Tradition and the Status of Women

[QuisUtDeus]

 

QuisUtDeus provides us with a very good explanation of what early thinkers struggled with as they tried to understand procreation. However, it is imperative that we remember that the “ovum” wasn’t discovered until the mid 19^th century. The fact is these Church Fathers worked on other doctrines and teachings using the faulty premise of “incubation” and therein lies the problem. Allow me to elaborate.

 

No, that isn't quite right.  The premise of "incubation alone" was there, but that was not the sole reason. The woman passively receives the seed.  Also, remember that women do incubate.  It was only the egg that was unknown.  A sperm and egg mixed in a test tube do not grow much in a petri dish.  They need to be incubated in a female body.

 

In Mosaic Law menstruation made all women unclean (Lev 12:2,5); unable to touch their husbands without making them unclean; unable and forbidden to approach the “Holy of Holies” in the sanctuary since they would defile the sacred place because they were unclean. Had Moses the fullness of knowledge regarding human reproduction perhaps he would have realized the magnitude of importance that women posses by providing but a single ovum for the procreation of life. Women would have been regarded as far more than mere fertile vessels, or mere fertile incubators, used simply for the purpose of carrying sacred human life; perhaps they would have gained equality of holiness and purpose as that of men. But, due to this error, women were denigrated to be mere possessions for men, to be sold as a commodity for incurred debt (cf Exodus 21:7 ; Amos 2:6 ; 8:6 ; Isaiah 50. 2); to be considered as inferior, and as St. Paul says in 1Tim 2: 15 “But she will be saved through motherhood….”

 

According to Tradition, the mosaic law doesn't come from Moses but from God.  So, we should assume there was a reason for it unbeknownst to us.  However, let's assume for the moment that Moses wrote it to serve God like St. Thomas wrote the Summa; just for the sake of discussion.

 

I think you are mistaken in the belief that women being called unclean in the OT is the source for trading them as slaves, etc.  Women were (and unfortunately are) treated like cattle and traded like slaves in many religions and atheistic societies.  The Vikings knew nothing of Judaism yet they raped and pillaged and took the women of the enemy as prizes.  This probably goes more towards the fact that women are simply not as physically strong as men, generally speaking, and so they were able to be overpowered and treated that way.  You can find this in almost any society, eastern or western.  So,  I don't think it has anything to do with their uncleanness or Moses.

 

I don't know that it is an insult to be saved through motherhood except to modern sensibilities.  If you look at the Saints, most of them are Saints for helping others to salvation.  If a woman raises holy children, she is doing the same work that the Saints do.  The fact that modern humans value motherhood less than something else doesn't mean that God does.  Remember, we are playing by His rules and not ours.  The highest saint, the Blessed Virgin, got there by being a good mother to our Lord, and also by doing what God asked of her.  If God asks women to be good mothers as part of His plan for their salvation, they should give their fiat as Mary did.

 

"Simply" is not really an adjective I would use for the act of carrying a child, but it is a reflection of today's attitude towards motherhood.

 

 

St. Paul clearly affirms this human reproductive error repeatedly when he identifies that the sin of  “one man” brought sin and death to all in Romans 5:12-19.  It is important to note that Paul recognizes the sin of Eve but that it is not transmitted through her but rather only through Adam. It is perhaps this verse that led St. Augustine to conclude that original sin was physically transmitted through the semen of all men since it was incorrectly thought that the semen was complete “active” matter.

 

You know, some people who have the same stance as you claim that the Church is misogynist because they believed original sin was transmitted by the mother and thus the need for exorcism at baptism.  However, let's stick with the argument you are using.

 

Saint Paul is saying the actions of the Patriarch of the human race caused trouble for all of us.  And Augustine's and Thomas' conclusion is that since men are the active force, it is by them we inherit original sin rather than through the passive mother.  Their argument still stands as long as the argument that the male sex is the active one rather than the passive one in procreation still stands.

