The author of Holy Writ (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/index.html) is God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) says (Hebrews 10:1 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/heb010.htm#verse1)) the Old Law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm) is a figure of the New Law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm), and Dionysius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05013a.htm) says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm) itself is a figure of future glory (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm)." Again, in the New Law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm), whatever our Head (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) has done is a type (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15107a.htm) of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm) signify the things of the New Law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm), there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), or so far as the things which signify Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), are types (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15107a.htm) of what we ought to do, there is the moral (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm) sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm), there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/index.html) is God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm), it is not unfitting, as Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/index.html) should have several senses.http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#article10 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#article10)
The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm) speaks of God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) arm, the literal sense is not that God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm) can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/index.html).Thus, accepting that the literal sense of a passage is without error refers to its intended meaning and is not a matter taking figurative language literally.
Pope Saint Pius X: Responses of the Biblical Commissionhttps://thesocraticcatholic.com/2017/02/08/pope-st-pius-x-responses-of-the-biblical-commission/ (https://thesocraticcatholic.com/2017/02/08/pope-st-pius-x-responses-of-the-biblical-commission/)
– The Authority of the Decisions of the Biblical Commission –
[There are some who] have not received or do not receive such decisions with the proper submission, even though they are approved by the pontiff.
Therefore, We see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now declare and expressly order that all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission...
Question 8. Can the word yom (day), (which) is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, be understood both in its literal sense as natural day and also in a non-literal sense as a certain space of time; and is it permitted to discuss this question among exegetes?
Response: Yes.
https://thesocraticcatholic.com/2017/02/08/pope-st-pius-x-responses-of-the-biblical-commission/ (https://thesocraticcatholic.com/2017/02/08/pope-st-pius-x-responses-of-the-biblical-commission/)This is also my personal view and How I have taught it to my children. I believe that either interpretation is possible and that neither implies error in Scripture.
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.I lean more toward theistic evolution than creationism, but do not have strong opinions on it.37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the docuмents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
I lean more toward theistic evolution than creationism, but do not have strong opinions on it.
Well, you need to research this question more deeply. Any kind of evolution, including theistic, is complete crap ... and I do hold it to be contrary to Sacred Scripture.I understand Humani Generis as implying that theistic evolution (with the stated conditions) is acceptable for Catholics. Why do you think differently?
Jaynek,
I've always been told that we are to understand scripture literally UNLESS the Church has said this or that passage is symbolic, metaphorical or prophecy. Of course, we can't know that unless we read scripture with a concordance, which gives scriptural commentary.
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.
Protestants read the Bible and think they have the ability to understand what it says without any help from the Church. They believe that by "dialogue" they can get together to have a "Bible study" by which they endeavor to "discover truth," presuming from the start that no one already has it. In this way, there ultimately are as many interpretations of Scripture as there are people reading it, and perhaps more, because over time one person can change what he thinks is meant by any Scripture passage.I was a Protestant for a few years in my youth and seeing the foolishness of Sola Scriptura was a key step in my process of becoming Catholic. They themselves constantly prove how wrong it is by their own actions.
I was a Protestant for a few years in my youth and seeing the foolishness of Sola Scriptura was a key step in my process of becoming Catholic. They themselves constantly prove how wrong it is by their own actions.I believe in the flat earth God created because I am Catholic.
I think this is why I am so troubled by seeing flat earthers interpreting Scripture contrary to Church teaching. Because of my experience, I have really strong feelings about the Church having the sole authority to interpret Scripture.
Pardon my French but what the h*#! is theistic evolution?
Nevermind.
I believe in the flat earth God created because I am Catholic.The Church does not teach that the earth is flat. The Church does not teach to interpret Scripture the way you interpret it. Believing in a flat earth has nothing to do with being Catholic and the vast majority of Catholics believe the earth is a globe. This has been the situation for hundreds of years.
Theistic evolution is when God jumps in every time evolution becomes a joke and gets evolution over that hurdle.I actually think that is a pretty reasonable way to explain it. The evolution proposed by atheists has many problems with it. If, however, one understands evolution as something controlled and used by God, that resolves most, if not all, of the problems.
The evolution proposed by atheists has many problems with it. If, however, one understands evolution as something controlled and used by God, that resolves most, if not all, of the problems.
Theistic evolution is when God jumps in every time evolution becomes a joke and gets evolution over that hurdle.Agreed.
Let us now ask what stages of any creature evolved first from that cell? Can one essential part of a living creature exist without the other? What keeps the evolving bits alive? Was it the heart, the head, the stomach, the hips, the legs, or what? Which system evolved first, bit by bit, the circulatory system, the digestive system, the endocrine system, the respiratory system, the nervous system, the immune system, the lymphatic system, the muscular system, the skeletal system, the urinary system, the reproductive system or the brain? Could any creature function with an evolving endocrine system, an evolving digestive system, evolving senses etc.? The answer is no and to argue otherwise is to exit human intelligence.
After Pius XII Humani Generis Catholics could say, yes, God could sustain creatures for a million years with little bits of each part that work only if all are complete. Zombie land then becomes Catholic and we all live happy ever after with Faith and Science friends again after those absurd creationists who, as Pope Francis said, think God is a magician who can create things whole and working with one wave of His wand.
And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth:
I actually think that is a pretty reasonable way to explain it. The evolution proposed by atheists has many problems with it. If, however, one understands evolution as something controlled and used by God, that resolves most, if not all, of the problems.
Genesis II.7That's what I said, but she does not think Bible is literal.
ie., directly from matter. God did NOT form man from an ape. There's simply no metaphorical way around this.
That's what I said, but she does not think Bible is literal.
Pius XII did tremendous harm to the faith by opening the door to this crap.So you agree that Humani Generis does allow Catholics to believe in theistic evolution but you have concluded that it is wrong?
So you agree that Humani Generis does allow Catholics to believe in theistic evolution but you have concluded that it is wrong?
I am just trying to make sure I understand what you are saying here. I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue for it.
So you agree that Humani Generis does allow Catholics to believe in theistic evolution but you have concluded that it is wrong?No, it does not allow theistic evolution. I'm sure that the modernist "commentary" said it did, but it doesn't. Pts 5 and 6 directly explain the dangers of evolution.
No, it does not allow theistic evolution. I'm sure that the modernist "commentary" said it did, but it doesn't. Pts 5 and 6 directly explain the dangers of evolution.Points 5 and 6 are talking about atheistic evolution. There is no question that it is wrong.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.
It says that the Church "does not forbid...research and discussions." It does NOT say that it allows theistic evolution. Liberals want us to think this, but all this says is that the Church is open to seeing "concrete" scientific facts (which pts 5/6 say do not exist yet). And if concrete evidence does exist, since Science does not contradict Faith, then these two can be reconciled in the future.I had to reread it a few times, but I think I can see what you are saying now. Thanks.
Yet, to date, the evidence for evolution (macro) is non-existent. So, there's no such thing as theistic evolution.
Pius XII opened the door to it, but he was wrong. He also opened the door to NFP, and he was wrong about that too. Pius XII started the liturgical experimentations with Bugnini ... also a huge mistake. Pius XII appointed most of the bishops who brought us Vatican II ... no comment needed.
Cassini your post beautifully sums up all of Jaynek's errors.The courtship between Catholic faith and modern science reached a lower point on November 22, 1951 when Pope Pius XII once again addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The title of the Pope’s address was ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ What followed was an inferred endorsement of nearly every evolutionary theory on offer at the time, theories that (1) conflicted with the literal order of creation and the geocentric order of the universe held by the all the Church Fathers; (2) theories that denied the biblical age of 6-7,000 years for the universe; (3) theories that denied the global Flood as recorded in Genesis and its effect on the topography as we find it today, and God knows what else. Here is some of Pope’s speech:‘44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial “Fiat lux” uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.’48. On the other hand, how different and much more faithful a reflection of limitless visions is the language of an outstanding modern scientist, Sir Edmund Whittaker, member of the Pontifical Academy of Science, when he speaks of the above-mentioned inquiries into the age of the world: “These different calculations point to the conclusion that there was a time, some nine or ten billion years ago, prior to which the cosmos, if it existed, existed in a form totally different from anything we know, and this form constitutes the very last limit of science. We refer to it perhaps not improperly as creation. It provides a unifying background, suggested by geological evidence, for that explanation of the world according to which every organism existing on the Earth had a beginning in time. Were this conclusion to be confirmed by future research, it might well be considered as the most outstanding discovery of our times, since it represents a fundamental change in the scientific conception of the universe, similar to the one brought about four centuries ago by Copernicus.”50. It has, besides, followed the course and the direction of cosmic developments, and, just as it was able to get a glimpse of the term toward which these developments were inexorably leading, so also has it pointed to their beginning in time some five billion years ago. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the cosmos came forth from the hands of the Creator.’Yes, admits Pope Pius XII, it all began with Copernicus. Not for the first time a pope has placed the creation act and order into the hands of secular theory
I am afraid that theistic evolution is just another "Catholic" way to get rid of God, for those who can't handle atheistic evolution, and so many of us never knew.
