Genesis, Pagano, and the Roman Catholic Church
Mike Dunford
and it has taken me a while to catch up on the discussions. Posting a
single out of thread message seemed preferable to trying to post
similar replies to several different posts in the thread.
This post is in response to various claims made by Pagano in the
(inadvertantly appropriately named) thread "Misunderstandings and
Misrepresentations of the Catholic Position."
----=====-----
THE CLAIM
Pagano's basic position appears to be that the official Roman Catholic
position on Genesis 1-3 is that these chapters are a historical
account of real events, and not either allegory or myth. Pagano cites
a 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) document in support of
this claim, pointing out that at the time, the PBC was part of the
Magisterium of the Church, and that that specific document has not
specificly been superceeded by any other document. As a result, he
claims, arguments based on the instructions for considering literary
forms contained in later documents such as Divino Afflante Spiritu or
Dei Verbum, the current Catechism, and a 1993 PBC document are
irrelevant to the interpretation of Genesis 1-3.
[NB: The above is not intended to be a strawman characterization of
Pagano's argument. If you believe I have misrepresented his position
in any way, please feel free to explain where and how.]
-----
DOES THE 1909 PBC DOCUMENT ACTUALLY SUPPORT PAGANO'S CLAIMS?
A great deal of Pagano's argument appears to rest on his
interpretation of the 1909 PBC document. In fact, that is the only
specific Church document he has cited to support his position that
Genesis 1-3 are a historical account of real events. He has made
several statements regarding this document, but has never quoted from
it. The document was not easy to locate, despite the reference Pagano
provided, but I was able to find a copy today. Since the document is
short, critical to this discussion, and difficult to locate, I am
including the document in full at the end of this post.
This document hardly provides the clear, unequivocal support for a
literal interpretation of Genesis 1 one would expect from reading
Pagano's statements. Pagano does note in passing that, "This 1909
document did not teach a purely literalist approach for each word and
phrase. For example, the document left open for disagreement and
research whether the word translated as "day" was a 24 hour day or
some indeterminat period of time." (Message-ID:
<oc2f9uk0mqmb920bi...@4ax.com>) The example cited by
Pagano is far from the only statement in the document which deviates
from the "purely literalist approach." In fact, although the PBC
document clearly indicates a number of specific areas which it
considers to be historical (see section III of 1909 document), there
is a great deal of support even in this document for a metaphorical
understanding of Genesis 1.
"V: Much each and every word and phrase
occurring in the aforesaid chapters always
and necessarily be understood in its literal
sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate
from it, even when it appears obvious that
the diction is employed in an applied sense,
either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and
either reason forbids the retention or necessity
imposes the abandonment of the literal
sense? Answer: In the negative.
VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense
is presupposed, may certain passages in the
same chapters, in the light of the example of the
holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely
and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and
prophetic sense? Answer: In the affirmative.
VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in
the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to
give scientific teaching about the internal
constitution of visable things and the entire order
of creation, but rather to communicate to his people
a popular notion in accord with the current speech
of the time and suited to the understanding and
capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific
language be always meticulously sought for in the
interpretation of these matters? Answer: In the
negative."
Overall, the 1909 document is much more conservative, and the
interpretation of Genesis permitted much more restrictive than some of
the interpretations proposed by more modern exegetes. However, it is
not nearly as restrictive as Pagano's posts would imply. It certainly
rejects PURELY allegorical or mythological interpretations of Genesis,
but it also provides very little in the way of theological comfort for
believers in a six-24hour-day recent creation.
-----
HAS THE 1909 PBC DOCUMENT BEEN MODIFIED OR SUPERCEEDED?
This is a more complex question. Like Pagano, I have been unable to
locate any official, Magisterial document specificly setting aside any
of the early PBC documents. I did, however, find a discussion of an
interesting 'clarification' about the status of these documents on
page 1171 of the New Jerome Bible Commentary:
"Decrees issued between 1905 and 1915 and in
1933 are summarized briefly below; this is a difficult
task because the decrees were issued in the form
of responses to intricate questions (often phrased
negatively). Many now have little more than historic
interest, being implicitly revoked by later decrees, by
DAS [Divino Afflante Spiritu] and by Vatican II. They
must be evaluated according to the 1955 clarification...
by A. Miller and by A. Kleinhans, secretary and
assistant secretary of the PBC. Miller says: "As long as
these [early PBC] decrees propose views that are
neither immediately nor mediately connected with
truths of faith and morals, the interpreter of Sacred
Scripture can persue his scientific investigations with
full liberty and accept the results of these investigations,
provided always that he respects the teaching authority
of the Church"
"Ultraconservatives have attempted to salvage the
authority of the early PBC decrees by citing the opinion of
J.E. Steinmueller ... that this clarification was unauthorized
and invalid because he heard that Miller and Kleinhans
were rebuked by the Holy Office over it.... An
undocumented recollection published much later scarcely
constitutes proof, esp. since there was Roman gossip in the
other direction as well: Pius XII offered to revoke the PBC
decrees officially, but A. Bea persuaded him that the
Miller-Kleinhans clarification was sufficient. The clear _fact_
[emphasis in orig.] is that the clarification was never
withdrawn and Rome has acted consistently in its spirit,
never correcting the hundreds of Catholic scholars who have
used the 'full liberty' to contradict almost _every one_
[emphasis in orig.] of the early PBC decrees."
Although the Church has not explicitly modified or revoked any PBC
decree, later encyclicals have done so implicitly. Further, the
position of the Church has clearly and consistently supported the
Miller-Kleinhans clarification of the status of the early PBC
documents. So, although there is no Magisterial document specificly
modifying the 1909 PBC decision, it is fair to say that the general
practice of the Church, based both on the 1955 clarification and on
subsequent encyclicals discussing biblical interpretation, has been to
treat the early PBC documents as having been superceeded and/or
modified.
-----
I feel that the documents cited are sufficient to demonstrate that
Pagano's claims regarding the Catholic position on Genesis 1 are
poorly supported at best. The PBC document he cited does not support
his position as well he implied, and has since been implicitly
superceeded by other documents.
In addition, his belief in a 6-day recent creation event appears to be
at odds with current Catholic thought, as expressed in numerous
documents and encyclicals. This post has gotten long enough already,
and enough other people have pointed that out, so I will pass on that
part of the issue for the moment.
--Mike Dunford
Full text of 1909 document:
---
[The quality of the photocopy I made was too poor for my OCR program
to handle, so I hand typed this in. Any typos are my own.]
CONCERNING THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS OF
GENESIS, June 30, 1909
Translated by E.F. Sutcliffe, S.J.
