- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
But that is not a definition, because there has to be a manifestation of a purpose to define - by using a formula such as “We declare, decree, & define…”, or “We define…”; or some equivalent expression that leaves no doubt as to his intention to define.
What is more, the quotation from the Pope is not framed in the scientifically precise language of a definition - definitions have to be precise, otherwise all manner of things the Popes don’t intend to define would be defined. definitions must never be made to include anything but what the words show the person defining (Pope, Council, Pope & other bishops) intends to define. So (for instance) the omission of the death of the BVM from the defining part in the Bull containing the definition of the Assumption means that Pius XII had no intention of defining whether she died or not.Definitions are like legal documents - they have to make unambiguously clear, & crystal clear, what exactly the definer intends. Arcanum does do this, so it is no definition - what it does do, is rehearses what was already Catholic teaching. ##
What do you understand by the term “Modernism” - & please, don’t fob me off with a link to Pascendi or Lamentabili - or even Vigilantiae, for that matter; I don’t want to read what Pius X said, but what you yourself think 
If I wanted to read Pius X, Benedict XV, or the rest have to say, I could go to papalencyclicals.net myself
BTW - why does no one ever quote the letter of Pius XII to Cardinal Suhard in 1948 ? ##
H
hecd2
Guest
I can’t give you a simple answer. Sorry. It depends what we mean by supernatural:
If you mean is there something outside spacetime of this universe, then the answer is ‘possibly’. The old concept of an absolute spacetime has gone forever; we have also moved beyond the concept that this universe is all there could be.
If you mean are there things that are inexplicable by human beings, the answer is ‘probably’. There are probably things that are inexplicable by human beings. I think mysteries will always be with us. But I believe that is because we have limited faculties. And, I also think we should treat all phenomena as though we can explain them.
If you mean are there things that are, in principle, inexplicable by any finite sentient being, the answer is ‘probably not’.
If you mean, is there a realm teeming with beings that have no causal connection with or dependency on the physical world (ie pure spirits such as angels, devils, human souls separate from human bodies), concsciousness without physics, the answer is ‘unlikely’.
If you mean is there an agent who is outside anything any finite being can understand about the natural universe(s), who is infinitely knowing, powerful and good, and who created this stupendous universe as a stage for our little drama, the answer is ‘almost certainly not’.
I make two further points:
- although I do not recognise the existence of the supernatural in the sense that I think you mean it, I do recognise the the great power of spirituality and the mystery of consciousness. However, I consider spirituality and consciousness to be epiphenoma of physical processes (in our case the brain) that are, in principle, understandable.
- You said in another post that I validate my unbelief with my science. It’s far more complicated than that - it’s true that it is clear to me that certain religious teachings, if taken at face value, *cannot *be literally true as a consequence of what we have learned about the natural world (barring deception on God’s part). That is not the reason I don’t believe, nor do I think that those teachings are necessarily invalidated, provided one is prepared to take them allegorically.
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
I think it is perfectly possible to demonstrate whether we are all BIOLOGICALLY descendants of a single human couple and that we had no other ancestors in their generation. Such a severe bottleneck would have left unmistakeable signs on our genetic makeup that are simply not there (I can go into much more detail about this as you might expect - you have only to ask!). On the contrary the evidence is that BIOLOGICALLY we are the descendants of a population that never fell much below ten thousand. Not all ten thousand in any generation will have left descendants but we had many ancestors in every human generation, and the mark of that is unmistakeable in the molecules.
However, science has, as you say, nothing to say about theological or spiritual implications of our ancestry.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/blog/evolution_blog.html
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Hecd << On the contrary the evidence is that BIOLOGICALLY we are the descendants of a population that never fell much below ten thousand. >>
BTW, Francis Collins author of The Language of God agrees with you. Here is his attempt at an answer to this question. I clipped it from the end of his talk at the ASA a few months ago.
Francis Collins on Adam
FULL TALK
And oh yeah, don’t forget EWTN’s Fr. Mitch Pacwa says evolution is a fact and the truth!
