The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1900-08-04

Sir-Your editorial, 1.-THE Bible and
It's Interpreter" in your issue of June
80, called my attention to an article in
the Catholic World on 1.-The Place OF
the Bible in the Catholic Church" by
DR.. De Costa. You close your remarks
by saying: His CDR. De Costa's) pre-
sentation of the Catholic attitude to-
ward the Holy Scriptures IS
clear and correct" and L wish to add,
as interpreted by the Rev. DR.. Lam
bert, editor of the Freeman's Journal.
Indeed, if DR.. De Costa had not forgot
ten your lower and upper case OF
higher criticism" and used it as a modei
in his article, 1 would have been spared
the painful task of "demurring' again.
Your few words: I'm the case OF lnspl-
ration the judgment cannot rest on the
testimony of the senses, because the
fact is supersensible." are so forclble
and clear that the conclusion is inds-
putable. Thus speaks DR.. Lambert, but
not so DR.. De Costa. In fact, DR.. De
Costa's article does not represent the
attitude of the Church and leaves the
Church open for attack, and hence L
"demur"
DIR. De Costa starts out correctly by
saying that the first thing to be as
sured of is that the Bible is an in
spfred Book and proceeds to ask;
who is it that answers the question
is the Bible Inspired?' and he states
that the Catholic Church answers the
question and is alone capable OF giving
answer" But why the Church is zone
capable to eve that answer is nowhere
explained in the article and the answer
is given in your editorial, because only
divine and infallible authority can give
Judgment on a supersensible fact.
DR.. De Costa claims Catholics, what
ever they may think or teach about the
composite character of the Pentateuch,
or the authorshps of particular books,
find a limit in the Encyclical of Leo
XIII" Now, what is one to understand
by such loose expression find limit
What is that limit and where is it ex-
pressed? Again in another place: ''One,
perhaps, may or may not think that
certain book is actually the work Of
certain author" After having stated
that whatever Catholics think" on
that subject they find a limit in the
Ecyclical of Leo Kill" What, in this
connection, does the word perhaps or
the words may not" or think or "ac-
tually" mean?
1t is this loose way of dealing with
a serious question, this lack of a trained
Technology and studied rhetoric, which
makes of the whole article "a city OF
confusion One gathers from the arti-
Gle that the Encyclica1 Providentissi-
mus Deus teaches that the Bible is
"pIena ~ inspired" contains no error,
is ian infalIble record and that bibli-
cal criticism which claims that there
are errors in the Bible is not to be toll
Grated. From all that it is not at all
clear what we are to understand by the
Bible. Does it mean the Bible as we
possess it? For that is the one which
biblical criticism deals with. Then the
Vulgate or the Masoretic text is ''plen-
ary inspired" and contains no error.
This being the case, the study which
the Encyclical speaks of and recon-
mends as "simulque in arte guam vo-
cat criticam'' is quite useless, and GER
tainIy textual criticism is dangerous.
Unless it be that criticism is permissl-
BILE as to the "unimDortant verbal va
riations." of which "alI scholars CD
know" that ''the trifing differences do
not affect the authoritative sense
which criticism would be a ''trifiing' in
itself. Is it to go abroad that this IS
the nosition of the Church on the BIZ
BILE and on the inspirations of the Holy
Scriptures? It is needless for me 70
state that Leo XIII. teaches nothing
of the kind, and that the Encyclical
deals with the question as to how far
extends to the original man
uscriDts. This DR.. De Costa would
have found if he had read the Ency-
clical with care. Had he done so, he
would have known that DR.. Mivart's
trouble was mainly that he did notN1n-
derstand the Encyclical.
DR.. De Costa was quite able in the
pulpit and is undoubtedly so today as
a popular lecturer. But the apparatus
of speech used in those places is not
the one employed by trained theologi-
ans in approaching the discussion of
a question which demands the cold
blooded temper of the scholar. and not
that of the rhetorician. How can a the
ologian write down these words: 1.-The
written word described (where?) as
'infallible truth has no power to i'm
part infallibility to the mind" This
means that the written word which
cannot lead into error cannt prevent
the mind from being led into error.
1 suppose "all scholars know this to
be correct. Or this sentence: 1.-The
Church invites no conflict between sci
ence and the Bible, knowing well that