Replies

Zionist Conspirator, you misunderstood my comments on Genesis. I believe without doubt that Genesis is an inspired Biblical text and without theological error whatsoever. The question, rather, is how it should be interpretation hermeneutically. The style of the text is different than the Gospels, I said. The style of Genesis is similar to creation myths such as Gilgamesh, but I would never agree with a statement that Genesis is "plagiarized" from Gilgamesh. The point is that the STYLE of Genesis is similar to Gilgamesh -- it is a creation narrative -- but Gilgamesh is not an inspired Scripture and does not possess the theological truths that are authoritatively present in Genesis. In contrast to Genesis, the STYLE of the Gospels are not of biography. These different styles, both containing theological truths that are inspired and without error, nevertheless lend themselves to different hermeneutic rules of interpretation.

When in doubt, Catholics go to tradition to answer these thorny questions. Tradition thoroughly supports the Real Presence doctrine, as grounded in Scripture. The Church Fathers, and the Magisterium, are undecided on the scientific and historical merit of Genesis, but they are without doubt about the fundamental, theological truths revealed in Genesis.

Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on "The Divine Act of Creation" and "The Divine Work of Creation":

-- God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
-- The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
-- The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
-- God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
-- God has created a good world. (De Fide)
-- The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
-- God alone created the world. (De Fide)
-- God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
-- God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
-- The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
-- Man consists of two essential parts -- a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
-- Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
-- Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
-- The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
-- Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
-- Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
-- Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

These truths are without question, revealed by Genesis.

But was the earth created in seven days? Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.

Incidently, Augustine of Hippo lived from 354 to 430 AD. He was not a 16th century German -- not by a long shot. But he and his contemporaries disagreed on this same issue. I however side with Augustine on this point, and that is all well and good, because Augustine also believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, without theological contradition, himself.

An excellent post, thank you.

Zionist Conspirator, you misunderstood my comments on Genesis. I believe without doubt that Genesis is an inspired Biblical text and without theological error whatsoever. The question, rather, is how it should be interpretation hermeneutically. The style of the text is different than the Gospels, I said. The style of Genesis is similar to creation myths such as Gilgamesh, but I would never agree with a statement that Genesis is "plagiarized" from Gilgamesh. The point is that the STYLE of Genesis is similar to Gilgamesh -- it is a creation narrative -- but Gilgamesh is not an inspired Scripture and does not possess the theological truths that are authoritatively present in Genesis. In contrast to Genesis, the STYLE of the Gospels are not of biography. These different styles, both containing theological truths that are inspired and without error, nevertheless lend themselves to different hermeneutic rules of interpretation.

Thank you for explaining this. I apologize for imputing to you the very common belief that Genesis was adapted from "earlier" pagan mythologies.

However, we still have the troubling problem of you insisting that Genesis is free only from "theological" error. As you may know, while this is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of current Catholic teaching it has not always been taught that way. Prior to the twentieth century it was conventionally taught that the Bible was free from all error whatsoever on any subject. This was taught by Leo XIII as well as the early Popes of the twentieth century as you may see for yourself in places where this is expounded such as Living Tradition or Robert Sungenis' web site (unfortunately Sungenis has become a lunatic anti-Semite and he has strange ideas about the Genesis genealogies as well, but at least he can provide quotes from earlier sources). So what we have here is your admission that you believe in limited rather than full inerrancy. Limited inerrancy is a new doctrine. It is new because Catholicism is constantly evolving, however slowly (which may be why it is so fond of evolution).

As to Augustine, the fact is that you have to invoke him because he is the only one you can. Augustine's bias against Genesis is well-known and has been dealt with by others. This is a case of giving one church father the authority to overturn all the others because he's the only one you can find.

But the point I am trying to make is that if you allow science to modify ancient teachings on Genesis, then you must allow it to modify other teachings as well--including transubstantiation. Thus your invoking of church fathers as an authority on transubstantiation is hypocritical because most of those same fathers interpreted Genesis literally, yet you dismiss their teachings as "naive." Once science proves that transubstantiation does not occur you will reject their teaching on that as well--unless you hold on to it simply because "those people" don't believe it.

I reiterate--your belief in limited inerrancy is acceptable now because Catholicism has changed (just as Raymond Brown said it did). It was not acceptable decades ago.

Why you Catholics are so fond of the universe forming "naturally" is absolutely beyond me.