Genesis and fact

  • Thread starter Thread starter anglead56
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Third_Day said:
Pope Pius XII did not forbid “research and discussion” and then he adds " However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question

Where did Pope John Paul say that in his address?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Pope in his wisdom allowed for research into evolution to debunk it once and for all.
 
buffalo said:
Perhaps the Pope in his wisdom allowed for research into evolution to debunk it once and for all.
Click to expand...
That is my goal in the specific area of human nature as described by Genesis and as declared a doctrine by the Catholic Church.

It is not my intention to attack evolutionary theory as it applies to non-human living organisms; but rather to demonstrate the possibility of two, real, fully complete humans as sole parents of all humanity.

Contributors to the Nitty-Gritty thread in Back Fence Forum are a great help in defining areas for research and in providing information. Especially as they are teaching me. Without these friends, I would be dead in the water.

Really wish I could find a current practicing human genetics scientist to work with in order to make sure that I am within reasonable scientific methods and expectations. A very curious post-doc would be great.

Blessings,
granny

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146
 
+Getting just a bit closer back to the original subject of this thread . . . Jeff Cavins approach to Sacred :bible1: Scripture ** . . . is a very human mind-oriented/mental-intellectual approach . . . however . . . quite frankly . . . for my simple soul . . . not believing literally in the ** Bible as written . . . but believing in the “truths” it presents . . . makes no sense whatsoever . . . how a soul can divide the “words” of God’s Holy :bible1: Word from the “truths” . . . without indulging in private interpretation . . . and winding up in a distinct degree of doubt and unbelief in God’s . . . Holy :bible1: Word . . . is quite beyond my comprehension . . . my approach and belief regarding Sacred Scripture can be simply gathered up in the well known adage below . . .

+********God said it
I believe it, and that settles it for me.+

As a Franciscan and Benedictine trained soul . . . Lectio Divina (divine reading) . . . has always been my primary approach to Sacred Scripture . . .

Prayer . . . is essentially the heart of one’s soul “talking” to its God . . . on the other hand . . . meditation is taught in Sacred :bible1: Scripture and by Holy Mother Church as essentially being the heart of one’s soul “listening” to its God . . . the ultimate goal of these actions of the soul being that at the center . . . of the deep interior quiet within the heart of the soul . . . the soul enters into . . . *constant holy conversation and communion with its God *. . .

Lectio Divina (divine reading) . . . is perhaps the clearest most well lit holy pathway I know of for the soul to “listen” to its God . . . essentially it is encountering God in the reading of a literary level of holy writings in Christendom believed to be especially blessed and anointed of God . . . first order and always primary of which is God’s . . . **Holy :bible1: Word **. . . Sacred Scripture . . . and which group of writings can also include . . . The Holy Rule of St. Benedict . . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church . . . writings of the Fathers and Saints of the Church, etc., . . . and as such . . . when prayerfully read the . . . **Holy Spirit **. . . Wonderful Counselor of Our God . . . is abundantly available to help regarding the reading and understanding of same . . .

The holy Benedictine monk Archabbot Douglas R. Nowicki , O.S.B. of the Saint Vincent Archabbey in Latrobe, Pennsylvania here in the United States . . . recommends that we . . . *slow down radically *. . . when reflecting on inspired material . . . so as to . . . ***open up freely ***. . . to the treasury of insights contained therein . . . he goes on further to share with beautiful simplicity:

Lectio Divina (divine reading)
Archabbot Douglas R. Nowicki , O.S.B. (Order of St. Benedict)

“It is the **monastic insight **that reading, if it be authentic, cannot be undertaken simply with the eyes and the mind. Rather it must involve the whole person: mind, heart, body and spirit. It is reading not so much for information as for formation, that is, for encounter with the living God in this moment in such a way that one’s heart ❤️ catches fire and one’s life is transformed … In St. Benedict’s day reading a sacred or spiritual text was practiced not so much for the sake of ‘information,’ but rather in order to be ‘formed’: that is, to be inwardly changed or shaped. …

Thus the aim of lectio divina (divine reading), i.e., pondering the material in a slow, prayerful way, is to dispose ourselves to welcome God’s ever-present grace and His efforts to conquer our hearts and transform us more and more into a holy people . . . ”
​
. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Dear Blessed Lord+
. . . thank you Blessed St. Francis+
. . . thank you Blessed St. Benedict+
. . . praise God from Whom all blessings flow+
:harp:
​
 
Jesus_123 said:
+Getting just a bit closer back to the original subject of this thread . . . Jeff Cavins approach to Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . is a very human mind-oriented/mental-intellectual approach . . . however . . . quite frankly . . . for my simple soul . . . not believing literally in the ** Bible** as written . . . but believing in the “truths” it presents . . . makes no sense whatsoever . . . how a soul can divide the “words” of God’s Holy :bible1: Word from the “truths” . . . without indulging in private interpretation . . . and winding up in a distinct degree of doubt and unbelief in God’s . . . Holy :bible1: Word . . . is quite beyond my comprehension . . . my approach and belief regarding Sacred Scripture can be simply gathered up in the well known adage below . . .

