Born Fundamentalists, Born again Catholics.. please answer me this!

[mayra_hart]

respect of antiquity, the Biblical literature belongs to the same group of ancient literature as the literary collections of Greece, Rome, China, Persia, and India. Its second part, the New Testament, completed about A.D. 100, is indeed far more recent than the four last named literature, and is somewhat posterior to the Augustan age of the Latin language, but it is older by ten centuries than our earliest modern literature. As regards the Old Testament, most of its contents were gradually written within the nine centuries which preceded the Christian era, so that its composition is generally regarded as contemporary with that of the great literary works of Greece, China, Persia, and India. The Bible resembles these various ancient literatures in another respect. Like them it is fragmentary, i.e. made up of the remains of a larger literature. Of this we have abundant proofs concerning the books of the Old Testament, since the Hebrew Scriptures themselves repeatedly refer us to more ancient and complete works as composed by Jewish annalists, prophets, wise men, poets, and so on (cf. Numbers 21:15; Josue 10:13; II Kings 1:18; I Paralip. 29:29; I Mach. 16:24; etc.). Statements tending to prove the same fragmentary character of the early Christian literature which has come down to us are indeed much less numerous, but not altogether wanting (cf. Luke 1:1-3; Colossians 4:16; I Corinthians 5:9). But, however ancient and fragmentary, it is not to be supposed that the Biblical literature contains only few, and these rather imperfect, literary forms. In point of fact its contents exhibit nearly all the literary forms met with in our Western literatures together with other peculiarly Eastern, but none the less beautiful. It is also a well-known fact that the Bible is so replete with pieces of transcendent literary beauty that the greatest orators and writers of the last four centuries have most willingly turned to our sacred books as pre-eminently worthy of admiration, study, and imitation. Of course the widest and deepest influence that has ever been, and ever will be, exercised upon the minds and hearts of men remains due to the fact that, while all the other literatures are but man’s productions, the Bible is indeed “inspired of God” and, as such, especially “profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice” (II Timothy 3:16).

 

[MikeB]

Carol, I don’t know if I can help you since I haven’t been Fundamentalist but a Catholic who left the church for awhile to later return and begin the process of learning the truth about my faith. The Bible, inspired by God, was written by humans who wrote in the time period that they lived. The Bible above all else is about our relationship with God, not a science or history book. As to the Gospels we have to look behind the scene and see what each author was trying to do. There is a theme to each. One may be written to show that Jesus suffered as the early Christians suffered. John was written to show how deeply we are loved by Jesus and Revelation was written to show that even though we suffer the reward will be that much greater in Heaven. Never think for a moment that the Bible is not God’s word. Hang in there you have found the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[tkdnick]

DianJo:

Can you give some specific instances (stories) or parts of the bible that you feel the Cathloic Church has deemed allegory that you always believed was literally true?

I have often had the experience that alot of non-Catholics seem to take all of the bible literally only they don’t take the parts that should be taken literally. Those parts they seem to think are symbolic.

I don’t think every denomination takes all of the bible literally. There are parts that are clearly allegory and those that are not. That’s why I want you to give something specific. Thanks.

I have just recently been told by my priest that the stories of creation found at the beginning of Genesis are exactly that…stories. He said that they are stories that reveal truths about God, not literal, historical stories. That they cannot possibly both be true because they are contradictory. I have not gone back to look at them, but I assure you it was quite a surprise to me to hear that the story of Adam and Eve wasn’t really about 2 people.

 

[carol_marie]

**There seems to be a faction in the Catholic Church that have become so wrapped up in their own “intelligence” as to be able to explain away scripture as “literary fables.” Like miracles were not really miracles but just literary prerogatives. **

Heresy plain and simple.

This is just what happened. I was listening to various Catholics give their own personal, very convincing and intelligent sounding opinions and I mistakenly took that as them speaking for the Church. I guess what trips me up time & time again is I thought if you call yourself Catholic, you MUST believe what the Church teaches (otherwise you’re like the Protestants who follow no one but their own “Holy Spirit” - deciding for yourself) So if someone says, I am Catholic and I believe X Y Z, I assume the church teaches X Y Z. Not always the case though is it? God willing, I hope to be the sort of Catholic that believes only what the Church teaches. Otherwise, why be Catholic?
Thanks & God Bless, CM

 

[carol_marie]

And a special thanks to Philthy - the “voice of God.” You were most reassuring.

 

[chrisg93]

carol,
Here are my personal thoughts from a very faithful Catholic…

Don’t doubt official Catholic Church teaching. It is the only thing in this world that you can depend on.

The Church has infallibly defined relatively few passages of Scripture. It has infallibly defined the passages concerning the nature of God, salvation, the sacraments and so forth. But that is not many compared to the entire volume of passages in the Bible.

St Augustine admits that there can be faulty manuscripts/translations of the Scripture (since only the originals are inspired by the Holy Spirit and they don’t exist anymore). That is even more reason to depend on the Catholic Church.

The Bible does contain some factual contradictions, that is indisputable. Most are details that are not important.

The Bible does contain unclear passages, that is indisputable.

The Bible does contain significent translation errors such as “lead us not into temptation” (God does not temp or lead into temptation) which has been changed to “put us not to the test”.

My personal opinion is the the passage “unless you hate your father and mother…” is also a translation error similar to “lead us not into temptation” error. It contradicts the Fourth Commandment and implies that Jesus hated the Blessed Virgin Mary.

But don’t ever doubt that the Church loves, respects and protects the Scripture.

 

[mrS4ntA]

“I would not believe in the Gospels myself, if the authority of the Church does not move me to do so.”

-- St Augustine of Hippo.​

 

[Starflower]

Pray,pray,pray. Read the NT if the OT confuses you.I see the Bible as history not a science textbook.All churches split from the Catholic church. Ask God to put Spirit filled Christians in your life for fellowship. Consider a charismatic prayer group meeting. Seek a spiritual director aside from your confessor.Maybe there is a website for converts,there are stories and books. " Be still and know that I am." In silence, the voice of God is heard…

 

[PhilVaz]

On inerrancy, see Catechism para 107, 136.

1. The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or 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.” [Vatican II DV 11]
2. God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth [cf. DV 11].

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967)

“Christian antiquity, in its prayer, preaching and theological writing, universally recognized that the writings of the OT and NT were the work of the Holy Spirit and were all equally the word of God. It was the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that the Sacred Scriptures were free from all error and from all contradiction.”

“The inerrancy of Scripture has been the constant teaching of the Fathers, theologians, and recent Popes in their encyclicals on Biblical studies.” [Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XII, are given]

(NCE [1967], Volume 2 under “Bible II”, pages 382, 384)

Evangelicals / Fundamentalists recognize this as well:

“Throughout its long medieval influence, the Roman church therefore promoted the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy and opposed notions of a limited inerrancy restricted to faith and morals.” (Geisler/Nix A General Intro to the Bible, page 128, quoting Carl F.H. Henry)

“We have examined this problem at length to prove a point that some evangelicals overlook in their zeal to refute Roman Catholics. The official position of traditional Roman Catholicism concerning the authority of Holy Writ is that everything Scripture asserts is asserted by God, and since God cannot assert falsehood, everything Scripture asserts is automatically inerrant…Just as we would take offense if someone confused the theological position of Henry Emerson Fosdick with that of B. B. Warfield, so we should realize that Hans Kung is informed by a different theological impulse than, say, Cardinal Ratzinger.” (Geisler/MacKenzie, RCs and Evangelicals, page 469)

Now this doesn’t mean we don’t have to “interpret” the Scriptures, and here is what the Catechism says on that: see The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture (para 109, 110, 111)

The Catechism notes that Vatican Council II indicates three major criteria for interpretation:

(1) Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture;

(2) Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church;

(3) Be attentive to the analogy of faith, which is the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The Catechism then goes on to distinguish between two main senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, with the latter subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses (see para 119).

The Catechism then includes the well-known saying of St. Augustine: “But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.” [Contra epistolam Manichaei 5:6; PL 42:176]

And finally:

1. “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” [Vatican II DV 10:2] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Phil P

 

[patricius]

Don’t despair, Carol Marie. It’s unfortunate, but just about everyone has to spend their first years as a (serious) Catholic trying to figure out where “Catholic opinion” ends and Catholic Truth begins. It’s tough at first, but after a while you’ll be able to sniff out the difference between wrong, debatable, and true ideas from a mile away.

