|
Post by stephentlig on Oct 16, 2010 21:41:53 GMT
Before you read, I posted this on a site the exact same as this? *confused* why is there two Irishcatholic sites? *totally confused* Hey all I am a student at this college and at the moment, we are studying the Old Testament. Our teacher is saying that the Book of Genesis is just a mythical legend. Meaning it contains some truth but not all of it is true. However the church does not teach this and I needed to run around the internet to prove it so here is an excerpt from one of the best sources you can get these days. It is catholicscomehome.org as advertised on EWTN catholic network and the response is from a Catholic apologist. If you happen to be at Mater dei or any other institute for that matter that claims to carry the Catholic stamp and yet teaches this nonsense, I'd advise you to speak up about it and dont just let it sit. Many who are doing the course are doing it with the intention of putting the knowledge they receive back into the local parish. Thus we can see that if the church isnt careful and fails to stamp this dangerous fire out, it could be opening its doors to a whole new era of abuse, one in which the faith of the laity will be rocked and shaken. The teacher is teaching a heresy known as ''Higher Criticism'' which can be looked up on www.newadvent.org/ Pax Christi Stephen www.catholicscomehome.org/answers-scripture.php''I had a theology teacher who told me that adam and eve were just myths, and that the rest of Genesis was all just legends...is that what the church teaches?" "Absolutely not! The Church has always taught that Adam and Eve were real people and were the first human beings from whom all other human beings are descended. In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in Paragraph 37 of an encyclical entitled Humani Generis, states, "...the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from [Adam] as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." In other words, the Church teaches that all humanity descended from Adam and Eve. They had to be real for that to happen. Paragraph #38, states: "This [encyclical], in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis...do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense..." Again, Adam and Eve are not myths, and the rest of Genesis is not legend. They are history in a "true sense." Paragraph #39: "Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things..." Can it be stated any clearer than that? And listen to what the Catechism says, Paragraph #375, "The Church...teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve..." No mention of a myth here. Paragraph #404: "By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin. Someone please tell me, how do myths commit personal sins? Adam and Eve are not myths. Genesis does not contain myth or legend. That is Church teaching. Challenge anyone, who teaches differently, to produce their sources from a magisterial document. They cannot do it. They can, however, produce countless books and articles by "theologians". Not good enough."
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 18, 2010 10:45:45 GMT
I would want to be a bit clearer than Stephentlig are about what exactly has been taught. My understanding is that Catholics are obliged to believe in monogenism (i.e. descent from a single pair/group of ancestors) and in the Fall of Mankind, but not that Genesis is a literal narrative. Rather it is conformed to the understanding of its audience. When Stephentlig says "Genesis does not contain myth or legend" (and the reference is to the whole first eleven chapters, not just to Adam and Eve) is he saying that he believes all Catholics are obliged to be Young-Earth Creationists, who believe the world was created 6000 years ago in seven 24-hour days? Rejecting all theological commentary and treating only magisterial documents as authoritative is a bit questionable - it depends on the theologians. If "Higher Criticism" (e.g. form criticism) were a heresy per se than the present pope would be a heretic. Only certain forms of higher criticism should be condemned out of hand (e.g. those which start from an a priori rejection of the supernatural); others can be used with caution. (e.g. the view that the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Wisdom were not written by Solomon son of David, but by later authors who attributed their reflections to Solomon as a form of literary convention is a perfectly acceptable theological opinion so long as they are nonetheless recognised as inspired Scripture.) I suggest a reading of Stanley Jaki's GENESIS 1 THROUGH THE AGES.
|
|
|
Post by stephentlig on Oct 22, 2010 14:19:25 GMT
I would want to be a bit clearer than Stephentlig are about what exactly has been taught. My understanding is that Catholics are obliged to believe in monogenism (i.e. descent from a single pair/group of ancestors) and in the Fall of Mankind, but not that Genesis is a literal narrative. Rather it is conformed to the understanding of its audience.
The scriptures are the inspired word of God it is therefore a divine account of what happened, not a human expression of what happened. That is part of what higher criticism is, it uses reason to debunk the magesterium and the faith by looking at scripture as ust a piece of literature that humans wrote whilst forgetting that it is the word of God and a divine account, given to humans in a way that is within their grasp. God does not use the mythical stories of other religions at the time to do this. The five sources given in Vatican II to interpret the scriptures such as the historical method etc are to be done in light of how the Magesterium interprets scriptures. The institute is teaching things like moses and the burning bush, and how the inspired writers borrowed this story from other religions at the time and isnt true. This is higher criticism and they are using the five methods of criticism sanctioned by vatican II to disguise it.
Rejecting all theological commentary and treating only magisterial documents as authoritative is a bit questionable - it depends on the theologians.
It isnt questionable its called ''being Catholic'' we are to reject modern theologians interpretations of scripture should it seek to undermine how the magesterium interprets and understands scripture.
If "Higher Criticism" (e.g. form criticism) were a heresy per se than the present pope would be a heretic.
I love it how people make illusory comments with no evidence to back their claims up. I hope you will expand on this, as I feel Hib is hoping people will take him on faith with this one.
Only certain forms of higher criticism should be condemned out of hand (e.g. those which start from an a priori rejection of the supernatural); others can be used with caution. (e.g. the view that the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Wisdom were not written by Solomon son of David, but by later authors who attributed their reflections to Solomon as a form of literary convention is a perfectly acceptable theological opinion so long as they are nonetheless recognised as inspired Scripture.) I suggest a reading of Stanley Jaki's GENESIS 1 THROUGH THE AGES.
All forms of higher criticism are to be condemed and are already condemed by the Magesterium of the Church. the Church in the council of trent and vatican 1 infallibly attributes all the books to their proper authors. Anyone who wishes to over-ride this and claim otherwise enters into Heresy and departs from the Church.
"Theologians" do not carry any weight of authority when it comes to interpretating the scriptures. They must do so in light of how the church understands it. Which is why catholics must have recourse to the Magesterium in order to get a true understanding of how the church interprets scripture. The evidence of which proves that they do NOT interpret scripture as legendry or mythical, or a made up story by using other religions at the time.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 1, 2010 11:39:49 GMT
For the present pope's use of form criticism and historical criticism, and his explicit statement that these are legitimate within certain limits, I refer Stephentlig to his book JESUS OF NAZARETH. Admittedly, this book states that the book is written by Joseph Ratzinger rather than Benedict XVI (i.e. it is his work as a private scholar and not his teaching as Pope) but if Joseph Ratzinger were a heretic then he would not be Benedict XVI.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 4, 2010 10:11:39 GMT
A few other points: (1) When Stephentlig says all "higher criticism" is a heresy the answer is, it depends what you mean by "higher criticism". When that term is used to describe criticism based on a priori rejection of the supernatural, then of course it is a heresy - but critical techniques can legitimately be used to enhance our understanding of the Biblical text. (2) It is not a question of the Magisterium having all authority and theologians having none. The magisterium has varying degrees of authority depending on the circumstances, and certain types of magisterial decrees are often reinterpreted or even reversed by the Magisterium itself in light of new information or greater understanding. Theologians have more or less authority depending on the degree of magisterial recognition which they have received, and magisterial decisions are informed by theologians' insights. Stephentlig seems to think the magisterium works along the lines posited by WG Ward, who suggested that the pope is infallible in his statements as a private theologian and even in casual correspondence, and famously said he would like to read of a new infallible decree in his breakfast newspaper every morning. (3) God inspired scripture but He did so using human beings as His instruments, and those human beings wrote in a variety of genres. So long as we accept it as a source of orthodox doctrine there is nothing wrong with positing, for example, that the Book of Jonah may be a pious story rather than a historical account (and that our Lord's reference to Jonah might be interpreted in those terms rather than as an affirmation of Jonah's historicity), or that the books attributed to Solomon might have been written by pious Alexandrian Jews who used the persona of Solomon as a literary convention. I am a historian and I know that a historical narrative of true events necessarily uses certain presentational techniques and assumes that its readers share certain types of knowledge (e.g. the account of David and Bathsheba in the Book of Kings takes it for granted that its readers, as observant Jews, will know that when Bathsheba bathed and was spied on by King David, she was engaged in the ritual bath prescribed for orthodox Jewish women after they have their period, and therefore that she could not have been impregnated by her husband before he left for the battlefield) and that it is necessary to recover those assumptions and understand those presentational techniques in order to get the most out of the text. Scripture as a text necessarily shares these characteristics of texts, just as Jesus as a man necessarily shared the bodily functions of men.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 4, 2010 10:15:12 GMT
The problem with Stephentlig's original post is that I do suspect Mater Dei's course is open to question (see the Stephen Jaki book I cited for a discussion of how the similarities between Genesis 1, which teaches creation ex nihilo, and the Babylonian creation myths which describe Marduk creating the universe from pre-existing matter (the corpse of a defeated sea monster) have been exaggerated. The trouble is that by failing to make necessary distinctions Stephentlig makes it impossible to tell what, if anything, is really wrong with it.
