Apologetics for the Masses #411: Did Bishop Robert Barron Teach Heresy?

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

Does Bishop Robert Barron Teach that the Bible Contains Errors?

General Comments

Hey folks,

One last reminder for those of you in the Birmingham area - I will be doing another Lunch and Learn this Wednesday, December 15th, at Meet on Morris ( 2325 Morris Ave, Birmingham, AL 35203). There is no cost to attend. I'll be giving a short presentation - 10 minutes or so - during the lunch on Synodality and the Synod on Synodality. What the heck is synodality? What does it mean for the Church? Is this a new teaching? Then we'll open it up for Q&A on any topic you have questions about.
Bring your lunch or order a Newk's box lunch ($12). Seating is limited so please RSVP by sending me an email, by noon on Tuesday, to: john@biblechristiansociety.com, and also let me know if you want a box lunch. Hope you can join us for the fellowship, the networking, and to learn more about the Faith.

Introduction

Okay, did the subject line get your attention? About a month ago, someone sent me a link to a YouTube video of a relatively short talk by Bishop Robert Barron in which he was speaking about the Vatican II document, Dei Verbum - https://youtu.be/IRpy199nJWo. In this video, Bishop Barron seems to be advocating for something called "limited inerrancy" of Scripture. "Limited inerrancy" is the position taken by a number of "theologians" over the last couple of centuries which says, essentially, that there are errors in the Bible, just not errors in the areas of faith and morals - i.e., areas that are related to our salvation. So, you could, for example, have scientific errors in the Bible or historical errors in the Bible, just not errors in the areas of faith and morals.

That position is opposed to the traditional and long standing position of the Church of "unlimited inerrancy" (aka: strict inerrancy or absolute inerrancy) - that there are no errors of any kind, whatsoever, in the Bible as a whole or in any of its parts. So, the question is: First, did Bishop Barron actually say that there are errors in the Bible and did he indeed advocate for limited inerrancy? And, second, if he did, is the teaching of limited inerrancy a heresy?

Well, let's analyze what he said and what the Church teaches. In the video - which is only about 22 minutes long - Bishop Barron reads selected quotes from Dei Verbum and then discusses them. I want to start off here by giving a few quotes from the video that are pertinent to this analysis and then come back and make my comments vis-a-vis those quotes. Hope you enjoy...

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Bishop Robert Barron from Dei Verbum Video

Towards the beginning of the video, he reads a quote about divine revelation which says that God speaks to men through revelation and how this revelation, essentially, reaches its high point in the person of Jesus Christ. And how revelation is passed from Christ to the Apostles and then from the Apostles to their successors, the bishops, and that the bishops are "to maintain this revelation in its integrity."

He then reads another quote from Dei Verbum and comments on it: "'All of Sacred Scripture, both Old Testament and New, is...sacred and canonical'. Now why? Because all of it, Dei Verbum teaches, has been written under the influence of the Holy Spirit and truly has 'God as their Author.'"

Then he spoke of the nature of inspiration: "The whole Scripture, in a very real sense, has God as its author, the Holy Spirit has inspired the Scriptures, but - now here's the important qualifier - I'm quoting now: 'In composing the sacred books, God chose men so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and ony those things which He [God] wanted.'"

Now, this is where he starts to get into limited inerrancy: "Does Divine Authorship...mean that every detail of the Bible must be held as true?" Quoting Dei Verbum he says: "'Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, if follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowleged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth' - now here I want to highlight - 'which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.'"

"We must, furthermore, read it [the Bible] under the influence of the Church's apostolic teaching tradition. Then we can distinguish between what's really integral to the biblical teaching and what's simply in the bible that we don't have to attend to as true."

"There are things in the Bible that we would recognize from a scientific standpoint as simply not the case. People try to read the book of Genesis as a physics or biology text, well that's just not the right way to do it. There are certain cultural assumptions that are present in the Bible - a good example will be slavery. Is slavery presented in the Bible? Well, yeah, it's in there. But, is the bible teaching that slavery is somehow legitimate? Well, no I would say."

