total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

[Ron_Conte]

"St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error. " (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16)

The total inerrancy of Scripture is the ancient and traditional belief of the Church; all possibility of error is necessarily excluded.

“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18 )

This point is not an open question; the faithful are not free to believe whatever they wish. The Church’s teaching on this point leaves no room for doubt or dispute.

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

All that is inspired is inerrant, for God does not inspire error. There are no exceptions for assertions in the Bible on history, geography, science, math, or any other subject. If Scripture asserts that it is true, then it is true. There are no false assertions that are presented for the sake of teaching. There are figures, but whatever is asserted by the figure is true. For example, God has a strong right arm asserts that God is powerful, by the figure of a strong arm.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Condemned: Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
~ St Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, 11

 

[Ron_Conte]

This teaching of Pope Leo XIII on inerrancy meets all of the conditions for papal infallibility:

“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 all 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 Spirit; 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 is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

The conditions for a papal teaching to be infallible were taught by the First Vatican Council as a required belief:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”

Here is an article explaining that the above quote from Pope Leo XIII meets all of those conditions, and is therefore infallible:
catholicplanet.com/TSM/papal-infallibility.htm

 

[JP_Marat]

"St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error. " (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16)

The total inerrancy of Scripture is the ancient and traditional belief of the Church; all possibility of error is necessarily excluded.

“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18 )

This point is not an open question; the faithful are not free to believe whatever they wish. The Church’s teaching on this point leaves no room for doubt or dispute.

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

All that is inspired is inerrant, for God does not inspire error. There are no exceptions for assertions in the Bible on history, geography, science, math, or any other subject. If Scripture asserts that it is true, then it is true. There are no false assertions that are presented for the sake of teaching. There are figures, but whatever is asserted by the figure is true. For example, God has a strong right arm asserts that God is powerful, by the figure of a strong arm.

RESPONSE:

Sorry, Spiritus paracletus was the personal opinion of the pope and not an ex cathedra teaching.

Besides, scripture contains many errors and contradictions. I’ve been quoting some of these out on my thread asking if the church still considers scripture to be inspired.

 

[JP_Marat]

Condemned: Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
~ St Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, 11

RESPONSE:

Pius X’s personal opinion. Not an infallible teaching.

 

[JP_Marat]

This teaching of Pope Leo XIII on inerrancy meets all of the conditions for papal infallibility:

“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 all 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 Spirit; 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 is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

The conditions for a papal teaching to be infallible were taught by the First Vatican Council as a required belief:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”

Here is an article explaining that the above quote from Pope Leo XIII meets all of those conditions, and is therefore infallible:
catholicplanet.com/TSM/papal-infallibility.htm

RESPONSE:

Sorry! It’s not an excathedra teaching. Incidently, we’re down to two now: the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

Moreover, observe to whom Providentissimus is addressed:

“To Our Venerable Brethren, All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World, in Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See.”

Not to the whole church.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Benedict XIV made it his own in his famous Encyclical “Vix pervenit” of 1 November, 1745, which was promulgated after thorough examination, but addressed **only to the bishops of Italy, and therefore not an infallible Decree. **On 29, July, 1836, the Holy Office incidentally declared that this Encyclical applied to the whole Church; but such a declaration could not give to a document an infallible character which it did not otherwise possess

 

[Ron_Conte]

"The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.” 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.”

“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.”
(Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

---

Now consider all of the quotes from papal documents in my posts above. Several different Popes have definitively and clearly taught that absolute immunity from error, i.e. total inerrancy in Scripture, is:

“the ancient and traditional belief of the Church”
leaving “no room for doubt or dispute”
“the Church’s teaching”
“the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent”
“confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican”
“this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine”

and that the contrary view is:

“the opinion, already often condemned”
“by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed.”
“absolutely wrong and forbidden”

Every teaching that is solemnly defined by a Council is an infallible teaching.

