RCIA said old testament just "stories"

[GregoryPalamas]

I’m a bit confused here. How is it that people can know that the stories of the Old Testament are mostly just fiction? These priests and RCIA instructors must be alot older than they appear.

Do you mean that even though we have historical evidence of Jericho and that it was destroyed at a certain time that the story of its fall is just made up?

Do you mean that there was no flood, though we have geological evidence for it? There was no meeting of God and Abraham and Sarah at the Oaks of Mamre? There was no battle between the Kings of the East and the Kings of the West even though we have separate verifiable evidenc found in Syria in 1975? There was no exodus from Egypt? There was no establishment of the promised land?

My, my. Such insight?

CDL

Ok, let’s try it again. Some here claim that since Jesus used parables then the entire Old Testament is just a parable. Or I gather that is their intent. Mny of the stories were developed to make a point. Heck, they probably all were at some stage. But unless we take literally what is said we have no information upon which to base our faith. Try this:

CCC 116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

CDL

 

[richardeekw]

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!

1 Diocesan newspaper article - Can we read this in a web link or can you qote the relevant sections. I read several of Dr M.Nutting Ralph’s worksand enjoyed them; becase I think they are reasonable. I will email to her if necessary, if I can get hold of the article.

2 To label someone a “heretic” is a strong declaration. Is it possible for you to justify your claim with her specific writings which are out-of-syn with Official Church Teachings?

Greatly appreciate to review them myself.

Thanks & God Bless

God Bless

 

[buffalo]

1 Diocesan newspaper article - Can we read this in a web link or can you qote the relevant sections. I read several of Dr M.Nutting Ralph’s worksand enjoyed them; becase I think they are reasonable. I will email to her if necessary, if I can get hold of the article.

2 To label someone a “heretic” is a strong declaration. Is it possible for you to justify your claim with her specific writings which are out-of-syn with Official Church Teachings?

Greatly appreciate to review them myself.

Thanks & God Bless

God Bless

A heretic is someone who cleaves away the faith. There are many more than one would think.

her·e·tic http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngcache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif /n. ˈhɛrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtɪk; adj. ˈhɛrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtɪk, həˈrɛthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. **her-i-tik; adj. her-i-tik, huh-ret-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. 2.Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith. 3.anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. –adjective

 

[richardeekw]

Dear Buffalo

In matters on Sacred Scripture
I think all of us
(a) have the right to share our personal interpretaton of the Scriptures vis-a-vis our “reference point”
(b) share or offer the Official teaching our our Christian Community/ the Roman Catholic Church
(c) To discuss in the “forum” ; **Why **we believe/Interprete in **What **we believe (in relating to the Sacred Scriptures)

It is just not Christian to label someone a “heretic” in our 21st century - Unless the Pope or his Bishops official name someone a “heretic” today; which I have not heard of. (If he starts a “Book of heretics”; I am sure many of us will be named in his favourite heretic album!) - Thank God he is a Man of PEACE; while there seems to be many mini-Popes around.

Some may be more enlightened with the Truth than others; but as scriptures says **we must share our Faith with others in gentleness.**We must learn to Love one another as Christ has loved us and only for and in His name alone!
Pray for all.
Praise be to God.

 

[buffalo]

Dear Buffalo

In matters on Sacred Scripture
I think all of us
(a) have the right to share our personal interpretaton of the Scriptures vis-a-vis our “reference point”
(b) share or offer the Official teaching our our Christian Community/ the Roman Catholic Church
(c) To discuss in the “forum” ; **Why **we believe/Interprete in **What **we believe (in relating to the Sacred Scriptures)

It is just not Christian to label someone a “heretic” in our 21st century - Unless the Pope or his Bishops official name someone a “heretic” today; which I have not heard of. (If he starts a “Book of heretics”; I am sure many of us will be named in his favourite heretic album!) - Thank God he is a Man of PEACE; while there seems to be many mini-Popes around.

Some may be more enlightened with the Truth than others; but as scriptures says **we must share our Faith with others in gentleness.**We must learn to Love one another as Christ has loved us and only for and in His name alone!

Pray for all.
Praise be to God.

True Christian charity demands fraternal correction.

 

[Mirdath]

True Christian charity demands fraternal correction.

Fraternal correction is not done by accusing someone of something for which people used to be burned alive. It is done calmly, politely, and reasonably – without needless namecalling.

 

[buffalo]

Fraternal correction is not done by accusing someone of something for which people used to be burned alive. It is done calmly, politely, and reasonably – without needless namecalling.

Someone who steals is rightly known as a thief.
Someone who tells lies is known as a liar
Someone who diagrees with Church teaching is a heretic

Why be afraid of the word?

 

[Mirdath]

Someone who steals is rightly known as a thief.
Someone who tells lies is known as a liar
Someone who diagrees with Church teaching is a heretic

Why be afraid of the word?

Someone who disagrees with Church teaching while still claiming membership is a heretic. That’s still no reason to throw accusations around wildly when you don’t agree exactly with someone – and we’re waiting with bated breath for someone to provide some substance to those accusations against Dr. Ralph. As to the claims of heresy against me, well, sorry guys, it’s literally impossible for me to be a heretic because I am properly an apostate.

There’re plenty of good reasons not to call someone a heretic too – it’s very much a charged word, far more so than ‘liar’ or ‘thief’, since it connotes extreme punishment for mere dissent. It’s the ‘you Nazi!’ of intra-religious discussion. Calling someone that makes them (and bystanders) much less likely to want to hear anything else you may have to say, no matter how good or true it may be.

 

[richardeekw]

True Christian charity demands fraternal correction.

Agree…but with gentleness.
Remember M.Ghandi, the Hindu. He reads the bible too and admires the ways of Jesus; but he cannot tolerate the “behagiour of the christians” he sees around him.

True Islam is a Religion of Peace and so is Christianity.Go ask the Pope if you don’t believe me. Christ first greeting after his resurrection is “PEACE”

So let us be kind to others … no name calling and making judgement on others. We may disagree on a statement proposed; …just say so and quote the reference to Official Church’s teachings.
We do NOT have to demand everyone to aggree and accept our ways… we can only hope the believe what the Church teaches and having evangelized the Good News…let the Holy Spirit take over, AMEN.

As I said before…" When we are young; we are sometimes like “wild horses” - but we will gradually mellow with age:

So PEACE of the LORD be with you

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

This is what I told my RCIA class this year [well two months ago] is it ok what I said?

Lets start at the Beginning Gen 1:1 In the Beginning. Like I said before how many you have been told that Adam & Eve is a myth and not to take them literally? Is that really what the Church teaches about Adam & Eve? Geneses chapter one verses one and two says:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. Then God created the Sun, the Moon, plants, animals, and finally on the last day the sixth day God created Man and Women verse 27 God created man in His own image in the divine image He created him, male and female He created them. We are all pretty much familiar with that creation story. However not to many of us is familiar with chapter two of Geneses. Starting at verse two “Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work He had been doing, He rested on the seventh day from all the work He had undertaken. 3So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it He rested from all the work He had done in creation. So everything is created and God rested. Now a little bit further down we read God created man beforethe plants and the animals. God created Adam from the dust of the earth in verse 7, and after Adam is created God creates the plants & tress in verse 9, the animals in verse 19, then in verses 21 & 22 God creates women. Now just wait a minute in chapter one God created man on the sixth day, in chapter two God creates man before the plants & animals. Which is it? Is the Bible the Word of God contradicting itself? The quick and simple answer is NO!
What the Church teaches is that the interpretation of Scripture must be done in a literal sense as opposed to be interpreted in a literalist sense. What’s the difference they sound alike they are basically the same word. At first glance you might think they mean the same thing. But they don’t at least not in the world of theology. The Church teaches the interpretation in a literal sense and condemns a literalist sense of interpretation of Scared Scripture. [See paragraph CCC116]. I will explain the difference between the two. Now lets say I emailed you and said, “It’s raining cats & dogs outside. As Americans in the 21st century you know that if you go outside it’s raining pretty dog gone hard. That is the literal interpretation of what the author [me] intended for me to say for you to understand. On the other hand what if you took the literalist interpretation of raining cat & dogs. That means if you walked outside cats &dogs will be falling from the sky like rain. After all that’s what the text says so that’s what it means. The literalist is not taking into account the accepted meaning of that fraise. Not taking in account of what the author was trying to convey. “It’s raining cats & dogs by golly that’s what it says that’s what it means. Not taking into account the time-period, who did the author intend to convey this too, what culture, what is the author’s meaning? What if this email was read two thousand years from now? What would be the best way to interpret this the literal sense or the literalist sense?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Cont:
Now is Adam & Eve a myth, is it just a story what does the Catholic Church teach? As Catholics we are free to believe that the Heavens and the Earth was created in six 24-hour days. Or the Heavens and the Earth took millions of years to be created. Or lets say I believe in the theory of evolution. Notice I said theory. What If I wanted to believe in the big bang theory of creation? What if I believed that man was formed from dust and God breathed life into his nostrils. The Church is silent on this because it doesn’t know. So it’s ok for you to believe in any one of these. As long as you believe that somewhere in the process God infused a soul into the human race. God created it. Now what does the Church teach about Adam & Eve:
**CCC 375:**The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251
**CCC 404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, ** but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin.
So what the author is trying to convey in the meaning of these two chapters is man is the highest in order of all of Gods creations. He is not conveying a time line or a scientific thesis.
So if Adam and Eve did not exist that would really play havoc with the doctrine of original sin. So the Catholic Church teaches yes Adam & Eve did exist. If anyone tells you this that Adam & Eve are myths or that the first eleven chapters are myths ask them to show you the Magisterial Document. I guarantee they cannot come up with one. Now they can come with some dissenting theologians documents but not from the Holy See

 

[richardeekw]

As for Dr Margaret Nutting Ralph… if she is …that bad…

**Margaret Nutting Ralph is secretary of educational ministries for the Roman Catholic diocese of Lexington, Kentucky, and director of the masters degree programs for Roman Catholics at Lexington Theological Seminary. She is the author of eight books on Scripture and has given workshops on Scripture throughout the U.S. and in Canada. **

a) What is the Bishop of the Diocese doing… (No :fraternal" correction?)

b) The Diocesan Newspapers - If anything is Officially out-of-sync with Church’s teachings…don’t a Bishop…a Priest… of even a Lay person write in to the editor? (No “fraternal” correction? or is everyone asleep?. I wonder…I wonder…I wonder)

c) I she is simply expressing a viewpoint or offering a another Theological stance…what is wrong with that?.. Yet someone can and should share the Official Church;s teaching, if available… and this is “fraternal” correction. (I cannot find the Judas; death ]verses] of the Scripture citation in the CCC)

d) I am sure, if something is seriously wrng word will get to Rome and what is the Pope doing? (No “fraternal” correction on his Bishop?

Until I get the facts, if any, I cotinue to respect and enjoy Dr Margaret N. Ralph.books.

 

[buffalo]

As for Dr Margaret Nutting Ralph… if she is …that bad…

**Margaret Nutting Ralph is secretary of educational ministries for the Roman Catholic diocese of Lexington, Kentucky, and director of the masters degree programs for Roman Catholics at Lexington Theological Seminary. She is the author of eight books on Scripture and has given workshops on Scripture throughout the U.S. and in Canada. **

a) What is the Bishop of the Diocese doing… (No :fraternal" correction?)

b) The Diocesan Newspapers - If anything is Officially out-of-sync with Church’s teachings…don’t a Bishop…a Priest… of even a Lay person write in to the editor? (No “fraternal” correction? or is everyone asleep?. I wonder…I wonder…I wonder)

c) I she is simply expressing a viewpoint or offering a another Theological stance…what is wrong with that?.. Yet someone can and should share the Official Church;s teaching, if available… and this is “fraternal” correction. (I cannot find the Judas; death ]verses] of the Scripture citation in the CCC)

d) I am sure, if something is seriously wrng word will get to Rome and what is the Pope doing? (No “fraternal” correction on his Bishop?

Until I get the facts, if any, I cotinue to respect and enjoy Dr Margaret N. Ralph.books.

Be careful here. Degrees or not these writings are the musings of an author with absolutely no teaching authority. Teaching authority begins with the Bishop and moves up.

Theologians ramblings have no weight, unless they become Church doctrine.

 

[sfp]

…So let us be kind to others … no name calling and making judgement on others. We may disagree on a statement proposed; …We do NOT have to demand everyone to aggree and accept our ways…

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”)

Maybe we could educate people on the definition. Let’s try to get rid of the negative connotation, we are still called to love them just the same, but while not refraining from speaking the truth about what the Church really teaches.

 

[sfp]

…True Islam is a Religion of Peace and so is Christianity.Go ask the Pope if you don’t believe me. Christ first greeting after his resurrection is “PEACE”…

No, I’m sorry, this is incorrect. Islam, if followed according to the teachings of the Quran and Mohammed, is correctly labeled as a religion of “submission.”

The Quran teaches that every faithful Muslim must bring the rest of the world into “SUBMISSION” of Islamic law, and to do this by sword, if necessary. If the unbelievers will not profess their faith in Muhammed as God’s ultimate and final prophet, and to submit themselves to the teachings of the Quran, then they are to “submit” to it’s authority by living in subordination of Muslims under Islamic law, and to pay heavy taxes. This is not a matter of interpretation, this is what the Quran teaches…very plainly.

