1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The Third Dialogue

RS2: Granting that the proper word is "develop," it seems to me that if you believe there are historical errors in Scripture, then "develop" for you means that the previous Church, although it condemned the idea that there were historical errors in Scripture (as late as Pius XII's Humani Generis in 1950 - condemning the notion that "...immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.") did so without really having a full understanding of the issue...?"

JA: Not without an understanding of the issue, but certainly not the issue they were addressing.

RS3: But the precedent for interpreting Dei Verbum 11 had already been set by Pius XII's condemning the notion that "...immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters." Looks like your interpretation was thought of previously, but was rejected.

"RS2: But Jorge, we don't base Catholic dogma on what the "discussions" contained. There are always pros and cons to every Church dogma in the "discussions" of a Council."

JA: I am basing it on the form that they rejected and the one they approved. If they rejected 100% historical inerrancy and approved something else, what does that tell you.

RS3: You're making a lot of assumptions, Jorge. There's nothing in Vatican II that said they were rejecting 100% inerrancy. Granted there were a few like Konig who were pushing for it, but it was never accepted. END

JA: Keep in mind they didn't approve a form that teaches that there is historical error.

RS3: Well, Jorge, you seem to want your cake and eat it too. If Vatican II thought there were errors in Scripture, as Fr. Brown does today, then they would have said so. The point you need to address is that Fr. Brown says that THERE ARE errors in Scripture, not MAYBE. How can he say such a thing if, as you admit, Vatican II did not say there were errors in Scripture? It is not up to Fr. Brown to make the conclusions for us. He says himself, on other occasions, that such doctrinal decisions are to be left to the Church, not to the individual (at least that's what he says in his "Historico-Critical Exegesis of the Bible in Roman Catholicism"). So why in this instance has he overstepped his bounds to make a final and resolute conclusion that there are errors in Scripture? It seems to me, Jorge, that Fr. Brown had already made up his mind, and is then reading into Dei Verbum 11 what he would like it to say.

JA: In fact, the commentary on the documents of Vat II make clear that they have left the issue of historical errors open for more exegetical and theological study.

RS3: We can always study the issue, Jorge, but that doesn't mean that the Church is going to change its mind and conclude that there are errors in Scripture. My conclusion, Jorge, is that you either don't have enough information about what went on at Vatican II and afterward, or you are reading into the document what you would like to see, just as Fr. Brown did.

JA: The one thing that is certain is that the Church doesn't teach 100% historical inerrancy.

RS3: Name the Church document that says that, Jorge. Unless you have one, then it is not "certain." Vatican II certainly doesn't say it. Do you know of any other documents?

JA: Because they have left this open, it is not heresy to suggest that there is historical error, not in the least. Thus, I am not basing my position on the discussions at Vat II. I am basing it on what they rejected and what they approved. Mysterium Ecclesia speaks to this quite nicely.

RS3: Unless you can find a statement in Vatican II that says something to the effect that "we are leaving the issue of inerrancy open, since we are not convinced that there are no errors in Scripture," then you're simply speculating and/or reading into Vatican II what you would like to see. I'm going to hold your hand to the fire on this, Jorge, because you are making an inordinate amount of assertions that you simply have not proven or even shown the slightest evidence to support your contentions.

RS2: First of all, you don't know it was a "vast majority." Even Brown only says "an awareness of errors." That can mean any amount. Second, if there were a "vast majority" that felt there were errors in Scripture, don't you think they would have been compelled to spell it out in the Vatican II documents?"

JA: The fact that Form C (the one that contained the 100% historical inerrancy language was defeated soundly by a vast majority indicates, and I find it the only reasonable inference, that they understood there were historical errors.

RS3: Well, here is where you are distorting what actually happened. There are several important facts that you are either missing or have chosen to ignore:

1) There was already a division in the Council over Schema 1. The N. European fathers, headed by Frings and Konig, were pushing for the excision of Schema 1 against the Morcillo and Diamentina groups. Finally, Augustine Bea said the language of Schema 1 was too defensive and negative, and should be rejected on that basis, but not because it was wrong, per se. In that case, the vote against Schema 1 was 62% (but hardly a "vast" majority, as you claimed, and it was not based on the fact that Schema 1 was wrong, in itself).

2) Schema 2 stated, in much less negative terms, the proposition that Scripture was "completely immune from all error." Schema 2 left out the words "any subject-matter whatever, religious or profane" that was in Schema 1, but the issue of "subject-matter" was addressed in the footnote which referenced the statement of Pius XII from Leo XIII stating that Scripture was free from error, i.e., "...it is absolutely wrong and forbidden 'either to narrow inspiration to certain parts of Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred...").

3) Some Fathers reacted against the excessive reduction of Schema 1, and suggested that language be added that did not restrict inerrancy to "religious" affirmations (matters of faith and morals). In answer to this, the Council decided to add an entire paragraph from Providentissimus Deus, along with a paragraph from Divino Afflante Spiritu. This formed Schema 3. One of the sentences from the paragraph from Leo XIII read: "Equally intolerable is the theory of those who, in order to unburden themselves of these difficulties, have no hesitation in maintaining that divine inspiration pertains to nothing more than matters of faith and morals..."

