UK Bishops & Gift of Scripture Statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mathew George:
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.

How do you say that the Church has never taught that the entire Bible is inerrant?
Click to expand...
Don’t you guys find any inconcistancy at all between the teachings of Popes Benedict XV and Leo XIII, and the argument so vehemently expressed in this thread that the Church has never taught that the entire Bible is inerrant?
 
40.png
arieh0310:
Awesome article
Click to expand...
The author does indeed refute the limited perspective of the UK Times article. But, what does he essentially say about the core issue of inerrancy? Does he say that the Bible in its entirety, word by word, science… history… or otherwise, is inerrant as taught by Popes Benedict XV and Leo XIII, or that the Bible is only inerrant in as much as what is meant to be asserted, as taught by Vatican II?

The author quotes from Benedict XV and Leo XIII, but he doesn’t touch on the categorical rejection and condemnation by the two Popes of any interpretation of inerrancy other than word by word. He argues convincingly that Vatican II didn’t limit inerrancy to matters related to salvation alone, but he doesn’t say that inerrancy limited to matters asserted is not the same as word by word inerrancy earlier taught hy the church.

Yes, we all lament that the Vatican is ‘unfortunately’ keeping quiet as a mere spectator, while the lesser shepherds are leading the sheep estray. After all, isn’t it the primary purpose of inerrancy and infallibility that the Catholic faithful will not be led estray? I do find a hard time reconciling these issues.
 
Mathew George
Don’t you guys find any inconcistancy at all between the teachings of Popes Benedict XV and Leo XIII … ?
Click to expand...
Nope, not really Mat!

We just need to clearly understand what it was that Ben. XV and Leo XIII were actually saying.
From:** Free From All Error** (by Fr. William G. Most) -
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=216&ChapNum=11

Some confusion arose from a remark of Leo XIII about the genre of history. One might wish that he had spoken more fully and clearly. However, we can, by careful study, find out what he did mean.

In his great Scripture encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), this Pope observed that the inspired writers sometimes wrote according to appearance in matters of science. Even today we also speak the same way, when for example, we say the sunrises or sets, or moves through the sky.

*Pope Leo says this in paragraph 121 (EB). Then in paragraph 122 he notes that while we must defend the truth of Scripture, this does not mean that we have to accept every proposal of individual Fathers of the Church, or of interpreters. They may have been affected by the view of their times about matters of science. *

He says that we must also distinguish various philosophical notions, which may be in the minds of these writers, from the solid truth of Scripture. Notions in both science and philosophy come and go.

Things held as true today may be rejected tomorrow.

Right after these remarks, Pope Leo says that “it will help to transfer these things to other fields of knowledge, especially to history.” In the very next sentence, he adds that some have excessive confidence in ancient pagan records and are inclined to believe the pagan records instead of Scripture when the two seem to clash.

What the Pope had in mind in suggesting we “transfer these things … to history” is not as clear as we would like. As a result, Pope Benedict XV in his Scripture encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), felt the need to guard against a possible false interpretation of the words of Pope Leo.

“Why should we refute at length a thing clearly injurious to our predecessor, and false, and full of error? For what parallel is there between natural phenomena and history? Natural things deal with what appears to the senses … but the chief law of history, on the contrary, is that the writings should really fit with what really happened. If we say that we could use a relative truth in historical matters in Scripture, how will that truth stand about the complete immunity from error which our Predecessor insisted on in Scripture?”

So what Pope Leo says about history, did not apply “across the board” (Latin universe).

*Pope Leo XIII did not mean to admit error in Scripture. *

But when we consider the Pope’s remark in the framework of what we now know about genre, we see he was saying that the sacred writers did not assert that such things were accurate scientific knowledge.

Further, Pope Leo insisted, as did Pope Benedict XV, on complete freedom from error in Scripture.

But there are two other things Pope Leo clearly meant, as is clear when we consider his words in context.

