Faith is Neither Gullible nor Hard of Heart- Part II

A Parable, Two Questions, and the Need for Accuracy

The material examined in Part I has important relevance to two other major errors of our day.  I had noticed the more recent error several decades ago. I only became consciously aware of this parable’s relevance to the other centuries-old error, as I was writing this material.

There is a widespread carelessness regarding exactly what important statements of Scripture actually say, and the limits of what any given Scriptural statement means. This carelessness contributes significantly to these two errors, as it does to most errors.

The first recorded Scriptural example of the problem of carelessness and its consequence is found in the Genesis account of the temptation and fall of Adam. God gives Adam the command:

You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die (Genesis 2: 17).

But in answer to the Serpent’s question, Eve erroneously adds that God had said, “… or even touch it, or else you will die” (Genesis 3: 3–4).

At least one artist has shown this scene with the serpent unharmed, while in physical contact with the tree.

These facts leave us with the question: “How much did Eve’s misstatement of God’s command influence her to believe the serpent’s claim, “ ‘You certainly will not die!’ ” And thus, perhaps also influenced her decision to ignore God’s command by eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree and by giving some to Adam?”

Was this error about God’s command hers?  Or was it Adam who erroneously added: “ ‘… or even touch it…’ ”?

The Scriptural example illustrating the problem of carelessness and its consequence that I seek to remedy now is found in Matthew 22: 36-40. This Scripture records the detail that to test Jesus, a scholar of the law asked him, “ ‘Which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ ” There is no emphasis or other indication to show that Christ’s answer is incredibly important for all Christians. Thus, it is easy to miss how vitally important Christ’s answer is:

‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.’

It is when we see Christ’s answer to the question in this Mathew quote, in its correct and accurate relation to His answer to the question and answer in Luke 10: 25-28, that we can plainly see their incredible importance.

Returning to Luke 10: 25-28, it is important to note that Luke is presenting a crucially different incident than the preceding quote from Matthew. Do give careful attention to the details: for there are many who exhibit carelessness in considering these two Scriptural passages.

There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test him and said, Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’  Jesus said to him, ‘What is written in the law? How do you read it?’  He [the scholar of the law] said in reply, You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.’ He [Jesus] replied to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.

Recent editions of the “New American Bible, mislabel this incident presented by Luke as “The Greatest Commandment”. Do notice the important, indeed vital, differences between the precise lesson recorded by Luke, and by Matthew. The purpose of Luke’s quotation is not to identify which is the Greatest Commandment: rather, it identifies the message at the core of Jewish Law. And it includes the fact that Jesus explicitly identified that this message is also at the core of the Gospel message!

Notice that the statements of Jesus in both Luke 10: 25–28 and in Matthew 22: 36-40 identify and affirm the truth, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself”. But His statements go beyond that by affirming that these two Commandments remain at the core of our salvation, just as they were at the core of the Jewish Law. What Christ meant in this core truth of the Christian faith is then powerfully illustrated in the parable, by identifying who our neighbor is and what love of neighbor means.

I emphasize this detail because the only explicit error that I am aware of in the Documents of Vatican II is the erroneous sentence in Chapter II, Paragraph 24 of the “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World” that asserts: “For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment.”

Let me be blunt, our choice in conscience as faithful Catholics is between believing the clear and unambiguous statement of Jesus about both the First and Greatest Commandment and the Second Commandment, which is only “like it”, because its subject is also “love”[6]; or believing the clearly false statement by the council.

I urge all readers to keep firmly in mind that this shocking error in conciliar teaching, approved by some 2000 plus bishops and the Pope, is presented in a Pastoral Document. This error is not presented in a Dogmatic Document!  Thus, although the error is a “formal teaching” of the Bishops and the Pope, it is not a definition of Catholic Doctrine by them!  This is clearly an example of a limit of the needed protection of His revelation that God provides through the Catholic Church. Note also that it is only the one sentence, identifiably wrong, that is an error. The Council’s affirmation and emphasis on Scripture’s teaching “that the love of God cannot be separated from the love of neighbor” is not an error; it is exactly what Jesus taught, which in our day, too many professed Christians vehemently deny is an essential condition for our salvation!

