Forgot to mention: The RCC oficially teaches that tradition is infallible, that means that whatever has been taught unanimously since the beginning of the church is considered to be infallibly true, on a par with scripture, and is called sacred tradition. Tradition definitely supports the plain take-it-as-history view of Genesis. Genesis was never reinterpreted till the advent of long age geologists, before that, all christians were biblical creationists.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
All you want to know about the Catholic Church
- Thread starter Renji
- Start date
Forgot to mention: The RCC oficially teaches that tradition is infallible, that means that whatever has been taught unanimously since the beginning of the church is considered to be infallibly true, on a par with scripture, and is called sacred tradition. Tradition definitely supports the plain take-it-as-history view of Genesis. Genesis was never reinterpreted till the advent of long age geologists, before that, all christians were biblical creationists.
Renji
Well-Known Member
On the first point you made, you said that the Bible is inspired by God and is therefore infallible and inerrant. I did not say anything contrary into that. The problem is with the interpretation. The RC church has a magisterium for that one so that interpretation of the bible is guided. And what does the magisterium says about the story in Genesis and the ToE? Actually there's no official pronouncements yet with regards to this matter. But as Pope John Paul Ii and the magisterium (teachers of the Church) says, "the story of genesis and the evolution is not contrary, for the story of creation should not be taken literally." If you look at the story of the creation in genesis it is almost similar with the stories of creation from other cultures that have influenced the Israelites (simple research on the story of creation by the Egyptians is enough to prove that). The story of creation is not literal, but symbolical. As the Church teaches it, it is composed (with great probability) by the Yahwist priests and other authors to: show how infinitely how powerful God is, that He can create order (from nothing, to something) and si on. How would the Yahwist priests know what happened during the creation when they are still not existing during that time?
Concerning human evolution, the Church says:Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that mans body developed from previous biological forms, under Gods guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
Concerning human evolution, the Church says:Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that mans body developed from previous biological forms, under Gods guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
Renji
Well-Known Member
And I'm not saying that people before are illiterate, all I'm saying ia that the scriptures were written in different time frames and hence different authors and audiences. Evolution is not a common knowledge or even part of the social norms back then, hence we don't expect that the author of a particular scripture will present the story of "creation "that way.
Last edited:
Renji
Well-Known Member
Fact: the priests in the Roman Church before are allowed to get married. But now?
Fact: Limbo was accepted as a Catholic teaching before. But now?
The Church might change position on some things at some point for varied reasons. Because as a Church we believe that it is "continually instructed. If the magisterium, or the Pope, which are infallible btw, can make pronouncements or a clarrification about matters of faith and stuff, which might cause changes later on
I must say first that I am not actually a roman catholic, but I have been discussing various aspects of roman catholicism. My friend is a diehard biblical creationist, and left me in no doubt that that is official church teaching. I would be very suprised if she was wrong either, as I understand the magisterium very very conservative. I don't know about magisterium statements, but tradition which is supposed to be infallible is on the side of biblical creationists (see below).
Genesis is written as plain history though. Hebrew scholar affirms that Genesis means what it says! (Ting Wang)
If it is inspired by God, then God is the author and man is the coauthor, we refer to the bible as the word of God. To accept biological evolution on the body of man means Genesis is wrong, because it plainly says the universe was created in six days and Adam's body was formed from the dust of the ground by God himself, not from some apelike creature. If Genesis is wrong, either God did not inspire it, or God is a liar.
Would you please provide a reference for this? Again, my RC friend left me in no doubt that the official teaching was that Genesis means what it says.
So you do believe in Darwinian evolution?
Limbo is still accepted as RC teaching I believe.
That priests are not allowed to get married is a disiplinary issue not a doctrinal issue, so therefore it is supposed to be not covered by "sacred" tradition.
"Sacred" tradition is supposed to mean that the church never changes position on doctrinal and moral issues. Celebacy of priests is not considered a doctrinal or moral issue.
(I can't believe that I as a noncatholic am actually saying this to a catholic.)
For the last 2000 years of church history, every christian was a biblical creationist, except in the last 200 years. Because the interpretation of Genesis is a doctrinal and moral issue, it is covered by tradition. If the pope really said what you said he said, then what he said contradicts what this supposedly infallible tradition says.
One more thing: Christ, who was God himself referred to Genesis a few times. Every time, he indicated that he took Genesis literally.
Yet another thing: If you can reinterpret Genesis so as to ignore / contradict what it plainly tells us, what about the rest of the bible? Is nothing sacred?
Last edited:
Renji
Well-Known Member
Well then, read these: The Vatican's View of Evolution: Pope Paul II and Pope Pius
Vatican Official Defends Evolution Against 'Useless' Creationism | Fox News
and the quote I quoted earlier that you objected with? It's from the Humani Generis, according to Pope Pius XII
So where is my point, "being out of line of the Official teachings of the Church"?
Vatican Official Defends Evolution Against 'Useless' Creationism | Fox News
and the quote I quoted earlier that you objected with? It's from the Humani Generis, according to Pope Pius XII
So where is my point, "being out of line of the Official teachings of the Church"?
