US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study

Examiner.com ^ | 7/22/09 | Denise Hunnell, M.D.Go to Denise's Home Page

[bdeaner]

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops web site recently posted recommendations for Catholics reading the Bible:

1. Bible reading is for Catholics. The Church encourages Catholics to make reading the Bible part of their daily prayer lives. Reading these inspired words, people grow deeper in their relationship with God and come to understand their place in the community God has called them to in himself.

2. Prayer is the beginning and the end. Reading the Bible is not like reading a novel or a history book. It should begin with a prayer asking the Holy Spirit to open our hearts and minds to the Word of God. Scripture reading should end with a prayer that this Word will bear fruit in our lives, helping us to become holier and more faithful people.

3. Get the whole story! When selecting a Bible, look for a Catholic edition. A Catholic edition will include the Church's complete list of sacred books along with introductions and notes for understanding the text. A Catholic edition will have an imprimatur notice on the back of the title page. An imprimatur indicates that the book is free of errors in Catholic doctrine.

4. The Bible isn't a book. It's a library. The Bible is a collection of 73 books written over the course of many centuries. The books include royal history, prophecy, poetry, challenging letters to struggling new faith communities, and believers' accounts of the preaching and passion of Jesus. Knowing the genre of the book you are reading will help you understand the literary tools the author is using and the meaning the author is trying to convey.

5. Know what the Bible is – and what it isn't. The Bible is the story of God's relationship with the people he has called to himself. It is not intended to be read as history text, a science book, or a political manifesto. In the Bible, God teaches us the truths that we need for the sake of our salvation.

6. The sum is greater than the parts. Read the Bible in context. What happens before and after – even in other books – helps us to understand the true meaning of the text.

7. The Old relates to the New. The Old Testament and the New Testament shed light on each other. While we read the Old Testament in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus, it has its own value as well. Together, these testaments help us to understand God's plan for human beings.

8. You do not read alone. By reading and reflecting on Sacred Scripture, Catholics join those faithful men and women who have taken God's Word to heart and put it into practice in their lives. We read the Bible within the tradition of the Church to benefit from the holiness and wisdom of all the faithful.

9. What is God saying to me? The Bible is not addressed only to long-dead people in a faraway land. It is addressed to each of us in our own unique situations. When we read, we need to understand what the text says and how the faithful have understood its meaning in the past. In light of this understanding, we then ask: What is God saying to me?

10. Reading isn't enough. If Scripture remains just words on a page, our work is not done. We need to meditate on the message and put it into action in our lives. Only then can the word be "living and effective."(Hebrews 4:12).

[bdeaner]

You completely misinterpreted why I have concerns that you are in heresy. The potentially heretical statement is highlight in your quote, below:

Saying you’ll dispense with your current view when evidence shows otherwise, does not in any way change the fact that you NOW dogmatically hold a view that is unproven, by definition unprovable, goes against all ancient and even much more recent tradition in the Church and also carries with dangers to the soul with all of its philosophical baggage.

I interpret this highlighted statement, in the context of your statement as a whole, to be rejecting the role of science and reason in understanding the Lord's Creation. To say that, if that is what you are saying, is heretical.

I have already told you on numerous occasions now that I am not dogmatically committed to theistic evolution. But you insist on saying I am. Why, I don't know. I am however very persuaded by the evidence that evolution -- understood and evaluated in ways that are consonant with the infallible teachings of the Church -- is a valid theory worth serious consideration. Pope John Paul II agrees. See post #94.

But I am concerned that your statement violates the infallible teaching of Vatican I, which asserted, "all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from the natural principles by a well-trained mind." So it seems ironic that you are accusing me of heresy.

[vladimir998]

bdeaner,

What you’re doing is extremely dangerous. You are accusing me of heresy based upon the fact that I understand science well enough to know that something that happened before man existed (creation), or the absolute origins of man cannot be with absolute certainty known or discerned by science. That is simply a fact.

You are, thus, accusing me of heresy because I said something in the scientific realm (NOTE THAT: the scientific realm) is “by definition unprovable”? You think that makes me guilty of heresy? What Christian belief did I violate? What truth of the faith did I deny?