Found in Orchard et al, eds. 1954; A Catholic Commentary of Holy
Scripture; Thomas Nelson, New York p.68-69
I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under
the guise of science to exclude the historical sense of the first
three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation? Answer: In the
negative.
II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the
special connection of the first three chapters with one another and
with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the
Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost
unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which
the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always
held, may it be taught that : the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis
contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which
correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but either
fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples
and accomodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after
the expurgation of any polytheistic error ; or allegories and symbols
without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of
history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finlly
legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with
a view to instruction and edification? Answer: In the negative.
III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt
in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the
foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the
creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special
creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man;
the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first
parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the
command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression
of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form
of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval
state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer? Answer: In
the negative.
IV: In the interpretation of of those passages in these chapters which
the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without
presupposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without
prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the
analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends
itself to each one? Answer: In the affirmative.
V: Much each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid
chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so
that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears
obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either
metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the
retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.
VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may
certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of
the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably
interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense? Answer: In the
affirmative.
VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of
the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the
internal constitution of visable things and the entire order of
creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in
accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the
understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific
language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of
these matters? Answer: In the negative.
VIII: In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in
the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in
the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a
certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free
discussion among exegetes? Answer: In the affirmative.
macaddicted
Thanks Mike. I haven't been able to find this on the net.
--
macaddicted
"Time may be money, but your money won't buy more time"
James Taylor
David Sienkiewicz
> [snip]
>
> Thanks Mike. I haven't been able to find this on the net.
Let me add my thanks, as well, Mike. It was good of you to do the
research that Tony was either unable to do or unwilling to do; and
your efforts are appreciated. I'm not a Catholic, but your article
(and those of macaddicted) was quite enlightening.
Bill Rogers
> <snip very helpful post>
Thanks, that looks like it was a lot of work.
A Pagano
Pagano replies:
Due to work I only have time to peruse Dunford's intro. I did NOT
claim that Divino Afflante Spiritu, Dei Verbum, the Catechism or the
1993 PBC documents were irrelevent. Quite the contrary. Again a
failure to read very closely. This seems to be an epidemic problem
among secularists.
What I claimed was that macaddicted took quotes from those documents
out-of-context and used them to support his claim that Genesis 1-3
should not and could not be interpreted, in part, as the report of
real events in prehistory. In fact macaddicted's quote mining was so
bad that para 892 of the Catechism denied exactly what he claimed it
asserted. Sheesh.
If anything below relied upon this claim perhaps you could adjust.
Won't have time to check today.
Regards,
T Pagano
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:16:30 +0000 (UTC), mdun...@hawaii.rr.com (Mike
> Dunford) wrote:
>
[snip]
tony is arguing with the macaddicted sock puppet again. My claim was
not that magisterial teaching can be disregarded, only that it is not
infallible and subject to change.
> If anything below relied upon this claim perhaps you could adjust.
> Won't have time to check today.
>
I look forward to the response. It should be entertaining.
David Sienkiewicz
Interesting.
When Lazarus took some time off for the Holy Days - something you
would think YOU'D be doing, too, Tony - you tried to represent that he
ducked out on your "challenges."
> I did NOT
> claim that Divino Afflante Spiritu, Dei Verbum, the Catechism or the
> 1993 PBC documents were irrelevent. Quite the contrary. Again a
> failure to read very closely. This seems to be an epidemic problem
> among secularists.
We've heard all this before, Tony. The secularists don't read
carefully. The secularists are ignorant. Shame, shame on the
secularists.
Well, Tony, one things I know wasn't confusing was that you claimed
that the creationists have evidence for the Genesis Flood.
There's no way to misunderstand THAT, Tony.
But though you have been asked many times, you have not identified
this evidence.
We also couldn't misconstrue your claim that antibiotic resistence in
bacteria is the result of a LOSS of information in the genome. So you
have been asked many times to explain what, exactly, this "loss" was
supposed to be, how you quantified it in any meaningful way, and how
you determined this to be the case.
You have not responded to THAT, either.
You claimed that there were no nascent structures evident as part of
evolutionary evidence (as you seem to "see fit" to view). Did we
misunderstand or misread THAT, Tony?
If not, then why is it that several specific examples have been
provided in response but you don't seem to have anything to say about
any of them? There's Jim Acker's citation of the rete mirable in
whales, Andy Groves's frequent questions about the beaks of birds and
Steven J's mention of the forearm of Archaopteryx.
Nobody's misreading you, Tony. This kind of misdirection is a typical
red herring.
< snip remainder - deferred to those better informed on modern
Catholicism).
Mike Dunford
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:16:30 +0000 (UTC),
> mdun...@hawaii.rr.com (Mike Dunford) wrote:
[snip]
I apologize. While I did notice the claims and counter-claims of
quote mining that were flying back and forth, I thought that
they were a secondary issue. I thought (and think) that your
primary argument was that the 1909 document positively supported
your claim, and that no other document had modified or
superceeded the 1909 document.
> If anything below relied upon this claim perhaps you could
> adjust. Won't have time to check today.
I do not believe that it is necessary to adjust, since I am
directly addressing the only the 1909 document and it's current
status. Thank you for the clarification, however.
--Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
I usually don't reply to my own posts, but I located some
additional material today that is extremely relevant to
evaluating the status of the 1909 PBC reply on the historicity
of the Genesis account. Embarassingly enough, I should have
found the information on Monday, when I located the text of the
1909 reply. Unfortunately, the material was in a reference book
at the library, and I didn't get a chance to look at the book in
more detail until today since I was a bit rushed by my kids on
Monday. Today I found the PBC's letter to Cardinal Suhard a few
pages past the 1909 reply.
I'm somewhat pressed for time right now, so I am only going to
type in a portion of the introduction and section relevant to
the Genesis question. (The other part of the letter deals with
the question of Mosaic authorship, and does not bear here.) If
someone feels that the remainder is absolutely imperative, I
will try to find time tomorrow or tuesday to type in the
remainder. The portions I have included are typed exactly from
the source I have.
I do think that this letter to the PBC, at a time when I believe
the PBC was still an arm of the Magisterium, sheds some more
light on Pagano's claim. It does not make the claim look any
more favorable.
--Mike Dunford
Translated by E.F. Sutcliffe, S.J.