 

Allow me to offer one practical possible example of this so-called error in practice. Consider Church teaching regarding Onanism. According to both Scripture (Gen 38:9-10) and Catholic teaching (CCC #2396) this sin is “gravely disordered” and results in the penalty of death in the former and mortal sin in the latter. When the biblical writer penned this account he was subject to the false understanding that the “seed” carried the entire essence of a human being.  Thus the actions of Onan were tantamount to murder. The Church, using this very passage as its basis for the mortal sin of “Onanism”, is thus tainted by the same error. Had Church Fathers enjoyed the fullness of truth on this matter—specifically that a single sperm is all that is required and the unused millions are either expelled (spilled) or otherwise destroyed—perhaps we would not be suffering from the sexual perversions and sexual calamities—contraception, abortion, pornography, divorce, sexual abuse by those in authority, etc.—of the present time.  

 

Scripture is clear on why God killed Onan - he spilled his seed.  You are coming to the conclusion it was because they believed the seed carried the entire essence of being, but that is not the reason given.  The reason was that he did a destible thing that offended God, so God slew him.

 

So again I ask: when modern revelation sets the record straight, when does the Church reexamine her teachings and doctrines that have used this fallacious premise to reach its conclusions?

There's a couple of problems with this question.

 

First and foremost, you are making assumptions that the reason all of these people and Scripture said these things is solely because they thought women brought nothing to the creative act but an incubator.  You haven't proven that, but merely drawn that conclusion because it seemed to fit.

 

Onanism is wrong because God killed someone for it, it objectifies another human being (we're surely not thinking of butterflies when that act is being performed), and in the case of sexual acts outside of procreation it also objectifies another human being.  It has nothing to do with passive or active.  It was and is a sin for a woman to self-abuse as well - there is no seed involved there.

 

Moses et al. existed long before Aristotle (ca 500 B.C. I believe) posited the active/passive aspect of generation, so he or the scribe could not have been thinking of that when they said women were unclean or could not go into the Holy of Holies.  That concept was foreign to them.  Again, it has nothing to do with passive or active that I can see.

 

So, I think before you pose that question, you have to prove the basis of it.  You would need to prove that all these things have as their source the belief that women bring nothing to the creative act but an incubator.  And even if you prove that, you would have to prove that it is offensive to God since God is the one who sets the standards.  He may not want it this way, He may be indifferent, or He may want it this way.  The Church believes the last one and gives as reasons Scripture.

 

Then, finally, you would have to argue that Scripture is not inspired by God.  You can't even hedge that one person made a scribal mistake here or it was due to his human understanding.  The concepts of original sin, etc., appear from Genesis through Apocalypse consistently.  That means every author of every book would have had to make the same error of interpretation.  Either that or the Bible is just a book like any other.  If you choose the latter, then Catholicism means nothing - it's just bells and smells.  It's based on a lie, and we would be better off going to the ball game on Sunday instead of Mass.

 

But, let's go back to evidence.  If you want to ask that question, you need to back up what I see are merely assumptions and conclusions of why they wrote those things rather than facts.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

I redid QuisUtDeus' responses, shown after Zenobius':

 

QuisUtDeus provides us with a very good explanation of what early thinkers struggled with as they tried to understand procreation. However, it is imperative that we remember that the “ovum” wasn’t discovered until the mid 19^th century. The fact is these Church Fathers worked on other doctrines and teachings using the faulty premise of “incubation” and therein lies the problem. Allow me to elaborate.

No, that isn't quite right.  The premise of "incubation alone" was there, but that was not the sole reason. The woman passively receives the seed.  Also, remember that women do incubate.  It was only the egg that was unknown.  A sperm and egg mixed in a test tube do not grow much in a petri dish.  They need to be incubated in a female body.

In Mosaic Law menstruation made all women unclean (Lev 12:2,5); unable to touch their husbands without making them unclean; unable and forbidden to approach the “Holy of Holies” in the sanctuary since they would defile the sacred place because they were unclean. Had Moses the fullness of knowledge regarding human reproduction perhaps he would have realized the magnitude of importance that women posses by providing but a single ovum for the procreation of life. Women would have been regarded as far more than mere fertile vessels, or mere fertile incubators, used simply for the purpose of carrying sacred human life; perhaps they would have gained equality of holiness and purpose as that of men. But, due to this error, women were denigrated to be mere possessions for men, to be sold as a commodity for incurred debt (cf Exodus 21:7 ; Amos 2:6 ; 8:6 ; Isaiah 50. 2); to be considered as inferior, and as St. Paul says in 1Tim 2: 15 “But she will be saved through motherhood….”