First, Pope Leo said in paragraph 122 that we need not accept every theory of science or philosophy; and in paragraph 123 he said that we need not accept every pagan record in preference to Scripture.

Second, as Pope Benedict XV keenly observed, the remark of Leo XIII about applying similar principles to history and-natural science- talking according to common appearances and usual ways of speaking-must not be taken across the board (universe) as if applying to every case.

This implies two things: *that there are cases in which seemingly historical things deal only in popularly expressed appearances; and that there are cases in which we must say instead that history does record facts as they really were. *
 
“Truth” versus “historical fact”

Jesus was asked one time to clarify the 2nd greatest commandment - to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. A member of His audience asked him to clarify who qualifies as a neighbor.

It could be argued that Jesus answered with a lie. He told this made-up story about a man who was attacked by robbers and was eventually helped by a Samaritan. Pure fiction.

And yet, in the telling of the story, Jesus gave us one of the most fundamental truths of our faith.

The most important function of Scripture (as well as of all those who teach the faith) is to guide us on the path to God’s kingdom. This path consists of right attitude towards God and right action towards other people. Neither the attitude nor the action is found in discussions about dates of creation, the type of matter used to make man or woman (Scripture tells us that God could make stones into children of Abraham) or many other of the topics often debated by “fundamentalists” and those who would argue with them.

Whether it is 5000 or 10 billion years old, God’s creation is Good. That is what matters. Whatever the responsibility of any group of people in Jesus’s death, we are called to love our enemies as well as our friends.

This is the knowledge that really matters. As much as I admire the likes of Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, etc. their work was all child’s play compared to the greater truths. Newton admitted as much towards the end of his life.

peace

-Jim
 
New document stresses the importance of the Bible for Catholics

A major new teaching document from the Bishops of England, Wales and Scotland was presented in Rome this week to delegates attending the Congress celebrating forty years of Dei Verbum, the statement about the Bible issued by the Second Vatican Council.

Bishop Daniel Mullins, who guided the production of the document, and Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow invited the four hundred delegates gathered from across the world to use the document in their own work of biblical formation. Entitled The Gift of Scripture, the document was due to be presented to Pope Benedict later in the week.

The Gift of Scripture provides an explanation of Catholic teaching on the Bible. The 60-page booklet explains the basic principles and gives guidance on some difficult questions which arise. The bishops encourage a deeper appreciation of Scripture through catechesis, liturgy and prayer. They warmly acknowledge the contribution of Jewish and other Christian scholars to the work of biblical understanding.

Father Adrian Graffy, who assisted the bishops in their work, commented: “Our bishops must be commended on what is a significant and timely document. It will be a major help in fostering the familiarity and love of the Bible which have grown so strongly since Vatican II.”

The Gift of Scripture is available from the CTS at £3.95.

For more information, or to arrange an interview with Father Adrian, please contact Greg Watts on 020 7901-4803/4804

catholic-ew.org.uk/cn/05/050913.htm
 
The Catholic Church in Scotland today launches a new document on Biblical Scripture aimed at fostering greater understanding of the bible and encouraging scriptural study. “The Gift of Scripture” is a collaborative effort by the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, together with the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.

A formal launch in Glasgow on Friday 30 September 2005 will see representatives of other Christian churches, presented with copies of the book. Speaking ahead of the launch, Archbishop Mario Conti said:

“I had the privilege of presenting the first copy of the document to the Holy Father in Rome recently. During our audience with the Pope, he said: ‘I would like to recommend the ancient tradition of Lectio divina: the diligent reading of Sacred Scripture accompanied by prayer, which brings about that intimate dialogue in which the person reading hears God who is speaking, and in praying, responds to him with trusting openness of heart.’ The Pope added, 'If it is effectively promoted, this practice will bring to the Church - I am convinced of it - a new spiritual springtime.”

The Archbishop added: “The inspiration offered in this new document of the Bishops’ Conferences of England and Wales and Scotland will both inform and encourage all those who wish to make scripture more central to the faith and devotional life of the Church.”

