Science and the modern Apostasy

  • Thread starter Thread starter steph_86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

steph_86

Guest
Hi everyone,

I happened to stop by this thread and I want to make my contribution. First of all, I have a deep respect and admiration for all scientific endeavor. In fact, I encourage it especially since it has brought to mankind many material and human benefits.

Nonetheless, as a Christian, I am bound to evaluate every human activity and endeavor in the light of the Gospel of Christ, and in the light of the Faith. It is a matter a common knowledge among the educated minds of our generation, and even for many well-meaning Catholics, that the Catholic Church erred in her response and treatment of the heliocentric theory. Or rather, for many faithful Catholics, the Galileo affair showed that the Church has no competence whatever in the domain of natural science. The consequence of the Galileo affair, of course, is the continued separation between theology and philosophy, and in the end, between religion and science. Since that time, science has played a more influential role in society, while the Church has been not only receding in her influence in society, but also by making continuous concessions to the advances, discoveries and theories of natural science. Today, it cannot be denied that a very large portion of humanity has accepted natural science as the final authority on knowledge and on life.

And this, as I conceive, is the problem. I am convinced that the eclipse of the Church and her assault with heretical teachings did not begin at the time of the Enlightenment, nor did it begin at the time of the Reformation. Rather, the eclipse of the Church started with the Copernican Revolution and the Galileo affair. Since that time, the Church has lost her revered status as the supreme Teacher of the world, and at the same time, the Sacred Scriptures lost their eminent place as the source of all Truth, whether they be spiritual, moral, historical, and yes, even scientific.

The beginning of the modern heresy in truth, did not begin with the divorce between the State and the Church that was carried out during the French Revolution, which was the violent but unexpected consequence of the Enlightenment. Nor did the modern heresy begin with the Reformation which brought the overthrow of the divine authority of the Church and of its right to authoritatively set down the meaning of Sacred Scripture. No, the Revolution started when science began divesting itself from the accepted account of the origins of Creation. Galileo was not the first to propose the heliocentric theory. However, he is among the first decidedly modern minds. In his interpretation of Scripture, Galileo claimed that the Holy Writ used merely poetic language as pertains to natural phenomena, and that, therefore, it contained no real revelation on the natural world. But Galileo went even further. The heliocentric theory, which, till that time, had been used as a useful tool for astronomical calculation, was claimed by Galileo to constitute a real representation of reality.

St. Robert Bellarmine who was a Cardinal at the time, understood what was at stake, which was the innerrancy of Scripture and the authority of the Greek and Roman Fathers of the Faith. Indeed, the Catholic Faith was at stake. In a subtle manner, Galileo had put into doubt an account of creation - that of the central position and of the immobility of the earth - that had been accepted by both pagans and Christians for centuries. Most of all, Galileo put into question an interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures - that of the centrality of the earth in the cosmos - that had been the consensus of the Fathers for centuries. Galileo’s heliocentric proposition were examined by the Congregation of the Index in 1616. The proposition that the sun was the center of the world, and immovable was condemned as “formally heretical”, while the proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, is not immovable and with a diurnal motion, was condemned as “erroneous in the faith”. Faced with the condemnation, of his theories, Galileo, like a true modernist, publicly recanted them, - while still officiously holding them - instead of like Giordano Bruno, who held fast to his errors and was in the end, burned at the stake.

Judging from history, it is certain that the consequences of the Galileo affair have been very harmful for the Church. Since that time, the Scriptures have lost their place as a source of natural and physical truth. The result of this, of course, is seen in the modern efforts to offer an alternative to the Christian world view, as seen in the theory of evolution. In addition, if the inerrancy of Scripture has been put into question, at the same time, the divine authority of the Church has been attacked. This, of course, is one of the significant consequences of the Enlightenment and of the French Revolution. From that period on, some voices have been raised doubting the supreme infallibity of the Pontiff and of the bishops in union with him. On the other hand, natural science has come to form more and more the intellects and consciences of human individuals. In current times, human science has become atheistic, not recognizing at all any authority above itself. Overall, if Christian culture is to be revived, the whole Catholic world view is to be recovered starting of course, with the restitution of the eminent place of Sacred Scripture as the source of truth in the moral, spiritual, natural and historical spheres.

To end, I am putting for your reading, two articles from a Catholic author called Solange Strong Hertz tracing the historical and theological roots of the current Apostasy, and of the heresy of modernism.

What’s up?
lewisdt.com/research/Geocentrism/up.pdf
 
In addition, if the inerrancy of Scripture has been put into question, at the same time, the divine authority of the Church has been attacked.
You are aware that we Catholics do not follow the doctrines of sola scriptura, or biblical literalism, right? St. Augustine suggested a metaphorical view of aspects of Genesis back in the 400s.

You are also aware that the Church drove scientific advancement in the fields of genetics, chemistry, geology, seismology, agriculture, astronomy, cybernetics, physics, etc., etc… right? The many Catholic scientists (many of them priests and monks) did this out of a sincere desire to know God through His works, and to alleviate the suffering of others by developing knowledge that will help them, through the God-given gift of reason and the recognition of the ordered universe God created.

The Big Bang Theory itself was formulated by a Jesuit physicist.

I would suggest you review some of the articles and podcasts on the Catholic Laboratory site:

catholiclab.net/TheCatholicLaboratory/Home.html
 
You are aware that we Catholics do not follow the doctrines of sola scriptura, or biblical literalism, right? St. Augustine suggested a metaphorical view of aspects of Genesis back in the 400s.

You are also aware that the Church drove scientific advancement in the fields of genetics, chemistry, geology, seismology, agriculture, astronomy, cybernetics, physics, etc., etc… right? The many Catholic scientists (many of them priests and monks) did this out of a sincere desire to know God through His works, and to alleviate the suffering of others by developing knowledge that will help them, through the God-given gift of reason and the recognition of the ordered universe God created.

The Big Bang Theory itself was formulated by a Jesuit physicist.

I would suggest you review some of the articles and podcasts on the Catholic Laboratory site:

catholiclab.net/TheCatholicLaboratory/Home.html
I am aware that many people of faith, even Catholics themselves have contributed to our understanding of science. The problem however, resides in the fact that we have substituted the Magisterium, Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures for human science, which has now been considered as the final authority on knowledge. Now, instead of understanding science in relation to the light of faith, we are consistently adjusting our interpretation of Scripture passages in relation to the latest findings of science.

And yet, Scripture is inspired and inerrant as defended in many papal encyclicals such as Divino afflante Spiritu. Scripture is not only inerrant in supernatural and spiritual matters, but also in natural matters. Of course, this is not to say that the Sacred Scriptures contain all the truths about the natural world. However, there are central truths about man and the natural world that have been a part of the Catholic world view for centuries. One of these is geocentrism. The importance of this truth cannot be exaggerated, since it is on the earth, the central planet, that the Incarnation took place. Another also, is the age of humanity as traced in the biblical genealogy found in Luke Chapter 3, going from Adam to Jesus. Based on this genealogy, we find that the age of humanity can be measured in thousands of years, and not millions as hypothesized by current science.

Certainly, I do not pretend to know everything. At the same time, I am aware that humanity in reality finds itself in a supernatural battle - between Good and Evil - that will decide its ultimate fate. In fact, we must be willing to accept that since science has separated itself from religion, Faith has suffered. Skepticism has grown, and we have become accustomed to interpreting miracles and divine interventions according to naturalistic and rationalistic theories. In fact, there are many who have fallen prey to rationalism, no longer accepting the authority of Divine Reason and of its rights to set limits on human investigations. We must not forget that man is a fallen creature. And even when he is baptized, religious and pious is still contaminated with both sensual and mental concupiscence, which disturbs the passions of his flesh and obscures his mind. As such, scientists, even the most intelligent, err in one way or another. The only who does not err is God.

