Verdad en La Biblia

7/27/2019 Verdad en La Biblia

1/18

ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM

Editor: Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D. Distributed several times a year tointerested members.

Associate Editor: Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.,

M.A., S.T.D.Not to be republished without permission.

Please address all correspondence to:www.rtforum.org e-mail:

[email protected]

Living Tradition,Oblates of Wisdom, P.O. Box 13230, St. Louis, MO 63157, USA

No.145-146

Roman Theological Forum |Article Index |Study ProgramMarch-May2010

Does Vatican Council II Allow for Errors in Sacred

Scripture?

by Brian W. Harrison

This article was first published in the Roman theological journal Divinitas, Year LII,

No. 3 (2009), pp. 279-304.

It is reproduced here, in slightly amplified form, with the kind permission of the

editor of Divinitas.

Preamble

At the conclusion of the October 2008 Synod of Bishops in Rome, dedicated to The Word

of God in the Life and Mission of the Church, 55 propositions were adopted forsubmission to the Supreme Pontiff for his consideration. Among these propositions, no. 12,

entitled, The Inspiration and Truth of the Bible, reads as follows:

The Synod proposes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarify the concepts

of the Bible's inspiration and truth, together with their reciprocal relationship, so as to

enable a better understanding of the teaching ofDei Verbum, 11. In particular, there is a

need to bring out clearly the originality of Catholic biblical hermeneutics in this field.

1

This appeal for an official clarification was evidently the result of an unresolved debate

arising during the Synod over a controversial proposition in theInstrumentum Laboris(IL)the working paper that was used as a starting point for discussion by the Synod Fathers.

TheIL, which had already been made public on June 12, 2008, by the Synod Secretariat at

a Vatican press conference, included the following proposition in its section 15(c):
http://www.rtforum.org/mailto:[email protected]://www.rtforum.org/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/study/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/study/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn1http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn1http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn1http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn1http://www.rtforum.org/study/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/index.htmlmailto:[email protected]://www.rtforum.org/


2/18

Although all parts of Sacred Scripture are divinely inspired, inerrancy applies only to that

truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation (DV11).2

This reading ofDei Verbum, characterized pointedly here by the restrictive words

Although and only, has indeed been very widespread for over four decades in Catholic

faculties of theology and seminaries. Nevertheless, it was challenged by some participantsin the Synod, and the Synod Fathers finally refrained from endorsing it. Critics of the above

ILproposition saw it as being contrary to the authentic mind of the Council Fathers inDV

11, and indeed, to the Churchs entire bimillennial tradition. Since then, evidently as a

result of the Synods final proposition 12, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has beenpreparing a document on the inspiration and truth of Scripture, and this was the theme of

the Commissionsplenary meeting held in Rome from 20-24 April 2009. At the time this

article is being written, it is not known when, or even if, the final version of this paper will

be made public. But since documents of the PBC have not in any case enjoyed magisterialstatus since the promulgation of Pope Paul VIs 1971 Motu Proprio Sedula Cura3,the

insights into this problem of the respected biblical scholars who compose the Commission,

while they will no doubt be highly useful to theologians and exegetes alike, will not havethe authority to terminate legitimate public discussion among other Catholic scholars.

Now, since this discussion over inerrancy does in fact continue in the Catholic academy, itseems important that both sides of the controversy be given a fair hearing. The purpose of

this essay, then, is to argue that Vatican Council II, in the Dogmatic ConstitutionDei

Verbum, upholds the traditional Catholic doctrine that allof the sacred writersaffirmations, regardless of subject-matter, are guaranteed to be free from error. However,

this does not mean I will concede that Sacred Scripture contains affirmations that are not

there for the sake of our salvation, and then insist that these too are guaranteed to be

without error. On the contrary, I readDV11 as implying that such affirmations simply donot exist in the Bible. In other words, it will be argued here thatDei Verbum, rightlyunderstood, means that each and every one of the biblical authors affirmations is both

guaranteed to be true and recorded for the sake of our salvation.

Since this is an avowedly traditional doctrinal position, it seems appropriate to make the

following preliminary clarification, in order to obviate any possible misunderstanding oreven misrepresentation of what my position implies and does not imply.

In recent decades, insistence on the assured truth of all affirmations of the inspired writers,

regardless of subject-matter, has often been wrongly brushed aside as fundamentalism,

literalism, or as going hand-in-hand with a position that fails to appreciate contemporary

Church teaching on the differing literary genres found in Sacred Scripture. This teachinghas been expressed authoritatively, for instance, in Pope Pius XIIs 1943 encyclicalDivinoAfflante Spiritu, inDei Verbum, article 12, and in what is probably the most important

magisterial intervention on biblical studies since Vatican Council II, the allocution of Pope

John Paul II on April 23, 1993, commemorating the centenary of Pope Leo XIIIs landmarkencyclicalProvidentissimus Deus.

It seems opportune, therefore, that I and other Catholic scholars who uphold the classical

doctrine should make clear, when treating of the inerrancy issue, our full awareness of, and
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn2http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn2http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn2http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn3http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn3http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn3http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn2


3/18

adherence to, these magisterial teachings on the importance of taking into account, with the

aid of the appropriate human sciences, the literary devices, conventions and genres

commonly used in ancient Near Eastern cultures and often found in the biblical books.

Indeed, I know of no Catholic scholar who does not dissociate himself/herself from thekind of approach that ignores this essential aspect of hermeneutics, and so confuses

insistence on inerrancy with a nave or superficial literalism that will often fail to discernthe true intentions of the sacred writers. We all accept the historical-critical method ofbiblical scholarship in the sense that this term has been used approvingly by the Supreme

Pontiffs4;but not in the sense in which that term is very frequently used today, that is, as

designating a method which not only concedes the existence of real errors on the part of thesacred writers, but which incorporates, overtly or covertly, an a prioriskepticism about the

credibility and historicity of miraculous and other supernatural elements in the biblical

accounts.

Now, keeping in mind this clarification, let us consider the teaching ofDV11 in more

detail. The above proposition of the pre-SynodInstrumentum Laboriswill be referred to as

a convenient expression of that widespread interpretation of the Councils teaching which,we submit, is incorrect.

1. Inerrancy: guaranteed only forsomebiblicalaffirmations?

As the words Although (quamvis) and only (tantummodo) in the cited propositionmake manifest here, its authors were arguing for what can be called restrictedbiblicalinerrancythe thesis that some affirmations5of the human writers of Sacred Scripture are

notthere for the sake of [our] salvation and these affirmations enjoy no guarantee ofinerrancy.

