interesting article

[Valz]

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C13509-1811332%2C00.html

 

[Scott_Waddell]

This is much ado about nothing. For example, the statement:

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The Scriptures speak of the sun rising. If the earth revolves, does the sun really rise? Does this mean the inspired bible writer is wrong? No, because he is using an idiom, not writing a scientific treatise.

Regarding the galileo flap, try this: catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

Scott

 

[Valz]

Scott Waddell:

This is much ado about nothing. For example, the statement:

The Scriptures speak of the sun rising. If the earth revolves, does the sun really rise? Does this mean the inspired bible writer is wrong? No, because he is using an idiom, not writing a scientific treatise.

Regarding the galileo flap, try this: catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

Scott

I agree, here is a link from another source:

cliftondiocese.com/Articles/497/

 

[Tonks40]

Gee, won’t this statement get all the anti-Catholic non-Catholics scivvies in a bunch!

 

[mercygate]

:yawn: This is supposed to be news? Even Sola Scriptura fundamentalists recognize that some parts of the Bible are history, some are prophecy, some are allegory . . .

The truth of the Bible does not lie in the absolute literal reading of every single phrase. For example, the Church does not declare whether we must believe that the universe was created in 6 24-hour days or in billions of years. We are required to believe that God did the job. We are not required to accept the accounts in Genesis as physical science.

 

[Valz]

:yawn: This is supposed to be news? Even Sola Scriptura fundamentalists recognize that some parts of the Bible are history, some are prophecy, some are allegory . . .

The truth of the Bible does not lie in the absolute literal reading of every single phrase. For example, the Church does not declare whether we must believe that the universe was created in 6 24-hour days or in billions of years. We are required to believe that God did the job. We are not required to accept the accounts in Genesis as physical science.

Yes but the problem is with the way that articles like these present it. They make it sounds as if The Church is teaching error.

 

[jdnation]

Reading this article really does make it seem like the Church is teaching Heresy! Is this really a hoax article where things are taken out of context? What is really the official comment from the Church? The portions concerning Genesis are completely wrong and uninformed. This just looks like a smear over the growing debate about evolution.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

The Church does not consider the Bible totally inerrant as do the Fundamentalists and such. The Church holds the Bible to be totally inerrant only in matters of faith and morals.

 

[jdnation]

Arba Sicula:

The Church does not consider the Bible totally inerrant as do the Fundamentalists and such. The Church holds the Bible to be totally inerrant only in matters of faith and morals.

Actually in a way it really does! If the Bible can’t be trusted in terms of simple history then what makes its matters on morals and miracles trustworthy? There are some books (Aprocrypha) that are extended parables, that is, they are stories and intended to be stories. As for fundaliteralist interpretation, of course nobody should read the Bible ‘fundaliterally’ especially since the English language doesn’t deliver the full context of the Hebrew and Greek, and neither are many in the modern world familiar with the lifestyles and society of the Ancient Near East, so it cannot be directly applied to the cultural setting of the 21st Century. However, the Bible easily remains the most trustworthy account of the Hebrew people and God’s covenant with them, and I’d even say of the Creation of man and the world.

The article states that these are being put out by individual Bishops here and there, but it in no way has the final say on the Church’s stand about Genesis which is ambiguously vague that allows us to believe whatever ‘truths’ naturlistic evolution holds (What these truths are, we are not told, and many of the things that are truthful have been held, more so, originally begun by creationists anyway).

 

[Arba_Sicula]

jdnation:

If the Bible can’t be trusted in terms of simple history then what makes its matters on morals and miracles trustworthy?

I’d say that the writers could be wrong about places and events and characters, but God would not allow them to err as far as what He wanted us to know about Him, His plan for us, and how we are to act for Him.

However, the Bible easily remains the most trustworthy account of the Hebrew people

Sure.

and God’s covenant with them,

About this, it can’t be wrong.

and I’d even say of the Creation of man and the world.

Here we’re back into other than faith and morals and more into legend IMO.

The article states that these are being put out by individual Bishops here and there, but it in no way has the final say on the Church’s stand about Genesis which is ambiguously vague

Sure. The Church takes no definitive stand about evolution or “creationism,” but only demands that regardless what one believes, one must absolutely accept God as the ultimate Creator.

 

[KingdomHallsEnd]

Arba Sicula:

The Church does not consider the Bible totally inerrant as do the Fundamentalists and such. The Church holds the Bible to be totally inerrant only in matters of faith and morals.

The Church does teach that the Bible is inerrant. She, however, does not teach that the Bible should be taken literally.

*"They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”. *

This quote from the article is an uttering of Modernism. This is a Modernist statement.

(There was another thread like this one that I read earlier today. Is this the same one or is there another one? Could someone please direct me?)

 

[Strider]

Arba Sicula:

The Church does not consider the Bible totally inerrant as do the Fundamentalists and such. The Church holds the Bible to be totally inerrant only in matters of faith and morals.

Uh, yeah, She does. Check out CCC 's 105 - 119
The first sentence of # 105 is "God is the Author Sacred Scripture,
But # 117f explains the senses in which we are to view Scripture. For example, we read the book of Jonah as a parable, but one which was written by the sacred author under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus used parables to great effect; why not a few in the Old Testament?
Also, Genesis 1 & 2 are not science, but they are inerrant. They are inerrant in that they convey what the inspired sacred author wanted to convey.
But, no, we don’t hold to a fundamentalist reading of the Scriptures.

