To be honest with you, I don't give a flip if Catholics believe in the literal meaning of the Bible or see it as allegory. I don't care if they think the Book of Genesis is to be taken literally or not. I could care less if they tend toward creationism or evolution. I am not a science or history teacher. I will leave it to them to fret over such stuff.
Regardless of which perspective or theory Catholics believe, I hope that they take the religious meaning of the Book of Genesis to heart. That we were created by God, male and female we were created, in His image and likeness and somewhere along the line sin entered humanity and God's people turned from Him to false gods, like themselves and thought salvation was of human origin and in human kings and queens.
God's mercy is abundant as is His judgements. Ultimately a new Covenant in His Son's Blood is the final one and all we have to do is use our free will- a grace in and of itself- to accept this covenant and its laws. God's love is to be accepted as is salvation; it is never imposed.
Given the discussion on another post, this All Souls' Day, 2011 article from Commonweal is timely!
What do Catholics believe about Adam and Eve?
David Gibson November 2, 2011
For the past few months, many
evangelicals and Baptists and other conservative Christians in the
Protestant stream have been debating -- and generally pushing back
against -- the science showing that the human race could not literally
have descended from two progenitors, Adam and Eve. Christianity Today had a cover story and carefully-worded editorial on the matter over the summer, NPR picked up the story here,
and Al Mohler, a leading Southern Baptist apologist, strongly defended
the necessity of a literal belief in Adam and Eve (chiefly in order to
undergird a belief in original sin, it seems) here and here.I
watched this with the dispassionate gaze of the journalist eyeing a
story but also a bit of the triumphalism of the Catholic thankful that
his church, or rather Church (there's only one "the Church," as Lenny
Bruce put it) didn't get mired in such embarrassing literalism.Oops.John
Farrell at Forbes noted that:
The Catholic Church indeed of all the Christian churches faces a particular quandary. The Council of Trent is quite explicit on the topic. Catholics are required to believe not only that Adam is the single father of the human race, but that Original Sin is passed on by physical generation from him to the entire human race. Its not something symbolic or allegorical (although it is regarded as ultimately mysterious). The First Vatican Council reiterated the doctrine, as did Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis:
"For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own."
Catholic apologists who point to Pope John Paul IIs 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences as evidence of the Churchs acceptance of evolution often fail to notice that the late Pope completely passed over the question of monogenism, and indeed never did discuss the problem that genetics poses to the doctrine.Indeed, evidence against a literal Adam and Eve is pretty conclusive. As Farrell writes:
There are to be sure individual Catholic theologians out there mulling over how to handle the problem. But they are not on the Vaticans radar, and a new encyclical on the issue is not likely to come very soon.This is unfortunate. For while the Vatican maintains its silence on the challenge of genomics, Catholics in general are either encouraged to fall back on the denialism of Evangelical leaders like Albert Mohler, or to keep their mouths shut.Catholics tend not to keep their mouths shut, and shouldn't, nor should they have to adopt views like Al Mohler's.Catholic News Service had a good story featuring Franciscan Father Michael D. Guinan, professor of Old Testament at the Franciscan School of Theology in Berkeley, who said Catholic teaching has developed. [T]he question of biological origins is a scientific one," Father Guinan told CNS, "and, if science shows that there is no evidence of monogenism and there is lots of evidence for polygenism, then a Catholic need have no problem accepting that. Well, Catholic World News had a problem accepting Father Guinan's comments, and titled its report on his "unorthodox" views this way: "Franciscan scholar dismisses teaching of Catechism, Pius XII on Adam and Eve."A Sept. 12, 2011 feature in America magazine also highlighted the divide, as author Brian Pinter noted the prevalence of biblical literalism among Catholics (at least on Genesis) and explained why that should not be.So, as per the title of this lengthy post, what do Catholics believe about Adam and Eve? Is Pius' encyclical just something we pass over in silence? Should it be "corrected"? Need it be?BONUS MATERIAL: Andrew Sullivan had a number of posts on the issues of whether the Fall must be true in the literal sense, or whether a figurative reading would make Christianity fall apart. I'd say not, but atheist Jerry Coyne took that line, and Ross Douthat ably defended.
291 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 291 of 291Science is the Devil?
Tell that the next time you go to a doctor (scientist), or the next time you enjoy vegetables that have been fertilized with products made by scientists, or the next time you use a cell phone invented by scientists, etc.
Anonymous 2 re the creation of the soul from “Catholic Catechism” by Fr John Hardon:
“Similarly, the Church has never defined the exact moment when the soul is created and infused into the body to form this unique human person. But the Church’s mind on the matter can be deduced from its age-long attitude towards abortion.
There has been a broad range of theories in Catholic circles about the time when God creates the soul. Men of the stature of Thomas Aquinas were caught in the speculation, and they assigned various times. But they were always careful to explain that they were merely speculating. Actually and in the practice order, no Christian could treat the fetus otherwise than as a human being. This is confirmed, as we shall see, in the Church’s unswerving prohibition of abortion at any stage of pregnancy. It is, therefore, assumed that the creation of the soul and its infusion take place at the moment of conception.”
Certainly, I was taught that the soul was created and infused at conception and I accept that. Since Vatican II it seems there has been an attempt to completely water down the doctrine. I think that is why there is such a difference between you and Fr K and others of us who believe the traditional teaching of the Church.
We have long since reached the stage where we require either a new Syllabus of Errors or a Council of Trent to reiterate the Church’s teachings because so many believe what they want to believe these days and don't seem to realize that they are not accepting defined dogma, which in many cases is not their fault in that they have never been taught the truth.
Fr K when you say, "It does not mean that the first human had to appear "from the dust" rather than from the womb of a hominid predecessor".
Re-reading that comment should lead you to realize just how complicated you are making the whole event of creation. So God suddenly decided one day that certain humanoids were to become human - for what purpose? Why wasn't he happy with the humanoids he had? Did he say, "Right, they've reached the required stage, now I am going to infuse into them an immortal soul"?
To me creationism is far easier to believe than the fairy tale that you ascribe to, and, as you point out, I am quite free to believe in creationism, which I do, based as it is on the traditional teaching of the Church. As you say, you are free to believe the theory of evolution theory based as it is on the theories in the main of atheists who have no belief in a creator at all.
Sarah, you seem to have gotten the joke right away...you naughty, naughty girl.
DJR
The Immaculate Conception was a singular event, since the Blessed Virgin was the
only human being to be prevented from being conceived with Original Sin.
Scripture conveys and the Church affirms that our first parents were, until the Fall,without sin. When a soul was infused by God into the bodies of Adam and Eve, there was no sin there. Unlike us, there was no sin for them to inherit. It likewise could be characterized as a separate, singular event.
There would be no sin on their soul until they committed one.
Two different things.
Anonymous @ 6:47, RE: Science is the Devil...Now, is that what I said, really? You have a reading comprehension problem and absolutely no understanding of theological issues. Although, you may want to read Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and Marlowe's
"Dr. Faustus" (which I prefer to Goethe) for a quick review of what an unquestioning reliance upon science can bring.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... DJR - If I shared your literalist reading of the Creation Accounts then I would agree with your conclusion that I cannot believe in evolution.
I don't believe in a "literalist" reading of the creation accounts, so there is no way you can "share" it with me. I can't share something that I don't have.
The fact that a person denies the irrational, unscientific, unproven, and unprovable, philosophical error of evolution does not mean that person needs to have a "literalist" view of Genesis, e.g., that God "walked" in the garden.
That said, you cannot extricate yourself from the contradiction of Church teaching that your privately held view entails.
Your position states that the first human had a mother.
Was that first human conceived without sin?
If you say no, you contradict the Church's teaching on original sin.
If you say yes, you contradict the Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception.
There is no other way.
DJR
George said... DJR
The Immaculate Conception was a singular event, since the Blessed Virgin was the
only human being to be prevented from being conceived with Original Sin.
Scripture conveys and the Church affirms that our first parents were, until the Fall, without sin. When a soul was infused by God into the bodies of Adam and Eve, there was no sin there. Unlike us, there was no sin for them to inherit. It likewise could be characterized as a separate, singular event.
There would be no sin on their soul until they committed one.
Two different things.
You missed the point.
First, A2 and Father K don't believe in an "Adam and Eve."
Second, they state that the first human/s was/were conceived in a womb.
If they were without sin, which the Catholic Church teaches, that means they would have to be conceived without sin.
