total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

[Pete_Holter]

I am interested only in establishing with complete certainty, from the teaching of the Church plain and simple, whether or not a Catholic has to believe as “infallible,” as a dogma of the Church, that every word of Scripture is without error. I mean dogma like the Immaculate Conception or the infallibility, under precise conditions, of the Pope. The answer is loud and clear, NO. And this includes all final documents of Vatican II.

…I am talking only about belief that a Catholic should and MUST give to the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption, the Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility (under precise conditions).

…How much trouble this understanding would obviate is enormous. Let’s stop arguing over “three donkeys” or “two donkeys” … how many days Jesus remained on earth after the resurrection until he ascended into Heaven … whether Jesus resurrected appeared first to his mother or not … and on and on and on.

Let’s permit ourselves to experience more of the spirit of Scripture, the Spirit of the Scripture … instead of exhausting ourselves and others and using our energies wastefully.

Greetings, John!

The Catholic Apologetics website said that I didn’t have permission to access the page. Sorry. I tried!

If I understand correctly, you seem to hold that Vatican II taught total inerrancy, but that the teachings of the council are not infallible.

I agree that Vatican II upheld “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church” with regard to biblical inerrancy. But our belief in the dogma of inerrancy does not rest on the authority of Vatican II. The papal encyclicals addressing inerrancy have indicated that our knowledge of this dogma as dogma comes to us through the infallible authorities of Vatican I and the ordinary, universal Magisterium.

The Commentary on the Professio Fidei of 1998 lists “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” as a dogma of the faith, alongside all of the other dogmas that you mentioned:

the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.

You seem to want to limit yourself to the spiritual meaning of Scripture. But we are also needful of the “silver wings” of the literal meaning because the “bright gold” of the spiritual meaning is “based on the literal” (, 116CCC). The Doctor of Biblical Science tells us that

when we wander off the path that Jesus Christ blazed, and follow bad paths that lead to sin, we are loaded with the burden of riches or the weight of our sins, and it is impossible for us to enter the kingdom of God. But if we unload this oppressive weight, and put on the wings of a dove, then we will fly away ourselves; we will find rest, and we will say, “When you can sleep in the middle of the campfires, you will become like the dove, whose wings are silver, and whose back is as bright as gold.” With our back, which was deformed by the heavy burden that was crushing us, covered with this bright gold, representing the spiritual sense of the divine Scriptures, and with these silver wings, which signify the literal sense, we will be able to enter into the kingdom of God.

…As Solomon set forth a proverb by describing things in three ways, so our teachings and applications, conducted thoughtfully and carefully, may be set forth to expound the truth for those who question us. We can describe the three ways by which the instructions and regulations of Scripture are set forth in our hearts. First there is the literal and historical sense. Second, there is the moral sense. And, finally, it may be taken in the spiritual sense. In the literal sense, we are dealing simply with the facts of the story as we follow a sequence of events being narrated. In the moral sense, we leave the literal meaning and consider larger and nobler ideas that are expressed for the regulation of our morals, and for our edification, though grounded in physical matters pertaining to the Jewish people. In the spiritual sense our objective is something even more sublime; we abandon all the earthly things, and simply look for what is said about the heavenly things, and the joy that is prepared for us; looking at all the good things in life is like a shadow in comparison to the adamantine happiness that is ours in that day. Jesus Christ, by His peace, will sanctify and perfect those who are happy in this situation, that is, those whose sole occupation is to take care to preserve the integrity of their body, their soul and their spirit, and to acquire a perfect knowledge of truth, and the triple-knowledge of which Solomon speaks (Letter 120 – To Hedibia).

With the love of Christ and for His glory,
Pete

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 091209 Wednesday
Warm Greetings, Pete Holter, adriancombe, and una fides –
I do mean it when I sincerely thank you for the careful and extensive sharings you have posted for my benefit. Thank you. I will print them off, read and study them, in prayer in the Holy Spirit.

Two things –
Pete, you wrote, “If I understand correctly, you seem to hold that Vatican II taught total inerrancy, but that the teachings of the council are not infallible.” I clarify. No, I do not hold that Vatican II taught total inerrancy, but rather that inerrancy applies to matters involved with our salvation only (and, of course, in the originals). I DO hold, as is clear from the websites I suggested be carefully examined, that invallibility (like Trinity, Incarnation, etc.) does not apply, and by the Council’s intentions does not apply, to any new items.