"We have to distinguish...'The truth that God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.' That's what matters - the salvific truth is coming clearly from the Holy Spirit. The salvific truth reflected in the great themes and patterns and trajectories of the Bible, not every little detail that's in the Bible. It's a very important distinction."

Then he mentions that Dei Verbum emphasizes that, for a proper understanding of the Bible, we have to take into account genres or literary forms of the text. He says he is sometimes asked, "Do you take the Bible literally or not?" To which he responds, "Do you take the library literally? Depends on what section you're in, right?"

---------------------------------------------

Bishop Barron Video

My Comments

If, as Bishop Barron goes on to pretty much say, there are indeed errors in the Bible, then how can one say: 1) That the bishops are maintaining "revelation"? Does God reveal error in His revelation? 2) That this error-filled "revelation" has integrity? Error has no integrity.

Bishop Barron Video

My Comments

Keep that in mind - "all" of Sacred Scripture, says Dei Verbum..."all of it," says Bishop Barron...has been written under the influence of the Holy Spirit and "truly" has God as the its Author. Now, even though Dei Verbum says, "all," does that necessarily mean every single part of Scripture...every single jot and tittle? Is "all" being used here in an absolute sense? Or, could "all" just mean, for example, "generally"? As if, in general, Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but there may be places, here and there, where its not inspired by the Holy Spirit? I'll give a couple of quotes from papal encyclicals in just a bit that will clear that question up - if the answer is not already obvious to you

Bishop Barron Video

My Comments

The "whole" Scripture has God as its author, in a "very real sense". Again, same question as above. Does "whole" mean absolutely all of it? And, notice, the nature of inspiration is such that sacred authors, according to Dei Verbum, consigned to writing "everything and only those things" that God wanted written. It seems to me, although I know I am just a poor ignorant boy from small town Alabama, that if the sacred authors only wrote what God wanted written, then if there is error in the Bible - any error - then that's because God is the author of error. Or, the only other possibility, is that for some unknown reason, God, even though He knew it was error, wanted error in the Bible. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. God made a mistake...or a number of mistakes...while inspiring the sacred authors? Or, God deliberately wanted mistakes in the Bible?

Bishop Barron Video

My Comments

Boom! there it is! That one little phrase - "for the sake of our salvation - in this one little sentence of this one little document is used by so many "theologians" - and it seems Bishop Barron, as well - to "prove" the limited inerrancy of Scripture. You see, the argument goes, it's only those truths that are in the Scriptures for the "sake of our salvation" that are "without error". Everything else could indeed be riddled with error. Which means, according to the limited inerrancy adherents, that only the parts of Scripture that deal with the areas of faith and morals are without error. All the other parts of Scripture could be riddled with error. Well, my first question is: Doesn't the Bible say that, "Man shall live by every word that comes from the mouth of God?" Or does it say, "Man shall live by every word pertaining only to faith and morals that comes from the mouth of God?" By the way, doesn't every word of God pertain to faith and/or morals?

If Scripture is the Word of God, then we're told to live by every word of it. But, if some of it could have error in it, then those parts can't be the Word of God. So, why do we have all of the parts of the Bible that are not, according to the limited inerrancy advocates, free from error? Why do we have the parts that don't pertain to faith and morals? Why hasn't the Church just gone through and tossed out all of the parts that are apparently not pertinent to our salvation, since they could have error in them and could be steering us wrong? Wouldn't that make the Bible a whole lot easier to read? I mean, is the Old Testament really necessary for our salvation? Yeah, it points to Jesus and all, but we don't need it to point to Jesus any more, He's already come and gone. No need for signs from the Old Testament to point to Him, right?

Bishop Barron Video

My Comments

Thank you! We must, indeed, read the Bible under the influence of the Church's "apostolic teaching tradition". Amen! And, what does the Church's apostolic teaching tradition say about inerrancy - is it limited or unlimited?

