BTW, now Pagano says there is more than one literal sense
macaddicted
Well, he changed his mind from 1996. Let us see how he has changed
since 2000.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=pagano,+literal+group:talk.origins&sta
rt=50&hl=en&selm=397207A8.ADD1E195%40fast.net&rnum=52
Not a single chrisitian sect of which I am aware asserts that there is
only one literal meaning available from the verses of scripture;
however, virtually all christian sects presuppose the literal sense in
bringing out
all the other meanings.
So, obviously there is more than one literal sense. But then how can we
be sure that Pagano's interpretation of Genesis is correct?
I will reply to Pagano's arguements in advance, since he uses the same
ones:
1. The 1909 document is not infallible. See CCC para. 891-2
2. The 1909 document has been amended. The statement that the purpose
of Genesis 1 was "to furnish his people with a popular account, such as
the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adapted to the
senses and to human intelligence" was answered in the negative in 1909.
Yet in 1950 Pius XII said in reference to Genesis 1-11 (Humani
Generis): "the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and
metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little
cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our
salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the
human race and the chosen people."
"...simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of the
people" would contradict the statement of the PBC that Genesis is not
"a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed,
one, namely, adapted to the senses and to human intelligence."
3. Saying that Genesis is not history as modern Western cultures
understand history is not to say that Genesis 1 describes an event that
took place.
I say that the writings refer to a historical event, but the writings
themselves are not history. Why? Read on.
From the PBC letter to Cardinal Suhard: "The question of the literary
forms of of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is much more
complicated and obscure. These literary forms do not correspond to any
of our classic categories and cannot be judged in the light of
Greco-Latin or modern literary genres. THEIR HISTORICITY CAN
BE NEITHER AFFIRMED NOR DENIED EN BLOC WITHOUT
UNJUSTIFIABLY APPLYING TO THEM THE RULES OF A
LITERARY GENRE IN WHICH THEY CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED."
[emphasis mine] This position was later affirmed in Humani Generis.
Indeed, historical errors were found, and Pius XII dealt with them in
Divino Afflante Spiritu:
Not infrequently‹to mention only one instance‹when some persons
reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or
inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns
out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and
narration peculiar to the ancients, which used to be employed in the
mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctioned by
common usage.
When then such modes of expression are met within the sacred text,
which, being meant for men, is couched in human language, justice
demands that they be no more taxed with error than when they occur in
the ordinary intercourse of daily life.
Two points:
1. Even though the works of the Scripture were inspired, they were
written by men, and thus subject to the errors of humanity in matters
of history and science. This does not affect the revealed Truths
(virgin birth, Resurrection). Knowing that an event is historical does
not mean that you must immediately assume the writing you learn it from
is history. (In other words, I am not a later day Bultmann- see:
http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/bultmann.html )
2. The "history" of scripture is not the history of the 20th century
world and should not be seen that way.
I shall end with this, from Divino Afflante Spiritu:
What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the
speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in
the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be
determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by
the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit
to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history,
archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what
modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would
be likely to use, and in fact did use.
Which sounds much like what Pagano said in 1996, but just refuted:
Christians who interpret the Bible
literally often fail in their understanding for
the same reason that atheists fail to disassemble
the Bible. Proper understanding of the Bible only
occurs when the literary forms, writing style,
culture, and historical setting (among other
things) which prevailed at the time of each
biblical author are understood.
Cue Tony mischaracterizing everything I just said.
--
"Time may be money, but your money won't buy more time"
James Taylor
A Pagano
>I will reply to Pagano's arguements in advance, since he uses the same
>ones:
>
>1. The 1909 document is not infallible. See CCC para. 891-2
Pagano replied:
This is old news; I reported this several posts ago. That this
document was not a de fide pronouncement does not give Catholics the
freedom to ignore it. Paragraphs 891-2 of the Catechism did not give
you this freedom and liberty either. Para 892 says that even when
the Magisterium does not arrive at an infallible definition that
whenever they exercise their teaching office to lead to better
understanding of Revelation the faithful are to adhere to it with
religious assent.
Each day I'm showing you that you cannot force fit the Catholic Faith
into the materialism that you love and defend.
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
<macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>Well, he changed his mind from 1996. Let us see how he has changed
>since 2000.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=pagano,+literal+group:talk.origins&sta
>rt=50&hl=en&selm=397207A8.ADD1E195%40fast.net&rnum=52
>
>Not a single chrisitian sect of which I am aware asserts that there is
>only one literal meaning available from the verses of scripture;
>however, virtually all christian sects presuppose the literal sense in
>bringing out
>all the other meanings.
Pagano replies:
Macaddicted's despiration grows. He cannot find support for his
emptying of the literal sense of its historical value so he thinks if
he finds inconsistencies in my posts that this saves him. Since I am
not part of the Magisterium he fails. It is from the Magisterium that
he must find support not I.
More than "one literal sense" refers to the various verses of
Scripture not necessarily to each verse. The literal sense of a verse
can be historical or it can be metaphorical or it might be something
else. Let's provide examples so macaddicted has even less cover for
his rationalistic philosophy.
EXAMPLE 1----------
Galations 5: 6 ...whosoever of you are justified by the law, you are
fallen from grace.
Does this mean that someone is actually and physically falling. Nope.
The literal sense is metaphorical with regard to the verb "fallen."
The spiritual senses depend upon the literal sense whatever that
happens to be.
EXAMPLE 2----------------
John 11: 43- 44 When he had said these things, he cried with a loud
voice: Lazarus come out. And presently he that had been dead came
forth, bound feet and hands with winding-bands, and his face was bound
about with a napkin. Jesus said to them: Loose him, and let him go.
In this case the Church interprets this as a real, actual event in the
history of Jesus' public life. The words are interpreted to mean what
they plainly seem to mean as real history. That John 11: 43-44 does
not meet the standards of the 20th century history by for example
referencing it with documents from other witnesses does not make in
any less historical in value. How do we know this? The Church tells
us so.
That brings us to Genesis 1-3. The Church as told us that we may not
interpret these verses as allegory and myth.
**********************************
Regards,
T Pagano
Boikat
"A Pagano" <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pf6lausus6m40a6of...@4ax.com...
The problem is that you are attempting to justify doing the opposite: You
are attempting to justify force fitting reality into the confines of the
Catholic Faith.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to present the new and improved
scientific method, which takes non-materialistic concerns into account.
Boikat
macaddicted
Divino Afflante Spiritu
Letter of the PBC to Cardinal Suhard
Humani Generis
macaddicted
CCC 891-2
Divino Afflante Spiritu
Humani Generis
What does literal sense mean?
David Sienkiewicz
No, Tony.
To this "non catholic," you know, one of those for whom you want to
"clear the air" with all of your posturing and speechmaking, you're
showing that YOU are nothing more than a pompous, overbearing windbag.
You did say, however, that you were "unteachable."
Obviously at least THAT part was right.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano