T
The_Barbarian
Guest
We can believe it, without conflict with the Magisterium. But we can’t consistently believe it, if we accept the evidence from the world itself.
I don’t think any person says He couldn’t. The evidence shows, however that He didn’t.
As St. Augustine noted, it is absurd to claim literal mornings and evenings, with no sun to have them. It is wrong, and contrary to the Magesterium to assert that Genesis must be literal in this respect.
No, then there is the contradiction St. Augustine pointed out. There are a number of others, such as God’s warning that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam ate, and then lived for many years thereafter.
If it’s taken literally, a great problem. But if it’s taken as the Church permits, no problem at all.
Exactly. The critical issue is not “who” said a thing, but “what” it is that he said. We can shorten that to “What it is, folks!”
You obviously haven’t read about it in the Condendum of the Catechism which is the Church’s teachings regarding strictly our FAITH. *The Catechism is not a theology book, but a book of the faith, for the teaching of the faith. In present day theological consciousness this fundamental difference is often not sufficiently present. **Theology does not invent with its method intellectual reflections that one can believe or not - in such a case the Christian faith would be entirely a product of our own thought and no different from the philosophy of religion. Theology, if rightly understood, is rather the effort to recognize the gift of knowledge that precedes the reflection. On this point, the Catechism cites the noted saying of St Augustine, that classically synthesizes the essence of the theological endeavour: “I believe in order to understand and I understand the better to believe” (158; Sermo 43, 7, 9). The relation between the given, which God offers to us in the faith of the Church, and our effort to appropriate this given in rational understanding, is a fundamental part of theology. The goal of the Catechism is precisely that of presenting this given that precedes us, whose developing doctrinal formulation of the faith is offered in the Church; it is a proclamation of faith, not a theology, even if a reflection seeking understanding is a natural part of an appropriate presentation of the teaching of the Church’s faith and in this sense faith is opened to understanding and to theology. Nevertheless, the difference between the work of proclamation or witness and that of theological reflection is not eliminated.**Those who search for a new theological system in the Catechism, or for surprising new hypotheses, will be disappointed. This is not the concern of the Catechism. Drawing from Sacred Scripture and the complex richness of tradition in its many forms and inspired by the Second Vatican Council, it offers an organic vision of the entirety of the Catholic faith, which is beautiful in its entirety - with a beauty in which the splendour of the truth shines forth. The present relevance of the Catechism is the relevance of the truth formulated and thought afresh once again. This relevance will remain intact far beyond the murmurings of its critics. *(CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH , ADDRESS OF CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER, 9 October 2002, Current Doctrinal Relevance of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Catechism of the Catholic Church: Ten years since its publication (11 October 1992)
past itinerant1’s curt remark and an inflated flat out demeaning and distorted fabrication. Obviously, itinerant1 wishes to ignore Pope John Paul II statement that science is truth.