What is De Fide in the Noah’s Ark story?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthias123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matthias123

Guest
I know that the anthropological universality of the great flood was a teaching of the magersterium of the Church Fathers, under faith and morals, but as far as I know it was not an infallible teaching.

What part, if any part of the Noah’s Ark story is De Fide?
 
I know that the anthropological universality of the great flood was a teaching of the magersterium of the Church Fathers, under faith and morals, but as far as I know it was not an infallible teaching.

What part, if any part of the Noah’s Ark story is De Fide?
I don’t know exactly what you mean by De Fide? Can you explain more what you’re asking?
 
De fide (of the faith) is a “theological note” or “theological qualification” that indicates that some religious doctrine is an essential part of Catholic faith and that denial of it is heresy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_fide
 
It doesn’t seem to me that there’s very much in the story of Noah’s Ark at all that would be de fide required belief. Except perhaps the basic principles - that God did, shortly after the fall, punish mankind with destruction for their sins and did spare the righteous. 🤷

You might want to check out a book by Dr Ludwig Ott - I think it’s called Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. It’s a quite thorough exposition of the beliefs proposed in various Church documents and their status as required belief for Catholics. If any part of the story of Noah is required belief it’ll almost certainly be in there.
 
I already looked there, couldn’t find anything.

I am trying to figure out if I can hold an opinion that the Noah’s Ark story is an allegory that may or may not be based on a historical nucleus, that conveys theological truth rather then historical truth.
 
I already looked there, couldn’t find anything.

I am trying to figure out if I can hold an opinion that the Noah’s Ark story is an allegory that may or may not be based on a historical nucleus, that conveys theological truth rather then historical truth.
Well, it’s not a story that seems to have been much analysed in terms of being literally true (other than the archaeological evidence that a widespread flood DID occur).

I’d suspect you can’t find anything because little if anything has been said as to its literal truth by the Magisterium. That being the case, I’d suggest that you can hold your opinion, although as with all opinions you should make it clear when expressing it that it IS your opinion and as such subject to correction!
 
I am trying to figure out if I can hold an opinion that the Noah’s Ark story is an allegory that may or may not be based on a historical nucleus, that conveys theological truth rather then historical truth.
Oh, thanks for helping me understand. Of course you can (according to Catholic teaching anyway).
 
We turn, therefore, to authority in order to arrive at a final settlement of the question. Here we are confronted, in brief, with the following facts: Up to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the belief in the anthropological universality of the Deluge was general. Moreover, the Fathers regarded the ark and the Flood as types of baptism and of the Church; this view they entertained not as a private opinion, but as a development of the doctrine contained in 1 Peter 3:20 sq. Hence, the typical character of both ark and Flood belongs to the “matters of faith and morals” in which the Tridentine and the Vatican Councils oblige all Catholics to follow the interpretation of the Church.
My problem is this passage on the Catholic encyclopaedia. Is it saying that it is infallibly defined that the flood killed all humans?

Or could it not kill all humans, just most of them, but through this baptism is symbolized.

I find what is infallible and not infallible in early Christianity confusing.
 
My problem is this passage on the Catholic encyclopaedia. Is it saying that it is infallibly defined that the flood killed all humans?

Or could it not kill all humans, just most of them, but through this baptism is symbolized.

I find what is infallible and not infallible in early Christianity confusing.
Is your source the 1913 (or so) Catholic Encyclopedia, or the latest edition?

Regardless; no, it’s not saying that it’s infallibly defined that the flood killed all humans.

It’s ok to be confused about infallibility, the term was not explicitly defined before Vatican I (1869-1870 A.D.). So in some sense it’s an anachronism to expect early Christianity to demonstrate and talk about infallibility in the way we now understand it vis-a-vis Vatican I and Vatican II.
 
We turn, therefore, to authority in order to arrive at a final settlement of the question. Here we are confronted, in brief, with the following facts: Up to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the belief in the anthropological universality of the Deluge was general. Moreover, the Fathers regarded the ark and the Flood as types of baptism and of the Church; this view they entertained not as a private opinion, but as a development of the doctrine contained in 1 Peter 3:20 sq. Hence, the typical character of both ark and Flood belongs to the “matters of faith and morals” in which the Tridentine and the Vatican Councils oblige all Catholics to follow the interpretation of the Church
Note that the encyclopedia article says that it is the “typical character” that belongs to the …

There is no dogma or doctrine that I’m aware of that says the story of the flood must be accepted as literally true. Having said that however, I do believe that for most of Judeo-Christian history, believers understood and accepted it in the literal sense. I find it difficult to believe God would have allowed His chosen ones to believe erroneously for such a length of time.
I find what is infallible and not infallible in early Christianity confusing
I second LilyM’s recommendation of the book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”. It’s a minefield of info. Their are 3 books I wouldn’t be without. First and foremost, the Bible; then the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Those three are definites!
 