+********God said it
I believe it, and that settles it for me.+

As a Franciscan and Benedictine trained soul . . . Lectio Divina (divine reading) . . . has always been my primary approach to Sacred Scripture . . .

Prayer . . . is essentially the heart of one’s soul “talking” to its God . . . on the other hand . . . meditation is taught in Sacred :bible1: Scripture and by Holy Mother Church as essentially being the heart of one’s soul “listening” to its God . . . the ultimate goal of these actions of the soul being that at the center . . . of the deep interior quiet within the heart of the soul . . . the soul enters into . . . constant holy conversation and communion with its God . . .

Lectio Divina (divine reading) . . . is perhaps the clearest most well lit holy pathway I know of for the soul to “listen” to its God . . . essentially it is encountering God in the reading of a literary level of holy writings in Christendom believed to be especially blessed and anointed of God . . . first order and always primary of which is God’s . . . **Holy :bible1: Word **. . . Sacred Scripture . . . and which group of writings can also include . . . The Holy Rule of St. Benedict . . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church . . . writings of the Fathers and Saints of the Church, etc., . . . and as such . . . when prayerfully read the . . . **Holy Spirit **. . . Wonderful Counselor of Our God . . . is abundantly available to help regarding the reading and understanding of same . . .

The holy Benedictine monk Archabbot Douglas R. Nowicki , O.S.B. of the Saint Vincent Archabbey in Latrobe, Pennsylvania here in the United States . . . recommends that we . . . slow down radically . . . when reflecting on inspired material . . . so as to . . . ***open up freely ***. . . to the treasury of insights contained therein . . . he goes on further to share with beautiful simplicity:

Lectio Divina (divine reading)
Archabbot Douglas R. Nowicki , O.S.B. (Order of St. Benedict)

“It is the **monastic insight **that reading, if it be authentic, cannot be undertaken simply with the eyes and the mind. Rather it must involve the whole person: mind, heart, body and spirit. It is reading not so much for information as for formation, that is, for encounter with the living God in this moment in such a way that one’s heart ❤️ catches fire and one’s life is transformed … In St. Benedict’s day reading a sacred or spiritual text was practiced not so much for the sake of ‘information,’ but rather in order to be ‘formed’: that is, to be inwardly changed or shaped. …

With all due respect can you please stop this silly colouring and bolding. It makes it really hard to read what you have written and frankly its irritating.
​
Click to expand...
​
 
Jesus_123 said:
+Getting just a bit closer back to the original subject of this thread . . . Jeff Cavins approach to Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . is a very human mind-oriented/mental-intellectual approach . . . however . . . quite frankly . . . for my simple soul . . . not believing literally in the Bible as written . . . but believing in the “truths” it presents . . . makes no sense whatsoever . . . how a soul can divide the “words” of God’s Holy :bible1: Word from the “truths” . . . without indulging in private interpretation . . . and winding up in a distinct degree of doubt and unbelief in God’s . . . Holy :bible1: Word . . . is quite beyond my comprehension . . . my approach and belief regarding Sacred Scripture can be simply gathered up in the well known adage below . . .
****God said it ******I believe it, and that settles it for me. **
Click to expand...
What needs to be remembered is that God, the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of Sacred Scripture. Divine Revelation concerning the truths of faith and morals found in Scripture is normally affirmed and clarified by major Church Councils with the guidance and wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit. The subsequent dogmas are not considered private interpretation.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth needs Catholicism.
 
Hi grannymh,

Essentially I was responding to Jeff Cavins’ statement which was made earlier in the thread as quoted below . . . his use of the all encompassing word . . . “We” . . . which is evidently meant to include all Catholics . . . and which he puts forward as evidently a dogmatic all encompassing Catholic Church doctrine . . . wherein the words of Sacred :bible1: Scripture are relegated to some sort of . . . poetic license . . . taken by the . . . **Holy Spirit **. . . as if God the Holy Spirit could or would lie to us and present a fantasy of falsehood before all mankind to present . . . “truths” . . . I found completely unacceptable, unsupported by Sacred :bible1: Scripture and Sacred Tradition and Magesterial Teachings . . .

We all need to be incredibly thankful to our Holy Mother Church for all her wise dogmatic counsels and useful doctrinal teachings . . . but even in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility . . . *which was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870 *. . . concerning the content of the infallible teachings of the Pope . . . there are clearly defined disciplines in place . . . and the infallible teachings of a Pope must be based on . . . or at least not contradict . . . **Sacred Tradition **or **Sacred :bible1: Scripture **. . .
jcavins said:
This is Jeff Cavins. …

What is important to remember is that Genesis 1-11 is a certain type of history, a poetic description of the beginnings. We don’t believe in a literalistic interpretation but we do believe in the truths conveyed in the narrative. Understanding the literary genre is important here. First, we must determine the Literal Sense (see CCC 112-117), which means we try to understand the intent of the human author. Then we look at the Spiritual Sense.
Click to expand...
As several have pointed out in this thread . . . the above is a personal opinion which is neither supported by Sacred :bible1: Scripture or centuries of Sacred Tradition . . . it is an individual’s personal point of view . . . containing scraps of incomplete material taken out of context from the Catechism . . .

