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
Which changes the Incarnation of Christ radically. If we are evolving as a species, then what humans were then is different now.