What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

You are certainly right when you point out the seriousness of bad example. Scandalous behavior has its negative influences, and in “that sense” it sends a signal that can confuse and lead others astray. Clearly, this is one of the reasons our behavior is important. But let’s be clear about this. Sinful behavior and hypocrisy are not official teaching, and the two cannot reasonably be confused. We can know this by looking at more extreme examples.

While the Catholic priest sex abuse-scandal represents a pretty ugly set of incidents and is clearly sinful behavior, it is not, however, a reflection of Catholic teaching. If anything, it is an example of something that Catholic teaching clearly condemns. The same is true for Evangelical Christianity. When Jimmy Swaggart and others had their public scandals, no one could rightly say that this was a reflection of Evangelical teaching or doctrine. Once again, these transgressions are clearly condemned by Evangelical Christian doctrine. Human beings are weakened from the fall and they will sometimes sin. In fact sometimes we sin frequently and seriously.

Sinfulness has not stopped God from giving us spiritual gifts. Look at all that was showered upon the apostles even though they sinned. Look what gifts of healing, prophecy, teaching, and tongues etc. have been given to Christian peoples throughout the ages even though they sinned.

Look in the OT. Isaiah was given a heavenly vision of the Lord upon the throne. In Isaiah 6:5-7 the prophet says, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin is forgiven.” Now Isaiah is given an incredible privelege even though he is a man of unclean lips. He is purified by the burning coal of the angel so that he could be in the presence of God, but he was a sinner. God gave him this anointing. God gave Peter an annointing as well. Peter sinned but he did not officially teach any error. The sin may be bad example but it is not an official teaching. Fortunately, Paul was wise enough to recognize the damage the bad example could cause and he made a proper public objection to protect Peter’s own teaching as declared at the Council of Jerusalem. Notice that even the sinful behavior was not allowed to ultimately corrupt the teaching.

Believe me, you don’t have to convince me about the sinful behavior of the Church. It sends out a bad message and creates disunity no matter what your confession is. In truth, I would sometimes rather have someone have false teachings and then commit these atrocities. We are all sinful and poorely represent Christ.

But I would still have to, for now, disagree with you about Peter since Paul says that he was departing from the truth of the Gospel. Whether by word or act, he seems to have been teaching error.

But, again, this is not something that I would do back flips over. It is not even something that would keep me from believing that Roman Catholic Church Tradition in infallible. It was just in response to yours or someone elses question about whether everything that Moses taught was infallible. I just don’t know. written Scripture is the only thing that is said to be “God breathed.”

Have a good night Peter. Say a prayer for me as I will for you. Is there anything particular that I can pray for you about?
Michael

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

But if the Church is there to interpret Scripture and to insure unity, why doesn’t it speak about the interpretation of “day” in Genesis 1? People have fought and divided over this for years. It is a MAJOR point of contention. Does the Church know the answer to this question?

Most Catholics don’t work up a sweat over this issue in scripture. I personally think that the official Catholic position of allowing latitude makes the most sense. I say this because, as you have pointed out, there has been in some circles long standing debate. Scripture isn’t completely clear on whether a “day” was meant to be literal or figurative. It is an area for legitimate theological exploration. A time may come when a fuller understanding is available, and a time may come when some kind of declaration would be important. I personally do not see that happening. I see no necessity for it to happen. Most of the debate on this issue is in Protestant circles where “evolutionary theory” is more of a hot button issue. Again, the Catholic Church only gets worked up over evolution when it denies the Creator and all of His faculties. If the debate over evolutionary theory did not exist, I doubt that many protestants would be overly concerned with the literal or figurative issue in this part of scripture.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Most Catholics don’t work up a sweat over this issue in scripture. I personally think that the official Catholic position of allowing latitude makes the most sense. I say this because, as you have pointed out, there has been in some circles long standing debate. Scripture isn’t completely clear on whether a “day” was meant to be literal or figurative. It is an area for legitimate theological exploration. A time may come when a fuller understanding is available, and a time may come when some kind of declaration would be important. I personally do not see that happening. I see no necessity for it to happen. Most of the debate on this issue is in Protestant circles where “evolutionary theory” is more of a hot button issue. Again, the Catholic Church only gets worked up over evolution when it denies the Creator and all of His faculties. If the debate over evolutionary theory did not exist, I doubt that many protestants would be overly concerned with the literal or figurative issue in this part of scripture.