I again offer these websites to be examined carefully –
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html
romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm
catholicapologetics.info/…/divatican.htm
www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq08.txt

The Blessing of the Holy Spirit be upon us all and upon the Church.
John (JohnJFarren)

 

[Pete_Holter]

JMJ / MMM 091209 Wednesday
Warm Greetings, Pete Holter, adriancombe, and una fides –
I do mean it when I sincerely thank you for the careful and extensive sharings you have posted for my benefit. Thank you. I will print them off, read and study them, in prayer in the Holy Spirit.

Two things –
Pete, you wrote, “If I understand correctly, you seem to hold that Vatican II taught total inerrancy, but that the teachings of the council are not infallible.” I clarify. No, I do not hold that Vatican II taught total inerrancy, but rather that inerrancy applies to matters involved with our salvation only (and, of course, in the originals). I DO hold, as is clear from the websites I suggested be carefully examined, that invallibility (like Trinity, Incarnation, etc.) does not apply, and by the Council’s intentions does not apply, to any new items.

I again offer these websites to be examined carefully –
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html
romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm
catholicapologetics.info/…/divatican.htm
www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq08.txt

The Blessing of the Holy Spirit be upon us all and upon the Church.
John (JohnJFarren)

Thanks for clarifying your position, John. I’m confused by your procedure. Sorry.

I still can’t access the Catholic Apologetics page. Would you like to share with me the thrust of that page? I can’t even access the one that I linked to earlier for St. Francis de Sales!?

What confuses me by your other links is that traditionalists and sedevacantists invariably believe in the full inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and they (not all traditionalists) try to excessively demote the stature of Vatican II because they think they have to do so in order to contend for the faith once delivered. But you seem to reject the dogma of inerrancy and demote the council. I’m just not sure why these links are being included as part of your substantiation for limited inerrancy, as they seem to me to ultimately be against your position. I have three thoughts…

• Since Vatican II did not define any new dogmas, and “the absence of error” is an infallible dogma, doesn’t this suggest that Vatican II is for the most part irrelevant in our discussion and that the dogmatic definition is to be found in Magisterial statements issued prior to the council?
• Since **(1) **Vatican II is where the notion of inerrancy being limited to salvific truth comes from,
  (2) “ ‘saving’ or ‘salvific’ (salutarem) was added to qualify ‘truth’ ” in one of the earlier drafts of Dei Verbum ([, Article 11”Dei Verbum (LT59 - THE TRUTH AND SALVIFIC PURPOSE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE ACCORDING TO DEI VERBUM, ARTICLE 11)), and
  (3) this qualification was rejected by the council,
  doesn’t this suggest that inerrancy is not limited to “matters involved with our salvation only”?
• Since the [Instrumentum Laboris (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s..._doc_20080511_instrlabor-xii-assembly_en.html) for the Synod of Bishops last year attempted to say that “inerrancy applies only to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation,’” but this language was rejected by the synod, doesn’t this also suggest that limiting the truth of Scripture to “matters involved with our salvation only” is an inadequate expression of our faith?

The peace of Christ be with you, brother!
Pete

“To the true Scriptures of the Church all the Teachings bear witness that they are true… to our Scriptures the Jews bear witness…

“… the Edicts which had been written by Nebuchadnezzar and by Darius were deposited among the archives of the aforesaid kingdom first of all, and then they were sent to the (various) countries. And lo! also the kings of the countries bear witness concerning the books of the Hebrews in the chronicles which belong to them, according to that which is said in Ezra, ‘Learn and see that this city is a warlike city from of old,’ together with that other (passage in) which he says. ‘Learn again and see that Darius commanded concerning this city that it should be built.’ Thus the miracles which were wrought in the midst of Egypt were inscribed in the archives of Aegyptus; and, again, the miracles which were wrought in the midst of Babylon were in the annals belonging to the kings of Babylon, and also (in those) belonging to the Greeks, and the Romans likewise, as well as (in) those of the aforesaid country of Jerusalem… All these witnesses which I have enumerated to thee, together with the aforesaid teachings (and) together with the Hebrews, are witnesses to our Scriptures that they are true” (St. Ephraim, [Against Marcion I (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/ephraim2_2_marcion1.htm)).

