RCIA said old testament just "stories"

[patg]

PLEASE do not read anything by Margaret Ralph!!! She writes for our diocesan paper and is incredibly liberal. She received her education from a liberal protestant seminary. In her latest article in the diocesan paper she wrote that the accounts of Judas being hanged and then falling and bursting asunder are just stories that were made up later and we don’t really know how he died. THIS IS HERESY and goes against the traditional Catholic understanding of Scripture and Tradition. Avoid her like a plague, she’s a heretic!

Please read everything by Margaret Ralph - all of her writings and books are completely in line with the papal documents Dei Verbum, Divino Afflante Spiritu, and the Pontifical Biblical Commission (including the late Raymond Brown). She presents a clear, Catholic, and adult view of the scriptures that all Catholics should be required to understand. You left out that she was also the long-time director of religious education for the diocese. And I’m sure the bishop (a member of the magesterium) knew about her…

Your claims of heresy are total nonsense.

 

[sfp]

Please read everything by Margaret Ralph - all of her writings and books are completely in line with the papal documents…You left out that she was also the long-time director of religious education for the diocese. And I’m sure the bishop (a member of the magesterium) knew about her…

Your claims of heresy are total nonsense.

I don’t know this Margaret person, but I’ve known plenty of “directors of religious ed” who are far from catholic. That title should not give her instant credibility. We have priests in our diocese whom obviously have the approval of our bishop, but who teach liberal catholicism at it’s worst, as do the professors AND director of our local “catholic” university. Also, the bishop is only a member of the magesterium if he is “in union with” the Pope. There are plenty of bishops who are not…even though they are within apostolic succession.

Titles or positions don’t mean anything.

Bottom line…
What has Margaret written or taught that is not in line with the Church? That’s what should be discussed, and not her title, or her bishop’s approval.

 

[patg]

Titles or positions don’t mean anything.

I mostly agree BUT any title or position means at least a little more than the random statements from anonymous people here - like the one I was responding to raving that Margie is a heretic.

What has Margaret written or taught that is not in line with the Church? That’s what should be discussed, and not her title, or her bishop’s approval.

I agree and I’m still waiting…

 

[richardeekw]

This thread has side-track to the works by Dr Margaret Nutting Ralph.

It all started when she is crowned a “heretic”.
I
I agree. Read her books and articles.
Pick out all that is not in line with Official Chrch teachints.
Then it is worth discussing further…I am still waiting…
Until then, I’ll continue to enjoy her books.

 

[richardeekw]

In Dr Margaret N. Ralph’s Book
Discovering the First Century Church-
ARTICLE 3 – Legends about Judas

Question:”I thought Judas hanged himself. Why does Peter say that Judas fell? Isn’t this a rather gruesome story?” (Acts 1:15-20; Mt 27:3:10; Acts 5:1-11; 12:20-23 also discussed)

The person who asked this question has read Matthew’s gospel. In Matthew we read another story of Judas’ death (Mt 27:3-10). We will compare Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts because through the comparison, we can learn something about one literary form which is included in the Acts of the Apostles and thus something about the intent of the author as he tells this story.

In each account, Judas is presented as the one who betrayed Jesus. In each Judas dies a gruesome death although not the same death. In each a field is bought, known as the Field of Blood. However in Matthew the chief priests purchase the field and the blood is a reference to Jesus; blod. In Acts Judas himself purchases the field and the blood is reference to Judas; blood.

In each account Old Testament passages are used to show that events fulfilled the words of the prophets. However in Matthew the people quoted is said to be Jeremiah even though it is actually Zachariah. In Acts the quotations are from the book of Psalms attributed to David.

So in each story we have an identical core plot: Judas, Jesus; betrayer came to a terrible end. This plot is told to illustrate the same theme: the fact that Jesus was betrayed does not mean that God had lost control of the course of egents. Eents fulfilled God’s plan and evil was punished.

We see then, that around the core story are written different details and different quotations. What accounts for these similarities and differences?

Remember thaft netiher Matthew nor Luke is an author. Rather each is an editor. Each organized inberited stories, stories which were already in the community.

It seems evident hat in the years since Judas; betrayal a variety of stories had developed about this nefarious character. The stories were told not to record historical fact but to use historical fact to illustrate theological truth : terrible deeds result in terrible ends. The end for those who do good and those who do evil is not the same. Evil is punished.

As the stories are told a variety of details are added. While theose details differ from one account to another, the central plot and purpose of the stories remain the same.

