C
Chuck_H
Guest
I have fathered on of those people. I doubt if he will let any priest preside at my funeral without warning him that I am probably going to Hell
Sorry said:
- Status
C
Chuck_H
Guest
I think I consider the idea as good is due to a couple of reasons.
The first is the doctrine of inerrancy. That doctrine is a stainless steel Teflon armored wall that is impossible to penetrate. One can look at polygenism and lack of any kind of bottleneck in human populations and come to the opinion that Eden may well be a myth and it may then subsequently show that man’s maturation and spiritual development is a progressing process directed by nudges from God that are designed by the Creator not to make us into puppets. The hypothesis can be then entertained that salvation is from our natural brutishness and specifically from our primate tendency to self deceit.
But that conversation cannot take place in the Church to evaluate the hypothesis and find errors or truth in it since original sin is a “revealed truth” Today no one seems to realize that Augustine himself struggled with this and constructed logical and studied arguments about its reality. Unless I have missed an historical account. Nowhere in his writings does he claim a divine instruction.
Having said all of this I just retreat and leave it up to The Holy Spirit. If it is truth than He will deal with it and any or all of should keep a towel handy for egg on the face. (tongue in cheek note here)
There are those who would be willing to declare me anathema just for considering the hypothesis.
It is probably not the best analogy, but when one meets a rock hard fundamentalist, it just isn’t worth it to even attempt to explain the incredible wonder of the evolutionary process.
The first is the doctrine of inerrancy. That doctrine is a stainless steel Teflon armored wall that is impossible to penetrate. One can look at polygenism and lack of any kind of bottleneck in human populations and come to the opinion that Eden may well be a myth and it may then subsequently show that man’s maturation and spiritual development is a progressing process directed by nudges from God that are designed by the Creator not to make us into puppets. The hypothesis can be then entertained that salvation is from our natural brutishness and specifically from our primate tendency to self deceit.
But that conversation cannot take place in the Church to evaluate the hypothesis and find errors or truth in it since original sin is a “revealed truth” Today no one seems to realize that Augustine himself struggled with this and constructed logical and studied arguments about its reality. Unless I have missed an historical account. Nowhere in his writings does he claim a divine instruction.
Having said all of this I just retreat and leave it up to The Holy Spirit. If it is truth than He will deal with it and any or all of should keep a towel handy for egg on the face. (tongue in cheek note here)
There are those who would be willing to declare me anathema just for considering the hypothesis.
It is probably not the best analogy, but when one meets a rock hard fundamentalist, it just isn’t worth it to even attempt to explain the incredible wonder of the evolutionary process.
C
Chuck_H
Guest
I found an incredible web site.
The whole Galileo incident is exhaustively explored and it is interesting the parallels that run along with what is discussed here.
galilean-library.org/galileo2.html
Anyone interested can read to their hearts content. It covers the religious, historical, and legal incidents one by one leading to the inquisition trial and outcome. It really is enlightening about the church and the people of that time.
For the interested.
Chuck H.
The whole Galileo incident is exhaustively explored and it is interesting the parallels that run along with what is discussed here.
galilean-library.org/galileo2.html
Anyone interested can read to their hearts content. It covers the religious, historical, and legal incidents one by one leading to the inquisition trial and outcome. It really is enlightening about the church and the people of that time.
For the interested.
Chuck H.
S
SeekingCatholic
Guest
Yeah well, geocentrism was also another “revealed truth” and therefore “inerrant”. We see how far that went. Of course even today there are “spin doctors” attempting to deny the obvious fact that the Church hierarchy got it wrong, that the “fundamentalists” were wrong and the “progressives” correct.
It’s clear doctrines develop in the Church. They have developed in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Revelation is understood better as time goes on. It cannot but be otherwise.
D
Deconi
Guest
Actually, we cannot ‘prove’ one against the other. All we’ve done is opted for one model and mathematically base our formulaes accordingly to make it workable. The Church itself has NOT declared a preference that we (Catholics) must adopt although the Fathers remind us of or obligations to Holy Writ.
