Catholics do not. We understand Scripture literally, that is what the author intended to convey, The constant understanding and teaching of the Church has been that the flood occurred. It was a real event.
So we are to read parables, metaphors, and other figurative uses of language as “literal” and not how the sacred writer intended them.
You are so far out of the loop on Catholic understanding of the Bible, one hardly knows what to say.
You have grossly misrepresented what the Church teaches. Methinks you know nothing about the Bible and should not be pontificating on it.
For anyone interested in thinking and learning about how to read the Bible, I will make a few comments:
First, the literal sense is only the basis for the other senses of Scripture. St.Thomas Aquinas made this clear in the first part of the Summa Theologica, under
.Sacra Doctrina Hence, St. Thomas and his school are sure to disagree with buffalo.
To stop at the literal sense often reflects a superficial understanding of Scripture, as St. Thomas said in regard to the the six days of creation: a direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture.
Second, St. Augustine’s commentary on
Genesis chapter 1 makes is clear that the literal sense alone cannot give a reasonable interpretation of every passage. So, St. Augustine will also disagree with buffalo. Especially so in his book On Christian Doctrine, specifically under the Rules of Tychonius for interpreting Scripture.
Third, buffalo does not a show reasonable understanding of what the “literal sense” means. In the past, when biblical exegetes thought they discovered the meaning of a passage, they had not available to them the resources which would enable the recognition of its
genus literrarium, its category and character, which often is in
Genesis that of
historical aetiology expressed in a popular and poetic form.
If an account in genesis is historical aetiology or theological polemic, or some other form, a “literal” only reading in the sense that buffalo understand “literal”, is not truly literal at all, and it is not a serious reading. It is just wrong.
To take the Deluge story as historical in every aspect is not a literal reading at all. It is a false and confusing reading. This is the key point here: A statement in Scripture, or any literature, is all the more literally understood, all the more fully and precisely interpreted, the more clearly and consciously the literary character of the statement in question is recognized and fully appreciated as to how it functions as a device to convey the author’s message.
We can do this better now in regard to the Deluge account than could Biblical commentators of the past. Hence, older commentators who read the Deluge account as completely historical were not reading it more literally. It is the modern Catholic Bible scholars in communion with the mind of the Church, taking advantage of everything that contributes to understanding the Bible, who are reading the Deluge account “more literally”.
Buffalo goes for the quick and easy answer in a way that skews and confuses the whole subject of just what a literal reading means. Others in this mindset quote recklessly from Church documents, presuming they adequately understand what is being said.
Buffalo is far from speaking correctly for Catholics or for the Church, especially those knowledgeable in Scripture. How could he, when he does not even know what is properly and adequately meant by the “literal sense” of Scripture?
Like I said, we each have free will to believe what we desire, regardless whether what we each believe is true or not.
