Can Someone Explain What is Going on in this Article?


#1

I know what it sounds like, but does someone have a better explanation:

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


#2

I may be able to add some insight to this though it is just my personal thoughts. I am attending a Church Ministry class and the first few weeks were on the Old Testament.When sister said that the bible was full of inaccuratcies I thought I would fall off my seat, she than went on to explain what she meant that may told stories and used their own interpretation and when the bible was compilied the stories than merged. I have only been in this class for a few weeks so my explaination is somewhat juvenile. I will say this, once she made clear what she meant it all made complete sense and I love the bible we can learn so much from it. I hope that the Bishops and priest explain what they are saying to people so that they also can understand.

I hope this helps
God Bless
Kathleen


#3

[quote=BOBKAT]I may be able to add some insight to this though it is just my personal thoughts. I am attending a Church Ministry class and the first few weeks were on the Old Testament.When sister said that the bible was full of inaccuratcies I thought I would fall off my seat, she than went on to explain what she meant that may told stories and used their own interpretation and when the bible was compilied the stories than merged. I have only been in this class for a few weeks so my explaination is somewhat juvenile. I will say this, once she made clear what she meant it all made complete sense and I love the bible we can learn so much from it. I hope that the Bishops and priest explain what they are saying to people so that they also can understand.

I hope this helps
God Bless
Kathleen
[/quote]

I see. Me being protestant, I’m trying to give the Catholic Church the benefit of the doubt here since on the protestant boards I go on, they are already having a field day with this.


#4

Ruth Gledhill has gotten some things right, the quotes are real quotes, other than that her conclusions are just that–hers. The Church has not changed its teaching on the Bible nor has it dumbed it down or liberalized it or any other such nonsense. It has always taught that the literal interpretation is the primary one and that all other interpretations are secondary. But, what the Church means by literal and what Fundamentalists mean by the same word are very different things. Like most people who know little about the Church and how it declares its teachings, she has gotten the wrong end of the stick and made it sound, especially with the sensational title of the article, like the Church has done what it most certainly hasn’t done–changed its understanding of, its teaching about the Bible. :rolleyes:


#5

It seems to be as if the title is sensational. At the end it lists verses that it claims are “untrue.”

**

[font=‘Times New Roman’] 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
This is perfectly true, but not in the sense that it is literally true. It is perfectly true that God created man, and that he created woman from man… but that doesn’t mean the Bible purports this to be a literalistic history of what *actually *happened. The creation story expresses religious truths… i.e., God created man, creation is good, etc…

**

**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.”
After the fall, the human body is susceptible to many weaknesses… I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Perhaps it wasn’t literally a serpent… as the serpent would symbolic of what Satan really is, but that doesn’t mean Satan didn’t tempt the woman to the fall, or that the story is untrue…

**

**Matthew xxvii, 25 **

The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.” And indeed the blood of Christ is on all of our hands. But the emphasis has been away from the Jews being guilty of deicide… and I see no problem with that. That the crowd boasted that doesn’t mean that it truly is specifically on their childen.


**

**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.”
Obviously this is apocalyptic literature, which uses symbols very extravagently. What the symbols represent is true. Was there a beast literally with X number of horns? These are symbols for real things. Yes it is true, no it isn’t meant to be literal in the sense that the beast is some sort of demonic creature… the beast is Nero.

The part that I wonder if it is orthodox is this:

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.
I must go, I’ll get back to this sometime.
**[/font]


#6

Interesting points…and I was wondering how they determined what passages were true and not and how they determined that. The article I have to say DOES make the RCC look bad. I wonder if anyone knows where someone can see the actual document mentioned in the article so you can see what they actually said.


#7

[quote=roadrunner570]Interesting points…and I was wondering how they determined what passages were true and not and how they determined that. The article I have to say DOES make the RCC look bad. I wonder if anyone knows where someone can see the actual document mentioned in the article so you can see what they actually said.
[/quote]

Well, even if these 3 bishops did say what the author thinks they did, it wouldn’t matter because 3 bishops don’t speak for the whole Church. Only the Magisterium and/or the pope speaks for the whole Church. After all, there was a time in the Church’s history when a majority of its bishops held to a heresy. But, they had a council of all the bishops, the heresy got thrown out and the Church was stronger than ever before. So, I’m not getting my panties in a twist over this article. It’s not important enough for that! :smiley:


#8

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: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


#9

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…


#10

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


#11

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

http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/npic/tccieaw.jpg


#12

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


#13

This may be a good time to look at what the Church actually teaches about the complete inherency of the Bible.

