[Stephentlig]

Originally Posted by Fanny Cradock

I'm not protestant. I wonder did you actually read the Wiki article or have you just dismissed it out of hand?

BTW, John Salzas believes in geocentricism. Nuff said.

its geo for meo Fanny, and if your not Catholic your protestant, which means you are PROTEST-ing against the Catholic Faith ( doctrine ) and Morals ( discipline )

you havnt qouted me an infallible document that proclaims the church accepts it, it is not part of the dogma end of story.

by the way this debate has nothing to do with geocentricism so be the good moderator that you are and keep on topic.

[Fanny Cradock]

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

its geo for meo Fanny, and if your not Catholic your protestant, which means you are PROTEST-ing against the Catholic Faith ( doctrine ) and Morals ( discipline )

you havnt qouted me an infallible document that proclaims the church accepts it, it is not part of the dogma end of story.

by the way this debate has nothing to do with geocentricism so be the good moderator that you are and keep on topic.

Perhaps I haven't quoted such a document. Maybe I was confused by articles such as this, this and this.

[grrrrrrrrrr]

Originally Posted by Fanny Cradock

Perhaps I haven't quoted such a document. Maybe I was confused by articles such as this, this and this.

may i ask why that chap got a warning??

[Fanny Cradock]

Originally Posted by grrrrrrrrrr

may i ask why that chap got a warning??

No - it's now a private issue.

[Soul Winner]

Originally Posted by grrrrrrrrrr

may i ask why that chap got a warning??

You don't tell the moderators how to moderate their fora.

[grrrrrrrrrr]

Originally Posted by Fanny Cradock

No - it's now a private issue.

ok fanny, dont get your knickers in a twist!! joking...
ok i respect the rules...


so evolution??

[Stephentlig]

Originally Posted by Fanny Cradock

Perhaps I haven't quoted such a document. Maybe I was confused by articles such as this, this and this.

Fanny, I am for some reason unable to open the links you provided so do not know where they are from or what they are, you or someone else will have to help me out with that.

Pax Christi
Stephen <3

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

in the wiki you provided they attempt to say that St.Augustine accepted it, it just goes to show people love to take eisigesis on just about anything.

Actually the Vatican said that

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...istianity.html
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.


and the Catholic church has been saying for the last 50 years that Darwinian evolution is a valid scientific way to consider the development of life.

Of course some Catholics may choose to ignore this, that is up to them. But when grrrr was asking for the Church's views I imagine he was looking for the official view, not the opinions of individuals Catholics.

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

grrrrrrr on this subject you can neither trust Catholic or protestant or Orthodox on this because a lot of them believe in it.

Or you know, you could just trust the Vatican.

More here
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5859797.ece

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

take a look at www.scripturecatholic.com and look through the evolution section and watch John Salzas debates on it too.

Yes, clearly this poorly designed personal website trumps interviews with official Vatican members

[Fanny Cradock]

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

Fanny, I am for some reason unable to open the links you provided so do not know where they are from or what they are, you or someone else will have to help me out with that.

Pax Christi
Stephen <3

Odd that. Anyway, WN quoted part of the first link - you get the gist of it. Here are truncated versions of the other two links which deal with the current and previous pontiff's views on the subject.

Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an ‘absurdity’ 25
2007 July, 2007

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION, Pope John Paul II - 22 Oct 1996

... In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

For my part, when I received the participants in the plenary assembly of your Academy on October 31, 1992, I used the occasion—and the example of Gallileo—to draw attention to the necessity of using a rigorous hermeneutical approach in seeking a concrete interpretation of the inspired texts. It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean. In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research.

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

What is the significance of a theory such as this one? To open this question is to enter into the field of epistemology. A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised ...

If these opinions don't count as an official stance - or something very close to it - I don't know what does. I didn't mean to misrepresent the RCC. I'm just calling it as I see it, and that is why some of your remarks (particularly about another denominations) are not welcome. But we are moving on from that, right?

[monosharp]

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

Nowhere in faith and morals are we taught the erroneous theory of evolution, they said that its ok to believe in the ''possibility'' of theistic evolution but thats it, to remember that its only a theory.

Congratulations on your award winning sentence.

I havnt time to go through it again and again and again, as soul winner posted ZZZZZ is all I can say.