Yeah, I know. You may scream that I am a fundamentalist even with my assurances to the contrary. Years of dabling in Physics and Astrology have actually shown me, if me only, that The Church has got it right again!
There’s no difference between a heliocentric system or a geocentric system in science…EXCEPT the maths! You cannot, by physical demonstration, disprove one or the other!
Think logically for a moment. If you could stand on the Sun, everything else ‘moves’ around the Sun. If you stood on any of the known planets, the ‘view’ would be the same! In fact, the same as we see from here!
I’d wager that a hundred years from now, those doctrines will be the same. Simply because, they’re TRUE! Truth does not change! Scientific understanding ALWAYS changes, because knowledge is progressive and intelligence is subject to knowledge.
We aren’t dissenters or Reformers because we do not run off when we disagree.
Remember the Evangelist wrote that WATER and BLOOD flowed from the side of Christ when the spear pierced it. Yet they had no knowledge or understanding about what happens to human blood when the person dies! What have our sciences shown us?
The Church held and holds that ABORTION is the killing of a foetal human from the 1960s, without a detailed understanding of the human egg-sperm development. What have we discovered?
I’ve spent enough years in science to now say, The Church continues to be right! Thus far, there IS NOT enough evidence to question its position on anything. Yet, some have already decided with their feet and/or hearts.
St. Augustine has very wise counsel. **“Don’t be ignorant Catholics!” ** Not his words, of course, but that’s what he meant!
S
SeekingCatholic
Guest
You’re obviously one of the “spin doctors” that just refuses to admit the facts. The Church itself HAS declared a preference that Catholics must adopt, in the Galileo case, in which the earth’s motion was declared “erroneous in Faith” and contrary to Scripture. One, of course, ignored by Catholics since the 1800s.
You’re correct that heliocentrism cannot be proved to a metaphysical certainty, only a moral certainty. You’re not correct that “all” we’ve done is opted for one model; Occam’s razor considerations lead us to adopt the simpler one.
Hmmm. Dabbling in astrology? You’ll excuse me if I wonder this is why this has been shown to you “only”.
I can see why you have called your involvement in physics “dabbling”. It’s not so easy in fact to construct a geocentric system, what with not only the diurnal motion (e.g. the universe rotating around the earth), an elliptical orbit (which the sun somehow becomes farther and closer), Chandler wobbles, etc. Yes, of course you can perform a kinematic transformation from any other frame into a geocentric one. But, the reality of the situation (e.g. tides, collisions with meteors, etc.) show that even in an acentric system, with the earth, arbitrarily, decided to be put at the center, the earth must move.
The Church no longer enforces geocentrism. It’s only a doctrine de facto. Pretty much every Catholic school was teaching heliocentrism, even since the 1800s.
We have discovered that identical twins split apart only after conception. We have discovered such things as tetragametic chimeras. These are not so easily explained by the “infusion at conception” model.
This is delusional. You’re ignoring the elephant in the living room. The Church continues to be right only because it has allowed its doctrines to develop.
Yes there is enough evidence to question geocentrism, a young earth, global flood, special miraculous creation of Adam and Eve, and now, monogenism. The Church has backtracked on geocentrism, a young earth, a global flood, and special miraculous creation of Adam and Eve (with its current acceptance of evolution). One needn’t stretch too far to think monogenism might be next.
C
Chuck_H
Guest
Actually quite a bit about that particular instance.Remember the Evangelist wrote that WATER and BLOOD flowed from the side of Christ when the spear pierced it. Yet they had no knowledge or understanding about what happens to human blood when the person dies! What have our sciences shown us?
Anatomists have looked at the description of the spear thrust and it transects the final lymph duct and then the right side of the heart. Lymph poured out and then blood. That tends to corroborate the witness testimony.
