- Q
- What is the most misunderstood historical event?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event
- Tim O'Neill,
- Head Inquisitor against bad history.
- Updated Oct 2, 2015 · Upvoted by Lyonel Perabo, B.A. in History. M.A in related field (Folkloristics) and Stefan Hill
- The Galileo Affair
[Note that most of his answer is very correct. I am only quoting what I took debate on.]
...
3. "The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted literally."
The Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally. In fact, the idea of Biblical literalism is a very modern notion - one that arose in the USA in the Nineteenth Century and is exclusively a fundamentalist Protestant idea. The Catholic Church, then and now, taught that any given Bible verse or passage could be interpreted via no less than four levels of exegesis - the literal, the allegorical/symbolic, the moral and the eschatological. Of these, the literal meaning was generally regarded as the least important. This also meant that a verse of scripture could be interpreted via one or more of these levels and it could potentially have no literal meaning at all and be purely metaphorical or symbolic.
Therefore the Church had no problem with learning that a passage which had been interpreted literally could no longer be read that way because we now have a better understanding of the world. So many passages were originally interpreted by very early Christians as indicating the earth was flat, but by the time Christianity spread to more educated converts, it was clear this reading was contrary to the knowledge that the earth is actually a sphere, so these passages came to be read purely symbolically.
All this means that the Church was quite capable of changing its interpretations of scriptures that seemed to say the earth was "fixed" etc if it could be shown that this was not literally the case. It just was not going to do so before this was demonstrated conclusively - something Galileo had not done. As Cardinal Bellarmine noted on his 1616 ruling on Galileo's writings:
If there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the centre of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.
Bellarmine was no scientific ignoramus, since he had previously been a university lecturer in natural philosophy in Flanders and was well acquainted with the state of the cosmological debate. So he knew, as Galileo knew, that most scientists of the time still favoured geocentrism and heliocentrism was far from proven. As it happens, once heliocentrism was proven, the Church reconsidered and reinterpreted those scriptures precisely as Bellarmine proposed they should.
...
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "The Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally."
False.
"In fact, the idea of Biblical literalism is a very modern notion - one that arose in the USA in the Nineteenth Century and is exclusively a fundamentalist Protestant idea."
In the 19th C there was a split and it is arguable that the literalist faction of Reformed confession became more so than Reformed had been previously, but they did not become more so than Catholics had been previously.
"The Catholic Church, then and now, taught that any given Bible verse or passage could be interpreted via no less than four levels of exegesis - the literal, the allegorical/symbolic, the moral and the eschatological."
Factoid.
Change "could" to "should" to make it a solid fact.
"Of these, the literal meaning was generally regarded as the least important."
Yes, but even so too important to be dispensible.
"This also meant that a verse of scripture could be interpreted via one or more of these levels"
Yes.
"and it could potentially have no literal meaning at all and be purely metaphorical or symbolic."
No. Here is where the factoid factor in your explanation comes in.
Read up on it in St Thomas. Prima Pars, Q1, AA9 and 10:
The nature and extent of sacred doctrine (Prima Pars, Q. 1)
http://newadvent.com/summa/1001.htm#article9
The nature and extent of sacred doctrine (Prima Pars, Q. 1)
http://newadvent.com/summa/1001.htm#article10
"Therefore the Church had no problem with learning that a passage which had been interpreted literally could no longer be read that way because we now have a better understanding of the world."
Total rubbish.
"So many passages were originally interpreted by very early Christians as indicating the earth was flat,"
Needs proof.
"but by the time Christianity spread to more educated converts, it was clear this reading was contrary to the knowledge that the earth is actually a sphere, so these passages came to be read purely symbolically."
The explanations for Earth being round in view of this or that passage were actually more usually of a type explaining how even a very literal reading did not contradict Earth being round.
And, for the record, Lactantius who was probably very clearly a Flat Earther was later than St Augustine, not earlier.
"As it happens, once heliocentrism was proven, the Church reconsidered and reinterpreted those scriptures precisely as Bellarmine proposed they should."
Saying St Robert proposed a readjusted reading is over the top, he thought none would be needed and said he conditionally redoubted one.
And Earth has not been proven to either rotate or orbit the Sun.
