Roman Catholics believe that some of the Bible isn't true??

[aaronjm]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1811332,00.html

This is a Terrible blow for the Catholic church, in my eyes. I don't agree with a lot of what they do, but to call G-d's Word not completely acurate is completely unnaceptable.

[apothanein kerdos]

To be fair to Catholics, I think these are splinter bishops and not actually the teaching of the Catholic church. It should be interesting to see the action of the Pope (if any) on this issue.

[Fiosh]

I'm sure that headline is designed to be intentionally inflammatory for market value.

That being said, I am not afraid to admit that the RCC has never supported a literal understanding of Scripture.

RCC teaching is basically....

The Bible is the inspired word of God. It is inerrant on matters of faith and morals.

It is not a history book, or a science book.

However, there are instances when "we" take the Bible more literally than fundamentalists do.

Peace,

Fiosh

[aaronjm]

I know many Catholics who are wonderful examples of Christ, I just question a lot of what the RCC does, I wouldn't go as far as saying they are evil, I just think they are off in certain ares, but they do a lot of good in the community.

[Leonard]

This artical is sooooo fast and loose with the facts! Wow! It is VERY poorly researched. If you believe what the London Times might publish in the area of religion, I've got some prime ocean beach front property here in Denver I'd like to sell you!

[Guest godsci]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1811332,00.html

This is a Terrible blow for the Catholic church, in my eyes. I don't agree with a lot of what they do, but to call G-d's Word not completely acurate is completely unnaceptable.

Looks like this is part of the ongoing difference of opinion between the "modernists" and the "traditionalists" within the Catholic church (similar to what has happened in the mainline Protestant denominations)...

Grace and Peace to you,

John

[Fiosh]

This artical is sooooo fast and loose with the facts! Wow! It is VERY poorly researched. If you believe what the London Times might publish in the area of religion, I've got some prime ocean beach front property here in Denver I'd like to sell you!

I might agree with your evaluation of the Times or any other newspaper when writing on matters of Christian faith, as some bias is to be expected. But I would recommend you exam The Gift of Scripture for yourself before you write off the Times article as factually

[Guest shiloh357]

You are correct in one sense --- the RCC has never promoted a "literalist" view of the Holy Bible. This does not mean that it teaches that God's word is not true. It means that we differ about what we interpret as symbolic.

However, there are passages that the RCC views as literal, that "you" take as symbolism. So, before you throw too many stones.......................

"Take and eat, for this is my Body".

Peace,

Fiosh

Actually your "literalism," isn't. What you call taking the Bible "literally" really only amounts to taking the Bible at face value. A lot of people don't make that distinction. To take the Bible literally, simply means to read the Bible as literature. As evidenced by your above comment, you don't know the difference between a metaphor or a symbol, or at least you don't want to apply the difference even if you do know.

[Leonard]

"The Times October 05, 2005

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect

[Fiosh]

You are correct in one sense --- the RCC has never promoted a "literalist" view of the Holy Bible. This does not mean that it teaches that God's word is not true. It means that we differ about what we interpret as symbolic.

However, there are passages that the RCC views as literal, that "you" take as symbolism. So, before you throw too many stones.......................

"Take and eat, for this is my Body".

Peace,

Fiosh

Actually your "literalism," isn't. What you call taking the Bible "literally" really only amounts to taking the Bible at face value. A lot of people don't make that distinction. To take the Bible literally, simply means to read the Bible as literature. As evidenced by your above comment, you don't know the difference between a metaphor or a symbol, or at least you don't want to apply the difference even if you do know.

..........or you are missing out on the beautiful and mystical foundation of the faith.