Is this for real "scripture catholic"?

[Daedelus76]

scripturecatholic.com/

According to this website and the author (John Salza), Catholics are suppossed to deny evolution and heliocentrism, and almost always assume a literal intepreration of the Bible? Is that for real? Or is Mr. Salza mistaken? He sounds perhaps like some kind of “traditionalist” that is overzealous or mistaken?

 

[ljubim]

from the site:

In fact, three Popes (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) have officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture

more:

The pope also broached the theory of evolution with caution by stating that the Church “does not forbid research and discussions…with regard to evolution,”

I agree it leans towards skepticism of evolution, and does go out of the way to explain the age of the earth in regards to biblical numbers, but still they say that this is “in the literalist interpretation.” Evolution is off though, since you can only prove it on the small scale, but not in the long run. However it is to be held legitimately, since God did create the animals first, but wasn’t happy with that, so He created man. He did use the dust of the earth… as in He used what He’d already created. Some people look at it that way. I don’t buy into the evolution theory though, personally. When you’re talking species variation among Galapagos islands that’s one thing, but when you say that man was formed on its own with a fish, you’re getting a little loopy:whacky:

 

[thistle]

scripturecatholic.com/

According to this website and the author (John Salza), Catholics are suppossed to deny evolution and heliocentrism, and almost always assume a literal intepreration of the Bible? Is that for real? Or is Mr. Salza mistaken? He sounds perhaps like some kind of “traditionalist” that is overzealous or mistaken?

We are NOT required to deny evolution and heliocentrism.

As for scritpure interpretation see the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The senses of Scripture

CCC 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.

CCC 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

CCC 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
2. 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
3. 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

CCC 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.

 

[crazzeto]

scripturecatholic.com/

According to this website and the author (John Salza), Catholics are suppossed to deny evolution and heliocentrism, and almost always assume a literal intepreration of the Bible? Is that for real? Or is Mr. Salza mistaken? He sounds perhaps like some kind of “traditionalist” that is overzealous or mistaken?

Actually, no it’s not what we are “supposed” to believe. Though, it would be silly to think the sun is literally stationary, the solar system moves around in the galaxy, as the galaxy moves etc…

As far as evolution, Catholics are more than free to believe in it provided:

You believe that all of humanity is decended from a single pair of real parents, Adam and Eve. These first parents are not symbolic of a group of first parents. Original sin stems from Adam’s personal original sin, we all inherit it.

So you can beleive we evolved if you like, but you must beleive at some point God stepped into the evolutionary process, and for a particular creature he infused a sole, this creature was the first human (adam), all others even of it’s own formerly related “clan” are not human. Further Eve, in some way, was created from Adam. You don’t have to believe, necessarly that a rib was taken if that’s too much for you. But Eve in some way was created from Adam.

 

[rocketrob]

Catholic beliefs regarding creation are very nicely summarized in a section of the Catechism devoted to this topic (paragraphs 282-324): usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p4.shtml

Basically, there is nothing wrong with pursuing or believing scientific theories, as long as they don’t attempt to reach beyond the purpose of science (understanding what, how, when, etc) and venture into the question of the ‘meaning’ of existence (ie, why). Ultimately, the meaning of life (ie, creation) has God as both its beginning source and final goal.

Here are a few important paragraphs from the above referenced section:

282
Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves: “Where do we come from?” “Where are we going?” “What is our origin?” “What is our end?” “Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?” The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.

283
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements . . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.” (Wis 7:17-22)

284
The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called “God”?..

289
Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn LANGUAGE the truths of creation—its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

rocketrob

 

[Daedelus76]

As far as evolution, Catholics are more than free to believe in it provided:

You believe that all of humanity is decended from a single pair of real parents, Adam and Eve. These first parents are not symbolic of a group of first parents. Original sin stems from Adam’s personal original sin, we all inherit it. .

That seems to contradict what Augustine wrote about the creation story, that it would be entirely possible the first humans were created mortal. Monogenesis is simply not something I can believe in good faith, and the imposition upon thinking people is tyrranical. Nor do I see how it is relevent to salvation. I doubt the geneticist Francis Collins, who is some flavor of Protestant, takes monogenesis very seriously, and it’s probably never entered his mind as an issue of faith. For one thing, there is genetic evidence against it; the first common ancestors of all modern humans, male and female, lived thousands of years apart.

 

[crazzeto]

That seems to contradict what Augustine wrote about the creation story, that it would be entirely possible the first humans were created mortal. Monogenesis is simply not something I can believe in good faith, and the imposition upon thinking people is tyrranical. Nor do I see how it is relevent to salvation. I doubt the geneticist Francis Collins, who is some flavor of Protestant, takes monogenesis very seriously, and it’s probably never entered his mind as an issue of faith. For one thing, there is genetic evidence against it; the first common ancestors of all modern humans, male and female, lived thousands of years apart.

I’m sorry, I’m not sure that I see where this is contradictory. It might help give you perspective to look at the Catechism

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p6.shtml

Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226

O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God . . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end; . . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.227

 

[DOShea]

scripturecatholic.com/

According to this website and the author (John Salza), Catholics are suppossed to deny evolution and heliocentrism, and almost always assume a literal intepreration of the Bible? Is that for real? Or is Mr. Salza mistaken? He sounds perhaps like some kind of “traditionalist” that is overzealous or mistaken?

Write to him and ask him. He’s pretty good about answering questions by email.

He is a canon lawyer and very much a traditionalist. It’s very hard sometimes to view his material and know where official teaching stops and his personal ideas start.

 

[Roman_Army]

scripturecatholic.com/

According to this website and the author (John Salza), Catholics are suppossed to deny evolution and heliocentrism, and almost always assume a literal intepreration of the Bible? Is that for real? Or is Mr. Salza mistaken? He sounds perhaps like some kind of “traditionalist” that is overzealous or mistaken?

In defense of John Salza, I do not think you are reading him correctly. He admits that it is permissible to subscribe to Evolution and Heliocentrism, but that he believes that it is erroneous based on non-definitive and non-infallible magisterial teachings of the past. Such non-infallible teachings have never been officially declared erroneous by the Church. He also readily admits that he is not a scientist but that he gives priority to those non-infallible teachings of past Popes and Bishops. He personally feels that there is not enouch evidence to justify a re-interpretation of the Scriptures. As you may already know, the Church teaches that we must stick with the literal obvious sense of Scripture unless our interpretation be proven wrong by other evidences whether in the Natural Sciences, history, archaeology, etc. If one feels there is not enough evidence, then it is not permissible to depart from the literal interpretation. If one feels that there is enough evidence, then one must change one’s personal interpretation and harmonize the Scripture with the new found knowledge. It is never permissible to charge the Scripture with error, however, it is our own personal interpretations that can be in error. Now, keep in mind that when John Salza or other apologists seem to present their opinions in an Authoritative tone, they do not consciously intend to be authoritative. It’s just the way they express themselves, they’re used to doing that. More well trained theologians with licenses would probably sound more gentle, softer, and non-definitive in tone when discussing such complex topics which have not been addressed by the Magisterium. They are disciplined and trained to do that in the Universities, Colleges, and Seminaries that they gained their doctorates at. One has to master the art of humility and learn to suppress one’s ego and passions at times.