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

[CWBetts]

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

With your view, you might as well throw the Scriptures out. You will reject everything that can’t be verified by fallible scientists. It is clear what “god” you worship.

 

[StAnastasia]

He raised Himself from the dead. And the scientific explanation for that is what? Peace,Ed

Where does it say that Jesus raised himself from the dead? He could only do that if he were not really dead.

 

[CWBetts]

Where does it say that Jesus raised himself from the dead? He could only do that if he were not really dead.

So now you are denying the bodily resurrection as well?

 

[adriancombe]

Where does it say that Jesus raised himself from the dead? *

John 10:18

“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again. This is the commandment I have received from My Father.”*

He could only do that if he were not really dead.

This is a non sequitur. There is no Christian definition of death that implies a cessation of existence. Death is separation of the soul from the body.*

Furthermore, the hypostatic union means God is not separable from the human nature of Jesus. The soul is part of human nature. Therefore, Christ was correct in stating He would take His life back.

 

[StAnastasia]

So now you are denying the bodily resurrection as well?

No.

 

[StAnastasia]

There is no Christian definition of death that implies a cessation of existence. Death is separation of the soul from the body.*

Can you prove that? Or is that just speculation? Have you seen a soul separated from a body? If so, where was it, and how do you know it was separated?

 

[grannymh]

Can you prove that? Or is that just speculation? Have you seen a soul separated from a body? If so, where was it, and how do you know it was separated?

The Catholic Church teaches that the spiritual soul exists. The human being’s rational/corporeal nature is wonderfully unique in that it is an intimate unification of soul and body, spirit and matter. When one becomes a Catholic, one accepts this teaching. There is no need to poke a soul with one’s fingers to prove that it exists.

The soul is immaterial; therefore one who is living on this earth cannot see it with one’s material eyes which exist in the human body. One can see a body after the soul has separated. It is easy to tell that the soul has separated. Catholic teaching is that the intellect and will are powers of our spiritual soul. Thus, when a soul is separated from the human body, there is no sign of intellectual activity nor is there a sign of any action in the human body.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[grannymh]

the way this thread is now being used. Just because there is evidence that a global flood would have had such catastrophic ramifications…

As a non-scholar of Scripture, I would appreciate an answer. When and how did the flood in Genesis become a global one?

What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say about Noah?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[donsnow]

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

Hi, MonFrere,

All those 'could not’s in your paragraphs? They’re assumptions or unproven speculations. I can see God’s creation renewed after the flood. Just because you can’t see it, don’t limit others from what they can see. You’re free to hold to your opinion that there was no cataclysmic flood. We’re free to interpret (and there’s fossiled evidence that skeptics try to phoo-phoo away, which is no way to debate) that Noah and the Ark were in a cataclysmic flood.

I know you’re concerned with convincing men and women with Master degrees and PhDs that the Catholic faith is valid. It’s equally valid to encourage and nourish where they are at those less educated or uneducated, in the faith. Their, and our, faith should not be abridged nor infringed for the good feelings of anybody.

The lesser and uneducated don’t have to learn what you think they should. Some have no place to stay. They can’t afford a GED much less college. Christianity is not about the worldly successful nor the hirsute levels of education, which are nice, but not essential to the faith, to have. Our Lord is about the faith, hope and love of those who believe and follow him. If you are losing skeptics and atheists, let them walk away. Our Lord lost many disciples, who walked away because of what he said. It’s OK for people to walk away from you, too. But, by no means should the faith to the uneducated become expendable for the sake of those who aren’t going to believe, whatever you prove to them.

That’s where I’m at, on this debate.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, MonFrere,

Regarding world wide flood in MonFere’s post. – When and how did a simple flood become worldwide? or a cataclysmic flood?

Blessings,
granny

 

[adriancombe]

Can you prove that? Or is that just speculation? Have you seen a soul separated from a body? If so, where was it, and how do you know it was separated?

We are talking about the Christian faith here not scientific studies.

Didn’t your profile say you were Catholic?

 

[MonFrere]

With your view, you might as well throw the Scriptures out. You will reject everything that can’t be verified by fallible scientists. It is clear what “god” you worship.

