1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RS4: Jorge, I promise on my grandmother's grave that I will not ignore it, really! Just tell us the parts of Mysterium Ecclesia that you think support your case. Cite them and send them, and give us your reasons. You made the challenge, now back it up with action. Give us your interpretation.

"RS3: Jorge, Pius is combining inspiration and inerrancy in that statement, as many of the Popes did."

JA: Oh, is he? You know that how? You are starting to get it. Just don't deny where it leads you. Keep your mind open.

RS4: Okay, Jorge, tell us what you think "inspiration" is.

"RS3: Oh? So what is "salvific and locating truth" Jorge, and where did Vatican II say that "salvific and locating truth" was not "faith and morals"?" JA: I could have sworn you said you had read all this material. Apparently not. I apologize for presuming you had.

RS4: Jorge, if you want to throw in a little ad hominem to your rhetoric, fine, but at least answer the question, too. You can't show us where Vatican II said "salvific and locating truth" was not "faith and morals" so you opt to make me look like I haven't read the material.

RS3: No conflict? So, is where you say that its not REALLY an historical error, because the writer didn't INTEND to write history? Is that it? Well, as I said above, before you rest on that position, you have to prove to us that you know what the INTENT of the biblical writer is. Perhaps you can call him up from the dead and ask him, because that's the only way you're going to know for sure.

JA: Wow, I knew you didn't understand exegesis, but this is ridiculous. Scary.

RS4: More ad hominem without substance, Jorge? Its only scary when you can't prove how you know the writer's intent, yet make all kinds of absolute conclusions based on what you think he intended. This is the big farce of higher-criticism that I will be more than happy to expose.

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

JA: And the language they approved meant almost exactly the same thing (but included locating truth) and was phrased more passively. This is disingenuous.

RS4: Jorge, check your comments just a few sentences ago. There you said: "I could have sworn you said you had read all this material. Apparently not. I apologize for presuming you had." Now you admit that "salvific truth" is not in Vatican II. Looks like you're the one who didn't read Vatican II, rather, you 'read into' Vatican II what you wanted to see. And as far as it meaning the "same thing," that's not what Paul VI said when he read it. It was his specific objection, based on the advice he received that such a phrase would be used by some to claim that Scripture is only inerrant on matters of salvation, that he recommended it be changed, and it was changed. You don't know your history. "RS3: 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?"

JA: Just like a Protestant. "I didn't interpret it, I only quoted it." Yeah, you quoted it IN SUPPORT OF YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT. Please Robert, this is amazingly unscholarly. You are engaging in sola ecclesia and it is scary.

RS4: I only quoted it, Jorge. I did not interpret it. Its quite unscholarly of you not to recognize the distinction.

RS3: Is that why you didn't know the "salvific truth" was not in Vatican II?

JA: I know the teaching is new and adopts a new approach and allows exegetes freedom to explore these issues and draw logical conclusions. No serious scholar disputes it anymore. You emails are apologetical, not exegetical. It is the stuff John Meier warned me about. He was right.

RS4: No one here is denying you the right to use the historical-critical approach. All we are doing is saying that your conclusions must be circumscribed by what the Church has taught. Since there is no Church teaching which says that there are errors in Scripture, then anyone, whether it based on historical-critical approach or not, who says that there are errors in Scripture, has made claims the Church has never taught. That's all there is to it, Jorge. So you can complain all you want, and call me all the names you want, but it doesn't persuade me in the least, and isn't likely to persuade any objective obsever, either. I've already been where you are so I know what I am talking about.

JA: I just went back and reread my copy of ? Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II? (the extended treatment on inerrency and inspiration) and I must say that you have confused these two issues in your account of what went on at the council. This is a serious mistake and will undermine your book. Do you have a copy of this 5 volume set? If not, you should go to a library that does and read this information. You are setting yourself up to be soundly refuted. If you want, I could send you photo copies of the pertinent sections by mail (my copies are marked up but still legible). I really think you need to read this stuff. The letter you mentioned in one of your email (Ottavani) is telling, as is the Theological Commissions actions, etc. You are confusing actions taken that addressed inspiration, not inerrancy. This is clear as a bell and fatal to your position. You really need to read this stuff. I am trying to save you from embarrassment, but if you don't want to read it, I understand. Please let me know if you want this information. I don't know where you are getting your information, but whoever is providing it has left out critical detail and clarifying information. If you are interested in the truth, you won't overlook this information.