Now, this thesisthat some biblical affirmations may be erroneoushas been censured ascontrary to Catholic doctrine in every papal encyclical including substantial teaching on

biblical studies. The traditional doctrine of unrestrictedinerrancyinsists that everything

affirmed by the human authors of Sacred Scripture has been written down for the sake of

our salvation, and that its simultaneous affirmation by the Holy Spirit guarantees itsfreedom from error.

The following considerations, taken together, are, I believe, sufficient to demonstrate that

Vatican Council II upholds this traditional doctrine in DV11:

1.1First, and most conspicuously, the word only (tantummodo) in the IL proposition is agratuitous addition on the part of its authors. No Latin word or expression in the conciliar

text they appeal to (DV11) corresponds to it.

1.2TheILtranslations (in most languages) of the relevant text ofDV11 open the way for

the restricted-inerrancy thesis by mistakenly treating the termLitteris Sacrisas if it were in

the dative casean indirect object of the verb consignari. Hence, the Council is made tosay that salvific or saving truth (truth relevant to our salvation) is something put into, or
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn4http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn4http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn4http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn5http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn5http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn5http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn5http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn4


4/18

confided to, the Sacred Writings. But this misleadingly depicts the Bible as a kind of

recipientor containerfor the aforesaid truth. As such, it could also in principle receive and

contain salvifically irrelevantmaterial, just as a field sown with the seeds of nourishing

fruits and vegetables is equally capable of receiving the seeds of inedible plants and evennoxious weeds.

The reasonDV11 is commonly translated this way seems to be that consignare is assumed

to mean something like consign or consegnare, consigner, consignar,etc.in modern

Latin-derived vernaculars. In such languages, these derivatives of consignarenow mean

much the same as give, deliver, entrust, or hand over (which would be dare,tradere, concedereor committerein Latin). They require both a direct and an indirect

object: we speak of consigning one thing to some other thing or person. But in fact the

basic meaning in Latin of consignareis quite different. The Oxford Latin Dictionarygives

as the meaning relevant to the present case: To record in a sealed document, . . . to placeon record in any manner, attest.6From this sense of the word, which comes from Ciceros

prose and takes only a direct object, the expression Aliquid litteris consignare became a

standard expression in all subsequent Latin literature. Clearly, the word litterishere is aninstrumental ablative, not a dative, since the letters do not pre-exist physically as a

potential recipient of the writers ideas, but come into being as the means by which he

expresses them. The strictly literal meaning of the above three-word expression is thus torecord something by means of letters. That is, in standard English, to put (or set down)

something in writing.

Nor does contemporary ecclesiastical usage afford any reason to suppose that litterisin

conjunction with consignarecould be in the dative case.7The only reasonable conclusion,

then, is thatLitteris SacrisinDV11 is indeed an ablative. The idea is that God has used the

Sacred Writings as a means or instrument by which, or theform in which, he wanted hissaving truth to be expressed and recorded. In short, the Councils statement inDV11contrary to the implication of the IL propositionmeans that everythingin Sacred

Scripture is given by God for the sake of our salvation: there is no room in the Bible fornon-salvific (or salvifically irrelevant) affirmations that might not be exempt from error.

Another common inaccuracy in translating this sentence ofDV11 is to replace the definitearticle by the demonstrative that before truth (. . . thattruth which God wanted . . . ).

This would be justified only if the original was eam veritatem or illam veritatem,

which is not the case (see Latin text below). Gratuitously adding this demonstrativeadjective reinforces the false impression that the Council is singling out a certain restricted

speciesof biblical trutha certain subset of the set of all biblical truthsas the only one

guaranteed to be free from any admixture of error.

Here is the original text of this sentence, followed by a new English rendition which does

not include the gratuitous that before truth, duly translatesLitteris Sacrisas an

instrumental ablative, and follows the Latin in emphasizing the phrase without error byplacing it at the end, rather than leaving it inconspicuously located further back in the

sentence:


5/18

Cum ergo omne id, quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt, retineri debeat

assertum a Spiritu Sancto, inde Scriptur libri veritatem, quam Deus nostr salutis causa

Litteris Sacris consignari voluit, firmiter, fideliter et sine errore docere profitendi sunt.

Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors or hagiographers affirm must be held as

affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must in consequence acknowledge that, by means of thebooks of Scripture, the truth that God, for the sake of our salvation, wanted recorded in the

form of the Sacred Writings is taught firmly, faithfully, and without error.8

1.3The gloss ascribing only to the second clause of the above sentence renders it

incompatible with the first clausefrom the standpoint of both reason and faith. Here is the

same sentence again, with emphasis added to the words that bring out its logical structure:

Cum ergoomne id, quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt, retineri debeat

assertum a Spiritu Sancto, indeScriptur libri veritatem, quam Deus nostr salutis causa

Litteris Sacris consignari voluit, firmiter, fideliter et sine errore docere profitendi sunt.

As regards reason, the Council Fathers clearly intend the second half of the sentence tofollow logically from the major premise expressed in the first, together with the

unexpressed (because so obviously true) minor premise that the Holy Spirit cannot affirm

error. But if one tries to read the word only into the second half of the sentence, then not

only does it no longer follow logically from the first half; it draws a conclusion that ispositively excluded bythe first half. For the inference then becomes the following: Since

everything affirmed by the sacred writers must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we

must therefore acknowledge that only someof what they affirm (namely, what is for thesake of our salvation) is without error. But this is logically at the same level as arguing,

Since you have paid me for six apples, I am therefore obliged to give you only three

apples. How could it be seriously maintained that an ecumenical council of the Catholic

Church has taught such a flagrant and elementary non sequitur, in which the conclusion notonly does not follow from the premise, but contradicts it?

As regards faith,Dei Verbuma Dogmatic Constitutionis clearly presenting the realconclusion to be drawn from its premises in 11, namely, that everything affirmed by the

sacred writers must be free from error,9as a truth of Catholic doctrine. But according to the

IL, some things they affirm may be erroneous.

1.4In the very next sentence after the one just cited and discussed, the Council Fathers

confirm the point we made at the beginning of this section Anamely, that they are sayingeverything in Sacred Scripture is bothinspired by God andrelevant for our salvation. For

not only do they cite II Timothy 3: 16-17 to that effect (All Scripture is inspired by God

and is profitable . . .), but they introduce this citation with the wordItaque(thus, or

accordingly) to show that they regard these words of the New Testament as providingbiblical confirmation or backing for what they have just taught in the previous sentence. In

no way would thisItaquemake sense if, in that previous sentence, the Council Fathers had

intended to teach that some things in Scripture are notprofitable for salvation.