None.

“I interpret this highlighted statement, in the context of your statement as a whole, to be rejecting the role of science and reason in understanding the Lord’s Creation.”

Then you neither understand my statement nor do you understand the role of science in understanding the Lord’s Creation. You also clearly do not understand heresy. Again, what Christian truth did I deny? What Christian belief did I violate?

None.

I, in now way, denied God’s creative power or product. I, in no way, denied the role or science or reason in understanding of anything. I pointed out a simple fact: science is limited. It always will be. By definition it has to be.

There is no heresy whatsoever in anything I have said. I think you are slandering me by claiming there is.

“To say that, if that is what you are saying, is heretical.”

So, to say science is limited is heresy? You’ve got to be kidding. Seriously, have you EVER heard a Catholic in authority say otherwise? To point out that something is by definition unprovable is merely to point out that science is limited. Period. There is no heresy involved. All this does is prove that you have taken this to a dogmatic level while you deny that you have. When someone disgrees with you, you accuse them of heresy. You’re the dogmatic one here.

“I have already told you on numerous occasions now that I am not dogmatically committed to theistic evolution.”

Again, you are accusing me of heresy for disagreeing with you. How can you turn around and say you are not being dogmatic? Do you even see your own hypocrisy here?

“But you insist on saying I am. Why, I don’t know. I am however very persuaded by the evidence that evolution — understood and evaluated in ways that are consonant with the infallible teachings of the Church — is a valid theory worth serious consideration. Pope John Paul II agrees. See post #94.”

Again, it is not about being “persuaded” by evidence. You are accusing me of heresy for disagreeing with you. That’s very dogmatic.

“But I am concerned that your statement violates the infallible teaching of Vatican I, which asserted, “all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from the natural principles by a well-trained mind.” So it seems ironic that you are accusing me of heresy.”

Your hypocrisy is deepening:

1) You accused ME of heresy for disagreeing with you.
2) By accusing me of heresy for merely disagreeing with by holding a position you say the Church allows me to hold, you are YOURSELF violating Church teaching.
3) I am not violating Church teaching in any way.
4) Nothing I have said violates Vatican I or Vatican II or any Church council EVER.
5) You seem to be getting desparate. I have no idea why you are so scared of this argument, but if you’re willing to falsely accuse fellow Catholics of heresy for merely disagreeing with you, then you are indeed holding dogmatically to your evolutionary beliefs.

[vladimir998]

bdeaner,

What you’re doing is extremely dangerous. You are accusing me of heresy based upon the fact that I understand science well enough to know that something that happened before man existed (creation), or the absolute origins of man cannot be with absolute certainty known or discerned by science. That is simply a fact.

You are, thus, accusing me of heresy because I said something in the scientific realm (NOTE THAT: the scientific realm) is “by definition unprovable”? You think that makes me guilty of heresy? What Christian belief did I violate? What truth of the faith did I deny?

None.

“I interpret this highlighted statement, in the context of your statement as a whole, to be rejecting the role of science and reason in understanding the Lord’s Creation.”

Then you neither understand my statement nor do you understand the role of science in understanding the Lord’s Creation. You also clearly do not understand heresy. Again, what Christian truth did I deny? What Christian belief did I violate?

None.

I, in now way, denied God’s creative power or product. I, in no way, denied the role or science or reason in understanding of anything. I pointed out a simple fact: science is limited. It always will be. By definition it has to be.

There is no heresy whatsoever in anything I have said. I think you are slandering me by claiming there is.

“To say that, if that is what you are saying, is heretical.”

So, to say science is limited is heresy? You’ve got to be kidding. Seriously, have you EVER heard a Catholic in authority say otherwise? To point out that something is by definition unprovable is merely to point out that science is limited. Period. There is no heresy involved. All this does is prove that you have taken this to a dogmatic level while you deny that you have. When someone disgrees with you, you accuse them of heresy. You’re the dogmatic one here.

“I have already told you on numerous occasions now that I am not dogmatically committed to theistic evolution.”

