William Carroll is talking about aspects of the Pope’s vigil homily on Catholic Thing. It seemed to address one or two of the points raised in the expanding It’s not religion thread.
At the Easter Vigil, the journey along the paths of sacred Scripture begins with the account of creation. This is the liturgy’s way of telling us that the creation story is itself a prophecy. It is not information about the external processes by which the cosmos and man himself came into being. The Fathers of the Church were well aware of this. They did not interpret the story as an account of the process of the origins of things, but rather as a pointer towards the essential, towards the true beginning and end of our being. . . .The Church Fathers and others in the history of the Church tried to find some concordance between the opening chapter of Genesis, the so-called “six days of creation,” and what the sciences tells us about the world. But theologians like Thomas Aquinas remind us that what is essential to the faith in Genesis is the “fact of creation,” not the “manner or mode of the formation of the world.” The Bible ought not to be read as a science textbook. Galileo liked to quote the words of Cardinal Baronius: the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
Read and enjoy!
Ha ha, the Catholic Church rewriting history once again. Where do you get this stuff JP?
KA
Pulls it out of her…… hat?
.
This one will run and run, thinks Toad.
He knew a bishop once in the States who would tell his students, ‘We have to remember the bible was written for primitive people,’
When Toad pointed out it was also written by primitive people, he goot a bit uncomfortable.’
Surely there’s no denying that the creation story was accepted by virtually everyone, (except, it seems, Aquinas,) until about 500 years ago. Still is by some ‘primitive people,’ American mostly, one gathers.
“The Fathers of the Church were well aware of this. They did not interpret the story as an account of the process of the origins of things, but rather as a pointer towards the essential, towards the true beginning and end of our being. . . “
Top marks for backsliding twaddle, here!
messed up the quotation marks. Toads fault, naturally.
I suggest that you don’t test that theory. It is very much frowned upon.
But the Pope says it is so! :O
If I prick him will he not bleed?
Sheesh! Got my lines mixed up again! The comment above at 6:17pm was meant to go here:
But on the other hand…….
Here are some quotes from the fathers that imply a more subtle reading.
But they of course believed the basic framework..
“They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.”
This looks like a reference to the Babylonian dating found in Berossus & his transmitters & classical critics, which went back about 473,000 years or so. This is a bit more than the letter of the Bible allows for. THe Berossus dates don’t exceeded 432,000 years, though this more than the Sumerian King Lost, which was at some stage one of his sources, & – ending in c. 1800 BC – goes back about 241,200 years in some of its versions. Cicero diod not thinlk much of the “Chaldean” claim of 470,000 years either; his reason for thinking it absurd is not likely to. have owed much to Biblical or doctrinal zeal.
THe Berossus dates don’t exceeded = The Berossus dates don’t exceed….
Lost = List
to. have = to have
Mr Badger, in the end quote tag, you need to put the slash mark before the word blockquote.
Sorry that the formatting went a bit odd
*goes crosswise then gives up*
crosseyed! *curses and stomps off*
I don’t know what happened, the margin seems to shrink the further down that post you go. Sorry about that. Don’t go cross-eyed, you’ll notice your nose is too long, then you’ll be miserable
I shall just pray to God or the deity of my choice to fix it. Then when the answer is ‘No’ or ‘Not yet’ I’ll book a good surgeon for a rhinoplasty.
For a different meaning of the word “it”, fixed.
.
Mr. Badger: Your post was very beautiful – a bit like an e.e.cummings pome, thinks Toad.
…Who hopes it didn’t take seven days to write.
.
Toads and Badgers seem to have more in common than Darwin realised.
.
“What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”
A refreshing and extraordinary bit of honesty here.
Clearly a bit rattled, the kindly old theological wizz-bang.
However he well might have gone on to ask himself, “So why bother?”
But that might have raised some awkward questions.
Then the Toad should ask ’em.
.
Toad thinks the whole religious debate, which is nothing but vanity here, can be summed up thus:
CATHOILCS: We never do anything wrong , and never have.
REST OF THE WORLD: Yes you did, and yes you do.
CATHOLICS: Well maybe we do, and maybe we did, but Stalin did much worse, so that’s all right!