RS4: Jorge, anything you have I'll be willing to look at. That's a promise. Send me whatever you think is relevant.

JA: Robert, more from the council commentaries for you to ponder:

A number of observations are important if one is to estimate the theological value of this final position of the Theological Commission: 1) we must note the different points at which the modi were aimed which called for the removal of the words veritas salutaris and which the Theological Commission chose in its answer: the complaint of the modi (like the memorandum submitted to Paul VI, which probably has the same authors as the modi) was that veritas salutaris limited "inerrancy" of scripture to matters of faith and morals. Against this the Commission reject the limitation of "inspiration" of Scripture which might follow from this formulation, on the basis of the pronouncements of the teaching office in the nineteenth century and later. For at that time it was proposed that the solution of the pressing questions of inerancy should be the limitation of inspiration. [footnote omitted]. This was not an avoidance of the issue, but a clarification of the chief interest of the documents cite and also of the mind of the Council. There can be no doubt that all the books of Scripture in all their parts are inspired. (emphasis mine) But since the Commission now approaches the question of the "truth" of Scripture, it starts with a quotation from Providentissimus Deus ("Deeum ipsum per sacros auctores elocutum nihil admodum a veritate alienum ponere potuisse": EB, 127). This statement is, however, immediately explained in relation to veritas salutaris, with reference to Eph 1:13 and, one might say, authentically explained. Thus the Theological Commission as well as clearly emphasizing the universal extent of inspiration keeps the way open for a new interpretation of inerrancy. (emphasis mine).

RS4: No, the statement "keeps the way open for a new interpretation of inerrancy" is this commentator's interpretation of Vatican II, but it is not stated by Vatican II. Vatican II nowhere says that they have not come to a resolution on the issue of inerrancy, and therefore have left the issue open to a "new interpretation." Paul VI's words to the Commission were clear: "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." Paul VI's admonition is especially noteworthy since it was known that Jan van Dodeward, Bishop of Harlem, Holland, submitted the word salutaris, and according to Francesco Spadafora: "with no previous discussion, so as to launch the 'new doctrine,' which was opposed to absolute inerrancy, by stealth, and without the knowledge of the voting Fathers themselves" (Leone XIII). Its no secret, Jorge, that the liberals were trying to get Vatican II to say that inerrancy was limited. Once that is understood, then it should become painfully obvious to those of your persuasion that, since Vatican II made no specific statement that inerrancy was limited, they therefore agreed with all previous papal and conciliar statements that inerrancy was NOT limited. If they thought it was limited, they would have said so, but they did not, and that is the cold reality you must face.

JA: IT was firmly of the opinion that veritas salutaris could remain. Only in order to avoid a misuse of this expression in the direction of a limiting of inspiration a new formula is chosen.

RS4: Not quite the way it happened. The commentator is speaking in the passive ("Only in order to avoid a misuse of this expression") and leaves out the fact that Paul IV specifically asked for veritatis salutaris to be removed due to the confusion it would cause, and due to the advice he received from a "highly competent authority" that it would be used to support limited inerrancy. Paul VI said he was "deeply hesitant" about using veritatis salutaris, and considered its removal of the "greatest importance" due to the "abusive interpretations" it might receive. Thus, the above commentary is not telling the whole story, and thus the conclusion is immediately suspect. And since in Dei Verbum 11 "inspiration," because it is a long distance away in the sentence, is not the focal point of the clause "for the sake of our salvation," then the matter is not merely "in the direction of a limiting of inspiration" but more of limiting inerrancy, unless, of course, this commentator sees no difference between inspiration and inerrancy, which, if it is the case, goes against what you are saying, Jorge.

