1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JE: Nonsense and revisionist. No one but fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives believes this Robert.

RS2: Actually read what happened, Jorge. Paul VI took out "saving truth" for the express purpose of deposing the idea of limited inerrancy.

"RS: Jorge, if you're going to throw out this kind of stuff, then at least name the person and give us the citation. Otherwise, its just hearsay, and you know what the judge does with that."

JE: This isn't disputed Robert. I'll let you research and discover this for yourself. I don't think you will because I think you may be afraid that I am right.

RS2: Obviously, Jorge, you don't have the citation, so don't try to turn the tables on me.

"RS: Because except for their views on inerrancy, they are respectable scholars."

JE: This is really weak. So, two Popes would simply look the other way and ignore their "errors on inerrancy" and appoint them anyway. Robert, this isn't even a remotely reasonable answer.

RS2: The Pope makes appointments on who is recommended. The ones who recommend Brown and company have the same liberal bent as Brown does. Everyone knows that. And again, the Pope has had many wonderful things to say about Cardinal Mahoney, Martin Luther, and Islam (and plenty of others lately). Does that mean they have the Church's stamp of complete approval?

RS: "And since no pope has endorsed your thesis that Scripture contains historical errors, you simply don't have a case. All you have are voices that, like the flower, fade into the recesses of history. END"

JE: Robert, it is merely a matter of time before the Church explicitly says this.

RS2: Well, it's been 40 years (actually, about 2000, really) Jorge. Looks like time is on my side.

JE: Even if it never does, it is clear from Vatican II and post-conciliar teaching that the Church has moved beyond this type of a priori position and sees Scripture in a deeper and more meaningful way. The old debates about 100% historical inerrancy just aren't meaningful anymore in light of the fruits of modern H-C exegesis. I don't blame the Church for not making explicit pronouncements in this regard. She never does when she changes and develops teachings.

RS2: Sure. Like the alleged "errors" Cardinal Konig brought forth at Vatican II? Those examples are so weak, it is no wonder the Council wasn't moved by them. If those alleged errors had any weight with the Council they would have decided, then and there, that Scripture contained errors. As it stands, none of your liberal friends could find one example of an absolute error in Scripture.

"RS: And I just learned (actually I knew it before) that you keep taking the most innocuous evidence and try to make a case for your side of the issue. So what if Pius XII lifted them. That doesn't mean that Pius XII or any other pope was obligated to accept the conclusions of Historical Criticism. The fact that Paul VI did not accept limited inerrancy, and told the Biblical Commission so, means that he was the first indication that the views of Historical Criticism were not going to rule the Church. Live with it, Jorge, for that is the fact."

JE: I'm not arguing for "limited" inerrancy and never have. That's YOUR term. Robert, what you have to come to terms with is that the old formulations were rejected and for a good reason. Sorry Robert, history will prove me right and you wrong.

RS2: Jorge, you keep changing your colors. Limited inerrancy means that you believe there are historical errors in Scripture. So let's stop playing word games.

"RS: I assume that one of the above gentlemen wrote the reply to you on Daniel? All I ask is: why aren't they man enough to give their name if they feel so strongly about their views?"

JE: Because at the time I solicited the response for him he wasn't aware that I desired to provide it to you (that was my fault for not telling him that). When I subsequently asked for his permission to forward the response to you, he wrote back asking that I either (1) summarize it for you, or (2) allow him to re-write it, add footnotes and references, etc. I told him I didn't want him to go to al that trouble and that I would just send it on and not use his name. He agreed. Nothing sinister here Robert.

RS2: Fine. Then give me his name and address. He and I can dialogue about it.

"RS: Jorge, let me say this loud and clear to you. Don't worry about us. We are going nowhere. Stop patronizing yourself. You are a dying breed. You will go the way of the Protestants on this issue. Most of them are dying off, and I will help with the funeral. That you can depend on. END"

JE: This is simply untrue. Catholics and Protestants are working side by side and the fruits of their labors are drawing us closer together and aiding our respective Churches and ecclesial communities in a deeper and more meaningful understanding of Scripture. I'm not patronizing myself or you Robert. And you are wrong if you think we are a dying breed. You are the dying breed. No serious scholars buy any of this anymore. Only the uninformed lay Catholic and fringe conservative scholars hold to these views.

RS2: In don't think anyone would call me, Scott Hahn, James Akin, Gerry Matatics, and the rest of the scholarly converts "uniformed," including the Fr. Most's and Fr. Harrison's in our midst. The fact is, we have a greater and more welcomed scholarly army than you. As for CUA, all its going to take is a wave of the Pope's wand and the liberal element is going to be shut down, and it is already happening with their new president.

"RS: Please don't muddy the water with the Feeney and Lefevbre issues. The church has already made her judgment. The issue here is inerrancy, and the fact remains that there is no papal or conciliar document that says there are errors in Scripture."

