There is a serious doctrinal error in the INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS (working document) of 'The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church' prepared for use by the twelfth ordinary general assembly of the Synod of Bishops, who will meet in October of 2008. This error contradicts the clear and definitive teaching of past Popes and Ecumenical Councils. The text in question is as follows:
15. c. In summary, the following can be said with certainty … with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture, inerrancy applies only to “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation” (DV 11)….
(INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS, n. 15, c)
There are several errors here, the most serious of which is the claim that inerrancy does not apply to all of Sacred Scripture, but
only to truths pertaining to salvation. This error is made more serious by the addition of the phrase “with certainty,” which is not found in the Latin, nor in the versions in other languages. Now if a Synod of Bishops states that a teaching “can be said with certainty” it will certainly be perceived by the faithful as a definitive teaching of the Magisterium. Yet the idea in question contradicts past definitive teachings.
Also, the inner quote, taken from Dei Verbum, n. 11, is a misrepresentation of the passage, and even of the sentence, being quoted. The way that the inner quote is used suggests that the idea of limited inerrancy was the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. But as will be shown below, the full sentence and the full passage in Dei Verbum actually contradicts the idea of narrow inerrancy.
Another error in the quote above is found in the phrasing “what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture,” which suggests that not all of Sacred Scripture is inspired of God. In some sense, it is true that Sacred Scripture has “many parts,” such as the many books, passages, themes, styles of authorship, et cetera. In another sense, Sacred Scripture is so thoroughly one, due to its inspiration by the one God, that it is often spoken of as if it were a single Word uttered directly by God: the Word of God. If Sacred Scripture is not inspired in all its many parts, then those parts cannot possibly be a unified whole, a single Word from God, a refection of the one and only incarnate Word, Who proceeds from the Father, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.
This suggestion, that not all of Sacred Scripture is inspired, is consistent with the subsequent statement that inerrancy only applies to certain parts. Whatever is inspired must certainly be inerrant, for the God Who Is Truth cannot inspire the least falsehood on any subject. If inerrancy does not apply to all parts of Sacred Scripture, then neither does inspiration. However, consistency is not the same as truth. It is one error to cast doubt on the total inspiration of Sacred Scripture, and it is another error to assert that inerrancy is limited to truths pertaining to salvation. As this article will show, both of these errors are in direct contradiction to the prior definitive teaching of the Sacred Magisterium, which teaches that Sacred Scripture is entirely inspired and entirely inerrant.
Other Translations of the Document
Some of the versions of Instrumentum Laboris in other languages differ from the English. The Latin is worded as follows:
Ut paucis absolvamus, haec dicere possumus … quamvis omnes Sacrae Scripturae partes divinitus inspiratae sint, tamen eius inerrantia pertinet tantummodo ad «veritatem, quam Deus nostrae salutis causa Litteris Sacris consignari voluit» (DV 11)….
The Latin lacks any phrasing corresponding to the English “with certainty”. Like the English, the Latin, by using the subjunctive tense, “divinitus inspiratae sint,” casts doubt on whether all of Sacred Scripture is inspired. The French translation uses this wording:
On peut affirmer en synthèse que … même si les Saintes Écritures sont inspirées dans leur totalité, leur inerrance se réfère uniquement à la « vérité […] que Dieu, en vue de notre salut, a voulu qu'elle [l'Écriture] fût consignée dans les Saintes Lettres » (DV 11)
Notice that the French also lacks the equivalent of the English “with certainty,” preferring merely to state that 'one can affirm, in summary, that…' The French version also casts doubt on the total inspiration of Scripture, but with a different phrasing, “même si les Saintes Écritures sont inspirées dans leur totalité.” The French version suggests that “even if” Sacred Scripture is inspired “in its totality,” inerrancy is limited. This wording suggests that a text can be both inspired and in error. By contract, the English asks which parts might be inspired, and implies that the inspired parts are inerrant and the non-inspired parts are non-inerrant. The difference is that the French allows for inspiration and error to coincide. But the English version suggests that inspiration and error do not coincide, but allows that Sacred Scripture might not be entirely inspired. Both of these approaches to explaining apparent error in Sacred Scripture are contrary to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium, as shown below.
