Posted on 10/05/2005 11:05:11 PM PDT by Salvation
You're talking about the behavior of ignorant, simple people. It's akin to saying, "Protestants are quick to play with snakes and give money to televangelists who claim 'God will call me home' if they don't get the money they need to build their air-conditioned doghouses, but they know nothing about authentic church history or sacramental theology."
And it's just as offensive.
Read the authoritative teaching of the Church on the topic of Scripture. It's called Dei Verbum and completely trumps anything the Catholic bishops of the UK might say, think, or do.
You are forgetting that the Bible is a number of distinct, separate books compiled into one big binding. They are not written by the same human author. Thus, if one book is a parable, that does not mean that the entire Bible is a parable. This is false thinking. One can see that the Gospels are narratives meant to relate actual events. The Church defends this stand, quite vigorously. Thus, the Scripture is NOT "nothing but stories". Also, even in those that COULD be (doesn't mean we have to) STILL teach something inerrantly - in the spiritual sense. The Church has stated that particular portions of the Bible ARE to be taken literally. But not every word.
But I have to accept the Bible as God's word or reject it entirely. It doesn't contain stories or myths. It is the history of God's elect as put together by God-not a bunch of church fathers trying to pick and choose.
It is God's Word, whether it is a parable or relating actual people and events. God's Word is not merely an historical relating of events. He is also teaching us that He loves us, demands our faith and obedience, and that Christ came to save us from ourselves. Each section of Scripture can have multiple meanings: literal and spiritual. We are able to determine the literary genre, just as we are able to determine the literary genre of the various sections of the newspaper. I know that when I read "Man Gunned Down at Home" in the Front Page, it is different than the same verse in the Sports Page. Now, the Bible was written many years ago. We MUST rely on our Traditions of the past in many cases to get the proper sense of Scripture.
The reason for this is clear - from my same example, when if we had a nuclear war, and 500 years later, some men (or aliens) dug up our same newspaper. Without our tradition of reading the newspaper in the year 2005, how are the future people going to know what was really meant? It will take much work and study to even come close to figure out our meaning of these verses. But wouldn't it be more accurate to say that if some survivors passed down the meaning of "Man Gunned Down at Home", the accurate, true meaning would be given? The same is true of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. Thus, the men who were closer chronologically to the writers of Scripture certainly had an idea of what difficult Scriptural writings were meant to say. Thus, the meaning of the Eucharist, the reality of the Bodily Resurrection, that infants could be Baptized, etc....THIS is why Apostolic Tradition is so important. So that we KNOW what the Word of God was meant to say - what the writer meant, and what God means by it, even for us today.
Catholics are quick to accept Mary appearing on a cheese sandwich, in a tunnel on a New Jersey expressway, or in a corn field in Spain but they cannot reconcile themselves to God's divine intervention of creating His written word.
CATHOLICS are not required to believe any of that stuff. I don't, and I know some people are a bit weird on this stuff. But we ARE required to be in the Word of God. The point is "what is it saying". Is it meant to be taken literally or spiritually? We take the literal meaning first, but in some cases, it MIGHT not be NECESSARY to take it literally - a parable, for example.
I wonder what Augustine or Jerome would say to some of the "brilliant" people in the Vatican these days?
I am not here to defend every notion that some theologian comes up with regarding the Scripture. Just that we CAN take a book like Jonah, and we COULD determine it MIGHT be literal and/or spiritual (as far as God's Word and intent). I also like to point out to you that Augustine wrote a book on the "Literal interpretation of Genesis", which also looked at the spiritual sense of the writing, accepting that the creation may not have happened as "scientifically" as laid out. Aquinas said that EVOLUTION was viable - that is seemed obvious that simpler creatures developed into more complex ones. Of course, he did not deny that God created ALL creatures, or that God was not the FORCE behind evolution. But the Church has always had a history of looking to the deeper meaning of Scripture. Heck, their was a whole school, the Alexandrian school, that specialized in Allegory - which often looks specifically for the spiritual, to the EXCLUSION of the literal (excesses of this, is understandably going too far. But allegory CAN be useful in some cases).
For what reason-because the "theory" of E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N isn't spelled out? It doesn't sound "scientifically" accurate. Rubbish!! What makes us so smart? But sometimes, sadly, it is much more important to just go along with the crowd than to be true to God. In one of our previous discussions I said there were lines in the sand for me. This is one of them.
We keep open the POSSIBILITY that evolution is a viable means of describing the process of how life "evolved". But the Church does set limits - material evolution is out. Anything that denies God is out. Anything that claims more than one original man is out. Anything that denies that God created us to share with Himself His love is out. But God is the creator of nature. God cannot lie. When nature CLEARLY tells us that the earth was created in more than 6 days, we can have a pretty good idea that the literary genre of Genesis is NOT scientific but spiritual.
God's word is holy, righteous and just. Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God.
I agree. But sometimes, the Word of God is not so clear. Even in such things as the Eucharist, which seems pretty darn clear, there are those who disagree on its meaning. Thus, the need for a Church, guided by the Spirit, to lead us to the truth. What I find ironic is that people say the Catholic Church is so oppressive and such, but now we are too lax. Ugghhh. A simple guy like me gets confused!
