S
Sarcelle
Guest
Interesting
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Why? It has been clear Catholic teaching for 1800 years or so. Americans know this.
B
buffalo
Guest
Study as many of official Church documents and declarations as you can. When this search is taken to its conclusion, you will have the answer.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
It is definitely not Catholic dogma on par with the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.
Again it is not a requirement for Catholics to subscribe to the literal six day creation.
I will leave it at that.
Again it is not a requirement for Catholics to subscribe to the literal six day creation.
I will leave it at that.
R
Richca
Guest
Currently, the Church allows belief in a certain form of theistic evolution as laid out in the few addresses, audiences, speeches, and a couple of encyclicals from recent and present pope beginning with Pope Pius XII in 1950. However, the Church does not affirm that evolution is true, at least the macro or cosmic variety, or that God created the world in this way. The Church also allows creationism belief which was the traditional or ordinary teaching of the Church throughout its whole history prior to essentially the second half of the last century in which it allows, as just mentioned, along side creationism belief, theistic evolution belief.
As far as creationism goes, we know with certainty it is not beyond God’s infinite power to do nor is it contrary to the literal sense of Holy Scripture nor the entire Tradition of the Church and how this Tradition interpreted Scripture.
As far as theistic evolution goes, the recent popes have said, Pope John Paul II comes to mind in one his addresses, that in principle evolution is not against the catholic faith and I believe he even mentioned Genesis. What I understand from this is that they are saying if God wanted to create a world in an evolutionary sort of manner, who would dare say that he couldn’t? Although, it may have to be, and I actually do believe, an entirely different kind of world than the one we live in and I would personally hope that if I was in it, it wouldn’t involve species transformism as I simply find the idea gross. The question then hinges on in what manner did he actually create this world we live in. Apparently, in the mind of the present Church, the verdict is still out on evolution and especially as it concerns man or rather his body. As far as evolution concerns the past and deep past, whether cosmic or biological, when there was no human around to observe what actually happened, I deem it impossible for any human and the Church included to affirm evolution as a certain truth. However, at the same time, since I do not believe God actually created this world in an evolutionary manner such as like from the singularity of the Big Bang or biological Darwinism, than I consider it possible to disprove evolution from Holy Scripture, philosophy, and science in a reasonable manner without neglecting the all important theological virtue of faith though.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
Also, concerning the Church, the authority Christ entrusted to the Church is to be the guardian and authentic interpreter of the word of God or the deposit of faith, namely, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Accordingly, for the Church to propose to the faithful a binding belief in evolution which requires a sort of faith, would be tantamount to declaring that evolution is contained in the sources of divine revelation, i.e., Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. However, we know with certainty where the idea of evolution as it is understood today came from, namely, the 19th century and principally from Charles Darwim. In my opinion, it would be much easier for the Church to propose some sort of binding teaching in favor of creationism which is what Holy Scripture appears to literally support and all the Church fathers.
One last thing I wanted to mention concerning what recent popes have said to the effect that in principle evolution is not against the catholic faith if understood correctly. Besides the idea I mentioned above as to who would dare say that God couldn’t create a world in some sort of evolutionary manner if he wanted too though it may not be the kind of world we live in now, these popes may also had in mind in some manner St Augustine’s literal interpretation of Genesis and his theory of the seminal reasons although not as if Augustinianism and Darwinism are the same thing. They clearly are not for Augustine did not teach a Darwinian transformation of species nor was he ever interpreted in such a Darwinian fashion from all the fathers, doctors, saints, and theologians who came after him. However, maybe the principle of the idea of the seminal reasons is what the popes may have considered.
An excellent source book I recommend is called ‘Catholicism and Evolution - A History from Darwin to Pope Francis’ by Fr. Michael Charerek, O.P.
Also, concerning the Church, the authority Christ entrusted to the Church is to be the guardian and authentic interpreter of the word of God or the deposit of faith, namely, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Accordingly, for the Church to propose to the faithful a binding belief in evolution which requires a sort of faith, would be tantamount to declaring that evolution is contained in the sources of divine revelation, i.e., Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. However, we know with certainty where the idea of evolution as it is understood today came from, namely, the 19th century and principally from Charles Darwim. In my opinion, it would be much easier for the Church to propose some sort of binding teaching in favor of creationism which is what Holy Scripture appears to literally support and all the Church fathers.
One last thing I wanted to mention concerning what recent popes have said to the effect that in principle evolution is not against the catholic faith if understood correctly. Besides the idea I mentioned above as to who would dare say that God couldn’t create a world in some sort of evolutionary manner if he wanted too though it may not be the kind of world we live in now, these popes may also had in mind in some manner St Augustine’s literal interpretation of Genesis and his theory of the seminal reasons although not as if Augustinianism and Darwinism are the same thing. They clearly are not for Augustine did not teach a Darwinian transformation of species nor was he ever interpreted in such a Darwinian fashion from all the fathers, doctors, saints, and theologians who came after him. However, maybe the principle of the idea of the seminal reasons is what the popes may have considered.
An excellent source book I recommend is called ‘Catholicism and Evolution - A History from Darwin to Pope Francis’ by Fr. Michael Charerek, O.P.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
I find it odd that theistic evolutionists want to reduce all living things as coming from a single first cell and even the entire universe to a microscopic electron or infinitesimally small singularity. But they can’t wrap their mind around the creationist’s belief in the Bible that the entire human race could have come from a created single first man and couple.
Last edited:
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
It was a Catholic priest that came up with that idea.
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
@catholic1seeks I assume you’re asking how a Catholic can find out if the Church allows acceptance of evolution to make a point, but for any lurkers, here a link to Catholic Answers that has links to everything evolution on the main site.
https://www.catholic.com/evolution
And as a matter of advice, I’ve seen quite a bit from the various threads. You can point out any manner of evidence you want that Catholics are able to accept evolution, of the human body, but most of the six day creationists here will say that “Catholics can accept evolution” doesn’t mean “Catholics can accept evolution.” Or that “I believe in God and accept evolution” really means you’re a materialistic atheist that wants to destroy religion. I’ve person only seen one creationist acknowledge that Catholics are allowed to accept evolution.
If you try arguing the science it gets even worse. Hence why I’ve taken to reading this thread by ignoring 3/4 of the posts because it’s all stuff I’ve seen before and I’m really only interested in what those who acknowledge Church teaching that Catholics may accept evolution have to say. It’s made this thread much more pleasant.
https://www.catholic.com/evolution
And as a matter of advice, I’ve seen quite a bit from the various threads. You can point out any manner of evidence you want that Catholics are able to accept evolution, of the human body, but most of the six day creationists here will say that “Catholics can accept evolution” doesn’t mean “Catholics can accept evolution.” Or that “I believe in God and accept evolution” really means you’re a materialistic atheist that wants to destroy religion. I’ve person only seen one creationist acknowledge that Catholics are allowed to accept evolution.
If you try arguing the science it gets even worse. Hence why I’ve taken to reading this thread by ignoring 3/4 of the posts because it’s all stuff I’ve seen before and I’m really only interested in what those who acknowledge Church teaching that Catholics may accept evolution have to say. It’s made this thread much more pleasant.
M
mVitus
Guest
But scientists are all atheists trying to kill religion. Why would a Catholic priest have any interest in acknowledging God, oh wait…
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
This is an unworthy post from you, as I expect you know very well. I tend think of you as one of the few honest Creationists on this site, so I hope this is a slip rather than an attempt at a genuine contribution to the discussion.
It is totally false that “evolutionists want to reduce all living things as coming from a single first celll and even the entire universe to a microscopic electron or infinitesimally small singularity”, any more than they want the sun to be the hub of the solar system or they want the sky to be blue. The ancestry of living things is a matter of explanation from observations, not of desire.
It is also totally false that “they can’t wrap their mind around the creationist’s belief in the Bible that the entire human race could have come from a created single first man and couple.” Yes we can, easily. Nothing could be simpler. However we think that the preponderance of evidence is against it.
I was thinking of starting a thread asking if there were any honest Creationists, or if somehow a necessary condition of belief in Creationism is recourse to outright misrepresentation, deliberate untruth and culpable dishonesty, but a few good men have so far stayed my hand. Don’t let that number diminish.
It is totally false that “evolutionists want to reduce all living things as coming from a single first celll and even the entire universe to a microscopic electron or infinitesimally small singularity”, any more than they want the sun to be the hub of the solar system or they want the sky to be blue. The ancestry of living things is a matter of explanation from observations, not of desire.
It is also totally false that “they can’t wrap their mind around the creationist’s belief in the Bible that the entire human race could have come from a created single first man and couple.” Yes we can, easily. Nothing could be simpler. However we think that the preponderance of evidence is against it.
I was thinking of starting a thread asking if there were any honest Creationists, or if somehow a necessary condition of belief in Creationism is recourse to outright misrepresentation, deliberate untruth and culpable dishonesty, but a few good men have so far stayed my hand. Don’t let that number diminish.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
There is no such teaching.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
They have, multiple times. The evolutionists ignore them.
M
mVitus
Guest
Humani Generis. I could go on, but we’ve brought your horse to water many times and it still hasn’t drank.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Of course it’s speculation. It’s attempting to find a way to accept what the Church teaches and also admit to what science has demonstrated.
