Question for Catholics

[patrick68]

=Tatian;60233215]I was wondering about the Catholic Churches view on science as compared to most Protestants. It seems Protestants to a greater extent see a struggle between their faith and mainstreem science. However, it seems to me that the Catholic church doesn't seem to wrestle with it so much. The pope has organized conferences with lecturers such as Stephen Hawking and also have many Clergy who maintaine advanced degrees in all fields of science. This is much less for the Protestant movement, and it's something I lament.

When I was contemplating this, I began to wonder what the difference maker is. I tinkered with the idea that perhaps it's because Catholics don't maintane a few of Sola Scriptura. Protestants will read the scriptures, such as Genesis and come to the "plain meaning" of it and conclude that science is at odds with scripture. They will say that sense this is God's only infallible word and that there is no other word of God but scrpture, than all other truths must submit to it.

So could it be that because the Catholic Church maintains that God's spoken word is through other means, such as the church itself, that they can allow science to be informative to what scripture means? For example, sense science overwhelmingly agrees that evolution is how life developed that the Catholic church can allow that information to help them conclude that Genesis 1 and 2 are not a literary account of how everything actually developed?

Please feel free to correct and inform me where I am mistaken.
Thankyou.

Great post. THANKS,

The basis of Catholic thought is [or ought to be] that God is In Charge! Science may explain what God Himself ordained; but they don't "create" as does God: 'To make something out of nothing"

A a great degree Science is only uncovering and explaining what God has done. And the Church accepts Science for what it is: a field of study.

So long as God is not excluded or precluded from Science; the church goes along with it. exceptions of couse are those scientific endeavors that effect "life issues". Birth control for example is "anti-God".

As a FYI: Sola Scriptora itself is not biblical, but using TRADITION is. Go- figure.

God Bless,
patrick68

 

[Albion]

As a FYI: Sola Scriptora itself is not biblical, but using TRADITION is. Go- figure.

Do people just make these things up in order to annoy the Bible-believers here?

 

[RadixLecti]

Do people just make these things up in order to annoy the Bible-believers here?

I've wondered the same thing before. Plus, as I've heard some people say lately, there is a difference between "Sola" and "Solo" scriptura. Just because we hold to sola scriptura, doesn't mean that we don't rely on Tradition to help us understand Scripture. It just means that we see Scripture as the ultimate authority on doctrine, rather than being equal with Tradition.

 

[Albion]

I've wondered the same thing before. Plus, as I've heard some people say lately, there is a difference between "Sola" and "Solo" scriptura. Just because we hold to sola scriptura, doesn't mean that we don't rely on Tradition to help us understand Scripture. It just means that we see Scripture as the ultimate authority on doctrine, rather than being equal with Tradition.

Absolutely. And you know, it's not that difficult to understand such that we keep hearing the same old sloganeering over and over again. But also, this claim that (Holy) Tradition or (Sacred) Tradition IS in the Bible is just a lie. The word "traditions" is there, but that's a totally different meaning of the word, is spelled differently, and brings with it no specifics about what's supposed to be held to.

 

[The Templar]

MOD HAT ON

​

This thread has been moved to a more appropriate forum.
Please read and observe the forum rules concerning the individual Statement of Purpose for each forum.

MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[ElisaMC]

As a Roman Catholic liturgist, I am taught that my faith can withstand all forms of questions, thoughts and ideas. Grounded in a foundation of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium we are now not afraid to explore modern science - as perhaps we once were historically. In fact, the Vatican is the home of the largest laboratories for modern sciences in the world - specifically because science does not negate the fact that God is Supreme, God our Father and creator. We are taught to always be open to God's Glory whether it is in creation, medicine, liturature or chemistry - God is here. To think otherwise, we are taught, is to limit the power of God - probably not a good thing....

I fully appreciate this teaching because it allows me, in all my frail humanity to ask questions about my faith, my God, my world - without the limitation of guilt that comes from looking at life through narrow boundries. My God can handle my paltry, silly, human questions - and leads me with patience and love toward the answers I seek...

 

[Trogool]

Do people just make these things up in order to annoy the Bible-believers here?

Are you implying patrick68 isn't a "Bible-believer"?

And really, chill. Nobody is forcing you to converse with him, or even pay attention.

 

[patrick68]

=ElisaMC;60417759]As a Roman Catholic liturgist, I am taught that my faith can withstand all forms of questions, thoughts and ideas. Grounded in a foundation of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium we are now not afraid to explore modern science - as perhaps we once were historically. In fact, the Vatican is the home of the largest laboratories for modern sciences in the world - specifically because science does not negate the fact that God is Supreme, God our Father and creator. We are taught to always be open to God's Glory whether it is in creation, medicine, liturature or chemistry - God is here. To think otherwise, we are taught, is to limit the power of God - probably not a good thing....

I fully appreciate this teaching because it allows me, in all my frail humanity to ask questions about my faith, my God, my world - without the limitation of guilt that comes from looking at life through narrow boundries. My God can handle my paltry, silly, human questions - and leads me with patience and love toward the answers I seek...

Lisa,

GREAT POST to which I say "AMEN!"

God Bless you,

patrick68

 

[Albion]

Are you implying patrick68 isn't a "Bible-believer"?

Certainly not, but the term is often applied to people who consider the Scriptures to be their final source of doctrinal guidance, just like the unattractive term, "Bible-belter."

 

[Catherineanne]

I was wondering about the Catholic Churches view on science as compared to most Protestants.

Generally speaking Anglicanism does not regard the Bible as a scientific book, or intended to answer scientific questions, any more than it is an atlas or a cookery book. It nowhere claims to be so; it is there to enable us to find God, and to encourage believers in their faith. It is not there to provide a complete periodic table, a set of logarithms or a timeline for creation. If we let the Bible be what it is, and don't try to force it to be something that it was never intended to be, then there is no problem.

Genesis speaks of why God made the world, and the earth itself provides answers about how this happened; we are gradually uncovering those answers over time, but none of the answers that science finds can ever contradict the fundamental premise that God created the world and everything in it.

I sometimes think that Creationists believe that if they do not take Genesis literally, then they won't be able to believe anything else in Scripture either, but this is really not how it works.

 

[patrick68]

=Albion;60420459]Certainly not, but the term is often applied to people who consider the Scriptures to be their final source of doctrinal guidance, just like the unattractive term, "Bible-belter."

For the RECORD;

I AM a bible believer [IF one uses ALL of it]

I AM a Triune believer

And I'd be interested in finding out what even caused the question to be raised?

God's Continued Blessings,
patrick68

 

[Albion]

Generally speaking Anglicanism does not regard the Bible as a scientific book, or intended to answer scientific questions, any more than it is an atlas or a cookery book. It nowhere claims to be so; it is there to enable us to find God, and to encourage believers in their faith. It is not there to provide a complete periodic table, a set of logarithms or a timeline for creation. If we let the Bible be what it is, and don't try to force it to be something that it was never intended to be, then there is no problem.

Genesis speaks of why God made the world, and the earth itself provides answers about how this happened; we are gradually uncovering those answers over time, but none of the answers that science finds can ever contradict the fundamental premise that God created the world and everything in it.

I sometimes think that Creationists believe that if they do not take Genesis literally, then they won't be able to believe anything else in Scripture either, but this is really not how it works.

Nice answer to a dificult question.

 

[Albion]

I've wondered the same thing before. Plus, as I've heard some people say lately, there is a difference between "Sola" and "Solo" scriptura. Just because we hold to sola scriptura, doesn't mean that we don't rely on Tradition to help us understand Scripture. It just means that we see Scripture as the ultimate authority on doctrine, rather than being equal with Tradition.

Very true, but the distinction lies in keeping tradition(s) apart from Tradition.

The former refers to any information passed on through the ages. It can be valuable as a tool in studying the Bible--just as you said. The latter is a theological concept that imagines that God gave a supplement to His word in Scripture that is revealed through the beliefs and express opinions of church leaders over time.

The problem with that is two-fold. First, most of the supposed consensus is imagined and cannot be proven; and second, there's no reason at all to think that God needed to or chose to supplement his word given by inspiration through the writers of the Bible.

 

[patrick68]

=Albion;60421852]Very true, but the distinction lies in keeping tradition(s) apart from Tradition.

The former refers to any information passed on through the ages. It can be valuable as a tool in studying the Bible--just as you said. The latter is a theological concept that imagines that God gave a supplement to His word in Scripture that is revealed through the beliefs and express opinions of church leaders over time.

The problem with that is two-fold. First, most of the supposed consensus is imagined and cannot be proven; and second, there's no reason at all to think that God needed to or chose to supplement his word given by inspiration through the writers of the Bible.

The Gaping HOLE in Sola Scriptura seems to be the FACT that the Church [Catholic that is] exited for about a hundred years before the Bible was written and not only survided but GREW BASED on TRADITIONS and word of mouth.

I can find in the bible where TRADITIONS are to be accepted; BUT seem unable to find where it articulates that SS is? Maybe it's just me? Perhaps MY FRIEND you can prove SS to us?