In 2000, the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, together with the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales jointly produced a document on the Eucharist (One Bread, One Body). In 2001, both Conferences agreed to commission a further document on sacred scripture. Fr.Adrian Graffy in England and Fr. Michael McMahon in Scotland were asked to cooperate on this project - both of these priests lecture on Scripture in their respective seminaries. Various drafts over the next few years were presented to the Conferences and the final draft received approval from Rome on July 6th 2005. Its title “The Gift of Scripture” is intended to emphasise the divine initiative and the human response.

Speaking at the launch, one of the co-authors, Fr. Michael McMahon said;

“This document includes a celebration of the saints of our history (Ninian, Columba, Augustine of Canterbury, Bede) who brought the Word of God to us and venerated it. It also acknowledges the scholars of today who have worked diligently to ensure scholarly integrity in our respectful treatment of the Scriptures.”

He added;

“The book also tries to explain some classic issues such as how we understand the book of Genesis, the cursing Psalms, the Historical Truth of the Synoptic Gospels, the cultural conditions of Paul’s ecclesiology. Cultural issues are also addresses such as the importance of dialogue with Judaism to understand the Old Testament as well as dialogue in Ecumenism with the scriptures as a good starting point. Above all it encourages the reading and understanding of the Word of God.”

The document will also be launched in England - on November 18th at the British Museum in London.

http://www.scmo.org/gfx/banners/scmo_banner.jpg
 
Gift of Scripture - resources

The Bishops of England and Wales, together with the Bishops of Scotland, have recently issued a teaching document The Gift of Scripture. The document is to help people ‘hear, understand and live God’s word’.

In its section ‘Living the Word of God’ The Gift of Scripture underlines the way in which from the earliest days the proclamation of the Scriptures have been an integral part of the liturgy.

The Liturgy Office of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has produced a number of resources to assist parishes, deaneries and others with their reading of The Gift of Scripture and reflection on the ministering of God’s word in the Liturgy.
  • Opening the Gift of Scripture
    Material for Deanery Meetings
  • Preaching the Word
    Reflections on preaching drawn from The Gift of Scripture
  • Celebrating the Word
    Preparing a liturgy of the word
  • Praying the Word
    Lectio Divina and the Sunday Scriptures
  • Sharing the Word
    Lectionary based Catechesis
  • Proclaiming the Word
    Guidelines for Ministering the Word at Sunday Mass
  • Ministers of the Word
    Guidelines ministers prepared by the Liturgy Office
    catholic-ew.org.uk/cn/05/051004a.htm
 
i’ve read the article, and it sounds like the headline is worse than the meat of the article. even most of my protestant friends and family probably already think and believe very similar to what is outlined in the article, but the headline itself will become the “news”.

my question would be to wonder what the Vatican thinks of such a “decision” by the British church? does the Vatican give an implied approval by not condemning the British decision, or how does all that work? (pardon my ignorance…)

in Christ,

tad
 
40.png
Luciens:
Did anybody read that booklet?

is it anti-Bible or not?
Click to expand...
Not managed to get a copy yet but note

Entitled The Gift of Scripture, the document was due to be presented to Pope Benedict later in the week.

I think the bishops may have checked it’s orthodoxy before doing this…

Also,

The Times once had a good reputation for quality journalism but has really ‘dumbed down’

E.G.

Fury at ‘murderous Scots’ article

…But the Times piece said this reflected on the Scottish people as a whole - declaring there was “nothing new about the Scots propensity for murder” and even suggesting that many murders in England were carried out by Scots.

“If you stripped out attacks committed by drunken McSporrans and McTavishes just arrived on the train at Euston, I wouldn’t be surprised if England came out as the most murder-free country in the world,” the article by freelance journalist Ross Clark said…

…Mario Conti, Archbishop of Glasgow, said violence in the city was the product of “social deprivation over generations”.

He added: “Serious consideration of the problem of violence in Scottish society is not aided by provocative rhetoric.”