|
|
|
Post by stephentlig on Nov 11, 2010 16:19:10 GMT
For the present pope's use of form criticism and historical criticism, and his explicit statement that these are legitimate within certain limits, I refer Stephentlig to his book JESUS OF NAZARETH. Admittedly, this book states that the book is written by Joseph Ratzinger rather than Benedict XVI (i.e. it is his work as a private scholar and not his teaching as Pope) but if Joseph Ratzinger were a heretic then he would not be Benedict XVI. I would like also to refer Hib back to Jesus of Nazareth too in which his Holiness never actually states the interpretation of the Old Testament account has been borrowed by using the other religions and/or is mythical in anyway shape or form. the five critiiques by vatican II that you mention are not higher critiscism, there is a difference between higher criticism whose birth began in Germany by protestants in the 18th century in which it explained away the historical truth and called genesis a mythical legend and that of the five critiques given in Vatican two which is lower criticism and must be carried out in light of how the Church understands and interprets scripture ( dei verbum ) the problem with hibs post is that he seems to be part of this post vatican II liberalist/modernistic approach in which looks to the theologian as having authority over the interpretation of the scriptures instead of the Magisterium. Yet hib fails to provide a magisterial document that proves otherwise. The interpretation of the Bible belongs solely to the magisterium ( again read dei verbum and your catechism ). notwithstanding hib has failed to take into account the infallible council of trents infallible statements the Bible is inerrant in all matters and can contain no error whatsoever because it was dictated to humans by the Holy Ghost himself and God ''who never lies'' ( tit:1:2) would not allow for error to be found in his scriptures. Hib seems to think that infallible statements can be revoked and just pushed aside in order to get ones way. This is what the Post Vatican II heretic does, he seems to think that his private interpretation of the Bible is an official one of the church also and reaches out to teach it too. this is an old error with a new label, that old error is ''protestantism'' in which one interprets the Bible by himself and not with the Church for it is to the Church whose duty it is to give an official interpretation of the Bible and not the Theologian or anyone else for that matter. 2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations. Pope Benedict XVI in his latest conferance on scriptures denounced that scriptures were mythical and said that ''there is an interpretation out there upon scripture that claims to be riding on the spirit of Vatican two'' and that it must be dealt with. that interpretation known as ''higher criticism'' is claiming to ride on the spirit of Vatican II's ''lower critique'' of the Bible that must be carried out in light of how the ''magisterium'' understands and interprets scripture. Finally, I sent Archbishop Timothy Dolan ( one of the 9 apostolic visitors coming to Ireland ) a letter about it explaining all that I've explained to you. He replied that although his visitiation is only to the seminaries of Ireland and Rome, my letter nonetheless gave him great insight into what is being taught in the seminaries. Surely hib, if I was in the wrong, Archibishop Timothy would of told me so? but no, rather he thanked me for letter and I'm looking forward to him coming over, as the doctors who teach in my college, also teach in the seminaries and I cant wait to see this routed out. I wonder what hibs view upon women being priests is? something that is banned by the universal and ordinary magisterium and can never be changed because it is dogmatic. p.s I'd invite you to respond once and once only, instead of trolling the thread with so many different responses, that way you give me less work to do and we can have a more detailed and expansive one to one chat.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 16, 2010 14:25:54 GMT
I post a number of small posts because there are so many points raised/misconceptions shown in Stephentlig's posts that it would take forever to address them. I might add that I do not like being called a material heretic; this is a very serious accusation which should not e made without grave cause. Let me reiterate my position: The Magisterium does NOT require that every part of the Old Testament should be read as a literal narrative. It is divinely inspired but that inspiration does not entail that everything in it is literally true. It does not matter wheter there were one or two Isaiahs so long as they were both inspired by God, or whether Esther, Jonah and Tobias really existed or not, so long as their stories are recognsed as part of God's message to us. The debates of theologians are the basis on which the Magisterium makes its decisions - hence there is no conflict between the view that the magisterium has the final say and that theologians have authority to interpret it which derives from their training, in the same way that someone who knows New Testament Greek has more authority to interpret it than I have. This does not mean theologians cannot go wrong; it does mean that if you want to criticise them you should give cogent reasons for so doing and understand how the magisterium actually works.
