1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JA: The Council has not solved the problem by undertaking a purely material investigation, but endeavoured to achieve a solution by pointing out THE REAL MEANING OF SCRIPTURAL INERRANCY AND FINDING A POSITIVE EXPRESSION FOR IT.Teaching on inerrancy was to be formulated more positively and given a new emphasis. Hence instead of merely saying sine (ullo) errore it speaks of the "truth" that "God has written down in Scripture for the sake of our salvation."

RS4: Jorge, this doesn't say anything for your side. The only thing he says is that the issue was to be treated more positively than before. He does not say, contrary to your position, that the Council reasoned that there were errors in Scripture. He specifically says that they did not want to get into a "material investigation," which apparently was for the express purpose of not having to give a detailed assessment of the issue of inerrancy. If they didn't want to get into the "material investigation," then it follows that they had no impetus, as Paul VI suggested they didn't, to make conclusions on the material issues of inerrancy. Thus, they had to settle merely for a positive affirmation WITHOUT addressing any material issues. In effect, this summation by the commentator actually destroys your position, since he has admitted that Vatican II did not wish to make material judgments on inerrancy, and more or less by-passed the issue by making a theologically innocuous statement about inerrancy being "for the sake of our salvation," but everyone already knows that Scripture is for our salvation. As a consequence of this commentator's admission, "for the sake of our salvation," simply cannot bear the weight you and Fr. Brown, and the rest of your liberal theologians are trying to put on it.

JA: The modus on which this was based was somewhat differently phrased and expressed less clearly the intention of the fathers who sere seeking for a new solution. There is a conscious strengthening of the final text. To have truth written down for the sake of our salvation is stated to be, not merely here but throughout the whole Constitution, the purpose of the origin of Scripture and its inspiration.

RS4: Who would argue with that? The purpose of all of Scripture is for the sake of our salvation.

JA: These words, "for the sake of our salvation," mean the same thing as the deleted phrase "truth of salvation" (veritas salutaris).

RS4: Again, he ignores what Paul Vi said about veritatis saluraris.

JA: But the new formulation is more felicitous and goes further than the one first suggested. The words salutis sausa remove the possibility of the misinterpretation that veritas salutaris was exposed to: namely that Scripture was materially divided into inspired (and inerrant) part on the one hand, and non-inspired parts (and thus from the start liable to error) on the other. The main point to note is that inspiration and inerrancy are to be understood primarily from the will of God, who desires to communicate to men his saving truth, and this in such a way that this truth is taight "firmly, faithfull and without error."

RS4: So how does this help your position, Jorge? The commentator is admitting that veritatis salutaris would have divided Scripture into inspired/inerrant on the one hand, and non-inspired/errant on the other. Thus, if veritatis salutaris is removed because of creating such a division, then there is only one position left, the position of inspired/inerrant, for the commentator makes no division between inspiration and inerrancy, something you were trying to do a while back. For him they are dependent on one another, something that you have not yet affirmed.

JA: And again:

At the same time, in this fuller view inerrancy is a particular expression of fidelity to the covenant and of the permanent saving will of God. The "truth" and "truthfullness" of God are inseparably bound up with each other. The new version of the inerrancy of Scripture seeks to avoid the danger of intellectualization (this is what you are doing Robert).

RS4: Jorge, I can speak about the "positive" aspects of inerrancy probably better than you can, but the previous admission by this commentator separates you from him, since he sees no separation between inspiration and inerrancy.

JA: Hence, the emphasis on its full saving function in the words firmiter-fideliter. It seeks to give back to this doctrine its true content: the significance of the inerrancy of Scripture is that it is a special guarantee of the permanent existence and effectiveness of the saving truth or God among men [not, Robert, the guarantee of the historical inerrancy of each and every detail].

RS4: Jorge, from that inserted comment I can see why you are so misled. "True content" does not mean that previous definitions had "false content," otherwise, Vatican II would be saying that previous popes and councils made an error in their definition. "Content" here refers to what inerrancy does for us as opposed to what, in the estimation of previous popes and councils, it does not give us (i.e., does not give us error). Previous popes and councils didn't spell out the merits of inerrancy, per se. The language is now positive instead of negative, but the definition and extent of inerrancy has not changed, for Vatican II did not make any specific statement that either had changed.

JA: And again:

"We know today too much about the way in which the sacred books were conditioned by the time in which they were written to be able to apply the 19th-century conception of historical truth to them. But both the opponents and the defenders of the inerrancy of Scripture had done this. The authority of Scripture today is no longer threatened from the quarter. On the contrary; the ever fuller knowledge of the way in which the saving statements of Scripture are embedded in history shows their truly genuine character.But there are also parts of scripture which have only an auxiliary function in relation to these direct truths of salvation. Here, from the point of view of the secular sciences, [here it is Robert] SOMEWHAT LESS THAN THE TRUTH CAN BE EXPRESSED. HERE WE MUST ACCEPT FACTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ANXIETY. THE QUESTION OF INERRANCY IS NOT TO BECOME A MATTER OF A BAD CONSCIENCE OF FALSE ATTITUDES BUT SHOULD OPEN ONE'S EYES TO THE FULL NATURE OF SCRIPTURE.