4) But Schema 3 had some other language problems. It said that inerrancy is guaranteed only to what is "affirmed" by the sacred writers, as opposed to, for example, what was expressed, said or written by them ("Therefore, since everything affirmed by the inspired authors, or sacred writers, must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must accordingly acknowledge that the books of Scripture - entire and with all their parts - teach the truth without error"). Cardinal Henriquez suggested that there was a difference between the "formal teaching" and the "material" propositions of Scripture, such that the latter may be erroneous and not something the writer wanted to "teach." It was understood that Henriquez wanted to avoid such problems as that presented in Judith, which says that Nebuchadnezzer was the king of Assyria, not Babylon, so that the material information about Nebuchadnezzer was not understood as "formally" taught.

5) Then, some Fathers expressed hesitation that Schema 3's ambiguity might be taken as a license by some to limit inerrancy to ways which had already been condemned, e.g., Pius XII's statement in Humani Generis condemning the notion that "...immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters, among others. At this point, Cardinal Meyer of Chicago suggested that the Council should not limit the discussion of inerrancy to the negative aspects, but should bring out its positive salvific purpose. This was in keeping with the goal of Vatican II to put a non-creedal, non-anathema type format in its teachings. He suggested adding the words of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to the text, and changing the word "inerrancy" to "truth." From this, Schema 4 was developed, but it contained the same footnotes as Schema 3 (i.e., quoting Leo XIII and Pius XII).

6) Schema 4 presented a problem, however, because some bishops objected to the addition of the word "salvific" (salutarem) to qualify the word "truth" (veritatem). The other bishops tried to explain the word order by saying that it referred to the "facts which are linked to the history of salvation in Scripture." But the opposing bishops wondered whether this implied that there was factual material in Scripture not linked to the history of salvation, and thus that Scripture may contain errors. Archbishop Philippe stated: "Therefore it should not be said that the sacred books 'teach' salvific truth without error, because this insinuates a distinction among the scriptural affirmations themselves, as if some of them taught without error truths pertaining to salvation, while others had no such content and were thus not necessarily immune from error...I request that we restore the expression 'without any error,' as in the previous draft, since the documents of the Magisterium...always express themselves in such a way as to exclude completely from the sacred Scriptures error of every kind."

7) The doctrinal commission replied with a statement that maintained the continuity with the doctrine expressed in previous papal encyclicals: They stated: "By the term 'salvific' it is by no means suggested that Sacred Scripture is not in its integrity the inspired Word of God...This expression does not imply any material limitation to the truth of Scripture, rather, it indicates Scripture's formal specification, the nature of which must be kept in mind in deciding in what sense everything affirmed in the Bible is true - not only matters of faith and morals but facts bound up with the history of salvation. For this reason the Commission has decided that the expression should be retained."

8) Some Fathers still had reservations, however. So they approached Pope Paul VI in October 1965. Paul VI wrote a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani, President of the theological Commission. The Pope considered the issue of the word "salvific" (salutarem) in Schema 4 of the "greatest importance" and was "deeply hesitant" on its presence. The Pope said he was advised that this wording would be highly controversial, and thus it would be "premature" for the Council to make a declaration on "such a doubtful question." He states: "...the Fathers might not perhaps be able to form an adequate judgment as to the gravity of this matter, nor as to the abusive interpretations which may arise from it." This shows what the Pope's own convictions were. His was more in line with Schema III (i.e., "to teach the truth, without...error").

9) At the request of the Pope, the Commission reconvened. 17 of 28 members voted to follow his advice to omit the word "salvific" (hardly the "vast" majority you claimed previously, Jorge). Since this was not two-thirds, a compromise was suggested. 73 Fathers suggested "for the sake of our salvation" (nostrae salutis causa), which led to a two-thirds vote of 19 of 28 and was approved by the Pope. This tells us clearly that the Pope did not intend to have the phrase in question suggest any limitations to biblical inerrancy. Indeed, in 1970 Pope Paul VI stated: "For the Church, Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, inspired by Him and therefore guaranteed by divine inerrancy in its own authentic meaning" (July 1, allocution).

10) After this, Cardinal Konig and the German bishops wanted to excise the words "without error" from the text, claiming that literary genres of Scripture "also demonstrate that the Bible's references to matters of history and natural science sometimes fall short of the truth." Based on "current oriental studies," Konig gave three examples: (a) In Mark 2:26, Jesus says "in the time of Abiathar the High Priest," the alleged error being that Aminelech was the High Priest (1 Sam 21:1f); (b) In Matt 27:9, in which Matthew allegedly errs in assigning the prophecy to Jeremiah a prophecy spoken by Zechariah (11:12-13). But these anomalies were not discovered by "oriental studies," since they were well-known from the patristic age and were given various plausible solutions (Cornelius Lapide catalogued them). (c) Konig's third example was the claim that Dan 1:1's statement that Nebuchadnezzer besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim was wrong. It should be the sixth year of Jehoiakim. But Konig's conclusion was based on a chronology of which all scholars did not agree, since there are differing methods between Jewish and Babylonian calendars.

