 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Christine Ann
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | An Hours' Drive From Cincinnati, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 118 |
| First Name: | Christine Ann | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Lutheran, Baptist, now Catholic. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 9th, 2006 09:38 pm |
|
I saw somewhere on the forum a question about the Book of Jonah....was it allegory or literally true. My RCIA instructor said last night that it is meant to be allegorical...that Jesus used parables to explain things and so we should look at the story of Jonah as we would a parable. I looked it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia as was suggested and so have come to the conclusion that it was in fact a true story. This same instructor stated also that St. John did not write the gospel of John, but was later written by his followers. I was always told that the Gospel of John was indeed written by John while he was imprisoned on the Isle of Patmos.
Also, she said that the bible was not word for word God's Word but the inspired writings of men....this is all very difficult for me to assimilate having just come from 15 years of Baptist teaching. Just what is the Catholic stand on Holy Scripture? Can someone clarify for me? Is this a question where orthodoxy enters into people's opinions? I have always taken the Bible to be the actual word of God written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. Am I confused? Are we to take scripture literally as the Baptists preach or is the Catholic view something different? It frightens me to think that I may not understand the Bible correctly or am misinterpreting it. I always felt I could take a "stand" on the Word of God. Now I must question that.
Christine Ann
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 786 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 9th, 2006 09:48 pm |
|
| I'm looking forward to some knowledgeable responses as I have not only had the Jonah thing told to me at RCIA, but all the rest of it, as well. What's the purpose in this? Are these RCIA instructors run amok? As I said, most of my class has not even read the Bible, so why do they get into this nitty gritty opinion (almost word-for-word the same teachings!) rather than simply telling the class what the Bible contains and some of its major teachings? My teacher was not working from a manual or anything; all were her own thoughts. And yet they're indentical to Christine Ann's teacher's! Uncanny....
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 9th, 2006 10:55 pm |
|
Suppose I am a lieutenant in the military, and I tell a drill sergeant to teach the recruits to march. I don't have to tell him exactly how to teach the recruits, or indicate to him word for word and step by step exactly how to carry out my instructions. It is enough that I tell him what to do, and then monitor him to make sure my instructions are carried out.
Suppose I own a restaurant, and I tell the chef to prepare a dish. I don't have to tell him what ingredients to use, or how to stir it, or how long to cook it. I trust him to do it. It is enough that I taste the result to make sure it is what I wanted. In this way I am certain that he did what I wanted and nothing more.
When Jesus sent the apostles to go out into the world and preach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he did not need to tell them, "Now this is what I want you to say..." He had already given them the faith and knowledge they needed to spread the Word, and he sent the Holy Spirit to monitor them through inspiration to make sure the message they conveyed was what the Spirit intended and nothing more.
The writers of scripture were inspired in the same way. God did not dictate to them word for word exactly what to write. Instead, they used their human talents and abilities to convey exactly what God wanted conveyed and nothing more. In doing so, they created a library of fact, fiction, poetry, song, and prophecy that today we call the Bible.
[ . . .]
This is covered in sections 105-119 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In particuar, paragraph 106:
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
So they were not "secretaries" who simply recorded what God dictated word for word, but true human authors who nonetheless wrote only what the Spirit inspired and nothing more, using their own human abilities and knowledge to do so.
Last edited on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 12:30 am by Dave Armstrong
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 786 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 9th, 2006 11:18 pm |
|
Rick, would you say it's more important to tell a class of people who haven't even read Jonah that he was not a historical person or that he was given a second chance to obey God when first he disobeyed? There's only so much time in class and it seems to me that the second message is more urgent, yet the first is the only one we got.
If Jesus said that the sign of his resurrection is the same as Jonah, does it make sense that he felt the story of Jonah was only an allegory? I suppose it could, but why??
If it's necessary to trust that a man, Jesus, rose from the dead, I think it's much easier to believe that a man could be preserved from death in the belly of a large fish. Why must we be rational with the one and not with the other? The Bible is full of miracles that we believe - the virgin birth, feeding 5000 with near nothing, healings, raising the dead, etc. Just because it's the Old Testament, does that make it allegory? If no one can verify it one way or the other, why choose to teach that it's make-believe? And doesn't that viewpoint spread like rot? If this isn't real, then maybe this isn't either, or this, or this, or this and maybe none of it is true and historical. Why choose to portray it as storytelling without knowing one way or the other? My teacher said Jonah was originally a "play." I certainly may be wrong in this, but I thought I learned in school that the Greeks were the first to put on plays and dramas. If she doesn't know if Jonah is historical, how can she possibly say his story was a play? Are they just trying to sound erudite? Needless to say, I haven't been greatly impressed with the RCIA teachers I've had or heard about.
The point I'm trying to make is that the teachers I've had seem more intent on undermining the trustworthiness of Scripture than they are in telling us what it says. And they have been consistent in this - 3 out of 3. I don't understand why and it really bothers me. I don't know what the terminology is in Catholicism, but in my more political terminology, what I've been hearing in class is "liberal or progressive" when what I think should be the correct perspective would be "conservative or orthodox" or even simply "basic."
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10th, 2006 12:08 am |
|
JillD wrote:
[ . . .]
And doesn't that viewpoint spread like rot? If this isn't real, then maybe this isn't either, or this, or this, or this and maybe none of it is true and historical.
If we look to the Church to tell us what is important about each and every passage of scripture, the problem takes care of itself. The Church has experts in history, archeology, language, anthropology, etc., who are much better at interpreting the real meaning of scripture than we can ever be. When we read scripture, we have to look at it through the "lens" of the entire canon of scripture, along with the consistent teachings of the Church for 2000 years, and the Magisterium of the Church.
There are many books in scripture and each must be read as the author, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intended. Some of the greatest minds in the history of humanity have spent their lifetimes studying the bible, and the Church brings all of that knowledge to the table when it interprets a passage. You and I cannot do that.
This is part of the difference between the Protestant and Catholic mindset in reading scripture. Protestants teach that each individual under the guidance of the Holy Spirit can determine the meaning of a passage. This is the reason there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations, and countless other "non-denominational" churches. When you take away the authority of the Church, everyone becomes the infallible pope, and everyone comes up with their own interpretation. Can they all be right? Think about it -- 30,000 Protestant denominations (some of which broke away from somebody else yesterday), or one Catholic Church. Where do you think the proper inspiration of the Holy Spirit resides?
[ . . .]
Why choose to portray it as storytelling without knowing one way or the other? My teacher said Jonah was originally a "play." I certainly may be wrong in this, but I thought I learned in school that the Greeks were the first to put on plays and dramas. If she doesn't know if Jonah is historical, how can she possibly say his story was a play? Are they just trying to sound erudite? Needless to say, I haven't been greatly impressed with the RCIA teachers I've had or heard about.
I gathered that, and I can't say that I'd blame you. Most scholars believe that the stories that became scripture were passed orally for generations before they were written down, and then they had to be transcribed by hand for millennia before the invention of the printing press. We don't know what mistakes could have been introduced. Remember the old game where you tell one person something and pass it along from person to person and see what comes out at the other end? We believe that scripture is accurate only because the authority of the Catholic Church tells us that it is. Without the Catholic Church, the Protestants would have no bible to interpret!
The point I'm trying to make is that the teachers I've had seem more intent on undermining the trustworthiness of Scripture than they are in telling us what it says. And they have been consistent in this - 3 out of 3. I don't understand why and it really bothers me.
Again, I can't say that I disagree with you. It doesn't sound quite right to me, either, but I'm not there and I hate to try to second-guess what they are doing without knowing their reasons. I can only assume that they have a reason for what they're doing. If it really makes you uncomfortable, maybe you should speak to them about it and ask if they can suggest a program that would be more "conservative."
I don't know what the terminology is in Catholicism, but in my more political terminology, what I've been hearing in class is "liberal or progressive" when what I think should be the correct perspective would be "conservative or orthodox" or even simply "basic."
The term that comes to my mind is "politically correct." I hate to use the terms liberal or conservative because of their political connotations, and "orthodox" implies the Orthodox Churches.
This obviously disturbs you, and I can't say your feelings are inappropriate. Talk to your pastor and ask if he can recommend another program or if he would be willing to instruct you privately. I think you are in the position of a student who has such a difficult relationship with a teacher that instruction simply doesn't take place. This is important to you, and it really needs to be addressed.
Last edited on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 12:40 am by Dave Armstrong
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 183 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10th, 2006 12:15 am |
|
Christine Ann -
Here is a quote from the newly published Catolic Catechism for Adults in the United States -
"Historical Reductionism
Another challenge comes from scholars and others who deny the supernatural aspects of the Gospels, such as the incarnation, Virgin Birth, miracles and the Resurrection. We call this reductionism because it reduces all scripture to the natural order and eliminates the reality of divine intervention.
The Church’s Pontifical Biblical Commission has dealt with approaches of this kind in it’s publications Instruction On The Historical Truth Of The Gospels and The Interpretation Of The Bible In The Church
The Pontifical Biblical Commission lists 5 unacceptable assumptions found in forms of scriptural interpretation:
1. The denial of a supernatural order.
2. The denial of God’s intervention in the world through revelation.
3. The denial of the possibility and existence of miracles;
4. The incompatibility of faith with historical truth
5. An almost a priori denial of the historical value of the nature of the documents of revelation. ( Pontifical Biblical Commission, Historical Truth Of The Gospels [1964], no. 5).
The Church approaches Scripture as God’s revealed Word. It’s authors wrote under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is more than a human work; it is God’s words put into human words. It will always be a fountain of faith for those who read it in a spirit of prayer."
An excellent audio program by Fr. Benedict Groeschel, further discussing this subject is also found here –
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=9447.ra
It's important to go to the sources of Church teaching to be sure what you're getting is authentic and not opinion - whether scholarly or otherwise.
God bless.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2104 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10th, 2006 12:52 am |
|
Christine Ann wrote:I have always taken the Bible to be the actual word of God written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Dear Christine Ann and Jill:
This is the Catholic Church’s understanding, too. Unfortunately, the current state of affairs in biblical interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. We have just come through a period in which much of what went before was questioned or outright denied by theologians. The barque of Peter is only now beginning to right itself, and I am sure it will be working on these problems long after all of us have passed on, because it is the wont of man to corrupt and destroy everything he touches, but the will of God is to restore all things through his Son.
In predictable fashion, your RCIA instructors have followed the interpretations in vogue when they were being formed in the faith. You do not have to believe exactly as they do. Some part of those opinions and interpretations may eventually be found correct, but as you have seen, they are not in accord with our ancient tradition.
My own view is that the traditional interpretations should be the primary ones taught, simply because tradition is one of our primary sources for the revelation given once for all by the Father who has “spoken to us through his Son” (Hebrews 1:2). However, we cannot be utterly closed to the possibilities opened up by legitimate science and theology. What must be rejected is a “party line” approach; truth should be our concern. What should be retained is respect for those who have gone before; all human progress is a matter of standing on the shoulders of giants.
In addition to the thread you mentioned on the historicity of the prophet Jonah, two other threads in the forum address your concerns:
http://chnetwork.org/forums/forum16/160.html
http://chnetwork.org/forums/forum26/189.html
One speaks of whether the Church accepts the historicity of the bible in general, and the other investigates the meaning of the “literal sense” of scripture. As you can see, the Church’s true position is often not properly understood, and major mistakes ensue.
Now some specifics: That St. John the Apostle was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name has been the position of a number of rationalist theologians, both Protestant and Catholic, over the past two centuries. However, both tradition and current research oppose this denial. I personally have no doubt that he did write it. However, it was the book of Revelation which John received on the Island of Patmos (Revelation 1:9). There is no indication that the Gospel was also written there; indeed, tradition says it was written at Ephesus (see below), where he was for many years a resident. There are even extant ruins of a basilica later built there in his honor. The First Epistle of John, which exhibits much verbal and thematic similarity to the Gospel, was probably written shortly before or after the Gospel (and therefore probably also at Ephesus), and the Second and Third Epistles show signs of having been written in the last years of his life.
The Introduction to the Gospel According to John in the Navarre Bible Commentary (first published in 1987) relates that this Gospel was alluded to on a number of occasions by St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr (early and mid-2nd century). It goes on:
The famous Muratori Canon written in Rome around the year 180 contains a prologue against Marcion [a Gnostic heretic] and his followers, in which it is said that “the Gospel of John was communicated and proclaimed to the churches by John himself, while he was still alive, according to Papias of Hierapolis.” Papias lived around the year 135, and it is known that he was a disciple of John, so what he has to say is particularly valuable.
St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons [in Gaul], also refers to the authenticity of this Gospel. Irenaeus was born around 130 in Smyrna (Asia Minor), where he knew St. Polycarp, who according to Tertullian was made bishop of Smyrna by St. John himself. St. Irenaeus says that “John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself published the Gospel, while he was living in Ephesus” (Against Heresies 3.1.1). This testimony carries special weight, given Irenaeus’ connexion with Polycarp.
