From: RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com (Aengus Lawlor)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Celts-Christianity-Catholicism
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:51:48 GMT
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In article <14OCT92.16255481@enh.nist.gov>, downey@enh.nist.gov says:
>
>I wrote earlier:
>>Creationism is taught from the
>>Bible, and the Bible is the "holy word" and the ruling
>>authority for Christianity, historically.  I was attempting
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>From:  mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
>>>The Bible is full of metaphor, and comes from a culture which
>>>loved myth and metaphor. Right from the very start of
>>>Christianity (I'm sorry I can't give quotations from the early
>>>Church fathers, but they exist) the idea that the creation
>>>story was literally true rather than a metaphor is discounted.
>
>   I disagree.  Right from the very beginning?  I think not.
>   Darwin's theory of evolution appeared around 1864 according
>   to the dictionary.  That's a long way from "the beginning"
>   of Christianity.  During the early 20th century (I think),
>   a great debate raged about whether to teach creationism
>   or evolution in public school here in America.
Laura, be careful here. Matthew never said that the early church leaders
taught evolution. He said they taught that the story of creation is not
necessarily literally true, but a metaphor. You are assuming that their
is a straight choice between Biblical Creationism and Darwinian Evolution.
I'm sure the ancient Greeks, for instance, had their own beliefs, and the
early church leaders would have been aware of these.
>
>>>It is only those extreme Protestants who worship the Bible
>>>rather than God who don't hold to this. Most Christians (most
>>>Christians are not Protestants) don't see the Bible as the
>>>"ruling authority" for Christianity. The ruling authority for
>>>Christianity is the existence of the Church directly descending
>>>from the Apostles.
>
>  Christianity as defined by Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
>  Dictionary is:  "the regligion derived from Jesus Christ, based
>  on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern,
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies."
>
>  And, one of the meanings of scripture is:  "a body of
>  writings considered sacred or authoritative."
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You may have underlined the wrong words, Laura. "Based on" doesn't
necessarily mean that the Bible must be taken literally. This may
sound like a semantic argument, but you're the one who brought dictionaries
into it :-).
[stuff deleted]
>I wrote earlier:
>>By the way, can you
>>tell me about any RC churches that preach evolution.  Does the
>>Pope now preach evolution?  Creationism was still being taught,
>>last I heard; and, in many NON-lunatic denominations.
>
>>>There is only one RC Church. Please give me evidence you have
>>>that the RC Church teaches "creationism". I have never seen any
>>>reference to it in anything from the RC Church, even from
>>>fairly conservative theologians. I have seen it written down in
>>>black and white that the creation story is to be taken as a
>>>myth in books which have the official seal of approval from the
>>>RC Church (the "Nihil Obstat").
>
>  Your are arguing semantics.  When I asked about RC churces I
>  meant churches in individual parishes.  You have still not
>  answered the question,  does the Pope now preach evolution?
Your ideas about "RC churches" seem odd to this European Catholic.
Individual Parishes in the Roman Catholic Church don't usually
preach their own brand of theology, as seems to be the case with
(especiall) US Protestant churches. Catholics can comfortably go to
any RC church in their diocese or country, and expect to hear similiar
things "preached". They won't hear evolution preached, and they won't
hear creationism preached, but their children in Catholic schools will
be taught evolution.

With regard to semantics, the word Church can mean a building, or it can
mean a belief system. If you are talking about RC Church teaching, the
applicable meaning of the word Church is belief system. In that sense,
there is only one RC Church, and it does not teach creationism as dogma.

[arguments about the Celtic Church / Celtic Paganism deleted]
>
>>>or that the Irish saw themselves as in
>>>any way in opposition to the Universal Church as represented by
>>>the See of Rome.
>
>  Frank gave us a detailed account about early Irish Christianity
>  (before approx. 1174) in which the above statement was directly
>  contradicted.  Something  along the lines of "independence."
>  He also related "The Easter Controversy," which illustrates
>  the "independent spirit" of the Irish Church during that period.
>  Did you see his posting?
An important point about the Easter controversy, is that the Irish church
was the one insisting on adherence to early church teaching/calculation
of Easter. As such, the Irish Church was taking the strict traditionalist
role. While the Church in Irealnd was definitley in dispute with Rome,
it was not because it wanted to go it's own way, it was because it wanted
to stop Rome going it's own way. This aspect totally undermines Lauras
reading of the situation.

Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"