Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Biting Off More Than You Can Chew | Main | Two Films This Weekend »

October 07, 2005

Comments

Christian

Five solas.

After darkness...light.

ukok

In my 'lower class' high school we didn't have 'cheer-leaders', and if we had, I would not have been elected (I would have sneered at them from the sidelines though, non conformist that I was) ...I'm going to overcompensate now for that obvious deficiency in my childhood...

"Go Jimmy!"..."Go Jimmy!"..."Go Jimmy!"..."Go Jimmy!"


I will never do that again.

I'm completely shattered now.

God Bless

Steve Jackson

Jimmy,

I agree with you that this woman doesn't know a thing about theology given that she doesn't seem to understand inspiration, historicity, literal/non-literal and the like.

At the same time, isn't it clear that the contemporary Catholic view of the Bible (that is, from the folks in Rome) is actually closer to the moderate/liberal protestant position than to the conservative Evangelical position?

Ratzinger/Benedicit rejects a historical reading of Genesis in his book IN THE BEGINNING and doesn't believe that Daniel was written by Daniel, all of Isaiah was written by Isaiah or that Paul wrote the Pastorals.

And when contemporary catholic scholars tell us that large portions of Scripture aren't historical they don't mean simply "using a "more approximative style." For example, Catholic scholars generally don't believe that the infancy narratives are historical. Meier doesn't believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, there was a flight to Egypt, the wise men, etc. (A MARGINAL JEW, vol. 1, with imprimatur.)

In fact, I can't think of a recent book by a Catholic NT scholar who defends the historicity of the Gospels in the same way that evangelicals such as Blomberg do.

Kosh

I don't get how she can expect Genesis to be completely scientifically accurate when it was written (or passed down, rather) more for more than 2,000 years before science really existed.

Anybody have Gledhill's E-mail address? She really needs to read this.

cw

Click on the Join The Debate link at the bottom of the article and you can send comments. You have to find the title of the article since I couldn't find the columnist's name. Or click on Letters to the Editor in the Comments box on the left side of the screen. It has already stirred up some pretty good postings.

hippo354

She must have been 'educated' at the same school as those 'journalists' who reported on hurricane Katrina.

Shane

What Ratzinger personally feels about a particular book of the Bible has nothing to do with the contemporary Catholic view. It is his personal view. I am a contemporary Catholic who would not agree with him, and I know plenty of others who would fall into the same boat.

And be careful when you read scholars, even Catholic scholars. A lot of them end up having their ideas being condemned by the Church. That's not to say they're wrong, but the fact is that scholars come up with all sorts of crazy things these days, a large majority of them completely bogus. I actually think Catholic scholars can be worse, given the leeway they have within Church teaching.

arthur

The one thing I'm still a bit confused on Jimmy is "The Gift of Scripture" in fact an official publication of the British conference of bishops, or does it not even have that level of authority? And if it is, where can one get a copy so we can read exactly what the bishops meant?

Thanks,
arthur

Tim J.

"In fact, I can't think of a recent book by a Catholic NT scholar who defends the historicity of the Gospels in the same way that evangelicals such as Blomberg do."

This why it is so great to be a Catholic - we don't have to rely on the latest musings from the current crop of biblical "scholars" (Catholic or not) for our doctrine. This is why we have the Magisterium.

I would not say that the teaching of the Church is "closer to the moderate/liberal protestant position" than to the Fundamentalist position. I would say it is right in the middle of two extremes of error, just where it should be.

Ken Crawford

Steve, I would say that it is unfair to characterize the Catholic perspective on the bible as similar to either of the two camps you've mentioned. Yes, we don't take a fundamentalist view of the bible (which is what I assume you're getting at by conservate Evangelical). But we also don't dismiss many of the teachings of the Epistles as "out of date", even when we're unsure that all of them were written by Paul, which most liberal protestants do. We also take many passages of the bible more literally than either the liberal Protestants or the fundamentalists (i.e. "This is my body").

So as it seems with all things Christian, it is difficult to accurately group us with any other Christain group. We are distinct and unique. We are Catholic.

Brian Day

"The Gift of Scripture" is not on-line. Here is a link for ordering information.
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/index.html

£3.95 = $6.95 at todays conversion rate.

Brian Day

"The Gift of Scripture" is not on-line. Here is a link for ordering information.
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/index.html

£3.95 = $6.95 at todays conversion rate.

Brian Day

"The Gift of Scripture" is not on-line. Here is a link for ordering information.
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/index.html

£3.95 = $6.95 at todays conversion rate.

Brian Day

"The Gift of Scripture" is not on-line. Here is a link for ordering information.
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/index.html

£3.95 = $6.95 at todays conversion rate.

John Henry

What Ratzinger personally feels about a particular book of the Bible has nothing to do with the contemporary Catholic view.

My only point is that the "figurative language" the Catechism mentions in reference to the Genesis narrative is not only contemporary. It goes way back, along with more literal views, to the beginning of the Church. Thus we find St. Jerome describing the creation account as being written "after the manner of a popular poet", and Origen places the "mysteries" of creation as "having taken place in appearance and not literally". And the views of these (and other) Fathers were obviously not stated in an attempt to make the truth more palatable to evolutionists. Agree or not, *both* views go back to the beginning.

Steven D. Greydanus

Absolutely devastating, Jimmy.

<language style="usage-mode: non-technical; usage-tone: semi-humorous">That's why God created JimmyAkin.org!</language>
(Usage-coded for the hermeneutically impaired!)

(Steve Jackson, the issues raised by Jimmy's post are already broad enough that it may be helpful to confine the discussion to what the Church actually teaches.)

Chris A.

The beauty of reading scripture 'from the heart of the Church' is that we are given wide berth (with a few key exceptions)when reading scripture, so that we may enjoy the many senses of it rather than just the literal or just the spiritual. What separates us from Evangelicals (and many mainline denominations)is their insistence on an "either/or" interpretation of things rather than the Catholic "and/both". I believe that "You must eat of my body..." means that literally however, I can also accept that it points to our need to read and study 'the Word' daily, i.e. it is not one or the other but both/and. With Tradition as a guide and an inclusive reading of Scripture, we accept Christ at his word,literally but we don't turn a blind eye to additional meanings of the passage.

As to being closer to mainline Protestants, not at all. Many Catholic theologians may be just that, but the Church doesn't teach their musings and in fact I would suspect that the seminary visitations going on will be looking closely at how scripture.

There are many good, orthodox Catholic scripture scholars out there...but the one I find it hard for any Catholic to have missed is Scott Hahn. Check out the new Ignatius Study Bible series...read the introduction to any and all of the books of the Bible, or go to www.salvationhistory.com, you will be pleasantly surprised.

Jules

Thank you Jimmy! My brain started melting out of my ears when I first read that article.

Steve Jackson

Mr. Greydanus,

Cardinal Ratzinger once stated that the Pontifical Biblical Commission had "the full confidence of the Magisterium." The PBC has had as members men such as Brown and Fitzmyer. You may feel that their views are contrary to Catholic teaching, but obviously JP II and Cardinal Ratzinger didn't.

In addition, books by Brown, Fitzmyer and Meier contain the imprimatuer of the church which indicates they are in accord with church teaching.

Benedict appointed Kasper to head the important post of head of ecumenical and interreligous dialogue even though Kasper does not believe that Jesus' nature miracles (such as multiplying the loaves, walking on water and raising the dead) are historical.

If you don't agree with the views of Brown, Fitzmeyer, Meier, Kasper et al., then I salute you. But I don't know anyone in the Magisterium who considers their views out of line.

John Henry

Steve, from previous discussions in the past, it is obvious that, not only do you reject what Brown, Fitzmyer et al. have said, but you also reject what the Church teaches (and understandably so, as you are not Catholic). So it's a little difficult, not having a clue what any of these individual theologians have said (specifically), to determine whether you are again rejecting the teaching of the Church, or of some Catholic crank.

I assure you that, his encouraging words to the Pontifical Council (and not individual Catholic cranks) notwithstanding, Pope Benedict does not deny the veracity of Jesus' miracles. The onus would be on you to demonstrate otherwise.

ukok

Can I be the one that says.

"#20"

I never get a go, can't we take it in turns...

j/k

God Bless.

Brian Day

Argh!

I hit the "post" button once and waited for the software to do its thing. I got a time-out error, so I hit "post" again. I come back after awhile and there are four entries! Frustrating.

BillyHW

This lady's columns are like temper tantrums.

Len

Another brilliant piece by the columnist from Jolly Old. (NOT)

StubbleSpark

Can't you fools see the danger? The stupid this woman is putting out is so concentrated that it forms the ultra-rare Crystalline Stupid S-2! One of the rarest substances in the universe and she's putting it out in huge quantities!

We have to get a contingent of body guards over there right away. If Cobra Commander finds out where to get his hands on Crystalline Stupid S-2, he'll be able to finish his diabolical Idiot Ray and unleash its crippling effect on an unsuspecting population!!

It's bad enough Idiot Rays are already in the hands of NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, HBO, ABC, NPR, BBC, UPN, CBC, TBS, etc... but not HIM too!

Can I hear a hardy "YO JOE!"?

whosebob

ukok wrote:

"In fact, I can't think of a recent book by a Catholic NT scholar who defends the historicity of the Gospels in the same way that evangelicals such as Blomberg do."

Try this Catholic scholar -- the late Fr. William Most:


The MOST Theological Collection

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/browse.cfm


Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=216 (1985)


Commentary on the Gospels: The Thought of St. Matthew

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=127

ukok

whosebob,

I'm not clever enough to ask questions like that*, but man, you gave me a good morning ego boost, so thanks anyway!

God Bless.

*I think you'll find that it was reader Steve Jackson :)

Colin Singleton

Gledhill shouldn't have any credibility.

In the articles that I read she doesn't give any statistical citings or anything of that nature.

In her article, Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side', she basically just said that religion was bad over and over, and only cited one rather vague statistic about STDs.

