How to Read the Bible as a Catholic [How? Don't take indv. verses as "literally true", says Pope]

National Catholic Register ^ | 05/05/2011 | Cindy Wooden

[Alex Murphy]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said.

“It is possible to perceive the sacred Scriptures as the word of God” only by looking at the Bible as a whole, “a totality in which the individual elements enlighten each other and open the way to understanding,” the Pope wrote in a message to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

“It is not possible to apply the criterion of inspiration or of absolute truth in a mechanical way, extrapolating a single phrase or expression,” the Pope wrote in the message released May 5 at the Vatican.

The commission of biblical scholars, an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, met at the Vatican May 2-6 to continue discussions about “Inspiration and Truth in the Bible.”

In his message, the Pope said clearer explanations about the Catholic position on the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible were important because some people seem to treat the Scriptures simply as literature, while others believe that each line was dictated by the Holy Spirit and is literally true.

Neither position is Catholic, the Pope said.

[Rashputin]

"it's time for a babe ruth on this thread"

You're right, there's not much in the way of honest discussion as opposed to repetition going on. Regards

[cothrige]

Yes, it is ugly, and the initial editing on the posting of the article was, I think, perhaps intentionally deceptive. But, when people want to believe something badly enough they will grab anything they can and twist whatever comes along to their own ends. Dan Brown makes a good living on those folk.

[Natural Law]

"it's time for a babe ruth on this thread"

I'm outta this pool!

[editor-surveyor]

No particular surprise that Antichrist doesn’t want us to believe that the Bible is true.

[Cronos]

Dan Brown makes a good living on those folk.

The first time I went to Rome in the early 2000s, there was this big bloke from the mid-west who was asking the guide about the articles from Dan Brown;s book

What was stupid was that there was so much of REAL history around, yet he believed that crummy novel

The Main stream media distorts the message or deliberately lies - like a good communist propagandist does. What is sad is that many Christians jump on this -- many of the most strident non-Catholics adopted Dan Brown as they thought it was good "anti-Catholic" stuff.

The problem is that they unknowingly do the work of the leftist anti-Christians who see that hte Church is the big target to bring down so they can then attack everyone else. They already destroyed the great Anglican Church and are now attacking the lutherans, presybterians, catholics, methodists etc. -- next on target are baptists, pentecostals etc. if they are not already the target of the main-stream media

[kosta50]

I'd be happier if people who believe G-d continually interferes with the universe--sending his "mother" to bounce the sun around, zapping bread and wine into "body and blood" every single day, liquifying St. Januarius' blood once a year, raising dead people, bilocating people, etc.--didn't stick their noses in the air and hypocritically say "G-d would never interfere with the universe as it was forming!"

Good point ZC. If God changes the bread and wine at every Eucharistic petition, then it is disingenuous to insist he doesn't interfere.

[Jeff Chandler]

YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT!!!!!

[SkyPilot]

Do you mean this?

HOW DO YOU SPLIT THIS ATOM?

Point taken, and no offense meant. It was capitalized for emphasis, not shouting, but I see your point an offer any apology needed.

To the point at hand, however, Jeff - please answer the pertinent question that is hanging over this thread like a plague:

How do you split this atom? Once an institution or individual goes down the dangerous path of issuing proclamations about whether or not scripture is true or not, there is no back tracking.

Let's say you and I were debating the majesty and eternal nature of God Himself. I cite Genesis 1: 1-7.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

A Christian who acknowledges that the Bible is 100% true, and that scripture in inerrant, will make deductions and analysis based on those wonderful passages. Here a just a few: there was a time frame for creation involved, and scripture gives a time frame in days, evenings, and mornings. How do we define these? Literal days? The Spirit of God was above the waters.....is this the Holy Spirit of the Trinity? Does the Trinity exist? Did God bring about creation just by speaking?

All great questions, and all marvelous words in scripture that Zionist Conspirator pointed out (as part of the Torah) was dictated by God, probably to Moses.

As I, and Christians, believe the Bible is true, we start our journey there and begin to see the wonder meant and possibilities scripture gives us.

Let us further say our debate involves the work of the brilliant Jewish scientist and MIT physicist, Dr. Gerald Schroeder and his observations and theories about Genesis vis a vis physics:

Dr.Gerald Schroeder Genesis & The Big Bang Theory (1 of 5)

What will a Catholic say in this debate? They cannot cite Genesis as literally true. Hasn't the Catholic church made proclamations and statements that undermine Genesis? Hasn't the Pope himself said as much?

In fact, as a Cardinal, the Pope wrote this:

I'll skip to the end......the bible really doesn't say what it says it does.

