H
Hope1960
Guest
Yes all humans are born a certain way but Jesus is both human and divine.
- Status
H
Hope1960
Guest
Sorry for the language? Then in your next sentence you do it again. Talk about offensive.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Heres a great pdf download from the Pontifical Academy including Papal mentions of Galileo.
http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv100.pdf
The following quotes are interesting re this topic:
“John Paul II observed at a more detailed level that science and faith are complementary and that their relationship is best understood as a circle: faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth. Science, for its part, can purify religion from error and superstition;”
"the geocentric representation of the world was commonly
admitted in the culture of the time as fully agreeing with the teaching of the Bible, of which certain expressions, taken literally, seemed to affirm geocentrism. The problem posed by theologians of that age was, therefore, that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and Scripture.
Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so.
Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. ‘If Scripture cannot err’, he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, ‘certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways’. "
“The majority of theologians did not recognise the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation,and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.”
“Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically
invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.”
“In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.”
http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv100.pdf
The following quotes are interesting re this topic:
“John Paul II observed at a more detailed level that science and faith are complementary and that their relationship is best understood as a circle: faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth. Science, for its part, can purify religion from error and superstition;”
"the geocentric representation of the world was commonly
admitted in the culture of the time as fully agreeing with the teaching of the Bible, of which certain expressions, taken literally, seemed to affirm geocentrism. The problem posed by theologians of that age was, therefore, that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and Scripture.
Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so.
Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. ‘If Scripture cannot err’, he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, ‘certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways’. "
“The majority of theologians did not recognise the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation,and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.”
“Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically
invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.”
“In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.”
Last edited:
B
brian_custer
Guest
sorry for that; bad habit i picked up from my navy days 
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
Clergy opinions, not official Church position:
“1979, Pope John Paul II expressed the hope that “Theologians, scholars and historians, animated by a spirit of sincere collaboration, will study the Galileo case more deeply and, in loyal recognition of wrongs from whatever side they come.”[76] However, the Pontifical Interdisciplinary Study Commission constituted in 1981 to study the case did not reach any definitive result. Because of this, the Pope’s 1992 speech that closed the project was vague, and did not fulfill his intentions expressed in 1979.[77]”
en.m.wikipedia.org
“1979, Pope John Paul II expressed the hope that “Theologians, scholars and historians, animated by a spirit of sincere collaboration, will study the Galileo case more deeply and, in loyal recognition of wrongs from whatever side they come.”[76] However, the Pontifical Interdisciplinary Study Commission constituted in 1981 to study the case did not reach any definitive result. Because of this, the Pope’s 1992 speech that closed the project was vague, and did not fulfill his intentions expressed in 1979.[77]”
Galileo affair - Wikipedia
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Please. There wasn’t a theologian in the world at that time who seriously believed other than that the sun orbited the earth. It was in the Bible. Why would it need to be formally defined in any way?
Does the Church formally define that Jesus needed to use a toilet and passed wind?
I suggest the Papal statements in 1992, as below, would only be vague to those who still follow the theologians of Galileos time. Did you actually make any effort to find and read them for yourself rather than relying on someone elses reports (Wikipedia of all places).
Do you also believe Usury never meant … charging any interest on a loan.
Good enough for me and any person open on the matter methinks.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Jesus passed through the womb without causing any damage whatsoever. Notice that in the description of The Nativity in the Gospel, there is no mention of a midwife.
Prophesy
Haydock Commentary on Ezekiel 44
Last edited:
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
Well, since JP2 has both his science and his theology wrong there, you’ll have to forgive me for believing that his words are not authoritative.
You made the statement that the Church had changed her position. Such is impossible. Clergy and Popes have taken different positions, but the Church position remains the same. Even on things like usury. You will find plenty of theologians and clergy who say it is acceptable. They are free to do so, as private individuals.
Extremely clear that St JP2 doesn’t know the first thing about gravity or what the concentric center of mass is.
You made the statement that the Church had changed her position. Such is impossible. Clergy and Popes have taken different positions, but the Church position remains the same. Even on things like usury. You will find plenty of theologians and clergy who say it is acceptable. They are free to do so, as private individuals.
Extremely clear that St JP2 doesn’t know the first thing about gravity or what the concentric center of mass is.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I believe you just disqualified yourself from intelligent conversation on this topic…as well as unconsciously making my point that male theologians and Councils really have no business attempting to speak dogmatically on matters of gravity, geocentrism, and female biology.
Nothing more to say if you cannot accept.
Last edited:
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
I believe that’s a typical response from people of your “type” and I’ll leave it at that.
Edit: Your edit absolutely confirmed the “type”
Edit: Your edit absolutely confirmed the “type”
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
So… that means He was born via the birth canal or miraculously appeared through Mary’s belly?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Hello Hope1960.
What DOESN’T this answer that you were wondering about?
The Church can’t give “clinical” details.
Why not?
For several reasons but one obvious one is Jesus’ birth event are incomprehensible.
They are beyond the understanding of the human mind.
It was a miracle.
What DOESN’T this answer that you were wondering about?
The Church teaches a miraculous birth.
The Church can’t give “clinical” details.
Why not?
For several reasons but one obvious one is Jesus’ birth event are incomprehensible.
They are beyond the understanding of the human mind.
It was a miracle.
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
So then, when my former priest said Jesus magically appeared outside Mary’s tummy, he is just giving his opinion and it’s not Church teaching?
B
BlackFriar
Guest
What was it that was neither broken nor injured?
And how does normal birth injure such things?
This is a fair question that Hope asks.
But few Churchman are willing to make it publicly clear…including the Magisterium. In times past it was made very clear.
I call that embarrassment…and not one of simply talking maternal biology.
Where is the word miracle used (I only see incomprehensible)?
At least in a miracle (which is also something incomprehensible) we are always able to identify the physically perceived matter that causes wonder.
If the subject of this matter was never handed down to the apostles then it seems pure speculation by the culturally constrained eastern minds of a much later time. Nothing wrong with that.
However if it is like erroneous geocentric physical conclusions “necessitated” by similarly erroneous theologic starting points (literal appreciation of certain Biblical texts) then the biological bits and pieces implied by the above (whatever they are) is likely fallible.
However until such time as the Church retires the biological aspect of this mystery we are of course to respect it with assent of mind and will.
Just as was required of Galileo at his trial.
And how does normal birth injure such things?
This is a fair question that Hope asks.
But few Churchman are willing to make it publicly clear…including the Magisterium. In times past it was made very clear.
I call that embarrassment…and not one of simply talking maternal biology.
Where is the word miracle used (I only see incomprehensible)?
At least in a miracle (which is also something incomprehensible) we are always able to identify the physically perceived matter that causes wonder.
If the subject of this matter was never handed down to the apostles then it seems pure speculation by the culturally constrained eastern minds of a much later time. Nothing wrong with that.
However if it is like erroneous geocentric physical conclusions “necessitated” by similarly erroneous theologic starting points (literal appreciation of certain Biblical texts) then the biological bits and pieces implied by the above (whatever they are) is likely fallible.
However until such time as the Church retires the biological aspect of this mystery we are of course to respect it with assent of mind and will.
Just as was required of Galileo at his trial.
Last edited:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It’s a simple matter of understanding the context of the words.
Try this webpage http://biblehub.com/luke/2-23.htm
It uses several different translations, but for your purposes here, that won’t matter. If you want only the Catholic translation, just concentrate on the Douay-Rheims Bible
"As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: "
Opening the womb is nothing more than a poetic way of saying “the first born” While there is biblical significance to the fact that He was the first-borm (and indeed the only-born) there is no significance to the words “open the womb” it is nothing more than phrase meaning “first.”
You can look at that webpage and see the references from the Old Testament that Luke referenced.
Again, not the Catholic translation, but that’s not relevant for this line
HERE IS A CUT-AND-PASTE of the OT references
Cross References
Exodus 13:2
“Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.”
Exodus 13:12
you shall devote to the LORD the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the LORD.
Numbers 3:13
“For all the firstborn are Mine; on the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, from man to beast. They shall be Mine; I am the LORD.”
Numbers 8:17
"For every firstborn among the sons of Israel is Mine, among the men and among the animals; on the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for Myself.
Treasury of Scripture
(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord
Exodus 13:2,12-15 Sanctify to me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the …
Exodus 22:29 You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe fruits, and of …
Exodus 34:19 All that opens the matrix is mine; and every firstling among your …
Numbers 3:13 Because all the firstborn are mine…
Numbers 8:16,17 For they are wholly given to me from among the children of Israel; …
Numbers 18:15 Every thing that opens the matrix in all flesh, which they bring …
H
Hope1960
Guest
But did Jesus, when being born, come down Mary’s birth canal and out her vagina or did He just miraculously just appear outside her tummy?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
If it was the second option, then He did not experience human birth. If that was the case, then the whole Incarnation was a farce. Naturally, we believe that to be untrue—He did experience a human birth. So, we must say that He was born in the natural, usual way (born, but not conceived normally).
(now, there is a 3rd option, a variation on caesarian, but that’s not worthy of the discussion. Humans born that way are fully human, but let’s just eliminate that topic from the discussion and assume that He was not born by caesarian).
H
Hope1960
Guest
So Just to be clear, Fr David, Jesus was born down the birth canal and out our Our Lady’s vagina, just like everyone else, right?
Last edited:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Well, I wasn’t there to watch.
What I can say is that our theology, what we already know to be revealed Truths, leads us to that conclusion. Anything else would be a contradiction of what we know to be True. And since we’re talking about the Incarnation itself, that’s a big deal in our belief system. Without the Incarnation, Christianity is utterly meaningless.
H
Hope1960
Guest
So, just to be clear,FrDavid, Jesus was born by traveling down Our Lady’s birth canal, and out her vagina like every other baby, right?
- Status