BTW-- it’s a direct contradiction of Church teaching to deny the historicity of the Gospels (although they don’t necessarily narrate events in historical order, because each Evangelist rearranged some things in order to emphaize certain points about Jesus and His message). On the Old Testament, you’re free to believe that the events are strictly historical, or that they simply contain the deeper truths about God and His relationship with the world. God bless!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You should read the history of the development of Holy Scripture. I, too, was reared a fundamentalist (Southern Baptist). We were taught (basically) that the Bible fell out of Heaven, bound in black leather with gilt edges. It didn’t. The early churches had no Bible as we have. They may have had some to the Old Testament, but not even most of the New Testament, the canon of which was not finalized until almost 400 years after the Savior ascended back to the Father. How did they manage? They managed on the living authority of the Church, exercised by men who were ordained into the Apostolic line.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I meant to say, I will pray for you, as you seem distressed. Don’t give up on the Church!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

carol marie:

When I decided to make the jump from my Fundamentalist background to the Catholic Church I knew I would be “adding” things to my faith… like Mary, the Saints, the Real Presence etc. but I mistakenly assumed that I would be able to take all I knew about the Bible WITH ME!

Deepen what you know, let it dwell in you FWIW, the Church is not Fundamentalist - Fundamentalism misses too much.​

I mistakenly believed that Catholics believed the Bible to be true. I was wrong. Over & over again I’m told that various parts of the Bible AREN’T historical - didn’t happen, just made up “stories.” First Genesis, and now the Gospels. I’m asking all of you former Bible believing Protestants… how were you able to disregard the truth of the Bible? How are you able to say that many parts of it didn’t happen actually happen - that it’s mostly a collection of literary forms? I’m not able to do that.

History is a literary form too: but, so are myth, fable, saga, prophecy, wisdom, apocalyptic, gospel, letter, and so on. All these are in the Bible, as are others. This is one indication of its richness and profundity and true humanity. This is the Bible - not the Koran. Too many Christians treat the Bible like the Koran; as though it were unhuman, nothing but what God says. It’s not. It’s like Our Lord in this: it is fully human, fully Divine.​

I have been praying for discernment. Please Lord… don’t let me be led astray. I’m begining to feel like the frog in the pot. (You know… if it’s throw into the boiling water it was jump out but if it’s placed in the water & the temp. is slowly turned up it doesn’t jump out but it dies nonetheless.) Little red flags have been thrown up all along and I’ve pushed them aside. I think God is using this as my giant wake up call. I just can’t accept that the Bible isn’t true… that it’s a collection of prevaling myths and literary forms. How could all of you?

1. “Fear not” - Our Lord’s advice ​

1. The Bible is true - it does not follow that it is all historical. Not all truth is. “God is Love” - is a truth; but not an historical statement; any more than a recipe is. Does that make recipes false or useless ? Inspiration does not make the texts less human; they are still human, but they are also God-breathed; God-breathed, yet fully human: very unlike the Koran, which is entirely what God says - but that’s another story.

For some reason, some Christians find it very hard to believe that the Bible is truthful, without being all historical. I think it’s essential for there to be mutual understanding here. For we are all Christians.

1. There are stories, but they are not “mere” stories, “no more than” stories; that is to look at them as if they were written by Europeans, influenced by European literary ideas. The traditions behind Genesis - for example - are Semitic, pre-Classical, very ancient. They have to be read with that background in mind. And that cultural background was used to texts which are history-like, but not historical in content. We cannot read our own ideas of history and truth into texts which don’t set out to be historical.
2. It’s not helpful to talk of the texts in general - each is different. A gospel is not Genesis, 2 Kings is not Micah, Jonah is not Revelation. So books differ in the literary type they belong to. There is not much prophecy or fable or history in Proverbs - so it would be unhelpful to expect it to be prophetic, historical, or full of beast-fable. To talk of all the books as if they were identical in literary type, is to forget the Bible is a library - not a single volume written all at one time. These texts are theological, all of them. They have little else in common. ##

 

[jeffreedy789]

i’m a convert from a baptist background. i have a degree in baptist theology. i have heard from alot of well-meaning catholics alot of things about the Bible, which upon closer examination, actually end up being the OPPOSITE of the church’s teaching on the subject.

the most troubling thing i heard was about the OT stories, and i heard it from a priest in RCIA. he was trying to reassure one of the catechumens that they didn’t have to believe that the OT stories were literally true, but he hyperbolized unnecessarily, and almost sent me packing. he said that they were only myths, and that they weren’t literally true. the church doesn’t teach this. in fact, it very strongly teaches literal truth to many of the stories of the OT, including adam and eve.

but on the whole, the church allows those who wrestle with their intellect and their faith a little breathing room. they don’t dogmatically teach that we MUST accept a literal interpretation of every Biblical story. i believe them all to be literally true, myself. but we don’t HAVE to. we MAY. there ARE parts that we DO have to accept as being literally true. but we are allowed to question, allowed to doubt, about some of them, and still remain good catholics.

so i exhort you to study! learn more about what the church REALLY teaches, in its official documents. especially read the encyclicals by JPII, who is one of the big reasons why i became catholic.

God bless you and your Bible loving self.

 

[jeffreedy789]

ok, i went to the site you mentioned (‘go to the Nativity thread and you’ll see official Church documents that state that the gospels aren’t literal’) and i don’t see anything that says that the gospels aren’t literal. i see statements that say that historical accuracy may not have been the authors intent, but that’s a far cry from ‘the gospels aren’t literal’. am i missing something? did i not read the bit you meant?

 

[javier_29]

When I decided to make the jump from my Fundamentalist background to the Catholic Church I knew I would be “adding” things to my faith.

Someone once said “If you believe who the Catholic church says it is, then you must believe everything it says”.

It sounds like you are a little hesitant on believing that the Catholic church is the true church. I say this because of your statement that you would be “adding” things to your faith.

I believe the Catholic holds the fullness of Christianity and other denominations are “subtracting” from the faith.

God Bless
Javier

 

[patricius]

Jeff,

The Church “very strongly” teaches the literal truth of Adam and Eve? Where is this from? If it’s true then I’ve been unwittingly contradicting Church teaching.

Also, hasn’t JPII accepted evolution as “more than a theory?” How could he do this if the Church required Her followers to believe literally in Adam and Eve?

 

[jeffreedy789]

i don’t mean to answer for carol marie, but when i became catholic, i also felt that i would be ‘adding things’, because i already had a preexisting faith, which did not include mary, the pope, the eucharist, confession (there are caveats on each of these items, but i’ll save you the long story), etc.

in other words, i didn’t feel that i was ‘adding things’ to faith in general, but adding things to MY faith. it’s not a ‘the catholic church teaches extra stuff’ issue, it’s a ‘i used to believe less than what the church teaches’ issue.

see the difference?

 

[carol_marie]

jeffreedy789:

i don’t mean to answer for carol marie, but when i became catholic, i also felt that i would be ‘adding things’, because i already had a preexisting faith, which did not include mary, the pope, the eucharist, confession (there are caveats on each of these items, but i’ll save you the long story), etc.

in other words, i didn’t feel that i was ‘adding things’ to faith in general, but adding things to MY faith. it’s not a ‘the catholic church teaches extra stuff’ issue, it’s a ‘i used to believe less than what the church teaches’ issue.

see the difference?

I would respond the same. I don’t mean to say the Catholic Church “added” things… only that I would be adding to MY faith which already included the Bible, the Trinity, etc. I recognized that the Catholic Church perhaps had the “fullness of truth” so I am more than willing to add what I’m missing. I am however reluctant to “subtract” from my faith which I would be doing if I must believe that the Bible isn’t true, reliable, accurate and historical.

Bottom line, I’m OK with YOU not believing in Adam & Eve or the Historical accuracy of the Gospels or even the “talking donkey” - suit yourself, but don’t tell ME not to believe those things. Because I can either believe EVERYTHING in the Bible, just as I always have AND be Catholic or I can believe everything in the Bible and not be Catholic. I’m not willing to deny the Bible - not the beginning, not the middle, certainly not the Gospels. I intended to be a Bible thumping Catholic and if that’s a problem then the Catholic Church is obviously not for me.

 

[jeffreedy789]

you’ve read what i’ve said above, so you know that i hold the Bible to be literally true on all accounts. it was very important to me when i became catholic that i didn’t have to stop believing in the Bible.

that said, i respectfully submit to you that you might consider that your attachment to the Bible might be too strong. our first priority is Jesus. He is the Word of God. the Bible, while authoritative, beautiful, inspired, and (i believe) literally true, is a great gift to us, and a way in which we can find Him.

but it’s HE that we’re finding. it sounds a bit like you’re more attached to the Bible and your idea of it than (pardon my saying so, and in great humility and love) you are interested in doing what Jesus is calling you to.

what if Jesus called you to join a church that taught you that the Bible was not literally true? that is not, fortunately, the case. but i recommend that you remember humility, and place yourself in the position of a servant to God, Who may call you to do things that stretch you.