Early Church Fathers - Interpreting Scripture

[rben20]

According to Scripture Catholic, the early Church fathers interpreted Scripture literally and agreed that with respect to the creation of the world, the Bible story of creation is to be taken literally as that is how they interpreted. If this is true, then does that mean that we cannot accept the scientific understanding of evolution? The link is as follows

scripturecatholic.com/evolution.html

The site also claims that one cannot hold the heliocentric view (Earth revolves around the Sun) as it goes against the early church’s interpretation of Scripture saying that the Earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it.

scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

I just want to know your alls thoughts because it does challenge my beliefs as it is commonly supported around the scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for life and that the earth revolves around the sun and tilts on its axis, therefore the earth does move. Are we not suppose to abide to the church fathers, especially to their interpretations as Catholics? After all, it is the same men who taught that the Lord’s presence was real in the Eucharist, not a symbol.

Please help me in my discernment. Thank you

 

[COPLAND_3]

There are numerous ways that the Fathers interpreted the Creation account, and also the Fathers are not the final authority, the Magisterium of the Church is. In my opinoin the Fathers of the Church should be consulted, but never relied upon as the final authority. As for an authoritative source on Creation I would start with the Cathechism here scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p4.htm#279

The Church gives us guidelines to follow so we can make sure that we stay within the safeguards of correct Doctrine while also having the liberty to embrace a range of scientific theories. The key is to learn those guidelines of the Church and then make sure the scientific theories are compatible. Unless the theories are somehow hostile to our faith then usually it can be compatible.

 

[DOShea]

In my opinion, it is painting the early Church Fathers with too broad a brush to claim they all interpreted scripture literally, and it seems as if you are really making a claim for literalistic versus literal interpretation. You need only read Gal 4:21 - 26 and you can see St. Paul using an allegorical interpretation. I don’t think any ECF is on record denouncing that.

If you believe that truth is singular, that there is only one truth about anything and not two or more, then examine the ways in which you get to that truth. Some things we can know from physics (science), such as is a certain plastic more or less hard than a certain metal alloy. No one would realistically look to metaphysics for an answer to that question. On the other hand, if we were trying to know the truth about something like beauty, love, or an Eternal Being, science is not a way we can find truth about those, so we need metaphysical avenues such as philosophy or religion to discover or reason to those truths, or perhaps receive them from revelation. I think you would agree each path to truth has strength or weakness depending on what we are seeking.

It is for these reasons that when conflict arises, that is, when different methods provide what appears to be two different “truths,” that we have to go examine more closely what each method is really telling us. If, for example, a scriptural interpretation gave us one truth, and science flat out proves a different truth, then perhaps that is telling us our interpretation needs work, NOT that there are different truths. I would point out that science, if it is honest, must hold itself to the same standard. When a scientific theory flies in the face of a truth reached by reason or revelation, it must also go back to the drawing board and rethink it. It’s when this doesn’t happen (on either side) that conflicts arise.

There is a problem when trying to retrofit what we know today into the writings of men in the first few centuries AD. What some claim is that a scientific discovery today “proves religion wrong” in some way. Not necessarily; it might just be that it proves a literalistic interpretation wrong where a different interpretation might mesh perfectly. It’s hardly fair to fault a man of the first century for not knowing any better. He didn’t have the same data with which to reason out an answer.

If you apply this to the conflict in question, I think you will see it is a case of trying to retrofit too much back to too early a source.

 

[awatkins69]

Well, we do interpret the creation account literally. Not every word written by the author was meant to be taken literally, but we do have to believe these things:

* God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
* The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
* The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
* God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
* God has created a good world. (De Fide)
* The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
* God alone created the world. (De Fide)
* God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
* God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
* The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
* Man consists of two essential parts -- a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
* Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
* Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
* The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
* Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
* Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
* Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

 

[NHInsider]

I just want to know your alls thoughts because it does challenge my beliefs as it is commonly supported around the scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for life and that the earth revolves around the sun and tilts on its axis, therefore the earth does move. Are we not suppose to abide to the church fathers, especially to their interpretations as Catholics? After all, it is the same men who taught that the Lord’s presence was real in the Eucharist, not a symbol.

Please help me in my discernment. Thank you

The official position of the Church is that we are permitted but not required to believe in a Young Earth/6-day creation. The folks at Scripture Catholic are entitled to promote their position and defend it - and there are many who post here at CAF who vociferously agree with them.

