Author Topic: Biblical Commission Of 1909  (Read 7050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline roscoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7155
  • Reputation: +457/-217
  • Gender: Male
Biblical Commission Of 1909
« on: December 09, 2013, 08:38:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In another topic, it was revealed by icetrus that the Pontifical Commission of !909 proclaimed an edict rendering the age of E & the length of the 'days' in Genesis debatable.

    If true this puts an end to any idea that E being 6xxx yrs old needs be taken as Dogma.

    Could a source for the 1909 info be provided?  :detective:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7155
    • Reputation: +457/-217
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #1 on: December 10, 2013, 06:32:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • i am still hoping that icterus will find time to post the source of this info.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline icterus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • Reputation: +0/-15
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #2 on: December 10, 2013, 06:36:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis -- June 30, 1909

    Question 1: on the literal and historical sense of Genesis 1-3
    Question 2: on whether Genesis 1-3 is purely fable or legend or "myth"
    Question 3: on whether essential truths the Church has defined in Genesis can be called into question
    Question 4: on opinions and interpretations of Genesis that the Church has not defined
    Question 5: on words and phrases and metaphor in Genesis
    Question 6: on allegorical interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis
    Question 7: on the "science" of the early chapters of Genesis
    Question 8: on the "six days" of Genesis 1
    English Translation

    Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation? -- Reply: In the negative.

    Dubium I.: Utrum varia systemata exegetica, quae ad excludendum sensum litteralem historicum trium priorum capitum libri Geneseos excogitata et scientiae fuco propugnata sunt, solido fundamento fulciantur? Resp.: Negative.


    Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls? -- Reply: In the negative to both parts. Back   

     Dubium II.: Utrum, non obstantibus indole et forma historica libri Geneseos, peculiari trium priorum capitum inter se et cum sequentibus capitibus nexu, multiplici testimonio Scripturarum tum Veteris tum Novi Testamenti, unanimi fere sanctorum Patrum sententia ac traditionali sensu, quem, ab Israelitico etiam populo transmissum, semper tenuit Ecclesia, doceri possit: praedicta tria capita Geneseos continere non rerum vere gestarum narrationes, quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant; sed vel fabulosa ex veterum populorum mythologiis et cosmogoniis deprompta et ab auctore sacro, expurgato quovis polytheismi errore, doctrinae monotheisticae accomodata; vel allegorias et symbola, fundamento obiectivae realitatis destituta, sub historiae specie ad religiosas et philosophicas veritates inculcandas proposita, vel tandem legendas ex parte historicas et ex parte fictitias ad animorum instructionem et aedificationem libere compositas? Resp.: Negative ad utramque partem.


    Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? -- Reply: In the negative. Back   

    Dubium III.: Utrum speciatim sensus litteralis historicus vocari in dubium possit, ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis, quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt: uti sunt, inter cetera, rerum universarum creatio a Deo facta in initio temporis; peculiaris creatio hominis ; formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine; generis humani unitas, originalis protoparentum felicitas in statu iustitiae, integritatis et immortalitatis, praeceptum a Deo homini datum ad eius obedientiam probandam; divini praecepti, diabolo sub serpentis specie suasore, transgressio; protoparentum deiectio ab illo primaevo innocentiae statu; nec non Reparatoris futuri promissio? Resp.: Negative.


    Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved? -- Reply: In the affirmative. Back   

    Dubium IV.: Utrum in interpretandis illis horum capitum locis, quos Patres et Doctores diverso modo intellexerunt, quin certi quippiam definitique tradiderint, liceat salvo Ecclesiae iudicio servataque fidei analogia, eam, quam quisque prudenter probaverit, sequi tuerique sententiam? Resp.: Affirmative.


