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

[Ron_Conte]

No, it isn’t. By definition, the terminating of an unborn life is abortion, no matter who causes it. The question is whether in the case of a literally interpreted Noah’s Flood, God’s causing the abortion of the drowned fetuses was morally justifiable. Is abortion sometimes morally justifiable? Perhaps it cane be argued that in this case it was.

StAnastasia

All lives belong to God. So when God decides that a life ends, it is not murder or abortion or any other immoral act.

Direct abortion is never morally justifiable. It is absurd to claim that the Flood is a type of direct abortion. Many natural disasters cause the deaths of pregnant women. The act of God that permits or ordains such a disaster, under his providence, does not constitute a direct and deliberate killing of a prenatal.

 

[StAnastasia]

All lives belong to God. So when God decides that a life ends, it is not murder or abortion or any other immoral act.

“Abortion” = the termination of a pregnancy. On a literal reading of the flood myth, God chose to send the flood, and the flood ended the lives of all humans except eight, including an indeterminate number of pregnant women. God’s decision to destroy humanity with a flood therefore caused the abortion of an indeterminate number of fetuses. Whether these abortions were good or morally justifiable I leave to others to discuss,

Of course, reading the flood story as metaphor or theological symbol removes the above conundrum.
StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

“Abortion” = the termination of a pregnancy. On a literal reading of the flood myth, God chose to send the flood, and the flood ended the lives of all humans except eight, including an indeterminate number of pregnant women. God’s decision to destroy humanity with a flood therefore caused the abortion of an indeterminate number of fetuses. Whether these abortions were good or morally justifiable I leave to others to discuss,

Of course, reading the flood story as metaphor or theological symbol removes the above conundrum.
StAnastasia

There is no conundrum at all.

Again, you look at it from a human perspective not God’s. More modernistic babble.

If God called my child home from the womb it is not an abortion.

The only difference between my death, yours and an unborn is timing. We all die.

 

[StAnastasia]

There is no conundrum at all. Again, you look at it from a human perspective not God’s. More modernistic babble. If God called my child home from the womb it is not an abortion. The only difference between my death, yours and an unborn is timing. We all die.

Buffalo, you’re engaging in traditionalist equivocation and babble. God’s flood induced abortions were not miscarrriages. When a pregnancy is aborted preterm, the life of the fetus is terminated as a consequence of the abortion off the pregnancy.

We would not even need to have this discussion if you did nor insist on a woodenly-literal and theologically useless interpretation of the flood story! Why do you insist on this in the face of theology, logic, and science? What do you get out of this?

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, you’re engaging in traditionalist equivocation and babble. God’s flood induced abortions were not miscarrriages. When a pregnancy is aborted preterm, the life of the fetus is terminated as a consequence of the abortion off the pregnancy.

We would not even need to have this discussion if you did nor insist on a woodenly-literal and theologically useless interpretation of the flood story! Why do you insist on this in the face of theology, logic, and science? What do you get out of this?

StAnastasia

Let’s forget the flood for a minute - If God calls your unborn child to heaven is it an abortion?

 

[StAnastasia]

Let’s forget the flood for a minute - If God calls your unborn child to heaven is it an abortion?

Yes.

 

[grannymh]

If so, how could that be? And please, not the ‘All things are possible through God’. If I’m to explain catholic theology to non-catholics, I’d better come better equipped than that.
And if not, on what basis is it considered allegorical and not true? Why would Noah’s story be false, and our original parents Adam and Eve be true?
How do you reconcile the similarities between the story of Noah and other ancient flood stories?
Any insight would be most helpful. Thanks!

Just checking the OP above.

If one is going to explain Catholic theology to non-Catholics, one must start with "All things are possible through God. How else would one explain the first instant of creation? How else would one explain the uniqueness of the human species? Humans certainly are not made in the image of animals.

Part of Catholic theology concerns God’s relationship with us. Being the first human to have a direct relationship with God, knowledge of Adam and how he chose to live his life is basic. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 404, "The whole human race is in Adam ‘as one body of one man’. Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. As a result of his disobedience, original sin, human nature lost its original holiness and justice but it was not totally corrupted. Thus, we can still seek God, find Him, love Him, obey Him and live with Him eternally in complete happiness.