JE: That isn't muddying the waters at all. It is precisely the point. You and Michael believe you can pass judgement on who is "modernist", heterodox" and "heretical". You can't. That is for the Church and none of the scholars that I read have had these labels applied to them. In fact, just the opposite is the case - they have been honored and praised as loyal and faithful to the Church and Her teachings. Feeney and Lefevbre are precisely the issue because they, like you guys, seem to believe that you can interpret Church documents and teachings definitively and use those interpretations to label others.

RS2: Jorge, you've called me and Michael "conservatives," "Traditionalists," and many other labels. We all have labels for our opponents. It just so happens that the people who believe in limited inerrancy (or that the Bible has historical errors) come from the more progressive or liberal strains of Catholicism. And until the Church says there are errors in Scripture, and considering that every past pope and council who spoke on the issue of inerrancy said that it was wrong to say there are errors in Scripture, and since Vatican II quoted from these very sources, then it follows that anyone who CONCLUDES that there are errors in Scripture, as you and Meier, Fitzmyer and Brown do, then you have overstepped your bounds, and we who are in this business of teaching and defending Catholic truth must call a spade a spade. The best you can say, and I'll even accept it, is that the Church has been discussing the issue of inerrancy but has made no alternative conclusions, and as of this date there is no change from previous teaching. If you guys would just admit that, I wouldn't have to write a book refuting you.

JE: I never claimed that there is a Church teaching that states explicitly that there are errors on Scripture. You keep making this statement as if I have made this claim for the Church. Over and over again you make this statement. Please Robert, try to be a little more honest in this discussion. I made and make no such claim.

RS2: Okay, Jorge, with some reservation, I'll take your word for it that you didn't say this "explicitly," but if that's the case, then don't you think it is beyond your judgment to claim that the Church has said this implicitly? If Paul VI deliberately shot down the limited inerrancy position by getting rid of "saving truth," what other magisterial evidence do you have to even make an "implicit" judgment? All you have are general praises for Ray Brown, but even I can do that. And the Church today has praises for everyone, but that doesn't mean they endorse everything a person says. You've been around long enough to know the system.

JE: I simply stated that the Church has recognized that the pronoucements of the past no longer accurately reflect the knowledge that we have. The Church now teaches that inerrancy is only guaranteed with respect to "that truth....". This is clear. The Church has adopted an a posteriori approach and left the issue open so that theologians and exegetes can continue their work and aid to the Church. It's only a matter of time Robert before the explicit pronouncement comes.

RS2: Where does the Church say that "the pronouncements of the past no longer accurately reflect the knowledge that we have"? You keep reading into Dei Verbum what you want to see. You have no proof for your interpretation, since Dei Verbum, nor any pope, gave you that interpretation. It is precisely this kind of presumptuousness that deeply bothers me. There will be an in-depth section in our book regarding how your crowd has taken it upon themselves to interpret magisterial documents and make conclusions for the rest of us.

"RS: Jorge, there are a lot of Catholics with aberrant views that remain in good standing. Unless it is extreme, the Church hardly follows up on these things. But rest assured that the Church has never censored any person who maintained the total inerrancy of Scripture."

JE: Nor would they ever in my opinion. Catholicism is big enough to accommodate more than one point of view.

RS2: She certainly is, but it goes way beyond "accommodation" when the side who has the burden of proof (but doesn't have any magisterial statement supporting its position) concludes that their position is the only correct one. When you guys can show us a magisterial statement that says, in effect, "we have examined previous understandings on biblical inerrancy and have concluded that they are inadequate, and that indeed Scripture contains historical errors (and gives examples as Konig tried to do), and that we are no longer required to say that Scripture, as a whole is inerrant in all it says" then you will have a case, and this argument will cease. Until then, you're just shooting in the dark, and my book will point that out very forcefully.

"RS: Just remember, Jorge (and I will make this very clear in the opening pages of my book) no pope or council has ever endorsed the idea that there are errors in Scripture, of any kind. All you have is wishful thinking. I have the facts on my side."

JE: Nor have I ever claimed that the Church did any such thing. Again you erect a strawman to knock down. Why do you keep doing that?

RS2: Because you keep talking out of both sides of your mouth. One day you claim the Church does believe there are errors in Scripture, the next day you say she hasn't said so. One day you claim "for the sake of our salvation" means that the Church has accepted limited inerrancy, the next day you say the Church has never said she believes in limited inerrancy. So which is it?

Seventh Dialogue: In this dialogue, Jorge enlists the help of well-known liberal theologian (but without telling me his identity. I only found out later in an email Jorge sent to another person that was forwarded to me. Although I previously listed this theologians name, Jorge has asked me to remove his name, and I have done so).

Liberal Theologian: It appears that your private interpretations of the encylicals you have continually cited do not seem to comport with the language of the documents themselves (keep in mind that what follows is not my interpretation, but merely the language of the documents, much like you posted before). Here, however, I have included an excerpt that you seemingly weren't aware of or didn't see fit to include. These seem to support Raymond Brown's understanding of prior teachings. Note that in the excerpt from Divino Afflante, what is being quoted is Providentissimus.

