Do you believe in life on other planets?

[Resurrexi]

I'm just wonering what phatmassers think on this subject....

[avemaria40]

God could have created other planets and extraterrestrial life. The Bible was not meant to be a book on science it's meant to tell of salvation.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Apr 1 2006, 11:51 AM']God could have created other planets and extraterrestrial life.  The Bible was not meant to be a book on science it's meant to tell of salvation.
[right][snapback]931563[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBILE

Pope Pius X, in Lamentabili Sani, condemned the notion: “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.”

[avemaria40]

I'm not saying the Bible has error but that science was not the point of it.

[Paladin D]

Hello... it's inerrant, not infallible.


I believe there is some form of life out there, but I'm not in the mood at the moment to get into great detail about it. There was a thread about this subject, and it was rather fascinating. It was on the assumption if life existed on other planets, how would the plan of salvation fit in.

I don't like how some of the options are worded, it certainly is biased.

[Peccator]

[quote]VERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBILE

Pope Pius X, in Lamentabili Sani, condemned the notion: “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.”[/quote]...and just like Papal infallibility its limited to faith and morals.

As far as I know there's no official position of the Church in this matter. Persoanlly I don't know since I've not seen any

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 1 2006, 11:55 AM']EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBILE

Pope Pius X, in Lamentabili Sani, condemned the notion: “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.”
[right][snapback]931577[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Which also brings up a point about Galileo. Of course, Galileo also got himself in trouble for doctrinal issues, but strictly in terms of science, the Church was not infallible in it's belief of the earth being in the center of the universe.

[Resurrexi]

Galileo was wrong anyway, so I dont know why you bring him up.

[peach_cube]

Define Aliens. If you mean microbiotic life the answer is yes it is likely. If you mean aliens like E.T. then my answer is no, it is not likely. Also even if there were E.T.'s out there the chances of verifying this are extremelly low even with the most liberal interpretations of the Drake equation. Therefore, I checked c.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I met some aliens through some mutual friends, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Apr 1 2006, 12:34 PM']Galileo was wrong anyway, so I dont know why you bring him up.
[right][snapback]931654[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If you mean the way he handled the situation, and dived into the doctrinal realm, then I would agree with you.

But if you're also including the scientific discovery that he made, in which the sun does NOT revolve around the earth, then I will have disagree with you, Einstein.

[Resurrexi]

micorbiotic life is difined as life, so yes, I would consider a microbiotic organism an alien.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]But if you're also including the scientific discovery that he made, in which the sun does NOT revolve around the earth, then I will have disagree with you, Einstein.[/quote]

But the sun does revolve around the earth. Oh, and I do not appreciate Eienstein or anything he did, so I would not like to be called "Einstein".

[infinitelord1]

so wait, what does the church say about life on other planets?

[avemaria40]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Apr 1 2006, 02:20 PM']But the sun does revolve around the earth. Oh, and I do not appreciate Eienstein or anything he did, so I would not like to be called "Einstein".
[right][snapback]931744[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I have studied science, yes, the earth does revolve around the sun, not the other way around. That's how we get years. And Einstein is cool.

[Amator Veritatis]

As a matter of clarification, I should point out that the Bible is, in fact, inerrant in all matters, be they doctrinal, moral, historical, scientific or any other matter. This fact is taught by Pope Leo XIII in his famous Encyclical Letter [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i]. Below is an excerpt from this grand work with relevant citation.

But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it -- this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."[57] Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write -- He was so present to them -- that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated."[58] And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things -- we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution."[59] Cf., [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i], Article XX.

N.B., [57] Sess. iii., c. ii., de Rev. ; [58] De consensu Evangel. 1. 1, c. 35. ; [59] Praef in Job, n. 2.


While every sentence of the above excerpt is relevant to the discussion, below are listed those declarations which undeniably illustrate that Holy Writ is free not merely from errors regarding faith and morals but from all error whatsoever.

"For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it -- this system cannot be tolerated."

This system is precisely what has been advocated by some who have already posted on this thread. It is forbidden by the Church and contrary to the Faith.

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican."

These statements merely serve to expound upon the previous statements. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the Church teaches that every matter of Holy Writ is completely inerrant and that, were this not the case, the Holy Scriptures could not be authored by the Holy Ghost, which dogma, too, is an Article of the Faith.


In addition, Pope St. Pius X in his Motu Proprio [i]Praestantia Scripturae[/i] affirms and commends the prior Encyclical of Leo XIII, [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i], and makes additional provisions regarding the consciences of Catholics concerning Sacred Scripture. First, as St. Pius X notes, Leo XIII founded a Pontifical Biblical Commission composed of wise and holy Cardinals to issue declarations regarding matters Scriptural. Below are St. Pius X's words regarding this commission, from his Motu Proprio [i]Praestantia Scripturae[/i].

Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.


St. Pius X, therefore, made binding on all Catholics the obligation to accept the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine. Of note is the fact that this same commission stated in no ambiguous terms the necessity of accepting the entire book of Genesis as historically and literally accurate. Of course, this much had already been taught by Leo XIII in [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i], but it is especially relevant because such a decision is binding on the conscience of Catholics.


Of course, read in light of these other documents, St. Pius X's condemnation previously cited from [i]Lamentabili Sane[/i], clearly applies to every aspect of the Bible, not merely those concerned with faith and morals.


Noteworthy, as well is Pope Benedict XV's same affirmation of the total inerrancy of Holy Scripture in his Encyclical Letter [i]Spiritus Paraclitus[/i]. One need only purchase an updated copy of [i]Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum[/i], often simply referred to as "Denzinger", after the priest who compiled the original in 1854. The most popular updated edition in English is entitled [i]The Sources of Catholic Dogma[/i] and printed by Loreto Publications from the 1954 edition. In any event, one who were to examine the entries for Popes Leo XIII and St. Pius X would find a wealth of decrees condemning various false interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures, be they failing to interpret Genesis literally or failing to subscribe to the entire Pentateuch the authorship of Moses or failing in some other regard. If more references be necessary, I am able to provide them.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Paladin D]

The Bible is indeed 100% inerrant, however, that doesn't mean all of Sacred Scripture is to be taken as a [b]literal, historical account[/b]. Thus, that is why it is not a sin for a Catholic to believe in Evolution, as long as certain boundaries are established (example: God was behind it all).

[Peccator]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Apr 1 2006, 08:25 PM']The Bible is indeed 100% inerrant, however, that doesn't mean all of Sacred Scripture is to be taken as a [b]literal, historical account[/b].  Thus, that is why it is not a sin for a Catholic to believe in Evolution, as long as certain boundaries are established (example: God was behind it all).
[right][snapback]931750[/snapback][/right]
[/quote](insert after highlighted passage) ...or as an Scientific account.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Peccator

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Peccator' date='Apr 1 2006, 01:29 PM'](insert after highlighted passage) ...or as an Scientific account.
[right][snapback]931757[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Exactly.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]    Pius IX in Syllabus of Errors, condemned the following notion: “The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions...”

    Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus, “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”

    Pope Pius X, in Lamentabili Sani, condemned the notion: “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.”

    Pope Benedict XV, in Spiritus Paraclitus: “...the divine inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture without distinction, and that no error could occur in the inspired text.”

    Pope Pius XII, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, repeats Leo XIII decree: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”

    [b]In Humani Generis, Pius XII condemns the notion: “...immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”[/b]

    Pontifical Biblical Commission, in 1964, states: “...that the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error.”

    Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in 1998, states in Professio Fidei: “...the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts...”

    Leo XIII: “For the sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Spirit, it contains things of the deepest importance, which, in many instances, are most difficult and obscure” (Prov. Deus, I, B, 2, b). He also says: “For all the books in their entirety...with all their parts, have been written under the dictation of the Holy Spirit” (DS 3292).

    Vatican Council 1 says: “Further, this supernatural revelation....is contained in the written books...from the apostles themselves by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand” (DS 3006).

    The Catholic Catechism: “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit” (Para 81). “God inspired the human authors of the sacred books...it was a true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more” (Para 106).

    Leo XIII: “It is futile to argue that the Holy Spirit took human beings as his instruments in writing, implying that some error could slip in...For by his supernatural power he so stimulated and moved them to write, and so assisted them while they were writing, that they properly conceived in their mind, wished to write down faithfully, and expressed aptly with infallible truth all those things, and only those things, which He himself ordered; otherwise He could not Himself be the author of the whole of Sacred Scripture” (DS 3293).[/quote]