6/18

1.5Since theILs proposition is incompatible with the text itself ofDV11 (cf. 1.2, 1.3and

1.4above), it is not surprising to find that it also conflicts with the official explanation of

this same passage given to the conciliar Fathers by the relatorwhen he told them why the

Theological Commission was introducing the notion of the Bibles salvific purpose into thesentence affirming its freedom from error. His explanation was given at that point when the

draft under discussion affirmed that the books of Scripture teach saving truth [veritatemsalutarem] without error; but it clearly applies equally to the final text, in which theadjectivesalutaremwas replaced by an adjectival clause similar in meaning: veritatem,

quam Deus nostr salutis causa Litteris Sacris consignari voluit. The relatorstated:

By the term salvific (salutarem) it is by no means suggested that Sacred Scripture is not

in its integrity the inspired Word of God. . . . This expression does notimply any material

limitationto the truth of Scripture, rather, it indicates Scriptures formal specification, the

nature of which must be kept in mind in deciding in what sense everything affirmedin theBible is truenot only matters of faith and morals and facts bound up with the history of

salvation. For this reason the Commission has decided that the expression should be

retained.10

The idea of a material limitation to biblical truth would mean that a certain quantity of

affirmations made by the sacred authors have salvific value and are certainly true while theremaining ones do not, and are open to possible error. But that kind of limitation, which the

relatordenied is intended by the conciliar text, is precisely what theILproposition reads

into it. In contrast, the official explanation of what the conciliar text doesmean is quiteexplicit: [E]verything affirmed in the Bible is truenot only matters of faith and morals

and facts bound up with the history of salvation.

1.6The sources of Catholic doctrine referenced in note 5 toDei Verbum11 also confirm

unmistakably that the Council did not intend to teach the doctrine expressed by the IL

proposition, but rather, the perennial doctrine that Scripture is completelyfree of error. We

shall consider first those sources already referenced in the footnote in the drafts prior to thecontroversy that arose when the text was amended by addingsalutaremto veritatem(cf.

section 1.5above).

1.6 (a)The primordial reference in this footnote is actually that which appears last in the

finally approved text: the passageEB539 from Pius XIIsDivino Afflante Spiritu. (Thesources are listed in the footnote in chronological order, and this one, dating from 1943, is

the most recent.) This source is the only one that was referenced in every successive draft

of the document, from first to last. And indeed, if the Council had appealed to no previous

magisterial statement on biblical inerrancy other than this one, wherein Pius XII quotesextensively from, and strongly confirms, his predecessor Leo XIII, this one reference would

really have been quite sufficient to manifest the Fathers intention to uphold the classical

doctrine of unrestricted inerrancy. In rebuttal of the idea that Scripture can err when it treats

of certain subjects, Pius refers to what Leo said inProvidentissimus:

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, speaking either in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn10http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn10http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn10http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn10


7/18

used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the

most eminent men of science.

Pope Pius goes on to recall that his predecessor also insisted that the Bibles historical

passages must likewise be defended from every charge of error. He then concludes this

section of his encyclical (i.e., the section selected by Vatican II for its footnote) with thefollowing declaration, in which the thesis of restricted inerrancy is described as absolutely

incompatible with the ancient and constant faith of the Church. (The expressions in

quotation marks are again citations fromProvidentissimus Deus):

Finally, it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain

passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred, since divineinspiration 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 constant faith of the Church (DS 3292-

3293).

1.6 (b)In the third draft of the schema on Revelation the above footnote reference to

Divino Afflante Spirituwas supplemented by the passageEB124 fromProvidentissimus.This includes the passage quoted by Pius XII inEB539 (cf. 1.6 [a]above), but also the

following, wherein Leo XIII, acknowledging the existence of apparenterrors in Scripture,

nevertheless firmly rejects any theory of restricted inspiration or inerrancy as a supposedsolution to such problems. He describes as intolerable

. . . the theory of those who, in order to unburden themselves of these difficulties, have nohesitation in maintaining that divine inspiration pertains to nothing more than matters of

faith and morals. This error arises from the false opinion that, when it is a question of the

truth of biblical affirmations, one should not so much inquire into what God has said, but

rather, into why He has said it.

This illicit question as to why rather than what would in practice be very frequentlyinvited by theILproposition we are criticizing. For when faced with any seeminglyerroneous statement of a biblical author, the apologist or Scripture scholar who follows the

IL teaching will inevitably be led to ask the obvious why question: Is this statement here

for the sake of our salvation, or not? And if he can persuade himself that the problematicbiblical affirmation is notsalvific in purpose (as he almost certainly will when it is about

history or the physical cosmos), then he will complacently dispense himself from the task

of having to defend its truth. For theILschool of thought reassures him that biblical authors

can in fact perform the remarkable feat of penning statements that are erroneous and yetdivinely inspired.

1.7The above two magisterial references,EB539 andEB124, made up the completefootnote in the third draft (SchemaIII). Controversy then arose when SchemaIV was

released. While it made no change in the footnote references, the word veritatem in the

main text was now qualified by the adjective salutarem, so that, according to the newschema, the biblical books teach saving(orsalvific) truth without error. We have

discussed in 1.5above the official explanation given to the Fathers for this amendmentan


8/18

explanation equally valid for the finally promulgated documentand have seen that it

confirms the classical doctrine of unrestricted inerrancy already proposed in the main text.

Further confirmation of the Councils intention to uphold this traditional doctrine is found

in the fact that no less than six further footnote references were added by the Commissionin the final version of the text, precisely in order to reassure those Fathers who were

worried that mentioning the Bibles salvific purpose in this context would be taken to implythe restricted inerrancy thesis. We shall consider these new footnote references in turn:

1.7 (a)The first is a citation from St. Augustines work On the Literal Sense of Genesis(De

Genesi ad Litteram) which criticizes those who try to draw more detailed scientificinformation from the Scriptures than their authors intended to give us: e.g., by attempting to

deduce from the creation account in Genesis whether the heavens completely envelop the

earth like a sphere, or merely cover it on one side like an inverted hemispherical bowl.11

The point being made here by Augustine is certainly not that Scripture may err when itdescribes the cosmos, but rather, that guidance for our salvation is the purpose of Scripture:

for he reminds us that the Spirit of God who spoke through [the inspiredwriters] did not

wish to teach men such matters [as] the intimate structure of visible thingssince they arenot profitable for salvation.12

1.7 (b)Another quotation from Augustine (Epistola82,3) is added to the footnote here,reinforcing the teaching that Scripture is free from error in whateverthe sacred writers

affirm. In this classical locusfor the said teaching, the Bishop of Hippo affirms in a letter to

St. Jerome:

For I confess to your charity that I have learnt to regard those books of Scripture now called

canonicaland them alonewith such awe and honor that I most firmly believe none oftheir authors has erred in writing anything. And if I come across anything in those Writings

which troubles me because it seems contrary to the truth, I will unhesitatingly lay the blame

elsewhere: perhaps the copy is untrue to the original; or the translator may not have

rendered the passage faithfully; or perhaps I just do not understand it.

1.7 (c)The question might now arise, however, as to whether (and if so, why) there is anyplace at all in the Scriptures for profane affirmations about history or natural science,

given that the purpose of these books is to lead us to salvation, not to instruct us in the

complexities of mundane knowledge. In order to clarify this point, a passage from St.Thomas AquinasDe Veritateis the next source to be referenced in this final version of the

footnote. Here the question is considered whether scientific conclusions can be the

subject-matter of prophetic inspiration.13Aquinas answers that indeed they can. Following

Augustine, he recognizes that the charism of prophecy (under which heading he includesbiblical inspiration) is given only for the good of the Church, i.e., for the salvation of souls.

Nevertheless, the fact is that Many things proved by science can be useful for salvation

that is, for building up our faith or forour moral formation. He specifies, by way of

example, those features in nature which induce us to contemplate with wonder the divinewisdom and power. Thus, we find such things mentioned in Sacred Scripture.14In short, in

citing and endorsing St. Thomas here, the Fathers of Vatican II are ruling out the position

expressed in theILproposition. Far from implying that some biblical affirmations, such asthose about the cosmos, (i.e., empirical science) are irrelevant for salvation, and are
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn11http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn11http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn11http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn12http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn12http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn12http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn13http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn13http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn13http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn14http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn14http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn14http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn14http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn13http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn12http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn11


9/18

therefore possibly erroneous, Aquinas, the Common Doctor, is actually teaching that the

very presence of such affirmations in Sacred Scripture is proof of boththeir prophetic

inspiration (i.e., their divine authorship) andtheir usefulness in one way or another for our

salvation.

1.7 (d)Next in footnote 5 comes a reference to the Council of Trents DecreeDe canonicisScripturiswhich also highlights the salvific purpose of the Scriptures. Referring to both

Scripture and Tradition, the decree says that their message was preached by the Apostles

as the source of all saving truth.15

1.7 (e)Finally, in the definitive version of the footnote, two more references to

Providentissimus Deuswere added. The first of these additional paragraphs from LeoXIIIs encyclical,EB121, is dedicated to the theme of Scripture in relation to the natural

sciences. What is new to the footnote here is another papal quotation fromDe Genesi ad

Litteramwherein St. Augustine lucidly sets out the general hermeneutical principles for

recognizing the essential harmony between science and Scripture. The Popes words here16make it abundantly clear that inerrancy covers assertions about the physical cosmos made

by the sacred writersoften the very first biblical passages to be dismissed as irrelevant

to salvation and so open to error. Leo says:

No real dissension will ever arise between the scientist and the theologian, provided each

stays within the proper bounds of his discipline, carefully observing St. Augustinesadmonition not to assert rashly as known what is in fact unknown. But if some dispute

should arise, the same Doctor sums up the rule to be followed by the theologian: If they

have been able to demonstrate some truth of natural science with solid proofs, let us show

that it is not contrary to our Scriptures; but if they maintain anything in any of their treatiseswhich is contrary to Scripture (that is, to the Catholic faith), let us believe without

hesitation that it is completely false, and if possible find a way of refuting it.

1.7 (f)The second new reference toProvidentissimusin the final footnote covers two

consecutive paragraphs of the encyclical,EB126 and 127. Here Leo XIII reinforces the

point made by the drafting Commission, that mentioning the Bibles salvific purpose didnot imply any material limitation of the truth of Scripture. InEB126 Pope Leo XIII

makes the point, citing both St. Augustine and St. Gregory the Great, that since the sacred

writers wrote onlywhat the Holy Spirit wanted them to write, everything which they asserthas Him for its author, and is therefore necessarily true.17Finally, inEB127, Leo again

reinforces the rejection of any material limitation of biblical truth by praising the

exegetical procedure of the great Fathers and Doctors, who laboredwith no less ingenuity

than devotion to harmonize and reconcile those many passages which might seem toinvolve some contradiction or discrepancy.18That kind of effort at reconciliation is

precisely the procedure now very often dismissed as futile and unnecessaryand in the

name of the very Council which here endorses it. It is brushed aside as concordism or

fundamentalism by those who seek to convince us that the Council admitted the existenceof real contradictions and other errors in the inspired texts, and so did away with the need to

reconcile the problematic passages in question.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn15http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn15http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn15http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn16http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn16http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn16http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn17http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn17http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn17http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn18http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn18http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn18http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn17http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn16http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn15


10/18

1.8It also needs to be said that if (per impossibile?) the Churchs magisterium were ever to

relinquish the doctrine of unrestricted inerrancy, that step would almost certainly prove to

be a mere half-way house in a drift toward official skepticism and possibly denial

regarding inerrancyper se. That is, even passages in Scripture that undeniably treat ofmatters relevant to salvation would eventually be deemed open to error (as they already are

in liberal Protestant and some dissident Catholic circles). For, if elevated to the status ofauthentic Catholic doctrine, the restricted-inerrancy thesisafter having been positivelyand repeatedly rejected, by a solid, centuries-long block of emphatic patristic and papal

teachingwould be a doctrine based on the flimsiest and sandiest of foundations,

namely, a highly questionable interpretation of half of one sentence in a Vatican IIdocument. The bolder and more radical biblical scholars would be quick to argue that since

the Church eventually came round to allowing dissent from the bimillennial and much more

authoritatively proposed doctrine of unrestricted inerrancy, then she must, a fortiori, allow

dissent also from the doctrine of restricted inerrancy, which arrived on the scene only

yesterdayrootless and out of nowhere.

1.9Our claim thatDV11 teaches unrestricted inerrancy is supported by the high academicauthority of Cardinal Augustin Bea, S.J. As former Rector of the Pontifical Biblical

Institute, President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Co-President of the drafting

Commission forDei Verbum, Bea enjoyed the particular confidence of Paul VI when itcame to biblical matters: the Pope more than once publicly quoted him and praised his

work in that area. In a work published shortly before his death,19Bea, who had presided at

the last key meeting of the conciliar Commission at which the text ofDV11 was finalized,

devotes several pages (187-190) to its redactional history and correct interpretation. Hisverdict is unambiguous: Let us ask, therefore, if the text we have now20implies a

restrictive interpretation of inerrancy. Here also the answer is certainly negative.21

1.10Even before Cardinal Beas commentary was published indeed, only months afterthe ink was dry on the Vatican II documentsthe Churchs magisterium itself had already

spoken clearly on the precise point that interests us. A circular letter of the Congregationfor the Doctrine of the Faith was sent to the presidents of all episcopal conferences and

major religious superiors, warning against false and dangerous interpretations of the

Council's teaching that had begun to erupt almost immediately after its conclusion.22

Heading the list of ten widespread false interpretations denounced in this letter is thefollowing: 1) In the first place, there is Sacred Revelation. Some, purposely disregarding

Tradition, have recourse to Sacred Scripture, but restrict the scope and force of biblical

inspiration and inerrancy, and hold false views on the historical value of the texts.23

1.11.In 1993, in what is probably the most important magisterial statement to date on

biblical studies sinceDVitself, John Paul IIs allocution marking the fiftieth and hundredthanniversaries of the encyclicalsDASandPDrespectively, the Pope cited and confirmed

Pius XIIs analogy between Gods word in Scripture and the Incarnate Word:

The strict relationship uniting the inspired biblical texts with the mystery of the Incarnation

was expressed by the EncyclicalDivino Afflante Spirituin the following terms: Just as the

substantial Word of God became like to men in all things except sin, so the words of God,expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect except
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn19http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn19http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn19http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn20http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn20http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn21http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn21http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn21http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn22http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn22http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn22http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn23http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn23http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn23http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn22http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn21http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn20http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn19


11/18


12/18

splinter would be negligible, and even though the cutting action itself occurs directlyonly

at the edge of the metal blade. In short, while each affirmation of the inspired authors, taken

individually, is guaranteed by its simultaneous divine authorship to be true, the thesis we

are defending does not require us to hold that each such affirmation, taken individually,must necessarily have some intrinsicspiritual, moral, or salvific message.

2.2Insistence on the unrestricted inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is a notoriously hard

saying of Christ and his Church. It is not at all easy to defend, and this is undoubtedly the

basic reason why the seeming escape-route of restricted inerrancy has proved to be so

popular among modern biblical scholars. The orthodox doctrine requires repeated acts offaith, just like believing in Jesus Real Presence in the Eucharist against the witness of our

five senses. For, as has been recognized from patristic times onwards, Scripture presents a

great many difficulties in the form ofseemingcontradictions and other kinds of error. And I

doubt that any believer so far has ever claimed to have found the definitive solution toevery one of them. Opting for the easy solution of restricted inerrancy (just like the easy

solution of a merely symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the easy solution

of contraceptive devices for struggling married couples) will probably always remain aperennial temptation for believers. It is therefore worth making the point that the Catholic

who insists on the traditional doctrine of unrestricted inerrancy does not thereby place

himself under an obligation to be able to offer a convincing solution for any or all of theseinnumerable biblical difficulties. He is simply witnessing to the unchanging faith of the

Church; and it is quite sufficient for him, in that context, to insist that even though we may

not at present be able to solve the problem presented by some apparent instance of biblical

error, there must indeed bea solution.

2.3Many theologians and exegetes, including the authors of theILproposition we have

criticized in this essay, wish to uphold simultaneously the theses of unrestricted biblicalinspirationand restricted biblical inerrancy. Some of these scholars have tried to reconciletheir two seemingly incompatible theses by postulating a difference, and at times a discord,

between the human meaning of a given scriptural passage and its supposed divine meaning.The text itself, we are told, is indeed inspired by God and so is true at the level of what God

wants to say in and through it, and this will always be of some salvific relevance; but the

sense intended by the human writer may (so it is said) be mistaken. However, this seems to

be in substance the same hermeneutical approach already censured by Pope Pius XII:

For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the [First] Vatican Councils definition thatGod is the author of Holy Scripture, and 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. They even wrongly speak of a human

sense of the Scriptures, beneath which is a divine sense, which they say is the onlyinfallible meaning.26

It seems hard to see any substantial difference between what Pius XII disapproves in thefirst sentence quoted above and what theILwas asking the worlds Catholic bishops to

approve. For the respective notions of being written for the sake of our salvation, and of

treat[ing] of God or of moral and religious matters are very close in meaning. Who wouldseriously maintain that, although Pius XII rejected the latter notion as a restricting criterion
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn26http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn26http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn26http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn26


13/18

for the scope of biblical inerrancy, he might perhaps have accepted the former, had it been

proposed to him? After all, in the light of his own teaching only seven years earlier in

Divino Afflante Spiritu(cf. section 1.6 [a]above), it is clear that what this pope intends to

censure inHumani Generisis not one version among others of the restricted inerrancythesis, but that thesis itself,per se.

As regards the second sentence in the above citation, regarding a supposed contrast

between an infallible divine meaning and a fallible human meaning in one and the same

biblical passage, are we to believe that Vatican Council II taught this ideaonly fifteen

years after Pius XII censured it? Some have claimed to find a basis for this contrast inarticle 12 ofDei Verbum. The Flannery version of the documents translates this passage

very satisfactorily, as follows:

Seeing that, in sacred Scripture, God speaks through men in human fashion, it follows that

the interpreter of sacred Scriptures, if he is to ascertain what God has wished to

communicate to us, should carefully search out the meaning which the sacred writers reallyhad in mind, that meaning which God had thought well to manifest through the medium of

their words (. . . quid hagiographi reapse significare intenderint et eorum verbis

manifestare Deo placuerit.).

