No. 61 | Roman Theological Forum | Article Index | Study Program | November 1995 |
by Brian W. Harrison
Part II. THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF SPIRITUS PARACLITUSThese and other accomplishments, which every day are becoming more widely diffused and more firmly established, ... give Us firm hope that in the future the veneration, use, and knowledge of the Sacred Writings will make constant progress, for the good of souls. But this will happen only as long as the program of biblical studies prescribed by Leo XIII, and explained still more admirably and completely by his successors, is upheld by everyone with increasing firmness, eagerness and confidence. For that program, confirmed and extended by Us, is in fact the only one which is safe and proved by experience. 50The Pope of Divino afflante Spiritu, therefore, exhorts us to return with careful attention to the encyclical of Benedict XV, since this was certainly the most authoritative among those documents of Leo XIII's successors which "explained still more admirably and completely" the program laid down in Providentissimus. Spiritus Paraclitus was issued in the middle of that half-century between 1893 and 1943, at a time when the progress of the new biblical movement set in motion by Leo XIII could be duly evaluated in the light of experience, and when the resulting hermeneutical developments later recommended by Pius XII were being carefully delineated and purified from rationalistic distortions and exaggerations.
Every day she should give you a definite account of her Bible-reading. ... For her the Bible must take the place of silks and jewels. ... Let her learn the Psalter first, and find her recreation in its songs; let her learn from Solomon's Proverbs the way of life, from Ecclesiastes how to trample on the world. In Job she will find an example of patient virtue. Thence let her pass to the Gospels; they should always be in her hands. She should steep herself in the Acts and the Epistles. And when she has enriched her soul with these treasures she should commit to memory the Prophets, the Heptateuch, Kings and Chronicles, Esdras and Esther: then she can learn the Canticle of Canticles without any fear. 53The admiration which Jerome had for the astonishing erudition, as well as the sanctity, of another lady, Paula, is recalled by the Pope in his citation of an epitaph written on the occasion of Paula's death. Here the great Doctor also seems concerned, in passing, to rebut the contemporary prejudices of those who would belittle the intellectual capacities of women:
I will tell you another thing about her, though evil-disposed people may cavil at it: she determined to learn Hebrew, a language which I myself, with immense labour and toil from my youth upwards, have only partly learned, and which I even now dare not cease studying lest it should quit me. But Paula learned it, and so well that she could chant the Psalms in Hebrew, and could speak it, too, without any trace of a Latin accent. We can see the same thing even now in her daughter Eustochium. 54Benedict XV's repeated appeals to St. Jerome's insistence on the necessity of regular Bible study for all Christians, lay men and women as well as clerics, also strikes another distinctly modern note; or, rather, it reminds us that what some Catholics regard as a brand-new achievement of the 'modern' Church is really very traditional. For the revisionist biblical scholars we have already criticized often seek to 'revolutionize' Vatican Council II as much as Divino afflante Spiritu. How often have we heard it asserted, for instance, that until the Council promulgated its pastoral recommendations on Scripture, 55 Catholic Church authorities had for centuries taken a negative and 'fearful' approach towards the use of the inspired Books by the laity, because of a 'Counter-Reformation mentality' that associated emphasis on the Bible with the danger of Protestant heresy!
Hence, as far as in us lies, we, Venerable Brethren, shall, with St. Jerome as our guide, never desist from urging the faithful to read daily the Gospels, the Acts and the Epistles (numquam desinemus, ut [Christifideles omnes] ... Evangelia, itemque Acta Apostolorum et Epistolas cotidiana lectione pervolutare ... studeant), so as to gather thence food for their souls.We hear a good deal today about the post-conciliar "biblical renewal" which has supposedly brought a much better and more widely diffused knowledge of Scripture to the laity. Let us hope that this is so - although this writer has doubts about the value of many recent courses in Scripture, whose presenters have often seemed more interested in "updating" lay Catholics with the latest unapproved critical speculations, or in promoting a left-wing "liberationist" or feminist reading of Scripture, than in explaining the life and authentic teaching of Our Lord. Whatever about that, it remains true that Benedict XV was no less zealous than any Church leader of the modern conciliar era in encouraging Bible reading among the laity. And we suspect that the modest, but eminently practical, program outlined in Spiritus Paraclitus - simply distributing copies of the most important and readily intelligible parts of the New Testament to as many Catholics as possible, and encouraging them to read God's Word for themselves - may well have been more educationally and spiritually fruitful than many of our much-vaunted post-conciliar seminars and adult education courses on Scripture. (These in any case tend to reach only an élite of already-committed lay people, not the masses of merely nominal Catholics who most need to become acquainted with the Gospel.)
