R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Is the CCC official church doctrine that we must accept as true, or is the CCC just unofficial doctrine that we may disagree with? For example, the CCC is pro-science, whereas I’m anti-science.
- Status
A
andremiguel
Guest
You are anti-science? If you got tuberculosis, a broken leg, apendicitis or a heart attack, where do you go to?
meltzerboy
New member
I believe the CCC is regarded by the Church as authoritative teaching but not infallible doctrine. I would guess, however, that something authoritative is not open to major disagreement, at least by means of external behavior. Of course I may be off-base. It’s rather different in Judaism, in which almost everything except the most basic principles is open to discussion and dissent.
E
Elizium23
Guest
The Catechism is called a “sure norm for teaching the faith” and its intended audience is primarily the bishops of the Magisterium. It is intended as a blueprint for writing other catechisms tailored to particular audiences. Therefore, some of the passages may require some scholarly interpretation by someone who has formally studied philosophy and theology.
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. You will be able to follow a chain of thought that leads to the present teachings. One document I recommend for its view on science is Humani Generis. It is chiefly an answer to evolution and modernism, and as such, it is considered a landmark in the progression of Christian doctrine.
Many other Church documents are available online, at the place I have linked above as well as hosted by the Vatican. So it is encouraged that you see for yourself what the Church has written on these topics. It should not be hard for you to follow a fact from the Catechism, back to Vatican II, to the Early Church Fathers, and to Sacred Scripture. Good luck.
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. You will be able to follow a chain of thought that leads to the present teachings. One document I recommend for its view on science is Humani Generis. It is chiefly an answer to evolution and modernism, and as such, it is considered a landmark in the progression of Christian doctrine.
Many other Church documents are available online, at the place I have linked above as well as hosted by the Vatican. So it is encouraged that you see for yourself what the Church has written on these topics. It should not be hard for you to follow a fact from the Catechism, back to Vatican II, to the Early Church Fathers, and to Sacred Scripture. Good luck.
S
Sam_777
Guest
Like CCC 841.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I strongly believe in technology, but not earthly science. I believe our technology comes from an upper world. .
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Thanks!!!
T
TypesAndShadows
Guest
Wah?! As in, the pagan gods came down and gave people fire and computers? Or as in, aliens secretly provide various labs and supposed scientists with a trickle of advances, deliberately arranged so as to give the impression of a logical advance based on improved understanding, to which everyone is sworn to secrecy? Or as in, all technological advances are implanted in random people’s head by God, regardless of their faith or lack thereof, and it is sheer coincidence that these advances align with science?
Do you believe that a computer works for reasons other than those suggested by the science and mathematics used in building and programming it? Does your theory involve magic smoke? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_smoke
Do you also not believe in reason and logic (the heart of science) when used in religious matters? So, we could not make an observation about the writings of the Apostles and Church Fathers, and deduct anything from those? What exactly are you rejecting here? If I carry out an experiment to see what things a seed needs to grow, is this Earthly science and would you reject my results? Would you ever carry out such an experiment yourself?
Would you, based on your disbelief, take action to discourage other Catholics from pursuing studies or careers in science, knowing that the Church encourages such studies? Would you, based on your disbelief, misrepresent the Church’s position on science or an area of science, whether to other Catholics or non-Catholics?
Does your disbelief stem from or lead to a belief in other related things which are actually more seriously out of line with Church teaching? For example, do you believe that reason is the enemy of faith? Or in additional god-like beings? Or that God is colluding in some scheme that tricks people into believing in science that isn’t actually true?
T
thistle
Guest
The CCC contains a summary of Church doctrines (infallible and non-infallible) plus disciplines and footnotes referencing Scripture and other Church documents underpinning the doctrines.
All of these must be accepted by Catholics.
To reject any of the infallible teachings is heresy and a mortal sin.
To reject any of the non-infallible teachings is not heresy but is a mortal sin.
I
Ignatius
Guest
The catechism is the official Church document that explains the meaning of Catholic doctrine. Both Pope JPII and Pope Benedict XVII had a hand in it. It is the sure norm of Catholic teaching.
M
Mintaka
Guest
The Book of Wisdom, Chapter 7, Verses 16-22:
“For in His Hand are both we and our words, and all wisdom, and the knowledge and skill of works. For He hath given me the true knowledge of the things that are: to know the disposition of the whole world, and the virtues of the elements, the beginning, and ending, and midst of the times, the alterations of their courses, and the changes of seasons, the revolutions of the year, and the dispositions of the stars, the natures of living creatures, and rage of wild beasts, the force of winds, and reasonings of men, the diversities of plants, and the virtues of roots, and all such things as are hid and not foreseen, I have learned: for wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me. For in her is the spirit of understanding…”
Technology is “the knowledge and skill of works.” It is a gift of God when properly used, as all things in Creation are. He allows us to work it out with experimentation and creativity; but it comes from Him.
Likewise, in the Book of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, we learn about God’s gift of medicine and doctors and their technologies: (Sirach 38:1-14)
"Honour the physician for the need thou hast of him: for the Most High hath created him. For all healing is from God, and he shall receive gifts of the king. The skill of the physician shall lift up his head, and in the sight of great men he shall be praised. The Most High hath created medicines out of the earth, and a wise man will not abhor them. Was not bitter water made sweet with wood? The virtue of these things is come to the knowledge of men, and the Most High hath given knowledge to men, that he may be honoured in his wonders. By these he shall cure and shall allay their pains, and of these the apothecary shall make sweet confections, and shall make up ointments of health, and of his works there shall be no end. For the peace of God is over all the face of the earth.
“My son, in thy sickness neglect not thyself, but pray to the Lord, and he shall heal thee.Turn away from sin and order thy hands aright, and cleanse thy heart from all offence. Give a sweet savour, and a memorial of fine flour, and make a fat offering, and then give place to the physician. For the Lord created him: and let him not depart from thee, for his works are necessary. For there is a time when thou must fall into their hands: And they shall beseech the Lord, that he would prosper what they give for ease and remedy, for their conversion.”
“For in His Hand are both we and our words, and all wisdom, and the knowledge and skill of works. For He hath given me the true knowledge of the things that are: to know the disposition of the whole world, and the virtues of the elements, the beginning, and ending, and midst of the times, the alterations of their courses, and the changes of seasons, the revolutions of the year, and the dispositions of the stars, the natures of living creatures, and rage of wild beasts, the force of winds, and reasonings of men, the diversities of plants, and the virtues of roots, and all such things as are hid and not foreseen, I have learned: for wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me. For in her is the spirit of understanding…”
Technology is “the knowledge and skill of works.” It is a gift of God when properly used, as all things in Creation are. He allows us to work it out with experimentation and creativity; but it comes from Him.
Likewise, in the Book of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, we learn about God’s gift of medicine and doctors and their technologies: (Sirach 38:1-14)
"Honour the physician for the need thou hast of him: for the Most High hath created him. For all healing is from God, and he shall receive gifts of the king. The skill of the physician shall lift up his head, and in the sight of great men he shall be praised. The Most High hath created medicines out of the earth, and a wise man will not abhor them. Was not bitter water made sweet with wood? The virtue of these things is come to the knowledge of men, and the Most High hath given knowledge to men, that he may be honoured in his wonders. By these he shall cure and shall allay their pains, and of these the apothecary shall make sweet confections, and shall make up ointments of health, and of his works there shall be no end. For the peace of God is over all the face of the earth.
“My son, in thy sickness neglect not thyself, but pray to the Lord, and he shall heal thee.Turn away from sin and order thy hands aright, and cleanse thy heart from all offence. Give a sweet savour, and a memorial of fine flour, and make a fat offering, and then give place to the physician. For the Lord created him: and let him not depart from thee, for his works are necessary. For there is a time when thou must fall into their hands: And they shall beseech the Lord, that he would prosper what they give for ease and remedy, for their conversion.”
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
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.’
M
marvinb1
Guest
so chemistry, biology and physics are a scam? understanding how the world works so that we can miniulate it in a positive way is bad… looking for ways to make low caust energy and the like is wrong? i dont see that
1
1ke
Guest
Perhaps it would be more productive if you posted a particular paragraph in the CCC and explained what exactly you find objectionable.
Just making a blanket statement about “earthy science” is sort of pointless and isn’t really going to get this discussion anywhere. That could mean anything, and it really isn’t advancing your argument in any way. I mean, what does “earthy science” and “upper world science” even mean?
Just making a blanket statement about “earthy science” is sort of pointless and isn’t really going to get this discussion anywhere. That could mean anything, and it really isn’t advancing your argument in any way. I mean, what does “earthy science” and “upper world science” even mean?
J
jschutzm
Guest
Please define what you mean by “earthly science” - I’m not sure this is a term that most other people are familiar with.
It sounds a bit like you are saying you don’t believe in Earth Science - for example:
That erosionary forces such as water can errode or weary away at a rock over time.
OR
That moisture in the air rises up into the sky, cools, condenses, forms water droplets and falls back to earth as precipitation.
These are all part of “Earth Science” – I hope when you say “earthly science” that you don’t mean this sort of very easy to observe science
Also… to many of us on this forum, the term “earthly science” would seem to encompass ALL science, since the point and focus of science is mainly the natural phenomenon on this planet. Thus almost ALL Science in one way or another is “earthly”
OR
Do you believe exclusively in Cosmology and Zenobiology? - that is the Science of the Cosmos and alien biology, since these are not “earthly” ???
