The Early Responsa of the Pontifical Biblical Commission
I have recently become very interested in a twisted problem that has polarized debate among Catholic exegetes for the past 100 years. It is the question of the authority or non-authority of the early responsa of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
The PBC was established by Pope Leo XIII in the document Vigilantiae studiique to undertake "the challenge of explaining and safeguarding" the Scriptures (sec. 3). It was made an official arm of the Magisterium with this statement, "Its work will have the happy result of providing the Apostolic See with the opportunity to declare what ought to be inviolably maintained by Catholics, what ought to be reserved for further research, and what ought to be left for the judgment of each individual." (sec. 9)
Later, when the PBC's authority was questioned, Pius X gave a formal pronouncement saying that "Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions."(Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae 18 November 1907 text here)
The PBC convened and proceeded to answer specific questions addressed to it. Some of the answers it gave directly contradicted the "scholarly consensus" of its day and ours. Here is a simplified summary of their decisions:
13 February 1905 - Implied quotations of non-scriptural sources in Scripture have the same authority unless the sacred writer does not approve them or make them his own.
23 June 1905 - The Biblical narrative is historically accurate.
27 June 1906 - Moses is the author of the Pentateuch.
29 May 1907 - The Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.
30 June 1909 - First three chapters of Genesis are historical, not mythical narratives.
1 May 1910 - The authorship of the Psalms
19 June 1911 - Matthew's Gospel came first and was written in Aramaic.
26 June 1912 - The authorship of Mark and Luke
26 June 1912 - The Two-Source Hypothesis is wrong
12 June 1913 - Luke wrote Acts
12 June 1913 - Paul wrote 1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus
24 June 1914 - The book of Hebrews
18 June 1918 - The Second Coming
17 November 1921 - Textual variants not in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate are acceptable for publication.
1 July 1933 - Ps. 15 and Matt. 16:26
(Full text of the PBC decisions here.)
After the publication of the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Divino afflante Spiritu, the curia set out to publish the Enchiridion Biblicum, which was a 1954 handbook of official Church statements on the Bible. But at the time of its publication Catholic scholars were feeling constrained by the PBC's early 20th century pronouncements. Two members of the PBC, the secretary Athanasius Miller, OSB and subsecretary Arduin Kleinhans, OFM published nearly identical articles in two different journals clarifying that the PBC's statements were not binding on Catholic exegetes. Miller's article was published in German and Kleinhans' was in Latin. The citations for the articles are below. (I got much of this info from Bechard, Dean P. The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings. Collegeville, MN: Litugical Press, 2002, pp.318-329.) The clarification article was also published in the American journal, Catholic Biblical Quarterly.
So the question is whether the semi-official clarification published in these journals truly repealed the statement of Pius X on Nov 18, 1907 which made the PBC decisions binding. Unfortunately this question has not been completely resolved. Catholic Bible scholars, effectively, do their work as if the responsa of the PBC are not longer binding on the faithful. But as is pointed out by Sean Kopcynski, the responsa have never been officially repealed or eliminated by an official statement or clarification. In the meantime, the PBC has lost its status as an official organ of the Magisterium and is now merely a consulting body (See Paul VI, Sedula cura, 27 June 1971).
Interestingly, the reality of the present-day irrelevance of the responsa is confirmed by some very important figures including Cardinal Ratzinger--now Pope Benedict XVI. Quoted Bechard's book (p.328, footnote 38), Ratzinger regards some warnings of the Magisterium as statements which "their core remains valid, but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification" including "the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom as well as the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time." Ratzinger made these comments in L'Osservatore Romano 2 July 1990. Update 3/27/08: I got the text of Ratzinger's comments from L'Osservatore Romano 2 July 1990, p.5. Here's a fuller quotation from his explanation on The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, "The text also offers different forms of binding which arise from different levels of magisterial teaching. It states--perhaps for the first time with such clarity--that there are magisterial decisions intended to be the last word on the matter as such, but are a substantial anchorage in the problem and are first and foremost an expression of pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional disposition. Their core remains valid, but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification. In this regard one can refer to the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom as well as the anti-modernistic decisions at the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time. As a warning cry against hasty and superficial adaptations they remain fully justified; a person of the stature of Johann Baptist Metz has said, for example, that the antimodernist decisions of the Church rendered a great service in keeping her from sinking into the liberal-bourgeois world. But the details of the determinations of their contents were later superceded once they had carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment."
