In a recent tweet, Father Thomas Crean O.P. described one of the most serious heresies, which, in my opinion, lies at the root of the current crisis:
“One of the most dangerous heresies around today is that we can distinguish in Scripture between a perennial substance that is from God and another part that is culturally conditioned and not from God. That allows people to reject any part of the Scripture that they don’t like.”[i]
As the author of an excellent monograph dedicated to the interpretation of Holy Scripture, Letters from That City (Os Justi Press, 2023), Father Crean O.P. hit the nail on the head.
I have heard countless times in recent years arguments essentially claiming that the teachings of the Gospel can no longer be applied in today’s world due to their “inadequacy.” If they were suitable for people in other epochs, they are by no means valid for those of today. This is what Father Thomas Crean O.P. refers to when he mentions the theory that some parts of the Bible are “culturally conditioned.” For example, one of the teachings most commonly contested in the name of such cultural conditioning is that of the hierarchy described by Saint Apostle Paul, who says, “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). According to the adherents of the heresy described by Father Crean, such a teaching was suitable for the Jewish patriarchal world, but by no means for the contemporary world. This is argued by most who consider biblical texts to be “culturally conditioned.” Thus, any part, any divine teaching that is not “to the taste” of the worldly mentality can be rejected.
We cannot even imagine how far things can go. I have been told firsthand several times about situations in which the future bride, in discussions with the priest before the wedding, explicitly asked for the verses of Saint Apostle Paul cited above not to be read during the Sacrament of Marriage celebrated in the dominant Byzantine rite in Romania. The ears of the ladies would have been offended by such outdated teachings. Do you think the priest resisted? Not at all! The words of Saint Paul were not read.
* * *
For over a century, cohorts of modernists and experts in the “historical-critical method” have worked tirelessly to destroy the traditional understanding of Holy Scripture. Recognizing the unprecedented spread of heresies directed against the Bible, Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, published in 1893, proclaimed the dogma of inerrancy:
“The books, all and entire, which the Church accepts as sacred and canonical, with all their parts, have been written at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; so far is it from the possibility of any error being present to divine inspiration, that it itself of itself not only excludes all error, but excludes it and rejects it as necessarily as it is necessary that God, the highest Truth, be the author of no error whatsoever.”[ii]
Clearly, after the proclamation of this dogma, the direct rejection of the biblical inerrancy became complicated and risky for those “Catholic” theologians and Bible scholars who proposed interpretations contrary to Sacred Tradition. How can they say that Adam and Eve did not exist? Or how can they reject the original sin and monogenesis, i.e., the descent of all humans from a single couple? While maintaining a semblance of respectability, modernist biblical scholars have invented all sorts of tricks. For example, one tells us that all these biblical texts are “myths” that have nothing to do with science.
However, the most effective has been the one that denies the doctrine of the supernatural inspiration of Holy Scriptures indirectly, by undermining the origins of sacred texts. According to “scientific” critics, the Apocalypse of Saint John was not written by the visionary apostle, just as other biblical books were not written, under inspiration, by Moses or the prophets – to whom they were traditionally attributed. Such things that indirectly deny the inspiration of sacred texts by attributing to them the most obscure origins (for example, some texts were written by several authors) can be found in many biblical study manuals. I have right in front of me a manual for Catholic colleges, published in 2001, with the Imprimatur of a bishop appointed by Pope John Paul II. Here is what we can read in it.
Neither Saint Augustine, nor Saint Thomas Aquinas, nor the Saints Alphonsus, Francis de Sales, or Jean Marie Vianney – to name just a few remarkable authors from different centuries – lived in a liturgical context where the Bible was marginal. On the contrary.
First, we learn that – I quote – “The Second Vatican Council wanted to place the Bible back where it belonged, namely at the center of the lives of Catholics and invited every appeal to tradition to be evaluated based on its conformity to Holy Scripture.” The deviations of this small fragment are evident. We immediately detect the attitude of contempt towards predecessors and towards Sacred Tradition. Everything is presented as if the Church only begins with the Second Vatican Council. Until then – we are told – the Bible had been marginal, excluded from the “center” of the lives of Catholics. Then, in an approach that seems to be inspired by a Protestant perspective, it is demanded that Tradition be evaluated “in conformity” to Holy Scripture. It’s another way of repeating, somewhat softer, the error of “sola scriptura” which excludes or at least subordinates Sacred Tradition. Let’s ask the authors how those parts of Tradition that are not included in the Bible – like the Holy Mass – can be “evaluated”?
In the same revolutionary tone, we are told that “beginning with the Second Vatican Council, the Bible has been given greater importance in the life of the Catholic Church, a central role in the Liturgy.” So, once again, it is implicitly affirmed that until the Second Vatican Council everything had been wrong or, at least, altered. The Bible had been marginal not only in the lives of ordinary believers but even in the Liturgy of the ages. What any connoisseur of traditional Catholic liturgy knows to be completely false. Neither Saint Augustine, nor Saint Thomas Aquinas, nor the Saints Alphonsus, Francis de Sales, or Jean Marie Vianney – to name just a few remarkable authors from different centuries – lived in a liturgical context where the Bible was marginal. On the contrary. But for the manual I’m talking about, the Church and Faith begin with the Second Vatican Council. This anti-traditional attitude, directed against the glorious past of the Church, is complemented by statements that directly challenge the inspiration of sacred texts.
After it is shown that “The Bible is a library, with a collection of 73 books, older or newer,” it is added that these were “written by people who believed they were inspired by God.” Pay attention! They are not books written by inspired authors, but – I repeat and underline – “by people who believed they were inspired.” In other words, even if the authors of the sacred texts believed about themselves that they were inspired, we have no obligation to believe such a thing.
