The
Council of Trent held that “the purity itself of the Gospel [is always]
preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets
in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
first promulgated with His own mouth,
and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the
fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly
that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the
unwritten traditions which,
received by
the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves,
the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were
from hand to hand”.
Concerning the method of transmission, Trent was clear to
state, “(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, [considers
that the books of the Bible] as having
been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and
preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.
This principle, of exact dictation, conforms with the
principle known as Semper Eadem, “always
the same”. Owen Chadwick explained:
‘The Catholic faith’—what is it? An
unchanging gospel, handed down by pen and mouth from age to age, generation to
generation, mother to child, teacher to taught, pulpit to pew. An inexhaustible
treasure deposited in a bank, so that all may draw from it. That which has been
believed in every place, in every century, by all Christian men and women” (“From
Bossuet to Newman” London: Cambridge University Press, ©1957, 1987, pg 1).
For a time, it was thought, Rome never changes. But now, in
the world of Vatican II, Roman doctrine has certainly changed. Not only did Rome change in the
period of time through the middle ages up until Trent (
as Newman recognized), but
it has changed radically in the days following Newman. And in Vatican II,
seeking, in the words of “Good Pope John” (John XXIII):
The certain and unchangeable
doctrine, to which we must remain ever faithful, must be examined and expounded
by the methods applicable in our times. We must distinguish between the inheritance
of the faith itself, or the truths which are contained in our holy doctrine,
and the way in which these truths are formulated, of course with the same sense
and same significance (citing from the opening speech at Vatican II, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia).
Except, in the “reformulating” of these “truths which are
contained in our holy doctrine”, Vatican II used the very words of the
flaming
liberals, as one commenter put it. This writer contends that he and other “conservative
Catholics” (whose “personal interpretation” of the Vatican II documents is
perspicuously the correct one, whereas, the liberals are wrong), notes, that “belief
in six-day creationism” is not merely “simplistic literalism”. Rather it is “a
literal historical fact”. This commenter, is, in fact, much smarter and even
more correct than Pope John Paul II,
who said that “the
recognition of the theory of evolution [is] more than a hypothesis”. Of course,
now, “The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of
evolution, for it involves the conception of man”. In fact:
“Pius XII stressed this essential
point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the
spiritual soul is immediately created by God
("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere
iubei";
Humani
Generis 36)”.
Fortunately, both of these evolution-friendly popes are
dead, and this commenter now may continue to be the bulwark of support among Roman
Catholics that “belief in six-day creationism” is “a literal historical fact”.
(Any day now, Pope Benedict is going to
kick the bucket;
a new pope is waiting in the wings to recognize,
infallibly and ex cathedra, what this commenter has been saying all
along).
As I mentioned, Raymond Brown, was, according to this
commenter, “was a flaming liberal, who unfortunately influenced a lot of
Catholic laity and clergy”. Apparently, he and “other flaming liberals” not
only influenced “a lot of laity and clergy”. But they influenced popes and
conciliar doctrinal statements.
In his “Introduction to New Testament Christology”, here is
what Brown says:
By the 1960s official church
teaching affirmed that the Gospels were not necessarily literal accounts of the
words and deeds of Jesus. [Contra Trent: see above]. … Yet this change of
teaching has not been successfully communicated to the Catholic public at
large; and so nonscholarly conservativism still prevails … Most churchgoing
Catholics are not yet aware of any other view, even though now almost all
Catholic biblical scholars (see below) have accepted that the Gospels manifest
a development beyond the era of Jesus and for years have taught such a
development to candidates for the priesthood or theological degrees (Brown, “An
Introduction to New Testament Christology”, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, ©1994 by
Associated Sulpicians of the U.S., pg 9).
Sulpicians, by the
way, are an order devoted to teaching “candidates for the priesthood”, and
Brown was one of them.
Here is what the “Instruction” said:
IX. This primitive instruction,
which was at first passed on by word of mouth and then in writing--for it soon
happened that many tried "to compile a narrative of the things" which
concerned the Lord Jesus--was committed to writing by the sacred authors in
four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the
peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself. From the many things
handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, (still)
others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches.
With every (possible) means they sought that their readers might become aware
of the reliability of those words by which they had been instructed. Indeed,
from what they had received the sacred writers above all selected the things
which were suited to the various situations of the faithful and to the purpose
which they had in mind, and adapted their narration of them to the same
situations and purpose. Since the meaning of a statement also depends on the
sequence, the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour,
explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their)
usefulness to the readers. Consequently, let the exegete seek out the
meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain
way or in placing it in a certain context.
19. Holy Mother Church has firmly
and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels
just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts,
faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and
taught for their eternal salvation until the day … The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels,
selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth
or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in
view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation
but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. For
their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and
recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might know
"the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been
instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).
My point, for the sake of the commenter, is not that the
Pontifical Biblical Commission today has any authority. My point is, it had
very real authority for the writers of Vatican II, (wasn’t one of them named
Ratzinger?), and that, this is one of several statements of “passages which are
so brilliantly ambiguous as to be capable of serving the interest of both
parties”.
So to be sure, “flaming liberal” interests have been served
well – they are on the books now, written into a Roman Catholic Council, endorsed
by popes and bishops, and if our commenter thinks that the infallible
Magisterium of today’s Roman Catholic Church believe in “the historical Gospel
accounts and in six-day creationism” that “Church Fathers shows very clearly
they believed in”, well, he can go on deceiving himself. His “Church” is
certainly willing to let him continue to be deceived.
.jpg)