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.
Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution
Jane, there are two books by the same author – Gerard J Keane - which you should read to clear the fog:Thanks for the recommendations. The article you linked to was very thought-provoking and persuasive. And I found a detailed description of the first Keane book: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/crreview.html (http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/crreview.html)
CREATION REDISCOVERED Evolution and The Importance of the Origins Debate (Approx 400 pages)
And
SPECIAL CREATION REDISCOVERED Catholicism and the Origins Debate (Approx 100 pages)
.
Also check out the Kolbe Centre for Creation
http://kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-doctrine-of-creation/
.
Happy New Year to you and yours - another year of discovery.
.
I am afraid that theistic evolution is just another "Catholic" way to get rid of God, for those who can't handle atheistic evolution, and so many of us never knew. Still it's never too late. I came to reject it because of the work of Protestants, thankfully while I was homeschooling.
So the Church (meaning himself of course) "does not forbid" (uhm, it SHOULD), "research and discussions" (including those that reject evolution). Very slippery language that falls JUST short of actually endorsing evolution.This is exactly what modernists want in everything. An APPARENT change to truth, but with no TECHNICAL change, so they can push the apparent change to the masses using their 'commentators' and the 'media' while they can also say to the "trads" that they are upholding Tradition.
Thanks for the recommendations. The article you linked to was very thought-provoking and persuasive. And I found a detailed description of the first Keane book: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/crreview.html (http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/crreview.html)Happy to help!
It sounds really good. I can see that I need to give a lot more thought and study to this topic. This would be a great help.
Happy to help!Thanks. That Kolbe Centre site is a great resource for me. All my years attending Novus Ordo, everyone took for granted that theistic evolution was an acceptable view for Catholics. And usually the discussions I've seen on trad forums have been about creationism vs. the obviously wrong atheistic evolution. It is very helpful for me to see arguments specifically directed at theistic evolution.
A review of Special Creation Rediscovered here:
http://kolbecenter.org/review-of-special-creation-rediscovered/
Gerry was a foundational member of Kolbe Centre. A brilliant man. May he rest in peace.
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.
Jane, there are two books by the same author – Gerard J Keane - which you should read to clear the fog:Thanks for this post Nadir, I knew Jerry and arranged a tour for him in Ireland God knows how many years ago. He stayed in my house for a few days. He sent me his book before printing and I advised him that his chapter on Galileo was wrong and would some day be shown to be wrong. Unfortunately Gerry said it was hard enough to convince people that evolution was nonsense but if he went geocentric it would undermine his work on anti-evolution.
CREATION REDISCOVERED Evolution and The Importance of the Origins Debate (Approx 400 pages)
And
SPECIAL CREATION REDISCOVERED Catholicism and the Origins Debate (Approx 100 pages)
.
Also check out the Kolbe Centre for Creation
http://kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-doctrine-of-creation/
.
Happy New Year to you and yours - another year of discovery.
.
I am afraid that theistic evolution is just another "Catholic" way to get rid of God, for those who can't handle atheistic evolution, and so many of us never knew. Still it's never too late. I came to reject it because of the work of Protestants, thankfully while I was homeschooling.
"Pope St. Pius X in his 1907 Lamentabili Sane condemned the proposition “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error” (LS 11)."I have the impression that you think this contradicts what I am saying. It does not. I completely agree that Scripture is free from error. But that does not mean that one ought to understand figurative expressions as if they were literal.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-inerrant
I have the impression that you think this contradicts what I am saying. It does not. I completely agree that Scripture is free from error. But that does not mean that one ought to understand figurative expressions as if they were literal.Well, some people do think that The Bible is being figurative when it talks about places like Hell and that the pain of this life is the only real Hell. Is that what you mean? No. I doubt that. Do you mean that The Six Days of Creation are figurative? Could they really be 6 trillion days instead? I'm not sure what you think about that. Do you think The Virgin Birth was literal? Did Christ really feed the five thousand or did they really mean, it was like thousands of people, but could have been just a large crowd that any old fishing boat could have fed with a small catch and Christ was just being generous, with some of The Disciples catch for the day?
