Posted: 7/7/2011 7:16:34 AM EDT
|
Last Sunday my wife, a Southern Baptist convert, was standing in the vestibule/gathering space after mass talking with a friend and a nun (C.S.J.). My wife and I opted not to go to the 'Journey though the Bible' study which was led by this nun over the last six months. On several points in the past, we have disagreed with the presenters and did not find the study fulfilling.
Our friend commented to the nun that she thought the Bible study class would be 'great for the youth group.' The nun disagreed and gave some reasons and then somehow launched into a spiel about how the Old Testament was allegorical and that she didn't believe that when she read that God told the Israelites to annihilate certains enemies that she didn't believe that God actually said those things. After all he is all-loving and that probably the Israelites did these things and then attributed them to God. This lead her to also say that the Old Testament was really 'just a lot of stories.' For the record this is something we have heard before from her (and yes, we stood up and disagreed then) and recently heard it from another parishioner who attended the 'Bible study.' Well my wife was very shocked, but was going to just quietly disagree, but sister turned to her at the end of the commentary and asked 'Don't you think so?' Well, confronted with this, in the presence of our 14 yo son, she was forced to defend her/our belief and said (paraphrase), 'No, sister I completely disagree. I'm a literalist and I believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and represents the inerrant Word of God. I believe that God is not only loving but He is also a God of justice and the Bible speaks of his wrath quite a bit. So it is literally true that God commanded these things.' And sister commented, 'Well, that's not the Catholic way.' (!!!!!!!!) That led to a little more discussion and at some point (thru this winding dialog), my wife asked 'Well, we still believe that there is evil and people go to hell, don't we?'. Sister never would concede that. Well, since I was breaking down the music equipment (my group had the pleasure of doing both masses this week!) I was not present and did not here about this until I got home. Otherwise, right or wrong, I think I would have lit up this nun. My wife refrained from full engagement in this argument because she was uncomfortable as a convert in explaining or declaring the 'Catholic' teaching on scripture to a nun who supposedly just finished a 'Journey thru the Bible' with adult Sunday School. I think this issue needs immediate clarification. I do not believe this woman represents or teaches the Catholic position on scripture. I am not looking for an argument, if I am wrong I will take my lumps and move on. I reviewed the Catechism and the Papal encyclicals and could find NOTHING to support her supposition. Am I justified in taking this to our pastor? And even beyond, if no action is taken? For perusal: Spiritus Paraclitus, 1920 Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943 Providentissimus Deus, 1893 |
| I had an in depth catholic education, though it was many years ago. I won't get into the nitty gritty of what was said, but I can say, with absolute certainty, that Catholic doctrine does not interpret the Old Testament, or even the NT, literally. The creation in Genesis was a story; the Earth is not 6000 years old, etc. As such, Church practice has been to teach the Bible as interpreted through scholars and priests, so as to eliminate confusion. Martin Luther et al. disagreed with this and believed that the common parishioner could and should read the scriptures directly and could be guided correctly from them. This was one of THE core issues that led to the Reformation. It's not surprising your wife would have trouble with this belief - it goes directly against what she was taught as a core tenet of her previous faith. |
|
You are totally justified to take it to your Pastor.
I don't have the exact answer for you, I personally take the old testament with a grain of salt and try to live by the commandments and the golden rule. You have to remember that there is a difference between "faith" and "religion". |
| I went to Catholic school, Catecism etc and it certainly was not in any way literalist, if that is what you are asking. If you mean her specific theories about the Old Testament I don't see a priest getting too wigged out over it but maybe I am missing something. |
|
You might want to check out this link:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Old%20Testament/page3 Catholics are free to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literal history or as didactic fiction. In Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating writes:
"The Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, readers being allowed to accept one of several understandings. Take, as an example, Jonah’s escapade at sea, which readers often find disturbing. Ronald Knox said that ‘no defender of the sense of Scripture ever pretended, surely, that this was a natural event. If it happened, it was certainly a miracle; and not to my mind a more startling miracle than the raising of Lazarus, in which I take it Catholics are certainly bound to believe. Surely what puts one off the story of Jonah is the element of the grotesque that is present in it’ (Ronald Knox and Arnold Lunn, Difficulties, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 109). "The most common interpretation nowadays, and one that is held by indubitably orthodox exegetes, is that the story of the prophet being swallowed and then disgorged by a ‘great fish’ is merely didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish a religious point. Catholics are perfectly free to take this or a more literal view. . . . "Strictly literal interpretations of what happened to Jonah actually come in two forms. One relies on the fact that people apparently have been swallowed by whales and lived to talk about it. In 1891 a seaman, James Bartley, from a ship named the Star of the East, was found missing after an eighty-foot sperm whale had been caught. He was presumed drowned. The next day, when the crew cut up the whale, Bartley was discovered alive inside. If Jonah’s three days in the whale were counted like Christ’s three days in the tomb, after the Semitic fashion—that is, parts of three distinct days, but perhaps only slightly more than twenty-four hours total—then it is possible that Jonah could have been coughed up by that great fish just as his story says. This would be a purely natural explanation of the episode. "The other literal interpretation is that Jonah indeed underwent what the story, read as straight history, says he did but survived only because of a positive miracle, and several different sorts of miracles have been suggested, such as suspended animation on Jonah’s part or a fish with a remarkably large air supply and decidedly mild gastric juices" (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius Press, 129–30). But with that being said, I think her view of the Old Testament comes very close to some form of MARCIONISM, and it should probably be brought to someones attention. |
|
I must point out that I see a vast difference in what some Catholics believe and what the Church actually teaches. This includes the way that scripture is taught and interpreted. Unfortunately, a lot a people, a lot of Catholics, are misinformed as to the Churches teaching on the subject. I want to make sure that I am not one of them. I doubt any of the comments made (above) were made after reading the papal encyclical references I posted, but were posted according to personal experience alone. In my reading I can't find any notion that the literal interpretation has been tossed out by the Church or superseded by any other methodology, or that any other view of the Bible (Old or New Testament) that pronounced scripture as anything less than the inerrant Word of God was acceptable.
|
|
Quoted:
But with that being said, I think her view of the Old Testament comes very close to some form of MARCIONISM, and it should probably be brought to someones attention. I was struck with this thought as well. |
|
Straight from the Catechism:
121
The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. 122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95 123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). I've had vigorous and intense arguments with sisters before. Don't be afraid to challenge error . As long as you are respectful, I don't imagine anyone will disagree with you stating the truth. |
|
I have several reasons to question the religious sister's comments, specifically the God-is-all-good-and-God-wouldn't-do-that mentality, and the it's-all-a-fictitious-story bit (neither of which is authentically Catholic), but your wife's statement that she is a literalist concerns me. There is a difference between a literal interpretation of Scripture and a literalist interpretation of Scripture. The latter is not a Catholic way of interpreting Scripture at all. It leads to fundamentalism, and in fact, in Newman's and Belloc's day, Literalist was synonymous with fundamentalist/evangelical. That being said, the sister's claim that the OT is "just a bunch of stories" and that she would not agree with the statement that there is evil speaks volumes as to her ideology. I wouldn't want her giving any Bible study to anyone. If she rejects the idea that it is the inspired Word of God and is revealed by God, then she is outside of Catholic doctrine and has no business teaching at all. The "it's just a bunch of stories" comes from a historical-critical method of exegesis, that unfortunately has been usurped for many years by those who reject the Church's authority, especially the teaching on morality. Point blank ask Sister if she accepts the Church's teaching on artificial contraception and women's ordination. If she won't give a definite "yes" then pitch a fit to anyone who has the authority to get her out of any teaching position. Here is a helpful link: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504fea1.asp And this one should be very helpful: Interpretation of the Bible in the Church by the Pontifical Biblical Commission |
|
Thanks loonybin. The wife, being raised a Southern Baptist, has a harder lean on literal Bible interpretation. That is most certainly what she meant by her comment.
I hesitated to immediately raise a stink for two reasons. First, I wanted some backup for what I believe to be the correct Catholic position, or at least gain a better developed sense of the Catholic position on scriptural interpretation. That's why I reviewed the Catechism and those encyclicals to try and see if I was really missing some major point. Secondly, my wife and I met with the pastor and our religious education director only last year about a Sunday school teacher who was telling her completely unruly Sunday school class that homosexuality was an acceptable life style choice. I nearly blew a blood vessel over that one, but was calm and respectful during the conference. Needless to say the cafeteria Catholic who had been teaching this middle school class is no longer teaching. Both my wife and I are sick of being pigeon-holed as oddballs or rabble rousers for merely not accepting the status quo around there. But so many people just go thru the motions. They don't know what they believe, or what the Church has in place as doctrine. I think some people just don't care. Just because someone in authority has been in place for years and done something a certain way forever, does not make their doctrinal stance sound, correct or Catholic. This nun is the reason that we stopped attending the adult Sunday school. And sadly, I've actually heard other parishioners repeat the 'old testament is just a bunch of stories' recently. As you can tell, I'm still pretty steamed. I've had other issues with this nun in the past, although I've never brought it up. And, despite this, when she had a fall, I saw her in my office for multiple medical visits –– gratis, and have treated her with nothing but respect. I think the kid gloves will have to come off on this one. 
|
|
We are confirmed for THIS reason, sir. To be the salt, light, leaven, life where it's lacking. Where it's not wanted, sought for, or respected.... because that and then is when and where it's needed the most.
Of course, with kindness and gentleness, tact and wisdom so as to neither give our worst angels an advantage over us.... or their worst angels and in to rise up in pride when they should be open to gentle reprimand etc. It's galling though and I feel your pain as I've had identical experiences and the Irish in me gets boiling. But I've learned that when this happens it's a trap. If I stay calm and let THEM blow the gasket, everything is resolved with an apology a 'dialogue' and a sense that the age of the laity is upon us.... in other words, she or he who gets angry first, loses. 
|
|
The Holy See puts out a great resource for all our questions of faith:
BibliaClerus |
|
I was always taught that the stories in the OT were actual events, and I was in Catechism class in the 70's. She sounds like a Novus Ordo, lefty, type nun. |
|
Don’t feel like this is just a Catholic Problem.