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory. - Pope John Paul 2.0

[grrrrrrrrrr]

I'll take it so that the church does accept evolution! fair enough

[Stephentlig]

wow, the first and second source comes from the secular world and are not infallible statements from the Catholic church, the third comes from EWTN a channel that John Salza ( www.scripturecatholic.com) was interviewed on with regards to the subject, people love to read enyclicals and papal documents and impose their own view upon what is said, so your link does not refute in the slightest.

monosharp your imposing your own view upon what the Holy Father is saying in his encyclical no where in monosharps post did the Holy Father say that the theory of evolution was accepted by the church. your reply is elementary and we get it all the time.

in fact the Holy fathers enycyclical states quite the opposite:

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu” (no. 24). The pope also broached the theory of evolution with caution by stating that the Church “does not forbid research and discussions...with regard to evolution,” but warns that “divine revelation demands the greatest moderation and caution” when so discussing, and says we must ultimately “submit to the judgment of the Church” (no. 36). The pope further condemned “polygenism,” the heretical belief that the human race is not the product of a single set of parents (Adam and Eve), but multiple parents, as evolutionary theory maintains.

Below is a conversation between somone and John Salza concerning humani Generis.

18. Authority and the six-day creation account
Aaron: I have some concerns? regarding the material on 'Evolution' on your website.

You claim that all the Fathers interpreted Genesis in terms of a six-day literal Creation, ruling out evolution entirely.? In view of the Decree of the Council of Trent (which you point out) that Catholics are not permitted to hold an interpretation of the Scripture contrary to the Fathers of the Church, the implication you make quite clearly,?even if it is not explicitly stated, is essentially that a so-called Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis a Dogma of the Catholic Faith.

Yet you also quote from the Encyclical 'Humani Generis' of Ven. Pope Pius XII who permitted 'research and discussion' regarding evolution, provided it was done with 'the greatest moderation and caution'.? the full passage, which you quote rather selectively from, runs as follows:

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question." (Humani Generis #36)

This passage would seem to make it clear that a particular interpretation of Genesis? is NOT binding on the faithful because if it were, the Pope would not have granted 'liberty of discussion' concerning it. The Church does not give 'liberty of discussion' about whether or not women can be Priests for example, or indeed about the truth of any of its Dogmas, even if such discussion is done with 'moderation and caution'.? IF it were a Dogma of the Faith that God created the world in six days, then the Pope would have not have said that 'the sources of divine revelation [demand] the greatest moderation and caution in this question', rather he would have asserted that the sources of divine revelation exclude such opinions entirely, and warned Catholics who hold such that they would no longer be in communion with the Holy See.? To imply that the Pope would grant a liberty of discussion concerning a Dogma of the Faith binding on all Catholics is to imply that the Pope was a material heretic who failed miserably in his duty of confirming the brethren- an implication which is offensive to pious ears.

At this point it might be fitting to point out that I would concur with your interpretation of Genesis.? A so-called 'Young Earth Creationist' perspective would seem to me to be the most reasonable explanation of both the Scriptural and scientific evidence.? However, to claim that this is a Dogma of the Faith, as your exposition of the matter implies, is clearly an insult to the august memory Pius XII who permitted 'liberty of discussion' concerning the matter.?
Many Thanks.

Aaron Taylor
J.Salza: Aaron, there is a difference between infallible definitions of faith and non-infallible teachings. I never said that a six-day creation was dogmatically defined by the Church. If it were, then Pope Pius XII would not have allowed discussions on the topic. However, the implication, based on Trent and Vatican I's directive about the consensus of the Fathers, is that a six-day creation interpretation is the official teaching of the Church. Just because Pope Pius XII invited discussion on the subject does not mean that a six-day interprettion is incorrect. The fact is, Pius XII called the evolutionists' bluff since they couldn't marshal any scientific evidence to rebut the six-day interpretation. That is how clever Pius XII was. Remember, he also invited exegetes to use historical criticism, but also said that he couldn't undermine the literal interpretation of Scripture as understood in light of Tradition. Remember also that the popes invited much discussion about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, even though Tradition always held Mary as without sin and the doctrine was not really in dispute. That is because the Church was seeking more information from theologians in formulating her dogma. As applied here, the weight of the evidence supports a six-day interpretation as the correct and official position of the Church, even though the Church has not elevated it to a level of dogma. The burden is on our interlocutors to prove otherwise, which they cannot.

[Stephentlig]

Before I leave for the day, here is one more conversation between a Catholic and John Salza.

May I Also remind people that John Salzas day job is a Lawyer, which means part of his job is reading and exegeting text.

it's not easy to debate, but I'm with John on this one, I've heard many Catholic professors get it wrong too and talk jibberish, it would be nice to get another clear statement from the Church to clear things up and make it really clear, because as I've seen with most Catholics, you have to rub their nose in it just to get them to understand it isnt accepted.

as I said earliar, you cant teach a pig how to sing, it only wastes your time and it irritates the pig, and I've given up teaching pigs how to sing.

