S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I’m not aware that any disputed the existence of David or Solomon, and I’m not sure about Moses…but I don’t recall anyone saying that.
- Status
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Apparently our statements that we have no crisis of faith by admitting what appears to us unassailable evidence of evolution, means nothing. You would somehow strip us of belief because you can’t conceive of it? I think I’ll continue in faith…
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
I never said I was qualified, but the Church is. I know what the Church teaches. I have read several of your posts on here and on your blog, and you have rejected several Orthodox and infallible teachings defined by the Church Magisterium. Since that is the case, there are actually only two possible outcomes.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
He equated a fictional character to real character’s in the Bible, did you not read his post? It is obvious what he meant. And no where in your quote of my post above did I use the term heresy, heretical, heretic, or any combination thereof.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
Did I anywhere in my post call anyone an idiot? I don’t think so, but obviously the shoe must have pinched. It is rather obvious that the people writing the posts on this thread do not agree on how everything in the Old Testament is to be understood. When it comes to the New Testament we have a set of books that were written over a relatively short time, about less than a 100 year span in History, and by eyewitnesses. These writings have not been redacted, rewritten, or recompiled except in minor details of translation over the past 2000 years.
The Old Testament is obviously another matter entirely. My original point was not to say that the characters in the Old Testament could not possibly be true, but to draw out the fact that even using fictional characters one can teach truth. I had a Nun who taught us in 6th grade to look for “the universals” in works of fiction. These were parts that taught some kind of truth about human beings in general.
The Baptists/Catholics point was that Baptists generally believe every word is absolute fact and many good Catholics would disagree with that view point. Have peace Turtle you are not an idiot.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
For one thing, since the historicity of these stories is not vital to our salvation, it doesn’t matter if they are historical (in the modern sense) or not.
Secondly, it is clear Jesus brought up these stories, not to validate them as historical facts, but for the purposes of providing examples to make a specific point.
Third, since there is no official position by the Church, theologians (and ordinary lay believers) are at liberty to believe whatever they want about them, as long as it does not contradict the revealed truths of the Faith.
For the record, I happen to believe these stories are probably literally true. The Creation, Cain and Abel, Noah, and the Tower of Babel too, for that matter. However, if someone chooses to think differently about them, good for them. As long as they don’t go around saying their interpretation is **THE **interpretation or try to shove it down my or my kids throats, it doesn’ t affect my faith and salvation one bit.
That is a model of a fair-minded & balanced post 
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It contains many errors - such as the error calling Jesus a demoniac, as His opponents did.
Even if it were totally free from all errors of grammar,geography theology, morals, & everythging else, that would not make it any more inspired than it is. It’s inspired - & this has nothing to do with its being totally inerrant (which it isn’t, BTW).You want to hear one of the most popular, yet repulsive ones out there? There are some who say when Christ multiplied the loaves to feed the crowds that wasnt a miracle but rather Christ encouraged those in the crowd who brought lunch to share it with those in the crowd who didnt bring any.
That doesn’t do full justice to all aspects of the texts, but does not mean there is anything objectionable in such an idea otherwise.
I wonder what Leo XIII would make of that remark ? You want to be 100 Traditional ? OK - then you’re stuck with an indefensible, because exceptionless, doctrine of total inerrancy. The only difference between us despised “liberals” & you, is that we don’t pretend to be “Traditional” on our own terms; by the logic of a Catholic who insists on total inerrancy, you are as heterodox as we are 
Inerrantists can’t get off with 99.999999 percent inerrancy - that’s not total; your next argument works only if one accepts total inerrancy. Allow anything less, & we “liberals” can easily squeeze through the cracks between the bits your argument insists are inerrant, & those it allows not to be.
Our ideas are not vulnerable in that way, because we allow for the possibility of non-inerrancy from square one.Doesn’t follow - there can easily be sinfulness needing salvation, even if the cause of the sinfulness has been wrongly assigned.