We learn where this manual wants to lead us a few pages later. Without hesitation, it is strongly and explicitly asserted that “no one can claim that Moses wrote the entire books of the Law.” Later, the same idea is reiterated after various “historical-critical” theories are presented, from which it emerges that the Pentateuch texts are written by different authors, at different times, then brought together – sometime in the 5th century BC – by who knows whom. Anyway, the main idea is insistently repeated: although Moses had a certain contribution to the writing of some pieces from the Pentateuch, he is not the author of all its books, but only of a few pieces. But if they don’t have a single, inspired author, the conclusion can only be that the books of the Pentateuch do not have an inspired origin. These are, therefore, the opinions spread through an official Catholic biblical study manual.
Despite the pontifical efforts to convey the true teaching of the Bible, the modernists did not listen; they only changed their strategy and the targets of their attacks. Therefore, let us not be surprised when we see that meditation, mental prayer, lectio divina, sacred hermeneutics, in a word, all traditional understanding and approach to Holy Scripture have been almost completely abandoned.
Formally established towards the end of the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII, in October 1902, the Biblical Commission (also known as the “Commission on Biblical Studies”) published in 1906 a document entitled The Mosaic Authenticity of the Pentateuch. The document addresses a number of questions arising from the spread of serious errors in the interpretation of Holy Scripture. The first question is whether those theories asserting that the Pentateuch “were not written by Moses, but were composed for the most part from sources later than the time of Moses” are acceptable and can be sustained. The commission’s response is categorical: “No.”[iii]
Essentially, reading the entire document reveals the care with which the members of that pontifical commission followed the doctrine of divine inspiration that guided Moses (as well as the other prophets and apostles) in the writing of all the sacred books. But why were the members of the commission so firm on their position? Because, if the origin of these revealed texts is denied, and Moses, the prophets, and the apostles are not – at least in the case of certain biblical books – their real authors, the doctrine of the inspiration of the sacred texts of the Judeo-Christian Tradition cannot be maintained.
Despite the pontifical efforts to convey the true teaching of the Bible, the modernists did not listen; they only changed their strategy and the targets of their attacks. Therefore, let us not be surprised when we see that meditation, mental prayer, lectio divina, sacred hermeneutics, in a word, all traditional understanding and approach to Holy Scripture have been almost completely abandoned. All of this is primarily due to the destruction of the inspired authorship of the Prophets and Apostles. Viewed exclusively through the lens of “historical-critical method,” the Bible has become a kind of sophisticated artifact, a puzzle whose solution depends solely on “experts” lost in the labyrinth of endless philological and historical discussions.
If the “science” of the last century has proven that all the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church used texts that were not actually written by the traditionally considered inspired authors, how can you take seriously the strong statements of Holy Scripture? It seems absolutely natural to declare them “culturally conditioned” – wholly or partially. Anyway, it doesn’t matter anymore since you can say anything. Thus, this is how we have come to the current situation.
The core of the heresy denounced by Father Thomas Crean O.P. consists of rejecting the divine inspiration of the Bible. More specifically, for those infected by it God is not the author of the sacred texts. Therefore, God does not speak to us through them. And we, humans, can say anything, for no divine word can support, correct, or accuse our statements.
If we look closely, we see that anyone who embraces such errors supports them as if he were a god himself. As if he knew better than the Savior Christ himself what is good, what is evil, and what is the Gospel that must be transmitted to humanity submerged in darkness.
If we look closely, we see that anyone who embraces such errors supports them as if he were a god himself. As if he knew better than the Savior Christ himself what is good, what is evil, and what is the Gospel that must be transmitted to humanity submerged in darkness. Such a person not only replaces Christ but considers himself at least on the same level with God, being able without any problem to transmit teachings that are against the Gospel. And this even when pretending to clarify the true meaning of the sacred texts. Thus, we have come to see with horror how an anti-Gospel has come to be proposed, preached, transmitted, and, when necessary, imposed upon those who forget who the true author of the sacred texts is, God, and who his inspired “scribes” are: Moses, the prophets, and the apostles.
If we want to preserve our supernatural faith, let us not be deceived: the truth is that affirmed by Pope Leo XIII in the text from Providentissimus Deus that I have already quoted. Based on this text and other official documents, here are the axioms that we must always follow regarding the Holy Scriptures:
1.) God is the author of the books included in the Biblical canon established by ecclesiastical authority and fully confirmed at the Council of Trent (1545–1563) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church published under Pope John Paul II;
2.) Moses, the prophets, and the apostles are God’s inspired “scribes” of all the books included in the biblical canon;
3.) The biblical texts are free from any error in their entirety;
4.) The divine teachings contained in the sacred texts – especially the dogmatic and moral ones – are not “culturally conditioned”;
5.) Authority in establishing correct interpretations of the texts of the Holy Scriptures belongs to the Magisterium of the Church, under the essential condition of continuity between interpretations already consecrated and those subsequent;
6.) In the case of teachings about which the Church has not officially pronounced (such as the doctrine on limbo), if there is unanimity among the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, their opinions can be considered as very likely correct;
7.) If we express our own opinions about those passages that do not have an ecclesiastical official interpretation and are controversial, we must humbly and prudently recognize the probable nature of our opinions, avoiding to posit them as absolutely certain.
Such a list can, of course, be accompanied by one of the errors that violate the correct attitude towards Holy Scripture. I am content to affirm that we must always reject any attempt to break the connection between inspired authors and the holy texts written entirely by them, just as we must vigorously oppose interpretations that seek to convince us that certain parts and teachings of the Bible are “culturally conditioned.” As the men and women on our calendars have proven through their lives, holiness and its demands cannot be culturally conditioned. For, as Saint Jacinta of Fatima reminds us, “People who serve God should not follow fashions. The Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same.”