That being said, yes, there are millions of Muslims who are peaceFUL, but that’s because they are following the law written on everyone’s heart…but NOT necessarily Quranic law. There are many Islamic “traditions” which deviate from Mohammed’s teachings in the Quran, many may be very peaceful people, but by definition, they are somewhat “heretics” in their own religion, since they profess to follow Mohammed, but they do not fulfull or even believe in the true Quranic teachings.

 

[richardeekw]

The Roman Catholic Church I know is mor FORGIVING and WELCOMING than many of her members.

God Bless

 

[richardeekw]

No, I’m sorry, this is incorrect. Islam, if followed according to the teachings of the Quran and Mohammed, is correctly labeled as a religion of “submission.”
.

I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.
From my Theological studies, The word “ISLAM” means “submission”.

True Muslims are people of peace…but there are fundamentalists in various degrees and so to with Christians and Catholics.

Think about it…during the time of the Crusades…were Christians Peaceful?

God Bless and Peace be with you

 

[sfp]

The Roman Catholic Church I know is mor FORGIVING and WELCOMING than many of her members.

Well said. Although I would make sure you understand what we mean by the “Roman Catholic Church.” When speaking of the Church, we are referring to the “authoritative magesterium of the Church (the Pope and the bishops in union with the Pope),” and not just the universal Church “members.” This concept is critical to understand"…

Think about it…during the time of the Crusades…were Christians Peaceful?..

Yes, it was “Christians” who performed those hideous acts of violence upon it’s own Christian city of Constantinople…(for more political reasons than religious, I might add.) However, NEVER did the authoritative magesterium of the Church condone this, but in fact opposed it. “Christians” took it upon themselves to perform those acts, but not under the direction of the Pope or the authoritative church.

True Muslims are people of peace…but there are fundamentalists in various degrees and so to with Christians and Catholics.

That depends on what your definition of a “true” muslim is. I believe that anyone who is “true” to their religion is someone who follows the teachings of whomever is the authority of that religion…that being Mohammed and the Quran for Islam.

We’re not talking about “fundamentalistic” interpretations of the Quran." There is no room for interpretation when the Quran says “Slay the unbelievers.” and “If the unbelievers do not submit, then they must live in submission of the Muslims and pay heavy taxes…” and “if your wife does not listen to you, then first admonish her, then if she still does not listen, then BEAT HER lightly.” Why is it such a surprise that so many muslims are violent…they are simply following their prophet’s instructions. The Quran is not like the Bible, it is a defacto “rule-book,” and muslims will tell you this.

The Bible, on the other hand, is meant to “reveal” God’s revelation to us, and was NEVER meant to be a defacto rule-book to be interpreted privately by Christian fundamentalists. It is meant to be understood according to the infallible interpretation of the authoritative Church given to us by Christ.

I would say that the “True Muslims” are the ones who are following the Quran and Mohammed (by definition).

The ones who choose to deviate from Quranic law (thank the Lord) are the ones who hopefully will prosper above the “true” muslims. They are the ones who are following the natural law God wrote on the hearts…and thankfully NOT the Quran.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’m Catholic and believe the Bible. Is that OK?

 

[sfp]

I’m Catholic and believe the Bible. Is that OK?

Of course! The Magesterium of the Catholic Church defined the books of the Bible infallibly in the year 397 A.D., and declared that they are the true, inspired written Word of God, and are therefore inerrant.

However, this doesn’t mean that every verse is an “edict.” Some of the books are O.T. law (the Torah), some books are historical, some books are prophetic, some books are poetry, and then there are the Gospels and the N.T. Church books and the letters from the apostles…) The letters, for example, were written TO certain people, and within a certain CONTEXT. We CANNOT read them without knowing it’s context, otherwise we start interpreting things differently than it was originally intended.

Let me put it another way…
The Bible says that the Israelites took Jericho, which was in the promised land. This was part of God’s plan for them to conquer Jericho, as he had promised them when they were led out of Egypt by Moses.

However, this is NOT to be interpreted like this…
Well, since it was o.k. for the Israelites to conquer Jericho, then it’s o.k. for me to raise up an army and conquer Philadelphia, PA.!

Likewise, just because some of the O.T. women murdered certain men, and was not punished, this should not be interpreted that it’s o.k. to murder. These are HISTORICAL accounts, and the stories have meaning, and God revealed these stories to us for a reason, yes. But every verse in the Bible is not meant to be an “example” for everyone.

Make sense?