That is what contradicts Church teaching, and that's the exact position of A2 and Father K.
DJR
Anonymous 2 said... DJR:
I really don’t see the problem here. Well, yes, I do see the problem, but the solution is perhaps not hard to find. If I understand correctly, the Catholic Church does not take a position on when the soul is infused in the body. For all humans after the first true humans, however, we believe that this occurs some time during pregnancy. However, why couldn’t God have infused the soul into the hominids who were to be first true humans after they had been born, effecting a mysterious transformation of their entire being? If God could create them from dust and a rib, then surely He could do this too?
Putting aside the fact that the above scenario is pure conjecture, and omitting the even greater problems such a scenario entails, the contradiction remains, as it still requires conception, and the end result in your scenario is still a human.
Thus, you end up with a human who was at one time conceived, but his/her conception was without sin.
If the human were not conceived by anyone, then he cannot have a hominid ancestor; but if he were conceived, albeit by a hominid, then you're still left with a human being whose conception was without sin.
But the Church teaches that there is only one human person whose conception was without sin; thus, you're stuck with the contradiction.
DJR
Anonymous 2 said... DJR: Perhaps this passage from Pope St. John Paul’s Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, from which I have already quoted on this thread, may shed further light on the problem you identify.
The passage you quoted doesn't resolve your problem. In fact, your scenario (ensoulment after birth) creates new ones.
DJR
DJR - I don't read the Scriptures as you do, in a literal way. Therefore, I don't agree that your conclusions, based on your literal reading of Scripture, are correct.
Jan - Evolution is "complicated" if one compares it to a literalist reading of Scripture in which organisms simply "appear" at a given moment in time with no predecessors in the evolutionary tree. Complexity, per se, is not a problem.
The first humans were those hominids who were given a soul. God chose, in His good time, to give a soul to those creatures to whom He wished to give a soul.
We don't know if they were "conceived" with the soul or not. We don't know if they were given that soul at some later time in their lives. God, being God, could have chosen any point in their lives to impart to them directly the soul.
Therefore, the arguments over a second "Immaculate Conception" are not germane.
We do know that, being made in the image and likeness of God, the first humans had the capacity to choose right or wrong. We do know that they chose to do what they knew to be contrary to God's will.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... DJR - I don't read the Scriptures as you do, in a literal way. Therefore, I don't agree that your conclusions, based on your literal reading of Scripture, are correct.
I don't read Sacred Scripture in a literal way except in those instances Our Lord, through His Church, requires it.
One need not read Genesis literally to deny the fabricated, unscientific, unproven, and unprovable, philosophical error of evolution.
If you believe in evolution and polygenism, then you deny the Church's teaching on original sin and/or the Immaculate Conception.
BECAUSE...
1. If you contend the first human was conceived with sin, you deny the former.
2. If you contend the first human was conceived without sin, you deny the latter.
No way around it for you.
I realize you'd like to compartmentalize your beliefs, but that's an absurd thing to do. A belief in one thing always has ramifications on beliefs in other things.
Here, polygenism cannot be divorced from the Church's teachings on the two things I mentioned, and they are mutually exclusive.
DJR
Anonymous said...The first humans were those hominids who were given a soul. God chose, in His good time, to give a soul to those creatures to whom He wished to give a soul.
We don't know if they were "conceived" with the soul or not. We don't know if they were given that soul at some later time in their lives. God, being God, could have chosen any point in their lives to impart to them directly the soul.
Therefore, the arguments over a second "Immaculate Conception" are not germane.
Absolutely incorrect.
First, there is no evidence that "hominids" even existed. Show us a "hominid" (not the fake things that have been produced).
Second, even if "hominids" did exist, they had souls, as even animals have souls. Animals have material souls, not immortal souls, but they have souls.
If they didn't, they wouldn't be living objects.
Something that does not possess a soul cannot be alive; therefore, once an alleged "hominid" began its existence through conception, it had a soul.
The above scenario shows the desperation and the fabricated scenarios people must resort to in order to hold onto the evolution fable, and none of those scenarios are accepted by science or religion.
DJR
DJR - The Church does not require anyone to read any portion of Scripture literally. You do read much (all ?) of Genesis in this way; therefore, you arrive at conclusions that comes from literalism.
St. Augustine warned against this manner of reading Scripture - Genesis in particular. His warnings are worth hearing and taking to heart even today.
Literalist thinking tends to lead people into fantastical thinking and "reasoning." Hence, we read, "...there is no evidence that 'hominids' even existed."
Another reason I am not a literalist.
Kavanaugh, you are not a literalist because you don't believe most of the Bible is believable.
I like to think of Original Sin as like a river flowing down through the the passage of time and having its affect simultaneously at the moment of conception on each human being. With the Blessed Virgin this river was parted, as once was the Nile, which allowed the Isralites to pass through untouched by the waters, and likewise kept her untouched by the the First Sin. This was a singular event. The unique creation of Adam and Eve was its own unique singular event.
Whatever scientific discovery has to say about human creation will not change Church teaching on the reality of Original Sin nor on the existence our first parents who were responsible for it. Whether they were literally created as described in Genesis or some other way, for the person of faith it changes nothing. They were created by God (who likewise created the human race and all that exists), they were created without sin, they subsequently did sin and this was passed on to each and every human being since then (wih the one exception of the Blessed
Virgin), as it will be to all yet unborn.
Kavanaugh: "The Church does not require anyone to read any portion of Scripture literally."
The Church: "[M]ay the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the [First Three Chapters of Genesis]? Answer: In the negative."
Is the Church's statement here binding? "We now declare and expressly enjoin that all Without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter, exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are on matters of doctrine and approved by the Pope; nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and of rashness or be therefore without grave fault."
Anselm spoke of faith seeking understanding...now we have Kavanaugh...arrogance seeking acquiescence. LOL!
Marc - Is your PBC quotation Question I from the June 30, 1909 Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis?
Kavanaugh: "The Church does not require anyone to read any portion of Scripture literally."
To show just how stupid this statement is, here are a few other examples of things the Church requires us to read literally in Scripture:
The Virgin Birth of Christ
The perpetual sinlessness of Our Lady
The Incarnation of God in the God-Man Jesus Christ
The words "This is my body" mean "This is my body"
The transfiguration of Christ
The Death of Christ
The Resurrection of Christ
Christ had a tangible body after his resurrection
The Descent of the Holy Ghost
The establishment of the Chair of St. Peter
That the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church
I could go on and on with examples, but any one of these suffices to show that the opinion of a person who claims that "the Church doesn't require any part of Scripture to be read literally" is an opinion that can and should be immediately discounted.
Well, we can assume he does not believe in the Real Presence and the bodily resurrection of Christ...after all, he refused to acknowledge his belief in them when he was asked the direct question by another blogger. We know he does not believe in a first couple or the genetic transmission of original sin. Since he prides himself on his alleged biological knowledge more than on his Biblical knowledge, we might surmise he does not believe in the Virgin Birth. It looks like the only item on your list he believes in is the death of Jesus of Nazareth. LOL!
Marc - My response is that we believe these things not because they are stated in the Bible or because we read Biblical passages literally, but because the Church teaches them to the true.
1 Timothy 3:15: "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
I'd like to be sure we're talking about the same PBC passage... Is your PBC quotation Question I from the June 30, 1909 Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis?
Marc - Regarding the authority of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, a very informative and, I believe, a very necessary corrective read for you would be Cardinal Ratzinger’s address “Relationship Between Magisterium and Exegetes” delivered on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. At the time he was president of the PBC, the Prefect of the CDF, and the Dean of the College of Cardinals.
Exerpts: “Already in 1943 the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu introduced a new way of understanding the relation between the Magisterium and the scientific exegesis of the historical reading of the Bible.”
Cardinal Ratzinger continued with a reference to the Biblical Commission’s instruction of 21 April 1964 on the historical truth of the Gospels and to the Conciliar Constitution Dei Verbum of 1965 “…with which, in fact, a new chapter in the relation between the Magisterium and scientific exegesis is opened."
Continuing, “With the motu proprio Sedula Cura, Paul VI completely restructured the Biblical Commission so that it was no longer and organ of the Magisterium, but a meeting place between the Magisterium and the exegetes.”
Further: “It is true that . . . the Magisterium overly enlarged the area of certainties that the faith can guarantee; it is also true that with this, the credibility of the Magisterium was diminished and the space necessary for research and exegetical questions was excessively restricted.”
Lastly, “Meanwhile, not only those decisions of the Biblical Commission which had entered too much into the sphere of merely historical questions were corrected; we have also learned something new about the methods and limits of historical knowledge.”
Marc, as you did misunderstanding the nature of the “in perpetuity” portion of Quo Primum, you also misunderstand and, therefore, vastly overstate the continuing authority of the PBC by taking a passage out of its historical context and ignoring all that has taken place with the PBC since the passage you quote.
Vatican Council I:
Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.
If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema
"Anathema Kavanaugh"...now there's a catchy name. LOL! I guess we could nick name him Ana for short...
Marc, I believe you have quoted Ott previously. Here's his take on the compatibility of Catholic doctrine and Darwinian evolution:
"The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God's causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine of descent), according to God's plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation. However, as regards man, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul [creatio hominis peculiaris Denz 2123]. Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures.....The question of the descent of the human body from the animal kingdom first appeared under the influence of the modern theory of evolution. The Biblical text does not exclude this theory. Just as in the account of the creation of the world, one can, in the account of the creation of man, distinguish between the per se inspired religious truth that man, both body and soul, was created by God, and the per accidens inspired, stark anthropomorphistic representation of the mode and manner of the Creation. While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible." (Ott, pages 93-94, 95, emphasis added)
Accepting evolution is not at odds with or contrary to Catholic doctrine.
I'm going to formulate a response to your citation of the PBC Question One based on my belief that you are referring to the June 30, 1909 material.
Marc - Regarding the quotation from the PBC about the literal, historical sense of the Creation Accounts, it seems we have here another instance of a commonly accepted but woefully inadequate translation of a passage in Latin, much as we had with the infamous Bugnini “quote” about changing the liturgy.
You offered as the Question to the PBC, "[M]ay the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the [First Three Chapters of Genesis]? Answer: In the negative."
The actual “dubium” is “Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation?" (I can post the Latin text for John Nolan's analysis/translation if he likes...)
It seems that the “dubium” was not about the calling into question the historical sense of the Creation Accounts, but about whether or not the “various exegetical systems” used are “sustained by a solid foundation.” The way you have presented the question doesn’t accurately represent the actual query to the PBC. I don’t fault you in this at all – finding the “ipsissimi verbi” of these things isn’t always easy since they often undergo mutations, if you will, as they are passed from person to person, source to source. (We saw this with the erroneous Bugnini quote.)
When we you continue to look at this “dubium” and the Commission’s response in light of the words of Cardinal Ratzinger on the relationship between the Magisterium and Exegetes which I posted July 21, at 5:48, we’re into a whole new realm of understanding and valuing these exegetical systems - they are widely accepted throughout the Church, including by the Magisterium. I again recommend reading the whole thing – about 5 printed pages.
As Ott has pointed out, the “conclusions of science” about which we have been debating are not contrary to the doctrine of the faith. Therefore, Catholics are not bound to hold them to be errors.
In Kavanaugh's 2:19 post, his quotation _isn't_, as he claims, a more accurate translation of the passage than mine; instead, it is a translation of a _different_ passage from the same document. Here's the original.
My quotation is number III, viz.:
Utrum speciatim sensus litteralis historicus vocari in dubium possit, ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis, quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt: uti sunt, inter caetera, rerum universarum creatio a Deo facta in initio temporis; peculiaris creatio hominis; formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine; generis humani unitas; originalis protoparentum felicitas in statu iustitiae, integritatis et immortalitatis; praeceptum a Deo homini datum ad eius obedientiam probandam; divini praecepti, diabolo sub serpentis specie suasore, transgressio; protoparentum deiectio ab illo primaevo innocentiae statu; nec non Reparatoris futuri promissio?
Resp. Negative.
Translation:
Whether in particular the literal sense of the historian is able to be called into question, in the same chapters in detail in the description of the facts, which touch on the foundations of the Christian religion: as they are, among other things, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; The unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; to prove his obedience to the precept given by God to man; of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent, the transgression; of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and the promise of a future restorer?
Ans. Negative.
But Kavanaugh is quoting the very beginning of the document, number I, viz.:
Utrum varia systemata exegetica, quae ad excludendum sensum litteralem historicum trium priorum capitum libri Geneseos excogitata et scientiae fuco propugnata sunt, solido fundamento fulciantur?
Resp. Negative.
Translation:
Whether various exegetical systems which exclude the literal sense historic three first chapters of the book of Genesis, thought and knowledge coloring propugnata are supported by a solid foundation?
Ans. Negative.
__
Thus, viewed in context, the two quotations together say that not only can we not doubt the literal; we ALSO can't trust the systems that exclude this literal.
K, what is it that frightens you so about a literal first couple and the genetic transmission of Original sin? Is it the same thing that frightens you about the bodily resurrection of Jesus? Or, is your intellectual pride so great that you cannot let go of your obvious worship of reason and simply believe?
Gene - I am not "frightened" by the "genetic transmission" of Original Sin. That's just not what the Church teaches.
Marc - Your "quote" of Q3 was 28 words. That's hardly an accurate representation of the actual question which is 138 words.
Because if its brevity, I wasn't sure what the source of your post was, that's why I asked twice for clarification.
The Church's appreciation of the "various exegetical systems" is that they are supported by a solid foundation; therefore, they simply cannot be dismissed as untrustworthy. This was one of the points made by Cardinal Ratzinger in his presentation on the 100th anniversary of the PBC which I made reference to.
You take what is not an absolute statement and, to fit your perspective, turn it into a permanent prohibition that does not admit of change. (This is how you also misapprehended the "in perpetuity" idea in Quo Primum.) The changes that have occurred are, again, spoken of by Ratzinger in the 100th anniversary talk.
None of the truths in Q3 - "the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; The unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; to prove his obedience to the precept given by God to man; of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent, the transgression; of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and the promise of a future restorer" - is incompatible with theistic evolution as Ott has pointed out in the passage I quoted above.
Fr. K says it's a non-absolute statement. Looks pretty absolute to me. "Whether in particular the literal sense of the historian is able to be called into question" regarding the matters listed? "Negative." What in the language makes that non-absolute?
Further, you make an absolute statement that does not admit of change sound like something bad. Have you ever considered that absolutes may actually be good things?
What - Just because it "looks pretty absolute" doesn't make it so.
For example, the passage in Quo Primum that has tripped up many a traditionalist is, "Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used."
Just because the Holy Father used "in perpetuity" doesn't mean that "this missal" had to be followed for the rest of time, and that any subsequent changes - and there have been many - are all contrary to the will of God and Pius V.
Again, we read in Joshua 10:12-13, "It was then, when the LORD delivered up the Amorites to the Israelites, that Joshua prayed to the LORD, and said in the presence of Israel: Sun, stand still at Gibeon, Moon, in the valley of Aijalon!
The sun stood still,the moon stayed, while the nation took vengeance on its foes."
Just because the author(s) of the Book of Joshua stated that the "sun stood still" doesn't mean that it did. We know that it is not the motion of the sun that governs the length of days on earth. But we also know that the ancients did not know this, so we cut them some slack.
The Jesuits, way back when, were also suppressed "in perpetuity," but that didn't mean "in perpetuity," either.
So, What's the Point, we have to be a little more careful, a little more nuanced in our reading of both Scriptuire and Magisterial documents. And this is true especially when we seek absolute statements about this or that historical or literary or scientific matter.
Kavanaugh, please prove the statement is not absolute. To do so you'll need to provide a doctrinal statement of greater authority than the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1909, which was pronouncing magisterially at that time. A quotation from a statement by a later pope is not doctrinal, as you should know.
I don't know what Quo Primum has to do with this discussion. Nothing, as far as I can tell. That is a document about liturgy. We are talking about creation.
Well, I guess that means all of the so-called absolutes of our faith are up for grabs, since something is absolute only if it doesn't get negated by a later statement, a later practice, or a nuanced reading, and we can't ever know if something won't be so negated, no matter how absolute it looks. I suppose that would include the existence of God, the nature of the Trinity, and anything else you care to name. Heraclitus would be proud of you.
Marc, you're wasting your breath. In fact, so am I.
Marc - Actually, a doctrinal statement of greater authority isn't needed. Your false assumption is that we can understand what the Church teaches ONLY by magisterial statements. If that were the case, Cardinal Ratzinger would never have made any comments on the 100th anniversary of the PBC and Ott would never have made any comments on the compatibility of evolution and Catholic doctrine.
You previously misunderstood Quo Primum, arguing that when it said, "in perpetuity" it meant "in perpetuity." It did not, as I believe you have come to understand.
But you're falling into the same trap with the PBC. Cardinal Ratzinger's 100th anniversary essay is the corrective you need to understand.
Kavanaugh, ...I am sure you also believe that just because a Biblical writer said that Jesus rose from the dead does not make it true.
As a primer, Quo Primum is disciplinary. Disciplines change.
The PBC is making a doctrinal statement, as St. Pius stated and subsequent popes understood. Doctrine does not and cannot change. That is reinforced by Vatican I, among other statements, with particular regard to the interplay of doctrine and science.
So, Kavanaugh, please explain how the statement of doctrine is not absolute.
Gene - We believe what we believe because the Church teaches us it is true.
Marc - It is highly doubtful that a pope could extend to the PBC, or any dicastery, the level of authority that seems to have been given to the Commission.
Be that as it may, the PBC overreached as Cardinal Ratzinger clearly stated. “It is true that . . . the Magisterium overly enlarged the area of certainties that the faith can guarantee; it is also true that with this, the credibility of the Magisterium was diminished and the space necessary for research and exegetical questions was excessively restricted.”
Not only did it overreach, it was corrected. Ratzinger again: "Meanwhile, not only those decisions of the Biblical Commission which had entered too much into the sphere of merely historical questions were corrected; we have also learned something new about the methods and limits of historical knowledge.”
Citing Vatican I without citing the further developments in the interplay between doctrine and science is insufficient: "Already in 1943 the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu introduced a new way of understanding the relation between the Magisterium and the scientific exegesis of the historical reading of the Bible.” Ratzinger again.
Here's the link to the Ratzinger paper. It's worth reading. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030510_ratzinger-comm-bible_en.html
If the PBC declarations are authoritative, here's one: 1964 On the Historical Truth of the Gospels - ""It is permitted to the interpreter where appropriate to look into whatever sound elements there may be in the form-critical method [methodo historiae formarum, literally, "form-history method"] in order to make use of a fuller understanding of the Gospels.”
A pope can make the rulings of a dicastery doctrinal if the pope adopts them and says they're doctrinal, as Pope St. Pius X did.
Once the doctrine is defined, it cannot be "undefined" into something else, as the Church's teaching makes very clear. If that were the case, any stability of doctrine would be impossible. But it is the nature of doctrine to be stable since doctrine is just a definition of elucidation of reality.
So you haven't even begun to address the issue with your responses. Until you address the issue we are discussing, it makes not sense to continue with the discussion at all.
Kavanaugh, It is clearly the opinion of a number of well-educated, theologically astute believers on this blog that you are an unbelieving, intellectually dishonest, pretender. You have demonstrated this time and again by your prevarication, attempts to re-interpret doctrine to suit yourself, and outright lying. You are arrogant and condescending with absolutely no intellectual basis for it. I don't know about everyone else, but I will be sharing this opinion with everyone who will listen as a warning about the "smoke of Satan" in the Church.
Marc - Doctrine cannot be "undefined," but it can be - and must be since language is analogical and since God has given us brains to think - reformulated, refined, and expanded. This is the development or evolution of doctrine.
Gene - I refuse to subject myself to your inquisition, so that makes me "unbelieving."
I call you out for your blatant racism - you called the President a N----G twice on this blog - and that makes me "intellectually dishonest."
I quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church to show that your stated desire to slaughter non-combatants in war is contrary to the Church's teaching and that makes me a "pretender."
I quote Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" in this discussion to show that, even one of the most "conservative" Catholic authors agrees with my position, and that make me a "prevaricator."
I quote Cardinal Ratzinger on the nature of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the - Marc, take note - CORRECTIONS that have been made to it's earlier statements and that makes me "intellectually dishonest."
I remind you that skipping mass because you don't like the music or the décor of the church or the way the priest parts his hair is sinful and that makes me an "outright liar."
I know what the Church teaches and what it does not teach, and that makes me "arrogant and condescending."
And, to top it all off, you invent a group of imaginary comrades who will be your wing men as your tirades continue.
I'll stick with the Catechism, Ott, Ratzinger, St JP2 on this and, I am sure, all other matters of doctrine.
By the way, you missed one of my favorites: "dilettante."
But doctrine doesn't "evolve." That's the point you're trying to prove so just saying that it does is not proof. You cannot show that doctrine evolves generally or with regard to the particular doctrine in question. We are still waiting...
K, that you are a dilettante goes without saying.
Bishop Robert Barron: "When he was at mid-career and in the process of converting from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, Newman penned a masterpiece entitled “On the Development of Christian Doctrine.” In line with the evolutionary theories that were just emerging at that time — Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s work was dominant in most European universities and Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” would appear just a few years later — Newman argued that Christian doctrines are not given once and for all and simply passed down unchanged from generation to generation. Rather, like seeds that unfold into plants or rivers that deepen and broaden over time, they develop, their various aspects and implications emerging in the course of lively rumination. It is assuredly not the case, for example, that the doctrine of the Trinity was delivered fully grown into the minds of the first disciples of Jesus and then passed on like a football across the ages. On the contrary, it took hundreds of years for the seed of that teaching to grow into the mighty tree of Augustine’s formulations in the “De Trinitate” or Aquinas’s complex treatise in the first part of the “Summa Theologica.”
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz: "Theologians generally indicate that the development of doctrine must be looked at basically in four ways: The first is what is called the objective development of doctrine.... The second way in which doctrine develops is called subjectively, and this means that what is stated implicitly in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is made more explicit.... The third way in which doctrine develops is hermeneutically. This means that things are received to a certain extent according to the way in which the receiver is formed, trained, educated and prepared to receive them.... Finally, (fourth) we should remember it is possible to reflect on our own growth in our knowledge of Catholic doctrine."
Bishop Bruskewitz quotes Cardinal Ratzinger: "In the course of the centuries, from the unchangeable nucleus testifying to Jesus as the Son of God and as Lord, symbols witnessing to the unity of the faith and to the communion of the churches came to be developed. In these the fundamental truths which every believer is required to know and to profess were gathered together. Thus, before receiving Baptism, the catechumen must make his profession of faith. The Fathers of the Church, too, coming together at Councils to respond to historical challenges that required a more complete presentation of the truths of the faith or a defence of the orthodoxy of these truths formulated new creeds which occupy a special place in the Church's life up to the present day. The diversity of these symbols expresses the richness of the one, true faith, and none of them is superseded or nullified by subsequent professions of faith formulated in response to later historical circumstances."
Vincent of Lerins: "This teaching (the Church's teaching on the development of doctrine) has its roots in the work of the fifth century monk, Vincent of Lérins (see Commonitórium primum, 23). Vincent wrote: “Therefore, let there be growth and abundant progress in understanding, knowledge, and wisdom, in each and all, in individuals and in the whole Church, at all times and in the progress of ages, but only with the proper limits, i.e., within the same dogma, the same meaning, the same judgment [eodem sensu eademque sententia].”
No, just because "I" say it doesn't make it so. But when the Church says it...
None of those people are "the Church." I've cited catechisms, councils, and official papal teaching documents. You've cited speeches.
Try again.
And also St. Vincent taught the opposite of the position you're trying to advocate, as I'm sure you know.
"but only with the proper limits, i.e., within the same dogma, the same meaning, the same judgment [eodem sensu eademque sententia].”
That is a very large,important, and significant caveat.
I'll stand with Vincent, St JP2, The PBC, Card Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, Bishop Barron, Cardinal Newman, Bishop Bruskewitz, and all the others who understand that development of doctrine is a fact.
Well, at least now you're not even trying to defend your indefensible position anymore, opting instead to retreat to nonsensical statements like the one at 10:27. That you argue St. Vincent supports your position shows just how laughable is your understanding of development of doctrine.
It is noteworthy that you saw fit to stop defending the original position that you took in this discussion -- the idea of multiple first parents -- and retreated to a position of theistic evolution. And now you have gone from defending the evolution of doctrine to merely the development of doctrine.
Is it that you are dishonest or do you think that you are dealing with people who are not able to recognize your dissimulation? Whatever the case, at least you are wise enough to realize when you've lost an argument, as you've shown with your latest posts, even if you are not humble enough to admit it outright.
Marc - I didn't switch the topic of discussion. It happens here quite a bit, as you have noticed.
I will continue to defend evolution as compatible with Catholic doctrine. See my quote of Ott.
And if St. Vincent, St JP2, The PBC, Card Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, Bishop Barron, Cardinal Newman, Bishop Bruskewitz, and many others recognize that doctrine does develop, who are you to say that it does not? Why should your opinion trump theirs?
As I have reiterated ad nauseam here over the years--a reiteration which, to my knowledge, has never been greeted by Kavanaugh with anything other than deafening silence, doctrine cannot "develop" to the extent that it contradicts itself--or, if it can, doctrine is worthless and thus so is the Church.
In the matter at hand, either the literal reading is correct and hence Adam and Eve, as our first parents, consequently literally existed, as declared by the Magisterium via the documents cited above by Marc and myself, or they did not. If the Church has formally taught at different times that they did literally exist and that they did not, the Church has taught error on one of the two occasions.
The issue that we were discussing is whether the Church teaches doctrinally that Adam and Eve were literal, historical people.
You were attempting to argue that the Church does not teach that. But then you were shown the responses of the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission, whose statements were made doctrinal by Pope St. Pius X, and which taught that Catholics must hold that Adam and Eve were literal, historical people.
You are now unable to come up with any response to show that the Church does not teach that Adam and Eve were literal, historical people. You then argued that doctrine can evolve, but didn't stick with that for long since you know the Church has explicitly said that doctrine cannot evolve (at Vatican I, for example).
Now you seem to argue the general idea that doctrine can develop, but that is inapposite to this discussion and doesn't help you since you cannot point to any __doctrine__ since the PBC1909 that has elaborated on the proposition in question. So, even if doctrine can develop (which it can), you are not able to show that this particular doctrine has developed. So far, you've only managed to cite a speech by a pope reflecting on the PBC1909, which has little to nothing do with the actual subject of the literal, historical existence of Adam and Eve.
And you have, of course, shared your opinion that doctrinal statements are not absolute. But you have provided no evidence that doctrinal statements are not absolute, whether in the abstract or with regard to the specific topic at issue here.
So, I ask again, if you are so sure that your position is one approved by the Church, then you should be able to show us those doctrinal pronouncements of the Church that support it -- after all, if the PBC's statements have developed, as you claim, you should be able to show us the more recent statements into which they developed.
What's - you are correct - doctrine cannot develop to the point where it contradicts itself. I never said or suggested it could.
Marc - The response is in three parts, all previously posted. Part The First: The PBC could not be given the authority Pius attempted to give it. Just as a papal pronouncement cannot be declared infallible after the fact, a statement cannot be made binding after the fact. (If it had had that kind of authority, Card Ratzinger would not have spoken about the corrections of and the overreach by the PBC.)
Part The Second: As Cardinal Ratzinger has pointed out, the PBC overreached into the area of merely historical questions. Here's the quote again: "Meanwhile, not only those decisions of the Biblical Commission which had entered too much into the sphere of merely historical questions were corrected; we have also learned something new about the methods and limits of historical knowledge.”
If a man as learned and as orthodox as Cardinal Raztinger recognizes the errors of the PBC, you should as well.
Part The Third: You are misreading the PBC and other statements just as you misread the "in perpetuity" passage from Quo Primum.
If men as learned and orthodox as Ludwig Ott, St. Pope John Paul II, and a host of others recognize that there is no inherent conflict between Darwinian Evolution and Catholic Doctrine, you should as well.
Unless, of course, your intellect and orthodoxy surpasses that of those named.
Kavanaugh, the issue is not Darwinian evolution versus Catholic Doctrine. The specific issue here is that Adam and Eve were a literal first couple as taught by the Catholic Church.
You've made a few significant errors that have led you astray. First, the doctrine espoused by the PBC1909 does not derive its authority simply by virtue of that statement. It is a statement of the ordinary universal magisterium that is authoritative by virtue of its always being believed by the Church, as is proven by conciliar statements posted earlier in this discussion. Infallibility is not strictly at issue in this discussion, but the teaching is infallible for that reason. So a pope cannot undo that teaching, especially in a speech that is not an exercise of the magisterium.
As you are no doubt aware, Ott does not say what you are saying. You are claiming there were multiple first parents. While you are trying to equate that idea with the general idea of "theistic evolution," those concepts are not synonymous.
It doesn't help your argument to accuse me of claiming to be more orthodox than John Paul II. After all, you are acting as if you are more orthodox than St. Pius X and every Catholic who lived prior to the late 20th century. You are engaging in a selective positivism that assumes every doctrine must be reiterated by every pope, but that is not the case. If it were, then doctrine would be subject to the whims of man. Whatever Benedict thought about the PBC1909 is not relevant when one understands the nature of doctrine as being objectively true or false. (And you haven't, by the way, actually proved that Benedict's speech intended anything specific with regard to the absolute statements of the PBC1909 at issue here.)
So (as you admit at 2:11) if the Church has ever taught that Adam and Eve are literal, historical people, the Church cannot thereafter ever teach that Adam and Eve are not literal, historical people. And there is no question the Church has consistently taught the former. It follows then that the Church can never teach the latter even if individual churchmen erroneously hold the latter to be true.
The Church never declared by Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium that Adam and Eve were "literal, historical people" for one very good reason.
The Church does not make declarations about what is or is not historical or scientific. The Church cannot make declarations about what is or is not historical or scientific because the Church makes declarations about matters of faith and morals, not history of science.
Even though it is an established scientific fact that common water is made up of one atom of oxygen and two of hydrogen, the Church could not "declare" this to be the case, thereby making it a matter of doctrine.
Even though it is an established historical fact that Zachary Taylor was the 12th President of the United States, the Church cannot "declare" this to be the case, making it a matter of doctrine.
The attempt by the PBC to declare that Adam and Eve were "literal, historical people" was an egregious overreach, as Cardinal Ratzinger has noted. The result was what St. Augustine warned about in "On The Literal Meaning Of Genesis" - a loss of respect for the Magisterium and for Christians who hold opinions that are clearly opposed to reality.
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." - St. Augustine, "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis"
Kavanaugh, Your scholarship is seriously lacking. You have seized upon one generalized statement of Augustine's as a foil for your own modernist views. If you have read "The City of God" and "De Trinitate," it is clear that Augustine views Adam and Eve as both literal human beings, a first couple, AND a symbol for the rest of mankind. You want to keep the symbol and throw out the rest in typical modernist fashion.
Of course the Church makes declarations about what is historical and scientific. To suppose otherwise is the height of absurdity. The entire faith is rooted in the historical fact of the Resurrection of Christ, which the Church teaches is miraculous (that is, outside of scientific explanation).
Since you are wrong about the scope of the Church's doctrinal pronouncement, the rest of your post, like most of your posts is nonsense based on a false premise.
Your examples don't help because, unlike the presidency of Taylor or the composition of water, the Creation of the world is told to us in the sacred scriptures and forms the basis for our understanding as to why the Incarnation took place (through Mary, the new Eve), why a Redeemer was needed, why he had to suffer and die (on a tree, no less), and why he Resurrected.
Neither your opinion nor Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion is a statement of the Church's teaching. Just because you disagree with the Church's doctrine does not mean that it is not the Church's doctrine. So you have still not show that the literal, historical existence of Adam and Eve is not the Church's doctrine or that that doctrine has "developed" into something else -- you have no sources other than your opinion.
As for St. Augustine, he taught that unbaptized infants are damned. Do you want to go down this road of relying on the teaching of St. Augustine? Because, if you do, at some point you're going to have to explain why you put so much stock in his statements that you think support your position with regard to creation, but put no stock in the teachings that he brought forth from his understanding of the Fall.
Marc - Can you offer a doctrinal statement on some scientific fact?
Gene - Augustine's statement refers to erroneous interpretations of Scripture. As such, it is pertinent.
From "The New Republic" The Catholic Church Is Not an Enemy of Science, David Cloutier June 12, 2015 "But the Church opposes creationism. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, wrote a decade ago that “the Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6,000 years old.”
I have offered several doctrinal statements that bear upon scientific questions in this thread. That the Church's doctrine can touch upon scientific questions is further proven by looking at the decrees of the First Vatican Council on faith and reason and God the creator of all things. What you are failing to understand is that science is subordinate to theology since theology is of a higher order than science.
Please note that you began arguing that the PBC1909 is not doctrinal after you claimed the doctrine had evolved since 1909. But, when it was pointed out that you are unable to provide the doctrine into which the PBC's doctrine had "evolved," you then claimed the statement was not doctrinal in the first place. But you have already admitted it was doctrinal by claiming that the doctrine had evolved.
