Does the church believe in/promote/accept Evolution??

grrrrrrrrrr

Hey guys,

The last thread was closed due to lack of debate and this was a major arguement on the last one(for a while)

Ye all seemed to have a different view on what the church thought but what is the official line on it??


Just wondering!

PDN

grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hey guys,

The last thread was closed due to lack of debate and this was a major arguement on the last one(for a while)

Ye all seemed to have a different view on what the church thought but what is the official line on it??


Just wondering!

Which church? Catholic?

Soul Winner

Fanny Cradock

grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hey guys,

The last thread was closed due to lack of debate and this was a major arguement on the last one(for a while)

Ye all seemed to have a different view on what the church thought but what is the official line on it??


Just wondering!

You mean the RCC?

The official stance of the RCC is that it accepts evolution, albeit theistic evolution (which amounts to the same thing).

TokenWhite

Pretty sure that the vatican has gone on record a few times to say that darwinian evolution does not contradict its teachings so this would suggest that the church accepts its validity. I wouldn't be to sure how they would reconcile it with literal biblical teachings but they obviously they do. Wether its a legitimate reconcilliation though I can't really comment.

From my experience I would say it definately does not activily promote it but its generally a well accepted step by step process of how we came to be. I'm not sure what part the church believes god plays in evolution, probably something along the lines of putting in place the laws that would allow it to happen, although then again I doubt if they know themselves. I would imagine its as much 'educated' guessing for them as anyone else

Zombrex

grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hey guys,

The last thread was closed due to lack of debate and this was a major arguement on the last one(for a while)

Ye all seemed to have a different view on what the church thought but what is the official line on it??


Just wondering!

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.

Fanny Cradock

As for promoting evolution, I'm not sure that is the job of the RCC. IMO, it is sufficient that they take a positive stance on it.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for promoting evolution, I'm not sure that is the job of the RCC. IMO, it is sufficient that they take a positive stance on it.

They teach it in their schools, I guess that could be considered promoting.

Those brainwashing bastards :P

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Those brainwashing bastards :P

Destroy all religion!

grrrrrrrrrr

PDN wrote: »

Which church? Catholic?

No the buddist african church! hence why i post in the Christianity forum!

Stephentlig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You mean the RCC?

The official stance of the RCC is that it accepts evolution, albeit theistic evolution (which amounts to the same thing).

it does not accept it, trust a protestant to qoute from wikipedia and call it ''official''

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.

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.

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

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

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

God bless and take care
Stephen.

PDN

grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »

No the buddist african church! hence why i post in the Christianity forum!

A lot of us who post here belong to other churches rather than Catholicism.

grrrrrrrrrr

PDN wrote: »

A lot of us who post here belong to other churches rather than Catholicism.

apologies

Fanny Cradock

Stephentlig wrote: »

it does not accept it, trust a protestant to qoute from wikipedia and call it ''official''

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.

grrrrrrrrrr

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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.

So what is the churchs view? the RCC that is??

Stephentlig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

Stephentlig wrote: »

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

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »

may i ask why that chap got a warning??

No - it's now a private issue.

Soul Winner

grrrrrrrrrr wrote: »

may i ask why that chap got a warning??

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

grrrrrrrrrr

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

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/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.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.

Stephentlig wrote: »

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/comment/faith/article5859797.ece

Stephentlig wrote: »

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 :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Stephentlig wrote: »

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

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

Stephentlig wrote: »

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

Wicknight wrote: »

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

Stephentlig wrote: »

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.

:mad:

PDN

ItisintheSTARS wrote: »

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 on and the same thing .
I think that for me the danger is when people start to think the 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 heartsthey 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 siad '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 .

PDN Puts Mod Hat On
I'm going to request you not to litter the Christianity forum with all this stuff about reincarnation and the age of Aquarius. There is a Spirituality Forum where I think you will find yourself quite at home.

Stephentlig

deman wrote: »

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.

:mad:

all of which are currently protest-ing against infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church, which is why all are protestant.

PDN

Stephentlig wrote: »

all of which are currently protest-ing against infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church, which is why all are protestant.

The Orthodox Church are Protestants now? Good grief!

deman

Stephentlig wrote: »

all of which are currently protest-ing against infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church, which is why all are protestant.

