Is this guy correct?

[seeker_of_God]

I attend a Catholic university, and it has this place called the Campus Ministry Center. There, every Monday, there is an event called Faith Alive that I like to attend, among other events.

Today, one of the campus ministers said something that bothered me a bit.

We were talking about stories, and why they are so important to us. This was tied into the Bible, and the readings we do at Mass.

He talked about how the Bible can’t be taken literally. He said that, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount probably never happened, because it was on a mountain in Matthew, and on a plain in Luke. Also, he strongly implied the multiplying of the fish and loaves didn’t happened, that we are only supposed to take a lesson from it.

Then someone brought up when the Church developed the Canon, around 300-400, and that they ignored a lot of other gospels. This guy (the campus minister) said that they only used those that were a holistic view of our faith that gave a good overview.

I asked, well they are the only ones that are divinely inspired, right? He said not necessarily; that the others may be divinely inspired but the Church didn’t think they needed to be included.

Then I asked, isn’t the Bible inerrant? He was saying how certain things had to be taken in the context of their time, and that now things are different. He said, something like “inerrant is such an old term,” and that theology changes.

He also said the Church has made a lot of progress in the last 50 years. He said that before that, people couldn’t interpret the Bible for themselves, that now they could get more out of it. I said that Lectio Divina has lasted for quite a while, exactly for the purpose of applying the scriptures to our lives.

Finally, he said that we can’t say other religions’ scriptures and writings aren’t divinely inspired. I asked why not, when the Church has the full truth? How can we say other scriptures are divinely inspired, too?

I’m rather disappointed in this. I don’t know if I’m just missing the point of what he’s trying to say, or if he has a very liberal view of the Bible. This is honestly the first time I’ve heard something questionable from any of these events.

Am I wrong? Am I creating something out of nothing? Is any of what he said correct?

 

[ziapueblo]

seeker of God,

You can have a literal interpretation of the Bible or a literalist interpretation. As Catholics we are to interpret the Bible in the literal sense. John Martignoni has a great website were you can download his talks for free. Here is one called Catholics and the Bible (4th one down) and here are the notes. Hope this helps answer your question.

God bless,
ZP

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I’m rather disappointed in this. I don’t know if I’m just missing the point of what he’s trying to say, or if he has a very liberal view of the Bible. This is honestly the first time I’ve heard something questionable from any of these events.

You might want to look into what “modernism” means, and see if this “minister” fits the bill as being a “modernist”.

newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q=modernism&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9#940

gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=modernism&x=23&y=9

This is quite good:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

:shamrock2:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I attend a Catholic university, and it has this place called the Campus Ministry Center. There, every Monday, there is an event called Faith Alive that I like to attend, among other events.

Today, one of the campus ministers said something that bothered me a bit.

We were talking about stories, and why they are so important to us. This was tied into the Bible, and the readings we do at Mass.

He talked about how the Bible can’t be taken literally. He said that, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount probably never happened, because it was on a mountain in Matthew, and on a plain in Luke. Also, he strongly implied the multiplying of the fish and loaves didn’t happened, that we are only supposed to take a lesson from it.

Then someone brought up when the Church developed the Canon, around 300-400, and that they ignored a lot of other gospels. This guy (the campus minister) said that they only used those that were a holistic view of our faith that gave a good overview.

I asked, well they are the only ones that are divinely inspired, right? He said not necessarily; that the others may be divinely inspired but the Church didn’t think they needed to be included.

This is fair enough. Some of the non-canonical literature came very close to being canonised. It is not at all clear that inspiration is, & must be, peculiar to the Biblical literature - what is crucial is that it is canonical: & it is not clear that “not canonical” means “not inspired”.​

Then I asked, isn’t the Bible inerrant? He was saying how certain things had to be taken in the context of their time,

Not certain things - everything. If we start thinking that Jesus was a 12th-century Assyrian or a 15th-century Florentine, we are sure to make an utter hash of understanding His teaching. Socrates would have been very different had he been a modern New Yorker.​

To see things in their proper context harms them no more than seeing a diamond in its setting; it is not a form of reductionism. How do we honour God or the Bible by not understanding the Bible in its context as adequately as we can ?

and that now things are different. He said, something like “inerrant is such an old term,” and that theology changes.

