The Courage to be Catholic

And here is Amerigo Vespucci, for whom America is named.

A Catholic.

And did he believe in evolution too?

I own a book with an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat that makes the Catholic case for YEC.

I also know that the Catholic Church currently supports the theory of evolution.

I also know that the Catholic Church doesn't claim to be expert on things scientific so whereas it has not changed its opinion on important areas of morality and theology, it has modified its positions with regard to scientific theories.

There is nothing hypocritical about this.

I used to be a YEC myself. And a big part of why I was YEC was because of the implications for Biblical inerrancy.

However, I quickly found that however much various Protestants claimed to be reading the Bible strictly, in many cases they were having to perform some interpretation to get at the "truth" they were aiming at. And since various Protestant sects have various interpretations of scriptures it is obvious that no one can forcefully claim to be the one and only person or sect to be reading the Bible strictly and without interpretation.

I also realized that the Bible was not handed down in one piece from God but was collected over several years by the early Church. Different books had to be vetted in order to be included or excluded from the Scriptures. And I'm not just talking about what is referred to as the Apocrypha.

Fundamentalism is too simplistic and out of touch with reality. Liberal Protestantism is too faddish and clinging to the material world. Catholicism is the via media between these and other extremes.

I own a book with an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat that makes the Catholic case for YEC.

I also know that the Catholic Church currently supports the theory of evolution.

Which is why creationists and total inerrantists are no longer welcome within its ranks.

I also know that the Catholic Church doesn't claim to be expert on things scientific so whereas it has not changed its opinion on important areas of morality and theology, it has modified its positions with regard to scientific theories.

Well isn't that some fancy obfuscation? Just what makes you think that cosmology and cosmogony are totally independent of theology? You must have a very blinkered "gxd." Is he even conscious of his own existence, or is he some sort of blind force?

It's a bad idea for an organization that claims to be "unchanged and unchanging" to modify its positions on anything. But you apparently don't see that. And in case you were unaware, some Catholics are now appealing to this very "modification of scientific views" to call for the teaching on homosexuality to be changed. And btw . . . do you believe impossible, unscientific fairy tales like the virgin birth? If you get your cosmology and cosmogony (and Biblical hermeneutic) from scientists, why don't you let them interpret the "virgin birth" for you too? Or is that somehow more "intellectual" and less embarrassing than the first eleven chapters of Genesis?

There is nothing hypocritical about this.

Look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary. You'll find its picture.

I used to be a YEC myself. And a big part of why I was YEC was because of the implications for Biblical inerrancy.

Which you obviously no longer believe in, else you couldn't have joined a dogmatically evolutionist church. Never mind that as recently as Vatican II it was affirmed that the Bible must be inerrant on every subject whatsoever and not just "faith and morals." The Church has changed its mind about this too.

However, I quickly found that however much various Protestants claimed to be reading the Bible strictly, in many cases they were having to perform some interpretation to get at the "truth" they were aiming at. And since various Protestant sects have various interpretations of scriptures it is obvious that no one can forcefully claim to be the one and only person or sect to be reading the Bible strictly and without interpretation.

What has that got to do with it? I'm not a Protestant. I don't accept sola scriptura. I'm not even a chrstian. But if G-d says something, doesn't if have to be so? I find your "new testament" inerrancy while consigning the "old" to "myth" to be not only hypocritical, but full of biases which your own blindness prevents you from seeing.

For your information, there is an authentic, ancient, oral interpretive tradition for the Bible. But unlike yours, it doesn't deny the latter's inerrancy or historicity. But thanks for confessing that anti-inerrancy and anti-literalism is a stupid and totally unnecessary way of showing loyalty to an official oral interpretation.

I also realized that the Bible was not handed down in one piece from God but was collected over several years by the early Church.

First, it isn't the Church that compiled the Bible. Second, you obviously know absolutely nothing about how the Bible was handed down. There are innumerable rules and laws (not found written in the Bible itself, as a matter of fact) which assure that every single kosher Torah scroll in the world is an accurate copy of the first scrolls written by Moses (at G-d's letter-by-letter dictation), and before that, of the First Torah Scroll written by G-d in letters of black fire on a scroll of white fire 974 generations before the Creation. No church knows the first thing about these rules. By rejecting this immemorial and uninterrupted tradition (which has existed in an unbroken line), all chrstians are "Protestants."

Different books had to be vetted in order to be included or excluded from the Scriptures. And I'm not just talking about what is referred to as the Apocrypha.

The Torah is the ultimate Word of G-d in its purest and most perfect form. It has never at any time been canonized by any human authority. Only the Prophets and Writings had to be vetted and canonized, which they were by the 'Anshei HaKeneset HaGedolah before chrstianity even existed. And by the way, in what universe does the vetting and compilation of inspired writings mean that they must be riddled with falsehoods, mistakes, and inaccuracies?

Fundamentalism is too simplistic and out of touch with reality.

Because G-d isn't powerful enough to have created the world in six days. He could only do the miracles described in the "new testament"--right?

Liberal Protestantism is too faddish and clinging to the material world.

Then why do Catholics and Orthodox have so many ecumenical meetings with liberal Protestants?

Catholicism is the via media between these and other extremes.

In other words, is a total cop-out.

Two things are obvious here. (1 Catholics today assume that denial of total Biblical inerrancy must follow necessarily from a rejection of sola scriptura (which is nonsense). 2)The Catholic Church is not in fact a universal church for all people. It is a church for intellectuals and snobs who are too smart to believe that G-d could have done any of that stuff described in the Hebrew Bible (why you think He could do the stuff described in the "new testament" is a complete mystery).

You obviously joined the Catholic Church precisely because you reject total Biblical inerrancy (which is still, ironically enough, on the books as the official Catholic doctrine). I have also noticed other people who join the Catholic Church because they no longer want to be thought of as inbred rednecks (why inbred Mayan peasants are any better is never explained). You must hold that G-d created the Fundamentalist Protestant churches for those people who lack the towering intellect (and hypocrisy) to be Catholic. Poor me. I thought it was the one true religion for everybody. No wonder I was asked to leave.

Not only will no total inerrantist ever join your Church, you have to admit that you don't want them to.

I didn't join the Church. I was born into it. While attending college I joined what claimed to be a Christian group in a broad sense, but ended up being a born again Christian group in specific. They were welcoming at first, but when I refused to budge from Catholicism I was encouraged to leave.

Sorry for assuming you were a Protestant. I don't know of any Jews that believe in YEC so I just assumed you were a member of a Christian Zionist church.

God has given us the scientific method and it has opened up a lot more avenues in cosmology than deep readings of the Bible. We can land a spaceship on Mars or even on a tiny asteroid thanks to the scientific method. The Catholic Church realizes this. Also, it's news to me that the Catholic Church decreed at Vatican II that it is now all-knowing on all topics and that every Christian must agree with all statements made by the Church or Pope even when not spoken ex cathedra.

Have you seen this material on The Flood? Have you seen any good counterarguments? I would be interested.

Yes AronRa is rude and a freak, but he makes some good points