total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

[Bengoshi]

RESPONSE:

From the New American Bible:

1 Sam 17: 23, 49-50
“There was another battle with the Philistines in Gob, in which Elhanan, son of Jair from Bethlehem, killed Goliath of Gath, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s heddle-bar…. 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.)

2 Sam 21:19 “There was another battle with the Philistines in Gob, in which Elhanan, son of Jair from Bethlehem, killed Goliath of Gath, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s heddle-bar. “ (NAB)

1 Chron 20:5 “Once again there was war with the Philistines, and Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath of Gath, whose spear shaft was like a weaver’s heddle-bar…” (NAB)

So someone discovered the 2 Sam’s error and changed it to “the brother of”. Where else in the Bible to we find subsequent writers correcting earlier errors?

But it’s all inerrant some try to tell us.

What are inerrant are the ORIGINAL manuscripts or what is called the AUTOGRAPHA. What we have are copies of the original. However, although this is the case, as has already been explained in my previous post by Dr. Grudem and also by the other posters here, such typist “errors” nevertheless do not affect any significant doctrine. Check out the link that I referred you to, there are lots of sgood books and sources there on biblical inerrancy and textual criticism.

 

[Bengoshi]

These issues have already been addressed post, #26 and my other posts related to this.

 

[pipper]

I am going to be honest here, I have come across Mr Contes writting before, disagreed and was called a heretic for my troubles.

But I cnverted from a literalistic and inerrency teaching fundamentalist Protestant sect, and I see no difference between that sect’s and the thing MR Conte espouses.

I was even disowned for converting, if my realtives could see Conte’s writtings maybe they would accept mw back!

I am a non-herestical Catholic with not a single fundamentalist bone in my body!

 

[iamanea]

Your post above is doctrinally false, and theologically absurd. I am constantly amazed at how many posters feel perfectly free to post assertions on any topic based on their own ignorance. You think you remember from a course nine years ago?!! And based on that faulty memory, you’re going to teach us about infallibility?

Your post is not at all correct and is by no stretch of the imagination what the Church teaches. And you did not even bother to look up the information before ‘teaching’ us on the topic.

Thank you for clarifying your position on biblical inerrancy. I realize that I misunderstood your position. You are really stating the position of Cardinal Bea. I originally thought that you meant that the bible statements on mere scientific (based on reason alone - not pertainiing to theological/philosophical matters) had to be true. In other words Creation DID take place in six 24 hour days. That is the opinion of some I know, including some Traditionalist Catholics. I now realize that is not the case. Perhaps if you clearer in your statements and not so dismissive (I am two classes shy of a Masters in Theology and AM NOT IGNORANT) AND AROGANT YOUR POSTS WOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED REPEATEDLY.

You need to open your mind and ears to my post on ex cathedra statements. NOTHING IN THEM IS DOCTRINALLY FALSE OR ABSURD! In fact don’t bother as it is clear that you are so arogant so as to be beyond being worth to engage in conversation with!!! GOOD RIDANCE SIR AND MAY THE LORD GRANT YOU A HUGE LESSON IN HUMILITY - YOU NEED IT!!!
cORRY

 

[iamanea]

Mr. Conte:

Thank you for clarifying your position. Based on previous posts I thought you were saying that EVERY VERSE in the Bible is literally true and was saying that was the meaning of Providentissimus Deus and other encyclicals on scripture.

I see now that you ARE taking the position of Cardinal Bea (admittedly he, as an individual is not infallible, but in a purely human sense as the Co-Chair of the Commission that wrote Dei Verbum, he is very competent to explain the thinking of that Commission. Fr. Grillmeier was ALSO a member of that commission, so although he is not infallible, he is ALSO a competent person to describe the thinking of the commission. Cardinal Bea argued that we do not necessarily have all the “facts” about human matters and concerns in the biblical account. You are saying the same thing and so am I.

Perhaps if you included Cardinal Bea’s statement about not having all the facts and were not so dismissive and arrogant sounding in your original post, your position would not have engendered the opposition that it has.

Corry

 

[iamanea]

Mr Conte

Per your suggestion, I looked up the information on ex cathedra statements. It helped me remember the discussion in my ecclesiology class. Pope Pius IX by virtue of his authority as pope declared the dogma of the Imaculate Conception on Dec 8, 1854. There was a 17 year discussion among theologians as to whether this decision needed to be confirmed or consented to by the Church as a whole (ecumenical council).