And the fact that this same teaching is also the ancient and traditional belief of the Church, that contrary opinions have been condemned by several Popes, and that the Pope has declared that there is no room for doubt or dispute, further confirms that this teaching on “the absolute immunity of Scripture from error” is an infallible teaching and a required belief, and that the contrary opinion must be a heresy.

Whoever teaches that Sacred Scripture contains errors is teaching a heresy already often condemned by several Popes, and is contradicting the solemnly defined teaching of the Ecumenical Councils of Trent and Vatican I.

 

[Roman_Army]

RESPONSE:

Sorry! It’s not an excathedra teaching. Incidently, we’re down to two now: the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

Moreover, observe to whom Providentissimus is addressed:

“To Our Venerable Brethren, All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World, in Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See.”

Not to the whole church.

To the contrary, the Church on earth cannot possibly exist without “All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World, in Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See.” So, it is not possible for the Bishops to have one set of beliefs and the laity have a different set, for the laity are subject to the Bishops. To address all the bishops is one and the same as addressing the faithful.

Also, you are completely false in suggesting that only the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are Ex Cathedra decrees. Certainly, they are more solemnly defined with a very solemn wording followed by a strong condemnation of anything contrary to it. For such a dogma of the faith it is certainly necessary, in the Church there is a hierarchy of dogmas and doctrines, some greater than others in weight, yet they are all equally infallible and necessary. Also remember, the First Vatican Council defined the Ex Cathedra infallibility much broader than than how Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII proclaimed those two Marian dogmas. The definition of the First Vatican Council extends also to those definitive statements by the Pope expressed in public means that are not as highly circulated as an Apostolic Constitution is. The council never specified precisely what wording or what instrument of communication is to be used in making an Ex Cathedra pronouncement. It would also be absurd to suggest that the Pope must always use a set type of wording in order for a teaching to be Ex Cathedra. It’s the manifest intentions of binding the teaching on the whole Church that make up an infallible Ex Cathedra teaching, not the choice of words.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Benedict XIV made it his own in his famous Encyclical “Vix pervenit” of 1 November, 1745, which was promulgated after thorough examination, but addressed **only to the bishops of Italy, and therefore not an infallible Decree. **On 29, July, 1836, the Holy Office incidentally declared that this Encyclical applied to the whole Church; but such a declaration could not give to a document an infallible character which it did not otherwise possess

Certainly, Pope Benedict XIV’s Encyclical on Usury is addressed only to the Italian bishops and clergy. Therefore, it was binding at the time on all of Italy. But, it was not addressed to the whole Church (e.g. all bishops). It is not Ex Cathedra and therefore not infallible even though it is possible for the rest of the Church to be made follow this exercise of the local ordinary magisterium of the bishop of Rome. The non-infallible exercise of this ordinary magisterium demands religious assent of mind and will unless later reformed. It is, however, not the same case with that of Pope Leo XIII’s teaching in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus which is irreformable and demands the assent of Faith.

 

[JP_Marat]

Roman Army postes:

The non-infallible exercise of this ordinary magisterium demands religious assent of mind and will unless later reformed<<

RESPONSE: Do you mean when the teaching is found to be in error and is then reversed?

. It is, however, not the same case with that of Pope Leo XIII’s teaching in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus which is irreformable and demands the assent of Faith. <<

RESPONSE:

It would only be irreformable if it were ex cathedra to begin with. It isn’t.

It too is not addressed to the whole Church:

“To Our Venerable Brethren, All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World, in Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See.”

But let’s pretend that it is infallble and see where that leads us.

(To be continued)

 

[JP_Marat]

Lets examine error in scripture.

(1) Providentissimus deus, 20

“For all 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.”

