Understanding Strict Inerrancy

[fhansen]

Can’t disagree with that.

 

[RedFan]

Only the Church can properly interpret Scripture.

I just don’t know what to say about this claim, it’s so mind-bogglingly ridiculous. Think about what you’re saying, friend. You’re not just saying that the Church’s interpretation of Scripture is always correct (a proposition I might be able to get behind). No, you’re saying that nobody else can interpret Scripture correctly.

Maybe it suffices just to point out the many times that someone has interpreted a Scripture verse correctly without checking with the Magisterium first – and actually got it right. Tell me, my friend: How do you explain that? Blind luck?

 

[goout]

Just a slight word of caution, Fr. Brown has some…less than uh…orthodox work floating around out there.

He is also completely misunderstood by people who are not scripture scholars but react reflexively to things they don’t really understand.

 

[goout]

thistle:

CCC 107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

Of course, but… the $64,000 question is how to interpret that statement.

And the question is over-thought.
It says what it says, and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. The problem comes when we look for the statement to fit our own viewpoint.

 

[edwest211]

That is not me talking. First, Jesus Christ founded the Church. Next, He gave it the authority to correctly interpret Scripture. Some parts have a plain meaning that has generated no or few questions. Anyone can read the Bible. On those parts where the Church has received many questions, She has the authority to respond.

“…be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11]”

Humani Generis

Encyclicals are usually quite long and detailed.

 

[tm21]

I think you misunderstand how the Holy Spirit inspires the Sacred Text. The Church teaches that the sacred writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet used their entire faculties. In other words, the Spirit did not mechanically dictate to them or move their hands. Using their own language, knowledge, and memories, they were guided by the Holy Spirit to write what we now receive…free from error.

 

[RedFan]

But it’s NOT free from factual or historical error. It’s only free from theological error.

 

[RedFan]

You affirm what I do not deny, my friend. If, instead of “Only the Church can properly interpret Scripture,” you had said “Only the Church has the authority to properly interpret Scripture,” we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

[goout]

But it’s NOT free from factual or historical error. It’s only free from theological error.

Well, yes and no.
In conjunction with the teaching authority of the Church, the scriptures reveal all that God wishes to reveal.
There are many instance in the OT that convey an immature understanding of theology. That’s ok, God uses all of it to teach us. The Church is able to give us the fullest theological understanding, today.

 

[Gorgias]

And the question is over-thought.

It says what it says, and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. The problem comes when we look for the statement to fit our own viewpoint.

Really, I don’t think it is. If the statement can’t be used to answer some pretty reasonable questions, then its value is low. Now… I think it can be used to answer important questions – but, you’re on the right track when you suggest that folks shoehorn it to fit their own agendas.

 

[Mountie]

I must comment to amend an error to which I wrote. I mistakingly wrote that my professor cited Dei Verbum as evidence for strict inerrancy. Going back through this, I realized that I meant to write limited inerrancy. He states that the Bible contains errors due to human limitations although I get the vibe that he views it as an issue where Catholics can disagree.

I get the message from here and other biblical scholars that the Catholic Church advocates for strict inerrancy as opposed to limited inerrancy. If I’m incorrect please let me know. Sorry for my mistake and confusion.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Seven Words on the Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture:
http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/seven-words-inerrancy.htm

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

“When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as ‘obiter dicta’ and – as they contended – in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1).