If this is what you really believe then how can anyone else believe in anything else that you are saying? Ridiculous comment. You are totally misinformed and misinforming others with your crazy beliefs.

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

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

Explain to me again why I'm supposed to take John Salza's interpretation as the official position of the Roman Catholic Church?

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

The Orthodox Church are Protestants now? Good grief!

I am quite soft with my Orthodox brothers and have many friends who are Orthodox, but they know that when it comes to defending my faith I cut no corners and tell it like it is.

Stephentlig

Wicknight wrote: »

Explain to me again why I'm supposed to take John Salza's interpretation as the official position of the Roman Catholic Church?

He has been taken on by the Church as an apologist, to correct people in the faith, it is not his interpretation it is the churches stance on it at the moment, but not everyone sees it that way, they'd rather listen to the voices of the PAS-pontifical academy of Science ( which is primarily made up of atheists and agnostics ) and have no infallible teaching authority on the matter.

Pope Benedict: "But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

ItisintheSTARS

Stephentlig wrote: »

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.

Well I am no expert on Darwinism/Dawkins ,knowing a little bit ,but is there not a problem for them with Age of the earth ,and the appearance of us on the Stage?
I do not like to make ,take things as facts immediately without further consideration,but am giving it to you lot ,who sound O.K., as it occurs to me on the age of the Earth as in the Creationist belief system and here it is .
We are not talking about 6000/7000 yrs of earth time but of Space time
as in the astronomical Great Year,so that would be approx.
6,000 x25,000 = ?

Before I finish on that I wish to say that the astrological [true astronomical time ]picture has changed dramatically since just befor Xmas.
It is getting better ,and it will do so as the year goes on.
The last year was terrible till then and before that for 18 years
Neptune[pisces ruled ]was in it's fallen sign and therefore unable to give it's loving ,light bearing qualities.
The main thing that happens under this sign when it's not functioning like DECEIT FALSE REASONING,SELF DELUSION.
If it was MARS mal functioning for example it would create wars.Under Neptune it creates LIES.
As we know a bacteria might kill more and destroy more than wars ,and do it by stealth.
The idea that the devil work by bombs,guns etc .is not true , he does so by turning the minds of people to be sheep like,and turning truth on it's head.
The Astronomical /Astrological configuration for this year is excellent for
boosting the the good energies,turning minds to higher truths,and giving courage,and love.
God works always through His creation HIs garden,and we are free to choose to take this choice or that ,but we always get another chance,until the last cycle comes ,and then perhaps no more chances.
In this garden we are the 'fruits' which are most like HIM,and so we must take care of the garden for Him, while He takes care of us.

Fluffybums

Stephentlig wrote: »

He has been taken on by the Church as an apologist, to correct people in the faith, it is not his interpretation it is the churches stance on it at the moment, but not everyone sees it that way, they'd rather listen to the voices of the PAS-pontifical academy of Science ( which is primarily made up of atheists and agnostics ) and have no infallible teaching authority on the matter.

Pope Benedict: "But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

It is the nature of science that virtually nothing is proven, experimental or physical evidence is published. Unfortunately, this means that despite a huge bank of evidence in favour of evolution creationist and their ilc can carry one dismissing it.
As for the Pope's comment - it still amounts to an opinion of a man based on belief. All the various organisations within the RCC handing down dictats, they are men with opinions. God gave us brains to use if he did not expect us to use them he would not have given us such unique an impressive organs.
Stephenlig - so that you can dismis this post out of hand. I was brought up Anglican, but am at best agnostic now. I am also a scientist.

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

He has been taken on by the Church as an apologist

Define "taken on by the Church"? The Pope has hired him?

Stephentlig wrote: »

it is not his interpretation it is the churches stance on it at the moment, but not everyone sees it that way, they'd rather listen to the voices of the PAS-pontifical academy of Science ( which is primarily made up of atheists and agnostics ) and have no infallible teaching authority on the matter.

So we are not supposed to listen to the Vatican's academy of science in matters of science? But we are supposed to listen to John Salza?

Stephentlig wrote: »

Pope Benedict: "But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

The only place I can find that quote is someone claiming the Pope said it on a Catholic discussion forum.

