Monday, February 26, 2018

In The Beginning


 There has long been a battle of ideas regarding the origin of the universe and of life. It has (unfortunately) been portrayed as one of "science vs. religion." The people alleged to be on the side of science accept Neo-Darwinian evolution, while those alleged to be on the side of religion accept a literal Biblical account. To be certain there are scientists who subscribe to scientism, i.e., the application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method. The so-called "Four Horseman of the New Atheism" (Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens) clearly fall into this category. On the other side, there are those who think a literal reading of Scripture is the truth. The Book of Genesis needs to be understood as the One True Church understands it. If this were done, the false "science vs. religion" scenario falls apart. God is the Author of both true science and true religion, so that neither can contradict the other. This post will expound on Church teaching in this matter.

The Teaching of the Church

  On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree answering eight (8) questions about the Book of Genesis. The decree was approved by His Holiness, Pope St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism. The answers to the first three questions upholds the overall historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis, however the last two questions are instructive as to the mind of the Church in Biblical exegesis ("interpretation").  

Question # 7: "Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man's intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?"

Answer: In the negative.

Question # 8: "Whether the word yom ('day'), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?"

Answer: In the affirmative.

We see that in the response to question # 7, we are not bound to treat Genesis as some sort of science textbook. Question # 8 clearly shows that we are not bound to believe in six literal days of 24 hours each in the creation account. God created the universe in six yom, or time periods, the exact duration of which may be much more than 24 hours. Nor is it necessary to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. Modern science and Genesis do not contradict each other.

The basic gist of Church teaching in this area is set forth by the eminent theologian Van Noort:

"Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.

Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical." (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224; Emphasis in original). 

Let's take a look at one of the aforementioned teachings and how it squares with science.

The Extent of the Great Deluge

 Atheists will mock the story of the flood and Noah. The most frequent question is "How could two of every living thing fit on such a small ark?" Theists are left trying to come up with all kinds of solutions to a problem that is only apparent and not real. Actually, many of the problems evaporate like the flood waters once a correct perspective on the event is understood. As theologian Van Noort teaches, the deluge is about the manifestation of Divine Justice and not equally about the geographical extent of the flood. 

Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, everyone has begun to think globally. Even those who can't travel, can now see friends and family half-way around the world thanks to Skype and other technologies. I guess the song rings true, "It's a Small World After All." When we read the Bible, this view colors our perspective. In Genesis 7, we read phrases like "every living thing on the face of the Earth," and we think of the spherical body of the third planet from the Sun. What constitutes "the face of the Earth" from the perspective of the people of the time in which Moses wrote Genesis? This is how we would properly understand it, from their perspective, not ours in the 21st century. 

Consider that there are six (6) other events referred to as "worldwide" in Scripture:
  • Joseph feeds the whole world. Gen. 41:57, "And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere." Obviously, the Incas in Peru and the Maoris in New Zealand didn't come. The worldwide famine was "the world" as known to the Jews of the time.
  • The coming of foreign dignitaries to receive wisdom from King Solomon. 1 Kings 4:34, "  And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." "All people" extended roughly 1,300 miles from Jerusalem in any direction.
  • The census decreed by Caesar Augustus. St. Luke 2:1, "And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled." Since the authority of Augustus only went as far as the boundaries of the Roman Empire, this was "the world"---the "Roman world." 
  • The gathering at Pentecost. Acts 2:5, "Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." For Jews in first century Jerusalem, "every nation under heaven" would refer to the Roman and Parthian Empires. 
  • St. Paul's words to the Christians of Rome. Romans 1:8,"First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world." St. Paul was not implying sub-Saharan people, outside the Roman Empire.
  • St. Paul's words to Christians in Colossae. Colossians 1:5-6, "For the hope that is laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard in the word of the truth of the gospel,which is come unto you, as also it is in the whole world, and bringeth forth fruit and groweth, even as it doth in you, since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth." Once more, it means the Roman Empire.

The implication from all this should be obvious--the "worldwide deluge" was worldwide in respect to that portion of humanity to which God had spoken and in which Christ would be born. It was not worldwide geographically. This means that Noah's ark only needed to take two of every creature indigenous to the immediate area. The other creatures not exclusive to the region could find their way back into the area from other places in due time.

There is scientific evidence for a great flood in the area of Mesopotamia, but not, e.g., North America. The problem of the worldwide flood turns out to be no problem at all. Three more pieces of evidence that support the view of a localized flood:

1. Genesis 8 tells us how God removed the floodwaters using a wind. The drying method works in a flooded plain like Mesopotamia because water in such a flat region would flow very slowly to sea. The wind would speed this process and accelerate evaporation. It would do nothing for a global flood.

2. When Noah sends out a dove, he returns with a leaf from an olive tree. Olive trees do not grow on mountaintops, but on foothills. The water was not covering Earth, but a portion thereof.

3. The ark landed on Mount Ararat. Given its elevation at 16, 945 feet, must we not believe a global flood? No. The word used in Genesis 8 is har meaning the plural or "mountains of Ararat," which range in size from thousands of feet, to merely hundreds of feet. Noah landed on the mountains (plural) of Ararat, not THE Mount Ararat necessarily.  

Conclusion

I've use the term "Science Denier" to label those Traditionalists who feel the need to deny modern science, and impose certain ideas on people that the Church does not. We do not have to believe the world is 6,000 years old or be a "heretic." (You may, of course, believe it if you wish). We do not have to believe in a creation that took place in exactly six days of 24 hours each. We need not believe that the Great Deluge covered the entire geographic Earth. When you learn the teaching of the Church, you'll also learn how beautifully it fits with modern science. 

66 comments:

  1. "Atheists will mock the story of the flood and Noah. The most frequent question is "How could two of every living thing fit on such a small ark?" Theists are left trying to come up with all kinds of solutions..."

    I don't understand why you are so impressed by what these fools say. Catholics are not, as you say, left trying to come up with solutions. They are left shaking their heads in amazement that such supposedly intelligent and scientific people cannot see the simple answer to this question, which is that Noe got babies of the larger animals rather than full-grown adults, or in the case of dinosaurs he could even have put eggs in the ark and not had to worry about them at all. By this method there would be room for not only every single animal, but plenty of food for all of them too.

    May I recommend an excellent book called "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" that discusses many of the pseudo-scientific myths you present on this blog as proven fact, and exposes the fallacies involved in them, and explains them in a way that does not contradict Scripture. Unfortunately it is written by a protestant, but he is a scientist.

    It is amusing to see the strange arguments atheists have made to get around the fact of the "mitochondrial Eve", for example, and how it proves that all of mankind is descended from one woman. It is also hilarious to see how they try to disprove the miracle of the blood of St. Januarius, by claiming it's not blood but rather some chemical compound. This is even after spectroscopic analysis proved scientifically that it is in fact blood. Nor can I imagine what sort of chemical can be mixed in such a way that it will only liquefy on certain days of the year. And let's not even get started on their rejection of the miracle of the Shroud of Turin.

    Atheist scientists are great at designing computer and cell phones and sending rockets into space and coming up with amazing ways of treating the human body, but when they get into theology they are a joke. It behooves Catholics to give them the contempt they deserve.

    "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hear, hear! The mockery of atheists is something we Catholics should thrive on, and account ourselves worthy to be mocked on Christ's account for believing Him over the occult sages of this world with their false sciences. They are the ones who must come up with solutions when they reject the sure knowledge God has given us in the Scriptures, and they come up with theories built upon theories built upon assumptions and the dark desires of their hearts, and in the end they will not be laughing when all is revealed and Christ returns in judgment.

      Delete
    2. @ anon 7:05
      I have the book by Walt Brown and find it wanting in several areas. Brown says his model does not rely on the Bible. Yet he quotes the Bible over 500 times, and various aspects of his model are obviously based on a literal reading of Genesis. He is a “Young Earth Creationist” Protestant. He also claims the geologic column is not recorded anywhere on Earth, whereas over 25 known sites contain all periods of the geologic column.

      You can believe that if you wish; I find other theories much more convincing—and as they are more in line with current, scientific peer-reviewed literature they are more likely to sway atheists and prevent others from going down that path where they think “modern science leads.”

      I agree with you and Samuel that atheism is an impoverished ideology, but we must try to bring them to the Faith as the Bible says, “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...” 1 Peter 3:15.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. Dear Introibo,

    You seem less interested in clarifying what Catholics are bound by the Magisterium to believe than you do in dismantling what you perhaps view as fundamentalist viewpoints and establishing the authority of modern "science."

