The Roman Catholic Church is willing to let this commenter be deceived

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.

Brown points to the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1964 "Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels", noting that “The substance of this instruction made it into Dei Verbum 5.19”, he said.

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.

Now, here is what Dei Verbum 5.19 said:

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).

There is no question that, even if our commenter rejects this 1964 “Instruction”, Vatican II certainly endorsed it. This episode, of course, falls into the category of “those passages which are so brilliantly ambiguous as to be capable of serving the interest of both parties”, according to David Wells.

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.

Nothing may be put on a level with Scripture. But Vatican II Rome puts itself there.

There is no question that the Roman Catholic Church thinks highly of itself. But lots of folks think that the Roman Catholic Church “softened up” itself and its image at Vatican II. That is not the case. Just to show a small example of why the Roman Catholic Church, post Vatican II, is a more ravenous wolf than its predecessor of just 100 years earlier, consider what Bavinck, writing about 1900, says:

The Catholic Church has not yet progressed to the point where it dares to equate ecclesiastical interpretation with divine truth. A twofold distinction still remains. In the first place, the church receives no new revelations. The pope possesses only interpretive power; he can and may proclaim as dogma only that which was, at all times, materially implicit in Scripture and tradition. And in the second place, in proclaiming the church’s dogmas the pope is not, like the prophets and apostles, the recipient of the inspiration but only the special assistance of the Holy Spirit (Vol 1, pgs 118-119).

On the other hand, as I’ve noted in the blog post below, Rome at Vatican II places its own “tradition” on the same level as Scripture. In “Dei Verbum”), it speaks of both “sources” “flowing from the same divine wellspring,” “merging into a unity” and “to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence”:

there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

While Bavinck is clear, “Nothing may be put on a level with Scripture” (pg 86), and was fairly certain that the Roman Church of his day had not crossed that line, Vatican II Rome had the audacity to do just that.