This is why the divorce between science and religion is the most serious issue at the present moment. We have forgotten that when man and his mind are not nourished by grace and illumined by Faith, he can err, and seriously err indeed. The temerity of Galileo was not only to take his theory as fact, but also at the same time to refute the authority of Scripture and Tradition as related to the truths of the Faith. In addition, if we were to examine history we would see that since the time of the Renaissance, mankind has been increasingly rejecting Catholic truths. First, the truths in the natural order such as geocentrism. Then, the historical truths such as the universal Flood, the separation of Babel. Finally, the truths in the supernatural order such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Divinity of Christ. The result today, is the fabrication of Catholicism as a human institution, and the recurrent perception of the Christ as a mere man, moved by human goodness and altruism.

Is it not said: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).
 
The earth is not thousands of years old. That is patently false and is easily empirically falsified. The bible is anything but a science tutorial and does not claim to be. All discoveries in science, such as the true age of the earth, the origin of the universe, the laws of physics, the uncertainty principle in the realm of quantum mechanics, special relativity, the truth that time is relative, Hubble’s discovery of the expanding universe, etc, reveal the beauty and complexity of God’s creation and strengthens one’s faith. Contrary to the unnecessary fear that science leads individuals to atheism, many atheistic, agnostic, or indifferent individuals have actually become convinced of God’s existence upon being made aware of the incredible vastness and complexity of “secular” scientific discoveries (myself included among them).
Handcuffing the universe into young earth creationist simplicities is, in my opinion, an affront to God’s incredible creation.
 
No, the Revolution started when science began divesting itself from the accepted account of the origins of Creation. Galileo was not the first to propose the heliocentric theory. However, he is among the first decidedly modern minds. In his interpretation of Scripture, Galileo claimed that the Holy Writ used merely poetic language as pertains to natural phenomena, and that, therefore, it contained no real revelation on the natural world. But Galileo went even further. The heliocentric theory, which, till that time, had been used as a useful tool for astronomical calculation, was claimed by Galileo to constitute a real representation of reality.
Galileo proposed that as our primary reference for the natural world we use the natural world itself. If I want to learn about the geography of America, it is no use me looking in the Bible, since the Bible contains nothing about the geography of America. To learn about the geography of America I actually have to go and look at America.
St. Robert Bellarmine who was a Cardinal at the time, understood what was at stake, which was the innerrancy of Scripture and the authority of the Greek and Roman Fathers of the Faith.
Scripture is a series of words on paper. What causes the arguments is the interpretations of those words. There are many different interpretations of those words, all claiming to be correct and all disagreeing with one another. This has been the case since well before Galileo.

Here is a passage from scripture: Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands,” Do trees really have hands that they can clap? No, the Prophet is talking poetically here. How do we know that this passage is poetry, and not literal? Because we can observe real trees in the natural world around us. Just as we can know that an overly literal interpretation of other parts of scripture is wrong because of our observation of the natural world around us.

Geocentrism is wrong. It can be shown to be wrong by observation of the world around us. By insisting on Geocentrism you will be driving anyone with any astronomical knowledge at all, away from the Church. Would you join a church that insisted that trees actually have hands, just because scripture said so? By insisting on Geocentrism you are doing the same thing.

rossum
 
Galileo proposed that as our primary reference for the natural world we use the natural world itself. If I want to learn about the geography of America, it is no use me looking in the Bible, since the Bible contains nothing about the geography of America. To learn about the geography of America I actually have to go and look at America.

Scripture is a series of words on paper. What causes the arguments is the interpretations of those words. There are many different interpretations of those words, all claiming to be correct and all disagreeing with one another. This has been the case since well before Galileo.

Here is a passage from scripture: Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands,” Do trees really have hands that they can clap? No, the Prophet is talking poetically here. How do we know that this passage is poetry, and not literal? Because we can observe real trees in the natural world around us. Just as we can know that an overly literal interpretation of other parts of scripture is wrong because of our observation of the natural world around us.

Geocentrism is wrong. It can be shown to be wrong by observation of the world around us. By insisting on Geocentrism you will be driving anyone with any astronomical knowledge at all, away from the Church. Would you join a church that insisted that trees actually have hands, just because scripture said so? By insisting on Geocentrism you are doing the same thing.

rossum
Excellent post. Bravo 👍
 
If the view of the Church toward heliocentrism was wrong because the Church was judging outside its field of expertise, the view of modern atheistic scientists toward all things supernatural is wrong for the same reason. While atheistic scientists are fond of playing the Galileo card, religious scientists should be just as fond of playing the Darwin card, or even the Dawkins card … and certainly Freud’s fraudulent science card.

Tit for tat. Tally-ho!!! ;)😃
 
If the view of the Church toward heliocentrism was wrong because the Church was judging outside its field of expertise, the view of modern atheistic scientists toward all things supernatural is wrong for the same reason. While atheistic scientists are fond of playing the Galileo card, religious scientists should be just as fond of playing the Darwin card, or even the Dawkins card … and certainly Freud’s fraudulent science card.
Beware of playing the Darwin card. Darwin didn’t say a great deal about theology. What he said about science has proved to be extremely good, especially given that he knew nothing of genetics and DNA.

rossum
 
rossum

Beware of playing the Darwin card. Darwin didn’t say a great deal about theology. What he said about science has proved to be extremely good, especially given that he knew nothing of genetics and DNA.

I’m aware that Darwin did not play the Darwin card against religion. At least he didn’t play it the way T.H. Huxley, Richard Dawkins, and others have played the Darwin card. My point only is that the Darwin card exists and need to stop being played as a card against religion. :rolleyes:
 
rossum

Beware of playing the Darwin card. Darwin didn’t say a great deal about theology. What he said about science has proved to be extremely good, especially given that he knew nothing of genetics and DNA.

I’m aware that Darwin did not play the Darwin card against religion. At least he didn’t play it the way T.H. Huxley, Richard Dawkins, and others have played the Darwin card. My point only is that the Darwin card exists and need to stop being played as a card against religion.
Agreed. However, it is legitimate to play the Darwin card against the forms of religion which attempt to use religion to argue against evolution. In that case, it is the religious side which moves over into science, as with our Geocentrist OP in this thread.

rossum
 
Galileo proposed that as our primary reference for the natural world we use the natural world itself. If I want to learn about the geography of America, it is no use me looking in the Bible, since the Bible contains nothing about the geography of America. To learn about the geography of America I actually have to go and look at America.

Scripture is a series of words on paper. What causes the arguments is the interpretations of those words. There are many different interpretations of those words, all claiming to be correct and all disagreeing with one another. This has been the case since well before Galileo.

Here is a passage from scripture: Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands,” Do trees really have hands that they can clap? No, the Prophet is talking poetically here. How do we know that this passage is poetry, and not literal? Because we can observe real trees in the natural world around us. Just as we can know that an overly literal interpretation of other parts of scripture is wrong because of our observation of the natural world around us.

Geocentrism is wrong. It can be shown to be wrong by observation of the world around us. By insisting on Geocentrism you will be driving anyone with any astronomical knowledge at all, away from the Church. Would you join a church that insisted that trees actually have hands, just because scripture said so? By insisting on Geocentrism you are doing the same thing.

rossum
Scientific research has been a part of western civilization for centuries before the arrival of Galileo. Even Copernicus who refined heliocentrism did not present his theories as fact. The originality of Galileo however, was to pretend that the natural truths contained in Scriptures were merely poetic or metaphorical, and that the competence of Scripture only pertained to the spiritual and the supernatural. The temerity of Galileo was to pretend that it was the interpretation of Scripture - and not the theories of science - that had to adapt itself to the findings and conclusions of natural science. And so many passages such as the stopping of the sun in the sky by Joshua had to be interpreted differently as being merely the language of sense and of the appearances.

The Church resisted for some time, putting many books espousing heliocentric theories on the Index. It was not until 1757 that Pope Benedict XIV began allowing heliocentrism to be taught in schools as theory. Of course, the Church has never officially recanted geocentrism as it had been defined in 1616 by the Congregation of the Index and the 1664 Bull of Alexander VII. Nevertheless, since the 18th century, the Church has continuously tailored its understanding and interpretation of Scriptures according to the latest findings of science. And yet, the Church fails to realize that natural science does not recognize any authority beyond itself. In this regard, rationalism reigns supreme and since the Renaissance and the Reformation, science has been following its own path, and has not taken into account many of the indications contained both in Scripture and in Catholic Tradition.

All Scripture is free from error, both in its physical, historic, spiritual and supernatural indications. Instead of continuing to interpret our origins of the universe and of man in accordance with the Tradition and the Scriptures, mankind has continuously followed its own mind, forgetting that in order to arrive at the comprehension of all truth, the human mind must be illuminated by divine faith and divine grace. Before science declared its independence from religious wisdom during the Copernican and scientific revolutions, all science - understood at the time as natural philosophy - was subservient to theology which set the boundaries for human investigation and illumined many of the mysteries of creation. For example, as any good Catholic knows, each believer is bound to profess to the historical character of Original Sin and of the personal and historical existence of Adam and Eve, from whom all humanity descends. As Humani Generis stated authoritatively, polygenism is contrary to the Faith. This is just an example, of how when the truths of Scripture are taken seriously - and literally when it is required - they can actually protect all human investigation from error.
 
As such, this is what in lacking since the advent of modernity. In order to reconcile, science and religion and save the Church from the current crisis of faith, science must once again owe ultimate reference to the light and wisdom of Sacred Scripture and of Tradition. Otherwise, the current crisis in theology and exegesis will take its course. Although the Church has shown openness towards the findings of science, She has not sponsored as fact any scientific theories. And I think what is lacking is the recognition that all scientific theories are provisional. In the span of three to four centuries we have gone from Aristotelian physics as the reigning paradigm, to Newtonian physics and now we have come to the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Paradigms in science shift as scientific theories evolve. And the problem is that if we continuously keep interpreting Scripture according to the latest truths of science, we will end up in error.

Science has done a great deal of good for humanity. Thanks to the advances in medicine, chemistry, biology, physics, man has grown in his domination of his natural environment coupled with an improvement of his material and human conditions. But we must finally understand that no human activity is indifferent to man’s salvation. And above all, science has done its share in the current rebellion towards the Church, who is the Teacher of the nations, and towards God. Although we continue to hold that there is no conflict between science and religion, in reality there exists one.

Satan, who is the real architect of the modern rebellion, has used scientific apostates to generate an alternative world view to the Catholic world view. He started by displacing the foundations of Revelation both with the scientific Revolution and the Reformation. Then he substituted the hierarchical Christian order with the egalitarian order of Enlightened democracy. Through the miracles of science, he has generated an alternate way of life disconnected from the rhythmic pattern of nature and in fact characterized by the abuse of earth’s natural resources. By now, we have accepted this new creed, in which cosmology is relative and where man, the son of God, is a mere creature evolved from the apes.

In reality, the fruits of science divorced from religious wisdom are not only apostasy but also atheism. Is it any surprise that the discoveries and theories of natural science have in the end legitimated intellectual atheism?
 
As such, this is what in lacking since the advent of modernity. In order to reconcile, science and religion and save the Church from the current crisis of faith, science must once again owe ultimate reference to the light and wisdom of Sacred Scripture and of Tradition. Otherwise, the current crisis in theology and exegesis will take its course. Although the Church has shown openness towards the findings of science, She has not sponsored as fact any scientific theories. And I think what is lacking is the recognition that all scientific theories are provisional. In the span of three to four centuries we have gone from Aristotelian physics as the reigning paradigm, to Newtonian physics and now we have come to the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Paradigms in science shift as scientific theories evolve. And the problem is that if we continuously keep interpreting Scripture according to the latest truths of science, we will end up in error.

