Scripture: What's myth and what's history?

[mpartyka]

The Church however defined and declared it does NOT. That’s good enough for me.

When the Church defined and declares this, did it do so infallibly? Usually in my arguments with Catholics on one subject or another I run into the wall of “That wasn’t an infallible statement,” even when I produce numerous quotes from this or that pope. Even documents like Humanae Vitae are contested by Catholics whose arguments basically amount to, “He didn’t say, ‘Simon Says’!”

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

When did it do this? And why doesn’t the pope himself believe it?

Pope Leo the Great didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, but that doesn’t appear to matter.

According to what I’ve been told by various Catholic apologists, the pope himself could be a total atheist and libertine, just so long as he didn’t teach error ex cathedra.

–Mike

 

[StAnastasia]

Pope Leo the Great didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, but that doesn’t appear to matter.–Mike

My point is that if Cassini believes that the sun and the rest of the universe revolve around the planet earth, he is not joined in this belief by any pope of recent memory, nor by cardinals, bishops, or even most priests and nuns (to say nothing of scientists). Robert Vasa of the Diocese of Bend is a professed Young Earth Creationist, but I believe even he is not a Sungenite.

StAnastasia

 

[patg]

As this witness from our Lord is our only external intrabiblical control to the book of Jonah, it should be given considerable weight as we proceed to analyze the internal evidence.

That is a very good reason to not give it much weight, especially when compared to the overwelming evidence from the story of Jonah itself which indicates its fictional nature.

This principle is generally true, but it does not help in the present scenario. The men of Nineveh are going to rise up at the judgment to condemn Jesus’ generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. This future event cannot happen if the basis for it is a fictional account.

This is just as much a part of Jesus’ teaching as the rest of it and it is certainly acceptable and reasonable to look at it as a continuation of the lesson. It is part of the lesson, not a dramatic prophecy of things to come

And again, if this statement from our Lord makes reference to the historicity of the preaching of Jonah – and it must

No, we do not agree. He is just referencing an old story as part of his lesson.

– then the most reasonable interpretation of His immediately preceding reference to Jonah being in the belly of the sea creature is that He sees is as also having a historical basis in fact.

There is no reason or evidence to make this connection. I don’t agree with your main idea but even if I did I would certainly find it stretching things way too far to attach all the nearby parts of the story and say that they must all be history also.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Even documents like Humanae Vitae are contested by Catholics whose arguments basically amount to, “He didn’t say, ‘Simon Says’!”

–Mike

Hey Mike!

You’ll want to follow up Humanae Vitae by quoting from Veritatis Splendor if you want to establish the infallibility of the teaching found in HV.

May God bless you!

 

[mpartyka]

My point is that if Cassini believes that the sun and the rest of the universe revolve around the planet earth, he is not joined in this belief by any pope of recent memory, nor by cardinals, bishops, or even most priests and nuns (to say nothing of scientists).

Agreed, but what I’m saying is, it really doesn’t matter what any of those esteemed figures believes unless the pope comes out and says, “This is infallibly so.” Until the, the matter is unresolved, and the Church has not spoken in any way that can be accepted as final. Birth control, women priests, abortion homosexuality – all these are issues that people still consider up for grabs because the pope has never spoken infallibly on them, and they will continue to be up for grabs until he does. On the other hand, I’ve never met a modern-day Catholic who would dream of denying the Immaculation Conception or the Assumption of Mary because these dogmas were declared infallibly. One can only hope that the Creed is given the same infallible standing in the minds of the laity, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that wasn’t the case.

Robert Vasa of the Diocese of Bend is a professed Young Earth Creationist, but I believe even he is not a Sungenite.

Sungenite? Sounds like a reference to Robert Sungenis, but I’m not familiar with his views, other than that he’s a Catholic apologist.

–Mike

 

[StAnastasia]

Mike, Robert Sungenis is author of Galileo was wrong:

alternet.org/blogs/peek/48148/

veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2006/06/galileo-was-wrong-vol-i-finally.html

StAnastasia

 

[MarcoPolo]

Bellarmine says that geocentrism is “not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter,”

Indeed, and don’t forget how Cardinal Bellarmine finished his letter to Father Foscarini in 1615:

*Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and **say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false.***He was open to reinterpreting the Scripture in light of demonstrable science. What he was not open to is calling part of God’s communication a lie.

 

[mpartyka]

You’ll want to follow up Humanae Vitae by quoting from Veritatis Splendor if you want to establish the infallibility of the teaching found in HV.

But what, if anything, has established the infallibility of Veritatis Splendor?

Consider for a moment what I was told by one Catholic. I listed out all the praise and glory given to Mary in Ineffable Deus and said, “See? It’s incumbent upon Catholics to do all this!” He replied, “No, we’re only bound by that one sentence which is the actual definition itself. Only that one sentence is infallible. Only that one sentence is incumbent upon all Catholics to believe.” So…never mind the rest of the document, because that’s all just papal opinion? What, then, does that do to the documents like Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor, which contain no explicitly infallible statements, if even the statements which appear in the same document with an explicitly infallible statement are merely statements of opinion?

–Mike

 

[Pete_Holter]

But what, if anything, has established the infallibility of Veritatis Splendor?

Consider for a moment what I was told by one Catholic. I listed out all the praise and glory given to Mary in Ineffable Deus and said, “See? It’s incumbent upon Catholics to do all this!” He replied, “No, we’re only bound by that one sentence which is the actual definition itself. Only that one sentence is infallible. Only that one sentence is incumbent upon all Catholics to believe.” So…never mind the rest of the document, because that’s all just papal opinion? What, then, does that do to the documents like Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor, which contain no explicitly infallible statements, if even the statements which appear in the same document with an explicitly infallible statement are merely statements of opinion?

–Mike

Since I’m getting off topic, I’ll send you a PM.

 

[mpartyka]

Bellarmine says that geocentrism is “not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter.”

True, but his full quote concerning geocentrism was:

Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken.

In other words, it is a violation of the faith of the author of a particular scripture if that particular scripture should be wrong, even if what the author is wrong about lies outside the limited realm of faith and morals.

And isn’t what is supposed to comfort us about our faith is that “we believe as they believed” (i.e., the continuity of the faith and our own participation in that continuity)?

–Mike

 

[cassini]

When did it do this? And why doesn’t the pope himself believe it?

Pope Paul V Confirms the Verdict

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

Given there is no record of the considerations we do not know the basis of the ‘philosophical’ censure which was/is not subject to canonical penalty. To say the sun moves, now formal heresy, is to deny a doctrine of faith. The second proposition, the movement of the earth, was not found formally heretical because it is based certain scriptural inferrences but not according to the words themselves. Moreover, and this is important, note what was condemned and what was not. At no time did the Church declare or confirm any geometric system of the cosmos, only that the sun moves and that the earth, at the centre of the universe, does not. These then are principles, not models. The Inquisition did not comment on the ‘scientific’ (so-called proofs) aspect of the proposals but stuck to its area of purview and comment. With regard its definition of formal heresy and ‘erroneous to the faith’; the Church remained within the parameters of its divine protection and guidance.

 

[cassini]

When the Church defined and declares this, did it do so infallibly? Usually in my arguments with Catholics on one subject or another I run into the wall of “That wasn’t an infallible statement,” even when I produce numerous quotes from this or that pope. Even documents like Humanae Vitae are contested by Catholics whose arguments basically amount to, “He didn’t say, ‘Simon Says’!”

–Mike

The Authority of the Anti-Copernican Inquisition

In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.

 

[cassini]

Indeed, and don’t forget how Cardinal Bellarmine finished his letter to Father Foscarini in 1615:

Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and **say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false.**He was open to reinterpreting the Scripture in light of demonstrable science. What he was not open to is calling part of God’s communication a lie.

Marco, when, please God, you meet Bellarmine in the next life, he will want to have a few words with you for misrepresenting him. First here again is what he said about a moving sun and fixed earth:

Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Now read what he said about exegesis:

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.

Note you posted the Apologists version without including: ’
But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.’

What’s the difference between the two versions? Well the true one shows Bellarmine was speaking in the PRESENT TENSE, in other words he was talking about GALILEO’s so-called proofs.
Your quote, the one altered by the Copernicans tries to get him to speak in the FUTURE tense sto make it look like there was permission to ignore the 1616 decree.

Finally, remember this is only a letter written in 1615, ONE year BEFORE the decree. In other words it has no legal authority at all, and certainly it is an abuse to try to use it to deny the Church’s 1616 decree.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Marco, when, please God, you meet Bellarmine in the next life, he will want to have a few words with you for misrepresenting him

Please calm down.

I’m sorry, but if he believed it was a matter of immutable faith, as you claim he did, he would not have left himself an escape caveat (which I quoted again above) in the same letter in which he said it was a matter of faith [ex parte dicentis]. He obviously did not take an interpretation of geocentrism as a matter of unchangeable literalism. There’s no way around that. He was taking on faith that the Scripture should be interpreted literally, but that another interpretation was possible. He was very clear on that. He simply did not buy Gallileo’s presentation enough to move toward a change in interpretation—which, again, he admitted possible.

And if we return again to the Council of Trent, since only a matter of faith or morals is enveloped in infallibility, we see why Cardinal Bellarmine left the door open even if he criticized Gallileo for going contra to what was currently understood by the Church.

