I
itinerant1
Guest
That does not sound like something Cardinal Schoenborn would say. Do you have a reference?
- Status
I
itinerant1
Guest
I appreciate the comment. Thanks!Following this thread and reading all the posts, I must say that Itinerant1’s posts are not only compelling, but loaded with interesting points, facts, quotes, and citations that are just first-rate. I agree whole-heartedly with his assessments of the age of the earth and the data as well as flexibility we have with Scripture to determine the truth here. Itinerant, just awesome, dude. Loved your posts.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Not a problem. I should have time tomorrow to go through the Old Testament and post references to the ancient Hebrew concept of the world that correspond to the graphic image I previously posted in this thread.
I
itinerant1
Guest
There are some problems with your line of reasoning. There is more than one theory of biological evolution. Any version of evolution that denies Church doctrines, such as the doctrine of Original Sin, is in error on that particular point. However, it does not logically follow that some other evolution theory, one that is consistent with the truths of the Catholic faith, should be rejected for religious reasons because there is no conflict between said scientific theory and the faith.
Also, the various methods used to date the earth are independent of evolutionary theory. It makes no sense to reject what modern science estimates the age of the earth to be based on problems with a particular evolution theory. Such a position has not legs to stand on.
E
edwest2
Guest
I
itinerant1
Guest
Thanks for the reference. I seriously question what StAnastasia says because Schonborn has been the subject of considerable misinterpretation. I’m not about to take her word on this one, so I must do some looking into this matter for myself.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.
D
Deconi
Guest
Which was my point! Since you state that the ‘contentious’ points were Biblical, clearly it is a case of accept or reject…unless, they’re NOT ACTUALLY Biblical, but ‘imaginings’ of the interpreter; not The Author!
Very much like the ‘old Hebrew version’ you posted!
It seems from your view that ‘the author’ can be questioned!? Moses, Joshua, Esther, Amos, Hosea, et al, were PENS! The Author, does not err! That is to be your premise.
On a side note; I had hoped you were different from the other,…ehm…intellects, who argue things scientific. There seems to be a practice among evolutionists to spit at any enquirer when you address them! Fortunate I brought a rain-coat after the ‘last’ lot!
Here’s hoping…
I
itinerant1
Guest
I’m not sure what you are referring to when you say the ‘old Hebrew version.’
Perhaps you can clarify this. I think I know what you are saying, but I am not certain. Elaborate a little more.
Spitting is not allowed.On a side note; I had hoped you were different from the other,…ehm…intellects, who argue things scientific. There seems to be a practice among evolutionists to spit at any enquirer when you address them! Fortunate I brought a rain-coat after the ‘last’ lot!
Here’s hoping…
I hold to a theistic version of evolution as the best explanation of natural history and Divine Providence. And I have more and better criticisms of materialistic Darwinian ideology than you could probably imagine. On the other hand, I am not very sympathetic to YEC ideas.
K
kalt
Guest
You haven’t answered the question.
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
I am currently taking a Historical Geo. class, and it is rather fascinating.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Hi itinerant1,
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of my rhetorical question and concede that its implication does not necessarily follow. I am gratified that you and I agree that it is possible that there could be an evolutionary theory that is compatible with the Catholic faith.
My entire post, and the question, taken in context, was trying to emphasize my reluctance to place any trust in what has come to be called “science”. I use the modifier “modern” to designate a distinction I draw. I believe that man may profitably glorify God and edify himself by studies of the created universe. I think St. Albert the Great was an example of this. It has always been the position of the Catholic Church that studies of this kind will lead one closer to God. I believe this wholeheartedly.
When science ceases to be religiously edifying, as seems to be the case for a century and a half or more, I become suspicious. This is why I distinguish “modern science” from science. No less than St. Albert the Great, or the many uncanonized Catholic and Christian scientists of the ages, modern scientists perceive nature through a worldview that affects their findings. I don’t claim to be able to undermine or even understand their relativity theory, string theories, magnets (I believe in those without understanding), or even algebra for that matter. Nor do I intend to understand them. It is over my head and I don’t believe as I stated before that many of the masses who proclaim their belief in the conclusions of modern science understand these things either. Well, algebra perhaps. Regardless of the accuracy of that speculation, I would pesonally be taking it in on authority without understanding it at first, in a way similar as to how I accept supernatural revelation. Just as most modern scientists reject the authority of God to declare supernatural revelation to His Holy Church, so I reject the authority of most modern scientiists when they declare natural revelation to me.
In my opinion, studies of the natural universe done through a lens of godlessness yields results that will be skewed. I don’t have any interest in any so-called science that claims to be neutral regarding the existence of God. Over time, doctrines have been developed and theories proposed that are in my opinion, deliberately, designedly and pointedly irreligious. Regarding the moral law, I don’t believe in separation of church and state. Regarding the natural law, I don’t believe in separation of church and science. Modern man errs if he thinks that no guidance is needed from the Church in these areas.
Respectfully,
Rory
A
aspirant
Guest
Other Christians might believe this, but Catholics don’t. We believe they’re truly authors, that “In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.” Because “God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. To search out the intention of the sacred writers [which is the true literal sense of the text], attention should be given, among other things, to ‘literary forms.’ For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.”
D
Deconi
Guest
Restpectfully, when Augustine, Aquinas, Leo, Pius, et al, refer or mention the “Sacred Author,” they’re not refering to the ‘physical’ writer of the book! Like them, I see the Author as, …well, you know Who!
Like them, I will let slide your implications against ‘our’ Catholicity.
Whilst some of what you say is true, the proponents of The Document Hypotheses and Historical Criticism methods make their attempts to ‘move’ authorship to the individual scribes. A legitimate enough venture, but is fraught with danger of then ‘allowing’ for possible errors of Holy Writ in light of contemporary application or thought.
Sure. The individuals were not in some Divine trance when they penned their books, or became puppets with God pulling strings whilst they wrote. But, as sure as the sun is hot, every word of Scriptures was inspired by the Scared Author…and only those things that He wanted written down… were committed to ‘paper.’
All else you say towards examination of the life, times and environs of the individual scribe to understand the fullness of The Message, is fine and valid. But I stand by my generalisation that they were ‘pens’ of The Almighty, and no more; no less! He, is The Author! All interpretations are to be held against that backdrop, as it were, so that we (Catholics) can entertain no imaginings of a possibility of human error, outside of copyists and wilful missprints, like Luther’s insertions.
J
Jvrlns
Guest
Very simple: Humans didn’t do it, God painted those caves to make it appear as if men did.And now one of the greatest mysteries of all time:
Upper-Paleolithic cave art that was painted 10,000 years before the creation of the world.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=5580
BTW, I’ve always wonder why God didn’t paint dinosaurs. :whacky:
D
Deconi
Guest
Tried to ‘paste’ the drawing you posted earlier! That, of course, was drafted by a visionary who tried to commit the text to a drawing! Doesn’t mean that actually what the text is saying.
There is ‘water’ in the heavens, if you accept the planets of ice lauded in 2005 - 2008 as being ‘just’ beyond the solar system.
See reply to ‘aspirant’ below.
Problem is the YEC stigma of 6000 - 10000year old earth. All I know suggests a ‘younger’ earth than the figures lauded and banded about. It actually MAY be a billion years. During school it was 20billion, then refined to 13billion before I finished school. Now, it’s 4.5 billion!..you see where I’m going with this.Spitting is not allowed.
I hold to a theistic version of evolution as the best explanation of natural history and Divine Providence. And I have more and better criticisms of materialistic Darwinian ideology than you could probably imagine. On the other hand, I am not very sympathetic to YEC ideas.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
, written in collaboration with director Stanley Kubrick, a collaboration which also produced the film of the same name; and as a host and commentator in the British television series Mysterious World. For many years, Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke were known as the “Big Three” of science fiction.
Clarke served in the Royal Air Force as a radar instructor and technician from 1941–1946. He proposed a satellite communication systems in 1945 which won him the Franklin Institute Stuart Ballantine Gold Medal in 1963. He was the chairman of the British Interplanetary Society from 1947–1950 and again in 1953. Later, he helped fight for the preservation of lowland gorillas.
Clarke emigrated to Sri Lanka in 1956 largely to pursue his interest in scuba diving, and lived there until his death. He was knighted by British monarchy in 1998,and was awarded Sri Lanka’s highest civil honour, Sri Lankabhimanya, in 2005. Source: Wikipedia ]
Those Catholics who are so impressed with scuba diving Sri Lankans sporting the Lankabhimanya, like Arthur C. Clarke, as to be embarrassed to disagree with one, might find themselves needing to divest themselves of a lot more of their beliefs than what is being discussed here.
I personally have no concern if Clarke thought that I think God is playing a hoax in regard to fossil records. in my opinion Clarke seems to be mistaken in an assumption that there is universal agreement with him about whatever he believes regarding fossils. I don’t think I have much opinion about it. I sure don’t see any reason to be intimidated into taking the word of a scuba diving author of 2001 A Space Odyssey from Sri Lanka.
A
aspirant
Guest
Respectfully, the passage I quoted is from a Dogmatic Constitution of an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. The Catholic faith does not allow us the option of believing that the human authors of scripture were merely taking dictation.
All of it, not merely some of it, was authentic magisterial teaching.
B
buffalo
Guest
Dinosaur - Doheny Expedition.Very simple: Humans didn’t do it, God painted those caves to make it appear as if men did.
BTW, I’ve always wonder why God didn’t paint dinosaurs. :whacky:
J
jimmy
Guest
Read Dei Verbum. To say they were pens is to take a non-Catholic (protestant) position.Restpectfully, when Augustine, Aquinas, Leo, Pius, et al, refer or mention the “Sacred Author,” they’re not refering to the ‘physical’ writer of the book! Like them, I see the Author as, …well, you know Who!
Like them, I will let slide your implications against ‘our’ Catholicity.
Whilst some of what you say is true, the proponents of The Document Hypotheses and Historical Criticism methods make their attempts to ‘move’ authorship to the individual scribes. A legitimate enough venture, but is fraught with danger of then ‘allowing’ for possible errors of Holy Writ in light of contemporary application or thought.
Sure. The individuals were not in some Divine trance when they penned their books, or became puppets with God pulling strings whilst they wrote. But, as sure as the sun is hot, every word of Scriptures was inspired by the Scared Author…and only those things that He wanted written down… were committed to ‘paper.’
All else you say towards examination of the life, times and environs of the individual scribe to understand the fullness of The Message, is fine and valid. But I stand by my generalisation that they were ‘pens’ of The Almighty, and no more; no less! He, is The Author! All interpretations are to be held against that backdrop, as it were, so that we (Catholics) can entertain no imaginings of a possibility of human error, outside of copyists and wilful missprints, like Luther’s insertions.
- Status