Catholic View of the Bible

[jbsmith]

My RCIA teacher and the priest at the local parish both told me that there are large parts of the Old and New Testaments that are either partially true or total fiction. I’ve tried doing some online research to see if this is the Church’s official position, but I can’t find anything definite. I’ve become quite confused actually. Can anyone give me some insight into the Church’s official position regarding this, or recommend some resources for me to read/study? Thanks for any help you can give.

 

[bigdawg]

jbsmith:

My RCIA teacher and the priest at the local parish both told me that there are large parts of the Old and New Testaments that are either partially true or total fiction. I’ve tried doing some online research to see if this is the Church’s official position, but I can’t find anything definite. I’ve become quite confused actually. Can anyone give me some insight into the Church’s official position regarding this, or recommend some resources for me to read/study? Thanks for any help you can give.

I would start with the following encyclical papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm

and the catechism.

 

[Marilena]

No part of the Holy Bible is fictional. Not one part. The Bible states this: All scripture is inspired of God, and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, and for setting things straight. Why would someone tell
you otherwise? That puzzles me! I certainly never learned that in my Catechism! Never! Very puzzling indeed!

 

[davethecatholic]

jbsmith:

My RCIA teacher and the priest at the local parish both told me that there are large parts of the Old and New Testaments that are either partially true or total fiction. I’ve tried doing some online research to see if this is the Church’s official position, but I can’t find anything definite. I’ve become quite confused actually. Can anyone give me some insight into the Church’s official position regarding this, or recommend some resources for me to read/study? Thanks for any help you can give.

Take a look at this:

drbo.org/catechism.htm

From the Catechism of The Catholic Church:

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” 69
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” 70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.” 71

107 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.” 72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.” 73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.” 74

 

[gardenswithkids]

jbsmith:

My RCIA teacher and the priest at the local parish both told me that there are large parts of the Old and New Testaments that are either partially true or total fiction.

:bigyikes: I hope that wasn’t the word choice they used.:bigyikes: The Bible tells religious truth, but it uses different literary forms to tell religious truth. (some examples of literary form used are prophecy, history, law, poetry, etc.)

The creation story and the flood are some of the Old Testament Bible stories that some Catholics believe may not be historically accurate, but we should still believe those stories tell religious truths, (such as God created the world from nothing, and God destroys sin and saves through water–prefiguring baptism.) Yet many other Catholics over the centuries --including saints-- accepted the creation and flood stories as historically accurate, and Catholics are free to believe that.

As far as the New Testament is concerned, I think that the parables represent examples of deeper truths told in story form. And the book of Revelation uses lots of symbolism. But Catholics believe the Bible tells truth, not fiction. I hope they either didn’t explain this properly, or you simply misunderstood what they said.

 

[DeFide]

jbsmith:

My RCIA teacher and the priest at the local parish both told me that there are large parts of the Old and New Testaments that are either partially true or total fiction. I’ve tried doing some online research to see if this is the Church’s official position, but I can’t find anything definite. I’ve become quite confused actually. Can anyone give me some insight into the Church’s official position regarding this, or recommend some resources for me to read/study? Thanks for any help you can give.

Perhaps you misheard them, but if not, I hope you take the opportunity to set them straight with patience.

 

[jbsmith]

Marilena:

No part of the Holy Bible is fictional. Not one part. The Bible states this: All scripture is inspired of God, and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, and for setting things straight. Why would someone tell
you otherwise? That puzzles me! I certainly never learned that in my Catechism! Never! Very puzzling indeed!

My RCIA teacher told us that the book of Esther was fictional, and I looked this up in my NAB Study Bible, and it said the same thing. He also told the class that the Genesis creation account was only partially accurate, because God didn’t create the world the way the Bible says. He said God used evolutionary processes to create the world. Also, he told us that there are parts of the gospels that are fictional. He said that the Magnificat and many of the words of Jesus are made up. He also told us that the Flood was just a small localized flood, not worldwide.

 

[jbsmith]

:bigyikes: I hope that wasn’t the word choice they used.:bigyikes: The Bible tells religious truth, but it uses different literary forms to tell religious truth. (some examples of literary form used are prophecy, history, law, poetry, etc.)

The creation story and the flood are some of the Old Testament Bible stories that some Catholics believe may not be historically accurate, but we should still believe those stories tell religious truths, (such as God created the world from nothing, and God destroys sin and saves through water–prefiguring baptism.) Yet many other Catholics over the centuries --including saints-- accepted the creation and flood stories as historically accurate, and Catholics are free to believe that.

