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

[donsnow]

What about the story of Gilgamesh? I was actually taught, in a secular state college, no less, that the great flood was probably true, since 2 ancient stories, Gilgamesh, and the Bible tell of the flood and Noah…as 2 totally different forms of historical evidence.

Hi, DihydrogenOxide,

Yep, looks like you had a truly liberal college professor, there. I’ve read other accounts from translations of other civilizations’ traditions, such as Peru, which has a flood account and they have some pretty tall mountains in the Andes. Also, I’ve heard that China, the American Hopi and other nations all have the tradition of the global deluge.

Of course skeptics and other evolutionists like to try to white wash the above traditions to merely local floods in those places. That’s their interpretation of the same information we claim indicates a global flood.

That’s why I say, the alleged facts are all a matter of interpretation of the data.

 

[buffalo]

What about the story of Gilgamesh? I was actually taught, in a secular state college, no less, that the great flood was probably true, since 2 ancient stories, Gilgamesh, and the Bible tell of the flood and Noah…as 2 totally different forms of historical evidence.

Giglamesh is a corrupted account of Genesis.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Giglamesh is a corrupted account of Genesis.

I’m not sure of that. The Epic of Gilgamesh is very, very different from Genesis.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sure of that. The Epic of Gilgamesh is very, very different from Genesis.

Yes.

“A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis,” chapter one

 

[diggerdomer]

You are correct. The first six days need not be 24 hours.

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Until Adam was created, time was not recorded in 24 hours per day allotments. The six “days” of creation could actually encompass what we measure today to be about 16 billion years. So, it is perfectly reasonable for evolution to have taken place before Adam was created. However, after Adam was created (received ensoulment), time has since been recorded in 24 hour days. This is why the Jews say that their history began about 6000 years ago when Adam received his soul.

Also, God is outside of time since He resides in eternity. So He sees everything in the eternal present.

Then what’s wrong with an allegorical (or mythical, or…pick your adjective) interpretation of the Deluge?

 

[juliamajor]

1. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

1. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.

 

[adriancombe]

1. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

1. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.

I find it interesting that in one of the footnotes of the passage of Dei Verbum you posted, the Council Fathers made it clear they were basing their statements on “Spiritus Paraclitus”. I post the relevant section below:

“26. Then there are other assailants of Holy Scripture who misuse principles - which are only sound, if kept within due bounds - in order to overturn the fundamental truth of the Bible and thus destroy Catholic teaching handed down by the Fathers. If Jerome were living now he would sharpen his keenest controversial weapons against people who set aside what is the mind and judgment of the Church, and take too ready a refuge in such notions as “implicit quotations” or “pseudo-historical narratives,” or in “kinds of literature” in the Bible such as cannot be reconciled with the entire and perfect truth of God’s word, or who suggest such origins of the Bible as must inevitably weaken - if not destroy - its authority.”

 

[juliamajor]

Ministers of God’s word – priests, deacons, catechists and other lay people – should be immersed in the Scriptures through constant reading and diligent study, accompanied by prayer. As far as possible, they should be acquainted with the insights of modern biblical scholarship. Attention must be given to the literary forms of the various biblical books in order to determine the intention of the sacred writers. And it is most helpful, at times crucial, to be aware of the personal situation of the biblical writer, to the circumstances of culture, time, language and so forth which influenced the way the message was presented.

At the same time, an adequate formation for the biblical apostolate directs attention to the unity of all the books of the Bible and takes into account the living Traditional of the Church. In this way, it is possible to avoid a narrow fundamentalism which distorts the whole truth and also possible to resist the temptation to place one’s personal interpretation above or even in opposition to the authentic interpretation of God’s word which belongs exclusively to the Bishops of the Church in union with the Pope
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
WORLD CATHOLIC FEDERATION FOR THE BIBLICAL APOSTOLATE

Monday, 7 April 1986

 

[juliamajor]

Ministers of God’s word – priests, deacons, catechists and other lay people – should be immersed in the Scriptures through constant reading and diligent study, accompanied by prayer. As far as possible, they should be acquainted with the insights of modern biblical scholarship. Attention must be given to the literary forms of the various biblical books in order to determine the intention of the sacred writers. And it is most helpful, at times crucial, to be aware of the personal situation of the biblical writer, to the circumstances of culture, time, language and so forth which influenced the way the message was presented.

At the same time, an adequate formation for the biblical apostolate directs attention to the unity of all the books of the Bible and takes into account the living Traditional of the Church. In this way, it is possible to avoid a narrow fundamentalism which distorts the whole truth and also possible to resist the temptation to place one’s personal interpretation above or even in opposition to the authentic interpretation of God’s word which belongs exclusively to the Bishops of the Church in union with the Pope
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
WORLD CATHOLIC FEDERATION FOR THE BIBLICAL APOSTOLATE

Monday, 7 April 1986

 

[juliamajor]

1. The relationship between Biblical exegesis and Theology. In some of the interventions presented in the Synod hall, there seemed to be a certain fear in the historical-critical method, a fear that endangers the merits and fruits of scientific exegesis. Spiritual exegesis, which is founded on the lectio divina, requires on one hand as its premise scientific exegesis. Also, fundamentalism must be separated from the modern currents in reading the Bible, currents that could create an ideological demystification. Both these attitudes contradict the sensum ecclesiae.

As pertains to the consecrated life, the academic Institutions of Sacred Scriptures, especially those in Rome and in Jerusalem, should be thanked for the great contribution they have made to the formation of exegetes and Biblicists, also the institutions of consecrated life should continue contributing to the study of the Holy Scripture, through these and other institutions, committed to spreading the knowledge of the Bible. Giving worth and careful attention in a particular way to the contemplative life is also indispensable.(cf. Benedict XVI, Angelus 18 November 2007). In contemplative life, the Word is welcomed, prayed and celebrated.

SYNODUS EPISCOPORUM
BULLETIN

XII ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
5-26 OCTOBER 2008

The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church

 

[juliamajor]

In order to understand to some degree the culture of the word, which developed deep within Western monasticism from the search for God, we need to touch at least briefly on the particular character of the book, or rather books, in which the monks encountered this word. The Bible, considered from a purely historical and literary perspective, is not simply a book, but a collection of literary texts which were redacted over the course of more than a thousand years, and in which the inner unity of the individual books is not immediately apparent. On the contrary, there are visible tensions between them. This is already the case within the Bible of Israel, which we Christians call the Old Testament. It is only rectified when we as Christians link the New Testament writings as, so to speak, a hermeneutical key with the Bible of Israel, and so understand the latter as the journey towards Christ. With good reason, the New Testament generally designates the Bible not as “the Scripture” but as “the Scriptures”, which, when taken together, are naturally then regarded as the one word of God to us. But the use of this plural makes it quite clear that the word of God only comes to us through the human word and through human words, that God only speaks to us through the humanity of human agents, through their words and their history. This means again that the divine element in the word and in the words is not self-evident. To say this in a modern way: the unity of the biblical books and the divine character of their words cannot be grasped by purely historical methods. The historical element is seen in the multiplicity and the humanity. From this perspective one can understand the formulation of a medieval couplet that at first sight appears rather disconcerting: littera gesta docet – quid credas allegoria … (cf. Augustine of Dacia, Rotulus pugillaris, I). The letter indicates the facts; what you have to believe is indicated by allegory, that is to say, by Christological and pneumatological exegesis.

We may put it even more simply: Scripture requires exegesis, and it requires the context of the community in which it came to birth and in which it is lived. This is where its unity is to be found, and here too its unifying meaning is opened up. To put it yet another way: there are dimensions of meaning in the word and in words which only come to light within the living community of this history-generating word. Through the growing realization of the different layers of meaning, the word is not devalued, but in fact appears in its full grandeur and dignity. Therefore the Catechism of the Catholic Church can rightly say that Christianity does not simply represent a religion of the book in the classical sense (cf. par. 108). It perceives in the words the Word, the Logos itself, which spreads its mystery through this multiplicity and the reality of a human history. This particular structure of the Bible issues a constantly new challenge to every generation. It excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text. To attain to it involves a transcending and a process of understanding, led by the inner movement of the whole and hence it also has to become a process of living. Only within the dynamic unity of the whole are the many books one book. The Word of God and his action in the world are revealed only in the word and history of human beings.
APOSTOLIC JOURNEY
OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO FRANCE ON THE OCCASION OF THE 150th ANNIVERSARY
OF THE APPARITIONS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AT LOURDES
(SEPTEMBER 12 - 15, 2008)

MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE WORLD OF CULTURE

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

 

[SHW]

Furthermore, the “days” in Genesis 1 are obviously allegorical, which do not match up to the order of scientific evolution. On days 1-2 God created habitats (Heavens, sea/sky, and land) and days 4-6 He populated the habitats in the same order (4: sun/moon/stars, day 5: birds/fish/whales, day 6: plants/animals/humans) and day seven was clearly intended for liturgy all along. Given this, it is difficult to accept the actual creation account as literal, although Adam and Eve were a historical couple

Thank you for your additional information. It makes sense to me. So many persons believe that it has to be either evolution years or Bible years, but instead, both are correct and they are complementary.

