4

"Modern scholars' consensus" is that:

However, in the key episode of the Transfiguration, as written in the synoptic gospels, it is recounted that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus, and they were conversing. Similarly, in many verses Jesus refers to Moses, indicating perhaps that he actually existed, as we would not expect Jesus to lie (although the argument could be made that he was talking to the Hebrews in their own terms, i.e. assuming the myth of the Exodus, if it is a myth).

All mentions of Moses in the Catechism seem not to discuss his historicity, treating events as if they happened. There is however the same treatment for Adam, which we know the Catholic Church does not dogmatically claim to be a historical figure. For instance, Adam's entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia (with Imprimatur) reads:

To what extent these chapters should be considered as strictly historical is a much disputed question, the discussion of which does not come within the scope of the present article.

However, when it comes to Moses, the Encyclopedia states:

To deny or to doubt the historic personality of Moses, is to undermine and render unintelligible the subsequent history of the Israelites.

This seems to be a more stronger case for historical reality. Thus, the question: does the Catholic Church declares as dogma of faith that Moses actually existed? I see that some christian denominations do not consider Moses to have been physically there in the Transfiguration event (whilst still not necessarily denying his historicity).

Thunderforge
  • 6,367
  • 5
  • 39
  • 94
luchonacho
  • 4,672
  • 1
  • 22
  • 47
  • 2
    I think this question is intimately related to the Church's attitude to scripture. – aska123 May 21 '18 at 13:19
  • The current Wikipedia page does not have a section called "Historicity", and I'm not sure exactly what part of the article you are referring to. Perhaps you could change your link to one of the permalinks that contains the parts you're referencing? – Thunderforge May 23 '18 at 00:43
  • @Thunderforge What! That was changed! Almost like censored! Amazing. I will check this. Outrageous! – luchonacho May 23 '18 at 08:07
  • 2
    Looking at the edit history, it looks like it goes through pretty frequent changes, so I don't think it was a deliberate attempt at censorship and was more likely part of regular improvement efforts of the article. I've suggested an edit to use a permalink to today's version of the article, that way it won't become outdated should further changes to the article occur. – Thunderforge May 23 '18 at 14:08

1 Answers1

6

Yes, Catholics must believe in the historical reality of Christ, Moses, Adam & Eve, et al.

Modernist heretics dispute their historicity, but magisterial teaching (DZ 1997) unequivocally says that Moses authored the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament), by answering the following question in the negative:

Question 1. Whether the arguments accumulated by critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the Sacred Books, which are designated by the name Pentateuch, are of such weight that, in spite of the very many indications of both Testaments taken together, the continuous conviction of the Jewish people, also the unbroken tradition of the Church in addition to the internal evidences drawn from the text itself, they justify affirming that these books were not written by Moses, but were composed for the most part from sources later than the time of Moses?

Reply: No.

The same Pontifical Biblical Commission affirmed that at least

The first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives that correspond to objectively real and historically true events (rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant), no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends.

If Moses were fictional, how could a fictional character author anything, let alone something that contains "historically true events"?

