V
vern_humphrey
Guest
(My emphasis.) And that’s the point. What DID the sacred writer intend to write? That which he intended to write is one thing, and the ancilliary things that also appear in the text are something different.
- Status
G
Grolsch
Guest
zep, most of those citations stretch the historical record to the breaking point or are outright misrepresentations and fabrications.
Be wary of doing research on these subjects on the net since it is very difficult for the layman to discern fact from fiction.
For one the mithra connection has been thoroughly debunked by scholars yet it keeps popping up by repition on the net. I recommend reading a book by Manfred Klauss The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and his Mysteries.
Or you can check out this tektonics site:
tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
I almost fell into the same trap as you until I started doing research myself and realized most of the claims you read on the net are baloney put out by disaffected or evil individuals.
Be wary of doing research on these subjects on the net since it is very difficult for the layman to discern fact from fiction.
For one the mithra connection has been thoroughly debunked by scholars yet it keeps popping up by repition on the net. I recommend reading a book by Manfred Klauss The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and his Mysteries.
Or you can check out this tektonics site:
tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
I almost fell into the same trap as you until I started doing research myself and realized most of the claims you read on the net are baloney put out by disaffected or evil individuals.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Ecce Homo:
Are the traditions which preceded the fixation of a text in writing inerrant ?
All these questions, and others, have to be resolved, if the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible is to be credible or to have meaning without being itself able to be refuted.
Unfortunately for the Church, Hebrew was not well known to most Church writers for most of the history of the Church. So one has to wonder whether the doctrine of inerrancy fits the Bible as the kind of book it is. ##
That opens up a can of worms - what happens if the texts have been edited; or if one of the Apostles was writing by dictating to several scribes at a time ? Which of several simultaneous written texts is the “original” ?
The OT had no vowels until very late, after St. Jerome’s time - so how does one define “original manuscripts” there ? This idea seems to take for granted that words will be written with vowels and consonants - but Hebrew is not like that.Are the traditions which preceded the fixation of a text in writing inerrant ?
All these questions, and others, have to be resolved, if the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible is to be credible or to have meaning without being itself able to be refuted.
Unfortunately for the Church, Hebrew was not well known to most Church writers for most of the history of the Church. So one has to wonder whether the doctrine of inerrancy fits the Bible as the kind of book it is. ##
G
Grolsch
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
Well the Church always used the Greek Septuagint which was translated from the hebrew by jewish scholars living in Alexandria, so that’s a moot point I think.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSiscoe
Everything in the Bible is true.
.
Yes, it is true that the Jews said it. We have to use a little bit of common sense.
To be a faithful Catholic who believes what the Church has always taught, we must accept the dogmatic statements that the Bible was completely inspired by God and contains no error what so ever. We do not have to understand everything that was written in the Bible, we just have to accept the fact that what was written was put there by God.
You are correct when you say we would need a charism of infallibility in order to understand everything contained in the Bible perfectly, but that is another matter. The Bible is 100% true. We must accept that. If you are presented with an apparent contradiction, don’t loose your faith over it; instead simply admit that you don’t have all the answers. But I bet the church does have the answer if you would only look for it.
Be on the side of the Catholic Church who stands behind the Bible, not the liberal heretics and the athiest who attack it. I am very surprised to see so many “Catholics” on the wrong side of this one.
Originally Posted by RSiscoe
Everything in the Bible is true.
Gottle of Greer said:
.
Yes, it is true that the Jews said it. We have to use a little bit of common sense.
Someone did declare that all of the Bible is true and that “one” (i.e. The Catholic Church" did have a “doctrine of inspiration”, or to put it another way: The Church infallibly declared that all of the Bible was inspired by God. Does that mean every verse has been dogmatically defined as to its true meaning? No, not every verse has been defined dogmatically, but what has been defined is that the Bible is 100% inspired by God and therefore, since God inspired it, there is no possible chance of error. That is the dogma that we can either accept and be true Catholics, or rejecte amd be “Cafeteria Catholics”. Which is it?
To be a faithful Catholic who believes what the Church has always taught, we must accept the dogmatic statements that the Bible was completely inspired by God and contains no error what so ever. We do not have to understand everything that was written in the Bible, we just have to accept the fact that what was written was put there by God.
You are correct when you say we would need a charism of infallibility in order to understand everything contained in the Bible perfectly, but that is another matter. The Bible is 100% true. We must accept that. If you are presented with an apparent contradiction, don’t loose your faith over it; instead simply admit that you don’t have all the answers. But I bet the church does have the answer if you would only look for it.
Be on the side of the Catholic Church who stands behind the Bible, not the liberal heretics and the athiest who attack it. I am very surprised to see so many “Catholics” on the wrong side of this one.
And what about words that can be correctly translated in more than one way - parts of verbs said:
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zeppelin75
*The problem is that most of those I gave you were formed before Christianity. *
*I simply want answers. If people hold every word of the bible true, they are lying. There are things that obviously contridict each other, how can you believe both? Again, I’m not questioning, I’m asking. If you can prove the bible and the Church correct, great, I’ll be along for the ride. But if not I don’t have to spend my days in Church. *
Vern:
Pius XII: “More recently, however, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine which insists, claims and demands for these “books in their entirety and in all their parts,” a divine authority preserving them from all possible error, some Catholic writers have nevertheless seen fit to restrict or limit the truth of Holy Scriptures only to those matters of Faith and morals, considering all the rest, being of the field of physics and of history, as “something that is simply mentioned in passing” - and having, as they pretended, no connection whatsoever with the Faith” (Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943).
Led Zeppelin75,
There is no problem with your questions. You seem to be sincerely asking for answers. There is no problem with that. You have not stated that you reject what the Church teaches, you are simply asking for a little clarification. That is understandable. This is what I would suggest. Do an internet search and look for the Catholic Churches response to the “contradictions”. Then, maybe you could post the answer to your own questions on these boards for everyones benefit. I think you will find that the Catholic Church has the answers to you questions. I have yet to look into any doctrinal argument against the Catholic Church and not found a very solid answer. I have no doubt you can do the same with this subject.
Originally Posted by Led Zeppelin75
*The problem is that most of those I gave you were formed before Christianity. *
*I simply want answers. If people hold every word of the bible true, they are lying. There are things that obviously contridict each other, how can you believe both? Again, I’m not questioning, I’m asking. If you can prove the bible and the Church correct, great, I’ll be along for the ride. But if not I don’t have to spend my days in Church. *
Vern, you do realize that you reject what the Church teaches, right? I have shown you what the Church has said regarding the Scriptures, yet you still reject it. You have even indicated in your the above quote that what the Church teaches infallibly leads to error.
Pius XII: “More recently, however, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine which insists, claims and demands for these “books in their entirety and in all their parts,” a divine authority preserving them from all possible error, some Catholic writers have nevertheless seen fit to restrict or limit the truth of Holy Scriptures only to those matters of Faith and morals, considering all the rest, being of the field of physics and of history, as “something that is simply mentioned in passing” - and having, as they pretended, no connection whatsoever with the Faith” (Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943).
Led Zeppelin75,
There is no problem with your questions. You seem to be sincerely asking for answers. There is no problem with that. You have not stated that you reject what the Church teaches, you are simply asking for a little clarification. That is understandable. This is what I would suggest. Do an internet search and look for the Catholic Churches response to the “contradictions”. Then, maybe you could post the answer to your own questions on these boards for everyones benefit. I think you will find that the Catholic Church has the answers to you questions. I have yet to look into any doctrinal argument against the Catholic Church and not found a very solid answer. I have no doubt you can do the same with this subject.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
With all due respect, I don’t think you know what faith is. I would be interested in hearing your definition of the supernatural theological virtue of faith. I will give you a hint, if you do not beleive that everything contained within the Bible is 100% true, you have no faith at all - none! And remember “without faith it is impossible to please God”. So, what is your definition of supernatural faith? And, after you look it up, explain to me how you can reject a dogma of the faith, yet still claim to have faith?
