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

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwillenborg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
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
Click to expand...
How do you know?
 
MonFrere said:
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
Click to expand...
Hi, MonFrere -

Actually, I really didn’t want to get as argumentative as I did in my previous post. OK, I read the entire article. We’ve been over all of this, several times in this thread. Am I wrong to have understood that the Catholic Church does not require belief on this (your position) but that it’s Ok to believe? (my position).

Frankly, I found the article at the heights of hubris. I submit, there has not been extensive enough a search to categorically state there’s no evidence anywhere. I respect paleontologists, anthropologists and archaeologists. I cannot respect the claim that all the land areas of earth have been searched for said evidence; it just hasn’t been done.

Back to both of our views are acceptable. You have your opinion, based upon the doubts of others, and I have my opinion based upon my doubts about your others. I understand, that our Church says people may hold either view. I’m saying, there’s evidence either way, but believers are a lot kinder to skeptic evidence that some skeptics are to Velikovsky and other’s evidence of many creatures caught in many floods. I consider dismissing or explaining away solid evidence as a very weak position, based more on hubris than facts.

So, I’d really rather not argue, just say you’re entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to mine.

Thank you,
Don
 
grannymh said:
Regarding world wide flood in MonFere’s post. – When and how did a simple flood become worldwide? or a cataclysmic flood?

Blessings,
granny
:confused:
Click to expand...
Hi, granny,

I have also read your link to paragraphs 106 -119, with particular attention to paragraph 116 (Gee, all these reading assignments - and I’m not even in school. With all ya’ll’s reading assignments, what do I need to go to school for 😛 .)

Ok, global comes from the Biblical ‘all the land’. Cataclysmic comes from objections to claimed paleontological effects of the flood.

Frankly, like I have just written to MonFrefre, I understand that the Church says we are free to hold either view. With that in mind, I don’t see where fellow Catholics come from, to gainsay the Biblical view.

Granny, this last is not about you. I suspect, or am very skeptical of, any scholar who interpretates in line with the world instead of with the Spirit. It’s Ok for me to have my opinion that there really was a flood and Ark and I’m getting sick and tired of fellow Catholics defending a world view instead of defending Church teaching that either view is acceptable.
 
MonFrere said:
The story of the flood requires miracles. Scripture or tradition does NOT account the ramifications of a worldwide flood. MonFrere
Click to expand...
How can one say that the story as written in Genesis requires miracles?
How could anyone in ancient Israel write about ramifications of a worldwide flood when their concept of the world was based on relationships and not 15th century global geographic maps? Plus these relationships were placed in a religious hierarchy which did not record weather phenomenon.

Of course there was a flood which devastated the area. But can it really be assumed that people at that time wrote about California?

Blessings,
granny
 
donsnow said:
Hi, granny,

I have also read your link to paragraphs 106 -119, with particular attention to paragraph 116 (Gee, all these reading assignments - and I’m not even in school. With all ya’ll’s reading assignments, what do I need to go to school for 😛 .)

Ok, global comes from the Biblical ‘all the land’. Cataclysmic comes from objections to claimed paleontological effects of the flood.
Click to expand...
Today’s meanings of these words can be traced way back. However, there are times when the modern meaning of these words cannot be applied to ancient cultures.

What I am apparently failing to do is to have people either read the Hebrew conception of the world found in footnotes or look at the drawing that is between pages 4 and 5 in some of the older bibles. If one is to follow CCC paragraph 116 point about good interpretation, then one needs to look at the Hebrew world in the way that the Hebrews did. See post 955.
Frankly, like I have just written to MonFrefre, I understand that the Church says we are free to hold either view. With that in mind, I don’t see where fellow Catholics come from, to gainsay the Biblical view.
Click to expand...
There are a number of people who hold that there were not two sole parents of the human species. Adam & Eve, Mr. and Mrs. John Doe, or whatever names are given, did not exist. To them the story of Adam & Eve is figurative just like Noah’s flood.

The Catholic Church sees a huge difference between the reality of Adam & Eve and a possible flood in California or any place else outside of the ancient Hebrew world.
I suspect, or am very skeptical of, any scholar who interpretates in line with the world instead of with the Spirit.
Click to expand...
This is why I continue to defend the real existence of Adam and Eve. When it comes to a choice between the world and the Spirit, Divine Revelation trumps.

Blessings,
granny
 
grannymh said:
Today’s meanings of these words can be traced way back. However, there are times when the modern meaning of these words cannot be applied to ancient cultures.

What I am apparently failing to do is to have people either read the Hebrew conception of the world found in footnotes or look at the drawing that is between pages 4 and 5 in some of the older bibles. If one is to follow CCC paragraph 116 point about good interpretation, then one needs to look at the Hebrew world in the way that the Hebrews did. See post 955.

There are a number of people who hold that there were not two sole parents of the human species. Adam & Eve, Mr. and Mrs. John Doe, or whatever names are given, did not exist. To them the story of Adam & Eve is figurative just like Noah’s flood.