As I also said earlier, the Church is certainly open to criticism in its involvement in secular matters like this. In antiquity, the Church had authoritative jurisdiction beyond the faith, and popes and priests have often made bad decisions.

But what we have here is an attempt to discredit the Church’s infallible protection by the Holy Spirit on matters pertaining to the faith. Do we not?

 

[John_oxios]

The Bible conveys theological truths — not scientific or historical facts. I do know that.

Hello ,
Remember not everyone read until recent times. Only the very rich, and then their were no books,and the few they had probably cost as much as a house today. The reproduction costs were astronomical til Gutenburg. :bible1:

So they used words and painted pictures with them, to relate to Generation to generation. kpeople: The story is the husk, and the Truth told is the kernel. It is the truth revealed that is most important!!
Is it Six literal days or Thosuands of yrs? The Point of Genesis is God is our Creator, Do we get the picture? Yes we do.

God Bless,

John

 

[patg]

Unless you are working on a project for the Jesus Seminar, it is enough to know that the Evangelist has indeed preserved the meaning or the sense of what Jesus said…

I forgot to add the following when I was responding to the above.

The critical parts of the argument which uses Jesus’ reference to Jonah comes down to a couple of points:

1. 
   *]Did Jesus actually say everything attributed to him concerning Jonah and concerning the Ninevites?
   *]Did what Jesus say amount to support for the entire story being literally true? for parts of the story being literally true?
   It is pretty much universally agreed that Matthew was writing for a predominantly Jewish audience. He consistently presents Jesus to this audience as the new Moses who has authority from God to give the new law. The first few pages of his gospel are a textbook example of Jewish midrash as he crafts a story full of allusions to older Jewish stories - the star, the magi, the slaughter of the innocents, the flight into Egypt, etc. The idea that he also crafted a passage in which he has Jesus using the famous story of Jonah as part of his teaching follows seamlessly along with this theme.
   
   I don’t think either of us can possibly convince the other that Jesus actually said or did not say the exact words attributed to him by only Matthew and the church does not require belief in either side. If we leave out the statement about the Ninevites, it is pretty obvious that a teacher can reference a fictional account in teaching a real world story. The Three Pigs is a perfect example of that. As to the Ninevites? Well we are only left with my comments in the paragraph above and the uncertainty as to whether this was meant as a literal prophecy, which we will never know.
   
   We do know that we don’t have the exact words of Jesus - the church specifically says that we don’t. Therefore, due to there being only this solitary reference of questionable origins, I don’t think we can go much further with this. We do, however, have the whole story of Jonah and it is probably time to look at it for the answers which I think are very clear.

 

[cassini]

Marco; what really matters in any good debate is what the vast bulk of readers decide is the truth of it, your version, or mine. you say:
‘I’m sorry, but if he believed it was a matter of immutable faith, as you claim he did, he would not have left himself an escape caveat (which I quoted again above) in the same letter in which he said it was a matter of faith [ex parte dicentis]. He obviously did not take an interpretation of geocentrism as a matter of unchangeable literalism. There’s no way around that. He was taking on faith that the Scripture should be interpreted literally, but that another interpretation was possible. He was very clear on that. He simply did not buy Gallileo’s presentation enough to move toward a change in interpretation—which, again, he admitted possible.’

Let us see now if that matches the quote from Bellarmine.

1615

In early 1615, Fr Foscarini sent a copy of his book to Cardinal Bellarmine seeking his opinion on it. Bellarmine’s reply, dated April 12, 1615, constitutes the showpiece document of the whole Galileo affair, for it reflects the Church’s doctrinal and canonical position at the time which was quickly gathering momentum, crying for a resolution one way or another. Now it must be noted that by then the cardinal, chief Consulter of the Holy Office, had already concluded that Copernicanism was almost certainly heretical. Some weeks earlier Cardinal Bellarmine’s personal opinion was reported to Galileo by Prince Ceisi (of the Academy of the Lynxes) in the following unmistakable terms:

‘With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever (senza dubbio aleuno) contrary to Scripture.’

Bellarmine’s Letter to Fr Foscarini

‘I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the Latin treatise which your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the centre of the heavens and only revolves around itself without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. For Your reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, the Word of God, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

 

[cassini]

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the centre and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.

I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.
I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness. From my house, April 12, 1615,
Your very Reverend Paternity’s brother,
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.

 

[StAnastasia]

What he was not open to is calling part of God’s communication a lie.

Of course God doesn’t lie, but God uses symbolic language liberally throughout the scriptures! Talking snakes, six-day creations, global floods – these are wonderful uses if metaphor and symbol!