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (6.14.5–7), refers to the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, who passes on a tradition which says that John wrote his Gospel after the other evangelists had written theirs. Victorinus of Pettau’s witness is of a later date (c. 305; cf. Commentary on the Apocalypse [the book of Revelation], 11.1). From the fourth century on there is a unanimous tradition that St. John wrote the Gospel which bears his name.
The introduction goes on to examine the internal evidence, which it says “confirms what tradition tells us.” Finally, it examines the evidence to the contrary:
The only ambiguous text in Tradition on this subject is a passage from Papias quoted by Eusebius, in which the name of John is mentioned twice. This text reads: “If someone came along who had heard the presbyters speak, I used to make a point of asking him what did the presbyters hear from the lips of Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other disciple of the Lord, and also what do Aristion and the presbyter John say” (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4). Interpretation of this text presents two difficulties. First, was Papias referring on both occasions to the Apostle St. John — naming him twice simply because he lived so much longer after the death of the other dsciples; or is his second reference to another John, a person of importance but not the Apostle? Second, if the latter hypothesis is correct, which of the two is the author of the Gospel — “John the Apostle” or “John the presbyter,” both “disciples of the Lord”? Eusebius attributes the Gospel explicitly to John the Apostle, and so does St. Irenaeus, as we have seen.
Rationalist critics, however, on the basis of this text of Papias, argue that St. Irenaeus confused this “John the Presbyter” with the Apostle John: they argue that it was John the presbyter who appointed St. Polycarp bishop of Smyrna and who wrote the Fourth Gospel. But there is no basis for attributing this mistake to St. Irenaeus, and besides, the great mass of the information that has come down to us from Christian antiquity, and the internal evidence, all argue in favour of St. John the Apostle as author of the Fourth Gospel. So it is not surprising that the Church has always held to the traditional attribution of the Fourth Gospel to St. John.
What this author does not mention, for the obvious reason that the evidence is in part posterior to the commentary’s publication, is that recent scientific discoveries and studies are showing that St. Irenaeus was spot on in his extensive description and analysis (five thick volumes’ worth; they are available on the internet) of the various Gnostic sects of his time and their doctrines. If he was this accurate with other information, why should we doubt his veracity regarding the authorship of the fourth Gospel?
Also, she said that the bible was not word for word God's Word but the inspired writings of men.
The Catholic Church rejects word-for-word dictation as a possible mode of biblical inspiration. Rick has explained this quite well, so I will not enlarge on it. Yes, the Catholic view of inspiration is somewhat different than the Baptist view, but it is not so different that it should cause problems in acceptance. The insistence of some post-Vatican II theologians on a borderline naturalistic theory of inspiration is rather extreme, and it is this which has you on edge. My belief is that you do not need to question your present belief so much as supplement it with a little reading on such topics as literary genres (which the Catholic Church does accept within limits; cf. CCC 109–119… I see Rick has referenced the same passage, so you can see it’s important) and their place in biblical interpretation.
Jill, I agree with you that your instructors have not shown much insight as to what a person needs to hear for the building up of his faith. I am not going to judge them or anyone else on their orthodoxy in this matter. I know, as I have indicated above, where they got their ideas, but I must assume they sincerely believe that this is what the Catholic Church teaches.
If it's necessary to trust that a man, Jesus, rose from the dead, I think it's much easier to believe that a man could be preserved from death in the belly of a large fish.
Some years ago, I recall reading a “curiosity” story about a man in the 18th or 19th century who in fact did survive several days in the belly of a whale. If I remember correctly, he was a sailor on a whaling ship who fell overboard. Eventually the whale was caught by the whalers and he was rescued. The man was all bleached from the acid environment, but he did recover.
My teacher said Jonah was originally a “play.” I certainly may be wrong in this, but I thought I learned in school that the Greeks were the first to put on plays and dramas.
You are correct. And the fact that Jonah was sent to Niniveh to preach after the Hebrew prophetic fashion would show that there is likely no influence from Greek culture in the story. It would be a wise move throughout this course to consult other sources for comparison, as I’ve said elsewhere.