   Let’s start with an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII called Providentissimus Deus. In this encyclical from Pope Leo XIII, written in 1893, the Pope states the following: “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...this system cannot be tolerated.”
     Did you catch that? It is wrong and forbidden the Pope said to narrow the inspiration of Scripture to only faith and morals...this system cannot be tolerated. Pretty strong words. Again, from Providentissimus Deus, “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.” People who claim errors in the Bible either “pervert” the Catholic notion of inspiration, or they make God the author of error! Can God be the author of error? No!
   But, what about those hard to understand passages of Scripture? Those passages of Scripture that sometimes seem to conflict with one another, or which seem to conflict with scientific or historical fact as we know it? Does the Church just gloss over these passages, or ignore them altogether? No? Again, from Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus, “...all the Fathers and Doctors [of the Church] agreed that the divine writings, as left by the [sacred authors], are free from all error, [and] they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance.”
   The Doctors and Fathers of the Church recognized problematic passages. But, how was their reaction to a problematic passage different from the reaction of today’s theologians? Listen to St. Augustine’s words to St. Jerome as quoted in Providentissimus Deus, St. Augustine to St. Jerome, “On my own part I confess...that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty [in other words, that there was a copying error...Bibles all being copied by hand at the time] or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.” St. Augustine, one of the greatest minds the Church has ever produced, telling us that if there is something in the Bible which seems at odds with the truth, then the problem must be with his understanding, and not with the Bible. His understanding of the literal interpretation...of the author’s intent...must be at fault, not the Bible. Oh, could many theologians today use a dose of such humility.
   Now, move forward fifty years to 1943. Pope Pius XII and the encyclical, Divino Afflante Spritu. Paragraph #1: “...not merely because [the books of the canon] contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy spirit, they have God for their author...When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition... [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, [when these Catholic writers] ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals...Leo XIII...justly and rightly condemned these errors.” Pope Pius XII says that Pope Leo XIII justly and rightly condemned this false teaching. Also from Divino Afflante Spiritu, Paragraph #3, “Finally, it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred’...” Absolutely wrong and forbidden to admit to error in Scripture. And, Paragraph #37, this is a wonderful analogy: “For as the substantial Word of God [Jesus Christ] became like to men in all things, ‘except sin,’ so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.” The words of Scripture are like human speech in every respect except error!
   Move forward to 1950. Again, Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical titled Humani Generis, paragraph #22: “For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition [this is Vatican Council I] that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again 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.” This is an opinion that has been often condemned throughout the history of the Church.
   Now, let’s move forward fifteen years to Vatican Council II. To the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, also known as Dei Verbum. Dei Verbum, Paragraph #9: “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.” Hmmm...sounds like what we’ve already been hearing. But, let’s go to Dei Verbum, Paragraph #11: “Since, therefore, all that the...sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures. Thus ‘all Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness...” [2 Tim 3:16].
   That one phrase, “...which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.” That one phrase, “for the sake of our salvation”, has been interpreted, by those folks wanting to claim errors in the Bible, that one phrase, “for the sake of our salvation,” has been interpreted by these folks as meaning, “The Bible does not err in matters of faith and morals, which are essential 'for the sake of our salvation,' but since matters of history and science are not essential 'for the sake of our salvation,' it can and does contain historical and scientific errors. They get all of that out of the phrase, “for the sake of our salvation”.
   But, what these folks are doing, these modern, sophisticated Biblical scholars, they are taking this phrase way out of context. They are reading this passage from Dei Verbum in much the same way a fundamentalist reads the Bible, they take it out of context. In that very same sentence of Dei Verbum, Paragraph #11, the very same sentence which contains the phrase, “for the sake of our salvation,”; in that same sentence it also says, quote: “all that the sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit.” Are these people who interpret “for the sake of our salvation” to mean that there are errors in the Bible...do these people mean to say that error, any error, even scientific and historical error, is being affirmed by the Holy Spirit? Are they saying that the Holy Spirit makes mistakes? It certainly seems that way.
   And in the following sentence, the Council Fathers of Vatican II quote 2 Tim 3:16: “all Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction...” Well, if there are errors in some parts of Scripture, then all Scripture is not profitable for teaching. If the Council Fathers are saying to us that there are errors in Scripture when they use the phrase “for the sake of our salvation,” then why quote 2 Tim 3:16 which says that all Scripture is profitable for teaching? Were the Council Fathers of Vatican II idiots? Do they contradict themselves not only from one sentence to the next, but even within the same sentence? “The Bible has no errors, yes it does, no it doesn’t...” No! Read the passage in context and you will see that never did the Vatican Council teach that the Bible has errors in it...any errors!
   Another thing these people fail to take into account. If you ever read the documents of Vatican II, you will see that they quite often reference other Church documents so as to provide the readers with background material that will help them better understand what’s being said in the Vatican II documents. Well, what documents do you think Dei Verbum, Paragraph #11, references? You got it, Vatican I, Providentissimus Deus, and Divino Afflante Spiritu...the documents, and the very same passages in those documents, that I have just quoted to you...which say, no errors, whatsoever, at all, anywhere, in any part, of Sacred Scripture. In other words, the very sentence where the Church supposedly changes its teaching on Divine Inspiration, supposedly changes its teaching on the unlimited inerrancy of Scripture, that very sentence references several of the Church Councils and documents which contain the very teaching that is supposedly being changed. That makes no sense whatsoever. Why reference the old teachings in support of the new teaching, when the new teaching is completely at odds with the old teaching?! That’s not very smart!