A spokesman for the Times said the opinion was that of a columnist, not of the paper.
news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=2009792005

If the Times told me today was Wednesday, I would check somewhere else to make sure it was :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
The Times would also traditionally be a paper of ‘The Establishment’ - which in England would be staunchly C of E. The Times, along with many papers here, would not traditionally be friendly to the Catholic Church…
 
Mathew George:
The author does indeed refute the limited perspective of the UK Times article. But, what does he essentially say about the core issue of inerrancy? Does he say that the Bible in its entirety, word by word, science… history… or otherwise, is inerrant as taught by Popes Benedict XV and Leo XIII, or that the Bible is only inerrant in as much as what is meant to be asserted, as taught by Vatican II? The author quotes from Benedict XV and Leo XIII, but he doesn’t touch on the categorical rejection and condemnation by the two Popes of any interpretation of inerrancy other than word by word. He argues convincingly that Vatican II didn’t limit inerrancy to matters related to salvation alone, but he doesn’t say that inerrancy limited to matters asserted is not the same as word by word inerrancy earlier taught hy the church.
Click to expand...

Only assertions can be erroneous, or not erroneous. If the Bible had been written in US English, “Sheesh!” would have been neither errant nor inerrant: because it is does not denote a judgement which is errant or inerrant. It does not even denote an opinion - it is an exclamation, and no more.​

Words taken singly are neither errant nor inerrant - “dragon” by itself might be part:
  • of an assertion of their existence in the real world;
  • of a denial of their existence in the real world
  • of a denial, in a secondary world, that they exist
  • of an assertion, in a secondary world, that they exist.
The isolated word “dragon” is neither errant not inerrant - it’s too small a unit of meaning to be either. The same applies to mustard-seed; wheras dragons are not commonly met with in this world, mustard seed is. But the real existence of mustard-seed in this world does not in any way guarantee the inerrancy of all assertions containing this word.

“There is no God [or god ?]” occurs in Psalms 14 & 53; as the sort of thing which “the fool has said”. IOW, some assertions in the Bible, are untrue; and they are assertions, even though they said by people whom the narrator regards as wrong in making their assertions.

And in the Book of Job: “After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.”(Job 42.7,8)” ##
Yes, we all lament that the Vatican is ‘unfortunately’ keeping quiet as a mere spectator, while the lesser shepherds are leading the sheep estray. After all, isn’t it the primary purpose of inerrancy and infallibility that the Catholic faithful will not be led estray? I do find a hard time reconciling these issues.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the posting the link to the Jimmy Akin article about the bishops’ statement in Great Britain!
 
40.png
Veritas41:
Thanks for the posting the link to the Jimmy Akin article about the bishops’ statement in Great Britain!
Click to expand...
You’re quite welcome. 👍
 
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...
The historical books are historically true. This includes the flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection, etc.
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no such document from the Magisterium. This is false.
 
One has to be careful when saying that the Bible isn’t historically true. The materialistic/naturalistic mindset (which is at the root of Darwinian evolution) that has infiltrated ever asset of our society has caused many people to doubt that Christ even performed miracles because it denies the existence of anything supernatural. Jesus was God for crying out loud! Some will say that he never really fed thousands, but that he just taught them to share. Jesus really did miraculously feed thousands of people. It’s sad to think that there are people out there that try to explain away Jesus’s works. 😦
 
40.png
montanaman:
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.”
Click to expand...

Many in that number will have other religions or attitudes to life​

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
Click to expand...

None of that last quotation is in the document - go to cts-online.org.uk/ to order copies of​

http://www.cts-online.org.uk/images/Vatican/Gift of Scripture.jpg

The Gift of Scripture

A5 Saddle-stitched

60 pages

Order Ref: Sc80

ISBN 1 86082 323 8

£3.95
 
Can anyone help me with this? Has there been an official Church response to these accusations in the Times? If there hasn’t, should there be? I know that it would be difficult to respond to every nonsensical article that was published in a newspaper about the Church, but I just wondered if there was and if not, who here feels there should be?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top