Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

[ps139]

Hello groundhog,

1.) Has there EVER been anything regarding the Bible that the RCC once believed in, but has since changed it's position?

When you say the RCC... this has different meanings to different people.
it could be:

A) the general consensus of Catholics throughout the years
B) something infallibly defined by the magisterium of the Church
C) personal opinion of a pope
D) policy of the state... when state and church were one
My answer is that for A, C, and D - things have changed. But for B, no things have not.

2.) Does the RCC believe its beliefs and practices are governed by the Holy Spirit?

Dogmas and doctrines we believe are free from error, kept pure by the Holy Spirit. Traditions and disciplines we do not believe are governed by the Holy Spirit.

Practices? No way. We strive to be Christ-like but we are a Church full of sinners. We have had murderers and fornicators as popes. We are far from perfect when it comes to how our faith is lived out. On the other hand we have a ton of great saints,..people whose biographies will just blow your mind.

 

[symphonyb]

I don't believe Ms Gledhill is stating facts here,she's adding some of her own assumptions which is how this stuff gets started.I don't believe anything that is stated about any religion until I actually do some history on it myself.

Ruth Gledhill makes some erroneous assumptions in her article.

The frist of which is the title, also the title of this thread.

From the article:

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

That has always been the Catholic position. Nothing new here, and totally accurate. Nothing to disagree with.

Ruth's mistake is in assuming that symbolic language = untruth.

Nothing could be further from the Catholic position.

Since the premise of the article is false, the conclusions of the author are as well.

 

[ps139]

I don't believe Ms Gledhill is stating facts here,she's adding some of her own assumptions which is how this stuff gets started.I don't believe anything that is stated about any religion until I actually do some history on it myself.

Can you please clone yourself???

 

[simplicity]

It's absolutely critical for the survival of the Catholic church to take this revised perspective.

 

[Harpuia]

Lemme guess, this is in regards to the 6,000 year creation of the world again?

 

[HisEagle]

Hello groundhog,

When you say the RCC... this has different meanings to different people.
it could be:

A) the general consensus of Catholics throughout the years
B) something infallibly defined by the magisterium of the Church
C) personal opinion of a pope
D) policy of the state... when state and church were one
My answer is that for A, C, and D - things have changed. But for B, no things have not.


Dogmas and doctrines we believe are free from error, kept pure by the Holy Spirit. Traditions and disciplines we do not believe are governed by the Holy Spirit.

Practices? No way. We strive to be Christ-like but we are a Church full of sinners. We have had murderers and fornicators as popes. We are far from perfect when it comes to how our faith is lived out. On the other hand we have a ton of great saints,..people whose biographies will just blow your mind.

By "RCC", I mean specifically the governing body of the church that determines/declares what its members are supposed to/permitted to believe without being declared anathema. So back to my first question.... is there ANYTHING the RCC has determined its members are to believe that is now different from a previous position regarding the same subject?

 

[parousia70]

By "RCC", I mean specifically the governing body of the church that determines/declares what its members are supposed to/permitted to believe without being declared anathema. So back to my first question.... is there ANYTHING the RCC has determined its members are to believe that is now different from a previous position regarding the same subject?

How did ps139's previous post NOT answer your question?

 

[parousia70]

It's absolutely critical for the survival of the Catholic church to take this revised perspective.

Revised?

How so?

I see no "revision" to this perspective.

 

[HisEagle]

How did ps139's previous post NOT answer your question?

By not giving me specific examples, that's how. (If you don't have anything more constructive to say than what you said in your response, could you maybe not say anything at all? Thanks.)

 

[jsn112]

IMHO the Catholic Church has it right on this. The Bible is not meant to be a history book, or a science book. A lot of it is stories that point out moral truths. It isn't meant to be a word by word description of all knowledge.

For instance, Jesus told his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel, yet some how he neglected to tell them about North and South America, etc. Surely if the Bible was meant as a historical or scientific volume, he would have brought this up?

After all he must have been aware that they existed. And yet his disciples didn't know to go there, since they didn't know they existed.

Speak for yourself, of course.

 

[JPPT1974]

Practices? No way. We strive to be Christ-like but we are a Church full of sinners. We have had murderers and fornicators as popes. We are far from perfect when it comes to how our faith is lived out. On the other hand we have a ton of great saints,..people whose biographies will just blow your mind.

We need to rely on the Word of God. Which is the Bible. We all are sinners who sin and fall short of God's glory. That is sad that they won't and will not swear on the truth of the Bible.

 

[ps139]

We need to rely on the Word of God. Which is the Bible. We all are sinners who sin and fall short of God's glory. That is sad that they won't and will not swear on the truth of the Bible.

Do you mean that it is sad that some Christians do not interpret the Bible exactly as you do?

In case you'd like the Catholic position on "the truth of the Bible," here it is:

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living".If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

 

[ps139]

By "RCC", I mean specifically the governing body of the church that determines/declares what its members are supposed to/permitted to believe without being declared anathema. So back to my first question.... is there ANYTHING the RCC has determined its members are to believe that is now different from a previous position regarding the same subject?

See answer B

A) the general consensus of Catholics throughout the years
B) something infallibly defined by the magisterium of the Church
C) personal opinion of a pope
D) policy of the state... when state and church were one
My answer is that for A, C, and D - things have changed. But for B, no things have not.

Infallible declarations are only on matters of faith and morals. Other things like disciplines and devotions can and do change. (Example, mandatory priestly celibacy: It was not like this in the beginning, and it is possible it can be changed to allow priests to marry in the future.).

I also saw the post where you said you wanted specific examples? In all seriousness, do you really think I can answer that in a single post? John Henry Cardinal Newman actually wrote a book about that very subject. It is called "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" if you are really interested.

Alternatively, you are welcome to ask in OBOB about specific instances where you feel the Catholic Church has strayed from, or changed a teaching. I only ask that you follow the "no debating" rule of the congregational forums.