Which Biblical Stories are Historical, Miraculous, and Unexplainable by Science?

[SpiritMeadow]

Well geez, can’t you see that you’re being untolerant in the same way, just from the other side of the spectrum??

**I don’t see it as being intolerant. I would have no objection to fundamentalism should one wish to adher to such a limited doctrine, except that it has simply proven itself much too prone to violence in obtaining its goals. Much as some here would label Liberation theology. They claim the Church should outright ban it because it becomes marxist in practice. The Church warns about fundamentalism, and I agree wholeheartedly. **

Am I a fundamentalist just because I’m cautious about which parts of scripture I don’t take literally?

Of course not. This is not some test. I rather doubt you could be based upon your posts. Being cautious is one thing. Arguing as a few do here that the Church needs to move to a more restrictive postition can only smack of fundamentalism as far as I can see. Nobody on this earth has ever accused the Roman Catholic Church of being anything but Conservative. It’s why she’s survived no doubt so long. So anything to the right of Her can only be fundamentlist in nature.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What troubles me Mr. Anthony is your persistent reading of all my posts in the most ungenerous manner possible. I’m always having to rein in your rather wild negative assertions of what you think I said. You seem always to interpret me as unreasonably as possible.

I assure you, I’m not playing some game of gotcha. I tend to speak fairly plainly and straightforwardly…

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I don’t see it as being intolerant.

You actually used the phrase “I won’t tolerate” in your post…

 

[SemperFidelis]

You actually used the phrase “I won’t tolerate” in your post…

Ah the liberal conundrum: “We’re tolerant, so long as your tolerant, or else we are the most intolerant people you’ll ever meet.” The logic is baffling.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Excuse me, there is no stated reason why Jesus said “Our Father”. One rightly assumes it was how he related to God. Since we all know God is ungendered or at least we all believe that, surely Jesus believed that as well. The fact that He used the words Our father cannot be subsumed into some statement that a female appelation is inappropriate.

Your opinion is simply that he wouldn’t do so. I can respect that. I understand you are quite single minded in your quest for perfect symmetry in Catholicism but I don’t see any proof of this conclusion of yours.

I’m guessing you didn’t so much as look at the article I linked, did you?

 

[patg]

Gosh I do wonder why the PBC even bothers any more. The apparently haven’t been told that nobody pays attention to their work any more. I wonder why Popes keep citing to it?

Or why formal instructions to the faithful by the highest authorities on scripture in the Church end with statements like:

*The Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, at the audience graciously granted to the undersigned secretary on April 21, 1964, approved this Instruction and ordered the publication of it. *

And then some Catholics refuse to acknowledge that it might just be correct.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Or why formal instructions to the faithful by the highest authorities on scripture in the Church end with statements like:

Uh, because as noted above, the statements issued by the PBC, just like the ITC and the commission on birth control in 1968, are not Dogmatic in any way and can contain error (as is clearly evident with the case in 1968). They are theological recommendations and contain nothing that anyone is required to assent to.

 

[patg]

Uh, because as noted above, the statements issued by the PBC, just like the ITC and the commission on birth control in 1968, are not Dogmatic in any way and can contain error (as is clearly evident with the case in 1968). They are theological recommendations and contain nothing that anyone is required to assent to.

Then this all seems to be quite a gray area, doesn’t it? A formal Instruction, approved by a Pope, that supports an idea some are personally opposed to is dismissed even though it has “been on the books” unrevoked for over 40 years. No, you are not required to assent to it but you are also not doing anyone interested in this subject a favor by ignoring it or pretending it isn’t still a valid and important statement on the Church’s development of understanding of the gospels. It is fine to question it but I doubt any of us have the credentials (or the papal authority) to say it is heretical. I can’t even imagine believing that the gospels are literal eyewitness accounts so naturally this document is one I refer to often. You believe otherwise and you can certainly find support within the Church for that also.