There are also certain scientific considerations which oppose the view that the Flood was geographically universal. Not that science opposes any difficulty insuperable to the power of God; but it draws attention to a number of most extraordinary, if not miraculous phenomena involved in the admission of a geographically universal Deluge. First, no such geological traces can be found as ought to have been left by a universal Deluge; for the catastrophe connected with the beginning of the ice-age, or the geological deluge, must not be connected with the Biblical. Secondly, the amount of water required by a universal Deluge, as described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the data furnished in the Biblical account. If the surface of the earth, in round numbers, amounts to 510,000,000 square kilometres, and if the elevation of the highest mountains reaches about 9000 metres, the water required by the Biblical Flood, if it be universal, amounts to about 4,600,000,000 cubic kilo-metres. Now, a forty days’ rain, ten times more copious than the most violent rainfall known to us, will raise the level of the sea only about 800 metres; since the height to be attained is about 9000 metres, there is still a gap to be filled by unknown source. amounting to a height of more than 8000 metres, in order to raise the water to the level of the greatest mountains. Thirdly, if the Biblical Deluge was geographically universal, the sea water and the fresh water would mix to such an extent that neither the marine animals nor the fresh-water animals could have lived in the mixture without a miracle. Fourthly, there are serious difficulties connected with the animals in the ark, if the Flood was geographically universal: How were they brought to Noe from the remote regions of the earth in which they lived? How could eight persons take care of such an array of beasts? Where did they obtain the food necessary for all the animals? How could the arctic animals live with those of the torrid zone for a whole year and under the same roof? No Catholic commentator will repudiate an explanation merely for fear of having to admit a miracle; but no Catholic has a right to admit Biblical miracles which are not well attested either by 'Scripture or tradition. What is more, there are traces in the Biblical Flood story which favor a limited extent of the catastrophe: Noe could have known the geographical universality of the Deluge only by revelation; still the Biblical account appears to have been written by an eye-witness. If the Flood had been universal, the water would have had to fall from the height of the mountains in India to the level of those in Armenia on which the ark rested, i.e. about 11,500 feet, within the space of a few days. The fact that the dove is said to have found “the waters … upon the whole earth”, and that Noe “saw that the face of the earth was dried”, leaves the impression that the inspired writer uses the word “earth” in the restricted sense of “land”. Attention has been drawn also to the “bough of an olive tree, with green leaves” carried by the dove in her mouth on her second return to the ark.

CWBetts,

The above quote is from the old 1905 Catholic Encyclopedia. Look up the article DELUGE for Catholic thought that’s 100 years old for the complete article. Even back then, with much less knowledge at their disposal, there were questions about the global universality of the flood.

I really think you overstate your claim that science is my God. I personally wish that you wouldn’t resort to this type of speech. If you have read my remarks on this thread I am SUPPORTING you in your claim the the Church teaches the infallibility of scripture. So, we are certainly not in total disagreement.

… for Don … notice the 100+ year old quote that says there isn’t geological traces for a universal flood. The Catholic Encyclopedia was saying this 100 years ago.

I can understand it taking a while for information to get from the scholarly world to the commoner; but I think that information that’s 100 years old should have had plenty of time to get to be assimilated by the masses; at least to the point that people who support such views are not accused of idolatry.

I ask one favor… do not comment on my comment without first reading the complete quote from the 1905 Catholic Encyclopedia.

P.S. I hope the quote also answers Granny’s questions.

MonFrere

 

[StAnastasia]

Regarding world wide flood in MonFere’s post. – When and how did a simple flood become worldwide? or a cataclysmic flood? Blessings,granny

Granny, that’s a good question. I think the question is when the story of a global flood ceased to be interpreted literally. I suspect the first cracks in the facade were when Europeans began their reconnaissance of the globe in the fifteenth century, and discovered that there was so much more than the old Hebrew worldview presupposed.

StAnastasia

 

[Leela]

Belief is an act of the will. People believe, or don’t believe, exclusively as a matter of choice.

Oh, then there is a simple answer here. Why doesn’t every Catholic here just will themselves to believe that the Noah story is historically accurate?

 

[StAnastasia]

We are talking about the Christian faith here not scientific studies. Didn’t your profile say you were Catholic?

Yes – I teach theology.

 

[twb1621]

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

Actually, it is truly not difficult to accept under the same principle.
it is no less rational to accept the regeneration of nature or of any living entity including vegetation after the receding of the flood waters merely by the will of God then it is to accept the healing of the blind man or the dead returned to life, all of which are equally consistent with each other as all are forms of life created by God and created from nothing. Man’s rationale is supported by what man knows, has some familiarity with or has experienced. Without knowledge comparable with the mind of God, man cannot rationalize everything, but man must accept, have faith and trust in God unconditionally and unselectively. Because man cannot rationalize something does not mean at some point in the future it will not be understood or realized as “rational”. Whether willing the restoration of vegetation or of human life, all that is living is part of nature and all that is living was created of God by His will. Remember, God can will the death of the fig tree and as easily its regeneration in no more time than He brings a man back from the dead.

 

[grannymh]

P.S. I hope the quote also answers Granny’s questions.

MonFrere

The quote explains the physical features. Thank you. But that is not what I am wondering about.

Perhaps I should add the word literal to my question. The thread’s topic refers to the flood as being literally true. So – When and how did the simple flood in Genesis become a literal global flood, a literal worldwide flood or a literal cataclysmic flood.

