Leo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.]

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

To Our Venerable Brethren, All Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World, in Grace
and Communion with the Apostolic See.

17. To prove, to expound, to illustrate Catholic Doctrine by the legitimate and skilful interpretation of the Bible, is much; but there is a second part of the subject of equal importance and equal difficulty - the maintenance in the strongest possible way of its full authority. This cannot be done completely or satisfactorily except by means of the living and proper magisterium of the Church. The Church, "by reason of her wonderful propagation, her distinguished sanctity and inexhaustible fecundity in good, her Catholic unity, and her unshaken stability, is herself a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an unassailable testimony to her own Divine mission."(45) But since the divine and infallible magisterium of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture, the first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the sacred records at least as human documents, from which can be clearly proved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the Divinity and the mission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church and the primacy of Peter and his successors. It is most desirable, therefore, that there should be numerous members of the clergy well prepared to enter upon a contest of this nature, and to repulse hostile assaults, chiefly trusting in that armour of God recommended by the Apostle,(46) but also not unaccustomed to modern methods of attack. This is beautifully alluded to by St. John Chrysostom, when describing the duties of priests: "We must use every endeavour that the 'Word of God may dwell in us abundantly'(47) and not merely for one kind of fight must we be prepared-for the contest is many-sided and the enemy is of every sort; and they do not all use the same weapons nor make their onset in the same way. Wherefore it is needful that the man who has to contend against all should be acquainted with the engines and the arts of all-that he should be at once archer and slinger, commandant and officer, general and private soldier, foot-soldier and horseman, skilled in sea-fight and in siege; for unless he knows every trick and turn of war, the devil is well able, if only a single door be left open, to get in his fierce bands and carry off the sheep."(48) The sophisms of the enemy and his manifold arts of attack we have already touched upon. Let us now say a word of advice on the means of defence. The first means is the study of the Oriental languages and of the art of criticism. These two acquirements are in these days held in high estimation, and therefore the clergy, by making themselves more or less fully acquainted with them as time and place may demand, will the better be able to discharge their office with becoming credit; for they must make themselves "all to all,"(49) always "ready to satisfy every one that asketh them a reason for the hope that is in them."(50) Hence it is most proper that Professors of Sacred Scripture and theologians should master those tongues in which the sacred Books were originally written; and it would be well that Church students also should cultivate them, more especially those who aspire to academic degrees. And endeavours should be made to establish in all academic institutions - as has already been laudably done in many - chairs of the other ancient languages, especially the Semitic, and of subjects connected therewith, for the benefit principally of those who are intended to profess sacred literature. These latter, with a similar object in view, should make themselves well and thoroughly acquainted with the art of true criticism. There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the "higher criticism," which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone. It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted "higher criticism" will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything else that is outside the natural order.

18. In the second place, we have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of sensible experience, are peculiarly dangerous to the masses, and also to the young who are beginning their literary studies; for the young, if they lose their reverence for the Holy Scripture on one or more points, are easily led to give up believing in it altogether. It need not be pointed out how the nature of science, just as it is so admirably adapted to show forth the glory of the Great Creator, provided it be taught as it should be, so if it be perversely imparted to the youthful intelligence, it may prove most fatal in destroying the principles of true philosophy and in the corruption of morality. Hence to the Professor of Sacred Scripture a knowledge of natural science will be of very great assistance in detecting such attacks on the Sacred Books, and in refuting them. There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known."(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) 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,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: "When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith."(56) The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. And if writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of their own branch, and carry their erroneous teaching into the domain of philosophy, let them be handed over to philosophers for

20. The principles here laid down will apply cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labour carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. 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 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. 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, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."(57) Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire 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."(58) 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. "(59)

21. 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 laboured 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. The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: "On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honour and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand."(60)

