“Historical/literal sense,” going back to St. Augustine, does not mean what you take it to mean. It means “the meaning intended by what the historical writer wrote.” It does not mean, and has never meant, “a literal history,”

I understand what it means. It’s my position that “a literal history” is what Moses intended to communicate.

“You confuse historical (which is to say literal) with literalistic interpretation.”

No I don’t, see above.

“For pity’s sake, you quote St. Ephraim who says the night and day were each twelve hours – which is much more than Genesis says – without even seeming to be aware that the man was a poet. A poet.”

If Genesis doesn’t say this then I can’t imagine what “and there was evening and there was morning, one day” means. Moses used terminology to communicate the common notions of all of these ideas. And, if this is not what he meant then there is certainly nothing in the text to suggest otherwise.
Whether or not Ephrem was a poet makes no difference, and I defy you to show me something from your “authoritative texts” to match the specificity of his (or St. Basil’s) comments.
To suppose that a poet was incapable of effective scriptural interpretation because of his experience as poet would be a logical fallacy, one that is certainly below a scholar with such an extensive and impressive resume as yours (sorry, couldn’t resist). In fact, Ephrem, being poet, teacher, and deacon would seem like an ideal candidate to read the text from both the poetic (if you suppose Gen. 1-3 to be) and theological vantage points.

“Let me ask you, Matt, why Gen 1-3 needs to be historically, factually true just as described?”

It depends on what you mean by “need.” If you are referring to why God chose to create in this fashion, then I don’t know. If you are referencing my (and the Church’s traditional) interpretation of Gen. 1-3 then I would simply direct you to the text itself because that’s what it says.
The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise because you are proposing that it means something other than what the text says at face-value. Viewing the text as Augustine did (creation instantaneously a few thousand years ago) is one thing, but to simply read the text and then stretch it to include billions of years and an evolutionary development of the human body is preposterous. Finding anything like that in Gen. 3 is pure eisegesis. And to say that Moses didn’t actually comment on the issue in Gen. 1-3 is just as bad since he thought enough to include specifying qualifiers like “evening and morning,” and “according to their (its) kind(s) in the text.

Also, I did not mean to imply that the tools of the historical-critical method were useless. Certainly they are helpful when one understands their limitations.

I have read most of the Church’s documents on the interpretation of scripture and can’t find anything in them to rule out a literal interpretation of Gen. 1-3 I think you are confusing the Church’s willingness to entertain scientific research’s implications on scripture with an outright acceptance of current theory. I never meant to “lecture,” just wanted to correct your erroneous claims of the Church denying creationism. Again, I would be interested in you showing me an “authoritative” citation that does this in anything other than vagaries.

Literal, literalistic, call it what you like, but at the end of the day you’re still the one who is faced with demonstrating how Moses meant something other than the words he wrote in Gen. 1-3. I really am curious to see how you do so, considering the specificity of the text concerning the events of Creation Week.

Oh, and I do read a little Hebrew though I am by no means an expert.

I appreciate the offer for some of St. Ephrem’s poetry. I must admit I’m a bit of a philistine when it comes to poetry but you can send it to mghansolo@hotmail.com and I will take a look.

For starters, you didn’t get that all thought up and typed in during the ten minutes between when I posted and when you did. You clearly have a pre-fab list you carry around for the topic.

Secondly, only one of your Vatican citations, numbered as 1909 (PBC Q.2) really supports your position – the one replying doubly negative. The others do not mean, I think, what you think they mean. For example, the question immediately following it, lists off and affirms what are clearly a set of “morals of the story.” It does not affirm the creation of the world in six 24-hour periods, you will note.

Whether they are dogmatic or not is almost aside from the point. Some of them, I am thinking especially of the one that you number 381, are clearly irrelevant – the author wasn’t at all writing on our topic. Nazianzen is here arguing about the substance of the Logos. He takes Genesis’ account of creation for granted, and primarily because he is interested in differentiating creation from Creator, and putting Christ on the Creator side of things, whereas Arians had Him as a creature. He doesn’t take Genesis literally as creationists do – he rejects the idea of the eternity of matter/world – as all Christians ought – because that imputes divinity to the creature. I’ve read him, and not just a stray quote.

I have to say that I disagree with you that a literal (not literalistic…whatever you mean by that)

makes me think that you really do not understand the passages. “Historical/literal sense,” going back to St. Augustine, does not mean what you take it to mean. It means “the meaning intended by what the historical writer wrote.” It does not mean, and has never meant, “a literal history,” or else the psalms, among others, could never have a “historical/literal sense,” since they are clearly (for the most part) not intended to be histories, though they are set in historical contexts.

I have consulted St. Ephraim modestly, both in translation and in Syriac, which I studied in graduate school. Basil I have only read in translation, because my Greek is painfully slow and his Greek is painfully elegant.

Matt, I really suggest you read the documents I suggested, and consider the questions I asked. To wit,

Let me ask you, Matt, why Gen 1-3 needs to be historically, factually true just as described? I mean, I know that and why accounts of the Resurrection must be about facts – or else our “faith is in vain,” (1 Cor 15:14). And I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, and I believe that we will all be raised on the last day to be judged by God. That is the heart of the Christian faith. But why must the daytime have come a day before the sun’s light?

These things are not easy. I am happy that you know yom in Hebrew. I also asked if you read Hebrew. I do. It is an important and relevant question. How can someone argue to understand a text when they cannot read it except in translation? Who would give ten minutes’ consideration to a Japanese “professor of Shakespeare” who couldn’t even read English, and only read Hamlet in translation?

I ask you these things, not to demean you, but because there is a LOT of information out there – that you haven’t even read the foundational documents of the Church’s method of interpreting scripture – documents that liberals and progressives of all stripes ignore or hate, yet still want to lecture about how the Church interprets or should interpret the Scriptures… well, it’s a bit cheeky, to be frank.

My background is that after taking a degree in Classical History, cum laude, I spent three and a half years in a seminary noted for its orthodoxy, which I loved. As of now, I am on break from doctoral studies in a leading Catholic biblical studies program – where I got myself into more than a little hot water for criticizing the Higher Criticism.

On the other hand, you don’t get some basic distinctions – like between the literal sense and literalistic interpretation. You confuse historical (which is to say literal) with literalistic interpretation. You quote sources, the contexts of which you don’t seem to be aware, and in some cases whose authors don’t support your interpretation. For pity’s sake, you quote St. Ephraim who says the night and day were each twelve hours – which is much more than Genesis says – without even seeming to be aware that the man was a poet. A poet. An excellent theologian, and a doctor of the Church, but not a systematic one – certainly not an infallible one (and yes, the point is perfectly relevant and not at all trivial). I can email you, if you like, some of my translations of some of his poetry.

Now, I apologize to you for sounding snooty, and I am sure I do. I am not hauling out my weak little credentials to try to settle some fight on the basis of my “authority.” I haven’t got any. But I have got reasons, and I’ve got authoritative Church documents that are only a bit vague, but not really so much – they just don’t agree with you, is all. You haven’t got so much though. I am irritated with myself for staying up late to reply to your cut-and-paste citations, when I have to work in the morning. That is my fault.

Look, brother Matt, just because the Higher Critics were colossal asses and closet/open atheists – and they were – I know, because I studied under some of the last of them, doesn’t mean that all of their tools and conclusions were inimical to the Faith. Just like Protestant fundamentalists, though they be by-and-large monumental simpletons when it comes to theology, and they are – doesn’t mean that they are immoral or false in all their way of life.

You have a real passion for these things that I do not. I admire that. I hope you will pursue it in serious study. Another book I can recommend that is very interesting, though technical and difficult, is Opening Up the Scriptures, edited by Jose Granados, including contributions by Joseph Ratzinger.

Now I am going to bed, and I really don’t anticipate having time or energy to respond to this topic tomorrow. Maybe the next day, if you can answer the questions I linked above, or read some of the authoritative, if difficult, documents I’ve linked, and spare me the cut-and-paste. The whole thing has certainly derailed from the initial thread. I apologize for being a colossal ass. Good night.

I have to say that I disagree with you that a literal (not literalistic…whatever you mean by that) understanding of Genesis 1-3 is not foreign to the Catholic Church, and is in fact what the traditional understanding of the Church has been until the advent of Darwinism and “Higher” Criticism. And while I haven’t read ALL of the documents you cited, I have read enough recent documents addressing the subject to guess what they might include: more vague statements about how we need to be open to new research, and how science doesn’t conflict with faith.

I am Catholic, and I have taken the liberty of compiling a short list of statements made by various Catholic figures which I will include below:

Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it”

Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.”

185 “the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that.” –Origen, Against Celsus, 1.19, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4:404

~350 “No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in the course of six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, one must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and the earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names.” –St. Ephrem the Syrian (Commentary on Genesis, ch. I)

~350 “Although both the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the first day continued for 12 hours each.” –St. Ephrem the Syrian (Comm. on Genesis, ch. I)

354 “Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been . . . . And when they are asked, how, . . . they reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and . . . thus there was at intervals a new beginning made. . . . But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived . . . by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.” –Augustine, The City of God, 11.3

~360 “That Paradise was closed and that a Cherubim was commanded to prevent man from entering it by a flaming sword: of this we believe that in visible fashion it was indeed just as it is written, and at the same time we find that this occurs mystically in every soul.” –St. Macarius the Great (Seven Homilies, IV, 5)

~370 “There is nothing truer than this, that each plant either has seed or there exists in it some generative power. And this accounts for the expression “of its own kind.” For the shoot of the reed is not productive of an olive tree, but from the reed comes another reed; and from seeds spring plants related to the seeds sown. Thus, what was put forth by the earth in its first generation has been preserved until the present time, since the species persisted through constant reproduction.” –St. Basil (Hexaemeron, V,2.)

~370 “Those who do not admit the common meaning of the Scriptures say that water is not water, but some other nature, and they explain a plant and a fish according to their opinion. They describe also the production of reptiles and wild animals, changing it according to their own notions, just like the dream interpreters, who interpret for their own ends the appearances seen in their dreams. When I hear grass, I think of grass, and in the same manner I understand everything as it is said, a plant, a fish, a wild animal, and an ox.” –St. Basil (Hexaemeron, IX, 1)

~370 “The nature of existing objects, set in motion by one command, passes through creation without change, by generation and destruction, preserving the succession of the species through resemblance until it reaches the very end. It begets a horse as the successor of a horse, a lion of a lion, and an eagle of an eagle; and it continues to preserve each of the animals by uninterrupted successions until the consummation of the universe. No length of time causes the specific characteristics of the animals to be corrupted or extinct, but, as if established just recently, nature, ever fresh, moves along with time.” –St. Basil (Hexaemeron, IX, 2.)

~379 “That which reasons, and is mortal, and is capable of thought and knowledge, is called man equally in the case of Adam and of Abel, and this name of the nature is not altered either by the fact that Abel passed into existence by generation, or by the fact that Adam did so without generation.” -St. Gregory of Nyssa (Answer to Eunomius, Second Book, p. 299 in the English Eerdmans edition.)

~379 What of Adam? Was he not alone the direct creature of God? Yes, you will say. Was he then the only human being? By no means. And why, but because humanity does not consist in direct creation? For that which is begotten is also human. -St. Gregory Nazianzen (Third Theological Oration, On the Son, ch. XI)

~381 “They who make Unbegotten and Begotten natures of equivocal God’s would perhaps make Adam and Seth differ in nature, since the former was not born of flesh (for he was created), but the latter was born of Adam and Eve.” -St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oration on the Holy Lights, XII)

~386 “As of the earth He said only: Let it bring forth-and there appeared a great variety of flowers, grasses, and seeds, and everything occurred by His word alone; so also here He said: Let the waters bring forth… and suddenly there appeared so many kinds of creeping things, such a variety of birds, that it is impossible even to enumerate them with words.” –St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Genesis, VII, 3)

~386 “When you hear that ‘God planted Paradise in Eden in the East,’ understand the word ‘planted’ befittingly of God: that is, that he commanded; but concerning the words that follow, believe precisely that Paradise was creted and in that very place where the Scripture has assigned it.” -St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Genesis 13:3).

~735 “The earliest formation (of man) is called creation and not generation. For creation is the original formation at God’s hands, while generation is the succession from each other made necessary by the sentence of death imposed on us on account of the transgression.” -St. John Damascene (On the Orthodox Faith, II, 30)

1215 “from the beginning of time and by His omnipotent power made from nothing creatures both spiritual and corporeal, angelic, namely, and mundane, and then human, as it were, common, composed of spirit and body.” -Lateran 4

1860 “Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that … those who … assert … man … emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.” –Council of Cologne

1870 “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and corporal, as regards their whole substance, have been created by God from nothing, let him be anathema.” –Vatican I

1870 “God … who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human.” –Vatican I

1880 “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.” –Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae

1909 “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.” –Pontifical Biblical Commission (Question 1)

1909 “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 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.” –PBC (Q. 2)

1909 “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 foundation 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.” -PBC (Q. 3)

1909 “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.” -PBC (Q. 6)
note: To be fair, the other questions of the PBC allowed for the investigation of the possibility of “yom” meaning more than a 24 hour period, and also admitted that Gen. 1 was not written in strictly scientific language.

1928 “the evolution of species is impossible, even as a hypothesis… it openly contradicts the sacred text, and the universal opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.” –Cardinal Lepicier (De Opere Sex Dierum)

1950 “How are we to safeguard the unmistakably clear biblical account or testimony telling us that the body of the first man became alive through God’s breathing upon it, if, as the evolutionists claim, it [that body] was already alive before this.” -Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini (Responsabilita dei paleoantropologi cattolici” in Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1950)

1950 “Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion [polygenism] can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1-4)

1950 “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, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes…” –Pius XII (Humani Generis)

Again, this is only a short list and is by no means exhaustive. However, it captures the “mood” of the Church concerning the theology of origins. And yes, before you say it, I realize that none of these are dogmatic, but it certainly is telling how specific these references are compared to how vague the selections are which theistic evolutionists generally use to open the window for evolution and old-earth.

Hopefully this will finally settle things.

I didn’t say that you said St. Augustine took Gen 1 at face value. My words were:

He did not, as you say, take that text as factually true at face-value, but did not believe that it was intended to be taken as such.

When I wrote, “as you say,” I might have more clearly stated “As you wrote, Augustine did not…” My apologies for the ambiguous phrasing. I didn’t say that he believed evolution or denied God was the Creator.

I don’t deny that God is the Creator who made the universe from nothing. I affirm that.

Again, I did not write that creationists are Catholic only to the extent that abortionists and nihilists are. I wrote:

And of course there are Catholics who are creationists, just as there are Catholics who are abortionists and Catholics who are nihilists. They are all less Catholic for it.

That’s different and it means a different thing that what you save I’ve written:

creationists as being Catholic only to the extent that abortionists and nihilists are.

In your (the second) statement attempting to recapitulate my statement, it sounds as if I’ve said creationists are no more Catholic than abortionists or nihilists. In fact, my statement said that creationism (perhaps I ought to have written “biblical literalism”) is just as much a defect in faith as those other ideologies. Now, granted creationists share many moral stances with us that abortionists do not; but so do Mormons.

My statement means that, just as nihilism is alien to the Catholic faith, and so is abortionism (for it is an ideology), so is creationism. It does not mean that creationists are as bad as abortionists. By creationism, let us be clear, I do not mean that belief in God as the eternal deity who created the world at the beginning of time, sustains it throughout time, and will remake the world at the end of time. That is Catholic faith. I mean, and you seem to mean, a literalistic reading of Gen 1-3. Imposing a literalistic interpretation upon Gen 1-3 (among others) is foreign to the Catholic faith, and a novelty. It is an influence of fundamentalist Protestantism just as much as the creeping influence among American Catholics of rapture theories.

I need to cut off this conversation because it’s getting heated and defensive. I don’t know if you’re Catholic, but if you are, I really recommend reading the authoritative church documents that I cited; they do a better job making the point than I can.

I never claimed that Augustine took Gen. 1 at face value. In fact I said he interpreted most of Scripture allegorically. By the way, the fact that the Church hasn’t dogmatically ruled on this issue means that is is untrue that “The Church rejects creationism.”

In fact, every statement made by the Church herself, or prominent members of the Church has been either vague, or in explicit support of creationism, with opinions ranging between those two poles.

Also, and please don’t take this as rude, but perhaps you should consult St. Ephrem or St. Basil’s interpretation of the matter before you make remarks accusing creationists as being Catholic only to the extent that abortionists and nihilists are.

The language of Gen. 1 denotes the sun taking over the administration of the light as a type of governorship. Yours is a frequent objection put forth by theistic evolutionists which really shouldn’t give us much trouble. The light is distinct from the sun (a la Rev. 21:23), but the sun was created to rule over the light of the day.

Augustine and the Church Fathers would have known nothing of the theory of evolution, but they would have been familiar with Greek Atomism, which posited an old earth, and they obviously did not choose to subscribe to it. Again, I’m not sure why you would choose to cite him- what he believed was even farther from your position than mine is.

Why does it have to have occurred in 24 hour periods? I don’t know, I’m not the creator, ask Him. All I know is that that’s what the Spirit inspired the writer to communicate. He even went so far as to specify what kind of day he was talking about: “And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”

The real question is this: Why would we read anything other than historical writing when that’s the genre of the text? What is there contained in Gen. 1-11 that suggests it is anything other than historical? If the writer wanted to communicate whatever you allege him to be saying then why did he not simply write that instead of giving us a sequence of events that reads just like a history?