According to Tradition, the mosaic law doesn't come from Moses but from God.  So, we should assume there was a reason for it unbeknownst to us.  However, let's assume for the moment that Moses wrote it to serve God like St. Thomas wrote the Summa; just for the sake of discussion.

I think you are mistaken in the belief that women being called unclean in the OT is the source for trading them as slaves, etc.  Women were (and unfortunately are) treated like cattle and traded like slaves in many religions and atheistic societies.  The Vikings knew nothing of Judaism yet they raped and pillaged and took the women of the enemy as prizes.  This probably goes more towards the fact that women are simply not as physically strong as men, generally speaking, and so they were able to be overpowered and treated that way.  You can find this in almost any society, eastern or western.  So,  I don't think it has anything to do with their uncleanness or Moses.

I don't know that it is an insult to be saved through motherhood except to modern sensibilities.  If you look at the Saints, most of them are Saints for helping others to salvation.  If a woman raises holy children, she is doing the same work that the Saints do.  The fact that modern humans value motherhood less than something else doesn't mean that God does.  Remember, we are playing by His rules and not ours.  The highest saint, the Blessed Virgin, got there by being a good mother to our Lord, and also by doing what God asked of her.  If God asks women to be good mothers as part of His plan for their salvation, they should give their fiat as Mary did.

"Simply" is not really an adjective I would use for the act of carrying a child, but it is a reflection of today's attitude towards motherhood.

My comment: I would also ask Zenobius: When has the Church taught the things you say in the bolded portion? You are totally misinterpreting Scripture here.

St. Paul clearly affirms this human reproductive error repeatedly when he identifies that the sin of  “one man” brought sin and death to all in Romans 5:12-19.  It is important to note that Paul recognizes the sin of Eve but that it is not transmitted through her but rather only through Adam. It is perhaps this verse that led St. Augustine to conclude that original sin was physically transmitted through the semen of all men since it was incorrectly thought that the semen was complete “active” matter.

You know, some people who have the same stance as you claim that the Church is misogynist because they believed original sin was transmitted by the mother and thus the need for exorcism at baptism.  However, let's stick with the argument you are using.

Saint Paul is saying the actions of the Patriarch of the human race caused trouble for all of us.  And Augustine's and Thomas' conclusion is that since men are the active force, it is by them we inherit original sin rather than through the passive mother.  Their argument still stands as long as the argument that the male sex is the active one rather than the passive one in procreation still stands.

Allow me to offer one practical possible example of this so-called error in practice. Consider Church teaching regarding Onanism. According to both Scripture (Gen 38:9-10) and Catholic teaching (CCC #2396) this sin is “gravely disordered” and results in the penalty of death in the former and mortal sin in the latter. When the biblical writer penned this account he was subject to the false understanding that the “seed” carried the entire essence of a human being.  Thus the actions of Onan were tantamount to murder. The Church, using this very passage as its basis for the mortal sin of “Onanism”, is thus tainted by the same error. Had Church Fathers enjoyed the fullness of truth on this matter—specifically that a single sperm is all that is required and the unused millions are either expelled (spilled) or otherwise destroyed—perhaps we would not be suffering from the sexual perversions and sexual calamities—contraception, abortion, pornography, divorce, sexual abuse by those in authority, etc.—of the present time.

Scripture is clear on why God killed Onan - he spilled his seed.  You are coming to the conclusion it was because they believed the seed carried the entire essence of being, but that is not the reason given.  The reason was that he did a destible thing that offended God, so God slew him.

So again I ask: when modern revelation sets the record straight, when does the Church reexamine her teachings and doctrines that have used this fallacious premise to reach its conclusions?

There's a couple of problems with this question.