People with no ability to understand the Biblical criticism of the last 200 years shouldn’t read it then - ***or ***criticise it for its alleged misdeeds. That’s common sense. Would anyone without the ability to drive a car be allowed near the steering wheel ? I hope not. That doesn’t make cars or criticism bad. It means that they both require some understanding if they are to be good & useful, rather than destructive.
E
epostle
Guest
The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).
As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
E
epostle
Guest
Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish… We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." (-Pope John Paul II)
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Thanks epostle, great post in reminding us all that the magisterium takes a much less strident and conservative view of things than do some of our brethren here.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Are you saying the Bible is inspired but not inerrant? (ie the Bible has errors in it?)
That is against Catholic teaching and against the notion of inspiration itself.
It does when the main intention of such “interpretations” are on the basis that there is “no such thing as miracles”.
Im trying to follow this but Im having a hard time because you appear to be saying you dont believe the Scriptures are inerrant…is this correct?I wonder what Leo XIII would make of that remark ? You want to be 100 Traditional ? OK - then you’re stuck with an indefensible, because exceptionless, doctrine of total inerrancy. The only difference between us despised “liberals” & you, is that we don’t pretend to be “Traditional” on our own terms; by the logic of a Catholic who insists on total inerrancy, you are as heterodox as we are
Our ideas are not vulnerable in that way, because we allow for the possibility of non-inerrancy from square one.
The view that the Scriptures contain errors is a modernist heresy. Note that there is a big difference between a story that was not meant to convey 100% historical facts and a story that flat out “got it wrong” (errant).
What do you mean “wrongly assigned”?..are we guessing at what happened at the fall, that is if you even believe there was a fall?
The doctrine of Original Sin would be undermined as would other aspects of the consequences of the fall affecting other parts of creation.
The fact is the Popes at that time saw sufficient danger that they condemned many inexcusable “interpretations” that were being permeated. The danger is very clear, start undermining the Scriptures a little and before you know it all is fair game for “questioning” and you have an avalanche on hand.People with no ability to understand the Biblical criticism of the last 200 years shouldn’t read it then - ***or ***criticise it for its alleged misdeeds. That’s common sense. Would anyone without the ability to drive a car be allowed near the steering wheel ? I hope not.
Theologians who say the Bible has errors in it, YET put their faith in it anyway says a lot about their sanity and/or motives.
Z
zerocrossing
Guest
I’m wondering if you and Gottle of Geer are not saying the same thing in two different ways, at least to some extent.
When Evangelical Protestants use the term “inerrant,” they usually mean 100% historically and scientifically factual, with every single word dictated by God without the human author’s involvement at all. This concept of inerrancy is not Catholic. As you indicate, the Catholic Church is not wedded to 100% historical and scientific fact - particularly in the OT. And this is backed up (thanks for the quote, epostle!), by Pope Leo XIII:
Likewise, the Catholic Church does not accept the common Evangelical notion that human personality is not involved in scripture - i.e. the notion that the divinely-inspired authors did not shape the narrative.
So much for the Protestant concept of inerrancy - which *may *be the concept of inerrancy that Gottle of Geer is arguing against. The quotes below address the *Catholic *concept of inerrancy:
So, I’m wondering if the problem in this discussion is not with the word “inerrant.” The Catholic Church teaches scriptural inerrancy, yes. That is, scripture is true… in the way that GOD intended for it to be true - which is not always according to modern Western rationalistic concepts of truth.
This is not a radical concept. It’s in the CCC.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Thanks for the intervention (I will get back to the OP - there is, rather annoyingly, a complication, in the form of a quotation from the Note accompanying** Ad Tuendam Fidem** - the note came out in 1998, after the second & revised edition of the CCC (which is the one now used). The relevant section of the Note reads:
- The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed”. The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.[11]
These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.[12]
[SNIP]
II. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines…can be recalled.
To the truths of the first paragraph belong …[29] the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts;[30]…
[my **emphasis **- the [figures] are for to references in the text]
http://www.catholicculture.org/user…rary%20Document
As I wrote during an earlier discussion -
What is not clear is [the doctrinal] weight [of the Note] ; & perhaps more important, what is meant by total inerrancy: how total, is total ?
For example: what is the function of the misdescriptions of Jesus ? He is said to be a blasphemer, liar, deceiver, demoniac: but surely Christians are not supposed to believe that God’s estimate of Him is that He is these things ? How does inerrancy “work” in such passages ?
Again, there are words & passages which can be accurately translated in more than one way because of their syntax and grammar - or even because of one word: such as pneuma, which means both wind & spirit. Sometimes, as in John 3, it is not clear where a speech ends & the author’s own remarks begin.
[more…]
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Greek is at least is written in words of both consonants & vowels - Hebrew was not; the vowels were added between about 600 & 900 AD. Which is presumably why some OT texts & translations refer to Aramaeans (aka Syrians), & others refer to Edomites: in Hebrew, R & D are very much alike, so easily confused. Any doctrine of inerrancy has to account for these details - & it is not clear how a text is inerrant, if it is not possible to say what it means: a doctrine of inerrancy, is a doctrine about the meaning of the text.
Meaning is also affected by interpretation: if a text is thought to tell “what happened”, & is then thought to be a legend, or even a fiction, the meaning taken from it changes. For example: taking Genesis 6-8 to mean the whole earth was flooded because of human wickedness, is one interpretation; taking it to mean that there was a local flood, is a very different one.
If people go from from taking Gen.5 to say that the patriarch Enoch was the great-grandfather of Noah, to thinking it is not giving biographical information at all - then there has been a change in what is thought of as being inerrantly stated. If the content of the inerrant statement has changed, so by implication has the way in which inerrancy is thought to work in that passage; which means the belief in inerrancy has undergone a change; for the text may be inerrant - but an inerrant history is not the same sort of thing as an inerrant legend, inerrant parable, or inerrant myth. So how does inerrancy “work” in this particular passage?
God can certainly make Himself known by using myths, or histories, or any other literature or literary genre - but though that is a true general principle, it doesn’t explain how inerrancy works in particular passages, if inerrancy cannot ensure that a passage means A rather than B, [or] X rather than Y. And if the inerrancy of the Bible doesn’t work for all & any of the Bible without exception, it is not clear that it is total. And people can hardly claim for the Bible what is not true of it.
What I’ve quoted, I still think. Here’s a link to the thread: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1835897#post1835897
ISTM that if Catholics insist that the Bible is “free from all error”, it is absolutely vital to have a doctrine of total inerrancy which deals with issues like these. If we don’t face them, & think them through, those who care not a button for them are going to ask us to give an account of what we believe & why - but we won’t be able to.
IMSHO the Bible is not infallible, does not need to be, & would be no better if it were. Christian faith is faith in Christ, not in a book, not in a Church, nor in any other created thing. If God needed inerrancy or infallibility in the means for our salvation He has given us, He would have preserved His servants from all sin. He has clearly not done so - yet sin is as least as serious an obstacle to the witness of Christians, as being mistaken. As we are not immune from sin, I don’t see why mere mistakenness is such a big issue: if it were so vastly important, why are not all Catholics infallible & inerrant when they explain the Faith ?
I don’t think inerrancy is theologically important - it seems important only if one is the sort of Christian for whom one of the features of the Bible is its freedom from all error. There are much more important matters, such as the meaning & theology & themes of the Bible. Contradictions as to which king killed how many of what nation in which battle, or how many people died in a plague, are of no importance compared to the questions of the interpretation & understanding of the texts in their own setting.
It is for Fundamentalists that the battle-casualties in 1 Chronicles as compared with those in 2 Samuel, or the different reasons given for Moses’ exclusion from the Promised Land, or the precise death died by Judas, are matters of vast importance - but how does the credibility of St.Paul rest on his accuracy in stating how many died in a plague ? Not at all - so his being wrong on such a matter is of no importance whatever. Fundamentalism distorts the shape, proportions & relations of doctrines, like a mirror at a fairground - & that is lamentable.