Found in Orchard et al, eds. 1954; A Catholic Commentary of Holy
Scripture; Thomas Nelson, New York p.74-75
16 January 1948
"The Holy Father graciously entrusted to the Pontifical
Biblical Commission the examination of two questions recently
submitted to His Holyness concerning the sources of the
Pentateuch and the historicity of the first eleven chapters of
Genesis....As the result of their deliberations His Holyness
deigned to approve the following reply...on 16 January 1948."
[...]
"The question of the literary forms of the first eleven
chapters of Genesis is far more obscure and complex. These
literary forms do not correspond to any of our classical
categories and cannot be judged in the light of the Greco-Latin
or modern literary types. It is therefore impossible to deny or
affirm their historicity as a whole without unduly applying to
them norms of a literary type under which they cannot be
classed. If it is agreed not to see in these chapters history in
the classical and modern sense, it must be admitted also that
known scientific facts do not allow a _positive_ [italics in
original] solution of all the problems which they present. The
first duty in this matter incumbent on scientific exegesis
consists in the careful study of all the problems literary,
scientific, historical, cultural, and religious connected with
these chapters; in the next place is required a close
examination of the literary methods of the ancient oriental
peoples, their psychlogy, their manner of expressing themselves,
and even their notion of historical truth; the requisite, in a
word, is to assemble without preformed judgements all the
material of the paleontological and historical, epigraphical and
literary sciences. It is only in this way there is hope in
attaining a clearer view of the true nature of certain
narratives in the first chapters of Genesis. To declare a priori
that these narratives do not contain history in the modern sense
of the word might easily be understood to mean that they do not
contain history in any sense, whereas THEY RELATE IN SIMPLE AND
*FIGURATIVE* LANGUAGE [emphasis added -md], adapted to the
understanding of mankind at a lower stage of development, the
fundamental truths underlying the divine scheme of salvation, as
well as a popular description of the origins of the human race
and of the chosen people. In the meantime it is necessary to
practise patience which is part of prudence and the wisdom of
life. This also in inculcated by the Holy Father in the
Encyclical already quoted: "No one," he says, "should be
surprised that all the difficulties have not yet been clarified
or solved.... But that is no reason for losing courage or
forgetting that in the branches of human study it cannot be
otherwise than in nature, where beginnings grow little by
little, where the produce of the soil is not gathered except
after prolonged labour.... There is ground, therefore, for
hoping that (these difficulties) which today appear most
complicated and arduous, will eventually, thanks to constant
effort, admit of complete clarification."
-----
macaddicted
Dunford <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> mdun...@hawaii.rr.com (Mike Dunford) wrote in
> news:3cb2394b.82297146@news-server:
>
> I usually don't reply to my own posts, but I located some
> additional material today that is extremely relevant to
> evaluating the status of the 1909 PBC reply on the historicity
> of the Genesis account. Embarassingly enough, I should have
> found the information on Monday, when I located the text of the
> 1909 reply. Unfortunately, the material was in a reference book
> at the library, and I didn't get a chance to look at the book in
> more detail until today since I was a bit rushed by my kids on
> Monday. Today I found the PBC's letter to Cardinal Suhard a few
> pages past the 1909 reply.
>
[snip]
>
> I do think that this letter to the PBC, at a time when I believe
> the PBC was still an arm of the Magisterium, sheds some more
> light on Pagano's claim. It does not make the claim look any
> more favorable.
>
> --Mike Dunford
[snip all that great typing]
Mike, thanks again for your effort.
And hey Tony- now there are two of us "quote mining" and reaching the
same conclusions.
(cut tony saying that because we are not part of the magisterium that
he doesn't have to believe our interpretation)
Pagano won't accept it. I have laid the route from Providentissimus
Deus (introduction of the historical-critical method of exegesis)
through Divino Afflante Spiritu (accepted the h-c method and allowed
for other methods to be used), the PBC letter you quoted (which was in
large part a reaction to Divino) and Humani Generis (which picks up
directly the part you quoted) in trying to prove to him that Gen 1-3
cannot be read in the same way you read a modern history. Be prepared
for him to disregard your post and to have him label you with me as a
secularist and modernist.
A Pagano
>
>A great deal of Pagano's argument appears to rest on his
>interpretation of the 1909 PBC document. In fact, that is the only
>specific Church document he has cited to support his position that
>Genesis 1-3 are a historical account of real events. He has made
>several statements regarding this document, but has never quoted from
>it. The document was not easy to locate, despite the reference Pagano
>provided, but I was able to find a copy today. Since the document is
>short, critical to this discussion, and difficult to locate, I am
>including the document in full at the end of this post.
>
>This document hardly provides the clear, unequivocal support for a
>literal interpretation of Genesis 1 one would expect from reading
>Pagano's statements.
Pagano replies:
You should have quoted from my material to make this more credible.
And I commend Dunford for his studious preparation, but I think he's
barking up the wrong tree.
I only used the 1909 PBC document for one purpose: that is, to show
that the Church had already responded to Catholics like macaddicted
(if he is Catholic) who in the late 1800s - early 1900s had employed
uncertain science and exegetical systems, just like macaddicted, to
color Genesis as only a useful myth.
macaddicted asserted rather forcefully with out-of-context quotes and
misused quotes that the Church had adopted the historical-critical
method (or whatever method he chose) as the definitive one and that
this method had once-and-for-all swept away any-and-all historical
character from Genesis 1-3. In the 1909 declaration the PBC said, in
effect, that it had seen no clear and certain proof that it should
sweep away centuries of the Church's long standing position on the
historical character of Genesis 1-3.
Notwithstanding the arrogance of secularists we are little closer to
understanding our origins today than we were in 1909. And while the
Church gives exegetes the freedom to pursue a variety of methods (and
scientists the freedom to pursue the truth) it has not given Catholic
exegetes or Catholic scientists the freedom to declare to its members
that Genesis 1-3 is not, in part, a report of real events or that it
is simply a useful myth.
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
Pagano replies:
My claim was that the Church did give guidance concerning the
historicity of Genesis 1-3, that the guidance was provided by an arm
of the Magisterium, that the guidance was not infallible, and that it
left much open for further investigation within limits. I further
claimed that as far as I knew the Church had not reformed, modified or
superceded this guidance.
A Pagano
>This document hardly provides the clear, unequivocal support for a
>literal interpretation of Genesis 1 one would expect from reading
>Pagano's statements. Pagano does note in passing that, "This 1909
>document did not teach a purely literalist approach for each word and
>phrase.
Pagano replies:
Nor did I claim that it did. And I wish Dunford or anyone could
identify who, either now or in history, adhered to this pure,
unadulterated literalism. The 1909 declaration did not advocate
literalism, but it also did not deny the historical character of
Genesis 1-3. It didn't define or clarify that history, but that was
not its mission. It's only intent was to correct those Catholics who
were rashly and imprudently declaring Genesis (and other verses) to be
myth based on uncertain scientific claims and exegetical methods whose
results offered no guarrantees.