David
|
|
|
Altesse
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Minnesota USA |
| Posts: | 1 |
| First Name: | Mary | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptized (sprinkled) and Confirmed Lutheran, Baptized (dunked) Pentecostal, RCIA Catholic ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 02:51 am |
|
CajunRick wrote: Suppose I am a lieutenant in the military, and I tell a drill sergeant to teach the recruits to march. I don't have to tell him exactly how to teach the recruits, or indicate to him word for word and step by step exactly how to carry out my instructions. It is enough that I tell him what to do, and then monitor him to make sure my instructions are carried out.
Suppose I own a restaurant, and I tell the chef to prepare a dish. I don't have to tell him what ingredients to use, or how to stir it, or how long to cook it. I trust him to do it. It is enough that I taste the result to make sure it is what I wanted. In this way I am certain that he did what I wanted and nothing more.
When Jesus sent the apostles to go out into the world and preach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he did not need to tell them, "Now this is what I want you to say..." He had already given them the faith and knowledge they needed to spread the Word, and he sent the Holy Spirit to monitor them through inspiration to make sure the message they conveyed was what the Spirit intended and nothing more.
The writers of scripture were inspired in the same way. God did not dictate to them word for word exactly what to write. Instead, they used their human talents and abilities to convey exactly what God wanted conveyed and nothing more. In doing so, they created a library of fact, fiction, poetry, song, and prophecy that today we call the Bible.
[ . . .]
This is covered in sections 105-119 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In particuar, paragraph 106:
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
So they were not "secretaries" who simply recorded what God dictated word for word, but true human authors who nonetheless wrote only what the Spirit inspired and nothing more, using their own human abilities and knowledge to do so.
This is about the best explanation I have ever read. Good work!Last edited on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 12:47 am by Dave Armstrong
|
|
|
kersca
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 66 |
| First Name: | Adam | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lutheran-Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 11:57 am |
|
Hmmm..., In some way as a Catholic I have embraced this "scholarly" approach to scriptureas and in other ways I have rejected it entirely.
Growing up Lutheran, we defended a seven day creation and a 6-7000 year old earth to the tooth. It was written that way... so it must be true. Truthfully, that alwayus bothered me. It wasn't that I felt God was incapable of such a thing. I felt and still do today that creagting the world in all itsd magnificence in seven days is well within His power. I just had prooblems with evolution and and it's implications. I felt that God could have started the world in that fashion as well and it woyuldn't take from His magnificense one iota. The flood narratives too, it seemed implausable to me. The arc, the destroying of the whole world, etc...
Now as a Catholic, the problems are no less difficult. If I take the creation stories as "mythology", then there are key docrinal issues that are eroded. Original sin... Original sin is a result of the garden. Now, if we remove the garden/temptation narratives we are left with the idea that humanity was created flawed or that there is no original sin.
What do I do? Well, I speak of Adam and Eve as real people. This seems the general concensus of the fathers as well. When I teach this to children I urge them to focus on the point of the story rather than the logistics.
As far as the New Testament is concerned, I take the gospels as fact. I take that the writers were writing down the actual teachings of the Christ. I take that the miracles really happened and were recorded that way. I think that anything less takes away from Christ.
Read Pope Benedict's book Jesus of Nazareth. He discusses his own personal problems with that approach to scriptures.
Adam
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 02:33 pm |
|
kersca wrote: Now as a Catholic, the problems are no less difficult. If I take the creation stories as "mythology", then there are key docrinal issues that are eroded. Original sin... Original sin is a result of the garden. Now, if we remove the garden/temptation narratives we are left with the idea that humanity was created flawed or that there is no original sin.
What do I do? Well, I speak of Adam and Eve as real people. This seems the general concensus of the fathers as well. When I teach this to children I urge them to focus on the point of the story rather than the logistics.
While Catholic teaching does admit the possibility of evolution (lovingly guided by our Creator, of course), it is also Catholic doctrine that we did indeed have a set of "first parents" (called Adam and Eve for convenience) who disobeyed God and fell into sin. Maybe the first sin was not eating an apple from a tree in the Garden of Eden. Maybe it was pride that caused them to place their own wishes before God's will, or maybe it was eating a forbidden apple.
In the Catechism, paragraph 337 talks about the method of creation in Genesis as a symbol:
337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."
The nature of the fall is beautifully explained in the section on Original Sin:
III. ORIGINAL SIN
Freedom put to the test
396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
Man's first sin
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".
399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.
Again, note that the sin is described symbolically by the eating of the apple.
Still, we are free to believe the literal story of the creation as presented in Genesis, or an evolutionary form of creation guided by the loving hand of God. What we cannot believe is that creation and evolution are accidents of nature without Divine influence.
