10/10/2005

The SHEEP'S CRIB: Comments on DARN, AND I THOUGHT CATHOLICS WERE ...

Since J. A. Gillmartin was nice enough to stop by my post about his and say "hi", I returned the favor and left a comment there. There are other good comments there too -- law

-------------------
Ernie: Good questions all.

I'm sure you'll disagree with the answers the Church has, but it does have them (and others feel free to correct me... I think my posts on this blog have made clear that a theologian I am not):

Who gets to determine which parts?
The Church

Where do you get your authority to decide which part is not accurate?
Matthew 16:18 - 20, for starters:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.



If not the part I don't like, why do you get to reject the part you don't like?
Because Christians have accepted the authority of the Church in interpreting holy scriptures since Christ's death. After all, it was the Church that canonized the Bible (and rejected errant writings) in the first place.

If one part is not accurate, how can I trust the other parts?
Superb question. Isn't that where faith comes into play?

Is man, who is finite and fallible, qualified to say God, who is infinite and infallible, You got it wrong?
This is not a case where some random bum off the street is saying, "God is wrong." Christ's Church, after generations of debate, prayer, and reflection, is concluding that some human writers, such as the author's of Genesis, did not mean for their work to be taken literally (and certainly not literally when translated into a foreign language).

Are not ALL the questions raised by Catholic scholars old objections which have been asked and answered again and again?
They are often answered, but not definitively, and not with the authority (and infallability) of the Church. It took centuries to settle the nature of the Virgin Mary, and scholars on all sides got into spirited, often vicious, fights.

Are not these objections really "apparent" only and not "real" at all?
Are you saying that the debate over creationism and evolution, and its Biblical implications, is not "real?"

I know some of these answers sound bold and flippant to you (to say nothing of inordinate), but that's what we believe, straight up and not watered-down. I don't expect you to agree with a single word I've written. However, I would suggest that maybe being Christian is more than taking the Bible literally.
Ernie | Homepage | 10.08.05 - 6:22 pm | #

-------------------------------
MMM The Bible Only?

Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
--And no, I didn't write this.
MMM | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 7:30 am | #
----------------------------------------------------
lawnorder - I agree...

I agree with some of your comments, like "Who gets to decide what parts are accurate?" but not the disappointment you feel at the RC Church's new enlightened position in regards to science. I believe Ernie's answers are good answers for your questions.

I posted my own answers on my blog, and I commend you for your open minded "visit" to it. We will probably not agree much since I have been raised by very liberal Catholic priests and you are conservative, but we can agree on our love of God, the Bible and it's teachings.

If it is any consolation, the priests who thaught me similar "pro science" readings of the Bible were from a faction too liberal even for the RC Church: They followed Liberation Theology which was disliked by the late Pope and abhorred by the current one. So the stuff the British arm of the RC Church wrote may yet be rewritten more to your liking by the new Pope in Rome.
lawnorder | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 9:05 pm | #

The SHEEP'S CRIB - Issues: BIBLE: DARN, AND I THOUGHT CATHOLICS WERE ...

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home