Remember That Whole Synod Thing? The Ripples Are Still Going.

Thanks to Rorate Caeli for this bit.

If you'll recall, during the recent Synod on "The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church" (translation: the Bible), I expressed some concerns about a couple of the propositions being knocked around, mostly because they seemed to be topics of discussion simply for the purpose of enhancing modernism.

It looks like the post-synodal study of its recommendations might be underway, only not with the CDF, as had originally been proposed. It's the Pontifical Bible Commission instead, albeit with Cardinal Levada presiding.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is due to celebrate its annual plenary meeting at the Vatican's "Domus Sanctae Marthae" from 20 to 24 April, under the presidency of Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Fr. Klemens Stock S.J., pro-secretary general of the commission, will oversee and direct the work of the assembly.

This will be the first gathering of the Pontifical Biblical Commission since the partial renewal of its membership, in accordance with current norms. During the meeting attention will be given to a new study entitled "Inspiration and Truth of the Bible", the draft version of which has already been examined by the commission members.

I don't know what to think of this. The PBC is no longer a part of the Magisterium, which means that it could come out with some watered down tripe that would do nothing more than create a huge scandal and a chasm for genuine ecumenical efforts by implying that Scripture contains errors. On the other hand, I don't know much about who is on the PBC these days. We could get a great report back with all kinds of citations to the Fathers, ecumenical councils, popes, Doctors, etc. who support the inerrancy of Holy Writ.

Very intriguing. Oh, and for my prior shpiel on the inerrancy of Scripture, see here.

Post-Synodal Shenanigans

Just because the Synod is over, don’t think that there aren’t still problems with it. What we’re getting now are the propositions being forwarded to the Holy Father for review. My biggest concern, mentioned here in a previous post, was the treatment of Dei Verbum 11. The Instrumentum Laboris took what seemed to be a heretical view of this passage. The post-Synodal proposition isn’t much better. Prop 12 reads:

Inspiration and truth of the Bible

The Synod proposes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarify the concepts of inspiration and truth of the Bible, as well as their reciprocal relationship, in order to understand better the teaching of "Dei Verbum" 11. In particular, it is necessary to highlight the originality of the Catholic biblical hermeneutics in this field.

The CDF needs to comment? Why? Is there a reason why the unanimous consent of the Fathers, multiple ecumenical councils, and four popes from the last century alone aren’t good enough? I’m having difficulty seeing this as anything other than modernists trying to get their foot in the door. So far, I’ll admit to being ok with the big items Levada has come out with during his tenure. It would be awesome if his response was to censure the morons who continue to try and make this some sort of issue.

Prop 25 from the Synod isn’t much better:

Need for two levels in exegetical research

The biblical hermeneutic proposed in "Dei Verbum," 12, continues to be of great present importance and efficacy, which envisages two different and correlative methodological levels.

The first level corresponds, in fact, to the so-called historical-critical methods that, in modern and contemporary research, often was used with fruitfulness and that entered the Catholic field, above all with the encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu" of the servant of God Pius XII. This method is necessary by the very nature of the history of salvation, which is not mythology, but a true history with its apex in the incarnation of the Word, divine and eternal, who comes to dwell in men's time (cf. John 1:14). The Bible and the history of salvation, therefore, also call for study with the methods of serious historical research.

The second methodological level necessary for a correct interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, corresponds to the nature, also divine, of human biblical words. The Second Vatican Council justly recalls that the Bible must be interpreted with the help of the same Holy Spirit who guided its writing.

Biblical hermeneutic cannot be considered carried out if -- along with the historical study of the texts -- it does not also seek its theological dimension in an adequate manner. "Dei Verbum" identifies and presents the three decisive references to arrive at the divine dimension and, therefore, to the theological meaning of the sacred Scriptures. It is a question of the content and the unity of the whole of Scripture, of the living tradition of the whole Church and, finally, of attention to the analogy of the faith. "Only where the two methodological levels are observed, the historical-critical and the theological, can one speak of a theological exegesis, an exegesis adequate to this book" (Benedict XVI, Oct. 14, 2008).

