Catholics And The Creation Account

[Protestant101]

Hi Protestant101,
Anyway…it matters that you reply to your accusations that I “lifted” my questions from anti-SDA websites. If that is indeed such an easy fact to prove as you keep saying, just post a link to my questions in those webites…then you will have supported your accusations with easily obtainable facts. Until you do that, your accusations are empty.

Ok, lets put it this way. Your “questions” are an echo of what others before you have asked. Lets leave the reason/motive out of it - for it is not an important point to me anyways; except to say that most of the ideas which oppose Adventist doctrines do come from just one or two sources. In his book called “Sabbath In Christ,” Dale Ratzlaff, a very determined leader of an anti-Adventist cult following, makes this statement:

“This pattern continues throughout the first six days of creation, (Gen.1:13, 19, 23, 31). However, when we look at the end of the seventh day, we find no such formula. We would expect to read, ‘And there was evening, and there was morning, a seventh day,’ but it is missing.” (see pg. 22 of S.I.C.)

Thus it is very easy to see from your posts here, and your 6 questions, very close similarity. That much we can agree on for now. But I do have more to say about that later. It should be noted that your 6 questions are similarly reflected by numerous others; mostly, but not limited to anti-Adventist factions of Catholicism, Protestantism, and others

If you really do know more about Catholicism than I do (which I don’t personally believe, but I’m not denying that you don’t), then you would have reconciled with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church long before I did. And our conversation would be completely different from what it is currently.

Now that’s not true, and you know it. I would call that wishful thinking, rather than fact. I am not entirely a novice at your beliefs, and I see nothing in your core doctrine of the Eucharist, which would remotely interest me in becoming Catholic. It repels me, and yet it can’t be said that I “don’t understand it,” for I have been on this forum for two years, plus have attended Mass a number of times; I find it an awful experience to contemplate; even though I do know a lot about it

It doesn’t matter to me if you know Catholicism more than I do - I was more teasing you there; but still, trying to make the point that we often do not know our own teachings as well as we think, or say, we do. When we first started discussing this subject, you seemed like you did not know Catholic teaching very well on the subject of Evolution. Since you say you doubt that I know as much as you; can you then enlighten us on what species of evolution is “acceptable” to Catholics, and does not contradict ‘Catholic Faith?’

While I believe I was quite correct in saying that Catholics reject Darwinism, other things they do permit make this rejection seem very tentative, and it casts doubt on the rejections I have read of Darwinism (certain points of Darwinism) by Catholic leaders

 

[Protestant101]

Again you quote above “Your own Popes concede now that evolution is a fact.”, and follow that with this…**Since I have last posted here, I have looked at close to a dozen major Catholic sources on this subject, and yes, your Church does officially teach that it is OK for members to adopt evolution theory, “as long as it does not conflict with Catholic faith.” **

These two statements of yours contradict your point. In the first you say that the Popes concede that evolution is fact. In the second you point out that it is theory which Catholics are allowed to adopt if it doesn’t conflict with the Catholic faith and teachings.

Well, these are not intended to contradict. Your Popes do say that evolution is ‘fact’ but they leave it open to private interpretation for their members to decide amongst a smorgasborg of ideas on evolution, so this is where my use of the word “theory” applies here. No matter what your Popes say, “evolution” of any flavor is not fact. It’s all theory, whereas the Bible does not present theory, it presents facts! You better be careful when you choose from that ‘smorgasborg,’ for that is getting a bit too Protestant for Catholics!!

No Pope, at least to my knowledge, has ever confirmed nor stated that the theory of evolution is FACT. Not even scientists can confirm that the THEORY of evolution is FACT. That is because the theory of evolution is just that…a THEORY, not a FACT. It has never been proven by anyone.

No one can prove that creation came about by evolution or by the Word of God. Both of these positions are matters of faith not science.

One of my favorite writers, a journalist who is an agnostic, has written several articles pointing out that the theory of evolution is based more upon metaphysics than science. He raises questions, which should be applied in any use of scientific method, to scientists making bold claims that evolution is the way mankind got where we are.

Up to this point his questions remain unanswered, revealing that those who hold dear to evolution are more metaphysicians than scientists…greater men of faith than science. I would be more than happy to post links to his articles in this thread if anyone would like to read them.

Patrick; your own church writings do not condone your use of the phrase: “THE theory of evolution,” for she concedes that there are a variety of theories, and besides naming objection to Darwinism’s point that God did not create; there is “official approval” of several other strains of evolution “that do not contradict Catholic Faith.” Meaning, I presume, “the Deposit Of Faith,” as Catholics coin it. I would like to discuss which theories or portions of evolution do not contradict your Church’s teachings.

The Bible record is not consistent to support a literal 24 hour 7 day creation. But you know what? When I think about the creation and meditate upon it, I personally go with the 7 day view. I much prefer that to an evolutionary creation…perhaps because in my heart I’m a poet and a romantic.

I too am a poet, I write a lot of poems, so we do have some GOOD things in common. But, I don’t understand why you say that you go “personally” with the 7 day view, yet, you say the Bible doesn’t really seem to support that??? Why then, did you ask your 6 questions, in light of your “personal” preference here?

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Ok, lets put it this way. Your “questions” are an echo of what others before you have asked. Lets leave the reason/motive out of it - for it is not an important point to me anyways; except to say that most of the ideas which oppose Adventist doctrines do come from just one or two sources. In his book called “Sabbath In Christ,” Dale Ratzlaff, a very determined leader of an anti-Adventist cult following, makes this statement: Thus it is very easy to see from your posts here, and your 6 questions, very close similarity. That much we can agree on for now. But I do have more to say about that later. It should be noted that your 6 questions are similarly reflected by numerous others; mostly, but not limited to anti-Adventist factions of Catholicism, Protestantism, and others

Hi Protestant101,

Thanks for providing that quote! All it show however is that someone else noticed that the “evening and morning” phrase is missing on the seventh day of the creation story. That seems to be pretty easy to notice in just a casual reading of the creation account…even though up until this past April I would have sworn to anyone that the phrase was present in the seventh day of creation…and so did many other SDAs whom I know and asked.

I promise you that I have never heard of Ratzalf, and while I have heard of Canright, I have never read anything of his.

For you to accuse me that I got my questions from anti-Adventists, is the same as if I accused you of taking your questions on here from anti-Catholic web sites. I don’t know that you didn’t, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since I too had many of the same questions regarding Catholicism as you do…such as misunderstandings about worshipping Mary and statues and pieces of bread.

These are all questions most thinking people come up when looking at these things seriously. There is nothing wrong with questions…many times they lead to answers!

It doesn’t matter to me if you know Catholicism more than I do - I was more teasing you there; but still, trying to make the point that we often do not know our own teachings as well as we think, or say, we do. When we first started discussing this subject, you seemed like you did not know Catholic teaching very well on the subject of Evolution. Since you say you doubt that I know as much as you; can you then enlighten us on what species of evolution is “acceptable” to Catholics, and does not contradict ‘Catholic Faith?’

While I believe I was quite correct in saying that Catholics reject Darwinism, other things they do permit make this rejection seem very tentative, and it casts doubt on the rejections I have read of Darwinism (certain points of Darwinism) by Catholic leaders

Now I’ll have to confess that you’ve got me here. I do not know what Catholic teaching on evolution is. I cannot enlighten you at all in this regard. I have never studied this because it is unappealing to me. To me both creation and evolution are matters of faith, neither of which can be proved at this point in time.

The matter won’t be settled until Jesus returns and then everybody will know, or if scientists can recreate their theories in the lab under scientific methods and controls.

Until either of those two events happen I am convinced in my mind that God created the world and all that is in it. That is enough to satisfy my wonderings about the origin of mankind.

It is not the origin of mankind that occupies my thoughts as much as it is the destination of mankind which receives my energies.

God bless all!!!

