S
StAnastasia
Guest
Sorry, I’m with the pope on this one, who does not regard a moving earth as heresy. Nor do the staff at the pope’s own scientific institution, the Vatican Observatory.
StAnastasia
- Status
StAnastasia
J
John_oxios
Guest
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.
Hello Patg,
If you regard Jewish biblical belief or commentary of the O.T. The fish Leviathan mentioned in Job was created for one and only one purpose to swallow Jonah.
Jonah wasn’t just a story it was a lesson the the Hebrew people!!
For all time
Jesus affirms the story of it:
Matt 12:39 But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Why would Christ use a fictional story to describe what He was actual going to do?Code:Mat 12:40 **For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, **so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
David Guzik Commentary:
blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=2&contentID=7877&commInfo=31&topic=Matthew
c. The sign of the prophet Jonah: Jesus assures them of a sign, but the only sign they will get is the sign of a resurrected Jesus. Jonah gave his life to appease the wrath of God coming upon others. But death did not hold him; after three days and nights of imprisonment, he was alive and free. What a glorious picture of Jesus in an unexpected place!
Also:
blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1607&commInfo=5&topic=Matthew
So long Jonah was a prisoner for his own sins, so long Christ was a Prisoner for ours. [3.] As Jonah in the whale’s belly comforted himself with an assurance that yet he should look again toward God’s holy temple (Jonah 2:4), so Christ when he lay in the grave, is expressly said to rest in hope, as one assured he should not see corruption, Acts 2:26, 27. [4.] As Jonah on the third day was discharged from his prison, and came to the land of the living again, from the congregation of the dead (for dead things are said to be formed from under the waters, Job 26:5), so Christ on the third day should return to life, and rise out of his grave to send abroad the gospel to the Gentiles.
God bless,
Johnnie o
P
patg
Guest
Yes - the lesson that God loves other nations and peoples too.
Yes, Jesus does reference it as a story. He does not affirm that it literaly happened.
Why not? Why should anyone be limited to only referencing non-fictional stories as examples as to what they are going to do?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I’m sorry truth is not decided by a bulk of readers. Truth is impervious to majorities or minorities, or anything else.
That Cardinal Bellarmine did not consider this a matter of immutable faith is obvious from the letter, thank you for posting it in its entirety. Neither did the Church.
For all, here is a summary of already presented facts (and one new one) that belie the claim that the Church considered geocentrism a matter of immutable faith (and the claim that the Church does not have the guarantee of the Holy Spirit on faith or morals):
#1 Council of Trent (1546) - (I)n matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers…
#2 In Cardinal Bellarmine’s 1615 letter, he qualifies his comment that geocentrism is a matter of faith with: *“if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe…we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.” * It doesn’t matter if he admitted he didn’t foresee such a demonstration. The fact is, he admits the understanding of the Scripture could change, meaning the traditional interpretation was not immutable.
#3 So we know from Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter, geocentrism was not an immutable interpretation of Scripture. And since no doctrine is formed at a tribunal, there was no magisterial presence, it’s not a council or synod or ex cathedra statement, no definition occurred during the trial. ** The Church is open to criticism on this issue. But not criticism that it defined dogma contrary to truth nor that a matter of immutable faith was established** at this tribunal.
#4 In 1623, the newly elected Urban VIII indicated again, that a geocentrist interpretation was not a matter of immutable faith when he had his secretary write to Gallileo:* “If you would resolve to commit to print those ideas that you still have in mind, I am quite certain that they would be most acceptable to His Holiness, who never ceases from admiring your eminence and preserves intact his attachment for you. You should not deprive the world of your productions.”* He even later bought into Gallileo’s presentation but wanted Gallileo to admit God could do something contrary to science, leaving the geocentric interpretation still open to the literal before he chose to embrace the figurative. To this day, neither interpretation has been defined dogmatically. (For trivia’s sake, it should also be noted that Gallileo taught the sun was the center of the universe, which was included in the statement of Gallileo’s sentence, which modern science also considers erroneous).
There are too many exceptions surrounding this incident that show geocentrism was not considered a matter of unchangeable faith by the Church.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
And in any case, what the “Church” thinks about particular astronomical claims is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant to physics – and to Catholic physicists – if the pope were to declare today that water boils at 200 degree Farenheit at sea level.
StAnastasia
C
cassini
Guest
I agree Marco. what I meant is that in a debate what the majority end up thinking decides the debate. I put it badly.
Marco, your a little confused yourself here. Of course Bellarmine did not consider it a fact of immutable faith for the simple reason the Church had not defined and declared it so until 1616, one year after Bellarmine wrote his letter. In fact this letter only serves to show the question under discussion (H or G in the Bible) WAS a matter of faith.
Your quote from Trent is puzzling for it supports the Church’s right to judge the suggestion of H in the Bible as heresy.