JA: Veritas salutaris, thus becomes veritas, quam Deus salutis nostrae causa litteris sacris consignari voluit. At the same time the material submitted by the 73 fathers was significantly altered by the Commission, as was their right. Instead of veritatem, quam Deus, nostrae salutis causa, libris sacris consignare voluit it reads: Nostrae salutis causa, in apposition with Deus, became a final adverbial qualification of consignari, which moreoever, was conceived passively and not actively, [sound familiar Robert] in accordance with the Constitution's conception of inspiration (in order to put more stress on the human authorship under inspiration).

RS4: "Sound familiar" to what, Jorge? Whether passively or actively, nostrae salutis causa is an adverbial phrase which replaced the previous adjectival phrase veritatis salutaris. This indicates even more clearly that the "salvific" concept is to be taken as referring to the purpose or finality which God had in mind in giving us the Bible. Paul VI certainly did not understand the phrase as a adjectival one, since he specifically asked for the removal of the phrase veritatis salutaris. Further, litteris sacris consignari is in the ablative case, which means that God used the Sacred Writings as a means or instrument in which he wanted his saving truth to be expressed. Since we have Paul VI's intervention on this matter, it is easy to see that Scripture is to be understood as on par with the saving truth, not as a larger body which would also contain "non-salvific" material as well.

JA: Here the Theological Commission has followed a particular aim in opposition to the marked activity of a particular group in the Council and the attitude of Paul VI to it namely presenting the doctrine of inerrency of Scripture in a way that was in harmony with the concept of Chapters I and II of the Constitution on Revelation and took more account of the modern difficulties than was possible in the strict formulation of the papal encyclicals on Scripture, and especially the schema of 1962. But the resistance of the fathers mentioned and the reservations of the Pope undoubtedly had their effect; for the formula that was found is a much happier one than the hotly contested veritas salutaris. This will be seen when we come to its theological interpretation.

RS4: Not only is this the commentator's first mention of Paul VI's intervention, but notice how glibly the commentator refers to the Pope's intervention as merely "the reservations of the Pope," treating him as if he is just a bystander with a strong opinion who just happened to influence the Council. As I said above, it is a fact that Paul VI was "deeply hesitant" about using veritatis salutaris, and considered its removal of the "greatest importance" due to the "abusive interpretations" it might receive. That is not just "reservations," rather, it is the most telling piece of evidence we have from the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, showing us that limited inerrancy would not be tolerated, and that the phrase was not appropriate, and which was the very reason the Commission removed it.

JA: From an earlier portion of this section:

"The expression salutaris should in no way imply that Scripture is not, in its totality, INSPIRED and the word of God: cf. what was stated in the text"(of 1964, Form II) in the spirit of the encyclical Providentissimus (emphasis mine).

RS4: That goes without saying. But the Council is clear in Dei Verbum 11 that Scripture is held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit. And thus, the task for you, Jorge, is to tell us how, then, the Holy Spirit can err when He gives us historical details, and even "religious" details.

JA: And again:

"Thus, before the letter to Cardinal Ottaviani, the previous version of the doctrine of inerrancy was defended. It was realized that in the question of inerrancy 'truth' had a different meaning according to whether it was a statement of salvation or a 'secular truth,' without affecting the unlimited extent of inspiration." [Ouch to your position Robert].

RS4: Jorge, read the sentence, slowly and accurately. It says "BEFORE the letter to Cardinal Ottaviani" they had the opinion that 'truth' had a different meaning...salvation or a secular truth," not AFTER. The letter being spoken about is the letter Paul VI wrote to Ottaviani, the head of the Commission, which specifically stated that veritatis salutaris could not be used because it could lead to the mistaken position of limited inerrancy. So yes, prior to the letter, some of the bishops may have been working under the impression that there were two different definitions of truth (which is openly known by everyone), but their opinion was forestalled by Paul VI. That's what the Pope's job is, Jorge. To clear up incorrect presumptions of the bishops.

As for "secular" truth, Vatican II discounted your notion of it by quoting from a section of De Veritate in Aquinas. In that quote, Aquinas considers the question of whether scientific conclusions can be the subject-matter of prophetic inspiration. Aquinas' answer is that indeed they can be. He agrees that prophecy is given for the salvation of souls, but adds that many things proved by science can be useful for salvation, that is, for building up our faith or for our moral formation (Q. 12, art 2, c).