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
Dunford) wrote:
Pagano replies:
It leaves this open, but does not exclude the possibility that it was
an actual, literal 24 hour period. The New Testament and Old outside
of Genesis are filled with reports of events that the Church
interprets quite literally as history. Does that make the Church
purely literalist?
********************************************
(Message-ID:
><oc2f9uk0mqmb920bi...@4ax.com>) The example cited by
>Pagano is far from the only statement in the document which deviates
>from the "purely literalist approach."
Pagano replies:
Again the attempt by enemies of the Church to suggest that any attempt
to find a literal sense in Scripture is somehow "literalist." The
Catholic Church has for 2000 years found both a literal sense and a
spiritual sense in virtually every verse. The Catechism declares that
the spiritual senses depend on the litera. Sometimes that literal
sense is historical, sometimes its not.
*****************************************************
> In fact, although the PBC
>document clearly indicates a number of specific areas which it
>considers to be historical (see section III of 1909 document), there
>is a great deal of support even in this document for a metaphorical
>understanding of Genesis 1.
> "V: Much each and every word and phrase
> occurring in the aforesaid chapters always
> and necessarily be understood in its literal
> sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate
> from it, even when it appears obvious that
> the diction is employed in an applied sense,
> either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and
> either reason forbids the retention or necessity
> imposes the abandonment of the literal
> sense? Answer: In the negative.
Pagano replies:
This does not require Catholics to take a purely literal approach but
it doesn't restrict such a reading either. This didn't give
macaddicted the freedom to claim that the Church had abandoned the
historical character of Genesis 1-3.
macaddicted still hasn't even claimed that he is Catholic.
*************************************
>
> VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense
> is presupposed, may certain passages in the
> same chapters, in the light of the example of the
> holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely
> and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and
> prophetic sense? Answer: In the affirmative.
Pagano replies:
One wonders how this hurts my position or helps macaddicted. The PBC
simply says, if we presuppose the HISTORICAL sense of Genesis there
can also simultaneously be an allegorical sense. The two senses
COEXIST. It is not one or the other but BOTH. This is simply a
reiteration of long standing Church teaching of which you are
obviously ignorant.
The Catholic Church has taught almost from its beginning that each
verse of Scripture has a literal sense AND a spiritual sense (see
paragraphs 115-117 of the Catechism). The spiritual senses are
subdivided into the following classes: allegorical, moral and
anagogical. Each verse will have a literal sense and one or more of
the spiritual senses. The literal and spiritual senses COEXIST IN
EACH VERSE. It's not one or other sense but both coexist.
Regards,
T Pagano
macaddicted
> Pagano replies:
> You should have quoted from my material to make this more credible.
> And I commend Dunford for his studious preparation, but I think he's
> barking up the wrong tree.
>
> I only used the 1909 PBC document for one purpose: that is, to show
> that the Church had already responded to Catholics like macaddicted
> (if he is Catholic) who in the late 1800s - early 1900s had employed
> uncertain science and exegetical systems, just like macaddicted, to
> color Genesis as only a useful myth.
Sock puppet alert. Tony is arguing with the sock puppet again.
>
> macaddicted asserted rather forcefully with out-of-context quotes and
> misused quotes that the Church had adopted the historical-critical
> method (or whatever method he chose) as the definitive one and that
> this method had once-and-for-all swept away any-and-all historical
> character from Genesis 1-3.
Sock puppet alert
> In the 1909 declaration the PBC said, in
> effect, that it had seen no clear and certain proof that it should
> sweep away centuries of the Church's long standing position on the
> historical character of Genesis 1-3.
Yes, and the Letter to Suhard and Humani Generis said that you cannot
read Genesis using the same techniques as you use in reading modern
history. That is what I have been arguing all along.
It is such a simple concept. Genesis tells us that God created the
universe from nothing, not how he did it. It has a basis in hisory, but
is not a work of history as modern readers understand history.
> Notwithstanding the arrogance of secularists we are little closer to
> understanding our origins today than we were in 1909. And while the
> Church gives exegetes the freedom to pursue a variety of methods (and
> scientists the freedom to pursue the truth) it has not given Catholic
> exegetes or Catholic scientists the freedom to declare to its members
> that Genesis 1-3 is not, in part, a report of real events or that it
> is simply a useful myth.
>
The "real event" is the creation of the universe, not a detailed
description of how the universe was created. Which is what Suhard and
Humani say.
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of
the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the
internal constitution of visible things and the entire order of
creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in
accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the
understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific
language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of
these matters? Answer: In the negative.
--
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:16:30 +0000 (UTC), mdun...@hawaii.rr.com (Mike
> Dunford) wrote:
>
[snip]
> >This document hardly provides the clear, unequivocal support for a
> >literal interpretation of Genesis 1 one would expect from reading
> >Pagano's statements. Pagano does note in passing that, "This 1909
> >document did not teach a purely literalist approach for each word and
> >phrase. For example, the document left open for disagreement and
> >research whether the word translated as "day" was a 24 hour day or
> >some indeterminat period of time."
>
> Pagano replies:
> It leaves this open, but does not exclude the possibility that it was
> an actual, literal 24 hour period. The New Testament and Old outside
> of Genesis are filled with reports of events that the Church
> interprets quite literally as history.
But does NOT read using the methods of modern history.
copied from one of my previous posts:
From the CCC:
337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness,
diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator
SYMBOLICALLY [emphasis mine] as a succession of six days of divine
"work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day. On the subject of
creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our
salvation, permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and
the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."
Is it just me, or does this text state that we can take truths from
Genesis without reading it as literal history.
Websters defines "symbolically" as:
1 a : using, employing, or exhibiting a symbol b : consisting of or
proceeding by means of symbols
2 : of, relating to, or constituting a symbol
3 : characterized by or terminating in symbols <symbolic thinking>
4 : characterized by symbolism <a symbolic dance>
It defines "symbol" as;
1: an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine : CREED
2 : something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of
relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance;
especially : a visible sign of something invisible <the lion is a
symbol of courage>
3 : an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or printing
relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities,
elements, relations, or qualities
4 : an object or act representing something in the unconscious mind
that has been repressed <phallic symbols>
5 : an act, sound, or object having cultural significance and the
capacity to excite or objectify a response
Definitions of symbol numbers 1, 2, and 5 seem particularly pertinent.