In my humble opinion, one should first look at paragraphs 109-119, especially paragraph 116 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4. Or use this handy link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Now I am not a scripture expert. But common sense would mean to check the footnotes for Genesis 7:11 and then follow its direction to note on Genesis 1:2. My Catholic bible even has a diagram which shows how ancient Hebrews described the world.

As far as a Catholic view, my suggestion would be to put flood and Noah in the “search” blank on www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Considering that exegesis should follow the rules of sound interpretation, how could someone intelligently consider ancient Semitic cosmogony as being the same as modern weather systems and environmental changes? My only answer is that some people have a difficult time understanding the mission of the Catholic Church. That is very sad.

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

Granny, that’s a good question. I think the question is when the story of a global flood ceased to be interpreted literally. I suspect the first cracks in the facade were when Europeans began their reconnaissance of the globe in the fifteenth century, and discovered that there was so much more than the old Hebrew worldview presupposed.

StAnastasia

You have an interesting suggestion. However, I was asking when a simple flood in ancient times started to be called a global flood. I amended my question by adding the word literal. Please see post 948. You might be interested in the Catechism references in that post.

Blessings,
granny

 

[MonFrere]

It is no less rational to accept the regeneration of nature or of any living entity including vegetation after the receding of the flood waters merely by the will of God then it is to accept the healing of the blind man or the dead returned to life, all of which are equally consistent with each other as all are forms of life created by God and created from nothing. Man’s rationale is supported by what man knows, has some familiarity with or has experienced. Without knowledge comparable with the mind of God, man cannot rationalize everything, but man must accept, have faith and trust in God unconditionally and unselectively. Because man cannot rationalize something does not mean at some point in the future it will not be understood or realized as “rational”. Whether willing the restoration of vegetation or of human life, all that is living is part of nature and all that is living was created of God by His will. Remember, God can will the death of the fig tree and as easily its regeneration in no more time than He brings a man back from the dead.

Tom,

What you are asking me to do seems to be saying that I must have a blind faith. You are saying that I can only “know” through revelation. If you are saying that then I think that is absurd.

Remember the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia I mentioned.

No Catholic commentator will repudiate an explanation merely for fear of having to admit a miracle; but no Catholic has a right to admit Biblical miracles which are not well attested either by 'Scripture or tradition

The story of the flood requires miracles. Scripture or tradition does NOT account the ramifications of a worldwide flood. All those miracles are not bound upon me to believe. IN FACT – that information gives me clues as to TRULY understanding the event; which brings me to a position where I can more fully discern the intent of the Holy Spirit as the reason for revealing these passages of (infallible) scripture in the first place. For me there are two avenues we are discussing in this thread for seeking God. There a seeking through FAITH and there is a seeking through REASON. The Church assures me that there is no conflict between the two. I believe that completely. But SEEKING implies testing and questioning and probing. Theologians have thought long and hard in seeking the understanding of human suffering. This is a seeking of faith that desires greater and greater clarity of understanding. But in other human endeavors there is the same seeking, the same probing, the same desire for greater and greater understanding. The Church has never been against this seeking of knowledge. It has been the very reason for the advances made in Western Civilization. The Church has championed intellectual advancement. This has not been the only age where there has been challenges between science and faith. They have been solved in the past and they will be solved in the future simply for the reason the God of faith is the God of reason. It is impossible for them to conflict. But the challenge is always there. God put in us the enormous hunger to know. Questions belonging to faith. Who am I? What am I? Where am I going? Is there life after death? But also questions of this creation? How does this all work together? What is all this stuff that surrounds us? God hates cowards. We cannot shirk the challenges of our belief in God. We also cannot shirk the challenges that our understanding of our cosmos bring to us. Our Christian heritage has always been one to seek BOTH and not to pit one against the other. If they seem to conflict – then we must resolve the conflict. Resolving the conflict does mean we fall back on a simple faith that cannot live with conflict. That is cowardly. Resolving conflict is understanding the truth on BOTH SIDES SIMULTANEOUSLY. If you do not, unfortunately, you’ve just given up your moving forward to greater clarity of understanding in both faith and reason. At that moment you’ve reached the limit of your growth. As long as you face true challenge you face the possibility of greater growth.

MonFrere

 

[StAnastasia]

You have an interesting suggestion. However, I was asking when a simple flood in ancient times started to be called a global flood. I amended my question by adding the word literal. Please see post 948. You might be interested in the Catechism references in that post.

Granny, I assume the gradual extension of the oral tradition of a local flood to apply to the whole world is pre-literary. And at the time of writing of the Hebrew scriptures, the world was not seen as a globe in any case.

StAnastasia