So, we have a huge, huge problem here. The Law of Non-contradiction tells us two different viewpoints cannot both be true. The truth as stake here is none other than the character and essence of God Himself.

This is the problem! It is significant beyond measure.

[SkyPilot]

You can't be serious.

Hold on right there. Then what do you mean? The apostle John bowed down before an angel of the Lord, and the angel immediately stopped him. This is behavior of angels that is also repeated throughout scripture.

The angels refuse worship, because that is the same sin and rebellion that Satan and the fallen angels made.

If John was corrected on the spot, and told to worship God alone - what excuse does the Pope have for going around allowing people to call him "Holy Father?"

The Pope is a man, and scripture tells us that only God is Holy. Do you want the chapter and verse?

It is a simple question. And yes, I am serious.

[Carpe Cerevisi]

If it were so then what do Protestants worship when they say their prayers on their knees?

Are they worshipping a false idol here? I've seen this one on the rear windows of many vehicles. Must be cross worshippers...

[Cronos]

Cool, The Church believes that the Bible is 100% true, and that scripture is inerrant

The book by the Pope on this matter goes on to say

If theologians or even the church can shift the boundaries here between image and intention, between what lies buried in the past and what is of enduring value, why can they not do so elsewhere -- as, for instance, with respect to Jesus' miracles? And if there, why not also with respect to what is absolutely central -- the cross and the resurrection of the Lord? This would be an operation whose aim would be, supposedly, to defend the faith, inasmuch as it would say: Behind what is there, which we can no longer defend, there is something more real. Such an operation often ends up by putting the faith itself in doubt,

So, yes, he says that denying this or equivocating is not right

This says nothing about the Church belief on this matter or not.

[Cronos]

In fact, The Church has NOT ruled on this topic at all. The only doctrine is that you MUST believe that God was the creative "force" (my own words). The Church basically only rules when there is a need to (as in taking 400 years for a definitive ruling on homousis) -- and seeing creeping theories of evolution, it means that we probably need a new ruling sometime in this century FOR creationism.

The vast majority of Catholics believe that God created the world as he said he did.

The exceptions will be east-coast snobs from ivy-league colleges, but then they believe the same as their Protestant, Jewish etc. colleagues, i.e. in themselves.

This is similar to the tone of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) who state that

The fact is that the (Presbyterian) Church, while affirming with one voice the creation of all things visible and invisible by the triune God, has not come to a unity of position on the matter of the nature and length of the days, as she has with regard to such doctrines as the Trinity and the Person of Christ. This indicates that the Westminster divines were correct in their affirmation that “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. . .” (WCF I, 7).

Ditto for some Baptists who hold to the old earth theory

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor William Dembski’s book, The End of Christianity (B&H Academic), argued that the universe is billions of years old—rather than thousands, as young-earth creations contend—and that God brought death, decay and natural disasters to earth long before Adam and Eve sinned

There is no definitive statement by Catholics or Presbyterians or BAptists.

[Cronos]

In fact, The Church has NOT ruled on this topic at all. The only doctrine is that you MUST believe that God was the creative "force" (my own words). The Church basically only rules when there is a need to (as in taking 400 years for a definitive ruling on homousis) -- and seeing creeping theories of evolution, it means that we probably need a new ruling sometime in this century FOR creationism.

The vast majority of Catholics believe that God created the world as he said he did.

The exceptions will be east-coast snobs from ivy-league colleges, but then they believe the same as their Protestant, Jewish etc. colleagues, i.e. in themselves.

This is similar to the tone of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) who state that

The fact is that the (Presbyterian) Church, while affirming with one voice the creation of all things visible and invisible by the triune God, has not come to a unity of position on the matter of the nature and length of the days, as she has with regard to such doctrines as the Trinity and the Person of Christ. This indicates that the Westminster divines were correct in their affirmation that “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. . .” (WCF I, 7).

And the OPC

The OPC, as a denomination, has no statement or decision regarding the length of the days of creation. Though General Assembly denied the appeal of a ruling elder who taught the animal ancestry of Adam (determining that such teaching was contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith), it has thus far had no judicial case with regard to the length of the days of creation, and therefore has rendered no ruling on the matter. OPC ministers and elders are divided on the issue. Those who hold to literal 24-hour days appeal to the words "in the space of" in Shorter Catechism question 9 ("The work of creation is God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good"). On the other hand, those who hold to the day-age theory or framework hypothesis argue that the biblical text is inconclusive as to the length of the days, and the phrase "in the space of" is not determinative. The OPC is a confessional church, and therefore the Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechisms must always be the standard by which to determine an officer's orthodoxy. Unless it is determined by a judicial ruling that our doctrinal standards teach a particular position, there must be latitude in this area.