Stories which have an historical core accompanied by imaginative details are called legends. When such stories account for the origins of names of people or places they are called etiologies. We have seen that both Matthew and Luke include a legend about Judas and an etiology about the Field of Blood in their edited accounts.

In the case of Acts, Luke places the and etiology on the lips of Peter. It is clear however, that the speech which Peter gives is meant to teach Luke’s readers rather than Peter’s listeners. Otherwise Peter would not be pictured as explaining to his audience that the Field of Blood was “in their language Akeldama” (Acts 1:19) Peter’s audience would not have needed such an explanation.

By emphasizing the gruesomeness of Judas; end the author;s intent is to affirm that power and justice of God. Evil does not go unnoticed. As you read Acts you will notice other stories with the same gruesome emphasis – the deaths of Ananias and Sapphire (Acts 5:1-11) and the fate of Herod (Acts 12:20-23). While the stories definitely sound cruel to us, a first century audience would have understood that imaginative details were added to the story in order to teach the lesson that eil acts lead to evil ends.

A legend of Judas; death then has been appropriated by Luke to emphasize the fate of those who do egil. Howeever, even human evil does not subvert God’s justice or God’s plan.

My tiny mind telle me that her explanation is reasonable.
Go, read her Book, there are various other apprant contradictions.

 

[buffalo]

Judas Iscariot

…But there does not seem to be any great difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. For the field, bought with the rejected price of his treachery, might well be described as indirectly bought or possessed by Judas, albeit he did not buy it himself. And St. Peter’s words about the name Haceldama might be referred to the “reward of iniquity” as well as the violent death of the traitor. Similar difficulties are raised as to the discrepancies in detail discovered in the various accounts of the betrayal itself. But it will be found that, without doing violence to the text, the narratives of the four Evangelists can be brought into harmony, though in any case there will remain some obscure or doubtful points. It is disputed, for instance, whether Judas was present at the institution of the Holy Eucharist and communicated with the other Apostles. But the balance of authority is in favour of the affirmative. There has also been some difference of opinion as to the time of the treachery. Some consider that it was suddenly determined on by Judas after the anointing at Bethania, while others suppose a longer negotiation with the chief priests.

 

[mikew262]

I have a sister-in-law that has come into the faith and went thru RCIA classes a couple years ago. She told me that they told her that the old testament stories (i.e. noahs ark etc.) are just “stories” told for us as examples. I didn’t know that the church thought this way. Why is this?

My parish priest once told my daughter that the Bible is just a series of stories mean’t teach us how God wants us to live our life (I’m paraphrasing).

While I’m not sure I totally accept that explanation, it’s probably more important what message we gleam from Scripture vs. whether something actually occured.

 

[mikew262]

Gee, it seem the Holy Spirit is out to deceive us by just telling stories. :banghead:

Whether they just stories, partial stories/partial accurate (probably closer to the truth), or entirely accurate is not the real point. It’s what God wants to learn from Scripture and how we apply it is what is really important (IMO).

 

[mikew262]

No, not “demand,” that’s true…but we should not be shy to correct those who “profess” to be Catholic, but who still insist that dissent does not separate them from the Church.

“Heretic” is not a “bad word,” and it’s not “name-calling.” It is simply the best word to describe a “…professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.”

Just like “ignorant” is not an insult, it is simply the best word to describe someone who does not know the facts about something. Yes, it “sounds” insulting, but that’s because usually the one being referred to, doesn’t want to be told that he/she is wrong. (so now it has unjustly become “name-calling”)

It all depends if you are on the receiving end of being called ignorant or a heretic on how you interpret it. I personally think use of either of those words on this open forum is inappropriate.

 

[Writer]

Go tell your priest that David was an actual historical person and the temple in Jerusalem actually and historically existed.

If You don’t believe it go to the wailing wall and see it in person.

Does that mean that everything in the bible is to be taken literally? Of course not. The point is though that there really is much of the Bible that can be taken literally and is 100% historically and literally true.

Right… I think it’s a cop-out to say that it’s all stories. Like Tolkien and Lewis reminded us, many of the great similarities between different religious traditions can be seen like pale or distorted reflections of the True Myth–i.e. the Judeo Christian belief. We should give the benefit of the doubt to the literal truth of the Old Testament unless other textual issues make it clear that its meaning was figurative or metaphorical. We need to try to understand what the writer intended to convey.

 

[hoosiertoo]

Gal 4:21. Tell me then, you are so eager to be subject to the Law, have you listened to what the Law says?
22. Scripture says that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave girl and one by the freewoman.
23. The son of the slave girl came to be born in the way of human nature; but the son of the freewoman came to be born through a promise.
24. There is an allegory here: these women **stand for **the two covenants. The one given on Mount Sinai, that is Hagar, whose children are born into slavery;
25. now **Sinai **is a mountain in Arabia and **represents Jerusalem **in its present state, for she is in slavery together with her children.
26. But the Jerusalem above is free, and that is the one that is our mother;
27. as scripture says: Shout for joy, you barren woman who has borne no children! Break into shouts of joy, you who were never in labour. For the sons of the forsaken one are more in number than the sons of the wedded wife.
28. Now you, brothers, are like Isaac, children of the promise;
29. just as at that time, the child born in the way of human nature persecuted the child born through the Spirit, so now.
30. But what is it that scripture says? Drive away that slave girl and her son; the slave girl’s son is not to share the inheritance with the son of the freewoman.
31. So, brothers, we are the children not of the slave girl but of the freewoman.

Allegory? Ayuh.

 

[sfp]

It all depends if you are on the receiving end of being called ignorant or a heretic on how you interpret it. I personally think use of either of those words on this open forum is inappropriate.

No, that’s only if the person on the receiving end is incapable of separating emotion from the facts…
If I am ignorant of something, then I shouldn’t be offended at all, to be called “ignorant” of that issue. It’s a WORD to describe a reality. I am truly ignorant about women’s clothing and cosmetics. I’m not offended when my wife tells me this.

What word would you use to describe the fact that someone doesn’t know anything about something? (without having to say that entire sentence)? There is not another word to use as a substitute (please correct me if I’m wrong, and we can all start using it).

Same goes for “heretic.” A heretic is someone perpetuating “heresy,” which is simply “false teaching.”

I’m open to using something else to describe it…just give me a better word to use and I’ll use it!

 

[mikew262]

No, that’s only if the person on the receiving end is incapable of separating emotion from the facts…
If I am ignorant of something, then I shouldn’t be offended at all, to be called “ignorant” of that issue. It’s a WORD to describe a reality. I am truly ignorant about women’s clothing and cosmetics. I’m not offended when my wife tells me this.

What word would you use to describe the fact that someone doesn’t know anything about something? (without having to say that entire sentence)? There is not another word to use as a substitute (please correct me if I’m wrong, and we can all start using it).

Same goes for “heretic.” A heretic is someone perpetuating “heresy,” which is simply “false teaching.”

I’m open to using something else to describe it…just give me a better word to use and I’ll use it!

Hmm…how about just explaining to a person where you feel they are wrong and instead resorting to labels? It’s not that hard.

 

[sfp]

Hmm…how about just explaining to a person where you feel they are wrong and instead resorting to labels? It’s not that hard.

I agree that we shouldn’t use the term in a derogatory way, but according to your line of thinking, then we need to talk to people using “descriptions,” rather than commonly known words or adjectives.

Does one say…“My friend is a person who’s roots are from Europe and his skin is light-pinkish complected…” ? NO, we would say, "My friend is “white.” Is this “resorting to labels?” (or name-calling?) Of course not…it’s just “a way” to describe someone…by physical appearance.

The concept of heresy is not about whether or not you or I “feel” that someone is wrong or not. If someone claims to be of a certain faith, but teaches things contrary to what his/her “self-professed” faith teaches, then by definition, this person is a heretic, and is promoting heresy in that faith. This is not name-calling, or “labeling,” it’s simply the only word to describe the concept of “false-teaching.”

Give me a synonym for “heretic,” and we can all start using it.

 

[buffalo]

Hmm…how about just explaining to a person where you feel they are wrong and instead resorting to labels? It’s not that hard.

Here’s a label - politcally correct.

 

[SFH]

When people start to dismiss Genesis as fable or myth, I usually find that they haven’t read it very carefully or that they’re extremely narrow minded.

The six days in which God created the universe weren’t twenty-four hour days. How could they be when the sun wasn’t created until the fourth day? Day in the context of Genesis means a period of time – much like we would say “in colonial days” or “the day of the automobile.”

I think the description in Genesis fits nicely with modern science. First, there would have been darkness. As the gases of the Sun ignited, there would be light. But the light wouldn’t be distinguishable as the Sun at that point. At least if you were looking at it from earth. Slowly, the water and gases on the earth would separate. Some of the waters would freeze and some of the molten rock would solidify into land. Life would begin in the water, then it would move to land. Birds and animals would follow. And last, man would appear with a soul breathed into him directly from God.

The Sacred Writers weren’t trying to give us a Stephen Hawkins dissertation on the origin of the universe. They were trying to convey a historical fact and a theological truth – that God created the universe – in language that the people of their time would understand. They may not be “technically” right on every point, but the facts they narrate are historical facts. For example, if someone said that Washington crossed the Delaware, he would be technically wrong (i.e., the boat crossed the Delaware, Washington merely stood in the boat), but in the general sense in which we understand the words, he would be right.

I think you have to approach Sacred Scripture with a similar mindset. You can’t hold them to the standards of an Albert Einstein or an Oxford history professor, but you can’t dismiss their narratives as fables either. (Just like you couldn’t hold Albert Einstein to the standards of St. Thomas Aquinas when Albert Einstein makes comments about God.)

 

[Mintaka]

Re: alternate, truthful labels

Non-orthodox, or even anti-orthodox.
Dissenting.
Theologically incorrect.

Modern-day Arius-loving Pelagian Encratite with Gnostic tendencies, if you can find someone with those specific beliefs.

Just don’t call someone a heretic, unless he’s been convicted under a canon law trial.

And, as I’ve pointed out before – the only convicted heretic in the US I know of is an ex-Catholic priest in Sacramento, and he only got tried because he kept falsely advertising that he offered Catholic Mass at his very non-Catholic church. (Some weird tie-in with the local false advertising laws.) If he shows up on the forum, him you can validly call a heretic. Nobody else on the forum counts.

 

[richardeekw]

Dear all

If the Official Church does not condemn anyone a “Heretic”, in our century, I think we should not. Period.​

I quote from Dr Margaret N. Ralph’s book -Discovering the First Century Church:

Growth Process which preceded Acts

• Events
• Oral Tradition
• Written Tradition
• Edited Tradition (Lk 1:3)
• Canonical

---

Quote her artical from “Crossroads”-which appeared in the Diocesan Papers

This is the third in a series of articles on the Acts of the Apostles.
Question: “I thought Judas committed suicide, but Luke says he died from a fall. Which was it?”

Luke’s story of Judas’ death is part of his story of Judas’ replacement being chosen (Acts 1:15-26). This short account deserves our special attention because it helps us understand the kind of writing we are reading when we read Acts.

In the course of explaining that Judas needs to be replaced, Luke has Peter tell a gruesome story about Judas’ final end (Acts 1:18;20). This story might shock the reader, especially since it is in Luke, who, as we have noted, is very kindhearted and slow to judge other people’s failures. However, this is one of three gruesome stories in Acts, all of which tell us about the shocking end of someone who has done wrong (see also the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11 and the story of Herod’s end in Acts 12:20-23). By looking carefully at Luke’s story of Judas’ end, and comparing it to another story of Judas’ end that appears in Matthew’s gospel, in which Judas commits suicide, we can learn something about the intent of the author when repeating such stories.

In Matthew’s gospel we are told that Judas, after betraying Jesus, returns to the chief priests and elders, acknowledges that he has betrayed an innocent person, and throws the thirty pieces of silver into the temple. He then goes out and commits suicide by hanging himself. The chief priests and elders buy the potter’s field, which is called the Field of Blood. Matthew then states: “Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah…” (see Matt 27:10).

In Acts Judas himself buys the field. After a fall in that very field: “he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. …so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood” (Acts 1: 18b, 19b). Before and after this story Luke has Peter quote scripture: Before the story Peter says, “Friends, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas…” (Acts 1:16). As he ends the story Peter says, “for it is written in the book of Psalms….” (Acts 1:20).

Evidently there were a number of stories that circulated in the early church about Judas’ sorry end. These two stories differ in how Judas died, in who bought the field, for whose blood, Jesus’ or Judas’, the field is named, and in the Old Testament texts quoted. However, the two stories also have a great deal in common: In each a dreadful deed, Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, results in a dreadful end. In each the field is named the Field of Blood. In each Scripture is quoted to demonstrate that God’s will is mysteriously being fulfilled through events.

In other words, the stories differ in details, but share a historical core and a common purpose. The historical core is Judas’ betrayal of Jesus and Judas’ sudden death. The purpose in each case is to teach two lessons: Those who do terrible deeds meet terrible ends; God’s purposes are not thwarted even in the face of human evil.

Matthew and Luke’s stories about Judas’ end are perfect examples of the literary form called legend. A legend is an imaginative and symbolic story that has an historical core. Imaginative details are added to the historical core to make it a better story, and to emphasize the point the story teller wishes to make. Legends often include etiologies. An etiology is a story that explains the source of something. These two legends each explain the source of the name Field of Blood.

In addition to illustrating characteristics of the literary form legend, this short story also illustrates that when Luke pictures a person in Acts giving a speech, the speech is for the benefit of Luke’s audience, not for the benefit of the people to whom that character is speaking inside the story. Here Peter is speaking to his fellow Jews in Jerusalem. None of them would need to have the name of the field translated: “…so that the field was called in their language, Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood” (Acts 1:19). However, Luke’s Gentile, Greek speaking audience would need to have the word translated.

How did Judas die? We don’t know. But the gospel editors agree that Judas’ terrible deed resulted in a terrible end.

Unquote.​

With this article and the “full text” (similar) from her book I quoted above; I sincerely think anyone wishing to appreciate and have better insight insight of Good Catholic Biblical Scholarship should study her various books.

 

[sfp]

…If the Official Church does not condemn anyone a “Heretic”, in our century, I think we should not. Period…

The Church is very clear on what “beliefs” (not people) have been condemned as “heresy” over the centuries, and yes they do use that term. Nothing is new these days, as most heretical teachings have already been addressed long ago, but you are incorrect when you imply that calling someone a heretic somehow “condemns” that person.

Heresy during the middle ages was a “capital” offense, punishable by the government, because widespread heresy, such as the Cathars or Albegensians was viewed as potentially devastating to society as a whole! So, the Church was asked to question those who professed to be Christian, and to first and foremost try to CONVERT them back into the Church. If they refused, then the Church was required to turn them over to the authorities. The Church did not CONDEMN anyone to hell or elsewhere, and still does not…and neither am I.

No longer is this the case (that heresy carries a capital punishment by “most” governments), so the same stigma should no longer apply. This doesn’t mean that a “heretic” is a bad person, it simply means that they are perpetuating false teaching within a faith that they profess to believe in. Simple as that, no offense is intended.

The 23 ecumenical councils have addressed these “heresies,” which is what it is properly called. Those who choose to call themselves “Catholic,” but who perpetuate false Catholic teaching, are “heretics.” This no longer carries a capital punishment by (most) governments, but yes the Church still calls it “heresy.”

We do not need to refrain from using an objective term to describe false teaching. We can call it what it is because that’s the word for it.

(and I mean this in the most loving, but honest way)

 

[sfp]

Re: alternate, truthful labels

Non-orthodox, or even anti-orthodox.
Dissenting.
Theologically incorrect.

Modern-day Arius-loving Pelagian Encratite with Gnostic tendencies, if you can find someone with those specific beliefs.

Just don’t call someone a heretic, unless he’s been convicted under a canon law trial.

O.K., this is way off base, probably because I’m not expressing myself well!

I’m not saying that we should “call someone” a heretic by name, there’s usually no reason to do that. However, I AM calling false teaching “heresy,” which is what it is, and it IS what the Church calls it…see my post above.

So, technically a person teaching “heresy” by definition is a “heretic,” although in a charitable discussion I would never suggest “calling” somone that outright. Note, I have never “called” somone a heretic in conversation, I’m simply stating a fact about the definition of somone who perpetuates “false teaching.”

Also, I do appreciate your attempts at being politically correct, but these words are not equivalent…

“Non-orthodox” is not necessarily an equivalent term because you can have someone practicing and teaching non-orthodox liturgical “disciplines,” for example, without teaching false doctrine. (this does not equate to “heresy.”)

“Dissenting” is not necessarily an equivalent term, because a Catholic can dissent without teaching false doctrine. (ie somone who privately dissents and repents, but does not share their dissention with anyone or does not perpetuate this dissention to others).

“Theologically incorrect” is not necessarily an equivalent term, because there are perfectly acceptable “theological” differences in exegeses (plural) which might differ from “official” Church teaching, but that are not considered “heresy” because we are not bound to believe them as faithful Catholics. This term therefore becomes a very “subjective” term. “Heresy” is not subjective at all, by definition.