F
fix
Guest
When did the Church have more married priests than unmarried priests?
When did the Church teach the marital act was dirty?
When was celibacy introduced? Not mandated by Church law, but first introduced?
- Status
When did the Church teach the marital act was dirty?
When was celibacy introduced? Not mandated by Church law, but first introduced?
T
thistle
Guest
Frankly I think that’s rubbish. You will have to produce some Church documents to prove you are not simply speculating!
F
fix
Guest
This is from the #2 man in the Vatican:
I find this interesting because I read frequently people claiming as long as something has not been decalred infallible then it can be ignored or may “change” in the future. But, we can see that is not true.
B
Beofuse
Guest
**
I have been reading Pope JP II’s Fides et ratio and your statement reminded me about the error of historicism:**
“87.Eclecticism is an error of method, but lying hidden within it can also be the claims of historicism. To understand a doctrine from the past correctly, it is necessary to set it within its proper historical and cultural context. The fundamental claim of historicism, however, is that the truth of a philosophy is determined on the basis of its appropriateness to a certain period and a certain historical purpose. At least implicitly, therefore, the enduring validity of truth is denied. What was true in one period, historicists claim, may not be true in another. Thus for them the history of thought becomes little more than an archeological resource useful for illustrating positions once held, but for the most part outmoded and meaningless now. On the contrary, it should not be forgotten that, even if a formulation is bound in some way by time and culture, the truth or the error which it expresses can invariably be identified and evaluated as such despite the distance of space and time.
In theological enquiry, historicism tends to appear for the most part under the guise of “modernism”. Rightly concerned to make theological discourse relevant and understandable to our time, some theologians use only the most recent opinions and philosophical language, ignoring the critical evaluation which ought to be made of them in the light of the tradition. By exchanging relevance for truth, this form of modernism shows itself incapable of satisfying the demands of truth to which theology is called to respond.”
I think many of us “Moderns” , since we have access to a wealth of information concerning history, philosophy, etc, somehow think that we have a truth that the Church doesn’t. I think this is a serious case of pride. I’m a cradle catholic who wandered for 20 years trying to come up with the truth on my own. I’m back home and I pray each day for Jesus to rid me of my pride. One way of doing this is to be obedient to HIS Church. Obeying the Church in all her teachings is liberating and not confining.
I will pray that you find it in your heart to accept the Church in all her teachings.
J
JReducation
Guest
Truth does not change. What has happened in the past is that the Church has taught something based on what it believed to be truth. In other words, it wasn’t truth at all. In those cases the Church has to restructure its thinking. As I have repeated many times in this thread, the most famous case in history was the case against Galileo. However, if something is truth, it will withstand the test of time. There is nothing that historical inquiry can do to change truth, other than unerstand how those who arrived at it did so.
As to infallibility and Church teaching, there is no requirement that a Church teaching be declared infallible to be authoritative. The fact that the Church can teach with authority is an infallible teaching. Some people get hung up on whether a teaching has been declared infallible or not. It does not need to be. As long as it has the authority of the Church behind it, it is binding until it is changed or reformulated. For example, the New Ordo is binding until it is reformulated. The teaching on artificial birth control is binding. Celibacy for Western priests is binding.
continued
As to infallibility and Church teaching, there is no requirement that a Church teaching be declared infallible to be authoritative. The fact that the Church can teach with authority is an infallible teaching. Some people get hung up on whether a teaching has been declared infallible or not. It does not need to be. As long as it has the authority of the Church behind it, it is binding until it is changed or reformulated. For example, the New Ordo is binding until it is reformulated. The teaching on artificial birth control is binding. Celibacy for Western priests is binding.
continued
J
JReducation
Guest
Continuation
As to celibacy: the Church never condemned or forbade marriage but has only required celibacy of those who would enter the priesthood so they could devote themselves completely to the care of Christ’s Flock (see Mathew 19:12) or who have otherwise taken vows to do so of their own free will (in response to 1 Tim 4:1-5); the Church has never dishonored marriage but has elevated its honor from its Old Testament and secular status while acknowledging Christ’s elevation of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven to an even more honorable status (in response to Heb 13:4); and the Church has not required celibacy of all ecclesiastics at all times in history (it was not required of the majority of ecclesiastics in the early Church, and in modern times certain converts are permitted to be married when receiving Holy Orders), although Christ’s counsel is normally followed (in response to 1 Cor. 9:5, which lists certain ecclesiastics who had the right at the time, but apparently chose not to exercise this right for the sake of the Gospel).