The French version asserts that, even though Sacred Scripture may be inspired in its totality, it is not inerrant in its totality. To the contrary, the Holy Spirit of God cannot err and cannot assert a falsehood; therefore, it is impossible for something to be inspired, but not inerrant. At least the French version allows that perhaps Sacred Scripture is inspired in its totality. In the English version, the idea that Sacred Scripture is inspired in its totality is not allowed. The English asks what parts might be inspired, and answers that only certain parts are inerrant, thereby implying that only certain parts are inspired. These are two very serious doctrinal errors: that Sacred Scripture is not entirely inspired of God, and that Sacred Scripture is not entirely inerrant.
Now the German, Spanish, and Italian versions are phrased differently; each begins with the positive assertion that Sacred Scripture is entirely inspired in all its parts. The phrasing in each of these versions translates, more or less, as: “
although Sacred Scripture
is inspired in all its parts….” Neither the subjunctive tense, nor a phrasing such as “even if,” is used to undermine the total inspiration of Sacred Scripture. However, like the other versions, they each go on to claim that inerrancy is limited solely to truths pertaining to salvation.
The Second Vatican Council
Instrumentum Laboris misquotes Dei Verbum, wrongly attributing the claim of narrow inerrancy to the Second Vatican Council. Part of one sentence from Dei Verbum, n. 11, is quoted by Instrumentum Laboris. But a look at the full passage from Dei Verbum shows that this Vatican II document did not narrow inspiration and inerrancy to only certain parts of Sacred Scripture.
11. 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.
(DEI VERBUM, n. 11)
Notice that the Vatican II document specifies that the books of both 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.” Since the books of Sacred Scripture, with all their parts, were written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and truly have God as their author, no error is possible in any part, nor on any subject. For God cannot err, nor can He choose to deny His very Nature by uttering any falsehood. Furthermore, Dei Verbum teaches that only those things which God wanted consigned to writing were, in fact, written into Sacred Scripture, and all assertions made by the human authors are also made by the Holy Spirit.
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, n. 11)
God is incapable of error of any kind on any subject. God Who is Truth cannot lie or speak a falsehood. For the Divine Nature of God is not merely truthful, as if truthfulness were a non-essential quality, but rather the Divine Nature is Truth. Therefore, everything asserted by the Holy Spirit, on any subject whatsoever, is certainly the truth. For He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Since Dei Verbum teaches that “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers
must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit,” there can be no error of any kind in Sacred Scripture, on any subject about which Sacred Scripture makes an assertion, and this doctrine must be believed.
Inspiration and inerrancy are inseparable. Whatever is asserted by the human authors of Sacred Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, whatever is asserted by the human authors is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is not possible for the Holy Spirit to err on any subject or in any way. Therefore, whatever is asserted by the human authors is entirely without error. No one may claim that, while all of Sacred Scripture is inspired, only certain assertions are inerrant. All is inspired, therefore all is inerrant.
Now the phrase “which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation” has been used by some theologians in order to attempt to narrow inspiration and inerrancy only to those assertions pertaining to faith and morals, or to salvation (or to some other scheme). But this passage from Dei Verbum, taken in its entirety, clearly does not narrow inspiration or inerrancy. The phrase “for the sake of our salvation” refers to the purpose that God had in mind for Sacred Scripture. The claim that this phrase narrows inspiration and inerrancy, or that it implies error in Sacred Scripture on subjects other than faith and morals, or other than salvation, is unsupportable. This interpretation ignores the earlier parts of the same section of Dei Verbum, and even ignores the earlier part of the same sentence, especially these words: “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit.” Whoever claims that the sacred writers have erred claims that the Holy Spirit has erred. Such a claim necessarily implies a denial of essential doctrine on the Nature of God, that God is Truth.