Which makes an interesting point. Doctrine based on the New Testament (Gospel) tends to eminently provable up to the resurrection which must be accepted as faith and trust in the witness of the apostles. The Old Testament is where there is ongoing trouble. It begs the question that making doctrine based on ancient writings is not a fruitful policy.
I think that cosmology has no problem at all proving heliocentrism where the earth is concerned even though Flat Earthers still maintain that the pictures from Space are simply made up images and short of kidnapping them and hauling them up to the moon they can maintain that view in perpetuity. We now have space craft that are being sent above the plane of the ecliptic which no one doubts will reveal a heliocentric solar system
A careful reading in the website I posted about the Galileo incidence shows it is not about the science. here again is the study of a process and finding where the flaws were in the process.
“The complex tale that is the Galileo affair cautions us not to make simplistic judgments. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the question of whether or not Galileo had any proof for Copernicanism was never at issue—in 1616 or in 1633. The very possibility of any demonstration was excluded in principle by Bellarmine’s doctrinal position and its adoption by an authoritarian Church. The trial and abjuration of Galileo thus represented an “institutionalised abuse of power which can never be sufficiently deprecated” (ibid), in which the societal position of the Church was used to dictate the correct understanding of an issue that was never considered on its own terms. Allowing the enmity of some philosophers to provoke a theological confrontation when there was only a physical argument at issue, the machinery of the Holy Office was turned against Galileo and fell into the very error he and Augustine before him had warned against.”
This is the position of the writer, Paul Newell" and in a very lengthy and thoroughly documented treatise he proves that case.
Considering my previous statement about a stainless steel-teflon coated wall around doctrine, all the mistakes made by the specific Church group in the Galileo affair are seen almost Deja Vu here in this thread. If the Church does not learn from history then it is practical for science to not make the same mistakes.
Now Seeking catholic has asserted that science can by observation and diacritical analysis come close enough to truth to make it a moral certainty. When science arrives at a certain point where what is observed is at a moral certainty the Church can accept it or reject it. Both are options that cannot be taken away from the Church. However, if the Church refuses to accept the conclusions of science that is done well and done in sincere search then it ends up being wrong and no other defense of science is needed.
Studying history (of which the Old Testament does have a fair bit of) suggests that God makes sure that old mistakes are harder to repeat. In the Galileo case, He insulates Science from the Church by influencing the rise of secular nations that become a necessary insulator between the Church who shows arrogance in its temporal power and the individual citizen. In history the Church views this separation of Church and State as a failure of man to admit the preeminence of the Church while God may see it as simply the way to keep the dialog free and continuing. Now I don’t claim any “ex-cathedra” truth here. I and noting a not so subtle change in man’s historical condition and connecting dots. Science begins to come of age and begins the systematic discovery of natural truth. Since it imperative that this progress not be hampered God protects the process through the enlightenment and the rise of secular conditions that do not destroy the Church but limit it to dialog and remove the physical enforcement of its point of view.
David Penney points out that the work of Louis Pasteur, proving that spontaneous generation could not happen would have been deemed heretical in the 15th century since it put a well defined limit on God’s “perceived right” to create continuously. Had he done these experiments in the 15th century we might well be studying the “Pasteur” affair as well as the Galileo affair. The erection of the Church/State wall insured that his experiments be judged on scientific merit only and if there were any behind the Vatican wall who viewed his work as heretical they had no options to bring a physical halt to it.
I think it is healthy to have conditions where science and the Church have built in protections so that they can dialog or ignore but neither can prosecute or persecute. If someone “turns me into the Bishop for spreading scandal” I will not end up in a papal prison. Church can demolish my arguments by logic, they can ignore my arguments or they can consider my arguments but the option to silence the argument is long gone. It would seem to me that God has produced a real situation where questions must be grappled with rather than simply swept under the rug by fundamentalists on either side.
