Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"  (Read 2276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1547
  • Reputation: +792/-95
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
« Reply #60 on: January 12, 2018, 06:50:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ‘In the nineteenth century, as man’s knowledge of antiquity increased, many strange voices began to attack the divine origin and truthfulness of the Bible. In the ensuing storm, the traditional voice of Christendom rose clear and calm in the person of Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) with his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, solemnly affirming that the entire Bible is God’s word, holy and true. He outlined a stricter scientific method for studying the Holy books, which was to bear great fruit in the following years.’ --- The Holy Bible, Catholic Press, Inc., Chicago, 1950.

    Given the state Catholic biblical interpretation had reached by the 1950s when the above piece was written, one could take the idea that this or any other encyclical on the study of Scripture ‘bore great fruit’ with a pinch of salt. The telltale words in the paragraph above are ‘as man’s knowledge of antiquity increased,’ that is, as man’s ‘science of origins increased.’ Was it not this same ‘science’ that claimed the Church had erred in interpreting the Scriptures geocentrically and began the attack on ‘the divine origin and truthfulness of the Bible?’

    Providentissimus Deus was a failure because it had to try to account for a HELIOCENTRIC reading of Scripture as conceded to by the Holy Office in 1820-1835. Here is that disasterous paragraph:

    ’18: To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that 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.” (St Augustine) 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, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers - as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to [Like ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’?]. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith, what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,” according to the saying of St. Thomas Aquinas. And in another place he says most admirably: “When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.” The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected.’

    Proof that this paragraph was an attempt to justify a heliocentric reading of Scripture is everywhere. I could give you 10 examples, but one will suffice:

    ‘When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.’ --- Vatican Observatory website 2013.

    1920: Spiritus Paraclitus
    On the fifteen-hundredth anniversary of the death of St Jerome (347-420), the greatest Doctor in the exposition of the Scriptures, the saint who compiled the Church’s Bible around the year 400 (who also translated all the books into the Latin Vulgate, the definitive version of which was re-affirmed by the Council of Trent and codified by the Council of Ephesus in 431), Pope Benedict XV issued this encyclical to celebrate the life and work of this great saint. St Jerome of course, like all the Fathers, read the Scriptures geocentrically. This encyclical was PERFECT, no compromises.

    But even this Letter did not stop the Galilean Reformation on biblical interpretation.



    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1547
    • Reputation: +792/-95
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #61 on: January 12, 2018, 07:13:53 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

    ‘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.


    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1201
    • Reputation: +479/-1401
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #62 on: January 12, 2018, 09:10:18 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
  • Great post. Those three encyclical's errors have done incalculable harm to the faith. 

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3037
    • Reputation: +1428/-770
    • Gender: Female
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #63 on: January 12, 2018, 09:38:36 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.

    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:

    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."
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15748
    • Reputation: +8356/-2679
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #64 on: January 12, 2018, 11:35:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.

    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.


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6963
    • Reputation: +411/-169
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #65 on: January 12, 2018, 11:38:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Great post. Those three encyclical's errors have done incalculable harm to the faith.
    We have a new pope... LOL :baby:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3037
    • Reputation: +1428/-770
    • Gender: Female
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #66 on: January 12, 2018, 11:45:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.

    Although I am sure it is not the intention of the flat earthers here, they, by their existence, are making an argument for sedevacantism.
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6963
    • Reputation: +411/-169
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #67 on: January 12, 2018, 11:53:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is No Such Thing as 'sede vacantism'... :fryingpan:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline WholeFoodsTrad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +105/-155
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #68 on: January 12, 2018, 07:53:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    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."
    Gee whiz Jaynek, you are making me repeat myself!  
    Providentissimus Deus, in no way compels Catholics to reject Flat Earth.  Here's the quote, with a source for the quote, to prove it
    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/documents/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. 
    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night
    may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright."

    Offline WholeFoodsTrad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +105/-155
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #69 on: January 12, 2018, 07:56:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

    ‘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.
    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.  
    Also, it is hard to tell what are quotes and what is commentary from you or someone else.  So, would you provide links to the websites you copy and paste from, when you do that, so I can see who the actual speaker is that you are quoting please.  Oh and please put quotes "" around the stuff you quote, so it is clear that it isn't you speaking.  
    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night
    may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright."

    Offline WholeFoodsTrad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +105/-155
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #70 on: January 12, 2018, 08:04:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

    ‘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.
    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.  
    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night
    may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright."


    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3037
    • Reputation: +1428/-770
    • Gender: Female
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #71 on: January 12, 2018, 08:32:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Gee whiz Jaynek, you are making me repeat myself!  
    Providentissimus Deus, in no way compels Catholics to reject Flat Earth.  

    I am not making you repeat yourself. Your comment does not even make sense in response to what I wrote.  Look at it again:

    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 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.
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

    Offline WholeFoodsTrad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +105/-155
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #72 on: January 12, 2018, 09:27:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.  

    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.  

      
    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night
    may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright."

    Offline WholeFoodsTrad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +105/-155
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #73 on: January 12, 2018, 09:29:03 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • As Catholics, Jayne, our bias should be for The Bible, not Modern Science.  
    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night
    may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright."

    Offline WholeFoodsTrad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +105/-155
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"
    « Reply #74 on: January 12, 2018, 09:34:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.  
    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night
    may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright."

     

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