Our thoughts naturally turn just now to the Society of St. Jerome, which we ourselves were instrumental in founding; its success has gladdened us, and we trust that the future will see a great impulse given to it. The object of this Society is to put into the hands of as many people as possible the Gospels and Acts, so that every Christian family may have them and become accustomed to reading them. This we have much at heart, for we have seen how useful it is. We earnestly hope, then, that similar Societies will be founded in your dioceses and affiliated to the parent Society here. Commendation, too, is due to Catholics in other countries who have published the entire New Testament, as well as selected portions of the Old, in neat and simple form so as to popularize their use. Much again must accrue to the Church of God when numbers of people thus approach this table of heavenly instruction which the Lord provided through the ministry of his Prophets, Apostles and Doctors for the entire Christian world. 57
Jerome's first rule is careful study of the actual words so that we may be perfectly certain what the writer really does say. He was most careful to consult the original text, to compare various versions, and, if he discovered any mistake in them, to explain it and thus make the text perfectly clear. 61Another emphasis of 'post-conciliar' Scripture studies which we find anticipated in Spiritus Paraclitus is the human or "incarnational" aspect of the inspired Word in Scripture. In the most recent important statement of the Church's Magisterium on Sacred Scripture, Pope John Paul II's allocution of 23 April 1993 on the 100th anniversary of Providentissimus Deus and the 50th of Divino afflante Spiritu, this is the principal theme, expounded mainly in the section entitled "The Harmony between Catholic Exegesis and the Mystery of the Incarnation." 62 The Holy Father sums up the true sense in which this "harmony" is to be understood in what could well be seen as the most important statement of the allocution - a reference to Pius XII's encyclical and the Vatican Constitution on Divine Revelation:
The strict relationship uniting the inspired biblical texts with the mystery of the Incarnation was expressed by the Encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu in the following terms: "Just as the substantial Word of God became like men in every respect except sin, so too the words of God, expressed in human languages, became like human language in every respect except error" (EB, 559). Repeated almost literally by the conciliar Constitution Dei Verbum (13), this statement sheds light on a parallelism rich in meaning. 63This appreciation of the "condescension" of God in speaking within the confines and limits of human language - and yet without error - was notably expressed in antiquity by St. John Chrysostom, as Pius XII noted further on in the passage cited here by John Paul II. It has also attracted renewed attention by some of the best pre- and post-conciliar Scripture scholars of this century. 64 But if we depend on those writers who accept the contemporary revisionist view of recent exegetical history, we will again be left with the impression that nothing of much value on this subject was admitted by the Church's Magisterium before Divino afflante Spiritu - or even before Vatican II.
Vatican II, however, ... opened up new vistas, but these have not been used to advantage; they have not even been noticed. ... We note in the first place a novelty in the use of the word "author" in Dei Verbum. In continuity with Vatican I, the Constitution affirms that the sacred books "have God as their author" (11, 1). But this formula, more than in the past, must be understood in an analogical sense, since, in the same context, and for the first time in a document of the Magisterium, the word "author" is also applied to the inspired writers. Indeed, the Constitution insists on this point: when the biblical authors, under the action of God, have produced their written texts, they have acted as "true authors" (here the contribution of Divino afflante Spiritu is integrated). 67Msgr. Colombo uses the same "novelty" of Vatican II as a key point in his argument that Artola is correct in discerning a "trajectory" between Vatican I and Vatican II which can be described by the slogan "from 'God, author of the sacred books' to 'the Bible as a literary work.'" 68 Referring to the points in Vatican II which supposedly manifest this "trajectory," he writes:
First of all there is the explicit attribution of the quality of "author" to the inspired writer, reinforced in the final redaction of the text ... by the adjective "true," and hence to be understood in the proper sense of literary author, or writer. A consequence of this is that it renders problematical the attribution [of authorship] to God - the only authorship recognized in the texts of the preceding Council and the preceding magisterium. 69Then, building a house of cards on top of this castle of sand, Msgr. Colombo gravely informs us that this and other supposedly novel "elements" in Vatican II's teaching now render fatally obsolete (fatalmente obsolete), because fundamentally improper, such expressions (which are still current) as 'the divine book' ('libro divino') to describe the Bible. Insofar as it is taken to mean that God is the author of the Bible, this expression is now seen as not very coherent with the intention of the Council (meno coerente con l'intenzionalità del Concilio). 70
