You may remember that back in 2008 the Holy See held a session of the synod of bishops devoted to the theme “The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church.” The synod of bishops is a gathering of bishops from around the world, shy of a full ecumenical council, who gather in Rome to reflect on a particular topic and then deliver their recommendations to the pope. In 2008 they were called to reflect on the word of God, as contained in Scripture and Tradition.
Among the topics that they dealt with, at least in brief, was the inerrancy of Scripture. This has been a fractious subject in the last several decades, with many people claiming that Scripture is not, in fact, inerrant or free from error.
This debate has been facilitated by the fact that the Second Vatican Council’s constitution Dei Verbum contains a passage (see section 11) that is ambiguous on the subject. At first glance it might appear to restrict the scope of inerrancy only to truths having to do with our salvation. On other subjects, the Bible might be chocked full of errors.
But a closer reading reveals that it contains principles which would seem to be incompatible with that interpretation. According to Dei Verbum, the human authors of Scripture recorded everything that the Holy Spirit wished them to and no more. Consequently, whatever is asserted by the Scriptures is asserted by the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is omniscient, infallible, and all holy, any assertions made by him are true.
Even if one allows maximal room for non-literal readings of various passages Scripture, it seems that Scripture contains at least some assertions that are not directly related to our salvation—for example, that Andrew was the brother of Peter according to some accepted first century usage of the term “brother.” But if Scripture makes assertions that aren’t directly related to our salvation, and if those are asserted by the Holy Spirit and therefore guaranteed to be true, then one can’t reduce Scripture’s inerrancy to just truths connected with our salvation.
A good bit more about the debate over this passage can be said, but the bottom line is that it is not as clear as it should be and is basically a compromise text worked out at the council between parties on different sides of the debate. (The behind-the-scenes history of it is quite interesting; it’s recorded in then Father Joseph Ratzinger’s contribution to the Vorgrimler commentaries on Vatican II, but these are very hard to come by).
When the 2008 synod of bishops came around, I was quite concerned how this topic would be handled, because while the synod is a function of the magisterium and thus is guided by the Holy Spirit, we do not have a guarantee of its infallibility. Consequently, though human weakness, the synod could conceivably have muddled the waters on this question even further or, God forbid, said something false regarding biblical inerrancy.
I was heartened, therefore, when the final list of propositions they submitted to the pope contained the following:
Inspiration and Truth in the Bible The synod proposes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarify the concepts of inspiration and truth of the Bible, as well as the relationship between them, so as to better understand the teaching of Dei Verbum 11. In particular, we need to emphasize the originality of the Catholic Biblical hermeneutics in this area.
There were also press accounts at the time suggesting that the answer from the CDF would likely come back along solidly inerrantist lines, acknowledging that Scripture must be understood according to its ancient cultural context and that many things in it are not intended to be read literally, but when it does assert something as a matter of fact, that assertion is true.
So I was relieved. And I’ve been waiting to see what would happen.
Well, the CDF apparently decided, before preparing a potential document of its own, to consult with the Pontifical Biblical Commission. This is a group of biblical scholars that the Holy See appoints to advise the CDF on Bible-related questions. The president of the PBC is the prefect of the CDF (currently Cardinal Joseph Levada), who oversees its operations.
The CDF thus apparently asked the PBC to produce a document reflecting on the “inspiration and truth of the Bible.” This document will presumably inform whatever action the CDF may choose to take in addition.
And so for the last couple of years the PBC has been working on a document dealing with this subject.
HERE’S A MESSAGE POPE BENEDICT GAVE THEM IN 2009 DEALING WITH THE TOPIC.
So why am I telling you about this now?
Because a few days ago, the following came across the wire from Vatican Information Service:
VATICAN CITY, 14 APR 2011 (VIS) – The Pontifical Biblical Commission will hold its annual plenary session [that is, their big annual meeting where all the members of the commission fly to Rome for a face-to-face] from 2 to 6 May in the Domus Sanctae Marthae (Vatican City), under the presidency of Cardinal William Joseph Levada. Fr. Klemens Stock, S.J., secretary general, shall direct the work of the assembly.
According to a communique issued today, “during the meeting the members will continue their reflections on the theme ‘Inspiration and truth in the Bible’. In the first phase of study the Commission will attempt to examine how the themes of inspiration and truth appear in the Sacred Scriptures. Subsequently, on the basis of their individual competences, each Member shall present a report which shall then be discussed collectively in the Assembly”.
So they’re gearing up for this year’s big session on the topic, and they could use our prayers.
Because the PBC (these days) is an advisory body, it is not part of the magisterium, and its documents do not represent official Church teaching. Nevertheless they are important and influential and if they get botched it can create a worse problem than existed before.
If Vatican II, which was not just an exercise of the magisterium but an extraordinary exercise, and therefore even more under the protection of the Holy Spirit, could produce a problematically worded passage on the subject of inerrancy, how much more are prayers needed for a non-magisterial advisory body.
It may be some time—years even—before we see what the PBC comes up with (if we ever see it), but the issue of biblical inerrancy is an important one.
I therefore invite you to join me in praying that the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the pope are all guided to provide an accurate and clear statement that recognizes both the many human and literary aspects to the Bible but also the fullness of the divine truth that it conveys without error, so that the faith of scholars and the simple alike may be strengthened with regard to the Scripture God gave us through the Holy Spirit.