Believing and taking **God’s. . . ** Holy :bible1: Word . . . seriously . . . as **infallible truth **is incredibly important and God’s Word is reverenced as infallible by the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church . . . while none of us can understand all of Scripture by any means . . . as God’s Catholic children we are most certainly . . . NOT . . . free to ramble through Sacred :bible1: Scripture and decide certain passages are fantasy . . . and therefore discard them as not to be believed as literal truth . . .

I’m reminded of Martin Luther in his later years . . . who wandered so far from Holy Mother Church and the . . . Truth . . . **Who is Christ Himself **. . . that he edited and threw out whole books and many other :bible1: Scripture passages . . . because he . . . “personally” . . . didn’t agree with them . . . or understand them . . . this is a . . . dangerous . . . dangerous . . . path which leads away from **God **. . . not toward Him . . . and exalts self over God . . .

:bible1: John 14:6 "Jesus saith to him: **I **am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me."
And now I shall climb off the soapbox . . . and go and wash up the dishes and do laundry, etc. . . . since today is my scheduled day off from work . . .

Ora et Labora (pray and work) . . .

Peace be with you . . . and God bless one and all . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​
 
“As several have pointed out in this thread . . . the above is a personal opinion which is neither supported by Sacred Scripture or centuries of Sacred Tradition . . . it is an individual’s personal point of view . . . containing scraps of incomplete material taken out of context from the Catechism . . .”

Please elaborate as to how this “is an individual’s personal point of view” when it very clearly states what he is saying in the Catechism, how is it taken out of context?

What Jeff Cavins seems to be implying is what I’m reading out of the Catechism, I do not see a difference or find error in what he is saying…🤷
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition has a separate paragraph in regard to Genesis. It is paragraph 390, How to read the account of the Fall

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”
Italics are from the Catechism
 
The Holy Catholic Church has the God-given authority and responsibility to interpret the Holy Scriptures and to impart this clearly to its members. We are not free to hold a position that is forbidden by the Church but it is equally dangerous to impute doctrinal status to things that are not explicitly stated by Holy Mother Church. A relevant example is the theory of ‘Limbo’. while there have been lot of debate on the topic dating from the early church, it is still not strictly forbidden nor is it a doctrine of faith that we must believe.
I am the first to concede that almost everything that is controversial with regards Catholic doctrine is purely academic and of little practical importance in our day to day lives, still doctrine should be made as clear as humanly possible so that our meditations on scripture does not stray to heresy or lead us to positions that causes unreasonable barriers to the conversion of others.
 
+Just a gentle word of caution . . . being this is the internet we have no way of knowing if the individual calling themselves Jeff Havens is really Jeff . . . or if it is someone posing as Jeff . . . it is questionable whether this individual poster is really Jeff or someone else altogether . . . discussion of the comments contained in the post is fine . . . but perhaps believing a single post posted under a well known name calls for some common-sense reserve and caution?

**PJD1987 **
  • Point #1: The post in question states unequivically . . . “We don’t believe in a** literalistic** interpretation …” This unbelief is not in harmony with the below portion of the Catechism.
  • The Catechism clearly states Sacred :bible1: Scripture can be believed on two (2) levels . . . not just one . . . it is not an either/or situation . . . but a both/and type of understanding that is revealed . . . with the second level of knowledge being divided up into three sublevels of perceiving revelations of truth . . . and the literary genre doesn’t affect the truth of the revelation in any way.
**. . . :coffeeread: . . .**The senses of Scripture

115 **
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal** and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

**116 **
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

**117 **
The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction."85
  2. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 **
A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four** senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

**119 **
"It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, …​
  • **Point #2: ** God is the author of Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . and it contains infallible truth (truth without error) . . .
. . . :coffeeread: . . .
II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture

**105 **
God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

**106 **
God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107
The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit,** we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures**."72​
. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Gracious Lord+​
 
jbarbaretta said:
The CCC is a great source, but it is not all inclusive. In this case it is silent on the issues listed above. If it discussed it one way or the other, I would certainly give it greater weight than EWTN, but since it does not discuss it, that does not mean it is open to personal interpretation. I would suggest researching this to see if this is, in fact, a requirement for Catholics to believe or one of many possibilities.
Click to expand...
My (imperfect) understanding is that the CCC is indeed all inclusive as far as what we “MUST” believe. Topics not covered within the CCC are not necessarily open to personal interpretation, but are not a requirement for Catholics to believe.

Again, this is my (imperfect) understanding and not necessarily what all Catholics must believe 🙂 But it works for me…

God bless!
 
I think everyone needs to know we can’t pick and choose. Genesis records a real event that occurred in history. Adam and Eve are our first parents. Their Original Sin led to Jesus Christ being born in history.

Peace,
Ed
 
Jesus123

Thank you for your response, I see what you’re saying a bit more clearly now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top