April 25, 2006

Things of God and Men
Everett

Farlas, which Bible am I reading? Actually, I have two ready to hand: the New American Bible and the New International Version. In the New American Bible, the contradiction between a literal reading of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is apparent when the account of Genesis 1 is contrasted with what is stated in Genesis 2:18-19:

"The Lord God said 'It is not good for man to be alone, I will make a suitable partner for him.' So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various bords of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name."

The NIV reads somewhat differently, saying "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." at the beginning of verse 19. However, the contradiction cannot be avoided entirely. Indeed, Genesis 2:4-7 in the NIV reads:

"When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

This directly contradicts the order of creation laid out in Genesis 1, where man is the capstone of God's creation. If you can resolve these contradictions without creating others, you're a better Scripture scholar than I.

As an aside to the whole evolution-Creationism debate, Farlas, what, in your mind, would be the consequence of evolution being shown to be correct?

Also, you say that it "is incredibly foreign to think that a council, a couple hundred years ago, dictates what pepole think." It certainly is, but you also mischaracterize (understandably) the role of Church councils, ostensibly because you fail to appreciate the apostolic character of the Catholic Church (much of which I suspect you'd find problemmatic). Paragraph 857 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads:

"The Church is apostolic because she is founded upon the apostles in three ways:
-she was and remains built on the "foundation of the apostles," the witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;
-with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching, the "good deposit," the salutary words she heard from the apostles;
-she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ's return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, "assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church's supreme pastor":
'You are the eternal Shepherd
who never leaves his flock untended.
Through the apostles
you watch over us and protect us always.
You made them shepherds of your flock
to share in the work of your Son . . ..'"

From the mark of apostolicity derives the teaching authority of the bishops in concert with the successor of Peter (i.e. the Pope). Paragraphs 888-892 read:

"Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task 'to preach the Gospel of God to all men,' in keeping with the Lord's command. They are 'heralds of faith who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers' of the apostolic faith 'endowed with the authority of Christ.'

"In order to preserve the CHurch in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a 'supernatural sense of faith' the People of god, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium [the college of bishops], 'unfailingly adheres to this faith.'

"The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the truth without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christendowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters oif faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

"'The Roman Pontiff, head of then college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful- who confirms his brethren in the faith- he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith oir morals. . . .The infallibilty promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,' above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed,' and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.' This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

"Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a 'definitive manner,' they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful 'are to adhere to it with religious assent' which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."

More simply put, the Church's teaching authority is not so much interested in telling people what to think as in stating the Truth as ordained by God the Father; revealed by Christ; and discerned by the Holy Spirit. Because the Truth is the Truth, no matter how long ago it was discovered, there is nothing strange about regarding a source as authoritative simply because it's old. I am Catholic because I believe that the fullness of Truth subsists in the Catholic Church. I am free to think what I want, even if it is not in accord with what the Church teaches, but if I dissent from a teaching of the Church my beliefs on that issue are not Catholic. Indeed, if my dissent is severe enough, it can be argued that I am no longer in communion with the Church, which is why I felt the need to remind Annatar of the Church's teaching on the Eucharist, "the source and summit of the Christian life." (CCC para 1324)

Incidentally, everything I've quoted from the Catechism is rooted in the Scriptures.

What of Martin Luther? When push comes to shove, I think he was wrong theologically on many things (there were many practical abuses that had to be addressed) and that he could have done more good had he been less ham-fisted. Furthermore, it will take a miracle to repair the damage his revolt has done to Christian unity. On the other hand, he was a brilliant theologian whose actions had graver consequences than he had planned (He is said to have remarkesd that he would rather have drunken blood with the Papists than wine with the Zwinglists.). Also, the amount of practical unity being achieved among Christians of varying denominations and the high-level ecumenical dialogue that has been going on in the time since Vatican II are great testament to the power of God to turn all things to the good. Ultimately, I disagree with him on many doctrinal issues, but as with us, what unites us is greater than what divides us.

John Paul the Great is indeed John Paul II. The title of Great is bestowed by popular acclaim, so I'm doing my part to see that he is recognized as such.

Lastly, you didn't really cut me when you asked Annatar about St. Basil, but not me. I was merely being facetious.

Annatar, I'm glad you found my last post helpful.

I'd also be interested in hearing why you think things are simple, especially considering things like quantum mechanics, biology, astronomy, economics, subatomic particles, etc. which are incredibly complex. For my part, I tend to think things alternate between layers of simplicity and complexity, i.e. simple things combine to form a complex whole which then combine to form something simple, etc.

Moving on to issues of war and peace, the question that has to be answered before the moral legitimacy of war can be ascertained is What is the purpose of government? No matter whether you subscribe to the notion that authority derives from God or from the consent of the governed (or both, in my case), the purpose of government is to secure peace, order, and the liberties of those within its borders and its citizens abroad. The threats to peace, order and liberty are either domestic or foreign. If the threat is domestic, the state has the right to do what is necessary to secure the peace, order and liberty, including imprisonment of rebels and suppression of insurrection.* If the threat is foreign, the government has the right to take necessary action in order to secure peace, order and liberty, including, as the final resort, the right to wage war.

In other words, war may only be waged as the last means to secure the peace. What's more, I agree completely with John Paul the Great that war is always a failure for humanity.

As for capital punishment, I've never had strong a strong opinion about it one way or the other, but I went from being moderately in favor of it in certain circumstances to moderately opposed to it except when necessary to preserve the right social order as result of the piece linked to below:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0508/articles/bottum.html

Opalys, it's good to know that you're doing better. According to my web browser, I did click on your thank you post, though I can't recall having read it. Not sure why, but in any event you're quite welcome. I wish could have done more, but I'm honored to have been able to be of service, if only in a small way. Also, there's no reason to be sorry for not jumping in on the Biblical discussions. I'd be interested to read what you think, but you're not under any obligation to take part. Maybe you can bring us back around to Tolkien, thus succeeding where I failed.

*If the state itself is the threat to peace, order and liberty, the citizens of a country have the right to remedy this through any necessary means.