Ping!
one thing that Vatican II has apparently taught the Faithful is that attire at Holy Mass is casual...and that music should sound like TV ad jingles...
Myths? No. Two fully-formed, unevolved adult homo sapiens, the only two homo sapiens on the entire planet, residing in a literal Garden of Eden, with a literal Tree of Life? Not even close.
Last year we got a thread from a Catholic apologist addressing the same question (Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?) in which the author argued that Catholic doctrine allows for two distinct individual homo sapiens ("Adam and Eve") which could be identified existing within a broader population of co-existing, co-evolving former-primates, and that it was these two individuals who sinned and cursed all of the other evolving former-primates and thus the entire emerging human race.
A Catholic woman I knew said her priest told her she can think of God as female if she wants. 500,000 denominations all under one roof.
The Catechism is not an INFALLIBLE proclamation of the magisterium ...it is simply the writing of men and subject to change
This is a naive or deceptive article. The reader can judge. Sure the catechism confirms a literal Adam and Eve. However, that is not what is taught in Catholic schools and the footnotes of the NAB.
Got a big kick out of this discussion on the BBC a few years ago, David Attenborough had a number of animal shows and he was retiring, the announcer and he discussed animals and got on the subject of creation, how the myth of Adam and Eve were just lovely little stories our mothers taught us that were absolutely false but people liked them, but in fact, Darwin takes the day. Next the announcer asked him what was his favorite shows of all he had done, and he spoke of apes playing with his shoe strings, the announcer said, Oh I remember that one, it was my favorite, weren’t you a bit scared, Attenborough said no, - IT WAS A GREAT DEAL LIKE THE GARDEN OF EDEN. There was about 3 seconds of silence while they both understood what had just happened, it was priceless.
No. Eve while one may hold that Eve was a Myth, she was not a Muth for long, and at the same time one must hold that Adam was a Mythter.
If you don't get Genesis right it's hard to get the rest right.
Interesting. My brides parish teaches (as in instruction materials to children and adults) that there was no Adam and Eve. God (maybe) decided to ensoul some monkeys.
When I point out the rather severe theological issues this presents, I have been called a fundamentalist Catholic hater. When I show them the parts of the Catholic Catechism quoted the article.. Well I was asked to leave.
No, they are not myths.
My. What a wonderful "defense" of the literal truth of Genesis. [/sarcasm]
But "body" and "blood" mean "body" and "blood," right?
Vatican II made changes re: religious liberty and ecumenism, but not Adam and Eve.
Where are you guys? Why isn’t this issue important to you???
Luke's Gospel states that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived in her womb, by the Overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. She is the Mother of Jesus, chosen to be so by God Himself, and thus deserving of respect, if nothing else.
Catholics believe that Jesus was born in a way that was just as miraculous as the way He was conceived, and that Mary always was a virgin and is in perpetuity.
Yes, we get it. Many non-Catholics do not believe that Mary remained a virgin afterward. The semantics training for that are on every Marian thread we conduct here.
Well, if words are that important, then maybe the phrasing of those words into arguments ought to be, as well. The inaccurate and unnecessarily graphic statement of our Catholic beliefs regarding the Virgin Birth was offensively and inappropriately stated.
God made the human body, and it is a beautiful thing, but is a sarcastic mention of human genitalia necessary in a religious forum, when it is the mother of Jesus who is spoken of on such a way?
We are all the fruit of our mother's wombs, but does one speak of their own mother and the external intimate parts of her body? I should hope not. Not the place for it. Not certain there is one, except where medical problems are concerned. Either way, NOT HERE.
I was taught to respect, not only my parents, but other people's parents as well. Phrasing a comment about the mother of Our Savior in such a way, is disrespectful to Him, as well as to her, and to we Catholics who regard Mary as our Mother.
Very seldom in these forums does one see proclaimed a love for Jesus and gratitude for His Sacrifice for us; there is so much time spent insulting and attempting to decry our beliefs about Mary. Love for Jesus is not shown simply by attempting to refute what one perceives as false beliefs- praising, loving, and honoring Him should be intrinsic to forum: respect for Mary, and love for Jesus are not mutually exclusive. Love of Jesus, and speaking crudely of His mother that way are not compatible.
This is a discussion forum, not an episode of "Jersey Shore." Can we please keep it that way, for Jesus' sake, and that of the Mother whom He loved?
CCC 302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call "divine providence" the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:
CCC 337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."206
Then you have the Youcat Catechism, which is claimed to be modeled from the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was released by the Vatican on April 4, 2011 and was translated in more than a dozen languages.
The Bible is not meant to convey precise historical information or scientific findings to us. Moreover the authors were children of their time. They shared the cultural ideas of the world around them and often were also dominated by its errors. Nevertheless, everything that man must know about God and the way of his salvation is found with infallible certainty in Sacred Scripture.
In paragraph 42 YouCat asks: “Can someone accept the theory of evolution and still believe in the Creator?” YouCat answers:
Yes. Although it is a different kind of knowledge, faith is open to the findings and hypotheses of the sciences. A Christian can accept the theory of evolution as a helpful explanatory model, provided he does not fall into the heresy of evolutionism, which views man as the random product of biological processes.
The most egregious parts of YouCat are those which address the issues of sexuality, specifically homosexuality. The bottom line is, YouCat does not treat homosexuality as even a serious condition, much less a sinful state of existence. But YouCat’s teaching is subtle. Note these words in Paragraph 65:
There is no man on earth who is not descended from a union of a mother and father. Therefore it is a painful experience for many homosexually oriented people that they do not feel erotically attracted to the opposite sex and necessarily miss out on the physical fruitfulness of the union between man and woman according to human nature and the divine order of creation. Nevertheless, God often leads souls to himself along unusual paths: A lack, a loss, or a wound—if accepted and affirmed—can become a springboard for throwing oneself into the arms of God. -http://www.faithfulanswers.com/youcat-catechism-weak-on-homosexuality-contraception-euthanasia-evolution-and-scripture/
The Catholic Study Bible was designed for advanced students of the Scriptures by today's top Catholic scholars.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Catholic-Study-Bible-American/dp/0195283929
Indeed some aspects of the story cannot be historical. The sheer magnitude of the event, that the firstborn male of every Egyptian household died, that the entire Egyptian army pursued the Israelites to the sea and were subsequently drowned; that the number of Israelites who escaped from Egypt were 603,550 men of fighting age, not counting Levites, old men, women, and children, renders it historically impossible.
If this is the case then the Passover did not happen either. For if it is not possible for God to move against the first born of the Egyptians, then what is the point of the Passover account.....and Passover itself?
If you follow catholic logic then the catholic has to bring into question the rest of the Biblical account....of everything....and I mean everything.
Was Moses real?
Was Abraham real?
Isaac?
David?
Solomon?
Adam?
Eve?
The list could go on and on.
It renders Luke who wrote in Acts 7:36-41 as a liar. You might as well lump Paul in there as well.
If this reflects what today's "top" catholic scholars can come up with, I'm beginning to understand the problems with catholicism.
The ignorance and disbelief is stunning.