C
Contarini
Guest
No, you didn’t. You gave your interpretation of PD, filtered through the CE’s article on Jonah.
Edwin
- Status
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Agreed. But whether we find evidence where we would expect to find it plays a role in how we interpret divine revelation. And some interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis (such as that there was no animal death of any kind before human beings sinned) aren’t just lacking in evidence but positively contrary to the evidence.
I would very much like to hold that there was a first human couple. I recognize that the evidence against this seems to be mounting (it’s not just a question of absence of evidence here either), and it’s possible that Humani Generis will turn out not to be the permanent, infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. However, I respect the authority of Humani Generis and am reluctant to endorse polygenism as things currently stand.
But you seem rather cavalier in deciding for yourself (against the consensus of contemporary Catholic scholars and theologians) what the Church teaches.
You say this, but you haven’t provided evidence for it.
Not to your kind of Catholic. But you aren’t the only kind of Catholic, much as you might wish you were.
But the CE is simply an encyclopedia produced by “mere ‘Catholic’ theologians.” You seem to grant them magisterial authority just because they wrote 100 years ago. This position makes no sense whatever.
You keep saying, “The Church teaches, the Church teaches,” but your only support is a 100-year-old text produced not by the magisterium but by those very theologians you claim to disregard!
To say, “I agree with them because they agree with the Church” is begging the question, because you are depending on them for your view of what the Church teaches.
Edwin
R
rben20
Guest
Deb
I had similar thoughts on the OT but the Church simply tells us there are several ways of interpreting Scripture. Symbolism is just one aspect. The point is not in the details but in the message. Humans tend to get in conflict with the bible when they spend so much time reconciling details with science that they completely forget the message. i.g. Galileo and earth being the center. As he later remarked the bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go. I had a friend who said his grandfather thought humans being made from clay was ridiculous, that if Christians actually believed that. Well we do in the sense that we recognize that humans are nothing and will return to nothing (dirt) but not in the sense that we are actually made from play-doh. You get it right?
Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, not a literalist interpretation like some of our fundamental christian brothers. There is a big difference.
As far as Adam and Eve and what the Church has taught, I believe your stance is contrary, with all do respect. Here is some info I had found:
From an issuance by the Pontifical Biblical Commission confirmed by Pope St. Pius X:
I had similar thoughts on the OT but the Church simply tells us there are several ways of interpreting Scripture. Symbolism is just one aspect. The point is not in the details but in the message. Humans tend to get in conflict with the bible when they spend so much time reconciling details with science that they completely forget the message. i.g. Galileo and earth being the center. As he later remarked the bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go. I had a friend who said his grandfather thought humans being made from clay was ridiculous, that if Christians actually believed that. Well we do in the sense that we recognize that humans are nothing and will return to nothing (dirt) but not in the sense that we are actually made from play-doh. You get it right?
Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, not a literalist interpretation like some of our fundamental christian brothers. There is a big difference.
As far as Adam and Eve and what the Church has taught, I believe your stance is contrary, with all do respect. Here is some info I had found:
From an issuance by the Pontifical Biblical Commission confirmed by Pope St. Pius X:
- The creation of all things out of nothing by God
- The special creation of man
- The creation of woman from man
- All of humanity is descended from an original pair of human beings, Adam and Eve
- Adam and Eve were created in state of holiness, justice, and immortality
- A divine command was communicated to them to prove obedience to God
- The transgression of that commanded at the instigation of satan
- Lost of the state of holiness, justice, and immortality of our first parents because of their disobedience
- Promise of a future redeemer
D
Debora123
Guest
Excellent. My position exactly.
As I have stated quite a few times now, I have no problem believing that an Adam and Eve existed. However, this is a detail, much like the details you were referring to in your first paragraph. This is what I have stated in a previous post:These are truths from Genesis. They are to be believed. Adam and Eve were real people. To say otherwise would put a lot into question, the very fall of man and sin…it is for that reason we have Christ. So much is thrown into chaos if we did not actually believe this Truth. Hopefully what I have put is of some help
The “names” of the first human beings to inhabit the earth, or how they came about - whether out of nothing, out of clay, or through evolution - is just detail. Either way, they were created by God.
C
Contarini
Guest
I have not noticed any post endorsing such a silly misunderstanding of DV. Perhaps I missed something, but it’s also possible that you are misunderstanding the posters.
What I’m claiming about DV has little to do with “allegory,” but is rather that DV seems to leave room open to believe that the human authors did err in some of the things they intended to say, when that error does not affect our salvation. The question of whether a given text is intended by the human author to be literal or nonliteral is quite a different question. One can believe in inerrancy and still believe that Jonah, for instance, was intended to be a work of didactic fiction from the beginning. That doesn’t have anything to do with the question of error. PD, contrary to your claims, leaves room for such a view–Catholics didn’t need to wait for Divino Afflante or DV in that regard.