 

[Protestant101]

Hi Protestant101,

Thanks for providing that quote! All it show however is that someone else noticed that the “evening and morning” phrase is missing on the seventh day of the creation story. That seems to be pretty easy to notice in just a casual reading of the creation account…even though up until this past April I would have sworn to anyone that the phrase was present in the seventh day of creation…and so did many other SDAs whom I know and asked.

I promise you that I have never heard of Ratzalf, and while I have heard of Canright, I have never read anything of his.

For you to accuse me that I got my questions from anti-Adventists, is the same as if I accused you of taking your questions on here from anti-Catholic web sites. I don’t know that you didn’t, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since I too had many of the same questions regarding Catholicism as you do…such as misunderstandings about worshipping Mary and statues and pieces of bread.

These are all questions most thinking people come up when looking at these things seriously. There is nothing wrong with questions…many times they lead to answers!

The fact remains that everyone who wants to denigrate Bible authority, and the seventh day Bible Sabbath Sabbath, uses such arguments, asking these questions. And I think you know that. Especially if you have read Canright’s writings. I gave you one small possible example, out of many, by a fellow who follows in Canright’s theological path. You likely did see or hear these questions somewhere, at some time. There are lots of people whom you could have read or heard from on that. I don’t feel guilty for saying or thinking that you got those questions from someone else.

My main point, however is intended to examine what your Church teaches re the kinds of “evolution” that would not contradict Catholic Faith. And that ANY brand of evolution, is not acceptable Bible doctrine.

And none of this creation/evolution stuff can successfully “do away with” the Bible’s seventh-day Sabbath. That seems to be one of the major reasons you even brought up the questions in another thread.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Well, these are not intended to contradict. Your Popes do say that evolution is ‘fact’ but they leave it open to private interpretation for their members to decide amongst a smorgasborg of ideas on evolution, so this is where my use of the word “theory” applies here. No matter what your Popes say, “evolution” of any flavor is not fact. It’s all theory, whereas the Bible does not present theory, it presents facts! You better be careful when you choose from that ‘smorgasborg,’ for that is getting a bit too Protestant for Catholics!!

Patrick; your own church writings do not condone your use of the phrase: “THE theory of evolution,” for she concedes that there are a variety of theories, and besides naming objection to Darwinism’s point that God did not create; there is “official approval” of several other strains of evolution “that do not contradict Catholic Faith.” Meaning, I presume, “the Deposit Of Faith,” as Catholics coin it. I would like to discuss which theories or portions of evolution do not contradict your Church’s teachings.

I too am a poet, I write a lot of poems, so we do have some GOOD things in common. But, I don’t understand why you say that you go “personally” with the 7 day view, yet, you say the Bible doesn’t really seem to support that??? Why then, did you ask your 6 questions, in light of your “personal” preference here?

Again, I cannot believe that anyone as brilliant and highly educated as our Popes would make the claim that evolution is “fact”. Now if you have a citation or quote showing that I would love to see it!!

As for discussions of theories of evolution and the Church you will have to go to another thread regarding that or begin a new one…I am ignorant on that subject.

You and I probably have more in common than either one of us might imagine. As for why I personally go with a 7 day creation…well that appeals to me!!! No one tells me I cannot believe that, just as no one tells me I cannot believe it took 7,000 or 7,000,000 years…that is just my preference based on my mental model of the universe.

I asked my questions regarding the creation story so that if I misread the account, someone could point that out to me from the scriptures. No one did.

Now that’s not true, and you know it. I would call that wishful thinking, rather than fact. I am not entirely a novice at your beliefs, and I see nothing in your core doctrine of the Eucharist, which would remotely interest me in becoming Catholic. It repels me, and yet it can’t be said that I “don’t understand it,” for I have been on this forum for two years, plus have attended Mass a number of times; I find it an awful experience to contemplate; even though I do know a lot about it

Here is a big point where you and I are similar. I once “echoed” your sentiments above. I have since changed those sentiments and embraced Jesus in the Eucharist and He has embraced me more closely!!

If you understand the Eucharist, as you say you do, and still find it awful to experience and contemplate…then there is nothing more I can say to you regarding the truth of it. By your own words above you will either be justified or condemned. But before you totally abandon the Love of Jesus given in the Eucharist, I would enourage you to pray, pray, and pray for God to lead you into the Truth which leads to eternal life and away from all error and prejudice that will lead to eternal seperation from God.

If you make that your prayer sincerely, then you will be in a great position!!!

I stated in a post in another thread a while back that after reading your story of how Jesus saved you from the life you were leading, that I felt compelled to tell you that I love you. I feel compelled now to tell you that I still do.

I know and understand your experience. I would probably not be alive today had I not joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I would not be alive tomorrow and forever had I not joined the Catholic Church.

God bless you!!!

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Patrick Murebil;4520486:

And if it turns out that my questions are similar to what others have asked regarding SDA beliefs, I still deny that I took my questions from those books or sites. These seem like pretty self evident questions.

OK then; why does it even matter that I reply any further to that point? The writings of these people are easy to track down, and those interested will see that i do have a point based on FACT here.

That is a completely false and erroneous statement that you make and completely ignorant of the facts.

I don’t think anyone has confirmed that evolution is fact.

Patrick; I have been studying Catholic doctrines longer than you, by the looks of various comments in some of your posts here at CAF; maybe I actually know more about them than you? I am surprised to see you answer like this when I said that “Your own Popes concede now that evolution is a fact.” Since I have last posted here, I have looked at close to a dozen major Catholic sources on this subject, and yes, your Church does officially teach that it is OK for members to adopt evolution theory, “as long as it does not conflict with Catholic faith.”

Many of the official sources do indeed say that they reject ‘Darwinism’ because in it’s purest form, it denies God as Creator, yet, Catholic teachings on this subject are all so tentative, that it in effect leaves one wondering what their real position is, or will end up being.

But we can know that both Pius XII and John Paul II (among others) did indeed make some very positive statements regarding evolution as being ‘on par’ with the Biblical text of Genesis, and it’s “interpretation.”

The really curious part in all this is how Catholic leadership allows for several different strains of evolution theory, which is really sounding more like a Protestant approach!! “The members just believe what they want,” as some of the good Catholic folk here keep saying about us!

**Hi Prot,

I been studing over 50 years and have been through the changes in the 1960’s so I think I know more about the catholic faith than you do! The real Church does not make statements on things that are not a matter of Faith! No reason to. If some Pope said Evolution is correct! and was found wrong, it would be like standing in the streets waiting for the end of the world. He would have to make some excuse for why it didn’t happen, and really look foolish for hundreds of years! Especially if he did it a second time. Know what I mean? Anyway Creation happened. God along made everything, God made man and Woman, They fell from grace. how long it took who knows or cares. evolution does not work. dogs can not become ducks or snakes. Monkeys could never become men. God made each animal seperately and placed man in charge of them. No one would use the tale of Goldelocks and the Three bears to prove bears sleep in beds.
Why would people use two other tales in Genesis to prove things that the each conflict with? These tales are of happenings before history, placed together so that we could learn the “Religious Truths” that God wanted revealed to us through them . No sane person would think they were true word for word especially when they even conflict themselves! That would be foolish wouldn’t it? I actually think that is why God wanted them buth included so we would realize that they contained religious nor historical truth! Mote points don’t change the truth every word isn’t important it is the over all truth as the real church interpret it that is the impotant thing! Not what day of the week people worship. What is important is thet tehy Love God wth their entire being and worship Him, and only Him! not a book or a calendar.**

I would like to know just what strains of evolution would constitute not being 'against Catholic faith.
** that seperate animals got larger or smaller. But never could one species become another species! A dog is was and always will be a canine it couldn’t become a cat in millions of years. A monkey is a monkey; fish are fish; man is man! That type of evolution theory isn’t against the catholic church. The creation stories also aren’t but how days are counted can’t be 24/7. “Time” as we know it has no meaning to God. It is a natural thing doing with mass and weight, etc. Not as important as some people would want to make it!

Kind of Off subject: I love “Dr Dino”, He went to jail for not paying taxes. Thinking He is above the law. Found out differeent. Some of his stuff is very interesting. Some of it sounds real strange but most of it makes better sense that the stuff they try to teach in the schools.**

Then please feel free to shovel all the coal on to my questions and answer them.

God bless all!!!

I am going to keep all my ‘coal’ for now; the ‘fire’ looks warm enough; and besides, it is minus 40 degrees celsius here with the wind chill…

**
Minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit is also minus 40 degrees Celsius It was PLUS 67 Fahrenheit here today! I will send you a box of heat! **

 

[guanophore]

Rude? I seemed rude?

Yes, often.

I apologize if it seemed that way. Never ever my intent.

I know. :byzsoc:

 

[Protestant101]

Merry Christmas to you and yours too happilycatholic!!!

And Merry Christmas to you and yours too Protestant101!!!

God bless all!!!

http://www.protestant101.net/merry.gif

May the glorious mystery of Christ’s peace, “which passeth understanding” be your’s not just during this Christmas season, but also in the coming New Year. It will be easier to disagree with one another; if we have this marvellous Gift that the Christ-Child came to Earth to fill us with. “He is our peace.”

I will look forward to more debate, discussion, and learning in the New Year; God willing. Thanks to all who have managed to put up with this Protestant for another year!!!

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Hi Protestant101,

-40 degrees!!! I cannot imagine what that feels like…well I can imagine and all I can say is… Yes, by all means, keep your coal…in fact I should probably send you a truckload or two!!

**Hi Patrick,

No problem Patrick. I talked to Santa:thumbsup: He agreed that Prot101 should get one piece of coal in his stocking for each lie he has told on these threads, this year. There are trains backed up to Flordia waiting to get across the border to deliver!

Did you hear about the dyslexic devil worshipper? He sold his soul to Santa!

72 degrees here today!

Peace on earth and to men of good will (OK, women also!)

God Bless**

 

[Protestant101]

**

by RealCatholicgk]**No problem Patrick. I talked to Santa:thumbsup: He agreed that Prot101 should get one piece of coal in his stocking for each lie he has told on these threads, this year. There are trains backed up to Flordia waiting to get across the border to deliver! **

**

Alright my friend, you start counting, and I will have my wheelbarrow waiting for you to fill it as many times as it takes.

 

[That_one_guy]

In case anybody cares…

IturbeIgnacio Rodríguez-Iturbe, a Venezuelan-born Princeton scientist who is a strong environmentalist and believer in global warming, was appointed Jan. 10 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Vatican’s chief think tank on scientific issues, by Pope Benedict XVI. He has said that Darwinian evolution poses no conflict with religious faith and that the rival school of intelligent design has been “completely rejected” on a purely scientific basis. He is a hydrologist.

from
ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/385

 

[Realcatholicgk]

In case anybody cares…

IturbeIgnacio Rodríguez-Iturbe, a Venezuelan-born Princeton scientist who is a strong environmentalist and believer in global warming, was appointed Jan. 10 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Vatican’s chief think tank on scientific issues, by Pope Benedict XVI. He has said that Darwinian evolution poses no conflict with religious faith and that the rival school of intelligent design has been “completely rejected” on a purely scientific basis. He is a hydrologist.

from
ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/385

**

Hi that,

That news is almost laughable! Then you think, a devil’s advocate?

Merry christmas to all of you . Prot101 Keep warm!

God Bless**

 

[That_one_guy]

**

Hi that,

That news is almost laughable! Then you think, a devil’s advocate?

Merry christmas to all of you . Prot101 Keep warm!

God Bless**

Popes advocate.
Unless you are more qualified than the Pope.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Popes advocate.
Unless you are more qualified than the Pope.


**

Hi That,

Merry Christmas! So now besides religious truths I must teach English useage also?

Dictionary

Devil’s Advocate n.

1. One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.
2. Roman Catholic Church. An official appointed to present arguments against a subject or proposed canonization or beatification.

[Translation of Medieval Latin advocātus diabolī, one arguing for the devil’s

Being a cowboy, I like your hat!

