that I can’t imagine going through any of them one more time. And they are all “true” they just aren’t literal history.

We could do the Nativity stories just to enjoy a seasonal discussion but they have been pretty much gone over ad nauseum also.

I don’t think we’ve discussed anything except the Nativity accounts. You must be thinking of someone else.

Let’s look at Jonah.

I’m assuming that you do not believe that he was in the belly of a great fish, but do you believe that Jonah was a prophet who preached repentance at Nineveh?

 

[seeker_of_God]

This allows one to believe that many stories, such as the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke, are mostly fiction and yet teach truth without error.

Wait, people think the infancy narratives are mostly fictional?

This really bothers me, because once you start calling into question the factuality of parts of the gospels, where do you stop? :bigyikes: