Vatican ii

Good fortune, in the form of a post by Jon in an un-related thread, has provided that means of getting into the Vatican II documents themselves that i have been looking for. Thanks again Jon.


The 'olytn' article that i have been quoting from, is the least critical about Dei Verbum. So let's begin with this Vatican II document.

The 'arcaneknowledge' article offers one possible explanation of why this was so:


Among all the documents of Vatican II, Dei Verbum most closely resembles a traditional conciliar document in form, declaring and expounding doctrine. As a “dogmatic constitution,” it was subjected to greater theological and juridical scrutiny, especially as it dealt with a matter that is fundamental to the faith. Divine revelation, which is the word of God expressed in Scripture and Tradition, is the basis of all Christian doctrine. While the Second Vatican Council generally avoided making new dogmatic definitions, the present constitution at least touches upon the age-old question of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. It also clarifies teaching about the authenticity and inerrancy of Holy Scripture, in light of modern developments in exegesis and criticism.


Pasted from <http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment21-11.htm>

 

The article then provides a very helpful explanation of why the document was needed:


The First Vatican Council, in its dogmatic constitution Dei Filius (1870), reaffirmed and clarified Tridentine teaching about the content and interpretation of Scripture. It emphasized that the authority of the Scriptures comes not from merely ecclesiastical or canonical law, nor from the mere fact of their inerrancy, “but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author.” This traditional view of divine authorship was shared by all the Fathers of the Church. Further, interpretation of Scripture in matters of faith and morals, since this pertains to establishing Christian doctrine, is the prerogative of the Church. “In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.”

...[my emphasis]

At the time[turn of the 20th C], a distinction was made between “lower” and “higher” criticism. Lower criticism involved the comparison of extant manuscripts in order to determine, as closely as possible, the original verbal form of the text, removing copyist errors and editorial glosses. Higher criticism, also known as form criticism, attempted to determine how and why a text was first composed, mainly by looking at internal literary clues, but also by considering cultural context. As higher criticism was much more interpretive, and less bound by objective criteria than lower criticism, it was much more likely to run afoul of orthodox doctrine.

The higher critics claimed to have proven a number of theses that were at odds not only with particular Christian doctrines, but even with the basic authenticity and divine inspiration of Scripture. Other theses did not overtly contradict the faith, but at least seemed highly difficult to reconcile with it. Some controversial theses merely questioned the traditional authorship of certain books of Scripture, e.g., whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch or St. Matthew wrote the Gospel bearing his name. Others boldly challenged the integrity of Scripture, arguing that certain books were harmonizations of contradictory traditions, or that primitive histories were distorted to serve later theological purposes. Still others sought to resolve supposed historical difficulties by claiming that certain books were not historical in genre, but were intended as literary fiction or poetry, or that fables and myths were confused with history.

In response to these dangers to the faith, the Magisterium issued several pronouncements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, condemning critical doctrines that were contrary to the faith, while at the same time defining what lines of inquiry and theses could be licitly held by Catholic exegetes. Here, as always, there was a delicate balance between the Church’s right to define doctrines of faith and morals, and the right to a certain degree of freedom in scientific inquiry.

Most notably, Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), which denounced the rash claims of higher criticism as unsubstantiated impiety, while at the same time commending the use of lower critical methods, including the study of Scripture in its original languages. The Pope closed the door on the pretence that there can be error in Scripture even on matters not pertaining to faith and morals, for those who make such argument “either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error.”


Pasted from <http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment21-11.htm>

 

The arcaneknowledge article provides a detailed commentary of the Dei Verbum. I shall resist c&p ing huge chunks of it here.

But let me c&p one part which i found very helpful:


Dei Verbum likewise affirms that the sacred authors wrote only what God willed for them to write, while emphasizing that this did not entail a suppression of their natural human abilities. In fact, God made use of their abilities, so that they too were true authors. This agrees with the perennial faith of the Church, for we say without contradiction that St. Paul was the author of the letter to the Romans, and so was the Holy Spirit.

