Is the CCC official church doctrine?

[Robert_Sock]

It sounds rather like a multiverse theory to me. Such theories are speculative and in fact more easily entertained by those in the secular sciences, than by the Church, which I don’t believe would give it any support.

Funny, I just ran this by my Jewish psychologist and she was fine with it. I think it’s a matter of perspective.

 

[thistle]

Mortal Sin is what I get for being anti-science? It’s not fair. People who really think about things are always at risk for committing this type of mortal sin. Earthly science is a scam! But I can counter that with the belief that science in the upper world is true and just. Did I sin here? I must say that I’m a professional researcher in psychology and I see all the fraud and corruption in this research. I believe that this fraud is rampant and invalidates earthy ‘science.’

Mortal sin is what you commit when you reject any Church teachings.

 

[JimG]

I probably am not understanding just what it is you mean. You said you believe in technology but not earthly science. Later you said that earthly science is what comes out of research universities.

But not all science comes out of universities. Not even all basic science. In fact it was the Catholic Church that first invented universities. And there’s no essential distinction between science and technology, although one might consider technology to be applied science. And if by an “upper world,” you mean Apple Inc, and Microsoft, that’s one thing, but you seem to have something more metaphysical in mind.

The Church recognizes the material world and the spiritual world, but it doesn’t posit a layering of spiritual worlds over and above the human world. It recognizes human, angels, and God. It also says that there can be no contradiction between scientific knowledge and theological knowledge.

The angels have infused knowledge, not manknd. So how do we get science knowledge out of an ‘upper world?’

 

[Robert_Sock]

I probably am not understanding just what it is you mean. You said you believe in technology but not earthly science. Later you said that earthly science is what comes out of research universities.

But not all science comes out of universities. Not even all basic science. In fact it was the Catholic Church that first invented universities. And there’s no essential distinction between science and technology, although one might consider technology to be applied science. And if by an “upper world,” you mean Apple Inc, and Microsoft, that’s one thing, but you seem to have something more metaphysical in mind.

The Church recognizes the material world and the spiritual world, but it doesn’t posit a layering of spiritual worlds over and above the human world. It recognizes human, angels, and God. It also says that there can be no contradiction between scientific knowledge and theological knowledge.

The angels have infused knowledge, not manknd. So how do we get science knowledge out of an ‘upper world?’

 

[Robert_Sock]

How did our society evolve over the past 150 years without God and an upper world?

Take notice of the great societal changes that took place over the past 150 years. Mass produced electricity, cars, planes, computers, cell phones and large cities across the world. Imagine how society itself could have just meshed together to produce itself. How could these changes occur without true social engineering from God and an upper world? Take Iraq for example, it’s not really a war of religion or anything else, but the effects of social engineering in progress. Everything is in God’s hands, and thus, everything just falls into place to produce a larger picture. As Saint Paul writes:* In everything, God works for good.*

Next, ask if you have the innate wit to mass produce simple boxes of toothpicks? Do you think a dozen top university professors could develop an effective method on their own? I doubt it very much! There would probably be more arguing than anything else. Now, consider our mass producing light bulbs, computer chips, cell phones and everything else found in our society today. Again, do any of us have the innate wit to figure out how to mass produce these things? Indeed, there must be a God and an upper world of existence that is capable of producing and advancing the technology in our world today.

Meditate and contemplate these things! Open your eyes see the lies right in front of you!

 

[Robert_Sock]

*…vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? … What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already, in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to happen among those who come after.
-ECCLESIASTES, Versus 1:2-3, 9-11 *

 

[thistle]

I would like to know which specific teachings you reject. Up to now you have simply made vague generalisations.
Give us the CCC paragraph numbers for the teachings you object to.

 

[Philthy]

Is the CCC official church doctrine that we must accept as true, or is the CCC just unofficial doctrine that we may disagree with? .