22. But to undertake fully and perfectly, and with all the weapons of the best science, the defence of the Holy Bible is far more than can be looked for from the exertions of commentators and theologians alone. It is an enterprise in which we have a right to expect the co-operation of all those Catholics who have acquired reputation in any branch of learning whatever. As in the past, so at the present time, the Church is never without the graceful support of her accomplished children; may their services to the Faith grow and increase! For there is nothing which We believe to be more needful than that truth should find defenders more powerful and more numerous than the enemies it has to face; nor is there anything which is better calculated to impress the masses with respect for truth than to see it boldly proclaimed by learned and distinguished men. Moreover, the bitter tongues of objectors will be silenced, or at least they will not dare to insist so shamelessly that faith is the enemy of science, when they see that scientific men of eminence in their profession show towards faith the most marked honour and respect. Seeing, then, that those can do so much for the advantage of religion on whom the goodness of Almighty God has bestowed, together with the grace of the faith, great natural talent, let such men, in this bitter conflict of which the Holy Scripture is the object, select each of them the branch of study most suitable to his circumstances, and endeavour to excel therein, and thus be prepared to repulse with credit and distinction the assaults on the Word of God. And it is Our pleasing duty to give deserved praise to a work which certain Catholics have taken up-that is to say, the formation of societies and the contribution of considerable sums of money, for the purpose of supplying studious and learned men with every kind of help and assistance in carrying out complete studies. Truly an excellent fashion of investing money, and well-suited to the times in which we live! The less hope of public patronage there is for Catholic study, the more ready and the more abundant should be the liberality of private persons-those to whom God has given riches thus willingly making use of their means to safeguard the treasure of His revealed doctrine.

23. In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being. There have been objections without number perseveringly directed against the Scripture for many a long year, which have been proved to be futile and are now never heard of; and not unfrequently interpretations have been placed on certain passages of Scripture (not belonging to the rule of faith or morals) which have been rectified by more careful investigations. As time goes on, mistaken views die and disappear; but "truth remaineth and groweth stronger for ever and ever."(61) Wherefore, as no one should be so presumptuous as to think that he understands the whole of the Scripture, in which St. Augustine himself confessed that there was more that he did not know, than that he knew,(62) so, if he should come upon anything that seems incapable of solution, he must take to heart the cautious rule of the same holy Doctor: "It is better even to be oppressed by unknown but useful signs, than to interpret them uselessly and thus to throw off the yoke only to be caught in the trap of error. "(63)

24. Such, Venerable Brethren, are the admonitions and the instructions which, by the help of God, We have thought it well, at the present moment, to offer to you on the study of Holy Scripture. It will now be your province to see that what we have said be observed and put in practice with all due reverence and exactness; that so, we may prove our gratitude to God for the communication to man of the Words of his Wisdom, and that all the good results so much to be desired may be realized, especially as they affect the training of the students of the Church, which is our own great solicitude and the Church's hope. Exert yourselves with willing alacrity, and use your authority and your persuasion in order that these studies may be held in just regard and may flourish, in Seminaries and in the educational Institutions which are under your jurisdiction. Let them flourish in completeness and in happy success, under the direction of the Church, in accordance with the salutary teaching and example of the Holy Fathers and the laudable traditions of antiquity; and, as time goes on, let them be widened and extended as the interests and glory of truth may require - the interest of that Catholic Truth which comes from above, the never-failing source of man's salvation. Finally, We admonish with paternal love all students and ministers of the Church always to approach the Sacred Writings with reverence and piety; for it is impossible to attain to the profitable understanding thereof unless the arrogance of "earthly" science be laid aside, and there be excited in the heart the holy desire for that wisdom "which is from above." In this way the intelligence which is once admitted to these sacred studies, and thereby illuminated and strengthened, will acquire a marvellous facility in detecting and avoiding the fallacies of human science, and in gathering and using for eternal salvation all that is valuable and precious; whilst at the same time the heart will grow warm, and will strive with ardent longing to advance in virtue and in divine love. "Blessed are they who examine His testimonies; they shall seek Him with their whole heart. "(64)

25. And now, filled with hope in the divine assistance, and trusting to your pastoral solicitude - as a pledge of heavenly grace and a sign of Out special goodwill - to you all, and to the Clergy and the whole flock entrusted to you, We lovingly impart in Our Lord the Apostolic Benediction.