Personally, my problem with the Genesis story was always that God needed to "rest" on the seventh day. Why would an all-powerful God who could simply speak the world into existence need rest? But Catholic doctrine on the matter makes perfect sense to me. There are no contradictions between the revelations of science, the revelations of scripture, and the teachings of the Magisterium. It is as clear as a mysterious miracle can be.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
kersca
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 66 |
| First Name: | Adam | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lutheran-Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 08:22 pm |
|
Rick,
I'm not arguing here nor am I saying that believing the Genesis account is myth destroys the concept of original sin. However, the arguements made regarding original sin were in the context of this event by persons who saw it in a more literal fashion. I agree that the doctrine of original sin can withstand scrutiny without a literal interpretation, however it does weaken the case a little.
Now, personally, I never believed a literal seven day creation. However, I never discounted it either. I just go back to the idea that my scepticism can win out in details and I have to accept the spiritual truths of the account. God created everything... I can dig that. Man, through his pride and obstinance, made a choice that led him away from unity with God (I can really feel that one). These are the spiritual truths of the story, and I try not to get lost in the other details that might lead me away from God.
Adam
Adam
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1665 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 12:10 am |
|
As for Jonah, the straightforward sense would seem to be that he was an actual historical person, as were all the prophets. The book about him, after all, is included in the prophetic writings in both the Christian and Jewish Bibles. We don't deny that any of the other prophets (to my knowledge) were actual persons; why should Jonah be any different, then?
Beyond that, Catholics have usually taken the position that Jonah was an actual person and that this event (with the "fish" and so forth) really happened. Note that the fish incident is not even necessarily a miracle. There is reason to believe it could have literally happened on a natural level. But God, of course, would have used the fish or whale for His purposes, in His Providence. Recently, of course, liberals in the Church have taken the view that this historicity is not the case, and that it was fantastic allegory or fiction. For example, John L. McKenzie, S.J.:
Modern students of the Bible, observing the historical and geographical background of the book, know that Jonah is a parable, as fictitious a composition as the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan; and they seek the truth which is there conveyed in the form of a story.
(The Two-Edged Sword: An Interpretation of the Old Testament, Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1956, 202)
It's the usual liberal condescension of those who follow traditional Catholic teaching, by, in effect, collapsing the honorable category of "literal" or narrative into "parable" and "fictitious." The implication is that those who accept the plain literal presentation are gullible, a bit infantile (kids love fairy tales, after all) and unsophisticated. If you've seen it once, you've seen it a hundred times . . .
In fact, quite intelligent (even "modern"!) Catholics have taken a different view. How about the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., a scholar who authored many books, was one of the leading catechists in America, and close advisor to both Pope Paul VI and Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity:
Jonah. An Israelite prophet, son of Amittai. Unlike the books of the other Minor Prophets, the short book of Jonah (only four chapters) is narrative rather than oracular. . . . he lived in the eighth century B.C. . . . To evade Yahweh's assignment, Jonah had fled in a ship but a terrible storm led to his being thrown overboard and being swallowed by a huge fish . . . The story uses an actual personality to teach a moral lesson: God's mercy is at hand provided man is willing to repent.
(Modern Catholic Dictionary, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1980, 296)
The Catholic Encyclopedia ("Jonah", written by James F. Driscoll in 1910) gives the traditional Catholic view:
Historicity
Catholics have always looked upon the Book of Jonah as a fact-narrative. In the works of some recent Catholic writers there is a leaning to regard the book as fiction. Only Simon and Jahn, among prominent Catholic scholars, have clearly denied the historicity of Jonah; and the orthodoxy of these two critics may no longer be defended: "Providentissimus Deus" implicitly condemned the ideas of both in the matter of inspiration, and the Congregation of the Index expressly condemned the "Introduction" of the latter.
Reasons for the traditional acceptance of the historicity of Jonah:
Jewish Tradition
According to the Septuagint text of the Book of Tobias (xiv, 4), the words of Jonah in regard to the destruction of Ninive are accepted as facts; the same reading is found in the Aramaic text and one Hebrew manuscript. The apocryphal III Mach., vi, 8, lists the saving of Jonah in the belly of the fish along with the other wonders of Old Testament history. Josephus (Ant. Jud., IX, 2) clearly deems the story of Jonah to be historical.