The Council thus tells us that the only means of discovering what God teaches in a given

passage is to determine first what the human authors teach therein; for that will ipso factobe the divine teaching. However, in the Abbott version of the Council documents, this

sentence is incorrectly translated as though it had another quid between et and

eorum: the Council is made to say that interpreters should carefully investigate what

meaning the sacred writers really intended, and whatGod wanted to manifest by means oftheir words (emphasis added). But this version, which opens the way for the idea of a

divine meaning different from the human meaning, not only mistranslates the original of

#12, but is also incompatible with 11, which insists that allthat the sacred writers affirm

must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit.27

Some recent Catholic writers have tried to reconcile this last conciliar statement with thesupposed occurrence of errors in Scripture by claiming that the errors they have in mind are

never in fact affirmedby either the divine or human authors. We are asked to believe that

the human authors, while intending to affirm only what are for the sakeof our salvation,have also left passages of Scripture in which they express error while somehow managing

to avoid affirming it. But, in addition to our criticism of this approach already set out in

footnote 5 above, it needs to be said that this involves a contorted hermeneutic that would

never be taken seriously if applied to non-inspired, non-biblical literature (literature, that is,which nobody feels the need to present or defend as being necessarily free of error). For it

unreasonably attempts to determine what is being affirmed in a given text of Scripture by

appealing to content rather than formsubject-matter rather than syntax. That is, on the

basis of theological instead of linguistic criteria. But this proceduretrying to identify anauthors assertions by looking at whathe is talking about instead of howhe talks about it

violates basic, common-sense principles of verbal communication.28There is indeed an

equation taught inDV11 between what is affirmed in a biblical text and what has salvificvalue; but this makes sense only if the equation is understood in the form, All that is


14/18

affirmed here has salvific value,29and not, Only what has salvific value here is being

affirmed. In other words, the exegetes task isfirstto determine according to the ordinary

rules of language what the inspired author really affirms in a given passage, and then

inquire as to how that may be profitable for salvation. He should not put the cart before thehorse by trying to determine first what seems profitable for salvation in that passage, and

then concluding that nothing apart from that is being affirmed there. Not only will the latterprocedure be contrary to reason; it will also be at least potentially contrary to faith. For itwill open the way for any amount of subjective flights of the imagination on the part of

each Bible student, as he tries to determine in a priorifashion what in fact might be of

relevance to our salvation in any given biblical sentence, paragraph, chapter, or book.

2.4Finally, it might be objected that if, as we have argued here, Vatican Council II is

upholding the traditional doctrine of unrestricted inerrancy, i.e., if it is notlimiting

inerrancy to a supposed subset of biblical affirmations which alonewere written for thesake of our salvation, then this leaves unexplained the Councils final insistence (against

the initial opposition of conservative Fathers and of Paul VI himself) on introducing a

clause about salvific purpose intoDV11. Why should salvific purpose even be mentionedin a magisterial sentence about inerrancy, if inerrancy does not depend on it?

This objection prompts us to reflect on what the Fathers of the recent Synod of Bishopsprobably had in mind when, in their final proposition 12 asking for a CDF clarification on

biblical truth, they added, In particular, there is a need to bring out clearly the originality

of Catholic biblical hermeneutics in this field.30The Synod Fathers do not explain whatoriginality, precisely, they have in mind here. What I suspect, however, is that they are

referring precisely to the Councils introduction of the Bibles salvific purpose as a relevant

factor in understanding biblical inerrancy; for this is a hermeneutical principle not found

explicitly in previous official Catholic Church teaching. Noras far as I knowis it anestablished position among Protestant and Orthodox biblical scholars and theologians.

What, then, is this relevance of the Bibles salvific purpose in a discussion of its inerrancy?As we have already noted,31The relatorat Vatican II told the Fathers that the phrase . . .

for the sake of our salvation, inserted into the final draft of the sentence affirming the

Bibles freedom from error, does not imply any material limitationon the truth ofScripture, but indicates itsformal specification, which must be kept in mind when deciding

in what sense . . . all those things affirmedby the sacred writers are true, not only matters of

faith and morals, and facts connected with the history of salvation.

The relatordid not give any further explanation of what he and the Commission meant by

this. But it seems reasonable to suppose that what they had in mind is that some biblicalaffirmationsabove all, those that areper seless directly concerned with salvationmay

be only approximations, or it may be that they express certain truths only in simple, popular

language rather than in precise or technical terminology.32For since the formal object of

Sacred Scripture is to teach us Gods plan of salvation for the human race, and not profanehistory, natural science, or other forms of merely worldly knowledgefor their own sakes,

one should not expect or demand, as a condition of the Bibles freedom from error, when it

touches upon these subjects, the same standards of accuracy and clarity in description andterminology as we would expect and demand in works (especially modern academic works)
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn29http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn29http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn29http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn30http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn30http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn30http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn31http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn31http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn31http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn32http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn32http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn32http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn32http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn31http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn30http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftn29


15/18

whose formal object is these secular branches of knowledge. In short, the Catholic

originality referred to by the Synod means (if I am not mistaken) the insight that, given

the human as well as divine authorship of Scripture, we should not set the bar unreasonably

high in deciding what is to countas truth, as opposed to error, when the sacred writersmake statements about secondary matters that are only indirectly linked to the Bibles

principal and overall purpose of teaching us what God has done, and what he expects us todo and believe, in regard to our eternal salvation. We may well pray that the See of Peterdoes indeed soon clarify this difficult issue effectively and authoritatively.

Endnotes

1 This is the present writers translation of the Italian text that was placed on the Vatican website (cf.

www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20081025_elenco-pro-finali-it.html). The

original reads as follows: Il Sinodo propone che la Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede chiarifichi i

concetti di ispirazione e di verit della Bibbia, cos come il loro rapporto reciproco, in modo da far capire

meglio linsegnamento della Dei Verbum 11. In particolare, bisogna mettere in rilievo loriginalit dellerme -

neutica biblica cattolica in questo campo.

2 Again, this is the present writers translation of the Latin text of the IL, which reads- 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). In the English-language version

of ILreleased on June 12, the first clause of this sentence was so badly translated that it explicitly called in

question the full extent of the Bibles divine inspiration: With regards [sic] to what might beinspired in the

many partsof Sacred Scripture, . . . (emphasis added).

3 Cf.AAS63 (1971), 665-669.

4 For instance, in ##7-8 of his allocution commemorating the hundredth anniversary of ProvidentissimusDeus, John Paul II endorses the historico-critical study of the Bible in the sense that Leo XIII already

endorsed it when he established the Pontifical Biblical Commission almost a century earlier. In this address of

April 23, 1993, the Pope said: The Church of Christ . . . attaches great importance to the historico -critical

study of the Bible. Far from condemning it, as those who support mystical exegesis would want, my

predecessors vigorously approved. Artis criticae disciplinam, Leo XIII wrote, quippe percipiendae penitus

hagiographorum sententiae perutilem, Nobis vehementer probantibus, nostri (exegetae, scilicet, catholici)

excolant (Apostolic Letter Vigilantiae, establishing the Biblical Commission, October 30, 1902: EB, n.

142). Pope John Paul goes on to remind us that Pius XII, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, stressed the importance

of studying the literary genres used in Scripture, so as to understand the meaning of the texts with all the

accuracy and precision possible, and, thus, in their historical, cultural context. (Cf. EB1246-1247.)