FULL EWTN PROGRAM
Phil P
BTW, Francis Collins author of The Language of God agrees with you. Here is his attempt at an answer to this question. I clipped it from the end of his talk at the ASA a few months ago.
Francis Collins on Adam
FULL TALK
And oh yeah, don’t forget EWTN’s Fr. Mitch Pacwa says evolution is a fact and the truth!
FULL EWTN PROGRAM
Phil P
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
(thankyou)
P
PoG
Guest
This is off topic and I have already stated many times that I instigated this thread to serve only one purpose. That purpose is to examine the Magisterium in relation to the Creation/ macroevolution controversy. But I will make a short response in this instance because the infection of Modernism is the reason why Genesis and the Magisterial teaching relating to it are having to be defended against naturalistic speculations. Please don’t ask me to go off topic again though, because I won’t oblige.
My short definition of Modernism would be that it consists of any number of erroneous philosophical notions applied towards the Church by her human elements, knowingly or unknowingly, in an attempt to make the Church acceptable to the whims and notions of the modern world. Rather than attempt to convert the world and raise it to the Eternal Truth of the Roman Catholic Faith in its integrity, its adherents prefer to lower the Church to the level of the world and synthesize the two. In practise this means the watering down and then complete denial of the truths of the Divine Institution established by Christ.
P
PoG
Guest
Does it have any Magisterial relevance to the subject? If so, please feel free to post it or link to it.
P
PoG
Guest
Okay, but you didn’t answer my other questions that followed on from this. If you don’t think it is de fide, at what level of teaching would you classify it?
Here is the passage in question, again, so that we can remind ourselves of it.
We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of Creation, having made man from the slime of the Earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.
Here is a theological opinion of the passage that relies on the Magisterium for guidance in determining its status of belief.
www.rtforum.org/lt/lt98.html
"Vatican Council II recognizes four conditions which must be fulfilled in order for a doctrine to be proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium; and as we shall show, these conditions had indeed already been fulfilled by the year 1880 in the case of the doctrines regarding the origin of Adam and Eve recalled by Leo XIII.
V. 1 The first condition laid down in Lumen Gentium §25 is that the bishops teaching the doctrine be "in communion amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor."34 This condition is obviously fulfilled in the case before us, as it was never just heretical and/or schismatic bishops who taught that the bodies of Adam and Eve were produced by supernatural acts of the Creator: Catholic bishops and popes proposed these doctrines for over eighteen hundred years before 1880.35
V. 2 The second condition to be verified is that bishops be "teaching authentically in matters of faith and morals."36 Again, the fulfilment of this condition is obvious. The doctrine concerning the formation of Eve was proposed by Catholic bishops and popes throughout all those long centuries in their role as authentic teachers in the Church — not just as individuals expressing private historical, exegetical, or philosophical opinions. Such teaching was expressed in the approved catechesis and preaching about Creation — including even the innumerable artistic representations of Eden in churches, which reinforced catechesis in the ages of mass illiteracy. All this was authorized and/or personally carried out by each bishop in his diocese. The teaching, furthermore, was certainly presented as a matter of faith — as the Church’s authentic understanding and exposition of the revealed Word of God in Genesis 2: 21-22. As we have noted already,37 Pope Pelagius I proposed the teaching within what he expressly styled a “profession of faith”, while the Council of Vienne also affirmed it in a Constitution entitled “The Catholic Faith”(Fidei Catholicae), the literary form of which is also that of a profession of faith: each item is grammatically preceded by the verb confitemur at the beginning.38 More recently, the language we saw employed by the Fathers of Vatican I, by Leo XIII and by St. Pius X’s Biblical Commission bears the same implication.
V. 3 Thirdly, Vatican II states that the teaching in question must be one that the popes and Catholic bishops agree upon (in unam sententiam … conveniunt). This agreement, as all theologians are aware, need only be that of a moral unity, not an absolute, mathematically exceptionless unanimity — something which in any case would nearly always be impossible to verify in practice.) Therefore, the unique dissenting voice of Cardinal Cajetan in regard to the doctrine of Eve’s supernatural formation, during a period of sixteen hundred years, by no means implies the non-fulfilment of this condition.
P
PoG
Guest
Continued from post #109
The proposal of this doctrine by an Ecumenical Council, that of Vienne, also represents a clear instance of the world’s Catholic Bishops teaching it in union with each other and with Peter’s Successor. Significant also is the fact that, as we have seen, the Catholic world’s most doctrinally trusted bishops and theologians could confidently propose the doctrine for the expected promulgation of another Ecumenical Council, Vatican I. Finally, the wording employed by Leo XIII in Arcanum is still further evidence of the time-honored unity of Catholic episcopal teaching on this question.39 Leo, addressing his “Venerable Brethren” of the world episcopate, can affirm as a matter of course that this teaching regarding the origin of the first woman’s body, no less than those regarding the unity and perpetuity of the marital bond, are matters of “common knowledge” or “universal agreement” amongst them (Constat inter omnes). The Pope goes on to emphasize that in this paragraph he is writing neither to settle what has hitherto been controverted among Catholic bishops, nor to inform them of something they did not already know, but simply to “call to mind” or “recall” (commemoramus) what is already “well-known to all” — or even “notorious” (“Nota omnibus”).
V. 4 The fourth and final condition for an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, according to Lumen Gentium §25, is that this (morally) unanimous teaching of the popes and bishops be presented as one “to be held definitively” (tamquam definitive tenendam). Vatican II’s footnote at this point clarifies the meaning of this expression. The Vatican I schema De Ecclesia Christi, cited in this note, makes it clear that by doctrines “to be held definitively” are signified those which are proposed as having to be “held or to be handed on as undoubted.” That is, as certainly true — as the final and unchangeable position of the Church on the point under consideration. This certainty which is correlative to infallibility in a doctrine which is definitive tenendam can (as Ad Tuendam Fidem and the accompanying Nota Doctrinalis have recently clarified), be either the certainty of ‘divine and Catholic faith’, in which case the theological virtue of faith is operative in response to a truth of God’s revealed Word promulgated by and to the universal Church; or it can be the less supernatural, but still complete, certainty deriving from Christ’s promises to Holy Mother Church of assistance by the Holy Spirit. For she can thereby infallibly discern truths which are logically or practically linked to the revealed deposit, and so are required for guarding and expounding it.40
How well, then, does the historical witness to Eve’s formation from the adult Adam measure up to this final requirement for infallibility? Right from the beginning of the magisterial record on this subject, the note of certainty — at times, the certainty of divine faith, or even ‘divine and Catholic faith’ — shines through clearly. Pope Pelagius I’s document, as we have already noted, was itself a “Profession of Faith”. In it the solemn word “confiteor” — “I confess”— is used repeatedly to introduce the various articles of the profession, including that affirming the origin of Adam’s wife. In antiquity this verb, and the cognate noun “confessor” are invariably linked to the notion of faith: one recalls the Nicene Creed’s phrase, “confiteor unum baptisma …”, and the fact that those saints styled “confessors” were originally those who had confessed the faith, especially in times of persecution. Since this document was eventually promulgated to the universal Church, and since the origin of Eve was not a disputed question in the sixth-century Church, we can only presume that the Catholic bishops in general accepted and made their own the Pope’s “confession” that this truth coming straight from Scripture was to be held as certain and undoubted.
In the case of the Council of Vienne, which we have examined, no such presumption is even necesssary: for here we find the bulk of the world’s Catholic bishops, gathered together with Peter’s Successor, signing and promulgating with him a solemn Constitution in which the historical origin of Eve from sleeping Adam’s side is closely linked to a central mystery of the Redemption — the origin of the Church in the blood and water flowing from Christ’s side on the Cross. The language with which this document begins also testifies to the complete certainty which the Pope and Bishops ascribe to its contents: "Firmly adhering to that foundation of the Catholic faith none other than which, as the Apostle testifies, any man can lay , we confess openly with Holy Mother Church that …".41 Once again the weighty verb “confess” (confitemur) is used, and is understood as repeated before the words "And that … " (Et quod …), which begin the sentence referring to Eve and the wounds of Christ.42
The proposal of this doctrine by an Ecumenical Council, that of Vienne, also represents a clear instance of the world’s Catholic Bishops teaching it in union with each other and with Peter’s Successor. Significant also is the fact that, as we have seen, the Catholic world’s most doctrinally trusted bishops and theologians could confidently propose the doctrine for the expected promulgation of another Ecumenical Council, Vatican I. Finally, the wording employed by Leo XIII in Arcanum is still further evidence of the time-honored unity of Catholic episcopal teaching on this question.39 Leo, addressing his “Venerable Brethren” of the world episcopate, can affirm as a matter of course that this teaching regarding the origin of the first woman’s body, no less than those regarding the unity and perpetuity of the marital bond, are matters of “common knowledge” or “universal agreement” amongst them (Constat inter omnes). The Pope goes on to emphasize that in this paragraph he is writing neither to settle what has hitherto been controverted among Catholic bishops, nor to inform them of something they did not already know, but simply to “call to mind” or “recall” (commemoramus) what is already “well-known to all” — or even “notorious” (“Nota omnibus”).
V. 4 The fourth and final condition for an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, according to Lumen Gentium §25, is that this (morally) unanimous teaching of the popes and bishops be presented as one “to be held definitively” (tamquam definitive tenendam). Vatican II’s footnote at this point clarifies the meaning of this expression. The Vatican I schema De Ecclesia Christi, cited in this note, makes it clear that by doctrines “to be held definitively” are signified those which are proposed as having to be “held or to be handed on as undoubted.” That is, as certainly true — as the final and unchangeable position of the Church on the point under consideration. This certainty which is correlative to infallibility in a doctrine which is definitive tenendam can (as Ad Tuendam Fidem and the accompanying Nota Doctrinalis have recently clarified), be either the certainty of ‘divine and Catholic faith’, in which case the theological virtue of faith is operative in response to a truth of God’s revealed Word promulgated by and to the universal Church; or it can be the less supernatural, but still complete, certainty deriving from Christ’s promises to Holy Mother Church of assistance by the Holy Spirit. For she can thereby infallibly discern truths which are logically or practically linked to the revealed deposit, and so are required for guarding and expounding it.40
How well, then, does the historical witness to Eve’s formation from the adult Adam measure up to this final requirement for infallibility? Right from the beginning of the magisterial record on this subject, the note of certainty — at times, the certainty of divine faith, or even ‘divine and Catholic faith’ — shines through clearly. Pope Pelagius I’s document, as we have already noted, was itself a “Profession of Faith”. In it the solemn word “confiteor” — “I confess”— is used repeatedly to introduce the various articles of the profession, including that affirming the origin of Adam’s wife. In antiquity this verb, and the cognate noun “confessor” are invariably linked to the notion of faith: one recalls the Nicene Creed’s phrase, “confiteor unum baptisma …”, and the fact that those saints styled “confessors” were originally those who had confessed the faith, especially in times of persecution. Since this document was eventually promulgated to the universal Church, and since the origin of Eve was not a disputed question in the sixth-century Church, we can only presume that the Catholic bishops in general accepted and made their own the Pope’s “confession” that this truth coming straight from Scripture was to be held as certain and undoubted.
In the case of the Council of Vienne, which we have examined, no such presumption is even necesssary: for here we find the bulk of the world’s Catholic bishops, gathered together with Peter’s Successor, signing and promulgating with him a solemn Constitution in which the historical origin of Eve from sleeping Adam’s side is closely linked to a central mystery of the Redemption — the origin of the Church in the blood and water flowing from Christ’s side on the Cross. The language with which this document begins also testifies to the complete certainty which the Pope and Bishops ascribe to its contents: "Firmly adhering to that foundation of the Catholic faith none other than which, as the Apostle testifies, any man can lay , we confess openly with Holy Mother Church that …".41 Once again the weighty verb “confess” (confitemur) is used, and is understood as repeated before the words "And that … " (Et quod …), which begin the sentence referring to Eve and the wounds of Christ.42
P
PoG
Guest
Continued from post #110
In the light of such a precedent, it is scarcely surprising that, in that draft Constitution (already discussed) prepared by the bishops and periti of the First Vatican Council’s theological commission, the affirmation of the first woman’s origin is preceded by opening words very similar to those of Vienne: “This, our Holy Mother the Church believes and teaches: … blessing the first man and Eve his wife who was formed by divine power from his side, God said: ‘Increase and multiply, and fill the earth’ (Gen. 1:28)”. According to standard magisterial and theological phraseology, that solemn formula never was, and never has been, used to present Catholic teaching about which there remains some shadow of legitimate doubt or uncertainty — that is, teaching which is merely “authentic” (or “authoritative”) but not infallible. And the commission, it must be remembered, was evidently confident of gaining the approval of the world’s bishops for this text. Indeed. the very title of the draft document, De doctrina catholica, implies the intention of handing down what has been definitively and infallibly taught. In recent centuries, the theological note ‘doctrina catholica’ has been used to signify the kind of truth which at present the Magisterium since Vatican II classifies as definitive tenendam: a truth which is infallible, but which has not necessarily been proposed precisely as revealed. In article 6 of the 1998 Nota Doctrinalis accompanying Ad Tuendam Fidem, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith uses the term doctrina catholica in this technical sense, stating that those who dissent from doctrines “to be held definitively” would be “rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and so no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church”.43
The final document we would adduce in evidence is Leo XIII’s very strong and explicit affirmation of Eve’s supernatural origin in article 5 of the encyclical Arcanum, which we have already considered twice, under different aspects. This has a particular significance in being the first papal reassertion of the doctrine to be promulgated after, and indeed, in conscious response to, the new and supposedly ‘scientific’ challenge to it coming from those Darwinians whom Leo alludes to here as “revilers of the Christian faith”. The aspect of Arcanum #5 that interests us now is the degree of force or emphasis with which Leo reiterates this doctrine. On re-reading the pertinent paragraph, we note this time that the Pope, bearing witness in Arcanum to the constant faith of all his predecessors in the papacy and episcopate, and confirming that faith of his brethren,44 asserts that the truths recalled here as constituting the “true origin of marriage”, including that regarding the first woman’s formation, belong to the “permanent doctrine of the Church (perpetuam doctrinam Ecclesiæ).” The word perpetuam (which can also be translated as “constant”, “perpetual”, “unchanging”, “uninterrupted”, etc.) expresses clearly the idea of permanence — of that which is fixed and immutable. That idea, of course, is integral to the theological notion of a doctrine taught “definitively”. Then, as if to make the point still more clearly, Leo XIII uses explicitly the key word referred to in Vatican II’s footnote to explain this concept: they are “doubtful to no one” (nemini dubia) — certain and undoubted. Moreover, if doctrinal propositions, like men, are (according to the proverb) “known by the company they keep,” then this will also reinforce the point we are making. For in the same paragraph, immediately after asserting the formation of Eve from sleeping Adam’s side, Pope Leo specifies as being equally “permanent”: first, the origin of the entire human race from this one original “spousal couple” (par coniugum) blessed by God; secondly, the unity of marriage (excluding polygamy and adultery); and thirdly, its life-long perpetuity. Of those three doctrines, another paper paralleling this one could easily be written demonstrating the infallibility of the first (monogenism),45 while for all orthodox and well-informed Catholics, no such defence should even be necessary in regard to the definitive, infallible character of the second and third doctrines, referring as they do to essential properties of marriage. Yet Pope Leo XIII places Eve’s ‘wondrous’ formation from Adam side by side with these doctrines, under the same ‘umbrella’ that guarantees them all as “permanent” and “undoubted” Catholic truth.
Finally, and very importantly, the language used by Leo XIII makes very clear his conviction that this doctrine regarding the origin of woman is already held as “permanent” and “undoubted” by those “Venerable Brethren” of the world-wide Catholic episcopate to whom he is addressing this encyclical." …
In the light of such a precedent, it is scarcely surprising that, in that draft Constitution (already discussed) prepared by the bishops and periti of the First Vatican Council’s theological commission, the affirmation of the first woman’s origin is preceded by opening words very similar to those of Vienne: “This, our Holy Mother the Church believes and teaches: … blessing the first man and Eve his wife who was formed by divine power from his side, God said: ‘Increase and multiply, and fill the earth’ (Gen. 1:28)”. According to standard magisterial and theological phraseology, that solemn formula never was, and never has been, used to present Catholic teaching about which there remains some shadow of legitimate doubt or uncertainty — that is, teaching which is merely “authentic” (or “authoritative”) but not infallible. And the commission, it must be remembered, was evidently confident of gaining the approval of the world’s bishops for this text. Indeed. the very title of the draft document, De doctrina catholica, implies the intention of handing down what has been definitively and infallibly taught. In recent centuries, the theological note ‘doctrina catholica’ has been used to signify the kind of truth which at present the Magisterium since Vatican II classifies as definitive tenendam: a truth which is infallible, but which has not necessarily been proposed precisely as revealed. In article 6 of the 1998 Nota Doctrinalis accompanying Ad Tuendam Fidem, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith uses the term doctrina catholica in this technical sense, stating that those who dissent from doctrines “to be held definitively” would be “rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and so no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church”.43
The final document we would adduce in evidence is Leo XIII’s very strong and explicit affirmation of Eve’s supernatural origin in article 5 of the encyclical Arcanum, which we have already considered twice, under different aspects. This has a particular significance in being the first papal reassertion of the doctrine to be promulgated after, and indeed, in conscious response to, the new and supposedly ‘scientific’ challenge to it coming from those Darwinians whom Leo alludes to here as “revilers of the Christian faith”. The aspect of Arcanum #5 that interests us now is the degree of force or emphasis with which Leo reiterates this doctrine. On re-reading the pertinent paragraph, we note this time that the Pope, bearing witness in Arcanum to the constant faith of all his predecessors in the papacy and episcopate, and confirming that faith of his brethren,44 asserts that the truths recalled here as constituting the “true origin of marriage”, including that regarding the first woman’s formation, belong to the “permanent doctrine of the Church (perpetuam doctrinam Ecclesiæ).” The word perpetuam (which can also be translated as “constant”, “perpetual”, “unchanging”, “uninterrupted”, etc.) expresses clearly the idea of permanence — of that which is fixed and immutable. That idea, of course, is integral to the theological notion of a doctrine taught “definitively”. Then, as if to make the point still more clearly, Leo XIII uses explicitly the key word referred to in Vatican II’s footnote to explain this concept: they are “doubtful to no one” (nemini dubia) — certain and undoubted. Moreover, if doctrinal propositions, like men, are (according to the proverb) “known by the company they keep,” then this will also reinforce the point we are making. For in the same paragraph, immediately after asserting the formation of Eve from sleeping Adam’s side, Pope Leo specifies as being equally “permanent”: first, the origin of the entire human race from this one original “spousal couple” (par coniugum) blessed by God; secondly, the unity of marriage (excluding polygamy and adultery); and thirdly, its life-long perpetuity. Of those three doctrines, another paper paralleling this one could easily be written demonstrating the infallibility of the first (monogenism),45 while for all orthodox and well-informed Catholics, no such defence should even be necessary in regard to the definitive, infallible character of the second and third doctrines, referring as they do to essential properties of marriage. Yet Pope Leo XIII places Eve’s ‘wondrous’ formation from Adam side by side with these doctrines, under the same ‘umbrella’ that guarantees them all as “permanent” and “undoubted” Catholic truth.
Finally, and very importantly, the language used by Leo XIII makes very clear his conviction that this doctrine regarding the origin of woman is already held as “permanent” and “undoubted” by those “Venerable Brethren” of the world-wide Catholic episcopate to whom he is addressing this encyclical." …
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I think not - you used the word; so, one is not going off topic in asking for a definition, as it is apt to be freely used as a “boo word” for anything a writer disapproves of; even if the thing in question is perfectly legitimate & even encouraged by those with authority in the Church.
One can hardly discuss the Magisterium, if one does not know what Popes (for instance) mean by their acts; & their acts include talking about named tendencies. When someone else uses the same word as they do, that word may be used in the sense it has for the Popes - or it may not. Hence my question. ##Your definition - for which, many thanks - is itself questionable, because of the assumptions it requires one to grant. It fits some trends - not all - of those often referred to as called “Modernist”; but it could also be used to reject things that are perfectly tolerable, or even good & necessary. At least you aren’t implying deliberate malice, as some do. And that is definitely something for which to be grateful
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It’s not taught as true as part of the everyday teaching of the Church, because it is now recognised to rest upon an unduly literal understanding of the passage in question.
It’s impossible historically, quite apart from anything else, becase it takes for granted a much more recent earth, & a much younger race, than is in fact possible. That doesn’t mean the author or compiler of Genesis 2 is a liar or unreliable - he just happens not to be doing in that passage what the Pope’s interpretation (& that of most Christians of that & previous times) requires him to be doing: that is, giving us facts about anatomy & “what really happened”.If it does have to be believed - why are the bishops not teaching it ? I’ll stick with the episcopal magisterium - not the RTF. Which is not to deny they have some good stuff; but, they don’t have the charism of teaching, or the munus docendi - the bishops are equipped with both.
I’ll give you more material about this passage’s intepretation tomorrow, God willing
##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
S
steveandersen
Guest
What is a “Darwinian”?
and what does “macro” (sigh) evolution have to do with belief?
D
DustinsDad
Guest
I’m gonna jump in here just for a second. Looks to me like you are demonstrating very clearly - albeit surly unintentional - modernism’s impact on the current state of catechesis in the Church. Seems you are trying to bend Church teaching to fit current whims of scientific theory - i.e. the “religion of modern man”.
The scientific theory ain’t all that convincing anyway, but let’s say it’s all pretty solid. Here’s just a little thought experiment to ponder that gets it through to even grade-schoolers (Used it when I taught a few years back when I taught 6th grade PSR). It’s an imperfect analogy but I think you’ll get the point:
God created Adam just like it says there in Scripture. Now that same day, later in the afternoon, a doctor walks up to Adam and gives him a physical - not knowing anything about Adam at all. He would look at a guy that by all scientific methods and tools he has at his disposal, and Adam looks like a full grown man, roughly in his 20s or 30s (at least that’s how I picture him). All the science points to this “fact” - the bones are long, the teath are adult, the skull is fused (no soft spot), etc. But in reality, Adam is a few hours old. God told us so.
Same thing applies in reality as we look back a few millenia into the past and examine this situation “scientifically” with the our new fancy smanchy “tools” we have at our disposal. Interesting that it looks a certain way when examined with certain questionable tools and coming from a certain questionable philosophical perspective - but ya gotta think outside the box here and see the big picture. It is what it is - and it is what God has revealed. Simple as that. If the science points to something else, the science is wrong.
Simple as that.
If individual bishops are teaching something contrary to magesterial teaching, contrary to what has been handed down to us from the Apostles, they are wrong. Look how many were wrong back in the days of the Arian heresy.