Paragraph 404 also says referring to Adam: “By this ‘unity of the human race’ all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.” Catholic theology says that “After his fall, man was not abandoned by God.” (CCC 410) Immediately there is the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer.

By the time of Noah, wickedness ruled because free will choice was still a part of human nature. Catholic theology speaks of God’s justice and mercy. It does so because of the example of the real Noah.

Blessings,
granny

Eternal life with God is the goal of human life.

 

[edwest2]

This conflict is between secular science and the Catholic Church. Secular science is insufficient to describe reality, yet it comes here in the guise of various posters who insist “reason must be satisfied” before one enters the faith. As I’ve pointed out before, true secularists cannot accept God without proof. In my example, if I could produce a physical God standing right in front of them, then they might believe. No, this forum has been the subject of what boils down to negotiations between two warring parties.

A list of selected demands have been presented that must be accepted before peace can be declared. This is one condition but there are others. The argument concerns what is the source of real knowledge? The secularists insist that science, which they admit is provisional and subject to change, must reinterpret God’s Word. After all, the original writers were human, likely copying other myths and lacked modern knowledge. A reinterpretation is demanded or there will be no peace. I go to other forums and I see the same words and the same arguments year after year. The secularists are right and no effort will be spared to convince those who disagree.

To my fellow Catholics: The Catholic Church contains the fullness of the truth, both of the physical world and of spiritual things. The uneducated peasant is as much called to salvation as the most highly educated person here. The Bible tells us God is no respector of persons. The secularists who attempt to bring the Bible into alignment with what they believe to be settled knowledge are very selective about which parts of the Bible need reinterpretation. It is obvious in some cases, that the goal is not the truth but a reshaping of Catholic beliefs, and therefore, actions, so that they may go further in aligning the Church with secular goals.

Finally, like all business negotiations, rules lawyers post here with any line or word from Popes or Church scholars that seem to conform with their ideas. They will quote saints if need be to advance not the truth but a purely secular agenda. They do not, in some cases, care about God, the Bible or the faithful at all. It is only necessary to gain agreement so that the next round of proposed “changes” can begin. As Catholics know, the Bible is not just a book. It is the Word of God, and Sacred Scripture as mentioned as a heading on this forum. It is made sacred by God, not men.

The Church offers the faithful not only instruction in faith and morals but in right reason. This is not a form of reason that is subject to revisionism but a form of reason that results in lives worth living, not just for Catholics but for all that would consider it.

Finally, it should be apparent to all Catholics reading this that the great effort, the days and hours, are not being spent to educate Catholics about the truth, but to promote error, confusion and, in some cases, complete falsehoods. But by whatever method, the point is, Catholics must agree with their interpretation or they will continue to post here in perpetuity.

Study the Catechism. Read the encyclicals, and wait on the Church, just as they wait on the Church. This too, should expose what they are doing for what it really is: Don’t listen to the Church, listen to us. Because when the Church makes a statement in support of their cause, she is praised. When the Church makes a pronouncement that is against their cause, she becomes the enemy of reason and science, and knows nothing about what she is saying.

Be sober, be vigilant.

God bless,
Ed

 

[donsnow]

Boring! Your idea doesn’t sound like any fun at all.

If you haven’t tried it, don’t knock it. Frankly, I think if we weren’t quibbling about the details, that we could then get to a lot more meat of the story. Just my common sense, boring, little military mind, there.

 

[donsnow]

This conflict is between secular science and the Catholic Church. Secular science is insufficient to describe reality, yet it comes here in the guise of various posters who insist “reason must be satisfied” before one enters the faith. As I’ve pointed out before, true secularists cannot accept God without proof. In my example, if I could produce a physical God standing right in front of them, then they might believe. No, this forum has been the subject of what boils down to negotiations between two warring parties.

A list of selected demands have been presented that must be accepted before peace can be declared. This is one condition but there are others. The argument concerns what is the source of real knowledge? The secularists insist that science, which they admit is provisional and subject to change, must reinterpret God’s Word. After all, the original writers were human, likely copying other myths and lacked modern knowledge. A reinterpretation is demanded or there will be no peace. I go to other forums and I see the same words and the same arguments year after year. The secularists are right and no effort will be spared to convince those who disagree.

To my fellow Catholics: The Catholic Church contains the fullness of the truth, both of the physical world and of spiritual things. The uneducated peasant is as much called to salvation as the most highly educated person here. The Bible tells us God is no respector of persons. The secularists who attempt to bring the Bible into alignment with what they believe to be settled knowledge are very selective about which parts of the Bible need reinterpretation. It is obvious in some cases, that the goal is not the truth but a reshaping of Catholic beliefs, and therefore, actions, so that they may go further in aligning the Church with secular goals.

Finally, like all business negotiations, rules lawyers post here with any line or word from Popes or Church scholars that seem to conform with their ideas. They will quote saints if need be to advance not the truth but a purely secular agenda. They do not, in some cases, care about God, the Bible or the faithful at all. It is only necessary to gain agreement so that the next round of proposed “changes” can begin. As Catholics know, the Bible is not just a book. It is the Word of God, and Sacred Scripture as mentioned as a heading on this forum. It is made sacred by God, not men.

The Church offers the faithful not only instruction in faith and morals but in right reason. This is not a form of reason that is subject to revisionism but a form of reason that results in lives worth living, not just for Catholics but for all that would consider it.

Finally, it should be apparent to all Catholics reading this that the great effort, the days and hours, are not being spent to educate Catholics about the truth, but to promote error, confusion and, in some cases, complete falsehoods. But by whatever method, the point is, Catholics must agree with their interpretation or they will continue to post here in perpetuity.

Study the Catechism. Read the encyclicals, and wait on the Church, just as they wait on the Church. This too, should expose what they are doing for what it really is: Don’t listen to the Church, listen to us. Because when the Church makes a statement in support of their cause, she is praised. When the Church makes a pronouncement that is against their cause, she becomes the enemy of reason and science, and knows nothing about what she is saying.

Be sober, be vigilant.

God bless,
Ed

Ed,



Now, since I’m a hard-headed and thick-skulled Celtic Texan, maybe I have some natural hope of wading through all this balderdash and staying Catholic.

Don

 

[dz102789]

I honestly haven’t kept up with the posts, but to answer the question, The Church does not have an opinion either way as to whether it is literally true, but if we use some common sense we can see that it is contains spiritual truths but not historical truths. There are million of species of animals, it would be impossible to fit them all into an ark. And come on… we all descended from noah and his family in the past couple of years! Also this is not to say that miracles do not happen because they certainly do (as we see in the gospels), but there are many stories in the old testament that should be interpreted allegorically and spiritually and not as historically accurate.

In Christ,

Dave

 

[edwest2]

I honestly haven’t kept up with the posts, but to answer the question, The Church does not have an opinion either way as to whether it is literally true, but if we use some common sense we can see that it is contains spiritual truths but not historical truths. There are million of species of animals, it would be impossible to fit them all into an ark. And come on… we all descended from noah and his family in the past couple of years! Also this is not to say that miracles do not happen because they certainly do (as we see in the gospels), but there are many stories in the old testament that should be interpreted allegorically and spiritually and not as historically accurate.

In Christ,

Dave

Hi Dave,

I don’t see how you can use what you call common sense to interpret the Bible. Did not God provide the Israelites manna from Heaven? Did he not part the waters so they passed on dry land followed by the Egyptians who drowned? God does not need technology as we understand it to do His work. By bringing God down to our level of understanding, we ignore real things God did.

Didn’t Jesus raise the dead multiple times? Cleanse the lepers? Rise from the dead Himself? Common sense tells us no one can do this. Even if a scientist was right there when Jesus and His disciples fed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes, with baskets of leftovers, What would the scientist give as the explanation? Or Thomas, doubting that Jesus had risen from the dead, said to his fellow disciples that he would not believe until he could put his fingers on the wounds. The risen, physical Jesus appeared to him and the others with him and asked him to do that.

