Dear Jonathan:

Let me add a couple of quotes to the ones you have already posted.

The opening narrative to Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu: 

Inspired by the Divine Spirit, the Sacred Writers composed those books, which God, in His paternal charity towards the human race, deigned to bestow on them in order "to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." This heaven-sent treasure Holy Church considers as the most precious source of doctrine on faith and morals. No wonderherefore that, as she received it intact from the hands of the Apostles, so she kept it with all care, defended it from every false and perverse interpretation and used it diligently as an instrument for securing the eternal salvation of souls, as almost countless documents in every age strikingly bear witness. In more recent Times New Roman, however, since the divine origin and the correct interpretation of the Sacred Writings have been very specially called in question, the Church has with even greater zeal and care undertaken their defense and protection. The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that "the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the oldvulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical." In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical "not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself." When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiterdicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.

The following quote is from Vatican II, Dei Verbum:

11. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

There is debate on this subject. Some theologians propose a limited inerrancy. To quote the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1169),  "Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purpose of God."

Other theologians propose an unlimited inerrancy. The Catholic Dictionary states that, unlimited inerrancy "is the belief that the Scripture is completely and comprehensively true in all that it intentionally affirms." This fuller form of inerrancy was taught by Church Fathers, Popes, and Councils. Thus, it seems clear that the Church teaches an unlimited inerrancy of the Bible.

But, what does this mean?

Protestant fundamentalists tend to believe in an inerrancy that proposes that every dotted "i" and every word is divinely inspired and infallible. For this to be true, God would not be respecting the personalities and cultural backgrounds of the writers of the Bible. Under this proposal the writers of the Bible would be stenographers taking dictation.

It would also mean that no mistakes or contradictions can exist in the Bible in any form. After all, while the writers were not privy to the scientific knowledge we have today and thus cannot be expected to be correct in scientific understanding. God, however, has a perfect knowledge of all scientific facts; after all he is the Creator of all things visible and invisible. The same is true about history.

The historical recollection of Biblical writers sometimes seems to be conflict. How do we explain two conflicting stories of some Biblical event such as the death of Judas?

St. Matthew reports in his Gospel, (Matt 27:5)  "And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself."

On the other hand, St. Luke reports in his Book of Acts, (Acts 1:18)  "Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." 

As the Ignatius Catholic Bible Commentary explains, "Matthew apparently recounts the manner of Judas' suicide (hanging), while Luke focuses on the results of the death (disembowelment)", which is what a rotting corpse will do.

According to another tradition, Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. Eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke.

As for the apparent contradiction of who bought the field, Judas did not buy the field directly as he threw the money down in the temple according to Scripture, but he did buy the field indirectly as the priests picked up the money that was given to Judas and bought the field as Scripture explains.

On the issue of where the Apostles were to receive the Holy Spirit—Jerusalem or Galilee?

A Palestinian guide in the holy land was asked about this. In his typically Palestinian manner, he said, "So? We commemorate the same event in Galilee and here, outside Bethany. There's no problem."

Jesus did tell the disciples to go to Galilee and he told them to wait in Jerusalem. In Matthew's Gospel the disciples were told to Galilee to met Jesus on a mountain. This is where He gave the disciples the Great Commission.

The descent of the Holy Spirit, however, happened on Pentecost in the Upper Room in Jerusalem. These two points the Church affirms.

The issue of chronology that is being misinterpreted. As one writer pointed out, "The command to tarry, if we are to believe Acts, didn't take place until 40 days after the resurrection. What I think happened is that the 40-day gap fits at the end of Luke between verses 24:44 and 24:45. The appearance in Galilee lies somewhere between those two verses and is one of the "many proofs" Jesus offered of his resurrection." 

There is no contradiction here, just a misunderstanding of chronology. 


Concerning whether the high priest was Abiathar (Mark 2:26), or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20)

When Jesus says that these things happened in the "days of Abiathar the high priest" even though we know from 1 Samuel his father, Ahimelech, was the high priest at the time, there is no contradiction. Ablathar was a future high priest. Jesus referred to the man by name and the title he will have.

For example, if we were to say, "The cherry tree was chopped down by President George Washington." We know that the legend of the cherry tree allegedly happened when Washington was a boy. Thus, we are not saying that the President chopped down the tree, but that George Washington, who in the future would become President, chopped down the tree. The title "President" merely anchors the fact that we are talking about a historical figure, George Washington, who was the President, and not some farmer by the same name. We all use this language convention.

Apparent contradictions are usually that, apparent, but not actual.

Details about geography, history, science, and such will not necessarily be accurate in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were not stenographers, they were men with differing personalities and varying understandings of history.

The Bible is inerrant in its religious message, not in its statements of science, history, geography and whatnot.

Nevertheless, much of what the Bible says about these non-religious issues can be found as correct. But, it does not matter if Jonah actually lived, or there are two stories of creation, or two stories of the death of Judas. Those things can usually be explained, but even if they cannot, so what? It is very unlikely that God created the world in six days. It does not matter. The point is that God is the creator. It matter not how He did it. The Church formally leaves the mechanics of creation up to science.

What all this does illustrate is the theological bankruptcy of Protestants, who have no authority to settle disputes among theologians and biblical scholars. As Catholics, we have the God-appointed Pope and Magisterium who guides us in understanding the Bible and the faith.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary