E
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
The enlightenment is anti-catholic? What are you saying?
B
buffalo
Guest
What are the top three?
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Why does Genesis have to be taken literally to convey truth? Indeed. If that were the case, then the parables of Jesus would not convey truth either.
B
buffalo
Guest
Here is the big difference - when Jesus spoke in parables it is always identified as being such.
B
buffalo
Guest
Our Catechism specifically states all other senses of Scripture are based on the literal.
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Yet, we speak of two distinct literary forms.
B
buffalo
Guest
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
The spiritual sense . Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
"It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
The spiritual sense . Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
- The allegorical sense . We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
- The moral sense . The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge , “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
"It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
- Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church” . According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
- Be attentive to the analogy of faith .82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
Literal does not mean what you think. There is a long tradition in scripture studies of seeking to understand a text in the way the author intended.
This was subverted for a period by enlightenment ideas about knowledge and history. And yes, those ideas were anti-catholic, since they involved saying we could be certain about realities that are beyond our capabilities. Catholicism has always taught the complexity of truth, deep connections within our relationships to God.
This was subverted for a period by enlightenment ideas about knowledge and history. And yes, those ideas were anti-catholic, since they involved saying we could be certain about realities that are beyond our capabilities. Catholicism has always taught the complexity of truth, deep connections within our relationships to God.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Thanks for posting some of the basics of scripture interpretation. Here is some more from the Catechism:
B
buffalo
Guest
Correct. Understanding of scripture grows organically, that is it gets fuller like a bush. Entire branches do not get cut at the root. The one’s closest in time have the best contextual understanding. Tradition preserves this across generations.
If we just figured it out, then the Holy Spirit must have been sleeping.
B
buffalo
Guest
Exactly…
M
mVitus
Guest
The short of this is that you are incorrect. The long is linked to with a post by me.
Last edited:
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
[No message]
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Not…
L
Larry1700
Guest
I’m 59, and up until a couple of years ago I grudgingly accepted the conventional “wisdom” that “the Bible is not a scientific book, and should not be taken literally.” I say “grudgingly,” because not believing the creation account as told in the Bible opens the door to questioning the entire Bible. A couple of years ago I read Walt Brown’s textbook which addresses the problems with “conventional wisdom,” and provides what appear to me to be SCIENTIFICALLY FOUNDED proofs of creation as described in the Bible. Until you’ve read it yourself, don’t laugh at me. And be sure to read the endnotes!!! Go to www.creationscience.com and just read a few pages to see if it’s worth your time. For me, it was a life-changer.
G
Gorgias
Guest
You really, really, REALLY don’t want to go there.
OK… since you went there:
If the Genesis creation narratives are historical, literal narratives… then how do you account for the fact that Genesis 1 claims that animals were created before humans were created, but Genesis 2 claims that animals were created after Adam was created?
The Church teaches in the Catechism that the moral law is present in each human person:
Since this belongs, properly, to human persons, it would not be present in unensouled hominins.
Not sure why this is surprising to you. All humans continue to “reject [God’s] ethics” and “go against the communication from God” that we are given.
You’re ignoring the more plausible explanation: all other genetic lines were assimilated into the human line.
That would depend on when, exactly, ensoulment took place. Before the “out of Africa” event, perhaps, would be the easiest explanation.
Your time with us at CAF has been replete with examples of your lack of satisfaction and conviction in Catholic teaching.
No. Not even close. What prevents us is Church teaching that asserts that certain events really occurred.Carmel:
Nothing.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Moses is seen as being the ‘author’ of the Pentateuch not by virtue of personally writing it down, but by being identified as being involved in the development of the Scriptural traditions. Source criticism in the 19th and 20th centuries identifies a variety of styles, pointing to the existence of a number of authors/editors of the Pentateuch.
And, by “literal”, it means literal sense (which means “the intent of the human author”), not “the literal words on the page taken as a literal narrative.”
Or, perhaps, we are the ones who have just woken from our slumber…
B
buffalo
Guest
For the umpteenth time - Gen1 is an account of the order of creation. Gen 2 is the importance of man. They are complementary.You really, really , REALLY don’t want to go there.
OK… since you went there:
If the Genesis creation narratives are historical, literal narratives… then how do you account for the fact that Genesis 1 claims that animals were created before humans were created, but Genesis 2 claims that animals were created after Adam was created?
- Status