May 5, 2006

All Your Base Are Belong to Us
Everett

Farlas, not having a KJV ready to hand, I have to rely upon the verses you provided, and the verses you provided seem to me to support reading of Genesis 2:18-19 from the NAB. The sequence of events laid out in the KJV states that the animals were formed and brought to the Adam, not that the animals were formed prior to Adam's creation and then brought to him only after he was created. My interpretation of the verses you provide does not necessarily follow from them, but it seems to me the most logical one. Your interpretation holds up better in the NIV than it does in the KJV (which I've honestly never thought to be particularly authoritative). Also, you haven't addressed the problems raised by verses 4-7.

Interestingly, you've stumbled upon a literary reading of Genesis 2:19 that is not undermined by evolution.

If you accept (St.) Anselm's definition of God as that than which a greater cannot be thought, then I think it safe to conclude that your fundamental objection to evolution is that if it is true, God is not really God, much as I suspected it would be based upon my discussions others who hold views of evolution similar to yours. I don't know that I can convince you that this is not necessarily the case, but I can ask you to consider that perhaps I am right.

Now, as you know from the encounter between Moses and God at the burning bush and as Christ reaffirmed at his trial before the Sanhedrin, God is. That is to say, borrowing from St. Augustine, that God exists in one perfect act of being. All of His thought and His actions and the whole of creation are contained within that one act. Furthermore, because all of His actions and creation are contained within that one act, they are perfectly accomplished. Now, it follows from this that everything happens because God somehow wills it to happen, and because God's will is perfectly accomplished, everything that happens leads to the perfect accomplishment of God's will. Furthermore, the accomplishment of God's will does not depend upon how particular events unfold in creation because God's will transcends creation. This holds true irrespective of whether or not the first two chapters of Genesis are meant to be taken literally. More importantly, it holds true irrespective of whether or not evolution is true. If life evolved from organic chemicals which evolved into the organisms which are alive today, then God's will is perfectly accomplished through this.

From what I gather of your understanding of the theological implications of the potential truth of evolution, you reject evolution because to accpet it would be to look into the abyss: into chaos and nothingness, into oblivion. The fear to do so is understandable, but it must be done because in facing the abyss it is possible to move from the cowardice of superstition to the courage of faith. Christianity does not reject the abyss as a mere illusion: It offers a place of refuge from it, the assurance that we will not be claimed by the tumult swirling around us. This is the lesson of Luke 8:22-25, when Jesus calms the storm on the lake: Christ is greater than the abyss. Indeed, it is subject to His authority.

I realize that wasn't exactly a defense of evolution, but it wasn't meant to be, at least not directly. My point was merely that if the reason you cannot accept the possibility that evolution is true is the fear of the abyss that you seem to have articulated, the proper course of action is not to reject the possibility out of hand but to face the abyss and know that God is God in all possible circumstances, even if it doesn't look like it. The death and resurrection of Christ make that clear.

Is it inappropriate to refer to the Pope as the supreme pastor? Simply put, no. Let's look at why.

John 6:53-56 reads, "Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to , unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.'" In John 21, Jesus instructs Peter to feed His sheep. Now the word pastor derives from the Latin word pascere, which means "to feed." Thus, the role of the pastor is to feed the flock. In this case, the food is the Body of Christ, and the flock is the Church. The Pope, as head of the Church is responsible for feeding Christ to the entire Church. Therefore, he is the supreme pastor.

What does it mean to say that the Church is apostolic? If you look at the Nicene Creed, you will see that the Church is described as being one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. These characteristics are called the marks of the Church. Ultimately, the Church is said to be apostolic because the duty to feed Christ to His flock, both sacramentally and doctrinally falls to the apostles and their successors. The teaching authority of follows from their duty to ensure that Christ's flock is able to live in Christ, for as 1 John 2:3-4 says, "The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments. Whoever says 'I know him,' but does not keep his commandments is a liar." Thus, Christ gave to Peter, as well as the other apostles when acting in concert with Peter, the grace by which they should not lead the flock to sin by their teaching. As this grace was given to the apostles by Christ, so it is theirs to hand on to their successors. Thus, the successors to Peter and the apostles have the same authority as their predecessors.

Lastly, I mentioned that the passages I quoted from the Catechism were rooted in Scripture not as an attempt to to demonstrate their truth ipso facto but simply to point out that they weren't cut from whole cloth.