1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RS2: "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in 1998, states in Professio Fidei: "...the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts...""

JA: There are no errors in salvific truth.

RS3: Begging the question again, Jorge. "Salvific truth" (veritatem salutarem) was rejected by Vatican II.

RS2: Vatican Council 1 says: "Further, this supernatural revelation....is contained in the written books...from the apostles themselves by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand" (DS 3006).

JA: You are doing precisely what the Church tells us not to do. You are making yourself the infallible interpreter of what the Church teaches.

RS3: Pardon me, Jorge. I didn't give any interpretation of the passage. I just quoted it to you. Apparently you don't like the quote. Is it something about that word "dictation" I wonder?

Fourth Dialogue:

RS: Okay, have it your way: Fr. Brown maintains a conclusion about Scripture that was not maintained at Vatican II. Besides, you're begging the question. Vatican II, the official documents, made no distinction between historical error and salvific error. That is your invention.

JA: And he is free, under the official documents from VatII to maintain that conclusion as the council shifted the inquiry away from a priori conclusions about inerrency to an a posteriori approach. In addition, the council most certainly did make a distinction between historical error and salvific. A simple reading of the chosen language in Dei Verbum (and the language rejected) makes this clear -- that truth which God wanted put into Scripture for the sake of our salvation. This language, couple with post-conciliar teaching, the praise of Brown by the Pope, etc., leaves no room for doubt as to the Church's position.

RS3: Jorge, I suggest you consult my email "Biblical Inerrancy, Parts 1, 2, 3. I suggest, sincerely, that you are distorting Vatican II's will. END

RS: Jorge, you haven't yet recognized the distinction between SOME people who claimed there were errors as opposed to the COUNCIL saying there were errors. An "awareness" of errors doesn't say anything, especially since the one interpreting it, Raymond Brown, has already decided that he thinks there are errors in Scripture. His judgment is, or may be, totally biased. As for Schema III, I will be addressing that in my next email.

JA: I have clearly recognized what the Church taught at VatII and what is permissable to say about scripture.

RS3: Again, read my email.

JA: No serious scholar of theologian seriously doubts there are non-salvific errors in scripture.

RS3: Since when is truth established by a head count? By that measure, you would have stood against St. Athanasius and with the Arians. As it stands, the Church has made no official teaching that there are errors in Scripture. That is the bottom line.

JA: For goodness sakes Robert, Job asserts that there is no after-life! That, in and of itself, is religious error.

RS3: So much for no error in matters of salvation. But of course, that's what inevitably happens on the slippery slope. As for Job, try Job 19:25-26 to find out about Job's belief in the Afterlife.

JA: The Babylonian Chronicles have demonstrated numerous historical errors. This is not disputed anymore.

RS3: So, you are saying that the Babylonian Chronicles are inerrant and the Bible isn't?

JA: Why are you clinging to 19th century notions that 95% of Catholic exegetes and theologians have abandoned?

RS3: That's false. Up until the 1950's, our beliefs were in the main for 20 centuries. Your beliefs about Scripture come from Protestants who were advocating errors in Scripture long before you were on the trail. And for all your "95%," the Church still hasn't endorsed your teachings, because she has made no official statement that there are historical errors in Scripture. And until she does, then the Church is on my side, not yours.

RS:It is clear that, if Vatican II, as you say, did not teach that there were errors in Scripture, and yet Fr. Brown DOES believe there were errors in Scripture, then the two are at odds, are they not?

JA: No, because it is clear from the teachings at VatII and post-conciliar teachings on exegesis and scripture that he has the freedom to inquire into this area and make conclusions based upon his research. He is not at odds in the least. You have missed the import of Mysterium Ecclesia and The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. Perhaps you should read the 12 pages I sent to you.

RS3:I read them, Jorge. And in them I read where Fr. Brown says that the individual should not be making dogmatic conclusions about Scripture ahead of the Church, yet that is precisely what Fr. Brown does with inerrancy. Fr. Brown has no right to teach as Catholic doctrine something the Church has not officially taught, especially in an area as highly sensitive as biblical inerrancy.

RS:The latter has CONCLUDED that there are errors, the former has not made any such conclusion. Thus, it seems Fr. Brown has gone out on a limb by making the conclusion in his NJBC that Scripture contains historical errors (or that inerrancy only applies to matters of salvation). Did Vatican II say that inerrancy applies only to matter of salvation? No, you yourself said they didn't.

