Martinmas

St. Martin of Tours, Bishop, Confessor (III Class)

St. Martin, bishop of Tours in France, was at first a soldier, then a monk under the direction of St. Hilary. Famous through his boundless charity to the poor, he died in 397.

We discovered that there are all kinds of fun customs and traditions surrounding Martinmas, but we discovered them too late in the day to do anything. Ah, well. Next year we'll be prepared.

Of interest today was another lively discussion in my Scripture and Its Interpretation class. The text under discussion was this, from Pope Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu:

"Hence with grave words did he [Leo XIII] proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation"; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history," that is, by refuting, "in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks"" (DAS 3).

[...]

"It is absolutely wrong and forbidden "either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred," since divine inspiration "not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church"" (DAS 3).

How to put these two statements together was more or less the topic of our discussion in class this afternoon. Opinions were widely divergent. I have to say that I'm in favor of interpreting the former part of the paragraph in light of the latter, rather than conversely.