What SC and the creationists here should not do is to insist that to be a faithful Catholic you MUST be a YE/6-day creationist (or believe in a geocentric universe) - because that is not de fide. Unfortunately, if you believe passionately that something having to do with the faith is true, it is difficult to make your case while maintaining the position that it is possible for someone else to disagree and still be faithful. But that is the case (not only in Biblical literalism but many other areas about which people hold strong beliefs but the Church has not defined a single position as dogma).

Also, since neither the current Holy Father nor his immediate predecessor were YE Creationists, there is (IMO) a slippery slope toward sedevacantism among those who are so certain that a literal reading of Genesis 1 is essential to the Catholic faith.

 

[NoelFitz]

I worry about this. Believing in the Young Earth/6-day creation. is similar to believing the earth is flat and that the moon is made of cheese.

As far as I know the official position of the Church is that we are permitted but not required to believe in a flat earth or a moon made of cheese.

 

[rcjones]

I worry about this. Believing in the Young Earth/6-day creation. is similar to believing the earth is flat…

It is amusing that you would use this analogy. In Einstein-ian physics, the reason the Moon goes arounf d the earth is because it is traveling in a straight line in warped four-dimensional space. So someone following it on the surface of the earth would also be traveling in a straight line on a flat earth in warped four-dimensional space.

So it is really the modern physicist who believes in a flat earth.

Now consider another alternative. Since there was no sun on day one , it could not have been an earthly 24-hr period as defined by the sun going around the earth **

But if it was in a period of timeless eternity, before the fall where things began to decay in time, then it could literally be created in an instant, in seven days, or in an eternity, or in all three simultaneously. If this were the case, we would expect to find evidence of very long periods of time, and instantaneous creation. We do find such evidence. So personally, I believe he created all things in a single instance in timeless eternity, by speaking it into existence, and that within this there are seven aspects of creation called days, that also happened simultaneously in an instant. God didn’t need 144 hours to do it all.

** Modern physics predicts that wherever you are in the universe it will appear to be at the center of the universe. This is the consequence of relativity. Therefore it is proper to say that the sun revolves around the earth. So again it is the modern physicist that believes the earth is the center of the universe.

 

[Mintaka]

St. Augustine didn’t take Genesis’ “days” literally, and he scolded Christians for making Christianity look stupid by not reflecting the natural sciences in their comments on such topics.

St. Augustine was a Father and Doctor of the Church.

Going on from there… who the heck can read the Fathers, and say they all took the Bible literally only? You would have to be reading a pretty carefully pruned selection! The great glory of the Fathers is how beautifully they read the Bible in all its possible senses, sucking all the good juice out of verses, making the OT testify clearly about the NT in even the most seemingly mundane passages. The Alexandrian school is all about the allegories, what’s more.

Now, if you only read the Syrians or the Cappadocians, maybe maybe you might get that impression. But the Cappadocians really loved the Alexandrians, even when they themselves tried to be literal.

So no, the Fathers didn’t mostly read the Bible literally and only literally.

 

[excubitor]

There are numerous ways that the Fathers interpreted the Creation account, and also the Fathers are not the final authority, the Magisterium of the Church is. In my opinoin the Fathers of the Church should be consulted, but never relied upon as the final authority. As for an authoritative source on Creation I would start with the Cathechism here scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p4.htm#279

ScriptureCatholic does not rely entirely upon the Fathers of the Church. It relies upon dogmatic statements of the magisterium which resolutely declared that the teaching that the earth was moving was heretical. To this day the church magisterium has never abrogated these former statements of the church magisterium. Nor has any scientific evidence ever been given which proves that the earth is moving as the literal scriptures indicate; or that it is not in the centre of the universe as all natural observation indicates.

ScriptureCatholic does not condemn Catholics but merely points out the facts of the situation for the consideration of the faithful.

The Church gives us guidelines to follow so we can make sure that we stay within the safeguards of correct Doctrine while also having the liberty to embrace a range of scientific theories. The key is to learn those guidelines of the Church and then make sure the scientific theories are compatible. Unless the theories are somehow hostile to our faith then usually it can be compatible.

