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.
How about this for an idea. The story of Noah is written to help explain to people about Gods law, and what could happen if they do not follow it. The animals are saved as they are part of Gods plan and follow the natural laws and not Gods laws as we must.

It was about this time when man began to understand that we must live to a higher standard and not the natural way that animals live. By the way, the natural way is not Bambi it is “mother natures” way which is only the fit or adaptable survive and the rest parish and is cruel.

I believe there were floods at that time and these were incorporated into the teaching of what is expected under Gods laws, as I am sure people perished in these events.

I believe in Jesus Christ our savior and in Gods laws and understand that these laws are to be presented to all people on earth. But to take the Noah teachings literally is kind of far out there if you ask me.

Go with Gods Grace and have a Great Christmas!
 
StAnastasia said:
The flood story can of course have many interpretations. I do not interpret it with a wrathful or vengeful God in mind. In any case, humanity after Noah turned out to be just as sinful after a few generations, so the death of all those innocent babies drowned in their mothers wombs was a complete waste, if what “merciful chastisement” is what God had in mind.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
from a cursory glance, it is perhaps a waste. However, if you read my essays, you will discover that several stages are necessary for God to heal to prepare for Redemption. I am arguing that if they didn’t listen to Noah, how would they listen to Christ?

Similarly, because of the nature of the fall, humanity having exhausted wickedness, the first lie of the fall, they revert to the other lie, selfishly ambitious, glory-seeking materialism. Because the tendency is so strong, pleading in mercy does not work. Therefore, God must wound the tendency toward a global cooperation in selfish materialism by breaking it in pieces, to forestall this fallen tendency, giving God time to institute the prefiguring covenant.

It’s not as simple as you are making it. If a child has to grow up and mature through ups and downs, why not also humanity and the People of God? Therefore, God’s progressive responses to the fallen nature are rather disciplinary to bring to maturity God’s love.

This is the beauty of the Seventh day sabbath. Eventually, by God’s grace, a period of peace and love is brought to most humanity, as they revert to the Gospel. This is what we are led to believe is coming, the next greater light of salvation history: the near total restoration of Catholic Christendom and the Age of Peace. But to get to this point, God had to do what He has done, given the limitations of the Fallen Nature.
 
steve711 said:
How about this for an idea. The story of Noah is written to help explain to people about Gods law, and what could happen if they do not follow it. The animals are saved as they are part of Gods plan and follow the natural laws and not Gods laws as we must.

It was about this time when man began to understand that we must live to a higher standard and not the natural way that animals live. By the way, the natural way is not Bambi it is “mother natures” way which is only the fit or adaptable survive and the rest parish and is cruel.

I believe there were floods at that time and these were incorporated into the teaching of what is expected under Gods laws, as I am sure people perished in these events.

I believe in Jesus Christ our savior and in Gods laws and understand that these laws are to be presented to all people on earth. But to take the Noah teachings literally is kind of far out there if you ask me.

Go with Gods Grace and have a Great Christmas!
Click to expand...
I don’t think what God can do is far out at all. If He can create the Universe out of nothing then He can certainly flood the entire world. Turning parts of the Bible into a collection of stories meant to illustrate a point or two is not credible. Jesus used no technology to raise the dead, heal the lepers and walk on water. A scientist standing next to Him could provide no explanation. Science, here, can also provide no explanation.

Peace,
Ed
 
diggerdomer said:
It doesn’t say “infallible” there. It says “true.” There’s a difference, those terms are not simply interchangeable.
Click to expand...
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
Click to expand...
The truth is the truth of the Holy Spirit. I would say that truth is pretty iron clad infallible.

MonFrere
 
CWBetts said:
Dei Verbum, section 11. Pay close attention to the footnotes.
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought, just like the Catechism cited previously. The word “infallible” is not used.

I think it’s important to use and understand the words the Church uses when teaching to ensure we clearly present/explain to others what the Church teaches.
 
diggerdomer said:
That’s what I thought, just like the Catechism cited previously. The word “infallible” is not used.

