Church says bible isn't true

Sort of.

The catholic church has come out with some guidance on how literally to take the bible. Most of it is timely common sense in the face of lunatic christian fundementalism. Some seems like sawing off the log you're sitting on to me...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html

There's all sorts of subtle stuff to this - what is religious authority founded on, who decides which sections of which texts have authority, how much is religious text literal account and how much parable...

I suspect we're just going to abuse FF, though...

__________________
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you
High mountains are a feeling
I don't need to sell my soul, he's already in me

O! Deep joy!

__________________
Faith itself, compelled by the Holy Spirit, possesses an inner dynamism that necessitates deeper understanding. ~Thomas Weinandy O.F.M.

hehe

__________________
"...any theory that satisfies the facts demands assumptions which are completely absurd."

Aleister Crowley

Once again the Times publishes a sensationalist piece hoping to provoke people into thinking the Catholic Church has changed its mind, which of course, she has not. Particularly striking is the comment that Galileo was condemned for defending Copernicus' system which is not true. Galileo was condmened partly because of it but mostly because he claimed the book of Joshua was wrong. Copernicus was a monk of the Catholic Church after all, and the Church didn't say Galileo couldn't hold to his view as a hypothesis. What she said was that if he wanted to assert it Galileo had to prove it. Unfortunately Galileo couldn't. Indeed, it would be left to Sir Issac Newton to provide the mathematical formulae based upon elipitical orbits to do that.

Equally amusing is the idea that belief in 'intelligent design' means one is a fundamentalist. How exactly does Darwinism disprove belief in God? Even Darwin himself was uncertain of what the implications of his theory and Alfred Russell Wallace who published 'On the origin of species' with Darwin and in whose work it was that the term 'natural selection' was initially found believed in God and that he had interceded thrice in temporal affairs: 1) in the creation of matter 2)in the introduction of consciousness in higher beings and 3) in the generation of man's higher facultires. The two men who founded Darwinism disagreed on its conclusions this should make people e.g. journalists who write for the Times, realise that Darwinism is science not philosophy. In science you dont prove negative statements you simply try to establish what the evidence suggests is the most logical explanation of how something has occured. The why is left to others.

This is precisely what Proffessor Keith Ward here at Oxford states in his book "God, Chance and Neccessity". Darwinism doesn't state anything about belief or disbelief in God, rather Darwinism is a scientific theory fought over by metaphysical philosophers e.g. Materialists on one side and Theists on the other. Thus, just as with Darwin and Wallace, it is possible to find two biologists in the same faculty here at Oxford, Proffessors' Richard Dawkins and Alisdair McGrath, the former who writes books on how science makes theism implausible the latter on how science makes theism more plausible e.g. 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Dawkins and 'Dawkins' God' by McGrath.

Lastly, of course, there is nothing to this at all for Catholics since this is nothing new. The Bible has never been promoted as being literally true in every single sense. If you dont believe me pick up some 3rd century works by an exegete known as Origen of Alexandria (albeit some of Origen's propositions were condemned but his influence is present in a variety of Church Fathers like Sts Athanasius, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poiters and particularly St Jerome whose Latin vulgate translation of the Bible acted as the official text of the Roman Catholic Church for almost 2,000 years with revisions every so often of course). Fundamentalism is a 19th century phenomena it is not the tradition of the Catholic Church, which has always held that scripture must be taken literally but defines literal as what the text is supposed to have originally intended to mean. Often their views were coloured by the science of the day but St Augustine factors this into consideration in his primer on Biblical interpretation 'On Christian Doctrine' stating:

"For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with Scripture than he is with himself."--St Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 1 Chapter 37.

The Catholic Church does not base its authority on the Bible because the Bible a testament to the tradition of the Church. 'Biblos' is Greek for Books, books that weren't always together in one collection but were canonised by the Church by verification of their content against the teaching of the Apostles as all doctrine is (St Irenaeus of Lyon 'Against Heresies' Book 3 c.180 AD). Because the Bible is an authentic witness of truth's held by the Church it is referenced by her but the canon of Scripture stands and rests upon her authority. Anyone in any doubt about these things should just pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is a condensed version of the central tenents of the Catholic faith. All the issues supposedly provoked by this move by the English Bishops to simply restate Catholic teaching have been comprehensively dealt with long ago.

__________________
"On that day you will know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you."--John 14:20

It does bring up the problem that is created by those such as evangelist that take the literal words of the bible as true. This is different than those who take the words as inspiration. The literal group grabbing power in the Government attacking laws attacking groups of people, attacking the rights of the individual are a danger and anything that brings out this point is a great value.

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

“	Originally Posted By: aqira It does bring up the problem that is created by those such as evangelist that take the literal words of the bible as true. This is different than those who take the words as inspiration. The literal group grabbing power in the Government attacking laws attacking groups of people, attacking the rights of the individual are a danger and anything that brings out this point is a great value.	”

Well, the problem comes from protestantism when it is claimed that the only authority man can listen to is that of the Bible, known as sola scriptura. As Seraph said

“	Originally Posted By: Seraph Fundamentalism is a 19th century phenomena it is not the tradition of the Catholic Church, which has always held that scripture must be taken literally but defines literal as what the text is supposed to have originally intended to mean.	”

I posted before that the Bible is a book of poems, not a book of rules.

__________________
Faith itself, compelled by the Holy Spirit, possesses an inner dynamism that necessitates deeper understanding. ~Thomas Weinandy O.F.M.

I second what FF said. This document has basically no influence at all on the American debate to which Aquira alludes since the Catholic Church has no authority over Protestants who on one end of the spectrum think she may be alright and on the other think she's the whore of babylon.

__________________
"On that day you will know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you."--John 14:20

I'm not sure - FF keeps getting banned from a US based catholic forum - so I think a document to remind catholics what they believe may be no bad thing.

I still think there's a lot to this but can't think of a way to get into it without provoking more of the "nothing's happening and anyway only protestants do that" response .

Catholics, for example, frequently quote scripture to justify their position on a topic.

__________________
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you
High mountains are a feeling
I don't need to sell my soul, he's already in me

Do you accept scripture as the only authority John?

I would expect that you think that you would say one should internalise scripture and believe in what it means to you as an individual. So you believe in drawing your own conclusions.

Catholics believe in the Churches conclusions. We rely on the Magesterium of the Church and Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit to be with us when we make decisions in his absense. The Church publishes the Catechism- literally means 'instruction' which draws on the Bible, the mass, the sacrements, Church tradition and teaching and the lives of the saints and is a summary of what all Catholic around the world believe in common.

This means that we would be Cathoics with or without the Bible (a collection of writings we gathered and promulgated). The Bible is secondary to the Church- Christ's bride, and tradition around which it is created.

The Catholics on Catholic Answers Forum are American first, republican second and Catholic third (obviously I'm generalising). The adverserial nature they assume seems endemic in the population.

__________________
Faith itself, compelled by the Holy Spirit, possesses an inner dynamism that necessitates deeper understanding. ~Thomas Weinandy O.F.M.

John as I said Scripture is a witness to the truth's held by the Church and I never said Catholics didnt take it literally only that we say the literal sense is that which was intended by the author. As the Times' article illustrates the Catholic Church does not deny the Virgin Birth, for instance, but demands that it and other Biblical events that it teaches are facts be believed as such with full assent on the part of the believer (Lumen Gentium para 25, Vatican II). The point I've been making is, Protestants are not going to stop or start believing what a certain part of the Bible says to them because the Catholic Church says they've misidentified the genre of that text. If the Catholic Church tells its members that the Genesis creation story is symbolic in type of genre what relevance will that have on fundamentalists like the infamous Jack Chick? Will it confirm anything other than their sentiments that the Catholic Church is idolatrous and the Pope is antichrist? The issue is one of authority of interpretation.

A Protestant is not going to change his or her mind about the genre of a text simply because the Catholic Church rules contrary to his opinion since one of the core premises of Luther's Protest is 'sola scripture' 'scripture solely' as authority. Liberals and Conservatives alike Protestants hold to this sentiment and thus what the Catholic Church maintains about the genre of a Biblical text has no impact on their faith and practice of it. Because the Catholic Church considers the bodily ressurection factual does that mean that all liberal Protestants after reading this document will suddenly change their mind about this? This document has no impact at all upon anybody outside of the Church and daresay it might not even have any impact on people within the Church regardless of what it says if it does not correspond to the teaching of Rome. Ultimately people in the Catholic Church will be guided not by the English Bishops but by the Pope and the Catechism issued under his orders. Likewise, people outside the Catholic Church will be guided not by the Papacy and its teachings but by the principles of the reformation or whatever ideas instigated their schism from the Catholic Church.

__________________
"On that day you will know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you."--John 14:20

"Likewise, people outside the Catholic Church will be guided not by the Papacy and its teachings but by the principles of the reformation or whatever ideas instigated their schism from the Catholic Church."

sentments like this have appeared numerous times on the DL

by this i mean that catholics seem to think that it is other people who have split from them (western spirtual tradition)

but catholics werent the only spiritual tradition in the west, so called occult tradition has preached a much different version of godhead (the kingdom of heaven is within and so on)

which is according to some (the good master therion to name one) is far older than the roman catholic church

__________________
"...any theory that satisfies the facts demands assumptions which are completely absurd."

Aleister Crowley

See- that posts seems remarkably off topic to me!!! There is a Western Catholic Tradition and an Eastern Catholic Tradition as well. Did you know that Wingnut?

__________________
Faith itself, compelled by the Holy Spirit, possesses an inner dynamism that necessitates deeper understanding. ~Thomas Weinandy O.F.M.

And there were a few more which early catholicism didn't treat in the most brotherly spirit, and others that early catholicism rescued from errors likely to produce nothing but profound unhapiness but that is way off topic.

My point is - if this document is just a summary of what catholic's already believed officially - it is long overdue for a read by large numbers of catholics. If it is not then it is worth a quick look over to check - some things - like the points about revelation - whole branches of non-catholic christianity could learn from to good effect.

As for the protestant-catholic thing, I think it is a red herring. Catholics and protestants both recognise 4 tests: scripture, church authority, internal revelation, and practical results. Wherever possible all sane ones also pay at least lip service to the idea of not judging where possible. Sure, which church authority they recognise and which priority they place on which authority varies

__________________
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you
High mountains are a feeling
I don't need to sell my soul, he's already in me

FF : "Did you know that Wingnut?" yes for example english catholicism

sorry for veering off topic just felt the compulsion to muddy the waters, bad wingnut

__________________
"...any theory that satisfies the facts demands assumptions which are completely absurd."

Aleister Crowley

How is English Catholicism an example of Eastern Catholicism???

“	Originally Posted By: john100 My point is - if this document is just a summary of what catholic's already believed officially - it is long overdue for a read by large numbers of catholics. If it is not then it is worth a quick look over to check - some things - like the points about revelation - whole branches of non-catholic christianity could learn from to good effect.	”

Good point! I broadly agree! I do think that most English Catholics just get on with their lives however, not many get into the whole debate thing.

__________________
Faith itself, compelled by the Holy Spirit, possesses an inner dynamism that necessitates deeper understanding. ~Thomas Weinandy O.F.M.