Pope Francis jokes 'woman was from a rib'

And Saint Augustine was not the only one to reject literalism for every bible passage. Origen of Alexandria, and I for the record am not someone who is anti-Origen, stated the Bible is to be interpreted 3 ways, Literally, Allegorically and spiritually, and from this we get what today is the different sense of Scripture. His mentor, Saint Clement of Alexandria would also be in the camp of the “Allegorical” interpretation of Genesis as would Saint Hillary of Potiers.

There were Fathers such as Saint Basil the Great, Saint Ambrose of Milan who favored a literal day by day interpretation. Regardless, this was never an issue that any Pope of Ecumenical council excommunicated anyone as a heretic over.

And I notice you have avoided my question. You just asked me why Fundamentalist Protestants reject the literal interpretation of John 6 and I told you. Yet you still won't tell me why Catholics reject Genesis 1-11. Do you think you might consider actually doing this at some point in your lifetime?

Who's against allegorical interpretation? Why does this straw man keep popping up? There are traditionally four interpretations of Scripture: peshat (the plain sense), remez (hints or allusions found in the letters), derash (homiletical), and sod (secret). This is commonly known by the acronym PaRDeS ("paradise"). Just how does any of this mean that the plain text doesn't relate factual historical events?

I will ask you again: why Genesis 1-11? Why do you go on the warpath for John 6, and even accept the historicity of Genesis 12-50, if you reject Genesis 1-11? Is it because it describes a world very different from that which we experience every day? How could it be otherwise? Why do you think that the world as it slipped from G-d's fingers (so to say) operated exactly as it does today?

There are more church fathers who are literalists than those who are not. Father Seraphim Rose (a right wing Orthodox convert) wrote a book entitled Genesis and Early Man in which he marshaled plenty of research for exactly how the majority of fathers interpreted Genesis (take a look at this article just for starters). Interestingly, Rose was absolutely taken aback by just how universal not only creationism, but young earth creationism, was among the fathers. However, he opted not to deal with this issue, not wanting to be associated with those inbred morons who live in trailers.

Really? You believe in the virgin birth, transubstantiation, the real presence, the resurrection, and you insist that Genesis 1-11 couldn't have happened as written because we don't see stuff like this happening today? Really??? What is WRONG with you, man?

Or is it merely because Genesis 1-11 is associated with "white trash?"

I can totally get on board with your concerns until you bring this up. Not sure why you feel you have to do so.

If you were "white trash," you would know.

Contrary to what many Catholics believe, they are not the low man on the totem pole or the only safe target. Rural American Fundamentalist Protestants (especially of the Anglo-Celtic variety) have always been the absolute lowest of the low. And I continue to maintain that the association of a literal interpretation of Genesis with this population demographic is one reason the "respectable" people are so opposed to it.

Face it. No one else ever publicly defends Genesis. For Fundamentalist Protestants, on the other hand, it is their badge of identity. And this makes Genesis the "redneck book."

Why don't you come to the Bible Belt some day and see what it's like?

piusv:

As for the Creation stories, he believed it was one moment that creation was done, yes there was, a tree, serpent, etc, but he saw those and much in Genesis as prefigurement of Christ and his death, etc,

I don’t think he was making fun of Genesis, he was using humor to discuss an issue. He did nothing wrong here. Show a little humor and laughter and you might convert more people. If GK Chesterton could laugh and use humor when debating the socialist-atheist Benard Shaw, maybe some of the Rad-Trad Catholics can do the same rather than act like the frozen chosen. I do not attend an extraordinary form of the Mass, although I am thankful Pope Benedict issued his apostolic letter on it 7 years ago. So I view myself as an Ally with say with those Catholic who attend mass at parishes run by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, Institute of Christ the King, etc but I don’t like the constant attacks by rad-trads on Pope JOhn Paul II, Pope Benedict or even Francis. Legitimate criticism is fair, but some of this stuff is just looking for a fight when there is none.

Zionist Conspirator:

I have only lived in 3 “Southern States” in my life so I am well aware of the Bible belt culture you refer to. It is not just about Genesis, that is just a symptom and something that is an easy example of a larger issue. It is the anti-science movement across the board that one finds in much of this culture.

You and I have been through this before and we are still at the same position. I can attend my local Catholic parish and find people who believe in a Literal interpretation of Genesis or an allegorical one with respect to “the 6 24 hour days”. Both can be held, for the Catholic Church dogmatically has never said anything regarding a literal 6 days. Yes, most the Eastern Greek Church Fathers favored a literal 6 days, not all, but even then I don’t think any Eastern Orthodox would say that is a dogmatic teaching because that teaching is not found in any of the 7 Ecumenical COuncils that the Orthodox hold to be infallible teachings of Matters of Faith.

And again, let me get this straight. You stated in another thread, you reject the NT. SO from that one concludes you reject Christ and Christianity. Do I have this correct?

Nope you’re the one missing the boat on this one. This was not funny. Period. It was cowardly.

Do you think St Pius V would make such a funny? Of course not. Guess he’s a rad-trad too. And given your requirements for being able to convert others, St Pius V must not have been very successful at it.

But we know that is not the case.

You stick to your wishy washy post Vatican II ways and I’ll stick to the Catholic pre-Vatican II ways.

piusv:

Is Pius V the only Pope in the history of the Church. You still have not dealt with substantial issue at hand, leaving aside whether it was in good taste for the Pope to make a joke. You have a problem with it, I don’t.

The facts still remain 1) that numerous Church Fathers taught an allegorical interpretation with respect to the literal 6 24 hour day interpretation of Genesis [Saint Augustine being one of them], 2) No Pope, or 3) Ecumenical Church Council of the first millennium when Rome and the East were fully united has ever dogmatically taught anything regarding it.

For as sticking with pre-Vatican 2 days, I actually stick wholeheartedly to Nicea, 325AD, Constantinopile, 381AD, Ephesus, 431AD and Chalcedon 451AD. I also stick with for example 2 Nicea in 787AD, Trent in 1563 AD, Vatican I in 1870, and Vatican II in 1965.

Vatican II happened unfortunately at the time when Western Civilization was basically starting to collapse. And too many priests, theologians and Bishops got caught up with the spirit of the age. So people say, well Vatican II caused this. No, anybody with some university level statistics will see that correlation does not imply causality. So while there were some interpretations from the Council that were invalid, slowly things are being corrected. The spirit of Vatican II crowd are passing on and as all reputable Church Historians have noted, in generally takes about 100 years before all the ramifications of a Church Council shake out. For example, even at the time of Saint Jerome, who was saying basically the whole world groaned at the thought of Arianism still dominate in many parts of the Church.

No, Pius V was not the only pope who would be considered a rad-trad these days. They would also believe in the literal Creation. They also would NEVER joke about the Faith the way this guy does. They would probably be sneered at by most of the Catholics on this board for “not having a sense of humor”. I’m totally fine with being lumped in with those saintly men.

I have already explained how your interpretation of Augustine was wrong. He is the one Church Father that is always trotted out to “prove” the Church also taught an allegorical Creation (separate from a literal)...when in fact this is not what he did. So facts? No, not facts.

As I said earlier, this thread was about Francis, not Church teaching. You have chosen to make it about Church teaching because you don’t want to focus on Francis. Because like you said, you see nothing wrong with the way he behaves. Just us “rad-trads”. I have trouble with the post-Vatican II “conservative” Catholics who stick up for him practically all.the.time.

Vatican II was the result of Modernism already seeping into the Church. It is not just “misinterpreted”. And it’s being corrected? Hardly. We still have “popes” pushing false ecumenism, the new wishy washy religion. But I’m sure they have just “misinterpreted” Vatican II. Vatican II caused things because it was meant to cause these things. And here we are.

But perhaps you’re right. Perhaps we’ll get a pope who actually believes in and teaches the Traditional Catholic Faith boldly and gets rid of all of the false trappings of Vatican II. God, I hope so. Things have been a mess for far too long. Far too many have been sucked into New Church’s ways. I was there for far too long.

And once again you exhibit your inconsistency by refusing to answer my questions.

Perhaps you haven't heard about this, but "we now know" that human babies are not born to virgins (other than by such modern means as in vitro fertilization or "test tube babies"). Yet I'm sure you reject the findings of science on this issue and persist in believing in a scientific impossibility: a woman giving birth without the involvement of a male sperm at some point. And I doubt this is the only anti-science view you hold. Did you know that dead people don't come back to life? That bread and wine don't "transubstantiate" to "flesh and blood?" That water doesn't turn into wine? And yet you hold each and every one of these "anti-science" positions without realizing the irony of your charge of "anti-science" thrown at rural American Protestants. Would it do any good to ask you, for the third or fourth time, to justify this blatant inconsistency on your part? Hmmm?

"Science" has no more to say about the creation of the universe or how the world operated before the sin, the Flood, or the Dispersion, any more than it does sitting in judgment on any supernatural miracle. Yet you insist on believing in supernatural miracles while claiming the universe could only have come into existence through uniform natural laws. And how did those uniform natural laws come into existence? Were they created supernaturally and instantaneously, or did G-d use pre-existing natural laws to bring those natural laws into existence? Which begs the question . . . well, you know.

You are such a disappointment.

And again, let me get this straight. You stated in another thread, you reject the NT. SO from that one concludes you reject Christ and Christianity. Do I have this correct?

Bevadday. Lamah lo'?

Zionist:

Why I am a disappointment to you is a question that only you can answer. We don’t know each other and will never know each other so why do you worry what I believe. I am not anti-Science, my wife is a Science teacher, ok. Not to toot my own horn but I have a PhD and work in higher education. Nothing in science broadly [physics, cosmology, biology] challenges my faith. God is the creator of all things, including the natural laws of science. As the late Pope John Paul II stated, “Truth can’t contradict Truth” since theological truths and scientific truths both find there source in God Himself.

What I reject is people trying to make the Bible say something that it never intended to say or say something that it does not say. I believe Genesis is true, but not that it is God’s written textbook about science.

The Church was not founded by Christ to determine scientific Truths, it was to teach and pass own Apostolic Tradition that relates to “salvific truths” about Christ, his death and resurrection, sin and redemption, etc, etc.

How God created the Universe is something that Man will never totally comprehend if you think we can, then that is arrogance. God is the only thing eternal. Period. Everything else can into being because of God created it. So, the Virgin Birth is something that is a faith dogma and yes, God can work outside of the natural and scientific laws he created, if he could not, then he would not be God.

So yes, I accept the Virgin Birth, the Divinity of Christ, and that he died and rose again from the Dead. Without believing those, I would be a Unitarian, Jehova’s witness, or even Jewish for they all reject some aspects or all of what I said above.

So if Christ is the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity [and I thru Faith believe he is], then yes he could rise from the Dead and yes he could turn water into wine and yes he could turn bread and wine into his body and blood, not because he was a Man, but because he was a Divine Person and also True God.

So my question to you is why do you care what Catholic Christendom says????? It is obvious you are not 1) Catholic and it also seems to be you are not even a 2) Protestant Christian. What new recent “sect” and “belief system” you adhere to only you know but I can tell, there is nothing in it that reflects any iota of orthodox Christian doctrine with respect to the Person of Christ.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.