K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Many forms of theology: mystical, dogmatic, speculative, eschatalogical. And how it is all put together in applied theology - ekkonomia.
Infallible statements usually pertain to the dogmatic.
- Status
Infallible statements usually pertain to the dogmatic.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Some additional thoughts from St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 150):
“Further, to persuade you that you have not understood anything of the Scriptures, I will remind you of another psalm, dictated to David by the Holy Spirit, which you say refers to Solomon, who was also your king. But it refers also to our Christ” (, Ch. 34Dialogue with Trypho).
“For when the rulers of heaven saw Him of uncomely and dishonoured appearance, and inglorious, not recognising Him, they inquired, ‘Who is this King of glory?’ And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, ‘The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory’” (, Ch. 36Dialogue with Trypho).
“Attend to me, I beseech you, while I speak of the statement which the Holy Spirit gave utterance to in this Psalm; and you shall know that I speak not sinfully, and that we are not really bewitched; for so you shall be enabled of yourselves to understand many other statements made by the Holy Spirit” (, Ch. 74Dialogue with Trypho).
“And this was done and said by the blessed prophet with much intelligence and mystery; and there is nothing said or done by any one of the prophets, without exception, which one can justly reprehend, if he possess the knowledge which is in them” (, Ch. 112Dialogue with Trypho).
St. Augustine referred to Hilary of Poitiers as a “good and faithful” Christian just before heading into a discussion on the meek and lowly disposition required of us in our approach to the Sacred Text (cf. , Bk. 2, Chs. 40-41On Christian Doctrine).
Saint Hilary of Poitiers, The Doctor of Christ’s Divinity (A.D. 359): “And with regard to the nature of the Father and the Son the blessed John teaches the very likeness which Moses says existed between Seth and Adam, a likeness which is this equality of nature. He says, ‘Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His father, making Himself equal with God’ (John 5:18). Why do we allow minds that are dulled with the weight of sin to interfere with the doctrines and sayings of such holy men, and impiously match our rash though sluggish senses against their impregnable assertions? According to Moses, Seth is the likeness of Adam, according to John, the Son is equal to the Father, yet we seek to find a third impossible something between the Father and the Son. He is like the Father, He is the Son of the Father, He is born of Him: this fact alone justifies the assertion that they are one” (, 73On the Councils).
“But perhaps on the opposite side it will be said that [the use of ὁμοούσιον] ought to meet with disapproval, because an erroneous interpretation is generally put upon it. If such is our fear, we …] must dispense, too, with the books of Moses, lest the darkness be thought coeval with God who dwells in the unborn light, since in Genesis the day began to be after the night; lest the years of Methuselah extend later than the date of the deluge, and consequently more than eight souls were saved; lest God hearing the cry of Sodom when the measure of its sins was full should come down as though ignorant of the cry to see if the measure of its sins was full according to the cry, and be found to be ignorant of what He knew; lest any one of those who buried Moses should have known his sepulchre when he was buried; lest these passages, as the heretics think, should prove that the contradictions of the law make it its own enemy. So as they do not understand them, we ought not to read them. And though I should not have said it myself unless forced by the argument, we must, if it seems fit, abolish all the divine and holy Gospels with their message of our salvation, lest their statements be found inconsistent; lest we should read that the Lord who was to send the Holy Spirit was Himself born of the Holy Spirit; lest He who was to threaten death by the sword to those who should take the sword, should before His passion command that a sword should be brought; lest He who was about to descend into hell should say that He would be in paradise with the thief; lest finally the Apostles should be found at fault, in that when commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they baptized in the name of Jesus only. …] Shall we, because the wise men of the world have not understood these things, and they are foolish unto them, be wise as the world is wise and believe these things foolish? Because they are hidden from the godless, shall we refuse to shine with the truth of a doctrine which we understand? We prejudice the cause of divine doctrines when we think that they ought not to exist, because some do not regard them as holy” (, 85On the Councils).
Helpful to note here is the fact that the so-called historical contradictions are lumped in without distinction amongst the theological contradictions and injunctions pertaining to the New Covenant. For a discussion of the problem concerning Methuselah’s age, see Augustine’s , Bk. 15, Chs. 10-11City of God.
With love in Christ,
Pete
“Further, to persuade you that you have not understood anything of the Scriptures, I will remind you of another psalm, dictated to David by the Holy Spirit, which you say refers to Solomon, who was also your king. But it refers also to our Christ” (, Ch. 34Dialogue with Trypho).
“For when the rulers of heaven saw Him of uncomely and dishonoured appearance, and inglorious, not recognising Him, they inquired, ‘Who is this King of glory?’ And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, ‘The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory’” (, Ch. 36Dialogue with Trypho).
“Attend to me, I beseech you, while I speak of the statement which the Holy Spirit gave utterance to in this Psalm; and you shall know that I speak not sinfully, and that we are not really bewitched; for so you shall be enabled of yourselves to understand many other statements made by the Holy Spirit” (, Ch. 74Dialogue with Trypho).
“And this was done and said by the blessed prophet with much intelligence and mystery; and there is nothing said or done by any one of the prophets, without exception, which one can justly reprehend, if he possess the knowledge which is in them” (, Ch. 112Dialogue with Trypho).
St. Augustine referred to Hilary of Poitiers as a “good and faithful” Christian just before heading into a discussion on the meek and lowly disposition required of us in our approach to the Sacred Text (cf. , Bk. 2, Chs. 40-41On Christian Doctrine).