Meaning is also affected by interpretation: if a text is thought to tell “what happened”, & is then thought to be a legend, or even a fiction, the meaning taken from it changes. For example: taking Genesis 6-8 to mean the whole earth was flooded because of human wickedness, is one interpretation; taking it to mean that there was a local flood, is a very different one.
If people go from from taking Gen.5 to say that the patriarch Enoch was the great-grandfather of Noah, to thinking it is not giving biographical information at all - then there has been a change in what is thought of as being inerrantly stated. If the content of the inerrant statement has changed, so by implication has the way in which inerrancy is thought to work in that passage; which means the belief in inerrancy has undergone a change; for the text may be inerrant - but an inerrant history is not the same sort of thing as an inerrant legend, inerrant parable, or inerrant myth. So how does inerrancy “work” in this particular passage?
God can certainly make Himself known by using myths, or histories, or any other literature or literary genre - but though that is a true general principle, it doesn’t explain how inerrancy works in particular passages, if inerrancy cannot ensure that a passage means A rather than B, [or] X rather than Y. And if the inerrancy of the Bible doesn’t work for all & any of the Bible without exception, it is not clear that it is total. And people can hardly claim for the Bible what is not true of it.
What I’ve quoted, I still think. Here’s a link to the thread: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1835897#post1835897
ISTM that if Catholics insist that the Bible is “free from all error”, it is absolutely vital to have a doctrine of total inerrancy which deals with issues like these. If we don’t face them, & think them through, those who care not a button for them are going to ask us to give an account of what we believe & why - but we won’t be able to.
IMSHO the Bible is not infallible, does not need to be, & would be no better if it were. Christian faith is faith in Christ, not in a book, not in a Church, nor in any other created thing. If God needed inerrancy or infallibility in the means for our salvation He has given us, He would have preserved His servants from all sin. He has clearly not done so - yet sin is as least as serious an obstacle to the witness of Christians, as being mistaken. As we are not immune from sin, I don’t see why mere mistakenness is such a big issue: if it were so vastly important, why are not all Catholics infallible & inerrant when they explain the Faith ?
I don’t think inerrancy is theologically important - it seems important only if one is the sort of Christian for whom one of the features of the Bible is its freedom from all error. There are much more important matters, such as the meaning & theology & themes of the Bible. Contradictions as to which king killed how many of what nation in which battle, or how many people died in a plague, are of no importance compared to the questions of the interpretation & understanding of the texts in their own setting.
It is for Fundamentalists that the battle-casualties in 1 Chronicles as compared with those in 2 Samuel, or the different reasons given for Moses’ exclusion from the Promised Land, or the precise death died by Judas, are matters of vast importance - but how does the credibility of St.Paul rest on his accuracy in stating how many died in a plague ? Not at all - so his being wrong on such a matter is of no importance whatever. Fundamentalism distorts the shape, proportions & relations of doctrines, like a mirror at a fairground - & that is lamentable.
R
Robin
Guest
“It was mentioned that the Church’s teaching on the interpretation of Scripture are a bar to conversion of some Protestants. That is because the Church does not believe what fundamentalist Protestants believe. Many Christian denominations obsess about the literal inerrency of Scripture and spend their days arguing about dinosaurs on the one end and millenilism and rapture on the other. I believe that Catholicism is, and should be, focused on living our lives out today.”
Because of the absolute belief in the literally true, in every sense of the old testament - (believed by many Catholics and Protestant Fundamentalists) - there has been and will continue to be a great falling away from the Christian faith by many of these children do to the discoveries of modern science in the last 100 years. In these childrens’ mind ,they believed that they Had to make a choice between Faith OR Science. Pure folly on their part - and their parent I might add. I believe, Paul mentions the 4 corners of the earth and speaks of pillars holding up the sky. Is this True? Does it make the lessons of the Gospels False. Does it mean that Jesus didn’t exist? Most of us that are on these forums know the filly of such reasoning but…These are the questions that most nearly grown children ask themselves who have been steeped in Literalism. Some end up with their faith still intact. Many don’t do so well. That is the Catch-22 of Literalism.