> macaddicted still hasn't even claimed that he is Catholic.
> *************************************
Sock Puppet. I have no need to claim it. I am Catholic, and have said
so many times.
> > VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense
> > is presupposed, may certain passages in the
> > same chapters, in the light of the example of the
> > holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely
> > and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and
> > prophetic sense? Answer: In the affirmative.
>
> Pagano replies:
> One wonders how this hurts my position or helps macaddicted. The PBC
> simply says, if we presuppose the HISTORICAL sense of Genesis there
> can also simultaneously be an allegorical sense. The two senses
> COEXIST. It is not one or the other but BOTH. This is simply a
> reiteration of long standing Church teaching of which you are
> obviously ignorant.
As I have said, historical does not mean history. You are reading the
text using modern methods of historical research. This is not permitted
under Suhard and Humani Generis. That is the problem.
And as to the "history" of scripture, what of the differences between
John and the Synoptics about the cleansing of the Temple? You stated
that most exegetes think John changed the order. Then how can it be
history? (Remember, it is you, not I, who used John as a basis for your
interpretation of scripture as history.) Any modern historian who
re-arranged events to make a point would be laughed out of the union.
> The Catholic Church has taught almost from its beginning that each
> verse of Scripture has a literal sense AND a spiritual sense (see
> paragraphs 115-117 of the Catechism). The spiritual senses are
> subdivided into the following classes: allegorical, moral and
> anagogical. Each verse will have a literal sense and one or more of
> the spiritual senses. The literal and spiritual senses COEXIST IN
> EACH VERSE. It's not one or other sense but both coexist.
>
Flip back a page and read paragraphs 109-110. Then read paragraphs
282-348 for an example of what the Church thinks was the intent of the
author was. There is no need to read Gen. 1-3 as "literal history" to
reach these truths. One must only recognize that Gen 1-3 portrays, but
does not retell, events that occured. It is a subtle difference, but is
supported by Humani.
David Sienkiewicz
> [snip]
> > Pagano replies:
> > You should have quoted from my material to make this more credible.
> > And I commend Dunford for his studious preparation, but I think he's
> > barking up the wrong tree.
> >
> > I only used the 1909 PBC document for one purpose: that is, to show
> > that the Church had already responded to Catholics like macaddicted
> > (if he is Catholic) who in the late 1800s - early 1900s had employed
> > uncertain science and exegetical systems, just like macaddicted, to
> > color Genesis as only a useful myth.
>
> Sock puppet alert. Tony is arguing with the sock puppet again.
>
> >
> > macaddicted asserted rather forcefully with out-of-context quotes and
> > misused quotes that the Church had adopted the historical-critical
> > method (or whatever method he chose) as the definitive one and that
> > this method had once-and-for-all swept away any-and-all historical
> > character from Genesis 1-3.
>
> Sock puppet alert
It really doesn't matter what you tell Tony with respect to what your
argument REALLY was (versus his strawman version of it). Tony could
not deal with what you had to say, so he twisted it to fit HIS
argument.
He's done that a few times with others over the years.
And it doesn't matter how many times you try to correct him. Once
Tony makes up his mind, he doesn't change it.
Tony's "unteachable," you see. He's said so himself.
David Sienkiewicz
< snip >
Tony, where's that evidence you say the creationists have for the
flood.
You claimed it, but when you were challenged to produce it, you
disappeared into the ether, as you would put it.
Tony?
I'm still waiting for that continued "drubbing" your promised so long
ago...
David Sienkiewicz
Never let it be said, Tony, that a straight-forward statement that
accurately reflects your arguments cannot be resaid by you in a more
pompous way.
Mike Dunford
>>DOES THE 1909 PBC DOCUMENT ACTUALLY SUPPORT PAGANO'S
>>CLAIMS?
[snip]
>>This document hardly provides the clear, unequivocal
>>support for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 one would
>>expect from reading Pagano's statements.
>
> Pagano replies:
> You should have quoted from my material to make this more
> credible.
Please permit me to do so now. I am not going to even attempt to
be comprehensive, but I will give a few examples. They are
presented in no particular order:
-----
From Message-ID: <gioiausrtnv275oi7...@4ax.com>:
"Since 1996 and a fair amount of reading both of Catholic
Church documents, works of secular scientists, and
creationist scientists I now believe the earth was
created in six days and that it is young as measured by
clocks within the earth's frame of reference."
From Message-ID: <79is9u8fml6ll8j11...@4ax.com>:
[quoted material from Groves]
>"As AiG has pointed out many times before, Genesis is not
>allegory or myth—it was written as ‘historical narrative,' and
>is intended to be read as such."
Pagano replies:
And they would be in general agreement with the position of the
Catholic Church as declared by the June 1909 declaration of the
Pontifical Biblical Commission. It can't be emphasized enough
that it is being read as history not as a scientific treatise.
It perhaps can be interpreted as the observation report of an
observer with the earth as the frame of reference. It is not a
scientifc theory, but a very limited observation report. The
atheist and the secularist and the modernist may chose to ignore
the literal sense of this observation report as real history.
While the teaching of the Biblical Commission of 1909 Catholics
is not a "de fide" teaching it still carries the same weigh and
authority as all the other Sacred Congregations of the Church.
From Message-ID: <p740au0kghaorr52u...@4ax.com>:
[Quoted text from macaddicted]
>Tony, I only asked you to clarify your position as to what
>"literal" meant,
Pagano replies: My position has always been clear. You
argued forcefully that with regard to the literal sense of
Genesis 1-3 that any direct, immediate meaning of the words
could not be historical. In fact you generalized this to all
of Scripture with quote mines from the 93 Biblical Commission
report and two encyclicals.
-----
In these examples and others (I can provide others on request)
the implication appears clear. Catholic doctrine, you imply, is
that Genesis 1-3 is a historical narrative which presents an
observer's report of actual events. corresponds to the actual
events. As your authority for this, you repeatedly cited the
1909 PBC document.
>And I commend Dunford for his studious
> preparation, but I think he's barking up the wrong tree.
The only way I could be barking up the wrong tree here is if I
failed to notice you jumping to another nearby one.
> I only used the 1909 PBC document for one purpose: that
> is, to show that the Church had already responded to
> Catholics like macaddicted (if he is Catholic)
That comment is beneath you, Pagano.
> who in the
> late 1800s - early 1900s had employed uncertain science and
> exegetical systems, just like macaddicted, to color
> Genesis as only a useful myth.
This is as much a strawman characterization as the 'pure
literalist.' Nowhere did macaddicted claim that Genesis 1-3 is
'only a useful myth.'