We were warned of such wolves among the ranks of the clergy for the last century or two - shouldn’t surprise us to see the problem hasn’t gone away:
“…That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open.”
Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope Saint Pius X, September 8, 1907
S
steveandersen
Guest
Why do you think there is a “controversy”?
The Church, in Her wisdom, has not pronounced that evolution is a matter of Catholic faith one way or another.
(She Learned Her lesson with that Galileo nonsense.)
I’m not sure why some have to create controversy where there is none or sow doubt where it ought not to be.
Christians should not be at each other’s throats over things that don’t matter for the faith.
If we hope to conduct apologetics to a skeptical, educated, technically savvy group of non-believers then we can’t put ourselves in the ridiculous position of denying well-defined and understood physical facts of the world.
I don’t mean to insult anyone here but when I see the works of the Kolbe Center or some YEC I think that it scandalizes the faith.
I try to be charitable…I try to hold my tongue. But sometimes some people say things that I just can’t begin to understand.
H
HailMary
Guest
This statment is an indication that you do not really understand what you mean by the “Galileo nonsense”
The Key Is In The Book Of Joshua
From Wil Milan’s article “Twisting the Knife” (November/December 1999), one may be led to conclude that Pope Urban VIII excommunicated Galileo because Galileo incurred the wrath of the Church by ridiculing the Pope in his Dialogue. Unfortunately, this overlooks the crux of the matter.
The Congregation of the Holy Office condemned Galileo in 1616, under Pope Paul V, and again in 1633 under Pope Urban VIII. Contrary to modern belief, the excommunication was unrelated to Galileo’s theory that the earth moved around the sun, a discovery made in 1543 by a Catholic priest from Poland named Copernicus. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa held this same view, and neither he nor Fr. Copernicus encountered any opposition from the Holy See. The Holy See does not comment on theories of science unless they are presented as scientific truths that contradict revealed truth, in which case these scientific theories become theological pronouncements.
Mr. Milan writes, “After careful study of the matter and of Galileo’s evidence, Cardinal [Robert] Bellarmine . . . concluded that Galileo did not contradict Scripture.” This assertion must be qualified by the following passage from letter the Cardinal wrote to a Mr. Foscarini, a close friend of Galileo: “There would be no objection on the part of the Congregation to putting forward the system of Copernicus as the best explanation of the celestial phenomena provided no reference was made to the apparent conflict with the Bible” (emphasis added).
The Congregation took issue not with the movement of the celestial bodies around the sun but with Galileo’s statement that the sun did not move. Why is that? The key is in the book of Joshua: “Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day” (Josh. 10:12–14, emphasis added).
If the sun does not move, as Galileo affirmed, how could the Lord have commanded it to stand still? The Church had not made an infallible pronouncement on the proper interpretation of these verses. Galileo, on the other hand, was making one: The sun does not move, meaning either Scripture is in error or the Church has to infallibly declare that the meaning of these verses is not literal.
The Church, to protect the faithful and to call Galileo to repentance, issued her condemnation. Pope John Paul II has removed the bull of excommunication against Galileo in part because the astronomer’s teaching no longer constitutes a danger to the faithful (just as Paul’s stern warning against circumcision in Galatians 5:2–4 was binding for his time but is not binding today).
The irony is that, factually, the seventeenth-century Church was on the side of science, which has shown that the sun does move and is not fixed, as Galileo would have had it.
taken from catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002ltrs.asp
S
steveandersen
Guest
Oh, I understand. I understand very well.
Galileo was tried not because of what he said but because he had broken his promise not to teach on the matter.
But the net result was that for 500 years (and possibly forever) the Church has been labeled anti-science when we know the opposite to be true.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
The only “going after the throat” I’ve seen on this thread just from browsing it tonight, are the attacks (personal, and then self-congradulatory) against the original poster and the Kolbe Center and Intelligent Design theory.
There you go again posting theory as fact.
Or perhaps - it scandalizes the modern version of scientific theory. Wherein does your heart lie?
DustinsDad
- Status