|Abbé Lemaître Follows Two Paths to Truth
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||Alan Aversa [ Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:47 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Abbé Lemaître Follows Two Paths to Truth|
Lemaître Follows Two Paths to Truth
(courtesy: New York Times, 19 February 1933)
|Author:||Alan Aversa [ Fri Dec 06, 2013 4:06 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Abbé Lemaître Follows Two Paths to Truth|
Although Abbé Lemaître concedes nothing to Galileo, he unfortunately thinks the Bible can err in science—and in history!—and that it's only inerrant in matters pertaining to salvation.
But Pope Pius XII condemned in Humani Generis 22., that Scriptures' "immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters."
Scripture is true history:
Humani Generis 38. wrote:
the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense
Here's more on Scriptures' complete inerrancy:
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (reiterated by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu) wrote:
It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane condemned proposition wrote:
Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus wrote:
…the divine inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture without distinction, and that no error could occur in the inspired text.
Here's what the 1909 Biblical Commission said regarding Genesis:
The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis *
[Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909]
2121 Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation?--Reply: In the negative.
2122 Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and of the New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls?--Reply: In the negative to both parts.
2123 Question 111: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?--Reply: In the negative.
2124 Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved?--Reply: In the affirmative.
2125 Question V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases which occur in the aforementioned chapters, are always and necessarily to be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from this, even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been taken improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its abandonment?--Reply: In the negative.
2126 Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied?--Reply: In the affirmative.
2127 Question VII: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give to his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these?--Reply: In the negative.
2128 Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes?--Reply: In the affirmative.
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group