UK Bishops & Gift of Scripture Statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HagiaSophia

Guest
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.“ We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”. The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”…"As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C13509-1811332%2C00.html
 
Well, this just makes our jobs that much more fun, doesn’t it…

timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C13509-1811332%2C00.html

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.” They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb. The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”
 
The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.

That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

UNTRUE

Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Matthew xxvii, 25

The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”

TRUE

Exodus iii, 14

God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”

Leviticus xxvi,12

“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”

Exodus xx,1-17

The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7

The Sermon on the Mount

Mark viii,29

Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ

Luke i

The Virgin Birth

John xx,28

Proof of bodily resurrection
 
Well even in the Catechism it says the bible is not to be considered historically and scientifically accurate in every passage.

This doesn’t seem like anything new to me.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Well even in the Catechism it says the bible is not to be considered historically and scientifically accurate in every passage.

This doesn’t seem like anything new to me.
Click to expand...
I know, but a big headline declaring that the Catholic Church says the Bible “isn’t necessarily true” just cuts our work out for us. You know the fundamentalists are just going to lose their minds over it. Even my rational, tentatively converting girlfriend is going to slam on the breaks when she sees this. She’s a young-earther, see, and surprisingly that’s one of our more heated topics.

I guess the best way to combat the hyperventilating hyperbole on this is to simply ask where in the Bible it says that everything in the Bible is literally, historically true. There will be all kinds of ways they’ll try to slip out of the simple fact that it doesn’t, so if an apologist can stay on this simple point, it ought to reveal the fundamentalists’ fundamental misunderstanding of scripture.

Still. What a pain this is going to be…
 
It seems to me as though the reporter (certainly) and the Bishops (possibly) are taking one aspect of the Church’s view of the Bible (namely that it is not necessarilly always scientifically and historically accurate) and emphasizing it too much over the other aspect (namely that it is inerrant in matters of faith and morals) and thus giving the wrong impression.

I personally have a contention with the idea of saying definitively that Genesis is not true, or with making the claim they did concerning other religions. For one thing, the Church has said that Genesis is not necessarily historically and scientifically accurate. It has never said that it matter of factly is inaccurate in these matters. This is a matter of science and of personal viewpoint. If someone wants to believe that God really made man out of dust, the Church does not forbid them to. If someone wishes to disagree with evolution on scientific grounds, the Church does not forbid them to. This sort of thing is not their place, and I feel it unmeet for the Bishops to present it as though these things are definitively stated as being a particular way.

More importantly, I take great exception to the manner in which the document apparently claims that the creation story was borrowed from other creation stories. I do so because it is a statement which could be very harmful to the faith of some, causing them to buy into the idea that Christianity is simply another myth just as the ancient religions. I do so also because it’s simply not true. Some elements of the Genesis are similar to other creation stories, however this is intentional. The Genesis account was written with the intention of sounding similar to those stories yet to differ in the key areas. The intention was to criticize the other stories by essentially re-writing them to convey the truth.
 
40.png
montanaman:
She’s a young-earther, see, and surprisingly that’s one of our more heated topics.
Click to expand...
Just remember that the Church’s teachings allow for her to believe this if she wishes. Personally, I also feel that there is some strong evidence for a young earth, as well as against it. I feel that the issue is inconclusive due to the strong evidence of each side, both evidence which supports each view and attacks the other. From your saying this is a heated topic, I assume you will disagree with this, but it’s an issue for another thread and an issue that’s been gone over here many times.

But the truth is I don’t care what you believe as long as it is within the boundaries of the Church’s teaching, and that’s my point. If your gf is coming to the fullness of Truth, don’t put any obstacles in her way. If she wants to believe in a young earth, don’t argue with her unless it’s a completely scientific arguement and you keep faith completely out of it. If you want to have a scientific discussion, that’s cool, but make clear to her that the Catholic Church does not condemn her belief and that it is an acceptable stance. Don’t you condemn it either. What really matters is that she come to the Church and to those teachings which are true and are required. Young earth may be something very important to her right now. It may be that after a while as a Catholic she changes her mind, or it may be that she doesn’t. Either way, it doesn’t matter as long as she embraces the Truth. Let her believe what she wants and don’t let any scientific pride get in the way of it. Read Romans chapter 14, and realize that if she needs young-earth for her faith, so long as it is not contrary, don’t even say anything about it.

And if it helps you to keep from jumping into some arguement whenever she brings up this topic, look at it this way. I think it’s something that both young and old earthers, both evolutionists and non-evolutionists cane agree on. When we think of God making Adam, we don’t think of a baby. We think of about a 25 year old man, even though he just created. So if God could create Adam with the appearence of age, why not the earth?
 
40.png
montanaman:
I know, but a big headline declaring that the Catholic Church says the Bible “isn’t necessarily true” just cuts our work out for us. You know the fundamentalists are just going to lose their minds over it. Even my rational, tentatively converting girlfriend is going to slam on the breaks when she sees this. She’s a young-earther, see, and surprisingly that’s one of our more heated topics.

I guess the best way to combat the hyperventilating hyperbole on this is to simply ask where in the Bible it says that everything in the Bible is literally, historically true. There will be all kinds of ways they’ll try to slip out of the simple fact that it doesn’t, so if an apologist can stay on this simple point, it ought to reveal the fundamentalists’ fundamental misunderstanding of scripture.

Still. What a pain this is going to be…
Click to expand...
Nah…
My hubby will bring up articles like that from time to time, just to see if he can get my goat…

I just dismiss the article as their trying to make news out of something that isn’t really news - at least not to us Catholics.