“There has been a lot of talk about faith, and some implications that my faith (or those of others like me) is not strong enough to believe these stories. I repeat, belief in the historicaly inerrency of the bible has nothing to do with faith. Faith is manifested by applying the Scriptures in the manner they were intended to be applied – by using them as a guide to life with God.”
I had an Uncle, that bet me man would never go to the moon because God wouldn’t let him. I bet my Uncle $1000 that we would. A few years later I watched as the first step on the moon was made- and nobody died. I was 15. Thankfully, I had been tought by someone that God was broadminded about such things. He didn’t mind that we had stolen a little bit of His thunder. After all, He had given us a brain much higher than the animals and just slightly less efficient than the Angels. The Catholic Church Invented Science. Mendel was a monk. A priest invented the glider - and tried to fly it before Di Vinci. The monks in Ireland saved All knowedge from the Mongolian Hordes that swept through Europe. The Catholics done tremendous feats of engineering - Notre Dame Cathedrial- Koln Cathedral- Monistaries
developed agriculture to a science. Most scientists of the day were Priests. Our modern science is built on their discoveries.
It was not until the late 18th Century and the Early 19th Century that Literalism became a Doctrine of Fundamentalist Christians.
Augustine (400AD) A Father of the Church, said that to condemn scientific truth is not smart. It makes priests, bishops, popes look like fools and damages the faith [paraphrasing].
I have seen that faith damaged in many of my childhood friends - and not a few relatives. Literalist thinking.
Because of the absolute belief in the literally true, in every sense of the old testament - (believed by many Catholics and Protestant Fundamentalists) - there has been and will continue to be a great falling away from the Christian faith by many of these children do to the discoveries of modern science in the last 100 years. In these childrens’ mind ,they believed that they Had to make a choice between Faith OR Science. Pure folly on their part - and their parent I might add. I believe, Paul mentions the 4 corners of the earth and speaks of pillars holding up the sky. Is this True? Does it make the lessons of the Gospels False. Does it mean that Jesus didn’t exist? Most of us that are on these forums know the filly of such reasoning but…These are the questions that most nearly grown children ask themselves who have been steeped in Literalism. Some end up with their faith still intact. Many don’t do so well. That is the Catch-22 of Literalism.
“There has been a lot of talk about faith, and some implications that my faith (or those of others like me) is not strong enough to believe these stories. I repeat, belief in the historicaly inerrency of the bible has nothing to do with faith. Faith is manifested by applying the Scriptures in the manner they were intended to be applied – by using them as a guide to life with God.”
I had an Uncle, that bet me man would never go to the moon because God wouldn’t let him. I bet my Uncle $1000 that we would. A few years later I watched as the first step on the moon was made- and nobody died. I was 15. Thankfully, I had been tought by someone that God was broadminded about such things. He didn’t mind that we had stolen a little bit of His thunder. After all, He had given us a brain much higher than the animals and just slightly less efficient than the Angels. The Catholic Church Invented Science. Mendel was a monk. A priest invented the glider - and tried to fly it before Di Vinci. The monks in Ireland saved All knowedge from the Mongolian Hordes that swept through Europe. The Catholics done tremendous feats of engineering - Notre Dame Cathedrial- Koln Cathedral- Monistaries
developed agriculture to a science. Most scientists of the day were Priests. Our modern science is built on their discoveries.
It was not until the late 18th Century and the Early 19th Century that Literalism became a Doctrine of Fundamentalist Christians.
Augustine (400AD) A Father of the Church, said that to condemn scientific truth is not smart. It makes priests, bishops, popes look like fools and damages the faith [paraphrasing].
I have seen that faith damaged in many of my childhood friends - and not a few relatives. Literalist thinking.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Sadly you are very very right. It seems some of our more conservative brethren attempt to force the Church into a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture it does not hold to and more importantly has spoken against.