Vatican I put an end to this controversy by formally defining an ex cathedra statement and the dogma of papal infallibillity (Below is a quote from the Catholic Answers encyclopedia

The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. BUT ITS PRESENT MEANING WAS FORMALLY DETERMINED BY THE VATICAN COUNCIL (emphasis added ). Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesia Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” (See Infallibility; Pope.)

Therefore, I am NOT totally wrong in my previous posts. Just because I was working off of my memory and NOT checking my notes (2500 miles away in storage due to eight months of unemployment) does NOT mean I am an idiot who knows nothing of Church teaching. In any event, the particular details of how the dogma came to be formally defined are not important to my argument which is simply that previous doctrinal statements are not the particular type of infallible statement as an ex cathedra statement, nor are ecumenical council declarations ex cathedra statements.

#1. In the specific FORMAL term of my meaning (as I have made clear in all my posts), ex cathedra statements are NOT equivalent to all infallible statements, ONLY those statements issued by the Pope as sucessor to Peter, and by virtue of his special charism of his office as Supreme Head of the Church, and only when he specifically indicates his intention to bind the whole church to believe a certain doctrine are ex cathedra statements.

#2. How can one say that a statement issued PRIOR to the official definition of ex cathedra statement in the sense given above (and in the sense of my meaning) be called an ex cathedra statement. Again, it may be (according to the doctrine of infallibility of the Magisterium) be infallible, but it is NOT an ex cathedra statement.

#3 If ex cathedra is equivalent of infallible - i.e. ALL infallible statements are ex cathedra as you suggest, why is there universal agreement that there have only been two or three ex cathedra statements in the history of the Church?

Until such time as you issue me an apology, YOU NEED TO SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE!

Corry

 

[JP_Marat]

The concept of “divine inspiration” is closely related to that of “inerrancy.” It is predicated on the premise that deceit and error are not compatible with divinity.

There are three approaches to scripture:

1. All scripture is inspired by God and therefore inerrant.
2. Only parts of scripture are inspired by God. Other parts contain human error.
3. Scripture is a human construct containing some historical and moral truth but also containing folklore, myth, and religious propaganda.

 

[iamanea]

I agree with Ronald Witherup (writing under the imprimatur and Nihil Obstat in Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know) when he states:

Dear Sir or Madam:

An excellent summary of Church Teaching. The only thing I would add is that Providentissimus Deus and Paraclitus Spiritus were responding to a different problem than Das Afflante Spiritu. The earlier two encyclicals were response to the idea that there was no scuh thing as divine inspiration, or divine revelation as God could not be proven to exist. Biblical Science was entrenched in the wild (and totally baseless assertion) that nothing that could not be empirically proven was true. Das Afflante Spiritu was more positive, because by that time, Biblical scholarship had abandoned the overly dependent on empirical evidence and in fact, scientific research had shown that much of the Bible was historically accurate. Thus Pope Pius XII was able to concentrate on the spiritual meaning of scriptue and provide guidance to Church scholars on how to avoid the abuses that moderns see in patristic exegesis of the spiritual sense of scripture.

Just to be clear, I am not disputing anything you said, just adding information.

Corry

 

[iamanea]

ccolley2:
RESPONSE:

And some can differentiate between fact and fiction.

First, Scripture is inspired and is therefore, inerrant.
Second, the bible is NOT a history book, a science book or any other kind of “factual” book.
That being said, it IS Truth! It is the story of God and his relationship to his people. It is intended to be biased writing. It is religious literature that uses history to teach about the relationship of God to his people. And just because something didn’t happen, doesn’t mean it isn’t TRUE.

All the Gospel writers were writing at different times and in different places to different groups of people indifferent kinds of circumstances. So, you have several slightly different accounts of what happened. This doesn’t affect the inerrancy of Scripture.

CC

I agree. Good summary.

Corry

 

[iamanea]

RESPONSE:

And some can differentiate between fact and fiction.

First, Scripture is inspired and is therefore, inerrant.
Second, the bible is NOT a history book, a science book or any other kind of “factual” book.
That being said, it IS Truth! It is the story of God and his relationship to his people. It is intended to be biased writing. It is religious literature that uses history to teach about the relationship of God to his people. And just because something didn’t happen, doesn’t mean it isn’t TRUE.

All the Gospel writers were writing at different times and in different places to different groups of people indifferent kinds of circumstances. So, you have several slightly different accounts of what happened. This doesn’t affect the inerrancy of Scripture.

