The Interpretation of Scripture

[LittleLes]

This topic keeps coming up on other threads and I suppose it is inevitable that it do so. But since it is a question in its own right, lets give it its own thread.

Let me quote a document, and then first of all we can debate its legitimacy as a teaching, and then its accuracy.

Decrees of the First Vatican Council, Session 3, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2 #8: (1870)

a. In matters of faith and morals
b. belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine
c. that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one
d. which holy mother church held and holds since it is her right to judge the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.

Questions

1. Is it disputed that this is the text of the document and section cited?

2. Is this an infallible teaching?

LittleLes

[Guest Eremite]

Can you just get to your point without the grand buildup? I don't feel like chasing another rabbit hole.

[Brother Adam]

Chapter two of the Dogmatic Constitution starts with #9 and is on the People of God, so I'm not sure what you are talking about, however the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Has been since the Apostles and is now.

[Guest Eremite]

Brother,

Wrong Vatican Council.

You can find the text of the First Vatican Council here:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/churchcouncils/Ecum20.htm"]http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/...cils/Ecum20.htm[/url]

[Cam42]

[quote]1. The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. 

2. It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.

3. It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation, that those matters concerning God which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error.

4. It is not because of this that one must hold revelation to be absolutely necessary; the reason is that God directed human beings to a supernatural end, that is a sharing in the good things of God that utterly surpasses the understanding of the human mind; indeed eye has not seen, neither has ear heard, nor has it come into our hearts to conceive what things God has prepared for those who love him.

5. Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, as declared by the sacred Council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us.

6. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.

7. 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.

8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.

9. 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. (Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic Faith 2:1-9)[/quote]

[i]Rm 1, 20
Heb 1, 1-2
1 Cor 2, 9
Council of Trent, session 4, first decree[/i]

There is the total of Chapter 2. Rather than have this "build up" we are just gonna "git ur dun."

The italics are citations. I would say that this answers question #1. However, to humor you:
[quote]Is it disputed that this is the text of the document and section cited?[/quote]

Yes. I just provided the documentation. Chapter 1 deals with God the creator of all things. Chapter 2 deals with Revelation. Chapter 3 with Faith, chapter 4 with Faith and reason.

The Canons surrounding chatper 2 are as follows:
[quote]1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him : let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that a human being cannot be divinely elevated to a knowledge and perfection which exceeds the natural, but of himself can and must reach finally the possession of all truth and goodness by continual development: let him be anathema.

4. If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema. (Vatican Council I, 1870)[/quote]

And to answer #2:
[quote]Is this an infallible teaching?[/quote]

Yes it is infallible. It is not EX Cathedra, but it is infallible by definition.

[quote]If Christ promised to be present with even two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name (Matthew 18:20), a fortiori He will be present efficaciously in a representative assembly of His authorized teachers; and the Paraclete whom He promised will be present, so that whatever the council defines may be prefaced with the Apostolic formula, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." And this is the view which the councils held regarding their own authority and upon which the defender of orthodoxy insisted. The councils insisted on their definitions being accepted under pain of anathema, while St. Athanasius, for example, says that "the word of the Lord pronounced by the ecumenical synod of Nicaea stands for ever" (Ep. ad Afros, n. 2) and St. Leo the Great proves the unchangeable character of definitive conciliar teaching on the ground that God has irrevocably confirmed its truth "universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensu" (Ep. 120, 1). (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910)[/quote]

What is being said? Infallibilty is granted from Christ, due to two or three of his Apostles are gathered. The bishops are successors of the Apostles, therefore it is infallible. Being united to the Pope allows for the confirmation of this infallibilty, for it is said in Mt. 16:18:
[quote]et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam. (Vulgate)[/quote]

Luke 22:31-32:
[quote]31 ait autem Dominus Simon Simon ecce Satanas expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticum

32 ego autem rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides tua et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos (Vulgate)[/quote]

John 21:15-17:
[quote]15 cum ergo prandissent dicit Simoni Petro Iesus Simon Iohannis diligis me plus his dicit ei etiam Domine tu scis quia amo te dicit ei pasce agnos meos

16 dicit ei iterum Simon Iohannis diligis me ait illi etiam Domine tu scis quia amo te dicit ei pasce agnos meos

17 dicit ei tertio Simon Iohannis amas me contristatus est Petrus quia dixit ei tertio amas me et dicit ei Domine tu omnia scis tu scis quia amo te dicit ei pasce oves meas (Vulgate)[/quote]

I think that speaks to the infalliblity issue quite nicely.....It comes directly from scripture. We can take up the idea of infalliblity from Tradition on a later post. That would answer #2.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Hi Eremite,

In law its called laying the foundation for a question.

It is suppose to limit rambling and off topic responses.

I wonder if it works with apologists too?

Lets see.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

Hi Brother Adam,

This would be the First (not Second) Vatican Council. And this is not the Council of Trent's decree either, but its similar.

Type into your seach engine: Decrees of the First Vatican Council

Then look under Session 3, chapter 2 On revelation, Item #8 and "voila."

I think it at the geocities site.

You are welcome,

Little Les

Edited March 13, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

The Vatican I document I quoted in post #1 actually involves two types of infallibility.

First of all, it is an example of an infallible teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium, ie., an ecumenical council's writings approved by the Pontiff, and the phrase "which holy mother church held and holds " speaks to the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, ie., teaching that have been held at all times and in all places.