 

[SHW]

Then what’s wrong with an allegorical (or mythical, or…pick your adjective) interpretation of the Deluge?

Jesus and Peter and the writer of Genesis do not speak of the Deluge in an allegorical manner as I have shown by Scripture quotes in previous posts. They treat the Deluge as historical fact. So we are obliged to do the same.

Here are two by Jesus:

Matthew 24:37-39
But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Luke 17:27
They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Here are two in Genesis:

Genesis 9:28
And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.

Genesis 10:32
These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.

The Deluge is a historical fact according to Scripture.

 

[diggerdomer]

Jesus and Peter and the writer of Genesis do not speak of the Deluge in an allegorical manner as I have shown by Scripture quotes in previous posts. They treat the Deluge as historical fact. So we are obliged to do the same.

Here are two by Jesus:

Matthew 24:37-39
But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Luke 17:27
They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Here are two in Genesis:

Genesis 9:28
And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.

Genesis 10:32
These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.

The Deluge is a historical fact according to Scripture.

There’s no evidence in the New Testament that they were referring to the Flood story as literal history, mythology, allegory, etc. The simple fact that they refer to it does not tell us how they understood the literary genre.

I tell my kids about Santa Claus that doesn’t mean I believe he lives at the North Pole nor does it mean I am lying to them.

 

[CWBetts]

There’s no evidence in the New Testament that they were referring to the Flood story as literal history, mythology, allegory, etc. The simple fact that they refer to it does not tell us how they understood the literary genre.

I tell my kids about Santa Claus that doesn’t mean I believe he lives at the North Pole nor does it mean I am lying to them.

Why do you believe the flood narrative must be either allegorical or historical? Why can iy not be a historical event brought about as a type?

 

[SHW]

There’s no evidence in the New Testament that they were referring to the Flood story as literal history, mythology, allegory, etc. The simple fact that they refer to it does not tell us how they understood the literary genre.

I tell my kids about Santa Claus that doesn’t mean I believe he lives at the North Pole nor does it mean I am lying to them.

Jesus does not need to nor does He rely on mythical events in order to make comparisons concerning the time of His return at His Second Coming. He uses actual historical events.

Jesus spoke of the flood as literal history and He also spoke of Lot and the destruction of Sodom as literal history because He compared those two historical time periods to the future time period of His own return. In other words, people will continue to sin and so they will be judged when He returns again at His Second Coming just as judgment came to those sinful persons in Noah’s time and in Lot’s time.

Luke 17:27-29
They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

Peter also spoke of it as literal history when he explained that the flood was a precursor to Baptism. The ark saved Noah and his family (saved through water) and the earth was cleansed by the flood waters.

Baptism now saves us (saves us through Baptismal water) by applying the merits of Jesus’ blood sacrifice to our souls. This sacrament cleanses us from Original Sin and gives us justification of life because of the sanctifying grace which we received through Baptism. (Romans 5:6-19)

1 Peter 3:19-21
by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Jesus went to preach to the poor souls in purgatory (spirits in prison) while He was in the grave awaiting His own resurrection. These “spirits in prison” are the people who repented while they were drowning in the flood. They were in purgatory for about 2000 years already before Jesus went to preach to them because Noah’s lifespan occurred about 2000 years before Jesus was born. 2000 years is a long time (according to our thinking and counting time) to be imprisoned in purgatory, but these poor souls were extremely thankful to be saved.

The waters of Baptism are not like bath water because bath water only cleanses our bodies of dirt, but the waters of Baptism cleanse our souls of Original Sin and thereby give us reconciliation to God (a good conscience toward God). Baptism regenerates us spiritually by removing Original Sin from our souls and we then become the temples of the Holy Spirit who gives us sanctifying/saving grace as long as He abides in our souls. If we sin deadly/mortal sins, then the Holy Spirit moves out and we lose our sanctifying grace since He is the provider of sanctifying grace and we must have sanctifying/saving grace in our souls when we die in order to be saved. (1 Corinthians 3:16-18, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, Ephesians 5:3-6)

Titus 3:5
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

This refers to water Baptism. The waters of the Sacrament of Baptism wash our souls clean from all the sin that is on our souls at the time of our Baptisms and this washing regenerates us spiritually and makes us adopted children of God because the Holy Spirit moves into our souls and makes us His temples.

If we sin deadly sins after Baptism, we are then cut off the Vine who is Jesus, and we are no longer saved because the branch cannot have life without the Vine. (John 15:1-7) But, if we confess and repent of these sins, then we can be grafted back onto the Vine and become saved again. Sanctifying grace will be restored to our souls when we confess and repent.

Romans 11:22-23
Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

 

[diggerdomer]

Why do you believe the flood narrative must be either allegorical or historical? Why can iy not be a historical event brought about as a type?

I may have been unclear in presenting my thoughts. My belief is that it may or may not be historical. Regardless, it can be legitimately interpreted allegorically, typologically, morally, anagogically, etc.

Does that clarify what I meant? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Jesus does not need to nor does He rely on mythical events in order to make comparisons concerning the time of His return at His Second Coming. He uses actual historical events.

Jesus spoke of the flood as literal history and He also spoke of Lot and the destruction of Sodom as literal history because He compared those two historical time periods to the future time period of His own return. In other words, people will continue to sin and so they will be judged when He returns again at His Second Coming just as judgment came to those sinful persons in Noah’s time and in Lot’s time.

Luke 17:27-29
They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

Peter also spoke of it as literal history when he explained that the flood was a precursor to Baptism. The ark saved Noah and his family (saved through water) and the earth was cleansed by the flood waters.

Baptism now saves us (saves us through Baptismal water) by applying the merits of Jesus’ blood sacrifice to our souls. This sacrament cleanses us from Original Sin and gives us justification of life because of the sanctifying grace which we received through Baptism. (Romans 5:6-19)

1 Peter 3:19-21
by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Jesus went to preach to the poor souls in purgatory (spirits in prison) while He was in the grave awaiting His own resurrection. These “spirits in prison” are the people who repented while they were drowning in the flood. They were in purgatory for about 2000 years already before Jesus went to preach to them because Noah’s lifespan occurred about 2000 years before Jesus was born. 2000 years is a long time (according to our thinking and counting time) to be imprisoned in purgatory, but these poor souls were extremely thankful to be saved.

The waters of Baptism are not like bath water because bath water only cleanses our bodies of dirt, but the waters of Baptism cleanse our souls of Original Sin and thereby give us reconciliation to God (a good conscience toward God). Baptism regenerates us spiritually by removing Original Sin from our souls and we then become the temples of the Holy Spirit who gives us sanctifying/saving grace as long as He abides in our souls. If we sin deadly/mortal sins, then the Holy Spirit moves out and we lose our sanctifying grace since He is the provider of sanctifying grace and we must have sanctifying/saving grace in our souls when we die in order to be saved. (1 Corinthians 3:16-18, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, Ephesians 5:3-6)

Titus 3:5
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

This refers to water Baptism. The waters of the Sacrament of Baptism wash our souls clean from all the sin that is on our souls at the time of our Baptisms and this washing regenerates us spiritually and makes us adopted children of God because the Holy Spirit moves into our souls and makes us His temples.

If we sin deadly sins after Baptism, we are then cut off the Vine who is Jesus, and we are no longer saved because the branch cannot have life without the Vine. (John 15:1-7) But, if we confess and repent of these sins, then we can be grafted back onto the Vine and become saved again. Sanctifying grace will be restored to our souls when we confess and repent.

Romans 11:22-23
Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

I have no problem with that. But it’s still not required for Catholics to believe that the Flood was a literal historical event.

 

[SHW]

I have no problem with that. But it’s still not required for Catholics to believe that the Flood was a literal historical event.

It has not been declared as a dogma as far as I know. However, common sense tells us that if Jesus and Peter treat the flood as an actual event, then so should we.

Speaking of water:

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

 

[diggerdomer]

It has not been declared as a dogma as far as I know. However, common sense tells us that if Jesus and Peter treat the flood as an actual event, then so should we.

Speaking of water:

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

But again, Jesus also taught in parables but that doesn’t mean we have to accept they were actual events.

Let’s see if I can stretch your metaphor without falling into heresy…ummm…we’re free to drink of the water or not (in this limited respect, i.e. the historicity of the Deluge) as long as we’re being led by the Church.