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 091209 Thursday
Hello Pete … and all interested –
First, a slight description of myself. I do consider myself a Roman Catholic, committed to the Church because it’s the one founded by Jesus Christ. I decline to refer to myself as either a traditionalist or a liberal. I am neither. I am a son of God and a son of the Church. The Church and the Scriptures, like the Incarnate Son of God, are truly both Divine and human. The Divinity is present … to be seen by faith. The humanity is there … the flaws, the dirt … to be seen by anyone who looks. The Church … and the understanding of God’s Revelation the Church experiences (both Scripture and Tradition) are like living things that grow and mature. The Church’s understanding of Revelation is like a whole picture, seen completely from the beginning … yet largely out of focus. As time goes on the Church is able, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to focus ever more precisely the details of this wonderful picture. (Sorry, Pete. Got carried away. Now back at the ranch……)

Pio Nono has never made me happy.  But that’s another story.  Infallibility is true .. and is a mess .. and, I think, is a millstone around our necks.  I do believe in the infallibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Pope .. under very strict and precise conditions.  These conditions are continuing to be focused more precisely.

I thank God for John XXIII and Paul VI and John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  I thank God for the much needed Vatican II Council.  It is clear that Vatican II did not and never intended to propose any new dogmatic (infallible) truths which Catholics must believe.

When I write of “inerrancy in Scripture” .. as far as the obligation to believe in such inerrancy .. I am interested in ONE THING ONLY >>> I pose the question and I give my answer >>> Must I believe in the inerrancy in Scripture (whether it applies only to matters pertaining to our salvation or to every word of Scripture .. originals, of course) .. with the SAME obligation, the same “must-ness” .. that applies to the dogmas of the Incarnation and the Redemption and the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception.  My answer >>> Leaving out the precisioning of “pertaining to our salvation” OR “every single word” .. I do answer YES.

I do not accept that the inerrancy of Scripture applies to all those words that do not apply to our salvation.  I do understand that several popes and several encyclicals have stated otherwise.  I realize that.  And I also understand that in centuries past there were popes and encyclicals .. that have changed basically their positions.  They were not then infallible and were never meant to be.  WHEN the focusing of this precision regarding the inerrancy of Scripture applying to all words OR only to matters of salvation -- and I do not accept that it has reached that point yet -- that precision will be in favor, I am certain,  of only those matters pertaining to our salvation.

I’m only reproducing the other material below for you, Pete, because you indicated it wasn’t coming through for you.

For the next couple days I’m somewhat bogged down.  My intention is to reproduce the other three websites I suggested and send you them through the CAF forum.

If I’m STILL not clear as to what I think, please pin me down.  (Not about this or that encyclical, though, please.)
John (JohnJFarren)

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Pete – Following the complete Lumen Gentuim is the following “APPENDIX,” and I’m reproducing only the first part. Any underlined words were underlined by me, John. The Appendix applies directly to the Schema de Ecclesia but clearly are applicable to entire Vatican II Council.

Original website= vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

APPENDIX
From the Acts of the Council*
‘NOTIFICATIONES’ GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL
OF THE COUNCIL AT THE 123rd GENERAL CONGREGATION,
NOVEMBER 16, 1964
A question has arisen regarding the precise theological note which should be attached to the doctrine that is set forth in the Schema de Ecclesia and is being put to a vote.
The Theological Commission has given the following response regarding the Modi that have to do with Chapter III of the de Ecclesia Schema: “As is self-evident, the Council’s text must always be interpreted in accordance with the general rules that are known to all.”
On this occasion the Theological Commission makes reference to its Declaration of March 6, 1964, the text of which we transcribe here:
“Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought. to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.”
The following was published as an appendix to the official Latin version of the Constitution on the Church.
A preliminary note of explanation is being given to the Council Fathers from higher-authority, regarding the Modi bearing on Chapter III of the Schema de Ecclesia; the doctrine set forth in Chapter III ought to be-explained and understood in accordance with the meaning and intent of this explanatory note.
Preliminary Note of Explanation
The Commission has decided to preface the assessment of the Modi with the following general observations. [End of my quoting … John ]] – over and out

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What’s so hard about believing the bible?

Catholics have always believed the bible.

You know who doesn’t think the bible is without error?

The devil!

 

[una_fides]

What’s so hard about believing the bible?

Catholics have always believed the bible.

You know who doesn’t think the bible is without error?

The devil!

Unfortunately a lot of those who don’t believe that the Bible is without error also don’t believe in the existence of a real devil either. It’s a symptom of modernism and its destructive nature. The worst part about it is that people don’t realize it! They keep being told that this is what the Catholic Church teaches: no real devil or demons, Bible contains errors, women can be priests, no one commits mortal sin, etc etc… and they think that just because father so and so told them then his report is their word of God without error.

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 091210 Thursday
Hello Pete –
When I composed my posting above, addressed to you and all others, I entered a complete website. However I see above that my original website has had its middle cut out. It has been rendered defective. No wonder you couldn’t get it.