5 Although theILproposition itself does not explicitly mention affirmations, statements, or assertions,

it is evident that only the biblical writers expressions of that sort that is, their own judgments of truthexpressed in the indicative moodare capableof being either in accord with, or in conflict with, what is true.

Questions and commands, for instance, can be neither true nor false. Hence, it would be absurd (because

oxymoronic) to argue for the ILs compatibility with what DV 11 says about the divine authorship of all

biblical assertiones(cf. 1.2below) by claiming that, although the ILproposition admits errors on the part of

the biblical writers, it does not necessarily imply that they affirmor assertany of these errors. It does imply

precisely this, for where there is no affirmation or assertion, there can, strictly speaking, be neither truth nor

error. While it is clearly truth and error in this strict or proper sense that are at stake in the present

controversy, the numerous utterances of the sacred writers that are not affirmations about reality (i.e., their

questions, precepts, parables, prayers, wishes and aspirations) can also be said to constitute biblical truth in
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref1http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20081025_elenco-prop-finali_it.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20081025_elenco-prop-finali_it.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20081025_elenco-prop-finali_it.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref2http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref3http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref4http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref5http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref5http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref4http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref3http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref2http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20081025_elenco-prop-finali_it.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20081025_elenco-prop-finali_it.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref1


16/18

a broad or improper sense. That is, they are all given to us by God in Scripture for our profit and instruction

(cf. II Tim. 3: 16-17), so that much truth in the strict sense can be learned from studying and meditating

upon them.

6 P.G.W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), p. 415. In the other standard

Latin-English lexicon, C.T. Lewis & C. Short, A Latin Dictionary(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), give this

meaning as To note, write down, to register, record (p. 432).

7 The verb consignare (in various forms) occurs just four times in all the sixteen documents of Vatican

Council II in connection with something being written. All of these four instances are in Dei Verbum, the

most pertinent possible context for making a comparison with the instance under discussion. In addition to its

occurrence in the clause following veritatem, the verb occurs earlier in the same article (11), as well as in

articles 9 and 21. In none of the three cases is there any trace of a recipient being mentioned as an indirect

object in the dative case.

8 The verb docerehas been rendered in the passive voice (is taught) in the above translation for reasons of

clarity and style. If this verb is left in the active in English, the only way to leave the three adverbial

expressions that qualify it till the end of the sentence will be to separate them from it awkwardly by a least

fourteen words. Only when they are placed at the end is the logical inference constituted by the complete

sentence, which begins with Since, therefore . . . , brought out adequately. For it is the Bibles freedomfrom error, not its salvific purpose, that follows as a logical consequencefrom its integral divine authorship.

(The Holy Spirit would be perfectly free, if He wished, to reveal truth that is not salvific in purpose. As

Creator and Lord and giver of life, for instance, He might conceivably have chosen to reveal a lot more

detailed information about Creation as such, i.e., not only that minimum about Creation which we need to

know in order to understand the subsequent Fall and Redemption i.e., what God has done for the sake of

our salvation.)

9 That is, provided each such affirmation is correctly understood, in conformity with the inspired authors

own intention and taking into account the literary genre being employed, it cannot be contrary to the truth.

10 Voce salutaris nullo modo suggeritur S. Scripturam non esse integraliter inspiratam e t verbum Dei. . . .

Hc expressio nullaminducit materialem limitationemveritatis Scriptur, sed indicat eius specificationem

formalem, cuius ratio habeatur in diiudicando quo sensu non tantum res fidei et morum atque facta cumhistoria salutis coniuncta . . . sed omnia qu in Scriptura asseruntur sunt vera. Unde statuit Commissio

expressionem esse servandam (Acta Synodalia, IV, V, 708, emphasis in original). This relatio is also

reproduced and discussed in G. Caprile, S.J., Tre emendamenti allo schema sulla rivelazione (La Civilt

Cattolica[1966/I] 224).

11 This passage is sometimes cited as supposed evidence that, according to St. Augustine, Scripture may at

times be mistaken in its affirmations concerning nature and the cosmos. But that this was by no means

Augustines meaning is evident from what he says elsewhere in De Genesi ad Litteram, in another passage

quoted by Leo XIII in EB 121. This paragraph of Providentissimus Deuswas also added to note 5 of Dei

Verbum11 in the final redaction.

12 . . . Spiritum Dei, qui per ipsos loquebatur, noluisse ista (videlicet intimam adspectabilium rerum

constitutionem) docere homines, nulli saluti profutura (Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, 2,9,20, quotedalso inProvidentissimus Deus[EB121]).

13 Utrum prophetia sit de conclusionibus scibilibus (Q.12, art. 2, c).

14 Respondeo. Dicendum quod in omnibus qu sunt propter finem, materia determinatur secundum

exigentiam finis, ut patet inII Phys.Donum autem propheti datur ad utilitatem Ecclesi, ut patet I ad Cor.,

XII, 10. Unde omnia illa quorum cognitio potest esse utilis ad salutem sunt materia propheti, sive sint

prterita, sive futura, sive terna, sive necessaria, sive contingentia. Illa vero qu ad salutem pertinere non
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref6http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref7http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref8http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref9http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref10http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref11http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref12http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref13http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref14http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref14http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref13http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref12http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref11http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref10http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref9http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref8http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref7http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref6


17/18

possunt, sunt extranea a materia propheti; unde Augustinus dicit, II super Genesim ad litteram [cap. IX],

quodquamvis auctores nostri sciverint cuius figur sit clum; tamen per eos dicere noluit Spiritus veritatem,

nisi qu prodest saluti;et Ioannis cap. XVI, vers. 13diciturCum venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit vos

omnem veritatem; Glossa [interlin.] saluti necessariam. Dico autem necessaria ad salutem, sive sint

necessaria ad instructionem fidei, sive ad informationem morum. Multa autem qu sunt in scientiis

demonstrata, ad hoc possunt esse utilia; utpote intellectum esse incorruptibilem, et ea qu in creaturis

considerata in admirationem divin sapienti et potestatis inducunt. Unde et de his invenimus in sacra

Scriptura fieri mentionem (ibid.). The emphasis here is as given in the Marietti edition of the works of St.

Thomas: Qustiones disputat, vol. 1 (Turin & Rome: Marietti, 10th edn., 1964), vol. 1, 238.

15 . . . tamquam fontem omnis et salutaris veritatis (DS1501).

