Churches Stance on Evolution 1950
#31
(04-22-2018, 05:06 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: On the other hand, what if i was a protstant who was investigating Catholicism and wanted to "test" it on its stance on creation. So if the church was against creation or said evolution was not inconstant as a matter of doctrine,  in my mind i could dismiss it as not the infalible interpreter it claims to be. They have not done so, therefore i must further investigate. In fact I am in the process of investigating Catholicisms, I am purchasing some apologetic works in defense of Catholics. such as what is coming in the mail

One does not "test" the Church. One certainly can look to verify its claims are reasonable, logical and consistent with Scripture.

The problem becomes that if the Church is the infallible interpreter you are looking to test, then if you think it disagrees with your interpretation, you dismiss it as infallible interpreter, but all that amounts to is "Does the Church teach what I believe" rather than what a Catholic must ask himself, "Do I believe what the Church teaches." You've got the whole argument backward.

And this is especially important on a relatively fringe issue. The Church's official teaching is that God is Creator of everything. She then limits the extremes and sets up the guard rails so those exploring don't fall off the side of the road. This is exactly the same thing as regards medical ethics, for instance.

The Church says, "X is not moral, but Y is" therefore we know that not only is it wrong to do X, but a good doctor will know that the best outcome will be in exploring Y, even if X seemed more promising.

If you are looking to investigate the Catholic Church as regards its claims, then the better method is not to take the esoteric issues, but the fundamental ones, see if they are reasonable, have historical basis and match better what the Gospels and Apostles wrote.

For instance, which Church teaches what the latter half of John 6 teaches about eating and drinking Our Lord's Body and Blood? Which has a logical position on the need for a visible religious society with a leader?

Those are the claims to investigate, but if you start by asking if the Church teaches the correct thing, using only your own opinion as the basis for that test, then you're stuck in the Protestant error of private interpretation, which can only lead to a personal subjective religion where everyone is permitted to believe whatever he wants, rather than one which is objective, but allows freedom on questions which do not concern the Faith or Morals.

In short, if you're interested in the Catholic Church then investigate it's claim to be the exclusive Church of Christ and its agreement with Scripture on it's foundational aspects rather than on a minor point, some aspects of which even the Father of the Church were divided.

No Catholic, much less the Church, rejects Creation. Many Catholics, including early Church Father take a varied opinion on precisely how that Creation came to be what we see around us today, and the Church allows such, so long as what affects the Faith is protected.
Reply
#32
(04-22-2018, 05:13 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: If so you better contact the vatican and let them know.

http://vatican.com/

From that website : "Vatican.com is is owned and developed privately and is not the official site of Vatican City nor claims to represent the Vatican City State & the Holy See legally, politically, religiously or otherwise."

Methinks you are looking for vatican.va
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont
Reply
#33
(04-22-2018, 05:25 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-22-2018, 05:06 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: On the other hand, what if i was a protstant who was investigating Catholicism and wanted to "test" it on its stance on creation. So if the church was against creation or said evolution was not inconstant as a matter of doctrine,  in my mind i could dismiss it as not the infalible interpreter it claims to be. They have not done so, therefore i must further investigate. In fact I am in the process of investigating Catholicisms, I am purchasing some apologetic works in defense of Catholics. such as what is coming in the mail

One does not "test" the Church. One certainly can look to verify its claims are reasonable, logical and consistent with Scripture.

The problem becomes that if the Church is the infallible interpreter you are looking to test, then if you think it disagrees with your interpretation, you dismiss it as infallible interpreter, but all that amounts to is "Does the Church teach what I believe" rather than what a Catholic must ask himself, "Do I believe what the Church teaches." You've got the whole argument backward.

And this is especially important on a relatively fringe issue. The Church's official teaching is that God is Creator of everything. She then limits the extremes and sets up the guard rails so those exploring don't fall off the side of the road. This is exactly the same thing as regards medical ethics, for instance.

The Church says, "X is not moral, but Y is" therefore we know that not only is it wrong to do X, but a good doctor will know that the best outcome will be in exploring Y, even if X seemed more promising.

If you are looking to investigate the Catholic Church as regards its claims, then the better method is not to take the esoteric issues, but the fundamental ones, see if they are reasonable, have historical basis and match better what the Gospels and Apostles wrote.

For instance, which Church teaches what the latter half of John 6 teaches about eating and drinking Our Lord's Body and Blood? Which has a logical position on the need for a visible religious society with a leader?

Those are the claims to investigate, but if you start by asking if the Church teaches the correct thing, using only your own opinion as the basis for that test, then you're stuck in the Protestant error of private interpretation, which can only lead to a personal subjective religion where everyone is permitted to believe whatever he wants, rather than one which is objective, but allows freedom on questions which do not concern the Faith or Morals.

In short, if you're interested in the Catholic Church then investigate it's claim to be the exclusive Church of Christ and its agreement with Scripture on it's foundational aspects rather than on a minor point, some aspects of which even the Father of the Church were divided.

No Catholic, much less the Church, rejects Creation. Many Catholics, including early Church Father take a varied opinion on precisely how that Creation came to be what we see around us today, and the Church allows such, so long as what affects the Faith is protected.

and this starts the whole debate does it not, the bible vs the church [man]. This i think is best done on its own thread where it can be addressed in full. I am starting with what i see is clearly true of the bible and testing it against the church.  if it holds true than i can dig deeper and see if it can be considered infallible. but if i just apply that right off of course it will hold true not matter what it claims. I could just as easily be a Muslim and do the same with the koran no matter what it says. I would rather test things against the bible as the bible tells me to do as protestants enjoy pointing out in debates with Catholics.



Trust me, i want nothing more than catholicm to be correct, it would make things so easy. but i would rather see god and say i did my best from the bible than perhaps follow a false path.
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
Reply
#34
(04-22-2018, 05:27 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-22-2018, 05:13 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: If so you better contact the vatican and let them know.

http://vatican.com/

From that website :  "Vatican.com is is owned and developed privately and is not the official site of Vatican City nor claims to represent the Vatican City State & the Holy See legally, politically, religiously or otherwise."

Methinks you are looking for vatican.va

thanks. i will contact them. Do you see where to do that?
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
Reply
#35
(04-22-2018, 05:34 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: and this starts the whole debate does it not, the bible vs the church [man]. This i think is best done on its own thread where it can be addressed in full. I am starting with what i see is clearly true of the bible and testing it against the church.  if it holds true than i can dig deeper and see if it can be considered infallible. but if i just apply that right off of course it will hold true not matter what it claims. I could just as easily be a Muslim and do the same with the koran no matter what it says. I would rather test things against the bible as the bible tells me to do as protestants enjoy pointing out in debates with Catholics.



Trust me, i want nothing more than catholicm to be correct, it would make things so easy. but i would rather see god and say i did my best from the bible than perhaps follow a false path.

The Church compiled the Bible. If parts of the Bible rejected Church teaching then it seems that the Church would have left those parts out. In the 1500 years prior to Martin Luther I would guess that someone would have noticed. Instead Martin Luther comes along and picks out the parts of the Bible which he likes, thus enters protestantism.

When you attempt to interpret the scriptures by yourself you are implicitly saying that you personally are more knowledgable, wise, and learned in the scriptures than every Christian who came before you. Because as MM pointed out, there was never a consensus among the Church fathers regarding the details of creation. 

I'd rather be wrong about the creation than to fall into the sin of pride.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dominicus's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#36
(04-22-2018, 05:34 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote:
(04-22-2018, 05:25 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-22-2018, 05:06 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: On the other hand, what if i was a protstant who was investigating Catholicism and wanted to "test" it on its stance on creation. So if the church was against creation or said evolution was not inconstant as a matter of doctrine,  in my mind i could dismiss it as not the infalible interpreter it claims to be. They have not done so, therefore i must further investigate. In fact I am in the process of investigating Catholicisms, I am purchasing some apologetic works in defense of Catholics. such as what is coming in the mail

One does not "test" the Church. One certainly can look to verify its claims are reasonable, logical and consistent with Scripture.

The problem becomes that if the Church is the infallible interpreter you are looking to test, then if you think it disagrees with your interpretation, you dismiss it as infallible interpreter, but all that amounts to is "Does the Church teach what I believe" rather than what a Catholic must ask himself, "Do I believe what the Church teaches." You've got the whole argument backward.

And this is especially important on a relatively fringe issue. The Church's official teaching is that God is Creator of everything. She then limits the extremes and sets up the guard rails so those exploring don't fall off the side of the road. This is exactly the same thing as regards medical ethics, for instance.

The Church says, "X is not moral, but Y is" therefore we know that not only is it wrong to do X, but a good doctor will know that the best outcome will be in exploring Y, even if X seemed more promising.

If you are looking to investigate the Catholic Church as regards its claims, then the better method is not to take the esoteric issues, but the fundamental ones, see if they are reasonable, have historical basis and match better what the Gospels and Apostles wrote.

For instance, which Church teaches what the latter half of John 6 teaches about eating and drinking Our Lord's Body and Blood? Which has a logical position on the need for a visible religious society with a leader?

Those are the claims to investigate, but if you start by asking if the Church teaches the correct thing, using only your own opinion as the basis for that test, then you're stuck in the Protestant error of private interpretation, which can only lead to a personal subjective religion where everyone is permitted to believe whatever he wants, rather than one which is objective, but allows freedom on questions which do not concern the Faith or Morals.

In short, if you're interested in the Catholic Church then investigate it's claim to be the exclusive Church of Christ and its agreement with Scripture on it's foundational aspects rather than on a minor point, some aspects of which even the Father of the Church were divided.

No Catholic, much less the Church, rejects Creation. Many Catholics, including early Church Father take a varied opinion on precisely how that Creation came to be what we see around us today, and the Church allows such, so long as what affects the Faith is protected.

and this starts the whole debate does it not, the bible vs the church [man]. This i think is best done on its own thread where it can be addressed in full. I am starting with what i see is clearly true of the bible and testing it against the church.  if it holds true than i can dig deeper and see if it can be considered infallible. but if i just apply that right off of course it will hold true not matter what it claims. I could just as easily be a Muslim and do the same with the koran no matter what it says. I would rather test things against the bible as the bible tells me to do as protestants enjoy pointing out in debates with Catholics.



Trust me, i want nothing more than catholicm to be correct, it would make things so easy. but i would rather see god and say i did my best from the bible than perhaps follow a false path.

You have made two logical fallacies:

1) You've come onto the forum to speak to people who may not be catholic and certainly do not have the authority to represent the Church as far as what the Church teaches.  We may all profess to be catholic, but how would you know the difference?

2) You believe that your bible is the word of God.  Why would you believe that?
Reply
#37
I'm inclined to think animals didn't die before the fall unless the Church clearly teaches I'm wrong. This would appear to make total sense to me. Death came into the world through sin. I should think that it includes the ravages of nature, such as hurricanes, tornados and the overall brutality of nature. Before the fall, people were in fact vegetarian. It's only after the fall we see such things as animal skin coverings for Adam and Eve. To me, in my mind I could see how that makes total sense.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
[-] The following 1 user Likes JacafamalaRedux's post:
  • yablabo
Reply
#38
(04-22-2018, 10:12 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: I'm inclined to think animals didn't die before the fall unless the Church clearly teaches I'm wrong. This would appear to make total sense to me. Death came into the world through sin. I should think that it includes the ravages of nature, such as hurricanes, tornados and the overall brutality of nature. Before the fall, people were in fact vegetarian. It's only after the fall we see such things as animal skin coverings for Adam and Eve. To me, in my mind I could see how that makes total sense.