11) Reacting against Konig, 151 Fathers wanted the words "without any error" kept in the text, and presented this to the Commission. The Commission responded by denying Konig's request, but without the word "any," so as to read "without error." This was inconsequential for the 151 Fathers, since there is no middle ground between the presence and absence of error, and thus the words "without error" held up the traditional doctrine that Scripture was without error, with no distinctions.

12) To show the continuity of Vatican II's teaching with previous Papal and Conciliar statements, six more references were added to footnote number 5, which comes at the end of the sentence affirming the Bible's freedom from error. One of the references is a citation from the Council of Trent's "The Canon of Scripture," which, ironically, highlights the salvific purpose of Scripture. It states, referring to both Scripture and Tradition, that it is "as the source of all saving truth" (DS 1501), which is not unlike, "for the sake of our salvation," yet Trent never entertained the notion that its words meant that Scripture contained errors.

13) Footnote 5 also added more statements from Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus, one section including comments from Augustine regarding the essential harmony between science and Scripture, showing that Vatican II's respect of Scripture's inerrancy extended to its affirmations about the physical creation, even though the Bible is not to be considered a scientific textbook.

14) The most important note added to Footnote 5 was the teaching of Providentissimus Deus that since the sacred writers wrote only what the Holy Spirit wanted them to write, everything which they assert has Him for its author, and is therefore necessarily true, which coincided with the Commission's previous conclusion that the word "salvific" (salutarem) in Dei Verbum 11 did not imply and "material limitation" of the truth of Scripture. Since the quote from Providentissimus Deus includes Leo's words about the Fathers and Doctors who "labored with no less ingenuity than devotion to harmonize and reconcile those many passage which might seem to involve some contradiction or discrepancy," this shows that Vatican II agreed that the same labors to preserve the inerrancy of Scripture should be maintained in the Church.

Thus, Jorge, in light of these events, Vatican II was far from believing that there were errors in Scripture, especially in light of Paul VI's intervention into the intended meaning.

RS2: What would have held them back from devulging such an important "developed" understanding about Revelation if it was so important for the Church to know this information, especially since 450 years since Trent the Church was under the impression that there were no historical errors in Scripture?

JA: This question misses the point. The Church isn't teaching explicitly that there are any errors in scripture. The point is that they aren't teaching that there aren't.

RS3: As you can see from the above events that happened at Vatican II, you simply have no basis to make that assertion, and you certainly don't have any proof for it. Schema 3 was not rejected for the reasons you claim.

"RS2: Even if that is true, it would make absolutely no difference, for you have no way of proving that "schema C" was rejected because the Council believed there were errors in Scripture. For all you know, "schema C" was rejected because Vatican II did not think it was the responsibility of Vatican II to address the issue of inerrancy in any detailed way, especially since there is hardly anything in Vatican II that DOES address inerrancy and since there are numerous statements prior to Vatican II that dealt very specifically with the issue of inerrancy, and thus there was no need to go into it again at Vatican II. That is just as viable an interpretation as yours."

JA: The vote came immediately on the heels of the debates wherein many errors were pointed out specifically by (I forget his name).

RS3: His name was Konig, but his alleged Scriptural "errors" were not errors at all, and his request to delete "without error" was voted down by the Commission. Doesn't that tell you something? Here the Commission had the perfect opportunity to push for limited inerrancy, yet they voted Konig's idea down. Not only that, but Paul VI intervened to make sure it was not limited. END

JA: VatII spent a great deal of time on this issue. They addressed it in a detailed and very nuanced way. Again, Mysterium Ecclesia speaks volumes about this.

RS3: Yes, they did address every detail, and even then they did not choose to teach that Scripture contained errors. You said it yourself, Jorge.

RS2: Jorge, I am familiar with the debate on how to understand previous church documents, and I don't think ME is going to help you, but if you want to show me the specific language that you think will make your case I'll be more than willing to give it a gander. Until then, I do still feel the burden is on you to prove your case, especially since just 10 years earlier in Human Generis Pope Pius XII condemned your interpretation of "for the sake of our salvation."

JA: See, this is the problem. You are making an assumption that previous teachings on this subject mean a particular thing. I don't concede to such an assumption. This is the essence of Myterium Ecclesia as it bears on this issue - time-conditioned teachings, human beings expressing those teachings in human language, and the role and duty of the Church to both interpret and clarify previous teachings.

RS3: Jorge, if you can tell me where the Church ever taught that there were errors in Scripture, and you have a case. If you can't, then you don't, especially since there is very little "time-conditioning"between Humani Generis in 1950 and Vatican II in 1965. Vatican II did interpret previous teachings, and as you admitted yourself, they did not conclude there were errors in Scripture, so you're simply barking up the wrong tree.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9