Does the Catholic Church recognize the story of Noah and the flood as being literally true?

[diggerdomer]

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.

Not quite.

Catholics rely on the literal sense of Scripture, which is different from the way most people use the word “literally” (including perhaps you). See the Catechism para 115-119.

You are clearly incorrect that the constant understanding and teaching of the Church has been that the flood occurred, as the Catholic Church does not require that belief as part of the Catholic faith.

 

[itinerant1]

Not quite.

Catholics rely on the literal sense of Scripture, which is different from the way most people use the word “literally” (including perhaps you). See the Catechism para 115-119.

You are clearly incorrect that the constant understanding and teaching of the Church has been that the flood occurred, as the Catholic Church does not require that belief as part of the Catholic faith.

First, I have read the Catechism and the works of many of those primarily responsible for writing the CCC. So, I could talk about the senses of Scripture and the history Biblical exegesis till the cows come home. But most of that would be lost here if I said much more. Be that as it is, your statement does not contribute any information to the discussion.

Second, your next statement is totally confused: “You are clearly incorrect that the constant understanding and teaching of the Church has been that the flood occurred, as the Catholic Church does not require that belief as part of the Catholic faith.”

I did not say that “the constant understanding and teaching of the Church has been that the flood occurred.” That is the old exegetical preference, which had been superseded in the 20th century by advances in Biblical scholarship. This change was reflected in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia I previously cited. See the article under Deluge.

You are preferring the outdated and disproven interpretation of the Deluge.

Third, even though the Church may not require a totally historical interpretation of the Deluge, it does not follow that it is considered exegetically sound. The Church uses St. Augustine’s rule in this case, allowing for an interpretation if it does not conflict with Church dogma, other parts of Scripture, or with charity.

But if we apply St. Augustine’s rules further, one should address what kind of ridicule is being heaped on the Bible, Catholics and fundamentalists who assert there was a global deluge when the scientific evidence for that claim is sorely lacking.

As a Catholic, I see that our credibility is justifiably questioned by unbelievers, especially reputable scientists who know there is no evidence for a global deluge. I am surprised that this does not concern you also. You are not in a position to evangelize or convert anyone who is truly knowledgeable in geology. Does this concern you at all?

 

[buffalo]

Not quite.

Catholics rely on the literal sense of Scripture, which is different from the way most people use the word “literally” (including perhaps you). See the Catechism para 115-119.

You are clearly incorrect that the constant understanding and teaching of the Church has been that the flood occurred, as the Catholic Church does not require that belief as part of the Catholic faith.

Do you have any Magisterial documents that say the flood did not happen?

I use the word literal consistent with the Catechism. (vs literalistic).

 

[itinerant1]

Do you have any Magisterial documents that say the flood did not happen?

I use the word literal consistent with the Catechism. (vs literalistic).

Now every Catholic knows that Magisterial documents do not address every single thing in the Bible. So your question is rhetorical and lacks value for discussion.

 

[buffalo]

As a Catholic, I see that our credibility is justifiably questioned by unbelievers, especially reputable scientists who know there is no evidence for a global deluge. I am surprised that this does not concern you also. You are not in a position to evangelize or convert anyone who is truly knowledgeable in geology. Does this concern you at all?

This indeed does concern me. However scientism cannot be allowed as a guise to evangelization. Geologists have recently come to terms with catastrophism. Surtsey is an excellent example of a old looking landscape formed within our lifetime. To someone who did not know it was recently created it would claim it old and also could not be evangelized by those who witnessed it.

 

[itinerant1]

This indeed does concern me. However scientism cannot be allowed as a guise to evangelization. Geologists have recently come to terms with catastrophism. Surtsey is an excellent example of a old looking landscape formed within our lifetime. To someone who did not know it was recently created it would claim it old and also could not be evangelized by those who witnessed it.

This is not about scientism, so there is no value in your attempt to obscure this issue.

There are plenty of reputable Catholic scientists who see no evidence for a global flood. Scientific judgments are based on an accumulation of evidence. I’m sure an unusual single formation does not outweigh the fact that evidence generally around the planet is sorely lacking for a global inundation.

 

[buffalo]

Now every Catholic knows that Magisterial documents do not address every single thing in the Bible. So your question is rhetorical and lacks value for discussion.

I didn’t think so.

But there are plenty that show that it was understood to be real.

St Augustine in City of God insists the flood is both allegorical and historical. All the ECF’s taught it.

The first crack appeared in the Catholic Encyclopedia as a result of **uniformitarianism.

**

 

[buffalo]

This is not about scientism, so there is no value in your attempt to obscure this issue.

There are plenty of reputable Catholic scientists who see no evidence for a global flood. Scientific judgments are based on an accumulation of evidence. I’m sure an unusual single formation does not outweigh the fact that evidence generally around the planet is sorely lacking for a global inundation.

You are missing the point or just plain do not want to see it. Scientism it is pure and simple, by definition.

“The waters of the great flood you made a sign of the waters of baptism, that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.” (Roman Missal Easter Vigil 42)

 

[itinerant1]

You are missing the point or just plain do not want to see it. Scientism it is pure and simple, by definition.

What’s your point?

 

[buffalo]

What’s your point?

Naturalism is attacking Revelation, that is scientism. I was responding to your post about not being able to evangelize geologists.

 

[itinerant1]

Naturalism is attacking Revelation, that is scientism. I was responding to your post about not being able to evangelize geologists.

It’s still not relevant. God can convert even atheists. More Catholics could be instrumental in their conversion if they got there heads screwed on straight.

 

[buffalo]

God can convert even atheists. More Catholics could be instrumental in their conversion if they got there heads screwed on straight.

True, very true.

 

[MonFrere]

I could also say that you are taking the attitude of an atheistic humanist, placing no value on faith whatsoever. Enough with the ad hominem attacks.

I think this is a good situation to consider what Jesus said to agree with your adversary quickly.

(Mat 5:25) Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

The situation may be different; but the effect will be for the better.

In this situation the atheistic humanist THINKS he has a point against Holy Scripture when in fact HE DOESN’T. But, for all those Christians that think everything in Gen 1-10 is a literal factual account the atheistic humanist can, with his science, make the Christian look foolish. As Itinerant has been saying - bring forth your scientific evidence so we can have an apples to apples debate. The Bible says vs science says is a classic case of apples and oranges debate.

If you’re going to go head to head with one who has no regard for the Scriptures you’re going to have to work on his turf. This is the exact same debate we get in with Protestants when they always want “scripture”. We bring them history - ECF - in great detail providing context and they ignore it. We chide Protestants for this narrow view. In this case, Catholics need to look in the mirror. If you’re going to debate atheistic humanists then you’ve got to know their turf; which is going to include some science.

By going “sola scriptura” on this we’re going to run into the same issues our Protestant friends do when, in point of fact, everything cannot be determined by scripture. (Those who say - you can believe your science - I will believe Jesus – is a classic “sola scriptura” line. The Church couldn’t have ever come up with the dogma of the Hypostatic Union if they had tried to do it without the aid of Greek philosophy. Let’s continue to follow the path to knowledge of our Fathers, and not ignore any path that may lead us to the truth of a matter. This was a major point of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Faith and Reason.

No, we need to face a scientific challenge either by providing equal science (equal in terms of research that’s of equal scientific merit as the opposition) or we need to examine the science and see if it INDEED does change our theological perspective. The Church survived the change from going from a geocentric universe to a heliocentric solar system. Man didn’t have to be in the “literal center” of the universe - to be in the center of God’s mind. We had to scrap some bad philosophical conclusions but “real” theology" and the sacred deposit of faith didn’t suffer at all.

In my opinion it’s time we agree with our adversary QUICKLY because by insisting on a position that’s not scientifically verifiable makes Christianity (Catholic Christianity) look backwards and foolish. This is not being a fool for Christ – it’s just being a fool. The Catholic Church has always been at the forefront of knowledge – and, actually, the leadership of the Church has been ahead of the curve (as it should be) but it’s been there always - and early on concepts as Big Bang Cosmology we seen as being compatible with Catholic teaching (actually more so than the previous Steady State theory of the universe). I think it time that the lay members of the church get caught up and brought up to speed in what the Church is actually thinking in these matters. I’m no scientist; but I can read well enough to know that there is NO WAY the Church is holding on to a “literal” view of Gen 1-10 through the writings of the popes down from the time of at least Pius XII.

As they say — curious minds what to know. Are we curious to really want to know what going on in the cutting edge of Catholic thought. What was considered by Pope Pius XII hardly accounts for “cutting edge” but still we need to consider AT LEAST what our own church is saying on these matters and not be so afraid we’re going to become an atheistic humanist in the process. ACTUALLY - by agreeing with the science the atheistic humanist ALL OF A SUDDEN we’re in the conversation again because he cannot simply step aside and say - these Christians are so backward - I cannot take them seriously. If you want to get up to speed in the conversation then you have got to get up to speed on the facts.

As starters I recommend - What’s So Great About Christianity? by Dinesh D’ Souza.

MonFrere

 

[diggerdomer]

Deluge

.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. You said “The constant understanding and teaching of the Church has been that the flood occurred. It was a real event.”

How did I misinterpret that? Thanks.

 

[CWBetts]

I think this is a good situation to consider what Jesus said to agree with your adversary quickly.

The situation may be different; but the effect will be for the better.

In this situation the atheistic humanist THINKS he has a point against Holy Scripture when in fact HE DOESN’T. But, for all those Christians that think everything in Gen 1-10 is a literal factual account the atheistic humanist can, with his science, make the Christian look foolish. As Itinerant has been saying - bring forth your scientific evidence so we can have an apples to apples debate. The Bible says vs science says is a classic case of apples and oranges debate.

If you’re going to go head to head with one who has no regard for the Scriptures you’re going to have to work on his turf. This is the exact same debate we get in with Protestants when they always want “scripture”. We bring them history - ECF - in great detail providing context and they ignore it. We chide Protestants for this narrow view. In this case, Catholics need to look in the mirror. If you’re going to debate atheistic humanists then you’ve got to know their turf; which is going to include some science.

By going “sola scriptura” on this we’re going to run into the same issues our Protestant friends do when, in point of fact, everything cannot be determined by scripture. (Those who say - you can believe your science - I will believe Jesus – is a classic “sola scriptura” line. The Church couldn’t have ever come up with the dogma of the Hypostatic Union if they had tried to do it without the aid of Greek philosophy. Let’s continue to follow the path to knowledge of our Fathers, and not ignore any path that may lead us to the truth of a matter. This was a major point of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Faith and Reason.

No, we need to face a scientific challenge either by providing equal science (equal in terms of research that’s of equal scientific merit as the opposition) or we need to examine the science and see if it INDEED does change our theological perspective. The Church survived the change from going from a geocentric universe to a heliocentric solar system. Man didn’t have to be in the “literal center” of the universe - to be in the center of God’s mind. We had to scrap some bad philosophical conclusions but “real” theology" and the sacred deposit of faith didn’t suffer at all.

In my opinion it’s time we agree with our adversary QUICKLY because by insisting on a position that’s not scientifically verifiable makes Christianity (Catholic Christianity) look backwards and foolish. This is not being a fool for Christ – it’s just being a fool. The Catholic Church has always been at the forefront of knowledge – and, actually, the leadership of the Church has been ahead of the curve (as it should be) but it’s been there always - and early on concepts as Big Bang Cosmology we seen as being compatible with Catholic teaching (actually more so than the previous Steady State theory of the universe). I think it time that the lay members of the church get caught up and brought up to speed in what the Church is actually thinking in these matters. I’m no scientist; but I can read well enough to know that there is NO WAY the Church is holding on to a “literal” view of Gen 1-10 through the writings of the popes down from the time of at least Pius XII.

As they say — curious minds what to know. Are we curious to really want to know what going on in the cutting edge of Catholic thought. What was considered by Pope Pius XII hardly accounts for “cutting edge” but still we need to consider AT LEAST what our own church is saying on these matters and not be so afraid we’re going to become an atheistic humanist in the process. ACTUALLY - by agreeing with the science the atheistic humanist ALL OF A SUDDEN we’re in the conversation again because he cannot simply step aside and say - these Christians are so backward - I cannot take them seriously. If you want to get up to speed in the conversation then you have got to get up to speed on the facts.

As starters I recommend - What’s So Great About Christianity? by Dinesh D’ Souza.

MonFrere

You misunderstand. As far I am concerned “the jury is out” on the global flood thing. I see the seeming mountain of evidence against it (which, admittedly, could be mis-interpreted) but at the same time, if there was not global flood, I am not sure what to make out of the flood narrative. I was speaking more to the previous poster from being so mean-spirited towards those who choose to believe the narrative as written. Like I said, as for me, I am unsure. I truly would love to believe the literal flood story, I just have a hard time when confronted with the evidence. I do understand that the flood narrative was a “New Creation” story (In Genesis 1:1, there is no land…only water. In the Flood, God plunges everything under the water again and essentially starts over, which also is a prefigurement for baptism, but I digress) The Gospels do regard Noah as a real person, so this is something that must be reconciled if the flood narrative is a story without historical basis.

 

[diggerdomer]

As a Catholic, I see that our credibility is justifiably questioned by unbelievers, especially reputable scientists who know there is no evidence for a global deluge. I am surprised that this does not concern you also. You are not in a position to evangelize or convert anyone who is truly knowledgeable in geology. Does this concern you at all?

Of course our credibility is questioned by unbelievers…they don’t believe so of course they question those who do. I don’t see those who question the historical reality of a global deluge as threatening the faith, as that belief is not necessary for Catholic faith. Is that what you mean? Sorry if I don’t understand, thanks again for any clarification.

 

[diggerdomer]

Do you have any Magisterial documents that say the flood did not happen?

Nope. Which is exactly my point. Catholics are free to believe it was an historical occurrence or not, the Church does not teach either one is necessary. Both are acceptable.

 

[MonFrere]

The Gospels do regard Noah as a real person, so this is something that must be reconciled if the flood narrative is a story without historical basis.

For me, I don’t have a problem with the Gospels mentioning Noah. I don’t automatically assume that this means he was an historical figure. My problem is when Noah is listed in Heb 11 as one of the faithful. To me, being listed THERE, is more problematic. Having a list of both fictitious and historical people in the same list is problematic IMO. However, the worldwide aspect of the flood – I think the scientific/historical record there is convincing, to me, that this did NOT occur. I have problems with all the “miracles” that would have to occur for this to happen – it would be a time when God would have had to virtually suspend all natural law.

MonFrere

 

[itinerant1]

Sorry if I misunderstood you. You said “The constant understanding and teaching of the Church has been that the flood occurred. It was a real event.”

How did I misinterpret that? Thanks.

I am not sure what happened. That sounds like the position I am disagreeing with. I am not going to look over the previous posts to figure it out, just out of concern for time. So to clarify any mis-communication, I will just state succinctly what my position has been. (Actually, it turned out not to be so succinct.)

Biblical interpretation up until the 20th century has, in general, interpreted the Deluge account to be historical in every detail, including a global flood. Late 19th century and early 20th century scholars began to look at the story more in depth based largely on archeological discoveries of ancient near eastern literature and culture and its influence on the Hebrews, and evidence for this influence in the bible, of which there are countless instances. The Hebrews often borrowed what they needed and adapted it to their own Yahwistic religion very much as the Catholic Church as assimilated much from various cultures.

This is perfectly legitimate, as Justin Martyr said, "All truth belongs to us as Christians. St. Paul, for instances, uses expressions from Greek poets and so on to express his message. The idea of the Logos in John 1 is a development of Greek thought about Reason. The author of John adapted it to Christian thought to express the ultimate understanding of Logos as the Reason or expression of the Divine Mind.In English it is translated as “Word” which does not capture fully what John is saying. However, it works fairly well since an expression of the human mind is in the word. And so we speak of Christ as the Word of God. The point here is the bible, especially the Wisdom literature is full of adaptations from other cultures. What if I told you John used some phrases from Plato’s Republic to express his visions? Many of the early Church Fathers believed that one could not attain a very deep understanding of the New Testament without understanding neo-Platonic philosophy. There is a very good reason for that claim because God was seen working in various cultures, preparing them for the Gospel. The developments in Greek philosophy were part of God’s preparation. And the Roman philosopher and statesman, Cicero’s, has a work “On the Nature of the Gods” that reveals a development toward monotheism.

I could go on for days explaining God working in the Mediterranean before the Incarnation, but my main point is that Judaism and Christianity adapted what they needed and what was true from various cultures. My signature quote reflects that reality: “Every truth without exception–and whoever may utter it–is from the Holy Spirit.” Without exception. Pagans included.

The biblical Deluge account conveys some profound theological truths. The majority of modern Catholic and Protestant scholars no longer interpret the Deluge account as being historical in every detail. The extension of what may have been an unusually devastating flood in Mesopotamia, and was the topic of folklore from something that occurred in the very distant past, was literally expanded in the biblical Deluge account to be of global significance, whatever covering the whole world meant to ancient Hebrews. The symbolic significance of a world-wide flood expresses the theological truth that God’s justice reaches to the ends of the earth.

This truth still speaks to us even if we do not interpret the Deluge to have been globally.
The Church still allows the older interpretation of the Deluge as being global. However, that older interpretation has many difficulties. One of the many difficulties is there is no evidence for a global deluge. And that is only one of the difficulties with the old school method of exegesis concerning the Deluge.

 

[diggerdomer]

The biblical Deluge account conveys some profound theological truths. The majority of modern Catholic and Protestant scholars no longer interpret the Deluge account as being historical in every detail.

I agree. Thanks.