Sure this has been discussed before but

[zerocrossing]

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”.

One clarification: You are referring to the Evangelical, not the Catholic, meaning of “literal.” Correct?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

**Well thats the first time anybody has said that. Oddly this same PBC is cited to by our more conservative element on other areas within the same document that pertain to types of bibilcal analysis tools.I continue to marvel at how many here pick and choose from the Magisterium at will. **

One clarification: You are referring to the Evangelical, not the Catholic, meaning of “literal.” Correct?

Indeed I believe I am as I understood your post.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

“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.

The Fundamentalist doctrine of total inerrancy is not much more than 100 years old - Fundamentalism of the Protrestant variety is about 100; though it has roots in the past, as far back as post-Exilic Judaism. The doctrine of total inerrancy of B.B. Warfield (1851-1921), who is one of the principal Princeton Calvinists, is strikingly similar to that of Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893); I’ve often wondered whether there was influence either way ​

The notion of total inerrancy can in any case be understood in three or four different senses - so it would certainly help if the teaching authorities would issue an authentic interpretation of what is to be understood by the phrase. One cannot be expected to believe a doctrine, when one does not know what the words that express it are meant to mean. How can one witness to the truth of a doctrine, in such circumstances ?

…more…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…ended]

If the Bible is to be taken as totally free of all error, in every respect, in all its semantic functions, no matter what is being meant or by whom or in what context, then the notion of TI is drawn so tight that I for one cannot affirm it. I’d like to - but a doctrine drawn that tight falls into so many absurdities that it ends up destroying the meaning of the Bible. It’s like the armour first worn by David - it was so heavy that it was useless to him; which is why he fought Goliath with his slingshot, instead of being encased in metal (1 Sam. 17).

If OTOH it is allowed that the Bible may be in error in some aspects, then I can see ways in which it can be regarded as inerrant in other aspects. I think one could make a case for inerrancy if one adopted the methods of critical scholarship - but not without them; at least,* I* couldn’t do that without them The Bible is wrong when it says that the earth is stationary, or has four corners, or that Jerusalem is in the midst of the nations, or that the dead go down to the pit, or that Jesus is a deceiver - but it is made to affirm these things, if it is said to be free from all error. This kind of doctrine is a sitting target for the ridicule of sites such the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible - & so needlessly.

I can’t see any reason to regard those books as inerrant, & the fact that the Fathers (appear to ?) affirm its total inerrancy *may *mean only that they never knew of any reason to reconsider the idea. Is it simply an unexamined assumption ? I don’t know

If it’s erroneous doctrinally to doubt or deny total inerrancy - in the strict or less strict forms - then more evidence of this than a Note which is not part of the CCC is needed; the doctrine needs to be explained, not by amateurs, but by theologians who are well qualified to do so; the force of the relevant section of the 1998 Note is not explained when it has simply been quoted.

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]. ## Indeed ##

I have seen that faith damaged in many of my childhood friends - and not a few relatives. Literalist thinking.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Catholic Dude:

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

Yes, I am saying that. There is nothing in the nature of inspiration that requires total inerrancy - if inerrancy were a quality of the grace of inspiration, it would be something superadded to it; not intrinsic to it. Unless what the Pope meant in “Providentissimus” was, that the inspiration of the Bible in particular was one to which the quality of total inerrancy had been superadded. That would dispose of the objection that Biblical inspiration necessarily implies & confers total inerrancy - it would not dispose of the failure of that particular notion of inspiration to fit the Bible. Which is unfortunate.​

As for total inerrancy being Catholic teaching, the British bishops (who surely ought to know) don’t agree. At least two are Cardinals (including mine ) - I should listen to them, rather than to my fellow-laity who are not bishops: no ? AFAIK, Rome has not yet condemned their teaching; & that is enough for me.

It does when the main intention of such “interpretations” are on the basis that there is “no such thing as miracles”.

Who is claiming that ?

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?

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).

I’m trying to understand how you can complain against “liberals” when you yourself do not hold to total & exceptionless inerrancy. I don’t know how I can make what I said clearer.​

As to the status of the position that Scripture may contain errors: it is not new, but old; & it is certainly not heretical. What dogma does it harm ? None. It is not even clear that it is more than an unexamined - though venerable & widespread - assumption.
I am well aware of the distinction between literary genres, & errors - but thanks anyway

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.

What d’you take me for - a heathen ? Certainly I believe in the Fall - but I certainly don’t believe that there was a first human pair bearing the Hebrew names Adamah & Hawwah, nor that Adam had an eldest son named Qayyin, nor that Adam had grandsons named Enoch & Enosh. I do believe that these narratives are inspired myths, & are true as myths - & that Adam is no more an historical person than Bilbo Baggins the Hobbit. Unless we are to believe that Hebrew is the oldest of languages: it can’t be - as all true Scotsmen know, the language of Eden was Scots Gaelic ​

As for the word “assigned”: what I meant was, that even though A & E never existed, & the Church mistakenly thought they did, the results of the action said to have been done by them - the transgression of the Divine prohibition - are real enough. Sin does not need to be explained by a fiction; even if it is, it is all too real even so. Therefore, man the sinner needs the sinless & all-Holy Christ: & He is certainly real They do not need to exist, for sin to exist; that they are fictions, damages the Work & Life & Teaching of Christ not at all. Nor does it harm the teaching of the Church. So what’s the problem ?