Given at St. Peter's, at Rome, the 18th day of November, 1893, the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate.

Comments on Pope Leo XIII "Inspiration Incompatible with Error"

It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted

Again, one does not know if something is a copyist's error or not because there most of our resources have been written 300 years after Christ. The extant shreds and fragments are not really useful in determining the original content, since they are also latter-day copies subject to copyist errors.
The Church made sure there were no complete books to be found of any of the pre-Nicene period.
Thus the product we have is wholly unreliable and cannot be accepted as "inerrant" or "inspired" or "timely" or "apostolic." The only "guarantee" of the inerrancy is that the Church says it is inerrant because it says what has been believed "everywhere and always." Unfortunately, that too can be shown to be in error. So, there goes that argument.
There is plenty of evidence to put verses and whole sections of the Bible in question as to the content. The Great Commission (Mat 28:19) with its famous Trinitarian formula, like the Comma Johanneum in 1 John or the Pericope Adulterae in John, or Mark's 16:9-20 are good examples why credibility is at stake here. The OT has its own share of that.

Comments on Pope Leo XIII "Inspiration Incompatible with Error"

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

Sorry, Alex, this is pure dogmatism supported by nothing. It's forbidden, because the Pope says so, period. Unfortunately, he doesn't make a case justifying this prohibition other than by fiat.

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation [sic] of the Holy Ghost

That's positively Mohammedan, Alex. How does that differ from Mohammed's claim that Allah dictated the whole Koran to him? Or the Jewish belief that God "dictated" the Mosaic books word by word to Moses?
And what proof does he have to offer to back this clam? Oh he says

"This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican"

So, there you go! The Councils of Florence and Trent and the Vatican I. What does that have to do with official Orthodoxy? No such thing was ever promoted by any of the true Seven Ecumenical Councils to which both "lungs" are equally bound. You are asking Kolo and me if this is what we believe. My answer is: not as a matter of dogma, Alex, not as matter of dogma. Your councils mean nothing to us.

Awwwwww,
I was about to post this: “How long before Zionist Conspirator shows up with his one trick pony?”

But you beat me to it. You’ve become a cliche.

The only reason I showed up on this thread at all is that I was pinged to it. Otherwise I would not have bothered.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to let the dust settle from last week's unpleasantness. Hence the only reason I showed up was to respond to the ping.

There have been and still are some truly loathsome individuals on Free Republic. I've been dealing with them for almost ten years. I am sorry you seem to consider me one of these people (which you apparently do), but you are quite entitled.

I will never retract my belief in the absolute truthfulness of G-d, even when (and especially when) G-d claims events have occurred that violate all known natural laws and our experience of the world as it functions today.

Now, unless you wish to post again to remind me once more of just how much you despise me, I am quite happy to leave this thread. Please believe me when I say that your personal opinion of me is quite clear. And if you think it is not, you have the option of PM'ing me to see to it that I get the message.

You wrote:

“There have been and still are some truly loathsome individuals on Free Republic. I’ve been dealing with them for almost ten years. I am sorry you seem to consider me one of these people (which you apparently do), but you are quite entitled.”

Oh, stop it! I do not dislike you. The fact that you are riveted on one subject is annoying, but it does not make you a dislikable person. It is just a dislikable pattern of behavior.

“I will never retract my belief in the absolute truthfulness of G-d, even when (and especially when) G-d claims events have occurred that violate all known natural laws and our experience of the world as it functions today.”

I don’t see anyone - least of all me - who is asking you to stop believing in God’s absolute truthfulness.

“Now, unless you wish to post again to remind me once more of just how much you despise me, I am quite happy to leave this thread.”

I don’t despise you and I never said I did. It is not in my nature to despise anyone. Maybe you could simply post a different kind of message?