JA: No, I said they rejected inerrancy as to matters of faith and morals and endorsed inerrancy as to salvific (and locating) truth.

RS3: You've got that wrong. "Salvific truth" was rejected. Read my last email. You are not aware of what went on at Vatican II.

RS: So what gives Fr. Brown the right to conclude that inerrancy only applies to matters of salvation?

JA: See above and my previous 12 page missive.

RS3: I saw it and read it, but it doesn't tell me from where Fr. Brown's right to make such conclusions comes.

RS: Jorge, I think you're trapped by your own devices, since Vatican II did not distinguish between matters of history and matters of salvation.

JA: Clearly they held to inerrancy only as to "that truth which God wanted put into sacred Scripture for the sake of our salvation." This is the plain language of the teaching.

RS3: No, neither the Council nor Pope Paul VI ever said that "for the sake of our salvation" limited biblical inerrancy. Paul VI specifically denied it.

As an aside, here's something to think about: Dei Verbum 11 continues after "for the sake of our salvation" with "Thus," and then quotes 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The word "thus" shows that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is explaining or corroborating the statement which immediately preceded it "without error...for the sake of our salvation." But how could Paul's insistence on the salvific value of all Scripture explain or corroborate that preceding sentence if the latter had meant to imply that not all Scripture has salvific value? If so, the use of "thus" would be meaningless.

Moreover, there are different translation of Dei Verbum 11. The Abbott edition places "for the sake of our salvation" at the end of the sentence, while Flannery places it in the middle. Other suggested translations, from the Latin (and including its comma placement) have: "...we must acknowledge that in the books of Sacred Scripture the truth, which by God's will was recorded for the sake of our salvation, it taught firmly, faithfully, and without error." This translation, which is more accurate, clearly shows that "for the sake of our salvation" has no bearing on inerrancy.

RS: Past Popes and Councils have clearly stated that there is no distinction between the history of revelation and the salvific content of relvelation.

JA: I have already addressed this See, Mysterium Ecclesia and my 12 page email.

RS: As it stands, without any further delineation, when the Church says, "for the sake of our salvation" it means that everything in Scripture is for the sake of our salvation.

JA: Clearly, it does not and no serious exegete or theologian believes this.

RS3: Prove it. Show us where the Church has specifically said so, rather than just make glib references to Mysterium Ecclesia or your 12 page paper.

RS: If you disagree, then I challenge you to show us from any Papal or Concilar statement, including Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, or John Paul II, where biblical revelation is separated into "history" and "salvation."

JA: See, Dei Verbum and the post-conciliar documents of the Catholic Church.

RS3: Obviously, you don't know where it says such, Jorge, otherwise you would direct me to a specific statement.

RS: The Church has made no official endorsement of Fr. Brown's ideas. As for praise, the Pope's praise of Fr. Brown is a general commendation, as the Pope usually gives to his underlings, not a wholesale endorsement to everything Brown said.

JA: Says who? The Church twice appointed him to the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The Church is well aware of the positions he has taken AND HAS PRAISED HIM FOR THOSE POSITION. THE POPE HIMSELF, NOT HIS UNDERLINGS! Sorry, this is a fact.

RS3: Show us where John Paul II, or any Pope, has officially endorsed the teaching of Raymond Brown that there are historical errors in Scripture. If you can't find it, Jorge, then you simply don't have a leg to stand on. Fr. Brown is not the Pope, although it seems that you treat him as such.

RS:As it stands, no Pope after Vatican II has endorsed the idea that there are historical errors in Scripture. If the idea that there were historical errors was true, as Brown contends, don't you think that the Pope would rush to his side and confirm such? The fact that the Pope has NOT specifically endorsed Brown's thesis of historical errors in Scripture should tell you something.

JA: The Church left this issue for exegetes and theologians to explore. As the Church doesn't affirm absolute historical or secular inerrancy there is no reason to say more at this time. This tells me plenty.

RS3: The Church never leaves final decisions to exegetes and theologians. But Fr. Brown has made a final decision, that is, that there ARE errors in Scripture. Sounds like he thought he was his own Magisterium.

