Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
With regard to creation the Catholic Church has interpreted Genesis consistently for centuries.

Science has recently challenged much of this with raw data. I have immense respect for science as I have much respect for Tradition.

The question - The Holy Spirit guarantees the Church will be free from error. How could the Holy Spirit let us be so misguided for so long, and only now science is correcting these errors? Was the Holy Spirit sleeping? Why did he let us misinterpet Scripture? This makes no sense.

I submit that the Holy Spirit was not sleeping. There must be something we are missing.
 
buffalo said:
With regard to creation the Catholic Church has interpreted Genesis consistently for centuries.

Science has recently challenged much of this with raw data. I have immense respect for science as I have much respect for Tradition.

The question - The Holy Spirit guarantees the Church will be free from error. How could the Holy Spirit let us be so misguided for so long, and only now science is correcting these errors? Was the Holy Spirit sleeping? Why did he let us misinterpet Scripture? This makes no sense.

I submit that the Holy Spirit was not sleeping. There must be something we are missing.
Click to expand...
Yes we are definitely missing something. Perhaps we have misinterpreted that the Holy Spirit keeps the Church error free. We have done a great deal of twisting and turning to try to keep that conclusion inviolate. Since we obviously have in the past misunderstood the import of Genesis, perhaps we have failed to understand this concept properly as well. Of course that does open up a rather nasty little basket doesn’t it?

I agree with you, the Holy Spirit is not asleep. She is always present. So it must be us.
 
How could the Holy Spirit let us be so misguided for so long, and only now science is correcting these errors?
Click to expand...
What in the world are you talking about? Who is this “us?” I’ve been a life long Catholic, and I was never misguided by the Catholic Church about Genesis.

If you are reading Genesis like it’s a science book, that is your own mistake. The Catholic Church doesn’t read Genesis like that. :rolleyes:

There was a time, say in the late 17th century, while Isaac Newton was alive, that certain Protestant Divines (like William Whiston) tried to square Genesis with the scientific discoveries of his day. That was long ago discounted.

Since science has verified things like the age of the planet, and fossil records etc. everyone, meaning ALL Christians and maybe Jews too, realized that Genesis was not to be taken so literally as previously supposed, and that it actually was more theological verities than scientific ones. 👍

No one was deceived, everyone just assumed. That’s not the Holy Spirit’s fault, or even any church’s. Mysteries are like that, they unfold with time. 🙂
 
AmbroseSJ said:
What in the world are you talking about? Who is this “us?” I’ve been a life long Catholic, and I was never misguided by the Catholic Church about Genesis.

If you are reading Genesis like it’s a science book, that is your own mistake. The Catholic Church doesn’t read Genesis like that. :rolleyes:

There was a time, say in the late 17th century, while Isaac Newton was alive, that certain Protestant Divines (like William Whiston) tried to square Genesis with the scientific discoveries of his day. That was long ago discounted.

Since science has verified things like the age of the planet, and fossil records etc. everyone, meaning ALL Christians and maybe Jews too, realized that Genesis was not to be taken so literally as previously supposed, and that it actually was more theological verities than scientific ones. 👍

No one was deceived, everyone just assumed. That’s not the Holy Spirit’s fault, or even any church’s. Mysteries are like that, they unfold with time. 🙂
Click to expand...
Catholic Dogma specifically, Adam and Eve and Eve coming from Adam.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Which Catholic Dogma? Please specify which Catholic Dogma addresses Adam and Eve, and Eve coming from Adam. :confused:
Click to expand...
HUMANI GENERIS
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Other Catholic Dogmas of relevance …

The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
 
reggieM said:
HUMANI GENERIS
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Other Catholic Dogmas of relevance …

The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
Click to expand...
Thank you ReggieM! 👍 Here we have Dogma of the Catholic Church, which is indeed relevant to Genesis, but HAS NOT been contradicted by science. Some scientists have shown that through DNA testing that the whole human race does indeed issue from a single set of parents. However, this may be an arguable point. But conversely I don’t think Science has PROVEN that more than one set of parents populated the whole earth. Regardless, this is NOT De Fide Dogma anyway! Other than that, no other Church Dogma with respect to Genesis has ever been contradicted by science, that I am aware of. 🙂
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Which Catholic Dogma? Please specify which Catholic Dogma addresses Adam and Eve, and Eve coming from Adam. :confused:
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church’s teaching magisterium has clearly identified essential facts whose literal and historical meaning Catholics may not call into question because they touch upon fundamental Christian teachings. The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission affirms these facts include:
“…the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer.” (from Acta apostolis sedis, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission], pages 567-69, translated in Rome and the Study of Scripture, 7th edition, and cited from Origin of the Human Species by Dennis Bonnette, page 145)

Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil’s persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? – Reply: In the negative. Back
 

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

*more…
*
 
I would still maintain that the church is not trying to explain Genesis in a scientific way, but in theological way. We are to understand Genesis as literally true, but that does not mean that it is to be understood as having been scientifically explained. The science behind the Biblical truths may never be known. That is an important distinction.

Biblical miracles are another example. There may never be a scientific explanation. Yet we believe them with certainty and Faith. Nothing is impossible with God.

My original point is that neither the Church nor the Holy Spirit has ever misled anyone with regard to Genesis. Whether we can find scientific support for Genesis is probably as hopeless as William Whiston’s theory of the creation of the earth in the late 17th century. 🙂
 
What I suggest is how to look at it is simple: science teaches us that women are created in the same manner as men, from the union of the appropriately sexed ovum and sperm. All human men and women that we know of are created in that way. That does not of course mean that God cannot and did not create at a period in the evolution of the planet, a man and then a woman in some special way.

Now, I am not advocating that one believe that mind you. I find it unlikely that a human writer writing goodness knows how many hundreds of years later had any evidence that this was the case. Rather, he had at best oral traditions passed down to that effect. In fact, as we know, there were two different oral traditions about the beginning of the earth. The final redactor of Genesis felt that they should both be included. Of course, such oral tranditions, formed in the minds of people who had little or know understanding of the biology of reproduction are certainly understandable, but unlikely to be accurate.

One is free of course to assume that God somehow caused the writer to “know” of this special reproduction, but then that begs the question why there are two different versions. Somebody forgot? or didn’t hear correctly? and of course why did he tell two persons at all?
 
buffalo said:
With regard to creation the Catholic Church has interpreted Genesis consistently for centuries.

Science has recently challenged much of this with raw data. I have immense respect for science as I have much respect for Tradition.

The question - The Holy Spirit guarantees the Church will be free from error. How could the Holy Spirit let us be so misguided for so long, and only now science is correcting these errors? Was the Holy Spirit sleeping? Why did he let us misinterpet Scripture? This makes no sense.

I submit that the Holy Spirit was not sleeping. There must be something we are missing.
Click to expand...
These are very good questions. This is not the only context in which it comes up. For centuries the Church consistently interpreted the relevant Scripture passages as literally meaning the earth was the immovable center of the universe. How could the Holy Spirit let us be misguided for so long? For centuries the Church consistently interpreted the Genesis flood as being global, and killing all men except the 8 aboard the ark. For centuries the Church consistently held out no hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants. How could the Holy Spirit let us be misguided for so long? For centuries the Church consistently held that all non-Catholics were bound for hell - invincible ignorance was not a possibility. How could the Holy Spirit let us be misguided for so long? What are we missing?

This shows, to be quite blunt about it, that Modernists are right (about this issue, I mean, not about everything) and Traditionalists are wrong. Modernists such as Tyrell make more of a distinction between revelation and theology, and revelation considered in itself and in the imperfect human means in which it must be transmitted, such as language. But if the traditional interpretation were correct, we would have had a perfect understanding of revelation. The physical sciences would have supported geocentrism, a young earth, and a global flood. There would never have been official Magisterial hope for salvation of non-Catholics or unbaptized infants. Traditionalists have no explanation for these things except for fighting the science (which makes them look ridiculous) or engaging in heavy history revisionism. Revelation is more an inchoate thing, an internal revelation of the Holy Spirit within each believer, than a collection of formulas.
 
reggieM said:
HUMANI GENERIS
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
Click to expand...
And what is this “generation” spoken of here? Does original sin in a hybrid clone, in which nuclear DNA from a somatic human cell is inserted into an animal egg cell, and cell division is then stimulated, come about via “generation”? If you want to take Pius XII’s statement literally, you cannot say the hybrid clone is a “true man”, as thus there would be a man on earth who did not take his origin through natural generation. “FrRJBoyd” ducked the question on another thread and no one stepped forth to answer it.
Other Catholic Dogmas of relevance …
Click to expand...
The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
Click to expand...
There are no de fide statements here which could really be challenged by science. However, the “sent. certa” statement that “the whole human race stems from a single human pair” will certainly be challenged if this means Adam and Eve are the sole common ancestors. There’s overwhelming genetic evidence this is not the case.
 
We have not cloned a man yet, so know no one knows. And if we did, only God would know if that man had a soul. He may have an intellect and a will, this could be a sign that he could have a soul. But until someone is cloned(actually I hope that doesn’t happen) we won’t know. The soul is part of God that is put into our biological forms. That is why we yearn for something more in life. The beasts of the Earth don’t have this trait. Will God allow a person that has been made by science to have a piece of Himself? I’m not sure. :confused:
 
SeekingCatholic said:
(snip)
But if the traditional interpretation were correct, we would have had a perfect understanding of revelation. The physical sciences would have supported geocentrism, a young earth, and a global flood. There would never have been official Magisterial hope for salvation of non-Catholics or unbaptized infants. Traditionalists have no explanation for these things except for fighting the science (which makes them look ridiculous) or engaging in heavy history revisionism. Revelation is more an inchoate thing, an internal revelation of the Holy Spirit within each believer, than a collection of formulas.
Click to expand...
Who is to say that science is correct. When pushed they were able to come up with the nature of the ten plagues of Egypt. I have tried to get science to look at higher folds of space which would give the observer the ability to view revelation in the time of John the Divine as if it were a two thousand year old historical event.

For starters the Bible is more open to interpretations of time than any of modern science. Take note of how many in the quantum fields are coming to the church with the production of the “What the bleep do we know” and “Further down the rabbit hole” documentaries. There are things science can not explain and higher folds of space play havoc with human interpretations of time. Just moving from 3D 1 time and 1 inflation to a 6D with the appearance of 1 inflation gives multiple definitions of time.

Science is obligated to admit it does not have all the answers. Take time then, if two children of exact same age lived one at sea level and one in the mountains … the one at sea level would have experienced a longer life by a few billionths of a second but they still live in the same time and can speak to each other. What science can’t do is look at an idea that challenges their steady measure of the ticking of a clock (or understand anything more complex than a simple circle, I know having tried to explain an idea to several scientific communities) and for that it may be the blind spot or Achilles heel for science.

Is it right to believe in the ‘so said’ certainty of human thoughts over the Holy Spirit. There may have been bits not understood or lost over time through retelling and it may just be that science is so humanly certain of its position that it can’t see the terrible fall for its pride.
 
I will make this shorter and hopefully clearer.

If science is to be believed in its current form then there is no provision for God or miracles or Christ Jesus. That is why science is preferably taught as an atheistic subject.

Either science is to be believed and there is no God or science is wrong.

I believe in God and that we are approaching what should be a miraculous time if as people we can be agreeable and truthful.

Recently a Norwegian politician broke a story of plans to tattoo the population to be selected and sheltered for up to five years due to some event soon to happen, that is in Revelations.

It is a test of intellect to hold a mirror to a creature to examine its reaction. Would the human leadership reaction be to tell the truth?

If we are all about lies on every level and selfish preparations for some and doomsday vaults and radio transmitters beaming survival messages back to earth and hiding the truth about nuclear weapon stability … then any mishap, any harm, any devastation is not due to a lack of God’s love but entirely our fault due to our own utter wilful disrespect for life and love and truth.
 
To keep the thread on track what I am looking for is there a third option one that reconciles what science it telling us and what Catholic teaching has told us for 1900 years or so?
 
buffalo said:
To keep the thread on track what I am looking for is there a third option one that reconciles what science it telling us and what Catholic teaching has told us for 1900 years or so?
Click to expand...
What is the problem with the following scenario? Adam and Eve were specially created (in some fashion). Later, they, or their descendants, bred with non-human hominid forms which had evolved. This would explain the genetic diversity in humans, as well as the evidence for common descent (such as pseudogenes and retroviruses). This would have Adam and Eve as the common ancestors of all humans, though not the sole common ancestors of all humans.
 
SeekingCatholic said:
What is the problem with the following scenario? Adam and Eve were specially created (in some fashion). Later, they, or their descendants, bred with non-human hominid forms which had evolved. This would explain the genetic diversity in humans, as well as the evidence for common descent (such as pseudogenes and retroviruses). This would have Adam and Eve as the common ancestors of all humans, though not the sole common ancestors of all humans.
Click to expand...
The specially created part (I assume you mean supernaturally) is OK.

The second part could as long as polygenism is excluded.

If Adam and Eve were supernaturally created with “pure” genes and then through incest and time mutations developed, wouldn’t that account for the genetic diversity? Is interbreeding with non-humans necessary?
 
buffalo said:
The specially created part (I assume you mean supernaturally) is OK.

The second part could as long as polygenism is excluded.
Click to expand...
That depends on the exact definition of “polygenism”.
If Adam and Eve were supernaturally created with “pure” genes and then through incest and time mutations developed, wouldn’t that account for the genetic diversity? Is interbreeding with non-humans necessary?
Click to expand...
The mutation rate would have to be much, much higher. Moreover there still needs to be an explanation for retroviruses and pseudogenes. The odds for simultaneous insertions in the same spot in the genome is vanishingly small.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top