You should consider the CCC as official doctrine and accept it as true. My goodness, did you even bother to read John Paul’s intro:
"With today’s promulgation of …the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new**, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith,** and it will serve as…a “sure norm for teaching the faith,” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).

For example, the CCC is pro-science, whereas I’m anti-science

The Church is pro-truth. Science is a valid means of achieving particular truths relating to the created world. It is in the sense that science is a term describing the organized use of our God-given intellectual capabilities to arrive at a knowledge of God’s creation and thereby know God more completely that the Church is “pro-science”. I’m confident most people believe that the truth is worth knowing and that science can reveal certain truths and are therefore pro-science. I’m not sure what your gripe with science is but I’d be willing to bet it’s not actually with science per se, but with the scientific community or with the abuse of science.

 

[JimG]

How did our society evolve over the past 150 years without God and an upper world?

Take notice of the great societal changes that took place over the past 150 years. Mass produced electricity, cars, planes, computers, cell phones and large cities across the world. Imagine how society itself could have just meshed together to produce itself. How could these changes occur without true social engineering from God and an upper world? Take Iraq for example, it’s not really a war of religion or anything else, but the effects of social engineering in progress. Everything is in God’s hands, and thus, everything just falls into place to produce a larger picture. As Saint Paul writes:* In everything, God works for good.*

Next, ask if you have the innate wit to mass produce simple boxes of toothpicks? Do you think a dozen top university professors could develop an effective method on their own? I doubt it very much! There would probably be more arguing than anything else. Now, consider our mass producing light bulbs, computer chips, cell phones and everything else found in our society today. Again, do any of us have the innate wit to figure out how to mass produce these things? Indeed, there must be a God and an upper world of existence that is capable of producing and advancing the technology in our world today.

Meditate and contemplate these things! Open your eyes see the lies right in front of you!

Technology doesn’t just emerge full blown. It is invented piece by piece—by human beings. Henry Ford started out by having teams build cars from one location, with parts being brought to them as they went along. Later, he developed a moving production line where the workers stayed in place while the autos moved. No mystery there.

Mass produced electricity also did not emerge all at once. Edison thought direct current was the way to do it. His first generating station produced 110 volts DC for 59 people living in Manhattan. But AC turned out to be easier to distribute, and it won out. There was no magic involved in the continued development of generating stations. Also no university professsors.

One technology can build on another. Photographic technology helps in the manufacture of circuit boards. I don’t see ‘upper world’ involvement in any of this.

Yes, everything is in God’s hands, but it always has been, regardless of the degree of development of science or technology.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

Next, ask if you have the innate wit to mass produce simple boxes of toothpicks? Do you think a dozen top university professors could develop an effective method on their own?

Yes, I do. I was trained as a chemical engineer, and I do know how I’d do it. I wouldn’t use a team of “a dozen top university professors”: I’d put together a team of scientists and engineers. I might need a good materials scientist (which can be considered a branch of chemistry) to advise on the production of the little boxes and the glue for the labels. I’d need to pick appropriately trained individuals (technicians and engineers) to design and make the machines. If I wanted an automated system, I would need the help of people who design those because sadly that was never my strong point, but there are other chemical engineers who could do that bit themselves. I would design the overall process, and integrate systems where possible for maximum efficiency.

Nobody is saying that an individual can discover the whole of modern science and technology from scratch themselves, even as a group. It is cumulative: any work someone like me does into surface tension and bubble formation, for example, builds on work done by generations of scientists before us (Joseph Plateau for one, a Catholic, did wonderful work on soap films after he went blind) and on more recent work, and relies on collaboration. But I can reproduce much of the work, and understand it, and use it to produce useful things. I can use recent theories of non-electrostatic properties of ions to tweak a mixture so that it foams more or less, whichever is most useful for the process in question.