At any rate, as I mentioned, even if the PBC were not doctrinal in itself (which is contrary to the evidence), then you would still have the task of showing that the Church has ever taught that Adam and Eve were not literal, historical people. The Church has always believed that they were literal, historical people, as has been shown numerous times in this discussion. One cannot point to a singular Church father as support for any particular doctrine -- as you are attempting to do. But, even if you could, as Gene has shown, you are misrepresenting St. Augustine's teaching.
And I note that you have elected not to respond to the query why you reject St. Augustine's teaching on the damnation of unbaptized infants whilst selectively accepting certain other of what you think are his ideas.
At this point, it is hardly worthwhile to keep up the discussion until you show that the Church has ever taught that Adam and Eve were not literal, historical people. Since you are not bombarding us with magisterial quotations to support your assertion, while I have provided numerous conciliar and papal statements that are clear about what the Church teaches, it is fair to say that you have nothing more to offer.
Kavanaugh, The Doctrine of Creation and a first couple is not "creationism." It implies nothing about the age of the earth. This is another issue with which Augustine dealt. He tended toward believing that Creation was "instantaneous" rather than in six days. His idea of "rationales seminalis" is a part of this idea. But, he clearly taught that Adam and Eve were literal people, created by God and who fell through disobedience.
Marc - Many statements "bear upon" scientific questions. In other words there is some mention of science or scientists or scientific questions in the Church's statement.
What I said was, "The Church does not make declarations about what is or is not historical or scientific."
The Church does not - and cannot - define what is or is not an historical fact or what is or is not a scientific fact.
Please give examples of when the Church has offered a doctrinal statement on some scientific fact.
Or, failing that, please post a doctrinal statement in which the Church has declared this or that to be, or not to be, historical fact.
I take it you are still unable to come up with anything to back up your claims that the Church has never taught that Adam and Eve were literal, historical people.
You're so sure of your position, I imagine you should be able to come up with loads of support for it. Why not just post it? What's stopping you?
I'll await your production of any evidence to support your position.
Ummm . . . you don't accept that the Athanasian Creed is a dogmatic statement on the historical fact of the existence of Christ, including his birth and his suffering under the administration of a particular Roman governor?
You don't accept that the opening chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke attest to the historical existence and birth of a real person known as Jesus of Nazareth?
You don't see the opening chapter of the Gospel of John as an attestation to the historical fact of the incarnation of the Word as a response to Gnosticism?
You don't accept the creeds produced by ecumenical councils and Sacred Scripture (also accepted by ecumenical councils) as part of the Magisterium?
Note here I'm focusing on one basic fact--that a person known as Jesus Christ existed historically in the flesh, and that the Magisterium has expressly declared that fact on many occasions. But if you can't accept this one, then I doubt that we have anything further to discuss.
Kavanaugh, the Creed is full of historical facts. That is the whole point. These things happened in historical time, e.g. "...in the reign of Tiberius." Caiaphus and Pontius Pilate were historical figures; Paul's letters were to actual Churches. Ur of the Chaldees, Egypt, the Tigris and Euphrates, Jericho, Babylon...all these places were real and the events there recorded. What in the Hell (another real place, please take note) are you talking about?
Marc - And I will await any doctrinal statement from the Church that is directed to some scientific fact. What's stopping you?
Gene - Creationism is "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution." It is based on a faulty understanding of the Creation Accounts in the Scripture.
What's - The Incarnation is a fact, but not an historical one. Yes, Jesus is the Logos, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnate Son of God born of a Virgin, Savior of the world. But these are statements of belief, of faith. They are based not on the data of "who was where" or "who said what" or "who ruled this country in this era." Rather, it is based on Divine Revelation which is trans-historical.
If Revelation is reduced to mere history - and I do not accept that it is - then it should be easy to show by a study of historical facts (not faith) that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God. I await the data.
If Scripture and the Creeds aren't enough . . . I thought about citing Tertullian's _The Flesh of Christ_ along with the condemnations of gnosticsm, docetism, and similar heresies denying the historical personhood of Christ at Constantinople, Chalcedon, and orleans 1022, but instead of getting into all that, would the CCC suffice? "From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God's Son "come in the flesh".--Para. 465
At one time, there was doubt as to whether Caesar had called a Census around the time of Christ's birth, until an archeological excavation in Syria some years back found evidence confirming this.
Again, there has been compelling evidence discovered that there was a Great Flood.
Scripture is full of actual, historical personages and events.
So, Kavanaugh, you wish to denigrate the Biblical Creation account by adding an -ism to it?
Kavanaugh claimed that "The Church does not make declarations about what is or is not historical or scientific."
But now several examples of the Church making such declarations have been provided. With regard to the topic at hand, the Church has declared the historical fact that Adam and Eve were literal, historical people -- just the same as the Church has declared the historical fact that Jesus Christ was incarnate of the Blessed Virgin Mary, suffered and died, and rose from the dead.
Yet, Kavanaugh maintains that these are not historical facts -- none of them, including the Incarnation. This is a spurious claim with no support. But it follows that he would deny the Incarnation of Christ as an historical fact since he does not believe what the Church teaches about the Fall and Original Sin.
This is remarkably at odds with what the Church teaches. So it is no surprise that Kavanaugh has no support from the Church for the bizarre opinions that he holds.
Two-part reply:
K,
A while back you told (or at least suggested) a constitutional law professor (J.D., myself) that I didn’t understand the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now you are suggesting (Ph.D., History, and long-time teacher of historiography, historical methodology, and philosophy of history) that I don’t understand methods of historical inquiry and don’t know what historical data is. If I took these charges seriously, I’d never enter a classroom again because obviously I’ve misled hundreds of students and opened up hundreds of attorneys to malpractice charges.
The passages from the Gospel to which I have referred, along with the numerous others, purport to be, on their face, accounts by eyewitnesses and correspondents of eyewitnesses to actual events. They are couched in literal language. The events they recount are referenced by locations in time, geography, and lineage. They are both primary and secondary source accounts of what they claim to be historical events. Further, the credal statements I have referenced (including the CCC 465), accept the Scriptural statements as statements of historical fact and themselves are likewise phrased on their face as statements of historical fact. Based on source analysis, they thus qualify as historical data. That they are also statements of faith is irrelevant, as i shall explain below.
Whether those accounts and statements are historically correct is beside the point. In those accounts, the Magisterium has, in your words, issued “a doctrinal statement in which the Church has declared this or that to be, or not to be, historical fact.” It has done so on all of the occasions that Gene and myself have mentioned, and many, many more. Even if the Church, and the writers Gene and I have mentioned, are utterly wrong about that fact--even if, the authors of the Gospel were deliberately lying and there never was a Jesus of Nazareth--they have authoritatively declared certain events to be historical fact. Gene and I have thus met your challenge.
The only way that one could deny that all of these things are doctrinal statements of historical fact would be to argue that every single one of these references either a) aren’t magisterial or b) deliberately and repeatedly used literal language to describe, in self-conscious historical terms, non-literal events. To take one example--the CCC example--the terms “incarnation” and the redundant “come in the flesh” is as literal and concrete as it gets, and the footnote accompanying it references what purports to be primary source historical data. Further, the historical and theological contexts of many, if not all, of the statements Gene and I have supplied show beyond any reasonable doubt that their literal and concrete language was chosen _not_ for metaphoric purposes but precisely to _refute_ the Gnostic and Docetist and Manichean notions of metaphor or figurative nature. The only way they could say what you want them to say is if each and every one of these individual and corporate authors was deliberately trying to mislead us all--that they were deliberately saying something that was the polar opposite of what they meant. (That comes close to mimicking the creationism you deride--that God created a lying fossil record to test our faith.) But even in that case, I can only judge the data that they have provided me, and that data indicates without a doubt that they authoritatively stated as a matter of claimed fact that a human named Jesus existed.
Part 2:
Your claims that these things are “trans-historical events” are either meaningless or irrelevant. Admitting the reality of a trans-historical event arguendo, an event may be both historical and trans-historical. Ditto your argument that these are statements of faith. You may treat them as statements of faith all you want, but that has no bearing on the task you have set me. To fulfill that task, I here treating them, in my capacity as a professional historian, as historical data, which they clearly qualify as. They purport to be statements of historical fact. I take no stance on whether they are accurate, but they are clearly statements of historical fact, and the Church has given every indication of accepting them as such. And, being Scripture, Creeds, and catechisms, they are clearly magisterial.
