S
shocktrooper
Guest
both
- Status
S
shocktrooper
Guest
I am not sure what is so hard about this. Rome has spoken and none of these teachings have ever been recanted. I would really like for the other side to present Magisterial documents to back their positions. Until then, know that you are dissenting from a teaching of the Catholic Church.
Pope Pius X, Motu Proprio Praestantia Scripturae, 18 Nov. 1907 (* [1907] 724ff; EB nn. 278f; Dz 2113f): “We now declare and expressly enjoin that all Without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter, exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are on matters of doctrine and approved by the Pope; nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and of rashness or be therefore without grave fault.”**
Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis
June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)
I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.
II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.
III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.
IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.
V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.
VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.
VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.
VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.
Please, anyone, show me where the Catholic Church and an official arm of the Magisterium has ever authoritatively taught anything contrary to this.
Pope Pius X, Motu Proprio Praestantia Scripturae, 18 Nov. 1907 (* [1907] 724ff; EB nn. 278f; Dz 2113f): “We now declare and expressly enjoin that all Without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter, exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are on matters of doctrine and approved by the Pope; nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and of rashness or be therefore without grave fault.”**
Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis
June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)
I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.
II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.
III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.
IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.
V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.
VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.
VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.
VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.
Please, anyone, show me where the Catholic Church and an official arm of the Magisterium has ever authoritatively taught anything contrary to this.
B
buffalo
Guest
Both - they are complementary. One speaks to the order of creation, the other the importance of man.
B
buffalo
Guest
Both - they are complementary. One speaks to the order of creation, the other the importance of man.
W
Wardog
Guest
If you are going to take Genesis literally, then both cannot be right. The first one says God created Man and Woman from clay and breathed life into them. The second says God put Adam to sleep and created Woman from his rib.
This thread has been saying that Adam and Eve were historical figures from whom we are descended. If this is true, then one of the two creation stories is wrong.
Only if Adam and Eve are archetypes that portray the fall of Man can both be considered correct.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Good point.
The first Genesis account is reputed to be a ‘Priestly’ (P) source. Possibly written by Ezra during the Babylonian exile because it focuses on the transcendence of God and the Sabbath, and that man is God’s special creation. Sorry to nit pick, but it doesn’t actually
mention the creation of woman. In the original Hebrew, 'let us make man in our own image is apparently literally ‘man’ and plural, not woman.
The second source is reputed to be ‘Yahwhist’ (Y) in origin, and is believed to be much older than the ‘P’ source. It focuses on the imminence of God, and His direct involvement with his creation.
I would agree with you that only if Adam and Eve are archetypes that portray the fall of Man can both be considered correct.
R
razredge
Guest
Oh, I completely agree that it is simply based on a literal reading of scripture.
But over on an other thread someone was claiming that it wasn’t solely based on scripture but tradition as well (of course, no doubt the tradition was also based on the very same reading of scripture)
B
Benadam
Guest
minkymurph;8306362:
They are archetypes being the originals right? Genesis happens once. These two accounts of what happened are both true.
R
razredge
Guest
R
razredge
Guest
It was formally declared heresy and I do not think you could protest to the Church at the time that it was not binding since it wasn’t declared doctrine.
The Papal condemnation:
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
Far stronger than any condemnation of polygenism,( which the Church has largely not mentioned since Pius XII) - indeed some Catholics like Sungenis believe that the Sun does go around the Earth as if heliocentrism was true it would undermine papal infallibility.
R
razredge
Guest
Firstly, he is quoting from the Genesis story - where it is described as a deed of particular persons.
Secondly, his relational model of OS could well have its origin at the act of a single individual called Adam - who was not the only biological human around at the time.
Yes, good point - basically the literalists stick to a literal reading til contradictions appear which they then try to reconcile by moving away from a literalist reading or suggesting ad hoc explanations. So really they’re only happy to stick with a literalist reading as long as it suits them personally.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
Guys, when you condemn us for this, you condemn the authority (teaching authority to bind and loose) behind the Church, GOD. God gave authority to the Catholic Church and you are dissenting from Her teachings. Whatever happened to submitting to God and conforming our will to His?
You don’t have to understand the teachings in order to give your ascent of faith to them. Everyone seems to be ignoring the clear teachings and boundaries the Church has laid out for the faithful.
Pax Christi.
B
buffalo
Guest
Catholics understand scripture as to what the author intended to convey.
Both are true. One is more expansive than the other.
R
razredge
Guest
‘Binding and Loosing’ is not the authority to dictate physical reality and overturn the scientific evidence.
Rather, 'whatever happened to submitting your God given capacity to reason to the well meaning, but scientifically ignorant men living in pre-scientific times and speculating on things which they did not know.
You seem to think that we ‘ignore’ the teachings the Church for no reason at all - we are not simply being contrarian, we recognise that there is a contradiction between certain teachings of the Church and the findings of modern science, since truth cannot contradict truth - one of them has to be wrong and we have good reason to believe that the teachings have to be revised rather than the scientific evidence rejected.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
What about the third option: That they don’t contradict, and you are wrong?
R
razredge
Guest
Sure, but the burden of proof is on you to show that a literal, historical Adam & Eve is compatible with the polygenism of modern biology.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Did you read what I posted from the encyclical on modernism?
This is precisely what is condemned.
You are holding Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture subordinate to scientific conclusions. Polygenism is a condemened heresy. But you claim the burden is on Catholics to accept that heresy and redefine their faith because some scientists say polygenism is true.
Pax and God Bless.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
No, it isn’t. I’m Catholic, and I accept the Church’s claims, and allow myself to speculate and consider the speculations of others within the bounds of theology that have not been formally defined. It’s also a philosophical error, since I can’t prove anything to you. I can persuade you, and you determine what is proof for you. Lastly, I don’t particularly take interest in whether you are persuaded or not. You seem to be very opinionated about a multitude of Catholic teachings, and you don’t seem open to having your preconceived notions examined. And, for the record, polygenism is still in the highly disputed stage. It is not a consensus, and that is simple fact. I find it amusing that you are so quick to jettison dogma at the first whim of an hypothesis for human origins.
Do you consider yourself Catholic, or are you only Catholic as long as you think the Church will change? Or even worse, do you stay Catholic, call yourself Catholic, tell other people that you are Catholic, and yet continue to distort Catholic teaching to fit your conception of how the universe works? Wouldn’t you have more integrity to simply not be Catholic? Mind you, this isn’t what I’m hoping for you, but if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself, I’m not sure how you can be such an obvious contradiction?
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
I repeat: TRADITION is not that Adam and Eve were real.
Tradition is no to say what people said centuries ago.
It is what God wanted us to know.
For instance, with sexual education of children. At the beginning you say that babies come from Paris in a stork. Then you say that there is a seed that Pappa put in Mummy. Then, you you develop to primary school thought to teenagers and so on.
W may not say that babies coming from Paris is faith dogma on sexual education.
No. It is a step, a necessary step maybe to reach upper levels. Adam and Eve story is a step as well as the Popes who interpreted so till Darwin. We are in another step now.
Another example is Galileo. Till him, the church interpeted things in one way. He (as well as Dawrin) was God-given to teach us a few things about the Wisdom of God and the Universe he created.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Ugh.
- Status