I can use physical models, using science, to predict how different particles settle in a particular fluid, and from that design a settling tank for effluent as part of a process that cleans your sewage. Of course all wisdom comes from God, but that doesn’t mean science isn’t real. The level of conspiracy required for your theory, given that it is entirely possible to map out every stage of the process from research science to working technology, would require a significant proportion of the population to be in on it.

I guess, as a psychologist, you didn’t have to learn much actual science, let alone spend any time in industry learning how theory becomes practice. Are you also, perhaps, fairly young, and so only exposed to more recent technology that you cannot take to pieces, see how it works, and put it back together? Did you ever make your own circuits at school? Did you make simple motors? Did you ever make your own device for listening to vinyl records? There are all sorts of simple applied science experiments you can do, that bridge the gap between science and technology.

That psychology is still not really a full science doesn’t mean other areas are just pretending.

 

[1ke]

Still waiting for a coherent response from th OP with CCC paragraphs that he “disagrees” with.

 

[pnewton]

How did our society evolve over the past 150 years without God and an upper world?

God alone is sufficient. We need no other worlds. I do not know that it is a sin to believe in them, anymore than it is a sin to believe in UFO’s or Elvis living in exile with Adolph Hitler. I do think it is unfair to paint all science with the same denial. Gravity is one of those things that rather undeniable, especially if one is pushed out of an aiplane. The scientific laws are rather important at that time. There is nothing wrong with skepticism with science and surely it is wrong to believe that science has all the answers. Yet none of this contradicts the Catechism which contains Catholic dogma. We get so caught up in whether something is infallible that we can overlook that this document is authoritative. That should be sufficient for a Catholic and far more important that what a Jewish psychologist thinks.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Still waiting for a coherent response from th OP with CCC paragraphs that he “disagrees” with.

I’m having trouble wading through the CCC to find the exact passages I disagree with. One thing I disagree with is where it is stated that the body and soul are one. I agree that the body and soul can be one, but I also believe that the body and soul are separate (as is believed in Judaism).

I also believe it’s OK to desire to die, but I know there are places in the CCC that this is wrong.

Finally, I believe that ‘earthly science’ is a scam, but I cannot locate where the CCC states that science is to be trusted.

 

[davidv]

I’m having trouble wading through the CCC to find the exact passages I disagree with. One thing I disagree with is where it is stated that the body and soul are one. I agree that the body and soul can be one, but I also believe that the body and soul are separate (as is believed in Judaism).

I also believe it’s OK to desire to die, but I know there are places in the CCC that this is wrong.

To disregard the CCC is to put you eternal salvation at risk. The Church is protected from teaching anything that would lead you to hell.

Finally, I believe that ‘earthly science’ is a scam, but I cannot locate where the CCC states that science is to be trusted.

Since the CCC states:

2292 Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public health.
2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man’s dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.

I don’t believe you will find a statement that the CCC says that science is a scam.

 

[1ke]

I’m having trouble wading through the CCC to find the exact passages I disagree with. One thing I disagree with is where it is stated that the body and soul are one.

That is not exactly what the Church teaches. Perhaps your problem is not so much a funadmental disagreement with the Catechism as it is a misunderstanding of the teaching.

The body and soul are two different things that together form a unity, Man.

I also believe it’s OK to desire to die, but I know there are places in the CCC that this is wrong.

I think you would have to explain what you mean by desire to die.

Finally, I believe that ‘earthly science’ is a scam, but I cannot locate where the CCC states that science is to be trusted.

I still don’t think I understand how you are using the term SCAM. What do you mean science is a SCAM?

 

[Robert_Sock]

That is not exactly what the Church teaches. Perhaps your problem is not so much a funadmental disagreement with the Catechism as it is a misunderstanding of the teaching.

The body and soul are two different things that together form a unity, Man.

I think you would have to explain what you mean by desire to die.

I still don’t think I understand how you are using the term SCAM. What do you mean science is a SCAM?