(2) #a And Saul said to his armour-bearer, Draw thy sword and pierce me through with it; lest these uncircumcised come and pierce me through, and mock me. But his armour-bearer would not, for he feared greatly: so **Saul took his sword and fell upon it. **1 Sam 31:4 (SUICIDE)

  #b And David went and took the bones of Saul, and the bones of Jonathan his son, from the men of the sons of Jabis Galaad, who stole them from the street of Baethsan; for the Philistines set them there in the day in which **the Philistines smote Saul **in Gelbue. 2 Sam 21:12 (HOMICIDE)

 #c Saul enquired of a wizard to seek counsel, and Samuel the prophet answered him: and he  [Saul, that is] sought not **the Lord: so he slew him**, and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse) 1 Chr 10:14 (ACT OF GOD)

# d ...he asked me, 'Who are you?' and I replied, **'An Amalekite**.' Then he said to me, 'Stand up to me, please, and finish me off, for I am in great suffering, yet fully alive.' **So I stood up to him and dispatched him,** for I knew that he could not survive his wound." 2 Sam 1:8-9

(HOMOCIDE)

Thus we have Saul being killed four times by different people

(3) “In logic, the Principle of contradiction (principium contradictionis in Latin) is the second of the so-called three classic laws of thought. The oldest statement of the law is that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive.” (Wikipedia)

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, unless Saul was killed four different times, three of these scriptural passages must be in error.

We can look at many more such examples if you wish. They all prove major errors in scripture. Therefore, if Providentissimus is correct, these (and other such) passages are not inspired. Right?

 

[sillyfrog]

Thanks for sharing.

 

[patg]

Your broad brush of seemingly absolute pronouncements hardly addresses the many real issues at the core of this topic. The inerrancy statements are nice “slogans” which some throw around a lot but they don’t really help when we get serious about the scriptures.

Which are the “inspired” scriptures - the originals?, the translations? which translations? Which originals?..do we have any of the originals?

Is fiction a valid vehicle for revelation? Can fiction be entirely inerrant? If we interpret something as poetry, legend, or myth, are we accusing the sacred writer of erring? If you say it is raining casts and dogs, are you lying? Calling something fiction does not comment on its truth.

Are direct quotes from Jesus in English of the same inerrant quality as they would be if we had them in Aramaic? or Greek? Are there any direct quotes, even when “perfectly” translated?

As far as the gospels, what is the point of making absolute inerrancy pronouncements when we don’t even have anything close to original documents?

When you get into the real world of scripture analysis all the flowery quotes aren’t much help.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Your broad brush of seemingly absolute pronouncements hardly addresses the many real issues at the core of this topic. The inerrancy statements are nice “slogans” which some throw around a lot but they don’t really help when we get serious about the scriptures.

Which are the “inspired” scriptures - the originals?, the translations? which translations? Which originals?..do we have any of the originals?

Is fiction a valid vehicle for revelation? Can fiction be entirely inerrant? If we interpret something as poetry, legend, or myth, are we accusing the sacred writer of erring? If you say it is raining casts and dogs, are you lying? Calling something fiction does not comment on its truth.

Are direct quotes from Jesus in English of the same inerrant quality as they would be if we had them in Aramaic? or Greek? Are there any direct quotes, even when “perfectly” translated?

As far as the gospels, what is the point of making absolute inerrancy pronouncements when we don’t even have anything close to original documents?

When you get into the real world of scripture analysis all the flowery quotes aren’t much help.

There are a number of legitimate questions, such as of interpretation and of textual variants, that can be raised AFTER one accepts the dogma of total inerrancy. Those are good questions.

**But a teaching that is solemnly defined must be adhered to with the full assent of faith. **One cannot dismiss a dogma by using phrases like ‘flowery quotes’ or ‘nice slogans’ or ‘seemingly absolute’. It is a required belief of the Faith.

I encourage all Catholics to accept this dogma of total inerrancy. Thereafter, we can have some profitable discussions about how to apply this teaching in translation and in interpretation of Scripture.

 

[David_Zampino]

Yet another thread in which our friend Mr. Conte attempts to be more Catholic than the Pope.

From whence do YOU derive your authority to make magesterial pronouncements, Mr. Conte?

With respect, you are not stating dogma, you’re stating your opinion of your interpretation of various statements as though it was dogma, which is very different.

Again, with respect, I’ve seen this on a number of threads. You seem to be attempting to bind the Faithful far beyond what the Church actually teaches or requires, and then condemn as heretics those who don’t accept your personal interpretations as dogma.

It doesn’t work that way!

 

[JP_Marat]

There are a number of legitimate questions, such as of interpretation and of textual variants, that can be raised AFTER one accepts the dogma of total inerrancy. Those are good questions.

**But a teaching that is solemnly defined must be adhered to with the full assent of faith. **One cannot dismiss a dogma by using phrases like ‘flowery quotes’ or ‘nice slogans’ or ‘seemingly absolute’. It is a required belief of the Faith.

I encourage all Catholics to accept this dogma of total inerrancy. Thereafter, we can have some profitable discussions about how to apply this teaching in translation and in interpretation of Scripture.

RESPONSE:

One should not “accept this dogma of total inerrancy” if the bible can be shown to contain errors. I’ve pointe one out above. There are many more. Perhaps another example would prove helpful.

Here we have a contradiction one chapter apart. Saul was fond of David and made him his armor-bearer. But after David slew Goliath, Then Saul and everyone else there didn’t know who he was.

Which is “inspired scripture”?

1 Sam 16:19-22

"Accordingly, Saul dispatched messengers to ask Jesse to send him his son David, who was with the flock. Then Jesse took five loaves of bread, a skin of wine, and a kid, and sent them to Saul by his son David. Thus David came to Saul and entered his service. Saul became very fond of him, made him his armor-bearer, and sent Jesse the message, “Allow David to remain in my service, for he meets with my approval.” (NAB)

1 Sam 17:48-51

"The Philistine then moved to meet David at close quarters, while David ran quickly toward the battle line in the direction of the Philistine. David put his hand into the bag and took out a stone, hurled it with the sling, and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone embedded itself in his brow, and he fell prostrate on the ground. (Thus David overcame the Philistine with sling and stone; he struck the Philistine mortally, and did it without a sword.) Then David ran and stood over him; with the Philistine’s own sword (which he drew from its sheath) he dispatched him and cut off his head.When they saw that their hero was dead, the Philistines took to flight. (NAB)

1 Sam 17:55-58

"When Saul saw David go out to meet the Philistine, he **asked his general Abner, “Abner, whose son is that youth?” Abner replied, "As truly as your majesty is alive, I have no idea."And the king said, “Find out whose son the lad is.” **So when David returned from slaying the Philistine, Abner took him and presented him to Saul. David was still holding the Philistine’s head. Saul then asked him, “Whose son are you, young man?” David replied, “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.” NAB)

Perhaps, I should steart a thread titled “Biblical Blunders and Contradictions” It would be a easy one to write; there are so many.

 

[patg]

There are a number of legitimate questions, such as of interpretation and of textual variants, that can be raised AFTER one accepts the dogma of total inerrancy. Those are good questions.

**But a teaching that is solemnly defined must be adhered to with the full assent of faith. **One cannot dismiss a dogma by using phrases like ‘flowery quotes’ or ‘nice slogans’ or ‘seemingly absolute’. It is a required belief of the Faith.

I encourage all Catholics to accept this dogma of total inerrancy. Thereafter, we can have some profitable discussions about how to apply this teaching in translation and in interpretation of Scripture.

One can say they adhere to it but what does it mean to absolutely adhere to something which is so non-specific? It doesn’t really help at all until my questions are answered (along with many others). It’s like saying one must accept that “the universe is big”. Yeah, but so what - you still have to analyze everything individually in the proper context.

I’d suggest you read Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald D. Witherup S.S - a serious book by a highly respected author who addresses this topic in detail.

 

[matahari]

Lets examine error in scripture.