It does seem to be an issue on this thread. Does the Church know the answer to the interpretation of “day” in Gen 1?

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

But I would still have to, for now, disagree with you about Peter since Paul says that he was departing from the truth of the Gospel. Whether by word or act, he seems to have been teaching error.

Please notice that you have used some terminology and applied some thinking that is not expressly stated in scripture. We are interpreting here, and this points to the heart of what we have been getting at. What’s the truth?

michaelp:

Have a good night Peter. Say a prayer for me as I will for you. Is there anything particular that I can pray for you about?
Michael

Thank you ever so much for this offer. I have some friends and family members that seem to be walking their own path separate from God. Please pray for them. And yes, I will keep you in my prayers as I have been doing for the past week. I do believe that my prayers have in some ways already been answered. I find you to be an excellent representative for the non-Catholic view. You have done a noble job of presenting your perspective forcefully but without the rancor which both sides frequently run into. You are a sincere and God fearing man, and it is a blessing to converse with you.

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

It does seem to be an issue on this thread. Does the Church know the answer to the interpretation of “day” in Gen 1?

Although the Church allows latitude, the Church leans toward the figurative. At least that is my understanding. I would have to research it to be sure. I am an amateur so please forgive me.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Thank you ever so much for this offer. I have some friends and family members that seem to be walking their own path separate from God. Please pray for them. And yes, I will keep you in my prayers as I have been doing for the past week. I do believe that my prayers have in some ways already been answered. I find you to be an excellent representative for the non-Catholic view. You have done a noble job of presenting your perspective forcefully but without the rancor which both sides frequently run into. You are a sincere and God fearing man, and it is a blessing to converse with you.

It is an honor to hear you say this and it is a greater honor that you entrust me with this prayer. You as well have been a very gracious person who has continually shown your true love for our Lord in kindness and persistance. People like you warm my heart and assure me of the love that Catholics have for Christ.

Michael

Michael

 

[Emmaus]

For the Church it isn’t the details of the process nor the lack thereof, that are important in Genesis. Instead it is all about the Creator being revealed to us in all His power, glory, and majesty. His creation is good, it is beautiful, and it is bears witness to His glory. It is a demonstration of His infinite love as well. These are the kinds of things that the Church takes from Genesis 1. Whether the inspired words concerning “days” is to be taken literally or figuratively is secondary and is not sufficiently clear from the text to be easily defined. Since neither view is inconsistent with the message of Genesis we are free to believe either position.

But if the Church is there to interpret Scripture and to insure unity, why doesn’t it speak about the interpretation of “day” in Genesis 1? People have fought and divided over this for years. It is a MAJOR point of contention. Does the Church know the answer to this question?

Michael,

I think the passage from the post you quoted actually contains the answer to the question you asked after quoting the passage.

That being said: Augustine addresses this question in The City of God, part III, book XI, chapters 6 and 7. “What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing.”

What is a “MAJOR point of contention” among some, may depend on how one defines “major”: A “MAJOR point of contention” to some may not be to others and does not necessarily mean “essential” in terms of the faith. Many people are known to “major on the minors.”

As Augustine said: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” What is essential is that God created all things out of nothing. How one defines a “day” in terms of hours or years is not essential.

You may find this link of interest.

newadvent.org/cathen/07310a.htm

Do you question the authority of Scripture in the same way you question the authority of the Church in light of the fact that Scripture does not pronounce precisely and absolutely on all points about which men dispute?

Isn’t it the lack of precision and absolute clarity in Scripture that leads to many of these disputes?

 

[Philthy]

MichaelP:

It does seem to be an issue on this thread. Does the Church know the answer to the interpretation of “day” in Gen 1?

Pax:

Although the Church allows latitude, the Church leans toward the figurative. At least that is my understanding. I would have to research it to be sure. I am an amateur so please forgive me.

Hi guys! Let me just chime in my fallible 2 cents(probably more credit than I deserve):

Our concept of a “day” relies entirely on the orbit of the earth around the sun. The sun had not yet been created for the for the first couple of “days” in Gen 1. I would say that this fact excludes the 24 hour time period to apply BY DEFINITION. It appears largely figurative although this in no way mitigates the importance of what was accomplished: namely that God created everything(including Man) finite from his own infinity.
Michael - have you not read Humanae Generis?Also, JPll in his 1996 message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has some very meaty stuff to say about creation and evolution - I think you would enjoy it very much - some heavy stuff. He specifically endorses evolution and clearly defines the barriers which cannot be crossed:

• Spontaneous generation is a LIE
• The soul, being supernatural, was created “immediately” by God - not nature
• Man as a distinct entity separate from all other life is affirmed
• That which makes Man substantially separate from all other life happened INDEPENDENT of evolution - it was supernatural

There’s more good stuff …

Phil

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

It is an honor to hear you say this and it is a greater honor that you entrust me with this prayer. You as well have been a very gracious person who has continually shown your true love for our Lord in kindness and persistance. People like you warm my heart and assure me of the love that Catholics have for Christ.

Michael

Michael

Thank you for your kind words and thoughfulness for prayer. This reminds me of a true story about a Catholic priest that had been in an accident suffering a broken neck, and was not expected to live. There are many interesting details in the story, but the point I wish to emphasize is that his many friends, both Catholic and non-Catholic, went to their respective places of worship and prayed for his recovery. Although he was not expected to survive and his heart stopped a couple of times, this priest still had a full recovery with no paralysis. He went on to be a much better priest with a renewed sense of mission and ministry.

While we are separated brethren, we are still brothers in Jesus Christ. Praying for one another can only please God and draw us closer to both the Lord and to one another in the gospel spirit of the two great commandments. The story of this priest shows the pleasure God takes in the work of His grace within us.

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

… Does the Church know the answer to the interpretation of “day” in Gen 1?

Michael,

I’ve been giving this question some thought relative to our discussion on infallibility. The question is reasonable, but it brings up a point of great importance that surrounds infallibility. If the Church cannot make a clear declaration that is binding for all of the faithful because there exists uncertainty, it is apparent that the charism of infallibility is at work. The Church cannot err in the area of faith and morals. This charism does not mean that the Church knows everything from A to Z. It merely means that what the Church does officially declare as binding in the area of faith and morals will be without error. In some areas of faith the Church cannot be more definitive than she already is. The mystery of the Trinity has been defined and explored by the Catholic Church, but the Trinity is not fully understood. At this point the Church cannot say more than she already has. To attempt to do so would be engaging in the speculative, and this is not what infallibility is about. I hope this helps.

 

[Pax]

Michael,

Somewhere in an earlier post I recall you asking if there was a book that lists all of the infallibly declared doctrines of the Church. Although I have not read this book, but I do intend to, you might want to check out Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott. You can read an annotation about it in the Catholic Answers catalog.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

I’ve been giving this question some thought relative to our discussion on infallibility. The question is reasonable, but it brings up a point of great importance that surrounds infallibility. If the Church cannot make a clear declaration that is binding for all of the faithful because there exists uncertainty, it is apparent that the charism of infallibility is at work. The Church cannot err in the area of faith and morals. This charism does not mean that the Church knows everything from A to Z. It merely means that what the Church does officially declare as binding in the area of faith and morals will be without error. In some areas of faith the Church cannot be more definitive than she already is. The mystery of the Trinity has been defined and explored by the Catholic Church, but the Trinity is not fully understood. At this point the Church cannot say more than she already has. To attempt to do so would be engaging in the speculative, and this is not what infallibility is about. I hope this helps.

Hey Peter,

But I have been told time and time again that the purpose of the magisterium is to interpret the Bible because it is difficult at times, and differing interpretations cause divisions. There are many arguments going on in the Church (and on this forum) about the interpretation of the word “day” in Genesis. If the magisterium’s purpose is to interpret Scripture because it is too difficult, this would be a great place for them to step in. The controversy has bearing upon science, politics, and education, but it is a hermeneutical issue first. If the Magistium knows the answer to this question, and has known it since the time the Apostles delivered the deposit of faith to their successors, why have they sat on it so long? Or do they not know the interpretation of “day” in Gen? If not, are they not able to do their job relative to our age and the controveries that have arisen?

