Very Frightening
So the Catholic Church (in England, Scotland, and Wales) apparently recently made a huge claim. Read the article here and let me know what you think. Frankly, I'm in shock.
it's the end of the world as we know it
it's the end of the world as we know it
posted by Jerod at 6:08:00 PM
13 Comments:
You should read over the artcile a little closer. It's the whole of the Catholic Church. And the headline is a bit...misleading. The jist of the article, at least from what I read, is that certain bits of the bible aren't, shall we say, historically accurate. This does not change the religious, spiritual, and philosophical truths of the bible. As for the Revalations bit, well...that's been a book of controversy since long before any of us were born.
I am shocked to read this and it saddens my heart :-/
I'm not shocked in the least.
"It doesn't make sense."
You've got two stories of creation that conflict in so many places that the first part of Genesis could not be literally true, short of a multi-layered reality in which entirely conflicting stories can happen at once, in which case you're opening the "All Stories are True" argument so then maybe evolution happened at the same time on a different layer.
The world cannot have gone unchanged since it's creation, as we have hundreds of billions of pieces of evidence to the contrary, unless that evidence was planted, but in that case, where is the forensic evidence for the other model? Also, modern tectonic shifts show that this world is not wholly stable, entire continents moving over time, mountains rising and falling.
Saying that scripture is unchanging is patently false. It changes some with every translation. Also, if it were entirely unchanging, the early Christian church would not have left out some of the Jewish writings (particularly tales of angels and demons) from the Old Testament, nor would they have left out the Apocryphal Books.
It's a symbol of our faith. A very important symbol. But one cannot take every word as literal truth. Remember that the Tanakh that the Old Testament is based on spent many hundreds, maybe thousands, of years as an oral tradition. There are examples of oral traditions that go unchanged through the centuries, but for the most part, they shift as time goes on, fitting more and more snugly into storytelling modes. They become symbollic.
This is not the end. This is not something to be feared or lashed out against. This is only a search for truth, and for Truth.
Wow...I'm almost in tears after reading that. Very frightening indeed, Jerod.
I don't get this. Why is this frightening? What here could possibly be saddening or shocking?
I'm not so sure that it's what the article says, but what it implies. I'll agree that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally (I've heard from a friend in Bible College that the book of Job is written in a way that is very similar to ancient Hebrew drama), but to say that parts of it are not true is another thing. There's a thin line there and for the Catholic Church to say what they're saying is standing frighteningly close to heresy.
Addendum: People have known that parts of the Bible are figurative for years. Any bloke with an ounce of literary knowledge can see figurative language and imagery throughout the book of Revelation and in other parts of the Bible (anyone read Daniel or Ezekiel?). I guess my biggest question is why the Catholic Church chose to come out and say this.
Is it to conform to the secular world, which denies the idea of creationism, or is it to help people understand the Gospel and bring fame to God's name? If it's the former, then that is what is frightening, shocking, and saddening. To see one of the (if not the) most global proponents of Christianity deny itself and conform to secularism would be heart-breaking indeed.
Everything's heresy. I've never met a person who believed 100% in every tenant of his or her particular denomination. And even if they did, there's some other denomination that would call it heresy. That's a battle I let go a long time ago.
I'm a heretic.
As for them saying that parts aren't true, it looks to me like they're still saying that all the spiritual bits are true, the birth-death-ressurection and so on, the Salvation of Man, but that the Bible should not be taken as a literal 100% accurate history of the Earth. They also seem to be saying that a lot of the old laws don't really apply anymore. Because really, who needs specific rules on who and why they can sell into slavery? Those rules don't meet the needs of the times.
Not that many of those laws apply anyway. They're part of the, what is it, six hundred... twenty six? laws that a Jew must follow to go to Heaven. Almost all modern Christians are Gentiles, that is to say, not ethnically, religiously, or culturally Jewish. This means that most of the rules listed in the Bible were never meant for us. We're not expected to follow them because we're not held to the higher standards of God's Chosen People.
Instead, for Gentiles, there are the seven Noachide Laws. Noach being as close an approximation of the Hebrew name for Noah as I can remember and type. Anyway, it's these seven really simple laws that boil down to "Don't treat each other like crap." "No sexual immorality." and "Don't drink (human?) blood."
I can't remember all seven, but for the most part I do remember that they were essentially common sense, and thus the Jewish people have always believed it was easier for a Gentile to get to Heaven. You probably know a Bible scholar that knows of them. But you might have to find a scholar on Judaeism, as disturbingly few Christians realize that there's a difference or that these laws exist.
