|
Holy
Scripture is Truthful / Free From Error
Note:
This topic refers to Holy Scripture in general and not to any
particular translation of it. |
"Brethren, be contentious and zealous for
the things which lead to salvation! You have studied the Holy
Scriptures, which are true and are of the Holy Spirit. You well
know that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in them."
(Pope St. Clement of Rome, 1st century A.D.) "We must neither doubt nor hesitate with
respect to the words of the Lord; rather, we must be fully
persuaded that every word of God is true and possible, even if our
nature should rebel against the idea - for in this lies the test
of faith." (St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church) "[I hold Scripture] in such reverence and
honor that I do most firmly believe that none of their authors has
erred in anything that he has written therein. If I find anything
in those writings which seems to be contrary to the truth, I
presume that either the codex is inaccurate, or the translator has
not followed what was said, or I have not properly understood
it" (St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, circa 406 A.D.) "St. Jerome's teaching on this point serves
to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory,
Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the
Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So
far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with
inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature
precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it
and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be
the Author of error." (Pope Benedict XV, "Spiritus
Paraclitus", 1920 A.D.) "There can be no falsehood anywhere in the
literal sense of Holy Scripture." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor
of the Church and "greatest theologian in the history of the
Church") "I will not have the effrontery at any time
either to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures
contradict each other]. If a Scripture which appears to be of such
a kind be brought forward, and there be a pretext for regarding it
as contradictory, since I am totally convinced that no Scripture
is contradictory to another, I shall admit instead that I do not
understand what is spoken of, and shall strive to persuade those
who assume that the Scriptures are contradictory to be rather of
the same opinion as myself." (St. Justin the Martyr, circa
155 A.D.) "If, however, we are not able to find
explanations for all those passages of Scripture which are
investigated, we ought not on that account seek for another God
besides Him who exists. This would indeed be the greatest impiety.
Things of that kind we must leave to God, the One who made us,
knowing full well that the Scriptures are certainly perfect, since
they were spoken by the Word of God and by His Spirit." (St.
Irenaeus, 2nd century A.D.)
"God,
the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the
Scriptures - and...therefore nothing can be proved either by physical
science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures."
(Pope Leo XIII, "Providentissimus Deus", 1893)
"If [the Evangelists] had not been lovers
of truth, but, as Celsus says, inventors of fictions, they would
not have written of Peter has having made a denial, nor of the
disciples of Jesus as having been scandalized. For indeed, even if
these things happened, who could have offered proof of their
having happened as they did?" [Origen ("the greatest
scholar of Christian antiquity" - although he would
eventually be excommunicated and be regarded as a heretic), 3rd
century A.D.] "I
think it is dangerous to believe that anything in the Sacred Books
is a lie... For if we should admit in that supreme monument of
authority even one 'polite'
lie, no shred of those books will remain. Whenever anyone finds
anything therein that is difficult to practice or hard to believe,
he will refer to this most pernicious precedent and explain it as
the idea or practice of a lying author." (St. Augustine,
Doctor of the Church, 4th
century A.D.)
Error CONDEMNED by Pope St. Pius X in "Lamentabili": "Divine inspiration does
not so extend to all Sacred Scripture that it fortifies each and
every part of it against all error." (Pope St. Pius X, This
proposition was condemned in "Lamentabili",
1907 A.D.)
Error CONDEMNED by Pope St. Pius X in "Lamentabili": "In many narratives the
Evangelists related not so much what is true, as what they thought
to be more profitable for the reader, although false." (Pope
St. Pius X, This proposition was condemned in "Lamentabili", 1907 A.D.)
Error CONDEMNED by Pope St. Pius X in "Lamentabili":
"The Fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles, not only that the
extraordinary might stand out more, but also that they might
become more suitable for signifying the work and glory of the Word
Incarnate." (Pope St. Pius X, This proposition was condemned
in "Lamentabili", 1907 A.D.)
Error CONDEMNED by Pope St. Pius X in "Lamentabili":
"The narrations of John are not properly history, but the
mystical contemplation of the Gospel; the discourses contained in
his Gospel are theological meditations on the mystery of
salvation, devoid of historical truth." (Pope St. Pius X,
This proposition was condemned in "Lamentabili",
1907 A.D.)
Error CONDEMNED by Pope St. Pius X in "Lamentabili":
" Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts
narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church's dogmas which rest on them.
Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most
certain." (Pope
St. Pius X, This proposition was condemned in "Lamentabili", 1907 A.D.)
Error CONDEMNED by Pope Pius IX in the
Syllabus
of Errors: "The prophecies and
miracles described and related in Sacred Scripture are the
inventions of poets; and the mysteries of the Christian faith are
the culmination of philosophical investigations; and in the books
of both Testaments are contained mythical inventions; and Jesus
Christ Himself is a mythical fiction." (Pope Pius IX, This
proposition was condemned in the
Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 A.D.)
Error
CONDEMNED by Pope St. Pius X in "Lamentabili": "John, indeed, claims for
himself the character of a witness concerning Christ; but in
reality he is nothing but a distinguished witness of the Christian
life, or of the life of the Christian Church at the end of the
first century." (Pope St. Pius X, This proposition was
condemned in "Lamentabili",
1907 A.D.) "[Question:] Whether to solve the difficulties
which occur in the epistles of St. Paul and of the other apostles,
where there is mention of "parousia," as they say, or of
the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, a Catholic exegete is
permitted to assert that the apostles, although under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, taught no error, nevertheless
express their own human feelings in which error or deception can
lie concealed? - Reply: In the negative." (Reply of the Biblical
Commission, June 18, 1915 A.D.) "[Question:] Whether, not withstanding the
practice which flourished constantly in the whole Church from the
earliest times, of arguing from the fourth Gospel as from a truly
historical document, in consideration, nevertheless, of the
peculiar nature of the same Gospel, and of the manifest intention
of the author to illustrate and to prove the divinity of Christ
from the very deeds and words of the Lord, it can be said that the
deeds related in the fourth Gospel are totally or partially so
invented that they are allegories or doctrinal symbols; but that
the words of the Lord are not properly and truly the words of the
Lord himself, but theological compositions of the writer, although
placed in the mouth of the Lord? - Answer: In the negative."
(Response of the Biblical Commission, May 29, 1907 A.D.)
"[Question:] Whether, when the nature and
historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of
the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each
other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold
testimony of the Old and of the New Testaments; because of the
almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the
traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people,
the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid
chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which
really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality
and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable
drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and
adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after
expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols,
devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise
of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or,
finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part,
composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls? -
Reply: In the negative to both parts." (Response of the Biblical
Commission, June 30th, 1909 A.D.)
"What [St. Jerome] has said here of the
Gospels he applies in his Commentaries to the rest of the Lord's
words; he regards it as the very rule and foundation of Catholic
interpretation; indeed, for Jerome, a true prophet was to be
distinguished from a false by this very note of truth: 'The Lord's
words are true; for Him to say it, means that it is.' Again,
'Scripture cannot lie'; it is wrong to say Scripture lies, nay, it
is impious even to admit the very notion of error where the Bible
is concerned. 'The Apostles,' he says, 'are one thing; other
writers' - that is, profane [secular] writers - 'are another;' 'the former
always tell the truth; the latter - as being mere men - sometimes
err,' and though many things are said in the Bible which seem
incredible, yet they are true; in this 'word of truth' you cannot
find things or statements which are contradictory, 'there is
nothing discordant nor conflicting'; consequently, 'when Scripture
seems to be in conflict with itself both passages are true despite
their diversity.'" (Pope Benedict XV, "Spiritus
Paraclitus", 1920 A.D.)
"Yet no one can pretend that certain recent
writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding
that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every
single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to distinguish
between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary
or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of
inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are
to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their
notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught
by God in Scripture, and that all the rest - things concerning
'profane [secular] knowledge,' the garments in which Divine truth is
presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual
author's greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in
their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible
touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be
reconciled with modern progress in science! Some even maintain
that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid
down since - so they claim - he said that the sacred writers spoke
in accordance with the external - and thus deceptive - appearance
of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is
a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the
senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and
immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance
of things - of which, of course, we have always to take account as
Leo XIII, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St.