|
|
|
Post by stephentlig on Nov 17, 2010 17:12:38 GMT
I post a number of small posts because there are so many points raised/misconceptions shown in Stephentlig's posts that it would take forever to address them. I might add that I do not like being called a material heretic; this is a very serious accusation which should not e made without grave cause. Let me reiterate my position: The Magisterium does NOT require that every part of the Old Testament should be read as a literal narrative. It is divinely inspired but that inspiration does not entail that everything in it is literally true. It does not matter wheter there were one or two Isaiahs so long as they were both inspired by God, or whether Esther, Jonah and Tobias really existed or not, so long as their stories are recognsed as part of God's message to us. The debates of theologians are the basis on which the Magisterium makes its decisions - hence there is no conflict between the view that the magisterium has the final say and that theologians have authority to interpret it which derives from their training, in the same way that someone who knows New Testament Greek has more authority to interpret it than I have. This does not mean theologians cannot go wrong; it does mean that if you want to criticise them you should give cogent reasons for so doing and understand how the magisterium actually works.[/quote] Popes Leo XIII, Benedict XV, St. Pius X and many others declared that Scripture contains no errors, is inerrant and inspired on all that it teaches. The councils of Trent and Vatican I declared that the Holy Ghost dictated the words of Scripture to the sacred authors, so Scripture cannot contain any error whatsoever. St Pius X's Pontifical Biblical Commission declared that Scripture teaches historical facts. and to really drive it home, Pope Benedict XVI's new document ''Verbum Domini'' ( the word of God ) proclaims ‘The historical fact is a constitutive dimension of the Christian faith. The history of salvation is not mythology, but a true history, and it should thus be studied with the methods of serious historical research ”.’ ( Verbum Domini:par.32.p.57 ) The Magisterium may make its decisions based on the theologians observations, but should the theologians observations deviate from the infallible and official proclamation of the councils their ''oberservations'' must be rejected. Thus the magisterium does not and has not and never will be able to officially teach that the scriptures are errant in its historicity. the reason it must be studied with serious historical research is the prove the inerrancy of the scriptures not to disprove it. This is why historical research that seeks to disprove the scriptures historicity is never accepted as ''true historical research'' because the scriptures contain no error on all it teaches. It is quite clear though that hib by adopting the view that the scriptures are mythological and do not contain truth is rejecting a post-baptismal truth taught with in the church and thus has entered into heresy by maintaining such a fallacious and pernicious position. If anyone would like to read the letter of his Grace Archbishop timothy dolan and the document of Verbum Domini you can find it on my blog: www.loyaltothemagisterium.wordpress.com Pax Stephen
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 17, 2010 17:23:24 GMT
And I answer that Stephentlig has misunderstood the concept of inerrancy. I state that scripture is inerrant in matters of doctrine, but that does not mean that the narratives throgh which that doctrine is conveyed are always historical narratives in the same sense as the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles. If the Books of Esther or Judith or Ruth were written as stories for our edification then God inspired them in their teaching, and this inerrancy is not affected if Ruth or Judith or Esther never in fact existed. On the other hand, the Gospels must be accepted as inerrant in the strict sense, as eyewitness testimony, and to question that is to put oneself outside the Church. My objection is to Stephentlig's view that Genesis is a narrative of the same type as the Gospels, and that everyone is bound to believe it. I notice Stephentlig is now calling me a formal heretic, not just a material heretic. Does he realise how serious a charge that is? I defer to the judgment of the Church, but I might point out that Pope Pius XII rowed back somewhat from the stance of Pius X's Biblical Commission, and that the magisterium can qualify its own earlier decisions. I believe Stephentlig has placed his own interpretation
|
|
|
Post by stephentlig on Nov 17, 2010 17:54:47 GMT
And I answer that Stephentlig has misunderstood the concept of inerrancy. I state that scripture is inerrant in matters of doctrine, but that does not mean that the narratives throgh which that doctrine is conveyed are always historical narratives in the same sense as the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles. If the Books of Esther or Judith or Ruth were written as stories for our edification then God inspired them in their teaching, and this inerrancy is not affected if Ruth or Judith or Esther never in fact existed. On the other hand, the Gospels must be accepted as inerrant in the strict sense, as eyewitness testimony, and to question that is to put oneself outside the Church. My objection is to Stephentlig's view that Genesis is a narrative of the same type as the Gospels, and that everyone is bound to believe it. I notice Stephentlig is now calling me a formal heretic, not just a material heretic. Does he realise how serious a charge that is? I defer to the judgment of the Church, but I might point out that Pope Pius XII rowed back somewhat from the stance of Pius X's Biblical Commission, and that the magisterium can qualify its own earlier decisions. I believe Stephentlig has placed his own interpretation Putting the label of heretic upon hib is of course a valid one seeing as Hib has failed to provide magisterial evidence that the church offically teaches the interpretation of the Gospels or Bible as a whole is not conveyed historically. The church teaches that the Bible can not contain any error whatsoever both in matters pertaining to doctrine and the historical fact to which it is conveyed, this is because the Holy Ghost has dictated to the inspired authors and God ''who never lies'' ( titus:1:2 ) would never allow for error to be found in his scriptures, Pope after Pope have reiterated this truth. Also Hib using Pius XII as his motive to prove his point surely Hib has failed to read Humani Generis in its entirety where Pius XII actually states and condemns the notion In Humani Generis that : "...immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters." Pontifical Biblical Commission, in 1964, states: "...that the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error." and in 1998: in Professio Fidei: "...the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts..." ( Congregation for the doctrine of the faith ) the Holy Spirit protects the writer from every error in matters pertaining to doctrine and historicity for the Holy Spirit never err's and God ''does not lie'' ( titus:1:2 ) Also Hib has failed to take into account that if I was in error, then why didnt His Grace who is coming to Ireland tell me so? but to the contrary proclaimed that my letter will be helpful to him in his investigation? Pax Stephen
|
|
|
Post by stephentlig on Nov 17, 2010 23:56:34 GMT
( to break my very own rule on trolling I felt this is a must ) only to express my apologies to Hib for calling him a heretic, I was blind in the sense that to call someone a heretic is something for the church to make a decision upon and not me. However if I am to rephrase it I would certainly call your views heretical and they indeed are.