There is at least one Catholic biblical scholar who did not accept the majority view about the clarification. That was J.E. Steinmueller in The Sword of the Spirit (Waco, TX: Stella Maris, 1977). Update 3/24/08: Here's a quote from Steinmueller from 1941 showing his position before the semi-official clarification, "On October 30, 1902, Pope Leo XIII instituted the Pontifical Biblical Commission to promote and direct biblical studies, and on November 18, 1907, Pope Pius X in his Motu Proprio determined the authority of its decisions. From these it follows: (1) that the Decrees are neither infallible nor irreformable; (2) that they are of the same authority as the other Sacred Congregations; (3) that external as well as internal consent is required; (4) that this assent need not be absolute and irreformable; (5) that the formal object of these Decrees is either security or non-security of any doctrine." (Steinmueller, J.E., A Companion to Scripture Studies [New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1941] p. 245) There is a lot of technical language in Steinmueller's summary, but I think it's clear enough. (end update) Update 4/14/08: I finally got my hands on Steinmueller's comments about the semi-official clarification of 1955. I quote two sentences and their footnote in full from his book Sword of the Spirit, p.7. First the sentences, "The Church has made no definite and dogmatic pronouncements as the the authorship of any book of the Bible. The decrees of the first Biblical Commission, however, should be regarded as directive norms, and it would be temerarious to disregard them, even though research may be carried further." Now the footnote:
"I was consultor of the first Pontifical Biblical Commission from 1947 (after the publication of Divino afflante Spiritu) to 1971; and I never heard any intimation that any decrees of the Commission were ever revoked. At most they were clarified (cf. Letter to Cardinal Suhard of Paris, 1948). Recently some Catholic scholars have asserted that the decrees were implicitly revoked by Divino afflante Spiritu (1943) and that this is confirmed by two articles written in 1955 by A. Miller and A. Kleinhans, who seem to restrict the scope of the decrees to matters of faith and morals (cf. Jerome Biblical Commentary, Vol. II, p. 629). The articles referred to were unauthorized and were condemned by the voting Cardinal members of the Commission. A. Miller and A. Kleinhans were to be brought before the Holy Office because of the articles, but were saved from this ordeal through the personal intervention of Cardinal Tisserant before the Holy Father. It was my friend, Father Miller, O.S.B., who told me the whole story before his return to Germany.
"Decisions of this Pontifical Biblical Commission were sent to the Holy Father, who ratified them or sent them back for further consideration. The official decisions were published only at his command.
"This first Pontifical Biblical Commission as an independent commission came to an end by the apostolic letter issued 'Motu Proprio' by Pope Paul VI, June 27, 1971. As a new body the Biblical Commission was to be a dependent subcommission under the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presided over by its Cardinal Prefect. Its members are appointed by the Supreme Pontiff, on the proposal of the Cardinal president after consultation with the episcopal conferences."
Phew! Ok, so that was a really long quote, but I think it's good to get this stuff out there. The only question I still have about Steinmueller's story is who "Father Miller, OSB" actually is. I suppose it could be the same as Athanasius Miller, OSB but I'm not sure. I also wonder if Miller, Kleinhans or even Tisserant have published memoirs or recollections about this event. It would be very interesting to find more in writing about this. It is also fascinating that Steinmueller recounts the cardinals on the PBC voting to condemn the articles which were ostensibly semi-official PBC documents. True, Steinmueller does not actually say the articles were condemned by a vote, but that they were "condemned by the voting cardinal members of the commission." This whole story keeps getting more convoluted! (end update)
So it seems to me that while the issue has never been officially resolved, the reponsa have been effectively sidelined as no longer binding. It seems unfortunate to me that the situation has never been officially clarified and Pius X's warnings of grave sin on the part of those who disagree with the PBC's statements is still out there. But I suppose that the issue may be resolved at some point, but maybe not.
Resources:
Text of Pontifical Biblical Commission Responsa from Catholic Apologetics International (unofficial translation)
Leo XIII. Vigilantiae studiique. 30 October 1902.
Pius X. Lamentabili Sane. 3 July 1907.