If you really want to pursue this, I recommend that you first go read Buckle, Ranke, Becker, Popper, Barzun, Hockett, and Collingwood on the nature of historical inquiry and historical evidence before you hold yourself out as a competent judge of what a historical statement is or what historical data is.
Against any claim that the Magisterium always speaks in some sort of gnostic theological language of faith that can only be properly understood by initiates (such as priests) through the eyes of faith, here are several of its statements in which it has repeatedly and expressly held itself out as making declarations of historical fact. Again, whether these declarations are correct statements of historical fact is beside the point.
CCC 472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time.
CCC 126: The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up." (quoting DV 19).
Dei Verbum 19: Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)
CCC 572 Jesus' sufferings took their historical, concrete form from the fact that he was "rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes", who handed "him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified".315
CCC 573 Faith can therefore try to examine the circumstances of Jesus' death, faithfully handed on by the Gospels316 and illuminated by other historical sources [i.e., the Gospels are historical sources], the better to understand the meaning of the Redemption.
CCC 597 The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts.
CCC 639 The mystery of Christ's resurrection is a real event, with manifestations that were historically verified, as the New Testament bears witness.
CCC 1085 In the liturgy of the Church, it is principally his own Paschal mystery that Christ signifies and makes present. During his earthly life Jesus announced his Paschal mystery by his teaching and anticipated it by his actions. When his Hour comes, he lives out the unique event of history which does not pass away: Jesus dies, is buried, rises from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father "once for all."8 His Paschal mystery is a real event that occurred in our history, but it is unique: all other historical events happen once, and then they pass away, swallowed up in the past. The Paschal mystery of Christ, by contrast, cannot remain only in the past, because by his death he destroyed death, and all that Christ is - all that he did and suffered for all men - participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all. The event of the Cross and Resurrection abides and draws everything toward life.
To be continued . . .
continued . . .
Unitatis Redintegratio: 10) Sacred theology and other branches of knowledge, especially of an historical nature, must be taught with due regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that they may correspond more exactly with the facts.
Biblical commission, 23 June 1905, Denzinger 1980: http://patristica.net/denzinger/ , http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19050623_narrationibus_lt.html
Whether the opinion can be admitted as a principle of sound exegesis, which holds that the books of Sacred Scripture which are held to be historical, either in whole or in part sometimes do not narrate history properly so called and truly objective, but present an appearance of history only, to signify something different from the properly literal and historical significance of the words?
The answer(with the approbation of Pius X) :
In the negative, except in the case, however, not readily or rashly to be admitted, where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgment, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words.
The following proposition is condemned in Lamentabili Sane, 3 July 1907 and is here cited for the proposition that Scripture is somehow nonhistorical:
3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.
This condemned proposition is likewise from Lamentabili Sane and speaks more directly to K’s claim:
16. The narrations of John are not properly history, but the mystical contemplation of the Gospel; the discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations on the mystery of salvation, devoid of historical truth.
Pascendi Dominici Gregis can be read with benefit, but I quote one example to show that the pope/Magisterium was thinking and declaring in an historical mode: “30. [Modernists] view through a sieve, as it were, and eliminate all and relegate likewise to faith, which in their judgment, as they say, are not in the logic of facts or suited to the characters. Thus they do not will that Christ said those things which appear to exceed the capacity of the listening multitude. Hence from His _real history_ they delete and transfer to faith all his allegories that occur in His discourses . . .”
Marc - Unless material is showing up on your screen that is not on mine, no examples of doctrinal declarations regarding historical or scientific facts have been offered.
What - I am not suggesting you don't know historical methodology or historical inquiry.
I am suggesting that the Church, in her doctrinal statements, doesn't, by those statements, declare or decree what was an historical fact or what was not an historical fact.
The same is true for science. A teacher of faith and morals, the Church does not declare what is or is not scientific fact. The Church does not have the competence to do so.
"The Historicity of the Gospels" from the PBC (1964) sheds light.
"Holy Mother Church, "the pillar and mainstay of the truth," has always utilized Sacred Scripture in her task of saving souls, and preserved it from erroneous interpretations." These are not documents meant for teaching history, but for drawing people toward salvation. That is the Church's area of competence.
"In order to shed full light on the perennial truth and authority of the Gospels,.."
Attesting to the Truth and Authority of the Gospels is the Church's area of competence.
Marc should note: "If the opportunity presents itself, the exegete may look for the sound elements in the method of "form criticism," and use them to acquire a fuller understanding of the Gospels." What was once said by the PBC regarding form criticism - that it was not sustained by a solid foundation - has been reversed, corrected.
"The truth of the Gospel account is not compromised because the Evangelists report the Lord's words and deeds in different order. Nor is it hurt because they report His words, not literally but in a variety of ways, while retaining the same meaning."
NOTE: Not literally but in a variety of ways, while retaining the same meaning."
K,
You keep reiterating that the Church doesn't make statements declare what was or was not a historical fact. Yet the multitudes of authoritative scriptural, papal, conciliar, and catechetical statements offered by Gene and myself expressly, flatly, and repeatedly contradict you on their face, and they are further supported by their historical and theological contexts (e.g., contra Gnosticism/Docetism). I shall not belabor the point (although I could attack your most recent post, severely flawed as it is, on at least a couple of major grounds); the documents are there above for anyone to read. I'll thus leave it to the readers of this blog to decide which of us is right. Have a nice day.
The object of the Church's doctrine is knowledge about the objective state of affairs. In a certain sense, every doctrinal statement is concerned with history and/or science. As Aquinas says, "Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us."
The purpose of the Church's doctrine is the salvation of souls. The knowledge of the doctrine is important not because of the facts in themselves, but to illustrate the truth of the Divine Revelation and its bearing on our salvation. So, for example, it is significant to know that Adam and Eve were literal, historical people in order to understand the nature of the Fall of Man, the deprivation of original justice, the results of original sin, and the necessity of a Redeemer. Yes, this involves the teaching of history insofar as an understanding of salvation history is necessary to understand reality, especially with regard to the Church and Christ. Again, an example illustrates this: the historical reality of Moses and the Exodus serves as a type of the coming reality of Christ and baptism. The historicity of both these events is important so that we can understand something about the nature of God and his salvific mission through the Church.
The Church, then, declares reality with doctrine. That Christ became Incarnate is reality -- an historical fact. The Church itself is dependent on the reality of that historical fact. When people got that historical fact wrong (with gnosticism and other heresies), the Church propounded all the more vigorously the truth of the historical fact as a corrective. That the Church has specifically condemned as heretical misinterpretations of the historical reality of Christ is important generally and for purposes of this discussion, as is shown by considering the responses of the PBC1909, once again.
As exegete can use all sorts of methodologies to expound Scripture in order to illuminate the hearer and inspire love for Christ, according to Kavanaugh. And that is true; however, the Church gives us limits lest we stray too far, as the gnostics and other heretics did with regard to the person of Christ. For that reason, the PBC1909 stated that various exegetical methodologies cannot exclude the literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis. As with gnosticism, the Church must stepped in to correct those who take an errant view (in this case, overly reliant on historical criticism) with regard to the historical nature of these events.
What's - We may be arguing past each other at this point as I may not have been clear. Let me try to back up a bit...
Here's my original, I think, comment on Church/doctrine/science/history:
"The Church does not make declarations about what is or is not historical or scientific. The Church cannot make declarations about what is or is not historical or scientific because the Church makes declarations about matters of faith and morals, not history of science."
It was not my intention to suggest that the Church does not believe that the Scriptures to represent history. Yes, Jesus was an historical figure as were Pilate, John the Baptist, etc.
I might have better phrased it: "By doctrinal decree, the Church cannot determine what is or is not historical. And, by doctrinal decree, the Church cannot determine what is or is not scientific fact."
It is the "determining" that I did not include originally - that should have been there.
The Church cannot, by doctrinal decree, say what armies or generals fought at the battle of Waterloo. Nor can the Church, by doctrinal decree, determine what is or is not the chemical composition of water or how the process of photosynthesis turns sunlight into energy. The reason is that the Church is not competent to do so.
The Church's role is to teach faith, not history or science. The Church's doctrine is, therefore, limited to matters of Faith and Morals, not to the various aspects of historical data or scientific fact(s).