The Church has never required celibacy of priests in the Eastern rites who at one time made up the larger number of Catholic priests. The only priests who were obliged to celibacy, when it was promulgated were those in the Latin rite, which was common to Europe and its colonies.
Long before priests had mandatory celibacy, religious Brothers and nuns had volunary celibacy. It was mandated by their order, not by the Church. St. Francis of Assisi founded the first religious order to have both celibate and married members in 1223.
The history of celibacy was a matter of discussion and teaching from the time of Paul, but its final definition came at the First Lateran Council in 1123. Prior to that there were many rules as to who could or could not marry. There were also rules as to whether married deacons, priests and bishops could have intercourse with their wives. The entire history is too long for a single post.
Eventually, the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox adopted mandatory celibacy for Bishops and allowed married men to the deaconate and priesthood. However, they may not remarry once they are widowed. In the Western Church (Europe and its colonies) mandatory celibacy was for everyone, except the Pope, because he is not subject to this canon. The only canons that apply to the pope are those dealing with his election, not the exercise of his marital status.
However, we must also understand that any male who is elected pope must be eligible to be ordained a bishop, because canon law says that the pope must be a bishop. You can elect a deacon or priest to the papacy, but must ordain him a bishop. To be a bishop, the candidate must be celibate. Now, the flip side is that the pope is above canon law once he accepts the election. This has raised interesting academic questions as to whether a pope must remain celibate, though popes hae done so for many centuries.
Today, allowances are made for married men to be ordained priests if they have been priests or ministers in other Christian faiths and are conversting to Catholicism. After their reception into the Church, they prepare for ordination to the priesthood. This is not a rule, but an exception. Not every minister or priest from another Christian tradition that converts to Catholicism is automatically considered for ordination.
In the case of an Orthodox priest who converts to Roman Catholicism, he is already a priest. He is received into the Catholic Church and continues to be a priest. Ordination is not necessary, because the Orthodox Churches have valid Holy Orders.
An Eastern Rite Catholic priest may not become a Latin Rite Catholic priest. The Church wishes to preserve the Eastern Churches and their traditions. Since their numbers are so small, due to the number of Eastern Christian who belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church does not allow Eastern Catholic priests to switch to the Latin Rite, otherwise the Eastern tradition will be lost to the Catholic Church.
In the USA the Bishop’s Conference has asked Americans who belong to the Eastern rite to remain celibate as to avoid confusion among the faithful. This is only done as an agreement between the Eastern and Western Bishops in the USA, not as universal Church policy. In fact, Eastern Rite priests who come to the USA, already married, may exercise their ministry in full communion with the Catholic Church as they did in their homeland.
Finally, keep in mind that the question of celibacy applies only to secular priests. Religious priests are always celibate. Religious priests belong to either a religious order or a religious congregation. Religious orders and congregations take vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. Secular priests do not take such vows. A secular priest is any diocesan priest who is tied to a diocese and whose obedience is to the bishop of that diocese. A religious preist is not bound to a diocese or subject to any bishop. His major superior is the superior of his religious congregation or religious order and his territory of service is anywhere in which his religious institute serves or lives. Their only connection with the bishop is by contracts between the religious institute and the bishop to meet certain needs of the Church.
If celibacy were dropped tomorrow, a Franciscan, Dominican, Vincentian, Benedictine, Marist, Carmelite and so forth, would not be impacted. These men are first and foremost religious Brothers bound by the three vows and obedience to the Constitution of their religious institute. Therefore, they would still be celibate. The discontinuation of celibacy would only apply to priests who do not take vows and are subject to a bishop, diocesan (secular) priests.
JR
As to celibacy: the Church never condemned or forbade marriage but has only required celibacy of those who would enter the priesthood so they could devote themselves completely to the care of Christ’s Flock (see Mathew 19:12) or who have otherwise taken vows to do so of their own free will (in response to 1 Tim 4:1-5); the Church has never dishonored marriage but has elevated its honor from its Old Testament and secular status while acknowledging Christ’s elevation of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven to an even more honorable status (in response to Heb 13:4); and the Church has not required celibacy of all ecclesiastics at all times in history (it was not required of the majority of ecclesiastics in the early Church, and in modern times certain converts are permitted to be married when receiving Holy Orders), although Christ’s counsel is normally followed (in response to 1 Cor. 9:5, which lists certain ecclesiastics who had the right at the time, but apparently chose not to exercise this right for the sake of the Gospel).