The Church teaches that God is the primary author of the Bible, and that the scriptures are 100% inherent in everything they say - including history and science.

*Pope Leo XIII: "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of those difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said, as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it - such a system cannot be tolerated. For all the books that the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it…This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican…Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author…Such has always been the belief of the Holy Fathers.

“It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings… in their entirety and in all their parts, were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true" Providentissimus Deus.*

Pope Benedict XV, in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, commenting on the above words of Pope Leo XIII wrote:

“Although these words of our predecessor leave no doubt for dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a particular sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point."

Lastly, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943), which commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’ s Providentissimus Deus, solemnly condemned the liberal/modernist heresies which were already, at that time, being spread about in the Church:

“More recently, however, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine which insists, claims and demands for these ‘books in their entirety and in all their parts,’ a divine authority preserving them from all possible error, some Catholic writers have nevertheless seen fit to restrict or limit the truth of Holy Scriptures only to those matters of Faith and morals, considering all the rest, being of the field of physics and of history, as “something that is simply mentioned in passing” - and having, as they pretended, no connection whatsoever with the Faith. But our predecessor, Leo XIII, of undying memory, tore to pieces, and rightly so, these very same errors in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus of November 18, 1893".


#14

All,

On a sports forum that I post on (warchant.com) in the offtopic forum, this guy posts an article where some in the hierarchy of the Church say that parts of the Bible aren’t true.

Here is the link…

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,13509-1811332,00.html

How do I address this?

Here is the thread in which there is some discussion…

floridastate.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1083&tid=59568453&sid=&style=2

Any help would be appreciated.


#15

Read through the articles- also check the news forums- the thing is that the Bishops were saying that the whole bible may not be literally true- this is kinda a “duh” for most Catholics, and it shouldn’t be a big deal.

Over in the other forum, they’ve picked apart who said what, who made what up, what was hearsay, etc, for many of the articles out there, so I’d check in there!


#16

[quote=RobNY]It seems to be as if the title is sensational. At the end it lists verses that it claims are “untrue.”

**This is perfectly true, but not in the sense that it is literally true. It is perfectly true that God created man, and that he created woman from man… but that doesn’t mean the Bible purports this to be a literalistic history of what *actually ***happened. The creation story expresses religious truths… i.e., God created man, creation is good, etc…

**
After the fall, the human body is susceptible to many weaknesses… I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Perhaps it wasn’t literally a serpent… as the serpent would symbolic of what Satan really is, but that doesn’t mean Satan didn’t tempt the woman to the fall, or that the story is untrue…**

And indeed the blood of Christ is on all of our hands. But the emphasis has been away from the Jews being guilty of deicide… and I see no problem with that. That the crowd boasted that doesn’t mean that it truly is specifically on their childen.


**
**Obviously this is apocalyptic literature, which uses symbols very extravagently. What the symbols represent is true. Was there a beast literally with X number of horns? These are symbols for real things. Yes it is true, no it isn’t meant to be literal in the sense that the beast is some sort of demonic creature… the beast is Nero. ********

The part that I wonder if it is orthodox is this:

I must go, I’ll get back to this sometime.

[/quote]

I think it is perfectly orthodox (and also very late in being said). Odd though that may seem. For, incompleteness is not error, nor is bias, nor are a lot of other defects in the Bible, nor are the characteristics of the writings of which it is made - in fact, ISTM that assertions of inerrancy have been very poorly focussed.


#17

Protestants don’t pick up on the meaning of the word literal is the problem. They see it as “it says what it means” instead of the Catholic view of the literary or writing style, what did the author intend to say.

Examples would be God creating the everything in 6 days, creating Eve from Adam’s rib, Christ reigning for 1000 years, etc.

We don’t look at those passages as a science lesson that we can pick apart and say it happened in exactly the same way it is written, they do.

An example to give them would be “it’s raining cats and dogs”. If that statement was in the bible, most protestants would say cats and dogs were falling from the sky because they won’t look into what idea the author meant to convey. The Church will look at it and realize that the author doesn’t means cats and dogs are falling from the sky, but instead it is raining really hard.

I hope any of this helps.


#18

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.