Catholic View of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter jbsmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
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.
Those strike me as odd things to claim. It is one thing to say the world was made billions of years rather than 6 days. There is sensory evidence to support the claim of billions of years.

What sensory evidence could anyone possibly have to say Mary did not say something or Jesus did not say something. To make any kind of case for that somehow you would have had to follow them around for their life and record everything they say and show that those things weren’t among them.

Sometimes people just get a little off track.

I recently saw a quote attributed to Thomas Aquinas that went something like this. “The Bible should be considered absolutely true. Where there is more than one way to interpret a particular passage, no interpretation should be held as the absolute truth because in doing so, the overall respect for the Bible will diminish”

That quote is something of a paraphrase but I think that is the gist and it seems to apply here… It seems as if we (or at least your RCIA instructors) are in something of a backlash from previous overly rigid interpretations of various passages that were not clearly understood in the first place.

-Jim
 
40.png
jbsmith:
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?
The problem you discuss is not new and has not been limited to Pentecostal or Baptist churches. It goes back at least as far as Galileo who was placed under house arrest and threatened with torture by officials of the Catholic Church for suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the universe as previous Church doctrine had taught.

Please consider this:

The Scriptures state in numerous places that God is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. Of all things. Our Creed echoes this belief in its first lines.

Scientists (at least good scientists) look at the heavens and the earth and all things as best they can and draw conclusions from it. If the evidence of the senses tell us that creation is a certain way, then that must be accepted as true. If my eyes and my feet tell me that there is a mountain in front of me but the Bible tells me that there isn’t, I must conclude that, whatever may have been true in the past, that mountain is there now. God’s word is found in the Bible, yes, but God’s word is also found in creation because God is the creator of all things created.

If something physically, truly, really exists, it must be there because God made it. If Sacred Scripture describes creation in one way, but reality based on clear sensory evidence is another way, than I can only conclude that God must have changed creation. Or maybe our understanding of Scripture was not correct in the first place.

Anyway, like I said, don’t get me started (too late)

To conclude let me say that I teach high school physics, chemitry and mathematics. I haven’t seen all the evidence first hand that leads us to conclude that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, that the universe is 14 billion (give or take) years old, but these things do seem plausible based on evidence I have seen and the rational writings I have read.

Let me also say that when I read the Sermon on the Mount, I will continue to listen to it as though Jesus were speaking it to me face to face. (Though I still do not fully understand all parts of it perfectly) I will read the Song of Mary with full confidence that it expresses how Mary felt about God. And I would sooner give up all the science books before I would give up those.

Again, good luck on your journey. Don’t let sidetracked souls lead you astray

peace

-Jim
 
40.png
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.
The Bible is inerrant in all that the Sacred Author affirms. Don’t know precisely what your RCIA teacher or priest said, but Pope Paul VI, in his Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, *Sancta Mater Ecclesia *(1964), catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3291] affirms the sacred writers “faithfully recounted [Jesus’] life and words.” The sacred writers did not transform Jesus “into a ‘mythical’ personage”(ibid.) and his teachings were not “distorted by reason of worship which the disciples now paid him” (ibid.). Rather, they handed on "the things which in actual fact the Lord has said and done" (ibid.). While they may have tailored their accounts according to the needs of their hearers, consolidating, synthesizing, using different contexts, literary genres, etc., “the Evangelists report the sayings or the doings of our Lord in a different order … us[ing] different words to express what he said, not keeping to the very letter, but nevertheless preserving the sense.” (ibid.). So, although various literary genres are used by the sacred authors, “the Gospels were written under the INSPIRATION of the Holy Spirit, and that it was he who preserved their author IMMUNE FROM ALL ERROR.” (ibid.)
 
In your search for ecclesial teachings on the Bible, I recommend first reading Providentissimus Deus (1893),
it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, ***solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.

 
After reading Providentissimus Deus, you should then read Spiritus Paraclitus. It states:

Inspiration Incompatible with Error
Code:
    20. The principles here laid down will apply   cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a   lamentable fact that there are many who with great labour carry out and   publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and   institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief   purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and   so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only   extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book   or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if   they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest   possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. It is true, no doubt, that   copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it   arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too   easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may   also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case   good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity.   But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to   certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has   erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these   difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the   things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly   think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should   consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had   in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which   the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely,   with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it   from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that   inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and   rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself,   the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and   unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence   and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the   Council of the Vatican. ... Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot     therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have     fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power,     He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the     things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood,     then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and     with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the     Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the     Fathers. "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "since they wrote     the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that     He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head     dictated."(58) And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most     superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the     Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for     writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "(59)
 
40.png
jbsmith:
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.
You have apparently encountered some unfaithful or clueless people. The Church is certainly composed of weeds and wheat. Fortunately you have access to this forum for a true understanding of the Faith.

They have probably been influenced by bad literature which is not faithful to the teaching of the Church. Yes, it can happen even to priests and bishops. But it won’t bring the whole Church down. You have to rely on the healthier parts of the Church to make it through this.

You can either go to the bishop with your concerns, or ignore the problem for now and stay in the RCIA program in order to be received properly, but supplement your RCIA materials with study time online. (RCIA is only 2 hours a week, right?)

Others have posted excellent resources for you. Who knows, perhaps God is planting you in that parish to help be a source of true faith.

hurst
 
40.png
jbsmith:
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.
Since you are new, then you may not be able to do much just yet. But you must realize that you will have to constantly check what they are saying with what the Church actually teaches! Come here often and throw out questions. It will also be a good way to get to know the faith better.
40.png
jbsmith:
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.
I’m sorry. May God have mercy on both them and you and bring us all into His glorious Truth.

The fact is, Jesus Himself said “The scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35). The Church teaches that it is all TRUE, and not fiction.

Those leaders may be getting by with it for the moment, but their time will come. Teachers are judged more strictly!

hurst
 
40.png
jbsmith:
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.
The footnotes for the NAB are often heretical - you cannot go by them.

Welcome to the Church Militant! We have been infiltrated and the battle is raging. Brace yourself for suffering. It is needed and God calls us to it.
40.png
jbsmith:
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.
The Church does not teach that. It does leave open the option for you to hold that evolutionary processes may have been involved after the creation, but God created everything from nothing, and creates the soul directly as well.
40.png
jbsmith:
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.
Nothing is made up. He is passing off his conjecture, perhaps to rationalize his own lack of faith. I am sorry, but please bear with others’ faults. The truth remains true, and in spite of his shortcomings, he is still a treasurehouse of grace and life! Would you rather have a sleek stainless steel safe that is empty, or a rusted chest with rotten wood filled with gold? So look past his poor ability to reflect the truth, and realize he is the goose that lays golden eggs. Every time he consecrates the host, you have the opportunity to receive the Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity of our Lord and God Jesus Christ for life and peace and spiritual nourishment. Just make sure you wash your hands of his personal errors. And pray for Him so that Our Lord may be more honorably represented by his priests. We won’t receive anything if we don’t pray. May God have mercy on your parish.
40.png
jbsmith:
He also told us that the Flood was just a small localized flood, not worldwide.
He is promoting a belief held by many Catholics, but it is not what the Church teaches.

The flood was a supernatural miracle, and I see every reason to believe it was “global”. I personally believe that all land was unified back then, too, so it is not really hard to imagine. But again, on this issue you will indeed come across conflicting opinions. Just realize they are only opinions.

hurst
 
40.png
jbsmith:
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.
Precisely what we should do. The Bible is the Word of God.

Just keep in mind that the Church is the final authority on interpreting it.
40.png
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 does not do that, despite the fact that some of its members do. To know what the Church teaches when you suspect teachers of being false or wrong, go to the official declarations and documents or listen to what approved apologists are saying.

hurst
 
40.png
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
Thank you for posting this link, it was enlightening. It seems to directly contradict what my RCIA teacher told me. This makes his words even more disturbing.
 
40.png
gardenswithkids:
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.
Actually, I haven’t been back to RCIA or to that parish since that class session. I haven’t left the Church, however. I’ve been attending Mass at another parish in the area. From what I’ve been told by local Catholics and Protestants alike, this parish that I’ve been attending for the past few weeks is more orthodox.
 
buffalo said:
The Toledoths of Genesis
Code:
             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:
Code:
			 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.

Thank you. Again, these contradict what he told us in class.
 
40.png
trogiah:
Those strike me as odd things to claim. It is one thing to say the world was made billions of years rather than 6 days. There is sensory evidence to support the claim of billions of years.

What sensory evidence could anyone possibly have to say Mary did not say something or Jesus did not say something. To make any kind of case for that somehow you would have had to follow them around for their life and record everything they say and show that those things weren’t among them.

Sometimes people just get a little off track.

I recently saw a quote attributed to Thomas Aquinas that went something like this. “The Bible should be considered absolutely true. Where there is more than one way to interpret a particular passage, no interpretation should be held as the absolute truth because in doing so, the overall respect for the Bible will diminish”

That quote is something of a paraphrase but I think that is the gist and it seems to apply here… It seems as if we (or at least your RCIA instructors) are in something of a backlash from previous overly rigid interpretations of various passages that were not clearly understood in the first place.

-Jim
So as a result of this backlash, he’s going too far in the opposite direction? That’s the impression I’m starting to get.

By the way, I know this is a bit off subject, but I’d like to ask one more question. In this same class session, he also told us that Jews are saved. He said that Jews don’t need to believe in Jesus as their Savior in order to spend eternity in Heaven. I find this hard to believe. One student in the class refuted him when he said this, but he told the student that Jews are saved because the Church says so. I haven’t found any clear answers online.
 
40.png
trogiah:
The problem you discuss is not new and has not been limited to Pentecostal or Baptist churches. It goes back at least as far as Galileo who was placed under house arrest and threatened with torture by officials of the Catholic Church for suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the universe as previous Church doctrine had taught.