Thomas, most wisely remarks - we can never conclude that there is
any error in Sacred Scripture. Moreover, our predecessor, sweeping
aside all such distinctions between what these critics are pleased
to call primary and secondary elements, says in no ambiguous
fashion that 'those who fancy that when it is a question of the
truth of certain expressions we have not got to consider so much
what God said as why He said it,' are very far indeed from the
truth. He also teaches that Divine inspiration extends to every
part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no
error can occur in the inspired text: 'It would be wholly impious
to limit inspiration to certain portions only of Scripture or to
concede that the sacred authors themselves could have erred.'
Those, too, who hold that the historical portions of Scripture do
not rest on the absolute truth of the facts but merely upon what
they are pleased to term their relative truth, namely, what people
then commonly thought, are - no less than are the aforementioned
critics - out of harmony with the Church's teaching, which is
endorsed by the testimony of [St.] Jerome and other Fathers." (Pope Benedict XV, "Spiritus Paraclitus", 1920
A.D.) "Neither does Scripture falsify anything,
nor does the Holy Spirit deceive His servants, the prophets
through whom He is pleased to announce to men the will of
God." (St. Hippolytus of Rome, circa 204 A.D.)
"Scripture
cannot lie" (St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church)
"Just as in the biological and
anthropological sciences, so also in the historical there are
those who boldly transgress the limits and precautions established
by the Church. And, We especially deplore a certain entirely too
liberal manner of interpreting the historical books of the Old
Testament, the supporters of which defend their case by reference
without warrant to a letter given not long ago by the Pontifical
Council on Biblical Affairs to the Archbishop of Paris. This
Letter plainly advises that the eleven first chapters of Genesis,
although they do not conform properly with the methods of
historical composition which distinguished Greek and Latin writers
of past events, or the learned men of our age have used,
nevertheless in a certain sense, to be examined and determined
more fully by exegetes, are truly a kind of history; and that the
same chapters, in simple and figurative speech suited to the
mentality of a people of little culture, both recount the
principal truths on which the attainment of our eternal salvation
depends, and also the popular description of the origin of the
human race and of the chosen people. But if the ancient sacred
writers draw anything from popular narrations (which indeed can be
conceded) it must never be forgotten that they did so assisted by
the impulse of divine inspiration, by which in selecting and
passing judgment on those documents, they were preserved free from
all error." (Pope Pius XII, "Humani generis",
August 12, 1950 A.D.)
"[Narrations
in Scripture may
not be in the order of occurrence, but that] in no way diminish[es] the authority and truth of the gospel" (St.
Augustine, Doctor of the Church)
"It can happen, indeed, that transcribers
in copying manuscripts do so incorrectly. This is to be considered
carefully and is not to be admitted readily, except in those
passages where it has been properly demonstrated; it can also
happen that the true sense of some passage remains ambiguous; the
best rules of interpretation will contribute much toward the
solution of this problem; but it would be entirely wrong either to
confine inspiration only to some parts of Sacred Scripture, or to
concede that the sacred author himself has erred. For the method
of those is not to be tolerated, who extricated themselves from
these difficulties by readily granting that divine inspiration
pertains to matters of faith and morals, and nothing more. The
books, all and entire, which the Church accepts as sacred and
canonical, with all their parts, have been written at the
dictation of the Holy Spirit; so far is it from the possibility of
any error being present to divine inspiration, that it itself of
itself not only excludes all error, but excludes it and rejects it
as necessarily as it is necessary that God, the highest Truth, be
the author of no error whatsoever. This is the ancient and uniform
faith of the Church, defined also by solemn opinion at the
Councils of Florence and of Trent, finally confirmed and more
expressly declared at the Vatican Council, by which it was
absolutely declared: 'The books of the Old and New Testament ...
have God as their author'. Therefore, it matters not at all that
the Holy Spirit took men as instruments for the writing, as if
anything false might have slipped, not indeed from the first
Author, but from the inspired writers. For, by supernatural power
He so roused and moved them to write, He stood so near them, that
they rightly grasped in mind all those things, and those only,
which He Himself ordered, and willed faithfully to write them
down, and expressed them properly with infallible truth;
otherwise, He Himself would not be the author of all Sacred
Scripture. Such has
always been the persuasion of the Fathers. 'Therefore,' says St.
Augustine, 'since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to
them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members
executed what their Head dictated.' And St. Gregory the Great thus
pronounces: 'Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things -
we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote
it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its
execution..