According to the mediaeval church the heresy of heliocentrism was very damaging and hostile to the faith. However the widescale disobedience of the people saw them en-masse abandon the teachings of the church on this issue in order to adopt the fond teachings of the emerging secular sciences. Secular science is demonstratively anti-God. The entire precept of modern biology, astronomy and geology is to defy and cast doubt upon the literal interpretations of the scripture and of the church which were formerly held by all Christians. The churches willingness to tolerate disobedience is clearly demonstrated by the fact that no action is taken against abusers of the liturgy and other abuses which scourge the church.

This lack of fortitude to exercise ecclesiastical authority has become increasingly pronounced in almost every arena of the church since the Congregation of the Index and the Congregation of the Inquisition failed to enforce the rulings of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in the matter of Geocentrism. We cannot blame the magisterium entirely but the overwhelming wave of disobedience and free thinking that came out of the Age of Enlightenment which exalted novel and “liberated” modes of thinking over the tried and true traditional patterns of thought and belief which was received from the Church. Out of this period has developed the heretical modes of thinking of Americanism and Modernism both of which are still afflicting Holy Mother Church.

Just because the church of today tolerates disobedience and disbelief is no excuse for us however and we should be resolved to obey the church of all ages in all things to the limit of our ability and understanding. On the other hand we have no obligation to believe the contrary teachings of anti-God scientists who strike at the faith and the scriptures at every opportunity.

 

[excubitor]

Since there was no sun on day one , it could not have been an earthly 24-hr period as defined by the sun going around the earth **

The fact is that if you refuse to believe Genesis 1 to a literal historical account of what happened at creation then you are forced to regard it entirely as poetry which bears no relationship to reality. The passage clearly shows that the concept of a 24 hour period of day and night is not determined by the sun but by some other phenomonen. Gen 1 describes the sun and moon as adorning the night and day, not determining the duration of the night and day. So what is this mysterious light which pre-existed the sun? I don’t know, but we know from Gen 1 that it is this primeval light which preceeded the sun which governs what is night and what is day and which marks the passage of the day. We also know that the sun does not cause this period of light which we call day, but inhabits it. Therefore days 1-3 must have been of the same duration as days 4-6. This would also mean that the green things of the earth lacked the light of the sun for only one day instead of for a vast age.

In fact I do suspect what this primeval light is. John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, “I am the light of the world”.

Not very scientific perhaps, but then we are talking about spiritual things. This is what is poorly understood. The creation of the universe is not a physical event. It is a supernatural, meta-physical event where the Spirit of God makes manifest a physical realm out of nothing. Science can never discover these origins because Science belongs in the realm of what can be seen, touched and measured. Therefore where Science fails, divine revelation supplies knowledge to them who believe. And that reveleation is most clearly that God created the heaven and the earth is six days.

But if it was in a period of timeless eternity, before the fall where things began to decay in time, then it could literally be created in an instant, in seven days, or in an eternity, or in all three simultaneously. If this were the case, we would expect to find evidence of very long periods of time, and instantaneous creation. We do find such evidence. So personally, I believe he created all things in a single instance in timeless eternity, by speaking it into existence, and that within this there are seven aspects of creation called days, that also happened simultaneously in an instant. God didn’t need 144 hours to do it all.

This is similar to what Augustine postulated. I disagree. God bent over backwards in Genesis 1 to point out the passage of days “the evening and the morning were the first, second . . . sixth day” On the seventh day he rested. Noone doubts that God could have created the universe in an instant, but why would you choose to believe so when God deliberately reveals in the scripture that he created the earth in six days? Also Augustine was not speaking dogmatically. He was musing in the manner of speculation. There is no harm in that but it is certainly not afforded the importance and weight of the many emphatic statements in tradition and in scripture that God made the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the sabbath.

** Modern physics predicts that wherever you are in the universe it will appear to be at the center of the universe. This is the consequence of relativity. Therefore it is proper to say that the sun revolves around the earth. So again it is the modern physicist that believes the earth is the center of the universe.

Quite so. Science has gone full circle. Actually modern science teaches that there is no preferred position in the universe and that any position in the universe. Its interesting to note that there is debate in science as to whether the universe is rotating? Everything else in the universe rotates, why then does the universe itself also not rotate? The answer seems to be driven almost entirely by philosophical reasons, for if the universe rotates then it must have a centre, which would indicate that there is a preferred place in the universe which opposes the philosophy of modern cosmology.

Personally I allow my philosophies to be driven by the religious beliefs revealed through the scriptures and the church and not by the secular idealogies of this world.

