Posted on 02/15/2017 9:40:23 AM PST by Salvation
As we read the flood story in Tuesday’s daily Mass, I feel that a few clarifications are in order.
While we are not required as Catholics to interpret every detail of the flood story literally, there does seem to be some evidence (preserved in many ancient cultures) of a flood or “mega event” that drastically reduced the size of the human race. In addition, genetic, geological, and anthropological information point to a period some 70,000 years ago during which humans almost vanished from the planet [*].
How much of the flood narrative is a story and how much is history may be debatable, but something surely happened. In Genesis, God is recounting for us that He intervened at a critical moment to prune and purify the human family of the more egregious effects of sin in the aftermath of original sin.
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 6:5-8).
This leads to another necessary clarification. God is said to regret that He made us and is described as being deeply grieved. Descriptions such as these are largely held to be anthropomorphisms, which ascribe human traits to God as a way of indicating the thoughts of God by analogy. In whatever manner God is “grieved” or “regretful,” it is not in the same way that we are. We are being told in this text that God has a resolve to set things right and to put an end to extreme wickedness. The artful use of anthropomorphic language to advance the story should not be considered as overriding other Scriptures that remind us that God is not subject to change and passions as we are. For example,
A third clarification is needed in order to “rescue” God from charges of injustice in this “mass killing” of the human race. God, of course, is the giver of life. As the one who gives it, He also sets the length of our life and the manner of our death. This is His right. Indeed, one might even say that this is His “job.”
By way of analogy, I tend to many rose bushes in front of my rectory. At times, I feed them, water them, and foster their growth. At other times, I prune them. In certain cases, I remove diseased plants from the rose bed. Last year, I removed three diseased rose bushes. Who would dispute my right to do this? Who would accuse me of injustice? This is my work and my proper role.
While it is true that human beings are certainly more precious than roses, it is still God’s role to attend to the life and death of human beings, to the planting and harvesting of individuals, cultures, and civilizations. In His providence, God will at times prune away large segments in order to stave off disease or foster growth in individuals and in humanity as a whole.
Thus in the flood narrative, God sees the widespread evil and chooses to save what little good remains by cutting away the rest. In so doing, He creates a new beginning of goodness for the world. It is not free of sin, but is less beset by grave wickedness.
Yet even here, God does not utterly forsake the wicked whose earthly lives He ends. They are confined in Sheol and await a day of visitation from the Lord. Scripture speaks to the fulfillment of this merciful outreach:
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water (1 Peter 3:18-20).
The Lord calls to them once more in His descent to the dead after Good Friday. He awakens them, preaches to them, and summons them to repentance. Did some or all repent? We do not know, but the point remains that in ending their earthly lives, God did not completely forsake them. The worst thing is not dying (which we all will do); it is refusing God’s merciful love though an impenitent heart. God works for our eternal salvation, not merely our earthly comfort.
Here’s one scientific theory; take it or leave it as you wish.
It’s just a theory.
Ealgeone, that sound absolutely fascinating! I would love to read that paper!
I’m teaching the first 11 chapters of Genesis at this very time (Genesis is in the Lectionary just now.) It’s not true that Catholics “don’t believe”
the first 11 chapters. Defining “history” as “stuff that actually happened,” Genesis is history: primordial history.
I’d be glad to share it with you. How can I get it to you without us revealing too much personal contact info.
You should submit your paper to a peer reviewed scientific journal since there is literally zero scientific evidence for a biblical flood out there. If you've found some, you'll be a hero!
Oh no, that is not what bugs me. What bugs me is that they don’t think they need to believe the flood story fully. They indicate some of it was truth and other parts may not have been. How much of the flood story is just story? C’mon, God is no liar or fable spinner.
I cited a number of secular scientific studies in my paper. I believe the evidence is there to confirm the Flood. What’s interesting is the number of ancient cultures that record a flood account to some degree or another.
There is NOT one shred of evidence that flesh man existed 70,000 years ago.. in any shape, fashion, or form. Note I specifically said ‘flesh’. That is as far as I got... the whole ‘lesson’ is premised upon false data. Evolution is a fairy tale/tail.
God said why He sent that flood, because the ‘Sons of God’ (angelic beings) left their habitation and seduced flesh bodied women. Their offspring were called giants... all part of Satan’s attempt to pollute the bloodline to Christ.
Noah and his family were the only offspring from Adam and Eve that were ‘perfect’ genetically speaking, of course.
There is a ‘first’ flood described in Genesis 1:2, before any flesh bodies were formed. Jeremiah describes it and Peter tells about it as well.
When the devil rebelled as described in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 it was not flesh bodies that followed the devil.
Only 8 souls from the Adam.. There had to be other peoples surviving because we see them alive and well around the globe. Christ was to come through Adam and Eve... The devil did everything he could to pollute that bloodline. God left nothing to chance, He already had His plan and set it in motion...
Oh, those Catholics! They can’t interpret anything literally except John 6!
Yet the Catholic takes Jesus at his word when He says “Unless you eat My body and drink My blood….” And “This is my body.” Most non-Catholics do not. So let’s be careful of picking and choosing, shall we?
Take the verse in context of John 6. We come to Christ through faith....not the Mass.
Sounds to me like Catholics do their owwn "picking and choosing."
It's really odious that Catholics have come such a hatred for the accuracy of the Book of Genesis. This is where all the current trouble in the church got started, but try getting one to even consider this.
“Catholics-don’t-believe-in-the-Flood” ping.
Noachides who don’t believe in the Son of God ping.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
The Catholic Encyclopedia supports the historicity of the Deluge.
“As to the view of Christian tradition, it suffices to appeal here to the words of Father Zorell who maintains that the Bible story concerning the Flood has never been explained or understood in any but a truly historical sense by any Catholic writer (cf. Hagen, Lexicon Biblicum). It would be useless labour and would exceed the scope of the present article to enumerate the long list of Fathers and Scholastic theologians who have touched upon the question. The few stray discordant voices belonging to the last fifteen or twenty years are simply drowned in this unanimous chorus of Christian tradition.”
Do you affirm what the CE says about the immaculate conception?
Post exactly what the CE states with link.
Proof from Scripture
Genesis 3:15
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel ( Proto-evangelium ), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman : "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" ( Genesis 3:15 ). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
Luke 1:28
The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene , Hail, full of grace ( Luke 1:28 ) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace ) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.
Proof from Tradition
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul ; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt ; and that for her sins also Christ died ( Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum ( Matthew 12:46 ; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).
But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science. If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22 ).
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
You can read the rest.
The catholic cannot appeal to Scripture nor Tradition to support the Immaculate Conception. It is clear from the article that not all of the ECFs believed in the Immaculate Conception. This renders null and void the catholic argument this was something that was "passed on" from the original apostles on down the line. If it had been these ECFs would not have their take on the situation. It's amusing how the CE calls these ECFs writings on this topic..."stray private opinions."
All that is left is the appeal to "reason". The catholic wants it to be so it is.
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.