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 analyzingf 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.
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.
What are your thoughts? Is the Bible 100% acurate and true?
The Times
13 comments:
Pball,
From discussions on your forum:
Catholic Church is infallible, the Bible says so.
The Church, as infallible, wrote/compiled the Holy Writ and thus is the sole source of infallible interpretation of said Writ.
Now the Church says the Bible isn't accurate - or better yet, fallible?
Hmm... seems to me there is a huge disconnect. I also see a returning to the time where Catholic lay-people were not to study the Bible - but kept in the dark concerning Scripture.
How can the Scripture then be ONE OF the authorites appealed to by the Church if it is fallible?
You know, I reread the Genesis creation accounts, and I don't see a conflict between them. They just give different details.
I believe that the bible is infallible.
If Genesis and Revelation were two books that were not inspired and infallible, they would have been declared apocryphal.
I just kind of see it as pandering to the secularists, and also as a way of saying "The bible isn't enough, you also need us!".
I'll be interested in seeing what the Pope says about this.
Also - I gather that the Church is not divided nor does it say contradictory things... I don't agree with Cardinal Newman 100%, but neither does your post.
Cardinal Newman put it this way in an essay on inspiration first published in 1884: "Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."
(taken from www.catholic.com)
The italicized comment/question in the iddle of the quote presupposes the truthfulnes of the complete work as supported by the bolded text.
The contradiction is subtle, but nonetheless real.
Something is seriously wrong here.
I'm still digesting this one myself. I will tell you there is an issue of what books belong in the Bible. We don't all agree on that.
I think this has more to do with the interpretation of Scripture rather than the inaccuracy of Scripture itself.
This is where is gets complicated. What do was accept as literal and what is metphorical or representative.
I have always turned to the 2000 years of Biblical interprestion of the Church.
I do believe the Bible is infalliable. Even if some parts of it are not historicaly accurate. (I'm not saying they are, just a possiblitity). What is falliable is mans understanding and use of said writings. Untill this is prclaimed as offical Church teaching and approved by the Pope I would appraoch it with caution.
"I do believe the Bible is infalliable. Even if some parts of it are not historicaly accurate."
If some parts of is are inaccurate than it can't be infallible by definition or essence. One or the other.
Infallibility is an absolute.
- Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
- Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
To be inaccurate is to err and to fail whether intentional or not.
"I think this has more to do with the interpretation of Scripture rather than the inaccuracy of Scripture itself.
This is where is gets complicated. What do was accept as literal and what is metphorical or representative."
What you posted in the article flies in the face of your comment and that of Cardinal Newman.
From the article:
1- some parts of the Bible are not actually true
2- they should not expect total accuracy from the Bible
3- should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision
And how can a Church who claims to not have had any differences from the Truth once delivered "must offer the gospel in ways appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries." That is an outright blasphemous denial of the power of the Holy Spirit of God to work in the heart of the individual! Faith is the susbtance of things not seen, then evidence of that which is hoped for. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. For all the critisicms the Church has against Protestantism - this is a monkey see, monkey do (pardon the expression).
The article goes on to say, "The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation". If I lied to you once, am I then 100% trustworthy? No. To say the Word of God is inspired of God and then to turn and say the things they do is to make God a liar - effectively removing His trustworthiness. Blasphemy.
If it is as you say a matter of interpretation and use; then the rules of interpretation and use apply. But to make the statements they do and use the creation account(s) to support the argument smacks of the enemy of our souls being himself and having the question "Hath God Said?" put before us again.
"Untill this is prclaimed as offical Church teaching and approved by the Pope I would appraoch it with caution."
The article: The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing ...
Is this not Church teaching? If not then it is heresy and aught to be delt with.
Plus, if you have caution as to the teaching now ... what makes your conscience of personal holiness before God turn off when this is proclaimed as offical Church teaching and approved by the Pope? I ask in honesty.
Previous Papal Bulls talk of the story of creation in Genesis as fact, as did Paul, Luke, and several other places in the Bible that quote lineages. Quia vir reprobus of Pope John XXII, The Catechism of Christian Doctrine, published at the order of Pope St. Pius X, and the books of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Jude.
Before becoming Pope, Ratzinger was an evolutionist. It will be interesting whether or not this "infallible" Pope contradicts previous "infallible" Popes and the bible.
Sorry, I'm not trying to bash the Catholic church. I have a lot of respect for it.
Do you think it will be addressed?
Do I think it will be addressed where? On the show, from the Church, where?
Sorry. By the Pope.
I expect it to be fully addressed within the next 300 years!
I don't know. If it get out of hand the Pope may set things straight. I have learned long ago not to give full credence to anything "Catholic" unless it comes directly from the Pope. We shall see what happens.
The bible is not infallible. It is inerrant. There's a big difference.
-Anonymous
...and that difference is?
Infallible:
1) Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2)Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
To be infallible is to be inerrant and to be inerrant is to be infallible.
The larger, most important and totally ignored question is whether Jesus Christ of Nazareth - in His Perfection - was also infallible. Or can it be - as it seems - that He is merely the poster boy for the Church - whilst His commands, issued from His Perfection, are ignored, or forgotten or disobeyed?
Was Jesus infallible or has the Church, which disobeys Him become God?
One of a myriad of examples: Jesus (and once again I must preface this)- in His Perfection - Himself kept the Sabbath. While we, as Catholics obedient to a self-proclaimed infallible Church do not. And during a long period in history tortured and put to death those who did keep the Sabbath in the same manner as did our Lord and Saviour - and/or practiced the religion that He, in His Perfection, believed, preached and followed all of His life.
Had Jesus returned to earth without disclosing His identity - during the period of the Church's "Holy" Inquisition, He Himself would have likewise been tortured and burned at the stake by the "infallible" Church.
In summary - whose words and dictates are infallible? those of Jesus or those of the Church which consistently disobeys Him in so many ways?
Post a Comment