Further, if that was your only intent, you cloked it well. It
certainly appeared that you were using the 1909 document not
only to refute that claim, but also as positive support for your
own claims regarding how Genesis is supposed to be interpreted.
> macaddicted asserted rather forcefully with out-of-context
> quotes and misused quotes that the Church had adopted the
> historical-critical method (or whatever method he chose) as
> the definitive one and that this method had
> once-and-for-all swept away any-and-all historical
> character from Genesis 1-3.
This is an area where your own case would be much more credible
if you provided appropriate quotes. I can find no instance where
macaddicted claimed that 'any-and-all historical character' had
been removed from Genesis 1-3. Nor can I find anyplace where he
claimed that Genesis was only a useful myth.
There is a large amount of middle ground between claiming that
Genesis is only myth, without any historical significance, and
claiming that the creation took place in exactly way outlined by
Genesis 1 (A recent creation in six days of 24 hours, with light
and darkness created on day one and man on day 6). The current
position of the Catholic Church on the interpretation of Genesis
1-11, as clearly expressed in the letter from the Pontifical
Biblical Commission to Cardinal Suhard in 1948 and reaffirmed
and clarified by Pius XII in the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis,
falls into this middle ground:
"...the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although
properly speaking not conforming to the historical
method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or
by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless
pertain to history in a true sense, which however
must be further studied and determined by exegetes;
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. If, however, the ancient sacred
writers have taken anything from popular narrations
(and this may be conceded), it must never be
forgotten that they did so with the help of divine
inspiration, through which they were rendered immune
from any error in selecting and evaluating those
documents.
39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations
have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must
in no way be considered on a par with myths or
other such things, which are more the product of an
extravagant imagination than of that striving for
truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also
of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient
sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior
to the ancient profane writers."
Of course, you consistantly refuse to acknowledge the presense
of any middle ground when you participate in debates on this
group. I am honestly unsure whether you are deliberately
erecting strawman arguments in an attempt to make your own
positions appear more reasonable, or if you are really unable to
perceive the subtle nuances others can.
> In the 1909 declaration the
> PBC said, in effect, that it had seen no clear and certain
> proof that it should sweep away centuries of the Church's
> long standing position on the historical character of
> Genesis 1-3.
And yet you were characteristicly unclear as to exactly what the
historical character of Genesis 1-3 really was. You left the
clear implication that Genesis 1-3 was history in the modern
sense of the word (see above; more examples available upon
request). In actuality, that is not the Church's position. In
fact, the clearly articulated position is that Genesis 1-3 are
not history in the modern sense, but are an account of real
events presented in "SIMPLE AND FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, ADAPTED TO
THE UNDERSTANDING OF MANKIND AT A LOWER STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT."
(Language taken from Suhard letter, slightly different language
used in Humani Generis can be found earlier in reply.)
> Notwithstanding the arrogance of secularists we are little
> closer to understanding our origins today than we were in
> 1909.
Notwithstanding the arrogance of Pagano and other creationists,
tremendous leaps in the understanding of the history of the
universe, of the solar system, or the earth, and of life have
occurred in the preceeding 93 years.
> And while the Church gives exegetes the freedom to
> pursue a variety of methods (and scientists the freedom to
> pursue the truth) it has not given Catholic exegetes or
> Catholic scientists the freedom to declare to its members
> that Genesis 1-3 is not, in part, a report of real events
> or that it is simply a useful myth.
Neither declaration was made by macaddicted to my knowledge. Nor
have I made such claims.
--Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
[snip]
> And I wish Dunford or anyone
> could identify who, either now or in history, adhered to
> this pure, unadulterated literalism. The 1909 declaration
> did not advocate literalism, but it also did not deny the
> historical character of Genesis 1-3. It didn't define or
> clarify that history, but that was not its mission.
1: The 1909 document does present some clarifications of the
historic nature of Genesis 1-3.
- The chapters must in some sense be accounts of real
events; they can not be properly interpreted as being PURELY
myth, or PURELY allegory.
- There are certain portions of the chapters which are
definitely historical in nature.
- The first chapter of Genesis is intended to communicate a
popular account of creation suited to the understanding and
capacity of people at the time when the book was written.
2: The historical character of Genesis was clarified by the 1948
PBC letter to Cardinal Suhard, and that clarification was
reaffirmed and expanded upon in the encyclical Humani Generis.
Both affirm that the chapters are not history in the modern
sense of the word, that they do not correspond to any modern
literary form (i.e. they are not allegory either), and that they
depict creation in simple and figurative language.
> It's
> only intent was to correct those Catholics who were rashly
> and imprudently declaring Genesis (and other verses) to be
> myth based on uncertain scientific claims and exegetical
> methods whose results offered no guarrantees.
No. The 1909 document went well beyond that. If that was the
only intent, the PBC could have stopped after point III. (And I
rather think that you wish they had.) In addition to correcting
certain errors, the PBC also made it clear that although Genesis
1-3 definitely is historical in character, it is not necessarily
history in the current sense of the term -- that is, an accurate
account of events as read verbatim. Subsequently, the Suhard
letter and Humani Generis have clarified that position, clearly
stating that Genesis IS NOT history in the modern sense of the
word.
--Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:16:30 +0000 (UTC),
> mdun...@hawaii.rr.com (Mike Dunford) wrote:
[snip]
>>This document hardly provides the clear, unequivocal
>>support for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 one would
>>expect from reading Pagano's statements. Pagano does note
>>in passing that, "This 1909 document did not teach a purely
>>literalist approach for each word and phrase. For example,
>>the document left open for disagreement and research
>>whether the word translated as "day" was a 24 hour day or
>>some indeterminat period of time."
>
> Pagano replies:
> It leaves this open, but does not exclude the possibility
> that it was an actual, literal 24 hour period.
This is correct. Nothing in the 1909 document completely
excluded a literal, verbatim interpretation of Genesis 1-3. The
document did not provide any encouragement for that
interpretation, but it did at least leave the door cracked.
The door shut later, when two separate documents (the Suhard
letter, reaffirmed in the encyclical Humani Generis) stated
clearly and definitively that the first 11 chapters of Genesis
are not history in the modern sense of the word, do not
correspond to any modern literary form, and that they depic
events in simple, figurative language.
> The New
> Testament and Old outside of Genesis are filled with
> reports of events that the Church interprets quite
> literally as history.
Yes. Because there are reports of events there which should be
interpreted as history. The approach to the interpretation of
scripture outlined in a long sucession of documents requires
that the interpreter remember that truth may be expressed
differently in different literary forms, and therefore careful
sudy is necessary to determine the literary form used for each
passage. In the case of Genesis, the Church has clearly and
repeatedly stated that the literary form used in Genesis 1-11
does not correspond to any modern form, including the modern
understanding of history.