It’s nice to hear that you of approve of exterminating Amalekites, stoning disobedient sons, & slavery : for all these things, and many like them, are approved or not condemned or are commanded, supposedly by God. Some of us hope that we are slightly less brutal. If inerrancy is used as a device to consecrate the barbarities of OT worthies, it does not work - some parts of the OT are morally anti-Christian, inspired or not. Why should anyone be surprised by this ?​

Theologies do change - as the kerfuffle over the use of Aristotle in theology shows. Why shouldn’t they ? Everything else does. You will not find many people prepared to comment on St. Paul’s ability as a student of St. Thomas. Lack of change is not the same thing as faithfulness - not for a Church that lives in a changing world. If we can answer only the questions men had in 650 or 1450 or even 1950, we will not be carrying out the Great Commission; we have to have a message adequate for now, & all nows.

He also said the Church has made a lot of progress in the last 50 years.

One must hope so - to stand still, is to fall back.​

He said that before that, people couldn’t interpret the Bible for themselves, that now they could get more out of it. I said that Lectio Divina has lasted for quite a while, exactly for the purpose of applying the scriptures to our lives.

Finally, he said that we can’t say other religions’ scriptures and writings aren’t divinely inspired. I asked why not, when the Church has the full truth? How can we say other scriptures are divinely inspired, too?

He’s right - that we have inspired Scriptures, is not the same as denying that other religions also do, or may. As for the notion that the Church “has the full truth”, it is far from clear that this is so.​

I’m rather disappointed in this. I don’t know if I’m just missing the point of what he’s trying to say, or if he has a very liberal view of the Bible. This is honestly the first time I’ve heard something questionable from any of these events.

Am I wrong? Am I creating something out of nothing? Is any of what he said correct?

Even if the Bible is inerrant, that does not settle the questions of interpretation you’ve raised. There is nothing to stop an inerrant NT being written in a manner which suggests to a reader that what is meant as a literary device is an accurate description of fact.​

IMHO, Matthew 5 puts Jesus up on a mountain because the Torah was given on a mountain: IOW, because Jesus is being depicted as a greater Moses. IOW, the ideas of the Gospel as being “arranged”, or “tranposed” as though they were events. Mountains appear in some very important episodes in Matthew: by observing how they, or other motifs and themes, are used, we can learn a good deal about what this gospel is driving at.

I don’t think you should worry - stuff like that can be very shocking if one is not used to it; however, that does not make it bad or wrong or sinful. Please don’t agonise over this - there is no reason to (if that’s any help).

As for being “liberal” - it* seems* that a liberal is anyone who tries to understand the Biblical literature in its historical context. But that is only a guess. The Holy Spirit did not die out with the Fathers, but is alive in the Church at all times; so some at least of what is slated as “liberal” may be a gift of the same Spirit. Why not ? To say the Holy Spirit is absent from the Church today would be unconscionable - if He is not, He must be “allowed” to act as He Wills.

 

[Epistemes]

Sorry to intrude, but didn’t the Pope recently denounce Catholic University, and isn’t it in the plans of the Vatican to one day shut down universities like Catholic University?

Rumor though it may be, there must be a *grain *truth to it.

If so, I think I would know how to gauge this man’s statement regarding the Bible.

 

[Antonia123]

I doubt if Jesus said things only once, so I see no problem with Him saying something BOTH on a plain and on a mountain. Although perhaps the mount was a literary device. But then again, God is the best author and writes in actions and circumstances, not just words, so maybe He Himself placed the sermon on the mount in reference to Moses!

The trouble with some of what this person (in the original post) was saying, is that statements such as “not everything is to be taken literally” can mean completely different things, and not all are true.

For instance, Genesis clearly does not mean 6 days of 24 hours for creation. The early Fathers of the Church even said this! We didn’t need the 20th century for the Church to know this.

However, in modern “biblical criticism,” you will often find claims that Jesus did not say most of what the Gospels record Him as saying - it was all propaganda by the Early Church. I have heard this from the pulpit, from more than one priest. That is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

And frankly, when I hear a sermon which effectively begins “we know Jesus didn’t say this, but lets see what we should learn from it,” my reaction is to tune it out.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Sorry to intrude, but didn’t the Pope recently denounce Catholic University, and isn’t it in the plans of the Vatican to one day shut down universities like Catholic University?

Rumor though it may be, there must be a *grain *truth to it.

If so, I think I would know how to gauge this man’s statement regarding the Bible.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think I understand you. Is Catholic University a specific university? I said I’m attending a Catholic university; it is Duquesne University.

 

[Epistemes]

I’m sorry, but I don’t think I understand you. Is Catholic University a specific university? I said I’m attending a Catholic university; it is Duquesne University.

Oh, I apologize! I thought you meant Catholic University of America.

A friend of mine attends CUA but transferred due to its extremely liberal views.

 

[bcuster]

No, he is not correct. For many years Scripture classes have tried to be faith neutral. They have relied on questionable assumptions based on “scienetific” literary scholarship.

Your Campus Minister has most likely been taught in this manner. Scott Hahn has been able to help me overcome bad biblical scholarship. Offer one of Dr. Hahn’s books to the minister and talke with him about it.

 

[mo3]

Also, he strongly implied the multiplying of the fish and loaves didn’t happened, that we are only supposed to take a lesson from it.

This is not a correct interpretation.

Then someone brought up when the Church developed the Canon, around 300-400, and that they ignored a lot of other gospels.

This is somewhat true. Some so called “gospels” were determined to not be not inspired and therefore were not used.

Then I asked, isn’t the Bible inerrant? He was saying how certain things had to be taken in the context of their time, and that now things are different. He said, something like “inerrant is such an old term,” and that theology changes.

Again there is some truth here. Things must be taken in context. Theology can develop but it should not fundamentally change. The Church guides us through development and understanding.

He also said the Church has made a lot of progress in the last 50 years. He said that before that, people couldn’t interpret the Bible for themselves, that now they could get more out of it.

I am not sure what he means by “progress.” If he means the Church has done a better job in preaching the gospel, then it is OK. If he means the Church has changed its teaching to meet today’s secular ideas, this would be false.

Finally, he said that we can’t say other religions’ scriptures and writings aren’t divinely inspired

You would have to question what he means by this. If “other religions” means Christians who use their 66 books of the Bible, then yes their 66 books are inspired (although they are missing 7 books). If he means non-Christian religions, this is false.

Am I wrong? Am I creating something out of nothing? Is any of what he said correct?

It seems this is a typical scenario where the truth is mixed in with false teachings. I think you have a keen sense of the truth and you would be correct in questioning some of these concepts. The best approach is to question things with love and respect.

 

[rogue13]

No, the guy is not correct!!! There is a line that my good friend Bugs uses that would perfectly describe your campus minister: “What a maroon!”

Whenever you encounter a heterodox Catholic such as this one, spouting off all sorts of nonsense about how the “stories” in the Bible really aren’t true, pooh-poohing the miracles in the Bible (such as the loaves and the fishes), saying there are errors in the Bible, and other such nonsense; first and foremost ask them this question: “What is your source for that?” And, if they give you a source other than an official magisterial document - such as the Catechism, Conciliar documents, a papal encyclical, and such - then say to them, “So, in essence, this really isn’t what the Church teaches?!”

If he does give you a magisterial document as a reference, he would probably say something like, “Well, it’s in Vatican II.” If he says it’s in Vatican II, or in the Catechism, or wherever else, ask for specific documents and paragraph #'s. I can pretty much guarantee you he won’t be able to give them to you. Because there is nothing in any magisterial document…nothing in any official document of the Catholic Church…that teaches that bilge.

Then, after you ask him for references, you can let him know that, as Catholics, we do indeed take the Bible in a literal sense, and point him to paragraphs 115-119 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You can tell him that, yes, that are many things in Scripture, that can be difficult to reconcile, but that does not necessarily mean they aren’t true. After all, it’s difficult to reconcile how someone who doesn’t teach what the Catholic Church teaches can be a campus minister at a Catholic college. However, you can tell him that the historicity (historical authenticity) of the Gospels was reaffirmed by Vatican II - tell him to read the Vatican II document entitled “Dei Verbum.”