This is all a work in progress and always will be. There is no value in either clinging to the literalistic traditions of the past or in jumping onto the latest biblical fad. We wouldn’t need scripture scholars if we knew all the answers.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You actually used the phrase “I won’t tolerate” in your post…

**sigh…you miss the point as usual. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Then this all seems to be quite a gray area, doesn’t it? A formal Instruction, approved by a Pope, that supports an idea some are personally opposed to is dismissed even though it has “been on the books” unrevoked for over 40 years. No, you are not required to assent to it but you are also not doing anyone interested in this subject a favor by ignoring it or pretending it isn’t still a valid and important statement on the Church’s development of understanding of the gospels. It is fine to question it but I doubt any of us have the credentials (or the papal authority) to say it is heretical. I can’t even imagine believing that the gospels are literal eyewitness accounts so naturally this document is one I refer to often. You believe otherwise and you can certainly find support within the Church for that also.

This is all a work in progress and always will be. There is no value in either clinging to the literalistic traditions of the past or in jumping onto the latest biblical fad. We wouldn’t need scripture scholars if we knew all the answers.

This remains my major disagreement with some here. Just because there is not specific declarative statement with an infallibilty stamp upon it, does not mean one is free to state the opposite and claim it as Catholic truth.

I am sure that it must appear silly to true experts in the area of papal statements and canon law that we sit here thinking we can parse and dissect various statements and elicit truth. the fact is much like law which of course canon law is, only the experts can truly determine what is law, qualified, added to, subtracted to, etc. We at best can make the attempt but unless properly trained, few can traverse this huge field of documents and discern for themselves what is Church teaching. frankly we are required to wait for the church to do that. we at best can discern only what is still grey.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Then this all seems to be quite a gray area, doesn’t it? A formal Instruction, approved by a Pope, that supports an idea some are personally opposed to is dismissed even though it has “been on the books” unrevoked for over 40 years.

“Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day he was taken up into heaven (cf. Acts 1:1–2)” Dei Verbum 19

It’s clear historical criticism contradicts the interpretation that has been taught for 2000 years. I find it interesting that we have just all of a sudden completely done away with that. More and more I see the reasons previous Popes wouldn’t allow the teaching of historical criticism. It is dangerous for the soul.

No, you are not required to assent to it but you are also not doing anyone interested in this subject a favor by ignoring it or pretending it isn’t still a valid and important statement on the Church’s development of understanding of the gospels.

And I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would wan’t to prove that parts of the Bible are false, especially when they call themselves Christian.

This is all a work in progress and always will be. There is no value in either clinging to the literalistic traditions of the past

There most certaintly is value in that tradition when it has been taught for almost 2000 years.

 

[SemperFidelis]

**sigh…you miss the point as usual. **

You said this:

SpiritMeadow:

and that’s something I’m not prepared to tolerate in my Church

and then you said this:

SpiritMeadow:

I don’t see it as being intolerant.

Whether that was your main point or not, you still said it. Your logic is baffling to say the least, if not downright hypocritical.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

According to this poll, more Catholics believe in that Jesus was born of a Virgin then believe Jesus rose from the dead. I sure wasn’t expecting that.

Interesting that 40% take the creation accounts literally. I wonder how that compares to the what Catholics as a whole believe.

 

[rpp]

It is those who are most radical and scream “tolerance” the loudest who are generally the most closed-minded and intolerant.

We see that played out here on this thread.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Just because there is not specific declarative statement with an infallibilty stamp upon it, does not mean one is free to state the opposite and claim it as Catholic truth.

There is also not a declarative and infallible statement regarding Limbus Infantium (Limbo), but most Catholics seem quick to disregard it, even though its been around for over 1000 years. Do you believe in Limbo? Because if not then your entire argument above is flawed. Historical Critics can’t even agree amongst themselves, and even then, they’ve only been around the Catholic Church for probably about 70 years. A more literal interpretation has been around way longer than Limbo even, try 1000 years longer, but yet you still reject it too. So we have over 1900 years of teaching on the interpretation of scripture versus a fad that has lasted barely over half a century. If you are going to make the above claim, then you are on the wrong side of your own argument.

 

[SemperFidelis]

According to this poll, more Catholics believe in that Jesus was born of a Virgin then believe Jesus rose from the dead. I sure wasn’t expecting that.

