A Working Definition of God

[text=red]Deleted content of this reply to an off-topic message that contained a specific request to not reply. --Admin[/text]

This message has been edited by Admin, 04-21-2005 03:47 PM

Here is one key reason why evangelical Protestantism has such a problem with evolutionary science, whereas Catholicism does not.For in Catholicism, the Fall refers only to a primordial loss of sanctifying grace by humanity. The physical effects asserted by evanagelicals, as above, are contrary to the Catholic understanding of Scripture, as well as refuted by Catholic Tradition (cf. Augustine, Aquinas, through Benedict XVI while heading the International Theological Commission) and also by the external scientific evidence that the fundamental physical laws of the universe have remained unchanged for billions of years before humans arrived on the scene. Quite so. Once locked into Sola Scriptura, one is painted into a corner on many issues, including but hardly limited to scientific issues.

By no means. I follow the Catholic interpretation of this verse (that the death referred to is spiritual death, not physical death), not the (some) evangelical Protestant (s) mis-interpretation. That's just it. Your argument is based on erroneous premises. Physical death did not come into the world as a result of original sin. It was here already. I won't begrudge you your fideistic spirituality, but you'll find difficulty convincing the hard-headed rationalists on this board I think. Heck, I have difficulty, and I'm on the E side of the EvC debate.

At least as far back as St. Augustine, and probably back to the time of St. Clement, ie. the second or third century AD. Note that this is before the canon of Scripture was established. It doesn't interperet the patriarchal ages literally. There are inconsistencies in these in the earliest manuscripts anyaway.

While you've pointed out some fine distinctions here, what it boils down to in the context of the EvC issue is that the Protestant assertion of the Fall effecting radical wholesale changes in the physical universe (not restriced to humans) is not supported in Catholic teaching. Nor does it hold up under external evidence. As Catholics, we need not and should not fall prey to fideism.As to common ground with Protestants, although I advocate finding this where possible (and on many issues it is) , I must admit I am relatively unconcerned with supporting specifically Protestant apologetics issues at the cost of supporting concepts (either scientific or philosphical) which do not hold up under scrutiny. The EvC issue IMO falls into this category.

You're overgeneralizing physical death (in the human sense) into physical death in the universal sense.

Not quite. Nonhuman death occurred before human original sin. Human oroginal sin occurred. Humans now die.Your scenario is a counterfactual, since it didn't happen. In CCC #390 we read, "The account of the Fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. "We are splitting hairs. And Faith's assertion that Catholic doctrine supports her hyperliteralism and YEC fails.

A few points:1) Karl Keating's Website is not a Papal encyclical or conciliar document or even a document produced by a Vatican theological commission. He's entitled to his opinions, and he's certainly well informed on many issues, but he's a still a layman like you or I, and his opinions must be treated as such.2) I'm not advocating polygenism. There is no scientific evidence regarding the initial ensoulment of humans, and the questions is almost certainly not amenable to scientific investigation. However Pope Pius XII (IMO) did not out and out condemn it - he said it was by no means clear how it could be reconcliled with dogma, IIRC. A fine, but significant distinction. The distinction between difficult and impossible. I agree that original sin and its inheritance is de fide. There is, however, a distinction between two human parents in the sense of fully modern (morphologically, and even in sentience) homo sapiens, and two in the sense of ensouled and subsequently fallen. If A&E are indeed de fide, it is in the latter sense IMO.That's why I say this is hairsplitting.I recommend a look at the International Theological Commission document "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God" ( I linked to this in a couple of other threads).Paragraph 70 seems to leave the door open a crack to polygenism: Keep in mind that this document came out last year, and was signed off on by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who had the authority to alter the language if he thought it needed altering. Agreed,and that's not what I am advocating here. Original sin is de fide. We agree on that. Of course. No offense taken. I think you're overemphazizing what I see as a very fine distinction at best. But no big deal.

I don't think I can make it much clearer. The distinction is between the ensoulment and fall of two individuals from a population of fully modern homo sapiens, and the emergence of two fully modern homo sapiens , not yet ensouled or fallen, from a population of proto-human hominids, followed by ensoulment and fall. IMO either option is possible. You seem to think only the latter is, if I am understanding you correctly. I'm not seeing it, if we grant that Genesis uses figurative language to affirm a primeval historical event, which I thought we did. I think it's possible our understanding of the document differs, but only in fine distinction. You aren't demanding YEC, and I am not demanding Teilhard de Chardin's theology. So what are we arguing about ?

Like M.D. , I think it's inappropriate to label someone with pejoratives who is only enaging in presenting a Calvinist Fundamentalist Protestant perspective.Unlike M.D. , I see Calvinist Fundamentalist Protestantism as a distinctly different religion from Catholicism that happens to feature Christ as a character, much like I see Mormonism. Therefore I'm much less sympathetic to its views than M.D. But you have the right to argue them and hold them.I don't think you're doing a particularly good job of convincing the skeptics, if that's your objective. You might want to evaluate whether your tactics are effective.I wonder if M.D. is an ex-evangelical convert to Catholicism, his style of argument and use of terminology is somewhat suggestive of this.

Evangelicals tend to look for "proof-texts" in the Scriptures to support their positions. Converts often carry this style of argument over into their Catholicism, except they expand their use of proof-texts to Catholic sources (including the CCC, selections from Papal/concilar documents, etc.)This is often fine as far as it goes, but it often misses the point that Catholic theology is much more complex than that and draws on a huge volume of material. Piecing together what the canonical teaching is on certain issues looks much more like constitutional law, or even science ("go to the professional literature") than the evangelical style of argument takes into account.That is why these sorts of discussions must always keep in mind the caution that we're laymen, and amateurs. The Church has the final prerogative of stating what is de fide and what isn't, and, as you know, there is development of doctrine over time.I think your assertions about the A&E issue, in my layman's opinion, go beyond what the Magisterium mandates as de fide.I've heard opinions similar to my own from theologians and priests, and Rome, or their local bishops, have declined to censure them. Rome,and local bishops, have also declined to censure those Catholics who, IMO, display excessive sympathy for the Intelligent Design theory, which in my (amateur) opinion is not necessary to the Catholic teaching on man, and in my (professional) opinion is bad science.So both viewpoints apparently remain in what the Church considers a permissible gray area.

A caution: you're apparently quoting from sources (Nevard, Keane) that are bordering on being disobedient to Rome from the ultraconservative end. The "More Catholic than the Pope types". This is as grave an error as the excessive theological liberalism, although often not recognized as such.