Saint Hilary of Poitiers, The Doctor of Christ’s Divinity (A.D. 359): “And with regard to the nature of the Father and the Son the blessed John teaches the very likeness which Moses says existed between Seth and Adam, a likeness which is this equality of nature. He says, ‘Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His father, making Himself equal with God’ (John 5:18). Why do we allow minds that are dulled with the weight of sin to interfere with the doctrines and sayings of such holy men, and impiously match our rash though sluggish senses against their impregnable assertions? According to Moses, Seth is the likeness of Adam, according to John, the Son is equal to the Father, yet we seek to find a third impossible something between the Father and the Son. He is like the Father, He is the Son of the Father, He is born of Him: this fact alone justifies the assertion that they are one” (, 73On the Councils).
“But perhaps on the opposite side it will be said that [the use of ὁμοούσιον] ought to meet with disapproval, because an erroneous interpretation is generally put upon it. If such is our fear, we …] must dispense, too, with the books of Moses, lest the darkness be thought coeval with God who dwells in the unborn light, since in Genesis the day began to be after the night; lest the years of Methuselah extend later than the date of the deluge, and consequently more than eight souls were saved; lest God hearing the cry of Sodom when the measure of its sins was full should come down as though ignorant of the cry to see if the measure of its sins was full according to the cry, and be found to be ignorant of what He knew; lest any one of those who buried Moses should have known his sepulchre when he was buried; lest these passages, as the heretics think, should prove that the contradictions of the law make it its own enemy. So as they do not understand them, we ought not to read them. And though I should not have said it myself unless forced by the argument, we must, if it seems fit, abolish all the divine and holy Gospels with their message of our salvation, lest their statements be found inconsistent; lest we should read that the Lord who was to send the Holy Spirit was Himself born of the Holy Spirit; lest He who was to threaten death by the sword to those who should take the sword, should before His passion command that a sword should be brought; lest He who was about to descend into hell should say that He would be in paradise with the thief; lest finally the Apostles should be found at fault, in that when commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they baptized in the name of Jesus only. …] Shall we, because the wise men of the world have not understood these things, and they are foolish unto them, be wise as the world is wise and believe these things foolish? Because they are hidden from the godless, shall we refuse to shine with the truth of a doctrine which we understand? We prejudice the cause of divine doctrines when we think that they ought not to exist, because some do not regard them as holy” (, 85On the Councils).
Helpful to note here is the fact that the so-called historical contradictions are lumped in without distinction amongst the theological contradictions and injunctions pertaining to the New Covenant. For a discussion of the problem concerning Methuselah’s age, see Augustine’s , Bk. 15, Chs. 10-11City of God.
With love in Christ,
Pete
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, and 1 + 1 always, always, always, always, ALWAYS = 2, uh, except when we’re dealing in Base 2, and, uh, except when we’re adding velocities impacted by the Lorenz Transformation, and, uh, except when…
Your absolutist statements are nothing but a hollow gong, something to get upset about if someone crosses your line in the sand.
But do you want to know something? Scripture has perfect contradictions in it.
Absolutists spend their lives dreaming up reasons why obvious contradictions aren’t “really” contradictions.
Sometimes, God inspired contradictions. Why? Aware of the contradictions, God just didn’t care, because the error-free truth He is teaching is not relevant to the contradictions He permitted to remain in the text.
You also have no right to ban God from inspiring fiction.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Absolutist Bible-pounder’s usual answer:
“It’s a copyist error…”
“It’s a copyist error…”
“It’s a copyist error…”
“It’s a copyist error…”
“It’s a copyist error…”
“It’s a copyist error…”
“It’s a copyist error…”
“It’s a copyist error…”
“It’s a copyist error…”
“It’s a copyist error…”
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
As St Augustine said, “I would not believe in the Gospel had not the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to do so”
For 3 centuries after Christ there was no universal agreement over the authentic books of the New Testament. The Church Fathers frequently refer to ecclesiastic Tradition as a means to the Bible’s interpretation.
“Faith is the proof of what cannot be seen. What is seen gives knowledge, not faith” (Pope St Gregory 1)
The Holy Spirit encourages us to relationship in Christ.
For 3 centuries after Christ there was no universal agreement over the authentic books of the New Testament. The Church Fathers frequently refer to ecclesiastic Tradition as a means to the Bible’s interpretation.
“Faith is the proof of what cannot be seen. What is seen gives knowledge, not faith” (Pope St Gregory 1)
The Holy Spirit encourages us to relationship in Christ.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Yes, only the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS were absolutely free from error and not necessarily the copies that we now have. That is why there is such a discipline as testual criticism, in order to determine what the originals might have said. By the way, scholars agree that the Scripture that we have now is 99% textually pure. The Bible is not a science textbook. It used such language that readers during that time would understand and appreciate. However, it doen’t necessarily follow that there were errors in it. Just as when it said that the sun rises and sets, the author didn’t need to scientifically describe that it is actually the Earth which rotates and revolves around the sun. Any ordinary person, from the view point on Earth, would see that the sun does indeed rise and set.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
There are historical errors in it.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Interesting journey into speculative Biblical transcription/interpretation. Could one of you connect this with OP. Thank you:thumbsup:
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:
Are you seriously claiming that both Matthew’s story of Jesus sending for and riding two animals of different sizes into Jerusalem is the same as Mark’s, Luke’s, and John’s story of Jesus sending for and riding only one animal? Or is one version an error, or written in by some later interpolator?