Response to the addendum:
The Catholic Church has long tried to do everything it could to attract as many people as it could.
Back in the early days, when indigenous pagan religions were the norm all over Europe, the Church would canonize people with stories much like one culture or another's deities. The many saints became a replacement for polytheism. Each has their speciality. Like St. Jude being the patron saint of lost causes. Got a lost cause? Talk to St. Jude, he/she (I don't remember) will talk to God about it for you, and good old Jude has a lot more pull with God at the moment than you do, so going through the normal channels is a good idea.
So this may be a move like that. In a world where more and more people believe in creation as envisioned by science, which, let's face it, is based on the best physical evidence we've got (in the end, we weren't there, we don't know how the world got started), they decide to come out and announce, "Hey, you can still believe in that and come to church! The Bible is important, but there's a lot of figurative language in there."
It may also partly be a political maneuver to distance the Catholic Church from fundamentalist movements which have caused so much disharmony and outright harm in the last few decades.
Regarding the laws and what-not is that as Christians, we are not bound to them anymore. We are told to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:36). I'd say that if you are doing that, everything else should pretty much fall into place.
And with regards to the Catholic Church's practice of using patron saints, I have to say that I don't find that to be a Christian tenet. We are told in the New Testament that we are able to pray directly to the Godhead (including Christ and the Holy Spirit), no matter our circumstances. To say that you have a better shot of getting your prayers answered by praying to a man (or woman) who did good things here on earth is heresy. Praying to anything that is not God sounds a lot like idolatry to me.
I wouldn't know.
It's been the way of Catholicism for a long time though. This view of God as a stern father. The belief seems to go that the saints, particularly Mary, have an easier time convincing God to grant your prayer than a mere mortal might.
I don't expect everyone to agree with it, it's just how I've been told Catholics see things.
And the heretic steps forth.
In the article itself, it's mentioned that the Catholic Church has really always believed as such. It was just a slow news day, and the nominal cheekiness of a British reporter led to the...inaccurate headline. As is the norm in Britannia (Rule, Britannia). This does not change your faith. Nor does it change the faith of anyone. This is not blasphemy, this is not heresy, this is simple fact. They do not deny the Truth of the bible. The article says as much. All that is being said in this article is that the bible is not a history book. There is myth and legend and metaphor. In these tales and parables and fables, there is Truth. And much of the bible is historical fact. But we're talking about thousands of years of history between the act and the publishing. There have been dozens upon dozens of interpretations and translations of the original texts. The important thing to remember is the basic tenents. The Trinity, the Eucharist, the Forgiveness of Sins, the Resurrection of the Body, the Life Everlasting. These are the nig ones. One could even go so far as to say the latter books of the New Testament aren't even necessary. It's what Jesus said that's important, isn't it? Where are your denominations in His words? Your Catholics, your Greek Orthodox, your Protestants? Where are these in His teachings? Where are your bible colleges, your priesthoods? Where is your commandment to attend church, your damnation for not? Calm yourself, all of you. That your faith could be shaken by this is sad indeed. You all aren't even Catholic, anyway.
This is nothing new to me or my faith. This does not weakn my relationship to God, my closeness to Jesus, my attunement to the Holy Spirit.
I doubt that this article is challenging anyone's faith in any way. It's just sad to think of a sect of Christianity watering down the Gospel for the sake of numbers. Preaching a Gospel (with the whole of the Bible being the Gospel) that is lukewarm is saving to no one.
Here's a quote that should be familar to most of you:
It's not about making sense. It's
about believing in something, and
letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It's about Faith. You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you.
There are lots of things that don't make total sense in scripture. But the claim is that the Bible is God's words, written by man. If God is the author, then there are parts that will never make sense to our finite minds. Much in the same way I will never be able to understand all of Stephen Hawking's writings. There are parts that are just going to be beyond me.
As for the question about the command to go to church, there is no command that attributes damnation as teh result of not going, but there are many passages that talk about the benefits of gathering as a body of believers, one of the most powerful being Acts 2:42-47. It's one of those, "if it can only be beneficial, why not do it?" kind of things.
And you've hit the nail on the head regarding denominations. Paul specifically warns about divisions in the church. ( 1 Corinthians 1:9-13)
I know that people have done a lot of thinking because of this discussion. I personally have had to think, finding evidence in Scripture to back what I believe. I just hope that anybody who reads this at least does some thinking about what they believe.
Post a Comment
<< Home