As the inspired authors retained the free use of their faculties, they were not mere puppets or stenographers, but cooperated in the composition of Holy Scripture, using their own literary skills. This notion of inspiration is different from that of Islam, where the Prophet Muhammad is said to have recited the Qu’ran from a heavenly exemplar, and so the Muslims consequently affirm that its literary style is without peer. Christians make no such claim about their Scripture, and freely admit that its literary quality is frequently limited by the skill of its human authors. What is divine is its message, which is to say its content or significance.

Therefore, since everything that is asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error..." [2 Tim. 3:16] (DV, 11)

The first clause establishes a reasonably clear rule for determining the scope of Biblical inspiration. Whatever the inspired authors assert is also asserted by the Holy Spirit. This principle guarantees that the meaning of the Scriptures will be generally accessible to us, for this does not demand the impossible task of scrutinizing the mind of God. We have only to determine what the human author intended to assert, and thus learn also what the Holy Spirit asserts. The Latin verb assero comes from the root meaning “to bind” or “to join,” since we are committing ourselves to a declaration, or making a composite statement relating a predicate to some subject. Thus it applies only to propositions, not individual words or letters, which standing alone, do not admit of truth or falsity. Yet it is not enough to read Scripture grammatically, for we must also know what the author intends. He might intend to assert a historical fact, or to relate a didactic parable, or merely quote what someone else said without concurring.

Once it is accepted that everything asserted by the inspired authors in Scripture is also asserted by the Holy Spirit, it logically follows there can be no error in any of these assertions, since God can neither deceive nor be deceived. At the insistence of more progressive bishops, the phrase “for the sake of salvation” was appended to the original statement. Consequently, they and various liberal exegetes have held that this phrase limits the scope of Biblical inerrancy. In other words, a Biblical statement about history or science might admit error if it is not related to the truths about salvation. While this restricted notion of inerrancy might make exegetes’ lives easier, it is incompatible with the basic logic expounded a couple lines earlier in Dei Verbum. Everything asserted by the inspired authors is also asserted by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can neither deceive nor be deceived, as even liberal Catholics will admit. From this it inexorably follows that everything asserted by the inspired authors is free from error, and this logic holds for historical and scientific statements no less than statements about faith and morals. As Pope Leo taught in Providentissimus Deus:

...it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it—this system cannot be tolerated.

...inspiration 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 unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent...(PD, 20)

Pope Leo’s teaching is grounded not only in perennial Christian teaching, but in basic logic. Once divine authorship of the Scripture, including all its assertions, is admitted (as Dei Verbum explicitly confirms), it does not matter one whit whether or not a particular assertion is related to the primary purpose of divine revelation. God does not momentarily or intermittently cease to be Truth and commit error when asserting things incidental to His primary purpose.

Still, the purpose of Scripture—to expound the faith and morals necessary for salvation—does have an important exegetical role. Pope Leo had already acknowledged as much, citing St. Augustine and St. Thomas:

“[The Holy Ghost] ...did not intend to teach men these things... things in no way profitable unto salvation." Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less 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 by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers—as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us—`went by what sensibly appeared," or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to. (PD, 18)

Since the Holy Spirit was not concerned with teaching men the secrets of nature or other matters unessential to salvation, we should not expect such topics to be discussed with greater precision than the culture of the time permitted. In other words, we should not read too much into every phrase as though it were a special revelation about some worldly truth, but instead regard expressions according to the common modes of speech used by the ancients. This does not mean there can be overt falsehood in Scripture, but neither should we demand that the ancient author have a complete knowledge of natural facts. He will know no more than what God has revealed to him, and revelation is oriented toward faith and morals. Nonetheless, since in his entire writing he is guided by the Spirit of Truth, there will be no falsehood in anything he asserts.



Pasted from <http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment21-11.htm>

 

Here is a c&p from another article that echoes the danger of misinterpretation present in the text of Dei Verbum.


The reason is that numerous Catholic theologians and biblical scholars came to the same erroneous conclusion based on an impartial and incorrect interpretation of paragraph 11 of Dei Verbum. Exemplifying the “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” they read the paragraph in isolation from the nineteen hundred years of tradition preceding it (as well as the rest of the document itself), and interpreted it to mean that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error only that truth pertaining to salvation which God wanted put into sacred writings.” The false interpretation — which can be described as “limited inerrancy” — is that there are parts of Scripture that do not pertain to our salvation, and that there could be errors in those parts in matters of history and science. Only the doctrinal and moral truths in the Scriptures are taught “solidly, faithfully and without error.”

This problem of misinterpretation is not exclusive to laity and priests. The instrumentum laboris (“working document”) of the recent XII Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on “The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church” included the following troubling excerpt:

In summary, the following can be said with certainty: […] with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture, inerrancy applies only to “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” (15c)

While the “working document” is not an official teaching document, and thus carries no magisterial weight whatsoever, it is distressing to see such a misconception of the Church’s doctrine on inerrancy in a document related to a Synod on the Word of God.4 However, even when individual members of the Church call into question a certain doctrine, we as Catholics can know that the Church will perpetually and faithfully maintain and hand on the faith in its fullness. The doubt of St. Thomas did not negate the veracity of the Apostles’ testimony of the risen Christ.

The Potential Repercussions

If limited inerrancy were true, it would have a disastrous implication: that God inspired all of Scripture but only kept part of it free from error, that part which pertains to salvation. This would require an (infallible) arbiter who could determine which parts of Scripture pertain to salvation and which parts do not. Logically, any part of the Bible determined to contain an error could not pertain to salvation, so if some “experts” determined that the Apostles did not actually see the risen Christ with a resurrected, glorified body — a body capable of passing through walls and also of eating fish! — those passages of Scripture would be deemed errant and thus not pertinent to salvation. That would result in a radical redefinition of our doctrine on the Resurrection; such a redefinition has already been advanced by certain theologians who consider the Resurrection a “shared experience” rather than an historical and transcendent event as the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines it.5

Scripture is hard enough to understand as it is. (cf. Acts 8:30ff; 2 Peter 3:16) But limited inerrancy would also mean that God made it deliberately hard for us to believe in His Word as recorded in Scripture. People would wonder if the doctrinal content of Scripture (that is, that which pertains to salvation) is really inspired and inerrant if the non-doctrinal content is inspired but errant. This would inevitably lead to a continually changing faith (decreasing in content, no doubt) over time.

Dei Verbum 11 states that the human authors of Scripture wrote “everything and only those things which [God] wanted,” and that “everything asserted by [them] must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit.” If limited inerrancy were true, that would mean that God deliberately willed the human authors to write things that are not true: it “make God the author of […] error,” a scenario explicitly condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus 21. It would mean that, in the writing of Scripture, God’s word is not necessarily truth, and that the Holy Spirit asserts untruths through the human authors of Scripture. On the contrary, Jesus says that His Father’s words “are truth” (John 17:17) and that the Holy Spirit — the “Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17) — would “guide [the Apostles] into all the truth” (John 16:13). The Catholic Church does not believe that God teaches and instructs His people with untruths and lies.

Restoring Context

The “limited inerrancy” interpretation is produced by isolating the words “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” This error can be corrected simply by restoring these words to their context, taking into account these statements in the very same paragraph:

In composing the sacred books, God chose men [so that] they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit […]

“[A]ll Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error […]”

When all four statements are read together, it is clear that the Council is saying that the sacred authors wrote only what God wanted them to write, that everything they wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus attributed to God, and that everything they wrote was written for the sake of salvation. The phrase “for the sake of our salvation” is not a restrictive clause which separates the “truth” in Scripture from the rest of its contents. On the contrary, it affirms for us that what is taught in Scripture is the truth, and it is taught for our salvation.

In a 1998 doctrinal commentary on the Oath of Fidelity (Professio Fidei), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) included the belief in “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” — without qualification — as belonging to the divinely and formally revealed articles of the Catholic faith. Since the whole of Scripture is inspired (as taught by Vatican II), the absence of error “in the inspired sacred texts” means that the whole of Scripture is without error. The CDF commentary cites Dei Verbum 11 in support of this belief in the absence of error in Scripture. This is the most clear post-conciliar indicator that Dei Verbum teaches the traditional doctrine of inerrancy, and it is a magisterial affirmation of the “hermeneutic of continuity,” rather than the “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” as the proper approach to the Second Vatican Council.

Pasted from <http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/vatican-ii-and-the-inerrancy-of-the-bible/>