G
goout
Guest
Can you simply address my reply to your post?
You suggested that I have a problem with some Catholic teaching.
What specifically are you talking about?
- Status
You suggested that I have a problem with some Catholic teaching.
What specifically are you talking about?
C
cfauster
Guest
JPII and Benedict XVIâs words quoted previously in this thread also provide the best answer to a question asked of me that I neglected to answer.
I had quoted the following from a Catholic parishâs web site:
âThe opening chapters of the Bible are essential for our understanding of the rest of it. These opening chapters tell us what had been desired by God from the very beginning. The intent of the creation story is not to give a lesson in physics or biology, but a lesson in the theological order of things.â
Grannymhâs question: âReally? Sometimes, people are so smart that they miss the common sense of Godâs existence. In what part of the âtheological order of thingsâ is the theological God thing?â
My belated answer: that Catholic parish is expressing nothing more than what JPII and Benedict XVI have said and written. Neither the parish, nor those popes, miss Godâs existence. On the contrary, the âtheological God thingâ as you call it is very truly and very much part of the âtheological order of thingsâ conveyed by the language of the first three chapters of Genesis, language both literal and figurative.
I had quoted the following from a Catholic parishâs web site:
âThe opening chapters of the Bible are essential for our understanding of the rest of it. These opening chapters tell us what had been desired by God from the very beginning. The intent of the creation story is not to give a lesson in physics or biology, but a lesson in the theological order of things.â
Grannymhâs question: âReally? Sometimes, people are so smart that they miss the common sense of Godâs existence. In what part of the âtheological order of thingsâ is the theological God thing?â
My belated answer: that Catholic parish is expressing nothing more than what JPII and Benedict XVI have said and written. Neither the parish, nor those popes, miss Godâs existence. On the contrary, the âtheological God thingâ as you call it is very truly and very much part of the âtheological order of thingsâ conveyed by the language of the first three chapters of Genesis, language both literal and figurative.
G
goout
Guest
The is a really good talk from Fr John Riccardo which presents a timeless Catholic perspective on Genesis, in line with the Magisterium. (I believe he did his thesis on TOB which is all about Genesis. )
stanastasia.libsyn.com/february-11-2017-4-pm-mass-at-olgc-rerouting-homily-4
This series of talks will be ongoing in 4 parts I believe, over the next few weeks.
One thing that should stick in our minds:
Genesis does not answer questions of scientific âhowâ, it answers questions of âwhyâ in relation to God.
stanastasia.libsyn.com/february-11-2017-4-pm-mass-at-olgc-rerouting-homily-4
This series of talks will be ongoing in 4 parts I believe, over the next few weeks.
One thing that should stick in our minds:
Genesis does not answer questions of scientific âhowâ, it answers questions of âwhyâ in relation to God.
G
grannymh
Guest
As a Catholic, I prefer the Divine Revelation which flows from the first three genuine chapters of Sacred Scripture. In other words, I start with the Catholic doctrine that Adam existed and then I learn about him, blood and guts, as described in the first three genuine chapters of Sacred Scripture.
C
cfauster
Guest
Could it be, grannymh, that some of the CAF participants whom [it seems] you judge to have difficulties with the simple words in the first three genuine chapters of Sacred Scripture in fact have no such difficulties?
I ask because I see many people being accused of such difficulties and then scratching their heads (figuratively if not literally
trying to understand where you got such a notion.
For example:
twf stated in another recent thread: âThe Bible is the Churchâs book. She and she alone tells us what it means. Our faith isnât based on the BibleâŚrather the Bible reflects the faith of the Church. The Church tells us that such a literalistic interpretation of Genesis is not necessary.â
To which you replied: âApparently, because God is mentioned in the first three clarifying chapters of Genesis, you are now declaring that a literalistic interpretation of God is foolish. God is not necessary.â
twf, of course, immediately objected that you had presumed something about twfâs views quite unlike twfâs simple statement.
I ask because I see many people being accused of such difficulties and then scratching their heads (figuratively if not literally
trying to understand where you got such a notion.For example:
twf stated in another recent thread: âThe Bible is the Churchâs book. She and she alone tells us what it means. Our faith isnât based on the BibleâŚrather the Bible reflects the faith of the Church. The Church tells us that such a literalistic interpretation of Genesis is not necessary.â
To which you replied: âApparently, because God is mentioned in the first three clarifying chapters of Genesis, you are now declaring that a literalistic interpretation of God is foolish. God is not necessary.â
twf, of course, immediately objected that you had presumed something about twfâs views quite unlike twfâs simple statement.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please accept my sincere apology. Apparently, I misunderstood what you intended. That can happen to us older people,Can you simply address my reply to your post?
You suggested that I have a problem with some Catholic teaching.
What specifically are you talking about?
Obviously, I now realize that you do not have any problems with any part of Catholic teachings. Thank you for posting. I am glad you are o.k.
G
grannymh
Guest
I have been reading your informative posts. Thank you. Unfortunately, this simple granny is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Apparently, I am too old to be talking with you about Catholic difficulties. In addition, I have a hard time understanding the current word judge because in the old days we were free to evaluate positions. My apology for not keeping up with you. I should retired.
C
cfauster
Guest
When someone states a position, of course you - like everyone - is free to evaluate it.I have been reading your informative posts. Thank you. Unfortunately, this simple granny is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I am too old to be talking about Catholic difficulties. In addition, I have a hard time understanding the current word judge because in the old days we were free to evaluate positions. My apology for not keeping up with you. I should retired.
What Iâve sometimes noticed, however, are evaluations of positions neither stated nor implied.
G
grannymh
Guest
The True Creation Story
One of the little known facts about the Catholic Church in its early years is that there were a variety of thoughts about its truths. And naturally, there were a variety of discussions about the variety of thoughts about true Catholic teachings. Like today, there were brilliant men and women who put forth amazing intellectual spiritual writings. Homilies and letters were great.
There could have been chaos. And in some geographic locations there was chaos.
Unfortunately, in our own time of chaos, it is easy for us moderns to skip chapter 14, Gospel of John, where Jesus was forming the structure of the Catholic Church. I cannot make Catholics learn about the Catholic Church. All I can suggest is that people have to discover, for themselves, the gems in chapter 14, Gospel of John.
When it comes to studying the depths of The True Creation Story found in the first three genuine chapters of Sacred Scripture, apparently everyone else knows best and my attempt is not necessary. That is o.k. Being old, I understand.
One of the little known facts about the Catholic Church in its early years is that there were a variety of thoughts about its truths. And naturally, there were a variety of discussions about the variety of thoughts about true Catholic teachings. Like today, there were brilliant men and women who put forth amazing intellectual spiritual writings. Homilies and letters were great.
There could have been chaos. And in some geographic locations there was chaos.
Unfortunately, in our own time of chaos, it is easy for us moderns to skip chapter 14, Gospel of John, where Jesus was forming the structure of the Catholic Church. I cannot make Catholics learn about the Catholic Church. All I can suggest is that people have to discover, for themselves, the gems in chapter 14, Gospel of John.
When it comes to studying the depths of The True Creation Story found in the first three genuine chapters of Sacred Scripture, apparently everyone else knows best and my attempt is not necessary. That is o.k. Being old, I understand.
C
cfauster
Guest
Regardless of age, you are very sharp and contribute tremendously! I and many others have not been slow to thank you for many wonderful posts youâve provided. In any case, I thank you again here and now.
The only thing I can be sure that each person knows best is whatâs in her/his own mind! When a person articulates something they think is true, others can evaluate, discuss, etc.
My guess is - and Iâm only guessing here - but Iâm guessing that a given person might read Genesis to support important Catholic doctrines (Adam as the first true human, Adam and Eve as the first true human couple, all true humans descended from Adam and Eve, Original Sin resulting from a real event and really transmitted to all descendants) only insofar as the reading is literal. Such a person honestly might not be able to imagine how one could hold to those same doctrines yet allow for a more figurative interpretation.
What should such a person do when someone else proposes a more figurative interpretation?
My humble suggestion:
- Articulate how and why she/he sees the more figurative interpretation as incompatible with doctrine.
- Invite the other person to explain how and why she/he sees it as compatible with doctrine.
- Assuming that the other person also cannot see compatibility, and thus must be dropping/tampering with/altering etc. certain doctrines
- Asking them what doctrine(s) they find problematic based on such assumptions
- Guessing and stating what doctrines the other person âmustâ be dropping/tampering with/altering, etc.
G
grannymh
Guest
Considering the opening post, my suggestion is to include the organization source of doctrine. On the other hand, maybe the difficult Catholic Church organization should be set aside because each person is free to know what is best.
Thank you for your suggestion. It does have good points. The difficult Catholic Church organization would most likely cause some problems.
âIn other words, we are in a maze and we need the Catholic Church which has a firm foundation of basic truths. We absolutely need The True Creation Story.â
C
cfauster
Guest
Please do not spin or twist. You hold others accountable for not accurately representing meaning, let alone misquoting. And as a journalist, you of all people should know when you are accurately quoting yet changing the context and therefore misrepresenting. Please hold yourself accountable.