S
SeekingCatholic
Guest
I think though to be fair about it we have to admit that the Church has set up, for instance, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church leadership simply has not chosen to take the “hard-line” approach favored by some on these boards. In fact, Pius XII himself publicly accepted the Big Bang theory (which of course doesn’t slow down our fundamentalists a bit, but I digress).
I would agree with this. And, attempting to silence an author by putting him on the “Index” simply won’t work in the Internet age.
Now, my own idea is that it is time to separate the “kernel” of the doctrine - the heart of the idea which is not open to modification - to the “husk” - the temporal and contingent wrapper, which can come from a faulty understanding of science and/or the natural world and can and should be discarded when shown to be wrong. If this were not the case, the Church would have been vindicated in all the struggles with science. But this is simply historically not the case.
For instance: geocentrism - the “kernel” is that the earth is the “central” place in the universe insofar as this the place where God assumed a creature nature. The “husk” is the geocentric cosmology.
Literal six-day creation - the “kernel” is that the universe and all things in it are created by God, and created good (unlike pagan/polytheistic creation stories). The “husk” is that everything magically “poofed” into existence.
Evolution vs. creation - the “kernel” is that all creatures are in the end, created by God. Again the “husk” is that they all magically “poofed” into existence.
And finally, original sin/monogenism - the “kernel” is that we come into the world in an essentially flawed spritual condition. The “husk” is that there had to be exactly two original parents, one of whom angered God.
C
Chuck_H
Guest
While the first three are academic. The last is profoundly affective.
If the “husk” defines the innocents (those who are incapable of acting on the flawed condition) as equally flawed and therefore undeserving of sharing God’s life then its affect is enormous. Also when viewed from the theologians perspective the relationship of man to God is seen as damaged rather than one of God revealing slowly the right way to be to progress and become "the new man in Christ. In this way the husk becomes a real stumbling block. How does a mother reconcile a loving God with the prospect of a spontaneously aborted late pregnancy child who has no chance of heaven simply because it lacked baptismal water? Toward the latter the catechism of the church has hedged its bets which is a good sign. However, I am sure that redefining the doctrine of original sin would have profound ripples through the church in many areas of theology.
S
SeekingCatholic
Guest
The change in doctrine about the fate of unbaptized infants is in itself a change in understanding about original sin. You’re right, the husk is today a stumbling block in modern man’s perception of things; he is no longer willing to tolerate Augustine’s doctrine of the massa damnata and simply denies that this is a loving God. And, there is another scientific problem (besides polygenism) which is going to come into play. The traditional teaching is that original sin is “transmitted through human generation”. However, in hybrid cloning there is no such “generation”. (A hybrid clone involves extracting the nucleus from an animal egg cell and inserting the nucleus from a human somatic cell, cell division is then stimulated.) If the hybrid clone is human, and has original sin, then it was somehow transmitted in some other manner besides human generation.
C
Camron
Guest
I think that many of your points are valid ones worthy of further investigation. This one caught my attention though.
The Eden “myth” doesn’t necessarily let us off the hook. It seems to reinforce the spiritual conditions that all people would have fallen into if we were placed into Adam and Eve’s place, all people except Jesus and Mary.
I strongly suspect, for example, that if I were in the garden instead of Adam, the Bible would have read something like this…
Chuck H:
I think that one problem with this is that, even though God finished creating the “physical world”, the “soul” of humanity was still considered incomplete. In my opinion, Adam and Eve would have most likely lived forever if they had not eaten from the TotKoG&E. But, even if they physically lived forever, they still would not be complete until they participated in God’s Beatific Vision. The Original Sin, introducing both physical and spiritual death to humanity, prevented this final participation in God’s Beatific Vision from happening until the coming of Christ.
I will note that many have seen a parallel between Genesis 2:2 and John 19:30. In other words, I think that God was finished creating the heavens and the earth just as the Bible says. But I also think that God was still at work within the soul of humanity too. His “resting” seems to be not as much a cessation of “all work”. Rather, I think that He simply shifted gears, slowing down from His infinite vantage point in heaven, from one “kind of work” over billions of years to another “kind of work” that happens in real time on personal one-to-one human level.
Jesus’ statement “It is finished” while on the cross seems to be God declaring His return back to His infinite vantage point in heaven again, and bringing His beloved with Him in His train.
C
Chuck_H
Guest
Let’s hope that situation never comes up. I don’t feel like a religious zealot to believe that God is looking for unique individuals and therefore the “process” has always involved gene shuffling in meiosis. Cloning would make the Pharisee’s questions about the woman who married all the brothers look like a piece of cake.
What really begs the question is the persistence of original sin. Let’s say that it all happened just the way Genesis says and Adam’s sin was transmitted as Paul and Augustine argue. From that position, how do we justify that it is still here? If original sin is removed by the sacrifice of the cross isn’t it strange to speak and act as if original sin somehow survived its own destruction by Jesus?
If , on the other hand, Man’s nature, his organic psyche is flawed by the natural tendency to be selfish and deceitful from day one then God has two choices. 1. Give it up as a bad bet and simply leave us to extinction; 2. Act as an example and a unique sacrifice to gain us the full grace to make it past the natural tendencies and give us the essential tools (teachings or memes) to take the next steps toward being what we can and should be.
The old Law was a huge step up for the Hebraic peoples. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth was quite a leap from the pagan and natural tendency to simply wipe out offenders. Now Jesus sits down and informs us that the next step is offer the other cheek and go the extra mile. It isn’t sufficient to simply ignore those you hate, you must now love them as well since it is only through that love that progress coontinues. Whether one reads that as a theologian or a biologist it is a huge step in altruism.
A look at archeology tells us that primitive man had this thing about human sacrifice. Rene Girard has developed the theme of the “goat” the “reason why we are in this fix” Human groups don’t like to assume the responsibility for being in travail so they tend to “blame” someone and think that if they just destroy this guy, the troubles will be over. God deals with this tendency through a two step model. 1, do animal sacrifice rather than human, and 2. Since you do at this time retain the natural tendency to spill human blood I will select a piece of you that will not endanger your life and you can do in the foreskin.
If I read the story of the ten commandments as a biologist I can see immediately that all make good biological sense. The original supreme commandment makes equal sense. He is the source of us so it is right and fit and just that we give him that credit. He is the source of all of us so everyone (not me) has an equal right to be and be protected and honored. In this I sense that Jesus is exactly right when He says not one jot of The Law will go away since it will always be true. The human codex is open to amendment since we insert our own selves into it and He has no qualms about saying, “the codex says this, but I tell you THIS”.
whether one calls it codex, the law of moses or doctrine it follows after interaction with God and therefore is God inspired. However, taking into account that the standard greeting to His people is always “Don’t be afraid” we just have a natural tendency to be afraid and act in fear. The subsequent codex that is created is always created in a sense of fear of screwing it up and overcompensation is the norm. That is not a condemnation of the theologians, it is a reality check. It is possible to suggest a model then that God given memes will sweep through the population and become fixed rapidly while human derived memes have more trouble even though they try to link themselves to God memes. People view homocide as an absolute evil while continuing to sneak grain on the Sabbath as an example.
R
richardwy
Guest
Chuck, if you care to, PM with more on this. Flesh it out just a hair. Or do it on this thread. I’m lousy at keeping track of threads that interest me. That’s the reason for the PM request.
C
Chuck_H
Guest
You got me!
What is a PM?
R
richardwy
Guest
Private Message.
Not wanting to be sneaky. Just sometimes it’s easier to communicate without the falderal of open forum antics.
Click on my name, and follow the prompts.
Not wanting to be sneaky. Just sometimes it’s easier to communicate without the falderal of open forum antics.
Click on my name, and follow the prompts.
S
SeekingCatholic
Guest
It already has.
The same questions come up regarding identical twins.