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.

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.

I’m very sorry you think that last bit - OTOH, I shouldn’t be surprised if you’ve thought that at times about my posts FWIW, the Bible prompts questions - that is how the Church increases in wisdom: by asking questions, as did Christ Himself (see Acts 2). If He was not to proud to ask questions, why should theologians or the Church be ?​

…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1. “…to proud…” ] = “…too proud…”

2 rest of post]:

No one is undermining the Scriptures: Fundamentalist Christians of all Churches do that quite efficiently for themselves, whenever they insist on forcing the meaning of these holy books into the straitjacket of this or that Church’s orthodoxy I would be not be Catholic today - & probably not even Christian - if Fundamentalist Catholicism were the only kind available to me. Critical scholarship & modern Protestant theology hav helped me to stay Catholic - strange as that may seem.

I put my faith, not in the Bible, but in the God Who has inspired it; so I have the firmest foundation possible for trusting the witness it bears to His Son; for it is His Witness & Word, not man’s. It doesn’t *need *to be infallible or inerrant to be trustworthy, any more than any Christian does when sharing the Gospel of God. The Gospel is about Jesus Christ - not about the capacity of the Ark, or the number of generations between Abraham & Moses, or the number of years between Abraham & the Exodus. Those things are trivial in comparison to Him.

As for the rest - you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I to mine.

 

[adrift]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow View Post
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”.

One clarification: You are referring to the Evangelical, not the Catholic, meaning of “literal.” Correct?

I would like this clarified too.

Pontifical Biblical Commission

 

[adrift]

adrift;2856129:

The world has always had a low opinion of Jesus so I really don’t care about their opinion.

Guess I’m still not being clear…When I say the Church looses its Moral authority, what I mean to say is that the world at large fails to pay attention to the Church when she speaks out on something that is occuring in the world. I assume you want the church to be a powerful voice in the world? I certainly do…that was the point I was making…when people at large believe that most Catholics and the church teaches that evolution didnt occur nor the big bang, people just tend to laugh and then ignore what the Church does have to say. I don’t feel the Church has these positions and I do feel they are fundamentalist in nature since I find no one holding them who doesnt insist on literal inerrentness of the entire bible.

Hopefully this is a bit clearer.

I understood you. What is being objected to is your treating scientific theory as proven fact. There are many opposed to evolution. I have listened to both sides and they both have points. I believe it is rather narrow minded to say that there only this theory and nothing else. If that had been the way science worked, we would still believe the world flat. I see no reason why God did not use evolution. That is the important part not how it was done but who did it. God is the creator. There are scientist that laugh at this. I remember one who said there was only two choices about creation. 1. There was a God 2. It came about through evolution. He said he could not accept a God so he chose the 2. Not from observation or reason but rejection of God without reason.
The world at large have always laughed at people of faith. The world says that we should allow divorce, contraception, euthanasia, and abortion. Do I care that they laugh? No. The Church is a moral force because it does not allow public opinion to sway what is morally right. I don’t believe in a literal (as I think you are defining it) interpretation. I know many who think that way and yet do not believe in evolution.
Evolution is not in conflict with the bible. The bible is not a scientific explanation. It is when people try to leave God out of creation that they are wrong. God is the author of all. Perhaps He created the so called bang. He may have created this world through evolution. Yet again another theory may come about too. It matters little. I know few, if any, Catholics that are fundamentalist as defined by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

 

[TMC]

I can’t see any reason to regard those books as inerrant, & the fact that the Fathers (appear to ?) affirm its total inerrancy *may *mean only that they never knew of any reason to reconsider the idea. Is it simply an unexamined assumption ? I don’t know /QUOTE]

Some of the early Church Fathers may have believed in inerrancy but, IMO, that can only be true because they were working with an incomplete canon (from our perspective). How could they have been familiar with the descriptions of the Passion and Resurrection in the four Gospels, which differ in some pretty significant factual details (including the day Christ was crucified, who first went to the tomb, etc.), and conclude that each is inerrant? For that matter, how do the inerrancy advocates today reconcile this?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

1. “…to proud…” ] = “…too proud…”

2 ****rest of post]:

No one is undermining the Scriptures: Fundamentalist Christians of all Churches do that quite efficiently for themselves, whenever they insist on forcing the meaning of these holy books into the straitjacket of this or that Church’s orthodoxy I would be not be Catholic today - & probably not even Christian - if Fundamentalist Catholicism were the only kind available to me. Critical scholarship & modern Protestant theology hav helped me to stay Catholic - strange as that may seem.

I put my faith, not in the Bible, but in the God Who has inspired it; so I have the firmest foundation possible for trusting the witness it bears to His Son; for it is His Witness & Word, not man’s. It doesn’t *need *to be infallible or inerrant to be trustworthy, any more than any Christian does when sharing the Gospel of God. The Gospel is about Jesus Christ - not about the capacity of the Ark, or the number of generations between Abraham & Moses, or the number of years between Abraham & the Exodus. Those things are trivial in comparison to Him.

