O
o_mlly
Guest
No, she teaches just the opposite – faithful must exercise caution with all but proven facts.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
- Status
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
G
goout
Guest
I’d suggest you pause and think about the short exchange above.goout:
No, she teaches just the opposite – faithful must exercise caution with all but proven facts.
Can you see that you are drawing a false dichotomy? Why do you do that?
O
o_mlly
Guest
I’d suggest you read the encyclical. Note that HH PiusXII does not use the word “encourage” even once. Note that he does use the word “caution” four times. Then look up the definition of the two verbs.
encourage: to persuade somebody to do something by making it easier for them and making them believe it is a good thing to do
caution: to warn somebody about the possible dangers or problems of something.
Do you not see that difference?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Do you mean cite the authority of an encyclical to support my claim? Because doing so is a standard academic practice to establish one’s credibility with their audience.
E
edwest211
Guest
Pope Pius XII. The Church, not science, gets the final say.
"36. 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] "
"36. 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] "
M
mVitus
Guest
It’s also in that paragraph that he did allow Catholics to accept evolution, even of mankind.
M
Metis1
Guest
And you won’t see it as the Church doesn’t really like refuting ancient teachings that are directly found in the scriptures. Aquinas can and did pull it off but there ain’t too many “Aquinas’” around nowadays.
Church teachings are not and never been static entities, but most often these changes are made without specifically negating long-held beliefs. It’s sorta like prostitution in many states whereas it’s still against the law but they usually don’t enforce it in many to most cases. Bad parallel, eh?
Church teachings are not and never been static entities, but most often these changes are made without specifically negating long-held beliefs. It’s sorta like prostitution in many states whereas it’s still against the law but they usually don’t enforce it in many to most cases. Bad parallel, eh?
Last edited:
M
Metis1
Guest
Not IMO when it comes to basic scientific principles. And I do the same with science and morality, except the reverse of the other.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is true. But the Church has wisely not declared as doctrine anything that is contradictory to science. So the “showdown” you envision never actually happens.
E
edwest211
Guest
Really bad non-parallel.
E
edwest211
Guest
Then why is this so important?
M
Metis1
Guest
This sorta reminds me of a rule-of-thumb in Judaism, namely if a particular interpretation goes against reason, go with reason and look for alternative interpretations.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why is it so important that the Church has wisely not declared as doctrine anything that is contradictory to science? For the same reason that the early Church decided not to require ritual circumcision for converts.
E
edwest211
Guest
Circumcision? What?
The Church is wise only when others want their way.
The Church is wise only when others want their way.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
E
edwest211
Guest
I wanted people to read the whole thing.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
This is foundational to evolution. For example, an animal uses its arms to assist in jumping, or gliding, etc and those that have mutations that benefit that action are selected.
I’m truly shocked that there are people in the 21st century that think humans magically came from dirt.
How do you explain the fossil record? The genetic code? The evolution that occurs today that we can see?
L
LateCatholic
Guest
This doesn’t in ANYWAY disprove evolution. In fact, it is a discussion point among scientists today. Specifically, does evolution happen in short, rapid changes (keep in mind we are still talking about thousands if not millions of years) or is it gradual? The answer is probably both, as there is evidence for both. But regardless, you are justifying evolution by saying this. It’s part of the theory.
Oh boy. You probably read the title of a few articles and didn’t study the substance. When (some) scientists say there are no true ring species, they are NOT saying evolution isn’t true. They are not even saying that the concept of ring species isn’t true. They are talking about continuous gene flow across thousands if not millions of years. When they say there are no true ring species, they mean that - in their opinion - there always is a some traumatic and/or significant geological event that fully separates the ends of a ring species. But the concept of a ring species is still valid - they are saying some significant event caused the speciation. Read this, from a PROPONENT of evolution:
There are no ring species
TRIGGER WARNING: Evolutionary biology.A while back, when I said in the comments of an evolution post that there were no good "ring species," a few readers asked me what I meant by that. "What abou
whyevolutionistrue.com
I would agree except there are no revelations from God, only men that CLAIM they spoke to God and are relaying the message, usually to promote personal gain or an agenda. If you can show me an actual revelation from God, I’ll listen to you.
Meanwhile, you can rage all you want against the dying of the ridiculous and indefensible notion that is creationism. But education, evidence and facts will be your downfall. The truth always wins.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yeah… it’s better to believe they came from Bacteria, 4 billion years ago.
B
buffalo
Guest
Stasis and limited variation within shows micro-evolution, aka adaptation, not macro-evolution.
- Status