"(the stellar parallax problem was not definitively answered until 1838)"
Has not been answered to this day, since they were discussing the parallax a sphere of fix stars would show when observed from Earth of Earth were moving.
With the 1838 phenomenon, you either throw out the sphere of fixed stars - or the parallactic interpretation of that phenomenon.
- Tim O'Neill
- Very little of the confused comments above are worth responding to in detail, even when I can work out what the hell they mean. Especially when they contradict each other - first you say the idea that “Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally” is “false” but two comments later you’re accepting the four levels of exegesis, of which the literal is only one. You seem highly confused.
Try Richard J Blackwell’s Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (1991) - that should help you.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sorry, but *all four levels* of exegesis were obligatory as true.
Why didn’t you check the reference I gave in Summa Theologiae?
Since all four levels were obligatorily regarded as true, the literal, being one of the four, was obligatorily regarded as true.
The only confusion involved is on your side.
- Tim O'Neill
- You think I don’t know and understand all this? Seriously - go away.
Well, I actually think he is confused on two accounts:
- a) possibility of using figures of speech within the literal sense taken as if not radically differing from non-literal senses;
- b) possibility (actually obligation) of using three non-literal senses taken as if a possible alternative, rather than addition, to the literal one.
I also know from earlier, he has a deep disdain for literalist Christian believers.
That became the occasion for starting my apologetic blog "against atheism" (in general, not in the particular of Genesis, where Creation vs Evolution is my blog for the answer). See first blog post on the blog "somewhere else" (which is against atheism):
somewhere else : Somewhere else than where exactly?
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/03/somewhere-else-than-where-exactly.html
But yes, I truly find Tim O'Neill confused and prompoting bad history on this issue. Since he refers to Hannam, who is also confused on this issue. I did not quote the end of his comment, but he referred to Hannam.
Here I refer to my debate (short, but extant) with the same Hannam:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/04/with-james-hannam-on-whether-bible-and.html
Note than on this issue, of "four corners", I differ in solution from St Robert Bellarmine. He translates the word as "four quarters", which is always possible. I consider that four corners requires a globe map, not a flat earth map, to get in all the countries we know of. Either way the solution is however inside "sensus literalis" and not invoking any "sensus allegoricus". Precisely because we are both very aware that even the sensus literalis has to be scrupulously observed as literally true. Note that - which Tim O'Neill did not note - St Robert Bellarmine is "proposing" to if so "proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false".
But saying one does not understand, for one thing was never the thing of the Church and for another is still totally within the sensus literalis.
Note, he did not use any reference to "sensus allegoricus" in the quoted passage.
Bérulle actually recommends "heliocentrism in the allegoric sense" or in the moral one, as much as he is NOT recommending it in the literal one.
Joshua's long day, Sun allegorically signifies Jesus Christ, routing the enemies signifies exterminating one's sins, which takes the light of Christ, and "heliocentrism" in this context signifies it depends on Earth - the sign for the human soul in this context - to stand still under the Sun. Allegorical "geocentrism" would probably have been saying it is the Sun who choses to stay above this spot of Earth so enemies can be routed, i e looks a bit like predestination. Or why not, have Joshua signify the priest on whose words the Sun stands still over a spot of Earth so it can be cleaned from the enemies.
But in the literal sense, that is where Joshua's long day is about - Joshua's long day. Where the six days of Creation and the seventh day of rest from creating new (kinds of) things is about Creation and so on.
Those who wish to abuse the concept of sensus allegoricus (I take it Hannam is of that ilk, I take it he is Heliocentric and Old Earth Creationist or even Theistic Evolutionist), should take note of this, but they don't. They miss that any sensus allegoricus on Joshua X would be about something else than Joshua's long day, that any sensus allegoricus of Genesis 1 or 2 would be about sth else than Creation (part of Genesis 2 being allegorically about Good Friday).
Yes, I think Tim O'Neill and his "Catholic" or not so very Catholic in this respect authority James Hannam do miss a thing or two, and do not understand the Quadriga Cassiani, the tradition of exegesis in Four Senses, quite as well as I do. And I remain confident my judgement will remain the same after reading Richard J Blackwell’s Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (1991), should I have occasion to read it.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of the Immaculate
Conception of the BVM
15.XII.2016
No comments:
Post a Comment