JA: The key thing you have to remember Robert is that it is the Church who determines who is in error, not me, you, or any other Catholic apologist. This is the CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS teaching of the Church. Moreover, it is the CHURCH, not me, you, or anyone else's duty to interpret current and past Church teachings and documents. You are substituting your private interpretation and understanding of these teachings for that of the Church and then using that interpretation to label and condemn this (and other) good, honest, faithful Catholics. Brown himself, contrary to what you said, was praised for, his faithfullness and loyalty to Catholic teaching and the Magisterium. Who are you or Michael Smith to say otherwise?

RS3: Neither Michael nor I said that Fr. Brown wasn't to be praised for the Church doctrines he held to. We are critiquing him for his conclusion that there are errors in Scripture in the face of the Church who has never said there are errors in Scripture. We have that right. And until you find a papal statement that praises Fr. Brown for believing that there are errors in Scripture, you have no case. If you like, I can provide you with statements by JPII which praise Martin Luther and other heretics and heretical beliefs. Do you believe his and their theology was thus all sound, too?

JA: This is Protestantism disguised as Catholicism.

RS3: Let me remind you Jorge that the Protestants were down your trial of biblical errancy before you and Fr. Brown were born. If anyone is embracing Protestantism here, it is you and Fr. Brown.

JA: Sorry, you're wrong on this one Robert and if you go on record in this upcoming book taking this position, you won't be taken seriously by any serious scholar or theologian, although I suspect you'll make a bunch of money. I am leaving to go on vacation and won't have time to write anymore for the next two weeks. I don't think we will resolve our differences on this as they are too fundamental to resolve. So, let's leave it here. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. Take care.

RS3: Jorge, I am glad to expose people like Fr. Brown, and believe me, I will do a good job of it in the book. And as for not being "taken seriously by any serious scholar or theologian," as Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their dead." You are a dying breed.

Fifth Dialogue, which gets into the finer details:

"RS3: Religious errors? Jorge, I thought you believed that Scripture was inerrant in matters of salvation. Isn't the fact that there might not be an afterlife a pretty big error in a matter of salvation? And here you conclude that there ARE "religious" errors, yet you can't even tell us where Scripture makes such a claim! Jorge, your gun is cocked too tight. It seems you have an agenda, and it is not good."

JA: See my previous emails. I make clear what I mean here.

RS4: Jorge, it wasn't very clear at all. As it stands, I have you on record saying that there are not only historical errors in Scripture, but also "religious" errors, about the very essence of salvation, the "afterlife."

"RS3: I suggest you read Dei Verbum 11 again, for there they quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states: "16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

JA: Again, you confuse inspiration with inerrancy which you did in the VatII materials as well.

RS4: No, Jorge. I know the difference between the two. Nevertheless, you missed the point, which is: if Dei Verbum quotes 2 Tim 3:16-17 to explain its previous statement ("for the sake of our salvation"), yet 2 Tim 3:16-17 contains nothing about Scripture containing truth only in areas of salvation, then its obvious that the council was not endorsing a view of biblical inerrancy in Dei Verbum 11. If they were endorsing limited inerrancy, then they would not have quoted 2 Tim 3:16-17, for that verse simply doesn't say anything in regards to inerrancy. Again, you're caught in the quicksand, making claims without any proof.

"RS3: How many heresies have developed because some Catholic thought that he could jump ahead of the Church and declare something to be true when in fact that Church had not declared it to be true?"

JA: Approach Robert, approach. A priori vs. a posteriori - what did VatII leave open Robert? Do you know? Do you care? Did they depart from prior teaching? Of course they did but you can't see it. Is your faith so shallow that you need absolute inerrency? Absolutely amazing to see this type of fundamentalism in the 21st century - AND IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!!! Scary!.

RS4: Jorge, the number of exclamation points conveys your emotionalism, not the strength of your argument. Tell us where Vatican II said they were "leaving open" the issue of biblical inerrancy. If you can't, then that means you are 'reading into' Vatican II what you would like to see. The only thing that is "scary" is to watch you so blithely make these self-serving conclusions about things that Vatican II didn't even address. As it stands, you've admitted that Vatican II didn't depart from previous teaching, and we all know what the "previous teaching" taught, don't we Jorge? And the reason we know it is because Vatican II didn't change any of it, nor did they tell us they were still "thinking about" the issue.

RS2: "Pius IX in Syllabus of Errors, condemned the following notion: "The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions...""

JA: See Mysterium Ecclesia - you know, Robert, one day you are going to have to come to grips with that teaching. You can't ignore it forever.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9