The Catholic Church has only definitively interpreted a small number of passages from the scriptures. They have to do with justification and the sacraments - issues which divided Catholics and Protestants. These passages were definitively interpreted at the Council of Trent.

1.** John 3:5 “Unless a man is born of water an the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”**
The Church condemned the denial that the words of Jesus mean that real (natural) water must be used for a valid baptism. At the time, the Anabaptists contended that water baptism was unnecessary because the mention of water was merely a metaphor. Other symbolic meanings in addition to the literal sense of real water can be found in the text, perhaps, but none are acceptable that deny the need for real water at baptism.

2.** Luke 22:19 and
3. I Corinthians 11:24**-- "Taking the bread, he gave thanks, broke it and gave it to
them, saying 'This is my body given for you: do this in remembrance of me."

The Church condemned the interpretation of these passages that denied that Jesus, in commanding his apostles to “Do this in memory of me” after instituting the Eucharist, conferred priestly ordination on them and their successors enabling them to offer His body and blood. More could be understood by the command to do this in remembrance, but that much could not be denied or contradicted by other interpretations.
  1. John 20:22-23-- "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are
    forgiven; whose sins you do not forgive, they are not forgiven
    ," and
5.** Matthew 18:18-- “Whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”**

The Church condemned the denial that in these two passages Jesus conferred a
power exclusively on the apostles authorizing them and their successors in the priestly office to forgive sins in God’s name, and condemned the proposal that everyone could forgive sins in this sense.
  1. Romans 5:12-- "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
    through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…"
The Church condemned the denial of original sin to which all mankind is subject
and which baptism remits, citing this passage to be understood in that sense.
  1. **James 6:14-- “Is anyone of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray
    over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.”**Definitively interpreting these passages, the Church condemned the denial that the sacrament of the anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ and promulgated by the apostles against those who deemed it a human invention of the later Church.
• In addition, the decree of Vatican I about Christ establishing Peter as head of the Church - which cites **Mt 16:16 and John 1:42 **- is a defined doctrine, even though the phrasing about the use and interpretation of the scripture cited is more implicit than explicit, by comparison with the above Scripture passages.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp

Since the story of Noah’s ark is not in the above list as long as you adhere to the Limits of Scripture Interpretation as set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church you should be ok. See second post.
 
The limits of Scripture Interpretation

The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that Vatican II enumerated three criteria (CCC 111; cf. Dei Verbum 12), each of which has a long history in biblical interpretation.

The **first **of these was that “serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out” (DV 12). This means that no properly understood assertion of Scripture will ever contradict another. If it does so, it must be a false interpretation.

The second criteria was that “the living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account” when interpreting Scripture (ibid.). This states in a general way a limit that was more concretely expressed at Vatican I:

“In matters of faith and morals, affecting the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of holy Scripture which holy mother the Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures. Therefore no one is allowed to interpret the same sacred Scripture contrary to this sense or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers” (De Filius 2).

The “living tradition of the whole Church” referred to by Vatican II includes both of the items mentioned by Vatican II—the judgment of Church and that of the Fathers regarding the interpretation of Scripture. Both of these elements must not be violated when seeking to establish the meaning of Scripture.

In the first regard, the judgment of the Church’s magisterium must not be violated. As when evaluating ecclesiastical statements in general, the strength with which the Church’s judgment has been proposed must be taken into account. The highest form of Church approbation regarding the interpretation of a verse would be for the magisterium to infallibly define the sense of the verse—or a part of its sense. This has been done in a small number of cases.

In the second regard—that the judgment of the Church Fathers must not be violated—again the standard set for violation is rather narrow. Only when the Fathers speak with “unanimous consent” is their interpretation mandated. When they do not speak with unanimity—as is the case in the great majority of verses—then there is liberty of interpretation.

Finally, the third limiting criterion named by Vatican II was that the exegete must also take into account “the harmony which exists between elements of the faith” (DV 12), which the Catechism expresses by stating that the exegete must “be attentive to the analogy of faith. . . . * the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of revelation” (CCC 114). This means that Scripture cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts what is theologically certain.

In addition to these definite boundaries to permissible biblical interpretations, there are also influences that should apply to the process of interpreting Scripture. If other books of Scripture probably—though not certainly—teach something, then that should influence the way a given book is read. If the magisterium leans toward but has not infallibly proposed a particular interpretation, that should have an influence. The same goes for the Church Fathers when they speak with something approaching but not yet at unanimity.*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top