So, the apostolic teaching tradition of the Church, is that the inerrancy of Scripture is unlimited. It is not limited to only those areas that speak of faith and morals. The documents I quoted are very clear that the teaching of limited inerrancy of Scripture is "absolutely wrong and forbidden" and has been "often condemned" by the Church! And there are many other documents I could cite here that support this position. Documents from the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I. Other encyclicals, such as On the Doctrine of the Modernists (Pius X), Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists (Pius X), and Spiritus Paraclitus (Benedict XV). In fact, here is one of the "Errors of the Modernists" condemned by the Church: "Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error."

Given all of that - and there is more - it is pretty obvious that the Church's apostolic teaching tradition teaches the unlimited inerrancy of Scripture. And, given Bishop Barron's own statement that we must "read the Bible under the influence of of the apostolic teaching tradition," I am at a loss as to how he could then come to believe, and teach, the limited inerrancy of Scripture. How can he say that there are things that are "simply in the bible," but that we "don't have to attend to [them] as true?" How can you take one phrase, from all of the documents that have been written on the subject - going back to at least St. Augustine, but probably farther - and interpret that one phrase to teach the exact opposite of everything else that is said on the topic in the Church Councils and the writings of the Church Fathers and the Popes? How?! And, how can you justify taking that one little phrase, from that one little document, and using it to trump everything else that has been said on the subject?!

I could go on with this topic for hours. But, suffice it to say, that, No! Vatican II did not change the Church's teaching on the unlimited inerrancy of Scripture. The Church teaches that there are no errors in Scripture of any kind, otherwise, God would be the author of error. It's a simple syllogism: Can God commit error? No. Is God the Author of Scripture? Yes. Therefore, there are no errors in Scripture. Period!

Bishop Barron Video

My Comments

First of all, he is conflating no error vs. error with right vs. wrong. Is slavery in the Bible? Yes. Is slavery wrong. Yes. He tries to use that to show that there can be "errors" in the Bible - such as slavery - but no errors in faith and morals - the Bible nowhere teaches that slavery is a good thing. Bad example, as it does not apply to the argument of unlimited vs. limited inerrancy. Furthermore, this statement about things in the Bible that we would "recognize from a scientific standpoint as simply not the case". Well, yes, if you read those parts of the Bible as a Fundamentalist reads them, not discerning between a literal reading of Scripture and a literalist reading of Scripture (I'll explain the difference below) then you can find all sorts of errors - scientific and otherwise - in the Bible.

Catholics, as Bishop Barron mentioned, are to read the Bible taking into account things such as the literary genre, and also the historical context of the times, the idioms of the language, and other such things in order to properly understand the intent of the sacred author. What was the author of this or that book really trying to say? That is what we call the literal "sense" of Scripture - the meaning the author intended to convey. Let me give you an example of how a literal reading of Scripture vs. a literalist reading (that's what it says, that's what it means) of Scripture can give you different understandings of the same passage.