Exactly. The theologians will no doubt make a distinction between the merits of Christ’s Passion and its application, but that doesn’t do much, as you said, to assuage a mother who just lost her unborn child without baptism.
Yes. In fact, modern brain research is revealing more and more about the details about how the organic psyche is flawed by the natural tendency to be selfish and deceitful from day one.
You have some serious and profound insights. I have really enjoyed this conversation.
C
Chuck_H
Guest
I “aint” claiming divine revelation though I wouldn’t absolutely rule it out.
The answer is straight forward and clear and it is found in the Gospel.
Paraphrased(since I didn’t take time to dig out the exact passage and everyone pretty well knows the words)
Jesus tells the apostles " What you bind on earth is bound in heaven; what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven."
Once the Church has discussed a proposition and come to a common belief of it and the councils say Amen then that is what is real. The doctrine binds us.
A real time example is eating pork. The priests of the Old Testament defined pork as unclean and the people said Amen to that so their reality was, if a man ate pork he was defying the codex and since eating is a choice and then an activity he would be in sin due to the reality of what he had said Amen to.
Jesus cleared the way to dump that reality by the words that it wasn’t that which went into a man that made a man unclean but what came out of him.
Peter, acting as head of the Church, solidified the doctrine when he made the pronouncement after the banquet vision and the Church community said Amen and the pork ban was loosed in heaven. Thus you and I can feast on barbecued spare ribs with a clear conscience while the orthodox Jew is still bound by his reality of pork=unclean.
Paul 5-12 (Romans) makes a frank statement that Jesus has cleared the board. But in the years afterward a variety of Church leaders re-argued the point and when the councils said this was reality and the Church said Amen the binding was made.
Therefore, to make the statement that the Church cannot bind is to deny the very words of God and there I will never go. There is only hope that, if this doctrine is not absolute truth than God will find a way to clear it so that the Church can say, “this then is loosened”, which is also within its power given by Jesus".
One can only hope that theologians and Church leaders are ever mindful of Jesus’ words and see them not only as a power conferred, but also as a warning to use that power in all seriousness and prudent fear.
Chuck H
The answer is straight forward and clear and it is found in the Gospel.
Paraphrased(since I didn’t take time to dig out the exact passage and everyone pretty well knows the words)
Jesus tells the apostles " What you bind on earth is bound in heaven; what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven."
Once the Church has discussed a proposition and come to a common belief of it and the councils say Amen then that is what is real. The doctrine binds us.
A real time example is eating pork. The priests of the Old Testament defined pork as unclean and the people said Amen to that so their reality was, if a man ate pork he was defying the codex and since eating is a choice and then an activity he would be in sin due to the reality of what he had said Amen to.
Jesus cleared the way to dump that reality by the words that it wasn’t that which went into a man that made a man unclean but what came out of him.
Peter, acting as head of the Church, solidified the doctrine when he made the pronouncement after the banquet vision and the Church community said Amen and the pork ban was loosed in heaven. Thus you and I can feast on barbecued spare ribs with a clear conscience while the orthodox Jew is still bound by his reality of pork=unclean.
Paul 5-12 (Romans) makes a frank statement that Jesus has cleared the board. But in the years afterward a variety of Church leaders re-argued the point and when the councils said this was reality and the Church said Amen the binding was made.
Therefore, to make the statement that the Church cannot bind is to deny the very words of God and there I will never go. There is only hope that, if this doctrine is not absolute truth than God will find a way to clear it so that the Church can say, “this then is loosened”, which is also within its power given by Jesus".
One can only hope that theologians and Church leaders are ever mindful of Jesus’ words and see them not only as a power conferred, but also as a warning to use that power in all seriousness and prudent fear.
Chuck H
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I don’t agree. Never did the Church define geocentrism as “revealed truth.” Such a conclusion is untenable to anyone with a fundamental understanding of Catholic dogmatic theology.
- Status