How about Jesus’ birth before 4 BC during the reign of King Herod the Great (Matthew) and Jesus’ birth during the census of Quirinius in 6 AD (Luke)? That’s a ten year difference. Are you saying that they are both correct accounts or are you saying that someone added the second version?
Did Jesus spend two nights in the tomb (Matt, Mark, Luke) or three nights (John) to fulfil the Jonah prophecy? Or did somebody just write that in?
Etc, etc., etc.
J
joemccarron
Guest
This is also a response to Kevin Wilcox:
I think this is an important point that ties in with the original post in that if we are truly required by our faith to believe this about original texts that no one alive has ever even seen, then it makes what the Holy Spirit did seem quite odd indeed.
If we say that the Holy Spirit’s purpose in inspiring the writers was not just to help us reach salvation but to provide perfectly accurate history and science then a question naturally arises: Was the Holy Spirit’s purpose to provide the completely accurate history and science and everything else only to those who originally wrote it and not for the vast majority of Christians who came later? I mean even by Augustine’s time there were errors in the copies and translations. So why would the Holy Spirit be so concerned to avoid any sort of error even if it had nothing to do with salvation in the original texts but seemingly have no concern about the mistakes in copies that would be used to teach the vast majority of Christians? I mean if the Holy Spirit’s concern was to prevent Christians from reading any sort of error what so ever when they read scripture, he sort of dropped the ball. By allowing these errors in the copies and translations that we aren’t getting 100% error free texts anyway. Was the Holy Spirit unaware that the original texts would decompose?
This view seems an absurd result for those who have faith and trust that God will achieve his purposes. I have faith that God and the Holy Spirit did indeed achieve their purpose of giving us guidance to salvation. Two of those guides are our church and scripture. Although they both seem to have erred when it comes to things unimportant to salvation they are both still guided by the Holy Spirit in matters that pertain to salvation.
This is one of many intellectual roadblocks to the extreme inerrancy view. Now the response that we should not use our intellect when deciding what to believe is not really helpful. If you simply choose to turn off your brain you will face a bedazzling array of different religions to choose. If you turn off your brain why not choose any one of them? The point is that the Catholic Faith has usually in its history been one that has embraced reason.
As far as 99% error free - well its hard to quantify. I mean if one page has 100 words on it that would mean on average there is an error on every page of the bible. Moreover with respect to the OT it is really speculation.
But that aside for a moment because, I agree that for the most part the copy and translation errors are generally insignificant. I hold the same view about the possible errors in the originals - whatever they might have said.
J
joemccarron
Guest
JP
You will find that some people will try to find stretches for all of the discrepancies that to rational people simply appear to be mistakes. Check out the fundamentalist websites. If people want to believe in those stretches that is ok with me. But the idea that we have to accept them or not be considered in the Church is very hard to swallow.
In law school we were often told to be sure our arguments passed the “giggle test.” An argument wouldn’t pass the test if when you made it you caused others to chuckle or smirk. By pushing this extreme inerrancy view one is essentially pushing the view that Catholics have to believe a heck of allot of things that don’t pass the giggle test. (Either that or they should never read scripture carefully)
The tragedy is these arguments are often pointless to our salvation, and completely lose track of what Jesus wanted us to focus on.
You will find that some people will try to find stretches for all of the discrepancies that to rational people simply appear to be mistakes. Check out the fundamentalist websites. If people want to believe in those stretches that is ok with me. But the idea that we have to accept them or not be considered in the Church is very hard to swallow.
In law school we were often told to be sure our arguments passed the “giggle test.” An argument wouldn’t pass the test if when you made it you caused others to chuckle or smirk. By pushing this extreme inerrancy view one is essentially pushing the view that Catholics have to believe a heck of allot of things that don’t pass the giggle test. (Either that or they should never read scripture carefully)
The tragedy is these arguments are often pointless to our salvation, and completely lose track of what Jesus wanted us to focus on.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Blessings for you, JohnJFarren!
I thought the following resources might help you in your investigation.
Prior to the release of Providentissimus Deus, Cardinal John Henry Newman and then Bishop (later Archbishop) John Healy had a somewhat heated exchange on the dogma of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy. I’ll be quoting from their exchanges found here and here. Newman thought that the proper interpretation of Vatican I allowed for the possibility of error in certain “statements of Scripture,” which he referred to as obiter dicta. This was a fair position to hold at the time because the full meaning of the Council’s decree had not been explained. Cardinal Newman proposed:
Obiter dictum means, as I understand it, a phrase or sentence which, whether a statement of literal fact or not, is not from the circumstances binding on our faith. The force of the “obiter” is negative, not positive. To say, “I do not accept a statement as a literal fact,” is not all one with saying that it is not a fact; I can not hold without holding not. The very comfort of an obiter dictum to the Catholic, whether in its relation to infallibility or to inspiration, whether in dogma or in Scripture, is, that it enables him in controversy to pass by a difficulty, which else may be pressed on him without his having the learning perhaps, or the knowledge, or the talent, to answer it; that it enables him to profess neither Yes nor No in questions which are beyond him, and on which nothing depends. In difficult questions it leaves the Catholic student in peace. And, if my Critic asks, as I understand him to do, who shall decide what is important and what is not, I answer at once, the Church, which, though he seems to forget it, claims the supreme interpretation of Scripture according to the force of that second dogma about the written Word which was defined both at Trent and the Vatican.
