Catholics give up on biblical infallibility

Yes, folks, apparently so. According to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html, bishops have issued a teaching (presumably okay with the Vatican, but we'll see) stating that parts of the bible are not true.

Good for them. I wonder if this acknowledgement of the blindingly obvious will cause the whole church to crumble into dust (as the fearful fundamentalists believe; if you allow any crack in the perfection of God's word then people will start to question everything) or will it actually strengthen the church if people can be members without sacrificing reason.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Could this possibly be true?
I know nothing about this source, is it reliable?

If it is true, I wonder if it came down from Pope Benny or if it is in opposition to him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The bible, like the koran has been distorted, the only true words, and faith is in a humanbeings heart, to kill in the name of the bible, or the koran, is the ultimate sin, because no true god, would justify killing.
There are very few catholics who would take the bible, word for word.
But almost all muslims take the koran, word for word, and that is the danger of religon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everyone knows that, vincent (well, ALMOST everyone, anway).
What is big news is the Catholic Church openly admitting this and accepting it as church doctrine.
I find it hard to believe.

Especially with Pope Benny being so Conservative.
I wish I had more information.
Does anyone have more details?

 

but i thought the bible was the word of god,and if its not true doesnt that make god fallible.

 

5. Who wrote the Bible?

The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by over 40 different authors from all walks of life: shepherds, farmers, tent-makers, physicians, fishermen, priests, philosophers and kings. Despite these differences in occupation and the span of years it took to write it, the Bible is an extremely cohesive and unified book.

*

6. Which single author contributed the most books to the Old Testament?

Moses. He wrote the first five books of the Bible, referred to as the Pentateuch; the foundation of the Bible.

*

7. Which single author contributed the most books to the New Testament?

The Apostle Paul, who wrote 14 books (over half) of the New Testament.

*

8. When was the Bible written?

It was written over a period of some 1,500 years, from around 1450 B.C. (the time of Moses) to about 100 A.D. (following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ).
*********
The bible was not wrote by god, it was wrote by man, and we all know man is not perfect, if it was written by god, it would be perfect, but it was not.


"i thought the bible was the word of god"
It was the word of god, according to man, and written by men,
and man is fallible.
*

 

yeah there are always workarounds. By the way how do YOU know who wrote the bible? just like you were there when it was written

 

well the catholic church was forced to admit that there was no evidence that mary magdalene was a prostitute in 1969, but how many christians do you know that still think that? maybe not in the post da vinci code -era, but thats a hell of a long time to debunk a total lie. i predict that this really wont mean a fucking thing to most christians, if they even hear about it.

and i doubt even if it became popularly accepted that parts of the bible are not true that it would allow people to still be members of the church without sacrificing reason. the belief in god alone is a sacrifice of reason.

 

i just always thought it was meant to be word for word the word of god.otherwise what is the point?

 

Well, the Church has maintained that some poritions of the Bible aren't literal. Some of the very shakey literal interpretation are considered heretical, say for instance the Jehoval Witness's interpretation of the 144, 000 saved. Then also, the Catholic doctrine on Evolution, putforth by the pior Popes, should already covered this. Where the article goes wrong, I think, is when it says the Church says that some Biblical parts aren't true. Some biblical parts wihile not having scientifically truth, have within the proper allegorical interpretation truth.

 

No, they are admiting that it isn't all true.

 

I've been a Catholic all my life. Since I was young I was taught that the Bible is infallible. However, alongside this teaching I was also taught that the Bible, though infallible, shouldn't be read either as a scientific, nor a historical document, and that it was neither completely scientifically nor historically accurate. This teaching is not a late-breaking new idea within the Catholic Church. I have always been taught that the infallibility of the Bible does not rest in its historical or scientific aspects, but rather, as the article says, in the teachings of salvation history.

I am speaking as a Catholic, who was taught by conservative texts, and conservative members of the Catholic Church (not traditionalists mind you, but certainly not liberalists), a group Franciscan Friars. I guarantee that this is in line with Magesterial teachings, and that it is an article of teaching that will certainly not be opposed by Pope Benedict XVI.

 

Since you were taught a contradiction you should know that the religion was therefor false.

 

I admire Catholics' ability to embrace diametically opposed positions at the same time. The book is the infallible word of god, mostly? It seems to me that this would imply a requirement to split the book into firmly defined sections, then. Instead of Old Testament and New Testament you would have the Faux Testament and the True Testament, or something like that. It's the least you could do for us poor, confused pagans.

All satire aside, I really think that the Catholics are the reasonable ones, here. We've got a group of fundamentalists here in the U.S. who base their entire worldview on the absolutely truth of the word as revealed in the bible. Taking this position and deriving authority from it, they cannot permit a single point of deviation - no compromise possible. Which by the way is more or less what Bush was on about in his speech the other day. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

So they're effectively reversing the establishments of the Vatican Council of 1870?

 

I'm not sure. I can find no reference to scriptural infallibility in the proceedings of 1870, just the statement of faith in the primacy of god and the infallibility of the pope as his messenger. Specifically, the second session of 6 January 1870 professed that the bible was to be held as canonical in the sense that the church fathers interpreted it. This seems to be a crucial distinction - they are essentially saying "the bible cannot be read by the layperson as absolute truth, but must be read through the lens of interpretation that only Rome can provide". Were they concerned about losing their grip on power if interpretations ran counter to the wishes of the pope? If so, then the recent bishop's teaching is entirely consistent with the first vaticam council.

But it will enrage christian fundamantalists, espeically among evangelicals in the United States. It will be interesting to see what response (if any) this teaching brings from the pope, and what response we see from U.S. fundamentalists. I suspect they never had much use for catholics, anyway, and this may drive the wedge even deeper.

 

"Were they concerned about losing their grip on power if interpretations ran counter to the wishes of the pope?"

*sigh*... always examined under the scope of political agenda, 'tid a shame.

 

1And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the LORD shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan,

2And all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, unto the utmost sea,

3And the south, and the plain of the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, unto Zoar.

4And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.

5So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.



Funny that vincent28uk, Moses writing about his own death and all

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I was taught to be a catholic for the most part in my life. I attended catholic schools and attended church. This is the tradition of my family. I no longer follow these beliefs but I can answer some questions about Bible interpretation. Catholics are generally conservative in principles (gay marriage, sex before marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, etc.) but tend to be surprisingly liberal when it comes to way of life and Bible interpretation. What people get mixed up between are the Vatican and traditional values and the actual values and lives of Catholics. People take the Bible as a book that teaches lessons, tells ancient stories and gives examples of life and Jesus. It is not perfect. People definitely do not take it literally.

The officials in the Catholic church are just confirming what Catholics have believed for centuries. It's just hard for such a traditional and old church to admit such things at high levels due to the criticism it will get. If a ultra conservative church that has services in a school gymnasium admits to a slight official change in beliefs then no one cares.

 

Actually most of the old testament was written under the direction of king Josiah, the Gospels were written by anybodies guess having been written so long after the fact and although I do think most of the new testament was written by Paul, I suspect revalations was written after the Roman scattering of the Jews and distruction of the temple about 66 AD and I think the doomsday prophesies were actually after the fact references to that.

Moses was a mythical character. The correct answer is Josiah.

Although Josiah probably had a few manuscripts for the myths of the old testament there actually is no way to verify any date for which they were actually written. Probably all were written long after the times of the *alleged* events.

At least we can agree on that much.

In more accurate terms the bible is mans way of putting words in the mouth of God.