I think it’s important to use and understand the words the Church uses when teaching to ensure we clearly present/explain to others what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
Perhaps “infallible” is not used, but that is exactly what this passage means:

*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 *

“without error” = “infallible”
 
CWBetts said:
Perhaps “infallible” is not used, but that is exactly what this passage means:

*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 *

“without error” = “infallible”
Click to expand...
Yup :yup:
 
from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfa-lə-bəl
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible
Date: 15th century

1 : incapable of error : unerring
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain
3 :** incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals
**
 
CWBetts said:
Perhaps “infallible” is not used, but that is exactly what this passage means:

*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 *

“without error” = “infallible”
Click to expand...
I just think “infallible” is a widely used yet variously understood term, and when trying to explain/represent authoritative Catholic teaching we should us it as the Church does…which, unless I’m missing something, is not directly taught regarding Scripture (e.g. Catechism, Canon Law, Vatican II, etc.). Terms like “inerrancy” and “infallibility” have been used in many ways in the Catholic tradition…it’s best imho to stick with what the Church today teaches and what the Church today uses those terms to refer to, authoritatively.
 
diggerdomer said:
I just think “infallible” is a widely used yet variously understood term, and when trying to explain/represent authoritative Catholic teaching we should us it as the Church does…which, unless I’m missing something, is not directly taught regarding Scripture (e.g. Catechism, Canon Law, Vatican II, etc.). Terms like “inerrancy” and “infallibility” have been used in many ways in the Catholic tradition…it’s best imho to stick with what the Church today teaches and what the Church today uses those terms to refer to, authoritatively.
Click to expand...
It is what the Church teaches. If you want to make excuses why yo do not want to believe it, then there is nothing more to say.
 
diggerdomer said:
No it’s not. The Church teaches the Scriptures are inspired, and true. The Church does not use the term “infallible.”
Click to expand...
CWBetts said:
It is what the Church teaches. If you want to make excuses why yo do not want to believe it, then there is nothing more to say.
Click to expand...
Hey folks.
Inerrant is the word used to describe Scripture.

Infallible is used with respect to the Magisterium.

The Latin word ‘fallere’ means to deceive.

Infallible = incapable of being deceived (said of persons - you can’t ‘deceive’ a book).

Inerrant = not erring, not teaching error.

That’s why the specific terms are used to describe the respective concepts.

Hope you’re all having a peaceful, recollected Christmas season.
 
adriancombe said:
Hey folks.
Inerrant is the word used to describe Scripture.

Infallible is used with respect to the Magisterium.

The Latin word ‘fallere’ means to deceive.

Infallible = incapable of being deceived (said of persons - you can’t ‘deceive’ a book).

Inerrant = not erring, not teaching error.

That’s why the specific terms are used to describe the respective concepts.

Hope you’re all having a peaceful, recollected Christmas season.
Click to expand...
I was just about to say the same thing.
MonFrere said:
from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfa-lə-bəl
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible
Date: 15th century

1 : incapable of error : unerring
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain
3 :** incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals
**
Click to expand...
You see, I don’t think definition number 2 can apply to a book, right? I also don’t think the Bible necessarily “defines” doctrines on faith and morals, that’s what later councils did, am I wrong? The Church prefers to use the term “inerrant.” As can be seen from this post, infallible = incapable of error. Dei Verbum and the Catechism use “without error” which is equal to inerrant. It’s a VERY nit-picky distinction but an important one nonetheless I would say.
 
adriancombe said:
Hey folks.
Inerrant is the word used to describe Scripture.

Infallible is used with respect to the Magisterium.

The Latin word ‘fallere’ means to deceive.

Infallible = incapable of being deceived (said of persons - you can’t ‘deceive’ a book).

Inerrant = not erring, not teaching error.

That’s why the specific terms are used to describe the respective concepts.

Hope you’re all having a peaceful, recollected Christmas season.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Catechism uses nor Vatican II used “inerrant” – is that wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top