Therefore, the attribution of a narrow view of inerrancy to Dei Verbum is contradictory to the plain teaching of the document and the Council, and contradictory to required belief of the Catholic Faith. Dei Verbum clearly teaches that inspiration and inerrancy pertain to all assertions made by the human authors, who, though personally fallible, could not err in any of the assertions of Sacred Scripture because these are also the assertions of the Holy Spirit. Sacred Scripture contains all those things and only those things that God wills, and God never wills any falsehood on any subject.
The Council of Trent
In the document “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures,” the Council of Trent uses the term dictation to refer to the inspiration of Sacred Scripture and also Sacred Tradition. But the working document of the Synod of Bishops (2008) states: “In fact, inspiration is different from dictation; it leaves the freedom and personal capacity of the writer in tact, while enlightening and inspiring both….” (IL, n. 15, c). This apparent contradiction is easily resolved.
The Council of Trent uses the term dictation in order to indicate, using the succinct metaphor of dictation, that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are entirely inspired and entirely inerrant, containing all those things and only those things that God wills. Similarly, a document that has been dictated will contain only what the one who dictated it wills, and nothing else. Certainly, the Council did not intend this figure to be understood literally, for it is explicitly applied by the Council even to unwritten Sacred Tradition, not only to Sacred Scripture. But literal dictation only applies to what has been written. Therefore, the Council used the term dictation as a metaphor, in order to teach the same doctrine also taught more explicitly in later documents of the Magisterium, namely, that Sacred Scripture must be entirely inerrant, in all its parts, because it is entirely inspired of God, in all its parts.
First Vatican Council
The First Vatican Council also uses the term dictation, when discussing and reaffirming the teaching of the Council of Trent on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Again, this is used as a figure in order to assert that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture contain all those things and only those things that God wills them to contain. God cannot err. God cannot utter falsehood.
More importantly, the First Vatican Council plainly states that Sacred Scripture is inspired of God in all its parts and contains revelation without error:
The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical. These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.
(ON REVELATION, n. 7)
The Council teaches that both Testaments “with all their parts” are to be received as sacred and canonical, not only because “they contain revelation without error” but also because they were written “under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” and truly “have God as their author.” The same document goes on to rebuke those who had misinterpreted the teaching of the Council of Trent on the same subject. And yet, this misinterpretation continues to the present day. Even the Synod document INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS contains a misinterpretation of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the same subject. Is it the work of the Holy Spirit when this teaching of the total inspiration and total inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is continually undermined and attacked? Certainly not.
Pope Pius XII Cites the Councils
Pope Pius XII cites and expounds upon the teaching of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council:
The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.” In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.” 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)
The above quote emphatically teaches that Sacred Scripture is free “from any error whatsoever” and that any scheme which attempts to narrow or limit inerrancy is itself an error. Pope Pius XII notes that Pope Leo XII, in Providentissimus Deus, “justly and rightly condemned” this narrow view of inerrancy. Pope Pius XII refers to the view opposed to complete inerrancy as “justly and rightly condemned.” Therefore, this teaching on inerrancy is not an open question; it is a definitive teaching on faith and morals. After citing two Ecumenical Councils to support this teaching on inerrancy, he calls the teaching a “solemn definition of Catholic doctrine.” The solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils are infallible teachings and required belief. Therefore, this teaching falls under the infallible Sacred Magisterium of the Church, and is a required belief, that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture contain revelation without error.
Pope Leo XIII Exercises Papal Infallibility
And the passage in question from Providentissimus Deus is as follows:
But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. (PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, n. 20).
Does the above statement on the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, by Pope Leo XIII, fall under papal infallibility? The conditions for a papal teaching to be infallible are these five (quoted from First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4.):
1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”
The first two criteria for papal infallibility are met because, in this papal encyclical, the Pope is teaching the universal Church with papal authority. He is therefore discharging his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians. The third criterium, (which the Second Vatican Council phrases as “by a definitive act, he proclaims,”) is met because of the definitive wording of this teaching: “it is absolutely wrong and forbidden…. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church.” A teaching of the Pope to the universal Church, which calls a particular teaching “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church,” and which calls the contrary view “absolutely wrong and forbidden,” could not be stated more definitively. The fourth criterium is met because the doctrine of the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture certainly concerns faith and morals, since all that the Magisterium teaches on faith and morals is based on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The fifth criterium is that the teaching be binding on the universal Church. This criterium is met because the Pope asserted that the same teaching has been solemnly defined by two Councils, and confirmed by the First Vatican Council; therefore, it is binding on the universal Church. All the criteria for an infallible papal statement are met; therefore, the teaching quoted above from Providentissimus Deus is an infallible teaching of the Sacred Magisterium and is a required belief of all Catholics.