Then, you can ask him if God makes errors. Hopefully, he will say, “No.” You can follow up by asking him if God is the primary author of the Scriptures. He will probably say, “No.” If he does, then, again, point him to Dei Verbum and tell him that he is teaching something counter to what the Church teaches. If he says, “Yes,” that God is the primary author of Scriptures, then you can say, “Well, if God is the author, and God don’t make no mistakes, then there are no errors in Scripture…just as the Church teaches!”

The canon of the Scripture is what it is because the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, declared that those books were apostolic in origin and therefore it concluded that they were the inspired words of God. The Church makes no such declaration about any other book. Other “gospels” were not included because they could not be traced back to the Apostles, and they often contained things that were contrary to the Faith as given by the Apostles.

Finally, we can indeed say the scriptures of other religions are not divinely inspired, especially when they contradict the divinely inspired Scriptures of the Christian Faith. Would God inspire contradictions?

Tell this “campus minister” that he needs to read up a little bit more on his Catholic Faith, or that he needs to find another line of work. What a maroon!

 

[seeker_of_God]

rogue13, thanks so much for the very informative response. If I do confront him if he says these things again, I do want to try to be as nice as possible about it, because he seems very well-intentioned.

 

[rogue13]

You’re welcome. But, just remember what they say about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions. If you do confront him, be prepared to see him at less than his best behavior. These folks generally do not like to be questioned, especially by folks who know a little something about the actual teachings of the Church. I would recommend you get a copy of the talk, “Catholics and the Bible,” that ziapueblo recommended earlier, it will give you more information on how to deal with folks like this campus minister.

 

[rogue13]

Oh, one more thing…if you get the “Catholics and the Bible” talk from the Bible Christian Society, you might want to pass it on to this campus minister after you listen to it and just say something like, “Hey, I heard this very informative talk on the Catholic view of the Bible, and I’d be very interested in hearing what you think about it. Would you do me a favor and listen to it?” That way he is not being questioned directly by you - which tends to cause someone’s defensive walls to come up - he is just responding to a request for a favor. Then he will hopefully be challenged and made to think by what he hears in that talk.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The statements that you related are contrary to Catholic teaching; you should no longer listen to that person.

The non-canonical Gospels are not inspired. Neither are the religious texts from other religions (other than the OT and NT). The entire Bible is inspired and inerrant.

Luke says that he went up to a mountain, then he descended to a level place to teach. This level place seems to be still on the mountain. It may be that Luke and Matthew describe the same sermon, since quotes in ancient times were not word for word, but represented the meaning of what was said. Or it may be that these are two different, but similar sermons. Any good teacher will repeat his teaching many times in many different ways.

The claims that Jesus never performed the miracles of the loaves, and that he never gave the sermon on the mount at all, are claims that are incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

 

[jcrichton]

I attend a Catholic university, and it has this place called the Campus Ministry Center. There, every Monday, there is an event called Faith Alive that I like to attend, among other events.

Today, one of the campus ministers said something that bothered me a bit.

We were talking about stories, and why they are so important to us. This was tied into the Bible, and the readings we do at Mass.

He talked about how the Bible can’t be taken literally. He said that, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount probably never happened, because it was on a mountain in Matthew, and on a plain in Luke. Also, he strongly implied the multiplying of the fish and loaves didn’t happened, that we are only supposed to take a lesson from it.

Then someone brought up when the Church developed the Canon, around 300-400, and that they ignored a lot of other gospels. This guy (the campus minister) said that they only used those that were a holistic view of our faith that gave a good overview.

I asked, well they are the only ones that are divinely inspired, right? He said not necessarily; that the others may be divinely inspired but the Church didn’t think they needed to be included.

Then I asked, isn’t the Bible inerrant? He was saying how certain things had to be taken in the context of their time, and that now things are different. He said, something like “inerrant is such an old term,” and that theology changes.