In the Book of Joshua, chapter 10, verses 12 and 13. The Israelites are whooping up on their enemies, but the sun is going down and they may not have time to complete their victory. So, Joshua orders the sun to stand still in verse 12 and, in verse 13, Scripture says the sun stood still. “See,” people will say, there is a sample of scientific error in the Bible. The sun does not move around the earth. It would have been the earth that stood still, it would have stopped rotating. This shows that Scripture contains the scientific error of geocentrism...that the sun revolves around the earth.” Scientific error!
Does it? Was the author’s intent to give a science lesson or merely to convey the fact that it was daylight for a lot longer than it should have been? If I ask you what time the sun went down today? Would you laugh at me and say, “You still believe the sun goes up and goes down. That is a scientific error, John. The sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, so it neither comes up nor goes down.” No, you wouldn’t say that! Do you see how we speak of things that seem to have, on the surface, scientific implications, but we in no way intend to assert scientific fact? Just so with the sacred authors. Those who find error in Scripture are interpreting Scripture in the same way the fundamentalists do...they look at the words on the page and go no further. They do not look at the author’s intent. And I can make the same kind of distinctions with the six "days" of Creation and the two different and, seemingly, contradictory Creation accounts, and all the other places where people supposedly find "scientific error".

So, no, the scientific "errors" that so many people point to in Scripture, and Bishop Barron is apparently one of them, can no more be called "scientific error" than saying the sun came up at 6:15 this morning can be called a scientific error. Or saying that it was raining cats and dogs can be called a scientific error. Or saying that a person wears their heart on their sleeve can be called a scientific error. Our everyday speech is filled with so-called scientific errors if that's the case.

Bishop Barron Video

My Comments

He is, essentially, doubling down here on limited inerrancy. The thing is, he sounds very Protestant here. I have often spoken in this newsletter and in my talks of how Protestants will try to justify all of the contradictions in Protestantism, all of the teachings between - and even within - denominations that outright contradict each other, all of the doctrines and dogmas that are logically and/or scripturally inconsistent with each other, by saying something along the lines of: "Well, as long as we get the essentials right, it doesn't really matter what you believe about the non-essentials." As if there could be such a thing as a "non-essential" part of the Word of God.

Well, that is exactly what Bishop Barron is doing here. That is what everyone who believes in the limited inerrancy of Scripture is trying to do. They are saying that only certain parts of the Word of God are necessary for our salvation, and as long as we get those parts right, we're good to go and we don't have to worry about those non-essential parts. Silly me, though, I am always wondering how it is you expect me to believe you got the essential parts right, when you readily admit that there is error in the non-essential parts. I mean, if you can't get the small stuff right, how am I supposed to trust that you got the big things right? And Scripture tells us that same thing when it says that if a person can be trusted in little things, then they can be trusted in big things. The obvious implication is, if you can't be trusted in the little things, then you can't be trusted in the big things. So, if Scripture can't be trusted in the non-essential parts, how can we ever trust it in the essential parts?

And, who is it exactly that gets to decide what is essential or non-essential? Who gets to decided which parts are "salvific" and which parts are not? Is the Old Testament salvific? Is Revelation salvific? What about Philemon? Which parts of Hebrews are "salvific" and which parts are not? Limited inerrancy opens up a can of worms that inevitably results in people losing faith in all the parts of Scripture, not just the non-salvific parts.

Bishop Barron Video

Then he mentions how Dei Verbum emphasizes that, for a proper understanding of the Bible, we have to take into account genres or literary forms of the text. He says he is sometimes asked, "Do you take the Bible literally or not?" To which he responds, "Do you take the library literally? Depends on what section you're in, right?"

My Comments

Again, bad analogy. Yes, the Bible is a "library" of books, but it is also one book. All the books of the Bible have the same primary author - God. They are all written for the sake of our salvation. And, yes, we are indeed supposed to take the Bible literally - all of it! The Catechism (CCC) says that the "literal" sense of Scripture - the meaning the author of any given passage intended to convey - is the most important sense of Scripture because the three spiritual senses of Scripture - allegorical, moral, and anagogical - are based on the literal sense (CCC #116). So, if you get the literal sense wrong, you can't get the spiritual sense right.