The teaching is infallible that all of Sacred Scripture is inspired and inerrant, in all its parts, such that no error of any kind can be found in Sacred Scripture. This belief requires the full assent of faith from all Catholic Christians. The contrary is therefore a heresy, and all who adhere to that heresy, as is the case for any heresy, fall under the sentence of automatic excommunication under Canon Law 1364 §1.
Additional Papal Statements and the Universal Magisterium
There are a number of other Popes who also taught the same teaching of total inspiration and total inerrancy:
“St. Jerome's teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error. ” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16)
“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church's teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18)
“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text....” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)
“...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.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).
Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).
Neither is this teaching found only in the teaching of the Popes. The teaching that the Bible is entirely inspired and entirely inerrant is found among the Bishops throughout the world, and has been found among them for many successive generations. According to the Second Vatican Council, when a teaching has been taught by the body of Bishops led by the Pope, even when they are not gathered in one place (as occurs in an Ecumenical Council), their teaching is infallible.
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. (LUMEN GENTIUM, n. 25).
This type of infallibility is called the Universal Magisterium (or also the ordinary and universal Magisterium). The above teaching on the total inspiration and total inerrancy of Sacred Scripture has been definitively taught as required belief by numerous successive Popes and by generation after generation of Bishops (both in Ecumenical Councils and while dispersed through the world). Therefore, this teaching is also infallible under the Universal Magisterium.
The Magisterium can teach infallibly in any of three ways: solemn definitions of the Pope, solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, and the Universal Magisterium. As shown above, both Pope Pius XII and Pope Leo XIII stated that this teaching has been solemnly defined by Ecumenical Councils. Pope Leo XIII taught this same doctrine in a way that meets all of the criteria for Papal Infallibility. The same teaching has been taught by the Universal Magisterium. This same doctrine has been taught in each of the three ways that the Magisterium teaches infallibly. A doctrine need only be taught by one mode of infallibility to be infallible, irreformable, and a required belief. Therefore, this doctrine is an infallible dogma of the Church, and is irreformable, and is a belief required of all the faithful.
Saints and Doctors and Fathers
The Saints and Doctors and Fathers of the Church taught the same teaching:
St. Gregory Nazianzen: “We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them....”
St. Clement of Rome: “You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them.”
St. Justin Martyr: “But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.”
St. Jerome: “I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord's words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired….”
St. Augustine: “I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie.... If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.”
St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome: “For, I admit to your Charity that it is from those book alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text [particular copy] is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.”
(Willis, The Teachings of the Church Fathers; Ignatius Press, 2002)
Errors of Particular Editions
Now everyone who studies Sacred Scripture is cognizant that the ancient manuscripts of the Bible contain numerous copyist errors, that some printings contain printer errors, that some translations contain translation errors, and that some edits contain editing errors. But such errors are not of Sacred Scripture itself, they are of the particular edition. Errors in particular editions can be recognized by comparing various manuscripts, versions, edits, etc. to one another. The total inspiration and total inerrancy of Sacred Scripture applies to Sacred Scripture itself, not to the particulars of individual editions. Therefore, the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture itself is unharmed by the errors particular to any edition.
Original Manuscripts
Some Christians claim that only the original manuscripts are inspired and inerrant. But it is well-known, even to those who make such a claim, that none of the original manuscripts are extant. And so they further say that scholars must reconstruct the original text to recover or to determine what is inspired and inerrant. Such a scheme puts the inspired and inerrant text out of reach of the faithful, and makes the decisions of scholars the arbitrators of what is and is not original, and therefore of what is and is not inspired and inerrant. Such a scheme, in effect, replaces Sacred Scripture with the majority decision of scholars, and thereby erroneously places scholarship above faith.
