Purple Dinosaurs waiting for the asteroid
January 11, 2008 · By Marsilio Facino
Not many folks I know take the Bible literally
Covenantal theology is a distinctive approach to Catholic biblical theology stemming from the mid-twentieth century recovery of Patristic methods of interpreting Scripture by scholars such as Henri de Lubac. This recovery was given further impetus by Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council‘s “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation”, and consolidated in the section on Scripture Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 101-141). These developments gave rise to an approach that emphasizes the “four senses” of Scripture within a framework that structures salvation history via the biblical covenants, in combination with the techniques of modern biblical scholarship.
I assume that the K in Warren K stands for Kook. Henri de Lubac was, in addition to a Cardinal, a Jesuit:
He fought in the trenches during the Great War and was severely wounded in the head at Verdun. He was ordained to the priesthood on August 22, 1927, and obtained a doctorate in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. De Lubac served as a professor of fundamental theology at the Catholic University of Lyon from 1929 to 1961, except during World War II, when he was forced underground because of his activities with the French Resistance. He declared to the Abbé Pierre (1912-2007) on the day of his ordination in 1938, “Ask to the Holy Spirit that he grants you the saints’ anti-clericalism” [1].
To close out our lesson today, allow me to quote from another blog:
Catholic scriptural hermeneutics from ancient times have consistently distinguished between two senses of scripture: the literal sense, which involves the literal or historical sense of the words on the written page, and the spiritual sense, which looks at the meaning beyond the words written by the sacred authors. This second sense is divided into three subordinate senses: the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical. In total, the biblical scholar has four senses by which he or she can interpret Sacred Scripture. Distinct senses of scripture have been described as far back as the second century in the work of Origen, and later in the writings of St. Augustine and St. Jerome.
I find it that Catholics who hold to the traditional interpretation of Genesis often get snarled at by others subscribing to the “gap-theory” style theistic evolution. I often have to remind them that the church is not definitive on the topic, and that both interpretations can’t be right. I wish my fellow theistic evolutionary Catholic brothers and sisters would at least respect the other option as a very real one when considering the powers and will of the the Master of the Universe.
Interesting. So elements of scripture once thought to be and taught as “literal”, once debunked by science, can quickly be reclassified as “allegorical”, “moral”, or “anagogical”. That’s certainly useful.
All those senses available for interpretation, and yet the NONSENSE interpretation is left wanting.
“once debunked by science”
Speaking of useful, perhaps you could cite some examples of science that contradicts scripture and then cite the Historians of Science who agree with you.
I agree with Marsilio, don’t do drive by’s or hit and runs. Just be specific in your approach Dalton.
Well, Marsilio, that depends. Do you mean “scripture” as it is currently interpreted (which, as noted above, can deftly slide debunked former “truths” into the “fiction” section), or do you mean elements previously held to represent literal truth?
Marsilio, I guess from your lack of response my question wasn’t clear. Let me rephrase.
You asked me to “cite some examples of science that contradicts scripture.” That’s a little vague, since, as you correctly noted, any statement in scripture once accepted as “literally” or “historically” true, can be reclassified as allegorical when debunked by science.
I can cite several examples in which a scientific hypothesis was condemned or suppressed by the Church because if contradicted a literal interpretation of the Bible. Is that what you’re asking for?
Is that what you’re asking for?
You seem to be confused about the premises of the discussion. In the Cardinal Bellarmine/Galileo case, for example, as outlined in numerous sources, Galileo’s insistence that he had a proof, when in fact he didn’t, led to his difficulties.
So, could you please provide an example for discussion?
Sorry, Marsilio…help me out here. I’ve asked twice for clarification of what you want an example OF. Once again, do you want an example of a scientific hypothesis condemned or suppressed by the Church because if contradicted a literal interpretation of the Bible?
“Once again, do you want an example of a scientific hypothesis condemned or suppressed by the Church because if contradicted a literal interpretation of the Bible?”
I actually asked for “science” if you re-read my post, and also a reference to a Historian Of Science. Sorry I took so long to respond. I was in the middle of J.L. Heilbron’s The Sun In the Church and I guess I lost track of time.
But, go ahead, use your interpretation of what I wrote and fire away. I hope you won’t take it personally if I don’t respond right away, as a double threat — Neo-Con Imperialist and Christian Theocrat — I have a full plate these days hatching plans for world dominion. I usually get to post only in relatively short bursts as much as a week apart (often, though not always on weekends).
TTFN