Also, the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't a magisterial document. Imprimatur simply means "let it be published," and nihil obstat means "nothing prevents [it from being published]." It doesn't make the publication an official magisterial pronouncement of the bishop(s) who gave the imprimatur and nihil obstat.
Geremia
  • 39,167
  • 4
  • 47
  • 103
  • As far as I know, the CC does not pronounces infallibly about the actual existence of Adam and Eve. – luchonacho May 22 '18 at 13:47
  • 1
    @luchonacho Adam & Eve's existence is infallible teaching Catholics must believe. See 5th session of the Council of Trent (on original sin), canons 1-4; cf. Rom. 5:12-19. To deny Adam's existence would imply denying the existence of Original Sin. – Geremia May 23 '18 at 00:25
  • Infallibility refers to issues of faith and morals. Faith refers, by definition, to things that are outside the scope of science (you have no faith that the Earth has one moon; that is a scientific fact, but you have faith in the Trinity, which is beyond science). As long as the historicity of Adam and Eve can be demonstrated to be false (just like the creation of the earth in six days), they are not issues of faith anymore. As such, whatever the Church had said about it in the past, it is, ontologically speaking, not related to faith, and thus beyond the infallibility criterion. – luchonacho May 23 '18 at 08:10
  • At least since St. Augustine the Church has adopted the view that science cannot contradict Scriptures (i.e. the Book of Nature and the Book of Scriptures cannot contradict each other). To blindly propose as infallible something which can be demonstrated false is to break that relationship of harmony. In all its attempts to reconcile science and faith, the Church would not argue for A if science says B. The scope of faith must be clearly demarcated. – luchonacho May 23 '18 at 08:16
  • @luchonacho Vatican I's Dei Filius: "2. If any one shall say that human sciences are to be so freely treated that their assertions, although opposed to revealed doctrine, are to be held as true, and can not be condemned by the Church: let him be anathema." "3. If any one shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema." – Geremia May 23 '18 at 16:01
  • But what is defined as doctrine within a given document is precisely related to a certain conception of what are doctrines of faith and morals. I see no inconsistency between infallibility and the evolution of the understanding what is faith and what is not. If science is telling you A and you argue that Church teaches B, you are just making more enemies of religion. By definition, whichever time the Church gave the intend to support a doctrine of Young Earth, six days creation and so, because of the Big Bang Theory, that interpretation must be discarder. Otherwise we are alienating us. – luchonacho May 23 '18 at 20:02
  • @luchonacho Augustine denied a scientific theory of his day in favor of the "authority of Scripture," which "in this matter is greater than all human ingenuity." Also, the heresy of Modernism thinks faith must be subject to science and that dogma evolves; see Pascendi for the Modernists' heretical conceptions of dogma evolving (§13), faith & science (§16), faith being subject to science (§17), and doctrine evolving (§26-8). – Geremia May 23 '18 at 20:41
  • 1
    The Bible is supposed to be taken as a collection of historical accounts. So, everything in it happened. At least, our faith is to be built upon that. – The Mattbat999 May 23 '18 at 20:52
  • Fr. (Bishop) Barron highlights here that Aquinas saw science and religious truths are part of One Truth, and thus cannot be contradictory. – luchonacho Jul 15 '18 at 12:36
  • "To deny Adam's existence would imply denying the existence of Original Sin." An interesting article. – luchonacho Nov 14 '18 at 10:08
  • @luchonacho That article seems to doubt the Council of Trent's dogmas on Original Sin are immutable, which is Modernism. "Disregarding the Council of Trent, some [e.g., Modernists like the evolutionist pantheist Teilhard de Chaldin] pervert the very concept of original sin" (Humani Generis). – Geremia Nov 14 '18 at 21:06
  • It is clear that the conservative reading you make on the doctrine of original sin is not the only one allowed by the Magisterium. Catholic theologians would not be wasting their time on this if this were a settled issue. "pervert the very concept of original sin" What does that supposed to mean? Do the readings in the article do that? You have your opinion. Others differ. – luchonacho Nov 16 '18 at 09:22
  • @luchonacho Modernists "pervert the very concept of original sin" (Humani Generis §26) because "they pervert the eternal concept of truth" (Pascendi §13) by believing in "the intrinsic evolution of dogma" (ibid.). – Geremia Nov 16 '18 at 20:06
  • @luchonacho "Some [e.g., evolutionists like Teilhard de Chardin] teach more or less explicitly that the material world would naturally evolve toward the spiritual, or that likewise the spiritual world would evolve naturally or quasi-naturally toward the supernatural order, as if Baius had been right. – Geremia Nov 16 '18 at 20:07
  • @luchonacho "The world would be thereby in natural evolution toward the fullness of Christ; it would be in continual progress and hence would not have been able to be in the beginning in the perfect state of original justice followed by a fall, namely, original sin; such evolutionism, which recalls that of Hegel, mutates the substance of dogma itself." (fn. 33 of Humani Generis ghostwriter Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Essence & Topicality of Thomism). – Geremia Nov 16 '18 at 20:07
  • @luchonacho E.g., your article mentions that the Modernist "Schoonenberg identified at least three key problems [as though dogmas were 'problems'…] with the classical doctrine [i.e., with immutable Catholic dogma]. First, the traditional account [as though dogmas were merely 'accounts'…] presupposes the historicity of Adam, a fall, and monogensim [all of which are dogmas de fide]; it also focuses on the physical transmission of this actual sin and its consequences. – Geremia Nov 16 '18 at 20:08
  • @luchonacho "These elements are improbable in an evolutionary perspective, and are incapable of communicating the essence of original sin to a contemporary audience." This sentence's first clause is true, but its second clause is typical Modernism because Modernists do not believe dogmas are immutable truths but whatever excites "modern man"'s religious sentiments. – Geremia Nov 16 '18 at 20:14