The Church does not mandate that you accept or reject animal death before the Fall.

Thomistic theologians, however, generally hold that animal death did occur before the Fall for several reasons :
  • Material beings, even man are naturally mortal
    • Summa Theologica (I q.97, a.1, obj. 1 & ad.1) : It would seem that in the state of innocence man was not immortal. For the term "mortal" belongs to the definition of man. But if you take away the definition, you take away the thing defined. Therefore as long as man was man he could not be immortal ... These objections are founded on natural incorruptibility and immortality.
    • Garrigiou-Lagrange, Réginald, God the Creator) : Man's body, since it is a material composite, is by its nature passible and mortal, like the bodies of brute animals, but as long as the soul remained subject to God "divine providence protected his body so that nothing unforeseen should occur to harm it." ([i]ST I q.97, a.2 ad 4) [/i]
  • It was only by an added and gratuitous gift which was fittingly caused by the subjection of Man to God (through Sanctifying Grace) and the Lower Passion to the Intellect (by Integrity) that body was perfectly subject to soul and thus man was Immortal and Impassible.
    • Summa Theologica (I q.97, a.1) : For man's body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic vigor of immortality, but by reason of a supernatural force given by God to the soul, whereby it was enabled to preserve the body from all corruption so long as it remained itself subject to God.
  • This preservation from death is properly miraculous.
    • Garrigiou-Lagrange, Réginald, God the Creator) : Perpetual preservation from bodily death was a miracle like the resurrection of the body, by which the natural life of the body is supernaturally restored; nature can of course produce life by generation, but it cannot preserve the body, in itself corruptible, from death.
  • The causal chain is that, Sanctifying Grace directly caused the Integral ordering of the Passions to the Intellect, and only fittingly this ordering demanded that the Body itself be ordered to the soul, but the soul being immortal, the body's immortality was a fitting consequence assured by a miraculous gift.
  • But animals cannot be the recipients of Sanctify Grace and thus they cannot be the recipients of Integrity or Immortality. They also do they even possess an immortal rational soul, so even if it were fitting that their body be totally subject to their soul, it would remain mortal.
  • Therefore, both animal death and human death were natural, but by the design of God before the Fall, fittingly flowing from Sanctifying Grace, man was preserved from the death which naturally should have happened.
  • The punishment for man was fittingly the loss of Sanctifying Grace, which caused the loss of the gifts which flowed from these. Even though man could recover that grave with God's help, God did not deign to also restore those free gifts, just as someone who has been convicted of a grievous crime may be returned to society after having been forgiven, but his freely-given rights (e.g. voting, owning a firearm, etc.) may fittingly be restricted. The removal of a free gift is a fitting punishment for the fault.
So, with all of that, the Thomist would argue that animal death is natural and if there was sufficient time before the Fall, there would have been animal death naturally. Lions would have eaten Gazelles, as this is not caused by sin, but by the very nature of a lion.

The argument can also be one from absurdity :
  • If God created everything according to a certain nature and never changes the nature of a thing (he never miraculously cause an ape to instantly turn into a man with an immortal soul), then to suggest that man's sin changed animals' natures means that man, by sin, caused something which even God does not do.
  • It also suggests that God created a world which was imperfect, since a single sin could cause an irreparable change throughout the whole universe (which is wildly disproportionate to the action).
  • If Immortality were a miracle, and Saint Thomas says it was, then to suggest that animals did not die until the fall means that God created an order which he had to support by innumerable miracles in preserving all animals from following the nature that He gave them until man sinned, but this not only multiplies miracles which we are never allowed to presume without reason, it also calls into question the Wisdom of God. This is because it would suggest that God, knowing man would sin created an imperfect world, and then by miracles given to the entire universe except man, prevented the very nature that he created from acting as it should until man sinned and then he could allow nature to run its course.
Thus, why animals death did not begin with the Original Sin.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)