N
NewCatholic1207
Guest
I was asked by my cousin who is not Catholic and apparently dating a Catholic man the following after attending Mass with him this past Sunday:
*I have a question for you. I went to Mass yesterday and as I was listening to the service there was something said that I need clarification on—
The father was speaking how Jesus assention was not a single event, Enoch assended, Elijah was taken in a fiery chariot and Mary assended. Then in his next paragraph he said that Catholics are not literalists, which you know I was raised to be, and that the Bible is not to be taken literally in everything it says.
So my question is… How does the Catholic faith justify not taking the Bible literally but it believes in a tradition so much that it will teach it from the pulpit (Mary assending)? I’m confused.*
**
The following is the answer I propose to give her, I most definitely need advise. I feel the call to help my cousin to the fullness of the faith and do not want to be pushy, but want to give her answers:**
*Since I didn’t hear Father’s Homily I can’t comment directly on it, but let me lay down some of the Catholic principles to start.
First, Mary did not ascend. Christ ascended. Mary was assumed, as was Elijah and Enoch. They did not do anything of their own power.
Secondly, a lot of confusion between “Bible Christians” (I say this only as a distinction) and Catholics is that sometimes we are speaking different dialects of Christianity. The “literal” interpretation of Scripture is one of those “language barrier” moments.
Let me explain…Catholics ARE bible literalists. This may seem to contradict Father’s Homily, but it doesn’t. Catholics DO (or should) read the Bible literally (this is the teaching of the Church - CCC 116), but NOT literalistically. That is to say, when Paul, in Romans 11:17-22, says that Christ is the olive tree and we are the branches, we know he is not literally saying we are pieces of wood with leaves attached to a tree, he’s using an analogy. To read a text in the literal sense means to read it as the original writers intended, i.e., what did they actually say, IN CONTEXT, and taking into consideration the type of writing being used. But there is also the spiritual sense of Scripture. I’ve attached a link that should help in understanding this: catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405bt.asp*
To address your question directly, The Catholic Church doesn’t have to justify NOT taking Scripture literally, because it does. The best example of this is the Gospel of St. John Chapter 6. Verse 54 reads, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day”. There is no more literal passage in Scripture. This is the Eucharist in Scripture.
You also need to understand that to a Catholic, Sacred Scripture is but one leg (this is no disrespect of Scripture) of a three legged stool on which the faith is built and sustained, the other two being Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church’s Magisterium (I think it would benefit you for you and I to setup a time to talk on the phone, words like Magisterium sometimes get Protestants crazy. I can explain more then)
I sort of touched on this in our previous discussions, but you have to ask yourself, how was the early church dealing with these things? To understand Catholic teaching, all you have to do is look at historical Christianity and before that historical Judaism. Think about it, before there was ANY Scripture, there was oral Tradition. The Pentateuch was handed down as oral tradition (teaching) for hundreds of years BEFORE it was ever written down. Before ANY of St. Paul’s Epistles, there were established Christian communities on Corinth, Rome and Ephesus. These people weren’t sitting around doing a study of Romans in the year 65 AD. How did the ancient Jews retain the first five books of the Old Testament BEFORE it was written…they were taught orally. Again how were the Christians in Corinth, Rome and Ephesus converted and trained in the faith, orally. Yes, there are bad traditions, those that the Pharisees burdened the people with, but there are the Traditions the Lord himself instituted for the furthering in the Faith. 2 Thess 2:15 says it all, “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours”.
To a Catholic, Sacred Scripture itself is part of Tradition. Let me know when you have time to talk.
*I have a question for you. I went to Mass yesterday and as I was listening to the service there was something said that I need clarification on—
The father was speaking how Jesus assention was not a single event, Enoch assended, Elijah was taken in a fiery chariot and Mary assended. Then in his next paragraph he said that Catholics are not literalists, which you know I was raised to be, and that the Bible is not to be taken literally in everything it says.
So my question is… How does the Catholic faith justify not taking the Bible literally but it believes in a tradition so much that it will teach it from the pulpit (Mary assending)? I’m confused.*
**
The following is the answer I propose to give her, I most definitely need advise. I feel the call to help my cousin to the fullness of the faith and do not want to be pushy, but want to give her answers:**
*Since I didn’t hear Father’s Homily I can’t comment directly on it, but let me lay down some of the Catholic principles to start.
First, Mary did not ascend. Christ ascended. Mary was assumed, as was Elijah and Enoch. They did not do anything of their own power.
Secondly, a lot of confusion between “Bible Christians” (I say this only as a distinction) and Catholics is that sometimes we are speaking different dialects of Christianity. The “literal” interpretation of Scripture is one of those “language barrier” moments.
Let me explain…Catholics ARE bible literalists. This may seem to contradict Father’s Homily, but it doesn’t. Catholics DO (or should) read the Bible literally (this is the teaching of the Church - CCC 116), but NOT literalistically. That is to say, when Paul, in Romans 11:17-22, says that Christ is the olive tree and we are the branches, we know he is not literally saying we are pieces of wood with leaves attached to a tree, he’s using an analogy. To read a text in the literal sense means to read it as the original writers intended, i.e., what did they actually say, IN CONTEXT, and taking into consideration the type of writing being used. But there is also the spiritual sense of Scripture. I’ve attached a link that should help in understanding this: catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405bt.asp*
To address your question directly, The Catholic Church doesn’t have to justify NOT taking Scripture literally, because it does. The best example of this is the Gospel of St. John Chapter 6. Verse 54 reads, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day”. There is no more literal passage in Scripture. This is the Eucharist in Scripture.
You also need to understand that to a Catholic, Sacred Scripture is but one leg (this is no disrespect of Scripture) of a three legged stool on which the faith is built and sustained, the other two being Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church’s Magisterium (I think it would benefit you for you and I to setup a time to talk on the phone, words like Magisterium sometimes get Protestants crazy. I can explain more then)
I sort of touched on this in our previous discussions, but you have to ask yourself, how was the early church dealing with these things? To understand Catholic teaching, all you have to do is look at historical Christianity and before that historical Judaism. Think about it, before there was ANY Scripture, there was oral Tradition. The Pentateuch was handed down as oral tradition (teaching) for hundreds of years BEFORE it was ever written down. Before ANY of St. Paul’s Epistles, there were established Christian communities on Corinth, Rome and Ephesus. These people weren’t sitting around doing a study of Romans in the year 65 AD. How did the ancient Jews retain the first five books of the Old Testament BEFORE it was written…they were taught orally. Again how were the Christians in Corinth, Rome and Ephesus converted and trained in the faith, orally. Yes, there are bad traditions, those that the Pharisees burdened the people with, but there are the Traditions the Lord himself instituted for the furthering in the Faith. 2 Thess 2:15 says it all, “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours”.
To a Catholic, Sacred Scripture itself is part of Tradition. Let me know when you have time to talk.