Certainly. You’re arguing against a straw man.
No dispute there.
And that is the point that needs to be proven. With regard to Jonah the point is very far from being proven. All that has been shown is that James F. Driscoll, a Catholic scholar working 100 years ago, thought this and received the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur for the article in which he expressed this opinion.
I don’t think you are willing to accept the premise that everything said by a Catholic scholar in a work with the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur is said authoritatively by the Church, are you?
So much for the sensus fidelium
I get that the majority opinion is not infallible, but irrelevant? Really?
So why is what you think so relevant?
Why is what James F. Driscoll thought so relevant?
Why does the fact that the Knights of Columbus put his words on their website make him so much more authoritative than every other Catholic scholar?
But that’s circular.
You say, “The Church teaches this.”
Your only evidence is PD (and with regard to Jonah you haven’t even got that, as a matter of fact, only Driscoll’s highly dubious and speculative interpretation of PD).
You say, “PD is infallible because it teaches what the Church has taught.”
Circular.
You still haven’t shown where “the Church” teaches this, if PD isn’t your evidence. (The “this” that I admit PD teaches is inerrancy of Scripture on matters not pertaining to faith and morals, not the historicity of Jonah, a point I cannot find addressed in that document, as I have repeatedly pointed out).
As I said, that’s a weird and probably heretical thing to say.
It is not OK for any baptized person to disagree with the Tradition. Arguably it is not OK for any human being at all to disagree with Tradition. Or don’t you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of all humanity and that Tradition has authority for all those over whom Jesus has authority?
The question between you and me is not whether Tradition is authoritative, but whether this particular teaching is actually the teaching of Tradition.
What you think “protestants” believe almost certainly has very little to do with what I believe. (I don’t fight being called a “Protestant,” because “Protestant” is a historical description.) Not that that’s particularly relevant.
I mean that there are a lot of things that have happened in the past thousand years in the Western Church that I find highly dubious, and not all of them have occurred among Western Christians out of communion with Rome.
Of course it matters. You seem to have adopted the view common among many contemporary conservative Catholics that non-Catholics are to be expected to embrace Catholicism based on considerations that are external to the actual content of Catholic doctrine. I find that to be a fundamentally corrupt approach to Christian faith.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, for starters 21st-century people should not take any ancient text whatever at “face value,” because “face value” depends on shared cultural understanding. Nor should mere mortals take any divinely inspired text at “face value.” So there are two excellent reasons.
That doesn’t make any sense. We can claim it if we think the evidence supports it. You need to give some reason why the non-existence of one figure implies the non-existence of the other.
And I don’t think anyone has suggested that Jonah didn’t exist, by the way. Jonah is mentioned in 2 Kings, and almost certainly existed even if the book of Jonah is a work of fiction.
Out-of-context quotation.
Why are you so confident of this?
Certainly. But it does mean that there is no good reason not to follow normal historical methods in determining the question, with a moderate degree of bias toward a conservative reading and with great respect toward traditional interpretations, particularly theological/spiritual ones.
Edwin
R
razredge
Guest
It’s a Catholic blog (not a ‘liberal’ Catholic blog either) and that article was written by a Jesuit.
And it is hardly the only voice commenting on the matter either, Catholic apologist Mark Shea did a whole writeup of the current theoligcal discussion on polygenism
markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html
And the International Theological Commission which I also quoted from, cannot be explained away as the musings of ‘fringe Catholics’ since it is their job to advise the Magisterium on matters of theology and the ‘Communion & Stewardship’ statement was approved by none other than Cardinal Ratzinger himself
R
razredge
Guest
Exactly, if there is a conflict between a literal reading of scripture and the findings of modern science, then the reading of scriptures is in error (hence the acceptance of heliocentrism and evolution)
This is precisely the same case, so going by past developments of doctrine we’d expect the Church to eventually reformulate it’s doctrine on polygenism (and indeed theologians are looking at doing that as we speak, as my other links show).
J
joshrp
Guest
There are lots of fantastic things that happen throughout history. Look at modern miracles. Look at the Eucharist. Who knows? Maybe something fantastic will happen in our own lifetimes. I love surprises.
M
melbanglican
Guest
If you want a sound assessment of how much of the OT can be taken as ‘historically accurate’, read Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, ‘The Bible Uneartherd’ (isbn: 0684869128).
These guys are two of the world’s leading archaeologists, and nobody’s fools. If people don’t like their findings, they don’t have to believe them, but if you want an assessment based on the physical evidence, these are your guys!
D
Debora123
Guest
D
ddarko
Guest
Once again Edwin, your view is not complete because you are forgetting the authority of the Church.
Once the Church has determined that something is indeed a fact-narrative, and is taken as such, there is no room for debate. So you are falling in to the same trap you denied earlier in your reply. You are assuming that because Dei Verbum states that some parts may be in error because they do not affect Salvation, you can determine which those are. To the contrary, the church is the one with the authority.
I am not. I am merely pointing out the reasoning behind most of the “Catholics” who have posted here.
They seem to think that where Science does not “seem” to agree with the Revelation, then Revelation must be in error.
Good.
No, one does not base ones faith on the opinion of James F. Driscoll. What one should base ones faith on is his evidence. He makes his case and shows how the view was held with respect to Jonah in Tradition.
So while Driscoll is no where infallible in his writings, HE IS citing accounts from Tradition. Thus the teachings are still true.
Because Edwin, what Driscoll puts down is evidence from Tradition.So much for the sensus fidelium
I get that the majority opinion is not infallible, but irrelevant? Really?
So why is what you think so relevant?
Why is what James F. Driscoll thought so relevant?
Why does the fact that the Knights of Columbus put his words on their website make him so much more authoritative than every other Catholic scholar?
What you are doing here is arguing similar to how some “Catholics” argue whether an encyclical is infallible.
You are both missing the point. The point with Driscoll and even an Encyclical is that it is quoting/providing already established teaching in Tradition. Thus, while the document is not infallible, the teachings it provide ARE infallible/authoritative.
So if a Catholic Scholar by the name of Mr. Heretic John decides to come up with his own interpretation, no one really cares. If every Catholic scholar happened to agree with him, NO ONE should care if his view contradicts that of Tradition.
That is how the church works.
(continued…)
D
ddarko
Guest
(…continued from above)
When you want to LEARN what the church has taught, you turn to Tradition Edwin. If you read the good ol Driscoll article here
newadvent.org/cathen/08497b.htm
you get ton of citations as to WHAT the church and fathers have taught with respect to Jonah.
So your accusation of circular logic above is a bit of a misunderstanding perhaps due to how I presented my objection.
The point is the following.
On the other hand, it still appears that you do not understand the Catholic faith properly or more completely. That is why you have some reservations I presume.
I would love to discuss these with you as I said before, but for the sake of this discussion, I am more interested in Catholics getting it right more so than someone who is non-Catholic getting things right.
You and I might find many things dubious. But what is important is whether we have sufficient reason to believe whether we can give full assent to the Church. IF WE CAN, then WE DO, whether we full understand or don’t.
No doctrine of Faith can ever be verified. So to speak of embracing faith on the content of the doctrine is rather an illogical exercise.
So the right thing to do is arrive at the answer to the question “Which doctrine should I believe given observable evidence” through REASON. Then one gives full assent to the doctrines that one cannot observe.
Again, this is a discussion on its own which I would be happy to continue with you via PM.
God Bless
Oh perhaps I see your difficulty now.
When you want to LEARN what the church has taught, you turn to Tradition Edwin. If you read the good ol Driscoll article here
newadvent.org/cathen/08497b.htm
you get ton of citations as to WHAT the church and fathers have taught with respect to Jonah.
So your accusation of circular logic above is a bit of a misunderstanding perhaps due to how I presented my objection.
The point is the following.
- The church has taught that Jonah is fact narrative
- A Catholic scholar comes around and disagrees
- He is in error because he is now contradicting church teaching and the church has condemned the view in PD
Because perhaps you are looking in the wrong document. Read the article by Driscoll. Read the documents he cites. That should be enough evidence for you.
Well Edwin, I can only address you by what you identify yourself as. If you are telling me that you like being called protestant while you are a hardcore Catholic inside, I am afraid that is beyond my abilities to infer from what I know.
On the other hand, it still appears that you do not understand the Catholic faith properly or more completely. That is why you have some reservations I presume.
I would love to discuss these with you as I said before, but for the sake of this discussion, I am more interested in Catholics getting it right more so than someone who is non-Catholic getting things right.
I think this highlights perhaps an important thing that you need to understand.
You and I might find many things dubious. But what is important is whether we have sufficient reason to believe whether we can give full assent to the Church. IF WE CAN, then WE DO, whether we full understand or don’t.
I find the idea that one must accept Catholic or any other religion based on the doctrine of that faith very irrational.
No doctrine of Faith can ever be verified. So to speak of embracing faith on the content of the doctrine is rather an illogical exercise.
So the right thing to do is arrive at the answer to the question “Which doctrine should I believe given observable evidence” through REASON. Then one gives full assent to the doctrines that one cannot observe.
Again, this is a discussion on its own which I would be happy to continue with you via PM.
God Bless
D
ddarko
Guest
Now I would in all honestly like to reply to your above objection because you seem to have the very modern view that somehow, Science is going to show that Adam and Eve cannot be the sole parents of the entire human race. But this is going to be a discussion on Evolution vs. Adam and Eve which I am not sure where the ban stands on this forum these days.
In short I will say the following. There is no rational reason to discard the belief that Adam and Eve is not the sole parents of the human race based on ANY scientific evidence. This can be shown logically. UNLESS, Science can take us to the time of Adam and Eve via time travel and then we can verify that it certainly didn’t happen that way.
So in short, when you say that Science shows insurmountable evidence against the Adam and Eve doctrine, what you are essentially doing is discarding the possibility of supernatural intervention.
It is like saying Jesus probably didn’t rise from the dead because scientifically speaking, such a feat is impossible.
Now while certain parts of Genesis are taught by the church to be non-literal, Adam and Eve has been decided on. There is no room for change.
As the church rightly points out, if Science is done properly, there is really no reason to doubt the claim that Adam and Eve exists because reason does not say such a thing is impossible.
Edwin, there is what the church teaches, and what Catholics scholars teaches. Those two are not always in agreement.
I have. As I said before, Driscoll provide evidence. You made the misunderstanding that I am saying you should agree with Driscoll. To the contrary, I am telling you to look at his evidence.
There is only one kind of Catholic. Those who give assent to the Church. The others are “Catholic”
Edwin my friend, I think answered this three times now (twice in my previous posts addressing a different reply).
Of course Driscoll has no authority or infallibility. The point was the evidence he cites in this article. It will do you and many other Catholics here some good if they actually took the time to read the evidence.
Haha NO. The evidence is what is cited in the 100 year old document with respect to the teachings of the church in Tradition and by Church fathers.
I am frankly a bit confused why you thought I was stating that Driscoll was infallible or even a web page was infallible.
But yea, I hope I put everything in to proper context for you now
Ha??
As I said before, there is a difference between Catholic scholar giving HIS interpretation and a Catholic scholar CITING a church teaching or a unanimous teaching in Tradition or by Church fathers.
The point that Jonah is fiction is a Catholic Scholar giving his two cents. The fact that Jonah is a fact-narrative is the Church speaking through church fathers, and Tradition.
Do you see the distinction?
God Bless
D
ddarko
Guest
Hey,
I am frankly a bit tired of arguing with you.
I cite church documents, you cite apologist who love to agree with you. I am sure a little more pressure and you will cite your parish priest perhaps.
So anyway, at this point, I am just going to say “whatever rocks you boat”.
The guy is an apologist. He gives a statement without even citing church teaching adequately. Read Driscoll’s article I cited many times. It gives the full picture as to what the church teaches.
Now Driscoll’s authority is probably as good as Keating so the point is now that Driscoll trumps Keating. The point is that Driscoll seems to have done a better analysis of Church teaching that Keating because he cites Tradition and Church fathers.
Keating merely gives a nice summary of different beliefs present today.
But again… believe whatever you like.
God Bless
D
ddarko
Guest
Hahaha. Jesuit eh
If Mark Shea was of the position that Polygenism is viable position for a Catholic, he would just go down the long list of apologist who have no clue what the church teaches with respect to the subject.
Please remember, Apologist have no authority. The Church has authority. A good apologist teaches what the church teaches. A bad apologist teaches their own ideas.
When you want to decide on whether a Apologist does good service to a respective issue, you have to ask whether he is consistent or inconsistent with church teaching.
In this case, Mark Shea is NOT (assuming that what you are saying about polygenism IS his position. I didn’t have time to read what he says)
Again, the church has decided on the matter of Adam and Eve. It’s done.
So no theological commission is unfortunately going to be able to decide against it. If they did, that is an indicator that the commission has erred.
God Bless
D
Debora123
Guest
Good grief ddarko, you’re wrong about the Church’s views on the OT and this thread is old now. Get over it.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
DDarko - you don’t seem to address the Catechism ( a Church Document)
The only thing we are required to believe from the story is that Man has free will and there was an original sin. The names, the tree, the fruit, the snake etc are allegorical.
D
ddarko
Guest
Hey,Good grief ddarko, you’re wrong about the Church’s views on the OT and this thread is old now. Get over it.
I suggest you get your life on track to match with the church rather than picking what you like and abandoning what you don’t like.
Don’t tell me what I CAN reply to and what I CAN’T reply to. I merely answered questions that were raised while I was away.
Alright?
God Bless
D
ddarko
Guest
What exactly am I suppossed to address?
The Catechism does not state that you do not need to believe in Adam and Eve.
In fact, church documents were cited enough times on this thread which clearly state that Catholics have NO OTHER option but to believe that Adam and Eve were real people.
So please try to understand what is being said here. Genesis creation account is OPEN to interpretation.
Adam and Eve being the sole parents of the human race IS NOT OPEN to interpretation.
Got it?
So since the Catechism seems to be the only church document getting through to you, pay attention to the bolded section below
“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents”
So a Catholic is required to believe that Adam and Eve were the first parents. If you have the time, I also encourage you to read Humani Generis.
God Bless
- Status