Again turning to these obviously secular protestant atheists unreliable news interviews with actual Vatican members including the Pope, the Pope seems happy to "believe in evolution"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447930/Pope-Benedict-believes-evolution.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

Notice that the Pope calls Creationism an absurdity. Isn't John Salza a young Earth creationist?

Fanny Cradock

ItisintheSTARS wrote: »

Neptune[pisces ruled ]was in it's fallen sign and therefore unable to give it's loving ,light bearing qualities.
The main thing that happens under this sign when it's not functioning like DECEIT FALSE REASONING,SELF DELUSION.
If it was MARS mal functioning for example it would create wars.Under Neptune it creates LIES.
As we know a bacteria might kill more and destroy more than wars ,and do it by stealth.
The idea that the devil work by bombs,guns etc .is not true , he does so by turning the minds of people to be sheep like,and turning truth on it's head.
The Astronomical /Astrological configuration for this year is excellent for
boosting the the good energies,turning minds to higher truths,and giving courage,and love.
God works always through His creation HIs garden,and we are free to choose to take this choice or that ,but we always get another chance,until the last cycle comes ,and then perhaps no more chances.
In this garden we are the 'fruits' which are most like HIM,and so we must take care of the garden for Him, while He takes care of us.

Last warning. Take it to the spirituality forum, please.

Stephentlig

Wicknight wrote: »

Define "taken on by the Church"? The Pope has hired him?



So we are not supposed to listen to the Vatican's academy of science in matters of science? But we are supposed to listen to John Salza?



The only place I can find that quote is someone claiming the Pope said it on a Catholic discussion forum.

Again turning to these obviously secular protestant atheists unreliable news interviews with actual Vatican members including the Pope, the Pope seems happy to "believe in evolution"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447930/Pope-Benedict-believes-evolution.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

Notice that the Pope calls Creationism an absurdity. Isn't John Salza a young Earth creationist?

I don't beleive secular sources, but if the pope said that then it can only be dismissed as his private opinion for if it is neither taught in Sacred Scripture nor Tradition it cannot be accepted by the Church.

I dont listen to the PAS if what they say was not taught in the Tradition and Sacred scripture of the church I listen to the perfect exegisis of infallbile dogma such as Sacred Scripture and tradition by apologists such as John Salza whom yes is an official apologist for the faith.

The PAS have no infallible teaching authority when it comes to matters such as evolution, the popes opinions are not infallible, they are his own private ones, and we must obey God before we obey man, just as peter ( the first pope ) requested we do in ( Acts:5:29 ).

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=pontifical+academy+of+science+run+by+atheists&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&cts=1266670495078&aq=f&oq=

the above is a pdf thats proof the academy is run by atheists.

Stephentlig

Fluffybums wrote: »

It is the nature of science that virtually nothing is proven, experimental or physical evidence is published. Unfortunately, this means that despite a huge bank of evidence in favour of evolution creationist and their ilc can carry one dismissing it.
As for the Pope's comment - it still amounts to an opinion of a man based on belief. All the various organisations within the RCC handing down dictats, they are men with opinions. God gave us brains to use if he did not expect us to use them he would not have given us such unique an impressive organs.
Stephenlig - so that you can dismis this post out of hand. I was brought up Anglican, but am at best agnostic now. I am also a scientist.

Hi, what evidence? there is no evidence for it...

in my letter of last year to John Salza, he consulted his collegue Dr.Robert sungenis P.h.d on the matter and this is what was said.

No, it is not true. I have copied my colleauge Robert Sungenis on this to
see if he has more information for you.