11. Evolution and “faith and morals” Patrick: Mr. Salza,
I would just like to say that I have been looking at your website for several years it seems, and I really like the many articles and scripture verses you have provided. Your site even helped in the conversion of a friend from Protestantism to Catholicism. Thank you for your service.
Also, I am a person who values scientific knowledge and research as a tool given to man by God. So many scientists, the vast majority in fact, have long since accepted the Theory of Evolution. Even the Pope has allowed this scientific theory, like gravity, to be true. While the method of evolution is and probably will always be debated, there is no doubt that the Earth is billions of years old, that certain organisms have evolved in specific ways, and that this "evidence" is a compilation of facts and scientific observences. From one point of view, it can be argued that there is more evidence for the evolution of man than there is evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

I believe in creation and original sin of course, but I believe that God made this happen through a more complicated means than simply snapping his fingers. God said, "Let there be light." The beginning of the universe is described as a "Big Bang," and explosion of light. God said that in the beginning the earth was desolate and formless. Science tells us that the earth was once a molten ball of lava and gas, without land or water.
Why must the first part of Genesis be taken literally? The writing style is different, more like a parable than a historical record. God on many occassions chose parables and stories to impart truths that we could not at the time understand. Only recently did our knowledge of the world allow us to understand that we are just a small part in God's great creation.

I am not trying to argue evolution vs creation, especially since I think both are 100% correct. But I think perhaps you should find out a little more about evolution and the creation of the world. Evolution does not have to discount God's hand. In fact, science says there is no observable reason why the big bang suddenly occured, we just know it did.
Anyway, thanks again for your site, it's a gem. I hope it's around for many more years.
God bless,
Patrick


J. Salza: Patrick, thank you very much for your email. It really encourages me to know that the site is helping win souls for His Church. I hope it continues to do so.


Regarding your comments on evolution. First, no pope has ever accepted evolution as a scientific fact. To the contrary, if you read the Magisterial statements on my website, you will see just the opposite. The popes have condemned the notion that God didn't create everything in the world ex nihilo (from nothing). Only Pope John Paul II allowed evolution to be debated as a theory, but that is it. It is only a theory, and theories can be true or false.


You say that "there is no doubt the world is billions of years old." Says who? The problem you have is that there is no scientific proof that the world is billions of years old. The scientific proof is actually against such a conclusion. Second, if you read the Scriptural chronologies which I piece together on my website, we instead conclude that the earth is only about 14,000 years-old. Again, in the absence of scientific proof to the contrary (which there is none), we as Catholics must stick to the Scriptures, the Fathers and the Magisterium, none of whom ever taught that the world is billions of years old.


To say that there is more evidence for the evolution of man than of the existence of Jesus Christ is an incredible statement, especially from a Catholic. Please let me put you to the test. Provide the evidence for the "evolution of man." There is absolutely no evidence that man evolved from apes, which evolutionary theory holds. It is contrary to every papal statement on the creation account. Yes, species adapt to environmental conditions, but there is no evidence that one species evolves into another species. If evolution were true, there would be millions of transitional fossils out there. The fact is, there isn't one. This is a fatal scientific blow to the false theory of evolution, and the evolutionists have so much as admitted it.


Regarding your comments on the "Big Bang," no, Scripture does not say that there was an "explosion of light." Scripture says that God said "let there be light," and "there was light." No evolutionary process. No billions of years. Nothing of the sort. Science can hypothesize all it wants about what the earth once was, but if it doesn't comport with God's revealed Word in Scripture, then it is false. Second, these "scientists" who hypothesize about such matters (most of whom are agnostics who abhor the Catholic faith and revealed religion) weren't there at the beginning. So they don't know any more than you or me about what actually happened. That is why God decided to open up His revelation with a detailed account of how He put things together. He knew in advance that atheistic scientists would attempt to discredit the faith with their scientific theories, and so revealed to us the creation account.