    Your interpretations of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the theologian Van Noort are rather wild. For example, you jump from Van Noort's limited question on the weight with which the Magisterium addresses two aspects of the Flood narrative to a full-on promotion of your idea that the Flood was not truly universal and that the scientific evidence, in your view, supports a localized flood. Whether you are free to hold this theory is not my contention, but I do want to point out to readers that your promotion of this idea is not the necessary consequence of Van Noort's words.

    Why, then, do you promote these ideas? I cannot believe that it is merely a desire to clarify what we are bound on authority to believe. Use of phrases like "science denier," a rather Marxist term I think that seeks to discredit by force rather than deal with actual arguments, suggests to me that you have a position on these issues that you would like to promote. If you want to promote them, that's fine, but it would be preferable if you did not couch this promotion in terms of just "[expounding] Church teaching in this matter."

    I would like to direct readers to the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation at kolbecenter.org, a Catholic (albeit Novus Ordo, unfortunately) organization that gathers and produces excellent work on the question of Creation, the Flood, and other issues, from a Catholic perspective. They do well in addressing how it is that the Catholic Faith can and does affirm 6 24-hour days, a young earth, a worldwide flood, and the rest without doing as I think you rightly disapprove of, which is stating these views with an assumed magisterial authority that they do not in fact possess.

    I would urge you, dear Introibo, not to assume such an authority yourself!

    -Samuel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samuel,
      Thank you for the thoughtful comments! My purpose was to propose an alternate solution for the Deluge. It is my opinion nothing more. What I was trying to show is that it is Church teaching that the Creation account does not NEED to be a literal 6 days of 24 (although you can certainly believe it).

      That is the teaching of the Church; it is a matter of free inquiry. I have shown how one such view (to which I personally adhere) comports with Church teaching.

      By “Science Denier” I simply mean those who (unlike me) claim the literal interpretation is the only one permitted by the Church, and all others who don’t believe it are “heretics.”

      The teachings of the theologians and the Pontifical Biblical Commission support this contention.

      I will be more careful in my wording to make sure this is understood fully by all. As you rightly point out, Samuel, I have no Magisterial authority whatsoever and I would never (God forbid!) dare to claim such for myself!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. "The people alleged to be on the side of science accept Neo-Darwinian evolution, while those alleged to be on the side of religion accept a literal Biblical account."

    You forgot about those in the middle who are supposedly on the side of science and religion (Newchurch adherents) who hang around evolution forums on the net quoting JPII and Ratzinger, convincing - or doing their best trying - Novuses and Fundies that macroevolution is in no way inconsistent with Christianity. Heck! They even twist the addresses given by Pope Pius XII!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly problems there too!! So noted!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Also, you have overlooked a kind of important detail when denying the global flood myth from the Bible. The bible states that all the mountains under the Heavens where covered completely with water. Hence, for this water to actually cover all mountains locally, would require the flood to be global and to have extended all over the earth, since the water would not be kept miraculously thousands and thousands of meters into the Heavens only locally without also spreading to all nearby places and covering all parts that could be covered.

    Genesis 7:19-20: "And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered."

    I assume you would agree that for the highest mountains to be completely submerged, that this would require the flood to be global since the waters can't get this high without also covering the whole world.

    The only possibly objection to this would be unless you argue that the local area (pre-flood) was thousands of meters below the sea-surface of the surrounding places, and so when the flood happened, it covered only the local place with thousands upon thousands of meters of water since this place was so much lower in depth than all the surrounding world. Does this sound likely? No!

    Also, perhaps you should study more the Christian-Catholic side and not and not merely rely so much on anti-Christian arguments.

    Also, are you aware of the fact that every single ancient nation-peoples, even those in South America pre-Columbus, all have flood myths in their mythology? Look it up! This knowledge was preserved since the people who survived the flood (i.e., Noe and his family and their descendants) populated those regions and the entire world and kept this tradition. That is why this myth as they call it can be found all around the world (yes all around the world), and not just locally!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jerome,
      You can certainly hold that belief. I will have more to write to you later.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Jerome,
      Just as Moses wrote the word “yom” and not “day,” so too in the verse you cite, he wrote the word “kasa.” According to scholar Harris in “Theological Wordbook Of the Old Testament,” the word means “to conceal” not necessarily “to cover.” “The Hebrew my merely mean that the mountains were hidden from view by the storm.” Pg. 449. Taken in context, it could mean that a high quantity of water ran over them as in a super-flash flood.

      Yes, more than 200 flood stories exist around the world. So do Creation stories. What both have in common is that the further away from Mesopotamia, the greater the distortion from the True account in Genesis. This lends credence to the idea of a worldwide flood. However, it might also be a case of passing on an account much like the telephone game kids play. If all humanity perished in the flood, then wouldn’t the populace of the Earth all have migrated from there with the event etched in their ancestors memories and passed down?

      I’m not claiming I’m right, just pointing out a possibility.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. You still ignore the fact that the bible says the water was "fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered". So if the water was higher than the mountains, then the water was not just concealing the mountains, but submerging them completely. It is impossible for mountains to be completely submerged only locally, since this is geographically impossible. If the mountains in the era described by the bible was completely submerged, it follows that the water was just as high in all other parts of the world. Otherwise the mountains could not be submerged, since the water would run away to empty space.

      It seems you are very determined to believe that the flood was only local. Is this because you are influenced to believe modern day science that just can't accept a world wide flood?

      There are a lot of evidences that shows a world wide flood. Perhaps you should look into it more.

      And yes, the flood myths around the world indicates that there was a world wide flood, as you said.

      Delete
    4. Jerome,
      As a former NYC Science teacher, I do indeed, have an interest in all things scientific. I do hold a graduate degree in science education and the evidence for a localized flood is much greater than a worldwide flood. It is a matter open to free inquiry. I would need several posts to discuss the evidence.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. As a traditional Catholic I can honestly say creation and flat Earth material has never ever interested me.
    It's sad to think issues such as these prevent souls from converting to the Catholic Faith.
    This was an interesting post good job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would flat Earth material be interesting to you in the first place? The Church herself, as well as her educated members, have never believed the earth was flat. If you heard otherwise you were probably being lied to be heretics. It is also a protestant lie that the Inquisition executee 10,000,000 people, and that Galileo was tortured to death, and that there was a female pope.

      On the other hand, issues involving creation should absolutely prevent someone from entering the Church if they don't accept the Church's teaching on it, since this involves revealed doctrine. Anyone who is not willing to give up the lies of modern atheism and accept the teaching of Scripture and tradition must not enter the Catholic Church.

      Delete
    2. This isn’t about a “flat Earth,” rather about the fact that the Church allows for theories that align with modern science. There are those who admit only of a literal reading (which is fine), but then brand anyone who disagrees a “heretic.” (This is false).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Introibo: "...rather about the fact that the Church allows for theories that align with modern science."

      This in no way always holds true.

      You used to be a science teacher, so you should know that modern science claims that we are in effect descended from or related to carrots or parakeets or mushrooms or squirrels etc.

      After the big bang, so the story goes, a primordial blob of goo slid down a slope into a warm pond and from there all life sprang forth. They're not kidding. This is the kind of stuff that Darwinists pass off as modern science.

      So I think a clarification on your part may be useful.

      Delete
    4. By “modern science” I mean those claims that are backed up in the peer reviewed literature and comport with the methodology of science. There are claims of SCIENTISM (explained in my post), which are pseudoscience and to be ignored.

      It is to the former I refer.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Introibo - Yes, I hear you, but what you may term as "pseudo-science" is often accepted by and large by the scientific community as genuine science, i.e., it's "peer reviewed" and it comports with the accepted scientific method, and is then used as proof of macroevolution which is the accepted model used in all scientific disciplines (production of pharmaceuticals, to name but one).

      For example, the peer reviewed study on chimp's DNA being a 98.5 % match with humans. To prove to you it's peer reviewed, and that something being "peer reviewed" is not a guarantee of ANYTHING, please read the article (link below).

      Note Introibo that the percentage may have changed but the scientific conclusion (reality of macroevolution) hasn't.

      Note that I'm linking you to a "Creationist" website whuch is aware, of course, that mainstream, peer reviewed science teaches and has taught for decades that ToE/ME is a scientific fact of life.

      http://creation.mobi/greater-than-98-chimp-human-dna-similarity-not-any-more

      Delete
    6. The statements of atheist scientists have greater weight in your eyes if they are reviewed by their peers, meaning other atheist scientists? What about a book written by a Mormon about the origins of Mormonism. Would that be worth taking seriously if it was peer reviewed by other Mormons?