John Salza


stephen mcelligott writes:

>
> Dear John, I have recently been in a debate and some guy gave me a website leading to transitional fossils and claims it proof for evolution.
>
> yet I know that on your site you say that there is no transitional fossils. is it true now that they have found some?
>
>
>
> God bless
>
> Stephen

Stephen,

Yes, transitional fossils are proof for evolution, but that sad fact for evolutionist is that they haven't been able to find any indisputable transitional fossils. The two leading evolutionists, Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge, admitted it in a 1971 speech in Chicago to all the world's evolutionists. Subsequently, they invented the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to replace the absence of transitional fossils. PE is a theory that various species punctuated the landscape instantaneously, without gradual development. Prior to this, Niles Eldredge writes in his books that he used to go out on fossil excavations on a routine basis, but was always frustrated by the fact that he never found any. Many more scientists have admitted that there are no transitional fossils. Some have claimed to have found some, but these are always dubious. You can depend upon the fact that if some scientist found a bona fide transitional fossil, it would make world headlines and be the most stupendous find since the dawn of mankind. But obviously, that has not happened. Everytime the evolutionists have put forward a specimen that they hoped would be a transitional fossil or missing link, it has been discovered that it either belonged to an already known species, or that the specimen was faked, as is the case with Piltdown Man and many others.

There is much more evidence against so-called transitional fossils than what I am giving you here. If you need any more, please let me know.

Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.

Zombrex

There is whole thread just over there that goes into Creationist lies such as the claim that there are no transitional fossils, so I won't waste time debating that sort of nonsense here (though I always fine it funny when Creationists/Geocentrists put their utterly unrelated qualifications after their names as if that lends them weight in the area they are discussing, Robert Sungenis has a Phd in religious studies, which obviously makes him an expert in evolutionary biology :rolleyes:)

I'm pretty close though to dismissing John Salva as just another Creationist nut case. How has he "officially" working for the Catholic Church, and why should we listen to him over the Pope?

Wicknight, M.Sc.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

There is whole thread just over there that goes into Creationist lies such as the claim that there are no transitional fossils, so I won't waste time debating that sort of nonsense here (though I always fine it funny when Creationists/Geocentrists put their utterly unrelated qualifications after their names as if that lends them weight in the area they are discussing, Robert Sungenis has a Phd in religious studies, which obviously makes him an expert in evolutionary biology :rolleyes:)

I'm pretty close though to dismissing John Salva as just another Creationist nut case. How has he "officially" working for the Catholic Church, and why should we listen to him over the Pope?

Wicknight, M.Sc.

Let's not turn this into a Creationist thread. One of them is enough.

PDN, MTh.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

so I won't waste time debating that sort of nonsense here

Appreciated!

mindundalk

Stephentlig wrote: »

He has been taken on by the Church as an apologist, to correct people in the faith, it is not his interpretation it is the churches stance on it at the moment, but not everyone sees it that way, they'd rather listen to the voices of the PAS-pontifical academy of Science ( which is primarily made up of atheists and agnostics ) and have no infallible teaching authority on the matter.

Pope Benedict: "But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

Evolution is a theory and although the church may respect the views of science it does not necessarily support this.

Stephentlig

Wicknight wrote: »

There is whole thread just over there that goes into Creationist lies such as the claim that there are no transitional fossils, so I won't waste time debating that sort of nonsense here (though I always fine it funny when Creationists/Geocentrists put their utterly unrelated qualifications after their names as if that lends them weight in the area they are discussing, Robert Sungenis has a Phd in religious studies, which obviously makes him an expert in evolutionary biology :rolleyes:)

I'm pretty close though to dismissing John Salva as just another Creationist nut case. How has he "officially" working for the Catholic Church, and why should we listen to him over the Pope?

Wicknight, M.Sc.

and I'm sick of people who put ''I am a scientist'' after theirs and request that we put our faith into their theories and explanations.

nobody is asking anyone to listen to him over the Pope, but asking them to stick to the infallible dogma of the church, the Popes opinions must be respected, but they can be challenged respectfully by apologists and theologians for his private opinions are not infallible, if the Pope asked me to worship a can of coca cola, I wouldnt, for his request contradicts the Church on faith ( doctrine) and morals ( discipline ) Sacred scripture and Tradition does not allow us to interpret scriptures any other way, the council of trent and and council of Vatican I make it clear that we must not leave the unanimous intepretation of the fathers, evolution is not taught in Sacred Scripture or tradition, and Catholics are only permitted to believe in the possibility of the theistic theory, put still to remember that its only a theory.