The authority of Our Lord
This reason is deemed by Catholics to remove all doubt as to the fact of the story of Jonah. The Jews asked a "sign" -- a miracle to prove the Messiahship of Jesus. He made answer that no "sign" would be given them other than the "sign of Jonah the Prophet. For as the Jonah was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonah. And behold a greater than Jonah here" (Matthew 12:40-1; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32). The Jews asked for a real miracle; Christ would have deceived them had He presented a mere fancy. He argues clearly that just as Jonah was in the whale's belly three days and three nights even so He will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. If, then, the stay of Jonah in the belly of the fish be only a fiction, the stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is only a fiction. If the men of Ninive will really not rise in judgment, neither will the Jews really rise. Christ contrasts fact with fact, not fancy with fancy, nor fancy with fact. It would be very strange, indeed, were He to say that He was greater than a fancy-formed man. It would be little less strange were he to berate the Jews for their real lack of penance by rating this lack in contrast with the penance of Ninive which never existed at all. The whole force of these striking contrasts is lost, if we admit that the story of Jonah is not fact-narrative. Finally, Christ makes no distinction between the story of the Queen of Sheba and that of Jonah (see Matthew 12:42). He sets the very same historical value upon the Book of Jonah as upon the Third Book of Kings. Such is the very strongest argument that Catholics offer for the firm stand they take upon the ground of the fact-narrative of the story of Jonah.
The authority of the Fathers
Not a single Father has ever been cited in favor of the opinion that Jonah is a fancy-tale and no fact-narrative at all. To the Fathers Jonah was a fact and a type of the Messias, just such a one as Christ presented to the Jews. Saints Jerome, Cyril, and Theophilus explain in detail the type-meaning of the facts of the Book of Jonah. St. Cyril even forestalls the objections of the Rationalists of today: Jonah flees his ministry, bewails God's mercy to the Ninivites, and in other ways shows a spirit that ill becomes a Prophet and an historical type of Christ. Cyril admits that in all this Jonah failed and is not a type of Christ, but does not admit that these failures of Jonah prove the story of his doings to have been a mere fiction. . . .
Likewise, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (general editor: Dom Bernard Orchard, London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd, 1953). It provides an excellent introduction to the book of Jonah, written by E.F. Sutcliffe, S.J.:
It is recorded that Jeroboam II (782-753) 'restored the borders of Israel . . . according to the word of the Lord the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonas, the son of Amathi, the prophet, who was of Geth, which is in Opher', 4 Kg 14:25 [2 Kings 14:25]. As this prophet and his father have the same names as the prophet of our book and his father, it can hardly be doubted that they are the same persons. Our prophet was, therefore, probably a contemporary of Jeroboam and a member of the Northern Kingdom. (p. 669)
This is highly important in showing Jonah's historicity, because he is mentioned in what all agree is historical narrative. The chapter of 2 Kings 14 is filled with historical writing and persons (the kings of Judah and Israel: Joash, Amaziah, Jehu, David, Jehoash, Jeroboam, and their fathers). In the middle of all these historical persons (that no one -- even liberals -- doubt as historical, we are led to believe that the historical narrative suddenly switches to mere fiction and parable, in mentioning Jonah and his father (complete with the place name of where they lived). Right after they're mentioned, it talks about God and the "affliction" of Israel, then back to King Jeroboam, succeeded by King Zechariah.
Sutcliffe continues:
Until recent times, however, the historical character of this narrative was never seriously doubted in the Church. Now several Catholic authors, such as Van Hoonacker and Condamin, have denied or questioned it. They explain the book as a parable or in some similar way.
He goes on to list defenses of the book's historicity by Church fathers Augustine, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzen, and Theophylact, and concludes:
That the book has an important lesson to teach is not, of course, a proof of its being parabolic. (p. 670)
Protestant Bible scholar Gleason L. Archer, Jr. offers similar reasoning, favoring a literal, historical interpretation:
A closer examination of the text . . . shows that numerous features of the narrative can scarcely be fitted into the allegorical pattern. If the whale represented Babylon, what did Nineveh represent? As for the ship that set sail from Joppa, it is hard to see what this would correspond with in the allegory, nor is it clear why three days would be selected to represent seventy years of captivity. . . .
In view of the vigorous objections of rationalists to the historicity of Jonah, it is appropriate at this point to refer to the statements of the Lord Jesus . . . Every other instance where an Old Testament typical event is referred to in Scripture (for example, John 3:14; 1 Cor. 10:1-11), a historical episode is involved. There is no objective evidence whatsoever that Jesus of Nazareth regarded this experience of Jonah's as nonhistorical.
(A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Chicago: Moody Press, 1964, 297, 301)
Archer (p. 302) also provides several accounts of men swallowed by whales who survived, from the years 1758, 1771, and 1891. In the latter case (carefully investigated by two scientists) the man was inside a sperm whale for at least an entire day and part of a second. Thus, what happened to Jonah is entirely possible and has, in fact, been observed.
Last edited on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 01:33 am by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1665 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 12:53 am |
|
Personally, my problem with the Genesis story was always that God needed to "rest" on the seventh day. Why would an all-powerful God who could simply speak the world into existence need rest?
This is clearly an anthropomorphism: a description of God that doesn't literally apply, but is stated to help men better relate to God.
Besides omnipotence, God wouldn't literaly get "tired" and need to "rest" because He is a spirit, and spirits cannot get tired because they have no bodies to get tired. I think it was probably mentioned because of the Sabbath principle that was applied to men: the need to set aside a day as holy, for both worship and rest.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
lia
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | Quezon City, Philippines |
| Posts: | 98 |
| First Name: | lia | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 07:59 am |
|
As it was explained to me in theology when I was studying, that the bible is NOT the word for word of God's Word. When the Holy Spirit "inspired" the writers of the books of the bible, these people used their own wordings. Like with the book of revelation, the "style" of writing the apostle John used is what was popular during that book was written. If the bible was the "word for word....." then why 4 gospels? Does it mean that God forgot some details He told one writer and so He had a fall back by inspiring another gospel writer to write what He had missed with the other?
Oh, yeah...and we were even taught that each gospel writer sort of had his own theme or something. Like I remember that Matthew wrote the gospel to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, while John, wrote his gospel with the intent to prove that Jesus is God the Son....I forgot the intentions of the Mark and Luke.
Holy Mother Church is here to guide and to tell us who, when, how and why the bible was written  So we can still take a stand on the Word of God, more so now with that kind of backing
Hmmm, if the bible was the "word for word of God's words" then He wouldn't have needed men to write it. He could have just dropped it from the heavens, right? He did write "word for word" the 10 commandments but I don't think paper could handle the bolt of lightning/fire ink
____________________
Man can't b forced 2 accept the truth.He can b drawn toward the truth only by his own nature, that is, by his own freedom w/c commits him 2 search sincerely 4 truth & when he finds it, 2 adhere 2 it both in his conviction & his behavior.-- JP2
|
|
|
BeProf
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 75 |
| First Name: | Ed | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Fundamental Baptist - Atheism - Christian & Missionary Alliance |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 02:32 pm |
|
One thing that someone can hopefully explain to me...
Does the Catholic Church believe in verbal plenary inspiration or something like it?
"Verbal plenary" is just a fancy term for one of the bed rock doctrines of Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism - that the Bible, from cover to cover, is the word of God, right down to the actual words used. As such it is inerrant in the original manuscripts. God did use each man's own personality and writing style, but the Holy Spirit worked in them such that each and every individual word and phrase in the Bible is the very word of God.
I've heard different perspectives on just what Catholics mean by "inspiration" both here and elsewhere. I've had some Catholics tell me that they believe just as I do in the inerrancy of the Scripture but I've heard other Catholics say, like the liberal mainline Protestant denominations, that the Bible merely "contains" the word of God and we shouldn't get hung up on whether or not each individual word is 100% accurate.
If the former is true, then we have a really amazing foundation on which to build a relationship. If it's the later, then, frankly, there isn't much hope for being able to come together on much of anything.
I'm open to the idea that the Church has never precisely defined the exact nature of inspiration and each Catholic is pretty much free to believe whatever they want on the issue. That's fine. I've just heard lots of different things and don't see any real consensus on the issue.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 05:48 pm |
|
BeProf wrote: One thing that someone can hopefully explain to me...
Does the Catholic Church believe in verbal plenary inspiration or something like it?
Here is the summary of the Church's belief in the inspiration of Scripture, from the Catechism:
134 All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8 L 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9L 176,642-643).
135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).
136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).
137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit's action' (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).
138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.
139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their center.
140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.
141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Ps 119:105; cf. Is 50:4).
This is explained more fully in the section on Sacred Scripture which you'll find here.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
|
| | |