First and foremost, you are making assumptions that the reason all of these people and Scripture said these things is solely because they thought women brought nothing to the creative act but an incubator.  You haven't proven that, but merely drawn that conclusion because it seemed to fit.

Onanism is wrong because God killed someone for it, it objectifies another human being (we're surely not thinking of butterflies when that act is being performed), and in the case of sexual acts outside of procreation it also objectifies another human being.  It has nothing to do with passive or active.  It was and is a sin for a woman to self-abuse as well - there is no seed involved there.

Moses et al. existed long before Aristotle (ca 500 B.C. I believe) posited the active/passive aspect of generation, so he or the scribe could not have been thinking of that when they said women were unclean or could not go into the Holy of Holies.  That concept was foreign to them.  Again, it has nothing to do with passive or active that I can see.

So, I think before you pose that question, you have to prove the basis of it.  You would need to prove that all these things have as their source the belief that women bring nothing to the creative act but an incubator.  And even if you prove that, you would have to prove that it is offensive to God since God is the one who sets the standards.  He may not want it this way, He may be indifferent, or He may want it this way.  The Church believes the last one and gives as reasons Scripture.

Then, finally, you would have to argue that Scripture is not inspired by God.  You can't even hedge that one person made a scribal mistake here or it was due to his human understanding.  The concepts of original sin, etc., appear from Genesis through Apocalypse consistently.  That means every author of every book would have had to make the same error of interpretation.  Either that or the Bible is just a book like any other.  If you choose the latter, then Catholicism means nothing - it's just bells and smells.  It's based on a lie, and we would be better off going to the ball game on Sunday instead of Mass.

But, let's go back to evidence.  If you want to ask that question, you need to back up what I see are merely assumptions and conclusions of why they wrote those things rather than facts.

________________________

BTW, well said, QuisUtDeus.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

As I have said before, Zenobius, you are treading dangerous ground, almost heretical. You have made quite a number of false assumptions, leading to the conclusion that Scripture teaches error in doctrine. The distinction that you make between the human element and the Holy Ghost is worthless, since all Scripture is inspired by God. You still will end up with the conclusion that the Church teaches error in faith and morals. And this is heretical. You are engaging in blatant contradiction when you say the Church can stand without doctrines and dogmas. In fact, they are the foundation of the Church, and it is the duty of the Pope to safeguard it, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

I highly recommend reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Woman (click here).

[QuisUtDeus]

What you say about treading near heresy is true, Quo Vadis, but Zenobius warned us ahead of time of the content, and we agreed to it, so no foul.

 

The thing we need to keep in mind is that Zenobius (sorry to speak about you in the 3rd person - just easier to write that way, Zenobius, no offense meant) does not necessarily believe it is heretical (I would venture to guess he is unsure either way).  So, if we say it is, in the spirit of debate, we would have to show evidence.

 

Yet, that won't answer Zenobius' questions.  I know lots of people who got frustrated as kids because they would ask the nun "Why?" and she would say "Because the Church says so".  They ended up thinking the whole thing was invented by old men in Rome.

 

People deserve answers.  Even if they don't like or accept the answers, it is good to give them.  If we have the truth on our side, and I believe we do, we have nothing to fear.  If they don't understand the answer, at least they have something to think about and possibly come to understanding eventually.

 

St. Thomas took counter-arguments very seriously which is why he spelled them out in the Summa and answered to them.  He had a great trust that man's intellect, when guided by God, could find the truth.  I kind of share that trust.  If someone comes willing to talk, we should talk.  I know you believe that, Quo Vadis, because you are willing to talk as am I.

 

I think Zenobius sees that, too.  That's why he's seeking the truth.  Most people don't care about the truth; when someone wants to, that's half the battle.  The other half is getting to the end of the journey.

 

I think we are going the right way with the discussion so far.  We're all asking and answering, "Why?"  And that's the key to figuring out the truth (along with help from the Holy Ghost, of course!).

 

EDIT:  P.S.  Good call on the CE article.  I just read it, and it outlines a lot.