JA: And again:

"It was still desired to make a distinction in the statements of the sacred writers, by saying that the sacred books contained the truth, but in different ways, according to the particular character of the statement of the sacred writer. So that the secular truths also perhaps, in 'their way,' would share as it were in inerrancy at one remove."

RS4: There you have it. "Secular" truth was to share in inerrancy, not be designated to the category of the errant.

JA: And again:

"The final text contains there references, in note 5 of Chapter III [Robert, here the quotations to which they are referring are the ones you have provided from Providentissimus Deus and Divino afflante as well as from Augustine and Trent) supplemented by a quotation from St. Thomas. Yet the collation of these quotations, which have different tendencies, presents a special problem of interpretation" [sound familiar Robert].

RS4: "Sound familiar" to what, Jorge?

JA: The interpreters of the conciliar text would have had to face this problem, with or without explicit quotation. Thus we must ask how the new conciliar text is to be interpreted against the background of the earlier statements of inerrancy. [if there was no change in the teaching, Robert, what is there to interpret? Again, a big time ouch to your position].

RS4: Jorge, you're making something out of nothing. The commentator gives himself away here, since he admits that they would have faced the problem without the quotations. But the fact is, the quotations were given precisely to address "the problem." If there were no quotations to previous papal documents, he would have a case about an indecisive interpretation. But they ARE quoted, and this makes us turn back to them for clarification. And you as well as I know that those previous documents did not support limited inerrancy. Even in the commentator's own opinion, he doesn't offer any suggestions as to a new interpretation. He is just muddying the water suggesting that there MAY BE a new interpretation. We don't make teaching based on "may be". . We base them on what Vatican II said, not on what someone wishes they said.

JA: And again:

"That was why the wish was repeatedly expressed that this rich concept of truth shojld be expressed, as against the intellectualistic formulation of the defensive doctrine of inerrancy of the 19th and early 20th centuries. We can see that the old account of inerrancy did not fit in with the general trend of the whole Constitution."

RS4: Jorge, again, read the statement. The commentator bases the difference on the DEFENSIVE posture of earlier doctrine, not on the fact that they were wrong or somehow deficient in their truth content. The GENERAL TREND of the whole Constitution is precisely what I told you previously, and precisely what Bishop Meyer suggested, that is, that Vatican Council II had a "positive" flavor (no dogma, no anathemas) in the spirit of aggoranimento. If you're trying to use the above commentary as support for your position, this just proves that you see things the way you want to see them.

JA: and again:

"From the process of growth of the text, as described above, it emerges that it was the clear will of the Council to formulate more openly its teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture also under the influence of the irrefutable results of modern research. It should be noted that this very research in many respects also counters liberal criticism and thus has made the problem of inerrancy in the area of the secular truths less pressing."

RS4: Not surprising. The greatest enemy of liberal research is the very research they discover, for it invariably supports the conservative position.

JA: At the same time, however, it has made possible a fuller picture of the historical and human conditionedness of Scripture. A purely a priori and "absolute" doctrine of inerrancy, as the text of 1962 sought to present, is scarcely compatible with the facts.

RS4: What "facts"? Where has the Church stated officially that there are "facts" now available to us which will negate the traditional doctrine of inerrancy? Doesn't it strike you as odd that the commentator doesn't cite any "facts." He knows there has been no assessment of the so-called "facts" by any Pope or Council subsequent to Vatican II. What we have is Paul VI's intervention, which specifically countermanded limited inerrancy, as well as his statement in 1970 upholding the inerrancy of Scripture without qualification. We have no statement from John Paul, as voluminous as his writings are, that he has endorsed any "facts" which go against the traditional view of inerrancy, nor do we have a statement from him which endorses limited inerrancy. You simply have no evidence, Jorge, and the more you dig into this the more you expose what little evidence you have. Scriptural anomalies were known long before Fr. Brown came along, but NO ONE ever concluded that those anomalies cast a doubt on the absolute inerrancy of Scripture. Those are the facts, Jorge.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9