Posted on 09/17/2011 5:52:41 AM PDT by marshmallow
Are believers-by-birth less motivated witnesses?
Do converts to the faith make better evangelists than "cradle Catholics"? Pope Benedict XVI seems to think so. Christians since childhood should "ask forgiveness," the pope told a group of his former theological students recently, "because we bring so little of the light of [Christ's] face to others, and emanate so feebly the certainty that he is, he is present and he is the great and complete reality that we are all awaiting."
But are Catholics "by birth"—or any believers raised in a religious tradition—indeed less-convincing witnesses, or less motivated, than are converts? Do they have a greater responsibility to live up to the tenets of the faith since they have known Christ from their earliest years? And are they a bigger disappointment to the Mother Church—and the world—when they come up short?
Benedict himself would certainly qualify as a "cradle Catholic." Joseph Ratzinger was born at home, early on the morning of Holy Saturday in April 1927, into the all-encompassing Catholic culture of small-town Bavaria. Within a few hours of his birth, the infant's mother bundled him up and trudged through an early spring snow to have him baptized at the village parish—the first step on a long but in some ways commonplace life of faith, at least in that day and age.
"I am a perfectly ordinary Christian," he once said of himself, with characteristic modesty. Yet it's hard to argue that Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope, has been anything less than enthusiastic in preaching the gospel. He entered the seminary while still an adolescent and rose from priest to cardinal to pope.
But is that enough? Over the past 2,000 years, two narratives have competed in the Christian imagination: the ideal of the child raised in a Christian home, growing steadily in faith...........
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Considering that they would also have the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox (Syrians, Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, and Malankaras), and the non-Ephesians (Assyrians and Mellusians) to choose from, that is a ridiculous statement.
By the way, the church fathers were not only creationist--they were geocentrist as well.
Yes, and they are persona non grata.
Perhaps you didn't catch the link to an article by Paula Haigh, Catholic creationist extraordinaire, earlier in this thread?
Who was the father, Mr. The-Laws-Of-Nature-Are-Immutable?
Similarly, God created life and all life related processes including theistic evolution and then used those processes that He created to bring forth man. No hypocrisy, no illogic, no heresy.
Seems to me then that you wouldn't want to claim the church fathers at all, since they were creationists and geocentrists. Maybe they were "trailer park Baptists?"
I do not hate those of you who have chosen a fringe sect to set yourself apart from the rest of the world out, but I do pity you.
Pretty pathetic coming from a member of a johnny-come-lately religion (only two millenia old) that has changed its mind about scriptural interpretation so many times since its creationist, geocentrist founders.
Well, here's one of your evolutionist co-religionists, mas. Are you going to say something or keep quiet?
Now THAT was an ignorant statement!
Klan apologetics is a new low even for the Religion Forum. There are some theories that the Second Klan of the 1920 was more anti-Catholic (because there were more Catholics following the influx of immigrants from Catholic countries in the 1870-1890's, but that is wrong. Catholics trouughout the South in the Reconstruction period were largely immigrants, carpetbaggers, and Republicans.
The Church Fathers did not envision electricity, computers, the splitting of the atom, vaccinations, organ transplants, chemo therapy, or human flight either. The Church sought to explain what the state of science of the time could not. Besides, only a liar would suggest that the Church disputes THAT God created the universe and everything in it.
Done and done. I had troubles with the sudden shift in discussion, starting on page 12 with Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson, away from evolution per se and towards that of "the religion of the Antichrist". But despite that shift, there is little debate that the Catholic Church has wholeheartedly embraced the evolutionary model a priori over and above the Genesis account, requiring only the token addition of a "divine spark" to baptise atheistic evolutionary theory into divine history, much as it purportedly changed a beast into the Image of God:
There was no debate then, in 1950 [i.e. in the encyclical Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII], nor very much before that, over the evolution of the human body from apelike creatures. And certainly none since has been allowed mainly because both before and after 1950, the acceptance of human evolution – as long as God did it and infused the human soul at the appropriate moment – was quite strongly entrenched. I attribute this astonishing situation to the fact that Vatican Council One failed to condemn evolution as a heresy contradicting Scripture but succeeded in defining the dogma of Papal Infallibility.It is no wonder then, that the Catholic Church can simultaneously claim that the whole of Scripture is inspired, and yet individual words aren't:
While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said........The commission of biblical scholars, an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, met at the Vatican May 2-6 to continue discussions about “Inspiration and Truth in the Bible”....
....In his message, the Pope said clearer explanations about the Catholic position on the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible were important because some people seem to treat the Scriptures simply as literature, while others believe that each line was dictated by the Holy Spirit and is literally true. Neither position is Catholic, the Pope said.