      Delete
    7. Not all scientists are atheists. As to the origins of Mormonism, if your talking about how it was spread by Joseph Smith, yes, a book written based on primary sources could be peer reviewed by other historians, Mormon or not. Mormonism is a sect, not a discipline. History is a discipline and so is science. They have distinct methods. As long as proper scientific method was used, that is good grounds to believe it. Experiments can be replicated and formulas checked.

      What you propose is the genetic fallacy in logic. I called out a pro-abortionist on this very fallacy when he said, “Your just against abortion because it’s against your religion,” even though I had made arguments against it based on modern medicine and science! A pro-abortion woman rejected my arguments because “Your a man and cannot have a baby.” So what? Similarly, you are rejecting the scientific findings not based on the evidence, but the person who offers the evidence.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Actually I was speaking about the visions that Joseph Smith supposedly received, or whatever those people believe. If some Mormon wrote a "history" about the miracles of Joseph Smith, which was then peer-reviewed by other Mormons, would that carry any extra weight with you? I'm sure it wouldn't.

      Peer review is only as good as the peers who are reviewing. I'm actually trying to make a somewhat larger point about the nature of scientific academia. You believe scientists because they claim that scientific inquiry is based not on personalities or beliefs but only on physical evidence, and that any idea or hypothesis is fair game as long as someone can support it using observed scientific evidence. If all of this were true, your respect for scientists would indeed be well placed.

      However, the scientific community is not, as they hypocritically claim, an open marketplace of ideas where anyone is free to espouse a hypothesis that should stand on its own merit, and where anyone can object to any hypothesis as long as they do so on scientific grounds. The disgraceful reality is that scientists are trained in educational institutions that are openly at war with God, and the only ones who are promoted to prominent positions are those who accept the party line when it comes to religion and other beliefs of the modern world. Most prominent scientists today come from Ivy League universities or other public universities that exist for the sole purpose of indoctrinating people in Marxism. Those who openly profess believe in God and accept the Scriptural account of Creation are simply not allowed to become professors or men or prominence in the scientific world. If you dispute this, please feel free to give us a list of well-known names who believe in the teachings of the Bible, or even those who simply believe in theistic intelligent design.

      The hypocrisy of the scientific world was exposed most recently when some scientists failed to accept the Marxist doctrine of anthropogenic global warming and were denied tenure, fired, or simply ostracized by their peers, and the great numbers of others who agreed with them but were unwilling to come out publicly and be thrown likewise to the wolves.

      In light of this it is not a fallacy to reject someone who is "peer reviewed", since both the peer reviewers and the one being reviewed are a carefully selected group.

      Delete
    9. The alleged visions of Joseph Smith are not open to peer review because it is theological, and does not admit to such review, properly so-called. As a former science teacher, I had an article rejected for publication by a science teachers association because I supported intelligent design theory. I know full well what we are up against. Nevertheless, here are scientists who are published and support ID theory, or "fine-tuning of the universe":

      Dr. Michael Behe, biochemist
      Dr. Alister McGrath, Astrophysicist
      Dr. Scott Minnich, microbiologist
      Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig,geneticist

      I must admit, your basic contention, that scientism--as opposed to science--has a huge hold on academia and discriminates against believers. Much to their chagrin, their discoveries, such as the Big Bang, have done more to HELP than hinder religion! We now know that everything had a beginning, and something can't come from nothing. The theistic implications kept Communist countries from allowing it to be taught for years!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. The Flood has to have been everywhere since it wiped out the whole human race except Noe and his family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I demonstrated above “the whole world” and “everyone on Earth,” can refer to “everyone in the world relevant to the people at the time to whom God revealed Himself.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. So you than dont brlive that all people are deacendend from Noa and his family??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It may be true. I don’t know of any Magisterial authority that teaches this as a truth of the Faith. If I’m mistaken, or if the Church should be restored and declare such to be the case, I will always and humbly submit to the judgement of Holy Mother Church.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Il have to refresh my knowleage but i think that papal bull Unam Sanctum teaches that all people ae descended from Noah and that becouae of that the Churc has spirutual supremacy over the whole world. Im not sure it is exactly like that but i belive i read it. I may be wrong but i will read it again to be sure

      Delete
    3. Thank you Stipe. I looked up the quote you mentioned:

      "There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed."