Your ‘chimp’ example is way off. The offspring of a hominin and a true human would be… human. But hey… nice try.
This is the notion that I alluded to, well upthread. This idea is ‘sick’, but the notion of brothers and sisters mating is not. Uhh… yeah. Right.
Nope. Bestiality would happen if a human mated with a non-hominin.
No, that’s not true – you need to learn your Hebrew traditions a bit better, my friend. The “breath of life” is what makes us human. It makes us nephesh – a soul, a person. In other words, God first forms humanity and only then, does he make us human. Everything else? Formed from the ground. Period. No “breath of life”. So, this is a reference to what makes us human.
G
Gorgias
Guest
mVitus:
There is no such teaching.
Yeah, but for the sake of those who are willing to see the error of those who make this suggestion:
Humani generis #36:
G
Gorgias
Guest
1st cousin marriages are impeded by merely ecclesiastical law – the impediment may be dispensed.
Parent-child marriages are impeded by divine law – the impediment may not be dispensed.
Brother-sister marriages are impeded and this impediment cannot be dispensed. What does that tell you about the nature of the impediment?
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Yes, I was just trying to make a point.
I know – and most Catholics know – that you can be a faithful Catholic and accept what is normally meant by “biological evolution.”
You don’t need some Gnostic knowledge to know the “true Catholic teaching,” hidden to select few who really know better than the Popes at what past magisterial documents or church fathers said.
It’s really common knowledge available in the most basic Catholic catechisms, youth catechetical textbooks, evangelical ministries (like Catholic Answers), top Catholic apologists and philosophers (like Ed Feser, Fr Robert Spitzer), and popular evangelists like Bishop Barron. Plus, I maintain that the magisterium has been clear – clear enough to anyone who is open and honest with the data – that the Church has moved into the direction of accepting the science of evolution (which does NOT and has NEVER meant accepting materialism, or atheism, or rejection of Original Sin, and so on).
Those who are concerned that the modern “biological textbook” has no room for God need to refresh their minds on a few traditional Catholics concepts, like secondary causation, God as Being itself, and the four types of causes. Formal and Final causation go a long way to show how science can be its “own thing” while, at the same time, be fully dependent on God. On the other hand, many on here have a very different understanding of God – God as a “god” who is in competition alongside his creation, a sort of “God of the Gaps.” That’s not Catholic.
This thread is just going around and round in circles. People are ignoring the plain data.
I know – and most Catholics know – that you can be a faithful Catholic and accept what is normally meant by “biological evolution.”
You don’t need some Gnostic knowledge to know the “true Catholic teaching,” hidden to select few who really know better than the Popes at what past magisterial documents or church fathers said.
It’s really common knowledge available in the most basic Catholic catechisms, youth catechetical textbooks, evangelical ministries (like Catholic Answers), top Catholic apologists and philosophers (like Ed Feser, Fr Robert Spitzer), and popular evangelists like Bishop Barron. Plus, I maintain that the magisterium has been clear – clear enough to anyone who is open and honest with the data – that the Church has moved into the direction of accepting the science of evolution (which does NOT and has NEVER meant accepting materialism, or atheism, or rejection of Original Sin, and so on).
Those who are concerned that the modern “biological textbook” has no room for God need to refresh their minds on a few traditional Catholics concepts, like secondary causation, God as Being itself, and the four types of causes. Formal and Final causation go a long way to show how science can be its “own thing” while, at the same time, be fully dependent on God. On the other hand, many on here have a very different understanding of God – God as a “god” who is in competition alongside his creation, a sort of “God of the Gaps.” That’s not Catholic.
This thread is just going around and round in circles. People are ignoring the plain data.
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Has nothing to do with whether or not the human body evolved.
I believe in one literal Adam and one literal Eve.
But I believe God used evolution as the means to prepare human bodies for the human soul (which, after all, makes such bodies human, in the first place).
I believe in one literal Adam and one literal Eve.
But I believe God used evolution as the means to prepare human bodies for the human soul (which, after all, makes such bodies human, in the first place).
E
edwest211
Guest
I understand. I’ve seen that for years, with certain changes in phrasing. You can believe that but the appearance of the first human being goes beyond what science can demonstrate. Science cannot study the supernatural, so it puzzles me that, on the one hand, the Church tells us we are a unity of body and soul, and science only tells us we’re a body. Now the following actually happened: there were two court cases that I’m aware of where the issue was giving certain primates rights. The fact that they are animals was not important. They’ve also been referred to as our ‘evolutionary cousins.’ Again, based solely on body type.
- Status