A Latin-rite Catholic who isn’t the Pope has no assurance that his personal comprehension of the words on the page is correct, anyway. He needs a Pope to tell him what the Bible says. And the Pope seems to be getting along just fine without knowing if the Bible is inerrant or not, so what’s it matter?
Seriously.
A good title for the above might be, “Incoherency”.
WHY APOCRYPHA IS FILLED WITH ERROR.
The apocrypha consists of 15 pieces of Jewish literature written around 200 years B.C. They are included with the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures known as the Septuagint. Seven of these books (First and Second Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch and Ecclesiasticus, also known as Sirach) and additions to Esther and Daniel, are considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants do not accept them as part of the Holy Scriptures.
R. K. Harrison explains: “Use of the term apocrypha to mean noncanonical goes back to the fifth century AD, when Jerome urged that the books found in the Septuagint and in the Latin Bibles that did not occur in the canon of the Hebrew Old Testament writings should be treated as apocryphal. They were not to be disregarded entirely, since they were part of the great contemporary outpouring of Jewish national literature. At the same time they should not be used as sources for Christian doctrine, but at best for supplementary reading of an uplifting and inspirational nature”
These books do not make any claim to inspiration. On the contrary, the prologue of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) asks pardon from the readers for all inexactitudes: “I entreat you… pardon us for those things wherein we may seem, while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition of words.” The author of Maccabees concludes by saying, “I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me” (2 Maccabees 15:28, 39). That is not the language of divine inspiration!
First Maccabees notes that there were no prophets in Israel at that time (1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; 14:41). Since the New Testament frequently refers to the Scriptures as “the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; 24:44; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21), how could a writing that specifically states that there were no prophets at the time when it was written be called Scripture?
-Source: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a48.htm
Conclusion: Apocrypha is riddled with NON-INSPIRED WRITING. Catholic Bible is filled with CORRUPTION. Protestant Bible is FILLED with ONLY INSPIRED writing. Christ makes it clear if you corrupt the word of God you are DAMNED. Thus Catholics are damned! Happy Easter!
“These books do not make any claim to inspiration.” Nor do most of the books of the Bible. The prologue of Sirach was written by the translator, and is not part of the Book of Sirach.
“Apocrypha is riddled with NON-INSPIRED WRITING.” As per whose authority?
“Catholic Bible is filled with CORRUPTION.” As per whose authority?
“Protestant Bible is FILLED with ONLY INSPIRED writing.” Which Protestant Bible? Some of them contain the dreaded “apocrypha”! And what Protestant Authority declared which books were inspired, and which weren’t?
Nice of freddy to pick Good Friday to engage in such a fine example of Christian Charity, isn’t it?
We as Catholics also believe that to pronounce Judgement on the final outcome for others is making yourself “god”, which is sinful as that is all up to Him alone. Now Sarge are you God?
Now as a Bible Believing person are the Holy Spirit’s Words in John 10:22 the language of divine inspiration? If you believe they are, why isn’t there a verse of divine inspiration to explain what the “Feast of Dedication” is in your Bible? Anywhere? Some dishonest bibles of Protestent making will put a footnote in that it is “Hannakuh” without “revealing” where that source of information comes from. That’s kind of like lying isn’t it? Here is the kicker, The meaning of the “Feast of Dedication” is only found in 1st Macc 4. Why would the Holy Spirit have Inspired John to write those words if there would be no place in Scripture to find its meaning? So it would seem that your Protestant Bible has some truth, but the Catholic Bible has the Fulliness of Truth contained within its covers. This is just one example of many where the Protestant version falls way short in Truth…………….. Now Smile! Have a Happy Easter!
Always Watching: The poster’s name is BELOW the post. The judgment you attributed to The Sarge was actually expressed by freddy.
Always Watching,
Let me use your logic. The Mormons believe that Jesus was also born of a virgin. I guess that must mean Mormonism is a true religion. Your logic is fundamentally flawed.
The Council of Trent declared that his translation of the Scriptures into Latin is the standard translation for all Catholics:
“Moreover, the same Holy Council . . . ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputatious, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and so no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546).
However, every Protestant, most Catholics, all Eastern Orthodox know of the multitude of translational errors in the Latin Vulgate. Catholics are just hiding their head in the sand, hoping the scandals will go away.
TRUTH: ( http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/ecum/roman/iss_ecum_roman_rootsoferror.asp)
For example:
Hebrews 10: 12, ‘But when this priest (i.e. Christ) had offered (aorist) for all time one sacrifice for sins he sat down on the right hand of God,’
became in the Vulgate,
‘But this man offering (continuous present) one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth etc.’ (Douay-Rheims version)
Similarly in Hebrews 1:3, Jerome changed the aorist to the continuous present, so that Christ is continuously ‘making purgation of our sins.’
The Greek New Testament was soon lost to the West, so for eleven hundred years (a vast stretch of time roughly equal to the period from Alfred the Great to the present day), the only New Testament available was in the Vulgate.
Consequently, for over a millennium the Churches believed uncritically that in heaven, Christ is continuously offering for our sins. It is easy to see how, as Tait shows, this deeply influenced thinking about Holy Communion, moving people to integrate it with Christ’s alleged heavenly offering, involving the idea that the bread and wine become Christ.
There is no doubt about Jerome’s capabilities as a linguist, and so the inevitable conclusion is that he deliberately twisted Scripture to express his personal opinions.
Conclusion: Use a faulty translation and risk Eternal Damnation.