"3. The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, SPEAKING OF THINGS OF THE PHYSICAL ORDER "WENT BY WHAT SENSIBLY APPEARED" as the Angelic Doctor says, [5] speaking either "in figurative language, or IN TERMS WHICH WERE COMMONLY USED AT THE TIME, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately -- the words are St. Augustine's [6] -- the HOLY SPIRIT, Who spoke by them, DID NOT INTEND TO TEACH MEN THESE THINGS -- that is the essential nature of the things of the universe -- THINGS IN NO WAY PROFITABLE TO SALVATION"; which principle "will apply to COGNATE SCIENCES, and ESPECIALLY TO HISTORY," [7] that is, by refuting, "in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks."

JA: Notice that he excludes from inerrency (although he is really talking about inspiration per se) things in no way profitable to salvation, namely cognate sciences and ESPECIALLY TO HISTORY. WOW! Does that sound familiar or what?

RS: Jorge, this is precisely the problem I see over and over again in your summations. The word "inerrancy" isn't even mentioned above, yet you insist that he is talking about inerrancy. The only thing he is speaking about is the sensible language of Scripture in regards to the cosmos. That's all. If the earth goes around the sun, yet the Bible says the sun rises, that is the "sensible" way Scripture gives us the information, but it has nothing to do with inerrancy, and it is the very reason neither Leo nor Pius referred to it as a matter of inerrancy. Scripture did not get into the "essential nature" of the cosmos, and thus it doesn't speak about atoms and molecules, per se, since its main goal is to teach us things necessary for salvation. But that does not mean, and every pope and council has backed this up, that WHEN Scripture touches upon an historical fact, its words are not to be taken as propositional truth regarding that historical fact, and in this sense there is no separation between history and salvation, because at that point history is salvation. END

JA: And, it was written before Vatican II in documents you two have been quoting for the proposition of absolute inerrancy!! Notice also the ramifications of the language "went by what sensibly appeared" and "in terms that were commonly used at the time". Boys, this opened the door to allowing exegetes the freedom to conclude (not as a matter of doctrine mind you, but purely from an exegetical viewpoint) that the Bible does contain inaccuracies of a scientific nature or historical nature.

RS: No, Jorge. You can say the Bible speaks in sensible language all you want, and we will agree with you, but the moment you cross that line and you claim that Scripture contains unqualified historical errors, you have entered a whole other realm. We can understand when Scripture speaks in figures of speech, but that is a far cry from saying that Scripture made an error on a particular historical point it was attempting to detail for us. There is a difference between deciding whether Scripture is speaking literally or allegorically, but there is no room for someone who says that of one or two blind men on the way to Jericho either Matthew or Luke made a mistake.

JA: Notice this from Divino Afflante as well:

47. "Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; AND THAT IN THE IMMENSE MATTER CONTAINED IN THE SACRED BOOKS -- LEGISLATIVE, HISTORICAL, SAPIENTIAL, AND PROPHETICA - THERE ARE BUT FEW TEXTS WHOSE SENSE HAS BEEN DEFINED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators MAY AND OUGHT TO BE FREELY EXERCISED, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church."

Where have I heard this before? Then, we move to Vatican II (and our understanding of Mysterium Ecclesiae) where the first draft on inerrancy read: Draft A: "the entire Sacred Scripture is absolutely immune from error" and the final version read: Draft G: "the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures." Hmm. Interesting.

RS: Jorge, no one disagrees with the words of DAS 47 above, but none of that deals specifically with inerrancy. It is dealing with interpretation. When he talked about inerrancy, Pius XII was clear that it DID NOT pertain only to matters of faith and morals, which is clear in Humani Generis, just 15 years prior to Vatican II. And we've already gone over the reason Draft A was rejected - because the language was too negative, and Vatican II wanted to put a positive, not because they believed there were errors in Scripture. Paul VI already stated in 1965 that Dei Verbum 11's language should not be interpreted as limiting inerrancy, and thus the case is closed.

JA: Note what it says the Bible teaches, 'the truth'. See CCC 107. The truth in the Bible is not to be equated with scientific or historical facts.

RS: Show us where the Church has said that biblical truth does not include areas of science or history. Show us where the Church has said that Scripture makes errors when it speaks about science or history. Show us where the Church has said that scientific and historical truth do not contain salvific truth. If you can't show us any of these, Jorge, then you don't have a case, and you're building everything on your own opinion. END

JA: The truth in the Bible is religious truth, what God wants us to know for our salvation.

RS: Show us where the Church has taught that the Bible is only for religious truth. And please tell us how the Bible, as you claimed previously, can have "religious" errors, and show us where these "religious" errors are so we can investigate them.

JA: Since Vatican II "inerrant scriptural 'truth' has not received primary emphasis in Roman Catholic circles, a change resulting from a more adequate understanding of the nature of the Scriptures."

The Bible is a document of faith, not meant to be read as a scientific treatise or historical document although it does refer to historical persons and events.

RS: Show us where the Church has taught this exact statement, Jorge. You can't, because they haven't. You're overstepping your bounds.

JA: The Bible is inerrant in matters dealing with our salvation, but not in all scientific or historical details.

RS: Show us where the Church has made such a statement, Jorge. Your assertions are gratuitous without such.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9