And he provided us with an example of an obiter dictum:
And now take one of the instances with which Scripture may be said to provide us. St. Paul speaks of “the cloak which he left at Troas with Carpus.” Would St. Timothy, to whom he wrote, think this an infallible utterance? And supposing it had been discovered, on most plausible evidence, that the Apostle left his cloak with Eutychus, not with Carpus, would Timothy, would Catholics now, make themselves unhappy, because St. Paul had committed what the Professor calls “a falsehood”? Would Christians declare that they had no longer any confidence in Paul after he had so clearly shown that he “had” not “the Spirit of God”? Would they feel that he had put the whole Apostolic system into confusion, and by mistaking Eutychus for Carpus he had deprived them henceforth of reading with any comfort his Epistle to the Romans or to the Ephesians?
I fear seeming to use light words on a sacred subject; but I must ask, is St. Paul’s request to Timothy about his penula, a portion of “the Word”?
Now, he never asserts that there is error in Scripture, but he does leave open the possibility of error and thinks that this possibility, in small matters, should not negatively impact our faith (“on which nothing depends”). He understood that “the Vatican decision (referring to the First Vatican Council) is de fide, but it cannot annul the Tridentine. Both decrees are dogmatic truths.” But he didn’t understand the full implications of the dogma.
At the end of his discourse, he raises this question (raised also by Joe McCarron in this thread):
If the Holy Spirit does not hinder varieties and errors in transcribers of Scripture which damage the perfection of His work, why should He hinder small errors (on the hypothesis that such there are) of the original writers? Is not He, with the Church co-operating, sufficient for a Guardian?
Most importantly, his concern throughout was to explain to his readers what was strictly de fide, and he submitted his thoughts on this subject to the judgment of the Church:
I conclude by reminding the reader that in these remarks I have been concerned only with the question—what have Catholics to hold and profess de fide about Scripture? that is, what it is the Church ‘insists’ on their holding; and next, by unreservedly submitting what I have written to the judgment of the Holy See, being more desirous that the question should be satisfactorily answered, than that my own answer should prove to be in every respect the right one.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
For John Healy’s part, we have the following contributing thoughts (sorry for the long quotes, but I think they are all helpful):
We thought it was a well-known distinction made by Catholic theologians of every school between the things revealed propter se [for their own sake], or, as the Cardinal calls them, matters of faith and morals, and things revealed per accidens, including every other statement made in Sacred Scripture, whether in narration, history, geography, or anything else. God reveals none of these things propter se. He does not undertake the work of annalist, historian, geographer, as such. They are revealed on account of their connection, necessary, useful, or accidental as the case may be, with the main purposes of Divine Revelation. But as Benedict XII, in his Dogmatic Catalogue of the Errors of the Armenians very clearly signifies, they must be all believed, even those which have been revealed per accidens, because they are all equally the word of God, and all serve a useful purpose in the Divine economy of our salvation (cf. Dei Verbum, Art. 11: “for the sake of our salvation”). “For whatsoever things were written, were written for our learning; that through patience and the comfort of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4)…
A book might contain the whole revelation of God, and contain it without error, and yet not be at all an inspired book, because inspiration essentially regards the writing or authorship of the book. If it is an inspired book God is its author; it must have been written in all its parts under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, so much so, that God becomes responsible for every single statement it contains, and therefore quite as much responsible for its statements “in matters of fact,” as for its statements in reference to “faith and morals.” All these truths will not have the same intrinsic importance in relation to each other, or to the economy of man’s redemption; but they are all divine as regards their origin and their authority…
God, then, is defined to be the author of all the Sacred Scriptures, because they were written under the inspiration of His Holy Spirit. Now, what is meant by being the author of a book in this sense? … A]s a minimum, it must mean according to the use of language, that He directed or procured the writing of all these sacred books; that He suggested to the sacred writers all the matter to be written – res et sententias – even that known before, and finally gave them such constant, ever watchful assistance in the composition of all these books as to ensure that everything which He wished should be said, and that nothing should be said except what He wished (cf. Dei Verbum, Art. 11), and hence that there should be no trace of falsehood or error, for which He, the principal and infallible Author of the book, would, in that absurd hypothesis, be held responsible. The very nature of Divine authorship requires this at least; if the instrumental author begin to write motu proprio [on his own initiative], it is in no special sense God’s work; if he write anything which he is not directed to write, it is not God’s work so far; and if there could be errors or mistakes in any book written by Divine authority, God could never claim that book whole and entire, with all its parts, as purely and simply His own – as written in its entirety under the inspiration of His Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Divine authorship of the Sacred Books, in the sense defined by the Church, imperatively requires that, as a minimum, the impulse to write should come from God, that He should suggest at least the matter, and that He should preserve the sacred writers from all error, which, if it were possible, would not be the error of man, but of God. It is as absurd to say that a man could commit sin under the impulse of the Holy Ghost, as to say that the sacred writer could write error under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, as it is de fide that the Sacred Books, whole and entire, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it follows, at least as a conclusion theologically certain, that everything written by the sacred writers is, what it is called in Scripture, and by the Church, and by the Fathers, and by the people, verily and indeed the Word of God, unmixed with any false, or erroneous, or merely human element.
We could add additional cross-references to other future magisterial documents, but the two already provided to Dei Verbum are enough for us to see in which direction the Church headed. Sadly, Cardinal Newman died three years before his just request for clarification was answered with the release of Providentissimus Deus. With their thoughts before us, we are equipped to fully appreciate exactly what Pope Leo XIII was both rejecting and affirming in his encyclical as it pertains to the Catholic dogma of inspiration and inerrancy.
