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

[itinerant1]

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.

That’s not exactly what I mean. Of course, interpreting the Deluge to be an actual historical global event has no effect on those matters of faith and moral that we must all adhere to come hell or global high waters…

The problem is that if one prefers that old interpretation, then how will outsiders view the Bible when they know there was no global deluge? They will think the bible is just another book of legends and mythologies like those of other ancient cultures.

It’s already a huge problem because other cultures have creation accounts and flood stories, and so on. So the biblical stories get lumped with those of other cultures by scholars who do not perceive what is truly unique about the Creation, Deluge and Incarnation accounts in the Bible. If we continue to contend that there was a global deluge, others will and have had, just on that fact, discredited the idea that the Bible is Divinely Inspired.

It wasn’t a problem with the Deluge story in previous centuries when it was interpreted as strictly historical, but now with the tremendous advances of the sciences it is a problem.

But aside from what science knows, just the advances in biblical scholarship alone make a compelling case for interpreting the Deluge differently than was done in previous centuries. The difference does not alter one bit the meaning of the story. There was a real covenant between God and his people. It’s just how we understand that the covenant of Noah is not as simplistic as it was before. The early books in the Bible were written for a simple people, barely literate, and definitely pre-scientific in their view of the world. God’s truths for man were taught in a manner that was in accordance with the times and mentality of the people. If Genesis 1 talked about the Big Bang or even billions of galaxies the writer would have been stoned, or believed to be stoned.

 

[itinerant1]

In a previous post I mentioned St. Augustine’s and Cardinal Bellarmine’s admonitions about the Bible and science. Here are the relevant quotes:

St. Augustine:

“It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth and the sky, or the other elements of this world—respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide from the mark as east is from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

“And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy making mistakes on the subject which they know perfectly; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, know by direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt?

“It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement.” (De Genesi ad litteram, lib. I, cap. XIX )

Cardinal Bellarmine, during the Galileo controversy issued a similar warning in the year 1616:

“I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve around the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.”

 

[SHW]

Interesting vision seen by Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich (died 1824):

“It was long before the ark was completed, for Noe often discontinued it for years at a time. Three times did God warn him to proceed with it. Each time Noe would engage workmen, recompense and again discontinue in the hope that God would relent. But at last the work was finished…”

“…When all was finished, I saw Noe giving thanks to God, who then appeared to him. He told him to take a reed pipe and call all the animals from the four corners of the globe. The nearer the day of chastisement approached, the darker grew the heavens. Frightful anxiety took possession of the whole earth; the sun no longer showed his face, and the roar of the thunder was unceasingly heard. I saw Noe going a short distance north, south, east, and west, and blowing on his reed pipe. The animals came flocking at the sound and entered the ark in order, two by two, male and female…”
from *The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations *, Volume One of Four. Tan Books and Publishers.

She said that she saw about a hundred people in the ark including children (Noe’s grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc.). Only the four ancestral couples are mentioned by number (eight) in Scripture. This many people were necessary in order to feed and care for all the animals and clean up after them.

Of course, this is private revelation, and need not be believed.

 

[CWBetts]

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

As a Catholic I have no problems with believing in miracles.

 

[MonFrere]

As a Catholic I have no problems with believing in miracles.

I don’t either. But I wouldn’t call all the intervention necessary to make a worldwide flood happen “a miracle”. This would call for an almost total global suspension of the natural order and the way it operates; only to return to it’s natural state. It is THIS type of understanding that the Church is suspicious of accepting as fact.

MonFrere

 

[CWBetts]

I don’t either. But I wouldn’t call all the intervention necessary to make a worldwide flood happen “a miracle”. This would call for an almost total global suspension of the natural order and the way it operates; only to return to it’s natural state. It is THIS type of understanding that the Church is suspicious of accepting as fact.

MonFrere

I was under the understanding that God can do what He wants, when He wants. He’s God. That is, unless you are calling His omnipotence into question.

 

[SHW]

I was under the understanding that God can do what He wants, when He wants. He’s God. That is, unless you are calling His omnipotence into question.

Amen.

He even created a “human” nature for His “divine” Son.

 

[donsnow]

So Luke 7:40ff. is an actual historical account? Not just a parable?

Hi, diggerdomer,

According to the way I learned to read scripture, Jesus, Simon and the woman are real people at a real meal; the man who forgave his stewards and the stewards are parable, because their names aren’t given, the place it happened isn’t given, etc.

 

[donsnow]

religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm

Hi EmperorNapolean -

In reply to the two arguments provided by that link, the first argument is based on speculations about estimates and an estimate based on the first estimates. This is all speculation, imho.

The second argument for evolution is formidable. The second argument posits two theories, one YEC and the other uniformtarian evolution. I do not know who posited the YEC theory, nor who posited the evolution theory, or when or where they were from. It appears like both theories were formulated after the event, to explain what would be found. As long as there’s no reference as to name and university of each positer, I can only find that both of these theories can be hypothetical by one person. Because of no documention for both, one can suspect that after years of evolutionist paleontologists and archaeologists digging there and about, the theory was formed as to what they would find.
That’s how it looks like one person gathered theory from YEC, and information from uniformtarian evolutionists, and assemble the second, and formidable, argument.

I short, there is no way to tell whether are not the evolutionists waited until after all the digs, to posit their ‘theory’. It’s a formidable theory, but the lack of references as to whom, institution and date of formulation greatly weaken its effect. Without those references, it seems to stand as just another smoke screen in the continual wrangling between believers and skeptics. This time, the smoke screen billowing from science. That activity by science discredits the formidable theory, imho.:tiphat:

 

[donsnow]

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

Hi, Mon Fere -

Now, I believe that you are a believing Catholic. You had me wondering there, for awhile. :tiphat:

(Starting right behind that, ‘Educated’ Catholics need to be concerned about their credibility, to the less ‘educated’. I turn away real quick, when the little education I have is discounted. That’s no motivation to go for more education, just the contrary: if the little education I have isn’t good enough, why waste my time and money for more of what isn’t good enough?
I see the fallacy of that.
But, that’s how a lot of people think. And, speaking down to 'em instead of across to 'em as one human to another, is going to cost you their interest. I’ve seen it happen.

P.S. When I return to college, it will be in the arts, not in science. Nothing against science, it produces really great technology. It’s just that my natural interests are music, history and philosophy. Oh, I might take a course in Astronomy 101, because I’m an amateur astronomer and maybe some more math to understand Astronomy 101. But, that’s my only hard science interest. A man’s got to know his limits and plow the ‘intellectual ground’ that the Good Lord gave him.

 

[adriancombe]

Really? How do you know the Vatican is simply passing on something from the USCCB? The NAB was not something decreed by the USCCB. I find your claim very hard to believe, I would really appreciate more detail. Thanks.

Good question. The NAB is copyrighted by the USCCB. So yes that is where the Vatican got it from.

 

[adriancombe]

---

Right, Catholics are free to understand books like Tobit and Judith as historical/factual, or as fiction. The Church does not require one or the other. Either understanding leaves one open to the inspired truth the Church understands these books to teach.

Actually, not quite. According to the decree of the Pontifical Biblical Commission “On Narratives Historical only in Appearance in Books of Holy Scripture Historical in Form,” of June 23, 1905:

**"Is it possible to admit as a principle of sound exegesis that books of sacred Scripture which are regarded as historical, at times do not relate, either wholly or in part, history properly so-called and objectively true, but present only the appearance of history with the purpose of expressing some meaning differing from the strictly literal or historical sense of the words?

Answer: In the negative, except in a case neither easily nor rashly to be admitted, in which the mind of the Church not being contrary and without prejudice to its judgement, it is proved by solid arguments that the sacred Writer intended not to recount true history, properly so-called, but under the guise and form of history to set forth a parable, an allegory, or some meaning distinct from the strictly literal or historical signification of the words."**

English translation: catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/pbc.htm

Original Latin:*
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19050623_narrationibus_lt.html*

 

[MonFrere]

I was under the understanding that God can do what He wants, when He wants. He’s God. That is, unless you are calling His omnipotence into question.

Actually, the opposite. Don’t forget God is also immutable. It seems to me that being immutable fits into the idea that he’s not constantly “tinkering” with the universe to bring it to the outcomes He wants. The story of a universal flood makes 'god" to look like the pagan gods in that they get angry and become unpredictable in behavior and capriciously do what ever their undisciplined will desired. God - working with the universe in conjunction to the way He created it demonstrates immutability as well as omnipotence. He is the “god” of nature – not treating nature like a rag doll but as the “mind” behind nature who can “move it as He wills” according to the way He created it. IMO - God acts “in character” according to the nature of God in this more modern interpretation of the events of the flood; so not only does it fit “science” it also fit’s our ancient theology of God better.

MonFrere

 

[adriancombe]

Of course not.

But, it certainly presumes a certain legitimacy/acceptance, right?

Or are you suggesting that the Vatican posts on its website a translation of Scripture that is dangerous to the Catholic faith?

The translation is not the issue. It is the same one we use at Mass in the U.S. The issue is the footnotes and comments. I know for a fact their presence on the website does not establish legitimacy of any kind.

For instance, the footnote to Matthew 16:21-23 says:

“16 [21-23] This first prediction of the passion follows ⇒ Mark 8:31-33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (⇒ Matthew 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (⇒ Matthew 17:22-23; ⇒ 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see ⇒ Matthew 26:29).”

It is found here on the Vatican website → http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVP.HTM#$33J

This footnote, denying that the words attributed to Jesus were spoken by Him, is obviously heretical. The CCC is quite clear on the historicity of the Gospels:

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."