Brother in Christ
**Pope Discovers Principle of Sola Scriptura!**
He didn't say that. He said it was important for Catholics to read the Bible!!
Agree with your analysis of the bishops of England!
Guess we should pray for them, huh?
Excellent answer!
I am currently in a group studying Isaiah! Talk about history! Wow!
Is it the same 38 volume series of the Fathers that is generally available on-line translated about 100 years ago? Brother in Christ
Is it the same 38 volume series of the Fathers that is generally available on-line translated about 100 years ago?
Brother in Christ
I believe that thread was about the bishops of England, Scotland and Wales.
We need to pray for them too.
The title "Catholic Church" is indicative of the media bashing anything Catholic, because you can see this was a small group of bishops yet it got attributed to the "whole" Catholic Church.
Which changes the Incarnation of Christ radically. If we are evolving as a species, then what humans were then is different now.
In a word, yes. Let me give one illustrative example. During the Galileo incident, some folks were using the Scripture line about the "sun standing still in the sky" to defend geocentrism--saying it must have been moving to begin with.
Did that miracle happen? Absolutely. To deny it would be to deny the inerrancy of Scripture. But it is clear that that passage did not intend a *scientific* description of what happened that day--it was adopting the perspective of any earth-bound resident.
Catholics are quick to accept Mary appearing on a cheese sandwich, in a tunnel on a New Jersey expressway, or in a corn field in Spain but they cannot reconcile themselves to God's divine intervention of creating His written word.
Most Catholics actually look with disdain against cheese-sandwich apparitions. There are a few of us that are so apparition-hungry that go in for that foolish nonsense, and it the job of the bishops to put a stop to such things.
Speaking of what Augustine thought about what's coming out of the Vatican, that great Doctor of the Church was EXTREMELY clear what he thought about Christians who undertook rash Scriptural exegesis in the face of scientific/historical evidence. It comes up over and over in his works. To wit:
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2:9).I think you'll find that the Vatican position nowadays is in perfect harmony with that of Augustine in the 400s and Bellarmine in the 1600s.
That's a valid point but you can't blame the media for "Catholic bashing" if a bunch of high level Catholic bishops stand up before a mike and say the Bible isn't true. If Condalezza Rice stood up and said she thinks taxes should be raised don't you think it would be attributed to the Administration?
Excellent post. And I would agree, *if* it can be shown that the Catholic Church has traditions that contradict the plain teaching of Scripture, she would be worthy of all the abuses that the Reformers poured on her. Needless to say, we think she is not, but it's important to defend the common principle here that the true Church of Christ absolutely *must* be in total conformity with the written and revealed word of God.
What I don't want Protestant Christians to think is that we *know* our traditions conflict with Scripture and don't care, or that we think Tradition trumps it. Not at all. What we are adamant on is rather that the Catholic Church is the only body that embodies the inerrant teaching of Scripture in its fullest and truest sense.
May God richly bless you for your honesty and candor.
#1. "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."(#1. "Papa tantae est dignitatis et cesitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius.")
#13. "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions."
(#13. Hinc Papa triplici corona coronatur tanquam rex coeli, terre et infernoram.")
#18. "As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, over the earth, with supernatural absolute governing authority entrusted to him by the ominipotent God."
(#18. "Deveniendo ad Papae auctoritatem, Papa est quasi Deus in terra unicaus Christifidelium princeps, regum omnium rex maximus, plenitudinem potestatis continens, cui terreni simul, ac coelestis imperii gubernacula ab omnipotenti Deo credita sunt.")
#30. "The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws."(#30. "Papa tantae est auctoritatis et potestatis, ut possit quoque leges divinas modificare, declarare, vel interpretari, ad num.")
Yep! Have been for years.
Not necessarily. Our (religious) definition of "Man" is not the same as an anthropologist. Our first man is a man with a soul, not the "evolving" homo erectus, etc. A man has a soul, and the first such man was Adam, created by God with a spiritual soul. Thus, THIS is whom Christ came to save, and what nature He took up, the man with a soul, not the homo whatever (presuming that science is correct on this theory). We are open to this possibility, as it does not deny the Word of God.
Brother in Christ
Regarding your quotes...
None of them say the Pope is ABOVE God! They merely say that he has been given authority on earth by God for the sake of men to express what God's will or Word is on a particular teaching that he might be interpretating. It can be said that the pope is the vicar of Christ, as the pope is the visible representation of the unity of the Church. Haven't you read WHO gave Simon the ability to know who Jesus was in Matthew 16?
Regards
You have to be blind - this of course was not posted for you but for those who can read and understand plain English and Latin.
That is correct. Unfortunately, bishops sometimes make such mistakes. It is for the Vatican to straigthen matters - fortunately we have such an authority to correct such things, otherwise, we'd have mass confusion. By looking to the "official" teachings, we can separate the chaff from the wheat, even when the chaff is a bishop. There is only one bishop who is infallible, and ONLY when he is executing a particular, narrow office.
Brother of Christ
Oh Hell no! Last thing I need is to hear some idiot babbling on, misinterpreting the Bible to fit their own fruity theology. No thank you, no no no no no!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.