Well, some people do think that The Bible is being figurative when it talks about places like Hell and that the pain of this life is the only real Hell. Is that what you mean? No. I doubt that. Do you mean that The Six Days of Creation are figurative? Could they really be 6 trillion days instead? I'm not sure what you think about that. Do you think The Virgin Birth was literal? Did Christ really feed the five thousand or did they really mean, it was like thousands of people, but could have been just a large crowd that any old fishing boat could have fed with a small catch and Christ was just being generous, with some of The Disciples catch for the day?Pope Leo, not I, drew the line and people who are following Church teaching know what it is:
My point is, when you start down this road, it begs the question: where shall you draw the line? I'm sure you think that you've drawn it in a "safe place." Maybe you are right and maybe it will never bring you any trouble. But, there are over 6 billion people in this World and they must be told where to draw The Line. Otherwise, history has proved time and time again, that they will push the line further and further, to justify their growing appetite for Sin, until they finally deny the very Divinity of Christ.
Pope Leo, not I, drew the line and people who are following Church teaching know what it is:
" The sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time."
This is very clear about what it applies to - things of the visible universe in no way profitable unto salvation. It does not include the existence of hell, the Virgin Birth, events in the life of Christ, etc. Nothing mentioned in the Creed can be affected by the principle of interpretation taught in Prudentissimus Deus. It only concerns things like the shape of the earth.
It does not mean that anyone can throw out anything he feels like by claiming it is figurative. You are manufacturing difficulties that do not really exist.
"In 1893 Pope Leo XIII issued the most comprehensive treatment of Scripture interpretation the world had seen. Providentissimus Deus was a landmark encyclical that sought to correct the plethora of error about Scripture then circulating the world. In it, the pontiff traced the history of Scripture in the Catholic Church, addressed challenges, and defended the truth of Scripture. Pope Leo affirmed an unrestricted understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture:This is what I am trying to tell you. There is no error in Scripture. Your interpretation is the error.
For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily, as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. . . . It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error (Providentissimus Deus, 20-21)."
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-inerrant
This is what I am trying to tell you. There is no error in Scripture. Your interpretation is the error.Jayne, this quote immediately preceeds the one you often post:
Pope Leo, not I, drew the line and people who are following Church teaching know what it is:This is not clear about what YOU say it applies to. You decided that "in no way profitable unto salvation" applies to flat earth. And the Church teaches that heliocentrism is a danger to the Faith. Already, you're premise is made false.
" The sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time."
This is very clear about what it applies to - things of the visible universe in no way profitable unto salvation. It does not include the existence of hell, the Virgin Birth, events in the life of Christ, etc. Nothing mentioned in the Creed can be affected by the principle of interpretation taught in Prudentissimus Deus. It only concerns things like the shape of the earth.
It does not mean that anyone can throw out anything he feels like by claiming it is figurative. You are manufacturing difficulties that do not really exist.
Great post. Those three encyclical's errors have done incalculable harm to the faith.Thank you, Smedley, for illustrating exactly why I object to the flat earth position on this forum. The above is the logical consequence of dogmatically believing in flat earth. One must be prepared to claim that magisterial teaching is normally (not simply as part of the Crisis) something that can be harmful to the faith.
Flat-earth literal interpretation was never confirmed in any way. That said nor was it condemned in any way. I, as a globalist concede that it can be argued the Bible reveals a flat earth. Likewise it can be argued it does not. It seems now that some are convinced the earth is flat but I wish they would not insist that the Bible compels Catholics to believe it as an infallible truth.The problem is not believing in flat earth in itself. It is the insistence "that the Bible compels Catholics to believe it as an infallible truth."
One must be prepared to claim that magisterial teaching is normally (not simply as part of the Crisis) something that can be harmful to the faith.
Great post. Those three encyclical's errors have done incalculable harm to the faith.We have a new pope... LOL :baby:
False distinction between "normally" vs. "part of the Crisis". If it can be harmful to faith in the Crisis, then it can be harmful to faith at any given time. As for me, I don't believe that any universal Magisterium can be harmful to faith period.I think this line of reasoning is why the Flat earth position seems more common among those who take the R & R position. Once one opens the door to believing that the magisterium can be harmful to the faith, one can reject any teaching one feels like and declare any pope in error.
