‍ 

Dialogue on Catholic Teaching about 

the Bible

 

Does the Catholic Church teach that Scripture is inerrant?

 

Gary Hoge

 

Perhaps I can’t blame you, seeing as you began as an atheist, but The Catholic Church is notorious for its Scriptural modernism.

 

No, some Catholics are notorious for their Scriptural modernism. The Church herself condemns modernist attitudes toward Scripture. In fact, Pope Pius X described Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies.” On September 8, 1907, he wrote:

 

To hear [the Modernists] descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. (Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 34).

 

Pope Leo XIII also affirmed the absolute inerrancy of Scripture. He wrote:

 

But 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 all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that 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. (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 20, November 18, 1893).

 

More recently, the Second Vatican Council declared:

 

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. … Therefore, since everything 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. (Dei Verbum, 11, November 18, 1965).

 

This is the faith of the Church. Anyone who says otherwise, be he layman, priest, or bishop, is contradicting the Catholic faith.

 

Not only is the Church eaten up with evolutionism, but its whole view of the Bible is of ancient near eastern pagan mythology which contains an (evolving) theology.

 

The Church does not regard the Bible as “near eastern pagan mythology.” On the contrary, the Church maintains that Scripture is the Word of God, whole and entire, unchanging and perfect. Again, Pope Leo XIII wrote:

 

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 emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance – the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the “higher criticism;” for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 10).

 

I’m sure you can find so-called Catholics – even scholars – who believe all sorts of screwy things, but please don’t confuse their errors with the teaching of the Church. Just because a Catholic says it that doesn’t mean it’s the official teaching of the Church.

 

Even in the premodern era the Catholic Church and the other ancient liturgical churches accepted the Bible primarily as didactic allegory.

 

Then why does the Church lay down the interpretive rule (borrowed from St. Augustine) “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 15)? This doesn’t mean, however, that Scripture can’t be interpreted in an allegorical sense, provided that the literal meaning is not thereby compromised. The authors of Scripture themselves did this. For example, St. Paul interpreted the story of Hagar and Sarah as an allegory of the Law and the Gospel, respectively. That doesn’t mean those people didn’t exist, or that their story didn’t really happen. On the contrary, St. Paul’s Spirit-inspired allegorical interpretation was in addition to not instead of his understanding of the literal experiences of Hagar and Sarah.

 

Today not a single Catholic Bible will receive an imprimatur from a bishop without teaching both evolutionism and “the Bible as mythology” in its commentary.

 

As I have already proved, “the Bible as mythology” is a blatantly uncatholic perversion of the truth taught by the Church. I think you’d have a hard time finding a bishop who would sign off on a book containing such a blasphemous teaching. Certainly, no faithful bishop would.

 

There are here and there a few ex-Fundamentalists who convert to Catholicism and pretend that the Catholic Church teaches inerrancy.

 

The Catholic Church does teach inerrancy, as I have already proved. To give you yet another example of this, the First Vatican Council declared:

 

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter 2, paragraph 7, July 18, 1870).

 

If you want to know what the Catholic Church really teaches, you have to go to the source: to the decrees of the ecumenical councils, the writings of the popes, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc. Unfortunately, you can’t necessarily rely on Father Fluff and Sister Mary Modernist at the liberal parish down the street to accurately reflect true Catholic teaching.

 

You are all fooling yourselves. How long can you remain in your new “home” when all the tracts, magazines, books, publications, etc., bristle with ridicule against creationism and Scriptural inerrancy?

 

I’ve never seen even one Catholic tract, magazine, book, or publication that ridiculed creationism or Scriptural inerrancy. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but they sure aren’t the norm. And more importantly, they don’t reflect the faith of the Church, they contradict it. Publications that are faithful to the teachings of the Church will affirm the absolute inerrancy of Scripture, just as the Church herself does.

 

Do you think all those wonderful “conservative” apologists you have encountered, like Patrick Madrid, Fr. Stravinskas, or Karl Keating, believe in Scriptural inerrancy?

 

Yes.

 

You are very much mistaken.

 

How do you know that? Have these men ever written anything or said anything that denies Scriptural inerrancy? Can you document your charge against these men?

 

You either know this already or else you will soon receive a very rude awakening.

 

I would indeed be very surprised to learn that these men were unfaithful to the teaching of the Church on this matter, but even if you were right, what would that prove but that they were wrong? It wouldn’t prove that the Church denied inerrancy, it would prove that these men denied the Church. The Church affirms inerrancy. Individual Catholics are either faithful to that teaching or they aren’t.

 

I once tried the little experiment you are involved in. I was a subject (though obviously not a “citizen”) of the Catholic Church for six years. I stayed with it as long as I could. Finally I could take it no more when I needed support against my atheist professors and “my” Church not only didn’t help me, it supported my persecutors! I will never forgive the “unchanging” Catholic Church for this betrayal.

 

I’m sorry that the people who should have backed you up in your defense of Scripture betrayed you instead. Any Catholic who would side with atheists on the matter of Scriptural inerrancy does not deserve to bear the name Catholic. But you mustn’t blame the Church for this betrayal. The Church is on your side in this matter, and you were the one who was being faithful to her teachings. The people who betrayed you betrayed the Church, too.

 

Well, maybe one day you’ll have to join the liberals. It’s either that or you’ll have to leave the Catholic Church.

 

Or else I can stay and defend the Catholic Church against the perversions of the liberals who attack her from within.

 

I can’t scold you as I’d like for turning your back on Biblical inerrancy (AND apocalypticism, AND Israel), because you’re hanging around with evangelical converts who still retain those things. Unfortunately, your orthodox Catholic “friends” are laughing at you and attacking you behind your back.

 

Well, obviously I don’t know what people are doing behind my back, but if they’re laughing at me for upholding the Church’s teachings on Holy Scripture, they sure aren’t “orthodox Catholics.” But what is that to me? I must follow the truth even if I’m the only one who does.

 

The most cursory reading of ANY Catholic literature (even the most “conservative”) will easily prove that you are going against the Church to hold on to these things.

 

On the contrary, as I have already proved, I am standing firmly with the Church by holding on to these things. If there’s any Catholic literature out there that denies Scriptural inerrancy, it’s that literature that’s going against the Church.

 

Nevertheless, be strong. In condemning you for these beliefs your “teachers” are actually condemning themselves.

 

Well, so far all the priests I’ve met have been very orthodox, but I’m not blind to the fact that there are liberal, dissident priests in the Church. If I ever encounter any, I will indeed be strong in my defense of the Church’s unchanging faith in the absolute inerrancy of Scripture.

 

When the day comes when you must either change or leave, I hope you will leave. And shake the dust off your feet when you go.

 

If the day ever comes when the Church retracts her constant teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture, I’ll be the first one out the door. But because I believe in the indefectability of the Church, I don’t believe that will ever happen. However, it would not surprise me if someday I find myself unwelcome in some liberal perish that opposes the teaching of the Church. In that case, shaking the dust and going to a more faithful parish sounds like a good idea.