The Catholic Church sees a huge difference between the reality of Adam & Eve and a possible flood in California or any place else outside of the ancient Hebrew world.

This is why I continue to defend the real existence of Adam and Eve. When it comes to a choice between the world and the Spirit, Divine Revelation trumps.

Blessings,
granny
Click to expand...
Let 'em have it Granny!!!👍
 
CWBetts said:
Did you bother looking at the footnotes? I would guess not. You must understand that the Church was not born at V2
Click to expand...
Yes I looked at the footnotes. So?

And of couse the Church was not born at Vatican II. It didn’t cease at Vatican II either. What’s your point?
 
buffalo said:
More evidence for the Toledoths:

Archaeologists claim discovery of oldest Hebrew writing

JERUSALEM (AFP) - A 3,000 year-old inscription discovered at a site where the Bible says David slew Goliath has been deciphered, showing it to be the earliest known Hebrew writing, Israeli archaeologists said on Thursday.
http://d.yimg.com/bg/p/100107/afp/i....jpg?x=180&y=135&sig=aLTfEbsn_TSOAd3DL8MS7Q--
more…
Click to expand...
And this relates to this Thread…how? Thanks for the clarification.
 
diggerdomer said:
Yes I looked at the footnotes. So?

And of couse the Church was not born at Vatican II. It didn’t cease at Vatican II either. What’s your point?
Click to expand...
The Church has ALWAYS TAUGHT Biblical Inerrancy. This teaching did not change at Vatican II. Even if Dei Verbum would have never been promulgated, Biblical Inerrancy would have been a teaching of the Church. You have been ignoring the historical teachings of the Church.
 
diggerdomer said:
So…it’s inadequate (imho) to simply say the Church teaches that Scripture is “without error.” We need to explain just what the Church teaches,
Click to expand...
This is what the Church teaches when looking at the story of Noah. Read paragraphs109-119, 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

If one is going to follow paragraph 116 about using sound interpretation, then one needs to look at the Hebrew world in the way that the Hebrews did. Common sense would be 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.

It would be difficult for anyone in ancient Israel to write about the global, worldwide earth we know (after 15th century explorations) when their concept of the world was based on relationships placed within a religious hierarchy. Of course, a flood in the known area could easily be described with gusto.

Blessings,
granny
 
grannymh said:
It would be difficult for anyone in ancient Israel to write about the global, worldwide earth we know (after 15th century explorations) when their concept of the world was based on relationships placed within a religious hierarchy. Of course, a flood in the known area could easily be described with gusto.
Click to expand...
Granny,

You seem to be saying that you actually think what I’ve been writing about has credibility in your mind. Is that correct? If not, where do you disagree?

MonFrere
 
CWBetts said:
Where, so I can warn people to stray away!
Click to expand...
Hah – as if I would tell you the name or location of my institution! Suffice it to say that it’s a thriving Catholic university with a diverse and scholarly theology faculty, and challenging and inquisitive students, and a bishop who takes a strong interest in our Catholic studies program.

StAnastasia
 
CWBetts said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...
Because biblical cosmology implies a flat earth covered by a dome supported on the “pillars of the earth.” Ancient Greeks probably shared this Ancient Near Eastern worldview, but by the time of Aristotle the scientifically-minded Greeks had various proofs of the sphericity of the earth.
 
grannymh said:
There are a number of people who hold that there were not two sole parents of the human species. Adam & Eve, Mr. and Mrs. John Doe, or whatever names are given, did not exist. To them the story of Adam & Eve is figurative just like Noah’s flood.]
Click to expand...
Granny, to say that the story is symbolic is not to say it is “just figurative.”
 
adriancombe said:
And in your studies, were you never taught the definition of death as separation of body and soul?
Click to expand...
No – I was not taught by dualists, which one would have to be to accept your definition of death. Dualists carry the pre-Christian Greek baggage of imaging the essential person as a spiritual soul temporarily trapped within a physical body. My doctoral training focused more on the Hebraic psychosomatic unity of the human person.

StAnastasia
 
CWBetts said:
The Church has ALWAYS TAUGHT Biblical Inerrancy. This teaching did not change at Vatican II. Even if Dei Verbum would have never been promulgated, Biblical Inerrancy would have been a teaching of the Church. You have been ignoring the historical teachings of the Church.
Click to expand...
I have not been ignoring the historical teachings of the Church.

You seem to be ignoring what the Church teaches today. Dei Verbum IS promulgated, so you can’t ignore it (nor the Catechism). The Church may have taught “Biblical Inerrancy” in the past, but the way it may have been taught in the past is not what the Church…today…in continuity with its whole history and Tradition…teaches.
 
StAnastasia said:
Hah – as if I would tell you the name or location of my institution! Suffice it to say that it’s a thriving Catholic university with a diverse and scholarly theology faculty, and challenging and inquisitive students, and a bishop who takes a strong interest in our Catholic studies program.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Do you take the Oath? If not, I hesitate to call it Catholic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top