      Delete
    4. Please remember that Unam Sanctum is only infallible insofar as it defined the necessity of to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to achieve salvation. Nothing else was defined. If it were, the Pontifical Biblical Commission would not have allowed free inquiry into the matter.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. I don't think this idea is compatible with Scripture and tradition. St Peter said only 8 people were saved in the Flood. 1 Peter 3:20. He said this to the whole world not just to the people to whom God revealed Himself at the time of the Jews or in the time of Moses.

    Furthermore, the fact that the Flood killed everyone except Noe and his family is not only emphatically clear in Genesis, but it has been the constant and unanimous understanding and teaching of the Church since the beginning.

    I'd love to see if there are any Fathers of the Church who taught differently, but I very much doubt there are any.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it were the “constant and unanimous teaching” of the Church, why did the Pontifical Biblical Commission And approved theologians have it as a matter open to free inquiry? You might be right. I’m just offering another opinion, nothing more.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. If the papal bul stating that nobody outside the arc survived isnt enoigh for you than you are ofering a non catolic opinion.

      Delete
    3. I'll take a stab at this answer: because the Roman Church can do whatever it wants to do. The Church of Rome can be Orthodox in the first half of a century and heretical in the next and if anyone objects, resists, rejects (e.g., Sedevacantists) they are called schismatics and heretics. The history of Roman Catholicism is filled with contradictions. That is what you get when you invent a "Vicar of Christ" and a bunch of nonsense about his divine prerogatives. Now, thanks to your infallible popes and their ever failing faith, a Catholic must try and square atheistic science with scripture. Bunch of nonsense the Papacy is and its theologians (excuse makers).

      Delete
    4. And your answer is...what? Eastern Schismatics? Protestantism? The Church is unified. Bergoglio is not pope. The papacy is indeed of Divine origin. The only reason we have this problem is the Vatican II sect is not the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to talk about contradiction don’t get me started on the EO or Protestantism.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. @Stipe
      Really? I believe no one was saved outside the ark in the world as known to the people of the time. It is my opinion, and if the matter was settled against my opinion, then Pope St Pius X was a heretic for allowing free inquiry on the subject.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. As far as i know papal bull far exceds biblical comision in autority and especialy bull of pope Bonafice whic had far more ortodox childhood than post france revolution popes whic with all due respect couldnt avoid the spirit of moder society in their most vournerable years. And as far as i know that biblical comision was not ex caterdra document while bul "unam sanctum" was in all of its fullnes

      Delete
    7. Introibo, I am a little unsure about how you argue, since no quote in your post shows that the issue of Noah's flood is open for debate. You quoted something to the effect of the age of the earth and whether if must be interpreted literally or according to science (or something to that effect).

      As far as I am aware, non one who has claimed to be Catholic has ever questioned Noah's flood or that it was universal or that all died except Noah and his family until the 20th century.

      You also avoided the biblical passage that demonstrated the water was above the highest mountains. Perhaps you find it unimportant, but at least your theory should according with scripture -- which it don't.

      Modernism is also to re-interpret scripture and to depart from unanimous tradition, or to say: No, that is not what the bible says- and even though it said this or that, it might mean this or that instead.

      Even though, as you demonstrated, "all" or "whole earth" does not actually have to mean all the world many times in biblical language, still, no one has ever denied that Noah's flood was real or global or that all died but Noah and his family, and all of tradition upholds it, including encyclicals of popes.

      Yet you say this question is upon for discussion. As far I see it, I don't know how you can say this when the quotes you presented did in no way say this. Or have I missed something.

      Perhaps this is not a heresy to have different opinions on the matter, but it could be a material heresy. I understand that when the Church settles an issue definitively, then one must submit. Otherwise theologians have permission to give theories.

      However, when theories seems to contradict scripture and all of tradition, then one should always be more careful.

      By the way, can you even cite one theologian who took Noah's flood into question in his writings?

      Delete
    8. You’re wrong. A papal bull is only infallible AS TO THE SUBJECT MATTER BEING DEFINED. Pope Boniface VIII was defining the necessity of all humans to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to achieve salvation. Whatever else is contained therein was not the subject of an ex cathedra declaration. The childhood of a pope or when they grew up is irrelevant since, when exercising their Supreme Authority, The Holy Ghost protects them against teaching error. “Supreme Authority” means an official teaching act as pope, not just infallible decisions.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. Introibo:
      "Really? I believe no one was saved outside the ark in the world as known to the people of the time. It is my opinion, and if the matter was settled against my opinion, then Pope St Pius X was a heretic for allowing free inquiry on the subject."

      St. Pius X did not say any such thing. If he did, why haven't you provided us with that quote?

      Delete
    10. I did. The Pontifical Biblical Commission, decreed with the express approval of St Pius X (hence being his decree insofar as it would have no force without his approval)

      “Question # 7: "Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man's intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?"

      See also Van Noort ‘s discussion of the same above.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. That quote you give is only talking about the first chapter of Genesis. The account of the Flood is given rather later in the book. Question 7 has nothing to do with the Flood.

      Delete
    12. Correct, but the hermeneutic principle is the same as stated by theologian Van Noort, “Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice?” —-As cited above. Also, “Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical." (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224; Emphasis in original).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    13. Thank you Introibo for quoting papal Pontifical Biblical Commission during pontificate of Pius X.
      That is one more proof that Roman bishop is not infallible, even so called great warrior against modernism.

      Delete
    14. No, it only proves your ignorance of theology and your private interpretation of the Fathers constitutes your made up religion.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    15. @ Jerome
      Read paragraph #42 of Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) by Pope Pius XII:

      " Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church."

      I have not read the theologians of recent (20th century) times who wrote on this topic at length to give an opinion. Certainly, theologian Van Noort speaks about them. The only theologian I have read who discusses this matter is Haydock, who most certainly taught the flood was global. He was of course writing from pre-Vatican I, and the arguments from science were unknown.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Introibo, I know how you feel about the Dimond frauds so I thought you might post this video for your readers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hytJEusjDsE

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually the Biblical Commission condemned what you're saying here. Someone asked it if it was okay to say that a historical book of Scripture (such as Genesis) doesn't always present facts historically, but only talks in a way that is accommodated to the audience without being literally true.

    The response? IN THE NEGATIVE, with the only exception (which the Commission said is "not *readily* or *rashly* to be admitted), and *only* when it is "proved with *strong arguments*" (their words, not mine), that the writer did not intend to write true history but only to write, as they put it, "under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words."

    Even then this can only be done "without opposing the sense of the Church."

    There it is. The Church did in fact condemn the rejection of the literal account of the Flood. Such an idea opposes the sense of the Church in its constant acceptance of the Flood as a complete annihilation of the human race except for Noe & family.

    Furthermore, there is nothing in the Scriptural narrative that indicates Moses did not intend to write history. On the contrary, the entire context of the Flood narrative is presented as historical fact. According to the judgment of the Biblical Commission, therefore, the account must be accepted as historical fact.

    This statement of the Commission is number 1980 in the Denzinger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You’re not accurate. All the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on this topic are also published in the third Volume of Van Noort’s “Dogmatic Theology” volume 3.

      Moses was writing true history about Creation. The flood really happened. Cesar really decreed a census of the whole world. What does the “whole world” mean is the question. There are strong arguments it is not the literal whole world, but the world as known to the people to whom God revealed Himself.

      As Van Noort (after listing all the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission you cite) says, “Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical." (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224).

      The idea of a localized flood is therefore NOT condemned.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. Good morning, I just watched the link from Anonymous 6:03. Wow an indoor basketball arena with a heated floor! Who wouldn't want one of those? Maybe I should start my own Benedictine monastery and use donations for my very own ice rink.
    Anyhow, I have a question maybe someone can answer. In the video it was stated that the Dimonds have a consecrated host in Fred's bedroom closet. Does anyone know how long they are permitted to have a consecrated host in their possession? I thought the Church had specific rules on this but I don't remember. Also, if they periodically replace their host and dispose of the old properly who provides the replacement to them? Since they are at odds with all traditional clergy I wonder where they get consecrated hosts from unless they steal kidnap them. Sorry for detracting from the main post. Maybe a post exposing the Dimond Brothers is on your list?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t know how they can keep a Consecrated Host. There are rules governing the keeping of the Sacred Species. As to the Dimonds, I’ve blasted them quite a bit—I’m sure I’ll have more to write in the future!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I read where the Dimonds were going to an Eastern Rite Church. Since just about all Priests are “heretics”, can’t fathom where they would get a Host. Very good video!!

      Delete
  12. A small detail...

    Genesis 41:57 (Vulgate) Omnesque provinciæ veniebant in Ægyptum...