Interesting that 40% take the creation accounts literally. I wonder how that compares to the what Catholics as a whole believe.

The Church is in a sad state, and historical criticism sure isn’t helping.

 

[rpp]

The Church is in a sad state, and historical criticism sure isn’t helping.

That is so true! There are so many people running around suffering from this attitude of “scientificism” that everything must be proved scientifically or it is just a fairy tale we are free to believe or reject. It is the very way people have learned to think and it has little but disastrous effects on people and society.

While it certainly has it’s place, this point of view and manner of thinking cannot be applied to everything. It leads to nothing but arrogance, intolerance and apostasy. As we have seen in the Church and on this thread.

 

[SemperFidelis]

That is so true! There are so many people running around suffering from this attitude of “scientificism” that everything must be proved scientifically or it is just a fairy tale we are free to believe or reject. It is the very way people have learned to think and it has little but disastrous effects on people and society.

While it certainly has it’s place, this point of view and manner of thinking cannot be applied to everything. It leads to nothing but arrogance, intolerance and apostasy. As we have seen in the Church and on this thread.

I couldn’t possibly agree with you any more. Great post!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think you just don’t like it because you have a different personal opinion of what is fact and what is not. That is of course fine, but is certainly no indictment of her work. Since God is neither male nor female, gender is not an issue I submit, and given differences in experiences, its often important for some to be able ti visualize God in more feminine attributes. Attempting to ungender God provide better ways for some develop a close relationship with the divine. Godself is not a new pronoun. I’ve certainly seen it before in many contexts.

The pronoun “Godself” isn’t problematic on its own (to me), but it’s a big red flag that says “I’m a free-thinker”, which is good, because it helps the reader understand the mindset of the author. I’ll still consider what she has to say, but I’ll be thinking a lot more critically about it.

Why would I object to a free-thinking liberal? I’m Catholic because I want to have the same faith as the generations who went before us, back to the apostles. I’m not so interested in what someone 2000 years later decided to make up, including new pronouns for God. I prefer to read scholarship performed by someone who only grudgingly with great pain and lots of prayer will change course with the past, in the face of great evidence.

If nothing else, seeing the word “Godself” reminds me to pray to St. Michael for protection before reading the book.

 

[patg]

“Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day he was taken up into heaven (cf. Acts 1:1–2)” Dei Verbum 19

It’s clear historical criticism contradicts the interpretation that has been taught for 2000 years.

It is clear that you are using these quotes a bit broadly. Let’s look at “historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts” Do you not see the words “historical character”? Nothing in our discussion has denied a historical core, a historical character. Even the purest fiction can have some basis in history. If you believe something happened and there is no historical support for that belief other than that other people have believed it, it is reasonable to question the basis.

Next, you miss the phrase " really did and taught for their eternal salvation". This limits the stories to what is related to salvation AND it does** NOT **limit the gospels to ONLY describing what was literally done and taught.

You also can’t just use those quotes and leave out these:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.

If you don’t understand that the Infancy Narratives are not “historical” but rather an “other form of discourse”, you can really miss some important points.

I find it interesting that we have just all of a sudden completely done away with that.

Completely done away with? That’s a little extreme. I would say we have significantly enhanced things.

More and more I see the reasons previous Popes wouldn’t allow the teaching of historical criticism.

Then I thank God for Paul VI even more.

It is dangerous for the soul.

It is likewise dangerous to assume historicity when the texts do not support it.

And I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would wan’t to prove that parts of the Bible are false, especially when they call themselves Christian.

And I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would deny that truth and meaning can be taught with fiction and midrash. Fiction, myth, legend, poem… these are not synonyms for lie; they define the genre not the state of the content.

Understanding that a truth is being taught with a symbolic story does not degrade one’s “Christianity”, it enhances it.

You also sound like you are assuming that anyone can “prove” the historicity to be “true” or “false” - this is impossible, and that’s why faith is important.

There most certaintly is value in that tradition when it has been taught for almost 2000 years.

And value likewise in expanding our understanding and correcting the unsupportable assumptions and misinformation of the past.