He also said the Church has made a lot of progress in the last 50 years. He said that before that, people couldn’t interpret the Bible for themselves, that now they could get more out of it. I said that Lectio Divina has lasted for quite a while, exactly for the purpose of applying the scriptures to our lives.

Finally, he said that we can’t say other religions’ scriptures and writings aren’t divinely inspired. I asked why not, when the Church has the full truth? How can we say other scriptures are divinely inspired, too?

I’m rather disappointed in this. I don’t know if I’m just missing the point of what he’s trying to say, or if he has a very liberal view of the Bible. This is honestly the first time I’ve heard something questionable from any of these events.

Am I wrong? Am I creating something out of nothing? Is any of what he said correct?

Hi, seeker of God!

…while visiting another forum I met with an individual bent on correcting the error of December 25… the final analysis? He did not have “the correct” date of Jesus’ birth nor did he offer a better date; the only thing he did was insist that Christians did not celebrate Dec 25 as Christ’s birth (his intent was to remove Christ from public celebration).

…it seems to me that much of the new age theologians/scholars are bent on just such quest: remove God from society (including the Church)–I liken them to those who want to raze the Church’s practice of celibacy as a means to free Catholics from such barbaric traditions as giving themselves to Christ in a chaste and pure life…

Authority: it seems that anyone and everyone can have authority to determine what God’s design is–well, all except the Catholic Church; somehow she, the only Church founded by Christ, lacks the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Sources: all the sources that are used are mostly determined by they allegiance to hollowood (entertainment industry) and the various anti-Catholic elements that have filtered onto the social circuit (eastern religions, special interests groups, etc.); their most important contributions are anti-family, anti-Christ, anti-Bible, anti-God, and anti-life philosophies…

Goals: to foment doubt and schism amongst Catholics and other Christians–they promote anti-Christian values under the guise of “liberty,” “rights” and “freedom…”

Their greatest success to date: planned parenthood, abortion as a contraceptive, rampant immorality, rampant violence, mind-bending…

If you compare my statements to that of the minister on campus you will note that there is a similarity: he is intent on removing God from the Bible (consequently society) and I have cited some of the results of removing God from society.

Sadly, Satan uses these people to distort the message of Truth and to extinguish the faith of the weak and uninitiated.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[seeker_of_God]

Thanks everyone.

It does seem like people want to water down the faith. They don’t want to say other religions aren’t true. They are afraid of accepting the exclusivity of the truth.

In RCIA the other day, they said that yes, the Assumption and Immaculate Conception were defined infallibly, but obviously the Church wouldn’t say it was wrong on an issue. They said it was only a theological issue that some theologians came up with, and that it wouldn’t affect our faith if it wasn’t true, so it doesn’t really matter. I felt like they didn’t want to just come out and just say that it is true, because the Church says so. Basically, they would rather have us accepted a watered down version of the faith, rather than have the chance of rejecting the actual thing, or having to explain it to us.

 

[scaron]

I got to this too late - Mo, and Rouge, and Ron Conte have already given you all the right answers!

There are a few things I will add that might give you some information, and maybe provide a rebuttal to some of the things this person has told you.

He talked about how the Bible can’t be taken literally. He said that, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount probably never happened, because it was on a mountain in Matthew, and on a plain in Luke. Also, he strongly implied the multiplying of the fish and loaves didn’t happened, that we are only supposed to take a lesson from it.

Jesus was an itinerant preacher. He moved from place to place. Does this person think He was required to say only brand new things in each place? Does this even make sense? Why would anyone think that because Our Lord repeated Himself this disproves the literal truth of the Bible? How many times do you repeat the same story to different groups of people? How many times has this person repeated this line regarding the Sermon on the Mount/Plain to different audiences? “Wait, wait! what you say can’t be true! because I heard you say it slightly differently last week over in West Hall!” Nuts!

The one on the Loaves and Fishes is an old canard. “People were so inspired by Jesus’ message of love that they took out the food they had been hoarding and shared it around”. Again Nuts! I would strongly suggest you read the first 50 pages or so of Pope Benedict’s book, “Jesus of Nazareth”. The Holy Father puts paid to these excesses of the “Historical-Critical method” of biblical exegesis much more effectively, and with much more charity! than I can …

Then someone brought up when the Church developed the Canon, around 300-400, and that they ignored a lot of other gospels. This guy (the campus minister) said that they only used those that were a holistic view of our faith that gave a good overview.