The Church has never required celibacy of priests in the Eastern rites who at one time made up the larger number of Catholic priests. The only priests who were obliged to celibacy, when it was promulgated were those in the Latin rite, which was common to Europe and its colonies.
Long before priests had mandatory celibacy, religious Brothers and nuns had volunary celibacy. It was mandated by their order, not by the Church. St. Francis of Assisi founded the first religious order to have both celibate and married members in 1223.
The history of celibacy was a matter of discussion and teaching from the time of Paul, but its final definition came at the First Lateran Council in 1123. Prior to that there were many rules as to who could or could not marry. There were also rules as to whether married deacons, priests and bishops could have intercourse with their wives. The entire history is too long for a single post.
Eventually, the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox adopted mandatory celibacy for Bishops and allowed married men to the deaconate and priesthood. However, they may not remarry once they are widowed. In the Western Church (Europe and its colonies) mandatory celibacy was for everyone, except the Pope, because he is not subject to this canon. The only canons that apply to the pope are those dealing with his election, not the exercise of his marital status.
However, we must also understand that any male who is elected pope must be eligible to be ordained a bishop, because canon law says that the pope must be a bishop. You can elect a deacon or priest to the papacy, but must ordain him a bishop. To be a bishop, the candidate must be celibate. Now, the flip side is that the pope is above canon law once he accepts the election. This has raised interesting academic questions as to whether a pope must remain celibate, though popes hae done so for many centuries.
Today, allowances are made for married men to be ordained priests if they have been priests or ministers in other Christian faiths and are conversting to Catholicism. After their reception into the Church, they prepare for ordination to the priesthood. This is not a rule, but an exception. Not every minister or priest from another Christian tradition that converts to Catholicism is automatically considered for ordination.
In the case of an Orthodox priest who converts to Roman Catholicism, he is already a priest. He is received into the Catholic Church and continues to be a priest. Ordination is not necessary, because the Orthodox Churches have valid Holy Orders.
An Eastern Rite Catholic priest may not become a Latin Rite Catholic priest. The Church wishes to preserve the Eastern Churches and their traditions. Since their numbers are so small, due to the number of Eastern Christian who belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church does not allow Eastern Catholic priests to switch to the Latin Rite, otherwise the Eastern tradition will be lost to the Catholic Church.
In the USA the Bishop’s Conference has asked Americans who belong to the Eastern rite to remain celibate as to avoid confusion among the faithful. This is only done as an agreement between the Eastern and Western Bishops in the USA, not as universal Church policy. In fact, Eastern Rite priests who come to the USA, already married, may exercise their ministry in full communion with the Catholic Church as they did in their homeland.
Finally, keep in mind that the question of celibacy applies only to secular priests. Religious priests are always celibate. Religious priests belong to either a religious order or a religious congregation. Religious orders and congregations take vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. Secular priests do not take such vows. A secular priest is any diocesan priest who is tied to a diocese and whose obedience is to the bishop of that diocese. A religious preist is not bound to a diocese or subject to any bishop. His major superior is the superior of his religious congregation or religious order and his territory of service is anywhere in which his religious institute serves or lives. Their only connection with the bishop is by contracts between the religious institute and the bishop to meet certain needs of the Church.
If celibacy were dropped tomorrow, a Franciscan, Dominican, Vincentian, Benedictine, Marist, Carmelite and so forth, would not be impacted. These men are first and foremost religious Brothers bound by the three vows and obedience to the Constitution of their religious institute. Therefore, they would still be celibate. The discontinuation of celibacy would only apply to priests who do not take vows and are subject to a bishop, diocesan (secular) priests.
JR
F
franklin71
Guest
Hi, I’m new here. I am Protestant. I am not here to disagree with Catholicism. I am here to find out what we do agree upon. What unites us as Christians.
My first questions are about heresy.
Can someone be considered a Catholic but still not believe in the trinity?
Can someone be consider a Catholic but believe that Adam and Eve had physical sex with satan in the garden of eden. And that Cain is the physical son of Eve and satan from that union?