 

[excubitor]

Nor has any scientific evidence ever been given which proves that the earth is moving as the literal scriptures indicate; or that it is not in the centre of the universe as all natural observation indicates.

Typo sorry.
Nor has any scientific evidence ever been given which proves that the earth is not stationary as the literal scriptures indicate; or that it is not in the centre of the universe as all natural observation indicates

 

[KShaft]

ScriptureCatholic does not rely entirely upon the Fathers of the Church. It relies upon dogmatic statements of the magisterium which resolutely declared that the teaching that the earth was moving was heretical. To this day the church magisterium has never abrogated these former statements of the church magisterium. Nor has any scientific evidence ever been given which proves that the earth is moving as the literal scriptures indicate; or that it is not in the centre of the universe as all natural observation indicates.

ScriptureCatholic does not condemn Catholics but merely points out the facts of the situation for the consideration of the faithful.

According to the mediaeval church the heresy of heliocentrism was very damaging and hostile to the faith. However the widescale disobedience of the people saw them en-masse abandon the teachings of the church on this issue in order to adopt the fond teachings of the emerging secular sciences. Secular science is demonstratively anti-God. The entire precept of modern biology, astronomy and geology is to defy and cast doubt upon the literal interpretations of the scripture and of the church which were formerly held by all Christians. The churches willingness to tolerate disobedience is clearly demonstrated by the fact that no action is taken against abusers of the liturgy and other abuses which scourge the church.

This lack of fortitude to exercise ecclesiastical authority has become increasingly pronounced in almost every arena of the church since the Congregation of the Index and the Congregation of the Inquisition failed to enforce the rulings of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in the matter of Geocentrism. We cannot blame the magisterium entirely but the overwhelming wave of disobedience and free thinking that came out of the Age of Enlightenment which exalted novel and “liberated” modes of thinking over the tried and true traditional patterns of thought and belief which was received from the Church. Out of this period has developed the heretical modes of thinking of Americanism and Modernism both of which are still afflicting Holy Mother Church.

Just because the church of today tolerates disobedience and disbelief is no excuse for us however and we should be resolved to obey the church of all ages in all things to the limit of our ability and understanding. On the other hand we have no obligation to believe the contrary teachings of anti-God scientists who strike at the faith and the scriptures at every opportunity.

Indeed. The Big Bang theory, despite its being backed up by numerous proofs took a huge amount of time to be accepted until it was practically unavoidable,(some 70-80 years later to laymen) simply because of the implications of the theory led to a definitive BEGINNING of the universe as opposed to its either being eternal, or in some sort of osculating flux (new ageism/Hinduism). The implications being, some One or some Thing had to initiate it, and it had to fall within incredible tight tolerances to work. So basically because it fell in line with a higher power having to initiate the event,(something from nothing, just as the Judeo-Christian Creator proclaims) they did not want to adapt it on that alone, rather than on the evidence which pointed to it. Dont ever believe scientists are neutral in their search for the truth, they typically are biased towards their religion of naturalism so strongly Im not even sure they realize it, all the while belittling those whom agree with what the actual evidence points to as stupid or uneducated. If the stupid and uneducated come to the correct conclusions and the ‘intellectuals’ and ‘bright’ come to the wrong ones, what does that say about them?

There may have been a time when scientists truly wanted to discover the truth of what was happening in the universe and the world, even in a manner reverent of the Creator. No longer is the the case in the vast majority of circles. Their bias is definitely an attempt to disprove a creator is necessary for the universe and life to have formed.

First the earth was suspended on 4 elephants, the sun was raised and lowered in a chariot by a god, then matter was eternal, NOW because of a Catholic Belgium priest, they suspect the universe had a definite beginning in time, and was fined tuned for life. Science keeps changing its story. Scripture had been saying the same thing for 3 to 4 millennia. The sun and moon are merely orbs for producing light, the earth was hung on nothing, there was a definitive moment in time when the universe, the earth, and life upon it were CREATED and meticulously fashioned, not in anyway accidentally formed.

I have come to trust the Lord of the Bible and His Son according to the scripture and tradition of the Holy Catholic Church. Not merely on blind faith, but on evidence that points to the truths of the true Creator which leads me to have faith in Him. I trust in Him and not in the rationale of men hostile to him, which puts them on the same side of Lucifer.

If your loyalties lie with a ‘profession of faith’ that is born out of wanting to be more accepted by the unbelieving, then perhaps you should re-examine your faith and see who your true master is.