Can you convert to the Catholic faith and still believe in creationism?

[brotherhrolf]

On the issue of heresy, that is a serious charge and we shouldn’t make it lightly.

Indeed, yet that is the implication and one of the reasons why I am so reluctant to post here. I withdrew from this thread and went to the CCC to see if I had erred. I have not denied Adam and Eve, original sin, the fall of humankind, etc. etc. etc. Sorry, boys and girls, but I received my Catholic education (except for the last two years) before Vatican II. You wanna play Baltimore Catechism “gotcha”, I’m up for it. Like I said, credo, I believe.

I cited Copernicus, Galileo et al as a prime examples of how HMC may not be in complete touch with the realities of the physical universe. Galileo believed Copernicus and supported him. Galileo spent his life censured by the Inquisition. We now know that they were right and that all of those lovely scriptural references must be understood within the context of a nomadic, desert, tribal culture a la St. Augustine.

It truly annoys me that my orthodoxy is questioned. Some are not interested in academic dialogue and inquiry. To them I say, I was taught what I was taught before and just after Vatican II in Catholic schools by both brothers and sisters.

There are essential truths in Genesis. God created the world. God created us. God created us in the image and likeness of Him and I am not going to make the same mistake that the Inquisition made and declare that books on heliocentrism should be placed on the banned books list.

This subltle undertow of questioning other’s faith is absolutely despicable. Mine is an academic debate - an exchange of ideas…a discussion…

Good grief! We had these discussions in religion class in 1968 - my senior year in high school. It’s an academic discussion not the Spanish Inquisition in which my faith of some 57 years is challenged for it’s veracity and adherence to dogma. Brother Eugene was right. A faith which cannot stand against challenge is no faith at all.

I turn the tables. Pluck the plank out of your own eye before you presume to address the splinter in mine.

God bless those of you who have the charity to continue this discussion. It is an important discussion and a worthwhile discussion. If I wanted to have my faith questioned/maligned, etc. I could go right across the street from me and be accused of witchcraft because we have votive candles (St. Joseph, St. Michael, BVM) etc) which we burn because they last a long time in a power outage after a hurricane. My neighbor is a protestant mega-church pastor. I am deeply saddened and appalled to see such an attitude amongst fellow Catholics.

Such attitude was not how I was taught BEFORE VATICAN II and not how I conduct my life.

 

[Shin]

I cited Copernicus, Galileo et al as a prime examples of how HMC may not be in complete touch with the realities of the physical universe. Galileo believed Copernicus and supported him. Galileo spent his life censured by the Inquisition. We now know that they were right and that all of those lovely scriptural references must be understood within the context of a nomadic, desert, tribal culture a la St. Augustine.

Copernicus, Galileo, etc did not challenge dogmas of the Church. You are. **That’s the difference. **To use them as evidence that one can, is misleading and in fact the precise way these people normally are used – to the destruction of the Faith, rather than the building up of it.

I don’t care how long you’ve been a Catholic, where or what you learned, I have talked about facts about beliefs that have nothing to do with your past experiences in the Church. This is not ‘to the person’ this is about the facts.

I will say there are many people who have a lot of misconceptions about what the Church teaches, and have had these for their entire lives. And it takes humility to come out of this. The true desire to search for the truth whereever it may be found and whatever it means to you personally.

And the truth is if it’s dogma, and you’re Catholic, you believe it. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. Because God revealed it. Just like we believe Jesus Christ really existed and is not some historical myth, that He is God. It is revealed. It is Revelation.

 

[ricmat]

Indeed, yet that is the implication and one of the reasons why I am so reluctant to post here. I withdrew from this thread and went to the CCC to see if I had erred. I have not denied Adam and Eve, original sin, the fall of humankind, etc. etc. etc. Sorry, boys and girls, but I received my Catholic education (except for the last two years) before Vatican II. You wanna play Baltimore Catechism “gotcha”, I’m up for it. Like I said, credo, I believe.

“Boys and girls” - ?

Actually, I haven’t read many of your posts. Any mention of heresy, I believe, is not directed at you, but at some one else. And as I said, you need to read more of that person’s posts…

I cited Copernicus, Galileo et al as a prime examples of how HMC may not be in complete touch with the realities of the physical universe. Galileo believed Copernicus and supported him. Galileo spent his life censured by the Inquisition. We now know that they were right and that all of those lovely scriptural references must be understood within the context of a nomadic, desert, tribal culture a la St. Augustine.

Is the Earth the center of the cosmos? It depends on your frame of reference (and I’m speaking in scientific terms here). BTW - the earth going around the sun, or vice-versa is actually not the same question as “center of cosmos, or not.”

On a similar but somewhat related issue, how “old” is the Earth / Universe, here’s an interesting article from a scientific AND religious perspective.

It truly annoys me that my orthodoxy is questioned.

Actually I bless those that question my orthodoxy. Sometimes they turn out to be right, and it leads me back to God. But as I said (although if I missed something then I apologize) - the comments I’ve seen (or made) were directed at someone else.

There are essential truths in Genesis. God created the world. God created us. God created us in the image and likeness of Him and I am not going to make the same mistake that the Inquisition made and declare that books on heliocentrism should be placed on the banned books list.

What I heard was that the books mocked the pope, and were scientifically “premature.” HMC just asked Galileo to get more proof before publishing his findings. Galileo disobeyed God’s representative on earth. Disobedience, the most basic and the first sin. But maybe I’m wrong.

This subltle undertow of questioning other’s faith is absolutely despicable. Mine is an academic debate - an exchange of ideas…a discussion…

Good grief! We had these discussions in religion class in 1968 - my senior year in high school. It’s an academic discussion not the Spanish Inquisition in which my faith of some 57 years is challenged for it’s veracity and adherence to dogma. Brother Eugene was right. ** A faith which cannot stand against challenge is no faith at all. **

Huh? See bolded.

I’m not speaking of you here, but if someone who professes to be a Catholic Theologian puts forth opinions on this forum which are directly contradictory to Church teaching, then it seems to me that those who support Church teaching should identify those discrepancies - not as a personal attack but to prevent others from being misled. Either the Church is right, or the “Catholic Theologian” is right, but they both can’t be right. I’m going with the Church.

 

[brotherhrolf]

“Boys and girls” - ?.

I fall on my sword and die. Mon Dieu! Let us be as pc as we possibly can. I try to engage you and you are going to quibble over semantics and political correctness. Semantics take place before the validity of ideas.

Adios ricmat. I leave the field. I have no intention of being an object of ridicule. I dust the dirt off of my feet.

The Earth orbits the sun. Four hundred years ago the sun orbited the Earth Believe what you want to belive but question not my faith.

 

[buffalo]

Indeed, yet that is the implication and one of the reasons why I am so reluctant to post here. I withdrew from this thread and went to the CCC to see if I had erred. I have not denied Adam and Eve, original sin, the fall of humankind, etc. etc. etc. Sorry, boys and girls, but I received my Catholic education (except for the last two years) before Vatican II. You wanna play Baltimore Catechism “gotcha”, I’m up for it. Like I said, credo, I believe.

I cited Copernicus, Galileo et al as a prime examples of how HMC may not be in complete touch with the realities of the physical universe. Galileo believed Copernicus and supported him. Galileo spent his life censured by the Inquisition. We now know that they were right and that all of those lovely scriptural references must be understood within the context of a nomadic, desert, tribal culture a la St. Augustine.

It truly annoys me that my orthodoxy is questioned. Some are not interested in academic dialogue and inquiry. To them I say, I was taught what I was taught before and just after Vatican II in Catholic schools by both brothers and sisters.

There are essential truths in Genesis. God created the world. God created us. God created us in the image and likeness of Him and I am not going to make the same mistake that the Inquisition made and declare that books on heliocentrism should be placed on the banned books list.

This subltle undertow of questioning other’s faith is absolutely despicable. Mine is an academic debate - an exchange of ideas…a discussion…

Good grief! We had these discussions in religion class in 1968 - my senior year in high school. It’s an academic discussion not the Spanish Inquisition in which my faith of some 57 years is challenged for it’s veracity and adherence to dogma. Brother Eugene was right. A faith which cannot stand against challenge is no faith at all.

I turn the tables. Pluck the plank out of your own eye before you presume to address the splinter in mine.

God bless those of you who have the charity to continue this discussion. It is an important discussion and a worthwhile discussion. If I wanted to have my faith questioned/maligned, etc. I could go right across the street from me and be accused of witchcraft because we have votive candles (St. Joseph, St. Michael, BVM) etc) which we burn because they last a long time in a power outage after a hurricane. My neighbor is a protestant mega-church pastor. I am deeply saddened and appalled to see such an attitude amongst fellow Catholics.

Such attitude was not how I was taught BEFORE VATICAN II and not how I conduct my life.

You are aware geocentricity (not geocentrism) and heliocentrism cannot be proved mathematically? To know for sure which one is correct one has to look from outside this frame of reference. You are aware that Galileo was wrong, the sun is not the center of the universe? Acentrism is the current thinking.

 

[1way]

I have not read all of the responses to this question so this may have been said already but here is a heads up. There are a lot of individuals under the umbrella of “Catholicism” that hold divergent beliefs on a whole variety of issues. Creationism vs evolution is one of them. it is a hot debate but disagreement on this issue will not make you less a Catholic. I personally believe in the creation model. The Gnome project recently sponsored by Nat. Geographic proved that all human beings can trace their ancestry back to two people that lived about 6000 years ago in Africa. There is absolutely no hard evidence that demonstrates that evolution ever happened.
That said … Jesus is still Lord and God sits on his throne.

 

[StAnastasia]

I have not read all of the responses to this question so this may have been said already but here is a heads up. There are a lot of individuals under the umbrella of “Catholicism” that hold divergent beliefs on a whole variety of issues. Creationism vs evolution is one of them. it is a hot debate but disagreement on this issue will not make you less a Catholic. I personally believe in the creation model. The Gnome project recently sponsored by Nat. Geographic proved that all human beings can trace their ancestry back to two people that lived about 6000 years ago in Africa. There is absolutely no hard evidence that demonstrates that evolution ever happened.
That said … Jesus is still Lord and God sits on his throne.

What is the Gnome project? And if there is no hard evidence for evolution, why do the world’s biologists accept it? Why do they choose to study evolution rather than a Mesopotamian cosmogonic myth?

 

[1way]

What is the Gnome project? And if there is no hard evidence for evolution, why do the world’s biologists accept it? Why do they choose to study evolution rather than a Mesopotamian cosmogonic myth?

Pardon the error I was speaking from memory … the site linked below states: … it is called the genographic project… and it traces humanity back to a small group that they say started about 60,000 years ago.

genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

As to why they choose to study evolution …you’ll have to ask them.

 

[Aramis]

What is the Gnome project? And if there is no hard evidence for evolution, why do the world’s biologists accept it? Why do they choose to study evolution rather than a Mesopotamian cosmogonic myth?

I believe the prior poster meant the Human Genome Project.

Which, BTW, shows a probable shared ancestor between Humans and Chimps about 4 million years ago, as well as a single female human progenitor about between 100,000 and 170,000 years ago. The male line progenitor is a different timeframe, approximately 60,000 years.

It should be noted that the probability studies coming out of the human genome project point to a probable but unprovable most recent common ancestor between 3,000 and 12,000 years ago.

 

[buffalo]

It should be noted that the probability studies coming out of the human genome project point to a probable but unprovable most recent common ancestor between 3,000 and 12,000 years ago.

Nah - can’t be.:banghead:

 

[1way]

I believe the prior poster meant the Human Genome Project.

Which, BTW, shows a probable shared ancestor between Humans and Chimps about 4 million years ago, as well as a single female human progenitor about between 100,000 and 170,000 years ago. The male line progenitor is a different timeframe, approximately 60,000 years.

It should be noted that the probability studies coming out of the human genome project point to a probable but unprovable most recent common ancestor between 3,000 and 12,000 years ago.

Iwas referring to this information … and I made some corrections above.

genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

 

[1way]

Nah - can’t be.:banghead:

 

[StAnastasia]

It should be noted that the probability studies coming out of the human genome project point to a probable but unprovable most recent common ancestor between 3,000 and 12,000 years ago.

What is our most recent shared ancestor with gnomes?

 

[Shin]

What is the Gnome project? And if there is no hard evidence for evolution, why do the world’s biologists accept it? Why do they choose to study evolution rather than a Mesopotamian cosmogonic myth?

Unless-We-Believe-in-Scripture-We-Can-Neither-Be-Christians-Nor-Be-Saved.mp3

Directly answers the error implied by the ‘Mesopotamian cosmogonic myth’ comment, amongst other things.

 

[alacoque]

I’m thinking about converting to the Catholic faith but I read in a book that most Catholics believe in evolution. I’ve also seen a few posts on here in the past that seem to kind of make fun of the Protestant belief in creationism. So I guess I have two questions. Can one convert to the Catholic faith and believe in creationism and also if the answer is yes to that question are creation believers kind of ostracized because of this belief?

Thanks for reading.

The following is what must be believed in order to be in communion with and faithful to the Catholic Church: This is a direct quote from an article on creationism by the Holy Father, Benedict XVI:

*A Catholic may interpret the book of Genesis literally or as an allegory. However any theory that is believed by a Catholic must meet the following criteria:

1.God created everything out of nothing (“ex nihlo” in Latin)
2.God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)
3.God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence) *

If you can live with / assent to those 3 things, you’re fine as a Catholic - and any additional theories you choose to believe are irrelevant to being a Catholic (as long as they don’t contradict or oppose the above).

Good luck and prayers of support in your decision

 

[Shin]

The following is what must be believed in order to be in communion with and faithful to the Catholic Church: This is a direct quote from an article on creationism by the Holy Father, Benedict XVI:

*A Catholic may interpret the book of Genesis literally or as an allegory. However any theory that is believed by a Catholic must meet the following criteria:

1.God created everything out of nothing (“ex nihlo” in Latin)
2.God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)
3.God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence) *

If you can live with / assent to those 3 things, you’re fine as a Catholic - and any additional theories you choose to believe are irrelevant to being a Catholic (as long as they don’t contradict or oppose the above).

Good luck and prayers of support in your decision

Oh really. . . Are you sure this isn’t in fact a quote by ‘David Mac’, from his webpage, [with of course your *handy additional commentary] and not in fact Pope Benedict XVI?

Let’s see source please, so we can see the proof and context.

 

[alacoque]

Malia: You wrote: *LOL, I already feel like I want to go running. Being protestant was never this difficult. All it required was that you had faith…that you believed. Sometimes, it seems or I feel like that being Catholic requires a Ph.d in anthropology, philosophy, religion, rules and regulations and biology with a little pinch of faith thrown in for good measure. Sorry for being a bit pessimistic but I came here with one question and now I’m leaving with more questions that I came with. For example, who is Chardin? *

I’m so sorry and I totally sympathize with you. But, hopefully, I can ease your mind a little. The only reason things seem the way they do to you (as you stated) is because most posters here were NOT answering your question, objectively and simply (which, I think, is what you were looking for).

Instead, they began responding with their own opinions, philosophies and beliefs (which may or may not be in accord with the Catholic faith). However, that is not your concern and you needn’t worry about it. Most of us who love these forums just can’t help ourselves, sometimes, and expound on things we were never asked and that are completely irrelevant to the question asked (in this case, by you). So, relax, and concentrate on those posts that are objectively answering your question ACCORDING TO THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH (which they should and usually do mention or site).

As to Chardin, never mind. If you want, sometime you can Google him and/or do your own research, but rest assured he and his opinions on all this are not relevant to your question. He had opinions just like some of the posters here…but that’s all they were. And, remember, you didn’t ask about our ‘opinions’. You asked about Catholic belief.

God bless you and don’t be intimidated or daunted. While the Catholic Church has quite an in-depth theology, it can all be understood in due time, while the basics are very simple.

Hang in there! “Home” is waiting for you…

 

[alacoque]

Oh really. . . Are you sure this isn’t in fact a quote by ‘David Mac’, from his webpage, [with of course your *handy

additional commentary] and not in fact Pope Benedict XVI?

Let’s see source please, so we can see the proof and context.

Sorry, friend, I can no longer find the information or site I accessed to make my point/statement. I will keep looking and, if I can find it, will provide it to you. It’s taught me a lesson though - keep documentation. I apologize - but have to say that regardless, I don’t understand what, exactly, in the data I provided, you have a problem with. None of it contradicts the teaching of the Church. You may have issues with other aspects of my submission, but if the factual nature of what is said is one of them, I don’t understand your objections.

btw, I never heard of David Mac. That may be my ignorance and shortcoming, but I haven’t heard of him, so can’t speak to that aspect.

Finally, the content of what I posted (that the Catholic Church does not teach, dogmatically, ANYTHING with regard to the scientific facts of God’s creation of all that is) is not in dispute by anyone who knows what the Church teaches in that regard (and what she does not teach).

God bless you

 

[EnchantedEve]

I just want to throw in that I am a “young earth” creationist, at the moment anyway. Was anyone else on here one?

 

[alacoque]

StAnastasia: Hello: In your posts, you wrote, in part:

1. • “…what a wonderful plan that Godself should have become incarnate in this marvelous creation…”* - What on earth is “Godself”? Is it a new term we have no need for but that some group thinks we need? What does ‘Godself’ convey that another term, already in use, does not?
2. “I teach in a seminary & university; Teilhard de Chardin is a regular part of our syllabus…there is an Int’l Teilhard Society” – Does someone teaching something make it true? No logic there! Your seminary & university may teach what they wish, but the fact that they teach it as part of a syllabus means nothing. (I know seminaries teaching that Vat II outlawed saying the Rosary!) Re your mention of the “Int’l Teilhard Society”: There are many societies promoting many ideas. That fact alone doesn’t establish credibility in anything - only that some people like the ideas of person X and formed a society.
3. “…nulla salus extra ecclesiam was abandoned by the church long ago” – Wrong! I think you know it’s wrong. Why you said that is inexplicable. It seems either you don’t know the teaching is still around or you think we don’t know it. I don’ t know if you care, but the reference for proof of that teaching is: CCC 846.
4. "It depends on what you mean by “non-negotiable.” – ** I can’t believe this one. It sounds like Bill Clinton parsing the definition of ‘is’. I don’t believe you don’t know the meaning of “non-negotiable” !**
5. “tell that to the National Catholic Teacher’s Association, the Catholic Biblical Association, the Catholic Theological Society of America, or the International Society for Science and Religion!” – Same as mention of the Teilhard Society - i.e.because orgs exist doesn’t make them final authorities on anything or assure credibility. The orgs are important to you, but they’re not the Magesterium of the Church, so have nothing to say re the validity of the Church’s dogmatic teaching
6. “As hominids evolved into self-consciousness, they became morally and spiritually aware. Moral awareness involves understanding that we are all subject to sin by virtue of our “fallen” nature…evolution into moral consciousness entails evolution into recognition of sin…and recognition that we are all born into this condition, that it is original to our very nature in an incomplete, unfinished universe.” – We cannot ‘evolve’ into self-consciousness. Self-consciousness (as possessed by man) is different from that of any other creature. It is received from God (as in “His Image”). As a gift coming from God, it comes from a source OUTSIDE ourselves. Something outside ourselves (not part of our basic nature/equipment) cannot possibly evolve FROM our basic/original nature. Something ‘less’ cannot produce something ‘more’ than itself. ex: the soul does not evolve because it is spirit, created by God uniquely in each person. It cannot ‘evolve’ b’cause spirit cannot ‘evolve’ from matter. – these ideas are contradictions. You say our evolution into moral consciousness entails evolution into the recognition of sin and also that we are subject to sin because of our “fallen” nature. It can’t be both ways. Either we are subject to the recognition of sin because of our evolution into it, OR we are subject to sin because we are ‘fallen’. Which is it? How did we ‘fall’? Where did we ‘fall from’? One can’t ‘evolve’ into a fall! These are actually rhetorical questions because the contradictions are obvious. It sounds good, but means nothing. – It seems your point is that we’re ‘sinful’ because we’re incomplete/unfinished (like our universe/origin) You borrowed from Aquinas, albeit twisted, because of his claim of evil as an absence (of good/perfection), not a thing in itself. That only works if one is not familiar with metaphysics & Aquinas. –

Finally, our ‘sinfulness’ required the incarnation, passion and death of the Most High God, Himself. There is ample proof the Church teaches that this ‘sinful state’ is something we are culpable & accountable for. Hence, the necessary involvement of God incarnate, in our history and why His death and resurrection won our freedom & paid our debt. Why on earth would we be accountable/culpable for something we had nothing to do with, personally? Our sinful state was nothing more than an evolutionary event so why in God’s name (hmm) would He have to die, etc.?

Are you implying God came to complete us? Obviously that’s not right. One look at humans (of ANY era) shows that we’re definitely NOT complete. We’re still sinful. So what the heck is up with the incarnation, redemption, establishment of the Church & Sacraments? We weren’t responsible for our sinful state; we were merely evolving.
The notion you propose is so bizarre it’s not even close to believable. It’s more like the fantasies that have a starting point of absolutely nothing & no limitations of truth. There’s nothing that supports anything you claim about original sin. It’s made up out of whole cloth. I don’t doubt there are those who believe it, but even 99% of all people on earth believing it wouldn’t make it so. It wouldn’t make it any more logical, believable, or supported by fact, scripture or scientific discovery - only conjecture via one’s own agenda. I hope you will take your understanding and lead from the teaching of the Church that Christ established. You sound very enamoured with your own ideas, societies, organizations, etc., but that’s a circular trip.

I don’t intend to be harsh or rude; I apologize if I did so. I respect you and what is your obvious intelligence, but I couldn’t read the kind of assumptive, baseless statements you made to us without comment. Allowing for our own ability to err is the first step to wisdom, and none of us has sufficient wisdom to feel secure.

God bless you