Last edited:
Renji
Well-Known Member
And yeah, I am a Catholic. Catholic theology is part of the subjects I studied since my elementary years. My theology professors have nothing against the ToE. Even the parish priest of the parochial school where I am from. And about limbo: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Limbo
Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries
Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries
Last edited:
Amechania
Daimona of the Helpless
Could you give examples of this and explain why you think Jesus is indicating a literal understanding of Genesis. One example that comes to mind is when he compares the end of the world as being similiar to the days of Noah and Lot, swift and surprising. While it could be considered an indication that Jesus took Genesis literally, it could just as easily be that Jesus knew his audience took Genesis literally. He's really emphasizing the nature of the end and likening it to something they were familiar with, not propounding a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Last edited:
Renji
Well-Known Member
And let me correct you about the sacred tradition. Sacred tradition pertains to the: trinity, Infant baptism, purgatory, the rosary and the Immaculate conception, as well as teachings that has been passed to the faithful orally and those things that cannot be found on the written traditions (aka the scriptures) but is accepted by the faithful as a whole. It is different from the Bible but is not contrary with the faith of the Church. You cannot find an interpretation of the Genesis (for example) from it as you claimed, providing no references at all. Hence, the Pope is not saying contrary to it.Interpretation lies on the magesterium and Catholic theology. But, the Catholic theology, and the magesterium says (as well as the Pope) that there is nothing contrary/incompatible if you believe in the scriptures and the ToE. They even refuted the 'useless creationism', if you read the article I have provided earlier.
And yeah, the Sacred tradition is just one of the channel of infallibility in the Church. The magisterium, Catholic theology and the Pope are channels of infallibility too. Hence, they can clarrify issues on the matters of faith and doctrine within the Church. ToE has somehow touched those things .
And yeah, the Sacred tradition is just one of the channel of infallibility in the Church. The magisterium, Catholic theology and the Pope are channels of infallibility too. Hence, they can clarrify issues on the matters of faith and doctrine within the Church. ToE has somehow touched those things .
Last edited:
Renji
Well-Known Member
Renji
Well-Known Member
Also, the Catholic Church disapproves personal interpretations of the Bible, as opposed to what other faiths do to avoid misunderstanding. Hence, the importance of the magisterium and Church authority. Siwel's posts seem to be a personal opinion or reflection instead of an official RC church teaching.
Amechania
Daimona of the Helpless
Well, I don't know much about Catholic teachings myself, but it seems to me that if you're going to speak for a religion you should at least know the doctrine. Even I know Catholics have no problem with evolution as a scientific concept. Cardinal Newman made an eloquent statement regarding this issue a very long time ago. Basically, Newman's idea was that God followed a process in creation and that is to his glory, and does not conflict with Genesis at all, which describes, essentially, a process of creation. As Newman put it, how does the theory of evolution "diminish" God?
Renji
Well-Known Member
Thank you for sharing. Agreed.
Amechania
Daimona of the Helpless
What's so nasty about the struggle for survival in the natural world? It is beautiful to me. What's so horrible about death? Death is just a part of life, and life is beautiful. If the God of Genesis did indeed create this world, I think he did a marvelous job as is.
Death is beautiful?
Christ thought it was pretty nasty even if you don't - he was pretty upset over Lazarous even though he would have known Lazarous was just about to be raised.
Why is death spoken of as an enemy in the bible? Why did God use an enemy to create the world?
If death is ok, why is it that the end of death and suffering is the most mentioned feature of heaven?
Here is an article on what the bible authors thought of Genesis: http://creation.com/genesis-bible-authors-believed-it-to-be-history
Amechania
Daimona of the Helpless
No one person's death is beautiful, of course, but death is inevitable and critical to life on this Earth, and in that sense is beautiful. It is only natural that we are saddened by the sense of loss. That, to my mind, is precisely the point of the story of the raising of Lazarus. Jesus is saying it's okay to grieve, but do not fear death. Death is an enemy because we fear it. The message of Jesus seems to be that there is nothing to fear.
If death was only an enemy because we fear it, then why does the bible say that death is the last enemy to be defeated? (1 corinthians 15:26) If what you say is true, then death has already been defeated.
Yes. Sacred tradition is also called oral tradition matey.and no, ToE does not diminish God at all. As the magisterium agrees with, it is very possible came from lower biological species, but it should be noted, that whatever our origin is, God is there. Without Him, there's nothing.
But doesn't ToE contradict the bible? Isn't the bible supposed to be inspired and infallible? I don't see how you can say that we could possibly have a common ancestor.
Renji
Well-Known Member
Hey Katz! No, one does not need to be part of the hierarchy to be labelled as saint. There are a lot of saints that are not part of hierarchy, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, there a roughly 250 canonized lay saints (lay, meaning those that are aren't part of the clergy, like me). Examples are St. Lorenzo Ruiz- a martyr, St. Maria Goretti, St. Felicitas, etc.