Therefore, the presence of comments added to translations on the Vatican website cannot be taken as an endorsement of any kind.​

 

[donsnow]

Actually, the opposite. Don’t forget God is also immutable. It seems to me that being immutable fits into the idea that he’s not constantly “tinkering” with the universe to bring it to the outcomes He wants. The story of a universal flood makes 'god" to look like the pagan gods in that they get angry and become unpredictable in behavior and capriciously do what ever their undisciplined will desired. God - working with the universe in conjunction to the way He created it demonstrates immutability as well as omnipotence. He is the “god” of nature – not treating nature like a rag doll but as the “mind” behind nature who can “move it as He wills” according to the way He created it. IMO - God acts “in character” according to the nature of God in this more modern interpretation of the events of the flood; so not only does it fit “science” it also fit’s our ancient theology of God better.

MonFrere

Uh, Mon Frere -

Let me explain the Biblical problem with the more modern interpretation of God not like the pagan gods.

First, Gen. 1,1 describes a watery world: “…and the Spirit of God [some translations have ‘wind’] moved across the face of the depths.”
Gen 1,2 rolls on majestically to God’s creating things, leaving us with the picture of a watery world. There is no way to date anything until Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden of Eden. So, that beginning watery world could have been more thousands of years before Eden. That is to say, that Gen 1,1 gives evidence of a prior destruction by global flood. Which, in that context, makes God’s covenant with Noah and the rainbow as a sign that God will not again destroy the world by flood…means exactly what it says.

In the second place, I think a reading of the OT will reveal that our God was at war with those pagan gods. (Sic, Nicene Creed declaring Jesus Christ “…God of gods…”). Imho, our civilization is becoming too civilized in its regard to prehistoric times.

This battling pagan and other false gods is included, I believe, in the immutable character of God the Holy Trinity.

What saddens me, is when reputable Catholic Scholars and their students sound like skeptics, because they use the same forms of thought and the same vernacular which skeptics use. We all, regardless of level of education, imho, are supposed to sound like Catholics. This is not an empty statement. I spent several months on a skeptic web page, because it was the best astronomical web page going. I have endured, believe me, what skeptics sound like. It’s scary when educated Catholics sound like the people who bash our God and our Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi, diggerdomer,

According to the way I learned to read scripture, Jesus, Simon and the woman are real people at a real meal; the man who forgave his stewards and the stewards are parable, because their names aren’t given, the place it happened isn’t given, etc.

Great. Please share this with buffalo regarding his/her post #246

 

[diggerdomer]

Good question. The NAB is copyrighted by the USCCB. So yes that is where the Vatican got it from.

Just because the copyright may be from the USCCB in no way means “that’s where the Vatican got it from.”

All Bible translations are copyrighted somewhere by some organization. So what?

The NAB, like so many other translations/editions of the Bible, are well known and widespread. The Vatican could have chosen any number of translations to post on their web site. I have no idea why they chose the NAB (at least for the English version of their website, I don’t know about other languages).

 

[diggerdomer]

---

Actually, not quite. According to the decree of the Pontifical Biblical Commission “On Narratives Historical only in Appearance in Books of Holy Scripture Historical in Form,” of June 23, 1905:

**"Is it possible to admit as a principle of sound exegesis that books of sacred Scripture which are regarded as historical, at times do not relate, either wholly or in part, history properly so-called and objectively true, but present only the appearance of history with the purpose of expressing some meaning differing from the strictly literal or historical sense of the words?

Answer: In the negative, except in a case neither easily nor rashly to be admitted, in which the mind of the Church not being contrary and without prejudice to its judgement, it is proved by solid arguments that the sacred Writer intended not to recount true history, properly so-called, but under the guise and form of history to set forth a parable, an allegory, or some meaning distinct from the strictly literal or historical signification of the words."**

English translation: catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/pbc.htm

Original Latin:*
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19050623_narrationibus_lt.html*

Oh please. Come on, you can’t be serious. Try considering all the Church (including the PBC) has taught since 1905.

Your citation is helpful only to those interested in purely historical studies, not what the Church teaches today.

 

[adriancombe]

Oh please. Come on, you can’t be serious. Try considering all the Church (including the PBC) has taught since 1905.

Your citation is helpful only to those interested in purely historical studies, not what the Church teaches today.

Um, no. It has never been abrogated, and has no expiration date.

According to Pope Pius X, in his Motu Proprio Praestantia Scripturae:

** “We now declare and expressly enjoin that all Without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter, exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are on matters of doctrine and approved by the Pope; nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and of rashness or be therefore without grave fault.”**

from catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/pbc.htm

 

[adriancombe]

Just because the copyright may be from the USCCB in no way means “that’s where the Vatican got it from.”

Unless your intent is to accuse the Vatican of copyright infringement, yes, that is where they got it from.