Please consider this:

The Scriptures state in numerous places that God is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. Of all things. Our Creed echoes this belief in its first lines.

Scientists (at least good scientists) look at the heavens and the earth and all things as best they can and draw conclusions from it. If the evidence of the senses tell us that creation is a certain way, then that must be accepted as true. If my eyes and my feet tell me that there is a mountain in front of me but the Bible tells me that there isn’t, I must conclude that, whatever may have been true in the past, that mountain is there now. God’s word is found in the Bible, yes, but God’s word is also found in creation because God is the creator of all things created.

If something physically, truly, really exists, it must be there because God made it. If Sacred Scripture describes creation in one way, but reality based on clear sensory evidence is another way, than I can only conclude that God must have changed creation. Or maybe our understanding of Scripture was not correct in the first place.

Anyway, like I said, don’t get me started (too late)

To conclude let me say that I teach high school physics, chemitry and mathematics. I haven’t seen all the evidence first hand that leads us to conclude that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, that the universe is 14 billion (give or take) years old, but these things do seem plausible based on evidence I have seen and the rational writings I have read.

Let me also say that when I read the Sermon on the Mount, I will continue to listen to it as though Jesus were speaking it to me face to face. (Though I still do not fully understand all parts of it perfectly) I will read the Song of Mary with full confidence that it expresses how Mary felt about God. And I would sooner give up all the science books before I would give up those.

Again, good luck on your journey. Don’t let sidetracked souls lead you astray

peace

-Jim
Thank you. I’m willing to concede that the universe is possibly millions or billions of years old. I’m even willing to concede that some life forms possibly evolved. However, I’m not willing to state my belief in these things with any certainty, because it’s impossible to know for sure. It’s much safer for me to accept the accounts from the Bible, since God inspired them and He’s always right.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
The Bible is inerrant in all that the Sacred Author affirms. Don’t know precisely what your RCIA teacher or priest said, but Pope Paul VI, in his Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, *Sancta Mater Ecclesia *(1964), catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3291] affirms the sacred writers “faithfully recounted [Jesus’] life and words.” The sacred writers did not transform Jesus “into a ‘mythical’ personage”(ibid.) and his teachings were not “distorted by reason of worship which the disciples now paid him” (ibid.). Rather, they handed on "the things which in actual fact the Lord has said and done" (ibid.). While they may have tailored their accounts according to the needs of their hearers, consolidating, synthesizing, using different contexts, literary genres, etc., “the Evangelists report the sayings or the doings of our Lord in a different order … us[ing] different words to express what he said, not keeping to the very letter, but nevertheless preserving the sense.” (ibid.). So, although various literary genres are used by the sacred authors, “the Gospels were written under the INSPIRATION of the Holy Spirit, and that it was he who preserved their author IMMUNE FROM ALL ERROR.” (ibid.)
Thank you for the link. It’s very reasonable to state that not all the things Jesus said and did are included in the Gospels. They even state that fact. It’s also reasonable to incude that the individual writers used various literary forms in order to get the Gospel message across to their audiences. But since this is the Word of God, it must be completely true and historical. I’m relieved that what my RCIA teacher told us doesn’t seem to be the view of the entire Church, although now I’m puzzled as to how these unorthodox views crept into the Church.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
In your search for ecclesial teachings on the Bible, I recommend first reading Providentissimus Deus (1893),
Thank you. You know what just occurred to me? This deacon (and the priest) are instructing people year after year and filling their heads with these teachings. Most of these people probably accept what they’re taught, not knowing any better. That’s scary.
 
40.png
hurst:
You have apparently encountered some unfaithful or clueless people. The Church is certainly composed of weeds and wheat. Fortunately you have access to this forum for a true understanding of the Faith.

They have probably been influenced by bad literature which is not faithful to the teaching of the Church. Yes, it can happen even to priests and bishops. But it won’t bring the whole Church down. You have to rely on the healthier parts of the Church to make it through this.

You can either go to the bishop with your concerns, or ignore the problem for now and stay in the RCIA program in order to be received properly, but supplement your RCIA materials with study time online. (RCIA is only 2 hours a week, right?)

Others have posted excellent resources for you. Who knows, perhaps God is planting you in that parish to help be a source of true faith.

hurst
Well, I haven’t been back to class since then. I really don’t think I want to receive my instruction from this man. I won’t trust anything he teaches me from now on after this.

I do have a question, though. Forgive me if this sounds naive or simple, but I’m new to the Church. How has all this deviation from orthodox Catholic doctrine crept into the Church? I always thought that the Catholic Church was structured in a very organized way as to protect doctrines and traditions. That’s one thing I always liked about the Church. When all the Protestant sects are fighting with each other over doctrines and correct interpretations of the Bible, the Catholic Church has been the same through the years. Why doesn’t the Magisterium put a stop to this? I’m sure there must be more than just this teacher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top