This thread is not on debate of creationism, I am not a creationist though I am a Catholic, unless its contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it is nothing but a fairy tale, I put my faith into my One Holy Catholic Churches doctrine, not the doctrines of the world, who make ridiculous claims that evolution is true.

to end it, I love our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI and his efforts to tackle every left wing theologian in the church so far has been great, he was doing this even prior to his Papal office when he was Cardinal Jospeh ratzinger and head of the CDF.

I'm ending the discussion now, and I will let people look into it more and decide for themselves.

God bless and take care
Stephen

monosharp

Stephentlig wrote: »

and I'm sick of people who put ''I am a scientist'' after theirs and request that we put our faith into their theories and explanations.

Not a fan of facts then ?

This thread is not on debate of creationism, I am not a creationist though I am a Catholic, unless its contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it is nothing but a fairy tale, I put my faith into my One Holy Catholic Churches doctrine, not the doctrines of the world, who make ridiculous claims that evolution is true.

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.
– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)

Cardinal Paul Poupard added that "the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism."

Stephen, are you officially the first fundamentalist Catholic that I have ever met ? Because the kind of tripe and nonsense your repeating here regarding Evolution is in the realm of American red necks who can barely read the bible, never mind understand it.

I'd seriously suggest you take a step back here and listen to what the actual Vatican says on this issue, on things like the age of the earth etc.

Stephentlig

monosharp wrote: »

Not a fan of facts then ?



We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.
– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)

Cardinal Paul Poupard added that "the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism."

Stephen, are you officially the first fundamentalist Catholic that I have ever met ? Because the kind of tripe and nonsense your repeating here regarding Evolution is in the realm of American red necks who can barely read the bible, never mind understand it.

I'd seriously suggest you take a step back here and listen to what the actual Vatican says on this issue, on things like the age of the earth etc.

Your still imposing your own view on the text, and your reply is still evidence of how elementary you are in exegeting text its not an infallible statement and can only be dismissed as private opinion. I listen to modern science no problem, but when that science contradicts the infallibility of the Church such as the infallible Council of trents request that we do not depart from the unanimous interpretation of the fathers then I am not bound to believe in it.

especially if it contradicts the word of God. I am not fundamentalist, I'm Catholic ( haha think I'll put that on a t-shirt ) :pac:

The Lord told the mystics that evolution is wrong, maria valtorta in 1940's and Vassula Ryden from the 80's up.

but of course the church permits us to believe in the possibility of theistic evolution but thats it its just a theory ( my goodness how many times have I said that ). it does not permit us to believe in all the other theorys which completely are not compatible with Sacred Scripture and Tradition. also the above does not tell us what type of evolution Cardinal Raztinger is responding/ speaking of.

monosharp

Stephentlig wrote: »

Your still imposing your own view on the text, and your reply is still evidence of how elementary you are in exegeting text its not an infallible statement and can only be dismissed as private opinion.

I do not care. That was not my point. I don't care what is 'infallible' according to the church or not. My point was about the churches position. The church has positions on more things then it has declared 'infallible'.

I listen to modern science no problem, but when that science contradicts the infallibility of the Church such as the infallible Council of trents request that we do not depart from the unanimous interpretation of the fathers then I am not bound to believe in it.

And what exactly is being contradicted by evolution according to you ?

especially if it contradicts the word of God. I am not fundamentalist, I'm Catholic ( haha think I'll put that on a t-shirt ) :pac:

What part of evolution contradicts the word of God ? Because the pope seems to think it doesn't contradict the word of God.

The Lord told the mystics that evolution is wrong, maria valtorta in 1940's and Vassula Ryden from the 80's up.

What ?

but of course the church permits us to believe in the possibility of theistic evolution but thats it its just a theory ( my goodness how many times have I said that ).

I don't know but it sounds just as ignorant the xth time as it did the first time.

Gravity is just a theory, the computer your using right now works because of theories. A theory in Science does not have the same meaning as the word theory in the English language.

A theory in science is an explanation (how) of some fact (what) that is so strongly supported by evidence that it is accepted as 'true'.

The theory of general relativity (a theory of gravitation) explains the fact of gravity.
The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

it does not permit us to believe in all the other theorys which completely are not compatible with Sacred Scripture and Tradition. also the above does not tell us what type of evolution Cardinal Raztinger is responding/ speaking of.

What 'kinds' of evolution are there ?