Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter seetiger33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church teaches that Scripture is the inspired Word of God. “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” (CCC 136).

This article reporting a recent teaching given by some European Bishops is quite disingenuous regarding the very spirit and nature of this teaching. The very title “Catholic Church no longer swears by the truth of the bible” is dishonest and misleading.

The Church does (and always has) swear by the Truth of Scripture.

However, any serious scripture scholar can easily point to several instances in Scripture that provide examples of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in science, chronology, and history. For instance (and I’m using someone else’s example here) Jesus says in Mark 4:31 that the mustard seed is the smallest of all the seeds on the earth. Scientifically, this is not true. The mustard seed is not the smallest seed. However, Jesus isn’t using this example to teach science or biology. He uses the example of the mustard seed to teach a Truth. We can understand the meaning of this Truth without having to regard his statement as accurate science. This is the purpose for Scripture–to teach Truth, not science.

I think this is the full sense of what these Bishops were trying to communicate. . .The Times Online reporter, Ruth Gledhill, however, does not seem to be interested in giving the full sense–it is just not sensational enough for press.
 
Why has this been reposted probably ten times? It’s already been discussed at length, and if you did a search you’d see a million topics come up.
 
Semper Fi:
Why has this been reposted probably ten times? It’s already been discussed at length, and if you did a search you’d see a million topics come up.
Click to expand...
I think it’s because anti-catholics are actually taking a hint from history for once. Joseph Goebbels was Hitler’s propaganda minister and his famous quote was, “Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth.”

EDIT: I’m not implying that you’re an anti-catholic or anything, seetiger33. I’m just talking about why this is seen so often in general. 😉
 
seetiger33 said:
timesonline.co.uk/article/0,13509-1811332,00.html

It seems the christian faith is being attacked from all sides. Time to stand up and fight my friends. And what are they referring to . And where would they get this information?
Click to expand...

First point - read the document 🙂​

Second: the article in The Times is not a good representation of what the bishops wrote - for example, the list of “true” and “untrue” items is not what they wrote: they gave no such list.

Unfortunately, if journalists are not theologically literate, they will not be adequately equipped to report this kind of news accurately - events, any one can report; questions of meaning - in this instance, the meaning of an episcopal document - are another matter.

Third: Since the article misrepresents the document, one has to wonder how many other scare-stories about what Christians say or do are equally ill-founded. Those accused of crimes are not condemned without their defences having being heard - don’t bishops (for example) deserve the same consideration ?

Mr.Sungenis nowhere shows any familiarity with the document except for the quotations of it in the “The Times” article - unless he has read the document, he is hardly in a position to comment on it.
And he should get his facts right: bishops do have dogmatic authority - their authority is more limited than that of the Pope (who is also a bishop), but it is none the less real for that. Maybe he has overlooked the teaching of Lumen Gentium on this very point.

Fourth: the bishops are not attacking the Christian faith. As a reading of the document (cover as below) should make clear enough

http://www.cts-online.org.uk/images/Vatican/Gift of Scripture.jpg can be obtained from the Catholic Truth Society of England and Wales ##
 
Gottle of Geer:
Mr.Sungenis nowhere shows any familiarity with the document except for the quotations of it in the “The Times” article - unless he has read the document, he is hardly in a position to comment on it.
Click to expand...
I believe in the first paragraph or two, Sungenis makes it quite clear that he is only critiquing is an article written by Ruth Gledhill, not the Bishops’ work.
Gottle of Geer:
And he should get his facts right: bishops do have dogmatic authority - their authority is more limited than that of the Pope (who is also a bishop), but it is none the less real for that. Maybe he has overlooked the teaching of Lumen Gentium on this very point.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you are barking about here. Do you think the aforementioned document is dogmatic? Here is what Lumen Gentium states about the dogmatic power of Bishops.

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head…The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff… The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter… This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops…"[LUMEN GENTIUM, 22]

Thus the Bishops’ dogmatic power is nonexistent except when expressly granted to them by the Roman Pontiff. I doubt Sungenis does not very well know this.
 
40.png
Stevereeno:
I believe in the first paragraph or two, Sungenis makes it quite clear that he is only critiquing is an article written by Ruth Gledhill, not the Bishops’ work.
Click to expand...

His remarks based on the article are unjust to the authors of a document which he gives no sign of having read.##​

I don’t know what you are barking about here. Do you think the aforementioned document is dogmatic?
Click to expand...

Only when it draws upon dogma. Is dogma the only form of teaching ? Of course not. Even when no dogma is taught, the document is still a teaching document - the bishops say it was: “We invite you to study this teaching document called The Gift of Scripture.” (from the Foreword)​

Here is what Lumen Gentium states about the dogmatic power of Bishops.

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head…The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff… The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter… This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops…"[LUMEN GENTIUM, 22]

Thus the Bishops’ dogmatic power is nonexistent except when expressly granted to them by the Roman Pontiff. I doubt Sungenis does not very well know this.
Click to expand...

In other words, they can teach, even dogmatically; which they usually do by the exercise of their ordinary magisterium, when dispersed throughout the world, & not only in council - which is all I wanted to establish. I nowhere in that other post denied any of that -I explicitly said that their magisterium was limited: that doesn’t make it non-existent.​

Power to teach is power to teach, even when it is dependent on a condition (as all things are, but God) - such as, preserving communion with the Pope. He is not and cannot be the only teacher in the Church or the episcopate - nor does he delegate to the bishops (or anyone else) a teaching power proper to him alone: if he had done so, they would be little more than his vicars (rather than Christ’s) - which would contradict the relatio = official exposition] of Pastor Aeternus by Bishop Gasser at Vatican I; he was quite explicit in denying they had been reduced to so lowly a role: as relator, he would have known whether this was so or not; it was his business to know such things. Besides, the Pope can neither abolish the episcopate, nor take over those of its responsibilities which belong of it by the Will of Christ - and the teaching office certainly belongs to the episcopate by His Will, as the Bible shows. If a Pope did try to monopolise the teaching office, he would indirectly be destroying his own ability to teach, since he is as much a bishop as are the rest of his brethren in the episcopate: for the teaching office is one and the same in, and common to, all bishops; the difference is not in whether all teach, but in the share of this office conferrred on or exercised by each.

The only true Teacher of the Church (as both the Bible & Tradition make clear) is Christ; Who has delegated His indefeasible authority to do so, to mere men. Of whom the Pope is one - the one with the most nearly universal share in this authority. The bishops teach in union with him, not because they need permission to do so from him, but rather because they need to be able to teach in a way that pastures the flocks committed to them by Christ in a way that genuinely serves the unity, peace & concord of the Church on earth. That is why the Pope is the centre of unity - not because he is their lord: for he is not; rather, because he is the earthly representative of Him Who is the Pope’s Lord, and theirs, and ours. That is what I am “barking about” 🙂

I hope that clarifies matters. ##
 
40.png
Joey1976:
Here is Jimmy Akin’s response to the article
jimmyakin.org/2005/10/times_religion_.html#more
Click to expand...

He is commenting in an article in a paper which is in turn commenting on a document which he, like Mr. Sungenis, appears not to have seen. If he has not seen the document, his comments on the article discussing it are, like those of Mr. Sungenis, not worth much, since he won’t know how far the article reflects the contents of the document - it would have been far better if he, and other critics of the article (or of the bishops), could have waited until they knew what what the bishops had written in the document discussed by the article. That would have been much fairer to the writer of the article, and to the bishops.​

If one does not know what the document says, the accuracy - or lack of accuracy - of the remarks made about it in the press will be impossible to judge.

It is regrettable that the document is not yet on line: though, given its length, this is not surprising - it would have been better by far to wait until it is; for then we could all see what it says, and decide for ourselves whether the article in “The Times” is accurate & well-judged, or not. It can always be ordered from the Catholic Truth Society by writing & asking for The Gift of Scripture. It shouldn’t take long to arrive at addresses in the USA. ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top