E
Elizabeth502
Guest
follow-up to the poster guanophore:
(That’s part of my quote, guanophore, addresed to a different poster.)
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
OK, but it looks like a creationist site. Is this a wing of Answers in Genesis, or of the Discovery Institute?
B
buffalo
Guest
Absolutely not. Have them approach it objectively without any pre-conceived notions.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
False.
False.
Quite true; I never said it did.
Thinking persons discuss theology; they don’t retreat blindly to a handbook.
Again with your falsehoods, Granny. This is precisely what I’m saying; don’t make up false claims and dishonestly pawn them off as my own!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I see that the site includes “Why Faithful Catholics should oppose Evolution.” That sounds like a wild creationist claim, so naturally I assume this site is a wild creationist site.
I don’t know any Catholics who would even give a second thought to a web site that links to articles such as “Did woman evolve from beasts?”.
Y
You
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
I am only doing what you do when you analyze other people’s posts and reply accordingly.
Free speech allows *both *you and me and other CAF thinking members to analyze anything publically written on CAF. I have been civil in referring to the post’s written material. If anyone thinks that I have misinterpreted a written comment, they are perfectly free to discuss it with me. I will be delighted to further explain my analysis. And when someone presents a different analysis of written material, I will either continue the discussion and/or recognize that it is a better analysis. In addition, I may opt to agree to disagree.
B
buffalo
Guest
**Cats **have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)
- **Cows **(Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)
- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).
- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Quoting Elizabeth502:
Quoting Elizabeth 502:
I don’t need a lecture about Aquinas; I’m possibly more acquainted with him than you are. He was extremely clear that science does not modify doctrine. You continue to interchange the word “understanding” with the word “doctrine.” They are not interchangeable. Doctrine in this context is Roman Catholic term which indicates a definitive, settled teaching, not understandings in process. Theology involves dialogue; doctrine does not. Doctrine is the end point of theological study, not a midpoint.
You are implying to all the posters, lurkers, and inquirers to the Faith on CAF, that Church doctrine changes. Explanations of doctrines change; language about doctrine changes; the way that doctrine is re-situated within the larger body of doctrine can shift. But that is not the same thing as equating “having a conversation [about a concept]” with “changing Church doctrine.”
Quoting StAnastasia:
Quoting Elizabeth502:
Quoting StAnastasia:
I cited twice in this thread the denunciation of two Popes regarding evolving souls. Show me where Catholic doctrine – not a theological theory by your own peer group, an author speaking against doctrine, etc. – supports the evolution of the human soul.
Quoting Elizabeth 502:
Quoting StAnastasia:
That has nothing to do with science modifying doctrine. For someone with a graduate degree, you seem to have trouble with precision when responding to others (not just to me, I’ve noticed). Someone makes a particular statement, and you answer with a generality that does not address the particular.
I don’t need a lecture about Aquinas; I’m possibly more acquainted with him than you are. He was extremely clear that science does not modify doctrine. You continue to interchange the word “understanding” with the word “doctrine.” They are not interchangeable. Doctrine in this context is Roman Catholic term which indicates a definitive, settled teaching, not understandings in process. Theology involves dialogue; doctrine does not. Doctrine is the end point of theological study, not a midpoint.
You are implying to all the posters, lurkers, and inquirers to the Faith on CAF, that Church doctrine changes. Explanations of doctrines change; language about doctrine changes; the way that doctrine is re-situated within the larger body of doctrine can shift. But that is not the same thing as equating “having a conversation [about a concept]” with “changing Church doctrine.”
Quoting StAnastasia:
But the dialogue about spirituality is not ultimately subject to scientific views about the material world. And as far scientists making suppositions about the non-material world, they can do so all they want, but, as grannymh has reminded us, Revelation is decidedly different from scientific discoveries about the material world. Science cannot assume, for example, that evidence of animal species showing care about each other is evidence of morality per se. Those of us who have studied anthropology have read a lot about the grieving of animals, the adjustments animals make in response to new needs of their group, etc. That’s evidence of feeling, and evidence of social adjustment.
Quoting Elizabeth502:
Quoting StAnastasia:
That’s precisely what I said! You obviously had trouble understanding that.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
False – if you read carefully , what I have said is that the articulation of doctrine changes as culture – including scientific culture – changes.
All true – this is what I am saying!
B
buffalo
Guest
Dogma and doctine are like a bush. Our understanding gets fuller, but we do not trim the branches back to the root.
G
grannymh
Guest
My humble suggestion is that members, guests, lurkers, and all others carefully reread what Elizabeth502 has posted in this thread. Her use of language is clear and direct concerning issues about Catholic doctrine.
May I respectfully refer to two “modernist” Catholic theologians, NOT on CAF as far as I know. I have read brief samples of their “modernist” theology. Their language is not always completely clear and direct concerning actual Catholic doctrine. Yet, it is obvious that they seek to change Divine Revelation as expressed in certain Catholic doctrines. In essence, their platform is that Catholic doctrine should change as culture changes and as science prescribes. While they may not shout change, change, change in capital letters, their clever use of vocabulary leads the unsuspecting reader to believe that Catholicism can change with the wind.
Reading CAF posts, one can see that many, not all, believe that Catholic doctrine relies on the current teachings of popular secular theology. I use the word “secular” to indicate the difference between this kind of theology and Catholic theology which remains in accord with the Catholic Deposit of Faith.
May I respectfully suggest that caution is advised when samples of the secular theology based on the modern world appear on CAF
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Quite true!
L
levinas12
Guest
I think you have opened up a space for further discussion here.
Consider transsubstantiation. Is this “philosophical expression” on the “understanding” side of the equation or on the “doctrine” side? Because transsubstantiation is based on Aristotelian philosophy.
However, there are good philosophical arguments (Husserl, Heidegger and other phenomenologists) that “persons” cannot be understood as “substances” in the Aristotelian sense. So what do we do with transsubstantiation?
This is not to say to question the presence of Jesus in Eucharist. It is more about philosophical questions … about the presence of persons as opposed to the presence of other entities.
Is there an important difference between us and other entities such that the traditional understanding of “substance” is no longer applicable to “persons”. Heidegger’s notion of “Da-sein” is an attempt to delineate this difference.
We all agree that Ptolemaic astronomy is not part of the “doctrine”.
What happens when philosophical approaches change? Is Aristotelianism part of the “understanding” or is it part of the “doctrine”? Can there be another philosophical expression of the Eucharist other than transsubstantiation?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
levinas, you raise a fascinating question. In a post-Aristotelian universe – particularly after the purification and “baptism” of atomism by Marin Mersenne, Pierre Gassendi and Walter Charelton – the exclusive effectiveness of “transsubstantiation” is questionable. some suggestions have included “transignification” and “transfinalization.” Eucharistic theological discussion is something I observe with great interest from the sidelines.
StAnastasia
L
levinas12
Guest
transubstantiation
L
levinas12
Guest
This is not to question the presence of Jesus in Eucharist.
B
buffalo
Guest
Right you are …
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Proof from Scripture
This may be adduced both from the words of promise (John 6:26 sqq.) and, especially, from the words of Institution as recorded in the Synoptics and St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:23 sqq.).
The words of promise (John 6)
By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ not only prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood.
The words of Institution
The Church’s Magna Charta, however, are the words of Institution, “This is my body — this is my blood”, whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
“Exclusive effectiveness” vs. what, are you suggesting?
The Church has never put limits, by the way, on God’s grace. The Church has no power to do that; nor has she ever suggested that she could do so. The grace, through Christ’s presence, in Eucharistic reception, is hardly the only avenue of “effective grace.” There are other sacramental graces, such as through the sacrament of reconciliation, the sacramental and activated graces of matrimony. There are infinite other possibilities for actual grace which transforms (activates). Encounters with others, in which Christ often becomes present to us, though not under the forms of bread and wine, are the most frequent and “ordinary” ways in which we receive graces. Prayer is another avenue of grace.
- Status