Catholic Church No Longer Swears by Truth of Bible

[phatcatholic]

i'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this TImes article on a document from the bishops in England has been grossly misrepresented. but, i would like to hear everyone's thoughts on it.


[b]Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible[/b]
[url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html"]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1811332,00.html[/url]
[i]By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent[/i]

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.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

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”.

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.”

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”

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.”

In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.

They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.

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.”

[b]BELIEVE IT OR NOT[/b]
[b]UNTRUE[/b]

[b]Genesis ii, 21-22[/b]
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

[b]Genesis iii, 16 [/b]
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.”

[b]Matthew xxvii, 25 [/b]
The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

[b]Revelation xix,20 [/b]
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.”

[b]TRUE [/b]

[b]Exodus iii, 14 [/b]
God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”

[b]Leviticus xxvi,12 [/b]
“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”

[b]Exodus xx,1-17 [/b]
The Ten Commandments

[b]Matthew v,7[/b]
The Sermon on the Mount

[b]Mark viii,29 [/b]
Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ

[b]Luke i [/b]
The Virgin Birth

[b]John xx,28 [/b]
Proof of bodily resurrection


[b]Join the Debate[/b]
www.timesonline.co.uk/debate

[Laudate_Dominum]

that's idiodic.. wtfreak.

[Twentie Fow]

Hmmm, thats a major news website...

[Ziggamafu]

ok so i started googling this thing like crazy...it seems that right now we can't actually read the document because it hasn't been put on the internet, yet. on the other hand, everyone else is saying the same things about it that the times editor said - of course with different forms of approval or disapproval.

this is gonna be rocket fuel for liberals in the Church...and prospective Protestant converts are going to be waaaaaaaaaaaaay turned off by this document, which seems to confirm their worst stereotypes about Catholics.

plus, since it was the bishops that said this, it's hard to "correct" them while remaining obediant laypeople.

[Nathan]

What a silly article. This woman obviously has no understanding of theology whatsoever.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I bet its bogus. If it's not, Benedict is going to go on a theological rampage.

[philothea]

I guess I'm the weirdo; I didn't really have much problem with that article.

I think some of the words were picked to be sensational, though. "Untrue" is clearly not appropriate. "Not Literal" would be more accurate.

And the headline is just sensationalism.

(Edited to fix a comma. )

Edited October 8, 2005 by philothea

[cmotherofpirl]

The headline is sensationalist, scandalmongering, and inaccurate.

[journeyman]

I'm with Philothea - what I think the Bishops really said from the sense of the article and not just the text - is that the Bible is not a chronologically exact, verbatim quote, history of the world . . . while that might be news to certain literal truth sola scriptura types, it isn't much of a surprise

What bothered me (and silly me, I posted over in the debate thread) is

quote from the early middle
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

quote from the late middle
They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.


That almost reads like the Bishops are saying the gospel message has to be tailored to the audience's needs and expectations and not from the perspective of God's word. Yes, translations can be good or bad - yes, our understanding of the meaning of parables and other mysteries can grow - but the quotes almost go so far as to say the message can be altered in ways appropriate to the changing times.

It's been so long since the majority of world traveled by horseback, that "for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost" doesn't always make sense . . . but if you changed the story to make it "for want of a silicon chip, the kingdom was lost" a lot of internet users will get it right away

That is (I hope) where the reporter really blew it in their slant on the story . . . the underlying truths won't change, even if the storytelling does

[shortnun]

Scriptural innerancy (infallibility) applies only to matters of our salvation. Other topics addressed in scripture (such as history, science, philosophy, and even theology) are not necessary to be considered always 100% accurate.

For further reading, I would suggest [i]Dei Verbum[/i] #11-13

[photosynthesis]

well, obviously we're not to interpret the Bible literally at all times. but saying anything about the Bible being historically "untrue" is a heresy. One of my Baptist friends was talking to me last weekend and she said "I saw on the news that the Pope says Catholics no longer believe that the Bible is true!" I had to tell her "no, that was just a group of bishops, and they were saying that Catholics are not to interpret the Bible literally like fundamentalists do."