The historical-critical method is “necessary.” It actually says that. How amazing that the Church was able to do without it for 1900 years or so. I’ll be frank. If I may borrow a line from my colleague Karl, the historical-critical method is largely for sucks. Sure, it has some value, as Pope Benedict points out in his Jesus of Nazareth book. It’s primary use, though, is to serve as a lever for heretics to shoehorn naturalist a naturalist reading of Scripture into Church forums. This is where we get this popular attempt to separate the “historical Jesus” from the “Christ of Faith.” I guess the proposition tries to clarify its point here in an orthodox way, but that doesn’t change the fact that the beginning premise is ludicrous.

You can read all the propositions over on Zenit.

For a Great Summary of the Recent Synod's Working Document

Check out Boniface's blog, Unam Sanctam. He just finished a very thorough review of the Instrumentum Laboris that was used at the synod.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Somebody Actually Agrees With Us

Boniface over at Unam Sanctam has produced some great elaboration on the Instrumentum Laboris that was used for the Synod. If you have been wondering what I meant about "fluff" being the primary substance of the interventions, check out his posts here and here. Subjectivity covered in warm modernistic gooiness with no crunchy center is probably the best nutshell version. He does a great job of breaking down various points of the whole document.

I would especially suggest hitting the parts about the Old Testament and why they are "difficult." There's a reason why kids always seem to prefer OT stories to NT ones. They make a lot more sense. Really. You don't have to explain David and Goliath to a child. Parables need explaining. Epistles need elucidation. Acts gets a pass. Anyways, the point is that even the high-minded allegory guys like Origen weren't so blithe about dismissing the historicity of Scripture.

Just showing that Karl and I aren't crazy when we write this stuff.

The Synod is Over

And I have no idea what to think about it. The most interesting parts came from the non-Catholics. The interventions by the Catholics present came across as (mostly) fluff. I'd have posted about them otherwise. Sure, there were some good ideas (Scripture compendium, getting people to pray the rosary more, etc.), but for the most part, I'm left wondering why all the hullaballoo. The previous synod on the Eucharist seemed a lot more interesting, by comparision.

More to the point, I didn't see the inerrancy issue come up at all. This is not good for the reasons I mentioned previously and for the simple fact that it hits right at the defining characteristic of Scripture. God wrote it, so it has no errors. Nobody at the whole synod thought this was worth mentioning, especially when the gathering's working document contradicts this? I'm hoping very much that I just missed an intervention or two.

Here's what I really don't get. Folks are so committed to ecumenism that we see weird statements by Kaspar all the time and applause for synod speeches promoting broken ecclesiology. For some reason, though, we let people get away with flat-out heresy in denying the inerrancy of Scripture. The Orthodox are on-board with inerrancy. All evangelical Protestants are. Most Pentecostals would at least agree to it in principle as long as it doesn't contradict their "new revelation." Most classic Reformed churches would agree as well. The only people who seem to be pushing this particular heresy are the Protestant liberals (lots of Anglicans, eg). So basically, this whole heretical idea is an absolute millstone for any ecumenical efforts, save for those directed at avowed modernists who would shelve any dogma that doesn't fit their personal taste.

Perhaps we should re-evaluate our priorities in who we want to talk to. One of the few times ecumenism could actually help bolster the Faith, and we have leaders who are more worried about cozying up to modernists.

More From Cardinal Kaspar at the Synod

According to Zenit, Cardinal Kaspar's latest shpiel is another exercise in ignoring reality.

Despite all the sad divisions in the history of the Church, the Word of God witnessed above all in holy Scripture has remained the common inheritance even today; nothing else unites the Christian churches and communities like the Bible does.

Really? Sometimes I have to wonder what Protestants Kaspar is talking to. I suppose we might be able to make this comment about the Orthodox, but I don't think that is who he's limiting this to since he says that the Scriptures are the "ecumenical bond par excellence."

This would seem to presume that we could even agree on what Scriptures are Scripture. Next time a Protestant asks me about purgatory, and I quote from 2 Maccabees, we'll see just how "common" our inheritance really is. Try pitching this line to a King James Only-ist and see how far it gets you.

More Synod Weirdness

The Synod continues. It turns out that Rabbi Cohen was not the only non-Catholic invited to speak. Rev. Robert Welsh, a Protestant minister was also there and, according to Zenit, is the guy who has gotten the best reception, applause even. Let's take a gander at some of his comments.

According to this fraternal delegate: "Christian unity stands at the heart of the Gospel message; division within the body of Christ is a scandal before God and before the world.

"Our division at the table of the Eucharist stands as a continuing denial of the power of the cross to heal, to reconcile, and to unite all things on earth and all things in heaven."

Welsh acknowledged his hope that "this synod will deepen its reflection on the relation between the Word of God, the Eucharist, and the unity of all Christians within the one body of Christ."

I certainly hope that this is not what everybody was clapping about. These statements reflect a very odd view of ecclesiology, and this guy is not the only one who promotes this kind of stuff. Catholics do it, too. What I can't cipher is how it's supposed to jive with Catholicism.

Think of it this way. The Church has certain marks by which we know Her to be the True Church. She is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Emphasis for our purposes here on the "One" part. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. This is clear no matter what source of Church teaching you look at. We know from St. Paul that Christ cannot be divided. So how can we speak of "divisions" in the Mystical Body? I have no idea. Using the example of our speaker above, Protestants are not part of the Church, ergo, they are not part of the Body of Christ. They are outside the Church. Hence, there is no "division" in the Body. There is the Body, then there are those outside of It. Not only is there one Body, there is but one Spouse of Christ. Scripture itsefl testifies to this:

One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her.

Canticle of Canticles 6:8

This is usually when someone brings up "imperfect communion." This phrase usually has a lot of attention focused on "communion," rather than the "imperfect," which is the more important item. Bearing the indelible character of baptism, the source of said communion, is not salvific, nor does it make one a member of Christ's Body if one is a heretic or schismatic. While it might be true that someone might not be culpable for their heresy or schism, that is something that only comes into play on an individual basis. When folks talk about these "divisions," they are usually talking about sects that have heresy or schism as their defining characteristics. It seems a bit off to talk about the "imperfect communion" of a whole group, especially when that group's existence is defined by its separation from the Church's teachings on given subjects.

Back to the Church Herself. What we have in the Church is a "city that is a unity unto itself." If we take the opposing view of our speaker, we seem to start contesting this. Moreover, we know the Church has certain attributes: infallibility, authority, and indefectibility. A division, by definition, would be a defect. Going farther, it would compromise the notion of the Church's infallibility to suggest division since, as Paul says, there is only One Faith. Since any "divisions" are necessarily the result of errors of some sort, to consider the Church to be "divided" would mean that these other ecclesial communities (or whatever you want to call them) with all their errors would still be in the Church, which in turn would mean that the Church was home to error.

Does that make sense? This whole shpiel about a "divided" Church is just flat-out weird.

A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another. Instead, Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head, with an authority teaching by word of mouth, and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace; for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom, to a house, to a sheepfold, and to a flock.

Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

Whoever heard of a divided flock? By definition, such a thing can't exist. It would then be two flocks. Except that in the case of the Church, we know there is only One, hence the apt metaphor would be that there is a flock, and then there are lost sheep.

Pius XI is even more explicit down the line:

For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.

I just don't get how the opposite view is tenable.

Regarding Inerrancy

Given the question below and some emails I've gotten, it seemed like I should follow up all this inerrancy talk with a few bits on what inerrancy means. In a nutshell, it means that the Biblical text is free from errors. And you say, "Thanks, Throwback. Now if you're done being an a-hole, maybe you could really answer the question."

The problem is that it's tough to go at from there. There are no errors. The Church has admitted that theoretically you could have some problems due to, say, copyist/translator problems over the centuries. After all, we don't have the original hagiographs in hand. This is one good benefit in not being sola scriptura-ists. Many of us have heard the saying (whether in seriousness or in jest), "If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me." The differing translations these days illustrate that we have to be careful where we go for our Scripture.

On a side note, while we don't have the original hagiographs, the Church has declared that, for example, St. Jerome's Vulgate translation, is free from any erroroneous teaching.

Anyways, with regards to Scripture, davfaltond brings up the point that how do we explain away all the alleged contradictions in the Bible if we say there are no errors. This is actually something that the Church has been dealing with for its entire history. One of the first major heretics, a jerk named Marcion, basically built his whole theology around what he felt were the inconsistencies between the Old and New Testaments. Keep in mind that, through all this, the same Fathers and Doctors of the Church were reading the same Scriptures as us and having no problem declaring them to be without error.

So how to reconcile these alleged contradictions/errors? If you google the subject, you'll come up with several lists by folks who do exactly that. I'm going to link this one from Phil Porvaznik's site since I know that he's Catholic. It's clear then that it's possible to explain these items. Much of this is by not thinking, for example, that the Scriptures are written for chronology, rather than to prove a point (ie- Christ driving the money-changers from the Temple towards the end of the Synoptics but at the beginning of John). Another point is to recall that there are different senses in which Scripture can be read.

Consider the words of the Catechism:

According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses.

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."

The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".

The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

What gets lost in all this is that last bit in the portion on the literal sense. All other senses are based on the literal sense. The quote there, by the way, is from Aquinas. You can read his main treatment of the topic here. What people are starting to tend towards is a reading of Scripture that is almost completely allegorical or whatever to the utter exclusion of the literal sense and the idea that (gasp!) this stuff may have actually happened. This is usually from folks entirely devoted to the historical-critical method and is tackled in a major way by Pope Benedict in his Jesus of Nazareth book.

For example, if you asked enough Catholics about the homily they heard about the feeding of the 5000, you will inevitably come across someone who was unfortunate enough to be told that there wasn't anything supernatural going on. What "really" happened was that a bunch of people had brought food with them and Christ's "miracle" was in convincing them to share that food with others. Why must this be the meaning? Because nobody is silly enough to think that Jesus really could perform supernatural miracles. This same bankrupt reasoning is also used to deny everything from the Virgin Birth to the Resurrection.

On the flip side, take a look at the Canticle of Canticles. Are we bound by faith to think that Solomon was sitting around taking dictation from a real man and woman in writing this? Of course not. Are we bound to believe in a literal seven days Creation? No. Frankly, we should thank God that He was willing to describe the event of Creation in terms that we can understand, given that it would be impossible for us to comprehend the formation of reality ex nihilo.

Start with the literal sense, then work your way up. Recall what St. Pius X described as the attitude of the Modernist heretics:

To hear them (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. Unfortunately, these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for they did not have for their rule and guide a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves.

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Domenici Gregis

Comments here are wide open, folks, so feel free to fire away.

On Being A Poor Guest and the Defense of Pius XII

Everybody knows what it's like to have a rude guest come to their house and raise some sort of scandal. Sometimes it's a relative. Sometimes it's someone who is a friend of a friend. The latter case is basically what happened at the ongoing Synod a few days ago.

Chief Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen of Haifa was invited to speak to the bishops there in order to explain the role of Scripture in the Jewish faith. Seizing on this bit of spotlight, Rabbi Cohen then decided that it would be a good idea to (sticking with our metaphor) break some of the Church's expensive china. Per Catholic Culture:

Denouncing the ‘terrible and vicious words’ spoken in last month’s UN address by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chief Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen of Haifa urged the Synod of Bishops on Monday to ‘protect, defend and save Israel, the one and only sovereign state of the ‘people of the book,’ from the hands of our enemies.’ The rabbi also told reporters that Pope Pius XII ‘should not be sanctified or looked up to because of his failure to save us, to raise his voice, even if he secretly tried to help … Maybe he was afraid, or for other reasons known to him he did not raise his voice. And that we cannot forget.’ He added, ‘I am not empowered by the families of the millions of deceased to say we forget, we forgive.’

