R
ricmat
Guest
In general, the Church magisterium (Pope included) speak authoritatively only on matters of faith and morals.
- Status
C
codeyrolley
Guest
I guess you could say true revelation and true science is always the same thing. God arranged nature exactly the way he wanted it to be. This is how we know the Bible is true by looking at it’s contents and comparing it with what we know about names, places and events. This is done through science and study, the more we learn about science, it seems the more solid of a foundation Christianity is set on. Anyone that takes the Gospels serious realizes how painfully obvious that knowing the truth isn’t easy.
W
Walter_Maxey
Guest
I’m not sure I understand your question.
you meant, “How did they manage to so purposefully avoid adding history or science to Church Doctrine?”
The answer: By being careful.
Other religions are less careful, and they import factually disprovable concepts into their theology. The Catholic Church allows many scientific beliefs within the construct of the Church. You can be a Creationist, and you can be an “evolutionist”…either way, you can be a good Catholic. Not so for some protestant faiths.
Perhaps you meant, “Why did the Church adopt the bible as its primary work of public Revelation, and then turn around and disavow historical claims.” I’m not sure they did. I think they adopted the theological principles of the Bible, and stopped there, leaving science to scientists, and history to historians.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
The reason I can not become a catholic in a nutshell. Good luck with your journey, I have been serious about becoming a catholic for gee, is it nearly or over a year now???
I gave it one year max. Thank you for reminding me how I did all I could to find a way and there just is not one.
P
Paxvobis
Guest
sparta2011,
The Catholic Church doesn’t interpret the Bible in any way that conflicts with science.
Consider the fact that the universe was created through God’s eternal word (Jn. 1:1). That means that at it’s deepest level, the universe is able to be understood. There are two ways that this could be done, by divine revelation (Sacred Scripture and Tradition, which are philosophical matters) and by scientific investigation (which is matter for empirical discovery).
Always remember that the Catholic tradition does not interpret all of the Bible in a literalistic manner. The Bible contains a variety of literary genre. Certain parts, such as the Gospels, must be taken as literal history, while other parts, such as the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis, display truth but in a more poetic fashion.
Also remember that there are three different levels of the Church’s magisterium, only two of which are infallible. The church has never declared infallible anything which contradicts with what we know through scientific investigation (and never has, talk about a guarantee by the Holy Ghost! :yup
Please get back to me about specific examples of where you have heard the Catholic Church is out of harmony with science, and I can help clear up misunderstandings.
B
buffalo
Guest
This needs to be reworded to:sparta2011,
The Catholic Church doesn’t interpret the Bible in any way that conflicts with science.
Consider the fact that the universe was created through God’s eternal word (Jn. 1:1). That means that at it’s deepest level, the universe is able to be understood. There are two ways that this could be done, by divine revelation (Sacred Scripture and Tradition, which are philosophical matters) and by scientific investigation (which is matter for empirical discovery).
Always remember that the Catholic tradition does not interpret all of the Bible in a literalistic manner. The Bible contains a variety of literary genre. Certain parts, such as the Gospels, must be taken as literal history, while other parts, such as the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis, display truth but in a more poetic fashion.
Also remember that there are three different levels of the Church’s magisterium, only two of which are infallible. The church has never declared infallible anything which contradicts with what we know through scientific investigation (and never has, talk about a guarantee by the Holy Ghost! :yup
Please get back to me about specific examples of where you have heard the Catholic Church is out of harmony with science, and I can help clear up misunderstandings.
The Catholic Church doesn’t interpret the Bible in any way that conflicts with correctly reasoned science.
J
jomoco
Guest
Seems a bit too convenient for the Pope and the magesterium, scientifically and otherwise. They get to take on the authority that Christ Himself never enjoyed on earth in the flesh, yet mantain all the flaws and failings inherent to the rest of us through some indefinable means apparent to no-one outside their circle of flawed mortal MEN.
The Bible is a mystery that has not to date been solved. Yet it beckons us to read it, search it with new eyes, to seek until ye find the truth behind its mysteries. None of the Popes have yet to find what Christ knew as He died upon the cross for our sake, in my humble opinion.
When the truth of the Bible is atlast revealed, it will be quite tangible and self-evident to all throughout the entire world to marvel at, and thank God for.
jomoco
B
buffalo
Guest
Your claim is we do not yet know dogmatic truths from Scripture after 2000 years?
J
jomoco
Guest
From an objective viewpoint it certainly appears that way in my opinion.
Respectfully,
jomoco
B
buffalo
Guest
Any specifics?
J
jomoco
Guest
Well, the Bible speaks in parable and allegory of things lukewarm being spewed out as distasteful and duplicitous.
When a church can be against war and killing, yet somehow find it acceptable for its parishoners to engage in with blood stained hands on a daily basis for years, strikes me as duplicity in its most deadly form of flawed sinful men at their very worst.
jomoco
R
Ranp
Guest
Jomoco
Respectfully, whatever in the world has lead you to assume that you are objective in your opinion of the Catholic Church and science? In my long years of life I have yet to meet anyone I considered to be a truely objective person. Of course, I have meet many in science and religion who made the claim of being objective and even made the claim myself during an earlier, more naive period of my life. Claiming to be objective is usually just another way people attempt to be self righteous. In any case, your words sound very subjective.