To ‘feel’ my thoughts and thinking why I believe science to be a scam see post #24. Earthly science could not be expected to explain the rapid changes we see worldwide. There must be an upper would for our world to evolve the way it has over the past 150 years.

My STRONG desire to die is consistent with that of the following:
*The Golden Key to Heaven
by Saint Anthony Mary Claret

The death of the just: Death will reach everyone, the good and the bad; but the destiny of each one is quite different. The just man sees himself in this valley of tears as a prisoner, serving a very hard term. He considers himself a slave in this world, suffering an extremely distressing servitude. He regards himself a sailor caught in a horrible storm. And as death means an end of his confinement, an end of his slavery, and is the port of his salvation, he ceases not to cry with David, “Woe is me that my sojourning is prolonged!. . .” (Ps. 119:5). He ceases not to ask with the Apostle, “. . . Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24)*
.

 

[AlexMarion]

For you, the most useful part of the Catechism should be the citations, which are numerous and dense, and refer to Holy Tradition, in the form of Sacred Scripture, Early Church Fathers, and Church documents throughout the years, including but not limited to those of Vatican II. These, too, may require some interpretation for proper understanding, but they represent the true infallibile teachings of the Church. These documents should also have footnotes and citations, which refer to earlier documents and Sacred Scripture.

Logos Bible Software has a great resource that helps explore the citations in the Catechism. I use it all the time to delve into the beliefs of the Church and where those doctrines originate. The process described by Elizium happens right in the software. Very cool.

Check it out here: scripturestudysoftware.com/catechism/

 

[1ke]

To ‘feel’ my thoughts and thinking why I believe science to be a scam see post #24. Earthly science could not be expected to explain the rapid changes we see worldwide. There must be an upper would for our world to evolve the way it has over the past 150 years.

My STRONG desire to die is consistent with that of the following:
*The Golden Key to Heaven
by Saint Anthony Mary Claret

The death of the just: Death will reach everyone, the good and the bad; but the destiny of each one is quite different. The just man sees himself in this valley of tears as a prisoner, serving a very hard term. He considers himself a slave in this world, suffering an extremely distressing servitude. He regards himself a sailor caught in a horrible storm. And as death means an end of his confinement, an end of his slavery, and is the port of his salvation, he ceases not to cry with David, “Woe is me that my sojourning is prolonged!. . .” (Ps. 119:5). He ceases not to ask with the Apostle, “. . . Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24)*
.

Well, I think I am going to have to exit this thread because you are not making the least bit of sense to me.

 

[thistle]

To ‘feel’ my thoughts and thinking why I believe science to be a scam see post #24. Earthly science could not be expected to explain the rapid changes we see worldwide. There must be an upper would for our world to evolve the way it has over the past 150 years.

My STRONG desire to die is consistent with that of the following:
*The Golden Key to Heaven
by Saint Anthony Mary Claret

The death of the just: Death will reach everyone, the good and the bad; but the destiny of each one is quite different. The just man sees himself in this valley of tears as a prisoner, serving a very hard term. He considers himself a slave in this world, suffering an extremely distressing servitude. He regards himself a sailor caught in a horrible storm. And as death means an end of his confinement, an end of his slavery, and is the port of his salvation, he ceases not to cry with David, “Woe is me that my sojourning is prolonged!. . .” (Ps. 119:5). He ceases not to ask with the Apostle, “. . . Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24)*
.

Your views have to be consistent with Church teaching and not what any individual saint has written.
Their views sometimes differ from the Church or are misunderstood by someone reading them.

CCC 364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator.** For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.**

 

[Robert_Sock]

Your views have to be consistent with Church teaching and not what any individual saint has written.
Their views sometimes differ from the Church or are misunderstood by someone reading them.

CCC 364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator.** For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.**

THANKS! Just to be more precise than the CCC quote, when resurrected we will have ‘glorified bodies.’

I’m not sure if I’m sinning here with my desire to die. I will talk this over with a priest.