(I’m sorry to Joyful, who’s up the sharp end of all this, but she asks for it.)
🙂
“But theologians like Thomas Aquinas remind us that what is essential to the faith in Genesis is the “fact of creation,” not the “manner or mode of the formation of the world.” The Bible ought not to be read as a science textbook. Galileo liked to quote the words of Cardinal Baronius: the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
## What a pity Baronius died in 1607, or else that his view seems not have been the view taken in 1616 or 1633. A huge amount of fuss and bother might have been avoided.
Galileo was nobbled not by Genesis, but by Psalms, phrases in which were taken to establish the immobility of the earth.
BTW, the distinction between the two phases of creation was one with which St. Robert Bellarmine, being an SJ, would have been familiar. Ande hre could hardly have ignorant of Ecclus.18.1 & St. Augustine thereon. But that didn’t stop the GG getting nobbled, because that was not the issue: the immobility of the earth, Biblical assertion of it, & the doctrinal status of same, were.
“This is the liturgy’s way of telling us that the creation story is itself a prophecy.”
Huh ? Or, in BritlandSpeak: Eh ?
It may be Christocentric, but that would not make it prophecy, unless by prophecy he means proclamation. personally, I’m more interested in the exegesis of the text.
Well after you’ve read “in the beginning..” you might think to yourself, prophetically, ‘I think there’s going to be more’.
.
“This is the liturgy’s way of telling us that the creation story is itself a prophecy”
“It may be Christocentric, but that would not make it prophecy, unless by prophecy he means proclamation. personally, I’m more interested in the exegesis of the text.”
Is there no way to make this more obscure?
I think that to take this any further into the realm of obscurity would require illicit drugs. Mind you, I often feel that way about B16’s prose.
.
Toad notes that the Bulgarian who beheaded an English lady in Tenerife on Friday was apparently acting under instructions from God.
Which one? 😛
I thought “The Bulgarian who beheaded an English lady in Tenerife” was an Edward Lear poem
It almost sounds like it! Though I had thought it could be Lewis Carroll – and her life swiftly and silently vanished away for the cucumber was a machete you see!
*feels slightly guilty at the gallows humor*
.
“Which one?”
Which God or which Bulgarian? (The Bulgarian was called Deyanov, it seems.)
Faintly reminiscent of Joan of Arc, in reverse, Toad thinks.
God seems fond of telling people to kill Brits.
In Joan’s case, He even provided the sword. It fell out of Heaven. Like a meteorite.
Joyful will enthustically confirm this. I am not making it all up.
For once.
Imagine how much briefer the whole saga would have been if his divine aim was just slightly off!
I’m waiting for Chris to come on and completely miss the point 😉
KA
.
“I’m waiting for Chris to come on and completely miss the point..
KA”
Well, if Chris doesn’t do so, Toad will step in and miss it for him.
(He (Toad, that is, not Chris) is still reeling from the exegesis, whatever that is.)
After all, what are friends for?
And Toad is not sure he gets the point, either, now you mention it..
My learned colleague pointed this out to me earlier: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm
Is the statement by the Pope on evolution indicative of actual belief amongst Catholics? I know that evolution is certainly taught as fact in the Catholic school – or was when I went through.
Speaking from the perspective of an ignorant atheist, his statement demonstrates a distressing lack of familiarity with the methodology of evolutionary science and the many ways in which evolution has been proved.
Yet scientists have done exactly that with archeology, anthropology, and the genetic and molecular sciences.
If he has been correctly quoted, Seeker, I agree with you.
Does it not worry you then JP, that the head of your church has such opposite views to the ones that you hold? Are you now required to change your stance on evolution (have you finished the book yet by the way? 😉 )?
KA
Not at all, KA.
I don’t whether the quotes above express the Pope’s view of evolution – but even if they do, I don’t listen to him for his scientific knowledge but for his theological knowledge (because of his particular training and this area) and his pastoral direction (because of the role he holds).
And I am only obliged to accept what the Pope says when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. There has been disagreement about how often this has happened. Some people say twice in history; some three, some four. This Pope (and most of his predecessors) has never done so. For the rest, see today’s (rather lengthy) post.
In my own view (which may or may not be consistent with the Pope’s view) evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Catholics aren’t six-day creationists – I thought you knew that.
