Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the Inerrancy of the Bible--does it contain errors or not?
"The Church teaches that the Bible, properly interpreted, is the source of inerrant religious truth. Scientific or historical facts which have no religious significance may not be litterally [sic] correct." (Tony Russo).
Okay; so the "church" teaches that the Bible contains errors in matters of science and history. Or does it? Read on for a different Roman Catholic view of what "the church teaches":
"No, the Bible does not contain errors. Yet, such a statement must be qualified, since the term "error" is determined by context. For example, ... If I write a allegorical story about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, and it is later discovered that George Washington never, in fact, chopped down a cherry tree as a matter of history, that doesn’t make my story erroneous, since it was never meant to be factually historical, but merely allegorical. . . . The problem comes in when one immaturely approaches the Bible (i.e., the approach of a Fundamentalist) or when one approaches the Bible as a cynical modernist (i.e., the prevalent position of secular universities today). Both approaches are extreme and incorrect. The proper approach to the Bible is one of awe and reverence for the Word of God as something greater than yourself and beyond any one man’s limited estimation. And that is the position of the Catholic Church." (MARK BONOCORE, A CATHOLIC APOLOGIST FOR BOB SUNGENIS’ CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INTERNATIONAL).
Hmmmm . . . now we are told that the "Catholic position" is that there are no historical errors—these are allegories instead. I’m assuming that this contestant will want to call the last contestant "a cynical modernist." And, no doubt, the last contestant will want to call this contestant an "immature fundamentalist." Meanwhile, we still don’t know what THE "Catholic" position is yet, so let’s read on:
"The liberals assert that they somehow are Catholic even though they don't believe the teachings of Rome. Rome has never stated this, in fact it has stated the contrary. The liberals I am familiar with often appeal to "the Spirit of Vatican II" -- which is apparently opposite in meaning to what the Council actually said. Why, even if a large number of people claim this is valid, should I accept it? It reminds me of Bill Clinton's assertion that he was cooperating with the police in Foster's death investigation even when he refused to give them the documents they asked for, the one he took out of Foster's office after his death. By saying these people are not true Catholics I am agreeing with the official teaching of Rome. If I said anything else I would be making my private judgement superior to the magesterium." (Steven Brandt).
The contestant is referring to the majority of Roman Catholic scholars (who are centrists, by the way, not liberals). He’s referring to the likes of Fr. Raymond Brown (twice appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, each time by different popes), Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer (arguably Roman Catholicism’s greatest NT scholar), and other well-known scholars (such as John McKenzie and John P. Meier). Of course Rome has never censured these men, but has embraced them fully (popes don’t appoint someone to the Pontifical Biblical Commission unless they embrace his views). The contestant, who has never served in a capacity even remotely close to a papal appointment, whom Rome has never consulted when establishing Roman Catholic doctrine, and of whom Rome has likely never even heard, presumes to speak for Rome in calling these men "liberal." I hate to point out the obvious, but why should we believe the contestant’s view over the view of those we know have been embraced by Rome? What qualifies him to speak for Rome and to pronounce as liberal those whom we know have been embraced by Rome? On what basis should we think that it is HE who has the right interpretation of Roman teaching? In fact, he is simply engaging in private judgment. But that is just the point of the challenge; that in order for the Roman Catholic to believe something even as simply as that the Bible is without error, he is left to his own devices—the "infallible interpreter" is of no help here because the "infallible interpreter" has not clarified this issue. Therefore, as a Roman Catholic I can believe that the Bible does contain errors and still be within the good graces of Rome. But here's another Roman Catholic perspective:
"Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text)"--Dei Verbum, 11 (Paul Ross)
Just to preface my comments, the contestant claims to have given us the "Greek text" of 2 Tim 3:16-17; he has given us nothing of the kind. Instead he has given an expanded translation. The expanded part of the translation may or may not be legitimate; but it is certainly not "Greek" in any case. Be that as it may, let’s analyze what the contestant has done here. The contestant has chosen not to comment on this challenge, but merely to quote from Dei Verbum (at Vatican II). The contestant seems blissfully unaware of the fact that this very same passage in Dei Verbum is also used by the majority of Roman Catholic scholars to show that the Scriptures are NOT fully inerrant. The passage that reads, "Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" is what is at issue here. Roman Catholic scholars point to the bolded phrase as meaning that God ensured inerrancy only to those words in Scripture that are related to salvation (no others have this safeguard). So, it is insufficient simply to quote Dei Verbum since it is interpreted in a variety of ways with Roman Catholicism. But what this does clearly point out is that, because of this internal disagreement within Rome, no Roman Catholic can be sure that he has an inerrant Bible. But let's read on for another Roman Catholic answer:
"The Roman Catholic position is identical to that of the Byzantine Catholic position, the Syro-Malabar Catholic position, the Ukrainian Catholic position, and the positions of 17 other rites in the Church: Scripture is inerrant in the things which God intends to transmit through it." (Steven Kellmeyer).