As far as the New Testament is concerned, I think that the parables represent examples of deeper truths told in story form. And the book of Revelation uses lots of symbolism. But Catholics believe the Bible tells truth, not fiction. I hope they either didn’t explain this properly, or you simply misunderstood what they said.

Unfortunately that’s exactly what he said. He specifically used the word “fiction.” He used this to describe parts of the Old and New Testaments. I left class that day a bit upset, and have been since. He even gave me a handout that he had written himself about the accuracy of the Bible.

 

[jbsmith]

DeFide:

Perhaps you misheard them, but if not, I hope you take the opportunity to set them straight with patience.

He did say fiction, but I really don’t know how to set anyone straight. I’m new to the Catholic faith and don’t know much about it. I know what I learned about the Bible as a Protestant, but that’s about it.

By the way, the priest told me that a lot of things in the Old Testament are “made up”, but he didn’t say anything about the New Testament.

 

[trogiah]

Some Food for thought regarding how to look at the Bible and whether or not it was “made up”:

Jesus was asked a serious question about a the Second Commandment. Jesus “made up” the story of the Good Samaritan. That story is fiction. There never was a man who was beaten by robbers and left for dead and passed by a levite and a priest and then helped by a Samaritan. Or maybe there was but neither Jesus nor the people who asked the question were in the least bit concerned about the “truth” of the story. What did matter was the “Truth” of the story. The message in the story that showed a glimpse of what the kingdom of God really would be like.

The Truth that is contained in the entire bible is worthy of full faith. The truth that some people debate, like the number of days and hours of creation, the type of bush that fire wouldn’t consume, etc, need not cause us any more concern than the name of the road that the Samaritan was walking on.

peace

Jim

 

[jbsmith]

trogiah:

Some Food for thought regarding how to look at the Bible and whether or not it was “made up”:

Jesus was asked a serious question about a the Second Commandment. Jesus “made up” the story of the Good Samaritan. That story is fiction. There never was a man who was beaten by robbers and left for dead and passed by a levite and a priest and then helped by a Samaritan. Or maybe there was but neither Jesus nor the people who asked the question were in the least bit concerned about the “truth” of the story. What did matter was the “Truth” of the story. The message in the story that showed a glimpse of what the kingdom of God really would be like.

The Truth that is contained in the entire bible is worthy of full faith. The truth that some people debate, like the number of days and hours of creation, the type of bush that fire wouldn’t consume, etc, need not cause us any more concern than the name of the road that the Samaritan was walking on.

peace

Jim

Thank you for your post. It was appreciated. This is definitely something to think about.

 

[trogiah]

jbsmith:

Thank you for your post. It was appreciated. This is definitely something to think about.

You are welcome. Your original post raises questions that I have often wondered about and the contrast provided by the story of the Good Samaritan seems worth considering.

After rereading your original post, I think that RCIA instructors and priests should be more concerned with the Truth that is in the Bible and lest concerned about the truth that isn’t. The latter part could be left for archeaologists, physicists, and others. The Truth that is there is unchanging, no matter what the others might discover. That Truth is what we all need to know.

Part of understanding our faith well is to know and accept that scientific truth will not always be found in the Bible. And that is OK. But that kind of discussion is by no means the most important.

Anyway, I better stop before I go any further. Good luck in RCIA

peace

Jim

 

[jbsmith]

trogiah:

You are welcome. Your original post raises questions that I have often wondered about and the contrast provided by the story of the Good Samaritan seems worth considering.

After rereading your original post, I think that RCIA instructors and priests should be more concerned with the Truth that is in the Bible and lest concerned about the truth that isn’t. The latter part could be left for archeaologists, physicists, and others. The Truth that is there is unchanging, no matter what the others might discover. That Truth is what we all need to know.

Part of understanding our faith well is to know and accept that scientific truth will not always be found in the Bible. And that is OK. But that kind of discussion is by no means the most important.

Anyway, I better stop before I go any further. Good luck in RCIA

peace

Jim

That’s another good point you make. There’s one thing I don’t understand, though: I was always taught in church and school (I grew up in a Pentecostal church and attended a Baptist school) that the Bible was accurate in everything it stated. I was always taught that if secular scientists contradicted something that was in the Bible, the Bible was to be believed instead of the scientists. It seems from what I’ve been reading that the Church takes the words of secular scientists over the Bible. Is this true, or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[davethecatholic]

It sounds like the focus is on some of the stories in the OT.