Regarding interpreting Genesis literally, all of the early Church Fathers did so (Augustine had an alternative interpretation that everything was creating instantaneously, never over millions of years). You should know that the Church dogmatically teaches us (Trent and Vatican I) that we are not to depart from the interpretation of the Fathers when there is a consensus, because the consensus means the Fathers' teaching came from the apostles. All the Fathers believed in a six-day creation, and thus no Father ever believed in evolutionary theory. This means that we are not to depart from their interpretation. The Church also teaches that we are to interpret the Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense, unless the interpretation is untenable. Interpreting Genesis literally is not only not untenable, it reflects the faith of our Fathers which are are bound to follow. That, coupled with the papal teachings against evolution, require us to reject the false theory of evolution.
I hope this helps. If I can be of further assistance, please write.
God bless.
John Salza

Patrick: John,
Thank you for your timely and elaborate response. It is obvious that you work diligently for the Lord and His Truth. You said you would like to "put me to the test." I accept, and I will be drafting a response to each point you made in your reply. This may take some time, but I will work on it as quickly as possible. Since I happen to be on vacation this week, perhaps I will be able to send it to you in the next few days.

Before I send you the response, please know that I have noted the following of your letter to me. I have heard your arguments, and I understand them, but I think that the problem is not that your arguments are false, but rather they are, for the most part, arguments about things that are irrelevant (pardon my word usage here). It would be like a Protestant arguing that Catholics worship the pope, and thus can't be right. The argument would hold weight if the premise, that Catholics worship the pope, were true.

Therefore, I will demonstrate each point and question with the upmost care to fully explain my point of view.
Thank you again for your response and arguments.
In Christ,
Patrick


J. Salza: Patrick, I will be on vacation starting Friday until Sept 5, so I may not get back to you for weeks. However, before you do respond, please consider what I have written below.


The main point you have to understand is the dogmatic teachings of Trent and Vatican I which require us not to depart from the teachings of the Fathers when they are unanimous. This requirement to adhere to the unanimity of the Fathers is infallible, dogmatic Catholic teaching. As regards a six-day creation, the Fathers were unanimous. The Church has NEVER, in any papal or conciliar pronouncement, ever made any statements supporting the evolutionary theory.


To the contrary, Vatican Council I, the same council that bound us to the literal and unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, issued an infallible dogmatic statement with an accompanying anathema: “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.”


Thus, the Church infallibly proclaims that “the world and all things” in it are the product of an ex nihilo creation. In addition, the Church, for the first time, adds the phrase “as regards their whole substance.” This phrase essentially prevents anyone from advancing the theory of evolution (that is, arguing that God made some parts, but evolution contributed to the other parts). Moreover, the Church affirms Lateran Council IV that both the “spiritual and material” were made out of nothing. Spiritual refers to the creation of angels, and no one has argued that angels were created by an evolutionary process. There is never any distinction between how God created the angels (instantaneously, out of nothing) and how God created humans (instantaneously, out of nothing).


If you would like to respond, please address the teaching of Vatican I and the unanimity of the Fathers, and why Catholics are free to dissent from same.
God bless.
John Salza

Patrick: John, the principal reason why the pronouncements from Trent and Vatican I don’t apply is because evolution does not involve faith or morals. If you read Trent and Vatican I’s teachings, they require us to follow the unanimity of the Fathers only when their teachings regard faith or morals. Evolution is about science, not faith or morals. Therefore, we are not bound by the Fathers’ interpretation on a six-day creation.
J. Salza: Patrick, in order to get out from under the Church's dogmatic teaching about interpreting the Scriptures with the unanimity of the Fathers, you have pursued the only road you could: trying to argue that the creation account does not concern "faith." Unfortunately, this is not going to work for you.


First, the creation account concerns the faith for a number of reasons. Here are ten:
1. It is where we get the doctrine of Original Sin.


2. It is where we get the doctrine of Marriage.


3. It is where we get the Protoevangelium.


4. It is where we get the doctrine of ex nihilo creation.


5. The NT teachings on the faith appeal to the creation account as true history (2 Cor 4:4-6; Heb 4:4).


6. The OT teachings on the faith appeal to the creation account as true history (Ex 20:11).


7. The Fathers and the medievals considered it a matter of the faith.


8. The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission, endorsed by Pius X, considered it a matter of the faith.


9. Popes Pelagius I, Leo XIII and Pius XII considered it a matter of faith; as did Lateran IV, Cologne and Vatican I.


10. The Church defines faith as an assent of the intellect to the truths revealed by God. Since the creation account is one of the truths revealed by God, it is a matter of faith.