Pius X. Pascendi dominici gregis. 8 September 1907.
Pius X. Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae. 18 November 1907.
Pius XII. Divino afflante Spiritu. 30 September 1943.
Paul VI, Sedula cura, 27 June 1971.
Bechard, Dean P. The Scripture Documents. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. 24 May 1990.
Kleinhans, Arduin. "De nova Enchiridii Biblici editione." Antonianem 30 (1955): 63-65.
Kopczynski, Sean. "Rediscovering the Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission." Living Tradition 94(2001).
Miller, Athanasius. "Das neue biblische Handbuch." Benediktinische Monatschrift 31 (1955): 49-50.
Miller, Athanasius. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 18 (1956): 24-25.
Pontifical Biblical Commission Documents List from Vatican site.
Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. "Relationship Between Magisterium and Exegetes." An address to the PBC. 10 May 2003.
Steinmueller, J.E. The Sword of the Spirit. Waco, TX: Stella Maris, 1977.
The PBC was established by Pope Leo XIII in the document Vigilantiae studiique to undertake "the challenge of explaining and safeguarding" the Scriptures (sec. 3). It was made an official arm of the Magisterium with this statement, "Its work will have the happy result of providing the Apostolic See with the opportunity to declare what ought to be inviolably maintained by Catholics, what ought to be reserved for further research, and what ought to be left for the judgment of each individual." (sec. 9)
Later, when the PBC's authority was questioned, Pius X gave a formal pronouncement saying that "Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions."(Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae 18 November 1907 text here)
The PBC convened and proceeded to answer specific questions addressed to it. Some of the answers it gave directly contradicted the "scholarly consensus" of its day and ours. Here is a simplified summary of their decisions:
13 February 1905 - Implied quotations of non-scriptural sources in Scripture have the same authority unless the sacred writer does not approve them or make them his own.
23 June 1905 - The Biblical narrative is historically accurate.
27 June 1906 - Moses is the author of the Pentateuch.
29 May 1907 - The Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.
30 June 1909 - First three chapters of Genesis are historical, not mythical narratives.
1 May 1910 - The authorship of the Psalms
19 June 1911 - Matthew's Gospel came first and was written in Aramaic.
26 June 1912 - The authorship of Mark and Luke
26 June 1912 - The Two-Source Hypothesis is wrong
12 June 1913 - Luke wrote Acts
12 June 1913 - Paul wrote 1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus
24 June 1914 - The book of Hebrews
18 June 1918 - The Second Coming
17 November 1921 - Textual variants not in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate are acceptable for publication.
1 July 1933 - Ps. 15 and Matt. 16:26
(Full text of the PBC decisions here.)
After the publication of the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Divino afflante Spiritu, the curia set out to publish the Enchiridion Biblicum, which was a 1954 handbook of official Church statements on the Bible. But at the time of its publication Catholic scholars were feeling constrained by the PBC's early 20th century pronouncements. Two members of the PBC, the secretary Athanasius Miller, OSB and subsecretary Arduin Kleinhans, OFM published nearly identical articles in two different journals clarifying that the PBC's statements were not binding on Catholic exegetes. Miller's article was published in German and Kleinhans' was in Latin. The citations for the articles are below. (I got much of this info from Bechard, Dean P. The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings. Collegeville, MN: Litugical Press, 2002, pp.318-329.) The clarification article was also published in the American journal, Catholic Biblical Quarterly.
So the question is whether the semi-official clarification published in these journals truly repealed the statement of Pius X on Nov 18, 1907 which made the PBC decisions binding. Unfortunately this question has not been completely resolved. Catholic Bible scholars, effectively, do their work as if the responsa of the PBC are not longer binding on the faithful. But as is pointed out by Sean Kopcynski, the responsa have never been officially repealed or eliminated by an official statement or clarification. In the meantime, the PBC has lost its status as an official organ of the Magisterium and is now merely a consulting body (See Paul VI, Sedula cura, 27 June 1971).