And where did you get the 1623 opinion from? I ask this because in 1633, in an official act of the Church the Pope gave a far different judgement on the affair.
Here is the Judgement of the Church against Galileo.
’ “Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. And consequently that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class. From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you.’
Now if Pope urban VII and his cardinals of the Supreme holy Office did not think that the 1616 decree was immutable, then I just do not know how to read.
J
John_oxios
Guest
Hello patg,
Maybe we don’t read the same Scriptures??
Matt 12:39 But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Mat 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
What is a sign??? It is an action an event Jesus is affirming;
A Sign is a general word for whatever gives evidence of an event—past, present, or future:
Prophet: 1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.
So the Bible being God’s inerrant Word correct?
It is a matter of Faith
Why would HE use a prophet, as a fictional story to send a sign? Maybe Jonah never really existed at all then??
Some rabbi made him up, this would be the oldest fish story ever recorded!
The one that got away before they could land it?
Once you have reduced a Prophets mission by God, as just a story well then you can take the whole Bible and say it is fiction.
Genesis is a story, Moses is a story, Israel is a story?
Where does it end?
Mat 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Jesus said it!!! I believe it, nothing is impossible for the LORD our God. What else do you not believe Jesus said??
Have a nice day,
God bless,
John
M
mpartyka
Guest
To avoid having to jump back and forth among various posts, I’ve constructed the following “timeline of events”. I invite all to please offer any corrections as needed:
1546 - The Council of Trent declares that the infallibility of the Church extends only to matters of faith and morals.
1615 - Cardinal Bellarmine argues that geocentricity is a matter of faith because the geocentric language used by the prophets indicates the personal faith and belief of the prophets in geocentricity.
1616 - The Inquisition issues a judgment that holding the sun to be fixed in space while a rotating earth revolves around it is to engage in formal heresy or at least to be in error concerning the faith. (This judgment is presumed to carry the weight of Pope Paul V’s authority because the reigning Pope is Prefect of the Inquisition.)
1623 - Pope Urban VII (or VIII), however, has his secretary write to Galileo that the reigning Pope has an open mind toward the heliocentric model, so long as the possibility of geocentricity is allowed to remain on the table.
1633 - A definitive(?) judgment is pronounced upon Galileo which accuses him of heresy for believing in the heliocentric model “as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.” To avoid canonical punishment, Galileo would have to “abjure, curse, and detest” his belief in the heliocentric model.
It seems to me, given the above timeline, that (1) Pope Urban’s openmindedness toward heliocentricity is the exception rather than the rule, and (2) whoever issued the 1633 judgment against Galileo must have believed that some time before then (perhaps in 1616) the Church had definitively condemned the heliocentric model.
–Mike
P.S.: Just for the record, I’m curious to hear what internal testimony may exist in Jonah indicating that it is of a fictional nature (besides the obvious miracles themselves, which make up the substance of the story and therefore should not serves as counterindications of historicity). For example, the “3-and-3” structure of the six days of creation and the “1-1-2” sequence contained in each 3-set point to Genesis 1’s being a constructed tale intended to convey meaning through the symbolic arrangement of visible phenomena.
1546 - The Council of Trent declares that the infallibility of the Church extends only to matters of faith and morals.
1615 - Cardinal Bellarmine argues that geocentricity is a matter of faith because the geocentric language used by the prophets indicates the personal faith and belief of the prophets in geocentricity.
1616 - The Inquisition issues a judgment that holding the sun to be fixed in space while a rotating earth revolves around it is to engage in formal heresy or at least to be in error concerning the faith. (This judgment is presumed to carry the weight of Pope Paul V’s authority because the reigning Pope is Prefect of the Inquisition.)
1623 - Pope Urban VII (or VIII), however, has his secretary write to Galileo that the reigning Pope has an open mind toward the heliocentric model, so long as the possibility of geocentricity is allowed to remain on the table.
1633 - A definitive(?) judgment is pronounced upon Galileo which accuses him of heresy for believing in the heliocentric model “as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.” To avoid canonical punishment, Galileo would have to “abjure, curse, and detest” his belief in the heliocentric model.
It seems to me, given the above timeline, that (1) Pope Urban’s openmindedness toward heliocentricity is the exception rather than the rule, and (2) whoever issued the 1633 judgment against Galileo must have believed that some time before then (perhaps in 1616) the Church had definitively condemned the heliocentric model.