I suggest you not be too quick to accept what others are proclaiming here. The Old Testament does not contain purified myth or allegorical stories like a kid’s storybook. The New Testament, and Jesus, refer to it.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[dz102789]

Hi Dave,

I don’t see how you can use what you call common sense to interpret the Bible. Did not God provide the Israelites manna from Heaven? Did he not part the waters so they passed on dry land followed by the Egyptians who drowned? God does not need technology as we understand it to do His work. By bringing God down to our level of understanding, we ignore real things God did.

Didn’t Jesus raise the dead multiple times? Cleanse the lepers? Rise from the dead Himself? Common sense tells us no one can do this. Even if a scientist was right there when Jesus and His disciples fed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes, with baskets of leftovers, What would the scientist give as the explanation? Or Thomas, doubting that Jesus had risen from the dead, said to his fellow disciples that he would not believe until he could put his fingers on the wounds. The risen, physical Jesus appeared to him and the others with him and asked him to do that.

I suggest you not be too quick to accept what others are proclaiming here. The Old Testament does not contain purified myth or allegorical stories like a kid’s storybook. The New Testament, and Jesus, refer to it.

Hope this helps,
Ed

Ed,

We certainly do differ in our views, but I have a good time nonetheless.

 

[grannymh]

I honestly haven’t kept up with the posts, but to answer the question, The Church does not have an opinion either way as to whether it is literally true, but if we use some common sense we can see that it is contains spiritual truths but not historical truths. There are million of species of animals, it would be impossible to fit them all into an ark. And come on… we all descended from noah and his family in the past couple of years! Also this is not to say that miracles do not happen because they certainly do (as we see in the gospels), but there are many stories in the old testament that should be interpreted allegorically and spiritually and not as historically accurate.

In Christ,

Dave

Back a mile or two, a point of biblical scholarship was quoted. “The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned.” In other words, the flood was not necessarily global. The flood can be seen as a local one covering the known area of the time.

The Catechism has some beautiful paragraphs on symbolism of the water and of the ark. But this is not a “mutually exclusive or” situation. The flood can be both a real event and an event which can inspire us to live better lives. Buds on a tree are biologically real and a symbol of Spring. The spiritual sense flows from a particular event.

Blessings,
granny

Eternal life with God is the goal of human life.

 

[buffalo]

Back a mile or two, a point of biblical scholarship was quoted. “The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned.” In other words, the flood was not necessarily global. The flood can be seen as a local one covering the known area of the time.

The Catechism has some beautiful paragraphs on symbolism of the water and of the ark. But this is not a “mutually exclusive or” situation. The flood can be both a real event and an event which can inspire us to live better lives. Buds on a tree are biologically real and a symbol of Spring. The spiritual sense flows from a particular event.

Blessings,
granny

Eternal life with God is the goal of human life.

Right on! There are many layers to Scripture.

 

[itinerant1]

The Old Testament does not contain…allegorical stories like a kid’s storybook. The New Testament, and Jesus, refer to it.

Hope this helps,
Ed

Spoken by one who exhibits a very deficient understanding of the Old Testament. No allegories in the O.T.? LOL

No biblical scholar of any repute would agree with you. Many saints of the past would disagree with you also. St. Augustine, for one, would certainly disagree with you. Obviously, you have never read St. Augustine’s rules for interpreting Scripture.

 

[itinerant1]

Back a mile or two, a point of biblical scholarship was quoted. “The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned.” In other words, the flood was not necessarily global. The flood can be seen as a local one covering the known area of the time.

The Catechism has some beautiful paragraphs on symbolism of the water and of the ark. But this is not a “mutually exclusive or” situation. The flood can be both a real event and an event which can inspire us to live better lives. Buds on a tree are biologically real and a symbol of Spring. The spiritual sense flows from a particular event.

Blessings,
granny

Eternal life with God is the goal of human life.