Interestingly, the reality of the present-day irrelevance of the responsa is confirmed by some very important figures including Cardinal Ratzinger--now Pope Benedict XVI. Quoted Bechard's book (p.328, footnote 38), Ratzinger regards some warnings of the Magisterium as statements which "their core remains valid, but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification" including "the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom as well as the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time." Ratzinger made these comments in L'Osservatore Romano 2 July 1990. Update 3/27/08: I got the text of Ratzinger's comments from L'Osservatore Romano 2 July 1990, p.5. Here's a fuller quotation from his explanation on The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, "The text also offers different forms of binding which arise from different levels of magisterial teaching. It states--perhaps for the first time with such clarity--that there are magisterial decisions intended to be the last word on the matter as such, but are a substantial anchorage in the problem and are first and foremost an expression of pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional disposition. Their core remains valid, but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification. In this regard one can refer to the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom as well as the anti-modernistic decisions at the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time. As a warning cry against hasty and superficial adaptations they remain fully justified; a person of the stature of Johann Baptist Metz has said, for example, that the antimodernist decisions of the Church rendered a great service in keeping her from sinking into the liberal-bourgeois world. But the details of the determinations of their contents were later superceded once they had carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment."
There is at least one Catholic biblical scholar who did not accept the majority view about the clarification. That was J.E. Steinmueller in The Sword of the Spirit (Waco, TX: Stella Maris, 1977). Update 3/24/08: Here's a quote from Steinmueller from 1941 showing his position before the semi-official clarification, "On October 30, 1902, Pope Leo XIII instituted the Pontifical Biblical Commission to promote and direct biblical studies, and on November 18, 1907, Pope Pius X in his Motu Proprio determined the authority of its decisions. From these it follows: (1) that the Decrees are neither infallible nor irreformable; (2) that they are of the same authority as the other Sacred Congregations; (3) that external as well as internal consent is required; (4) that this assent need not be absolute and irreformable; (5) that the formal object of these Decrees is either security or non-security of any doctrine." (Steinmueller, J.E., A Companion to Scripture Studies [New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1941] p. 245) There is a lot of technical language in Steinmueller's summary, but I think it's clear enough. (end update) Update 4/14/08: I finally got my hands on Steinmueller's comments about the semi-official clarification of 1955. I quote two sentences and their footnote in full from his book Sword of the Spirit, p.7. First the sentences, "The Church has made no definite and dogmatic pronouncements as the the authorship of any book of the Bible. The decrees of the first Biblical Commission, however, should be regarded as directive norms, and it would be temerarious to disregard them, even though research may be carried further." Now the footnote:
"I was consultor of the first Pontifical Biblical Commission from 1947 (after the publication of Divino afflante Spiritu) to 1971; and I never heard any intimation that any decrees of the Commission were ever revoked. At most they were clarified (cf. Letter to Cardinal Suhard of Paris, 1948). Recently some Catholic scholars have asserted that the decrees were implicitly revoked by Divino afflante Spiritu (1943) and that this is confirmed by two articles written in 1955 by A. Miller and A. Kleinhans, who seem to restrict the scope of the decrees to matters of faith and morals (cf. Jerome Biblical Commentary, Vol. II, p. 629). The articles referred to were unauthorized and were condemned by the voting Cardinal members of the Commission. A. Miller and A. Kleinhans were to be brought before the Holy Office because of the articles, but were saved from this ordeal through the personal intervention of Cardinal Tisserant before the Holy Father. It was my friend, Father Miller, O.S.B., who told me the whole story before his return to Germany.
"Decisions of this Pontifical Biblical Commission were sent to the Holy Father, who ratified them or sent them back for further consideration. The official decisions were published only at his command.
"This first Pontifical Biblical Commission as an independent commission came to an end by the apostolic letter issued 'Motu Proprio' by Pope Paul VI, June 27, 1971. As a new body the Biblical Commission was to be a dependent subcommission under the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presided over by its Cardinal Prefect. Its members are appointed by the Supreme Pontiff, on the proposal of the Cardinal president after consultation with the episcopal conferences."
Phew! Ok, so that was a really long quote, but I think it's good to get this stuff out there. The only question I still have about Steinmueller's story is who "Father Miller, OSB" actually is. I suppose it could be the same as Athanasius Miller, OSB but I'm not sure. I also wonder if Miller, Kleinhans or even Tisserant have published memoirs or recollections about this event. It would be very interesting to find more in writing about this. It is also fascinating that Steinmueller recounts the cardinals on the PBC voting to condemn the articles which were ostensibly semi-official PBC documents. True, Steinmueller does not actually say the articles were condemned by a vote, but that they were "condemned by the voting cardinal members of the commission." This whole story keeps getting more convoluted! (end update)
So it seems to me that while the issue has never been officially resolved, the reponsa have been effectively sidelined as no longer binding. It seems unfortunate to me that the situation has never been officially clarified and Pius X's warnings of grave sin on the part of those who disagree with the PBC's statements is still out there. But I suppose that the issue may be resolved at some point, but maybe not.