It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any
genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic
notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so utterly convinced were all the Fathers and
Doctors that the holy works, which were published by the
hagiographers, are free of every error, that they were very eager,
no less skillfully than reverently, to arrange and reconcile those
not infrequent passages which seemed to offer something contrary
and at variance (they are almost the very passages which are now
thrown up to us under the name of the new science); and they
professed unanimously that these books, both in whole and in part,
were equally of divine inspiration, and that God Himself, speaking
through the sacred authors, could have set down nothing at all at
variance with the truth. Let what the same [St.] Augustine wrote to
[St.] Jerome sum this up: '... If I shall meet anything in these works
which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to believe
anything other than that the text is faulty, or that the translator
has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do
not
understand.' ... For many objections from every kind of teaching
have for long been persistently hurled against Scripture, which
now, quite dead, have fallen into disuse; likewise, at times not a
few interpretations have been placed on certain passages of
Scripture (not properly pertinent to the rule of faith and morals)
in which a more careful investigation has seen the meaning more
accurately. For, surely, time destroys the falsities of opinions,
but 'truth remaineth and groweth stronger forever and ever.'"
(Pope Leo XIII, "Providentissimus Deus", 1893 A.D.)
"When, subsequently, some Catholic writers,
in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which
such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all
their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever,
ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to
matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether
in the domain of physical science or history, as 'obiter dicta'
and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our
Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter
Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893,
justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the
studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules...
This
teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such
solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to
adhere to it religiously." (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante
Spiritu) "[Question:] Whether the opinion can be admitted
as a principle of sound exegesis, which holds that the books of
Sacred Scripture which are held to be historical, either in whole
or in part sometimes do not narrate history properly so called and
truly objective, but present an appearance of history only, to
signify something different from the properly literal and
historical significance of the words? The answer (with the
approbation of Pius X): In the negative, except in the case,
however, not readily or rashly to be admitted, where without
opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgment, it
is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not
wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but
to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable,
an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or
historical significance of the words." (Reply of the Biblical
Commission, June 23, 1905 A.D.)
"But to return to the new opinions ... many
things are proposed or instilled in the mind (of the faithful) to
the detriment of the divine authority of Sacred Scripture. Some
boldly pervert the meaning of the definition of the [First]
Vatican Council, with respect to God as the author of Sacred
Scripture; and they revive the opinion, many times disproved,
according to which the immunity of the Sacred Writings from error
extends only to those matters which are handed down regarding God
and moral and religious subjects. Again, they speak falsely about
the human sense of the Sacred Books, under which their divine
sense lies hidden, which they declare is alone infallible. In
interpreting Sacred Scripture they wish that no account be taken
of the analogy of the faith and of 'the tradition' of the Church,
so that the teaching of the Holy Fathers and of the holy
magisterium is to be referred, as it were, to the norm of Sacred
Scripture as explained by exegetes in a merely human manner,
rather than that Sacred Scripture be interpreted according to the
mind of the Church, which was established by Christ the Lord as
the guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of truth
revealed by God. And besides, the literal sense of Sacred
Scripture and its exposition, as elaborated by so many great
exegetes under the watchful eye of the Church, according to their
false opinions, should yield to the new exegesis which they call
symbolic and spiritual; by which the Sacred Books of the Old
Testament, which today are as a closed source in the Church, may
be opened sometime to all. They declare that by this method all
difficulties vanish, by which they only are shackled who cling to
the literal sense of Scripture. Surely, everyone will see how
foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation
rightly established by Our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII
in the Encyclical Letter 'Providentissimus,' Benedict XV in the
Encyclical Letter, 'Spiritus Paraclitus,' and also by us in the
Encyclical Letter, 'Divino afflante Spiritu.' And it is not
strange that such innovations, as far as pertains to almost all
branches of theology, have already produced poisonous fruit. It is
doubtful that human reason, without the aid of divine 'revelation'
and divine grace, can demonstrate the existence of a personal God
by arguments deduced from created things; it is denied that the
world had a beginning, and it is disputed that the creation of the
world was necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary
liberality of divine love; eternal and infallible foreknowledge of
the free actions of men is likewise denied to God; all of which,
indeed, are opposed to the declarations of the [First] Vatican
Council. " (Pope Pius XII, "Humani generis", August
12, 1950 A.D.)