Again, you are accusing me of heresy for disagreeing with you. How can you turn around and say you are not being dogmatic? Do you even see your own hypocrisy here?

“But you insist on saying I am. Why, I don’t know. I am however very persuaded by the evidence that evolution — understood and evaluated in ways that are consonant with the infallible teachings of the Church — is a valid theory worth serious consideration. Pope John Paul II agrees. See post #94.”

Again, it is not about being “persuaded” by evidence. You are accusing me of heresy for disagreeing with you. That’s very dogmatic.

“But I am concerned that your statement violates the infallible teaching of Vatican I, which asserted, “all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from the natural principles by a well-trained mind.” So it seems ironic that you are accusing me of heresy.”

Your hypocrisy is deepening:

1) You accused ME of heresy for disagreeing with you.
2) By accusing me of heresy for merely disagreeing with by holding a position you say the Church allows me to hold, you are YOURSELF violating Church teaching.
3) I am not violating Church teaching in any way.
4) Nothing I have said violates Vatican I or Vatican II or any Church council EVER.
5) You seem to be getting desparate. I have no idea why you are so scared of this argument, but if you’re willing to falsely accuse fellow Catholics of heresy for merely disagreeing with you, then you are indeed holding dogmatically to your evolutionary beliefs.

[bdeaner]

You can dish it out but you can’t take it. I am ending this conversation. I do not believe you are capable of reasonable conversation without flinging irrational and unfounded accusations. Have a nice life.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You can dish it out but you can’t take it.”

You, that’s YOU, accused me of heresy for disagreeing with you. How exactly could I not take it? Aren’t you the one who struggled to take it? After all, I didn’t throw a ridiculous charge of heresy at you for merely disagreeing with me.

“I am ending this conversation. I do not believe you are capable of reasonable conversation without flinging irrational and unfounded accusations.”

Again, you accused me of heresy for disagreeing with you. How exactly does your accusation of heresy mean I am incapable of “reasonable conversation without flinging irrational and unfounded accusations”? Isn’t your accusation of heresy what is unfounded?

“Have a nice life.”

I’ll do my best. I hope you do as well.

[bdeaner]

For the record, you accused me of heresy. I replied back that it seemed you were more in danger of heresy than I, but I never accused you of heresy. I said very explicitly that I did not understand what exactly you meant by "unprovable", but that your statement could be construed as heresy -- a much more generous statement than you offered me, to be frank with you, vladimir998.

Dogmas of the faith can be proved through reason. That's what the Catechism says.

But nevermind. This conversation is getting too personal, and the heat is running too hot, to have a reasonable discussion on the matter. Perhaps we can try again in a few days when cooler heads prevail. If we keep going in this general direction, then Godwin's Law will come into effect, and that would be anembarrassment we should both wish to avoid.

I will light a candle for you at Mass tomorrow. Maybe you can do the same for me. God bless.

[Religion Moderator]

I don’t care who started it. Both of you, STOP making it personal.

[vladimir998]

bdeaner,

I am not going to belabor this point since I don’t wish to anger the Moderator. You, however, wrote:

“For the record, you accused me of heresy. I replied back that it seemed you were more in danger of heresy than I, but I never accused you of heresy.”

Please see post #98 where you wrote this: “Unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, which is possible, I completely reject this premise, and so does the Church. Your statement seems heretical to me, unless I am reading it incorrectly. See post #94. Your statement is not compatible with those statements by the Magisterium. Seems to me my soul is not the one in danger, but yours is. Nothing I have said is heretical, but your statement sure seems to be.”

I didn’t bring up heresy first. You did. I later brought it up in a vastly different way than you did.

Now that the record has been definitely set straight, this conversation is over.

[vladimir998]

Done. Thanks for your patience.

[Alex Murphy]

If we keep going in this general direction, then Godwin's Law will come into effect, and that would be an embarrassment we should both wish to avoid.

Just imagine the embarrassment if Irving's Law came into effect.

[bdeaner]

Haha. Yeah, that too!

[bdeaner]

[Alex Murphy]

God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years or so

Interesting chart. Ping to research later