Continued from previous post 740.
I, myself, am interested in the origin of our species because it simply is a fascinating study. Regardless of what ultimately emerges as truth, I personally won’t be too troubled faithfully because, as one whose starting point was definitely a life of sin, my path to God was Him calling me through the Holy Spirit. It was top down in that it started with God and lead to the Church, then doctrine, then the catechism. I do ponder the potential devastation bottom up Christians may face. If God is supported by all the above mentioned institutions, what happens if any one of them should somehow fail?
I tried. But I cannot yet wrap my mind around this. When confronted about the authority of the Catholic Church, my standard reply is to check out chapter 14, Gospel of John.
As for “Divine Revelation trumps,” that simply is not true any more. As I understand it, one of the motivations for V2 was the realization that society in general was becoming increasingly better educated. The Church wanted an approach that interacted with lay-minds much better prepared to receive a deeper and more sophisticated relationship with her.
Granted, the Church wanted a modern responsibility approach to current life. But the “approach” cannot change Divine Revelation. Yes, I am aware of some people, including clergy, who worked hard to match the dominance of science with a few basic Catholic doctrines. In spite of numerous “wolves in sheep’s clothing” Divine Revelation remains intact.
The down side to a more astute laity is this “Revealed Truth” necessarily must be accompanied by some darned good bridges to investigative truth because we, the faithful, have a foot in both worlds deeper than we ever had before. As I said previously, in order for there to be truth, faith and science must coexist in harmony. If they don’t there is error and both sides need set aside their partisanship, if you will, and humbly work together to weed out whatever it is that is in error.
Those bridges start on page 689 of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, “Index of Citations”. Footnotes are very informative as is the small print which is explained in
CCC 20-21. It is the major ecumenical councils which defines doctrines according to the protocol of the visible Catholic Church. These councils are guided by the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit.
Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950, is a good source of information including the beginning paragraphs.
Certainly true, but… To suggest that minus the benefit of the few thousands of years of scientific, philosophic, theological, and ethical progress we currently enjoy those authors were just as prepared to explain the origin of all creation as they would have been with it, is a pretty absurd notion. You might as well try to explain quantum theory to the most primitive and isolated tribe remaining on this planet or the color yellow to someone blind from birth. Both are so far removed from personal experience that it is an impossible task. It is an interesting question: if Genesis were being written in the present, would the “story” change to better convey the theological message? In light of that, is it not better to look at the theological truths found in Genesis rather than getting caught up in their wrappings?
Genesis 1:1 is a Catholic doctrine. What follows refers to the material physical universe and its material physical non-human inhabitants. Then there is the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26.
Regarding “theological truths” in the first three chapters of Genesis. It is hard for some people to describe them precisely according to Catholic doctrines. From your point of view, what are the theological truths which flow (begin) from the first three chapters in Genesis. Many of the theological truths continue to be revealed. For example, Genesis 2: 15-17 and Genesis 3: 15.
From what I have seen on CAF, there are some people who are not aware of the fact that technically, human species is separate from all other living organisms. However, the charting of the human species (cladistics system/cladograms) follows the same model that all existing species originated as populations derived from previous populations which diverged from previous common ancestor populations.
Regarding this question.
It is an interesting question: if Genesis were being written in the present, would the “story” change to better convey the theological message?
Starting with Genesis 1: 26 and continuing through Genesis, chapter 3, I say that the story would not change. Even the figurative language would remain – though some would need a clarification for relevance. For example: the name, Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