> Does that make the Church purely
> literalist?
No. Does it mean that Genesis 1-3 must be treated as history in
the same sense that other portions of the bible are treated as
history? No. Does treating Genesis 1-3 as history in the same
sense as other portions of the bible contradict the position
clearly outlined in at least two documents? Yes.
> (Message-ID:
>><oc2f9uk0mqmb920bi...@4ax.com>) The example
>>cited by Pagano is far from the only statement in the
>>document which deviates from the "purely literalist
>>approach."
>
> Pagano replies:
> Again the attempt by enemies of the Church
I strongly resent that comment and your unbelievable arrgoance
in assuming that you are qualified to make that determination.
>to suggest that
> any attempt to find a literal sense in Scripture is somehow
> "literalist."
That was not my intent. My intent was to point out that, as
stated in multiple church documents, it is necessary to do more
than simply read the words to determine what the literal sense
of a passage is.
> The Catholic Church has for 2000 years found
> both a literal sense and a spiritual sense in virtually
> every verse. The Catechism declares that the spiritual
> senses depend on the litera. Sometimes that literal sense
> is historical, sometimes its not.
I agree. In the case of Genesis, the literal sense is
historical, but not in the modern sense of the word. Rather, it
is an account of real events expressed in figurative language
expressed in a way understandable by people at the time it was
written.
[snip]
>> "V: Much each and every word and phrase
>> occurring in the aforesaid chapters always
>> and necessarily be understood in its literal
>> sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate
>> from it, even when it appears obvious that
>> the diction is employed in an applied sense,
>> either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and
>> either reason forbids the retention or necessity
>> imposes the abandonment of the literal
>> sense? Answer: In the negative.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This does not require Catholics to take a purely literal
> approach but it doesn't restrict such a reading either.
I will again agree that nothing in the 1909 document restricted
such a reading. That comes with the later clarifications of the
1909 document (see above).
> This didn't give macaddicted the freedom to claim that the
> Church had abandoned the historical character of Genesis
> 1-3.
To my knowledge, macaddicted did not claim that the Church had.
He stated (and was correct in stating) that Genesis does not
correspond to history in the modern sense of the word.
> macaddicted still hasn't even claimed that he is Catholic.
Please read for comprehension.
In Message-ID:
<080320021507436535%macaddicte...@fastmail.fm>, which
was the first macaddicted post you responded to, he said, "As a
devout, lifelong Catholic I beg you. Please, don't allow
yourself to be pulled back into discredited scientific ideas for
fear of theological discomfort."
>> VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense
>> is presupposed, may certain passages in the
>> same chapters, in the light of the example of the
>> holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely
>> and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and
>> prophetic sense? Answer: In the affirmative.
>
> Pagano replies:
> One wonders how this hurts my position or helps
> macaddicted. The PBC simply says, if we presuppose the
> HISTORICAL sense of Genesis there can also simultaneously
> be an allegorical sense. The two senses COEXIST. It is
> not one or the other but BOTH. This is simply a
> reiteration of long standing Church teaching of which you
> are obviously ignorant.
I am far from ignorant of those teachings. I put that entry
there to point out that although the 1909 document does state
that Genesis is not purely allegorical, it may have an
allegorical sense.
> The Catholic Church has taught almost from its beginning
> that each verse of Scripture has a literal sense AND a
> spiritual sense (see paragraphs 115-117 of the Catechism).
> The spiritual senses are subdivided into the following
> classes: allegorical, moral and anagogical. Each verse
> will have a literal sense and one or more of the spiritual
> senses. The literal and spiritual senses COEXIST IN EACH
> VERSE. It's not one or other sense but both coexist.
Certainly. It is also necessary to carefully determine through
exegesis what the correct literal sense is. (See Catechism para
116) See the PBC 1993 document on Interpretation of the Bible in
the Church: "It is not sufficient to translate a text word for
word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand
the text according to the literary conventions of the time."
In the case of the early chapters of Genesis, the clear position
of the Church is that the literary convention used is not
history in the modern sense of the word, nor does it correspond
to any other modern literary form. The literal sense of these
chapters is therefore not identical to the literalistic sense
gained by word for word translation.
--Mike Dunford
Steven J.
years ago -- but the scientific evidence does. The 1909 PBC document
does not, to my understanding, leave open as a legitimate viewpoint
the sort of rabid epistomological nihilism you espouse to deal with
the evidence for an old universe and evolution. The idea that the
laws of nature are inconstant or might not even exist is incompatible
with the very idea that there can BE a knowable, literal sense of
scripture -- for how can we know that the nature of men (and their
writings) have not changed in the last 2000 years? You cite, as a
reason for your interpretation of Genesis, the authoritiy of the
Catholic Church's magisterium. That Magisterium here explicitly
states that your interpretation is not required. And, of course, you
have had it pointed out to you that, while John Paul II has rebuked
(to the annoyance of secularists)theologians who deny the resurrection
or espouse liberation theology, he has issued no rebukes to Catholics
who accept (and teach) the Big Bang theory, or conventional geology,
or even evolution. Why do YOU not accept the teachings of the
Magisterium? It allows you your inanities, I suppose, but it does not
command or even commend them.
> ********************************************
>
> (Message-ID:
> ><oc2f9uk0mqmb920bi...@4ax.com>) The example cited by
> >Pagano is far from the only statement in the document which deviates
> >from the "purely literalist approach."
>
> Pagano replies:
> Again the attempt by enemies of the Church to suggest that any attempt
> to find a literal sense in Scripture is somehow "literalist." The
> Catholic Church has for 2000 years found both a literal sense and a
> spiritual sense in virtually every verse. The Catechism declares that
> the spiritual senses depend on the litera. Sometimes that literal
> sense is historical, sometimes its not.
>
suggesting that *any* attempt to find (and believe) a literal sense of
the biblical text is "literalist." But surely Flood Geology and a
literal six-day creation are "literalist" in the lowest and worst
sense of the word -- and the 1909 PBC document explicitly notes that
neither is required; one may accept the findings of science that
neither is a reasonable interpretation of the facts.
> *****************************************************
>
> > In fact, although the PBC
> >document clearly indicates a number of specific areas which it
> >considers to be historical (see section III of 1909 document), there
> >is a great deal of support even in this document for a metaphorical
> >understanding of Genesis 1.