Mr. Frank J. Sheed pointed out the underlying operative principle of God’s protection of His revelation in the chapter “Dispensing the Gifts” of his book “Theology and Sanity”. God’s gift that [certain identifiable definitions of the Pope are irreformable].

… is a tiny, almost penurious gift. In a sense, it gives nothing at all. By his [irreformable definitions], the Pope acquires no truth. The truth that he [irreformably defines,] he had to acquire in the ordinary way of learning with ordinary or extraordinary effort. [Irreformability] does not account for any of the truth that is in his definition; it accounts only for the absence of all the error that might have been in his definitions.

Over many years, I was repeatedly irritated and frustrated that the defined doctrine of the Church used the word “irreformable” rather than the widespread theological teaching that such definitions are infallible!

It was only relatively recently I realized that the quotation from Mr. Sheed clearly identifies that the definition’s use of the word “irreformable” excludes a subtle error that is present in the theologian’s preference for and substitution of the word “infallible”. In retrospect, it is obvious to me now that the real need was to recognize that the theologian’s substitution of the word “infallible” in place of the word “irreformable” introduces a subtle error, that many theologians have been either too gullible or too hard of heart to notice and correct.

As Mr. Sheed often commented, precision is needed here. God protects the Catholic Church from teaching error; not the members of the Church. And the Church has defined as a doctrine of the Faith that it is through identifiable definitions of faith and morals, which all Catholics are to believe, that this protection of the Church from teaching error is provided by God. Yes, God also gives His grace to help us accurately understand and share the faith – but not to the level of destroying our free will.

It would also seem that God does not prevent errors in the formal teaching of the Bishops and the Pope, down to the level of not preventing what may seem to be trivial errors, if the error is readily identifiable and correctable without the help of His intervention through an irreformable definition.

Here again, in describing this protective gift from God, Mr. Frank Sheed sheds valuable insight into the issue. But even in presenting these awesome insights, Mr. Sheed repeatedly used the theologian’s defective “infallibility” in place of the Church’s defined “irreformability”.

What the mind of man could not do was to know with absolute certainty whether all its gains were really gains, or whether some admixture of error might not have crept in. …. One way or another the occasion might arise where a definite statement of the truth, a statement which is certainly true, is needed, …. In the struggle of the human mind for more light, [irreformability] , whether of Church or Pope, saves the mind no trouble, does for the mind nothing that the mind could do for itself.

As a matter of historical fact, the Bible is the Catholic Church’s written presentation of God’s revelation. The Hebrew part of the Bible was provided by God through the Jewish people and the Christian part was provided by God through Christ’s [extended] body, the Catholic Church. This is an identifiable detail of history!

Those who believe that the error in formal teaching of the Catholic Church that is identified herein is evidence that God does not protect His revelation through the Catholic Church might learn a valuable lesson by prayerfully pondering another statement of Jesus that I believe is wonderfully relevant:

And he told them a parable, ‘Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit? No disciple is superior to the teacher; but when fully trained, every disciple will be like his teacher. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? How can you say to your brother, “Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,” when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye’ (Luke: 9–42).

Consider then the incredible arrogance of those who believe that God protects them individually from error more than He protects his entire Church via the college of Bishops, who are the historic successors of the Apostles, whom Christ appointed/commissioned to preach and teach in His own name. Or that God protects the individual from error more than He protects Cephas, popularly known as Peter, and Peter’s successors: the rock upon whom Christ declared that He was building His Church. See John 1: 42  and Matt 16: 17-19.

Mea Culpa. It took me, a layman, many, many years to get free of the theological error, that shortly after my conversion to the Catholic Faith, I had been taught by fallible men whom I had solid reasons for trusting. I include this detail as a beacon of hope for all those who have been indoctrinated to reject the guidance of the Catholic Church, which is the [extended] body of Christ present in the world. I invite everyone that is so misinformed and indoctrinated to read and prayerfully ponder Paul’s inspired Scriptural statement that explicitly states God’s plan for making Himself and His revelation known to humanity through the Church:

to bring to light [for all] what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things, so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens. This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness of speech and confidence of access through faith in him (Eph 3: 1–12).