[QuisUtDeus]

 

In Mosaic Law menstruation made all women unclean (Lev 12:2,5); unable to touch their husbands without making them unclean; unable and forbidden to approach the “Holy of Holies” in the sanctuary since they would defile the sacred place because they were unclean. Had Moses the fullness of knowledge regarding human reproduction perhaps he would have realized the magnitude of importance that women posses by providing but a single ovum for the procreation of life. Women would have been regarded as far more than mere fertile vessels, or mere fertile incubators, used simply for the purpose of carrying sacred human life; perhaps they would have gained equality of holiness and purpose as that of men. But, due to this error, women were denigrated to be mere possessions for men, to be sold as a commodity for incurred debt (cf Exodus 21:7 ; Amos 2:6 ; 8:6 ; Isaiah 50. 2); to be considered as inferior, and as St. Paul says in 1Tim 2: 15 “But she will be saved through motherhood….”

 

My comment: I would also ask Zenobius: When has the Church taught the things you say in the bolded portion? You are totally misinterpreting Scripture here.

[/QUOTE]

 

Good point.  Let's look at those, and in context.

 

Exodus 21:1-10

1 These are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. 2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee: in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 With what raiment he came in, with the like let him go out: if having a wife, his wife also shall go out with him. 4 But if his master gave him a wife, and she hath borne sons and daughters: the woman and her children shall be her master's: but he himself shall go out with his raiment. 5 And if the servant shall say: I love my master and my wife and children, I will not go out free:

6 His master shall bring him to the gods, and he shall be set to the door and the posts, and he shall bore his ear through with an awl: and he shall be his servant for ever. 7 If any man sell his daughter to be a servant, she shall not go out as bondwomen are wont to go out. 8 If she displease the eyes of her master to whom she was delivered, he shall let her go: but he shall have no power to sell her to a foreign nation, if he despise her. 9 But if he have betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 And if he take another wife for him, he shall provide her a marriage, and raiment, neither shall he refuse the price of her chastity.

 

 

This law actually protects women who are servants.  You will further note the section talks about male servants, too.  It doesn't say "sell women" it says "sell men and women" and lays down the rules of servitude.

 

Amos 2:6-7

6 Thus saith the Lord: For three crimes of Israel, and for four I will not convert him: because he hath sold the just man for silver, and the poor man for a pair of shoes. 7 They bruise the heads of the poor upon the dust of the earth, and turn aside the way of the humble: and the son and his father have gone to the same young woman, to profane my holy name.

 

First, it talks about selling men.  Second, it talks about a father and son sharing a wife (ewww).  At some level this is an allegory about Israel being unfaithful to God, but even if we take it literally, it says nothing about selling a woman.

 

Amos 8:6

6 That we may possess the needy for money, and the poor for a pair of shoes, and may sell the refuse of the corn?

 

Again, nothing about women here.  God is ticked at Israel for not behaving, and He's saying He's about to blast and reading them the riot act.

 

Isaiah 50:1-10

1 Thus saith the Lord: What is this bill of the divorce of your mother, with which I have put her away? or who is my creditor, to whom I sold you: behold you are sold for your iniquities, and for your wicked deeds have I put your mother away. 2 Because I came, and there was not a man: I called, and there was none that would hear. Is my hand shortened and become little, that I cannot redeem? or is there no strength in me to deliver? Behold at my rebuke I will make the sea a desert, I will turn the rivers into dry land: the fishes shall rot for want of water, and shall die for thirst. 3 I will clothe the heavens with darkness, and will make sackcloth their covering. 4 The Lord hath given me a learned tongue, that I should know how to uphold by word him that is weary: he wakeneth in the morning, in the morning he wakeneth my ear, that I may hear him as a master. 5 The Lord God hath opened my ear, and I do not resist: I have not gone back.  

6 I have given my body to the strikers, and my cheeks to them that plucked them: I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me, and spit upon me. 7 The Lord God is my helper, therefore am I not confounded: therefore have I set my face as a most hard rock, and I know that I shall not be confounded. 8 He is near that justifieth me, who will contend with me? let us stand together, who is my adversary? let him come near to me. 9 Behold the Lord God is my helper: who is he that shall condemn me? Lo, they shall all be destroyed as a garment, the moth shall eat them up. 10 Who is there among you that feareth the Lord, that heareth the voice of his servant, that hath walked in darkness, and hath no light? let him hope in the name of the Lord, and lean upon his God.