    "Omnes provinciæ" are a far cry from the whole world. The original Douay-Rheims and the Challoner revision both translate this properly as "al Prouinces" and "All provinces." What version were you using?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Confreternity Edition approved by the Church in 1958. If it proves to be “provinces”—mea culpa—But the other 5 events prove my point.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. You stil ignore the scripture saying that the water covered highest mountains by fiftten cubits. And that pope Bonafice stated in papal bul that noah and his family where sole survivors on the face of the earth

      Delete
    3. As to water covering the highest mountains, remember the word "kasa" can mean to conceal. Therefore, the verse could be interpreted that the water stood fifteen cubits above them (worldwide flood) or that amount covered them as in a flash-flood--fidteen cubits higher higher than the mountains it concealed resulting in a catastrophic flood, but not worldwide (necessarily--the limited geography theory).

      As to Noah, we see that the "face of the Earth" like the census of Ceasar, does not necessitate the globe. Pope Boniface was not defining the extent of the survivors dogmatically.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. I just dont see how the water can stand fifteen cubits above the highest mountain and that it isnt a global flood? And pope Bonafice dosnt define it dogmaticaly but from his words you can see how the Curch of that time thought about it. And the fact that Noah was sole surviver was a base ground for the dogmatic proclamation itself. Becous on that ground the Church demanded spiritual supremacy over the world.

      Delete
  13. Also Genesis 41:57 ends with "to moderate the miſerie of the ſcarcitie" or, less desirably in Challoner, "to seek some relief of their want," not "because the famine was severe everywhere."

    Also 3 Kings 4:34 (not 1 Kings for those using a traditional Catholic Bible... is yours Protestant?) makes clear, even in your version, that it was "from all the kings of the earth, WHO HEARD OF HIS WISDOM." That is a limitation upon "all the kings of the earth."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it’s 1 Kings in the Douay Version as well that I own. After checking with theologian Haydock, I agree that the limitation is there so it does not signify the whole world. The other verses (I hope) hold up! My time for research is limited with my demanding job, so I’m glad you corrected me. There is ample evidence STILL that “all the World” doesn’t mean the Earth, but just a part thereof. Also there is considerable scientific evidence as well which I never even touched upon in my post.

      Thanks for the correction Samuel; I’ll have to take more time away from my family to further check everything before I publish—I strive for perfection!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. @Samuel
      In 2 Peter 3:6 (Douay-Rheims)we read, "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." The Greek word translated as "world" is kosmos, and is modified by the word "tote" which means "at the time." By so doing St. Peter lets his readers know, perhaps, it is the world of Noah, not the Romans. Some theologians who view the flood as global argue that because the coming judgement of fire will be global (2 Peter 3:7), the judgement by water must have been global. The weakness of this argument is that St Peter is not speaking of geography but rather about people. God's Judgement comes upon all the ungodly; that's the extent of it. This goes to the idea of a localized flood.

      Pope Pius XII decreed in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943):
      "Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church." (para. # 47)

      You may well be right Samuel! You bring up many good points, and I stand corrected by you twice! However, the possibility of a localized flood remains as an opinion of mine--yet I submit to any decision of Holy Mother Church should a pope be restored to St. Peter's Throne!

      God Bless you my friend!

      ---Introibo


      Delete
  14. Hello, I find the hydroplate theory to be very compelling, see this short introductora video to the creation scientist’s theory that you seem to Discard. When you argue for a localized flood, you don’t seem to take into account that before the flood the world was one big land mass. It was the flood that made the continents we have today. It is fascinating to study Mount Saint Helens and how it mirrors the formation of the Grand Canyon. Very interesting Topic!
    http://www.creationscience.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. Science and scripture are united. The author of both is God.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That’s exactly right, Tom!

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  17. Australian aborigines also have legends of a massive flood, as do the people living in the dense forests near the Amazon River in South America. Dr. Alexandra Aikhenvald, world authority on languages ​​in that region, says:

    ... without their language and structure, people have no root. When you register something you are also reminiscing about stories and folklore. If these are lost, a large part of the history of that people is also lost. These stories often have a common root, which speaks of a real event, not a simple myth. For example, all the Amazonian societies already studied have a legend about a great flood. "

    Barnett, A., For want of a word, New Scientist 181(2432):44–47, 31 Janeiro 2004.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Worthwhile to look up the website Creation.com as well as the Institute for Creation Research. Protestant Bible thumpers, yes, but with a great deal of of anti-evolutionary science.

    ReplyDelete