“Please believe me when I say that your personal opinion of me is quite clear.”

It is? Pray tell what is it? My opinion of your one trick pony is quite clear. My disappointment at your continual use of said one trick pony is quite clear. But my opinion of you may be much different than you think.

“And if you think it is not, you have the option of PM’ing me to see to it that I get the message.”

I can just as easily write to you here. If you believe you need to tell me something private, please don’t hesitate to write to me one way or another.

You’re not a bad guy ZC. You just seem to be too fixated on one subject. You must have different interests. Or you must have different things to say about the Bible or Biblical studies than just the one trick thing. How about that?

An error or a latter-day addition, found in the Bible is an indication that it is not perfect

There is adifference between prefection of the text -- some texts are not perfect -- and inerrancy as the Church understands it (I quote from the same section):

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

The Scripture as a whole is inerrant because it is written at the dictation of the Holy Spirit. The imperfections are, somehow, on a different. more textual level. As St. Augistine said, "if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand".

(from subsequent posts) The only "guarantee" of the inerrancy is that the Church says it is inerrant because it says what has been believed "everywhere and always." Unfortunately, that too can be shown to be in error. So, there goes that argument.

Yes, there is a process of discovery and canonization, that lasted the first several centurues. It is interesting that the possible imperfections such as in the Grand Commission or the Johannine Comma happen to clarify rather than alter the mind of the Church. What you wrote is a good reason why the living Magisterium is a necessary part of the organism of the Church, but it does not discredit the Scripture as the necessary part of the Holy Tradition.

It's forbidden, because the Pope says so

The Pope says so because the Holy Spirit dictated the Scripture, as he explains.

How does that differ from Mohammed's claim

It doesn't differ in form. In fact, Mohammed got his idea from the Christian Church. most likely.

What does that have to do with official Orthodoxy?

Before the Reformation and especially before the Higher Criticism and atheistic rationalism there was no need to proclaim that.

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

The Orthodox Church does not teach that. We believe that the Holy Spirit influenced the writers. The Church teaches that the Holy Scripture is the "most authoritative part of the Holy Tradition." It doesn't say "inerrant," or "infallible," or "God-dictated."
Compared to secular laws, the Church states "these laws are the product of the life of the community; however, once produced, they are placed above and regulate this life." The Bible is the "product and the epiphenomenon of the life of the Church, being also the work of men. But it is also the work of the Holy Spirit of God, working in this life of the Church. This is why the Church is subjected to the authority of the Bible." Notice that it doesn't say what kind of work, let alone "dictation."
As to the "divine authorship," the Church states (my underscores):

"Much has been said regarding the Divine authorship and inspiration of the Bible (theopneustia). Various theories have been expressed throughout the centuries concerning the way in which the Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit."

Notice the word theories. It is a set of beliefs base don observations or experiences, not a fact. The view of Pope Leo XIII (and, sadly, the Protestant fundamentalists) is described here:

"Philo of Alexandria is the main exponent of the so-called "mechanical theory" of understanding the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. According to Philo, the authors of the Bible were in a condition of "possession" by the Spirit of God, who was just using these authors as blind instruments."

The Orthodox view is different (my underscore):

"A better view is the so-called "dynamic view" of the cooperation between man and the Holy Spirit in the case of the Bible. In any case of "synergy" (cooperation) between God and man, God leads, and man follows; God works, and man accepts God's work in him, as God's coworker in subordination to Him. So it is with divine inspiration in the case of the Bible: the Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit." [all quotes from From the Grk. Orth. Archdioc. of America (GOARCH), Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Faith]