Science has done a great deal of good for humanity. Thanks to the advances in medicine, chemistry, biology, physics, man has grown in his domination of his natural environment coupled with an improvement of his material and human conditions. But we must finally understand that no human activity is indifferent to man’s salvation. And above all, science has done its share in the current rebellion towards the Church, who is the Teacher of the nations, and towards God. Although we continue to hold that there is no conflict between science and religion, in reality there exists one.

Satan, who is the real architect of the modern rebellion, has used scientific apostates to generate an alternative world view to the Catholic world view. He started by displacing the foundations of Revelation both with the scientific Revolution and the Reformation. Then he substituted the hierarchical Christian order with the egalitarian order of Enlightened democracy. Through the miracles of science, he has generated an alternate way of life disconnected from the rhythmic pattern of nature and in fact characterized by the abuse of earth’s natural resources. By now, we have accepted this new creed, in which cosmology is relative and where man, the son of God, is a mere creature evolved from the apes.

In reality, the fruits of science divorced from religious wisdom are not only apostasy but also atheism. Is it any surprise that the discoveries and theories of natural science have in the end legitimated intellectual atheism?
Scripture is quite clear on the intellectual revolution and the false teachings:

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but… they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” 2 Tim. 4:2-4
 
You are right. Science, as it is commonly taught, is the foundation for modern atheism. In its own sphere, scientists have done much good and created the potential for great harm. However, this often spills into a personal worldview problem.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Peace,
Ed
 
All Scripture is free from error, both in its physical, historic, spiritual and supernatural indications.
Two points. First, if you look at the top right of my posts, you will see that I am Buddhist. What I call scripture is the Buddhist Tripitaka. I do not think that you accept that the Tripitaka is “free from error”. There are many different books that many different groups of people call “scripture”. Merely because a lot of pople believe that a book is scripture does not make it inerrant.

Secondly, we are not arguing about Christian scripture, we are arguing about different interpretations of Christian scripture. I am sure that you will agree that the Calvinist interpretation of the Bible is incorrect. From very early on in Christian history there have been differing interpretations of the Bible.

We both agree that the Bible contains non-literal passages; I gave the example of trees clapping their hands from Isaiah. I suspect we disagree on which passages are to be interpreted literally and which are not.

Geocentrism, as in your OP, is wrong. It is so egregiously wrong that trying to promote it in the way you seem to be doing can only do damage to the Catholic Church.

rossum
 
As such, this is what in lacking since the advent of modernity. In order to reconcile, science and religion and save the Church from the current crisis of faith, science must once again owe ultimate reference to the light and wisdom of Sacred Scripture and of Tradition. Otherwise, the current crisis in theology and exegesis will take its course.
I don’t understand. If there is a crisis within the Church then the Church must seek the solution within, the rest of the world isn’t going to change.
Satan, who is the real architect of the modern rebellion, has used scientific apostates to generate an alternative world view to the Catholic world view. He started by displacing the foundations of Revelation both with the scientific Revolution and the Reformation. Then he substituted the hierarchical Christian order with the egalitarian order of Enlightened democracy. Through the miracles of science, he has generated an alternate way of life disconnected from the rhythmic pattern of nature and in fact characterized by the abuse of earth’s natural resources. By now, we have accepted this new creed, in which cosmology is relative and where man, the son of God, is a mere creature evolved from the apes.
You write an excellent lament, although it’s a little uncertain whether those good ol’ days were really so good, but all things pass, only God never changes.

But if it is more than a lament, are you proposing that we all give up democracy, give up academic freedom, give up all our hard won liberties to be forced to bow to your altar of Tradition?
 
inocente

**But if it is more than a lament, are you proposing that we all give up democracy, give up academic freedom, give up all our hard won liberties to be forced to bow to your altar of Tradition? **

Don’t be knocking the Catholic Church. Our “altar of Tradition” gave you Baptists a reason for living … to revolt against the altar of Tradition. 😃

Best Form of Government. – In the 1a 2ae, question 105, article first, we find St. Thomas’ opinion on the best form of government. If we consider merely the words he uses it would be said that he pronounces in favor of a limited monarchy; but if we go below the words and consider the principles on which his conclusion is based, it will appear that the Angelic Doctor was not averse to a republic, and I believe that if he were living to-day he would be an ardent supporter of our form of government. “One of the principal things to be considered,” he wrote, “with regard to the good establishment of princes [rulers] is that all should have some part in the government; for in this way peace is preserved amongst the people, and all are pleased with such a disposition of things and maintain it. The next thing to be considered is the form of government, of which there are principally two kinds: a Kingdom, in which one rules, and an Aristocracy, in which a few exercise the authority. The best form is that in which one rules over all, and under him there are others having authority, but the government pertains to all, because those who exercise authority can be chosen from all and are chosen by all. . . . Hence the best government is a mixture of a Kingdom, of Aristocracy and of Democracy, i.e., of the power of the people, inasmuch as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the election of the rulers belongs to the people.” There is a vast amount of good republicanism and of sound democracy in these words. First, by the kind or monarch St. Thomas means nothing more than some one is to represent the governing authority. Secondly, the aristocracy means those who exercise a salutary restraint on the power of the head of the government; because if there were no restraint the power of the king, says St. Thomas (ad 2um), would easily degenerate into a tyranny. Congressmen and senators, for instance, would supply the demand for an aristocracy. Lastly, St. Thomas says that neither kingdom nor an aristocracy will form a stable government unless the element of democracy is introduced by permitting the choice of the rulers from the people and by the people, that thus all may have some part in the government. These words lead us to believe that if St. Thomas were living to-day he would be a republican or a democrat.
 
Two points. First, if you look at the top right of my posts, you will see that I am Buddhist. What I call scripture is the Buddhist Tripitaka. I do not think that you accept that the Tripitaka is “free from error”. There are many different books that many different groups of people call “scripture”. Merely because a lot of pople believe that a book is scripture does not make it inerrant.

Secondly, we are not arguing about Christian scripture, we are arguing about different interpretations of Christian scripture. I am sure that you will agree that the Calvinist interpretation of the Bible is incorrect. From very early on in Christian history there have been differing interpretations of the Bible.

We both agree that the Bible contains non-literal passages; I gave the example of trees clapping their hands from Isaiah. I suspect we disagree on which passages are to be interpreted literally and which are not.

Geocentrism, as in your OP, is wrong. It is so egregiously wrong that trying to promote it in the way you seem to be doing can only do damage to the Catholic Church.

rossum
I didn’t notice you were a Buddhist. I have a great respect for Buddhism. I think that if I weren’t a Roman Catholic, I would become a Buddhist.

And yet, at the same time, there is a fundamental difference between Buddhism and Christianity. Essentially, Buddhism is pantheistic, in the sense that it does not recognize a First Cause, a Creator and Origin of all things. In fact, it reduces reality to the observable universe in which everything is interdependent.

But I think that we must make distinctions. All religions contain a part of the Truth. In fact, in his General Audience Address in 1998, Blessed Pope John Paul II stated that:

“I have wished to recall the ancient doctrine formulated by the Fathers of the Church, which says that we must recognize “the seeds of the Word” present and active in the various religions.”

This means that all the religions present in the world tend towards the True God as their goal and final end. In his address, Blessed Pope John Paul II states further:

"The “seeds of truth” present and active in the various religious traditions are a reflection of the unique Word of God, who “enlightens every man coming into world”

As such, although all religions tend towards God they lack the fullness of the Truth that can only be found in Christianity and in fact, Catholic Christianity. In reality, it can be said that all humanity awaits the revelation of Christ, who is God-Man, Savior of the world and Teacher of all nations.

For this reason, we must make important clarifications. There is a difference between natural religion which reflects man’s search for Truth and for the All, and revealed religion which is God’s search for man and the continued and historic revelation of Himself according to a plan laid out from all eternity. Not all religions are revealed. In my understanding, only Judaism and Christianity are revealed, that is, of a supernatural origin (One might add Islam also, but this is a point of contention for me).

Because the Torah (the Old Testament) and the Bible are the objects of supernatural revelation, they are of divine origin, that is, inspired, and free from error. This inspiration and inerrancy exclude error in the natural, physical, historical, moral, spiritual and supernatural domains. Why? Because God who is the Author of Revelation is the Truth and He cannot err. Buddhism and other religions, however, contain a part of the Truth and thus, are subject to error. For example, in Buddhism, one of the philosophical errors present is the denial of the existence of the human soul and consequently, of its immortality. In truth, this abolishes a whole realm of truths which are necessary for man’s salvation. This truth, of the existence and of the immortality of the human soul, can be proven by reason without the aid of supernatural revelation.

Although Buddhism is not a religion per se, (since in reality it is not organized around the worship of a deity, it is more of a philosophy of life - I might be wrong on this), it can be understood as a natural religion. In fact, it can be said to be a natural revelation which is of a metaphysical nature (as opposed to Christianity and Judaism which are of a historical nature). This does not mean that Buddhism is not a historical faith, but it reveals its orientation which is mostly philosophical.

As opposed to this, Christianity (and Judaism) is historical, that is, an interpretation of history in relation to a Divine Plan, in relation to eternity. It does not offer principally a metaphysical theory on reality, although it is concerned with cosmology. This is why geocentrism which is both a physical and cosmological truth, affects not only the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, but also the Faith itself. Nonetheless, Christian truth is essentially theological, that is, it is concerned with God, His Nature and His Designs.

It can be stated that the Buddhist scriptures are sacred, in the sense that they deal with religion and its truths. But not in the sense that the Buddhist scriptures are revealed, that is, of a supernatural origin.

In the end, however, the obedience of faith that is demanded as a response to the revelation of God, made through his Church, is an act not only of the self, but also of the will. For Christianity, the problem of existence is essentially volitional, and not intellectual as seen with Buddhism. Man’s salvation does not depend on the elimination of ignorance, although it demands it, no, it depends on the domestication of the will and of its total inclination towards the Good. Man will not be saved by the possession of perfect knowledge, rather, he will be saved by the obedience of faith, which not only demands intellectual knowledge but above all, an act of the will, of a good will.
 
Don’t be knocking the Catholic Church. Our “altar of Tradition” gave you Baptists a reason for living … to revolt against the altar of Tradition. 😃
I didn’t, I was responding to steph_86 who wrote “Then he [Satan] substituted the hierarchical Christian order with the egalitarian order of Enlightened democracy.”

It never occurred to me that the Church might have an altar of tradition in addition to the regular kind. I think you might be having me on. 😃
Best Form of Government. – In the 1a 2ae, question 105, article first, we find St. Thomas’ opinion on the best form of government. … These words lead us to believe that if St. Thomas were living to-day he would be a republican or a democrat.
You didn’t give the author of that quote, but from google it’s probably a certain Fr D J Kennedy, writing about the Summa text in the first article linked here. Thomas doesn’t seem to be saying anything revolutionary, his thoughts are based on Aristotle and the bible. And he appears to be arguing for the divine right of kings, so calling him the father of modern democracy might be a bit of a stretch.

In any case I was asking what, if anything, steph_86 is proposing - while we all might agree that nostalgia isn’t what it used to be, what steps would bring the world into line?
 
inocente

**You didn’t give the author of that quote, but from google it’s probably a certain Fr D J Kennedy, writing about the Summa text in the first article linked here. Thomas doesn’t seem to be saying anything revolutionary, his thoughts are based on Aristotle and the bible. **

Right. He was meditating at the altar of Tradition, which in those days was a Catholic altar. The Bible was part of the Catholic tradition, a very important part since the books of the New Testament were collected and authorized by the Catholic bishops in the 4th Century.

Aristotle was also meditating at the altar of Tradition … a calm and thoughtful place to be when you are meditating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top