You have missed most of the points in the excerpts I provided, especially from the 1962 CE, and by Fr. Jaki in “Bible and Science.” In identifying the genus litterarium of the Noah story one must take note of the scientific fact that a local flood cannot cover mountain tops.

 

[dz102789]

Right on! There are many layers to Scripture.

I totally agree, but that does not mean that every part of scripture contains all of the layers.

In Christ,

Dave

 

[itinerant1]

This conflict is between secular science and the Catholic Church. Secular science is insufficient to describe reality, yet it comes here in the guise of various posters who insist “reason must be satisfied” before one enters the faith. As I’ve pointed out before, true secularists cannot accept God without proof. In my example, if I could produce a physical God standing right in front of them, then they might believe. No, this forum has been the subject of what boils down to negotiations between two warring parties.

A list of selected demands have been presented that must be accepted before peace can be declared. This is one condition but there are others. The argument concerns what is the source of real knowledge? The secularists insist that science, which they admit is provisional and subject to change, must reinterpret God’s Word. After all, the original writers were human, likely copying other myths and lacked modern knowledge. A reinterpretation is demanded or there will be no peace. I go to other forums and I see the same words and the same arguments year after year. The secularists are right and no effort will be spared to convince those who disagree.

To my fellow Catholics: The Catholic Church contains the fullness of the truth, both of the physical world and of spiritual things. The uneducated peasant is as much called to salvation as the most highly educated person here. The Bible tells us God is no respector of persons. The secularists who attempt to bring the Bible into alignment with what they believe to be settled knowledge are very selective about which parts of the Bible need reinterpretation. It is obvious in some cases, that the goal is not the truth but a reshaping of Catholic beliefs, and therefore, actions, so that they may go further in aligning the Church with secular goals.

Finally, like all business negotiations, rules lawyers post here with any line or word from Popes or Church scholars that seem to conform with their ideas. They will quote saints if need be to advance not the truth but a purely secular agenda. They do not, in some cases, care about God, the Bible or the faithful at all. It is only necessary to gain agreement so that the next round of proposed “changes” can begin. As Catholics know, the Bible is not just a book. It is the Word of God, and Sacred Scripture as mentioned as a heading on this forum. It is made sacred by God, not men.

The Church offers the faithful not only instruction in faith and morals but in right reason. This is not a form of reason that is subject to revisionism but a form of reason that results in lives worth living, not just for Catholics but for all that would consider it.

Finally, it should be apparent to all Catholics reading this that the great effort, the days and hours, are not being spent to educate Catholics about the truth, but to promote error, confusion and, in some cases, complete falsehoods. But by whatever method, the point is, Catholics must agree with their interpretation or they will continue to post here in perpetuity.

Study the Catechism. Read the encyclicals, and wait on the Church, just as they wait on the Church. This too, should expose what they are doing for what it really is: Don’t listen to the Church, listen to us. Because when the Church makes a statement in support of their cause, she is praised. When the Church makes a pronouncement that is against their cause, she becomes the enemy of reason and science, and knows nothing about what she is saying.

Be sober, be vigilant.

God bless,
Ed

Sermonizing and pontificating like this will never make up for the serious deficiencies in your understanding of the Bible and science.

 

[MonFrere]

Spoken by one who exhibits a very deficient understanding of the Old Testament. No allegories in the O.T.?

The Bible would make for one boring book if it started by giving us information on how stars are born or how galaxies and systems of galaxies form. To explain all the factors that had to be met to even get to the point where God could take 6 days to prepare the earth for man (for the sake of literalists) is just very dry and boring stuff; unless you are highly intelligent and of a scientific nature.

Having said that, it just makes common sense that these stories are not given as science lessons. The physical scientific story of creation, or the technical aspects of the flood story for that matter, is a non-story as far as salvation history goes. Salvation history has different priorities that need to be explained to get us to understand the origins of the real information we need REVEALED to us concerning the relationship between God and man. So, allegorical stories are the best way to get us up to speed and on the same page so we can be taught by God to understand His purpose for the creation of the universe and the creation of man.

MonFrere