    Question V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases which occur in the aforementioned chapters, are always and necessarily to be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from this, even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been taken improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its abandonment? -- Reply: In the negative. Back   

    Dubium V.: Utrum omnia et singula, verba videlicet et phrases, quae in praedictis capitibus occurrunt, semper et necessario accipienda sint sensu proprio, ita ut ab eo discedere numquam liceat, etiam cum locutiones ipsae manifesto appareant improprie, seu metaphorice vel anthropomorphice usurpatae, et sensum proprium vel ratio tenere prohibeat vel necessitas cogat dimittere? Resp.: Negative.


    Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied? -- Reply: In the affirmative. Back   

    Dubium VI.: Utrum, praesupposito litterali et historico sensu, nonnullorum locorum eorundem capitum interpretatio allegorica et prophetica, praefulgente sanctorum Patrum et Ecclesiae ipsius exemplo, adhiberi sapienter et utiliter possit? Resp.: Affirmative.


    Question VII: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these? -- Reply: In the negative. Back   

    Dubium VII.: Utrum, cum in conscribendo primo Geneseos capite non fuerit sacri auctoris mens intimam adspectabilium rerum constitutionem ordinemque creationis completum scientifico more docere, sed potius suae genti tradere notitiam popularem, prout communis sermo per ea ferebat tempora, sensibus et captui hominum accommodatam, sit in horum interpretatione adamussim semperque investiganda scientifici sermonis proprietas? Resp.: Negative.


    Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes? -- Reply: In the affirmative.

    Dubium VIII.: Utrum in illa sex dierum denominatione atque distinctione, de quibus in Geneseos capite primo, sumi possit vox Yôm (dies) sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat? Resp.: Affirmative.



    This is just the commonly available text of it.  Please, please, check it out completely and don't take my word for it.  

    Offline icterus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • Reputation: +0/-15
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #3 on: December 10, 2013, 07:16:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    If true this puts an end to any idea that E being 6xxx yrs old needs be taken as Dogma.


    Don't get your hopes up.  I've been here before, and I have experienced the 'magical infallibility reversal (TM)' more than once.  That which supports our side of the debate is infallible.  That which does not support our side of the debate is merely disciplinary.

    It's an amazing feature of Catholic thought.  

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7155
    • Reputation: +457/-217
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #4 on: December 10, 2013, 07:45:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank U :applause:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 19084
    • Reputation: +10524/-5031
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #5 on: December 10, 2013, 07:50:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This has absolutely nothing to do with geocentrism, icterus, nor "reversals" of anything.  Again your dishonesty shines through.

    Now, there's the question of the age of the earth and the question of how long human beings have been on the earth, the latter being no longer than around 6000 years.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 19084
    • Reputation: +10524/-5031
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #6 on: December 10, 2013, 07:51:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, tell me, icterus, how long have human beings been on the earth?

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7155
    • Reputation: +457/-217
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #7 on: December 10, 2013, 08:09:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Correct me if i am wrong.

    The Biblical Commission of Pius X says that the Biblical term dies can be assumed in the improper sense of a certain space of time. How long  is not stated & appears debatable.

    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline icterus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • Reputation: +0/-15
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #8 on: December 10, 2013, 08:16:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    So, tell me, icterus, how long have human beings been on the earth?


    Nothing to do with Roscoe's topic.

    Start a new thread on that if you want, I'll be happy to weigh in.

    Offline icterus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • Reputation: +0/-15
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #9 on: December 10, 2013, 08:43:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • BTW, here's predicting this thread will be ignored by everyone who has weighed in on the age of the Earth lately.

    Darn inconvenient facts.

    Offline icterus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • Reputation: +0/-15
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #10 on: December 10, 2013, 10:00:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Geocentrism thread gets 50 replies an hour.  The thread where they bash me gets 100.  This one is going to be ignored.  It disturbs echo chamber.

    Truth seekers.  Riiiight.  


    Offline SoldierOfChrist

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 462
    • Reputation: +280/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #11 on: December 10, 2013, 11:14:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: icterus
    Geocentrism thread gets 50 replies an hour.  The thread where they bash me gets 100.  This one is going to be ignored.  It disturbs echo chamber.