Can someone be considered a Catholic and yet believe that Cain’s descendants survived the great flood and that today there are those who call themselves Jews but are actually physical descendants of the devil?
Can someone be considered a Catholic by other Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church and yet believe that there were different (black, oriental, non German/Gaelic whites) Adam and Eve’s created on the 6th day of creation but that on the 8th Day (Genesis 2) God created Adam and Eve, that we know of, that are the ancestors of the German/Gaelic race only?
Would someone’s belief in the above interpretations of the Bible be considered a heretic and those beliefs heresy by the Roman Catholic Church?
My first questions are about heresy.
Can someone be considered a Catholic but still not believe in the trinity?
Can someone be consider a Catholic but believe that Adam and Eve had physical sex with satan in the garden of eden. And that Cain is the physical son of Eve and satan from that union?
Can someone be considered a Catholic and yet believe that Cain’s descendants survived the great flood and that today there are those who call themselves Jews but are actually physical descendants of the devil?
Can someone be considered a Catholic by other Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church and yet believe that there were different (black, oriental, non German/Gaelic whites) Adam and Eve’s created on the 6th day of creation but that on the 8th Day (Genesis 2) God created Adam and Eve, that we know of, that are the ancestors of the German/Gaelic race only?
Would someone’s belief in the above interpretations of the Bible be considered a heretic and those beliefs heresy by the Roman Catholic Church?
N
Namesake
Guest
That is the point where you turn you brain off.
J
JReducation
Guest
Faith in the Trinity is a dogma of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It was handed down from the Apostles to this day. While it is true that it took many years of dialogue to get the wording correct, the doctrine has always been part of the Church. Therefore, it is essential to be either a Catholic or an Orthodox, both of which are Apostolic Churches.
There is no such indication in the Book of Genesis. This would be adding an interpretation that is not there and that the the Apostolic Churches do not subscribe to, neither Catholic nor Orthodox. This belief would be contrary to Catholic exegesis on the Book of Genesis and the Creation story.
Can someone be considered a Catholic and yet believe that Cain’s descendants survived the great flood and that today there are those who call themselves Jews but are actually physical descendants of the devil?
Again, this is an incorrect interpretation of the Book of Genesis. There are two creation stories in Genesis. The first in chapter 1 and the second in chapter 2. They were written by different authors at different times, for different reasons. When the canon of scripture was put together, both stories were included in Genesis in two separate chapters. There is no 8th day. Look at Jewish tradition. There were only seven days to the week. They wrote the two stories of creation using the week as they knew it.
To say that God made the German/Gaelic race only is again a sin of bigotry that violates justice. It is a justification for discrimination and barbarism much as has been practiced through the centuries by different races and ethnic groups, including Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Arabs, Nazis, Chinese, and Americans. There is no way that one can be Catholic and subscribe to such bigotry and injustice.
They would be considered serious failure to understand the revealed truth contined in scripture. They are also very serious sins, more serious than heresy. They are serious violations of human rights and serious violations of scriptural truth.
I hope this helps you.
JR
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Forgive me, but just how is accepting a truth 'turning your brain off?"
Catholics don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
If something is true, it’s true. Why should I reject something ‘true’ simply because the Church stated it first?
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, one of the reasons why I became a Catholic was because I found that Catholic theology is one of the most well researched theologies in the world.
Do you realize that to be a Catholic theologian you must be a scholar? To be a bishop you must have a Doctoral Degree in Theology, Scripture, Canon Law, Liturgy or Philosophy.
You may have situations where scholars disagree and eventually either a council or the Holy Father has to make the call. But this is not before much intellectul dialogue and research.
Vatican II, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have invited non Catholic theologians, historians, linguists and scientists to teach at Pontifical universities to ensure that whatever theology comes out of there is well informed in all the different perspectives.
The last five popes have been scholars in their own right. I don’t believe there has been any turning off of the brain. The problem is that the average lay person is not trained in theology, tends to hear a decree or a theological position and runs with it without understanding it fully. This does not have to be the case. Today, there are theology courses being taught in many colleges, universities, diocesan centers and parishes.
JR
F
franklin71
Guest
Thanks for your reply JR.
Here is the response I received by one who claims to be a Catholic yet believes also what we discussed.
"“There is no such indication in the Book of Genesis. This would be adding an interpretation that is not there and that the the Apostolic Churches do not subscribe to, neither Catholic nor Orthodox. This belief would be contrary to Catholic exegesis on the Book of Genesis and the Creation story.”