I was teaching Sunday school once while we had a visiting Minister….one of my comments during the lesson was that “all men are created in the Image of God” He disagreed…but waited until later while he was preaching behind the pulpit to inform the entire church that “Only the Elect are created in the image of God” I was not feeling brotherly love at the moment to say the least…..its like…."forget the Scripture, let’s just make stuff up!" I wish my denomination had a Martin Luther. Edit: Catholics only….means I should have stayed out. The Luther comment was a light hearted ending to a serious conversation on a serious problem in both Catholic and Evangelical Churches. I have no intentions of seriously defending a comment when it was not serous in nature. My bad 100% |
|
Quoted:
Don’t feel like this is just a Catholic Problem. I was teaching Sunday school once while we had a visiting Minister….one of my comments during the lesson was that “all men are created in the Image of God” He disagreed…but waited until later while he was preaching behind the pulpit to inform the entire church that “Only the Elect are created in the image of God” I was not feeling brotherly love at the moment to say the least…..its like…."forget the Scripture, let’s just make stuff up!" I wish my denomination had a Martin Luther. Catholics are the only ones with the solution to this problem. If TWIRE wanted to he could make a big issue about it, it could go to the parish priest, then the bishop, then all the way to Rome but eventually something concrete would happen. (Matthew 18 15-17) In the protestant world there is nothing to guide you but your own personal interpretation of the Bible. And the Bible itself warns against that very thing. ( 2 Peter 3 15-16 ) Martin Luther's actions should not be admired, they should be avoided. He rebelled against the Church and from that day to this one protestants have been living the fragmentation and division that proceeds from rebellion, protestantism is exactly the opposite of what Jesus prayed for in John 17 17-26. [17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; [21] That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: [23] I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. [24] Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world. [25] Just Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee: and these have known that thou hast sent me. [26] And I have made known thy name to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them. |
|
I completely disagree! Martin Luther and many other reformers corrected error.
Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone Solus Christus - Christ Alone Sola Gratia - Grace Alone Sola Fide - Faith Alone Soli Deo Gloria - The Glory of God Alone Prove to me, ANYWHERE in scripture where there is a defense to these remarks. A works based salvation, and many other ideas and doctrines that the reformers fought against are not Christian AT ALL! If anyone disagrees with me, I'd love to have a civil conversation.
|
|
Quoted: I completely disagree! Martin Luther and many other reformers corrected error. Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone Solus Christus - Christ Alone Sola Gratia - Grace Alone Sola Fide - Faith Alone Soli Deo Gloria - The Glory of God Alone Prove to me, ANYWHERE in scripture where there is a defense to these remarks. A works based salvation, and many other ideas and doctrines that the reformers fought against are not Christian AT ALL! If anyone disagrees with me, I'd love to have a civil conversation. A) Apparently you didn't read HardShell's warning This is not the thread for that. This thread is for Catholics to give a fellow Catholic advice on someone who is teaching error as if it were Catholic teaching. This is not a thread for non-Catholics to come in and tell us Catholics how "wrong" we are. B) You must be new to the RF, as your claims have been debated/argued ad nauseum many times in the past, and generally devolves into a nonproductive free-for-all of prooftexting with typical copy/pasting of Scripture verses with a word there and there bolded to the tone of "beware of their false teaching," "many will come in my name, but..." "the Whore of Babylon..." There is little point in starting another one. That being said, I will be glad to discuss it with you. Send me a PM and we'll discuss it there. Leave it out of this thread. |
|
Quoted: HE LIVES!!!We are confirmed for THIS reason, sir. To be the salt, light, leaven, life where it's lacking. Where it's not wanted, sought for, or respected.... because that and then is when and where it's needed the most. Of course, with kindness and gentleness, tact and wisdom so as to neither give our worst angels an advantage over us.... or their worst angels and in to rise up in pride when they should be open to gentle reprimand etc. It's galling though and I feel your pain as I've had identical experiences and the Irish in me gets boiling. But I've learned that when this happens it's a trap. If I stay calm and let THEM blow the gasket, everything is resolved with an apology a 'dialogue' and a sense that the age of the laity is upon us.... in other words, she or he who gets angry first, loses.  Don't be such a stranger, friend! |
|
Quoted:
I completely disagree! Martin Luther and many other reformers corrected error. Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone Solus Christus - Christ Alone Sola Gratia - Grace Alone Sola Fide - Faith Alone Soli Deo Gloria - The Glory of God Alone Prove to me, ANYWHERE in scripture where there is a defense to these remarks. A works based salvation, and many other ideas and doctrines that the reformers fought against are not Christian AT ALL! If anyone disagrees with me, I'd love to have a civil conversation. Oh goodness….Please don’t make me look even worse by helping defend my childish conduct. There will be plenty of opportunities in more appropriate future threads to re-hash a decades old conversation. |