He never questions but that the individual authors of these Books (singuli eorum auctores) worked freely under the Divine afflatus (operam afflanti Deo libere naverint), each of them in accordance with his individual nature and character (pro sua quisque natura atque ingenio). Thus he is not merely concerned to affirm as a general principle - what indeed pertains to all the sacred writers - that they followed the Spirit of God as they wrote, in such sort that God is the principal cause of all that Scripture means and says; but he also accurately describes what pertains to each individual writer. In each case Jerome shows us how, in composition, in language, in style and mode of expression, each of them uses his own gifts and powers (quemque facultatibus ac viribus usos esse); hence he is able to portray and describe for us their individual character, almost their very features; this is especially so in his treatment of the Prophets and of St. Paul. 79After this, what remains of the "novelty" - supposedly fraught with such far-reaching and "problematical" implications for the divine authorship of Scripture - which revisionist scholars claim to have found in Vatican Council II? The Council's reference to God's use of the human authors' "gifts and powers" is itself a quotation from the above passage of Spiritus Paraclitus; but since the relevant part of that passage was quoted by Pius XII in Divino afflante Spiritu, and since the Council in turn cited only this quotation, 80 those who think that serious Catholic biblical scholarship really only began in 1943 may never learn its ultimate source. Even when Spiritus Paraclitus is explicitly cited by Vatican II, Fr. de la Potterie seems to ignore the footnote reference. When Dei Verbum speaks of the need to read and interpret Scripture "in the same Spirit in which it was written," he assures us:
Certainly, this principle was already invoked before Vatican II (fin da prima del Vaticano II), but in a secularized manner: "in the spirit (with a small 's') of the human author" ("nello spirito {con la minuscola} dell'autore humano") ... In Dei Verbum, 12, 3 Spiritu has a capital letter, and designates the Holy Spirit. 81Now, in the Council's footnote 9 to this statement, both Spiritus Paraclitus and St. Jerome are cited, referring to EB 469; but on turning to that passage we find that these authorities - both of them decidedly pre-Vatican II - in fact use a capital 'S,' signifying the Holy Spirit. One final example: Fr. de la Potterie claims to have unearthed yet another conciliar novelty, that of proposing to "integrate Scripture with Revelation," and tells us that, with this end in view, Vatican II "goes so far as to make the audacious statement (giunge fino a dire audacemente) that the study of Sacred Scripture should be like the soul of theology." 82 "Audacious"? Perhaps "venerable" or "time-honoured" would be more apt descriptions, for at this point (note 3 to Dei Verbum, 24) Vatican II refers us not to one, but two pre-conciliar encyclicals, Providentissimus Deus and Spiritus Paraclitus, 83 as precedents for recommending Scripture as the "soul of theology."
All the Fathers and Doctors were so utterly convinced that the divine Writings ... are absolutely immune from all error that they laboured with no less ingenuity than devotion to harmonize and reconcile those many passages which might seem to involve some contradiction or discrepancy (and these are for the most part the same passages as are now raised as objections in the name of modern science). They professed unanimously that these Books, entire and in their parts, were equally inspired by God Himself, who, in speaking through the sacred authors could not have uttered anything at all which was foreign to the truth. What Augustine wrote to Jerome is equally valid for all: "For I confess to your charity that I have learnt to regard those books of Scripture now called canonical - and them alone - with such awe and honour that I most firmly believe none of their authors has erred in writing anything. And if I come across anything in those Writings which troubles me because it seems contrary to the truth, I will unhesitatingly lay the blame elsewhere: perhaps the copy is untrue to the original; or the translator may not have rendered the passage faithfully; or perhaps I just do not understand it." 88The whole thrust of Fr. de la Potterie's highly questionable reading of Vatican II is to downplay and minimize the 'profane' aspects (history, cosmology, and so on) of the biblical record, distinguishing them so sharply from the supernatural or "heavenly" aspects - which are supposedly the only concern of "biblical truth" - that he leaves the former open to error. Fr. de la Potterie displays a certain joyous relief at having been dispensed by Vatican II (so he thinks) from the arduous and "concordist" task of having to defend the truth of all these merely earthly or human assertions in the Bible:
... the pre-conciliar problematic of the absolute inerrancy of all the Bible's propositions has been completely transcended (completamente superata). This does not mean that the idea of the Bible's truth has been abandoned. On the contrary! But the "truth" is now seen on another plane, which is no longer just that of historical truth (la "verità" è vista ormai su un altro piano, che non è più quello della sola verità storica). ... Truth, taken in this biblical sense, designates here divine Revelation, ... to the order of which the reality of "salvation" also belongs. ... It can therefore be seen that from this perspective we are clearly going beyond (si supera chiaramente) the level of the human sciences, among which is the science of language; we are also going beyond the level of the mere historical truth of the biblical accounts (il livello della sola verità storica dei racconti biblici); the "truth" of Scripture is that of its deep meaning (senso profondo), of the revelatory and divine meaning of the Word of God, which goes "beyond" ("al di là") the literal and historical sense of the individual texts, because it unveils the plan of salvation, the mystery of Revelation. 89It is in reading such passages that one can see the pressing relevance today of Spiritus Paraclitus; for it is not easy to see how a hermeneutical approach which identifies "the 'truth' of Scripture" with its salvific, "revelatory," "deep," and "divine" meaning could be very different in its practical applications from another approach rebuked long ago by Benedict XV's encyclical. In Providentissimus his predecessor Leo XIII had already clearly and repeatedly rejected the idea that error of any sort could be found in Scripture; but because in one passage he associated this false opinion with the idea that "divine inspiration extends only to those things regarding faith and morals," 90 some Catholic exegetes in the following decades developed an ingenious theory which professed an unlimited extension of the Bible's inspiration, but not of its inerrancy. Pope Benedict gave this more sophisticated - but still sophistical - theory short shrift:
Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these [i.e., Leo XIII's] limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavouring 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. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science! 91Benedict XV was not, of course, the only Pope to condemn this exaggerated and perilous distinction between the divine and human (or sacred and profane) aspects of the Bible's content - although it is his condemnation which is the most pointed, detailed and explicit. We have already seen that Pope Pius XII made clear his wholehearted endorsement of the teaching of Spiritus Paraclitus, as well as of Providentissimus. 92 But it is worth adding that, in recalling Leo XIII's original censure of rationalistic errors, Pius XII added his own personal condemnation of the misleading distinction we are considering. This is found right at the beginning of Divino afflante Spiritu, in a passage which is rarely, if ever, quoted by the revisionist exponents of this encyclical. After referring to Vatican I's solemn affirmation of the plenary inspiration of Scripture, Pius XII recalled the continued undermining of that doctrine which prompted his predecessor's intervention in 1893:
Subsequently, however, certain Catholic writers dared to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture to matters of faith and morals alone, relegating everything else, whether of a physical or historical character, to the status of "obiter dicta" which (so it was claimed) are in no way connected to the faith. But since this was opposed to [the First Vatican Council's] solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, which insists that the biblical books, "entire and with all their parts," are endowed with such divine authority as to enjoy freedom from all error, Our Predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII responded in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus ... by justly and fittingly striking down those erroneous opinions, while at the same time laying down very wise precepts and norms for the study of the Divine Books. 93In short, it seems rather disingenuous for Fr. de la Potterie to describe the "pre-conciliar" position which affirmed "the absolute inerrancy of all propositions in the Bible" as being nothing more than the ephemeral opinion of a particular theological school ("the concordist tradition of the 19th century"). Benedict XV's ample exposition of the thought of St. Jerome made it clear that this was the great Doctor's firmly held faith, 94 and Leo XIII, whose encyclical was confirmed unreservedly by his successors, declared that it is no less than "the ancient and constant faith of the Church, which, after also having been defined by solemn judgments of the Councils of Florence and Trent, was at length confirmed and more expressly declared by the [First] Vatican Council." 95
In the last hundred years we have moved from an understanding wherein inspiration guaranteed that the Bible was totally inerrant to an understanding wherein inerrancy is limited to the Bible's teaching of "that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation." In this long journey of thought the concept of inerrancy was not rejected but was seriously modified to fit the evidence of biblical criticism which showed that the Bible was not inerrant in questions of science, of history, and even of time-conditioned religious beliefs. 98Ambiguous and misleading translations do nothing to promote an understanding of the Council's true meaning. Within the next year or so the present writer hopes to publish a detailed study of this conciliar passage in which (on the basis of its textual history, the relator's official explanations to the Council Fathers, 99 certain generally ignored nuances of the Latin terminology and syntax, and the rigorously traditional doctrine contained in the references given in footnote 5 100) it will be argued that the true meaning of Vatican II's teaching on biblical inerrancy is expressed in the following translation of the last two sentences of Dei Verbum, 11:
Therefore, since everything affirmed by the inspired authors, or sacred writers, must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must in consequence acknowledge that the books of Scripture teach the truth firmly, faithfully, and without error - keeping in mind that it was for the sake of our salvation that God wanted this truth recorded in the form of Sacred Writings. Thus, "all Scripture is inspired By God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). 101Few readers are likely to dispute that this version presents the Council's teaching in a rather different light from that suggested by the standard translations of this passage. This new (and, I think, more faithful) translation makes much clearer Vatican II's harmony with the traditional doctrine of inerrancy - and thus, its discord with the very diluted version of that doctrine which for thirty years has been so widely propagated in the name of the Council.