"Therefore, let the interpreter with all
care and without neglect of the light which the more recent
investigations have shed, strive to discern what the real
character and condition of life of the sacred writer were; in what
age he flourished; what sources he used whether written or oral,
and what forms of expression he employed. Thus he will be able to
know better who the sacred writer was, and what he wished to
indicate by his writing. For it escapes no one that the highest
norm of interpretation is that by which what the writer intends to
say is perceived and defined, as St. Athanasius advises: 'Here, as
it is fitting to do in all other passages of divine Scripture, we
observe that it must be accurately and faithfully considered on
what occasion the Apostle has spoken; what is the person and what
is the subject on which he has written, lest anyone ignorant of
these things, or understanding something else besides them, wander
from the true meaning.' But what the literal sense is in the words
and writings of the old oriental authors is very often not as
clear as it is among the writers of our age. For what they wish to
signify by words is not determined by the laws of grammar or
philology alone, nor by the context of the passage alone; the
interpreter should by all means return mentally, as it were, to
those remote ages of the Orient, in order that rightly assisted by
the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and of other
disciplines, he may discern and perceive what so-called literary
genres the writers of that age sought to employ and in fact did
employ. For the old Orientals, to express what they had in mind,
did not always use the same forms and the same modes of speaking
as we do today, but rather those which were accepted for use among
men of their own times and localities... Indeed, let no one who
has a right understanding of Biblical inspiration, be surprised
that among the Sacred Writers, as among the other ancients,
certain definite ways of explaining and narrating are found;
certain kinds of idioms especially appropriate to Semitic
languages, so called approximations, and certain hyperbolic
methods of speaking, yes, sometimes even paradoxes by which events
are more firmly impressed upon the mind. For none of those methods
of speaking is foreign to the Sacred Scriptures which among
ancient peoples, especially among Orientals, human speech
customarily used to express its thought, yet on this condition,
that the kind of speaking employed be not at odds with the
sanctity and truth of God, just as with his usual perspicacity the
Angelic Doctor has noted in the following words: 'In Scripture
divine matters are made known to us in the manner we customarily
employ.'' For just as the substantial Word of God was made like
man in all things 'without sin,' so also the words of God,
expressed in human language, in all things have been made like
human speech, without error, which Saint John Chrysostom has
already extolled with highest praise as the ... condescension of
a provident God; and which he has asserted again and again is the
case in the Sacred Scriptures. Therefore, let the Catholic
exegete, in order to satisfy the present day needs of Biblical
matters, in explaining Sacred Scripture, and in showing and
proving it free of all error, prudently use this aid, to inquire
how the form of expression and the kind of literature employed by
the Sacred writer, contribute to a true and genuine
interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his
office cannot be neglected without great harm to Catholic
exegesis. For not uncommonly - to touch upon one thing only - when
some propose by way of rebuke that the Sacred Authors have strayed
away from historical truth, or have not reported events
accurately, it is found to be a question of nothing other than the
customary natural methods of the ancients in speaking and
narrating, which in the mutual intercourse among men were
regularly employed, and in fact were employed in accord with a
permissible and common practice. Therefore, intellectual honesty
requires that when these matters are found in divine speech which
is expressed for man in human words, they be not charged more with
error than when they are uttered in the daily use of life. By this
knowledge and exact appreciation of the modes of speaking and
writing in use among the ancients can be solved many difficulties,
which are raised against the veracity and historical value of the
Divine Scriptures, and no less efficaciously does this study
contribute to a fuller and more luminous understanding of the mind
of the Sacred Writer."
(Pope Pius XII, "Divino afflante Spiritu", September 30,
1943 A.D.)
Also
See: Author
of Holy Scripture | Authorship
of Various Books of Scripture | The
Church's Traditional Interpretation of Holy Scripture Is Not
Subject To Correction | Difficulties
in Translating Scripture | Difficulty
of Scripture | Importance
of Scripture | Misinterpretation
of Scripture | Private
Interpretation / Twisting Scripture | Proper
Interpretation of Scripture | Written
/ Oral Tradition
Note:
Categories are subjective and may overlap. For more items related
to this topic, please review all applicable categories. For more
'Reflections' and for Scripture topics, see links below.
Top |
Reflections: A-Z | Catg.
| Scripture: A-Z |
Catg.
| Help |