–Mike
P.S.: Just for the record, I’m curious to hear what internal testimony may exist in Jonah indicating that it is of a fictional nature (besides the obvious miracles themselves, which make up the substance of the story and therefore should not serves as counterindications of historicity). For example, the “3-and-3” structure of the six days of creation and the “1-1-2” sequence contained in each 3-set point to Genesis 1’s being a constructed tale intended to convey meaning through the symbolic arrangement of visible phenomena.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Interesting, but of relevance primarily to historians. I know of no working astronomers today who are geocentrists, including those at the Vatican Observatory.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I wouldn’t say irrelevant if it were a Scriptural interpretation, but “authoritative yet not infallible,” even if that Pope said so in the middle of a tribunal.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Granted, but consider the ramifications, here. I think it’s safe to say, but feel free to disagree, that the Jews before Christ and the Christians until (let’s say) 1500 had no idea that the earth (1) rotates and (2) revolves around the sun. The judgment of 1633 shows that even as late as that, the majority presumption among the higher-ups in the Church was that the universe was geocentric, and they were so entrenched in this position that they were prepared to condemn Galileo on the charge of formal heresy for promoting the heliocentric model. This was nearly 100 years after Trent established the Church’s supremacy in matters of faith and morals and particularly in matters of proper scriptural interpretation. They thought geocentricity was a matter of faith and morals, and they declared that heliocentricity was heresy.
The question is, who trumps whom? In the scientific world, the latest theories trump the earlier theories if the latest theories explain the data better. Thus, we went from a solid atom to a “plum pudding” atom to an atom comprised of subatomic particles, and so forth. Naturally, having grown up in a scientific age, we would expect that discoveries in science would trump views held or written centuries ago…but what happens when these views come from the Bible? Does science then trump the Bible? Or do we instead disingenuously argue that “the Bible was never intended to teach science” even though the origin of the cosmos and the development of life on earth – upon which much of fundamental Church doctrine depends, don’t you think? – clearly fall within the realm of science?
Some people are acting like the authors of Scripture knew all along that the earth revolved around the sun, but that’s plain nonsense. They wrote it because they believed that was the world they lived in – one that was stationary and had stars and planets passing overhead, one in which the solid dome of the sky kept back the rain and snow (“the waters above the heavens”) from falling to the earth below, one in which a global flood was entirely within the realm of possibility, etc., etc. This is what they believed. This is what many people today believe precisely because they are following what they are reading in the Bible just as the Church of 1623 followed what they read in the Bible when they rendered their judgment against Galileo.
–Mike
S
StAnastasia
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
If the pope were to tell me authoritatively that the moon is made of green cheese, that would be irrelevant to my work. The same would hold for geocentrism, a demonic theory of disease, or a theory of earthquakes based on divine wrath. If the pope were also a noted specialist in galactic evolution, who forwarded a new theory about cannibalistic black holes, that might be relevant.I wouldn’t say irrelevant if it were a Scriptural interpretation, but “authoritative yet not infallible,” even if that Pope said so in the middle of a tribunal.
StAnastasia
G
Gofer
Guest
mpartyka
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I only meant that in union with the then-generally accepted interpretation of that Scripture, his interpretation should have been considered authoritative (but not infallible because of the subject or the conditions from which he opined). The above examples don’t really have the same pedigree to me, like the moon being made of cheese.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes, and I only meant that qua theologian a pope’s opinions on matters astronomical are no more relevant to astronomy than a pope’s opinions on medicine are to medical science. Some Muslims in 2005 argued that the Indonesian tsunami was sent by God to punish unfaithful Muslims. Whether true or not, this opinion is irrelevant to geological science.
StAnastasia
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
They could rise again, in the sequel to Jonah. It’s perfectly valid to refer to fictional characters and comment on whether they would rise again at the Judgement or not. Of course, if they are fictional, and they will not receive a real judgement. But the point is the same - that the characters in Jonah put to shame the people who don’t recognize Jesus.
That’s the thing about the ancient biblical stories… their message and how we use them to teach is completely 100% the same whether they are fiction, legend, or history. You can’t tell from how Jesus or an apostle quoted the story and used it in teaching, whether they thought it was historical or not, unless they specifically address that question, which is unlikely, since they weren’t hung up about it like we are.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Correct. Was there really a fig tree that withered when Jesus cursed it? Or is this a trope of oral and literary tradition? Does it really matter whether Jesus atually cursed a poor ol’ innocent fig tree?
StAnastasia
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I’m sure there was a fig tree. What genre could that story possibly be, if not historical? Lying? Is slander a new genre of biblical exegesis?Correct. Was there really a fig tree that withered when Jesus cursed it? Or is this a trope of oral and literary tradition? Does it really matter whether Jesus atually cursed a poor ol’ innocent fig tree?
It certainly was used a lot by people of that time
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I thought of another two examples:
Jesus told a story about a ‘good Samaritan’. Even fundamentalists recognize that Jesus made up this story to illustrate a point. It wasn’t a story that really happened. Yet, it still has significance for teaching. It doesn’t matter if it happened or not.
Another example is the rich man in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. In the story, the rich man suffers in hell. Was this fictional rich man really in hell? Does it matter? No, it doesn’t matter. It was a story to illustrate a point.
In the same way, it doesn’t matter if the men of Ninevah are fictional and would do better than Jesus’ contemporaries at the judgement, or if they are real. Either way, the point stands.
- Status