RS4: You're reading into it what you want to see, again, Jorge. The clause "SOMEWHAT LESS THAN THE TRUTH CAN BE EXPRESSED" does not mean Scripture contains error, for Vatican II did not say the Scripture contained error, as you yourself admitted. What this commentator is trying to say (although not very well) is that the propositions of Scripture, whether in science, history, mathematics, the cosmos, etc, may not be in the exact and calculated language that we use today. For example, Pi is 3.14, yet Leviticus affirms that an equilateral triangle traverses a circle, which would make Pi more equal to 3. But that is not an error; it is a rounding off of a number for simplicity and brevity. It is less than the exact truth, but it is not an error. If Scripture said Pi was 2 or 4, that would be an error.

As for science, I asked you before, and I'll ask you again. Name just one proven, indisputable fact of science that contradicts the Bible. If you can show me one, then I promise to accept it without "prejudice and anxiety."

JA: The question of inerrancy of Scripture has passed into a new stage. The questions of criticism are no longer directed so much at the veritates profanae, but at the validity of the way in which Scripture understands salvation itself, about the justification of the scriptural ideals and moral demands. We are now wrestling with the theological content of Scripture, with the reality of the deeds performed by God for the sake of our salvation, as, for example, the resurrection of Jesus in particular.

RS4: I hope to God he is not suggesting that Jesus did not literally rise from the dead (that is, if you had a video camera there you would not have seen Jesus rise). By the way, Jorge, what is your own view of the Resurrection of Christ. Was it actual or was it myth?

JA: It is a question of the interpretation of the person, the mission, the work, the whole life and death of Jesus and his story. We are also concerned with the facts connected with the foundation of the Church and with its nature AND NO LONGER WITH A GIVEN HISTORICAL DATE, OR GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL OR SCIENTIFIC DETAILS. The question of the nature of biblical Christianity is asked in a particularly radical way.

RS4: "Radical way"? Compared to what? What does this mean to you, Jorge?

JA: Thus the Constitution rightly emphasizes that Scripture teaches the TRUTH OF SALVATION "surely, faithfully, and without error."

Robert, these words and the introduction to this section of the commentaries were written by Joseph Ratzinger and Alios Grillmeier. What does THAT tell you. Please read this material. I will be glad to send you all of it. Don't ignore it.

RA4: It tells me just what we already know about Ratzinger. Sometimes he's liberal, sometimes he's conservative, but all in all, I think he did a good job, considering that he is surrounded by a preponderance of liberals on the Pontifical Biblical Commission as well as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. But I think Ratzinger has done more damage to your position than to mine, Jorge. It is obvious that you and he have different views on some very crucial aspects.

JA: Michael, that is not the old or the new teaching. I realize this is nuanced, but it is understandable with a little more careful reading. The developed teaching doesn't teach that there is "error". It clarifies previous teaching (which itself doesn't mean what you and Robert claim for it). To understand the nuance you have to understand "time-conditioned" teachings (as taught in Mysterium Ecclesiae) and understand that it is The Church, not the individual who interprets the meaning of previous teachings. It is also crucial that you understand that it is a new approach that VatII took to inerrancy - from an a priori intellectualism of the past to an a posteriori approach that allows exegetes and theologians freedom to investigate and bring the fruits of their research to the Church. This is Ratzinger et. al. who are saying this, not me.

RS4: No one, including Michael and I, ever said they could not bring their "fruits" to the Church, but what you're forgetting, Jorge, is that the Church doesn't have to accept all the "fruits" (and nuts) of historical-criticism. She is the great fruit-inspector. And apparently, for all the fruit of the limitation of biblical inerrancy that Protestants and Catholics had mustered in the 200 years prior to Vatican II, the Church decided that she would not make any statement favoring limited inerrancy, as you said so yourself. The problem with the historical-critical people is that your system requires you to make conclusions, and you think that just because you have reached these conclusions that they are necessarily true, and that the Church, either now or later, is going to accept your conclusions, and until then, you'll go right along teaching your conclusions. But producing fruit and having the fruit accepted are two totally different things.

Sixth Dialogue:

"RS: Because historical-critical scholarship was in vogue then, having been introduced by the Protestants, and gaining momentum due to the ecumenicity between the two faiths."

JE: That doesn't answer the question. By the way, it is still very much in vogue.

RS2: Perhaps, but it hasn't changed the Church's mind on inerrancy, and that's all we are discussing.

RS: "Pius XII was clear that he would allow Historical Criticism to be used in order to see if it could add anything worthwhile to what we already knew."

JE: And it has added so much worthwhile information and continues to do so. Thank God for Pius XII. He was very wise.

RS2: Yes he was, for Historical Criticism has given us some good information, but neither Pius nor Paul nor John Paul has accepted Historical Criticism's conclusion on inerrancy.