 

[arieh0310]

The danger, though, in becoming too non-literal is that Christianity loses its historical basis and becomes an esoteric feel-good religion. We must remember that God entered history when Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us, that the incarnation was a literal historical event. I have seen too many mainline Protestant denominations water down their faith by stating that nearly all the events of the Old Testament were allegory, that all the stories of the patriarchs were just parables teaching spiritual truths. Very quickly that watering down of the OT bled into the NT and the stories told there.

I am going through an Ignatius Study Bible put together by Scott Hahn and he states that of all the senses of Scripture the literal sense must be read out of the passage first. So, the creation narrative is a literal event that took place but God may have chosen the word “day” to describe an emense amount of time that wouldn’t be understood by people at the time.

My fear is that right now, as a whole, Catholics are poorly catechized and do not understand thier faith. If we get a bunch of people thinking that the Bible is just a book of cute stories telling some spiritual truths that help you lead a good life we will see the pews empty at a rapid rate (why would you choose to be a Catholic with all these rules to live by when God’s revelation is just fantasy?).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Arba Sicula:

The Church does not consider the Bible totally inerrant as do the Fundamentalists and such. The Church holds the Bible to be totally inerrant only in matters of faith and morals.

Apparently, we are meant to believe in total inerrancy

Unless this means the total inerrancy only of certain parts - but that’s my guess, and I don’t think it’s what is meant by Cardinal Ratzinger:

tcrnews2.com/dogmaAAA.html - see paragraph 11

religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm - for some quotations on the topic.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Valz:

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C13509-1811332%2C00.html

It’s a poor article IMO.

It’s nice to see the bishops entering the twentieth century - Protestants knew all this a century ago.

The document is - seemingly - not yet available on the Net; this is the next best thing AFAIK: catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgyframe.htm

 

[rjs1]

arieh0310:

The danger, though, in becoming too non-literal is that Christianity loses its historical basis and becomes an esoteric feel-good religion. We must remember that God entered history when Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us, that the incarnation was a literal historical event. I have seen too many mainline Protestant denominations water down their faith by stating that nearly all the events of the Old Testament were allegory, that all the stories of the patriarchs were just parables teaching spiritual truths. Very quickly that watering down of the OT bled into the NT and the stories told there.

I am going through an Ignatius Study Bible put together by Scott Hahn and he states that of all the senses of Scripture the literal sense must be read out of the passage first. So, the creation narrative is a literal event that took place but God may have chosen the word “day” to describe an emense amount of time that wouldn’t be understood by people at the time.

My fear is that right now, as a whole, Catholics are poorly catechized and do not understand thier faith. If we get a bunch of people thinking that the Bible is just a book of cute stories telling some spiritual truths that help you lead a good life we will see the pews empty at a rapid rate (why would you choose to be a Catholic with all these rules to live by when God’s revelation is just fantasy?).

Excellent warning!

There are too many Christians, Protestant and Catholic, who are only too ready to believe that the Bible is wrong if the secularists tell them it is.

Properly understood, it is amazing just how scientifically accurate the Scriptures are. Poetic language - sun rising and setting etc - is still used by us today. But events such as the Flood can be verified by a few enquiries.

One thing is absolute - on matters of faith and morals the Bible is inerrant and it does recount the true history of God’s dealings wwith mankind. If you check the official teachings of the Catholic Church you will find no ambiguity on these matters.

 

[jdnation]

Jesus Christ Himself upheld the authority of Scripture. The days of Genesis were always understood by the Hebrews as literal days, this is shown when God commanded them to observe the Sabbath and the 7 day week. It is made obvious in Genesis by the phrasing “there was evening and then morning…”

More details here.

 

[Strider]

jdnation:

Jesus Christ Himself upheld the authority of Scripture. The days of Genesis were always understood by the Hebrews as literal days, this is shown when God commanded them to observe the Sabbath and the 7 day week. It is made obvious in Genesis by the phrasing “there was evening and then morning…”
More details here.

The link is to a fundamentalist, literalist web site. The information conflicts with Catholic doctrine. You can always refer to the Catechism for proper Magesterial teaching.
Also, the Navarre Bible has excellent Catholic commentary. It uses RSV CE text as well as Latin. Its only drawback is its expense, but we collected a whole set over several years. I recommend it highly.

 

[OriginalJS]

Arba Sicula:

The Church does not consider the Bible totally inerrant as do the Fundamentalists and such. The Church holds the Bible to be totally inerrant only in matters of faith and morals.

The church does not hold the Bible to be totally inerrant on matters of faith and morals, unless many of the matters of religious faith taught in it in the Old Testament are not considered matters of faith and morals. Examples: stoning for certain sins, eating forbidden foods such as pork and shellfish, wearing garments made of two kinds of materials, etc. etc.

Additionally, there are a lot of inconsistencies that won’t stand up to even elementary analysis. For example, the two genealogies of Jesus found in the New Testament are not the same.

 

[Strider]

As I posted above, there are many ways to read different sections of the Bible. It is inerrant, meaning it contains no errors. Also as I posted above, Genesis is not science. It is an allegory of the first two humans. It’s what the sacred writer meant to convey.
Of course, there’s much more in Genesis, like the Protoevangelium in Genesis 3, but since God is the Author of Sacred Scripture, unluss you want intimate that God made mistakes or contradicted himself, the Bible is inerrant.