By proclamation of doctrine, the Church does not bring into existence something new or somehow create history. That is why doctrine is, as I said, a statement of existing reality. The state of reality, as St. Thomas says, has a bearing on faith and the moral life. The Church's doctrine illuminates God's truth, which includes creation.
So, no, the Church does not teach the chemical composition of water. Among other things, that has no bearing on faith. Such is not the object of the science of theology.
But the Church teaches that God created water and it's chemical constituents. Knowing the creative power of God is important. That is why the Church teaches that God created the first humans and that there were two of them, from whom we are all descended. Such knowledge is the proper object of theology.
The Church's Faith is an historical faith...that is the whole point. Christianity is not some nature religion or some oriental look-up-your-own-rectum non-linear time BS. It is impossible to separate the history from there events and truths of the Faith. Revelation took place in history...God breaking into time and space...into history..."unto you is born this day in the CITY OF BETHLEHEM"..."suffered under Pontius Pilate," "...taken to a PLACE CALLED GOLGOTHA," the entire NT is a historical document, inseparable from the history of the day. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
K, that indeed is an entirely different proposition. The Church cannot make something into an historical fact which is not an historical fact, I agree. Same for scientific fact. But the Church can doctrinally state something to be a fact, especially when that fact has a major bearing on the question of salvation. Again, that statement may or may not be erroneous when viewed from a purely secular perspective, but it still purports to be, and from within the framework of the Church is actually, authoritative.
That out of the way, enough evidence has been presented above to show that the Church has made such declarations--whether or not they are correct--of the historical existence of Jesus and the historicity of the Gospels.
Thus, if the Church can do it with regard to the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels--which it has done, and which, if I understand your 5:59 correctly, you now concede it to have done--then it can likewise do so with Adam and Eve and the opening chapters of Genesis. The only remaining question is whether it has in fact done so. Which brings us back to the PBC and the papal ratification thereof, along with other teachings of the O & U Magisterium. That debate I'll leave to Marc.
What's - I don't agree that "the Church can doctrinally state something to be a fact" if that fact is a matter of history or science or any other area in which the Church is not competent to make such declarations.
Belief in Original Sin (OS), its effects, and the fact that all humans bear the consequences thereof is most certainly within the purview of the Church.
But anthropogenesis - specifically, how many ancestors gave rise to the human race - is outside the competence of the Church. AT THE TIME, some thought it necessary to require belief in two individuals only (monogenism)to defend/preserve the Church's teaching on OS. AT THE TIME, the non-scientific world was just beginning to understand the concepts of Darwinian evolution, polygenism being one of the ideas that was proposed by some scientists. Much has changed since that time as far as the understanding of and reconciliation between doctrine and science.
Understood one way - a relativistic way - polygenism could be understood to negate the doctrine of Original Sin. There are other ways to understand polygenism that do not do so. In a commentary on Paul VI's "CREDO of the People Of God," Roberto Masi writes, "The problem of the origin of man and of his primitive condition is studied by the evolutionary theory in a strictly scientific field. The development and spread of such theories have induced Catholic scholars, guided by the Magisterium of the Church, to rethink the theology of original sin, to see how, while retaining the dogma intact, it can be better proposed today so that it may be more adapted to modern man."
Masi continues, "This first experience of sin has a mysterious connection with all humanity and fits in perfectly with the salvific plan of God which has Christ as its centre." Does polygenism necessarily contradict the Church's doctrine? Masi: "Presupposing all this, according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin."
It is an interesting and a continuing question.
Kavanaugh, nobody cares if the doctrine of original sin can be squared with science. Theology does not seek scientific validation.
And, the Church is quite competent to make factual statements about history. The entire NT and the articles of there Creed are historical statements. The Church is as competent to make statements about history as anyone else is who lives in history. The Church never intended her statements regarding Adam and Eve to be scientific statements, only historical ones. Science is no more qualified to make statements about history than the Church is too make statements about science.
Adam and Eve really existed.
Science cannot and will not disprove this because it is true. To the extent scientists are trying to disprove it, those scientists are wasting their time.
That said, I enjoyed this discussion. It was challenging and thought-provoking. I now believe more strongly that the Church is right to teach the literal existence of Adam and Eve than I did before.
Billy - I am not looking for science to validate theology. But the Church does not stand apart from the world and science, and both are seeking truth. There is also an interplay - a necessary interplay - between the two. "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish." (John Paul II, Message to the Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory, 1 June 1988)
It is not necessary to believe in a "literal" Adam and Eve to believe the Church's teaching on Original Sin. We once thought it was, but we have learned better.
K said "I don't agree that 'the Church can doctrinally state something to be a fact' if that fact is a matter of history or science or any other area in which the Church is not competent to make such declarations."
In the first place: if you believe that, then what the heck did you mean by your 28 July 5:59? In that post, among other things, you admitted the historical evidence of jesus, which the doctrinal statements I bolded above likewise assert. QED.
In the second place, please see my posts on the 28th with statement after statement declaring certain things to be historical facts. I'm not going to repeat them, and to argue that none of those statements is doctrinal is to be plain silly. In those documents the Church has repeatedly, expressly, and doctrinally declared the actual existence of Jesus to be historical fact. Maybe those doctrinal declarations are accurate and maybe they're inaccurate, but they are nevertheless doctrinal declarations. If you want to keep on claiming otherwise, be my guest; readers can make up their own minds after they read everything I quoted. Again, I'm done arguing the point because all I'm doing now is repeating myself and I'm amply backed up by the Magisterium. All you're doing is repeating an unsupported and unsupportable claim in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We have nothing further to discuss.
What's - I have stated that Jesus is an historical figure. He is not MADE (determined) to be an historical figure by the Church's doctrinal statements.
It's one thing to take a figure from history - Jesus, St. John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate - and build on that history (the figure's words, actions, writings, etc) in doctrinal statements.
It is quite another thing to make an attempt to determine what was historical fact or who was an historical figure by use of doctrinal statements.
There's a major difference. The Church cannot determine history or science by doctrinal statements.
I thought this was interesting and appropriate.
Titled by Lifesite News:
Profs debunk human-chimp 99% shared genes myth at World Youth Day
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/restoring-the-foundation-of-the-family
First, the Mr. Owen misuses technical scientific language. He says, "The reason why many young Catholics do not hear this beautiful Catholic teaching on the creation of Adam and Eve is because we are told that “science” — meaning natural and physical science — has proven that the bodies of the first human beings evolved from microbes over hundreds of millions of years through mutation and natural selection."
NOTE: "...has proven that the bodies of the first human beings..."
No, scientists don't claim that the theory of evolution is "proven." It remains a theory, just as cell theory remains a theory, as the Big Bang theory remains a theory, and atomic theory remain theories (not "proven" laws).
And, lest one mistake "theory" for "hypothesis," remember "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments."
Second, Mr. Owen misuses the word "myth." And, so, we are told, what all of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Council Fathers in their authoritative teaching called the sacred HISTORY of Genesis—is actually a myth." He then goes on to say, "Did God allow His Church to teach a totally false account of the origins of man and the universe for almost two thousand..."
NOTE: "false account"
A myth is not a false account, it is not fiction, it is not a fairy tale (although many fairy tales include mythology). "A myth is an imaginative story that uses symbols to talk about reality, but a reality that is beyond human understanding."
Myth are not "false" accounts, they are understandable accounts of reality. They simply speak of reality in a symbolic way.
And THEN we have one of the biggie misrepresentations of evolutionary theory from Mr. Owen: "This leads to a problem for the hypothesis of evolution because if humans really were descended from the apes, then how could it be that we only have 40% of our Y-chromosome in common with the apes but at the same time there is almost a complete genetic identity among all humans?"
NOTE: "Descended from the apes" Sorry, evolutionists do not contend that humans "descended from the apes."
These are significant weaknesses - even, I would say, fatal weaknesses - in Owen's presentation. And these come before any discussion of the genetic comparisons.
One more. Owen: "To say it briefly: All fossils which we have found finally turned out to be either fully human, like Neanderthals and others, or fully ape, like Australopithecines. Paleontologists could not find any ape-man fossils — which indicates that these creatures never existed."
NOTE: "Paleontologists could not find any ape-man fossils — which indicates that these creatures never existed."
No. Wrong. Seriously wrong. "I could not find evidence of X, therefore X never existed or never happened" is a thoroughly erroneous conclusion to draw from the absence of evidence. At that point, all a researcher can says is, "I don't have evidence." Period. He/She cannot deduce from the lack of evidence . . . anything.
Post a Comment