The error here is to assume that, after the authorship of each book was completed, the Holy Spirit withdrew and permitted the corruption of the text to almost any extent. To the contrary, the Holy Spirit remains with the Church to ensure that the infallible truths of Sacred Tradition are continually handed on in a manner that keeps even the smallest truth from being subtracted or corrupted, and that prevents the smallest falsehood from entering into Sacred Tradition. And the Holy Spirit remains with the Church to ensure that the infallible truths of Sacred Scripture are continually handed on in a manner that keeps even the smallest truth from being subtracted or corrupted, and that prevents the smallest falsehood from entering into Sacred Scripture.
Particular errors are permitted in particular editions. And the copyists, printers, translators, and editors of the text are not inspired by God. Yet the Holy Spirit nevertheless prevents error from being added, truth from being subtracted, and truth from being corrupted, in Sacred Scripture itself. No truth of Sacred Scripture has passed away from every extant edition. No error has been added to every extant edition. No corruption has occurred in every extant edition. Nor even has any error, corruption, or subtraction reached such an extent that the truth cannot be discerned from the editions that are extant.
This protection that the Holy Spirit grants to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is an essential part of the indefectibility of the Church. For the Church guides us by means of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church teaches only what is explicit in, or at least implicit in (i.e. necessarily connected with), Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. If the handing on of Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture could be corrupted, then the teachings of the Magisterium would be based on what is corrupt and the indefectibility of the Church would be lost. Therefore, total inspiration and total inerrancy is not limited solely to the original manuscripts, but extends even to the body of the Sacred Texts which are extant in any generation, and are in use and being lived by any generation.
Solutions to Apparent Errors
Now if someone proposes a contradiction or an error in the Bible, I know by faith that there is a true, faithful, reasonable explanation as to why that proposal is incorrect. On many occasions, when I have sought a solution, I did find it. But often times, I do not even bother to seek the explanation, because the claimed error is usually trivial, and because I know with certainty by faith that it is not, in fact, an error.
But numerous persons, whose faith is either weak or absent, have attacked Sacred Scripture by claiming certain contradictions or apparent errors in the text. They compare what is said in different books, and find apparent contradictions. Or they compare assertions made by the ancient text to the views of modern science, or to current theories in archaeology, and, having found a disagreement, they assume that the Bible is in error. Most of such claimed errors can be easily refuted. Interestingly, when a solution to a claimed contradiction or error is presented, the complainant typically rejects the solution and continues to cling to the same claim of error.
If even reason itself, without faith, offers an explanation as to why a particular point is not an error in Sacred Scripture, why is the solution rejected? Many such persons, who arrogantly assert that the Bible is full of errors, use this claim to reject any teaching of the Bible that they dislike. They want the Bible to have errors so that they will not be bound by any of its teachings. Arguments, such as those given above, that the Church has infallibly taught the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, are rejected with little or no explanation. For they know that if they accept the Bible as inerrant, they will have to change their lives to conform to the teaching of Christ in the Bible.
The Prevalence of This Error
As is clear in the above quotes from Popes Pius XII and Leo XIII, and from the Saints and Doctors and Fathers of the Church, the problem of Biblical scholars and other persons undermining or rejecting the total inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is longstanding. However, in recent decades, this erroneous idea, that inerrancy is narrow and that errors are found throughout Sacred Scripture, has reached epidemic proportions. It is not only the common belief of the vast majority of Catholic Biblical scholars, but it is taught in most Catholic universities and colleges, even in some dioceses, even as if it were the teaching of the Church. The document called 'The Gift of Scripture' (issued by the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales) has only worsened this trend.