(2) #a And Saul said to his armour-bearer, Draw thy sword and pierce me through with it; lest these uncircumcised come and pierce me through, and mock me. But his armour-bearer would not, for he feared greatly: so **Saul took his sword and fell upon it. **1 Sam 31:4 (SUICIDE)

  #b And David went and took the bones of Saul, and the bones of Jonathan his son, from the men of the sons of Jabis Galaad, who stole them from the street of Baethsan; for the Philistines set them there in the day in which **the Philistines smote Saul **in Gelbue. 2 Sam 21:12 (HOMICIDE)

 #c Saul enquired of a wizard to seek counsel, and Samuel the prophet answered him: and he  [Saul, that is] sought not **the Lord: so he slew him**, and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse) 1 Chr 10:14 (ACT OF GOD)

# d ...he asked me, 'Who are you?' and I replied, **'An Amalekite**.' Then he said to me, 'Stand up to me, please, and finish me off, for I am in great suffering, yet fully alive.' **So I stood up to him and dispatched him,** for I knew that he could not survive his wound." 2 Sam 1:8-9

(HOMOCIDE)

Thus we have Saul being killed four times by different people

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, unless Saul was killed four different times, three of these scriptural passages must be in error.

---

Alternatively, according to 1 Samuel, 31 : V 1- 4 Saul is Seriously wounded by the Philistines, he asks his armour bearer to kill him. His armour bearer refuses. Saul then falls on his own sword [suicide ]. This was allowed to happen by God because of Saul’s sin of divination. Your fourth example of the young Amalekite who thought he would win favour with David by lying paid the price with his own life.
There you are
Score 1 to Biblical inerrancy
0 to J P Marat:::bible1:

 

[JP_Marat]

---

Alternatively, according to 1 Samuel, 31 : V 1- 4 Saul is Seriously wounded by the Philistines, he asks his armour bearer to kill him. His armour bearer refuses. Saul then falls on his own sword [suicide ]. This was allowed to happen by God because of Saul’s sin of divination. Your fourth example of the young Amalekite who thought he would win favour with David by lying paid the price with his own life.
There you are
Score 1 to Biblical inerrancy
0 to J P Marat:::bible1:

RESPONSE:

What a creative imagination! But you are still faced with the conflict of Saul dying by suicide, or Saul dying by **homocide **(Philistine or Amalekite, different tribes). Both cannot have happened.

 

[JP_Marat]

Lets look further.

1 King 16.6
Baasha rested with his ancestors; he was buried in Tirzah, and his son Elah succeeded him as king…In the twenty-sixth year of Asa, king of Judah, Elah, son of Baasha, began his two-year reign over Israel in Tirzah. (NAB)

2 Chr 16:1
In the thirty-sixth year of Asa’s reign, Baasha, king of Israel, attacked Judah and fortified Ramah to prevent any communication with Asa, king of Judah.(NAB)

So Baasha was dead in the 26th year of Asa’s reign, but then attacked Judah in the 36th year of Asa’s reign.

Which of these bible passages is “inerrant”?

 

[Ron_Conte]

[Titus]
{3:10} Avoid a man who is a heretic, after the first and second correction,
{3:11} knowing that one who is like this has been subverted, and that he offends; for he has been condemned by his own judgment.

There are legitimate questions on interpretation, for example, as to which points of Scripture are literal and which are figurative. And there are some interesting questions about the Canon, and the limits of Biblical scholarship to question the Canon. But anyone who claims that Scripture contains outright error is commits the sin of heresy, contrary to the definitive teaching of several Popes.

“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18 )

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

What if Pope Benedict 16 had recently published an encyclical with the same statements in Pope Benedict 15’s encyclical? Why are the definitive teachings and clear condemnations of past Popes treated with such disregard? Is it because we give more weight to the majority opinion, than to the teaching of the Church? Or is it because we have progressively less confidence in a teaching of the Magisterium the older that it is?