I did not write that each person is free to set aside difficult Catholic Church doctrines.
Iâm done here.
God bless.
G
grannymh
Guest
That is correct. Those are my words in my post 50.
G
grannymh
Guest
I cannot imagine you writing that. It sounds more like a proposal from another poster.
.
G
grannymh
Guest
I am still concernedâŚ
I did find what I wrote in post 50.
âConsidering the opening post, my suggestion is to include the organization source of doctrine. On the other hand, maybe the difficult Catholic Church organization should be set aside because each person is free to know what is best.â
G
goout
Guest
What are you responding to?
We are not having conversations here.
You have some sort of hidden objection that you are projecting onto other posters as straw men.
It would be best if you just started a thread that puts your objection out front.
G
grannymh
Guest
Post 1
The True Creation Story
Welcome Gentle Readers, CAF Members and Guests
When the thread â**Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?â **was in spitting distance of 1,000 posts, I found myself still looking for additional solid information about the real stories of original obedience and original disobedience.
Here is the dilemma. Ever since the talented author of the beginning three chapters of Genesis looked up at the sky and declared âWow, that is amazing! I have to write about that.â â Others asked questions. Questions not only about the stars, but also about themselves. For example. Why are we humans, who are not as strong as many animals, so different that we dominate all other creatures? Why do we humans have a longing, deep in our hearts, for something beyond our material world?
In other words, Original Sin still needs explanation. This time, we need to explore the beginning of human history and the depth of Creation. In other words, we are still going to find hundreds of ways to unfold creation and when we are dissatisfied with that, we can tamper here and there.
In other words, we are in a maze and we need the Catholic Church which has a firm foundation of basic truths. We absolutely need The True Creation Story.
Note: This thread is dedicated to the Holy Spirit.
There were some proper replies and I thank the posters for them.
Perhaps, it is this sentence which is upsetting âŚ
From Post 1
âThis time, we need to explore the beginning of human history and the depth of Creation.â
Maybe it would help readers if I explained human history as taught by the Catholic Church. Maybe it is time to understand that the Catholic Church uses the first three genuine chapters of Genesis when there is preparation for a major Ecumenical Catholic Church Council.
If there is still doubt about what the Catholic Church teaches, my suggestion is to use the âIndex of Citationsâ page 689 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
I will give you all some time in case you are interested.
The True Creation Story
Welcome Gentle Readers, CAF Members and Guests
When the thread â**Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?â **was in spitting distance of 1,000 posts, I found myself still looking for additional solid information about the real stories of original obedience and original disobedience.
Here is the dilemma. Ever since the talented author of the beginning three chapters of Genesis looked up at the sky and declared âWow, that is amazing! I have to write about that.â â Others asked questions. Questions not only about the stars, but also about themselves. For example. Why are we humans, who are not as strong as many animals, so different that we dominate all other creatures? Why do we humans have a longing, deep in our hearts, for something beyond our material world?
In other words, Original Sin still needs explanation. This time, we need to explore the beginning of human history and the depth of Creation. In other words, we are still going to find hundreds of ways to unfold creation and when we are dissatisfied with that, we can tamper here and there.
In other words, we are in a maze and we need the Catholic Church which has a firm foundation of basic truths. We absolutely need The True Creation Story.
Note: This thread is dedicated to the Holy Spirit.
There were some proper replies and I thank the posters for them.
Perhaps, it is this sentence which is upsetting âŚ
From Post 1
âThis time, we need to explore the beginning of human history and the depth of Creation.â
Maybe it would help readers if I explained human history as taught by the Catholic Church. Maybe it is time to understand that the Catholic Church uses the first three genuine chapters of Genesis when there is preparation for a major Ecumenical Catholic Church Council.
If there is still doubt about what the Catholic Church teaches, my suggestion is to use the âIndex of Citationsâ page 689 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
I will give you all some time in case you are interested.
G
grannymh
Guest
One of the things I enjoy about the first three genuine chapters of Genesis is that it is so easy to picture myself there especially Genesis 2: 18. This time, I can imagine that Adam is not quite sure what God is going to do.
As I am thinking about your words about God
"He first creates the animals and tells man to name them. Why? Precisely so that man could first know and realize he was alone in the universe as a person, and that his first love must always be God. "
I stumble a bit that Adam needed to first realize that he was alone as a person. Then I decided that Adam needed to recognize that God was offering him a supreme friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity. Not only must Adamâs first love must always be God --God accepts that love as part of the original relationship between God and Adam.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Iâm not quite sure what youâre looking for, and it probably isnât what follows in this post. But I have sometimes wondered whether much of the Bible is more literal and less figurative than we sometimes think. Yes, undoubtedly much of it is figurative or allegorical. But years ago I really was struck by the Big Bang Theory, and how it was very literally âlet there be lightâ. Anything as intense as the âstringâ or whatever was there before, almost certainly did not emit light and likely âlightâ didnât even exist before the âstringâ or whatever, blew, because the energy couldnât form light wavelengths in its state prior to the âbangâ.
And of course, now and then some archaeologist or someone will talk about the âpillar of fireâ being Thera, and so on. Might be so.
Now to man. Among other things, I am a rancher. Animals have instincts and inherent reactions, but they donât know right from wrong. In their own limited way, theyâre like Adam before the Fall. They are in perfect harmony with Providence. They totally do âwhat God tells themâ; what He has imprinted in them. And so, was Adam the same way, initially? Was Eden even a paradise, or did Adam perceive it as perfect contentment in the same way a cow appears to be perfectly content in a pasture, even if there are cockleburs here and there. She doesnât think about anything. She doesnât worry about anything. She doesnât pause to admire sunsets either, or the beauty of a spring morning or the shimmering heat waves rising above a country road. She obeys God, but she doesnât âseeâ Him in His creation.
But, she is in perfect harmony with Providence. Now, was Adam (even if just one person) that way to begin with? Did it get hot in Eden? Did it get cold? Did he even get hungry or stub his toe?. But was Eden truly paradise to him because he accepted Godâs Providence totally? We know of saints who accepted Providence without reservation and found no dissatisfaction in it. Was Adam, then, really so different from us, and was his world any different at all? Were his conversations with God in the garden, the directives of Adamâs own nature, which he knew were Godâs and which he answered with a âyesâ, and without fail for a time?
But the Fall. Leaving Eve aside for a moment, the message of the great denier tempted humankind with knowledge. Did âknowledgeâ include personally engaging in it? And was the very act of exercising his will other than in accordance with providence the departure, the Fall? In other words, did man make a decision to depart from Providence; from the Will of God and arrogate decisionmaking; the âdecision=knowledgeâ of good and evil?
(Yes, I know, Iâm making the âfruitâ allegorical, yet its consumption could literally have been the culmination of a decision to âdepart from the menuâ in the same sort of way we do now; consuming all kinds of things we know full well we werenât naturally meant to consume.)
I think maybe thatâs the crux of it, and it could have happened to one person singly or by a duo. Or it could have happened as a sort of joint âawakeningâ to a latent power that was there all along; the power to depart from Providence, and the choice to do it. Even saints had and have that.
And so, we might ask whether Original Sin is a latency exercised. Weâre all born with the power to depart. Some few of us (certainly Mary) never exercise it. Most of us do. And at some point, we exercise it. All of us do (other than Mary). But itâs always willful. Itâs always a choice. And perhaps itâs âoriginalâ and coming from our first parents because the very first actuation of the latency exhibited it to every person who came later, further activating it. And so perhaps Eveâs very act against the Will of God made it inevitable that Adam would fall too. Weâre not as independent as we think we are.
So why is that any kind of gift from God? Because itâs a choice. Itâs a freedom that many (most?) of us know we can exercise properly and often do, thus glorifying God as free beings rather than as more simple creatures like cattle. Because of the Fall, we canât âtalkâ to Him anymore in quite the same way because we resist His part of the conversation. But we can still âseeâ Him and hear Him in other ways, and in ways that cattle do not and cannot.
Does that even contradict evolutionary changes if, indeed, evolution formed us? Doesnât seem so to me, but thatâs another story.
Having said the above, Iâll leave.
G
grannymh
Guest
Donât leave. I remember you from the days I landed on CAF.
I would like to review the Adam story as taught by the Catholic Church. Your post could be a guide as to what people are really thinking. Or you could pick issues and we could match them with Catholicism.
I can answer that Adam got hungry. Genesis 2: 15.
I smiled when I read about the fruit.
" Yes, I know, Iâm making the âfruitâ allegorical, yet its consumption could literally have been the culmination of a decision to âdepart from the menuâ
I can imagine Adam having a rough day with the weeds in the garden. And then having dinner with God and an amazing menu. While I can imagine all kinds of things, I do stick to the actual Catholic doctrines found in the first three genuine chapters of Genesis." Yes, I know, Iâm making the âfruitâ allegorical, yet its consumption could literally have been the culmination of a decision to âdepart from the menuâ
- Status