Do Catholics believe in a universal flood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BJ_Colbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BJ_Colbert

Guest
The article from Australia brought up a question in my mind. In the article it says that the ex Bishop, who has committed adultry and is being excommunicated from the LDS Church is a scientist who does not believe in the Universal flood theory from the Bible. So since the article was anti-Mormon on the basis that LDS do. Does that mean Catholics do not believe in the Universal Flood?
BJ

PS
I am purposely leaving out the DNA thing, because that has been discussed before thoroughly in this forum and many scientists disagree with his DNA theories. DNA is a very new science and scientist do not know everything. Like the big bang theory and others that do not go along with God’s teachings and the Bible.
 
The general concensus among Catholics is that there was no world-wide flood. It was probably regional.

Here is a general and objective rundown of current DNA research:
ancestrybydna.com/Ethnicities.asp#AfricanJews
There is some minimal evidence for Mycenaen-Minoan adventures into the New World, substantiated by the Legend of Atlantis, and a possibility that they brought back slaves from the New World. That is all. Other researchers are working on the possibility that the Vikings invaded from the North, and left behind some genetic evidence. A “live” pure DNA profile is available from Iceland.

Dr. Southerton is NOT a virulent anti-Mormon. All he is asking for is a drastic modification of LDS teachings. He has great compassion for people like you.

He is not being brought to church court for adultery, and you know it. It is only an excuse. They would generally let such a thing slide, especially in a person who has been inactive for so long.
 
If the flood were-- say 4,000 years ago, and were world-wide, humans could not have repopulated it with such a diversity as there is today. That is just plain fact-- let alone the improbabilities stated in the linked threads.
 
BJ Colbert:
Does that mean Catholics do not believe in the Universal Flood?
Click to expand...
If by universal flood, you mean a anthropologically universal (all men perished, excepting Noah and his family), then Sacred Scripture teaches that the flood was anthropolgically universal. This has been the constant interpretation of ecclesiastical tradition.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,
(1) The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned.
Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth. …

(2) The Deluge must have been anthropologically universal, i.e. it must have destroyed the whole human race.

… *The question, whether all men perished in the Deluge, must be decided by the teaching of the Bible, and of its authoritative interpreter. *As to the teachings of the Bible, the passage which deals ex professo with the Flood (Gen., vi-ix), if taken by itself, may be interpreted of a partial destruction of man; it insists on the fact that all inhabitants of the “land”, not of the “earth”, died in the waters of the Deluge, and it does not explicitly tell us whether all men lived in the “land”. It may also be granted, that of the passages which refer incidentally to the flood, Wis., x, 4; xiv, 6; Ecclus., xliv, 17 sqq., and Matt., xxiv, 37 sqq., may be explained, more or less satisfactorily, of a partial destruction of the human race by the inundation of the Deluge; but no one can deny that the prima facie meaning of I Peter, iii, 20 sq., II Peter, ii, 4-9, and II Peter, iii, 5 sqq., refers to the death of all men not contained in the ark. The explanations of these passages, offered by the opponents of the anthropological universality of the Deluge, are hardly sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt. We turn, therefore, to authority in order to arrive at a final settlement of the question. Here we are confronted, in brief, with the following facts: Up to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the belief in the anthropological universality of the Deluge was general. Moreover, the Fathers regarded the ark and the Flood as types of baptism and of the Church; this view they entertained not as a private opinion, but as a development of the doctrine contained in I Peter, iii, 20 sq. Hence, the typical character of both ark and Flood belongs to the “matters of faith and morals” in which the Tridentine and the Vatican Councils oblige all Catholics to follow the interpretation of the Church.
Click to expand...
 
Moreover, the Fathers regarded the ark and the Flood as types of baptism and of the Church; this view they entertained not as a private opinion, but as a development of the doctrine contained in I Peter, iii, 20 sq. Hence, the typical character of both ark and Flood belongs to the “matters of faith and morals” in which the Tridentine and the Vatican Councils oblige all Catholics to follow the interpretation of the Church.
Click to expand...
😉 Thanks, Dave.

The theological meaning is more important than the event.

The legend of Gilgamesh supports its historicity.
 
I didn’t know the Catholic position on the flood so this is interesting. The above quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia sums up my personal view very well. As an LDS member I’ve heard both positions debated within the church and personally subscribe to the “limited flood” theory which my favorite BYU religion professor articulated very well.
 
40.png
Jerusha:
If the flood were-- say 4,000 years ago, and were world-wide, humans could not have repopulated it with such a diversity as there is today. That is just plain fact-- let alone the improbabilities stated in the linked threads.
Click to expand...
You mean with or without God’s assistance?
 
You mean with or without God’s assistance?
Click to expand...
Reasonable loophole. 😉 However, I cannot not believe that God made certain groups darker as a mark of their inferiority.
 
40.png
Casen:
I didn’t know the Catholic position on the flood so this is interesting. The above quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia sums up my personal view very well. As an LDS member I’ve heard both positions debated within the church and personally subscribe to the “limited flood” theory which my favorite BYU religion professor articulated very well.
Click to expand...
Casen,

That’s the first time I’ve heard that view from a LDS. My LDS family and friends insist that the flood was worldwide. I agree with your view.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerusha
Reasonable loophole. 😉 However, I cannot not believe that God made certain groups darker as a mark of their inferiority.
Click to expand...
Huh?
Click to expand...
Sorry, Buffalo. I know you don’t frequent this area. The BOM and the Mormon church teaches that. I’ll send you a PM with links later.
 
From the same article:

Deluge

(c) The historicity of the Biblical Flood account is confirmed by the tradition existing in all places and at all times as to the occurrence of a similar catastrophe. F. von Schwarz (Sintfluth und Völkerwanderungen, pp. 8-18) enumerates sixty-three such Flood stories which are in his opinion independent of the Biblical account. R. Andree (Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet) discusses eighty-eight different Flood stories, and considers sixty-two of them as independent of the Chaldee and Hebrew tradition. Moreover, these stories extend through all the races of the earth excepting the African; these are excepted, not because it is certain that they do not possess any Flood traditions, but because their traditions have not as yet been sufficiently investigated. Lenormant pronounces the Flood story as the most universal tradition in the history of primitive man, and Franz Delitzsch was of opinion that we might as well consider the history of Alexander the Great a myth, as to call the Flood tradition a fable. It would, indeed, be a greater miracle than that of the Deluge itself, if the various and different conditions surrounding the several nations of the earth had produced among them a tradition substantially identical. Opposite causes would have produced the same effect.
 
40.png
Jerusha:
Dr. Southerton is NOT a virulent anti-Mormon. All he is asking for is a drastic modification of LDS teachings. He has great compassion for people like you.

He is not being brought to church court for adultery, and you know it. It is only an excuse. They would generally let such a thing slide, especially in a person who has been inactive for so long.
Click to expand...
The Church is very reluctant to excommunicate people on the basis of statements personal believe. It has happen, but only in instances of persistent, and I underline persistent, public media based attacks on the Church or its leaders. I don’t think this qualifies.

The question about adultery is another, and yes it probably would not have been an issue if it had not become so very public – Since he had not been attended Church for sometime.

A persons perception whether they are, or are not members is irrelevant – He did not remove him self from membership, and is still a documented member of the Church. With that in mind the Church had no other course but to carry out Church discipline.

How would the Catholic Church handle a widely and publicly know case of adultery by one of its members.
 
Ddin’t do anything about JF Kennedy. 😛 :o Certainly doesn’t have any kind of kangaroo :rotfl: court to handle it
 
Good argument for world-wide flood. However, they need not have been simultaneous, and I doubt that ALL peoples have such stories. There also could have been many Noahs, either boats or retreated to maountaintops.

PM with links sent. :whacky:
 
40.png
Jerusha:
Ddin’t do anything about JF Kennedy. 😛 :o Certainly doesn’t have any kind of kangaroo :rotfl: court to handle it
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you are trying to say here? Are you saying that the Catholic Church only disciplines the common folk, and lets the rich and famous off the hook?
 
40.png
Jerusha:
Good argument for world-wide flood. However, they need not have been simultaneous, and I doubt that ALL peoples have such stories. There also could have been many Noahs, either boats or retreated to maountaintops.

PM with links sent. :whacky:
Click to expand...

The number eighty-eight sounds impressive - but what are the details ?​

There are many myths about a first human pair - that is no evidence that they have the same meaning, or are phenomenologically the same, either as each other, or as the Biblical account.

Hindu ideas about a universal flood (for example) may feature a universal flood, not because they recollect traditions of a single universal deluge, but because such a myth is required by Hindu ideas about the universe: IOW, the mere fact of a widespread tale of a flood is not evidence, let alone proof, of a real universal flood - one has to see what the connections and contexts of the flood-accounts may be. Parts of the BoM could easily be understood as a Flood-narrative, if one knew the book only in part.

Besides, there are several “Flood-deposits” at Ur - not just the one. So it’s no good quoting Lenormant and other late-nineteenth century authors, unless what they say is a reliable guide to the state of the question now.

If this were a thread on space travel, quoting accounts about or by the Wright brothers would not exactly count as the last word in whether space-travel was possible. Only in theology generally, and in Biblical interpretation in particular, are books written 100 years ago regarded as reliable and final: no other discipline treats what is has been superseded as though nothing had happened since - and not everything written a hundred years ago is still reliable. The CE is as up-to-date, and as reliable, as its latest entry permits: its articles on the Ancient Near East are badly behind the times.

Was there a flood which was anthrpologically universal ? How does one tell ? What matters is that there is such a narrative in the Bible with the meaning that it has; if the text was later misunderstood as being history, that is no fault of the compilers of the book, and it doesn’t make the Flood texts into history. Authors are not responsible for the idiocies of later generations of their readers. ##
 
Excommunication in the Catholic church is, if I am not mistaken, a very quiet matter handled on a parish level, certainly not in a court-room setting.

Given the fact that I, in a state of poverty, got an annullment of my very disasterous marriage, such an assumption on your part about the Catholic church is very erroneous.
 
40.png
Jerusha:
Excommunication in the Catholic church is, if I am not mistaken, a very quiet matter handled on a parish level, certainly not in a court-room setting.

Given the fact that I, in a state of poverty, got an annullment of my very disasterous marriage, such an assumption on your part about the Catholic church is very erroneous.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between formal excommunication and self excommunication.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top