We thought it was a well-known distinction made by Catholic theologians of every school between the things revealed propter se [for their own sake], or, as the Cardinal calls them, matters of faith and morals, and things revealed per accidens, including every other statement made in Sacred Scripture, whether in narration, history, geography, or anything else. God reveals none of these things propter se. He does not undertake the work of annalist, historian, geographer, as such. They are revealed on account of their connection, necessary, useful, or accidental as the case may be, with the main purposes of Divine Revelation. But as Benedict XII, in his Dogmatic Catalogue of the Errors of the Armenians very clearly signifies, they must be all believed, even those which have been revealed per accidens, because they are all equally the word of God, and all serve a useful purpose in the Divine economy of our salvation (cf. Dei Verbum, Art. 11: “for the sake of our salvation”). “For whatsoever things were written, were written for our learning; that through patience and the comfort of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4)…
A book might contain the whole revelation of God, and contain it without error, and yet not be at all an inspired book, because inspiration essentially regards the writing or authorship of the book. If it is an inspired book God is its author; it must have been written in all its parts under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, so much so, that God becomes responsible for every single statement it contains, and therefore quite as much responsible for its statements “in matters of fact,” as for its statements in reference to “faith and morals.” All these truths will not have the same intrinsic importance in relation to each other, or to the economy of man’s redemption; but they are all divine as regards their origin and their authority…
God, then, is defined to be the author of all the Sacred Scriptures, because they were written under the inspiration of His Holy Spirit. Now, what is meant by being the author of a book in this sense? … A]s a minimum, it must mean according to the use of language, that He directed or procured the writing of all these sacred books; that He suggested to the sacred writers all the matter to be written – res et sententias – even that known before, and finally gave them such constant, ever watchful assistance in the composition of all these books as to ensure that everything which He wished should be said, and that nothing should be said except what He wished (cf. Dei Verbum, Art. 11), and hence that there should be no trace of falsehood or error, for which He, the principal and infallible Author of the book, would, in that absurd hypothesis, be held responsible. The very nature of Divine authorship requires this at least; if the instrumental author begin to write motu proprio [on his own initiative], it is in no special sense God’s work; if he write anything which he is not directed to write, it is not God’s work so far; and if there could be errors or mistakes in any book written by Divine authority, God could never claim that book whole and entire, with all its parts, as purely and simply His own – as written in its entirety under the inspiration of His Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Divine authorship of the Sacred Books, in the sense defined by the Church, imperatively requires that, as a minimum, the impulse to write should come from God, that He should suggest at least the matter, and that He should preserve the sacred writers from all error, which, if it were possible, would not be the error of man, but of God. It is as absurd to say that a man could commit sin under the impulse of the Holy Ghost, as to say that the sacred writer could write error under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, as it is de fide that the Sacred Books, whole and entire, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it follows, at least as a conclusion theologically certain, that everything written by the sacred writers is, what it is called in Scripture, and by the Church, and by the Fathers, and by the people, verily and indeed the Word of God, unmixed with any false, or erroneous, or merely human element.
We could add additional cross-references to other future magisterial documents, but the two already provided to Dei Verbum are enough for us to see in which direction the Church headed. Sadly, Cardinal Newman died three years before his just request for clarification was answered with the release of Providentissimus Deus. With their thoughts before us, we are equipped to fully appreciate exactly what Pope Leo XIII was both rejecting and affirming in his encyclical as it pertains to the Catholic dogma of inspiration and inerrancy.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Providentissimus Deus:
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. 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…
It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings (genuine passage here refers to passages not added by later scribes), either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance – the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the “higher criticism;” for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true.
Their writings also help us appreciate what Pius XII was referring to when he condemned the proposition that “obiter dicta” are to be found in Scripture:
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. (Divino Afflante Spiritu)
This last quote is found in Enchiridion Biblicum 539 (unfortunately, the section numbers are not preserved on this website), and this is crucial to our understanding of Dei Verbum and the Church’s constant teaching with regard to inspiration and inerrancy: Enchiridion Biblicum 539 is one of the referenced sections cited by Dei Verbum, Article 11, Footnote 5.
We see that it is John Healy’s position that was vindicated by the Church, and that Cardinal Newman [posthumously] received the clarification that he had hoped for. We’ve also seen that “for the sake of our salvation” should be understood in the sense propounded by John Healy and as held by the Early Church Fathers and later writers (see this post for some examples).
As an additional help, here is an excerpt from my wife’s RCIA materials published by The Association for Catechumenal Ministry. The article is titled “Sacred Scripture”:
No Errors – The Sacred Scriptures teach the truth faithfully and without error. God cannot make a mistake, nor can he lie. His Word to us is his Revelation, which he intends for us to know for our salvation. In his loving goodness, he reveals the mystery of his will: by his Word, the incarnate Son of God, Jesus, we can have access to the Father and participate in the divine nature. He intends that we share in Trinitarian life now and forever in Heaven. The Bible is the Word of God. It is wisdom from on high. We must be attentive to it, believe it, and obey it.
There are passages in the Bible that seem to contradict each other, but many times what appears to be a contradiction is worked out when one interprets the passages in their proper context. The Church has always taught that the Bible is free from error because it has been inspired by God. God being the source of all truth could not author anything that contained errors.
And in case you haven’t already seen from elsewhere, the Commentary on the Professio Fidei of 1998 also lists “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” as a dogma of the faith. I hope that these materials help you on your journey to our heavenly homeland.
Your brother in Christ,
Pete
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. 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…
It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings (genuine passage here refers to passages not added by later scribes), either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance – the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the “higher criticism;” for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true.