Hmmmm . . . now this looks a lot more like the "cynical modernist" approach outlined by the second contestant above. Scripture is inerrant, we are told, only in those things which God intended to transmit through it. Of course, without a section in the Bible that is titled "Things God Intends to Transmit Through Scripture," each of us is left to guess just what God intended to transmit to us. Nevertheless, we now have the full range of all the different "THE Catholic" positions on this issue. Or do we? Here’s another one:
"If Eric means the official Catholic position on the scope or extent of biblical inerrancy, he was actually answered on this question over three years ago (June 1996) in a series of posts I made to James White's old Sola Scriptura Email list. Here is how I responded then:
"This shows an appalling lack of understanding of what the Catholic Church officially teaches. There is no "moderate camp" on this issue -- there is only the "true camp." How do we know what the true camp is? On biblical inerrancy, Raymond Brown might be a good theologian and Bible scholar, but he does not speak for the Catholic Church OFFICIALLY. The Popes and Councils (Magisterium) do. I will be challenging Eric Svendsen or anyone later to produce evidence that there is OFFICIAL disagreement on this issue from Catholic Magisterial sources. If someone wants to find out what the Catholic Church believes OFFICIALLY on inerrancy, we don't go to Raymond Brown or Catholic Answers, . . . we go to the Magisterial documents that spell it out. Several popes have written encyclicals that speak to the issue, Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus, Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus, Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (all three of these are referenced in Vatican II Dei Verbum) and there is a section on Scripture and inerrancy in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which reads as follows --
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." [Vatican II DV 11]
136.God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach WITHOUT ERROR his saving truth [cf. DV 11].
"It is that simple. The Catechism does not limit this to "faith and morals" only. The phrase "for the sake of our salvation" cannot be understood that way. If you want to get more specific, go to the above papal encyclicals" (Phil Porvaznik).
Here is the selective use of papal encyclicals that is so characteristic of conservative Roman Catholic apologists. Papal documents are always infallible and authoritative when they seem to support the conservative position, but never so when they don’t (such as when pope Honorius gave his official support to the heretical Monothelyte position in a letter to Sergius—"the letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation," The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol VII [New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1913], 453—or when pope Liberius gave his official endorsement of the Arian position by signing an Arian decree in 358).