We fully approve, of course, the project of those who, in order to help themselves and others find a way out of difficulties in the sacred text, are using new avenues and new methods of investigation, relying on every means of assistance that can be afforded by critical scholarship in the effort to clear up those difficulties. 108The Pontiff immediately went to add, however: "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." 109 In regard to the specific question of literary genres, this was treated together with the theory of "tacit quotations" which we have already mentioned. The Pope rebuked
... those who, in appealing to certain principles which indeed are valid if kept within certain definite limits, abuse them to the extent of shaking the foundations of biblical truth and undermining the common Catholic doctrine handed down from the Fathers. If Jerome were alive now, he would certainly be hurling his sharpest verbal missiles at those who set aside the mind and judgment of the Church and take refuge too readily in the appeal to "implicit quotations" and "narratives historical only in appearance." No less severe would he be with those who claim to have found in the sacred Scriptures certain literary genres which would be incompatible with the integral and perfect truth of God's word; or with those who speculate about the origins of the biblical books in such a way as to weaken their authority, or even destroy it altogether. 110Thus, it is not the principle of "literary genres" (or of "narratives historical only in appearance") which the Pope condemns, but only the abuse of that principle, either by abandoning too quickly one's confidence in the historical intention of the sacred author as a facile means of explaining away difficulties, or of pretending to find "literary genres" which in any case would be incompatible with the Bible's divine inspiration and inerrancy. (These would include, for instance, 'legends' and 'folkloric history', which are by nature misleading or deceptive: they are stories about events believed by simple or primitive people to have really taken place in the past, but which never in fact took place.)
What can we say of men who in expounding the very Gospels so whittle away the human trust we should repose in them as to overturn Divine faith in them? They refuse to allow that the things which Christ said or did have come down to us unchanged and entire through witnesses who carefully committed to writing what they themselves had seen and heard. They maintain - and particularly in their treatment of the Fourth Gospel - that much is due of course to the Evangelists - who, however, added much from their own imaginations; but much, too, is due to narratives compiled by the faithful at other periods, the result, of course, being that the twin streams now flowing in the same channel cannot be distinguished from one another. Not thus did Jerome and Augustine and the other Doctors of the Church understand the historical trustworthiness of the Gospels. 125Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in the recent Italian publication which has repeatedly been cited in these pages, recognizes the severity of that "state of emergency" (stato d'emergenza) 126 in which the Church's faith now finds itself as a result of the revisionary approach of many biblical scholars to Tradition and the Magisterium. He writes: "Dogma, deprived of its scriptural foundation, is no longer holding up. The Bible, which has separated itself from dogma, has become a document of the past which belongs to the past." 127 Today, therefore, in the effort to overcome this crisis, should we not all heed the lessons taught by Benedict XV's encyclical? Its assertive vigilance against errors which today are once again widespread, combined with its eminently pastoral approach, its spiritual emphasis, and its encouragement of Scripture scholars to adopt what would be in effect a neo-Patristic method (i.e., a synthesis of modern historical and scientific knowledge with the basic hermeneutical approach of St. Jerome and the other great Fathers) - all this would furnish a harmonious complement to Vatican Council II's doctrinal and pastoral teaching on the Bible. If seriously implemented, it would surely do much to lead the People of God to a truer, more extensive, and more fruitful knowledge of Sacred Scripture - ignorance of which, as Jerome insisted, "is ignorance of Christ."