|
THE
TRIUMPH OF MODERNISM OVER CATHOLIC EXEGESIS
CATHOLIC
EXEGESIS IS BASED ON THREE TRUTHS OF THE FAITH
In
order to counteract modernist errors on the truths of the
Faith, and in order to come to the aid of some troubled
Catholic researchers, the magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs
has taken pains, in the course of this century, to recall
to mind, and to solemnly affirm, those three truths of the
Faith concerning Holy Scripture which lie at the very base
of Catholic exegesis. Those three truths which I treat are:
1)
the Divine Inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures
2)
their absolute inerrancy
3)
the Catholic Church is the divinely authorized interpreter,
and the sole depository, of Holy Scriptures.
HOLY
SCRIPTURES WERE INSPIRED BY GOD
This
constitutes a truth of the Faith solemnly defined by Vatican
Council I, and illustrated with the greatest possible precision
by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus
Deus, which was described by Pope Pius XII as
"the Magna Charta of Biblical Studies"
Leo
XIII holds fast to Biblical and patristic sources, as
well as to St. Thomas Aquinas as he recalls the definition
given at Vatican Council I regarding Sacred Scriptures:
The
Church holds them to be sacred and canonical not because
they were written according to human science alone and
later approved by authority of the Catholic Church; not
only because they contain Truth without stain of error,
but for the reason that, having been written under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their
author. In reality, "the Holy Ghost made use of the
sacred authors as writing instruments: He, Himself (i.e.,
the Holy Ghost), moved them to write; He Himself assisted
them as they wrote, so that they conceived exactly...and
expressed with an infallible truth everything, and only
those things, that He ordered and directed them to write.
Otherwise, He could not be the author of the totality
of Sacred Scriptures.
In
brief, God is indeed the main author of the Bible, while
the sacred writers are its secondary, or instrumental authors.
ABSOLUTE
INERRANCY OF THE SACRED TEXTS
This
is a dogma of the Faith that was implicitly defined in the
dogma of divine inspiration of the Bible (Council of Trent
and Vatican I), since absolute inerrancy is the effect of
divine inspiration. Indeed, inerrancy and inspiration are
so closely linked that we cannot deny one without also denying
the other.
In
Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII begins by rejecting
the heresy which is opposed to this dogma, and which, dominates
"new exegesis," which is not Catholic:
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 those 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 - such a system cannot be tolerated.
For all the books that 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 coexist with
inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially
incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it....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....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....Such
has always been the belief of the Holy Fathers.
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 labored 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 "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.
Pope
Benedict XV, in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus
(Sept. 15, 1920), confirms, and amplifies upon Leo XIII's
brilliant doctrinal synthesis:
Although
these words of our predecessor leave no doubt for dispute,
it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even
children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a particular
sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning
- who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or
at least attack in secret the Church's teaching on this
point.
We
warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance
of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining
the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their
own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that
they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect
our predecessor's injunctions, and overstep the limits
set by the Fathers.
Yet
no one can pretend that certain recent writers really
adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that
inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to
every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to
distinguish between what they style the primary or religious,
and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they
claim that the effect of inspiration - namely, absolute
truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to
that primary or religious element. Their notion is that
only what concerns religion is intended and taught by
God in Scripture, and that all the rest-things concerning
"profane knowledge," the garments in which Divine
truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves
to the individual author's greater or lesser knowledge.
Against
this heresy, Pope Benedict XV recalled the doctrine
of St. Jerome, as well as that of the other Fathers of the
Church who:
...have
drawn this doctrine concerning Holy Scriptures from nowhere
else but at the school of our Divine Master Jesus Christ.
As a matter of fact, are we to understand that Our Lord
had any other conception of Scripture? The formulae "It
is written," and, "that the scripture may be
fulfilled" are, coming from His lips, an unanswerable
argument that puts an end to all controversy.
Lastly,
Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante
Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943), which commemorated the fiftieth
anniversary of Pope Leo XIII' s Providentissimus
Deus, solemnly condemned the modernistic heresies which
were already, at that time, being spread about in the Church:
More
recently, however, in spite of this solemn definition
of Catholic doctrine which insists, claims and demands
for these "books in their entirety and in all their
parts," a divine authority preserving them from all
possible error, some Catholic writers have nevertheless
seen fit to restrict or limit the truth of Holy Scriptures
only to those matters of Faith and morals, considering
all the rest, being of the field of physics and of history,
as "something that is simply mentioned in passing"
- and having, as they pretended, no connection whatsoever
with the Faith. But our predecessor, Leo XIII,
of undying memory, tore to pieces, and rightly so, these
very same errors in his encyclical Providentissimus
Deus
of November 18, 1893.
Then,
quoting Leo XIII word for word:
It
is absolutely forbidden to pretend that the sacred writer
himself has fallen into error, since divine inspiration
not only excludes any and all possible error in itself,
but even loathes and excludes it, since God, Who is sovereign
truth, cannot be the author of any possible error.
Pius
XII concludes:
This
doctrine, which was so forcefully explained by our predecessor
Leo XIII, We also propose with our pontifical authority,
and We insist that it be held, religiously, by all.
THE
CHURCH IS THE SOLE DEPOSITORY AND INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
This
is a truth of Faith defined by the Council of Trent, as
well as by Vatican Council I. On this point also, Leo
XIII' s Providentissimus proposes the synthesis
of the "ancient and constant belief of the Church."
After having shown that the sacred books cannot be approached
without a guide, Leo XIII concluded that men are
able to realize that God "gave the Scriptures to the
Church in order that, in the interpretation of its texts,
the Church should be their most certain teacher and guide."
This
is the doctrine, he writes, that is:
...held
by St. Ireneus and the other Fathers of the Church, and
which the First Vatican Council adopted when, renewing
a Decree of the Council of Trent concerning the interpretation
of God's written Word, it was decided that, regarding
questions of the Faith or morals, and with the intention
of settling once and for all these important points of
Catholic doctrine, we must hold as being the exact sense
of Holy Scripture, that sense which Our Holy Mother the
Church has held and holds, being ever mindful that it
belongs to the Church alone to judge the sense of, as
well as to interpret, the Sacred Scriptures.
No
one is therefore permitted to interpret Scripture in any
manner that would contradict the Church's interpretation,
or in a manner that would contradict the unanimous consent
of the Fathers.
Pope
Pius XII, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, wholeheartedly
reaffirmed in its entirety the teaching contained in Leo
XIII's encyclical Providentissimus: "God
Himself has confided the keeping and interpretation [of
the Holy Scriptures] to the Catholic Church."
SOURCE
OF CORRUPTION 
The
new exegesis, in its vain attempt to attach itself in a
certain way or other to the traditional magisterium, stubbornly
pretends to see in Pius XII's Divino Afflante
Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943), a change of direction with
respect to Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus.
It is as if Pope Pius XII, had, in this encyclical, exhorted
the exegetes to reject the three dogmas that constitute
the very foundation of Catholic exegesis.
This
evidently absurd thesis is refuted first of all by an honest
reading of Divino Afflante Spiritu and of Humani
Generis. Here is how Pius XII, in the clearest
of terms, condemned the "new exegesis" promoted
by the "new theology," revealing it to be the
corrupted source of modernistic theology:
The
dissent and errors of men in religious and moral matters...have
always been, for all honest people, and above all, for
those who are true sons of the Church, the cause of great
sadness, and particularly so today, when we see the very
principles of Christian culture being attacked from all
sides. It is also true that theologians should ceaselessly
return to the sources of divine revelation. It is their
role to point out how the doctrine of the living magisterium
is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the
Scriptures or in Tradition.
But
for this reason, even positive theology cannot be on a
par with merely historical science. For, together with
the sources of positive theology, God has given to His
Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain
that which is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely
and implicitly. This deposit of Faith has been given to
us by our Divine Redeemer...only to the Teaching Authority
of the Church to interpret. But if the Church does exercise
this function of teaching, as She often has through the
centuries, either in the ordinary or extraordinary way,
it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt
to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure.
Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used.
Hence,
Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching
that the most noble office of theology is to show how
a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources
of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason:
"in that sense in which it has been defined by the
Church."
To
return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above,
a number of things are proposed or suggested by some,
even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture.
For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican
Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture;
and they again put forward the opinion, already often
condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends
only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or
of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak
of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine
sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning,
lies hidden. When interpreting Scripture, they take no
account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the
Church. Thus, they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and
of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture,
interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead
of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of
the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian
and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed
truth.
Further,
according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense
of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked
out under the Church's vigilance by so many exegetes,
should now yield to a new exegesis, which they are pleased
to call symbolic, or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis,
the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed
book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful.
By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties
which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning
of the Scriptures.
Everyone
sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms
of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of
happy memory, Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus,
and Benedict XV in the encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus,
as also by Ourselves in the encyclical Divino Afflante
Spiritu.
It
is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already
borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology....(Pope
Pius XII, Humani Generis).
REVIVAL
OF MODERNISM
As
a matter of fact, modernism emerged anew in the field of
Biblical studies, thanks chiefly to the "new exegesis."
We need only read the following modernist theses which were
solemnly condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his decree
Lamentabili:
II:
The Church's interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no
means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the
more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.
IX:
They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe
that God is really the author of Sacred Scriptures.
XI:
Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures.…
THE
REALM OF HERESY
At
this juncture, we are clearly dealing with heresy, since
the three de fide truths which constitute the very
basis of Catholic exegesis are also three defined dogmas.
This
is made unmistakably clear from the texts coming from the
dogmatic Councils of Trent and Vatican I, which, along with
the numerous official documents of the Holy Office and the
doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission,
have been recalled over and over again by the Popes.
Referring
to these same decisions, Pope St. Pius X declared,
in Praestantia, his motu proprio of November
18, 1907, that:
...everyone,
without exception, is bound in conscience to obey them...in
the same way as they are bound to obey those decrees of
the Sacred Congregations that have been approved by the
Sovereign Pontiff.
Thus,
we see the Holy Office condemning the Biblical Handbook
of the Sulpician priest, Brassac:
Referring
in particular to the absolute inerrancy of Holy Scripture,
we need only to recall Leo XIII's doctrine expressed
in his encyclical Providentissimus....The Holy
Office defended that same doctrine against the modernists,
and condemned proposition II in its decree Lamentabili.
Finally,
in its decree dated June 18, 1915, the Pontifical Biblical
Commission declares that, based on the Catholic dogma of
the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures,
it follows that everything that the sacred writers affirm,
state, or imply, must be considered to be affirmed, stated,
and implied by the Holy Ghost.
Concerning
the third de fide truth: that the Church is the sole
guardian, and the official interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures,
the Holy Office writes in the same decree:
The
author (Brassac) puts forth many interpretations that
are totally opposed to the judgment and position of the
Church. This is all the more deplorable in view of the
fact that the infallible Council of Trent has decreed:
"Let no one, relying on his own personal judgment
in matters pertaining to Faith and morals,...dare to put
forth interpretations that contradict the judgments which
the Church has rendered in the past, and continues to
uphold today. It belongs to the Church alone to judge
the true sense, and the true interpretation of the Holy
Scriptures."
The
Fathers of Vatican Council I also confirmed this prescription:
We
declare...in matters of faith and morals relative to the
building-up of Christian doctrine, that the sense that
Holy Mother Church has held, and which holds, of the Scriptures,
must be held as true....It is therefore in no way permitted
for anyone to interpret the Holy Scriptures contrary to
this sense, nor against the unanimous consent or agreement
of the Fathers.
The
Pontifical Biblical Commission expressed itself:
Taking
advantage of this occasion, the Pontifical Commission
reminds Catholic exegetes of their duty of submitting
themselves with all due respect to the dogmatic constitution
of Vatican Council I, which renewed the solemn decree
of the Council of Trent, in which it had been solemnly
established that, in those questions touching upon Faith
and morals..., the true sense of Holy Scriptures that
Holy Mother Church holds and has always held must be held
as true....It is therefore not permitted for anyone to
interpret these same Holy Scriptures contrary to the sense
in which the Church approves of them, or even against
the unanimous consent or agreement of the Fathers.
CONCLUSIONS
The
abundance of official documents given above constitutes
the written proof that lead to the following conclusions:
1)
No baptized person, and much less a religious, or a member
of the clergy, may deny or even knowingly entertain any
doubt whatsoever concerning the divine inspiration and absolute
inerrancy of Holy Scripture. All Christians, if they do
not want to fall into heresy, are duty-bound in those Biblical
questions relating to faith and morals, to uphold that sense
and meaning which the Church has always held, and continues
to hold, of these sacred texts;
2)
Any interpretation of Holy Scripture which does not take
into account these three basic truths, cannot be considered
to be a part of Catholic exegesis, but rather, as a part
of an heretical exegesis. Such is the case of the "new
exegesis."
Msgr.
Francesco Spadafora
Courrier
de Rome, May
1994
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri (Roma)
|