She also didn't give any reasons for religion being bad; she just said that it was, and gave examples of things that are bad existing in religious countries to a higher degree than in non-religious countries.

Anybody with an ounce of scientific thinking in their blood knows that an article like that is just bogus.

I hate to think how many people read that article and think that Gledhill is actually telling the truth, just going on the fact that she's the one writing so she must know what she's talking about.

Tim J.

"In addition, books by Brown, Fitzmyer and Meier contain the imprimatuer of the church which indicates they are in accord with church teaching."

Steve-

An imprimatur does not guarantee that a book is in accord with church teaching. What it means is that, in the opinion of the bishop who granted the imprimatur, the book contains nothing contarary to church teaching.

That's an important distinction. I have seen the imprimatur on some very questionable books. It is intended to give a certain measure of reassurance to readers, but it is by no means 100% reliable.

More's the pity.

Tim,

But the difference is that Fitzmyer and Brown were promoted to the Pontifical Biblical Commission. In addition, many of those with similar views (such as Donald Senior) have also been appointed. I'm unaware of any conservative critics of Brown being so honored.

That JP II would appoint such people is prima facie evidence that their views are consistent with his.

I've read the books of Brown and Fitzmyer. Used "critically," they can be very informative.

berenike

Augustine, de Genesi ad litteram: give ti toall your "but in the old days they took it all literally" friends.

imprimatur? My bishop had to be forced to withdraw his from a school textbook some years ago. So much for that.

Mean Dean

Good fisking.

I wrote about this as well, but not with as much detail.

http://www.blogs4god.com/node/458

To me, it simply appears to be a religious correspondent using the term 'literal' in place of 'inerrant' to blur the lines and to paint British Catholics with a broad brush that isn't true.

John P Sheridan

When I first read this article I was infuriated by how wrongheaded it was. But I have to say, any critique of the article should focus on the major errors, of which there are many. Mr. Akin gets in those criticisms, but unfortunately, he starts off by attacking Gledhill for two minor errors and blows them out of proportion. From a rhetorical standpoint, I believe this nitpicking undermines the serious criticisms that come later. For example, she uses the term "Catholic hierarchy" with imprecision. But she clarifies her word choice a few sentences later; so she is guilty of being Britainocentric--but she is a British columnist writing for a British audience in a British newspapers. Many American columnists do the same thing. It's not a big deal. Likewise, who is to say whether people are getting more or less religious? Europeans are getting less so while Americans are becoming more so--right? Again, not worth picking a fight over. Finally, what "journalistic standards" is she violating by including two stories in one column? If one is going to accuse Gledhill of imprecsion, then you should be careful not to do the same.

Fred

I saw this article first on christianity.com and scolded them for linking this to their mostly Christian audience. Right from the start the article use no sources nor references. Ruth Gledhill just says "so and so" said this or that. That should give any reader pause right from the start.

Eileen R

John P. Sheridan.
Likewise, who is to say whether people are getting more or less religious? Europeans are getting less so while Americans are becoming more so--right?

*splurts coca-cola onto the screen*

Do you really think so? Americans are getting *more* religious?

I'd love if it were so, but what exactly would be the evidence for that? Declining church attendance?

The 'religious right' is perhaps more vociferous - though I really don't know - but there's not much evidence that Americans are becoming more religious.

The Inquisitor

Steve it is obvious that not only a)that the Church can listen to the opinions of Brown, et al, and still retain an orthodox point of view, and b)you don't listen very well. You have brought up the same points time and again, (once with Dave Armstrong, I believe)only to be rebutted time and again. Now do us all a favor, and crawl back where you came from.

Tim J.

Yeah, I had a good laugh over Americans getting more religious...

I would say that a number of us are getting more religious, and a bunch of us are getting less religious, hence the current American schizophrenia.

The folks in the middle, squeamish about taking sides, just hope the whole conflict will go away.

Kinda like Theoden, King of Rohan.

Joe

In Steve's defense, no one has really rebutted him. The Church has left the earlier decrees of the PBC in the dust. If someone can recommend a book that covers the current RC view of inerrancy and inspiration in an orthodox way, I would truly appreciate the lead.

Jimmy Akin

Now do us all a favor, and crawl back where you came from.

RULE 1 NOTICE.

The Inquisitor

Sorry. It's just that I've had enough of his trolling. It won't happen again.

Jimmy Akin

Understood. Thanks for your cooperation!

Angie

I've been searching for further info on this after having it thrown in my face by a fundy. And although I appreciated Jimmy's taking this woman to task, I would have preferred finding an official explanation from the Vatican explaining and clarifying what the heck these Bishops meant! Surely they don't live in a cave and know this is going around and it's confusing the faithful and giving the enemies ammo??? I just don't understand their silence in times like these.

Jimmy - don't you have friends in high places who can inquire at the V about this new book?

rob williams

James.... whilst ruth exagerated the git of scripture is bad. The bishiopsaere in the hand of the Catholic Biblical association of Great Britain ...totally modernist. I posted you a booklet today God bless Rob

Jeremy Lancey

Does not Question 18 of the new Compendium imply the doctrine of limited biblical inerrancy?

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31