I want to take a moment here and explain the difference between a "literal" interpretation of Scripture and a "literalist" interpretation of Scripture. Because this is something that I don't believe the folks who push for limited inerrancy fully understand and appreciate, and because of that they fall into error.

     The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture must be interpreted in a “literal” sense, as opposed to being interpreted in a “literalist” sense. What’s the difference? Well, get this down in your heads. The two terms I just mentioned are “literal” and “literalist”. They sound very much alike and at first glance, you might think they mean the same thing, but they don’t...at least, not in the world of theology. Again, the Church teaches a “literal” interpretation of Scripture but condemns a “literalist” interpretation of Scripture. Now, let me use some examples to help you understand the difference here between “literal” and “literalist”.
   The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture, as it tells us in Paragraphs #110 and #116 of the Catechism, is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. Let me give you some examples from modern speech. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would be familiar with that phrase and you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. It was a deluge. That would be the “literal” interpretation. That would be the meaning that the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?
   The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs. That is the literalist way of interpretation. So, think about it, if someone 2000 years in the future, picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” how should they interpret that? In order to properly understand that passage in the book, would they need to use a “literal” interpretation, or a “literalist” interpretation? Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.
   Another example: What if I were to say, “I went to a concert last night and there were a million people there.” The literal interpretation? John went to a concert last night and there were a lot of folks there, maybe several thousand, depending on the size of the concert hall. That is what I intended to convey. The literalist interpretation? John went to a concert last night and there were exactly one million people there. Again, no taking into account my intention, no taking into account the popular cultural meaning of my phrases, or anything of that nature. No, those are the words, that’s what it means. Period.
   Are you understanding the difference between literal and literalist? This is very important because, as I said, the Catholic Church teaches a literal interpretation of Scripture - we must try to figure out the meaning the author intended to convey. Many Protestant denominations, however, teach a literalist approach to the interpretation of Scripture - it means exactly what the words say - no more, no less. No consideration is given to such factors as language, culture, phrases of speech in use 2000-3000 years ago, genre of literature, or anything of that nature.

Conclusion

Well, I think it's pretty obvious, from his own words, that Bishop Barron is teaching the limited inerrancy of Scripture view. A view which is contrary to what the Church has taught for 2000 years and which we find all through the apostolic teaching tradition that he himself says we must be informed by.

So, does that mean that Bishop Barron is teaching heresy? Can't quite go there. The CCC states that heresy is: "The obstinate denial after Baptism of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith." Is the teaching of unlimited inerrancy a truth that "must" be believed with "divine and Catholic faith"? Based on the language we find in the papal encyclicals I quote and in the various Church Councils, I would say it is. But, I am not qualified to render that definitive judgment.

But, let's say for the sake of argument that it is, would that then put Bishop Barron in the position of teaching heresy? Still can't go there. Is Bishop Barron being "obstinate" in his denial of this teaching, or does he truly believe that the Catholic Church teaches limited inerrancy? There is a huge difference between knowing for certain what the Church teaches and then denying that teaching and honestly believing that the Church teaches something that it, in fact, does not teach. I.e., there is a difference in teaching something heretically and in teaching something that you believe to be true which is, in fact, not true. So, I believe we are called to give a person the benefit of the doubt until such time as all doubt is removed.

Closing Comments

This one will probably stir up some comments, as Bishop Barron is beloved by many and there are so many people who absolutely love his series on the Catholic Church - a series which I very much enjoyed. However, that video is out there and he is touching on a topic that I believe is one of the main causes of the loss of faith among so many people, so I felt the need to comment once it was brought to my attention. If there are indeed errors in Scripture...errors in the Word of God...then once it is admitted that God, as the primary author of Scripture, commits error...it is not such a large step to conclude that maybe God isn't really what we have been led to believe He is. And, if He's not, then why bother...?

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!