Here is what’s above … defective >>>
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

I’ll try right here now to enter the complete website address >>>
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

It may be a couple days now before I can get back. Warm blessing …John

 

[Ron_Conte]

What’s so hard about believing the bible?

Catholics have always believed the bible.

You know who doesn’t think the bible is without error?

The devil!

Modern Scripture scholars fall into this error of rejecting inerrancy because they treat Scripture as an object that is subject to their own reason, to be interpreted without faith. This is actually stated by many Scripture scholars: ‘The Bible should be interpreted without faith.’ They have utterly rejected not only the role of the Magisterium, but the role of faith itself. So anything in Scripture that their reason does not understand quickly becomes categorized as an error. It is the error of placing scholarship above faith.

I recall one Scripture scholar speaking about another Scripture scholar, who had recently passed away, by saying: “his eye was readily guided by faith rather than by scholarship.” But this was meant not merely as a criticism, but as a dismissal of his work. Any Scripture scholar who puts faith above scholarship, who is guided by faith while doing scholarly work, is dimissed by his colleagues.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thank you, John!

It was actually only the www.catholicapologetics.info page that wasn’t working for me. But I got it now, thanks!

Please keep in mind that the statements in Providentissimus Deus to the effect that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church were “unanimous” on this subject, and that belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture is “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church,” are affirmations of the infallible nature of this dogma because it was believed by all. Thankfully we can inspect the historical record to see if this is indeed the case.

Saint Vincent of Lérins exhorts us and reminds us that

“all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

“…What if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty… he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in various times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation” (, Chs. 2 & 3Commonitory).

And we can see how easy it was for our recent ancestors to make this determination with regard to inspiration and inerrancy:

“The influence of the Holy Ghost had to extend also to all the executive faculties of the sacred writer — to his memory, his imagination, and even to the hand with which he formed the letters. Whether this influence proceed immediately from the action of the Inspirer or be a simple assistance, and, again, whether this assistance be positive or merely negative, in any case, everyone admits that its object is to remove all error from the inspired text…

“… Since the Bible is the Word of God, it can be said that every canonical text is for us a Divine lesson, a revelation, even though it may have been written with the aid of inspiration only, and without a revelation properly so called. For this cause, also, it is clear that an inspired text cannot err. That the Bible is free from error is beyond all doubt, the teaching of Tradition. The whole of Scriptural apologetics consists precisely in accounting for this exceptional prerogative” (: “Inspiration of the Bible”The Catholic Encyclopedia).

You can begin your own enquiry into “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) by starting here and following.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 091211 Friday
Dear Brothers in Christ, Pete and una_fides – and all others –
I thank you for your continuing patience and the postings you have most recently shared here. I am keeping a separate file with all these recent postings. I do print them off and go over them, usually several times, marking things to examine again.

My mind works very slowly. It always has over these many years. Not only weeks or months but even years. I never win races by speed.

It may take me some time to digest what you’ve shared. My thinking does rest on this rock bottom basis, that, yes, the Scriptures are divinely inspired … and that – at least – those matters pertaining to our salvation are free of error. You are insisting that even those matters in Scripture that do not pertain to our salvation are entirely free of error. I do not agree that this is so. (I understand that copyists may have made this or that non-essential mistake. That’s not of any real importance to me.)

I realize that if I were officially teaching in the name of the Church, whether teaching catechism to others or in a more professional position, I would be obliged and feel obliged to teach as you are insisting to me – or be silent.

So – keep me on the back burner, simmering away, and pray for me as I bless you in Jesus and Mary. John (JohnJFarren)

 

[anon5216]

Modern Scripture scholars fall into this error of rejecting inerrancy because they treat Scripture as an object that is subject to their own reason, to be interpreted without faith. This is actually stated by many Scripture scholars: ‘The Bible should be interpreted without faith.’ They have utterly rejected not only the role of the Magisterium, but the role of faith itself. So anything in Scripture that their reason does not understand quickly becomes categorized as an error. It is the error of placing scholarship above faith.

I recall one Scripture scholar speaking about another Scripture scholar, who had recently passed away, by saying: “his eye was readily guided by faith rather than by scholarship.” But this was meant not merely as a criticism, but as a dismissal of his work. Any Scripture scholar who puts faith above scholarship, who is guided by faith while doing scholarly work, is dimissed by his colleagues.

A theologian can start with the assumption of inerrancy and interpret everything in the context of their interpretation of the ramifications of those assumptions.
A scholar should stick to objective facts - what are referred to as scriptures were penned by human minds in a socio/political/religious context.

Scholars have no business assuming “inspired by the Divine” means “dictation by the Divine” any more than a modern film “inspired by true events” means we are watching a recorded live documentary of the original “true events”.

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 091212 Saturday
Hello Pete –
I’ve added your suggested posting of 3 Feb 2009 (from another topic) to my assemblage of our sharings for prolonged prayerful study/meditation. Thank you.

And Hello anon5216 –
What you added to your posting … “May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine,” has many resonances I can hear and feel. Thank you. And the same to you.
John (JohnJFarren)

 

[Pete_Holter]

You are insisting that even those matters in Scripture that do not pertain to our salvation are entirely free of error. I do not agree that this is so.

Thanks, John! I hope you have a blessed weekend.

Actually, I do not acknowledge that there are matters in Scripture that do not pertain to our salvation. I believe that all of Scripture is directed to this task, that God did not waste words. Many are familiar with St. Jerome’s famous axiom, that “ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ;” and Pope Gregory the Great wrote that the Apostle Paul was “knowing the holy scriptures perfectly, yet professed that he knew nothing else but Jesus Christ and him crucified” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 17Dialogues). Here are some other witnesses reproduced from elsewhere…

“All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, ‘because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ’ (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8)” ( 134CCC).

“Whoever has experienced the spiritual sense of the Scriptures knows that the simplest word of Scripture and the most profound are uniquely one, both having the salvation of humankind as their purpose” (St. Peter Damascene, quoted in the for Instrumentum Laboris**The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Chruch).

Saint Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190): “I could adduce ten thousand Scriptures of which not one tittle shall pass away without being fulfilled; for the mouth of the Lord the Holy Spirit has spoken these things… Let us then ever obey the voice of the divine word.

…]

“For truly holy are those letters that sanctify and deify; and the writings or volumes that consist of those holy letters and syllables, the same apostle consequently calls inspired of God, being profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work. No one will be so impressed by the exhortations of any of the saints, as he is by the words of the Lord Himself, the lover of man. For this, and nothing but this, is His only work— the salvation of man” (, Ch. 9Exhortation to the Heathen).

Saint Basil the Great, The Doctor of Monasticism (A.D. 371-379?): “Now it is Moses who has composed this history… It is this man, whom God judged worthy to behold Him, face to face, like the angels, who imparts to us what he has learned from God. Let us listen then to these words of truth written without the help of the enticing words of man’s wisdom by the dictation of the Holy Spirit; words destined to produce not the applause of those who hear them, but the salvation of those who are instructed by them” (, Homily 1, No. 1The Hexæmeron).

Saint John Chrysostom, The Doctor of Preachers (A.D. 390): “Then the evangelist relates to us also the history [of John the Baptist’s beheading]. And what might his reason be for not introducing it as a subject by itself? Because all their labor entirely was to tell what related to Christ, and they made themselves no secondary work besides this, except it were again to contribute to the same end. Therefore neither now would they have mentioned the history were it not on Christ’s account, and because Herod said, ‘John is risen again’” (Homily 48 on Matthew).

And I agree with Augustin Cardinal Bea who wrote in commentary on Dei Verbum that

“we declare in general that there is no limit set to this inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms.

“…the possibility of the Scriptures containing any statement contrary to the reality of the facts [is excluded].

“…what is asserted in Scripture… never contradicts the reality of the fact” (“Vatican II and the Truth of Sacred Scripture” as found in Reading Salvation: Word, Worship, and the Mysteries).

Because of this, I was happy to see Cardinal Bea recently singled out by name by Benedict XVI as an “illustrious professor,” as one among others

“who have educated more than 7,000 professors of Sacred Scripture and promoters of biblical groups, as well as many experts who are currently working in various ecclesiastical services in every region of the world. We give thanks to the Lord for this work of [the Pontifical Biblical Institute] that aims to interpret biblical texts in the spirit in which they were written” (Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to Academics of the Pontifical Biblical Institute).

May the LORD raise up many others who faithfully follow in Cardinal Bea’s footsteps, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Many are familiar with St. Jerome’s famous axiom…

Aphorism is better used here. Sorry… too late to edit.

 

[rinkevichjm]

I’m going to presume that everyone has read Free from All Error and thus I presume you know that this was discussed during Vatican II (Ibid, Chapter 9).