Ran
B
buffalo
Guest
I do not know what you are referring to.
J
jomoco
Guest
Well, I guess parable and allegory can be a bit too conveniently confusing at times lately.
jomoco
B
buffalo
Guest
I side with the Magisterium in how Scripture is interpreted which is consistent with the constant understanding and teaching.
P
promethius95945
Guest
I’m not changing the subject. It was YOU who stated (and I quote) “The empirical evidence of Copernicus and Galileo being scientifically right, and the Catholic Church being wrong, suggests otherwise in a manner quite tangible and self evident.”
I am merely pointing out that in fact, all of Galileo’s “empirical evidence” was NOT correct in any scientific sense. His “proofs” were either incorrect or likewise explained in Tycho Brahe’s model.
As for Copernicus’ empirical proofs: WHAT empirical proofs?
You see, for church bashers, it’s useful to imagine that Copernicus and Galileo were infallible geniuses who presented whole and complete theories with irrefutable proof which the Catholic church then ignored.
The reality, however, which is much more pleasing to those interested in truth (about both history and science) is that Copernicus and Galileo were presenting the VERY BEGINNINGS of a new theory which was widely ridiculed in the scientific community at the time and that neither of them presented emperical evidence which could not be explained by other existing theories (or, in the case of the tidal argument, was altogether incorrect). The situation with approval of heliocentrism is, simply put, not as cut and dried as enemies of the church would like it to be.
temporarily on the basis of it needing six minor corrections. And even with that it was only banned decades after it was published.
Yes. It is true and self-evident in a much more complex sense than what you would like to present as reality. If I were to take your simple position, I would have to ignore the complex political and scientific environment at the time, as well as the pressure created by the german protestants agitating against the church for taking such a scientific and “unbiblical” perspective. Recall, if you will, that Copernicus was a religious, and Galileo was an employee of the church, so their works affected public opinion of the church during the reformation.
For that reason, I point out that the document you presented is a lot of grandstanding with very little basis in ACTUAL church teaching, which is why it becomes important to know what is or is not dogmatic teaching of the church. (Another example: the public record released said Galileo was tortured, while modern historians all recognize that this was a clever ruse and that internal documents released later prove that Galileo’s treatment was actually very civil)
It’s not about responsibility. It’s about what is or is not infallible. The judgements of any court of inquisition are, simply put, not infallible. Teachings on faith and morals by ecumenical councils or the pope when acting ex cathedra are. Anything else is not.
You mistake, however, if you think I’m overly defending the church. I’m taking this stand on the basis that you do science a great discredit by pandering a false history of the works of two brilliant men. You trivialize their contributions to modern physics when you create infantile charicatures of their work for whatever theo-political purpose you cleave to.
J
jomoco
Guest
So what does the Magisterium teach or understand about Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed?
Matthew 13:31-32 tells the parable of the mustard seed: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.”
jomoco
B
buffalo
Guest
[31] Another parable he proposed unto them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field. [32] Which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof. [33] Another parable he spoke to them: The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened. [34] All these things Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes: and without parables he did not speak to them. [35] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.
Commentary - The least of all seeds. That is, it is one of the least seeds; but in hot countries it is observed to grow to a considerable height, and to become a bush or a little tree. Wi. — The gospel of Christ, compared in this verse to the grain of mustard seed, has indeed little show of grandeur and human greatness. S. Paul calls it a scandal to the Jew, and a stumbling block to the Gentile. But Jesus Christ here assures us, that when it has been spread and promulgated by his ambassadors, viz. the apostles, it shall surpass every other mode of instruction both in fame and extent. S. Amb. S. Jer. S. Aug.
From the Catholic Catechism:
186 From the beginning, the apostolic Church expressed and handed on her faith in brief formula normative for all.1 But already very early on, the Church also wanted to gather the essential elements of her faith into organic and articulated summaries, intended especially for candidates for Baptism:
This synthesis of faith was not made to accord with human opinions, but rather what was of the greatest importance was gathered from all the Scriptures, to present the one teaching of the faith in its entirety. And just as the mustard seed contains a great number of branches in a tiny grain, so too this summary of faith encompassed in a few words the whole knowledge of the true religion contained in the Old and the New Testaments.2 2 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. illum. 5,12: PG 33,521-524.Now what was Christ trying to get across here?
Strong’s Concordance, tracing the Greek to English, gives the meaning for both as “least, less, little, or small in size, number, or dignity.” So we can see by the word itself and its context in these two passages that the mustard seed indeed is a very small thing, hence it is touted as the “smallest of all seeds.”
R
ricmat
Guest
Perhaps this would be a subject for another thread. But what are your requirements for a church that you would join? What does it have to do with being in harmony with science?
J
jomoco
Guest
So let’s delve down into the very basis of how the Magesterium took on the attributes of infallibility when Peter himself proved fallible by denying knowledge of Christ three times?
How does this infallibility get mysteriously conferred to flawed man after flawed man throughout our history of sin and bloodshed, that objectively proves our current and ongoing fallibilty to date?
Again I ask you how the Magesterium is able to take on an authority here on earth, that Jesus Himself never got to enjoy here on earth in the flesh?
Respectfully,
jomoco
- Status