CC

RESPONSE:

Several popes have condemned your view of limited inerrancy including Pope Pius XII.

"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.’ … 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’ … justly and rightly condemned these errors."

And just because something didn’t happen, doesn’t mean it isn’t TRUE.<<

Are you serious?

Your opinion Mr. Conte - NOT the only interpretation of Church teaching. I don’t necessarily disagree with your position on church statements of inerrancy, it is your false interpretation of that teaching and how you apply it. Everyone of my theology professors at Franciscan agree with my interpretation. They are NOT liberal or anti-Church but are faithfully loyal to the Magisterium.

Corry

 

[iamanea]

Hi Corry!

You seem to be saying that Sacred Scripture does indeed contain “obiter dicta,” and that this superfluous/irrelevant material can be erroneous. But this is just what Pius XII said was “justly and rightly” condemned by Leo XIII.

You wrote that “contradictions of science, history and geography etc.” didn’t “disturb our religious forefathers.” But isn’t it true that the reason the Church Fathers were not disturbed by them is that they saw these “contradictions” with the eyes of faith as being merely apparent, not substantive, and so went about harmonizing any such discrepancies?

When you log in, do you click the box that says “Remember Me”?

With the love of Christ,
Pete

Dear Mr. Holter:

I dont think I am denying that biblical inerrancy is not limited to faith and morals. I admit that is the Traditionalist Catholic criticism of Vatican II (Archbishop Le Febvre’s followers) but I reject their position as they do not understand why or what Vatican II said.

As far as the geneaologies in Genesis and the Gospels go, I say they are not an accurate literal history of what happened. As St. Augustine said, the geneaologies do not provide a complete listing of people. They skip several generations in between listing only the prominent members. To hold differently (i.e. they are complete) means that the earth is only 6,000 years old (add up the generations and years people lived) and that is ridiculous.

As far as the ages of the people named, they could be literal or they could be figurative (i.e. exagerated as a expression of greal holiness, for example). It really doesn’t matter to me which is the case. In any event, Science cannot prove that whether the ages people lived in antediluvian times are literal or not or that they counted time as we do either.

The same goes with other supposed errors in scripture. It may very well be as you characterize how the patristic fathers looked at contradictions (with the eyes of faith - which I agree with). It may be that the “errors” in purely secular matters, are ALL the result of errors in transmission (copyists, translation, etc.) which does not violate biblical inerrancy. To look at each case would fill a 2,000 page book - certainly not my intent.

Another type of “error” is that found in claiming Pauline authorship for all “his” letters. Or claiming David wrote all the Psalms. This was a common practice in ancient times. Authorship was attributed to famous people to increase the work’s authority. This is a literary device and not an error in the sense of 2 + 2 = 5.

A final type of “error” is that found in the story of Jonah. It could be that Jonah represents exactly how the story happened. It could be that it is just an allegorical story that is not meant to record how things actually happened. That is not the truth of the story. If the latter were the case, that lack of authenticity in terms of acctual happening is simply a literary device used by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the truth that God saves who he wills and that it is useless to try to run from God’s will and purpose. In other words, it may be the Holy Spirit’s intention to use literary devices and allegorical stories to tell the truth He wills.

I don’t limit the work of the Spirit, I let Him (a literary device in itself - i.e. the Spirit is neither male nor female) the freedom to work as He wills. This is my interpretation of Vatican II’s assertion that everything the Holy Spirit asserts is true.

Corry
These are the types of “errors” that I am talking about

 

[iamanea]

I am sorry, but if you have a “limited inerrany” approach than you must have a “limited inspiration” approach. So, how does one who believes this determine that the Holy Spirit asserted this part to be in the Scriptures but He didnt assert this other part to not be in the Sacred Scriptures? Again, with this believe there are many contradictions as to why we should uphold the Bible as being Holy.

Actually I don’t have a limited inerrancy approach. I allow the Holy Spirit to use literary devices to tell the truth He/She/It (God has no gender except Jesus - the man) wishes conveyed. When I speak of the geneaologies as not being literally true I mean that they are not complete - just as St. Augustine said, they only list the more famous members of the geneaology. They also serve as a literary device by the Priestly school who, according to my mentor’s version of the four source theory were the final editors of Genesis. They took materials written by others and themselves and edited it into the text we have today.