Now very many members of the laity not only hold to this error, but claim that it is the teaching of the Church. They, too, base this heretical claim on a misinterpretation and misquoting of Dei Verbum. When the above citations from various Popes and Councils are cited, they ignore them, or they explain that modern scholarship has now given us a better understanding of 'the truth' about Scripture (i.e. the truth that it is full of errors). We are to ignore the definitive teachings of past Councils and Popes, they say, and adhere to whatever is the current majority opinion among scholars. Scholarship thus presumes to replace Sacred Scripture as one of the cornerstones of the foundation of the Catholic Faith.
The Danger of This Error
The claim that the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is limited to truths pertaining to salvation results in numerous problems which harm the Faith and the faithful. If Sacred Scripture contains errors mixed with truths, then Sacred Scripture is not the Word of God: one Word uttered by God, a flawless reflection of the living Word, Who is Jesus the Christ. If Sacred Scripture contains errors and truths, then it is divided against itself, and it cannot stand. If Sacred Scripture contains errors, then so does Sacred Tradition. If Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture contain errors, then the entire basis for the teaching of all the Bishops and of each successive Pope contains errors, and as a result, all the teachings of the Magisterium would be in doubt.
If anyone claims that there are some errors in what is asserted by Sacred Scripture, then those assertions cannot be inspired of the Holy Spirit, Who is certainly the Spirit of Truth and not of falsehood. As a result, Sacred Scripture would then be a patchwork of inerrant inspired truths and non-inspired non-inerrant human assertions. And unless the Magisterium were to go through Sacred Scripture verse by verse, and definitively teach which assertions of Sacred Scripture pertain to salvation, nearly every teaching of Sacred Scripture would be placed in doubt, and the Faith itself would be undermined.
Now some are claiming, contrary to faith and reason, that the Bible can be entirely inspired of God, and yet contain errors on various subjects. This version of the error results in the teaching of the Church on the Divine Nature of God being undermined. For if God inspires falsehood, then He is not Truth itself; instead, He would be a God who chooses when to speak a truth and when to speak a falsehood. Consequently, Truth could not be said to be descriptive of the very Nature of God. God would then be thought of as a Being who acts capriciously, like the pagan gods of ancient times.
But as for the error of limited inerrancy, one person might reasonably conclude that most assertions in Sacred Scripture do pertain to salvation, another person might conclude that many assertions pertain to salvation, yet another might conclude that only few assertions pertain to salvation. Again, there would be no way for the Magisterium to specify which assertions of Sacred Scripture pertain to salvation, and which do not, other than to teach definitively on the meaning of each and every verse, and whether or not the assertions of that verse are true or false. But notice how the prior definitive teaching of the Magisterium on the total inerrancy of Sacred Scripture has been utterly rejected by a majority of Catholic Biblical scholars, by some Bishops, priests, and religious, and by many members of the laity. So even if the Magisterium were to specify, in every case, which assertions are true, this would not result in Sacred Scripture being a sure foundation for the Faith; for if Sacred Scripture is not to be believed, neither is the Magisterium that teaches from Sacred Scripture.
And what would be the basis for any decision of the Magisterium as to which things pertain to salvation within Sacred Scripture, and which do not, if Sacred Scripture itself, and by implication Sacred Tradition, are both are said to contains errors? The teaching of the Magisterium is based solely on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. If a truth is not at least implicit in (i.e. having a necessary connection with) Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture, there would be no basis for the Magisterium to decide what is true. The Faith would cease to be based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, and would be based solely on scholarship and reason.
As previously stated, there are implications for Sacred Tradition in this erroneous view of the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. For Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one Sacred Deposit of Faith. So if Sacred Scripture can err, then Sacred Tradition can also err. Now someone might claim that Sacred Tradition cannot err in matters pertaining to salvation. But again, who determines what pertains to salvation? Any assertion that has become unpopular due to the dictates of sinful secular society will be said not to pertain to salvation. And if the Magisterium definitively teaches that a teaching of Sacred Tradition or of Sacred Scripture does pertain to salvation, and therefore is certainly true, the opponent can reply that the Magisterium is unable to teach without error on matters that do not pertain to salvation. So if the Magisterium states that a doctrine of Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture pertains to salvation, opponents can argue that it does not pertain to salvation, and that therefore the Magisterium is in error on the subject.