-- from the thread How to Read the Bible as a Catholic
In both cases God is the "Genitor".
"Pretty pathetic coming from a member of a johnny-come-lately religion (only two millenia old) that has changed its mind about scriptural interpretation so many times since its creationist, geocentrist founders."
We trace our faith directly to the Adam, establish by a God who has changed His covenants with man as He chose to Reveal the Word. The New and Everlasting Covenant was revealed to man only two millenia ago by the Word made flesh. Do try to keep up.
Do you trace your faith back another five minutes in history, to "the Monkey" before it got zapped with the Divine Spark and magically changed species into "the Adam"?
BTW, how did the Old Covenant operate between Adam and Man? Were not the OT Saints saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, just as we are?
Divine spark? Are you implying Catholicism is gnostic?
On a previous occasion I posted to you:
I do not remember seeing Catholics represent evolution and high criticism as Church teaching. Ping me next time you see a post like that I will respond, time permitting.
In this thread I see Natural Law apparently arguing that one can simultaneously believe in evolution and the inerrancy of scripture. Of course I disagree, but I have not seen him go so far as to represent evolution as part of Church teaching. It seems to me that he is just reflexively defending against what he perceives to be and attack upon the Church.
I think it is possible for a Christian to innocently believe in evolution through ignorance. Most people are not constitutionally capable of accepting that the scientific establishment would intentionally perpetrate such a colossal fraud upon the general public. Disbelief in evolution has never, to my knowledge, been declared a dogmatic requirement of the Faith by any Church council or pope. Perhaps it will be some day, but for now I can hardly accuse of Natural Law of heresy for his modest arguments on this thread.
There is too much direct heresy floating around these days for me to be overly focused on derivative side issues like theistic evolution.
“Now let me take a great big guess here and posit that you in fact interpret each and every episode I have just mentioned literally.”
Of course.
“Let me further posit that the one and only thing in the entire Bible you dismiss as “theological parables” are the first eleven chapters of Genesis.”
That is most certainly not correct.
“It’s because the Catholic Church hypocritically accepts some miracles (which “just can’t happen”) while rejecting the first eleven chapters of Genesis which are not one bit more impossible than any “new testament miracle.”
I don’t say that God *could* not have created everything in six twenty-four hour days. I say that He *chose* to create the universe in a way that left the fossil record and everything that astrophysics has discovered.
“the Catholic Church has no use for white trash. Do you want me to tell you why I believe they refused to speak to my mother? Do I really have to tell you that?”
I deeply regret that you ran into people who acted like that, but they were *people,* not the church.
“just as the idea of Catholicism being “unchanged and unchangeable” is also an illusion.”
No matter what the Church’s enemies within may say, the core of Catholicism remains unchanged. St. Peter, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Joan—all would recognize it. Those Catholics who say it has changed are either fools or liars.
“it destests people like me and my mother and everything we believe in.”
I am a Catholic, and a redneck. I got sunstroke at 5 picking strawberries in the red Oklahoma dirt. I’ve killed more water moccasins than most people have had hot dinners. I’ve rebuilt my own car from the ground up, and worked as a mechanic. I’m still waiting for these “Dual Survivor” shows to tell me something I didn’t learn as a child. I listen to (good) country music (in addition to a number of other genres). I’ve done more skinny-dipping in farm ponds than I have swum in pools. I’ve been at four-generation dinners where the only thing on the table that was store-bought was coffee and tea.
I do not detest people like you and your mother, nor the things you believe in. I do not ridicule. I do not feel superior (except in red-neckitude). And there are a lot more people like me than there are like those you apparently ran into. We don’t sit around and talk about protestants and how messed up they are. You could go years without the subject even coming up.
“It even rejects parts of “its own” Bible because “the wrong kind of people” believe in them!”
Not true at all. We do not reject parts of the Bible; we read them differently from you. We do that not for the reason you give, but because (and somebody please jump on me if I misstate this) God is the ultimate Reality, the source of all Reality and Truth; therefore, it is impossible that the Bible could contradict the truth.
Saint Augustine held that if religious teachings are found to contradict certain direct observations about the natural world, then it is obligatory to re-evaluate either the interpretation of the scientific facts or the understanding of the scriptures. It is true that the universe is, by our standards, old. Does that contradict the Bible? No. Ergo, the word “days” in the account of creation is allegorical.
“Read—or at least skim—the Paula Haigh article and get back with me.”
Okay. May take me a while. I accomplish so little in a day now.
“Since you and the Pope don’t believe in “original sin,” why are you Catholics?”