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Gottle of Greer:
I don’t think we understand what the Scriptures are. Here’s a few question:IMHO, as the Bible is not a maths text, mathematical data may well be given approximately, in a “popular” way; & not in a way that would satisfy a mathematician.
There is certainly some inexact philology - but the texts in question may be no more than popular etymologies; since philology as a science is of recent growth. The authors of Scripture were not Harvard professors, but men of faith.##
- Who is the Primary Author of the Bible?
- Who was used as a mere instrunment of this author?
- Is there any change at all that God could make a mistake?
- Are the subjects of math and history outside of God’s expertise?
- Does a person who claims that the Bible contains errors believe that God was the primary author of Scripture?
No, the primary author of the Scriptures was God, not men.The authors of Scripture were not Harvard professors, but men of faith.
Fortunarly, this is a subject that does not require our opinion. God has spoken on this matter and declared, through the Church, that the Bible is inspired in all of its parts, and contains to error whatsoever. Therefore, we should subordinate our human opinion to the infallible word of God, as made known through the Church.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Funny, I was going to say the same thing to you.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
That statement is worthy of a Protestant Fundamentalist.
The Catechism offers a simple definition – “Faith is gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him.”
And nowhere am I required to believe that Babylon literally has seven hills.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Faith is a supernatural virtue which enables us to believe what God has revealed through the Church. If a person knowingly rejects even one truth taught by the Church (such as the infallibility of the Scriptures) they have no faith at all. They may believe certain things that are true, but they do not have supernatural faith, since unbelief removes (destroys) the supernatural virtue of faith from the soul, just as mortal sin removes supernatural chairty from the soul.
Pope Leo XIII: "Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3). (Satis Cogtinum)
You ought to read the entire encyclical, You can access it online by typing the name “Satis Cognitum” into a search engine.
Pope Leo XIII: "Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3). (Satis Cogtinum)
You ought to read the entire encyclical, You can access it online by typing the name “Satis Cognitum” into a search engine.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The infallibility of the Scriptures is one thing, a literal interpretation of the Bible is another.
Let’s take a look at a couple of paragraphs from the Catechism which were posted earlier:
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
[116](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83 [117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.Now, let’s take a look at this – the literal sense ought to be enough if we were commanded to accept the Bible as literally true. But we aren’t. We start sensibly enough by reading the words and trying to arrive at their meaning. But we may go beyond that.
We are not, therefore obliged to believe that Babylon has seven hills (as John says), but are permitted to inquire further into the meaning and discover that he is talking about not Babylon, but Rome (which DOES have seven hills.)
Similarly, when John says he saw a beast come out of the sea with ten horns and seven heads, we are not required to take that literally – we can interpret it as symbolic or code language to arrive at his true meaning.
We don’t even have to believe that he SAW anything (as I see my horse or computer). That may be (and almost certainly is) a literary device to convey his meaning.
Similarly, when we read two stories of the Creation in Genesis, or two accounts of the commandment to put animals in the Ark, or three stories of Abraham presenting Sarah as his sister, we don’t have to take them literally as different events.
As someone has pointed out, the copiests and translators are not infallible. And in no case do we have an original manuscript of any book of the Bible.
In fact, for some books (Genesis, for example) there never was an original manuscript – it was transmitted by word of mouth and memory for generations before it was redacted. The problems in the current text stem from the redactor trying to reconcile or deal with differing oral traditions.
You ought to read the entire encyclical, You can access it online by typing the name “Satis Cognitum” into a search engine.
I have. I’ve also read the Catechism.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
I only had a moment to skim through you post. I will re-read it closer when I get back into the office.
It is true that there are traditionally 4 senses, or “levels” to the Scriptures. These levels correspond to the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, and to reason. But this is nother topic altogether.
What we must believe if we are Catholics, is that all of the Bible is true, including the parts dealing with history. You have claimed that you do not hold to this teaching of the Church (as I have shown above). You have stated that you think the Bible is only true as regards faith and morality. As I have shown, this has been explicitly condemned by many Popes.