*sigh*

[thessalonian]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Oct 10 2005, 08:56 PM']well, obviously we're not to interpret the Bible literally at all times.  but saying anything about the Bible being historically "untrue" is a heresy.  One of my Baptist friends was talking to me last weekend and she said "I saw on the news that the Pope says Catholics no longer believe that the Bible is true!"  I had to tell her "no, that was just a group of bishops, and they were saying that Catholics are not to interpret the Bible literally like fundamentalists do."

*sigh*
[right][snapback]753438[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If a writers purpose is not chronology is not important as is often found in John's Gospel then it is not a heresy that John's chronology is "in error" as compared with the other Gospels. If they are telling history then Chronology becomes important. As Dei Verbum says we must look at the intent of the writer. Scientifically also the Bible is written according to the understanding of the time. Is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds? It was then according to their understanding. Does this make the Bible false because an orchid has a seed that cannot be seen? No. God inspired the sacred writers according to the understanding of the times, not according to his infinite knowledge. The Church holds to doctrinal inerrancy of scripture. I disagree with someone above who said it is not theologically inerrant. This cannot be.

Blessings

Edited October 11, 2005 by thessalonian

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Oct 11 2005, 07:00 PM']If a writers purpose is not chronology is not important as is often found in John's Gospel then it is not a heresy that John's chronology is "in error" as compared with the other Gospels.    If they are telling history then Chronology becomes important.  As Dei Verbum says we must look at the intent of the writer.  Scientifically also the Bible is written according to the understanding of the time.  Is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds?  It was then according to their understanding.  Does this make the Bible false because an orchid has a seed that cannot be seen?  No.  God inspired the sacred writers according to the understanding of the times, not according to his infinite knowledge.  The Church holds to doctrinal inerrancy of scripture.  I disagree with someone above who said it is not theologically inerrant.  This cannot be.

Blessings
[right][snapback]754361[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
that makes a lot of sense.

[Maccabeus]

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 .

First of all God can do anything, So how is it that all of a sudden someone can come up and say that its not true. What right do they have, what Proof?! do they have?

I'm really disappionted.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Maccabeus' date='Oct 15 2005, 09:06 AM']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 .

First of all God can do anything, So how is it that all of a sudden someone can come up and say that its not true. What right do they have, what Proof?! do they have?

I'm really disappionted. 
[right][snapback]759284[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


If someone says that it is not true they are in error. But how is it true. It is true in the light that the writer intended and under the literary devices that the writer used. Some things are written that are myths. Does this mean that they are not true? No, they are true in what they are trying to convey in the context of the literary devices that they are trying to convey. I am not saying that God did not literaly take a rib from Adam who at one time had three or perhaps healed the one that he took out. God could have done all of that and I don't think that view of the passage you site has been provern wrong. God had the power to do that and I don't think we will know the whole process he went to create man until we are with him. Perhaps we will even be unable to understand it then. But the point is that God did create man and he created woman for man. Flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. We are complimentary. Jesus spoke in parables alot. Was there a prodigal son? It doesn't mention a name. But in fact I think it does not because at least I look at my life and that story is about me. But not just as a prodigal, which I was, but also as the other son for some time who was trying to be faithful and failed to get it. The story is very true even if there wasn't "a literal prodigal son". The Bible is inerrant in faith and morals. I am quite certain it does not "lie" about historical information and as a general rule it is even chronologically correct. But if chronology isn't the point or the purpose we shouldn't get hung up on John having things in the same order as Matthew for instance. Anyway I hope that helps. There is certainly a great danger in willy nilly saying everything is myth especially in the mindset that myth is not true. The Church teaches that there is a literal sense in which all scripture is infallibly true. But that sense is highly dependent on the literary form and intent of the passage. This requires careful study.