Ditto for some Baptists who hold to the old earth theory

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor William Dembski’s book, The End of Christianity (B&H Academic), argued that the universe is billions of years old—rather than thousands, as young-earth creations contend—and that God brought death, decay and natural disasters to earth long before Adam and Eve sinned

There is no definitive statement by Catholics or Presbyterians or BAptists.

[catfish1957]

No offense, but after being married to a Catholic for almost 30 years, and attending her church, the overall knowledge of scripture by Catholics is far far less than their protestant brethren.

Education at Cathocism is more dogmatic, where the rest of us were getting it hammered in us every summer at VBS.

[catfish1957]

....at VBS and Sunday School.

[Cronos]

Sigh -- the priests are prostrating to Jesus Christ who is in the presence of the Eucharist.

you don't have any problem with prostrating to Him, right?

[SkyPilot]

And who is this guy bowing down to? Jesus Christ?

Revelation 19:10 "At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.”

__________________________________________________________________

Revelation 22: 8-9 "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”

__________________________________________________________________

Nobody around here seems to want to answer a basic and direct question. If the angel to spoke to the apostle John, who was delivering God's message on the events of the End Times and the Apocalypse, told John not to bow down and corrected him on the spot - - then why does the Pope permit this pseudo worship by fiat? Is that Biblical?

Certainly not!

This isn't a minor point, and it speaks to the heart of the problem here.

You can't fool around with God's word. You can issue white papers, proclamations, or a treatise on this and that - and not suffer grave and serious consequences.

You can't then turn around and quote scripture in defense of your argument, when your argument started out with the premise that all scripture is not literal and inerrant, unless the "church" gives your guidance or approval on where to deviate.

[Cronos]

Stick to one point -- first you post a picture of priests prostrating to Jesus Christ in the form of the Eucharist and you misread it

i point it out to you and do you acknowledge your mistake? no

secondly, here is a cardinal stooping to kiss Benedict's ring -- Benedict's a short enough guy.

[Cronos]

Furthermore, why do folks bow to the Queen (you just saw the Royal wedding perhaps) -- neither is WORSHIPING which if what Rev 19:19 is talking about.

Who says the Bible says it is categorically wrong to bow to someone?

read:

1. Genesis 27:29: 29Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.
2. 1 Kings 1:16f: "Bathsheba bowed low and knelt before the king. 'What is it you want?' the king asked."
3. 1 Kings 1:31: "Then Bathsheba bowed low with her face to the ground and, kneeling before the king, said, "May my lord King David live forever!"
4. 1 Samuel 24:8: "Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, 'My Lord and king!' When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground."
5. 1 Samuel 25:23: "When Abigal saw David, she quickly got off her donkey and bowed down before David with her face to the ground. She fell at his feet. . .
6. 1 Samuel 28:14: "Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground."

   You see this here -- a lot of not only bowing but even prostrating (which the priests in the pic you posting were prostrating to Jesus Christ)

[SkyPilot]

Cool, The Church believes that the Bible is 100% true, and that scripture is inerrant

It does? Actually, it does not. That's the problem.

Since taking office, the Pope has sent mixed signals on evolution. In November 2005, Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, told a press conference that the Genesis account of creation and Darwin’s theory of evolution were “perfectly compatible” if the Bible was read correctly.

Pope insists that Bible’s truth is found in its totality

Read one of the posts to the above article. Many Catholics are confused to the point of frustration:

"If we accept what Pope Benedict XVI is saying here, how are we to know which verses are to be absolutely believed, and which verses are to be optionally believed? How can one accept the totality whilst having doubts about individual verses? That is a contradiction in terms. Is this an ambiguous statement or is this an ambiguous statement by Pope Benedict XVI à la second Vatican Council? "This is my body" must surely be believed. But what of any number of other verses? Are we to enter endless debate like the Protestants as to what is to be taken literally and what is to be subject to interpretation? Whose interpretation? Or is Pope Benedict XVI just muddying the waters a little, as he did with his remarks about the use of condoms a few months ago? Would that God would grant us the patience to await the ending of this period of diabolical disorientation that has beset the Vatican."

I know many different Protestant pastors of many different denominations (Baptist, Missionary Alliance, etc). Some visit different churches to give Sunday sermons. The inerrant nature of scripture, salvation by faith, the Deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Trinity are not in dispute whatsoever.

From the many articles that are now available on-line since the Pope's latest declaration, it is clear that all he did was confuse even Catholics further on what the meaning of the word "is" is.