16 Cf. also 1.6 (a)above, first citation fromDivino Afflante Spiritu, quoting Leo XIII inProvidentissimus.

17 The passage quoted from St. Augustine stresses this intimate link between the divine and human authors,

depicting the latter as acting obediently as Gods instruments, just as the members of a human body obey the

head: Thus, since they wrote what He showed and told them, it cannot be said that He Himself wrote

nothing; for what His members did was what they were told to do by dictation from the Head. (Itaque, cum

illi scripserunt, qu ille ostendit et dixit, nequaquam dicendum est, quod ipse non scripserit; quandoquidem

membra eius id operata sunt, quod dictante capite cognoverunt.) (De Consensu Evangeliorum, I, 1, c. 35[PL34, 1070]). The excerpt from St. Gregory if anything places even more emphasis on the divine authorship

of Scripture: It is quite superfluous to inquire who wrote these things when one faithfully believes the Holy

Spirit to be the author of the book. Thus, the one who wrote them was the One who ordered them to be

written; the one who wrote them was the One present in their composition as their Inspirer. ( Quis hc

scripserit, valde supervacante quritur, cum tamen auctor libri Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur. Ipse igitur

hc scripsit, qui scribenda dictavit: ipse scripsit qui et in illius opere inspirator exstitit) (Moral. in Job,

prf. 1, 2 [PL 75, 517AB]).

18 . . . ut propterea non pauca illa, qu contrarii aliquid vel dissimile viderentur afferre . . . non subtiliter

minus quam religiose componere inter se et conciliare studuerint. Many perhaps most of these

problematical passages involve profane or historical matters. The passage concludes with a citation of that

same passage from a letter of Augustine to Jerome which was included separately in this final version of

footnote 5 toDV11. Since that letter was now already quoted in its own right, it follows that EB127 was notmentioned merely because it contains this teaching of St. Augustine, but above all to draw attention to what

was new in that paragraph, namely, Leo XIIIs statement about the importance of seeking the true

reconciliation of apparent contradictions in Scripture.

19La Parola di Dio e lUmanit: la dottrina del Concilio sulla rivelazione(Assisi: Citadella Editrice, 1967).

An English translation was published as The Word of God and Mankind(Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press,

1967).

20 Bea is referring to the final and approved text of DV11, which added the clause indicating the Bibles

salvific purpose after veritatem. He is contrasting it with the penultimate and more controversial draft which

had expressed this idea by qualifying veritatemwith the adjectivesalutarem

21 Domandiamo pertanto, se lattuale testo comporti una interpretazione restrittiva dellinerranza o no.Anche qui la risposta senzaltro negativa (op. cit., p. 190, emphasis in original).

22 This document, signed by the Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, is described on the

Vatican website (in the list of titles of all CDF documents since Vatican II) as follows, beginning with the

first three words of the text of the letter: Cum oecumenicum concilium (Epistula ad Venerabiles Praesules

Conferentiarum Episcopalium et ad Superiores Religionum: De nonnullis sententiis et erroribus ex falsa

interpretatione decretorum Concilii Vaticani II insurgentibus(Circular Letter to the Venerable Presidents of
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref15http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref16http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref17http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref18http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref19http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref20http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref21http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref22http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref22http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref21http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref20http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref19http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref18http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref17http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref16http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref15


18/18

the Episcopal Conferences and Religious Superiors on certain opinions and errors arising from false

interpretations of the Decrees of the Second Vatican Council), July 24, 1966, AAS58 (1966) 659-661.

23 1) Imprimis occurrit ipsa Sacra Revelatio: sunt etenim qui ad Sacram Scripturam recurrunt Traditione

consulto seposita, sed Biblicae inspirationis et inerrantiae ambitum et vim coartant et de historicorum

textuum valore non recte sentient (ibid., 661).

24 Le rapport troit qui unit les textes bibliques inspires au mystre de lIncarnation a t exprim par

lencycliqueDivino afflante Spiritudans les termes suivants: De mme que la Parole substantielle de Dieu

sest faite semblable aux hommes en tous points, except le pch, ainsi les paroles de Dieu, exprimes en des

langues humaines, se sont faites semblables au langage humain en tous points, except lerreur. Reprise

presque littralement par la Constitution conciliaire Dei Verbum(n. 13), cette affirmation met en lumire un

paralllisme riche de signification (Discours de Jean Paul II, 23 April 1993, section II, no. 6 (EB1245).

25 . . . absentia erroris in scriptis sacris inspiratis (AAS90 [1998], p. 549).

26Humani Generis, 22.

27 It is worth noting that the reverse is not necessarily true. That is, the Church has never taught that all that

the Holy Spirit affirms must be held as affirmed by the sacred authors. For it may well be that, in additiontothe primary (literal) sense of each affirmation, taught by both the divine and human authors, God intends a

deeper meaning which the human author may have been unaware of asensus plenioror one of the classical

spiritual senses (allegorical, tropological and anagogical cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #115-117).

In short, God may well be saying morethan the human author has in mind; but he can never be saying less.

28 Indeed, the inerrancy of practically any piece of human writing could be defended by an analogous

application of this procedure. The commentator would just single out one or two general and relatively

uncontroversial theses of the entire work as the only thing(s) the author intends to affirm with the

felicitous result that none of his many incorrect statements (no matter how clearly or emphatically expressed)

will be counted as errors. For none of them, we will be assured, is truly affirmed or asserted: they are

all just obiter dicta. Since nobody would take this kind of sophistry seriously in regard to non-biblical

literature, we need to ask why it should be taken seriously in regard to Sacred Scripture.

29 Although see our qualifications on this point in note 5 above.

30 Cf. first citation in Preamble above.

31 Cf. section 1.5above.

32 Leo XIII had already pointed out in Providentissimusthat there is no error involved when biblicalauthors

describe certain things in nature according to the way they appear to our senses. Some reported speeches and

sayings of biblical figures even Jesus himself give us the substance of their teaching without necessarily

reproducing their ipsissima verba. Popular but imprecise language is sometimes employed in accord with

accepted ancient usage; and while events presented in Scripture as historical really did occur, they did not

necessarily occur chronologically in the same order as that in which they appear on the pages of the Bible.Many other examples could no doubt be given.

Go to:Roman Theological Forum |Living TraditionIndex |Previous Issue |Next Issue
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref23http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref24http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref25http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref26http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref27http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref28http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref29http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref30http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref31http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref32http://www.rtforum.org/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt144.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt147.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt147.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt147.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt144.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/index.htmlhttp://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref32http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref31http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref30http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref29http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref28http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref27http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref26http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref25http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref24http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt145-6.html#_ftnref23

Documents

Verdad en La Biblia