God Bless you,
patrick68

 

[Unix]

We need the EARLIEST tradition, such as the epistle of Jude (in the appendix in the Douay Rheims), Melito of Sardis (soon available in Logos.com http://www.logos.com/product/18384/popular-patristics-series-part-1 http://www.christianforums.com/t7650599-post60351595/#post60351595) EDIT: June 19. 2012 the sales they had on Catholic packages beginning in April 2012 is over, and Clement of Rome, to name the genuine ones that I've found out about so far, because such figures had a more original Bible at hand than we have now (the 4th century product). It's no wonder that there is no general concensus about these 3 figures since the Bible changed a lot early on and that lead to different conclusions than the early conclusions.

I believe Mt was written early:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7584975-post58330114/#post58330114
http://www.christianforums.com/t7584975-post58350838/#post58350838

Other than for Mt, I'm not so concerned about the Gk textual differences and the suspicions that some short passages weren't in the Bible originally. The added verses and parts-of-verses are in some cases Tradition.

Very true, but the distinction lies in keeping tradition(s) apart from Tradition.

The former refers to any information passed on through the ages. It can be valuable as a tool in studying the Bible

Note: that I don't read all books of the Bible.

It's better to read some of the additions in the Bible, than to read some of the 73 books of the Bible.

Note: that I believe in the Bible.

Our wrong focus, is tradition. That comes from bad Bible versions. Modern tradition is sometimes needed, such as recommendable commentaries to parts-of books or books of the Bible. But I would really not recommend buying too many commentaries, and in some cases too thick ones (because You won't learn them is one thing, over-interpretation another). I believe that in some cases to waste money is a sin:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7586631-post58377055/#post58377055
I believe that wasting time is a sin, or more precisely,
quote: "We live in the reality so we should think about our time usage and the usage of earth's resources. But of course we are not to feel guilt about resting - often resting is a signal of that we can't perform anyway." from: http://www.christianforums.com/t7644970-post60149934/#post60149934

Tradition is what parts of the Bible should be relied upon. For example Lk. Read the commentary by G. B. Caird! Caird on Lk & on Language & imagery of the Bible

FEEL FREE TO COMMENT IN THE THREAD Practical Commentary on Scripture!

 

[Albion]

Note: that I don't read all books of the Bible.

It's better to read some of the additions in the Bible, than to read some of the 73 books of the Bible.

Note: that I believe in the Bible.

Our wrong focus, is tradition. That comes from bad Bible versions.

It could. But most of what is doctrine in the Catholic churches today has nothing to do with the Bible.

In fact, the replacement of Scripture by "Sacred Tradition," as is done in the RCC, owes to the a need to accomodate non-Scriptural myths and legends into the doctrine stream. Othewise, the church would just claim that "the Bible says" by using a translation that supports whatever it is (as the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation does for them) and make the membership believe that it does.

 

[asiyreh]

Anyone interested in this topic these two lecture series are a must.
I used to be a Roman Catholic btw but I've had to leave behind my faith mostly because of this series and the truth contained within.

The first explains how the various bibles came to exist.

213B - Battle of the Bibles / Total Onslaught - Walter Veith

This one explains how and where the Word has been sabotaged by the forces of Satan

214B - Changing the Word / Total Onslaught - Walter Veith

Btw if you're a Catholic this might make you a little sick, so prepare yourself.
As morpheus put it so aptly. All I'm offering is the truth.

So do you want the red pill or the blue?


Apologies I'm a newbie here so I can't post links. Just search the title on youtube.

 

[Trogool]

Anyone interested in this topic these two lecture series are a must.
I used to be a Roman Catholic btw but I've had to leave behind my faith mostly because of this series and the truth contained within.

The first explains how the various bibles came to exist.

213B - Battle of the Bibles / Total Onslaught - Walter Veith

This one explains how and where the Word has been sabotaged by the forces of Satan

214B - Changing the Word / Total Onslaught - Walter Veith

Btw if you're a Catholic this might make you a little sick, so prepare yourself.
As morpheus put it so aptly. All I'm offering is the truth.

So do you want the red pill or the blue?


Apologies I'm a newbie here so I can't post links. Just search the title on youtube.

Proselytizing on this forum is against the rules.

 

[asiyreh]

I don't belong to any "church" (small c) so that would be impossible.

 

[patrick68]

=Trogool;60489099]Proselytizing on this forum is against the rules.

And you CHOOSe to believe this?

That my friend is your choice and your SOUL hangs in the balance.