Resources:
Text of Pontifical Biblical Commission Responsa from Catholic Apologetics International (unofficial translation)
Leo XIII. Vigilantiae studiique. 30 October 1902.
Pius X. Lamentabili Sane. 3 July 1907.
Pius X. Pascendi dominici gregis. 8 September 1907.
Pius X. Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae. 18 November 1907.
Pius XII. Divino afflante Spiritu. 30 September 1943.
Paul VI, Sedula cura, 27 June 1971.
Bechard, Dean P. The Scripture Documents. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. 24 May 1990.
Kleinhans, Arduin. "De nova Enchiridii Biblici editione." Antonianem 30 (1955): 63-65.
Kopczynski, Sean. "Rediscovering the Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission." Living Tradition 94(2001).
Miller, Athanasius. "Das neue biblische Handbuch." Benediktinische Monatschrift 31 (1955): 49-50.
Miller, Athanasius. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 18 (1956): 24-25.
Pontifical Biblical Commission Documents List from Vatican site.
Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. "Relationship Between Magisterium and Exegetes." An address to the PBC. 10 May 2003.
Steinmueller, J.E. The Sword of the Spirit. Waco, TX: Stella Maris, 1977.
4 Comments:
Mark,
Good post; we have spoken about this before, and I have a different set of questions, although there is some overlap.
Can teachings of the authentic Magisterium cease to require any sort of ascent by desuetude? Doctrine and law are not the same, but I think that general principals of canonists might be of assistance in giving the answer.
What role do time indexicals play in statements of the Magisterium? EX: Question: “Because of research having been done recently, may one teach X?” Ans: “No.” Well, in a decade does the statement have any force? What research is recent then, probably, is not the same that was recent before.
About the comments of then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking as a private doctor, he said (in the English) “their core remains valid, but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification.” The statement is such that one could agree, but state that no such needed rectification has been given, as you are well aware.
Finally, in the current curial configuration a definitive clarification could only be given by the CDF qua CDF, not the secretary merely writing a latter, or by the Holy Father himself, qua Holy Father, not just as Joseph Ratzinger.
AED
Imagine if we had to believe under pain of sin that Mary never said the Magnificat
per Fr. Raymond Brown who was appointed to the PBC by both Paul VI and by John Paul II and who took that position on her not having said the Magnificat on p.349 of his Birth of the Messiah. Heck...we'd be disobeying the early responsa by following the later members like Brown. Talk about the truth of the historical narrative....Brown did not believe there was a slaying of the innocents either and I am not averse to him in some matters wherein his scepticism has indeed explained problems in John and he explains them so as to go against your early responsa in that he maintained that John died and a redactor finished the gospel and that that would explain why all the John promoting passages are only in John. John would not have put them in out of humility but a redactor who was fighting the slanders against John's authority in the group that left JOhn as per the epistle...such a redactor would have every reason to promote John in many nuances which is what happens in John and in John only. And this would explain why the chronology is different than the synoptics on when Christ cleansed the temple of the money changers which John has in the beginning of the gospel instead of at the end where a synoptic has it. A redactor would not have had the chronology straight if John had died while the gospel was as yet unfinished.
So while I have problems with Brown, paradoxically the very thing I have problems with...his scepticism on historical veracity...that very weakness actually works when he deals with John and explains the John bragging only being in John and explains the cleansing of the temple as being in the wrong spot.
Mark,
What precisely did the PBC mean by this: "30 June 1909 - First three chapters of Genesis are historical, not mythical narratives."
Does the magisterial exercise of Humani Generis give us the freedom to think otherwise, provided we stay within the limits set up by that Encyclical?
Maximilian,
Here's the text you asked for:
Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis
June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)
I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.
II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.
III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.
IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.
V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.
VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.
VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.
VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.
(From: http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/pbc.htm)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home