>
>
> > "V: Much each and every word and phrase
> > occurring in the aforesaid chapters always
> > and necessarily be understood in its literal
> > sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate
> > from it, even when it appears obvious that
> > the diction is employed in an applied sense,
> > either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and
> > either reason forbids the retention or necessity
> > imposes the abandonment of the literal
> > sense? Answer: In the negative.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This does not require Catholics to take a purely literal approach but
> it doesn't restrict such a reading either. This didn't give
> macaddicted the freedom to claim that the Church had abandoned the
> historical character of Genesis 1-3.
>
that the account is historical but poetic rather than literal. Why do
you harp on the fact that the PBC document allows a more rigidly
literal reading? Such a reading does not comport with scientific
fact, and, furthermore, any sensitive reading of the document shows
that its authors were keenly aware of, and responsive to, that fact.
If they thought something was wrong with the science, they'd have
indicated their areas of disagreement. Rather, they seemed to be
trying to stake out the minimal necessary surrender of the literal
reading that would be required to believe both the Bible and science.
Why do you, supposedly so fanatically devoted to following the lead of
the Magisterium, not do likewise?
>
> macaddicted still hasn't even claimed that he is Catholic.
>
who'd assume, if either of you did, that he was lying.
> *************************************
> >
> > VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense
> > is presupposed, may certain passages in the
> > same chapters, in the light of the example of the
> > holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely
> > and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and
> > prophetic sense? Answer: In the affirmative.
>
> Pagano replies:
> One wonders how this hurts my position or helps macaddicted. The PBC
> simply says, if we presuppose the HISTORICAL sense of Genesis there
> can also simultaneously be an allegorical sense. The two senses
> COEXIST. It is not one or the other but BOTH. This is simply a
> reiteration of long standing Church teaching of which you are
> obviously ignorant.
>
this context can mean anything other than "not intended to be used as
a substitute for research in geology, cosmology, and biology?"
>
> The Catholic Church has taught almost from its beginning that each
> verse of Scripture has a literal sense AND a spiritual sense (see
> paragraphs 115-117 of the Catechism). The spiritual senses are
> subdivided into the following classes: allegorical, moral and
> anagogical. Each verse will have a literal sense and one or more of
> the spiritual senses. The literal and spiritual senses COEXIST IN
> EACH VERSE. It's not one or other sense but both coexist.
>
YEC. Just how long do you plan to take to catch up with your own
Church?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Tracy P. Hamilton
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:127ccf2e.02041...@posting.google.com...
> A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<sthkbugum388jutg9...@4ax.com>...
> > On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:16:30 +0000 (UTC), mdun...@hawaii.rr.com (Mike
> > Dunford) wrote:
[snip]
> > Pagano replies:
> > This does not require Catholics to take a purely literal approach but
> > it doesn't restrict such a reading either. This didn't give
> > macaddicted the freedom to claim that the Church had abandoned the
> > historical character of Genesis 1-3.
> >
> You are (as so often) being obtuse. macaddited is claiming, surely,
> that the account is historical but poetic rather than literal. Why do
> you harp on the fact that the PBC document allows a more rigidly
> literal reading? Such a reading does not comport with scientific
> fact, and, furthermore, any sensitive reading of the document shows
> that its authors were keenly aware of, and responsive to, that fact.
As a matter of fact, this *was* 1909, and a whole lot less was
known about evolution. Enough, though, to accomodate the
likelihood it will have staying power, which it certainly has.
> If they thought something was wrong with the science, they'd have
> indicated their areas of disagreement. Rather, they seemed to be
> trying to stake out the minimal necessary surrender of the literal
> reading that would be required to believe both the Bible and science.
> Why do you, supposedly so fanatically devoted to following the lead of
> the Magisterium, not do likewise?
Because he lacks *wisdom*.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
macaddicted
Tony won't accept it. He has declared himself the arbiter of
Catholicism.
David Jensen
macaddicted <macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote in
<160420020752451251%macaddicte...@fastmail.fm>:
>[snip arguments that look REALLY familiar]
>
>Tony won't accept it. He has declared himself the arbiter of
>Catholicism.
I expect that he'll be off to Rome to help the Cardinals with their
pedophile priest coverup problem then.
John Wilkins
> "Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote in message
> news:127ccf2e.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:<sthkbugum388jutg9...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:16:30 +0000 (UTC), mdun...@hawaii.rr.com (Mike
> > > Dunford) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Pagano replies:
> > > This does not require Catholics to take a purely literal approach but
> > > it doesn't restrict such a reading either. This didn't give
> > > macaddicted the freedom to claim that the Church had abandoned the
> > > historical character of Genesis 1-3.
> > >
> > You are (as so often) being obtuse. macaddited is claiming, surely,
> > that the account is historical but poetic rather than literal. Why do
> > you harp on the fact that the PBC document allows a more rigidly
> > literal reading? Such a reading does not comport with scientific
> > fact, and, furthermore, any sensitive reading of the document shows
> > that its authors were keenly aware of, and responsive to, that fact.
>
> As a matter of fact, this *was* 1909, and a whole lot less was
> known about evolution. Enough, though, to accomodate the
> likelihood it will have staying power, which it certainly has.
I just bought a wonderful book, dated around 1909, which carries a Nihil
Obstat and Imprimatur, by a German biologist who claims from a Catholic
perspective that common descent is false, just to add to the muddy
waters (it has some really lovely engravings)...
>
> > If they thought something was wrong with the science, they'd have
> > indicated their areas of disagreement. Rather, they seemed to be
> > trying to stake out the minimal necessary surrender of the literal
> > reading that would be required to believe both the Bible and science.
> > Why do you, supposedly so fanatically devoted to following the lead of
> > the Magisterium, not do likewise?
>
> Because he lacks *wisdom*.
>
> [snip]
>
> Tracy P. Hamilton
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense for over 46 years
macaddicted
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
No, as it has little to do with Gen 1-3.
John Wilkins
> In article <80hpbu4l8ebm16g6n...@4ax.com>, David Jensen
> <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:50:41 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
> > macaddicted <macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote in
> > <160420020752451251%macaddicte...@fastmail.fm>:
> >
> >
> > >[snip arguments that look REALLY familiar]
> > >
> > >Tony won't accept it. He has declared himself the arbiter of
> > >Catholicism.
> >
> > I expect that he'll be off to Rome to help the Cardinals with their
> > pedophile priest coverup problem then.
> >
>
> No, as it has little to do with Gen 1-3.
Sex, deception, divine commandments... you sure?
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally having fun for over 46 years...
I am nothing like this - no, really:
<http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame17.html>