The Old Testament (From The Catechism):

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, 92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
122 Indeed, “the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately SO oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men.” 93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional, 94 the books of the OldTestament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings “are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way.” 95

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

Also, take a look at this.

catholic.com/library/faith_science.asp

 

[jbsmith]

davethecatholic:

It sounds like the focus is on some of the stories in the OT.

The Old Testament (From The Catechism):

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, 92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
122 Indeed, “the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately SO oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men.” 93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional, 94 the books of the OldTestament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings “are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way.” 95

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

Also, take a look at this.

catholic.com/library/faith_science.asp

Yes, a lot of it has to do with the Old Testament, but not all. He also told the class that many things in the Gospels are either partially factual, or not factual at all. For example, he said that Jesus did not say many of the things the Gospels quote Him as saying. He also told us that Jesus didn’t do many of the things the Gospels claim that He did. When asked, he didn’t give us specific examples. He did, however, tell us that the Magnificat was fictional, that Mary never sang it.

 

[banjo]

One can read what the Second Vatican Council had to say about Sacred Scripture in the document “Dei Verbum” at the following website.

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v5.html

 

[gardenswithkids]

jbsmith:

It seems from what I’ve been reading that the Church takes the words of secular scientists over the Bible. Is this true, or am I misunderstanding something?

The Church doesn’t do that, but some people within the Church might. My understanding is the Church is concerned with the *religious *truth the Bible tells, and as long as we accept the religious truths we can believe or not believe secular scientists in light of our intellect.

It’s rather sad that your religious instructors, both growing up and now, try to turn your religion classes into scientific or archeological debates. Your RCIA teacher may believe the opinion of secular scientists about evolution, but the importance truth is God created the world. I wish your instructor was more concerned about sharing the truth that God created the world, rather than trying to prove or disprove how God did it.

You wrote that your teacher gave you a hand out that he wrote himself on the accuracy of the Bible, but I doubt that handout had any solid documentation from the Catechism, encyclicals or other Magisterial source to back up his claims. (The NAB commentary doesn’t count as solid documentation from the Church–you can search old threads here at CA to read some Catholics’ opinion of that.) Your instructor is simply sharing his and others’ opinion, not official Church teachings. I’m really sorry if he said or if your read things that undermine your faith in God, the Bible or the Church. RCIA should focus on the religious truth of the Bible.

 

[gardenswithkids]

jbsmith:

Yes, a lot of it has to do with the Old Testament, but not all. He also told the class that many things in the Gospels are either partially factual, or not factual at all. For example, he said that Jesus did not say many of the things the Gospels quote Him as saying. He also told us that Jesus didn’t do many of the things the Gospels claim that He did. When asked, he didn’t give us specific examples. He did, however, tell us that the Magnificat was fictional, that Mary never sang it.

Well, I wrote something else entirely to post, but then this quote caught my eye. I was going to comment Catholics do have a lot of intellectual freedom to reconcile Biblical truths with scientific or archeological opinions. But your teacher is going way beyond that if he proclaims that Jesus didn’t say what the Bible says He said or declares the Magnificat is fictional. From what you write here, your instructor seems more interest in disproving the Bible than in teaching it. If I were you, I’d look for a new parish to study RCIA. And I’m so sorry that you encountered such a person to “instruct” you on the Catholic faith. Pray for him.

 

[anawim]

jbsmith:

He did, however, tell us that the Magnificat was fictional, that Mary never sang it.

:bigyikes:

 

[buffalo]

The Toledoths of Genesis

             For those biblical scholars who have had the unfortunate experience                  of having the JEPD theory of the Documentary Hypothesis jammed                  down their throats the past forty years in Catholic biblical scholarship,                  and as long since the time of Julius Wellhausen in the late 1800s,                  this will be a real treat. This article will show what an absolute                  sham Catholic biblical scholarship has been since the 1960s; how                  innocent Catholics have been deceived by these pseudo-scholars;                  and why Catholic students all over the world have lost the faith.                  After you read this article, if you own Raymond Brown's "New Jerome                  Biblical Commentary," it may come in handy this winter when you                  need kindling for the fireplace. I hear that liberal biblical                  scholarship burns especially well. I can just hear those pages                  crackling now!

The Gospels are Historical

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION is in full accord with:

			 The earliest Christian 				historians

			 Modern literary 				analysis

			 The doctrine of 				the church

			 Recent Church 				statements

			 The following pages contain the evidence for the claims 				made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful effect 				on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the reaction of the Church.