Thanks, Hans. I have really appreciated your (name removed by moderator)ut also.
Actually, I don’t know where you got that “attack”, but I get it, you are feeling a bit defensive.
Granny dear, I said that the story of Genesis indicates. The Catholic Church does not firmly ascribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible. (Neither does Judaism) There is no need to get into that one here. I am going to say that your view is perfectly acceptable in Catholicism, and you are going to say mine is not. That’s OK.
Note these words, dear: In 390: “figurative language”. In 289: “beginning” is put into quotes *indicating * that it is referring to the figurative. The rest of the references pertain to man’s relationship with God. However, if you would like to say that the language of Genesis is not figurative, that’s okay! The Church does not condemn that position, as far as I know, and I certainly don’t condemn it!
Well, to me, a pagan native in the middle of a forest in Amazonia can have a relationship with God. A little guidance might help, but such guidance is not necessarily imperative. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Sorry, I don’t know what you are getting at here.
That’s not fair, Granny. You turned “capacity for relationship being transmitted” into “relationship being transmitted”. And then a red flag on the twist? For shame!
I don’t get it, Granny. When did we start talking about original sin here? And you have yet to come forward with any Catholic of the hierarchy or theologian who has contested the research on the humanity of Neanderthals. Please come forward with someone, or just own it yourself. Your opinion is valuable, Granny, and acceptable, but not the only way a Catholic can approach the topic. Are you willing to admit this? Are you dear?
Relationships have been determined using genomics. The “readers” should know that you have chosen to ignore the evidence.
There are many ways to resolve this issue, and I suggested two ways here. If you did not understand them, please feel free to ask questions. If you are simply refusing to accept any opinion other than your own, even if such other opinion is acceptable to the Church, don’t you think “the readers” should know that?
It would take more than a forum post to specify which scripture is to be taken literally. What the priest who taught us scripture said was that materially speaking, what appears to conflict with science need not be taken literally. In addition, when addressing the spiritual, what appears to conflict with the bulk of scripture needs to be scrutinized and clarified. The story of the unforgiving servant is an example of a parable that has to be very thoroughly explained.
Granny, please try to remain charitable. I don’t know which “authors” you are referring to, but which ever authors you have in mind, do you know that they prefer the material over the spiritual? Are you making accusations, intending to put fear into the hearts of people? If so, why? Accusations lead to divisiveness.
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is absent in the pursuit of science? The Church does not limit the sources of (name removed by moderator)ut of the Spirit, Granny. In addition, the Church hierarchy has made plenty of errors by trying to challenge science with scripture, and has ended up with egg in its face enough times to realize that science is the study of God’s creation, and God is to be found within. The miracles of creation are revealed by science, and those “revelations” lead to awe in the researchers and those who read the research. For example, look at all that we know about the unborn through science! Scientific research adds to the wonder of it all, appreciation for the gift that we have been given, and the connectedness we have with all that exists.know that many, not all, Catholics are unaware of how the Catholic Church properly defines Divine Revelation. First, the truth in Holy Scripture is studied extensively with the guidance of the promised Holy Spirit. Chapter 14, Gospel of John.
Thank you for the link here However, either me or the computer is doing something silly and I am not reaching your suggestions. As I recall, I don’t have any questions for you which cannot be answered by Catholic teachings or by proper science.Good Morning, Granny!
There are many ways to resolve this issue, and I suggested two ways here. If you did not understand them, please feel free to ask questions. If you are simply refusing to accept any opinion other than your own, even if such other opinion is acceptable to the Church, don’t you think “the readers” should know that?
I agree that the science should be questioned where it falls short due to a lack of addressing the spiritual, but I differ that a post can’t contain the doctrines of the initial chapters of Genesis that Grannymh refers to in order to develop Original Sin. Still, I agree with your priest that he probably couldn’t cover this in a verbal setting. Yet, it is helpful to list them even if we don’t discuss and explain them in detail.
To save them from being casted in horrible Geico commercials.
Oops. I am a rookie at this. Try again here.
The problem is, Granny, that you are implying that something said on this thread clashes with the Catholic Deposit of Faith, and as far as I can tell, there has not been an example of this presented. So far, you have presented one conclusion that may be considered contrary, but only after twisting something that I said.
What is so hard to understand? Read the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. The First Parents were HUMAN BEINGS. God creates a soul at the moment of conception. Human Beings were created to love and serve God. The first parent sinned. Original Sin.Oops. I am a rookie at this. Try again here.
The problem is, Granny, that you are implying that something said on this thread clashes with the Catholic Deposit of Faith, and as far as I can tell, there has not been an example of this presented. So far, you have presented one conclusion that may be considered contrary, but only after twisting something that I said.
What has been presented that you are saying “clashes” with the Faith?
And I would really like to know your answer to these questions:
I see, Granny, you want the last word. Is your last word going to be one of inclusion, or one of exclusion? If those words exclude, rather than include, the variety of acceptable opinions, then please quote a person of authority. I see also that you are trying to anticipate the confusion of readers: well, that is good. However, if such anticipation translates to statements that lead to people to antipathy, where no reason for such exists (again, where is it?), then this is not pastoral.
- Do you want Catholics to be open-minded and accepting of Catholic (not clashing) opinions other than their own, or do you want Catholics to hold differing opinions in contempt?
- Are you trying to point out unorthodoxy where there is no example of such?
- Are you willing to admit that there are a number of acceptable Catholic opinions on the topic?
Which brings us back to Eucharist, communion.
Some people are thankful for the concentrated host, with Jesus in the host, and no one else.
Some people are thankful for the above, and for all of their family members.
Some people are thankful for the above, and for all of the local parishioners present.
If we keep moving with this, people can give thanks for the communion of (in order of progression, more or less) all Catholics of the same race, opinion (i.e. liberal v conservative), degree of “sinful behavior”, and ultimately all Catholics, period. A person more holy (“wholy”) might include thanks for all Christians, and then all people of any religion. A person more whole might include thankfulness for all people regardless of religion, even atheists, even enemies! A person yet more whole might include all animals, plants, matter, and energy, along with the creative singularity (God) behind all that is. To many, all of creation is involved with the incarnation!
Are we not called to a greater holiness? Join me, Granny, in finding that which unifies. Is our gratitude, a gratitude of communion, inclusive? Please do not say “yes, but…” unless you are referring to something presented in this threadthat very specifically, without twisting or reading something into, that clashes with orthodoxy and/or is condemned by the Church.
The word catholic literally means “universal,” as in “the universal church.”
Embrace our Neanderthal brethren with love!
Philosophically speaking,
Philosophically speaking,
May I gently point out that the real Catholic Church was not founded on a variety of “opinions.” Of course you may talk about as many opinions as your heart desires. If you have trouble discerning between a personal opinion and a duly defined, properly proclaimed Catholic doctrine, I will do my best to help you. However, you need to be more precise regarding the particular subject matter.
When there is a precise example of a personal disagreement with duly defined, properly proclaimed Catholic doctrines, I will do my best to state the actual Catholic doctrines which are involved. If you wish, you may present a precise example of a personal disagreement about a particular Catholic doctrine. I will attempt to sort out possible misunderstandings.
Considering that there are thousands of both acceptable and unacceptable opinions about thousands of topics. Would it be possible for you to narrow down your world wide question?
opusAquinas, my brother,
Just to clarify, :twocents:; I’m sure you would agree. Animals live by instinct in the sense that at the core of their behaviour, they are “hard-wired”, with some variation based on learning. At the core of human behaviour, there is free will. We have certain emotional reactions and behavioural tendencies as we have livers, brains, muscles etc. shared with animals. We have the capacity to perceive and understand what is good, what is beautiful and what is true. We are able to make choices, unlike animals.
Good morning Dearest Granny,
It appears that you do not believe the genomic evidence that shows that Neanderthals were a race, not a species. Are you using philosophy or the CCC to make a scientific assertion? This shows a “prejudice” against science, dear. Again, the Church does not condemn your approach, but it does not condemn the opposite either.
It is not obvious that there was no Fall for the Neanderthals. Look at my post 144, and see that there is a means (I give two options) of making it all work together.
Such a sad view of human life.opusAquinas, my brother,
Humans live by instinct like animals. We desire power, status, control of our destinies, all of the territory and material wealth we can garner, and as much sex as possible. We want to save energy, we are compelled to want what others have, we are capable of angry defensive displays, and we want justice, just as some of the higher apes do. Just like chimpanzees, we are capable of seeing another of the same species as worthless, and carry out the death penalty, as did those who hung Jesus.
Yes, we are created to love and serve God, but we do so while fighting the shackles of our instincts. Jesus calling us to love and serve is a means to free ourselves from the shackles and transcend our instincts. In such obedience, we create the Kingdom.
Is this capacity Genesis 1: 26-28. If it is, then Genesis 2:15-17 becomes a literal truth.
My heavens!