Are we going against the Church Fathers?

[Iron_Donkey]

But the thing is, here am I alledging a contradiction between the catechism and the bible, and instead of looking for a correction in one of the two sources, you say there is none because there can be none (“What does the bible say?” “Whatever the catechism says it says”).
I want to know a) who says the catechism is inerrant, other than you, and b) what people did before the catechism, which was published recently.

If you like, I can PM you some contradictions between the current catechism and previous catechisms, and the current catechism and papal bulls that are supposed to be infallible. (Private message so as not to drag the thread more off topic than it already is)

Catechisms are compilations and presentations of Church teachings, and are not as a rule infallible (although they often contain information that has been infallibly defined). The Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit through its bishops in union with the Pope discerns what the Bible says. We tend to assume that the Catechism is a faithful presentation of Church teaching, which is why we use it, but it is not in itself a source of authority.

So, if you allege a contradiction between the bible and the Catechism, then (if the Catechism has no error there, and it likely won’t) then you allege a contradiction between the bible and Church teaching. But of course, since we say that the bible is interpreted by the Church, we simply would say that you’re either reading the bible wrong and/or misunderstand what the Church says (and of course explain why that is).

Similarly, we make the claim that no past official Church teaching has ever contradicted or ever will contradict any present teaching or any other past teaching, and we are willing to back this up against.

We also reject the idea that Scripture interprets itself because it amounts to the same thing as saying that everyone is just supposed to take their best guess at what it means, which very nearly defeats the purpose to begin with (as demonstrated by the many many people who very sincerely believe that scripture clearly teaches completely incompatible things).

 

[Markus2007]

Genesis 1 gives the six-day creation account, with man & woman created without order, hierarchy or differentiation. Genesis 2 gives a different creation account, including the creation of Adam (alone), with animals as God’s first choice as Adam’s helpmate, but only later is a woman made (from man, not on her own) as a helpmate. Two distinct stories.

My understanding is that the first account is describing the creation of the (entire) world/universe, the second is describing the creation of the garden of eden (which obviously had to happen afterwards, hence why Adam was already around).

 

[Gorgias]

Catechisms are compilations and presentations of Church teachings, and are not as a rule infallible (although they often contain information that has been infallibly defined).

Arthropod: this is the point that I was trying to make; Donkey states it well…

So, if you allege a contradiction between the bible and the Catechism, then (if the Catechism has no error there, and it likely won’t) then you allege a contradiction between the bible and Church teaching. But of course, since we say that the bible is interpreted by the Church, we simply would say that you’re either reading the bible wrong and/or misunderstand what the Church says (and of course explain why that is).

Precisely.

Similarly, we make the claim that no past official Church teaching has ever contradicted or ever will contradict any present teaching or any other past teaching, and we are willing to back this up against.

Note, however, that we’re not saying that there is no possibility to explain these teachings differently. The claim is simply that there’s a way to make subsequent expressions of the teaching stand in harmony with earlier expressions of that teaching…!

 

[Gorgias]

My understanding is that the first account is describing the creation of the (entire) world/universe, the second is describing the creation of the garden of eden (which obviously had to happen afterwards, hence why Adam was already around).

If we make that claim, then we run the risk of people pointing out ‘contradictions’ (e.g., the relative order of the creation of animals and Adam; the order of creation of man and woman).

 

[Gorgias]

But the thing is, here am I alledging a contradiction between the catechism and the bible

if the Bible interprets itself, I don’t see how this is possible. After all, as long as the catechism uses Scripture to substantiate its claims, then isn’t this an example of the Bible interpreting itself?

I want to know a) who says the catechism is inerrant, other than you

As Iron Donkey points out, the Church doesn’t make the explicit claim that the catechism is inerrant. (Nor, as it were, do I.)

, and b) what people did before the catechism, which was published recently.

You recognize that this isn’t the first catechism that the Church has published, right?

If you like, I can PM you some contradictions between the current catechism and previous catechisms, and the current catechism and papal bulls that are supposed to be infallible. (Private message so as not to drag the thread more off topic than it already is)

Are there any examples that fit the the topic of this thread – the creation accounts?

If not, perhaps you could start a new thread, specifically to discuss the question of a particular ‘contradiction’ between the catechism and other Catholic sources?

 

[PRmerger]

What is Genesis then, according to you? What truth does it communicate? What did the original inspired author (whoever he was) intend to say, if not to communicate a straight forward historical narative?

Its intent is to convey creatio ex nihilo, the concept of Original Sin, the beauty of creation, that God is sovereign, that humanity is good but flawed, that we are created in the image and likeness of God, that male and female complement each other, that we were made for each other, that the human person is sovereign over creation, that we are stewards of the earth, that there is One God, the existence of the spiritual and corporeal,that is, the angelic and the earthly, of which the human person participates in both orders, God’s omnipotence, God’s mystery, that “from the beginning, God envisaged the glory of the new creation in Christ”…

but its intent as a “straight forward historical narrative”? Not so much. :nope:

 

[PRmerger]

What is Genesis then, according to you? What truth does it communicate? What did the original inspired author (whoever he was) intend to say, if not to communicate a straight forward historical narative?

Incidentally, viewing Genesis as a “straight forward historical narrative” would be analogous to viewing this magnificent cathedral as a “statement about the physics of concrete”.

http://www.cathedralconcerts.org/web/images/stories/Cathedral Interior Pics/cathedral_interior.jpg

One would be missing the point, would he not, were he to visit this splendid, sacred space and walk around examining the concrete, yes?

 

[catholictiger]

Incidentally, viewing Genesis as a “straight forward historical narrative” would be analogous to viewing this magnificent cathedral as a “statement about the physics of concrete”.

http://www.cathedralconcerts.org/web/images/stories/Cathedral Interior Pics/cathedral_interior.jpg

One would be missing the point, would he not, were he to visit this splendid, sacred space and walk around examining the concrete, yes?

what church is that?

 

[PRmerger]

what church is that?

St. Louis Basilica

 

[catholictiger]

St. Louis Basilica

thanks may be going to mass there this summer, that makes me want to go even more.

 

[Markus2007]

So did anybody read this text and if so, wha tdo you think about it? kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

I’m probably no expert on the issue but it sounds rather convincing to me.

 

[Gorgias]

So did anybody read this text and if so, wha tdo you think about it?

it sounds rather convincing to me.

I think that the difference between argumentation and honest research can often be found in what the writer omits rather than in what he writes.

The author of your article includes the PBC’s answers to the first three questions, but for some reason, does not discuss the final two questions and their answers. I wonder why…?

Here are the final two questions and their answers:

Question VII: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these? – Reply: In the negative.

Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes? – Reply: In the affirmative.

Hmm. The PBC affirms that the first chapter of Genesis is not a scientific discussion of “the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation”, and that the notion of ‘six days’ isn’t necessarily six days. And yet, the author of that piece states unequivocally that “God finished the creation of the world and all of the different kinds of creatures specifically on the sixth day of a seven day week.” It’s not the main thrust of his article, so he doesn’t go on at length about it, but still, he’s not exactly reporting what the PBC actually found, now, is he?

There are other issues with his assertions, as well. He claims that “[f]or the first five centuries of the Church, all of the Fathers believed and proclaimed”, and yet, that’s not what the PBC asserted, either: question two speaks of the “almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers”, and question four alludes to the way that “in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently” (‘quos Patres et Doctores diverso modo intellexerunt’). Hmm… looks like the author seems to have missed that assertion about the “almost unanimous opinion” in his discussion of question two, too! What a coincidence!

So, at the very least, this author is shading his arguments in a particular and distinct way, and is – at the very least – avoiding magisterial opinions to the contrary, if not mischaracterizing them altogether!