That person’s opinion is wrong, and it is based upon current Catholic exegesis, which is not only open to change, but recognized by one of the prior Popes under the document which addresses the Church’s view on evolution.
The traditional Catholic approach is to recognize the early parts of Genesis as a mere myth, meant to convey the teachings of the need for a Messiah due to the fall of man. In tha context, of course they do not wish to have the story altered from its traditional position, and I agree somewhat with that.
However, from a historical veiwpoint, Catholic theology is open to further research into the origins of mankind, and that is a fact.
That the above commentator did not address it in this way shows he is an amateur theolgian at best, and I think it’s hilarious that Franklin chose to use as “evidence” some clown from yet another discussion board, with no academic credentials, no association with Catholicism, no menton of ancient soruces for the serpent seed, etc."
Maybe you have a response to them also. Thanks.
Here is the response I received by one who claims to be a Catholic yet believes also what we discussed.
"“There is no such indication in the Book of Genesis. This would be adding an interpretation that is not there and that the the Apostolic Churches do not subscribe to, neither Catholic nor Orthodox. This belief would be contrary to Catholic exegesis on the Book of Genesis and the Creation story.”
That person’s opinion is wrong, and it is based upon current Catholic exegesis, which is not only open to change, but recognized by one of the prior Popes under the document which addresses the Church’s view on evolution.
The traditional Catholic approach is to recognize the early parts of Genesis as a mere myth, meant to convey the teachings of the need for a Messiah due to the fall of man. In tha context, of course they do not wish to have the story altered from its traditional position, and I agree somewhat with that.
However, from a historical veiwpoint, Catholic theology is open to further research into the origins of mankind, and that is a fact.
That the above commentator did not address it in this way shows he is an amateur theolgian at best, and I think it’s hilarious that Franklin chose to use as “evidence” some clown from yet another discussion board, with no academic credentials, no association with Catholicism, no menton of ancient soruces for the serpent seed, etc."
Maybe you have a response to them also. Thanks.
M
mikew262
Guest
Men (and women) are sinful and foolish, thats reality. Look at the history of the Church; plenty of sinfulness among some of our Popes. Surely you cannot deny this.
So you are calling the Popes and Magesterium sinful and foolish? Interesting!
As you brought it up do tell us all when the Magesterium has been so foolish not to correctly follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Be specific please. Which infallible teaching did they misinterpret?
I have no way of knowing what guidance the Holy Spirit has given and what has been followed and what hasn’t (if any). My point is since man is fallible, he is capable of sin, pride, foolishness, etc. and thus potentially open to error when developing Church teachings and doctrine. Has this error ever happened? I don’t know, but I think the potential always exists.
T
thistle
Guest
You don’t know what guidance the Holy Spirit has given the Church???
How about what scripture is inspired and make up the Bible?
How about all the teachings you will find in the CCC if you care to read them?
Are you really a Catholic? If you are then you know all the teachings of the Church with regard to faith and morals are true. If you disbelieve one or more of these teachings or as the CCC states have stubborn doubts about any of them then that brings us back to the thread topic!!
G
GraceDK
Guest
Hey tristle.
Come on… 4 question marks right after each other… isnt that a little bit extravagant?
And why don’t you get off the brother’s back? you write about “stubborn doubts”… how about calling it “honest doubts” and address them as such. Don’t you know that love is higher than faith? So why dont you give your brother a chance to explain himself instead of talking as though faith is some text book and not Revelation that is a paradox to the human mind most of the time?
I personally don’t give much for untested faith that has not gone though fear and trembling… faith is not something you get finished with so you can speak down to other people like that.
“Are you really a Catholic?” you ask… I might ask you the same … for brotherly love shall define the true Mystical Body of Christ. Its easy to believe in dead letters without having a living relationship with the living God … its much more difficult to be tried in the fire of the Holy Spirit. First, you must become humble.
Big embrace.
Grace <><
M
mark_a
Guest
This is what makes the Catholic Church what it is.
Wow. There are more than a few here who think the Church puts up with too much “questioning” by some high profile Catholics.
Its probably not a “secondary issue” to a Church whose responsibility it is to get you to heaven and to tell you the truth when no one else will.
