Refuting allegations in "Scripture from Scratch"

[japhy]

[Mods: I have put this in Traditional Catholicism because it deals with Scripture in what I consider a non-Traditional way, and I am looking for the Traditional response. If this thread would be better placed in the Scripture forum, by all means, please move it.]

This article (americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0997.asp) says several things that sound awfully biased, and never provides any sources for verification. It’s being used in my parish’s RCIA instruction. Can anyone help me verify (or refute) some of the claims it’s making?

Prior to Vatican II most Catholics had little firsthand contact with the Bible. Indeed, they were not encouraged to read the Bible lest such reading lead to “private interpretation,” which might well be erroneous or even heretical. – How accurate is this claim?

Shared scholarship and ecumenical dialogue since Vatican II have helped Protestants to reappropriate the importance of ecclesial tradition for Christian interpretation of Scripture and have helped Catholics to realize that Church authority is the servant, not the master, of the word of God, and that the Bible is God’s gift to the whole People of God. – This seems to ignore the three-legged stool of the Church (Scripture, Tradition, and Authority) by relegating it to a hierarchy of Scripture, then Authority, (and then Tradition?).

The Bible, although a witness to divine revelation, is a human text, not an oracle. God did not dictate the Bible any more than God literally created the universe out of nothing in seven calendar days. – This statement, along with others in the article, makes me think they’re trying to get away from the idea of divine authorship altogether. (See my other thread.)

The article also doesn’t mention the senses of Scripture… or the obligation to read Scripture within the context of the Tradition and Teaching Authority of the Church.

 

[zingo227]

here is 1st sentence from 3rd paragraph of that article:

“The theological controversies over Scripture between Protestants and Catholics are largely a thing of the past.”

to me this indicates the author has not been discussing much theology with protestants. even briefly reading just 1 or 2 computer forums where catholics & protestants interact will see that this statement is just plain incorrect. or try reading any issue of magazine Christianity Today etc

my experience on computer forums is that protestants know their bible very well (altho usually only the NT) & quite readily fling verses to support their assertions, but of course, that’s it. they rarely appeal to history except to remind everyone of past human misbehavior & since the protestants consider themselves innocent of any christian problems before 1500 or so & after that they only claim ownership of their own particular sect if that, or it’s just another religion-of-1

a deeper article about interpreting the bible is at

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM

otherwise the statements about catholics not reading the bible alot before vatican 2 sound similar to other stuff I’ve read

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

and there is a good article in this bible about catholics & bible studies, you could visit a big bookstore & read in there

amazon.com/gp/product/0195289269/002-6713548-4982425

 

[japhy]

a deeper article about interpreting the bible is at
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM

Yeah, I’ve read that (as well as Dei Filius, Providentissimus Deus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Sancta Mater Ecclesia, and Dei Verbum).

Here’s what I’ve culled together as the points they make:

• ALL Scripture is EQUALLY inspired by God and is therefore IMMUNE from error; one cannot limit the inspiration to only parts of Scripture (PD 20; DAS 38; SME II; DV 11-13)
• The Old Testament is just as inspired and valuable to Christians as the New Testament, ALTHOUGH the revelation of God in Christ is manifest most clearly in the New Testament (DF 2.6-7; DAS 24, 57; DV 14-18)
• While God is the Author of Scripture, His words take on characteristics of our words (much as the Word took on our nature when He became flesh), which is why Scripture is written in the styles and phrases common to their human authors (DAS 38-40; SME I-II; DV 12)
• The human authors were moved to write that which God ordered and nothing besides (PD 20; DV 11)
• The human authors wrote (as directed) to particular audiences and for particular reasons that are made evident in the way in which they have written (SME II; DV 19)
• It is important to study Scripture in the context of the living history of the Church, but not ignoring the current offerings of literary sciences; authentic interpretation of Scripture is granted to the teaching Magisterium of the Church (PD 10, 14; DAS 10, 40; SME II; DV 23)