Their writings also help us appreciate what Pius XII was referring to when he condemned the proposition that “obiter dicta” are to be found in Scripture:
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. (Divino Afflante Spiritu)
This last quote is found in Enchiridion Biblicum 539 (unfortunately, the section numbers are not preserved on this website), and this is crucial to our understanding of Dei Verbum and the Church’s constant teaching with regard to inspiration and inerrancy: Enchiridion Biblicum 539 is one of the referenced sections cited by Dei Verbum, Article 11, Footnote 5.
We see that it is John Healy’s position that was vindicated by the Church, and that Cardinal Newman [posthumously] received the clarification that he had hoped for. We’ve also seen that “for the sake of our salvation” should be understood in the sense propounded by John Healy and as held by the Early Church Fathers and later writers (see this post for some examples).
As an additional help, here is an excerpt from my wife’s RCIA materials published by The Association for Catechumenal Ministry. The article is titled “Sacred Scripture”:
No Errors – The Sacred Scriptures teach the truth faithfully and without error. God cannot make a mistake, nor can he lie. His Word to us is his Revelation, which he intends for us to know for our salvation. In his loving goodness, he reveals the mystery of his will: by his Word, the incarnate Son of God, Jesus, we can have access to the Father and participate in the divine nature. He intends that we share in Trinitarian life now and forever in Heaven. The Bible is the Word of God. It is wisdom from on high. We must be attentive to it, believe it, and obey it.
There are passages in the Bible that seem to contradict each other, but many times what appears to be a contradiction is worked out when one interprets the passages in their proper context. The Church has always taught that the Bible is free from error because it has been inspired by God. God being the source of all truth could not author anything that contained errors.
And in case you haven’t already seen from elsewhere, the Commentary on the Professio Fidei of 1998 also lists “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” as a dogma of the faith. I hope that these materials help you on your journey to our heavenly homeland.
Your brother in Christ,
Pete
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Origen (A.D. 240-245): “But probably to this you will say, ‘Why then is the History [of Susanna] not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories?’ The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha). As an example, take the story told about Esaias; and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in none of their public books. For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in speaking of the prophets, and what they suffered, says, ‘They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword’ (Hebrews 11:37). To whom, I ask, does the sawn asunder refer (for by an old idiom, not peculiar to Hebrew, but found also in Greek, this is said in the plural, although it refers to but one person)? Now we know very well that tradition says that Esaias the prophet was sawn asunder; and this is found in some apocryphal work, which probably the Jews have purposely tampered with, introducing some phrases manifestly incorrect, that discredit might be thrown on the whole” (Letter to Africanus).
My comment: Origen holds to the absolute historical veracity of Isaiah’s having been sawn-in-two simply because the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to him to give mention of it. Also note that having material that is “manifestly incorrect” throws discredit on the whole.
I return now to John Chrysostom and the book entitled, Chrysostom, A Study in the History of Biblical Interpretation, by Frederic Chase. You can read the whole book here. Here is a fuller quote from pages 118-119:
On the other hand in this true agreement, the proof and pledge of its perfect honesty, there is divergence. “Had there been a minute agreement among the Evangelists, even in matters of date and place and details of language, their enemies would never have believed that they did not meet together, and thus in accordance with some merely human compact compose their histories. Such agreement as this would not be consistent with candour”… At the same time “variation in statement must be distinguished from contradiction”…
Chrysostom’s theory is wise. A few examples will shew how far his practice is consistent.
Chrysostom compares the narrative of St Matthew with that of St Mark. Thus the former… tells us that the Disciples came to Jesus and asked Him who was the greatest in the kingdom. St Mark… mentions only the dispute among themselves. Chrysostom finds an explanation in the probability that this was no isolated case, and that now they both disputed among themselves and asked their Master. The real difficulty, it will be noted, is passed over. Nothing is said of the probing question of the Lord in St Mark’s account…
My comment: Origen holds to the absolute historical veracity of Isaiah’s having been sawn-in-two simply because the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to him to give mention of it. Also note that having material that is “manifestly incorrect” throws discredit on the whole.
I return now to John Chrysostom and the book entitled, Chrysostom, A Study in the History of Biblical Interpretation, by Frederic Chase. You can read the whole book here. Here is a fuller quote from pages 118-119:
On the other hand in this true agreement, the proof and pledge of its perfect honesty, there is divergence. “Had there been a minute agreement among the Evangelists, even in matters of date and place and details of language, their enemies would never have believed that they did not meet together, and thus in accordance with some merely human compact compose their histories. Such agreement as this would not be consistent with candour”… At the same time “variation in statement must be distinguished from contradiction”…
Chrysostom’s theory is wise. A few examples will shew how far his practice is consistent.
Chrysostom compares the narrative of St Matthew with that of St Mark. Thus the former… tells us that the Disciples came to Jesus and asked Him who was the greatest in the kingdom. St Mark… mentions only the dispute among themselves. Chrysostom finds an explanation in the probability that this was no isolated case, and that now they both disputed among themselves and asked their Master. The real difficulty, it will be noted, is passed over. Nothing is said of the probing question of the Lord in St Mark’s account…
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
It is important to first note that when Chrysostom resolves this apparent contradiction he declares that “that is nothing contrary to this” (Homily 58 on Matthew). It is my understanding that Chrysostom is not being inconsistent. Rather, I think that he is simply a man on a mission. He seems to be living out, in the manner of his homiletic discourse, what he saw to be true in the writings of the apostles, that the Spirit “prevailed on these men, engaged as they were in those things which are more necessary and very urgent, to take no hurt at all from these little matters” (Homily 1 on Matthew). Not that they were ever in error when handling these little matters, but that what they said surrounding them was enough for the careful investigator of their words to be satisfied that they had only ever spoken the truth, while at the same time being taken up entirely with the work of salvation. Thankfully, we have Chrysostom dealing with similar conflicts in other sermons. Chase appears to have overlooked them, but this is understandable since his work is not focused solely or even primarily on Chrysostom’s view of inerrancy.
