Clarifications on the Biblical Flood Narrative

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 02-14-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[piusv]

So, my question to you is: why did you even bring up the Immaculate Conception and what the CE said about it in this thread? You know that the Catholic Faith does not always have direct Scriptural support (i.e. specific verses). Sometimes it is based on Scripture as a whole and what we call Sacred Tradition. To answer your question: I agree with whatever the Catholic Faith teaches. Generally speaking, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source to find that (although not always).

We can go round and round about Sola Scriptura again (and I won't), but that wasn't the point of my quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia in this thread. It was meant to show Catholics that traditionally the Deluge was considered historical. It was also a reply to this thread as a result of a ping I received from Zionist Conspirator.

As always, I am not interested in "debating" the heresies of the protestants on this board (especially those who are obstinate in their views). I shook off the dust from my sandals long ago. I have bigger fish to fry these days.

[ealgeone]

The CE was raised as a point of inquiry. It bills itself as the most complete record on Catholic teaching, history and information gathered in all of human history.

If it's claim is inaccurate that's a separate issue unto itself.

The CE supports catholic beliefs on one issue and undermines on another. In this case the IC on both a scriptural and tradition basis to which the CE dismisses the later as "error" by some. And the ones in the list aren't lightweights among Catholics either.

If Catholics claim "tradition" is the unwritten teachings handed down from apostle to apostle then there should be no disagreement amongst the ECFs on these issues. Yet there is on this issue and many others near and dear to the Catholic.

That is why Christianity does not appeal to tradition as an authoritative source. It is not consistent.

Only Scripture can claim consistency and inspiration.

I don't blame you for not wanting to debate what cannot be defended either by Scripture or for the Catholic "tradition".

[piusv]

Where does Catholic teaching teach that Church Fathers must be unanimous and are infallible? Here is what the CE entry on Church Fathers has to say about individual Church Fathers:

There are a few cases in which a general council has given approbation to the work of a Father, the most important being the two letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria which were read at the Council of Ephesus. But the authority of single Fathers considered in itself, says Franzelin (De traditione, thesis xv), "is not infallible or peremptory; though piety and sound reason agree that the theological opinions of such individuals should not be treated lightly, and should not without great caution be interpreted in a sense which clashes with the common doctrine of other Fathers." The reason is plain enough; they were holy men, who are not to be presumed to have intended to stray from the doctrine of the Church, and their doubtful utterances are therefore to be taken in the best sense of which they are capable. If they cannot be explained in an orthodox sense, we have to admit that not the greatest is immune from ignorance or accidental error or obscurity.

The key portion of the Immaculate Conception entry is thus:

If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22 ).

So, no, in this case, the CE didn't support one claim (Deluge) and undermine another (Immaculate Conception)...although not everything written in the CE is accurate (mostly due to changes made in recent years to some of the entries).

So when I "don't want to debate" it's not because the Catholic position can not be defended, it's because I am sick of interacting with those who are culpably ignorant.

[ealgeone]

Yet the CE undermines its own argument regarding the ECFs. It is apparent the CE doesn't want to detail the position of the ECFs.

It is also apparent a lot of ECFs were ignorant or made a lot of accidents.

That is why Christianity rejects Roman Catholic tradition.

[piusv]

Actually, no it doesn’t and no they weren’t.

[ealgeone]

You may not have compared the beliefs of the ECFs. They’re all over the place.

[piusv]

::yawn::

[Popman]

In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22 )

1 Corinthians 15:22...For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Maybe you can instruct me on how that passage of scripture in any way declares the Virgin Mary to have born by Immaculate Conception...

[ealgeone]

Maybe you can instruct me on how that passage of scripture in any way declares the Virgin Mary to have born by Immaculate Conception...

The catholic, though try as they might, cannot prove the IC through Scripture. Unless they practice eisegesis...that is, reading into the text something that isn't there.

[Popman]

——. Unless they practice eisegesis...that is, reading into the text something that isn’t there.-—

I think a lot of that goes back to the times when Catholic lay people were not allowed to read scripture and and purposely keep ignorant and had to simply take the priest word on it....

Today, they cannot say the writings of tradition were wrong because that blows up their whole premise, so now it’s simply using blind faith even if it makes no sense or is logical...