In doing so they cause great harm to the Church’s evangelizing mission by as you say, making people think they must choose between rational thought or unbending/adherence to literalism.
I can tell you had the Church actively taught such creationist pseudo-science, I most surely would never have converted.
While I believe such people are actually quite small in number (amazingly most of us who are middle to liberal in our orientation never ever have met any real life fundie Catholics in our parishes), teven small voices can get a lot of attention these days, what with blogs and forums.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
For those of us who believe that Bible literalism is not something that Catholics have ever held, they would be wise to read the words of these men:
Venerable Pope Pius XII (Humani Generis)
“Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu” (no. 24).
Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus)
"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow its inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being impossible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church” (No. 20).
Venerable Pope Pius XII (Humani Generis)
“Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu” (no. 24).
Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus)
"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow its inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being impossible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church” (No. 20).
Z
zerocrossing
Guest
First, greetings, Semper Fidelis. And may God bless your journey into the Catholic Church.
Second, the term “literal sense” in Catholic exegesis is different than what Protestants mean by “literal.” It refers to the *intended *sense - i.e. the sense that God intended to convey through the sacred author. Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia’s discussion of the “literal sense” in the link below:
newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm
The Catholic Encyclopedia is, of course, thoroughly orthodox in doctrine. Note particularly the following:
This is the sense in which Pope Pius XII is using the word “literal.” In fact, you will note in your quote that he refers to the need for exegesis to determine the *literal *sense. When Evangelical Protestants speak of “literal,” they mean only the plain meaning of the words. Exegesis for Evangelicals is necessary to *interpret *scripture, but not to understand the “literal” sense of the words (as Evangelicals understand the term “literal”). For Catholics, “literal” includes interpretation - i.e. the exegetical interpretation of the true or intended meaning of the words. As you will note in the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, the “literal sense” allows for fable, allegory and figurative language.
What Pope Pius XII is decrying is the notion of a NEW exegesis that disconnects itself from accepted Catholic forms of exegesis and opens to the door for subjective interpretation divorced from Tradition - and which undermines the truth *intended *by scripture.
Here is the way that Jeff Cavins explains the “literal sense” of scripture in his popular study, The Great Adventure:
So who is Jeff Cavins and why should we listen to what he has to say? Well, he teaches at Steubenville, alongside Dr. Scott Hahn. He has teamed up with Dr. Hahn in presenting video biblical studies on EWTN. He has even subbed for Mother Angelica. In other words, he is a rock solid orthodox Catholic Bible teacher. The above quote, incidentally, was in reference to Genesis 1-3.
Catholics are supposed to believe, along with Pope Leo XIII, that the sacred writer has not erred and that everything in scripture is true. But we are also to believe that it is true in the way that God *intended *it to be true. It does not really matter to the Catholic Church (or to Pope Leo XIII) whether creation took place in seven 24-hour “days” or in seven periods of time that the word “day” is shorthand for. What *does *matter is that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. It also matters to the Catholic Church that we all descend from a single set of parents who were created by God.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
And to add as we have several times before: the Church spoke quite forcefully in 1994 Pontifical Biblical Commission on Fundamentalism …wherein it decried such an approach, literal interpretation as “intellectual suicide”.
Yet some of our brethren refuse to acknowledge this because they prefer their own interpretation of Catholic doctrine. I thank most posters for their excellent and informative discourse. You continue to add to the collection of important evidence on this subject.
The PBC’s “Interepretation of the Bible” can be found from a link on my blog.
blessings,
Yet some of our brethren refuse to acknowledge this because they prefer their own interpretation of Catholic doctrine. I thank most posters for their excellent and informative discourse. You continue to add to the collection of important evidence on this subject.
The PBC’s “Interepretation of the Bible” can be found from a link on my blog.
blessings,
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
The PBC used to be a teaching branch of the Church but was downgraded long ago. They have said some questionable things, fortunately they dont speak as an official teaching arm.
- Status