I asked, well they are the only ones that are divinely inspired, right? He said not necessarily; that the others may be divinely inspired but the Church didn’t think they needed to be included.

Again, Wrong, IMO. I have been taught that the sole test of canonicity used was liturgical usage. The council Fathers surveyed which text were used in liturgy. These lead to the development of the canon. There was not an attempt to “put together a good story” - but rather an attempt to determine which scripture, in the context of the acid test of the Holy Mass, proved true. And thus the Bible was born.

Finally, he said that we can’t say other religions’ scriptures and writings aren’t divinely inspired. I asked why not, when the Church has the full truth? How can we say other scriptures are divinely inspired, too?

You nailed this yourself, as others have said. Other (Protestant and Jewish and I guess to some extent Mormon) religions use some of the same books of the Bible, and those are clearly inspired.

The rest clearly isn’t, for the reason you state. The Catholic Church has the fullness of Divine Revelation, through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Teaching. Once the last apostle (John) had died, Sacred Scripture came to end. Nothing written after that is inspired by God as Public Revelation (including the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the local phone book, or anything on the NYT bestseller list).

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks everyone.

It does seem like people want to water down the faith. They don’t want to say other religions aren’t true. They are afraid of accepting the exclusivity of the truth.

In RCIA the other day, they said that yes, the Assumption and Immaculate Conception were defined infallibly, but obviously the Church wouldn’t say it was wrong on an issue. They said it was only a theological issue that some theologians came up with, and that it wouldn’t affect our faith if it wasn’t true, so it doesn’t really matter. I felt like they didn’t want to just come out and just say that it is true, because the Church says so. Basically, they would rather have us accepted a watered down version of the faith, rather than have the chance of rejecting the actual thing, or having to explain it to us.

It is interesting that as more and more Catholics go out of their way to “not offend” the sensitivities of non-Catholics both God and the Church continue to be assaulted through direct and indirect acts in our society.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[emilliene]

If I knew a someone like this, I would definitely feel uncomfortable with the fact this person is a campus minister. I’m surprised that this happened at a Catholic university.

He talked about how the Bible can’t be taken literally. He said that, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount probably never happened, because it was on a mountain in Matthew, and on a plain in Luke. Also, he strongly implied the multiplying of the fish and loaves didn’t happened, that we are only supposed to take a lesson from it.

Perhaps, he should subscribed to Jefferson’s religion. I heard he edited the Bible and remove every miracle that seems “unlikely” to happen.

“He also said the Church has made a lot of progress in the last 50 years. He said that before that, people couldn’t interpret the Bible for themselves”

It bothered me quite a bit when I read that. We are not supposed to be interpreting the Bible ourselves because there is the danger of reading into what we want it to say. When we read and study the words of the Bible, we have to ask the Holy Spirit to guide us.

I too have a similar problem. There is a student minister at my university who does not believe in the Church’s authority. And from a few conversations with him, I learned that he supports gay marriages. And I feel uncomfortable with a person like that being a student minister because he is in the position where people might see him as a model of Catholic faith.

I suggest that you find someone on campus to discuss this. Find someone who is in charge. And voice your concerns about this campus minister. How uncomfortable you are with a person who doesn’t seem like a good role model for students like yourself.

And pray! Pray for the person would finally welcome the complete Truth of the Catholic Church because from my perspective, he is only picking and choosing (not to mention skewing) Catholic teachings.

Remember that this Sunday’s reading, that it is written:

“The lost I will seek out,
the strayed I will bring back,
the injured I will bind up,
the sick I will heal,
but the sleek and the strong I will destroy,
shepherding them rightly.”

One day he will come around. I know for some people it is quite difficult to give up that bit of individualism that makes us want to reason the world around us and coming up with own conclusions and beliefs. And that it is hard to adopt all of the Catholic Church teachings when one is stubborn and strong-minded. Just give him a chance and be patient. He is after all your neighbor, so show some charity.