There are many other examples of literary devices used in scripture - allegorical stories not literally true in scientific sense, but true in religious sense, ascribing authorship of all the Psalms to David (including those not in the bible - see Dead Sea Scrolls), the use of parables in the Gospels, different details given in the Gospels for specific purpose (.e.g. the different date for the Crucifixion in John’s Gospel vs. the Synoptics.

Finally there are “errors” that represent copyist errors, translation errors etc - human errors that have happened over time after the original text was written. These latter types of “errors” do not violate total inerrancy.

In summary, when I speak of “errors”, I am speaking in very general non-technical terms. Those who do not believe in God and want to disprove the bible will facetiously refer to the types of things I mention specifically above as errors. They are not really errors in the scientific sense of the term i.e. contradictions in the inspired text that can be empirically demonstrated to be false. Atheists keep claiming that these types of errors exist in scripture when they do not.

The study of the literal sense of Scripture as well as the spiritual senses according to the methodology of modern exegesis and reading scripture in union with the mind of the Church (both are critical) aids in determining which passages are to be taken as literally true and which may or may not need to be. This is why the Catechism urges the faithful to pay attention to literary typology (CCC 100 - 141, cf. 109 - 110).

Corry

 

[iamanea]

The concept of “divine inspiration” is closely related to that of “inerrancy.” It is predicated on the premise that deceit and error are not compatible with divinity.

There are three approaches to scripture:

1. All scripture is inspired by God and therefore inerrant.
2. Only parts of scripture are inspired by God. Other parts contain human error.
3. Scripture is a human construct containing some historical and moral truth but also containing folklore, myth, and religious propaganda.

There is actually a fourth which involves what, in my view, is the correct understanding of how to apply # 1 above to the actual scriptures - That is give the Holy Spirit the freedom to use the human author in such a way that the use of figurative language and literary devices are used to tell the story that the Spirit wants revealed. See earlier post to Byman.

Corry

 

[patg]

There is actually a fourth which involves what, in my view, is the correct understanding of how to apply # 1 above to the actual scriptures - That is give the Holy Spirit the freedom to use the human author in such a way that the use of figurative language and literary devices are used to tell the story that the Spirit wants revealed. See earlier post to Byman.

Corry

That is exactly what the church dogmatically states in Dei Verbum:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

 

[JP_Marat]

That is exactly what the church dogmatically states in Dei Verbum:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

RESPONSE:

If the writer is clearly presenting something as having actually happened, it’s history, not allegory or fiction.

 

[patg]

RESPONSE:

If the writer is clearly presenting something as having actually happened, it’s history, not allegory or fiction.

That is not the way literature works and it is not the way the church teaches scripture.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Another type of “error” is that found in claiming Pauline authorship for all “his” letters. Or claiming David wrote all the Psalms. This was a common practice in ancient times. Authorship was attributed to famous people to increase the work’s authority. This is a literary device and not an error in the sense of 2 + 2 = 5.

Corry
These are the types of “errors” that I am talking about

Hi Corry, you can call me Pete, or “Man with a Pie Hole.” So you believe in total inerrancy then?

The above-quoted material is a place where I will strongly disagree with you. I do not think that forgeries are compatible with inspiration. I believe that forgeries constitute lying and that Paul’s letters were written under Paul’s direction and oversight. To say that authorship was “attributed to famous people to increase the work’s authority” is to admit that deception inheres in such a practice, no matter whether we try to cover it over with “literary device” type descriptors. I hope that you will give this point of difference between us further consideration.

May the LORD be with you!
Pete

 

[JP_Marat]

That is not the way literature works and it is not the way the church teaches scripture.

RESPONSE:

It’s the way reality works.

 

[JP_Marat]

The absolute “inerrancy” teaching regarding scripture was maintained by Catholicism until about 1950.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) writing to St. Jerome stated that he believed “most firmly that none of their (scripture’s) writers has fallen into any error.”

Vatican I (1869-1870) taught that scriptures “contain revelation without errors…baving been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author.”

But since Vatican II, things have evidently changed.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

"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.

Do you know of any authentic explanation of the positive content of the dogma ?​

To say the Bible is wholly without error, though clear so far as it goes, does not go very far: it does not explain what being wholly without error consists in. To put it another way:

• X is totally inerrant =////= the manner in which X is totally inerrant

Thanks
What about:

• “Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil…”?

The words are part of an assertion in the Bible; are they asserted by God in any way, or only by the serpent ? If the latter, and not by God at all in any way, we have parts of the Word of God that - in one sense - are not the Word of God at all. There are many assertions like that one.