Thank you, Smedley, for illustrating exactly why I object to the flat earth position on this forum. The above is the logical consequence of dogmatically believing in flat earth. One must be prepared to claim that magisterial teaching is normally (not simply as part of the Crisis) something that can be harmful to the faith.Gee whiz Jaynek, you are making me repeat myself!
The position of flat earthers, as typically expressed on this form, is a rejection of papal authority. It assumes that one is only obliged to believe that which is infallibly defined. At the same time, they claim for themselves to be taking the truly Catholic position. Even a geocentrist like cassini recognizes that their interpretation of Scripture is incorrect:
The problem is not believing in flat earth in itself. It is the insistence "that the Bible compels Catholics to believe it as an infallible truth."
Jayne, this quote immediately preceeds the one you often post:
" "Whatever they (he's referring to scientists) can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.""
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html
We have been telling you ad nauseam, that it is contrary to The Bible and The Catholic Religion and it is Scientifically False. Yet you seem to stubbornly refuse to give it a fair hearing. That attitude is indeed in direct contradiction to The Spirit of Providentissimus Deus and is evident when these quotes of yours are put into context, not "cherry picked" for the sake of argument.
In 1943, on the 50th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and 23 years after Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, Pope Pius XII unveiled Divino Afflante Spiritu, the third encyclical on biblical studies. Now why on earth did the Church need a third encyclical on the Bible?Cassini, when you copy and paste from The Internet, you always have the option of just Pasting or Pasting and Matching Style. It's under the Edit tab and should be at the top of your screen.
‘In more recent times, however, since the devine origin and the correct interpretation of the Sacred Writings have been very specially called in question, the Church has with even greater zeal and care undertaken their defence and protection. The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solem decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been want to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.” In our own time [1943] the Vatican Council , with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declarerd that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, not merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”’
The encyclical went on to emphasise that ‘some Catholic writers, in spite of this solem definition of Catholic doctrine.... they ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” [not legally binding] and, as they contended, in no wise connected with faith.’ Following this, Divino Afflante Spiritu said it was going to reiterate and confirm the advice and teaching given in Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and all that was wisely laid down by Our Predecessor and ordained by his Successors for the consolidation and perfecting of the work [of interpretation].
‘3. ‘The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order “went by what sensibly appeared” as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either “in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.” For “the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine’s - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation;” which principle “will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,” that is, by refuting, “in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks.”’ --- Divino afflante Spiritu.
Here Pope Pius XII, himself a Big Bang heliocentric evolutionist, unwittingly allowed a heliocentric reading of Scripture. Now all you need is ONE new interpretation - a false one as most of us know now - to open up the Scriptures to 'SCIENCE' to interpret. Thus long ages, evolution, Noah's local Flood all became the norm for biblical interpretation. Here is what was said about Divino:
‘This freeze endured until in 1943 Pius XII’s great encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu reopened the door to the use of modern methods of biblical study and established scholarship in the scientific investigation of the Scriptures. The Pontifical Biblical Commission was quick to follow this initiative with a letter to Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris… taking this as an encouragement to revisit areas which had been blocked off by earlier decisions… stressing that in the context of the times it would have been unwise to teach a particular doctrine, but not that a particular doctrine was untrue or incorrect [This is what they say happened in the Galileo case]…. No responsible biblical scholar would today agree with any of these directives of the Biblical Commission.’
The ‘freeze’ referred to above by Wansbrough had to be that brought about by Benedict XV’s superb encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus that did not try to justify that new heliocentric interpretation of Scripture. But now the Scriptures could once again be put at the mercy of scientific and historical scrutiny, just as the geocentric reading was, and interpretations changed if science deemed them more appropriate. In fairness however, the Pope’s intention was of course to insure a true reading prevails, just as others believed Galileo had corrected a misunderstood heliocentric reading of passages throughout Scripture.
THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE is what God ment in Scripture. 'Sunrise and sunset' most now know are literal truths because all the Fathers understood them as geocentric. Flat-earth literal interpretation was never confirmed in any way. That said nor was it condemned in any way. I, as a globalist concede that it can be argued the Bible reveals a flat earth. Likewise it can be argued it does not. It seems now that some are convinced the earth is flat but I wish they would not insist that the Bible compels Catholics to believe it as an infallible truth.
Again please excuse the type sizes. When I post they go all over the place.