The Modern Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S.J., describes
the Ordinary Magisterium thus:

"The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magisterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible."

Any challenge to Hardon's statement above?

Little Les

[Cam42]

[quote]Any challenge to Hardon's statement above?[/quote]

No. Fr. Hardon, happens to cover this issue quite well. He is correct in his understanding of Magisterium. Perhaps you could learn from it.

There are three major aspects of infalliblity. They are mutual to one another, in other words, there is no disharmony within them toward another.

They are:

1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See
2. ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope
3. the pope himself separately

Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium or the common; everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority.

Vatican Council I invokes and confirms all three. Insofar through the first and second, it confirms and formalizes the third. Only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions. However, this does not invalidate the authenticity of the ordinarium magisterium.

Only those bishops who are in complete union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and center of Christ's mystical body, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morally unanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promises. In other words, the ordinarium magisterium is not independent of the pope.

Only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts connected with faith and morals, as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts do not necessarily need to be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is may be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and can be construed (incorrectly) as practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequate organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

This is all promoted by the teaching of Vatican Council I. The basis can be gleaned and logically proven through Vatican Council I, as well as subsequent and previous councils.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Lets then review some scriptures the interpretation of which "holy mother church held and holds." Well, at least she did up until she recognized that she had been in error.

1 Chron 16:30 "...he has made the world firm never to be moved."

Ps 93.1 "...The world will surely stand in one place never to be moved."

Ps 104:5 "You fixed the earth on its foundation never to be moved."

Consequently:

"You include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures: therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquistion, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."

And

"(You are) vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, contrary to Holy Scriptures...that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture."

Question: Was the Church correct in its interpretation of scripture in this case?

Again, sorry for the long post.

LittleLes

[Guest Eremite]

Historical perspective in necessary in addressing the aforementioned decrees. Historian Warren H. Carroll explains:

"In February 1616 Pope Paul V decided that a 'formal decision on the Copernican system' should be made by the Inquisition, though he was persuaded at the last moment by Cardinal Bellarmine not to make a statement himself on the issue. Cardinal Bellarmine had said it might eventually be proved true; probably the greatest Catholic apologist who ever lived, he surely had some understanding of how disastrous it would be for the Church to have the Pope condemn a scientific theory that later turned out to be true." (The Cleaving of Christendom, pp. 493)

Note well that the Pope specifically let the Inquisition handle it, rather than himself, because he had no intention of making an infallible declaration on the matter with his supreme authority. At the same time, he did want the Church to address it, so the task fell on the Inquisition. Was the Church wrong? Yes. Was the Church attempting to exercise its charism of infallibility? No. As explained above, the Pope specifically did not address the matter himself, for that very reason.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[Guest Eremite]

In addition, lest you ask a further question on the matter, the Church does admit the possibility of error in her ordinary Magisterium. Specific cases fall to theologians, as the Holy See notes on its document on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian:

"The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed."

The "very way" in which the Pope expressed the aforementioned condemnations was through a Sacred Congregation, rather than through the supreme authority of his office. So yes, the Church did err in her ordinary Magisterium, and as I have layed out, this poses no problem within Catholic theology.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Eremite

[Cam42]

Galileo again?

Sheesh.....

[quote]Was the Church correct in its interpretation of scripture in this case?[/quote]

The Church is never wrong.

The men who did the interpretation were not correct. They incorrectly applied scripture to a scientific prinicple. And it has been subsequently proven that both parties were wrong, both the Coperincan theory and the Geocentric theory are incorrect. They misconstrued the situation. However, this was not a matter of infalliblity, since it had nothing to do with faith and morals, but rather with science. Therefore, it is not bound to the same set of rules as those you are trying to discuss. We have been over this on another thread, how about sticking to the topic at hand.

Getting back to the concepts of the topic, how about responding to my post and discussing your own topic.

[quote]Well, at least she did up until she recognized that she had been in error.[/quote]

How about some documentation for that claim?

Cam

[LittleLes]

No Eremite,

The Church was clearly wrong in its interpretation of scripture in this case. Apologists trying to save the day then claim that this was only a mistake of the ordinary magisterium and hence not really an infallible teaching after all.

But the teaching that the earth does not move falls under
the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium, not the ordinary - that which was always universally taught (at least up until about 1700) which "holy mother church held and holds."

as well as

Vatican I's "infallible" teaching on the Church's "must hold as true" interpretation of scripture.

Thus a error in the Church's interpretation of scripture became a matter of record. It, of course, doesn't matter if Galileo really proved his entire theory or not. It only matters that the earth moves, which up until then, the Church had infallibly taught it did not.

Lets look at another error in scripture.

Little Les

[Cam42]

[quote]The Church was clearly wrong in its interpretation of scripture in this case.[/quote]

No Littleles, your assumption is incorrect. You are applying the concept of infalliblity to a position where it is outside of its scope. Infallibility does not apply to anything other than faith and morals.

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO SCIENCE.

And the men who made the decision made a mistake. Men are sinful, therefore they can and do make mistakes. This has been explained and re-explained to you. You cannot "bulldog" this issue.

I would like to see proof that infalliblity applies to anything other than faith and morals. [b]Please show where the Church says that infalliblity can be applied to anything other than faith and morals.[/b]

Back up this assumption with proof, not uninformed opinion.

Cam