Pax Stephen
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Nov 19, 2010 9:24:39 GMT
You know I think Stephentlig needs to carefully read Hibernicus' posts and to read the magesterium documents more carefully before tossing around the allegations he is tossing around.
To begin with, Stephentlig's understanding of the word 'myth' is very narrow. But is his regard for the inerrancy of scripture such that if I said the Psalms tell us 'There is no God' that that was binding? Of course not. To follow up that question - does Stephentlig accept everything in the Bible as literally true? Hibernicus point is not that Scripture contains falsehoods, but that to hold the inerrancy of Scripture is not the same hold it is literally true.
BTW, the letter of Mgr Dolan is not something like a trump card. No doubt Stephentlig's observations were helpful to the Archbishop, but the acknowledgement is nothing more than a courtesy and not a whole hearted endorsement. We might wait to see if the assistance Stephentlig rendered is born out in the final report - that would be something to post on the blog.
|
|
|
Post by stephentlig on Nov 19, 2010 15:24:46 GMT
To begin with, Stephentlig's understanding of the word 'myth' is very narrow. But is his regard for the inerrancy of scripture such that if I said the Psalms tell us 'There is no God' that that was binding? Of course not. To follow up that question - does Stephentlig accept everything in the Bible as literally true? Hibernicus point is not that Scripture contains falsehoods, but that to hold the inerrancy of Scripture is not the same hold it is literally true. BTW, the letter of Mgr Dolan is not something like a trump card. No doubt Stephentlig's observations were helpful to the Archbishop, but the acknowledgement is nothing more than a courtesy and not a whole hearted endorsement. We might wait to see if the assistance Stephentlig rendered is born out in the final report - that would be something to post on the blog. Such things as holding it literally true and then quoting me the psalm out of context as you did really demonstrates that you dont really know what this discussion is about. I understand that the church does not hold the whole of the Bible to be taken literally. but in the parts of which that are to be taken literally are nevertheless to be taken as ''literally true''. The Church in adopting the rule of St.Augustine teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950. Par:116 ( CCC ) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83 In other words the literal sense, the spiritual sense, and all other senses are to be seen as ''true'' interpretations of the scriptures. If my pickings and interpretations of church documents are false then why not point that out to me? also just for fun, why dont you get me a church document that proves we are to take the scriptures as not historically true/mythological, but of course the evidence of that is against you. I dont want texts and articles of theologians by the way I want to know what the church has to say. This discussion is about whether or not the church teaches that the creation story is mythological or not and whether the church teaches that it is a true history. My quote from Verbum Domini the Popes new document on the word of God proves that it is not the case. His Grace Timothys letter may seem like one of courtesy but he would of nonetheless taken the trouble to point me in the right direction and let me know if I was in error or not. As you say, it will be interesting to see the final report indeed. If it was not helpful to him, surely instead of telling me a lie and stating that it was helpful to him he would of said so? END Pax Stephen
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Nov 19, 2010 21:27:07 GMT
The first thing that Stephentlig can do is stop quoting magisterial documents as a Protestant quotes Scripture. And then counting up to ten before posting.
Whereas I find it very plausible that the Mater Dei Institute is teaching heresy, I don't believe Stephentlig to be a witness that can be taken at face value on the matter.
|
|