RS: "but neither Pius XII, nor any other Pope after him, said that Historical Criticism's view that there were errors in Scripture was going to be accepted by the Church."

JE: Not explicitly, but it is very clear from the rejection of the doomsdayers at Vatican II (and their proposal to use the EXACT language from previous documents), the promulgation, and subsequent acceptance, of the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, the language of Dei Verbum, and every other post-conciliar document, that the Church no longer feels compelled to defend the literal and 100% historical inerrancy of scripture.

RS2: A change in language does not mean they are rejecting previous concepts of inerrancy. It only means they wish to promulgate the doctrine in different language. You have no proof to the contrary, especially in light of Paul VI's judgment against limited inerrancy.

JE: It is clear that the Church has matured and moved past this ridiculous position. I am thankful they have. The church is wise and has distanced itself from a fundamentalist position.

RS2: Really? Show us where any pope has said that he wishes to "distance" us from previous concepts of inerrancy.

RS: "That is the cold, hard fact you seem unwilling to accept. If the HC discovery that there were errors in Scripture were an accurate and needed truth, we would expect at least one Pope to make it official, in an encyclical or some other statement."

JE: Change occurs slowly and cautiously in the Church. By adopting the a posteriori approach and leaving open these issues, the Church is proceeding with caution. This is wise and I understand why this is occurring. But, the handwriting is on the wall.

RS2: The Church gave no statement saying it was thinking about changing the view on inerrancy, or that it was leaving the issue open. You keep putting words into the mouth of the Church, but in reality all you are doing is regurgitating the sentiments of Meier and Fitzmyer.

"RS: There is nothing in Vatican II, the Catechism or any post-conciliar teaching that says that the Gospels do not contain the original words of Jesus. You are making quite a bold claim here, Jorge. I suggest you not make it unless you have the citations that support your position."

JE: I quote from the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (which was adopted by the Pope and cited in the Catechism):

"For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, [23] and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense."

RS2: Jorge, stop playing the cat-n-mouse game. We don't base our doctrine on what Fr. Brown wrote in The Historical Truth of the Gospels, just as we don't base what Fr. Brown said about an errant Scripture in his New Jerome Biblical Commentary. If you can find Fr. Brown's words in Vatican II, the Catechism, or any post-conciliar Papal teaching, then you win, but you know you can't find any, so you keep quoting your mentor, but he has absolutely no authority.

JE: Interestingly, this in not a new understanding as the Instruction itself references Augustine. Now, do you see what the Church teaches: NOT LITERALLY, BUT DIFFERENTLY, WHILE PRESERVING THEIR SENSE! This is dispositive and conclusive.

RS2: Show me any place where Augustine believed in an errant Scripture, Jorge. I'm not interested in a twisting of Augustine's words, or taking his words out of context, as your liberal friends did with "for the sake of our salvation." For that matter, show me any other Father that believed in an errant Scripture.

"RS: This was already explained to you, Jorge, but you choose to keep asking the question as if it was never answered."

JE: Because I don't agree with your interpretation of the events that occurred.

RS2: Then say you don't agree, but don't keep asking the question.

JE: It is clear they paid lip service to the prior documents to appease the ultra-conservatives.

RS2: I wouldn't call Paul VI's rejection of "saving truth" lip service. In any case, the liberals have boxed themselves into a corner, since all we are left with is Vatican II's citation of previous teaching. One hundred years from now, that's all people will see, and so we've already won the battle, we just have to win the war.

JE: It is likewise clear, that the Instruction (written and approved DURING THE COUNCIL) set the stage for the final language of Dei Verbum and the documents that followed. Sorry Robert, I just don't agree with you.

RS2: But the final language was instigated by Paul VI who denied limited inerrancy and would not allow the Council to teach it. That is very clear.

"RS: What errors, Jorge? The ones you merely assert as errant? The ones you purport in Daniel? When I get done with my research on Daniel you will see that HC doesn't have a leg to stand on. Do you have any other "non-salvific" errors you want to bring to the fore?"

JE: Robert, you can concoct all the "harmonizations" and "explanations" that you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that no serious Biblical scholar or theologian holds to the 100% historical inerrancy position anymore.

RS2: Unfortunately, you rely on a headcount of liberal theologians to determine your beliefs, Jorge, rather than the evidence from Scripture that has plausible explanations. You show quite clearly that this is a political issue for you rather than a search for truth. Furthermore, you illustrate the perverse attitude of liberal "scholars", by making inspired, infallible Sacred Scripture the handmaiden of non-infallible, modern agendas at the expense of the historical teaching of the Church.

"RS: This is exactly the pompous attitude I find with most liberal scholars."

JE: Moderate scholars Robert, not liberal. Moderate scholars who continue to be honored and praised by the Church for being "faithful to the Magisterium and the teachings of the Church".

RS2: So who is liberal in your view?

"RS: These self-serving comments really don't make you look any better, Jorge. The point in fact remains that Paul VI, himself, thwarted your liberal agenda on inerrancy."

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9