 

This is a prophecy about Christ.

 

What is this bill of the divorce of your mother, with which I have put her away? or who is my creditor, to whom I sold you: behold you are sold for your iniquities, and for your wicked deeds have I put your mother away.

 

This is the divorce of God from the Jews who will betray the Messiah.  The temple will be gone and they will be enslaved by the Romans.

 

2 Because I came, and there was not a man: I called, and there was none that would hear. Is my hand shortened and become little, that I cannot redeem? or is there no strength in me to deliver?

 

This is the difficulty of Christ preaching to the Jews.

 

I have given my body to the strikers, and my cheeks to them that plucked them: I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me, and spit upon me.

 

This is the Passion.  And so on and so forth.

 

 

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Yes, you're right. There's no foul. But I guess I just want to remind him, to admonish him as best I can.

[Zenobius]

Thank you very much for very well reasoned responses. I appreciate your effort.

 

Would you agree that the word “seed” itself poorly and even improperly defines male semen and in fact the word itself is misleading and in error.  A seed and its function in nature have been known since the agricultural revolution to contain wholly and entirely within itself all the necessary means for new and complete growth. Thus when biblical writers referred to “seed” to describe seminal fluid the writers clearly inferred a similarity in function to plant like seed. Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to a difference in meaning of the word “seed” in Hebrew, Greek or Latin.

 

On the other hand, I agree that this is a dangerous discussion and that I am walking down a dangerous road. I am already willing to admit my error and agree with all your conclusions. Not necessarily because of your excellent reasoning and sound arguments, although they are very good, but rather because I realize that you have much more at stake than I do. I’m playing with a nickel ante and you are playing with your life savings. My faith is not dependant on immutable doctrines and Church teachings but rather on my relationship with the Teacher, and may faith is not being “put on the line”, so to speak, based on the outcome of a discussion or argument. It causes me great pause when statements of finality and severance are used as an outcome of a discussion simply because some aspect of doctrine or even Scripture is challenged or found to be weak or even, perhaps, wrong. In a way this explains Mark Wyatt and Robert Sungenis’ stance on “Geocentrism”. They need to prove scripture and church teaching were in fact correct when they excommunicated Galileo. The reality of error must be too great to bear and it would cost them their faith; a cost that isn’t worth the edification that is a fruit of religious discussion. Is this a phenomenon common to Traditional Catholics; that they are one provable error away from atheism? I pray that it is not so.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Would you agree that the word “seed” itself poorly and even improperly defines male semen and in fact the word itself is misleading and in error.  A seed and its function in nature have been known since the agricultural revolution to contain wholly and entirely within itself all the necessary means for new and complete growth. Thus when biblical writers referred to “seed” to describe seminal fluid the writers clearly inferred a similarity in function to plant like seed. Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to a difference in meaning of the word “seed” in Hebrew, Greek or Latin.

You always have to look at the context; "seed" doesn't always mean the same thing. When in Genesis, Chapter 3, God refers to "her seed," He is referring to the offspring of the Woman, Our Blessed Mother. Many times, "seed" means offspring. And in Latin, the word "semen" is used; it means a lot of things. And you must also understand that the biblical writers used the expression of their times to describe what we now call male semen. They were inspired by God, but God allowed them freedom to use their own idiom. It isn't an error; it's just a vague term.

On the other hand, I agree that this is a dangerous discussion and that I am walking down a dangerous road. I am already willing to admit my error and agree with all your conclusions. Not necessarily because of your excellent reasoning and sound arguments, although they are very good, but rather because I realize that you have much more at stake than I do. I’m playing with a nickel ante and you are playing with your life savings. My faith is not dependant on immutable doctrines and Church teachings but rather on my relationship with the Teacher, and may faith is not being “put on the line”, so to speak, based on the outcome of a discussion or argument. It causes me great pause when statements of finality and severance are used as an outcome of a discussion simply because some aspect of doctrine or even Scripture is challenged or found to be weak or even, perhaps, wrong. In a way this explains Mark Wyatt and Robert Sungenis’ stance on “Geocentrism”. They need to prove scripture and church teaching were in fact correct when they excommunicated Galileo. The reality of error must be too great to bear and it would cost them their faith; a cost that isn’t worth the edification that is a fruit of religious discussion. Is this a phenomenon common to Traditional Catholics; that they are one provable error away from atheism? I pray that it is not so.

That is just the problem: you can't separate the relationship with the Teacher and the doctrines of the Church, which He, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, taught to the Apostles.

About Mark Wyatt and Robrt Sungenis, they don't "need to prove" church teaching is in fact correct; they just ask others to prove their assertions of heliocentrism or what not, using scientific arguments. They also admit the Church hasn't decided on these issues and so one is still free to believe one way or the other. The belief in geocentrism isn't strictly defined, so it isn't church teaching, though the Church has tended to make it so, but falling short of it. And also many Traditionalists disagree on this issue. A recent AQ discussion thread highlighted this point.

[QuisUtDeus]

What Quo Vadis said about the seed.

 

Zenobius, you misunderstand what the traditional view of the Bible is.

 

Heliocentric has nothing to do with the veracity of the Bible.  The Bible is many things.  Some of it are stories (the Book of Job was written as a play for example - though it may have been a play about real events), some of it are allegories, some of it are laws, some of it is Christ's words themselves.

 

What the Church says about Scripture is that it is the story of salvation, and in that regard it is infallible.

 

I believe in heliocentricism with regard to our solar system.  However, perhaps the universe is geocentric.  We don't know either way.  But Scripture is not a science book.  The way the earth was created is to describe the order and events that God took to create things.  It is a fact He breathed life into us.  It may not be a fact that He created us from soil per se, but certainly He created us from the elements of the earth, and science knows that.

 

If martians came down, that wouldn't change anything either.  The Bible is about the salvation of the human race.  The martians may not have fallen or they may have fallen and take part in the Sacrifice of Christ.

 

So, science will never break the faith.  To do that it would have to prove the the Bible, scientific errors and all, is not infalible with regard to our salvation.  And if the Bible is not infallible with regard to our salvation, then not only are Catholics in trouble, but Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc., too.

 

I look at the Bible vs. Science like this.  The Bible is not a science book, but it contains enough allegories about Science to show us it is inspired.

 

How would the Bible otherwise know we were formed from earth (carbon based)?  How would the Bible know there was a huge flood (while Noah's Ark isn't scientifically proven, a great flood has been)?

 

We don't use the Bible to prove science, and we don't use science to prove the Bible.  While there is some crossover, one does not depend on the other, and neither one is mutually exclusive.

 

I submit this to you:  if it weren't for the Bible, you would have no relationship with Him because the Bible is what defines and sustains our relationship.  In the OT it gave us the law and God's commandments, in the NT it gives us God's reconciliation with us.

 

God doesn't come and tap us individually on the shoulder and say, "Hey, Zeno, Quis, and Quo Vadis, here is what I'm about and here are my rules." Instead God has given us the patrimony of Scripture; it is an anchor for our faith so we don't stray and make up our own stuff.

 

Maybe Lumen is lurking and he can pop in here to explain this better than I.

[QuisUtDeus]

P.S. The word for "seed" in Latin is semen.  That's where we get the English word from.  It also means semen (i.e., the fluid containing sperm) in Latin.  The Romans used it interchangeably as we do with "seed".

 

In Latin it is also used to mean race or child.

 

I don't have my Hebrew lexicon handy, but I would be willing to guess it is the same in Hebrew.  It seems like it would be human nature to equate the implanting of sperm in the womb with seeds in the ground; kind of a natural allegory there.

 

It's buried in a pile of books.  If I come across it soon, I'll look it up.  Hebrew is interesting because the words are built on each other, so you can figure out what basic roots the words come from.