I have no doubt that you were in error without knowing it. This is very understandable given the days that we live in. But now that I have shown you what the Church teaches, you are no longer “invincibly ignorant”. If you still claim that the bible contains historical errors, you are rejecting a teaching of the Church. There is no reason for you to do that. The “contradictions” can be explained. If you believe the Church you are on safe grounds; if you reject what the Church teaches and believe the liberals and athiest, you are not.
It is true that there are traditionally 4 senses, or “levels” to the Scriptures. These levels correspond to the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, and to reason. But this is nother topic altogether.
What we must believe if we are Catholics, is that all of the Bible is true, including the parts dealing with history. You have claimed that you do not hold to this teaching of the Church (as I have shown above). You have stated that you think the Bible is only true as regards faith and morality. As I have shown, this has been explicitly condemned by many Popes.
I have no doubt that you were in error without knowing it. This is very understandable given the days that we live in. But now that I have shown you what the Church teaches, you are no longer “invincibly ignorant”. If you still claim that the bible contains historical errors, you are rejecting a teaching of the Church. There is no reason for you to do that. The “contradictions” can be explained. If you believe the Church you are on safe grounds; if you reject what the Church teaches and believe the liberals and athiest, you are not.
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
If it does its the printers fault. The Holy Spirit does not teach errors. Its only our understanding that is in error. 
God Bless
God Bless
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
If it does its the printers fault. The holy spirit does not make errors. It only our understanding that is in error. God Bless
The holy spirit does not make errors. It only our understanding that is in error. God Bless
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No, it’s the same topic. It demonstrates that the Catholic Church does not demand a literal interpretation of the Bible.
As we have seen, the Gospels differ in their descriptions of the same event (Jesus before the Sanhedren or High Priest, for example.)
We are permitted to read these passages as accounts written many years later, some of them by men who were not present at the events they relate.
No, I have not. I have said the Catholic Church does not say the Bible can only be interpreted as literally true.
In this, I follow the Catechism:
[107](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/107.htm’) The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74
III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75 110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
And I have no doubt you are influenced by Protestant Fundamentalism.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
Almost all religions teach that unbelievers are blinded by an evil force. It seems like almost all orginized religions are about ancient scripture authors trying to explain creation, and using it to gain power over people.
Originally Posted by RSiscoe:
“I have no doubt that you were in error without knowing it. This is very understandable given the days that we live in. But now that I have shown you what the Church teaches, you are no longer “invincibly ignorant”. If you still claim that the bible contains historical errors, you are rejecting a teaching of the Church. There is no reason for you to do that. The “contradictions” can be explained. If you believe the Church you are on safe grounds; if you reject what the Church teaches and believe the liberals and athiest, you are not.”
*–What makes you so sure that the current Catholic teachings are totally right. The Catholic Church has been constantly changing it’s teachings throughout history, what makes you so certain that a future Pope won’t teach a diffrent thing? People who believed the sun revolved around the earth were once described as “not on safe grounds”, “forever damned with their herises” and such on. While now we are certain thet the “heritics” were correct in this case. *
Whatever the excuse is, bad translations, is still irrelevent. That chances that all of the about 250 contridictions in the bible are all the result of mistranslations is pretty slim.
I always referred back to the always stated belief that creation is impossible without a higher being, but I now know that’s not fully correct either. I don’t know if I’ll ever get past this period of doubt in my life. The difficulty is trying to get information from a non-biased site…
Originally Posted by RSiscoe:
“I have no doubt that you were in error without knowing it. This is very understandable given the days that we live in. But now that I have shown you what the Church teaches, you are no longer “invincibly ignorant”. If you still claim that the bible contains historical errors, you are rejecting a teaching of the Church. There is no reason for you to do that. The “contradictions” can be explained. If you believe the Church you are on safe grounds; if you reject what the Church teaches and believe the liberals and athiest, you are not.”
*–What makes you so sure that the current Catholic teachings are totally right. The Catholic Church has been constantly changing it’s teachings throughout history, what makes you so certain that a future Pope won’t teach a diffrent thing? People who believed the sun revolved around the earth were once described as “not on safe grounds”, “forever damned with their herises” and such on. While now we are certain thet the “heritics” were correct in this case. *
Whatever the excuse is, bad translations, is still irrelevent. That chances that all of the about 250 contridictions in the bible are all the result of mistranslations is pretty slim.
I always referred back to the always stated belief that creation is impossible without a higher being, but I now know that’s not fully correct either. I don’t know if I’ll ever get past this period of doubt in my life. The difficulty is trying to get information from a non-biased site…
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Every statement I have made has been backed up by the writings of the Popes. You are not disagreeing with me, but with what the Church has always taught. Were Leo XIII, Pius XII, and Benedict XV all “influenced by Protestants Fundamentalism”? Were the Councils of Florence and Trent, who they quoted as their authority “influenced by Protestant Fundamentalism”? The problems is not that I have been influenced by Protestant Fundamentalism, but that you have been influenced by liberalism.
What I am stating is that the Bible is true, not only in the area of faith and moral, but also in history, and science. That is what the Church teaches, and they is what I am saying. Those who teach the contrary have already been condemned by the Church.
Pius XIII: "More recently, however, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine which insists, claims and demands for these “books in their entirety and in all their parts,” a divine authority preserving them from all possible error, some Catholic writers have nevertheless seen fit to restrict or limit the truth of Holy Scriptures only to those matters of Faith and morals
The above quote is exactly what I am saying. That is the constant teaching of the Church. Do you believe it or not? If the new Catechism (or at least you interpretation of it) contradicts what the Church has always taught - since the beginning - and has dogmatically defined, what are you going to do?
If you accept the teaching of the Popes I have quoted repeately, who tell us that the primary author of the Bible is God, Who inspired every portion of the Bible, including faith, morals, history, and sceinece, then we agree. If you do not accept the teachings of these Popes, and the Councils they quoted as their authority, then we disagree.
Again, everything I have said has been backed up by the writings of the Popes - not what I have written about the Bible, but also what I wrote about faith. Why do you have a problem with what I wrote? I am simply stating what the Church has always taught? The reason you have a problem with it is because you have been so heavily influenced by modernism and liberalsims. Pius XI called a liberal Catholic "the Churches worst enemy; and Piux X called modernism the “senthysis of all heresies”.
Look at what liberalsims has done to you. It has cause you to reject what the Church has always taught.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I’m disagreeing, not with the Popes, but with you. It’s your interpretation of those writings that’s at issue.
The Catholic Church does NOT:
- Require Catholics to regard the Bible as literally true in all things.
- Require Catholics to reject evolution or any other branch of science.
- Forbid Catholics to study the Bible using external sources and interpretations.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
vern humphrey:
This is what I disageed with.
Vern:
I did not say a Catholic cannot believe in Evolution. If you do, I think you are completely wrong, but since the Church has not defined the matter, you are free to believe in it. I never said that every statement is intended to be literal. Certain things in the Bible are symbolic.
Again, if you agree with what the Popes and Councils have quoted, then I agree with you.
When did I say any of the above statements? Although I beleive evolution is a hoax, I have not said that. I have also stated that there are things contained in the Bible that are not to be taken literally; and never did I say a Catholic is not to study the Bible using external sources. When did I ever say any of those things?
This is what I disageed with.
After I read what you wrote, I quote Pope after Pope who stated that the Bible is inspired and without error, not only in faith and morals, but ALSO in history. They said that it was an error to claim otherwise. If you agree with Leo XIII who said the following, than I agree with you:
Pope Leo XIII said:
I did not say a Catholic cannot believe in Evolution. If you do, I think you are completely wrong, but since the Church has not defined the matter, you are free to believe in it. I never said that every statement is intended to be literal. Certain things in the Bible are symbolic.
Again, if you agree with what the Popes and Councils have quoted, then I agree with you.
- Status