What teachings has the Church yet to define?

  • Thread starter Thread starter goyim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

goyim

Guest
It’s often occured to me, after deep conversation and some reflection/research that there are areas of teaching where the Catholic Church hasnt really said much about. Inside the realm of healthy argument.

This Leaves things up to interpretation and argument. Until of course, an agreed upon statement of belief is found. So what are the things that are closest to the Church which it still has yet to clearly define. One such example could be the ex cathedra definition of the Assumption of Mary. What could/should the Church more strictly define?
 
Last edited:
We are still ‘unpacking’ the extent of the Second Vatican Council.
In regards to Science and religion, their roles are seperate. One describes natural law, the other, our salvation as defined by God.
 
LateranBasilica said:
In regards to Science and religion, their roles are seperate. One describes natural law, the other, our salvation as defined by God.
Click to expand...
They are not seperate. They ‘mutually support each other’ which in its essence means they have a certain level of connectiveness to one another embedded within their roles. But this is not the point of the post.
 
They are not to be conflated, they have seperate roles. In your original post you gave this example
‘ the clarification of Genesis and it’s role with regards modern science’
The Book Of Genesis has two sections , the first 11 chapters we are free to take literally if we wish, or not. These chapters describe God the Creator and His relationship with His creation, and in giving human stewardship over the earthly creation. The second part is of Abraham and his descendants (all Christians).


Modem Science does not exist to put our Creator and ancestors under the microscope for clarification of the Word of God in revealing to us our salvation.
 
goyim said:
This Leaves things up to interpretation and argument. Until of course, an agreed upon statement of belief is found. So what are the things that are closest to the Church which it still has yet to clearly define. One such example could be the clarification of Genesis and its role with regards to modern science. What could/should the Church more strictly define?
Click to expand...
Isn’t this question like asking “what ALL does God Know?”

Peace!!!
 
adf417 said:
Isn’t this question like asking “what ALL does God Know?”
Click to expand...
It could, if it weren’t for the words “closest to the Church” meaning only issues that are of particuliar relevance. The Church has no need to define why there are no many species of Beatles for example. But it did, at one stage define ex cathedra the Assumption of Mary. This is more what I’m getting at.
 
LateranBasilica said:
They are not to be conflated, they have seperate roles.
Click to expand...
Not a conflation, but more an acknowledgement of the fact that they cannot be completely seperated. Science is just a tool of reason, in the same manner in which it could attempt to scrutinize Sacred Scripture, it could also be used in a way which glorifies God and his revelations to man through scripture. However, This is not the point of the post, more a specific avenue of a wider conversation.
 
Last edited:
Instead of asking what hasn’t been defined, it would be shorter to ask (do a google search) of what has been defined. Asking for a list of teaching would be rather long. Then you have to clarify how you are using the word “defined”. Defined is used to describe teachings that are Dogma, ie infallible. Doctrines are classified as Truth, but have various degrees of theological certainty attached to them. Since you brought up Genesis, I can give you an example. That there exist our First Parents (two people created at the same time (relatively speaking and for each other) is a Doctrine that has been given the theological certainty of sententia certa. In other words, it is theologically certain truth based on Divine Revelation alone. Original Sin is a Dogma that is infallible (de Fide). In other words, it has been defined by the Church as a Dogma. While the First Parents is Truth, it has not been Dogmatically defined. It is, however, a necessary precursor to the Dogma of Original Sin, which, as we stated, is Dogma.
 
Last edited:
I changed the OP to try and avoid confusion. But yes that is what I was getting at more specifically. Very thankful for that delineation between the two.
 
stephenSTOSS1 said:
In other words, it has been defined by the Church as a Dogma. While the First Parents is Truth, it has not been Dogmatically defined. It is, however, a necessary precursor to the Dogma of Original Sin, which, as we stated, is Dogma.
Click to expand...
So more specifically, are there topics or issues which seem as of now that they may in the future be defined as dogma?
 
There is much overlap between the two disciplines, no? Yet, they are at times parallel but certainly complementary. If we believe in a God Who created all that is created, then science examines and reveals mankind’s limited, unfolding knowledge of what God has already accomplished in the physical realm. Metaphysics is quite another realm. Science studies the visible and invisible rules (and their effects) by which order is maintained in all of creation.

As to the OP, the Church cannot define everything, as not all has been revealed either to or through the Church. As with science, despite our ever increasing knowledge base, much remains a mystery. As a somewhat general rule, the Church has declared dogma in response to heresy.

Such areas as the state of the souls of unbaptized children who die, or who, if anyone inhabits hell, have not been revealed, So yes, there are many areas in which we can legitimately differ, as long as our thoughts accord with the Church in both faith and morals.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Such areas as the state of the souls of unbaptized children who die, or who, if anyone inhabits hell, have not been revealed, So yes, there are many areas in which we can legitimately differ, as long as our thoughts accord with the Church in both faith and morals.
Click to expand...
This is definetely what I as looking for. Thanks for this whole post.
 
It is definitely possible for a Doctrine to be later defined as a Dogma. The big difference between the two is the possibility of further development in the depth of theological understanding of a Doctrine. Notice, I didn’t say different understanding, but deeper understanding. The deeper understanding would not be in conflict with the original understanding.
 
I quite like this. Thanks for allowing more questions to be raised in my mind.
 
A bit of a sidetrack, the contemporary pitting of faith against science is both a red herring as well as a canard. Members of the Catholic Church conceived of and developed the scientific method. Others within the Church applied that method in their pursuit of greater understanding of God’s creation. Two outstanding examples are Fr. Gregor Mendel, the “father of genetics” and Fr. Georges Lemaitre, Jesuit Priest and physicist who developed the “big bang” theory regarding the creation of the universe. Neither sought to deny God, but to marvel at His greatness while increasing mankind’s understanding of the Word of creation.
 
Science is not used to scrutinize Sacred Scripture. God gave us only enough knowledge in Sacred Scripture for our salvation.
I agree that science glorifies God in its marvel at His Creation and the existence of life and law within His creation.
 
Indeed. Long ago, I watched an interview with a Priest who was employed at the Vatican Observatory. When the inevitable question of faith and science came up, particularly in relation to the scriptures, he stressed that first and foremost, the scriptures are not a science book. He went on to indicate that there is nothing more useless than a 10 or 20 year old science text. Virtually everything in them is either outdated, or has been disproved by further study. The truths in scripture are timeless and unchanging, as are the laws of physics.
 
po18guy said:
he stressed that first and foremost, the scriptures are not a science book.
Click to expand...
Whether or not I would agree with that would depend upon how we characterize “science book.” If we limit to characterizing it as a science text book, then I would agree. But Scripture is indeed a science book … an amazing science book. It is a collection of books that are full scientific secrets that man is only now discovering.

These mysteries of cutting edge science are hidden in plain sight. The Bible is, in fact, an applied sciences book. It reveals scientific mysteries in real world settings; in action, so to speak. In The Science & Theology of Salt in Scripture, I have uncovered thirty-four such mysteries. I will give you two quick examples.

Science has recently discovered that the function of our genes changes through epigenetics plasticity. Our epigenome is like the software that tells a computer what to do. Our epigenome responds to behaviors and our environment. God showed us this in the story of Jacobs colored rods. By placing colored rods at the watering hole when sheep would both drink and mate. When he put the rods out, the resulting offspring would come out spotted. There are more examples, but that is enough for that scientific mystery.

Another example is the fact that Scripture is full of references to the our DNA. My book explores over a thousand Scripture passages to prove my case. Here is an article that gives a mini-exposition. Is DNA in the Bible?

As Catholics, we need to resist the idea that the Bible is not a science book. It’s a science book, just not a textbook.
 
I don’t know if what I am about to say would even appeal to you. In the Apologetics: Sacred Scripture section, there is a link Bibliacarus. I highly recommend it. It contains most, if not all, magisterial documents of the Church. You can do a keyword search to pull up all Church documents that deal with that topic. Here’s the best part … it’s free.
 
po18guy said:
…there is nothing more useless than a 10 or 20 year old science text.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that. There are many textbooks on electricity and magnetism, written 10 or 20 years ago, that are very accurate and valuable for the study. Also, can you tell me why it is thought that the textbook: Quantum Hall Effects, 2nd edition, by Ezawa, is useless. I find this book, published more than ten years ago, to be an extremely useful book. Please tell me what you find useless about it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top