The end result of this claim, that the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is limited to truths pertaining to salvation, is that all truths taught by Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium would be placed in doubt. If an assertion is only inerrant if it pertains to salvation, then who can assert that it does pertain to salvation? The assertion that another assertion pertains to salvation is itself an assertion that is only true if it pertains to salvation. The end result is that no truth can be inerrantly said to pertain to salvation, and therefore no truths would be inerrant. This conclusion is not an exaggeration, nor is it merely hypothetical, for there are already wolves among the sheep who do not believe that Tradition, Scripture, or the Magisterium ever teach without error. They believe whatever they want to believe, and anything to the contrary must be an error, and yet their own beliefs change with the wind.
A Few Examples
What follows is a few examples of assertions in Sacred Scripture which some may claim do not pertain to salvation. If one believes that inerrancy is limited solely to the truths pertaining to salvation, then the following assertions of Sacred Scripture are placed in doubt, for one could easily claim that our salvation does not depend on any of these things:
In the New Testament:
1. that Christ was conceived virginally and miraculously, of the Holy Spirit
2. that Christ was born in Bethlehem
3. that Christ grew up in Nazareth
4. that Christ was in Jerusalem for the Passover at the age of 12
5. that Christ was ever in any particular location
6. that Christ Himself ever taught any particular doctrine
7. that particular miracles and other particular deeds of Christ ever occurred
8. that Christ Himself ever spoke any particular words
9. that the Apostles were Twelve in number and that only men were Apostles
10. that Christ Himself established each of the Seven Sacraments
11. that Christ was unmarried and a virgin
12. that Mary was ever-virgin
13. that Christ Himself established the Church
14. that Peter was appointed the leader of the Apostles and that the Pope is his successor
15. that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles
All these and an exceedingly great number of other assertions in Sacred Scripture can be said not to pertain to salvation, including nearly all of the teachings of all of the Epistles, except perhaps those that explicitly mention salvation, and literally all of the events in the Acts of the Apostles, except perhaps the Ascension and Pentecost. But even those verses that explicitly mention salvation might be said by some not to pertain to salvation in any essential way. For once the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is narrowed to the truths pertaining to salvation, the next step is for opponents of inerrancy to narrow the truths that pertain to salvation solely to those truths that pertain to salvation in a necessary and direct manner, such that salvation depends upon that particular truth. And then the final step is for them to say that no truth is entirely essential to salvation, therefore no inerrancy exists in Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture or the Magisterium.
As for the Old Testament, nearly each and every assertion in the Old Testament could be said by some not to pertain to salvation. The above list and comments are not exaggerated or hypothetical, for there are already some wolves among the sheep who teach that the Old Testament is to be ignored and that both Testaments are full of errors. But all is not lost! For these same scholars and teachers, who oppose inerrancy and would reduce it to nothing, would have us put our faith in their own work, and the work of their colleagues, as if their words should be regarded as nearly inerrant and should become the new foundation for a new church.
Admonition
In summary, the following can be said with certainty, with regards to the inspiration and inerrancy of the many parts of Sacred Scripture:
All of Sacred infallible Scripture is truly one Word uttered by God, Whose very Nature is Truth itself. In God, no falsehood or error of any kind can possibly be found. From God, no falsehood or error of any kind can possibly proceed. To say otherwise is to imply that Jesus Christ Himself, Who is the living Word of God, is false.
Therefore, if anyone believes or teaches that Sacred Scripture itself contains, to any extent whatsoever: error on any subject, or false assertions of any kind, or human error mixed with divinely-inspired truth, or falsehoods that proceed from the individual failings of particular authors, or falsehoods that proceed from the failings of a particular culture or society, or teachings on faith and morals that are no longer applicable, it is proof that he has gone astray from the true teachings of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium, which are truly the teachings of Jesus Christ, the one Word of God, and that he has fallen into abject heresy of the most abominable kind, and that he is condemned by God and by his own error.
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
June 15, 2008