    Truth seekers.  Riiiight.  


    What is it that you want to discuss about it Icterus?  I will discuss it with you, perhaps from a different viewpoint than others who have engaged you on this issue.  I accept the declaration of Pope St. Pius X that all are obliged to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Commission.  Of course I accept that people are allowed to disagree on the age of the Earth.  However, there are other issues to look at, such as the submission of the scientific investigators to the Magesterium.  With regards to what is being taught and disseminated to to the masses in modern times, I don't trust any of it.  That doesn't mean that all of it is untrue, but I do not trust those who control the flow of information.  They mix lies with truth.  I believe that all things need to be looked at with this in mind.  We have been instructed to watch the fruits of labor.  I pay attention to that, when forming an opinion.  A lot of those who are creating the facts, come up short in a test of character, acceptance of God, submission to the Magesterium, etc.  After that, anything which contradicts doctrine must be outright discarded.  What else do you want to discuss about it?  Do you take issue with any of the other replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 19084
    • Reputation: +10524/-5031
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #12 on: December 11, 2013, 08:11:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: icterus
    Quote
    So, tell me, icterus, how long have human beings been on the earth?


    Nothing to do with Roscoe's topic.

    Start a new thread on that if you want, I'll be happy to weigh in.


    It has everything to do with this thread.  Amount of time people have been on the earth is related to the age of the earth question.  In the time that it took you to write the above, you could have typed your answer.

    How long have human beings been on the earth?

    Offline icterus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • Reputation: +0/-15
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #13 on: December 11, 2013, 08:59:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    What else do you want to discuss about it?


    Everything!  I've been getting buried in cut and paste nonsense about 'Flood Geology' for the last 2 weeks, and the ONLY reason to engage in that weirdness would be if there was a theological concern.  There's not.  There's no reason to posit any of this, the embattled lone geologist who can only get his paper published in a country where they can't read the language...the conspiracies of hundreds of thousands of scientists...it's all needless!  

    And, this leads directly and obviously to the issue:  There's no reason to oppose anything about modern Earth science.  None of it.  There's no reason to build a edifice in opposition to it...and edifice that, since it is opposition to the people actually doing the work of investigation, will always be just an amateurish attempt to 'sound scientific'.

    It's contrary to the mission of the faith, which is to save souls by converting them to the one true faith.  Augustine knew that pseudo-science turned people away - it still does.  It's time to ask 'What are we doing here?  Are we interested in converting people, or not?  If we are, we need to stop tilting at windmills.'

    Quote
    How long have human beings been on the earth?


    Since God breathed into Adam.  

    When did this happen?  I don't know.  As a Catholic obedient to Pope Pius XII, I can investigate the relevant anthropology.  The relevant anthropology can only offer tantalizing bits of information.  

    So, go on...what was the question you were really asking?  I've learned that nothing is ever as it seems here.  You had some ulterior motive, go on and spill it.  In the time it took you to phrase the false question, you could have phrased the real one...

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Biblical Commission Of 1909
    « Reply #14 on: December 11, 2013, 09:33:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: icterus
    Quote
    If true this puts an end to any idea that E being 6xxx yrs old needs be taken as Dogma.


    Don't get your hopes up.  I've been here before, and I have experienced the 'magical infallibility reversal (TM)' more than once.  That which supports our side of the debate is infallible.  That which does not support our side of the debate is merely disciplinary.

    It's an amazing feature of Catholic thought.  


    Sounds like you're not a Catholic. Is that the case?

    Actually, you don't seem to understand infallibility, which doesn't mean you're not a Catholic but doesn't help your understanding of the entire issue either.

    Quote from: icterus
    There's no reason to oppose anything about modern Earth science.  None of it.


    "Modern earth science' is presented as a dogma, or didn't you notice that?
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16