The Church is full of these folks that the Holy Spirit whispers to. That’s why we have the one office, occupied by one man at a time, that that the Holy Spirit will prevent from teaching error.
T
thistle
Guest
In case you hadn’t noticed this is a discussion forum where everyone may express opinions. This thread was started by Mike in reference to himself on comments by other posters in another thread. The thread is by Mike, about Mike and heresy.Hey tristle.
Come on… 4 question marks right after each other… isnt that a little bit extravagant?
And why don’t you get off the brother’s back? you write about “stubborn doubts”… how about calling it “honest doubts” and address them as such. Don’t you know that love is higher than faith? So why dont you give your brother a chance to explain himself instead of talking as though faith is some text book and not Revelation that is a paradox to the human mind most of the time?
I personally don’t give much for untested faith that has not gone though fear and trembling… faith is not something you get finished with so you can speak down to other people like that.
“Are you really a Catholic?” you ask… I might ask you the same … for brotherly love shall define the true Mystical Body of Christ. Its easy to believe in dead letters without having a living relationship with the living God … its much more difficult to be tried in the fire of the Holy Spirit. First, you must become humble.
Big embrace.
Grace <><
His profile says he is Catholic but he says he only believes ALMOST all the teachings. Sorry but that’s not acceptable. That’s for the Cafeteria Catholic bunch. Catholics must accept ALL teachings in matters of Faith and Morals. There is no wiggle room to choose some and not others. I am not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I admit it and I need the Sacrament of Reconciliation from time to time. But even as a sinner I still believe ALL the Church’s teachings. Anyone who does not (and this is with regard to the thread topic):
CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
J
JReducation
Guest
Franklin:Thanks for your reply JR.
That person’s opinion is wrong,
The traditional Catholic approach is to recognize the early parts of Genesis as a mere myth, meant to convey the teachings of the need for a Messiah due to the fall of man. In tha context, of course they do not wish to have the story altered from its traditional position, and I agree somewhat with that.
Maybe you have a response to them also. Thanks.
The underlined response was my response to what you posted. This was what you posted and to which I was responding to.
"“There is no such indication in the Book of Genesis. This would be adding an interpretation that is not there and that the the Apostolic Churches do not subscribe to, neither Catholic nor Orthodox. This belief would be contrary to Catholic exegesis on the Book of Genesis and the Creation story.”
Is the following refering to me?
I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
The current Catholic position on evolution has not changed. The Catholic Church does not subscribe to the theory that humans evolved from apes. However, the Catholic Church has recently admitted that there is room for dialogue with the theory of intelligent design. This was stated by John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
However, intelligent design does not take anything from the truth that is revealed in Genesis. God is Creator of all things. He is a loving and merciful father. Humanity is created in God’s image and likeness. Humanity is sinful and in need of redemption. There are such realities as good and evil. Everything that God creates is inherently good and holy. And all things come into existence throug the Word of God, whether it be in six days or millions of years.
You must remember that when theology uses the term “myth” it does not mean a fairy tale. Traditionally, theology was written in Greek and Latin. Today, much of it is written in German. In Greek and Latin the term myth meant a story that delivered a message. The focus was on the message, not on a literal understanding of the story. To say that the Catholic Church dismissed the early parts of Genesis as “mere myth” is a misunderstanding of Exegesis. Exegesis, like every other science, has its own jargon. We must understand its language to be sure that we are not misinterpreting what Biblical study tells us. Most exegesis is done with scholars in mind, not the average lay person. It is the role of preachers and catechists to translate what scholars are saying so that the laity understands it. Exegetes normally do not write for the laity. They write for other scholars. They are reviewed by their peers, not by the lay person.
Yes, this is a fact. The Catholic Church welcomes the (name removed by moderator)ut of science, history, linguistics, archeology, anthropology and other sciences in its understanding of scripture. This does not mean that it is going to adopt every scientific position on the market. No one does that. Eventually, you have to choose that scientific position that is consistent with revealed truth or that sheds light on revealed truth.
For example, at one time the Church excommunicated Galileo and Copernicus for their theories on the solar system, because they were inconsistent with the description of the universe in Genesis. Eventually Gallileo’s theory of a singular sun with the Earth orbiting it and revolving its axis was proven correct. The Catholic Church lifted the sanction on the theory of the Solar System, because it was no longer a theory, but a fact. This left an important question that needed answering. How did the original writers of Genesis understand the universe. To answer this question, exegetes joined the most brilliant rabbinical scholars to attempt and understand how ancient Jews understood the universe. Everyone eventually discovered that the understanding of ancient Jews was not from the point of view of astronomy, but of cosmology and theology. They were trying to impress on their readers that the cosmos, as they understood it, had its origins in the God of Israel who had revealed himself to them as omnipotent, omniscient, merciful, eternal and all good.