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

Hey Peter,

But I have been told time and time again that the purpose of the magisterium is to interpret the Bible because it is difficult at times, and differing interpretations cause divisions. There are many arguments going on in the Church (and on this forum) about the interpretation of the word “day” in Genesis. If the magisterium’s purpose is to interpret Scripture because it is too difficult, this would be a great place for them to step in. The controversy has bearing upon science, politics, and education, but it is a hermeneutical issue first. If the Magistium knows the answer to this question, and has known it since the time the Apostles delivered the deposit of faith to their successors, why have they sat on it so long? Or do they not know the interpretation of “day” in Gen? If not, are they not able to do their job relative to our age and the controveries that have arisen?

Michael,

It would seem that if your criteria and demands are reasonably applied to the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis, then they must also apply to a fuller explanation of the Trinity which would eliminate all mystery from the teaching. This cannot and will not happen in regards to fully understanding the Trinity this side of eternity. It is as Paul says, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.[1 Cor 13:12]

This statement by Paul rightly applies to all things that are not completely clear. I find it highly interesting and ironic that the Church that claims infallibility exercises caution on the word “day” where others that do not claim infallibility argue with utter confidence[virtual infallibility] that their interpretation of the word “day” is the correct one. Those that believe that they know what scripture means by the word “day” are actually elevating themselves above the position of the Church that claims to be infallible.

 

[dcdurel]

michaelp:

Hey Peter,

But I have been told time and time again that the purpose of the magisterium is to interpret the Bible because it is difficult at times, and differing interpretations cause divisions. There are many arguments going on in the Church (and on this forum) about the interpretation of the word “day” in Genesis. If the magisterium’s purpose is to interpret Scripture because it is too difficult, this would be a great place for them to step in. The controversy has bearing upon science, politics, and education, but it is a hermeneutical issue first. If the Magistium knows the answer to this question, and has known it since the time the Apostles delivered the deposit of faith to their successors, why have they sat on it so long? Or do they not know the interpretation of “day” in Gen? If not, are they not able to do their job relative to our age and the controveries that have arisen?

One purpose of the Magisterium is to hold fast to the deposit of faith, preserve it from error and hand it down. But, while some things in the deposit of faith are clear and explicit, such as teachings on baptism, the Eucharist, etc, everything in the deposit of faith is not clear and explicit. The interpretation of the word "day" in Genesis is one those parts that is not explicit. The Church officially taught through the Pontificial Biblical Commission that for right now we can take the word "day" as a literal day, as most of the Church fathers did, or take it as a period of time, as St. Augustine and Origin did. There did not seem to be a clear apostolic Tradition in regards to the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis. Thus, Catholics may interpret the word "day" either way, until and if the Church makes a further decision on the matter.

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

Can the Church tell us the interpretation of Gen 1, whether the “days” were literal of figurative since this is such a hermeneutical point of division and major contention?

Hi Michael,

How does that infallible Charismatic brother of yours define it.

a thought:
In the light of each creative day, life unique to it formed, as in the light of the Lord’s Day.

 

[Pax]

Michael,

Imagine infallibility in terms of any subject other than faith and morals. Let’s just say that I possessed infallibility in the English language but that I also spoke Spanish. I could spend my whole life speaking almost nothing but Spanish. I could avoid teaching or speaking English. I could occasionally make an error of grammar or rhetoric in Spanish and I could be terrible at math, history, geography, and science. I could even be immoral and seriously sin quite regularly. None of these latter things would have any bearing on my infallibility in English.