In 1943, on the 50th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and 23 years after Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, Pope Pius XII unveiled Divino Afflante Spiritu, the third encyclical on biblical studies. Now why on earth did the Church need a third encyclical on the Bible?If the author of an Encyclical believed The Earth to be round, but later found out it was Flat, that would not contradict the message in Providentissimus Deus; in fact it would affirm the message of that encylical. Again, it is the difference between Biblical Inerrancy and Papal Infallibility.
‘In more recent times, however, since the devine origin and the correct interpretation of the Sacred Writings have been very specially called in question, the Church has with even greater zeal and care undertaken their defence and protection. The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solem decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been want to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.” In our own time [1943] the Vatican Council , with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declarerd that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, not merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”’
The encyclical went on to emphasise that ‘some Catholic writers, in spite of this solem definition of Catholic doctrine.... they ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” [not legally binding] and, as they contended, in no wise connected with faith.’ Following this, Divino Afflante Spiritu said it was going to reiterate and confirm the advice and teaching given in Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and all that was wisely laid down by Our Predecessor and ordained by his Successors for the consolidation and perfecting of the work [of interpretation].
‘3. ‘The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order “went by what sensibly appeared” as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either “in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.” For “the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine’s - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation;” which principle “will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,” that is, by refuting, “in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks.”’ --- Divino afflante Spiritu.
Here Pope Pius XII, himself a Big Bang heliocentric evolutionist, unwittingly allowed a heliocentric reading of Scripture. Now all you need is ONE new interpretation - a false one as most of us know now - to open up the Scriptures to 'SCIENCE' to interpret. Thus long ages, evolution, Noah's local Flood all became the norm for biblical interpretation. Here is what was said about Divino:
‘This freeze endured until in 1943 Pius XII’s great encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu reopened the door to the use of modern methods of biblical study and established scholarship in the scientific investigation of the Scriptures. The Pontifical Biblical Commission was quick to follow this initiative with a letter to Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris… taking this as an encouragement to revisit areas which had been blocked off by earlier decisions… stressing that in the context of the times it would have been unwise to teach a particular doctrine, but not that a particular doctrine was untrue or incorrect [This is what they say happened in the Galileo case]…. No responsible biblical scholar would today agree with any of these directives of the Biblical Commission.’
The ‘freeze’ referred to above by Wansbrough had to be that brought about by Benedict XV’s superb encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus that did not try to justify that new heliocentric interpretation of Scripture. But now the Scriptures could once again be put at the mercy of scientific and historical scrutiny, just as the geocentric reading was, and interpretations changed if science deemed them more appropriate. In fairness however, the Pope’s intention was of course to insure a true reading prevails, just as others believed Galileo had corrected a misunderstood heliocentric reading of passages throughout Scripture.
THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE is what God ment in Scripture. 'Sunrise and sunset' most now know are literal truths because all the Fathers understood them as geocentric. Flat-earth literal interpretation was never confirmed in any way. That said nor was it condemned in any way. I, as a globalist concede that it can be argued the Bible reveals a flat earth. Likewise it can be argued it does not. It seems now that some are convinced the earth is flat but I wish they would not insist that the Bible compels Catholics to believe it as an infallible truth.
Again please excuse the type sizes. When I post they go all over the place.
Gee whiz Jaynek, you are making me repeat myself!
Providentissimus Deus, in no way compels Catholics to reject Flat Earth.
The problem is not believing in flat earth in itself. It is the insistence "that the Bible compels Catholics to believe it as an infallible truth."
I am not making you repeat yourself. Your comment does not even make sense in response to what I wrote. Look at it again:
I did not say that Providentissimus Deus compels Catholics to reject a flat earth (in that post or any other) so there is no reason to tell me that "Providentissimus Deus, in no way compels Catholics to reject Flat Earth".
What PD does do, however, is show there is no basis for claiming that Catholics are obliged to believe in a flat earth. It shows that believing in a globe earth is compatible with accepting the inerrancy of Scripture and the Catholic understanding of Scripture, in general. It shows that rejecting flat earth does not make one a non-Catholic, a bad Catholic, a modernist, or any of the other accusations that flat earthers have thrown at those who disagree with them.
You may believe in a flat earth if you think there is science to back you up. You may not tell other Catholics that we must believe it.
That depends Jayne. According to Providentissimus Deus, we have an obligation to prove Scientific Claims that contradict The Bible to be False, if we can or accept them if we can't.The Bible does not teach flat earth. You have misinterpreted it. Globe earth does not contradict the Bible. I have no duty to give a fair hearing to a kooky belief like flat earth. Science overwhelmingly supports the fact the earth is a globe. There is no conflict between science and Scripture on this matter.