So for you edification I’ll quote a paragraph from that Chapter:

It has been established by research (see the Anchor Bible commentary on Daniel, pp. 46-71 ) that in both Jewish writing and in pagan texts there was in existence, by the time of the Book of Daniel, a genre called “the edifying narrative.” The story might or might not have a basis in fact. Even if it did, it was handled very freely. Its relationship to strict hagiography would be much like the relationship of science fiction to science. The original readers recognized it for what it was, yet they found that it gave them a sort of spiritual lift. It is to this genre that the narrative parts of Daniel belong. It is idle, therefore, to charge them with historical error. The author simply did not mean to assert that he was writing history. He was not. He was writing a different genre, the edifying narrative. So the “problem” Cardinal Koenig thought insoluble turns out to be no problem at all.

Fr. Most, of happy memory was the first Scripture scholar for EWTN’s Q&A, having taught for many years theology and classical languages, and in that book answers many of the objections presented here, if not in if he didn’t provide a specific answer, then he provided a general basis for answering it.

 

[una_fides]

I’m going to presume that everyone has read Free from All Error and thus I presume you know that this was discussed during Vatican II (Ibid, Chapter 9).

So for you edification I’ll quote a paragraph from that Chapter:

Fr. Most, of happy memory was the first Scripture scholar for EWTN’s Q&A, having taught for many years theology and classical languages, and in that book answers many of the objections presented here, if not in if he didn’t provide a specific answer, then he provided a general basis for answering it.

I think it’s possible that some of the stories in Scripture could potentially be just stories for edification that did not occur historically; however, I would not assume this to be so or claim that I know that a particular story was not a historical account unless the text itself stated so, such as with the parables, etc. Many times it seems that people try to make historical accounts into fiction in Scripture in order to dodge any potential historical criticisms or difficulties they may encounter from skeptics and unbelievers who assume Scripture to be false or a distorted historical account at best. If a text in Scripture says in the reign of king so and so during the time of so and so, etc etc and provides historical reference points then it tends to give more indication that the story is trying to teach history; nevertheless, we do not know for sure, and really the history aspects of some accounts in Scripture are not essential, but some more certainly are.

Pope Leo XIII instructed all on how to interpret the Scriptures, which is in accordance with the teachings of the Church fathers, and what I haven’t found the fathers do is propose that various texts are a-historical and only there to teach moral lessons. The fact that the fathers understood them as real history lends a large amount of weight that they were always received that way from the beginning and as such were much more likely to be intended to be understood as such.

 

[una_fides]

Pope Leo XIII, On the Study of Holy Scripture, Providentissimus Deus
His teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its “mind” to be this - that “in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”…
Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church….
Wherefore the expositor should make it his duty to follow their footsteps with all reverence, and to use their labours with intelligent appreciation.
15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate. vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

 

[sidbrown]

Also, you are completely false in suggesting that only the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are Ex Cathedra decrees. .

Would you be so kind as to list or give a reference which lists the ex cathedra decrees.
It is not clear to me what are and what are not the ex cathedra decrees laid down infallibly. For example, some people say that the prohibition against women priests or against artificial birth control or that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church are defined ex cathedra, but others say that while they must be believed, they are not to be considered as ex cathedra declarations and they could be modified later on.

 

[una_fides]

Would you be so kind as to list or give a reference which lists the ex cathedra decrees.
It is not clear to me what are and what are not the ex cathedra decrees laid down infallibly. For example, some people say that the prohibition against women priests or against artificial birth control or that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church are defined ex cathedra, but others say that while they must be believed, they are not to be considered as ex cathedra declarations and they could be modified later on.

Any pope speaks ex cathedra when he defines a dogma regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church. That is the definition of ex cathedra given by Vatican I. I don’t see how you can argue that when the pope in an encyclical declares that something is the teaching of the CC and that all are bound to believe it that he is not then safeguarded from error by his charism of infallibility. To limit ex cathedra to only those two dogmatic definitions is to ignore so many teachings that popes have bound all to believe including the dogma that all Scripture is without error.

 

[sidbrown]

Any pope speaks ex cathedra when he defines a dogma regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church. That is the definition of ex cathedra given by Vatican I. I don’t see how you can argue that when the pope in an encyclical declares that something is the teaching of the CC and that all are bound to believe it that he is not then safeguarded from error by his charism of infallibility. To limit ex cathedra to only those two dogmatic definitions is to ignore so many teachings that popes have bound all to believe including the dogma that all Scripture is without error.

Yes.
But do you have or does there exist somewhere a list of infallible ex cathedra doctrines of the Church?