Infallibility is a limited negative protection. It merely protects the church from teaching error on matters of faith and morals. It does not mean that the Church must make a definitive decision on everything in scripture. Personally, I see no reason for the Church to take a definitive stand on the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1 or in other areas of scripture where the Church allows latitude. Generally speaking Catholics simply don’t experience a problem with this.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

Imagine infallibility in terms of any subject other than faith and morals. Let’s just say that I possessed infallibility in the English language but that I also spoke Spanish. I could spend my whole life speaking almost nothing but Spanish. I could avoid teaching or speaking English. I could occasionally make an error of grammar or rhetoric in Spanish and I could be terrible at math, history, geography, and science. I could even be immoral and seriously sin quite regularly. None of these latter things would have any bearing on my infallibility in English.

Infallibility is a limited negative protection. It merely protects the church from teaching error on matters of faith and morals. It does not mean that the Church must make a definitive decision on everything in scripture. Personally, I see no reason for the Church to take a definitive stand on the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1 or in other areas of scripture where the Church allows latitude. Generally speaking Catholics simply don’t experience a problem with this.

Peter, I have just been told so many times on this forum that infallibility protects the Church from division. This has been stated over and over again. Protestants, it is said, cannot have the unity because everyone interprets Scripture differently. The Magisterium steps in, so I have been told, and solves any disputes–that is their purpose. Therefore, I don’t understand why they don’t interpret this. It seems kind of selective and suspicious that they don’t interpret this. This one interpretation has implications on science, abortion, evolution, politics, and education. There would not be a better time, in my opinion, to step in and give an infallible interpretation of Scripture than with the word “day.”

Michael

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

I don’t understand why they don’t interpret this.
Michael

If the end of time coincides with the end of corruption, it follows that it began ( as we experience it ) with corruption as well. To pin the word in Genesis down to a specific duration of time from our perspective would place on it a corruption that didn’t exist when what it describes did. It’s like a masterpiece, if you add to it becomes less if you take away it becomes less. imho

Look at it this way, you can sola scriptura this part.

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

Peter, I have just been told so many times on this forum that infallibility protects the Church from division. This has been stated over and over again. Protestants, it is said, cannot have the unity because everyone interprets Scripture differently. The Magisterium steps in, so I have been told, and solves any disputes–that is their purpose. Therefore, I don’t understand why they don’t interpret this. It seems kind of selective and suspicious that they don’t interpret this. This one interpretation has implications on science, abortion, evolution, politics, and education. There would not be a better time, in my opinion, to step in and give an infallible interpretation of Scripture than with the word “day.”

Michael

Michael,

The Church indicates that there is latitude for the interpretation. All faithful Catholics get behind this guideline. If the Magesterium declared infallibly that it was only figurative or only literal, it would have no implications within Protestant circles in the areas you’ve mentioned. Non-Catholics would simply ignore the Church’s statement. Most of the controversy over the word “day” is within Protestant communities. Catholics are generally comfortable with the latitude. There is unity here, it simply doesn’t extend beyond the confines of the Church because others do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is not infallible in the area of science. Any declaration the Church made in this area of scripture will have little or no effect within scientific circles. In the area of abortion the Catholic Church has already infallibly declared that abortion is always wrong. Obviously, many people disagree with this position and many that agree go ahead and have abortions anyway. Any position that the Church would firmly adopt on the meaning of the word “day” would in no way influence abortion. I think that little else would change in the other areas you’ve spoken of. Those that believe in evolution with or without the Creator’s hand will probably remain unphased. To me the Church has adopted the most reasonable position and it is the “official” position of Catholic Christianity since Pentecost. The Church never came down in favor of one interpretation over the other.

Additionally, I have never heard of a group that splintered off from the Catholic Church over this position of latitude. The question of unity is if anything upheld within the Church.

 

[William_Putnam]

Scott_Lafrance:

The eternally infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church, as commissioned and ordained by the Lord, Jesus Christ through St. Peter and the Apostles.

Well said, Scott!

And precise too, as how else is it to be when it is the Church who came first before the New Testament was written, Christ giving His gospel message to His apostles orally only withnot one whit of a command to write a thing down (while He was among them in the flesh.)

When questing the contents of a book or novel, the only “authority” concerning it’s contents is the author. Likewise the New Testament, God being the author or course, but through the minds and hearts of the “charter clergy” of the Church, the apostles and their immediate companions.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine’s famous Sermon.