“And Luke indeed says, that He declared what these men should suffer; and ‘they said, “God forbid”’ (cf. Luke 20:16); and He added the testimony [of Scripture]. For ‘He beheld them, and said, “What is it then that is written? ‘The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; and every one that falls upon it shall be broken’”’ (Luke 20:17-18). But Matthew, that they themselves delivered the sentence (cf. Matthew 21:41). But this is not a contradiction. For indeed both things were done, both themselves passed the sentence against themselves; and again, when they perceived what they had said, they added, God forbid; and He set up the prophet against them, persuading them that certainly this would be” (Homily 68 on Matthew).
In Matthew, Jesus asks the Pharisees what will happen and they answer Him.
In Luke, Jesus Himself gives the answer that He elicited from the Pharisees in Matthew, and the Pharisees give a different answer.
Chrysostom most likely holds that, initially, both Jesus and the Pharisees were in agreement with the judgment, but that the Pharisees subsequently retracted their concurrence. We’ll see why I think this when we get to the next example. What we are most interested in here is the fact that in connection with this second scene, which is similar to the one pointed out by Chase, Chrysostom announces that there is no contradiction in the seeming discordance. But it is in Homily 40 where he explicitly resolves, to use Chase’s words, the “real difficulty” of the who-will-be-the-greatest dilemma, and helps us understand how John views such discrepancies where they occur:
“Again He heals on a Sabbath day (cf. Matthew 12:9-14), vindicating what had been done by His disciples. And the other evangelists indeed say, that He set the man in the midst, and asked them, If it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath days (cf. Mark 3:1-6 & Luke 6:6-11).
…]
“And while the other evangelists say, He asked the question, this one says, it was asked of Him. ‘And they asked Him,’ so it stands, ‘saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?” that they might accuse Him’ (Matthew 12:10). And it is likely that both took place. For being unholy wretches, and well assured that He would doubtless proceed to the healing, they hastened to take Him beforehand with their question, thinking in this way to hinder Him. And this is why they asked, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?’ not for information, but ‘that they might accuse Him’ (Matthew 12:10). Yet surely the work was enough, if it were really their wish to accuse Him; but they desired to find a handle in His words too, preparing for themselves beforehand an abundance of arguments.
“But He in His love towards man does this also: He answers them, teaching His own meekness, and turning it all back upon them; and points out their inhumanity. And He sets the man in the midst; not in fear of them, but endeavoring to profit them, and move them to pity” (Homily 40 on Matthew).
If we take these three examples – from Homilies 40, 58, and 68 – into careful consideration, we come to understand that Chrysostom does not everywhere offer solutions, not because he is being inconsistent with himself or because he thinks that solutions do not exist, but because resolving contrary material is in most cases only tangential to the purpose of his homilies, which purpose is to expound upon the Gospel of Matthew. He gives us a principle in Homily 40 that we can use to solve the “real difficulty” of Homily 58, not taking the time to do it himself. It is for the sake of brevity and focus that he moves at such a pace, and also because he leaves some of these details for others to ponder, as in Homily 2 where he tells us “to revolve these things” and in Homily 66 where he leaves such questions “to them that are fond of learning,” while even in this last example intimating that he himself knows the solution.
Joe McCarron, I peacefully leave you with your interpretation of John Chrysostom, choosing not to adopt it as my own.
Your brother in Christ by His grace and love towards us,
Pete
“And Luke indeed says, that He declared what these men should suffer; and ‘they said, “God forbid”’ (cf. Luke 20:16); and He added the testimony [of Scripture]. For ‘He beheld them, and said, “What is it then that is written? ‘The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; and every one that falls upon it shall be broken’”’ (Luke 20:17-18). But Matthew, that they themselves delivered the sentence (cf. Matthew 21:41). But this is not a contradiction. For indeed both things were done, both themselves passed the sentence against themselves; and again, when they perceived what they had said, they added, God forbid; and He set up the prophet against them, persuading them that certainly this would be” (Homily 68 on Matthew).
In Matthew, Jesus asks the Pharisees what will happen and they answer Him.
In Luke, Jesus Himself gives the answer that He elicited from the Pharisees in Matthew, and the Pharisees give a different answer.
Chrysostom most likely holds that, initially, both Jesus and the Pharisees were in agreement with the judgment, but that the Pharisees subsequently retracted their concurrence. We’ll see why I think this when we get to the next example. What we are most interested in here is the fact that in connection with this second scene, which is similar to the one pointed out by Chase, Chrysostom announces that there is no contradiction in the seeming discordance. But it is in Homily 40 where he explicitly resolves, to use Chase’s words, the “real difficulty” of the who-will-be-the-greatest dilemma, and helps us understand how John views such discrepancies where they occur:
“Again He heals on a Sabbath day (cf. Matthew 12:9-14), vindicating what had been done by His disciples. And the other evangelists indeed say, that He set the man in the midst, and asked them, If it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath days (cf. Mark 3:1-6 & Luke 6:6-11).
…]
“And while the other evangelists say, He asked the question, this one says, it was asked of Him. ‘And they asked Him,’ so it stands, ‘saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?” that they might accuse Him’ (Matthew 12:10). And it is likely that both took place. For being unholy wretches, and well assured that He would doubtless proceed to the healing, they hastened to take Him beforehand with their question, thinking in this way to hinder Him. And this is why they asked, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?’ not for information, but ‘that they might accuse Him’ (Matthew 12:10). Yet surely the work was enough, if it were really their wish to accuse Him; but they desired to find a handle in His words too, preparing for themselves beforehand an abundance of arguments.
“But He in His love towards man does this also: He answers them, teaching His own meekness, and turning it all back upon them; and points out their inhumanity. And He sets the man in the midst; not in fear of them, but endeavoring to profit them, and move them to pity” (Homily 40 on Matthew).
If we take these three examples – from Homilies 40, 58, and 68 – into careful consideration, we come to understand that Chrysostom does not everywhere offer solutions, not because he is being inconsistent with himself or because he thinks that solutions do not exist, but because resolving contrary material is in most cases only tangential to the purpose of his homilies, which purpose is to expound upon the Gospel of Matthew. He gives us a principle in Homily 40 that we can use to solve the “real difficulty” of Homily 58, not taking the time to do it himself. It is for the sake of brevity and focus that he moves at such a pace, and also because he leaves some of these details for others to ponder, as in Homily 2 where he tells us “to revolve these things” and in Homily 66 where he leaves such questions “to them that are fond of learning,” while even in this last example intimating that he himself knows the solution.
Joe McCarron, I peacefully leave you with your interpretation of John Chrysostom, choosing not to adopt it as my own.
Your brother in Christ by His grace and love towards us,
Pete
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Pete with all due respect, your posted messages are becoming a thesis. Could we have something succinct - Jesus was the Word, not a dissertation.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Ha, ha. Are you talking about the Word “in Whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3)???
Happy Thanksgiving!
Pete
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
“Christ appeared not as a philosopher or a doctor of many words, or as one who disputeth noisily, nor yet as a scribe renowned for wisdom and learning; but in the utmost simplicity did He talk with men, showing unto them the way of truth in His life, His virtues, and His miracles” (Bl. Angela of Foligno, 1248-1309)
(Happy Thanksgiving
)
(Happy Thanksgiving
)
U
una_fides
Guest
Hi Joe,
Haven’t been in touch in a while since the last thread. I’m just getting caught up on this one, and I have a few thoughts to share.
I’ve seen people become scandalized over very minor things in Scripture and conclude–wrongfully–that errors exist where they do not. The problem is that they begin with the belief of their existence, and they do not approach the Scriptures as being completely inspired by God. St. Augustine commented that God put certain difficulties in Scripture so that we would seek to find answers. Above all we must have faith in Christ and in his Church.
Haven’t been in touch in a while since the last thread. I’m just getting caught up on this one, and I have a few thoughts to share.
Joe, in a previous thread it was demonstrated that there can be no doubt that the Church has most clearly condemned the view that there can be *any *error in *any *text of Scripture because all of Scripture is inspired and has God as its author. In fact, the highest authority in the Church has already definitively and solemnly defined this matter. Hence it would be much worse a foundation for a Catholic to enter the Church doubting the same Magisterium to which by entering the Church he would thereby be submitting (or at least should be). The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), and anyone converting to this Church, for which Christ himself died, must trust in the authority, which Christ gave to the heads of his Bride, the Church.
The Church has already evaluated this situation and pronounced its solemn and final ruling from its highest teaching authority. The reason she did not define this matter in the early centuries was that this matter was not a matter of contention. All of the Church fathers who wrote on this subject–including St. John Chrysostom when understood correctly and in their whole–unanimously upheld this teaching. No others dissented or argued to the contrary. It was not until the 18th century that historical criticism / higher criticism began being promulgated from German universities. Thus, it makes perfect sense historically why during these times the Church stood up against these atheistic critics who denied her constant teaching of total inerrancy and condemned their errors. When one studies the history of dogma, he finds that the Church most often does not define dogmas until they come into question. At that point she does not make something up, but she instead points to Tradition, to what she has always taught on the matter, and in this case it is that the Bible, the Word of God, is completely and totally inspired in all of its parts because it has God as its author who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
It is not the Church who excommunicates the person. The person excommunicates himself by obstinately rejecting the teaching of the Church. Rather than setting your will against the Church and stubbornly holding that there are errors in Scripture, perhaps you should investigate the possibility that you could be approaching things incorrectly and that the lenses from which you are interpreting Scripture may need some adjustment so that they can align with the constant teachings of the Church.
I’ve seen people become scandalized over very minor things in Scripture and conclude–wrongfully–that errors exist where they do not. The problem is that they begin with the belief of their existence, and they do not approach the Scriptures as being completely inspired by God. St. Augustine commented that God put certain difficulties in Scripture so that we would seek to find answers. Above all we must have faith in Christ and in his Church.
Quite the contrary. John gives plenty of examples of discrepancies because people were in fact bringing them up. The problem with your view is that in every single minute example he demonstrates how an apparent discrepancy actually in fact harmonizes. If he believed there were errors, then the last thing anyone would expect is that he would constantly bring up minor discrepancies and harmonize them. If he believed there were errors present, he would have admitted them.
He actually did got into what he said seemed to be discordant details, and he harmonized every one.
- Status