You lost me here. You ARE Franklin, aren’t you?
And I’m not an amateur theologian. I have been involved in pastoral care for years. I do not call myself a theologian, because that’s not what I do. It’s what I studied. I did my undergrad and grad in math, philosophy and Mystical Theology.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
If I may interject my two cents here, I believe that you are talking cross-purposes here. Let’s see if I can break this down so that it helps move the thread along.
HISTORY
There have been many errors committed by Church authorities over the centuries and probably will continue to be in the future. There has been abuse of power, corruption, promiscuity, wars led by bishops or popes, etc.
If I ask the Pope who is going to win the election in 2008 he may give me the wrong answer.
INFALIBILITY
Infallibility is the gift that Christ promised Peter “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16; 18-19).
“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? . . . Feed my lambs. He then said a second time, Simon Son of John, do you love me? . . . Tend my sheep. He said to him a third time, Simon son of John, do you love me? . . . .Jesus said to him, feed my sheep” (Jn 21; 15-17)
We all know that Peter was a fisherman. That being said, we also know that Jesus had said of himself, “I am the Good Shepherd.” Here is the Good Shepherd entrusting his sheep to the fisherman. He also entrusts him the keys of the kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and unbind.
Looking further into the Acts of the Apostles we see there are five proclamations regarding Christ’s mission and nature. Four of them are made by Peter while the other eleven Apostles stand and watch. We see Paul eventually persuading Peter to allow the Gentiles into the Church, but Paul does not assume the authority to do so. He debates the issue with Peter and eventually Peter consents. What we see is Paul submitting his wisdom to the wisdom of Peter.
The Wisdom of which we speak is the Wisdom of the Good Shepherd, which has to do with everything that is revealed by Christ. Since Peter did not live long after Christ’s resurrection, a successor was elected. The Apostles believed that the Good Shepherd has given his flock to Peter for his care. Therefore, they needed to elect another Peter. Thus the succession is passed down.
Nonetheless, what is passed down is the authority and the promise of the Holy Spirit that Peter and the Church would never teach error in divine matters. What are divine matters? Dogmas of faith and morals.
The promise does not apply to temporal matters. Jesus did not give Peter the Keys to the city. He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, the Pope and the Bishops can be sinners or nut jobs. But when they open their mouth to teach dogma and morality, they are guided by the Holy Spirit. We do not believe this because the Pope says it, but because Christ promised to give them the Holy Spirit and that the Gates of Hell (Sin) would not prevail against them. He did not promise that they personally would be saints. Their personal spirituality or lack thereof is not included in this promise. What is included in this promise is what the Pope teaches and what the Bishops teach when they are unanimous.
If you ask why Popes have exercised such poor judgment in temporal matters, administrative matters, or personal choices, the answer is simple. The promise was that they would never teach false doctrine. Can they make unreasonable demands and even sinful demands on the faithful? Of course, they can. But these demands have never had anything to do with doctrine. There is no recorded history of false doctrine, only sinful actions.
Hope this helps.
JR
F
franklin71
Guest
Thanks JR. I am Franklin. The quotes I supplied are from another forum by one who claims to be a Catholic but also believes the teaching of Arnold Murray that Adam and Eve had sex with satan and that Cain and his descendants were the children of satan and Eve on up to the present day to those who call themselves Jews. Where I copied these quotes from and pasted them here are from the forum cultbusters where I am a posting member also. I quoted you there since there are no Catholics there to respond to this persons claims which i consider heresy. I hope you do not mind. I believe this person is ruining the reputaion of the Catholic Church. Here is the link if you wish to see where this so called Catholic poster made his remarks. I am just trying to figure out if this person “John 3:16” can truthfully be a Catholic and also believe such a twisted perverted interpretation of Genesis and the rest to the Bible. Myself I agree with what you posted. Thanks.
cultbusters.com.au/index.php/topic,52.180.html
cultbusters.com.au/index.php/topic,52.180.html
- Status