What a loud-mouthed shnook. I'm reminded of the scene in Schindler's List where Schindler is lamenting that he didn't sell his car or more stuff in order to put more people on the list. Judging from Rabbi Cohen's comments, he would agree with this and probably thinks that Schindler should have his name erased from the list of Righteous Gentiles for not doing more. How would this have gone over if Pope Benedict had gone to a synagogue and wondered why Israel hasn't done more to help oppressed Christians in the Holy Land? Foxman & Co. would have had an aneurysm.

Kudos to Pope Benedict for not letting this slander stand unchallenged. Two days after Cohen's comments, the Holy Father came out in defense of his predecessor.

"Pius XII often acted secretly and silently," added the Pontiff, "because, in the light of the concrete realities of that complex historical moment, he saw that this was the only way to avoid the worst and save the largest possible number of Jews.

"Benedict XVI noted the "expressions of gratitude from the highest authorities of the Jewish world" that Pius XII received. The current Pontiff highlighted the words of Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir, who wrote upon Pius XII's death: "During the 10 years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and commiserate with their victims."She added, "We mourn a great servant of peace."

Benedict would go on to praise Pius XII's great encyclicals, such as Mystici Corporis, Divino Afflante Spiritu, and Mediator Dei. Zenit has both stories here and here.

Not only did the pope defend Pius XII, he did so on Yom Kippur, which had the curious coincidence of being on the 50th anniversary of Pius's death (Oct. 9, 1958). It would have been real easy for the Holy Father to have put off any remembrance comments until next week or some other time. He came right out with it, though, which took no small amount of guts.

The Current Synod of Bishops is Underway

My hope is that this would have a bit more pub than its getting. Let's face it. Most of us probably had to look up what a "synod" was in the first place.

The topic is "The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church." More specifically, we're dealing with the Bible here. You can find the working document here. I haven't read the whole thing, but I did notice that the footnotes lacked any references to Leo XIII, Pius XII, or Benedict XV. Weird, since they've written the main encyclicals on Scripture over the last century or so.

I also noticed an extremely problematic point.

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" (Dei Verbum 11). . .

This is a classic error regarding Dei Verbum. Here's what it says:

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.

The footnote to this section cites to the Second Council of Orange and Vatican I. If you read about the history of this section of Dei Verbum, you'll find that it reads the way it does because Paul VI directly intervened because he wanted to defend the inerrancy of all of Scripture. You can find this tale at my previous post here. The interpretation given by the Synod document, as its written, is clearly contrary to Vatican I.

Let's see what the above popes have said.

This supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, is contained both in unwritten Tradition, and in written Books, which are therefore called sacred and canonical because, "being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and as such have been delivered to the Church." This belief has been perpetually held and professed by the Church in regard to the Books of both Testaments; and there are well-known documents of the gravest kind, coming down to us from the earliest times, which proclaim that God, Who spoke first by the Prophets, then by His own mouth, and lastly by the Apostles, composed also the Canonical Scriptures, and that these are His own oracles and words -- a Letter, written by our heavenly Father, and transmitted by the sacred writers to the human race in its pilgrimage so far from its heavenly country.

Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus


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."

Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus

And finally, the coup de grace from Pius XII.

For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God 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.

Pius XII, Humani Generis

Of course, this doesn't even get into Pius X, Pius IX, Trent, the unanimous consent of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the non-ecumenical councils, such as Orange, all of which affirm that Scripture is inerrant in its entirety, rather than only in part. Needless to say, this is all very disconcerting. Oh, and if you are looking to cite "development of doctrine" in all this, keep in mind that a doctrine cannot "develop" into its opposite, nor can a dogma take on a meaning other than the one already defined by the Church. This is explicitly taught in Vatican I.

Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

For those who want more resources on why the Synod document is flawed, I have yet another post on this same error here.

If you are wanting to keep up with the Synod and the various interventions being offered, Zenit is doing a good job of keeping up with them. Hopefully, somebody will get up and drop some mad Leo XIII science on his episcopal brethren so that this can be cleared up.