Heliocentrism and Globe Earth contradict The Bible. Thus, it seems you do have a duty to give Flat Earth a fair and honest hearing and accept it, if it seems correct. This is the spirit of Biblical Inerrancy and it was articulated in Providentissimus Deus.
Furthermore, Jayne, you have the benefit of being exposed to so much good Flat Earth teaching, from other Traditional Catholics. Hence, your duty is even greater, than the average Catholics, who have not had the benefit of this wholesome teaching. In addition to that, you are old enough and independent enough to be responsible for your beliefs. Moreover, you have a duty to your family.I have been exposed to absurd flat earth teaching that has convinced me its proponents are clueless. The earth is round like a ball (but a bit squished.)
The Bible does not teach flat earth. You have misinterpreted it. Globe earth does not contradict the Bible. I have no duty to give a fair hearing to a kooky belief like flat earth. Science overwhelmingly supports the fact the earth is a globe. There is no conflict between science and Scripture on this matter.That's just ignorant Jayne. The Bible clearly teaches a Stationary and Flat Earth. Any competent and honest scholar of Ancient literature will tell you that, regardless of their religion or lack of. It is The Ancient Hebrew conception of The World and was the conception of most Ancient Cultures.
I have been exposed to absurd flat earth teaching that has convinced me its proponents are clueless. The earth is round like a ball (but a bit squished.)
Moreover, you have a duty to your family.This is the one reason I continue to fight for this truth, it is because parents and teachers must stop teaching this false cosmology with its solar system, earth spinning around the sun and an endless universe with no Heaven and no Firmament.
That's just ignorant Jayne. The Bible clearly teaches a Stationary and Flat Earth. Any competent and honest scholar of Ancient literature will tell you that, regardless of their religion or lack of. It is The Ancient Hebrew conception of The World and was the conception of most Ancient Cultures.Amen, an embarrassment.
And of course, as a Catholic you have a duty to defend The Faith and The Scripture is inseparable from The Faith. So, you have a duty to defend The Scriptures and its Inerrancy.
Your lack of even the most basic research into this matter, while calling yourself a Catholic and trumpeting around like you really know something, could be scandalous and certainly is embarrassing.
This is the one reason I continue to fight for this truth, it is because parents and teachers must stop teaching this false cosmology with its solar system, earth spinning around the sun and an endless universe with no Heaven and no Firmament.Yeah, our Materialistic, Superficial and Nothing Matters Culture, the fruits of Modernism, can't possibly be related to Modern Science! :jester: Of course they are, they go together like Springtime and Flowers. It seems to me that this whole thing is a ruse (sort of like a magic show), to get people to accept the unacceptable.
This false reality is taught to every child from kindergarten and all the way through high school and even into college. Now let’s ponder that a moment..all grades in school have a globe in their science textbook. It is mandatory learning for all ages. People are sent spinning from the tenderest age. Cartoons from our childhood show people walking upside down in China! This is madness!
And that is why it is important for Catholics to know this, and to get ready for battle!
Modern science is a religion and it must be fought
Furthermore, Jayne, you have the benefit of being exposed to so much good Flat Earth teaching, from other Traditional Catholics. Hence, your duty is even greater, than the average Catholics, who have not had the benefit of this wholesome teaching. In addition to that, you are old enough and independent enough to be responsible for your beliefs. Moreover, you have a duty to your family..
This is the one reason I continue to fight for this truth, it is because parents and teachers must stop teaching this false cosmology with its solar system, earth spinning around the sun and an endless universe with no Heaven and no Firmament..
This false reality is taught to every child from kindergarten and all the way through high school and even into college. Now let’s ponder that a moment..all grades in school have a globe in their science textbook. It is mandatory learning for all ages. People are sent spinning from the tenderest age. Cartoons from our childhood show people walking upside down in China! This is madness!
And that is why it is important for Catholics to know this, and to get ready for battle!
Modern science is a religion and it must be fought
The Bible does not teach flat earth. You have misinterpreted it. Globe earth does not contradict the Bible. I have no duty to give a fair hearing to a kooky belief like flat earth. Science overwhelmingly supports the fact the earth is a globe. There is no conflict between science and Scripture on this matter..
I have been exposed to absurd flat earth teaching that has convinced me its proponents are clueless. The earth is round like a ball (but a bit squished.)