Second, the Church teaches us that we must interpret the Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense, unless the interpretation is unreasonable or necessity requires otherwise (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893; Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950; the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116). Because science has not (and cannot) disproved a six-day creation and evolutionary theory, we must interpret the Scriptures literally. That means a six-day, ex nihilo creation.
Third, the Fathers were unanimous in their belief in a six-day creation period, and many of the quotes you provided prove my case. Only Augustine offered an alternative theory: that God created everything instantly, and fashioned it over six days so that the angels could comprehend His work. This is the antithesis of the evolutionary theory. Moreover, Augustine also viewed a six-day creation period as a legitimate interpretation of the Scriptures. In fact, it was from Augustine that the Church derived her literal approach to the Scriptures. The only Father that deviated from a six-day creation account was Origen, but he allegorized almost everything and so is an irrelevant exception to the rule.
Fourth, two infallible councils eliminate evolution as a legitimate theory of creation. Lateran Council IV stated that “God created both orders out of nothing from the beginning of time, the spiritual and corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly.” The Lateran Council infallibly proclaims that God created the spiritual (angels) and corporeal (humans, animals, plants, heavenly bodies) “out of nothing” (ex nihilo).


Unlike what you have argued, ex nihilo means "from nothing," not "from God alone." That God used dust to create Adam does not contradict ex nihilo creation, for human cells do not come from mud. That means Adam was created out of nothing, and God's use of dust wasn't necessary. In fact, God's use of dust has a theological, yes "Faith" element to it, for it prefigured man's destiny while in sin - that we return to the dust from whence Adam came.


In 1870, Vatican Council I issued an infallible dogmatic statement with an accompanying anathema: “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.” Once again, the Church infallibly proclaims that “the world and all things” in it are the product of an ex nihilo creation.


In addition, the Church, for the first time, adds the phrase “as regards their whole substance.” This phrase essentially prevents anyone from advancing the theory of evolution (that is, arguing that God made some parts, but evolution contributed to the other parts). Moreover, the Church affirms Lateran Council IV that both the “spiritual and material” were made out of nothing. Spiritual refers to the creation of angels, and no one has argued that angels were created by an evolutionary process. There is never any distinction between how God created the angels (instantaneously, out of nothing) and how God created humans (instantaneously, out of nothing). Pope Leo XIII affirmed the same in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae. John Paul II has never (and could never) contradict this infallible teaching. Statements from the Pontifical Academy of Science (made up primarily of non-Catholic agnostics) have absolutely no authority.


Therefore, you are back to square one - explaining why we are not bound by the mandate of two infallible councils that we must interpret the creation account according to the unanimity of the Fathers, when they concern faith or morals.
MayGod give you His wisdom to hear the Faith of the Fathers, not the enemies of God and His Church.
John Salza

[ItisintheSTARS]

Originally Posted by Wicknight

The official Roman Catholic Church position is that evolution is a well supported scientific theory that is not in conflict with faith in the Bible.

Unlike Christian Creationsts, The Roman Catholic Church has not held to a literal reading of Genesis since before Darwin (geology and other sciences ruled out a 6,000 year old universe long before Darwin).

The only issue for the RCC was the effect of evolution on the concept of original sin which has been resolved.

Yes I think the world was designed ,and the design shows up in the laws of good Astrology /astronomy.
It is just as well to remember that until about 400 yrs ago they were considered one and the same thing .
I think that for me the danger is when people start to think they can tell the future,encourage superstition,and take over God's role,and His relation with you.
Evolution of our souls goes hand in hand with that of our bodies.
When our souls become corrupted for long enough over time ,eventually our bodies follow.
Our souls evolve according to how much we follow the laws of God as He reveals us to them .All our sorrows come from how distant we are from those laws.
However about the LAWS. Many people get into the habit of behaving Externally well ,but in their hearts they are full of hate or jealousy,which is probably the most common in the time of Aquarius ,where ALL must be reduced to the lowest common denominator.No one is allowed to shine, in whatever way ,by those who talk of equality rights etc .
In the long term Rights are bestowed by God, although as He said 'As above so below'.
So we must try to be as just and honest as we can,but not Righteous
and rigid, and create as JUST and Fair a society as possible ,which of course has not been happening much recently.
Equality is not justice ,although before the law we must be equal, all people are not equal ,and will not avoid that judgement which is to come.
One of the reasons I gather that the Church dismissed reincarnation ,was because it would go on forever,and forever,and if you tell people that
the Exams would never come they would never study enough .And the EVOLUTIONARY push forward which following Christ's word would give us would never come before the Aquarian Age which would bring it's dangers ,as we can see now .

[deman]

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

and if your not Catholic your protestant

Where did you come up with this tripe??

Haven't you ever heard of the Orthodox Church? Then there's the restorationist denominations such as Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons.