You have quite an interesting method of responding to my post. Rather than quoting it so that I can easily recognize a response, you post a separate response with the post#.
It is from respect for the intelligence of members and guests, that I suggest using the resources of CAF and the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
Please point out what specific paragraph numbers of the catechism my post contradicts, rather than making a blanket reference of the entire thing.
If you will kindly check post 436, you will not come across “a blanket reference of the entire thing.” Rather there is concern about a mixture.
The post is entirely supported by the Catechism, and more simply by the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed.
I respect the ability of readers to read for themselves.
Does the Catechism deny that we are creatures, or refute it in any way?
Since so many of the posts refer to creatures as part of the science aspect, I will also address the term creatures in reference to the Catholic teachings on human nature.
First, gentle readers,
Do not worry about the enormity of the task Peter John is suggesting regarding the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. In order to reply to Peter John’s question “Does the Catechism deny that we are creatures, or refute it in any way?” one does not have to read every paragraph, including the cross-references which would have to be read individually in the way they support a particular paragraph; the glossary; the footnotes; the introductory documents; and the Index of Citations. One should read the Catechism’s Prologue, especially the sections on the structure of the Catechism and the important practical directions for using the Catechism.
One simply has to realize that the Catholic Church teaches in a positive way.
However, if one is curious about how a particular teaching came to be, including the objections, then one is certainly welcome to check the footnotes and use the Index of Citations, to locate Church documents. The relevant sections of these documents can be found in
The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ISBN 0-89870-450-2 (HB); ISBN 0-89870-451-0 (PB)
Does the Catechism deny that man exists now in a fallen state, not in the state in which man was created?
The answer varies according to particular religions. For example, Catholicism treats human nature per se and the contracted state of Original Sin separately even though both involve one person.
Catholicism will use the word “fall” in reference to Adam’s action. It will also refer to a fallen human nature which in Catholic teaching means a wounded or flawed nature which has not been totally corrupted. One of the Protestant traditions is that man was born sinful. Catholics teach that man is inclined to sin. Very big difference.
When I defend the reality of Adam and Eve, I use the argument that we have the same basic human nature as Adam and Eve before the fall. This point is one of the major conflicts between Catholic and scientific definitions of human nature, creatures, animals, and species. It is my observation that Catholics do not have to reject science altogether because when scientific research is analyzed correctly, one discovers that the possibility of real sole parents of humanity is not absolutely ruled out.
Does not the Catechism affirm that Christ sanctified humanity by His inclusionin it?
Yes, in the primary sense that Christ is the promised Redeemer. This is possible because Christ is one Person two natures. I have noticed some interesting “anti-Catholic” website twistings regarding the Catholic dogma of the Hypostatic Union which is the union of the divine and human natures in the one divine Person, Jesus Christ. As I said in post 435, “A difficulty arises when a post has non-Catholic teaching mixed in with some comments similar to Catholic teaching.”
The real question concerns the scientific definitions of humanity as pointed out in other posts. The various scientific definitions of humanity and how humanity developed need to be challenged from the Catholic position.
Does the Catechism not say that we become children of god through baptism (it specifically cites this as a reason for infant baptism).
The Catechism’s paragraphs 1250 -1252 are good ones to read. The questions are–Why is this possible for human nature? Why should the human person, with a material anatomy, be outside the animal kingdom whose inhabitants also have material anatomies?
I have noticed some confusion about what “In the Image of God” actually means minus all the confusing frills that some authors use. One can start with CCC paragraphs 355-361. To understand the objections to science descriptions of animals, one also needs to look at paragraph 364 and then go back to paragraph 362 and continue reading through paragraph 368. Yes, I like to go beyond cherry picking.
does the Catechism deny that all things were created in the order described in Genesis? That is important because scientists did not consider the Bible in deciding what order it says life forms emerged.
When one reads CCC paragraph 337 plus the following paragraphs through 349, one discovers that a “denial”
Genesis question is not necessary.
To sum up. To find a solution to problems caused by churches rejecting science, one not only has to understand science in general, one has to understand Catholic doctrine in particular. Note. I do recognize that in some areas of doctrine and science, Catholicism apparently is willing to stand alone.
Blessings,
granny
Genesis 1: 1
