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

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwillenborg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
The sun and planets and all the stars revolve around the earth, then, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Inerrant does not mean throwing a chain of “literalness” around ones neck. Even in our sophisticated age we speak of sunrise and sunset on our local news weather broadcasts. Does this bring into question the competency of our meteorologists? Does this language make their broadcasts errant?

Even though I am one who questions a “worldwide flood” I do not put a chain around my neck and expect everything in scripture to the literal meaning and understanding of a less sophisticated/educated time. Frankly, sometimes the way some use these more scientifically accurate ways of expressing things demonstrates a lack of sophistication in the way they are used. Not much different in the way some IMO “idiots” say that Christ erred when He called the “mustard seed” the smallest of seeds – when “scientifically” there are smaller seeds. To me, these arguments aren’t worth the time of day and are the type of arguments that uneducated people use to make their points.

MonFrere
 
diggerdomer said:
Except by Vatican II and the Catechism promulgated by Pope John Paul II.
Click to expand...
The Church existed before Vatican II, and section 11 of Dei Verbum contincues this teaching. Remember, the it is not that the Church does not change dogma, but she CANNOT change dogma. Scriptural inerrancy had been established long before Vatican II.
 
CWBetts said:
. Scriptural inerrancy had been established long before Vatican II.
Click to expand...
So had slavery.

Where, again, does Vatican II talk about inerrancy? I’ve read the documents (including footnotes) and didn’t see the term “inerrancy”. Thanks.
 
diggerdomer said:
So had slavery.

Where, again, does Vatican II talk about inerrancy? I’ve read the documents (including footnotes) and didn’t see the term “inerrancy”. Thanks.
Click to expand...
It did not use that word, but it dues say that the Scriptures are without error. Try reading something older than V2. The Church existed long before then.
 
StAnastasia said:
For example?
Click to expand...
… the way this thread is now being used. Just because there is evidence that a global flood would have had such catastrophic ramifications that would make it an improbability – that means, to some, that either a) the claims that the bible is without error must therefore be false or b) that science has an anti-God agenda and cannot be trusted. Where, in truth, the Church claims that both can be simultaneously true – the bible is, in fact, inerrant and scientific data can be trusted. It’s lack of sophistication in ones thinking that makes this an either/or proposition instead of a both/and proposition. That’s just one quick example.

MonFrere
 
MonFrere said:
… the way this thread is now being used. Just because there is evidence that a global flood would have had such catastrophic ramifications that would make it an improbability – that means, to some, that either a) the claims that the bible is without error must therefore be false or b) that science has an anti-God agenda and cannot be trusted. Where, in truth, the Church claims that both can be simultaneously true – the bible is, in fact, inerrant and scientific data can be trusted. It’s lack of sophistication in ones thinking that makes this an either/or proposition instead of a both/and proposition. That’s just one quick example.

MonFrere
Click to expand...
People are offended because they want an explanation. Jesus raised the dead without technology. He raised Himself from the dead. And the scientific explanation for that is what? One of His disciples refused to believe it. Reasonable? Sure. Then Jesus appeared to him and told him to put his fingers into His wounds.

If God can feed 5,000 people and have baskets of leftovers after, or change water to wine, He can certainly flood the entire world. The tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe is avaialable, right now. Its existence and survival, cannot be explained. Normally, something made out of cactus fibers disintegrates after some years as opposed to surviving intact for centuries.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
People are offended because they want an explanation. Jesus raised the dead without technology. He raised Himself from the dead. And the scientific explanation for that is what? One of His disciples refused to believe it. Reasonable? Sure. Then Jesus appeared to him and told him to put his fingers into His wounds.

If God can feed 5,000 people and have baskets of leftovers after, or change water to wine, He can certainly flood the entire world. The tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe is avaialable, right now. Its existence and survival, cannot be explained. Normally, something made out of cactus fibers disintegrates after some years as opposed to surviving intact for centuries.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head. People just don’t want to believe in the miraculous.
 
CWBetts said:
You hit the nail on the head. People just don’t want to believe in the miraculous.
Click to expand...
Maybe they just aren’t trying hard enough. They should squint their eyes and really concentrate on believing.
 
Leela said:
Maybe they just aren’t trying hard enough. They should squint their eyes and really concentrate on believing.
Click to expand...
Belief is an act of the will. People believe, or don’t believe, exclusively as a matter of choice.
 
I think that the unproven speculations about the aftermath of a cataclysmic global flood are taken too seriously. Some people always have a rationalized (as differentiated from rational) excuse, so they don’t give themselves room to believe.
 
CWBetts said:
You hit the nail on the head. People just don’t want to believe in the miraculous.
Click to expand...
No. This is not true. I believe in miracles. But I also believe that our holy religion is rational. Transubstantiation is a miracle YET is has a rational understanding as to what takes place. What takes place works according to a rational relationship between accidents and substances. So, it’s a miracle - yet it’s a miracle that is rational. When Jesus healed the blind he FIXED what was missing in nature and make it work properly according to the laws of nature that He created. When Jesus calmed the seas he commanded that nature act in a manner that produced a peaceful sea. These are miracles but these miracles act rationally according to nature.

A worldwide flood IS NOT rational. IF there was a worldwide flood and the waters subsided NATURE would not spontaneously create a new world. There would be a need for a whole new creation; and the life coming out from the ark would not be able to sustain itself. There would be no ecosystem to support an animal kingdom. If you think about the miracles that Jesus performed what He did was to eliminate the “evil” and restore it to its “good” condition that worked in harmony with the nature that He created.

My problem with a worldwide flood is that it works against this concept. The earth is destroyed in such a manner that nature CANNOT repair itself. The condition of the earth after the flood would not be hospitable to life. Our faith is a rational faith. This is not a matter of somehow “not wanting to believe”. It’s a matter of believing in a rational faith. A rational faith will certainly believe in miracles - but it won’t believe in happenings that work contrary to the nature that God created in His universe.

So this idea that says those who don’t believe in a worldwide flood “don’t want to believe” is false. Actually it a rational person seeking understanding.

MonFrere
 
MonFrere said:
No. This is not true. I believe in miracles. But I also believe that our holy religion is rational. Transubstantiation is a miracle YET is has a rational understanding as to what takes place. What takes place works according to a rational relationship between accidents and substances. So, it’s a miracle - yet it’s a miracle that is rational. When Jesus healed the blind he FIXED what was missing in nature and make it work properly according to the laws of nature that He created. When Jesus calmed the seas he commanded that nature act in a manner that produced a peaceful sea. These are miracles but these miracles act rationally according to nature.

A worldwide flood IS NOT rational. IF there was a worldwide flood and the waters subsided NATURE would not spontaneously create a new world. There would be a need for a whole new creation; and the life coming out from the ark would not be able to sustain itself. There would be no ecosystem to support an animal kingdom. If you think about the miracles that Jesus performed what He did was to eliminate the “evil” and restore it to its “good” condition that worked in harmony with the nature that He created.

My problem with a worldwide flood is that it works against this concept. The earth is destroyed in such a manner that nature CANNOT repair itself. The condition of the earth after the flood would not be hospitable to life. Our faith is a rational faith. This is not a matter of somehow “not wanting to believe”. It’s a matter of believing in a rational faith. A rational faith will certainly believe in miracles - but it won’t believe in happenings that work contrary to the nature that God created in His universe.

So this idea that says those who don’t believe in a worldwide flood “don’t want to believe” is false. Actually it a rational person seeking understanding.

MonFrere
Click to expand...
I choose not to put God in a box
 
CWBetts said:
It did not use that word, but it dues say that the Scriptures are without error. Try reading something older than V2. The Church existed long before then.
Click to expand...
I’ve read plenty older than V2, thanks. I have no problem with it. Where does it say the Scriptures are without error, since you brought it up?
 
CWBetts said:
Dei Verbum section 11
Click to expand...
Thanks. Excellent point. The passage you refer to (I assume) is:
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.
Click to expand...
So…it’s inadequate (imho) to simply say the Church teaches that Scripture is “without error.” We need to explain just what the Church teaches, which as you note VII stated and the Catechism teaches:
Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation
Click to expand...
It’s incomplete (and could lead to inaccuracies) to only say that the Church teaches Scripture is “without error.”
 
diggerdomer said:
Thanks. Excellent point. The passage you refer to (I assume) is:

So…it’s inadequate (imho) to simply say the Church teaches that Scripture is “without error.” We need to explain just what the Church teaches, which as you note VII stated and the Catechism teaches:

It’s incomplete (and could lead to inaccuracies) to only say that the Church teaches Scripture is “without error.”
Click to expand...
Did you bother looking at the footnotes? I would guess not. You must understand that the Church was not born at V2
 
CWBetts said:
I choose not to put God in a box
Click to expand...
Seeking to understand is in no way to put God in a box. My view is a perfectly acceptable view. In fact the old Catholic Encyclopedia, the one published during the height of the modernistic threat, said there wasn’t anything inherently opposed to holding a view as mine if sufficient evidence was brought to bear. Since that time, almost a hundred years, there has been sufficient evidence brought to bear that many find convincing.

IMO - these understandings help us in our understanding of scripture and our understanding of God. God actually becomes much more awesome in ways I won’t innumerate here. So, actually God isn’t put in a box - but the “box” of our existence is much greater and mysterious and demonstrates a God of even greater power and might that we could have imagined a hundred years ago. Science is our friend and this doesn’t at all conflict with out understanding that the scriptures constitute an inerrant book authored by the Holy Spirit.

MonFrere
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top