As for the rest - you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I to mine.

Thanks for the extraordinary clarity of your posts. I agree most heartily with your statements.

SpiritMeadow;2859101:

I understood you. What is being objected to is your treating scientific theory as proven fact. There are many opposed to evolution. I have listened to both sides and they both have points. I believe it is rather narrow minded to say that there only this theory and nothing else. If that had been the way science worked, we would still believe the world flat. I see no reason why God did not use evolution. That is the important part not how it was done but who did it. God is the creator. There are scientist that laugh at this. I remember one who said there was only two choices about creation. 1. There was a God 2. It came about through evolution. He said he could not accept a God so he chose the 2. Not from observation or reason but rejection of God without reason.
The world at large have always laughed at people of faith. The world says that we should allow divorce, contraception, euthanasia, and abortion. Do I care that they laugh? No. The Church is a moral force because it does not allow public opinion to sway what is morally right. I don’t believe in a literal (as I think you are defining it) interpretation. I know many who think that way and yet do not believe in evolution.
Evolution is not in conflict with the bible. The bible is not a scientific explanation. It is when people try to leave God out of creation that they are wrong. God is the author of all. Perhaps He created the so called bang. He may have created this world through evolution. Yet again another theory may come about too. It matters little. I know few, if any, Catholics that are fundamentalist as defined by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

I have no clue what your issue is. We both apparently believe that evolution is a scientific reality and that God created all that is, including evolution as a vehicle for His purposes. I have no idea what you object to since you claim to have understood my meaning. If you understood it the first time then your criticism is without merit.

When people don’;t choose to listen to the church and don’t wish to convert to it because they falsly believe the Church teaches a simply outmoded and utterly unfounded theory of YEC, then something terribly sad has occurred. We have a duty as Catholics to promote fair, honest, true statements of dogma so that our entirely rational beliefs are known.

I am not interested in what some scientist thinks about God. He’s not expert there. I care what he says about science. Evolution as a model how live evolved may not be the ultimate best model. Saying that in no way means its on par with ANY pseudo-science pro-offered by those who which to deceive.

Your remarks about divorce, abortion etc, are off point as they have nothing to do with scientific theories at odds with scripture literalness.

I know few fundamentalist Catholics too. In fact I never met a one outside of here. Those that insist however that all the bible is inerrent and means exactly what the words say, are IMO the perfect definition of a fundamentalist.

You and I agree that God was the beginner of all things. It is not wrong if other people do not. It is their opinion as is ours. Ours is based on faith, theirs is based on logic as they view the evidence or lack of it. We all believe, we just believe different things sometimes.

 

[adrift]

I have no clue what your issue is. We both apparently believe that evolution is a scientific reality and that God created all that is, including evolution as a vehicle for His purposes. I have no idea what you object to since you claim to have understood my meaning. If you understood it the first time then your criticism is without merit.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Because I understand your position, does not mean I agree with it. I don’t agree that if you don’t believe in evolution that you are somehow unscientific.

 

[adrift]

adrift;2878736:

Because I understand your position, does not mean I agree with it. I don’t agree that if you don’t believe in evolution that you are somehow unscientific.

Let me see if I can make it clearer. I am borrowing this from a Catholic Answer tract Adam, Eve

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

Perhaps I do misunderstand your position. I think you say that the Church only permits belief in evolution. I believe the above quote that both are permitted. Why I might confuse you is I haven’t a belief in either one. I believe that God is the Creator of all. How? It doesn’t matter to me. I can see evolution but I also know very intelligent people who do not and have very good reasons not to. I don’t limit God. He could have used whatever method He wanted to. As I said though, it doesn’t matter and I don’t care if you believe in evolution or Joe Blow believes in special creation. I don’t care as long as both believe that God is the Creator.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow;2879404:

adrift;2878736:

Let me see if I can make it clearer. I am borrowing this from a Catholic Answer tract Adam, Eve

Perhaps I do misunderstand your position. I think you say that the Church only permits belief in evolution. I believe the above quote that both are permitted. Why I might confuse you is I haven’t a belief in either one. I believe that God is the Creator of all. How? It doesn’t matter to me. I can see evolution but I also know very intelligent people who do not and have very good reasons not to. I don’t limit God. He could have used whatever method He wanted to. As I said though, it doesn’t matter and I don’t care if you believe in evolution or Joe Blow believes in special creation. I don’t care as long as both believe that God is the Creator.

Okay I think now we are clicking. I believe the Church allows us to believe in evolution and big bang as the means by which God chose to create and develop His Universe. I don’t claim the Church prohibits people from believing in YEC if they wish. HOWEVER, I claim such people have NO right to insist that the YEC is the position of the Church. I don’t find the argument in ANY way credible and against all the evidence, to the point that proponents appear silly and a joke. I do not want my Church thought of in such a manner. So bottom line, they may believe whatever makes them happy, but don;t attempt to claim that the Church agrees with you. It really doesnt not, but at this time doesnt by dogma prohibit the belief in YEC. Hopefully that is as clear as mud…LOL…