First of all, I don’t believe the Fundamentalists are all that concerned about attacking us every chance they get. I think they’re caught up in their own salvation…

but if they were to approach me about this, I’d respond the same as I did here…“Read closer - we don’t say it’s not true…we say not every passage is historically and scientifically accurate…big difference, and nothing new”.
 
40.png
montanaman:
Well, this just makes our jobs that much more fun, doesn’t it…

.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the devil is at it again…he’s tempting the person to not believe in the Scriptures…hmmmmmm…
 
Paris Blues:
Sounds like the devil is at it again…he’s tempting the person to not believe in the Scriptures…hmmmmmm…
Click to expand...
The “smoke of Satan” is still working.
 
Paris Blues:
Sounds like the devil is at it again…he’s tempting the person to not believe in the Scriptures…hmmmmmm…
Click to expand...
I would’nt trust this article too much.

Just about everything the Bishop’s said (in actual quotes) is in line with Pope Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu.

Catholics know and understand that there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken as historical truth as we understand it today (Judith anyone?)

Likewise Catholic’s do not fall into that trap the Evangelicals do of taking parts of Revelation as literal truth, rather than Truth couched in allegorical terms (if so the ‘1,000 year reign’ of Christ ended in 1033 and the Second Coming happend a long time ago).

That does not mean that the Bible is not valid or contains error. But that we should read it with the understanding that the human authors sometimes phrased things in non literal ways in order to make a point of some deeper Truth.

The article even when on to label Mt 27:25 as “untruth” when all the Bishops said was it should not be interpereted as an excuse for violence against the Jews.

I would rather read what the Bishop’s actually said in their document, rather than the ravings of this particular author
 
I think it’s all great that this stuff should be rising again to possibly an ear-splitting crescendo. Because it’s time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

It is virtually meaningless to call anybody fundamentalist, although some do with such a hair-trigger of logic. Even to say “fundamentalism is wrong” is fundamentalist, isn’t it? Saying anything ‘absolutely’ is fundamentalism, right?

When we stop saying anything as absolute truth, then we stop being Catholic, don’t we? But, what is our basis for saying anything as absolute truth?

I think His Holiness Benedict will step up to the plate on all this.
. . . if what yet another Pope says will make any difference. I think it’s time for a Pope to say something infallible here.
 
40.png
BayCityRickL:
It is virtually meaningless to call anybody fundamentalist, although some do with such a hair-trigger of logic. Even to say “fundamentalism is wrong” is fundamentalist, isn’t it? Saying anything ‘absolutely’ is fundamentalism, right?
Click to expand...
Nope, that’s orthodoxy. Fundamentalism means that when you read the Bible and it says, “God made man out of swiss cheese and paprika” that you think it really, literally means that and that it couldn’t possibly mean anything else.

Orthodoxy is different, but you’re right when you say people don’t use the word right and it’s meaningless to call people fundamentalist. For instance, an Episcopal Bishop, Bishop Sprong, wrote a book called, “rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism.” In the book, he says that it’s fundamentalism to say homosexuality is wrong because that is taking to Bible literally. What he should have called his book was “Rescuing the Bible from Orthodoxy” or something, if that’s what he wanted to say.
 
i really think this is much ado about nothing.
The good old media spinning sensationalism. I was taught those things in 9th grade. Never a big deal to me, the message of the Bible is the thing.
 
Could any of you answer this for me, please?

Pope Benedict XV’s Encyclical ‘Spiritus Paraclitus’, states unequivocally that the entire Bible, word by word, is true and inerrant. The Pope is specifically condemning the view held by some that the Bible need not be taken literally in matters other than faith, etc.

Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical ‘Providentissimus Deus’ is no less emphatic on this issue.

Pope Pius XII and Vatican II seem to soften the language, while still holding good the earlier two Encyclicals.

How do you say that the Church has never taught that the entire Bible is inerrant?

What is the point in we debating the ‘inerrancy’ of the current editions or versions of the Bible? The Church doesn’t teach that anything other than the **original autographs ** is inerrant. The charism of inerrancy is not available to any of the copies or versions of these 2000 years, though we do believe that the core message in scriptures must have remained well-preserved.

Then, which Bible exactly was Pope Benedict XV or Pope Leo XIII difining as inerrant? In the case of Pope Benedict XV, there was a topical issue that he was condemning, and it is hard to believe that the polemics was about the extinct original autographs. I do not know the answer.
 
As it relates to faithful Catholics worldwide, the only thing that the “Bishops of of England, Wales and Scotland” require of us is …

Nothing.

They are not the Magisterium, and so their incantations are just musings for the mind.

As a matter of fact, they’re not even really all that amusing …

But if you want an accurate accounting of what the Catholic Church says/doesn’t say about Scripture, please go to the link below and read the full online version of:

Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars by Fr. William G. Most

catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=216
 
The teaching that the bible is not a historic document, but a document that teaches about God is not new. Here is the official Vatican document:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Scroll down to CHAPTER III
SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION and you will find the teaching on reading the bible.

Also, the Catholic Church is not alone in this. The Orthodox Church maintains that, “We shall not compare the biblical story of creation with modern scientific theories of the origin of the universe. The protracted dialogue between science and theology has not yet come to any definitive conclusions about the connections between biblical revelation and scientific developments. It is, however, very clear that the Bible does not aim to present a scientific account of the origin of the universe, and it is rather naive to polemicize on the biblical narrative understood in its literal sense. Sacred Scripture regards all of history from the perspective of an interrelationship between the human and the divine.” orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#19

You are right about the fundimentalists. They will have a field day with this. But do they teach the truth? I think not.
Subrosa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top