Nevertheless, I am not here to mediate a disagreement among Roman Catholics on this issue—only to call attention to that disagreement. The contestant is obviously certain that it is he who represents the "true" Roman position on this issue. But the underlying question is not now, nor has it ever been, "Who holds the Roman position" on this issue, but rather "What is the Roman Catholic position on this issue" and "How do you know you hold the Roman position on this issue?" The contestant has cited a fair share of papal documents—none of which, by the way, has escaped the notice of the centrist camp. The latter would argue that the contestant has misunderstood the significance of those documents (If not their very text), and would appeal to the closing remarks at Vatican II in "Men of Thought and Science" which epitomizes the "Spirit of Vatican II," as it is often called by Roman Catholic scholars, and embraces a modernist approach to the Scriptures. How do we know that someone like the contestant has properly understood both the meaning and the significance of the selective documents which he cites? In short, to point out what is painfully obvious, Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, et al, have all "earned their stripes." But who in the world is the contestant? Has Rome commissioned his opinion on anything, as she most certainly has with the aforementioned scholars? Again, the issue is not what the documents say vs. what these scholars believe. The issue is how the contestant understands these documents (and others) vs. how these scholars understand these same documents. If I am a Roman Catholic who believes that private judgment is illegitimate, and there is a choice to be made about the correct understanding of Rome’s teaching, and I have to choose between the contestant’s understanding (of whom I know nothing) and that of top Roman Catholic scholars (who are recognized by Rome for their leadership), then I am going to choose the latter. Our next contestant gives a similar response as the current contestant:
"Now, Vatican II in Dei Verbum states "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." It is not terribly uncommon for Catholic scholars, particularly of a liberal flavor, to interpret this passage as promoting inerrancy of Scripture as limited to topics of salvation. Yet, the previous clarification of Leo XIII bears more weight than any of these "scholars." Remember, a pope is a Godly Authority (GA), but a scholar is not." (Brent Arias).
The contestant has confused the issue. Once again, the issue is not one of a pope vs. a scholar—the issue is one of the contestant’s understanding of papal documents vs. the scholar’s understanding of papal documents. Here is yet another Roman Catholic answer:
"It contains no errors. To admit error so high an authority as the Bible would undermine the entire edifice of Faith." (Jacob W Dell).
While we as Evangelicals can agree with the contestant's rationale, no Roman Catholic, including the contestant, is allowed to make judgments like that on his own. The contestant does not explain the Roman Catholic position so much as his own position. And, of course, the insightful comments from our final contestant to the question of whether or not the Bible contains errors:
No. (Ian Smith).
No comment needed : )There is much diversity of belief on this issue within Roman Catholicism, as we have seen just by looking at the few Roman Catholics who have responded to this challenge. The conservative Roman Catholics have informed us of what they think is the Roman position, and have even declared their more moderate counterparts as heretics, liberals, and the like. Of course, once again, none of them tells us why we should trust their interpretation of the relevant papal documents over against that of recognized Roman Catholic authorities such as Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, et al who believe otherwise. Again, this hits at the desire of Roman Catholics to hold conflicting principles. When it suits them, Roman Catholics appeal to the infallibility of their church's teaching to overturn the principle of any one person's private understanding; and, when it suits them, Roman Catholics appeal to their own private understanding to explain what that infallible church's teaching actually means.
Roman Catholics appeal to arbitrary principles which are ultimately based on private judgment/interpretation. For instance, when the issue is that of the inerrancy of the Scriptures, these Roman Catholics tell us that the Roman Catholic position is identical to their position, even when their infallible interpreter has not clarified the issue, and even when there is substantial difference of opinion among authorities in their own church. However, when the issue is one of, say, a literal vs. figurative reading of the creation account in Genesis, or of whether or not Vatican II was infallible, many of these same Roman Catholics tell us that this is a matter of "legitimate" dispute within Roman Catholicism (though they don't explain to us how a "dispute" would be "legitimate" in a system that is supposed to be completely unified in all areas of belief, and that chides adherents of sola scriptura for their disagreements). The way each individual Roman Catholic goes about deciding which of these disputes are legitimate vs. illegitimate is itself an indication that they again are operating on private judgment/interpretation--for their individual conclusions vary widely depending on which Roman Catholic you happen to ask! The bottom line is, there is no way for the Roman Catholic to know whether or not the Scriptures contain errors without engaging in the very private judgment/interpretation for which he condemns Evangelicals. If that principle is sufficient for the Roman Catholic, he cannot then deny it for the Evangelical.