I have not yet seen anything to make me think that His Holiness doesn’t believe in Original Sin aside from your assertions.
“Or if the “unchanging church” no longer believes in original sin, what is its justification for existence?”
The Church certainly believes in Original Sin, and needs no justification for its existence. It is the supernatural bride of Christ, established by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself while He walked the Earth.
I hope you are not implying that theistic evolution is Catholic doctrine. The Church stipulates that life originated through God's action, not that God used evolution to originate life.
AM's point is valid. If you argue in favor of evolution while simultaneously claiming to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, it is fair to ask you how this could have happened. Were the parents of Adam and Eve non-human apes? What about their siblings? The children of Adam and Eve would presumably be able to procreate with their non-human co-species members. Would the offspring of a human and ape-man possess a human soul? Were all members of this ape-man species infused with a human soul along with Adam and Eve? Where are the fossils of this theological missing link?
If theistic evolution really made sense, you would be able to defend the idea on its own merits instead of resorting to an attempt to discredit its critics by implying that they are anti-Catholic.
I have not claimed (Theistic) Evolution to be Church teaching, only that it is not incompatible with Church teaching. As Cardinal Ratzinger so eloquently stated:
"Difference Between Form and Content"
"One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time -- from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring. Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing: God created the world."
First, let us all recognize and appreciate that this is probably the first post from you that appears to be in your own words and is not some cut and paste, out of context excerpt or GIF from another post, thread or website. After reading it I can understand your reluctance to articulate your own thoughts.
Now, really, Alex, are you claiming that in your version of Genesis that God did not create all other creatures, including monkeys, BEFORE man?
"BTW, how did the Old Covenant operate between Adam and Man? Were not the OT Saints saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, just as we are?"
Why don't you explain what you think the "bosom of Abraham" (Limbus Patrum) really was and exactly who Jesus liberated from Hell in His journey there?
This thesis is one of the craziest that I have ever seen.
It ranks up there with when a liberal told me that America was opposed to communist Cuba, because we were jealous of its success and high standard of living.
No need to reply, but here's a ton of links for reference:
The Catholic Priest Praised by Einstein for Explaining the Universe
Catholicism and evolution: Are they contradictory?
Pope: Humanity isn't random product of evolution
God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope
Pope praises science, but insists God created world
The Problem of Polygenism in Accepting the Theory of Evolution [Catholic Msgr. Charles Pope]
Radio Replies Second Volume - Creation and Evolution
A meeting of religion and science: Sister Frances Zajac sees no conflict in her callings
Atheist says that Church accepts darwinism [Catholic Caucus]
Let Science Be Science and Faith Be Faith
Creationists, Intelligent Design Advocates Blast Vatican for Not Inviting Them to Evo Conference
Catholics on Evolution (Ecumenical)
Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design
Catholic universities plan scientific examination of evolutionary theory
God made pre-humans into people, Vatican newspaper says [Open]
How a Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang Theory
Evangelicals should follow Catholic example on evolution
Austrian cardinal says Darwinism should be studied as science
The Sense that it is True that Six-Day Creationism is Paganism
Creationist Defends Bible-Based Science Against Vatican Astronomer's Criticism
Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design'
AM's point is valid. If you argue in favor of evolution while simultaneously claiming to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, it is fair to ask you how this could have happened. Were the parents of Adam and Eve non-human apes? What about their siblings? The children of Adam and Eve would presumably be able to procreate with their non-human co-species members. Would the offspring of a human and ape-man possess a human soul? Were all members of this ape-man species infused with a human soul along with Adam and Eve? Where are the fossils of this theological missing link?...from this:
Do you trace your faith back another five minutes in history, to "the Monkey" before it got zapped with the Divine Spark and magically changed species into "the Adam"?You perfectly articulated my argument on the first try - thank you!
The Church is different from all other institutions in that her teaching is not ultimately determined by men. If a priest, bishop, or even pope says that Jesus did not rise from the dead, such a statement would not become doctrine because no human being has the authority to contradict previously established infallible doctrine.
Not even the most liberal of cardinals and popes have dared to join the atheists in promoting evolution to the level of dogma. The most that liberal high officials have dared to say is the belief in evolution is not prohibited. This is technically correct since there is no previously defined dogma on the theory of evolution. A failure to teach truth is not the same as teaching error. The Church has always been very slow and cautious at defining new doctrines. (Vatican II was not cautious but it did not genuinely define anything new.)
In light of Church history, one is justified in having faith that such oversight and scientific illiteracy will be corrected once the Holy Spirit takes action and once the voice of genuine scientists is allowed to be heard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.