Thank you. It’s a good book, but I already agreed with what was in it. I put it to one side to read the Robertson one (which I also haven’t finished).
Which basically boils down to the position that the things that he writes that you already agree on are fascinating, wonderful and very enlightening. However if he says something you don’t agree with then you aren’t obliged to accept what he says unless he speaks ex cathedra.
I wonder if the proponents of contraception, women priests, married clergy etc etc realize there is there is this lovely big loop hole?
I’m fascinated by all sorts of things, Seeker – whether I agree with them or not.
And, as you will see if you read KA’s comment and my response, I’m only talking about Papal infallibility in relation to a reported comment on evolution, not about Church teaching.
Of course they do, Seeker. I’m pretty sure you know that. If not, I’m sure our friend Chris would be happy to enlighten you. Contraception, women priests, married clergy, etc etc etc, certainly fit into the ‘faith and morals’ category. It seems to me (as it does to Chris) that the Church has a right to pronounce on these things. At this point, it has not done so infallibly, but it has certain spoken with authority. The level of assent required does not extend to ‘you are obliged to accept or leave’ – but does, in my view, extend to ‘you are obliged to try to understand why these things are being taught’ and even ‘you are obliged to comply in practice’.
But seeing as B16 and his predecessors teach (in conformity with the catholic faith) that evolution is the tool god used to populate the earth, then itmatter appear to be a matter of faith when B16 speaks on it. And if he shows a lack of understanding then one has to ask how influential that lack of understanding is in the teaching of the faith as regards creation.
Yes, certainly, teaching that God created the heavens and the earth is a matter of faith. But the Church has explicitly said that we are free to figure out for ourselves how He did that. The Catholic Catechism says merely:
“283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers….
284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin….”
The Holy Father said:
I think that’s a true statement.
As much as evolution IS scientifically plausible, and a theory I personally accept, the fact remains that it is not yet a fully scientifically proven theory. From what I can tell, we still lack sufficient evidence to really PROVE it.
We need to be sufficiently humble to accept that we don;t know everything yet.
Which applies just as much to lots of modern theories about the authenticity of the scriptures – these are also UNPROVEN THEORIES.
God Bless
Actually Chris, evolutionary biology and anthropology has come a very very long way since darwin first posited his theory. Its been considered proved for some decades now and the evidence just keeps stacking up.
Oh Chris, Chris, Chris – please buck up. Gravity is still a theory too you know – are you saying that we should treat that theory in the same way as you treat evolutionary theory?
KA
I thought gravity was a law?
“Those who will not apply the law of prudence on a slippery slope will find that they are forced to obey the law of gravity.”
But apparently it is indeed a theory, and one that does not fit all known observed phenomena:
The essence of the scientific method is to propose theories that fit the facts. And science is continually finding old theories insufficient and therefore replacing them with new theories.
I think that Pope Benedict XVI shows a healthy humility in recognising that science doesn’t know it all. Maybe that’s an insight he could usefully apply elsewhere ? Toowoomba ?
God Bless
You generalise Chris. There are many theories that have stood the test of time and accumulated enough evidence to be considered proven. This is one of them.
.
“I think that Pope Benedict XVI shows a healthy humility in recognising that science doesn’t know it all.”
That is gibberish, Chris. And it doesn’t do the poor old Ponfiff, or you, any favours.
Toad,
Actually its the also the essence of science to admit that it doesn’t know it all.
God bless
Yet the recognition that it doesn’t know it all spurs science to discover more, and religion to plug the gaps with God.
Seeker,
We plug the gaps with a better understanding of God. Criticism from atheists like your good self are all part of the divine plan to help us do that.
You don’t think your own spiritual journey and your passionate desire to share it with us is all just some chance accident, do you ?
Yours seems to be a common enough spiritual journey for those coming out of fundamentalist spiritual abuse. To the extent that it is liberating you from some of your chains (and I think it is) then its a very good thing. But you really don’t need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
God Bless
.
“Actually its the also the essence of science to admit that it doesn’t know it all.”
Says Chris. More gibberish. Of course science ‘doesn’t know it all.’ How could it? And it doen’t need to ‘admit’ it. Whoever suggested that science could know it all?