May our lord and savior provide for you and your family during the coming year! May He bless and protect you. I ask this through Jesus who was born on Christmas day! God Bless! [/COLOR]**

 

[That_one_guy]

Realcatholicgk:
Howdy,dude!
I’m just posting what the Church says.I stand by Her.Don’t get me wrong.I am pretty much a free thinker.It just so happens I agree with the Church. And the Church is a sort of cross between creation science and evolution.Controlled evolution, or intelligent design.I’ve never heard an official tag-line, though. I guess the idea is more along the lines of " who is to say that God don’t control it?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thankyou for answering in a high standerd of Christian courtecy, its a pleasent change.

In answer to what you have said above, (sorry i havent worked out how to seperate quotes) saying its ok to kiss & bow to statues you are saying that it would have been ok for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to bow down to the idol of the king Nebuchadnezzar as long as they kept in mind the statue isnt a God. I no its not a statue of Christ in this case but it would be no different even if it was Mary.

**That’s a rather different issue **​

---

**False gods deserve no honour whatever - S, M, & A were doing the right thing. **

---

**Kissing statues etc., of the servants of God honours holy creatures as holy creatures, who depend - like all other creatures, solely on Him. **

---

**You see the difference ? **

---

**Sorry about the delay & Happy Christmas **

---

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

In case anybody cares…

IturbeIgnacio Rodríguez-Iturbe, a Venezuelan-born Princeton scientist who is a strong environmentalist and believer in global warming, was appointed Jan. 10 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Vatican’s chief think tank on scientific issues, by Pope Benedict XVI. He has said that Darwinian evolution poses no conflict with religious faith and that the rival school of intelligent design has been “completely rejected” on a purely scientific basis. He is a hydrologist.

from
ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/385

**Thanks for the link **​

 

[Protestant101]

**Thanks for the link **​

Happy Sabbath, and Happy New Year to everyone at Catholic Answers!

Does anyone now have some ideas about how to determine official Catholic teachings on evolution - and which strains of evolution would not contradict “Catholic faith?”

I have found this sort of info a little hard to find in the Catechism, are there any other sources I could look at that would give me a clearer picture?

 

[captbackfire]

“Why would people use two other tales in Genesis to prove things that the each conflict with? These tales are of happenings before history, placed together so that we could learn the “Religious Truths” that God wanted revealed to us through them . No sane person would think they were true word for word especially when they even conflict themselves! That would be foolish wouldn’t it? I actually think that is why God wanted them buth included so we would realize that they contained religious nor historical truth!”

If “Religious Truths” are based on untruths, then what gives them credibility or veracity?

capt

 

[Realcatholicgk]

“Why would people use two other tales in Genesis to prove things that the each conflict with? These tales are of happenings before history, placed together so that we could learn the “Religious Truths” that God wanted revealed to us through them . No sane person would think they were true word for word especially when they even conflict themselves! That would be foolish wouldn’t it? I actually think that is why God wanted them buth included so we would realize that they contained religious nor historical truth!”

If “Religious Truths” are based on untruths, then what gives them credibility or veracity?

capt

**
Hi Capt,

happy New Year.

Short answer: GOD! **

**
Longer answer The Religious Truths were revealed through the use of fables. God wanted to use fables, who are you to judge His actions?

Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation
and the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis
Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation and the Fall**

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them…And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed…And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it. And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. (Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7-8, 15-17 Douay-Rheims)
For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world… (Wisdom 2:23-24 Douay-Rheims)
Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. (Romans 5:12 Douay-Rheims)

Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on “The Divine Act of Creation” and “The Divine Work of Creation” :
God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)
The highest degree of certainty appertains to immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church (fides catholica). If truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita” (or simply De Fide).
There are other levels of certainty as well: faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica); a teaching proximate to faith (sententia fidei proxima); a teaching pertaining to the faith (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e. theologice certa); a common teaching (sententia communis); lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, or well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata); there are also pious opinions (sententia pia); and the least degree of certainty is tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata).
With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church on questions of faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions declared Ex Cathedra (cf. the 1869-70 Vatican Council I definition).
God Bless