J
- Status
M
Mintaka
Guest
The point isn’t just a perfect sacrifice; it’s also a willing victim. A willing hero, in fact. There’s a long line of interpretation pointing out that the Son was eager to come save us, and wasn’t put down here against His will or not knowing the dangers. Obviously death isn’t fun to face, and the Agony in the Garden is one pretty definite proof that Christ was man as well as God. But as He said Himself, nobody could take His life from Him without His wanting it to happen. He laid it down with a will.
From a translation of the Old English poem “The Dream of the Rood” (Rood=Cross):
“The young hero stripped himself – he, God Almighty–
strong and stout-minded. He mounted high gallows,
bold before many, when he would loose mankind.”
And finally:
“…discover with words that it is glory’s beam
which Almighty God suffered upon
for all mankind’s manifold sins
and for the ancient ill-deeds of Adam.
Death he tasted there, yet God rose again
by his great might, a help unto men.
He then rose to heaven.”
Somewhere in their poetry, the Goths have a great image of God wrestling the cross, refusing to let it go.
From a translation of the Old English poem “The Dream of the Rood” (Rood=Cross):
“The young hero stripped himself – he, God Almighty–
strong and stout-minded. He mounted high gallows,
bold before many, when he would loose mankind.”
And finally:
“…discover with words that it is glory’s beam
which Almighty God suffered upon
for all mankind’s manifold sins
and for the ancient ill-deeds of Adam.
Death he tasted there, yet God rose again
by his great might, a help unto men.
He then rose to heaven.”
Somewhere in their poetry, the Goths have a great image of God wrestling the cross, refusing to let it go.
G
Greg27
Guest
The CC didn’t postulate a Young Earth; this a recent theory of Protestant fundamentalists, who believe in the inerrancy of scripture on scientific matters. To make the Bible’s claims in Genesis consistent with scientific theory, creationists came up with a number of theories, including the ‘Young Earth Hypothesis.’ This is the view that the Earth and the universe are no more than about 10,000 years old. Some Catholics today may subscribe to this view but it is not official church teaching.
The Galileo case is very interesting from the history of science, and is murky and complex. Both Copernicus and Galileo were Catholics in good standing with the Church. Galileo was a fiery personality and also a bit of a showman, as well as being a scientic genius. Science was already undergoing a rebirth in his time, but his empirical methods and mathematical theories of motion helped give physics and natural science a gigantic boost. At the same time the Church was involved in the Counter-Reformation and was therefore concerned to remove heresies. Unfortunately Galileo became entangled because his heliocentrism seemed to conflict with the Bible as well as the accepted science of the time. What Galileo proposed was a radical hypothesis, equivalent to a scientist today overturning the big bang theory and general relativity and quantum mechanics in a single swipe. He was also supportive of atomic theory to explain certain natural phenomena, as opposed to the Aristotlian system of causes, accidents and substances, upon which the key doctrine of transubstantiation (which tried to explain a key dogma about the eucharist) rested. This may also have been a key cause of suspicion from the inquisition.
Overall, the Church encouraged science and learning through patronage, but at the same time some aspects of the church hindered science. In any case, the damage was not so much to science as to the reputation of the church itself, and to this day it remains a sore point, especially for science. However in the face of overwhelming evidence, it would be preposterous for the CC to argue for a geocentric universe, or any other religion for that matter.
- Status