The expression of revealed truth is imperfect because man is imperfect. But the Church trusts, that is, has faith, that God is perfect and that his message was perfect even if not understood or relayed perfectly.
Therefore the OT prophets were given the truth, but they did not necessarily fully grasp it. They had inklings of the revealed truth. They saw something but they didn't fully recognize it. "Dimly as through the glass..." That's why the OT doe snot talk about Jesus by name, but mentions things that symbolically foretell of Christ's coming, the archetypes, the foreshadowing of the coming of the One who is without sin, as St. John the Forerunner says. He recognized him, but John the Baptist was filled with Spirit while he was in his other's womb still. The rest were not so blessed, so they could not have seen what he saw (assuming he did see what the Bible says).
In other words, Alex, your side, like the Protestants, follow the Philo Pharisaical together with the Muzzies, of a God who hijacks people and "uses" them like rag dolls for his purpose. I understand that as a Catholic must believe the proclamations of the Council of Trent, but do not confuse the Church of the Seven Councils with that. The undivided Church never made such pronouncements regarding the Holy Scripture and never obligated anyone to believe we are in a state of "possession" by God.

What you wrote is a good reason why the living Magisterium is a necessary part of the organism of the Church, but it does not discredit the Scripture as the necessary part of the Holy Tradition

Yes, the Church safeguards what was believed ever since the Church, to put it bluntly, "figured out" what it was that was believed (circa 4th century). Our interpretations of what we believe are defined by the Holy Tradition, which includes not only the Bible but the Councils as well. The Catholic Church, however, consider the Bible separate from, but parallel with the Sacred Tradition, not part of it!

The Pope says so because the Holy Spirit dictated the Scripture, as he explains

Again, this is his belief. It does not mean it is a universal truth. Just because you, I or the Pope believe something does not make it true.

It doesn't differ in form. In fact, Mohammed got his idea from the Christian Church. most likely

The only difference is that you don't believe theirs is true and they don't believe yours is true. And both sides are absolutely convinced the other side is wrong. That's not knowledge, Alex, that's figment of one's imagination.

Before the Reformation and especially before the Higher Criticism and atheistic rationalism there was no need to proclaim that

What's that got to do with Orthodoxy? The Orthodox teaching of the Bible does not reflect your teaching, period, Reformation or not.

To accept "divinely inspired" is to accept "inerrant". Your argument, that the Church gave up on separating the error from truth and instead accepted the Old Testament wholesale out of what? laziness? -- is ahistorical. The Church spent a great effort on defining the Canon and it used every opportunity it had to combat Marcion and his jaunduced view of the Old Testament.

Pope Leo does not espouse the mechanical view, even though he uses the verb "dictated":

... we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) 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,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas

What we have here is healthy, critical, balanced view on the nature of divine inspiration.

Alex: 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.

Kosta: The Orthodox Church does not teach that. We believe that the Holy Spirit influenced the writers. The Church teaches that the Holy Scripture is the "most authoritative part of the Holy Tradition." It doesn't say "inerrant," or "infallible," or "God-dictated."

I don't see how that can be. It was my understanding that the Consensus Patrum, with the consent of the laity, was infallible. THAT, by definition, would make it more authoritative than the Bible as you describe above.

"A better view is the so-called "dynamic view" of the cooperation between man and the Holy Spirit in the case of the Bible. In any case of "synergy" (cooperation) between God and man, God leads, and man follows; God works, and man accepts God's work in him, as God's coworker in subordination to Him. So it is with divine inspiration in the case of the Bible: the Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit." [all quotes from From the Grk. Orth. Archdioc. of America (GOARCH), Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Faith]

That's a nice sounding model, but of course in Orthodox thinking man DIDN'T follow, in MOST cases as a matter of fact, when it comes to the authors of scripture. That is, unless you want to say that God led into error, and I know you won't touch that. :) See the problem? What you and Kolo have been saying does not match the above.

The expression of revealed truth is imperfect because man is imperfect. But the Church trusts, that is, has faith, that God is perfect and that his message was perfect even if not understood or relayed perfectly.

What kind of God is that Who would allow such pollution? Does God not want us to have His perfect message? Does God prefer for us to have a watered down, error prone version of His message? What's the deal? :) I mean, did God hand down His message, knowing it would be polluted by fallible men, and that was fine with Him because He knew that hundreds of years later other men, your men, would come along and use their free wills to repair the damage??? :)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.