So you see… your terminology is quite vague and I think many of us can’t get past the sweeping generality you used.
Also, please define ‘upper world’ - that seems very new-agey and more vague then 'earthly science"
D
DebChris
Guest
Technology is by definition applied science.
Scientists knew how electricity worked before the invention of the light bulb.
Are there ethical questions regarding how science might be used? That becomes a different question. Knowledge can be used for both good and evil. Yet scripture tells us that knowledge is from God, as is wisdom.
One of the intercessory prayers from the Liturgy of the Hours includes the phrase, “Source of our Science.” It will take me a while to find specifically which day and week this can be found in the Psalter.
J
jschutzm
Guest
You do realize that Science developed OUT of the Christian faith, particularly it can be traced back to Catholic Philosophers who sought to link what they believed to what they observed. They simply realized that if what they believed was true…they should be able to find SOME support for it in nature. Google Sir Roger Bacon and Thomas Acquainas. They are regarded as very early fathers of the Scientific method.
The Father or Genetics - a Catholic monk by the name of Gregory Mendel
The first to propose the Big Bang - a Priest by the name Georges Le Maitre
All of those stemmed from merely observing the world and making logical deductions and through that. discovering how God’s world worked.
One can argue that the origin of Science is rooted in Theism.
So you believe something, broadly, which you can not prove, and so condemn an entire branch of study on that basis, based on what you have personally seen.
Similar to the type of generalizations that Racists make. Condemning an entire group, it would seem, based on your personal experience with a minority.
I have no doubt that there are frauds, pressure to get results. Pressure to uphold the status quo and prove that previous conclusions were right. Even to get the results that your benefactor or funding source would like you to attain.
I have no doubt. But we must separate the abusers from the concepts or principles of Science and from those who DO do valid work.
For instance… my mom believes that EVERY person who works for an Insurance company… has anything to do with the Real Estate industry, from Bank clerks, to Realtors etc. to anyone in the media, to anyone in the health industry, AND Politicas are all crooks and out to steal her money. - Every single one of them.
And she has a list of offenses, both personal, second hand and through the news (the media which she doesn’t trust) to prove that she is right and that I can’t trust anyone.
When you condemn “earthly science” and don’t define precisely what you mean and ellude to some knowledge of fraud, you start to sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist.
Just letting ya know how you might be coming across based on some posters responses.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I’m really trying to convey my own personal beliefs which are related to the CCC.
By earthly science I mean that science that flows from research universities. Am I sinning by holding such a view.
By upper world I mean to imply hidden worlds that are far more advanced than we are. This is consistent with the Jewish belief that there are multiple worlds with ours as the absolute lowest!
Yes, I guess I am presenting a ‘conspiracy’ theory, but they do reflect my deepest beliefs. I deeply believe that humans have only been around for less than 6000 years.
Again, these are deep beliefs of mine that were there before the CCC was published.
By earthly science I mean that science that flows from research universities. Am I sinning by holding such a view.
By upper world I mean to imply hidden worlds that are far more advanced than we are. This is consistent with the Jewish belief that there are multiple worlds with ours as the absolute lowest!
Yes, I guess I am presenting a ‘conspiracy’ theory, but they do reflect my deepest beliefs. I deeply believe that humans have only been around for less than 6000 years.
Again, these are deep beliefs of mine that were there before the CCC was published.
1
1ke
Guest
Where your “personal beliefs” conflict with Church doctrine, you are obligated to conform to the Church.
If it is not a matter of faith or morals you are free to hold whatever beliefs you want. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese, and that does not conflict with Church teaching.
It will certainly not garner you any credibility with people beyond the age of 8, but you can believe it if you want to.
That is not compatible with Church teaching. Unless you mean the angelic choirs, which are not really hidden worlds, since the angels are in Heaven.
Knock yourself out, Robert. Don’t expect most Catholics to support you in that theory. The Church does not teach science. But the Church certainly acknowledges both scientific truths and theories when they do not conflict with faith or morals.
The Church has no teaching on the age of humans. She does, however, teach that the first ten chapters of Genesis have multiple levels of the senses of scripture, allegorical for example, they are especially **not **considered literal science.
The Church has no doctrinal teaching on the age of the earth.
HOWEVER, the Church certainly does teach that faith and reason do not conflict and the Church would supports science and scientific theory. We are rational being who can observe the world around us and derive scientific principles from it.
You can choose not to believe in, say, the law of gravity despite all the scientific evidence but jumping off a building could pretty well be termed a sin against the virtue of prudence.
I mean we are not to be *incredulous *in these matters.
J
JimG
Guest
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.
- Status